Talk:Trans fat/Archive 1

message: This article should really reside at Trans fatty acid, as it's what is being discussed.  I know our naming guidelines state the article should reside at the most common name, but why should we put the article at the technically incorrect name just because the FDA allows the food manufacturers to use fat because it's shorter than fatty acid in a lable?  As a common (wrong) alternate use, trans fat should be the redirect. Gentgeen 10:48, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that fat molecules are actually triglyceride molecules which are glycerine (a triol) esterified with three fatty acid molecules.  In the case of trans-fats, it would make sense if the fatty acid parts of the triglycerides would contain trans-fatty acids.  Thus, I propose that trans-fats and trans-fatty acids are two chemical different but related things.  H Padleckas 16:41, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Gentgeen's comment is 100% correct. The correct term is trans fatty acid (the same also applies to saturated fats vs. saturated fatty acids). Trans fats (and saturated fats) are shorthand (lazy? uniformed?) ways to refer to them. The problem with HPadleckas' way of thinking is if we go down that road, then we might as well call canola oil, soybean oil etc. a "saturated fat" because they contain about 10% saturated fatty acids vs. the fats that traditionally go by the name "saturated fat": lard, beef tallow, palm (all about 50-60% saturated fatty acids) and palm kernel and coconut (both in the 90% range if I remember correctly.)LAK 20:51, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: That phrase on metal residues is not really irrelevant to the case of trans-fats formation. Those who saw the real 10% nickel-fat blend, which is the waste of margarine production, would understand what I mean - the more complete is hydrogenation, the less trans-fats it produces, however if the fat becomes more solid the settling rate of spent catalyst particles in it delayes, so their concentrations in final product would increase. Marabod 22:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maybe not completely "illogical writing"? 

message: What I plan to do:
1. "Labelling of trans fats" and "Legislation" sections appear linked. Need to reorganize this.
2. Remove external links besides those in "Sources" section. (Except when backing up a specific assertion)
--RainR 06:02, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganization 

message: What does this mean?  A "similar ban" to what?  There is no reference of a ban to which this could be similar.  There is only reference in the preceding sentence to Canada taking a positive stand with food labelling.
*In November 2004, an opposition day motion seeking a similar ban was introduced by Pat Martin of the New Democratic Party of Canada, and passed through the Canadian House of Commons by an overwhelming 193-73 vote.
Mrendo 14:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please rewrite this Canada section 

message: Added information on non-compliance with US labeling requirements.  I work for a label printing company, mainly retail food labels.  I've never personally seen a non-zero trans fat quantity on any food label.  The FDA is granting extensions on weak pretenses it seems.  I can't find a reference to just how widespread this is, but I did find that one reference to the FDA extension process that mentions extensions may be granted for up to 2 years.  I included information I believe to be verifiable.  More sources on this matter will likely become available in early 2006 if many labels remain non-compliant for long after the new year. Gigs 02:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  FDA Extensions and non-compliance 

message: I've seen non-zero trans fat quantities.  However, the big problem is that the FDA has allowed manufacturers to say there are zero grams of trans fat if the product contains <500mg/serving.  So if there are 499mg/serving, the label says zero grams.  You basically have to look at the ingredients because you can't trust the label.  This is reprehensible, not least of all because many people eat more than one serving, and serving sizes are very small for some foods.  I think this caveat should be highlighted in the article.
Furthermore, I've noticed foods that I KNOW had trans fat at one point (Dorito's corn chips, for example) now make no mention of "partially hydrogenated..." in the ingredients.  Did Frito-Lay really change the recipe OR does some other egregious FDA loophole simply let them get away with calling it plain old "vegetable oil?"  The chips taste exactly the same as before.  I refuse to believe that they're magically using liquid oil now.
Globe199 19:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a long history of widely-used food additives turning out to be a serious scourge upon public health. While I agree that the article could probably be cleaned up to some extent, the limited advantages of using partially hydrogenated oils are mentioned in the article, including food preservation and low cost of the oils. However, I think many experts would agree that the emphasis on negative effects is entirely appropriate given the physiological effects of trans fats. Frankg 17:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FDA loopholes? 

message: This should be in the article, with varying points of view on how much would be too much. JONJONAUG 19:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe there is no safe level of trans. Just like drinking turpentine, you shouldn't do it. -- cmh 00:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you base this on?  Saying any is unsafe implies that, if someone at a cafe slipped a bit into my coffee instead of cream, I can now feel free to eat Oreos, since I'm already trans fat doomed.  This seems unlikely. Calbaer 00:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an all or nothing argument. Drinking a bit of turpentine is clearly less bad than drinking a lot. It doesn't change the fact that a little bit is considered harmful. It's based on reading I've done in the past. I don't have a hard source handy, which is why it's a comment on a talk page rather than in the article. -- cmh 18:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it would be nice if this were quantified, either in the talk page or, better, in the article.  Hopefully someone with a hard source can do so. Calbaer 21:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: By the way, even Ban Trans Fats states on their homepage that, "The AHA recommends that your daily intake of trans fats be limited to 1 percent of total calories, which is equivalent to roughly 2 to 2.5 grams of trans fat per day."  Clearly the AHA and Ban Trans Fats believe that there is a safe level.  I guess I'll add that into the article when I address these other issues.... Calbaer 21:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't mean that they think that there's a safe level, it just means that they think restricting intake to those amounts will be an improvement on current levels (7% was a figure I read today) and a guideline that people can follow. Any amount of trans fats is harmful, unlike other food components. For example, there is a "safe" level of methylmercury consumption, because our bodies can apparently chelate/dispose of a certain amount of mercury before it builds up and causes harm. Likewise, there are "safe" levels of sodium, saturated fat, and linoleic acid, because our bodies need those all to some extent, but too much is definitely harmful. Now, if the general harm caused by trans fats increases exponentially or logarithmically relative to intake, rather than linearly, I can see the case made for a minimum "safe" level that, for all intents and purposes, causes virtually no damage. However, I don't think the research has progressed to the point where that kind of thing can be quantified. Frankg 01:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So it would be accurate to say, "While there's no evidence that any amount of trans fat is harmless, advocacy groups and the AHA recommend daily intake of trans fats be limited to 1 percent of total calories." Calbaer 06:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think that's a good way of putting it. Frankg 13:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Saves me work and makes it better.  I'll see it after you're done, I guess.  Just be sure to put it in an accurate, NPOV way.  "There is no safe level" is wrong (since one molecule would be safe).  "There is no minimum recommended level due to the linear trend between trans fatty acid intake and LDL cholesterol concentration" (or something like that) would be best. Calbaer 23:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How much is considered too much? 

