Connect with us

Health

Q&A: What Are Trans Fats and Why Are They Unhealthy?

Published

on

In this April 26, 2011 file photo, doughnuts are displayed in Chicago. The Obama administration is cracking down on artificial trans fats, calling them a threat to public health. The Food and Drug Administration said Tuesday that it will require food companies to phase out the use artificial trans fats almost entirely. Consumers aren't likely to notice much of a difference in their favorite foods, but the administration says the move will to reduce coronary heart disease and prevent thousands of fatal heart attacks every year. (AP Photo/M. Spencer Green, File)

In this April 26, 2011 file photo, doughnuts are displayed in Chicago. The Obama administration is cracking down on artificial trans fats, calling them a threat to public health. (AP Photo/M. Spencer Green, File)

MARY CLARE JALONICK, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — You may not even know you are eating them, but trans fats will soon be mostly gone from your food. The Food and Drug Administration said Tuesday it will require food companies to phase them out over the next three years because the agency says they are a threat to public health.

Among the foods that commonly contain trans fats: frostings, pie crusts, biscuits, microwave popcorn, coffee creamers, frozen pizza, refrigerated dough, vegetable shortenings and stick margarines. The fats help give a more solid texture and richness to certain foods, like baked goods and ready-to-eat frostings.

Questions and answers about the dangerous fats:

___

WHAT ARE TRANS FATS?

Trans fats are created when hydrogen is added to vegetable oil to make it more solid, which is why they are also called partially hydrogenated oils. They can contribute to heart disease and are considered even less healthy than saturated fats, which can also contribute to heart problems.

___

WHY ARE THEY SO BAD FOR YOU?

Trans fats can raise “bad” cholesterol and lower “good” cholesterol. That can contribute to heart disease — the leading cause of death in the United States.

___

HOW WILL TRANS FATS BE PHASED OUT?

The FDA has determined that trans fats no longer fall in the agency’s “generally recognized as safe” category, which is reserved for thousands of additives that manufacturers can add to foods without FDA review. Once trans fats are off the list, anyone who wants to use them would have to petition the agency for a regulation allowing it.

___

SO THEY WON’T BE COMPLETELY BANNED?

No. Food companies can petition the FDA to use them. The Grocery Manufacturers Association, the main trade group for the food industry, is working with companies on a petition that would formally ask the FDA if it can say there is a “reasonable certainty of no harm” from some specific uses of the fats. But the agency isn’t likely to approve many uses since it has determined the fats are a threat to public health.

There will also be some trans fats in the food supply that occur naturally in meat and dairy products — the FDA has not targeted those small amounts because they would be too difficult to remove and aren’t considered a major public health threat by themselves.

___

HAVEN’T THEY ALREADY BEEN LARGELY PHASED OUT?

Yes. The FDA says that between 2003 and 2012, people ate about 78 percent less trans fat as food companies began using other kinds of oils to replace them.

___

SO WHY IS THE FDA DOING THIS?

The FDA is aiming to get rid of those trans fats that are left in the marketplace, saying they are still a public health concern. While the fats have been phased out in a lot of foods, some companies still use them.

___

HOW DO I KNOW I AM EATING THEM?

The FDA has required the amount of trans fats in foods to be listed on the backs of food packages since 2006, but that doesn’t always tell the whole story — companies are allowed to round less than half of a gram of trans fat to zero on the package label. Susan Mayne, director of the FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, says those hidden amounts can still “add up to a considerable intake of trans fats if you look at the overall diet.”

For now, the agency is recommending that consumers take a look at ingredient lists on packaged foods to make sure they don’t contain partially hydrogenated oils. Once the three-year compliance period is up, none of those ingredients would be allowed unless FDA specifically approves them.

___

ARE ALL FATS BAD FOR YOU?

No, but they should be eaten in moderation. Unsaturated fats found in nuts, vegetable oils and fish are the best for you. Saturated fats mostly derived from animals are less healthy and should be less than 10 percent of a person’s daily calories.

___

IS IT HARD TO FIND SUBSTITUTES?

In some cases, no. Frying oils are easily substituted and food scientists have already figured out how to substitute other fats for trans fats in many items. In other cases, it will be harder. Ready-to-eat cake frosting, for example, gets some of its solid shape from trans fats.

___

WILL I NOTICE THE CHANGE?

