Jacob Longton is Wicked Smart; Thanks for the Comments
The previous “nutriceuticals” post has sparked several great comments. DJ was curious as to when his heart would explode from Wendy’s Biggie Meals and McDonald’s Super-sized dinners.
Jon thought it was more enjoyable than reading Penthouse forum.
And Jacob asked an outstanding question that has stumped a biochemist at MSU and me.
Jacob asked:
explain this to me Dr. Z...what the hell is the deal with the new food labels? They are now required to include the amount of trans fats...This would probably be a good idea if it wasn't forced by our government. The FDA is basically useless if you ask me. After all those years of following a strict pyramid diet, they go and recreate the pyramid...and it's probably still wrong. I HATE bureaucrats!!…anyway, back to my point. I have been avoiding trans fats for quite a few years now, since I discovered how harmful they really are. So I was interested to see that they are now requiring that on labels. I have not seen a product yet that has more than 0g of trans fats. Jif peanut butter for instance is loaded with partially hydrogenated oils and hydrogenated oils, which as far as I knew were trans fats. Why then does the label say 0g trans fats. Is there something I am missing? Or is this just another example of the FDA being stupid?
I replied:
i did a little background research and you have brought up a great point. i'm not too sure how they are different, because from what i understand partial hydrogenation creates the trans fats that are worrisome. so i'm not sure how to answer that, but perhaps there is something in the organic chemistry of it. i can ask a biochem professor i know. i think'll she'll be able to answer it better and then i'll get back with you for a definitive answer. as a side note, here's a way i like to tell people to think about daily fat intake. your total fat intake for a day should not exceed 30% of your total caloric intake. so if something is 100 calories and it has 45 calories from fat, that's bad. if it was 20%, good. secondly, fats that are solid at room temperatures are better for you than those that are solid. so olive oil is better than butter. sticking by these rules are just as good as looking out for trans fats. thanks for the great question.
So Shelagh Ferguson-Miller, a biochemist at Michigan State University who lectured in my biochemistry and cardiology courses, responded to this question with this:
Hmm. I would wonder too. They usually are trans, to some extent. I can't explain their claim, unless they don't do much hydrogenation and then the level of trans is below that which "counts".
So the mystery continues…or Jacob’s critical analysis could earn him a huge lawsuit. Nice job Jacob!
Thank you for the comments.
Jon thought it was more enjoyable than reading Penthouse forum.
And Jacob asked an outstanding question that has stumped a biochemist at MSU and me.
Jacob asked:
explain this to me Dr. Z...what the hell is the deal with the new food labels? They are now required to include the amount of trans fats...This would probably be a good idea if it wasn't forced by our government. The FDA is basically useless if you ask me. After all those years of following a strict pyramid diet, they go and recreate the pyramid...and it's probably still wrong. I HATE bureaucrats!!…anyway, back to my point. I have been avoiding trans fats for quite a few years now, since I discovered how harmful they really are. So I was interested to see that they are now requiring that on labels. I have not seen a product yet that has more than 0g of trans fats. Jif peanut butter for instance is loaded with partially hydrogenated oils and hydrogenated oils, which as far as I knew were trans fats. Why then does the label say 0g trans fats. Is there something I am missing? Or is this just another example of the FDA being stupid?
I replied:
i did a little background research and you have brought up a great point. i'm not too sure how they are different, because from what i understand partial hydrogenation creates the trans fats that are worrisome. so i'm not sure how to answer that, but perhaps there is something in the organic chemistry of it. i can ask a biochem professor i know. i think'll she'll be able to answer it better and then i'll get back with you for a definitive answer. as a side note, here's a way i like to tell people to think about daily fat intake. your total fat intake for a day should not exceed 30% of your total caloric intake. so if something is 100 calories and it has 45 calories from fat, that's bad. if it was 20%, good. secondly, fats that are solid at room temperatures are better for you than those that are solid. so olive oil is better than butter. sticking by these rules are just as good as looking out for trans fats. thanks for the great question.
