OK, I’ve had enough.
I want my transfat back!
I was at Target recently picking up a few things, and saw that HoHos were on sale. Yes, the little chocolate-like log things; when I was a kid I loved them, and I still sometimes buy them so I can be a kid again for a little while (like I need an excuse). Plus, I’ve been a good boy: I finished my book, I’ve been working on the blog and the website, and doing other things that need to get done. I want to treat myself. So I buy a box.
In the car I opened the box, got out a HoHo, and took a big bite… and almost spat it back out. It was awful, like someone had injected it with pure suck. After a moment to overcome my shock, I reached for the box. With increasing dread, I looked over the ingredients, and there were the words I knew would be there:
"Trans fat 0g"
AIIIIIEEEEEEE!
What are companies thinking? Do they really honestly think that by removing all semblance of flavor and replacing it with — I’m guessing here — toe cheese, they’ll be able to keep customers, just because they took out the transfat?
Piece of free advice to Hostess from an ex-customer: put the transfat back. That’s what makes the HoHos taste good. That’s why people buy them.
Sure, transfats are bad for you. But you know what? I’m buying a HoHo. I know I’m getting something that is not healthy for me. The same thing happens when I grab a candy bar, or a bowl of ice cream, or a piece of fried chicken. I’m not eating these because they’ll give me six-pack abs, I’m eating them because they taste good.
I am really, really tired of people making my decisions for me. Kids are getting fat eating Twinkies and HoHos? OK then, parents, here’s more free advice from another parent: stop feeding them to your kids. The Little Astronomer gets lots of healthy food in her lunch every day, plus sometimes a snack, a goodie, a treat. Three cookies, or a pudding, or some other sweet. But that’s after the banana and the sandwich.
It’s not all that hard. Moderation, folks. It’s that simple.
Transfats are bad for you, but not if you take care. Eat good stuff, walk around a little bit, bike to the store sometimes instead of drive. That way, the occasional 4 or 5 grams of transfats won’t kill you.
And to any company that takes the transfat out of their food: you can bite me. Because I won’t be biting you.
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Amen.
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:53 pm
“I’m not eating these because they’ll give me six-pack abs…”
And we’re ALL too AWARE of how little you do on behalf of your abs.
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Anyone who goes to a lower fat diet notices less flavor. That’s because your American taste buds have been pummeled into a coma by years of fatty and sugary foods. You just need to let your taste buds recalibrate. Your heart and other organs will thank you.
I am really, really tired of people making my decisions for me.
Oh. So you’re voting Libertarian now?
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Try the “Little Debbie” Swiss Roll.
Same as a HoHo with all the trans fat goodness (at least the last time I had one).
April 2nd, 2008 at 4:11 pm
So I’m not alone to be annoyed by the no trans fat fad.
Since they fiddled with my Joe Louis (It’s a local cake brand), it just does not taste the same! It tastes like CARDBOARD! What’s with trying to make everything healthy? I won’t get fat from enjoying it here and then…
I like my trans fat… Here and then!!! I also enjoy bananas and apples and celery and carrots (I have intestine troubles so I can’t even afford skipping these!)! I’m not an idiot, so please don’t waste the taste!
(And please, PLEASE… Stop putting “no trans fat” on jello packages. Seriously, we’re not imbeciles…. WE KNOW. It’s sugar and water for crying out loud…)
ANOTHER thing that annoys me is the other new fad: small packages written “100 calories!” on it. And they sell for more than normal packages.. Ah man, whatever happened to you know… Eating just half of your chocolate bar and keeping it for later? Sigh…. Whoever is feeling better because they eat two of these 100 calorie snacks lack half their brains I guess. It’s such a lame ploy…
April 2nd, 2008 at 4:13 pm
Funny I see a ad for a weight lose program on the side of the page.
April 2nd, 2008 at 4:13 pm
When they came for the transfatty acids,
I did not speak out;
I did not eat that sort of food.
When they came for the sodium,
I did not speak out;
I did not eat that sort of food.
When they came for the HoHos,
there was no one left to speak out.
April 2nd, 2008 at 4:14 pm
I agree 100%. Many foods have suffered: Chickin’ in a Biskit crackers, Doritos, Goldfish. Trans-fat tastes great and there is no substitute for that flavor.
Many cities have banned use of trans-fats in restaurants. Ridiculous.
The fact is that there is a significant percentage of the population who can handle their trans fats. There is also a significant percentage who are not at risk for heart disease (because of genetics or lifestyle or whatever). Why should they suffer?