message: The article seems to have an anti-US POV.  However, I'm not sure of the veracity of some of the statements, so I'm not sure whether to merely restate the same things in non-POV fashion or eliminate them.  For example:
*"Outside the US, trans fats have been largely phased out of retail margarines and shortenings" is stated, but is this true?  Is it true in the most populated countries, for example, such as Russia, China, and (if butter products like ghee don't limit trans fat sales) India?  I know that I recently bought some Top Ramen made in India; some had trans fats, some (supposedly) didn't.  The article on margarine seems to assume no country-by-country difference, so I'm not sure which article is more accurate.  I suspect that it may be truer to say, "In Western Europe and Canada, trans fats have been largely phased out of retail margarines and shortenings."  
*"These benefits for food manufacturers come at a high cost to the consumer's health.  Rather than preventing the sale of trans fats, as advocated by consumer advocacy groups, the FDA in the US, as of January 2006, requires that the quantity of trans fat be listed on nutrition labels."  Do advocacy groups promote a total ban?  Is it a high cost for every consumer?  This statement seems to assume that rational countries ban them, while the US does not.  Does any country aside from brave little Denmark ban trans fats?
On an unrelated note, why is trans usually italicized in this article?  This should either be explained or eliminated.  Also, do any studies provide an indication of whether there's a link to cancer?  I thought I recalled hearing that, so whether it's true or misinformation, something should be said about it. Calbaer 00:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Trans" is in italics because it's a scientific term. I've seen some studies investigating the influence of trans fats on colon cancer, but nothing beyond that. Frankg 01:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not all scientific terms need to be italicized, however, I'll let the two of you sort this out. There has been a lot of work done on trans and cardiovascular health... I just don't have a lot of the data handy just now. -- cmh 02:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't care if it remains italicized either way, I was just explaining why it was in the first place. We should probably follow any applicable Wikipedia policy. And yeah, I get the impression most of the research has been done in the area of the effects of trans fats on arterial plaque, erroneous incorporation into cell membranes (also a cardiovascular factor), and inhibition of certain enzymes (also affecting both heart health, and inflammation). Broader research will probably come to light in the coming years. Frankg 03:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Style#Italics has no indication that scientific words should be italicized and says to use italics sparingly.  If cmh doesn't eliminate them, I will. Calbaer 23:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reports I saw all used trans in italics. However, the media doesn't and I don't think common usage does. I suggest we use it in the formal trans fatty acids in the first sentence, but then say most people just call it Trans Fat and leave it unitalicized after that. -- cmh 00:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Science may say that trans fat is harmful, but that is different from saying trans fat should be banned.  Clearly no one would write, "Benefits for food manufacturers come at a high cost to the consumer's health.  Rather than closing down every McDonald's in the US, as advocated by consumer advocacy groups, the US requires the company to publish its nutritional information."  I've never given McDonald's a dime to feed myself and I avoid trans fats like the plague (even urging others to avoid nondairy creamer), but the attitude that the US government should ban every harmful thing is clearly POV.  Perhaps it would be better to write, "FDA in the US, as of January 2006, requires that the quantity of trans fat be listed on nutrition labels.  Due to the harm to human health, however, some consumer advocacy groups seek a ban of trans fats ."  But if I were to change the article around, I'd probably add one or two more s, and I don't want to make the article uglier than need be just because I don't know certain things in the article.... Calbaer 21:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Statements that are POV should NOT be removed from the article. As per WP:NPOV they should be attributed, and the balanced opposing view presented as well. We present ALL points of view, not NO points of view. If there is a movement to ban trans fats we should write about it. Also, we should cover industry points of view. Ultimately, the perfect trans article should contain all the points of view, each in proportion to its acceptance or prominence. -- cmh 02:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course POV statements need to be balanced.  But needlessly POV statements should be removed.  Statements like, "These benefits for food manufacturers come at a high cost to the consumer's health," are needlessly POV.  It's already said that these are benefits for food manufactures.  It's already said that trans fats come at a high cost to human health.  Phrasing it the way it is now pretty much says, "Bad FDA!  Bad food companies!  Very bad!" while adding nothing of substance. Calbaer 06:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: Frankg, I just saw that you added the content 'do not appear to exhibit the same negative effects' wrt. plant and animal based fats. You cited a dairy board submission to the FDA in support. This is poor optics I think, because the dairy board has a vested interest here. 
I have not dug hard, but the NAS made the comment "No studies have been conducted to evaluate the effect of trans fatty acids that are present in meats and dairy products on LDL concentrations. The relative effect of trans fatty acids in meat and dairy products on LDL cholesterol concentration would be small compared to hydrogenated oils because of the lower levels that are present, and because any rise in concentration would most likely be due to the abundance of saturated fatty acids." .
We need some rock-solid evidence to make the claim that animal based trans are better (even though I suspect this to be the case myself). At the least, the comment should be changed to say that the Dairy Board has asserted that trans fats are better. Perhaps I'll add this for the time being, but feel free to remove it should you find a better way. -- cmh 19:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your point is definitely well-taken. I agree that your change should stand for the time being until we find a source that's not likely to be biased. Ultimately, I think the point readers should take home is that avoiding the trans fats in hydrogenated oils should be a priority rather than those in animal fats. I'll do some research/editing later when I have the chance. This has been some great collaboration/editing, BTW! Frankg 19:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. Agree re: editing! -- cmh 16:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Differences between plant- and animal-based trans 

message: I have just removed the following recently added text (the italicized text in the following sentence -- my italics): "By 1992, when the health risks of trans fats became known, CSPI began to speak against trans fats and is currently strongly against their use."
Given the current CSPI court proceedings the italicized content is certainly highly relevant. The reference for the original sentence does not support the added text (indeed, I am sure the author would disagree). It isn't at all clear that CSPI's beginning to speak about trans fats was coincident with our understanding of the risks, and it isn't clear than 1992 is when the risks "became known". If this passage is to be replaced, the statement will require rigourous independent citation. Having said that, a discussion of when the risks did become known would be an asset to this article. -- cmh 23:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  When it became known that trans fats were bad 

message: Why is this article not called by the correct name, which is first mentioned? --Admin of NewSitera
: Good question, the answer is that wikipedia's naming conventions say:
::Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. 
:As the name trans fat is what most people use, that is the name of the article here on Wikipedia. Note that both Trans fatty acid and Trans fatty acids redirect to this page, so those searching Wikipedia by those names will still find this page. You seem interested in Wikipedia, why not get involved? -- cmh 14:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why Name? 

message: Hi folks, I added a few paragraphs at the beginning to frame the discussion of all that cool chemistry with a reminder of why there's labelling of trans fats in the first place. Disease and death, that's why. 
Is that so non-neutral?
So along comes this anonymous "Fluggo" and reverts the paragraphs with a bogus accusation about lack of neutrality. No attempt to talk, just rockets flipped over the border. Nice guy, that "fluggo". I'd have sent mail, only "Fluggo" is in hiding. 
If you think my bias in favor of life over death has infected the piece, OK, so lighten it up a little. The science is good. And check out those sources. Authoritative and on point. And that's only the beginning. Maybe I should have been a lawyer. (Joke) 
Why do I keep thinking "Fluggo" was working at his day job when he reverted my editing? Nah, just paranoia.
C'mon, Fluggo, you have better science? Ready to prove trans fats and polycyclics ought be in breakfast cereals? Go for it, man, it sure worked for the tobacco lobby.
--Jrgetsin 02:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoa, dude, chill. The fact that you're so worked up over it actually lends credence to my edit. You've got an axe to grind. Now, you've gone back and added the stuff back with more citations. That's cool. I kept what part had citations last time. I've done that this time, but removed the loaded words. This is an encyclopedia, not a magazine that has to sell copies. Just stick to what you can prove/cite, and you'll have no trouble from me. Fluggo 14:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, you should probably read some of the discussion above. They seem to be talking about the same thing. Fluggo 14:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of neutrality???  Edit war??  Who's Fluggo? 

message: I think lots of the information in this section is good. I think, though, that it needs to be better integrated into the article.
The new section covers similar territory to the "presence in food", "nutritional guidelines" and "nutritional biochemistry" sections. While it provides some new facts for all three sections it also duplicates information already in the article.
There has been a recent article cleanup to try to consolidate the information into these three sections, and the new information should be inserted appropriately into these sections and the duplication addressed.   -- cmh 17:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Known Health Risks section 

message: I have reverted some of these changes. I reverted the addition of material to the presence in food because it duplicates information present in other parts of the article, and has a POV tone. I reverted the change to strengthen the claims of relatedness to other conditions, not because I think it is wrong, but because we need to improve that sentence by adding citations rather than just strengthening it. -- cmh 16:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits by 192.80.211.11 

message: I'm in the middle of overhauling the health effects section. I'm pretty happy with the CHD section, and the rest is stuff from a long time ago that I'm sorting though later. -- cmhTC 21:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note to self: new section: replacements. The TRANSforming appendix discusses the benefits of tropical oils over butter. -- cmhTC 05:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Health effects 

message: In the Preccense in Foods section, there are the following paragraphs:
"Benefits of hydrogenating plant-based fats for food manufacturers include an increased product shelf life and decreased refrigeration requirement. Partial hydrogenation raises the melting point of fat, producing a semi-solid material, which is much more desirable than liquid oils for use in baking. Plant-based hydrogenated vegetable oils are much less expensive than the animal fats traditionally favored by bakers, such as butter or lard.
Because partial hydrogenation of plant oils can replace animal fats, the resulting products can be consumed (barring other ingredient and preparation violations) by adherents to Kashrut (kosher) and Halal, as well as by adherents to vegetarianism in Buddhism, ahimsa in Jainism and Hinduism, veganism, and other forms of vegetarianism."
These paragraphs are talking about uses, benifits, use among vegetarians and the melting point of fat. I really dont see the majority of this text belonging in this section, it should be cut up and put elsewhere. No I'm not going to do this myself, I dont know anything about the subject matter.  Harley peters 04:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The text is there because it explains WHY people put trans fats in food. I think it has some value there. However, I will take that as feedback and see if it can be better integrated. I'm going to be away for 10 days or so, but will look at it when I get back if no one else has. -- cmhTC 14:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pressence in Foods 

message: The article currently says that trans fat is a kind of saturated fat. Is this technically correct, given that a trans fat by definition has at least some hydrogen atoms missing, so that there can be a trans bond? Frankg 16:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, any double bond, cis or trans, means it's not saturated.  I don't know if kjsuisei was deliberately vandalizing the article or is simply confused, but I have restored the original wording of the lead paragraph.InNuce 18:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saturated? 

message: I removed this text from the page today:
:(The penultimate section, "Fats in the Kitchen," of Isaac Asimov's The World of Carbon [various publishers, 1958, 1962] suggests this may in fact be a reversion to a much older forumulation. Asimov also mentioned that the non-hydrogenated cottonseed oil is quite cheap, but unpalatable.)
I think there isn't quite enough context here for it to add to the article. If someone has the reference and can pull something useful out it could fit somewhere potentially. However, if asimov simply proposed that hydrogenated oils could be cut with liquid oils this might be more appropriate at Crisco than at Trans fat. -- cmhTC 20:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Asimov 

message: As far as I know, New York is just asking restaurants to limit trans fats to .5g per item, maybe put this in there instead of saying they want to completely eliminate? Just an idea TheEasterBunny 13:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If this is supported by the references then go ahead. -- cmhTC 21:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New York 

message: Some parts of this article italicize trans (because the word exists in Latin?) and others do not. The FDA seems to prefer italicizing trans, but sometimes does not. IHMO, "trans fat" is a bona fide English word, and italicizing part of it is jarring. Wiktionary doesn't italicize it, either.
--VAcharon 19:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This was dealt with under the section titled POV above. The idea is to present the proper name trans fatty acids in the first sentence, then establish that the common way of writing it is unitalicized "Trans fat". The article then uses "Trans fat" as this is the most recognizable and common usage, per Wikipedia policy. -- cmhTC 21:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I did a search through the article and found that indeed not all the references were changed at the time. I removed the rest. The only italicized trans words are references to the chemical concept rather than the type of fat. I also removed "trans fatty acids" from the article after the first line, except for within quotes. -- cmhTC 22:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italics? 