So Shelagh Ferguson-Miller, a biochemist at Michigan State University who lectured in my biochemistry and cardiology courses, responded to this question with this:
Hmm. I would wonder too. They usually are trans, to some extent. I can't explain their claim, unless they don't do much hydrogenation and then the level of trans is below that which "counts".
So the mystery continues…or Jacob’s critical analysis could earn him a huge lawsuit. Nice job Jacob!
Thank you for the comments.
posted by az at 7:40 AM
7 Comments:
In an attempt to not be completely useless, I found this information that related to the current discussion.
This is taken from the following website:
http://www.peanutbutterlovers.com/nutrition/transfats.html
Does Peanut Butter Have Partially Hydrogenated Oils?
Regular peanut butter does contain a tiny, tiny amount (far less than 1%) of partially hydrogenated oil. It keeps the oil from separating out of the peanut butter and rising to the top of the jar, makes the peanut butter creamier, and dramatically increases the shelf life of the peanut butter.
The resulting amount of trans fat in regular peanut butter is so small that, under the proposed FDA labeling guidelines for trans fats, the peanut butter labels will list 0 trans fats. The proposed FDA rule indicates that trans fat amounts of less than .5g cannot be accurately measured and will be listed on the label as 0.
However, natural peanut butters do not contain partially hydrogenated oils. There are a number of natural peanut butters on the market, so consumers who wish to completely avoid partially hydrogenated oils can still enjoy peanut butter. The peanut oil will rise to the top. Simply stir it back in before using.
I ain't that smart. I is wicked tho.
thanks for the info jon. I figured it was some silly thing like that. But are partially hydrogenated oils ever in large quantities? Do they need to be, in order to be harmful? I always use peanut butter that is 100% peanuts.
Andy, it's not that you were stumped by the scientific nature of the question. it was more of a difficulty in understanding the shortcomings of the FDA's food labeling process, which is completely understandable. the website, www.bantransfats.com explains this well. Another thing to consider is that grams might not be the best unit of measurement to use for all ingredients. But i'm sure the FDA put a great deal of time, and money(courtesy of the taxpayers) into this stuff.
I don't want a lawsuit...I just want to shut the MAN down. And it's not that I think food labels area bad thing. In fact I think they are helpful and could be even better, not to mention morally justified, if they were not forced by the government. Imagine that the FDA didn't exist. Would we all become ill or die from eating poisonous foods sold to us by irresponsible manufacturers? No more (and I would assume less) than we already due under the FDA. There is an entrepreneur out there for just about everything you can imagine and then some. If the FDA was eliminated, private companies would jump in to fill the void, and since they would be competing for profit, they would undoubtedly be more efficient than the FDA. Not to mention, they would not have to steal money from people. I am not an expert in business, and it's really not our concern how such a business would operate, but I have an idea of how it might work. A food manufacturer, in an increasingly health conscious society, might want to boost sales by hiring an independent nutrition agency to "accredit" or label their product, if they feel that their product is of superior quality nutritionally. They might also be able to transfer some of their health related liability to the nutrition specialist for a certain fee.
Other food manufacturers would have to follow suit if they wanted to successfully compete with accredited manufacturers. Consumers would opt for products that are at least labeled by a respectable, independent nutrition agency. They might just look for a certain sticker or logo on products that they trust. The cost of the nutrition agency would most likely be passed onto the consumer who purchases their product, which is exactly where the cost should be borne. Not by the general public through taxation.
Some companies would not hire an agency, for a variety of reasons. maybe they know their product is unhealthy , or maybe they can not afford it. Either way, consumers would have the freedom to purchase unlabeled or unaccredited products as they should. To some people it just isn't important what they eat.
Competition would be fueled by research and past experiences of products accredited or given certain ratings by particular nutrition agencies. People would eventually learn which agencies are the most reputable. In turn food manufacturers would hire those reputable agencies.
As long as the government kept its nose out of the process (which is unlikely) everything would work out well. I don’t know if this is how it would work...probably not. but that isn't my problem to figure out. Just like it's not my problem to figure out how computer chips are manufactured...but I'm glad someone is doing it...and I'm even gladder that the government isn't the one doing it.
If there was no FDA and a company of this sort didn’t start up, I would start one myself. I would start by asking Andy to be the health expert.
maybe I'm just a lunatic?
i'm not a health expert, i just pretend. for example, this morning i ate 2 donuts, with chocolate milk and then at lunch i had a turkey sandwich with swiss cheese, doritos and a mt. dew (which i'm addicted to again after a 4 mo. de-tox period). plus i weigh 200+ and i like to drink beer. so i may know a little about health, but i'm becoming one a stereotypical american who eats and drinks way too much. boo trans fats!
the argument of privatization vs. government is always an interesting one. keynesian economics vs. milton friedman economics. i have had several debates on this topic from philosophy courses to psych and sociology courses to just recently with my mom at 1.30 in the morning.
i hold a different view about privatization. certainly some privatization is good. the us is based on some of that too. the right to profit is largely for privatized companies.
however, in our current times i'm not so sure private companies are more trustworthy than government, ie. enron, tyco, worldcom, adelphia, halliburton, lobbying firms. to my knowledge no government agency (recently) has ripped off their employees by blowing 401 ks with insider trading or have been in accounting scandals.
certainly competition can create more competent and efficient business, but at what cost? currently more and more private businesses are cutting benefits to employees, leading to over 45 million americans without health insurance.
also, with competition there are losers. with something as important as health care, do we really want losing companies? with your example about private business competing for food labels, it is not too big of a deal. if the amount of calories and grams of fat, etc. are labeled fine.
but what if there is one company that is able to buy out other companies and then hold the entire market share and form a monopoly? i know there are supposed laws against this, but look at the news and cable companies. comcast is the only availabe cable company in metro detroit and the news media is owned by four or five companies, nbc is owned by ge, abc by disney, cbs by viacom. almost the entire news radio is owned by clear channel corporation.
and just last year michael powell, as head of the fcc, wanted to allow for more deregulation in media outlets.
so what if that happened to the food label business, but the big powerful company was poor at their science. like with drug companies who spend 75% on advertisments and less than 20% on research and development.
so privatization has some large pitfalls as well. i know this is going to be like qouting satan, but karl marx discussed this issue at length about capitalism. he repeatedly said capitalism would collapse on itself, because of mergers and the eventual collection of private property by only a few individuals. (as a side note, private property as defined by marx is not owning an object. its true definition is the ability to control the labor power of others...hence, marx believed private property to be bad.)
should the government control everything? no. it's true that government does not run as efficiently as some private businesses. but that should not be confused with efficacy...kinda like a quality vs. quantity thing. the nih and fda do many great things and having a centralized regulatory board that is under the most scrutinized government watchdogs, is comforting to me both as a consumer and provider of health care.
in europe, many of the governments are socialized and provide almost every conceivable social need to their citizens. their governments run smoothly and their is far less distrust of government. for example, sweden has the most progressive tax system in the world and still have a stong economy and wealthy population.
germany is a perfect example of where too much socialization is harmful to the citizens. under schoerder, germans received top of the line social services, but he also ran the german economy into the ground. germans elected to go with a more conservative party in the recent elections (their conservative party is still more like democrats here, just less spineless) and the economy seems to be on an up swing with the implementation of deregulation.
so as to the idea of having competing companies do the fda's job: the risks of monopolies and scandals seem to out weigh the nusances of inefficiancy.
i agree some privatization is needed, but to disregard government and distrust it because of inefficiancy seems to be far too dangerous.
if i were to start my own clinic, i would ask for jacob's help though because my business sense is about as good as my ability to read arabic...i suck.
jacob you're no lunatic. i just qouted marx, hence i'm legally insane.