We have Jolt cola right? I think someone should step up and market a specialty food brand that has trans-fat in everything. I’m not kidding either.
April 2nd, 2008 at 4:23 pm
Hm. Now who was it ragging on ron paul a little while ago?
April 2nd, 2008 at 4:28 pm
That’s right Phil, you fight the power! The lean, mean, hypolipidemic power!
April 2nd, 2008 at 4:31 pm
@DDDave: just because the guy has one good point doesn’t mean he’s a good choice.
April 2nd, 2008 at 4:31 pm
I don’t know how it is in Colorado, but in a lot of Canadian provinces transfat are downright outlawed in certain foodstuffs. Perhaps Hostess is just trying to avoid hefty fines? I would find this to be more likley than them trying to do what’s right for the consumer’s health….unless perhaps they’re just capitalizing (pardon the pun) on the chic of hating trans-fat? I dunno.
Maybe we should have foods just for adults. I enjoy a big greasy slab of pizza every now and then, but luckily I, like you, am responsible enough to know to not eat it whenever I can. Maybe if we get kids to eat cardboard-y junkfood, it might turn them off of junk food?
A rating system for food? Where they run in opposite from the grading system in school, where ‘D’ stands for ‘delicious’?
I’m such a genius.
April 2nd, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Yeah. WTF.
Bloody political correctness gone massively out of control in yet another area. Stupid Hostess company.
April 2nd, 2008 at 4:35 pm
I doubt transfats taste of much (or smell - I’m well aware of how taste works, thank you). They might have an influence in dissolving flavours, but I doubt they work different from other fats in that regard.
I guess they can influence the texture, but that’s about it.
In short - I’d like to see the rest of those ingredients before I blame the transfat on the change in taste. Did you check that they weren’t sugar-free for instance?
April 2nd, 2008 at 4:37 pm
I’ve read that trans fats are considered to be risky in any amount. I.e., no one is going to say there’s zero risk in eating one tans fat laden Twinkie.
From a public policy point of view, the consumption of foods known to cause disease incurs a cost that we all pay through higher medical care costs. Some of us pay it out of pocket or in the coin of no medical care, the rest of us pay it in higher insurance bills or taxes.
I’m sorry that you didn’t like your “new” Twinkie. I’d agree wih you if your trans fat consumption had no way of affecting me, but that’s not the case.
As someone will say, the good of the many outweighs the good of the one.
April 2nd, 2008 at 4:37 pm
BA said:
“And to any company that takes the transfat out of their food: you can bite me. Because I won’t be biting you.”
Ummmm, well, ok. How much trans-fat do you contain?
April 2nd, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Michelle: Jello is sugar and water and SCUM produced from the boiling of bones, skins, and hides of cows and pigs, a process that releases the protein-rich collagen from animal tissues. Look it up. Jello is nasty, disgusting stuff. I wouldn’t eat it with your mouth and digestive system, not to mention the ethical problem i have with increasing the market for animal parts. Repeat after me: Jello = SCUM. Guh.
April 2nd, 2008 at 4:39 pm
You are wrong. Hohos NEVER tasted good. Ever. Your tastebuds have grown and finally realised that.
As for sugar, the only really “bad” thing it does is cause dental caries (yes, I am the son of a dentist) - that and make fat taste unbelievably good.
JC
April 2nd, 2008 at 4:40 pm
I doubt it’s the transfat, Phil. I noticed the same things with Devil Dogs and Susy Qs years ago, and they still had transfat. They basically remove as much chocolate as possible to save money.
CJSF
April 2nd, 2008 at 4:44 pm
Yum, scum.
April 2nd, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Transfats are useful because they taste good, are very stable at a range of temperatures that don’t need refrigeration and they offer these properties at a CHEAP price.
You see, you can have your Ho-Hos taste great, be transfat free and have a large box of them cost $2.99. Pick 2.
If you want those properties but were willing to pay (which most Ho-ho buys are not) they could use more expensive oils like coconut or palm kernal oils. Standard vegetable oil blends that are not hydrogenated will go rancid and not taste as good.
April 2nd, 2008 at 5:02 pm
You have inspired me to try every form of junk baked goods I can find. Just to see if it still tastes like when I was a kid.
Btw, my bet is that they don’t even contain sugar anymore, but high fructose corn syrup instead. Come to think of it, I bet a significant number of ingredients have changed since I was a kid.