message: With more and more companies getting on the bandwagon, the US section is starting to be burdened with stuff that applies in other places. For example, the KFC thing is relevant to Canada and perhaps other KFC national chains too, yet it's buried in the US section. I think we need to separate the government regulation and public responses that are specific to countries from the corporate things that are clearly international. What say you? -- cmhTC 17:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separating corporate and government response 

message: There shouldn't be any unless the oil is hydrogenated or otherwise chemically altered. Frankg 21:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can some one write which contain how much trans-fat in which cooking oils like vegetable oil/corn oil/canola oil/olive oil 

message: Removed this content from the page tonight. Explanations for removal will be interspersed with "myths".
*  Humans can't metabolize trans fats.  If this were true, then trans fats would be completely calorie-free instead of containing 9 Calories per gram of useful energy.  
::The problem with this myth is that it isn't clear it is a myth. All fats contain energy, and there is no reason why trans fats shouldn't. There is already a comment (albeit minor) in the article that says that trans fats contain calories. To include this we should have some sources to show this is a misunderstanding. 
*  Trans fats are no different for your health than any other fat.  Trans fats, like saturated fats, are essentially straight molecules.  This means that they naturally pack very densely into dangerous plaques inside blood vessels.  This characteristic has a significant and direct effect on heart disease.  Cis-isomers of monounsaturated fats do not share this unhealthy characteristic.
::This is incorrect as far as I know. Cholesterol forms plaques, and consumption of trans fat upregulates LDL cholesterol. I am not familiar with reliable sources that state that trans fats stack in the bloodstream. If there are some, please provide.
*  Evolutionarily speaking, the first time humans encountered trans fats was when vegetable shortening was invented.  Trans fats do occur naturally, notably in cow's milk and beef, and so humans have encountered trans fats in their diets for untold millenia.  Trans fats can also form in very small quantities in response to high cooking temperatures, or in the presence of acids such as vinegar, particularly if a metal (such as Nickel, which is common in dirt) is also present.
:: The question of natural sources of trans fat is already covered in the article. I do not believe trans fats can be synthesized at normal cooking temperatures at standard pressure. Ironclad sources would be required for this.
*  Synthetic trans fats are noticeably different from natural trans fats.  A spoonful of a synthetic trans fat such as elaidic acid -- the trans isomer of oleic acid (the main constituent of olive oil) -- may contain trace amounts of the metals used to catalyze the process (such as Nickel or Platinum), but the the synthetic elaidic acid is itself chemically identical to naturally occuring elaidic acid.  The primary difference is that a spoonful of partially hydrogenated vegetable shortening may contain very large amounts of trans fats, whereas a similar amount of all-natural lard or butter would contain a relatively low amount of trans fats.  On the flip side, the butter contains twice as much saturated fat compared to the shortening.
::I'm not sure where the myth is here. In any case, it misses the point which is that any unsaturated fat can theoretically be hydrogenated; if you start with different non-trans fats you'll get different non-trans isomers... not just elaidic acid. Natural trans fats are not made of soybean oil, so they are different. See reference in the main article text.
*  Trans fats build up in the body and cause nerve damage that reduces the IQ of the person eating them.  Trans fats are metabolized by the human body and do not build up or interfere with nerve function.  In fact, during the century that synthetic trans fats have been commercially available, human IQ has risen almost 20 points due to improved health and nutrition, particularly among the less affluent people who were more likely to choose partially hydrogenated fats as an economical alternative to butter.  This presumably could not have happened if trans fats impaired nerve function.
::Trans fats also do not clog sewage systems, shuttle launch equipment, or degrate the performance of Hi-Fi audio systems. This is the first I've heard of someone thinking they lower IQ by decreasing neural function. We'd need a reliable source that says this is a widespread belief.
Text was removed, and comments inserted by me. -- cmhTC 03:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Myths about trans fats 

message: Any study related how it affects the consumption of transfat foods for a pregnant woman? As we knew, pregnant woman always craves for food they see in the market.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marvinmacabasco (talk • contribs) 04:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: How does the product "Benecol" (a margarine-like spread) claim to have "No Trans Fat" while its 3rd and 7th ingredients are "Partially Hydrogenated Soybean Oil" and "Hydrogenated Soybean Oil?"  Is there some way of separating the cis fat from the trans fat?  Is it a secret proprietary method or just difficult and/or expensive?  
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.232.38.7 (talk) 02:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Partially hydrogenated" oil always contains trans fat. The company that makes Benecol is probably taking advantage of the fact that less than 0.5g of trans fat per serving can be labeled as "no" trans fat. Frankg 17:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: I have tried to split the commercial stuff from (primarily) the US regulatory frameworks and municipal salvos. 
The most noticeable change in content (as opposed to reorg) that this produced is that I decided to try to reduce all the "such and such a company is making this specific type of change by this exact date" type content. IMO (and this is just my opinion) the Trans fat article is the wrong place for blow-by-blow details of what every chain is doing and when. This information is better placed on the page of the chain. I have retained a reference for each company, preferably to a press release that has their gory details, should someone wish to track the information down. I did retain fuller descriptions of Kraft and KFC because they were the subject of notable/notorious lawsuits. For some reason the walt disney theme parks and products seemed notable as well so I retained that content.
I would be happy to hear what people think of the reorg and the handling of the individual companies. -- cmhTC 04:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separation of commercial response from national regulation 

message: I am happy with the quality of the article now. I'm also requesting a peer review to get more eyes on it. -- cmhTC 04:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review 

message: I'm making a pass through the article because I've realized that the article implies that trans fats are desirable for industry, and that they are the goal of hydrogenation. This is not true. The goal is to harden liquid oils, and reduce the number of double bonds to limit rancidity. The fact that the remaining double bonds become 'trans' bonds is a side effect of the process that adds hydrogen. -- cmhTC 21:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone please add a brief sentence to this article, explaining: Why would a "cis bond" molecule turn into a "trans bond" molecule? To this non-chemist, it seems that any particular fat molecule would either (a) not react with the hydrogen, staying the same, or (b) react with the hydrogen, becoming saturated. --75.19.73.101 21:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Trans fats' as a goal of hydrogenation 

message: I am thinking of removing the other chains that are eliminating trans fat. This is the bulleted list at the bottom of the Food industry response section. My reasoning is that this isn't a complete list, and WP is not a directory, collection of links, etc.
This begs the question of what criteria should be used to determine which companies SHOULD be listed in this section.
In my view, if a chain or product has become particularly notable for its trans fat (e.g. Crisco, Kraft, McDonalds, KFC, etc.) then it is notable here. But simply saying "we removed the generic crisco from our biscuits" is more than adequately covered on the company's own page. -- cmhTC 15:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So far you've removed the European companies that have removed trans fats and kept the USA ones. Your idea of notability seems to be a bit country-specific. Nunquam Dormio 16:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good point. I'm not sure how to approach that. Most of the big things relevant to Trans Fat from a corporate perspective have happened in the states (where I am not, by the way, I'm in Canada). It may be an artifact of transnational junk food chains being a US phenomenon. Are you aware of any others that should be listed? I am open to suggestions, or better yet -- please add/remove from that section to improve it.  -- cmhTC 23:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Any thoughts on a Category:Transfat Free Guaranteed or some variation?  Most of the major chains are making promises now, but a visible indication they've followed through would be very helpful to people trying to make healthier choices. LeadSongDog 18:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Your opinion: Chains eliminating trans fats 

message: I stumbled upon this article today, and it is very well done.  It may be ready very soon for GA nomination.--Esprit15d  (talk ¤ contribs) 20:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. This is an important topic that continues to receive growing attention in the media; cmh deserves a lot of credit for keeping it updated, informative, and neutral. Frankg 20:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. -- cmhTC 15:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commendation 

message: I have received the following today by email:
I have removed the contact information, which I will make available upon request rather than putting it in the database.
The changes appear to have been made to an older version of the article, and some recent changes have been obliterated. I believe that the edits are made in good faith, but I am not sure that we have a less biased article today. I have not yet read the changes in detail, but I think we should have a discussion here before proceeding. Editors are invited to give their thoughts. Otherwise I'll go through the edits in a little bit and try to make some proposals. -- cmhTC 18:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This attempt at POV by the food industry must be stopped at all costs, up to and including a total rewrite or deletion and recreation as a stub to be expanded! Wikipedia will NOT be used to spread propaganda and lies!  E. Sn0 =31337= Talk 22:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not that bad. I am bothered by some of the modifications (mostly when references are removed) but most of the changes were minor. In fact, I am encouraged that an industry figure would take the time to open up communications about the issue. Frankg 22:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Removal of the references is what bothered me the most, followed by the weasel words. Problem's been fixed for now anyway. :)  E. Sn0 =31337= Talk 23:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Steel359 indefblocked him for taking the name of an organization, not for the edits however POV they are. Apparently that's against the rules.  E. Sn0 =31337= Talk 01:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, I was going to warn you, with the heightened profile of this subject material, about trolls or good-faith contributors attempting to edit from <a href="http://www.junkscience.com/nov99/transfat.html" target=_"blank">this POV</a>, as I continue to encounter it in discussion forums elsewhere despite its outdated info and clearly industry-biased POV, but I'm sure you're on top of it.  Fascinating article, btw. 64.57.108.181 16:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No real opinion on the blocking, but it would be worth looking through the edit in question and picking out anything that might fit well in the actual article. Frankg 02:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: That's okay. Try to avoid his weasel words and removal of sources is all I ask. You have an excellent day, sir. :)  E. Sn0 =31337= Talk 06:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: CMH, I love you. It's perfect!  E. Sn0 =31337= Talk 18:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text: How do we go about nomming this thing for 'Good Article' status? I believe it's at least A-class.  E. Sn0 =31337= Talk 18:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I would like to see this article nominated for WP:GA or at WP:FAC. Both of those require a stable article (not too many big changes) and this one is seeing a lot of action after the NYC trans fat captured the media's attention. I hope it'll be proposed for FA status in the next few months. -- cmhTC 00:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Industry changes to the trans fat article 

message: * Intro: Discarding their changes to introductory material in general. Weasel wording of "sufficient quantity" to be a health risk is in conflict with the major scientific consensus material cited in this article. Their other diffs here were largely rollbacks due to them working with an older version of the article.
* Presence in food: I removed their assertion that 20-25% of trans consumed are from animal sources. This claim is removed as WP:OR as I don't see this in the cited article (which I have now read). I removed our assertion that shortenings are partially hydrogenated. This is false as there are expeller pressed shortenings that are non-hydrogenated. Replaced vague assertion about margarine's content with facts from the article they cited. I removed our weasel wording insinuating that manufacturers use hydrogenated oils for cost reasons. We don't have the data to support that, and the brief web searching I did indicates it may not be cheaper, at least for frying. I also reorganized things a bit and connected the fast food content to frying which was not really discussed in this section before.
* Nutritional guidelines: I have removed all their changes in this section. The (IMO) offensive statement that the NAS guidelines are based on assumptions was particularly bad. The 5-6% number is unsourced, and does not agree with most reliable sources cited in the article. The Hunter article, if that was the source, is a meta-analysis of self-report studies with estimations of likely trans content. The existing articles are much more rigourous.
* History: Replaced our content concerning the financial aspects as this is sourced directly from the article. Compromise wording on the artificially hardened oils question by using wording found in the source. Their change to correlational language in the medical hypotheses reference is a sign that they either didn't read the source, or are trying to pull something; I put the causational language used by the source back.
* Chemistry: I kept their expert information that length and time of process also matters. 
* Health risks: I have largely reverted this material. The material appears designed to weasel word things that were well supported. Other additions appear to be inappropriate for this section of the document, or consist of long out-of-date research. I think this section was largely balanced.
* Public response and regulation: Removed blurb at start of this section. Ours was slanted and theirs made assertions that some countries had chosen not to regulate, without citation... really the thing was factless so I cut it.  I retained their correction concerning nutritional claims allowed by the FDA, and also their clarification on NYC limits.
* External links: I felt the added links did not add significant information to the topic of trans fats that are not already present in the article.
Comments welcome. -- cmhTC 17:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: CMH, I love you. It's perfect!  E. Sn0 =31337= Talk 18:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text: How do we go about nomming this thing for 'Good Article' status? I believe it's at least A-class.  E. Sn0 =31337= Talk 18:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I would like to see this article nominated for WP:GA or at WP:FAC. Both of those require a stable article (not too many big changes) and this one is seeing a lot of action after the NYC trans fat captured the media's attention. I hope it'll be proposed for FA status in the next few months. -- cmhTC 00:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes from review of industry-supplied material

