Thu, Apr-13-06, 01:13
|
|
Registered Member
Posts: 4,909
|
|
Plan: Atkins,PP - wgt in %
Stats: 100/96.8/69
BF:DWTK/DDare/JEnuf
Progress: 10%
Location: Vancouver Island, BC
|
|
Eh?
Since when are fully hydrogenated oils trans-fat free?!? I'd sure like to see a quote source on THAT one...news to me and I've been reading nutrition for 30 years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoonWalker
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lisa N
Just to clarify; hydrogenated oils are okay. It's partially hydrogenated oils that are transfats.
Just the same, I personally prefer the real thing over Cool Whip anyday.
actually FULLY hydrogenated oils are okay. if the label just states hydrogenated than more than likely it is partially. it has to specifically state FULLY hydrogenated to be okay.
|
So far as I can find, it's the product manufacturer making that claim (and no matter which way you slice it, they're biased, the same people selling us transfats all these years). A little further search reveals this Wikipedia entry:
"A claimed exception to this is The J.M. Smucker Company's new trans fat free Crisco which contains the wax-like (yum) fully hydrogenated cottonseed oildouble bonds of the carbon chain. However, partial hydrogenation reconfigures most of the double bonds that do not become chemically saturated, so that the hydrogen atoms end up on different sides of the chain. This type of configuration is called trans (which means "across" in Latin) blended with liquid vegetable oils to yield a shortening much like the previous Crisco which was made from partially hydrogenated vegetable oil. In a natural fatty acid, the hydrogen atoms are usually on the same side of the double bonds of the carbon chain. However, partial hydrogenation reconfigures most of the double bonds that do not become chemically saturated, so that the hydrogen atoms end up on different sides of the chain. This type of configuration is called trans (which means "across" in Latin)...."
I haven't seen any external objective support for the claim, yet, so I'm just going to take it with a grain of salt ... so far.
Besides, I've been around (and LC) long enough to remember the whole popular labelling controversies about rounding up and down and labelling things zero carb that weren't, etc.
How does that relate to trans fat? This way:
" On July 9, 2003, the United States Food and Drug Administration issued a regulation (21 CFR 101.9 (c)(2)(ii)) requiring manufacturers to list transtrans fat, on the Nutrition Facts panel of foods and some dietary supplements. This new information must appear below the listing of saturated fat content, which was already required. The regulation allows trans fat levels of less than 0.5 grams per serving to be labeled as 0 grams per serving, or trans fat free. (In this case, manufacturers may use the synonyms "free", "without," "no" and "zero" in their packaging claims.) fatty acids, or ... .The new labeling rule took effect January 1, 2006. "
Call me cynical, but why would the manufacturers change their ways now? Marketing is marketing...
Last edited by IslandGirl : Thu, Apr-13-06 at 01:34.
|