April 2nd, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Transfats, as in all things, in moderation…
A mantra I adopted after my last checkup and saw what my cholesterol count was…
April 2nd, 2008 at 5:07 pm
Ah, I’ve been waiting for a chance to talk about Ho Hos!
Forget the deletion of transfats. I am certain that the recipe for Ho Hos was changed long ago. If I had a time machine, my first stop would be a grocery store in 1969 so I could prove this. When I was a kid, Ho Hos were so good, I almost couldn’t stand it to eat them! However, any Ho Hos I’ve eaten as an adult (since, let’s say, 1990) have been yucky. Maybe they’re even more yucky now, but I’m convinced that the modern Ho Ho is nothing like the Ho Ho of my childhood.
J. D.
April 2nd, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Re: “the good of the many outweighs the good of the one.”
Don’t you think you’re… over-reacting a bit? We’re not talking about mad cow disease or polluting our drinking water. We’re talking about a snack food.
“The many” DON’T HAVE TO BUY HOHOS. They can buy Kashi bars if they want to eat healthy, tasteless snacks.
Of course, then the few will literally outweigh the many…
April 2nd, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Those Ho-Hos may have tasted bad because they had been on the shelf too long. The non-trans-fat is not as shelf stable. Maybe try to find some fresh Ho-Hos. Check the sell-by date.
My kids enjoy the Little Debbie Swiss Cake Rolls. They claim a miniscule amount of trans fat to preserve flavor.
Girl Scout cookies have 0 trans fat, and they are plenty yummy.
April 2nd, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Why do you think they were on sale?
You’re sick of people making your decisions for you?
Well Phil, what can I tell ya? When y’all vote for your favourite Democrat and get the Universal Health Care they are riding into office, the tyrannical majority will be making a great many decisions for you - since they will be paying for the medical consequences. So I’d get used to it if I were you.
Good luck getting your transfat Ho Hos buddy.
@billg
Thanks for proving my above point.
And if any risk is sufficient justification for regulation, then I’d like all unnecessary air travel banned, since with all those planes flying around up there my house is at risk of having a Donnie Darko engine come ploughing into my bedroom.
@Quiet Desperation
No he wouldn’t vote for Libertarians, because Libertarians are obviously all crazy.
Democrats and Republicans only want to regulate OTHER people’s decisions for them, for their own good. Which also happen to be the decisions THEY don’t personally care about.
That’s why you didn’t see them objecting when the government wanted to interfere with cigarette and alcohol consumption. I mean it’s bad for you, so there’s no debate that you should not be able to choose there.
Of course if I were a crazy Libertarian, I’d think that Phil was only getting upset now, because this transfat hysteria is infringing on HIS personal choice, like Kent Hovind getting upset about “lies in the text books”. He’s not doing it only because evolution challenges his beliefs.
Does he care about errors in text books on the subject of aerodynamics or areas of the tongue detecting different tastes? Of course he does. That’s why he talks about them all the time. He wouldn’t feign concern about “lies in the textbooks” as if it were some kind of principled crusade just so he can use it as a smokescreen for his real agenda.
The same way Intelligent Design doofuses don’t suddenly want “open discussion” of “different points of view” in the science classroom. I mean they always exhibited exactly this kind of magnanimity - look at the Scopes Trial.
And by the way I was being sarcastic, you have girly boney arms and you smell like an elephants butt!
I don’t know your exact politics Phil, but if you’re going to cite Freedom of Choice as an issue, I hope you are applying it consistently across your own political views.
I mean, I’m sure a celebrity skeptic such as yourself would take great care to avoid jumping to conclusions based on his/her own ideological preferences without a reasonable internally consistent argument to back it up.
April 2nd, 2008 at 5:13 pm
You just need to let your taste buds recalibrate.
Sure, you can get used to almost anything. I’d rather enjoy myself and die young than eke out a miserable, long existence just so I can spend my last years on a respirator.
April 2nd, 2008 at 5:18 pm
Phil, if you like HoHos, you might want to just go into the kitchen and whip up a Bûche de Noël:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%BBche_de_No%C3%ABl
Think high-quality HoHo Christmas cake.
April 2nd, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Oh BA, let me mail you some chocolate cake or something. Ho-Hos are just nasty.
If you’re going to eat the calories, make ‘em worth eating!
April 2nd, 2008 at 5:31 pm
@IRONMANAustralia
Dude, lay off the Twinkies:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twinkie_defense
They do bad stuff to your brain. *twirls finger around ear*
April 2nd, 2008 at 5:38 pm
@snoozebar
I think you’re asleep at the wheel snoozeboy, the “Twinkie Defense” in no way applies to anything in my post.
I’d say, “nice try”, except that it wasn’t even that.
April 2nd, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Don’t worry, the food scientists will eventually improve the formulation of the non-transfat so that you won’t be able to tell the difference.
In fact a while back I heard about a materials scientist who made a revolutionary new non-fat ice cream indistinguishable from normal ice using some special emulsion or something about modifying mechanical properties.
April 2nd, 2008 at 5:46 pm
I have a PhD in epidemiology, and so I am authorized to tell you that transfatty acids are EVIL, just like soda and tobacco. You may be one of those few people who have enough self-control to limit the dosage, but not everyone can, especially since we’re living in a society pummeled with advertising promoting irresponsible eating. I’d like to thank all the consumers who decided they did not want to eat transfats and made the decision not to buy anything containing it, thereby motivating Hostess and all the other junk food manufacturers to remove the transfat from their products.
My recommendation: 1) Get over it. I think I speak for the entire health sciences community in applauding the death of transfat and hoping it stays dead. 2) Switch to chocolate, especially dark chocolate. It’s better than anything with transfat, and you’ll have a better time rationalizing eating it.
April 2nd, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Wait until you visit England. We have absolutely no colourings in most of our stuff and basically everything is ‘fat free’. They took the colours out of Smarties and now they taste like aluminium. They banned Lucky Charms years back because of the sugar content. I know what kind of cereal you guys get over there, purple and green luminous nuggets of goodness. We only have dull wholegrain and the odd ‘chocolate’ cereal.
Ask Prof Cox when you see him, I’m sure he’s just as sickened as I am about this fiasco.
April 2nd, 2008 at 5:47 pm
I actually think the newly trans-fat-free foods taste just fine. I guess I’m weird.
April 2nd, 2008 at 5:56 pm
I completely agree. It’s just like TV, folks. If you don’t want to watch it, change the flipping channel. Don’t try to dictate what is or isn’t shown, just because you don’t like it. If you don’t like adult magazines, don’t buy them. If you don’t want transfat, yeah, don’t eat it.
As the saying goes, they just don’t make them like they used to.
April 2nd, 2008 at 6:02 pm
@Michelle
“@DDDave: just because the guy has one good point doesn’t mean he’s a good choice.”
Damn right. But remember the same goes for Obama and his evolution stance, (something much ado has been made about on this blog).
Politicians know exactly what percentage voters they are appealing to with any particular stance.
But remember the opposite applies too. They know exactly what percentage they will lose with a particular stance.
A rational person should decide based on the candidates entire set of policies. I mean, would you vote for someone just because they want to give billions in government grants to astronomers, but at the same time want to increase taxes to the working class, escalate the Iraq War, and truncate Free Speech?
Of course you wouldn’t, yet by looking superficially into the policies of the candidates, you may be doing just that and not know the difference.
For example, I can’t believe the number of people who liked Ron Paul’s policies but unthinkingly wrote him off based on his personal views about abortion. In the minds of these people there are only two choices - Pro-life and Pro-choice, and the candidate must want to mandate that policy for the entire country. How short-sighted can anyone be?
I expect my candidates to have personal views, to agree with abortion or not, to be religious or not, to exercises their own right of free speech to the hilt or not. What I find unacceptable is them making their personal views the law of the land.
Ron Paul, although he is religious, and pro-life, obviously has a stated policy of not making those dearly-held beliefs federal law. It takes a special kind of person to sincerely believe that abortion is murder, and yet not use the power at their disposal to prevent it.
Just as it takes a person with their head screwed on straight to realise that although transfats might indeed be harmful to Phil’s health in any quantity, (which I have no reason to believe is actually the case), that he should have the right to eat them as much as he chooses.
The rest of you seem to be looking for a candidate that will force everyone to act in accordance with your own ideals.
I’ll grant you this, if everyone agreed on one ideology, (pretty much regardless of what it is), we’d have the little Utopia you dream about. But since in reality that’s not going to happen, you’re just going to have to deal with the fact that people are going to make choices you think are stupid. And if you don’t allow your nation to degenerate into some form of fascist hell, you’ll get to do most of the stupid things you like doing too.
April 2nd, 2008 at 6:10 pm
I think this is just capitalism at work. A lot of people don’t want it in their food. I for one will not buy anything with trans fat in it. If I see it on the label it goes back on the shelf. To all the companies who want my business; don’t put this cost cutting junk in my food. Try baking brownies. They sure taste better than Ho Ho’s.
April 2nd, 2008 at 6:19 pm
Removing transfats have to do only peripherally with keeping people from getting fat or making the food low-calorie. Transfats are many times, perhaps an order of magnitude, more dangerous than saturated fats when it comes to clogging your arteries. Transfat in the diet is positively correlated with a higher incidence of coronary heart disease.
You’re better off using lard, which is what the transfats were supposed to be a “healthy” (or possibly “cheap”) substitute for in the first place. Or butter, which we now know to be better for you than most margarine.
But yeah, the things has probably outlived their shelf life.
April 2nd, 2008 at 6:24 pm
The added regulation, if I remember correctly, was simply making companies display trans fat info on the package. That is, from what I can tell, THE single reason for this “fad”. An informed consumer is never a bad thing.
April 2nd, 2008 at 6:24 pm
I have to agree with some others here: I do not think that the lack of transfats is the problem. I can recall trying a Twinkie long before the anti-transfats movement began but also a long time since I had one when I was a kid (when I did like them), and it was terrible. The cloying goodness I was expecting was simply overpowering, and I haven’t had another since then.
Phil, I suspect that it’s not so much changes in the manufacturing as much as physical changes in your taste, just an inevitable consequence of getting old(er).
April 2nd, 2008 at 6:24 pm
That happened with our girl scout cookies here in Ohio, especially the cookies formerly known as “Tagalongs.” Apparently, you lucky sods out west still have the good ones like we got last year. The new ones are just terrible, they’re dry and don’t taste like anything.
April 2nd, 2008 at 6:26 pm
I would like to postulate that this is a two-stage strategy here. The primary stage is the poor taste to turn you off eating HoHos. If that doesn’t work, the lack of transfats will save you.
April 2nd, 2008 at 6:27 pm
@Ian
Now the subjective matter of taste is a separate issue, but an interesting one. I wonder if Phil could actually tell the difference between transfat and non-transfat in a double-blind test.
I mean it is of course possible it’s all in his mind, or he just got a bad batch of Ho Hos, (they were on sale after all).
A good skeptic should at least concede the possibility they might be in error.
Plus I’ll concede at the end of the day that any kid who’s never tasted a transfat Ho Ho is probably not going to miss them. But again - that’s a completely separate issue.
@Aaron Solomon Adelmanon
Even taking you at your word, I’d still allow people to choose because there are other factors in play.
All of us make decisions everyday, and if health was our only and most important criteria we’d all be healthy. But what some people are not taking into account is that some people have different priorities.
For example: I once heard a professional jockey speak about how he wanted to be a jockey so badly as a child that he calculated how much he would have to restrict his own diet with the intent of stunting his own growth, (his parents were of above average stature). It worked, and he got the career he so desperately desired.
I personally think that’s the stupidest thing I ever heard - but I can appreciate that he did what it takes - probably at the expense of his long-term health. Whatever floats his boat.
Likewise, it’s more difficult to become the world’s greatest computer programmer, while spending 8 hours a day running marathons. You have a choice to make sometimes, and you should have the right to make it.
And what level of risk is an acceptable risk? Based on risk alone I could make the case that the government should ban recreational, or “unnecessary” use of automobiles, since I’m probably in more mortal danger crossing the street to get to McDonald’s than I am eating there, (and hybrids can kill me just as easily). But I doubt you’ll want to part with the convenience of your vehicle as easily as you want everyone to part with transfats.
On a related issue, the whole Fat Tax thing has been bugging the hell out of me. Why do I get the feeling that some people are only concerned about the health of other people because at the end of the day they just don’t like looking at overweight people and/or sitting next to them on a crowded subway train?
April 2nd, 2008 at 6:42 pm
I know some things taste different than when I was a kid, but I have been eating HoHos off and on for years. The last time I got them was a few months ago and they were fine. Then I bought this box, and bam.
Also, while Mrs. BA and TLA like Little Debbies, I think they are the snack food equivalent of RC Cola. Barf.
April 2nd, 2008 at 6:45 pm
How many of these trans fat bans, smoking bans, seat belt laws, and helmet laws exist as a result of lobbying by insurance companies?
April 2nd, 2008 at 6:47 pm
There’s another possibility — the price of actual chocolate has gone WAY up over the past year or so, roughly doubling. They may have decided to use some synthetic flavoring instead of actual chocolate in order to keep the price the same. This would make it taste awful.
April 2nd, 2008 at 6:57 pm
Trans fats have zilch to do with flavor. They are used because they are cheap and have a virtually infinite shelf life.
They also aren’t produced by any living thing on this planet, which goes some ways towards explaining why they are so dangerous to our health. But sure, leave them in the food, and after a few dozen generations, we might evolve the ability to safely metabolize them. Who cares about the health of everyone before then?
April 2nd, 2008 at 6:58 pm
Maybe it’s a plot - sell it as 0 Trans Fat, make it taste horrible, and force the regulators to let you put it back. Because really, trans fats have no real taste of their own.
Funny how the rest of the planet can make wonderful tasting food that isn’t full of hideous chemicals not found in nature. Aaron speaks truth - hunt down some Lindt 75% dark chocolate, especially the one with the cocoa nibs. You may never look back…
April 2nd, 2008 at 7:08 pm
“Trans fats have zilch to do with flavor. They are used because they are cheap and have a virtually infinite shelf life.
They also aren’t produced by any living thing on this planet, which goes some ways towards explaining why they are so dangerous to our health. But sure, leave them in the food, and after a few dozen generations, we might evolve the ability to safely metabolize them. Who cares about the health of everyone before then?”
This. And to my understanding, a trans fat is identical to a saturated fat in every way except that your body can’t use it.
For a very nominal cost, food companies could simply fully saturate their fats and it’d be a lot healthier for everyone.
Also, a lot of these foods with “0 grams trans fat” never had trans fat to begin with. It’s just a marketing ploy. And as others have said, they use it to cut a few other more expensive ingredients to save on cash and make you think the trans fat was responsible for the good taste.
April 2nd, 2008 at 7:10 pm
It’s possible that the manufacturers of these so called food products are looking to avoid the class actions that the tobacco industry has suffered in recent years.
More likely they’re thinking “My taxes are going to be paying his/her medical bills in x years time!”
Anyway, it is possible to bake your own cookies, they don’t just grow in the supermarket aisles
That way you can make them taste anyway you like, even put transfats in them if that’s what you want.
April 2nd, 2008 at 7:16 pm
@Steven, Chris C. and Ryan.
Agree, agree, agree, but …
If people don’t want transfats by choice, then manufacturers will stop putting them in their products. But if you assert that then there’s no real justification for government regulation, or any unrealistic slant on the transfat issue.
This is not to say that regulation is the issue with Ho Hos specifically. Phil was not saying the company was doing so under legal duress. However, being forced to write “transfat” on your product is also a scarlet letter from a marketing perspective.
And if you want informed consumers, then they should also have a realistic view of the actual dangers of transfats along with it - and still have the right to choose based on that information. The same way smokers know the risks and still choose to buy cigarettes.
But for some people the number of consumers still making that choice will stick in their craw, and they’ll want to MAKE every manufacturer and consumer “choose” non-transfat.
And yes, I don’t think eliminating transfats is aimed at making people thinner, though I doubt anyone selling foods without transfats will do a great deal to disabuse ‘uninformed’ consumers of that notion, (a likely double-standard that bears analysis by anyone riding the “informed consumer” plank.
But at the same time, if it’s clogged arteries everyone’s concerned about, then it bears mentioning there are effective modern treatments and medical technologies to deal with that condition.
Kind of like how the AIDS virus used to be a death sentence, but now isn’t such a big deal. So again, while the risk of getting a Big Mac stuck in your coronary artery sounds like something to avoid at all costs, at the end of the day it isn’t as scary as you think.
And just as you make a point about the importance of informed consumers, some informed consumers might decide to eat KFC 24/7 and just get a quadruple bypass at the age of 35, or otherwise display a lack of concern about thieir ultimate lifespan.
The problem is that some people don’t want “informed consumers” at all, and actually want “unrealistically scared consumers”, who will almost certainly make the “choice” they want them to.
A good example of this is Fundamentalist Christians who have a choice between doing what their preacher says or burning in the firey pits of Hell for all eternity. These are not “informed consumers”.
April 2nd, 2008 at 7:16 pm
Partially hydrogenated vegetable oil, high fructose corn syrup, glycerol ester of wood rosin, and all the rest of the laboratory experiments th food industry has come with are not good for you and taste like crap.
Stick to lard, butter, and cane sugar.