message: I partially reverted this edit. First, thanks for cleaning up some details in the chemistry section. I left most of those, only removing the hedges about the block diagram which I dealt with by clarifying that it's a diagram in the title. I doubt people will be getting out protractors anyway. I reverted the Hu section because first, my reading of Hu is that he is specific that the trans stats refer to to each incremental 2% increase, so changing it to imply the data is valid only for 1-3% is going against the source IMO. I also think the new wording is simply more confusing than the original. I did leave your addition of the confidence interval because I thought that was a good idea.  Regarding the introduction, I don't think the addition of caloric "value" is relevant to trans fats specifically. The comment by the NAS is clearly meant to refer to trans fats qua trans fats and the caloric thing just seems like a sideshow. I left a few grammatical things my way because they read better to me in Canadian english, but I guess I wouldn't scream if they were swapped again. -- cmhTC 00:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes by [[User:Eric Kvaalen]] 

message: Why do I say this? They're very different from the rest of the "unsaturated" fats, in that sources are almost exclusively man-made in this day and age. Odin of Trondheim 00:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recommendation to place trans fat into its own category 

message: Anyone have a picture of, like, a big tub of hydrogenated oil? If consumers saw what they were eating, they might be a little less tolerant of products containing trans fats. A block of Crisco might do, but people have probably been desensitized to its appearence and texture for too long for it to have an impact. Vranak 23:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A picture would be good 

message: Well, after 6 months of work (with thanks to all you other contributors too) I think this article is now as good as I can make it. I've self-nominated it as a featured article candidate. If you would like to support (or oppose) this status, please do so here. Thanks! -- cmhTC 01:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article candidate 

message: The pages linked by "trans" and "cis" in the opening paragraph are terrible, and those pages reference back to this trans-fat page.  The Chemisty section on this trans-fat page is an excellent explanation of both "trans" and "cis".  I'm not really sure how to go about fixing this.. maybe move the chemistry section out to a newly combined trans/cis page, or maybe just have "trans" and "cis" link down to the Chimistry section in the opening paragraph. Jeffhoy 13:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, actually it's not an excellent explanation, because of the 90° angles used everywhere. The geometry of saturated carbon (SP3) and unsaturated carbon double bonds (SP2) are very different (tetrahedral vs. flat), which is not reflected by the graph - one could call the drawings plain wrong, for that reason. The same is true for the trans article, but it is correct in the cis article. And don't call me pedantic - someone is trying to explain geometries (i.e. cis and trans) and is getting the (overall) geometry wrong! 199.74.98.43 05:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  trans/cis links issue 

message: I'm taking a bit of a break from editing. A lot of work was done in the last few months leading up to the FAC posting. Now, I'm feeling tired and need to recharge. Just letting you all know that I'm not watching things closely at the moment. -- cmhTC 22:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll keep the vandals and spammers at bay. Nunquam Dormio 19:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  taking a break 

message: I removed the following sentence that I originally added:
:According to Steen Stender of Gentoffe University Hospital in Copenhagen, Denmark has seen a 20% drop in deaths from heart disease since the country's 2003 ban. (full online article is subscription only) 
as a clarification came through later:
:"We quoted Steen Stender as saying that Denmark has seen a 20 per cent fall in deaths from heart disease since the 2003 ban on trans-fats (6 January, p 13). He clarifies that there was a 20 per cent fall between 2000 and 2005."For the record
Nunquam Dormio 15:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Steen Stender 

message: Is it true that if you eat trans fat, you can't get rid of it by working out like regular fat, and the only way to get rid of it is lyposuction? 71.194.136.20 03:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Frankg 06:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this true? 

message: Cis fats are NOT trans fats. They are very different. If this isn't fixed, I will not allow my college classes to use Wikipedia as a source.
:Where is it that you see an error? Frankg 14:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Frankg: He means this: Cis fat (redirects to Trans fat at the moment 199.74.98.43 05:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Unknown Person, who has not signed: You should not allow "your college classes" to use Wikipedia as a source anyways - Wikipedia pages are not citeable. If they contain references to proper articles, nobody can be prevented to use and cite those as a source, though :) Just my 2 cents  - anyways, it's just a redicrection - so your college classes never actually read their sources?!?!?! 199.74.98.43 05:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  cis redirection 

message: There are two different articles titled 'Trans fat' (trans-fat and trans fat)--200.125.12.130 00:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. They are not different articles, the first redirects to the second. 83.67.217.254 05:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two 'trans fat' articles 

message: I just added them to the intro. Please create redirects, I was very surprised not to be able to search for them. Thanks. 83.67.217.254 05:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm...trans fats are a component of hydrogenated fats, but they are not quite the same thing. Not sure how to rectify this. Frankg 05:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I've redirected the term hydrogenated fats to the article on hydrogenation, which seems more appropriate - hydrogenated oil already redirects there. Thanks for bringing this up! Frankg 15:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: That's one way of looking at it, although really, the additional trans and saturated fats are a result of the hydrogenation process. In other words, say we start with a hypothetical fat that is 1/3rd polyunsatured, 1/3rd monounsatured, and 1/3rd saturated. The fat undergoes the hydrogentation process, but only partially (full hydrogenation results in 100% saturated fat molecules). So, afterwards many of the polyunsaturates have become monounsaturated, some have become trans, and fewer have become saturated. Many of the monounsaturates have become trans, and some of them have become saturated. The saturated fraction remains the same. The new, hydrogenated fat, might be 1/8th polyunsaturated, 1/4th monounsaturated (some of which were unchanged, some of which used to be polyunsaturated), 1/4th trans (most of which used to be monounsaturated, some of which used to be polyunsaturated), and 1/2 saturated (some of which used to be monounsaturated, and a smaller amount used to be polyunsaturated). Frankg 21:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hydrogenated fat 

message: The title says it all. Do we really need to have the word trans italicized throughout the article? I realize it's a Latin prefix, but it's also a word that, at least in my circles, has entered the general vocabulary. Most importantly, though, I found that the italics were a major visual distraction for me while reading the article. David Norris 22:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do we really need the italics? 

message: If an ingredient of a commercial food is labeled as "hydrogenated fat" (or "hydrogenated oil"), what does that mean exactly? What fraction of the fatty acids is still allowed to be unsaturated, and at what fraction of unsaturated fatty acids are the manufacturers required to call it "partially hydrogenated"? Icek 20:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the US, if it says "hydrogenated," then the oil was fully hydrogenated - i.e., all the fatty acids have been converted to saturates. If it says "partially hydrogenated," then the hydrogenation process was stopped part-way through, which is when trans-fats have been formed. If the process were seen all the way through, then the trans fats would have turned to saturates. Frankg 02:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the theory, but when I look into the USDA food database at "Oil, industrial, palm kernel (hydrogenated), filling fat" it still has got 5.705% monounsaturated fatty acids, including 4.658% trans fatty acids. With "Oil, soybean, salad or cooking, (hydrogenated)" it's more extreme: only 14.9% of the fat is saturated fatty acids. Icek 09:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are partially hydrogenated, and mislabeled - the distinction between "hydrogenated" and "partially hydrogenated"  is a legal one, set by the FDA's regulations. Frankg 11:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, but as a chemical reaction is usually not totally efficient, there will be some unsaturated fatty acids left in any real hydrogenated fat. There should be a limit on how much unsaturated fatty acids makes a fat "partially hydrogenated". Icek 15:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, here is the regulation (look under (a)(14)). Frankg 02:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, and BTW, I asked the same question on Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science (see here). Unfortunately the regulation doesn't really define "hydrogenated" and "partially hydrogenated". Icek 03:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Many folks use "hydrogenated" as short-hand for "partially hydrogenated," the USDA included. Remember that the USDA is a very separate entity from the FDA, which has strict rules about it as far as food labels go. As far as the chemical process, there's a point at which the oil in the hydrogenation chamber just stops reacting to hydrogen - at that point, it's fully hydrogenated. Frankg 12:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you detect the stopping of the reaction, and how at which pressures, temperatures etc. - these details determine how much unsaturated fatty acids will be left. Icek 00:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So does that mean "If a fat molecule becomes completely hydrogenated, it is no longer a trans fat or any other kind of unsaturated fat molecule -- it becomes a saturated fat molecule." ? If se, please explicitly state this in the article. --75.19.73.101 15:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Pretty close.  If it was literally completely hydrogenated it would also drive off the oxygen, so it would become an alkane.  But in normal parlance, a saturated fatty acid is one in which all the carbon bonds are fully saturated by individual hydrogen atoms except for the single COOH group at one end that defines it as a fatty acid (vice CH3 for alkanes or COH for alcohols).LeadSongDog 18:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Hydrogenated" vs. "partially hydrogenated" 

message: This article is written from a liberal slant.  Trans fat is physically no worse than saturated fat, and it is being portrayed here as an absolute evil.  Although it has no benefits, neither do many other things that people choose to do. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 13:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the current landscape of the research in this field, you may have a difficult time proving the assertion that "trans fat is physically no worse than saturated fat." Frankg 00:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I wonder how this is a "liberal slant."  Yes, many self-professed conservatives doubt the popular image of trans fats, others are concerned about lawsuits involving trans fats, and even more express unease about any bans on foodstuffs that consumers choose to use — such bans being contrary to free-market principles — but most people would not view the actual science and studies about trans fats as being "liberal." Calbaer 00:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: ...How does an article on nutrition have a liberal slant? You might as well claim that the Vitamin C article subtly promotes Bolshevism. Strad 21:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the Vitamin C article does mention Linus Pauling ;\) LeadSongDog 20:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liberal bias 

message: the history section leaves out a few things. hydrogenated vegetable oil was originally used to fatten swine.  it fattened them all right, then gave them tumors.  faced with a surplus stock that they could no longer sell to farmers, crisco called it a food product and gave away cookbooks to encourage human consumption.  Bruce Fife, N.D. wrote "saturated fat may save your life" a really good book full of research about fat. it's probably worth a look when writing about the differences and problems with unsaturated fats. 76.217.125.14 16:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think Fife's work meets our standards here.  Not even close actually. --Ronz 19:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  history 

message: The bio on the inventor Wilhelm_Normann is much more extensive in German than English.  It includes patent references that could illuminate much of the content in this article.  I've requested a translation.LeadSongDog 21:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The translation is up.LeadSongDog 14:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inventor 

message: I wanted to mention why I undid a few recent changes to the article.
I restored the original order to the "presence in food" section for two reasons. First, I felt that the one sentence statement that 'partially hydrogenated ingredients = trans fat' was a bit misleading. It implied to me that only foods with PH oils had trans fats, which is not true. Second, I found it too abrupt a transition to jump straight from this statement to details about baking. I wanted to know more about trans fats (the topic of the article) before jumping to its uses. I think the changed ordering is good in the article introduction, though, just not in the details section.
Also, I have removed the list of foods containing trans fats. An absolute list like this is not going to work, as many of these foods can be (and were for years) prepared without trans fats. Many snack foods have no trans fat in many parts of the world. In Denmark, none of these foods contain significant levels of trans fats. I eat trans-free oven fries all the time. Non-hydrogenated frying shortenings are available, etc. 
I encourage all editors to continue improving the article. -- cmhTC 18:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits to presence in food category 

message: A recent edit to the article in the "response" section says that "Joseph Crosfield & Sons" was the original producer of trans fat. 
* First, the article currently states that Crisco was the first commercial hydrogenated fat, so we likely need a good citation to back up the Crosfield thing, if it is true. 
* Second, trans fats are a byproduct of a chemical hydrogenation process intended to change the properties of fats... they are not something people set out to make. Crosfield therefore didn't set out to create trans fats, but rather to hydrogenate some oil or something... can we change the wording?  -- cmhTC 22:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In Wilhelm Normann's recently translated bio, their's a link to (iirc) a german language site at dgfett.de (or some similar).  There it explains how the first production use of his process was  at Crosfield & Sons.  Crosfield was bought out by Lever Bros, later Unilever.  It should be possible to verify the dates.  The German and UK patents are also on record, but I gather he failed to secure a US patent, much to his later sorrow.  Nobody asserted that they set out to make trans-fats, but that is the subject of the article.LeadSongDog 00:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: User:68.40.205.114 has twice deleted a para re the use of whale oil.  I've reverted.  See above for where it came from, or use an online translator (e.g. google or babelfish) to get a rough idea.  The cited source clearly discusses why they used the name "Talgol" for whale fat.  Also, by 1903 the availability of kerosene for lighting had brought the price of whale oil way down. LeadSongDog (talk) 20:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joseph Crosfield & Sons 

message: This article meets the current Good article criteria, and has been listed. Other than a couple of minor grammatical fixes that were just easier to fix as I was reading it, the article is well written with good and engaging prose, and well referenced (the one 'citation needed' tag that I came across for the McDs info was easy enough to find a reference for, so I just added it). The only real semi-major change that I made was promoting the 'history' and 'chemistry' sections, since this contains some good, basic information to start the article off with, and contributes to a better introduction.
One area of improvement could be including more specific information on the exact biochemical mechanisms by which trans fats increase the risk of coronary heart disease. This is briefly stated in the article, but not much is really said here. But other than that, this article is great! Good work! Dr. Cash 19:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a cite of the 2003 Gatto study on the connection to apolipoprotein(a) and cholesteryl ester transfer.  It's a start.LeadSongDog 15:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a comment on this. As a tertiary source we need to put these kinds of facts in context. The material added could be improved by explaining how it connects to the cholesterol test described. It's over my head so I can't do it, but an average reader of this article will likely not be able to make use of this information as it stands. Can it be better integrated? -- cmhTC 15:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Review 

message: I'm no expert in the area, so I'm leaving the edits to others.
The History section defines the US FDA definition of zero grams trans fats per serving as less than one gram per tablespoon. Whereas the Public Response and Regulation/United States section says trans fat levels of less than a half gram per serving may be labeled as zero grams per serving.
I checked crisco.com's website to verify the serving size of Crisco shortening as 1 tablespoon, so these definitions are not equivalent.  68.88.202.65 02:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The 2003 FDA paper (at ref 60) is pretty arcane language, probably written for lawyers.  As best I can read it, they couldn't decide what was reasonably achievable for a recommended daily value for non-vegans, so they chose to defer defining "trans fat free" or "reduced trans fat".LeadSongDog 04:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't talking about a definition for "trans fat free" or "reduced trans fat", but the definition of "Zero grams of trans fat" which is defined and used on product labels now, and this article professes to define in two places with different meanings. The reference you mention, upon my skimming, only mentions that the FDA proposed to amend regulations to state that trans fat has to be reported on a nutrition label when the value is 0.5g or greater of trans fat per serving. 68.88.202.65 20:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slightly contradicting facts in article 

message: I'm interested to know if man made trans fat(like partially hydrogenated oil) is worse for your health than natural trans fat like that found in beef.
What brought me here was finding out that burgers have trans fat(was looking up Wendy's nutritional info).  I try not to eat trans fat...but eliminating burgers from my diet(currently only 1 a week if that...) completely would be a downer.
Also, a large chili at Wendy's has 0.5g of trans fat...where would that be coming from?  The little bit of beef in it? 
Wendy's Nutrition
Thanks in advance Deathwish238 23:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Either that or the "soybean oil" is partially hydrogenated.  Given that ground beef is the first (and so presumably the most plentiful) ingredient listed in the chili, I'd infer that it's the beef that's the source.  Frankly, I'd be more concerned about the rounding practice they're evidently using.  Compare the TFA in large vs small chili: A 50% larger portion shows "0.5g" vs "0g" of TFA.  This means that none of their "0g" numbers can really be trusted to mean anything but "less than 0.5g".  It's plain old deceptive practice, even if the FDA says it's acceptable.LeadSongDog 04:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I realize that if the large chili has some trans fat that the small chili must have some as well.  I think it'ld be annoying to have to list the exact amount when less than 0.5g, but they could just list it as <0.5g.  Do you have any insight on the first part of my question?  Thanks for the reply btw ---- Deathwish238 (talk) 18:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text: There are some instances where Partially Hydrogenated Soybean Oil is used in small amounts in products claiming to be "Trans Free" if you will with a footnote that the oil "adds a trivial amount of Trans Fat," though this too can be deceptive, such as in the case of cooking oil sprays where it is listed as such per serving, but if one were to measure a single serving size vs the amount of said products, you will realize that it's not really that "trivial" and I do agree that there should be a <.5g measurement on Nutritional Value panels so as to not mislead Trans fat-conscious consumers. - Alan 24.184.184.177 (talk) 06:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Natural Trans Fat vs ManMade Trans Fat and a Wendy's Chili question 

message: There are several places in the article that discuss trans fat intake as a % of total food energy. Is there anyone who could translate that to an absolute mass of trans fat for an average diet? ".. recommending in 2003 that trans fats be limited to less than 1% of overall energy intake" and "Replacing 2% of food energy from trans fat with non-trans unsaturated fats" is meaningless to me. Looking at the food energy article, it appears that 1% of food energy for an average male is 25 kcal, or just under 3g for fats (using 9 kcal/g), but I'm not sure this is the right approach.
:Start with a better estimate of basic caloric budget.  The US guideline depends on age, sex, height, activity level, etc.  The 1% of 2500 kcal you used might be reasonable for a moderately active male of 18-25 years age, but almost anyone else should be lower.  Thus limiting TFAs to (2500 * 1% / 9) will be rather high for most people, but there's little or no harm in adopting a lower threshold.LeadSongDog (talk) 07:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Percent of food energy 

message: I don't know if it's the result of vandalism or neglect, but the overall writing style of this article is inconsistent and lackluster. It lacks flow--it's like a series of factual statements rather than an informative article. I'm trying to revise it, but I can only do so much. Sailoralea (talk) 19:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tone/Writing Style of the Article 

message: I see the History and Chemistry sections have been moved above the presence in food and nutritional guidelines sections. I'm not going to undo this because, as the person who did the big reorg that put the food and nutrition stuff first, it's natural that I prefer things my way. I think it might be worth considering whether the article reads well right now. I don't mind the history section up front, but I think the Chemistry stuff is better back down below the presence in food and dietary guidelines sections. I believe most readers would prefer them that way (and indeed some anonymous reader has commented to that general effect above).-- cmhTC 03:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section ordering 

message: In the final section of #Food industry response and more specifically, the </b>#Major users' response area</b> refers to past events in the future tense, indicative of old statements left unnoticed and, for the most part, need to be revised into the past tense and updates on the statuses/results of these undertakings. It definitely would be worthwhile to know what the general outcome was of all these switchovers from Trans Fats to a lack thereof.
Thanks, Alan 24.184.184.177 (talk) 06:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline tenses 

message: An image used in this article, File:Nyc-trans-poster.gif, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Nyc-trans-poster.gif Nominated for speedy Deletion