Probably not. Trans fats don’t have any particular taste, and in most cases other fats will simply be substituted. Your heart might notice, though. The Obama administration says the move will reduce coronary heart disease and prevent thousands of fatal heart attacks every year.

___

Follow Mary Clare Jalonick on Twitter: http://twitter.com/mcjalonick

Copyright 2015 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Commentary

Doctors Seeing More Cases of Preventable Childhood Illnesses

OAKLAND POST — Physicians have said vaccine skepticism has expanded beyond childhood immunizations. Doctors also reported growing resistance to other preventive treatments.

Published

on

iStock

By Stacy M. Brown

Doctors across the United States say they are treating children for illnesses that routine vaccinations once made increasingly uncommon, raising concerns that years of declining immunization rates are beginning to reverse decades of public health progress.

Pediatricians have described seeing more cases of whooping cough, rotavirus infections, bacterial pneumonia and other potentially life-threatening illnesses that vaccines have long helped suppress. Some physicians reported treating conditions they had rarely encountered during their careers, while others said that growing vaccine hesitancy is changing how emergency rooms and hospitals care for children.

The reports come as measles outbreaks continue to spread across multiple states and vaccination coverage remains below federal public health targets.

Johns Hopkins University’s International Vaccine Access Center reported 2,077 confirmed measles cases nationwide as of May 29. Researchers warned that outbreaks reported across the country have raised concerns about continued transmission, additional hospitalizations and deaths, and the possible loss of the nation’s measles elimination status.

Public health experts have long viewed measles as a warning sign because of its ability to spread rapidly through communities with lower vaccination coverage. The New York Times reported that physicians increasingly fear the resurgence of measles may be followed by the return of other vaccine-preventable diseases.

Doctors say that is already happening.

Dr. Meghan Hofto, a pediatric hospitalist at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said she has already treated roughly as many children with rotavirus this year as she saw during the previous decade. Rotavirus once caused tens of thousands of hospitalizations annually before vaccines sharply reduced its spread. None of the children she treated this year had been vaccinated.

Hofto also described caring for infants with pertussis, commonly known as whooping cough.

“It’s hard to know when they’re safe to go home,” Hofto told The Times.

The rise in whooping cough cases has been particularly striking. More than 28,000 cases were reported nationwide last year, compared with approximately 7,000 in 2023, according to figures cited by The Times. Many of the affected infants were too young to receive vaccinations themselves and relied on broader community protection to reduce their exposure.

Other doctors described similarly troubling cases.

Dr. Jessica Kirk, a pediatric hospitalist in Alabama, recently treated an unvaccinated toddler hospitalized with pneumonia caused by simultaneous infections of Haemophilus influenzae and Streptococcus pneumoniae. Vaccines exist to protect against both illnesses. The child required oxygen and antibiotics to recover.

Researchers at Johns Hopkins have been tracking vaccination trends nationwide and found continuing signs of vulnerability.

At the same time, vaccine policy has become increasingly contentious in state legislatures.

Johns Hopkins researchers reported that lawmakers across the country continue to introduce bills affecting childhood vaccination requirements, vaccine access and non-medical exemptions. Researchers also noted that state policies governing exemptions remain a significant factor in vaccination coverage and disease transmission risks.

Physicians have said vaccine skepticism has expanded beyond childhood immunizations. Doctors also reported growing resistance to other preventive treatments.

For doctors confronting the return of illnesses that vaccines once pushed to the margins of American medicine, the challenge is becoming increasingly personal.

“It just feels like you’re a tiny little boat with a giant tidal wave coming at you,” Dr. Erin Charles, a regional pediatric hospitalist at Seattle Children’s Hospital, told reporters. “And you might convince one family here and there.”

Continue Reading

Community

Asm. Isaac Bryan’s Environmental Reparations Bill Passes on Assembly Floor

“All this bill does is allocate resources from that repair fund and direct cash assistance to families that have had negative health impacts as a result of living next to that oil field,” said Bryan during remarks on the Assembly floor.

Published

on

Asm. Isaac Bryan (D-Ladera Heights). File photo.

By Bo Tefu, California Black Media

On May 26, the California State Assembly passed legislation to provide direct financial assistance to families harmed by pollution from a major urban oil field in South Los Angeles.