April 2nd, 2008 at 7:29 pm
Bad is bad; food, in its honest form with an honest zing of some interesting cooking ideas is absolutely amazing. I agree that the western diet has been sullied by sugar and fat, and now we are left wanting. I think it is a public service that trans fats are removed - what about the government protecting the people? In no way do I condone the governemnt or officials of any stature declining our rights, but I think - in alignment with smoking by laws and stamping fair trade on items - is good. Everyone is barking about moderation, but lets be honest - those who moderate are probably in the minority. I look out my window every morning at neighbours , I glance at the checkout aisle when I buy my veggies, I eat lunches with others at work, I see my neighbour tossing out tv dinner and zombie-like candy treat boxes every week…I dont see people eating well. There are unavoidable connections to the health care system, unavoidable connections to the public availability of quality foods (in one town near me it is impossible to get decent veggies, but easy to get the spectrum of deli meats to boxed dinners nutrient-sterile foods.
I teach my students, by example, that health is a personal issue and that every bite counts. Every puff on a cigarette counts.
Try making your own snacks..a whole wheat bread roll with loads of cinnamon, some raisins and a dabble of honey is delightful. It is simple, you can use real ingredients, a loaf takes 20 mins to makde and you know you are eating quality, healthy, tastey food.
I guess I have grown to dislike the buttery taste of junk food. I guess…
April 2nd, 2008 at 7:31 pm
@The Bad Astronomer
I have no doubt that you believe that whole-heartedly Phil, but it’s just bad skepticism to assert it as fact just because you “know” they taste different, and feel qualified to make that determination based on experience.
Personally I wouldn’t be surprised if you could, because I also wouldn’t be surprised if changing the transfat ingredient might also necessitate and/or provide opportunity to make otherwise desirable alterations to the recipe and/or production process.
But what you just said Phil is the skeptical equivalent of asserting you know what you saw was an alien UFO because you’re an experienced airline pilot.
It doesn’t mean you or the pilot is wrong in either case, it’s just a bad argument because there are so many subjective factors in play - especially when it comes to taste.
April 2nd, 2008 at 7:39 pm
I wrote a short story about this very topic, actually it was more in relation to the trans fat ban in NYC, but its the same type of issue. My story is an over the top slippery slope take on things but it was a lot of fun to write.
Be warned there is a bit of adult language in the story, but I thought it would be appropriate to share.
Check it if you want:
http://fromthegonzo.wordpress.com/2006/12/05/377/
I’m not big on fads, even less so on fads that seem to be pushed down our throats, literally.
April 2nd, 2008 at 7:46 pm
Really they modify junk food all the time. Corn syrup instead of sugar. More sweetness, less sweetness and a bit more acidity. There are differences over time and region and no one is really saying sorry much, if market research says you’d lose x customers and gain y, well, you pull the trigger. That’s business and it’s hard to play it any other way. Is it worth saying “same ingredients as in 1907″ or would people buy the same with “favorite since 1907″ with cheaper ingredients?
But yeah, you’d think there’d be a market for crappy food. I’ve gone on a health kick right now trying to take my ribs showing classic techie look upwards in weight (which I always never wanted to do) so really I’m mostly living on lean tuna and protein supplements. Still, it’d be nice to know there was a choice if I kick the habit and go back to living like a normal geek again.
April 2nd, 2008 at 7:56 pm
I exercise enough that, every once and a while, I want a real HoHo. I don’t sweat for hours so I can have a rice cake!
April 2nd, 2008 at 7:56 pm
On the other hand, OREOs now taste better after they reformulated them.
April 2nd, 2008 at 8:04 pm
Yeah, well Phil, some of us aren’t as lucky as you. What are you, like 140 lbs?
April 2nd, 2008 at 8:21 pm
@bassmanpeteon: … More likely they’re thinking “My taxes are going to be paying his/her medical bills in x years time!” …
I already addressed this issue, but I’ll take the opportunity to retort by proposing a bill outlawing extreme sports for which my tax dollars are doubtless going to be paying medical bills. Nobody ‘needs’ to go snowboarding, or jumping out of aeroplanes.
Better yet, you could just do away with a system that makes other people’s self-imposed medical problems my responsibility. Ever think of that?
bassmanpeteon: “Anyway, it is possible to bake your own cookies, they don’t just grow in the supermarket aisles That way you can make them taste anyway you like, even put transfats in them if that’s what you want.”
Yeah - that’s a great idea!
Oh wait. What about people who aren’t very good cooks?
… maybe they could get their wife/girlfriend/boyfriend/significant other to make them …
… Yeah. Or maybe they could get their neighbour to do it for them - and they could just pay them for it …
… maybe that neighbour could do it for a lot of people who want the transfat recipe …
… and maybe that neighbour could set up their own company, and get supermarkets to stock their cookies …
… then get machinery and employees to make more …
… Hmmm … but they’ll need some kind of name for their company …
… Ummm … let me think …
… How about “Hostess”?