i have no time to respond as much as I would like. i see where you concern is coming from. most of the problems of our so called free-market economy, is that it is not a free-market economy. we have a mixed economy where the government forces its way into everyfacet of our lives. and it's getting worse and worse. if we had a true free-market economy, we would have many more option for our utilities like electric, gas, cable etc. We wouldn't see huge power outages like we saw a few summers ago due to outdated equipment. we would see cheaper utilities and more options. The only way of creating a (true) monopoloy is through coercive power, and the only entity who can legally get away with that is the government , and it does all the time. A completely private monopoly does no harm. They must provide a good service at a good price though. The minute they deviate from their quality, it gives entreprenurial competitors the chance to step in and take over at least part of their market. Government created monopolies (coercive monopolies)provide shoddy service at unreasonable costs. The feds basically use violence to take money from us to use for inefficient programs. I see no way to justify, forcing a person to give up capital that he/she earned. it's theft plain and simple. we are on a dangerous path in this country because we are relying on the government which is full of corruption and inefficency. We have been on that course for a long time it seems and it doesn look to be getting any better. we now have a fiat money system that is no longer backed by gold, but instead by the word of the government. Since we have been using that system our currency has lost much of it's value, and continues to do so. It loses its value because they have no restraint on creating money. They print it when they need it. it is a hidden tax. That is why we see price of everything go up....that why we have inflation. it hurts the middle class the most.
we don't have a capitalist economy. It is more of a mixed economy, with a few exceptions such as computers and other technology companies which continue to provide us with better and cheaper products.
Robert Nozick wrote one of the most amazing books on the subject of goverment and what moral constraints it has. It is called Anarchy, State, and Utopia. He argues that only a minimal state is justifiable. It is one of the most convincing books on the subject. I recommend this book to anyone.
but anyway, i have no time and this is way off the topic of your original post. I would love to continue this discussion sometime when there is more time.
how the hell do you guys have time to write that much? let alone read all that too!
heres my 2 cents on the topic... nutrition labels lie to everyone because of the small print that the FDA allows when creating labels with "zero grams...", "Light/lite", "low in...", or "good source of..." for the most part it's a bullshit.
Why enron was governments fault
Halliburton is so closely tied to the government it might as well be a branch of it.
the US government is worse than worldcom and gets away with it
a system can never be perfect. there will always be crooks. it should say something that these companies were caught and held accountable unlike our crooked government.
The government has no reason to rip off its employees. It does a lot better by ripping off the taxpayers.
businesses are cutting benefits because they are being taxed outrageously. there is no such thing as a tax on a corporation. when you tax a corporation, they simply raise prices, cut wages, etc., which passes on the burden to individuals. Health insurance is becoming more expensive because the big fat government is sticking its nose where it doesn't belong.
News outlets are incresing and new cable companies are forming because new technology is enabling them to find ways around the regulations of the government(FCC) which kept many alternatives from existing in the first place. With the internet, which is unregulated (probably not much longer) there are unlimited sources of information, news, media, etc. government will probably ruin that someday.
sweden was a very poor nation until capitalism was introduced in the late 1800's they saw huge economic growth as a result. only recently (late 1900's) did swedens public sector start growing out of control. the explosion of the public sector caused a a short term dip in unemployment but now they are headed for trouble. as expected, swedes are losing motivation when they realize they can live off the state. Sweden quicly went from 4th richest coutry in the world to 14th. over 30% of swedes are below the american poverty line. The minister of health, Morgan Johansson, has suggested that government has a right to forcefully seize your children if they are too obese. so much for individual liberties with a guy like that in charge.
one good thing i can say about sweden is that they mind their own business. if only we could do that here. we would be much better off. but no we have to give money to corrupt government who we will later invade, put troops in every country in the world, and the list goes on.
i have to go to bed....i hope your amused by my banter. I annoy myself.
i understand your points about government, but i still have trouble entertaining the thought that some greedy ceo's at enron was the governments fault.
and if halliburton is run by the government, then dick cheney should resign.
but, certain things should be privatized. it does create a great market and allow many americans to live comfortable lives. i just think government should play a large role with social programs.
good stuff to talk about. i'm hungry. i gotta eat.
Post a Comment
<< Home