Assembly Bill (AB) 1661, introduced by Assemblymember Isaac Bryan (D-Ladera Heights), cleared the Assembly floor with a 44-10 vote after lawmakers concluded debate on the measure.

The bill would direct money from a community repair fund toward families who suffered negative health effects from living near what Bryan described as the state’s largest toxic urban oil field. The repair fund was created under legislation approved two years ago that shut down the oil field and required polluters to contribute financially to community recovery efforts.

“All this bill does is allocate resources from that repair fund and direct cash assistance to families that have had negative health impacts as a result of living next to that oil field,” said Bryan during remarks on the Assembly floor.

Bryan called the proposal “the largest environmental reparations opportunity for South LA” and told lawmakers the bill had not received opposition during the legislative process.

The legislation is part of California’s broader push to address environmental justice concerns in communities historically exposed to industrial pollution. South Los Angeles residents and environmental advocates have long raised concerns about health risks associated with oil drilling operations near homes, schools and parks.

Supporters say the measure represents a new approach to environmental accountability by ensuring that communities affected by pollution directly benefit from funds collected from responsible companies.

After debate concluded, Assembly leadership opened the roll call vote, and the measure passed with majority support from lawmakers.

AB 1661 now moves to the Senate for further review.

Continue Reading

Activism

Rep. Kamlager-Dove Introduces Bill to Protect Women in Custody After Reports Detailing Miscarriages and Neglect

The Pregnant Women in Custody Act would expand safeguards beyond the federal prison system to include women detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the Office of Refugee Resettlement. The proposal follows reports of pregnant women being shackled, denied medical care and suffering miscarriages while in immigration detention.

Published

on

iStock
iStock

By Bo Tefu, California Black Media

Congresswoman Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-CA-37) on May 7, reintroduced updated legislation aimed at strengthening protections and healthcare standards for pregnant and postpartum women held in federal custody, including in immigration detention facilities.

The Pregnant Women in Custody Act would expand safeguards beyond the federal prison system to include women detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the Office of Refugee Resettlement. The proposal follows reports of pregnant women being shackled, denied medical care and suffering miscarriages while in immigration detention.

The legislation builds on a bipartisan version previously passed by the House during the 117th Congress. The updated bill includes new standards for healthcare access, mental health and substance use treatment, high-risk pregnancy care, family unity protections and increased federal oversight.

“Proper pregnancy care is a human right, regardless of your immigration or incarceration status,” Kamlager-Dove said in a statement. “It’s unacceptable that there are virtually no legal safeguards for pregnant women in federal custody.”

The bill would also limit the use of restraints and restrictive housing for pregnant women, improve data collection on maternal health in custody and require additional staff training and enforcement measures.

Supporters of the measure said the legislation is intended to address long-standing concerns about maternal healthcare and safety in detention settings, particularly for Black women and low-income women who are disproportionately impacted by incarceration and health disparities.

“Pregnant women in custody should never be subjected to dangerous and inhumane treatment that threatens their health, dignity, or the well-being of their babies,” said Patrice Willoughby, chief of policy and legislative affairs for the NAACP and a longtime public policy and government affairs strategist, in a statement.

A 2021 report estimated there are about 58,000 admissions of pregnant women into U.S. jails and prisons each year. Kamlager’s statement also cited a recent investigation by NBC News and Bloomberg Law that identified allegations of severe mistreatment or medical neglect involving at least 54 pregnant women or families in county jails between 2017 and 2024.

Federal policy under the Department of Homeland Security restricts the detention of pregnant, postpartum and nursing immigrants except in extreme cases. However, the agency reported that ICE deported 363 pregnant, postpartum or nursing women between January 2025 and February 2026, including 16 recorded miscarriages during that period.

The bill is cosponsored by several House Democrats and backed by organizations including the NAACP and the Vera Institute of Justice.

Continue Reading

Subscribe to receive news and updates from the Oakland Post

* indicates required

CHECK OUT THE LATEST ISSUE OF THE OAKLAND POST

ADVERTISEMENT

WORK FROM HOME

Home-based business with potential monthly income of $10K+ per month. A proven training system and website provided to maximize business effectiveness. Perfect job to earn side and primary income. Contact Lynne for more details: Lynne4npusa@gmail.com 800-334-0540

Facebook

Trending

Copyright ©2021 Post News Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved.