I haven't eaten Oreos, or many other snack foods, in years.,/I>
I can understand your concern. If a person knows their condition, why would they partake of trans-fats? My objection is to the heavyhanded approach by the gubbmint to stop all people from having what they want, by way of food control. You're free not to eat old fashioned Oreos and I'm free to eat them. Please don't miss the point.
FMCDH(BITS)
Suuuuuuure. That's exactly what I'm gonna do. That way I can regularly check up on them to see if they have added any new stuff for me to look at, nice use of space on my screen.
A subtle point, but an important one, is being missed. The only thing the government is forcing companies to do is report the amount of trans-fat in the product on the label just as they have to report the amount of saturated fat, total fat, carbohydrates, fiber, vitamin content, etc. The government is not forcing companies to remove trans-fat.
The decision to remove trans-fat is driven by profit. Kraft knows that products with "0 Trans Fats!" plastered on the label will *sell*. There are so few baked goods made without hydrogenated oils that the first good trans-fat-free cookies are going to make a fortune.
And it is certainly possible to make a good trans-fat-free cookie.... but you have to use expensive, old-fashioned ingredients like butter, lard, coconut oil, or palm kernel oil. I don't have high expectations for any cookie based on some over-engineered unsaturate.
True, but if they were made with Lard they'd be healthy for everyone.
BTW trans fats are indeed bad for everyone (though the effects are more immediate in some folks). The studies decades ago that blamed "saturated fats" for heart disease, actually used artificially hydrogenated fats (with trans-impurities). The trans-fat scam is responsible for the whole liberal/socialist/vegetarian anti-saturated fat crusade -- which happens to be totally wrong.