April 2nd, 2008 at 8:24 pm
By the same token, what annoys me is that it’s increasingly hard to buy yogurt that’s not fat-free (or nearly fat-free). Come on: yogurt without fat is not yogurt, it’s flavoured maize paste with bacteria. If it needs a “thickener”, it’s not yogurt.
April 2nd, 2008 at 8:27 pm
A recent Skeptoid episode http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4088 talked about junk food and according to skeptoid transfats make up 2-5% of livestock fat so good luck removing that. The dangers of any fat is exaggerated. It’s only when you have too much that it is bad. Anyway that’s why we have shows like The Biggest Loser.
American sweets (colas too) taste ordinary too because they use corn syrup instead of cane sugar. Try a coke from Mexico.
And flavours of things like chocolate do change seasonally I’ve noticed. Depends on the milk I guess. I reckon NZ Cadburys chocolate tastes creamier and tastier than our own Aussie Cadburys chocolate for example whereas the cadburys chocolate from Kenya tastes… very ordinary.
April 2nd, 2008 at 8:28 pm
I don’t know what a hoho is, and I’m glad.
April 2nd, 2008 at 8:30 pm
I have to sadly admit that I cannot stand the taste of dark chocolate, only milk chocolate for me.
That being said, I’m trying to eat way healthier now than I did before. Actually college did that too me. Granted I still got the Freshman 15 but after that I learned how to eat healthier and exercise. I know I’m not supposed to eat an entire carton of Ben and Jerry’s, and unless I’m craving it to the point where it’s irrisistable I won’t even have a little bit of the stuff. I know what makes me cave.
That and the fact that family and friends are noticing that the exercise and eating better is working. That’s what’s good!
Wow, this went way off topic. I guess I’m saying - you can put trans fat in your food, because even without them snack foods are basically unhealthy. We need to teach ourselves to eat healthier and portion properly.
April 2nd, 2008 at 8:31 pm
@IRONMAN:
Phil’s assumption is right for Phil. You said it yourself, taste is subjective. Whether an alien is piloting a UFO is decidedly not.
April 2nd, 2008 at 8:38 pm
One of my favourite fatty experiences was lardo from the tiny village of Colonnata near Carrara in Tuscany, Italy. Lardo is essentially pig fat thinly sliced, like prosciutto, but it’s just the cured white fat. Delicious. Did I say dellicious? Well it is delicious especially served on a salad. We also had a rocquette salad drizzled with pig fat. Also to die for. Those Italians really know how to serve their fats.
Actually Europeans in general really have good fat based foods especially, as mentioned, the Italians, the Germans (schwein hoxen), the French (almost anything that has foie gras) and the Spanish (serrano or iberian jamon). Droool.
April 2nd, 2008 at 8:42 pm
Isn’t that the system they have in the USA? You need to have medical insurance to get treatment, correct me if I’m wrong. But even then, other people’s medical problems affect the premiums that you pay.
I’m not a good cook in the sense that I don’t make up my own recipes - all I’ve ever done is just follow the instructions in the book. But if the people are just plain lazy there’s no hope
April 2nd, 2008 at 8:45 pm
I don’t people need to eat healthy, they need to eat healthfully. If anything on the store shelf was healthy it wouldn’t be there.
April 2nd, 2008 at 8:50 pm
The Bad Astronomer writes:”…while Mrs. BA and TLA like Little Debbies, I think they are the snack food equivalent of RC Cola. Barf.”
Little Debbies are to Hostess Cupcakes* as Fiat autos are to Maserati sports cars. Cute, but low-horsepower, (and they rust.)
*Or better yet, “real” Cupcakes from a good bakery.
April 2nd, 2008 at 9:04 pm
By trans-fats do they mean animal fats? I can say that changing from lard to vegetable oil seriously changed the texture and taste of the yummy white filling of Oreos many years ago, as well as many other foods. McDonald’s has had a very difficult time keeping their unique french fry flavor intact.
Funny though, that some people demand that the government tell us what to eat and what not to eat, and that others say that the government should shut the #ell up. Personally, I think its stupid to make laws to protect the people from their own stupidity, but its not like that’s a new thing. (i.e. seatbelt laws, helmet laws, drinking age limits, cellphones-while-driving laws, etc.)
April 2nd, 2008 at 9:15 pm
bassmanpete said, “Isn’t that the system they have in the USA? You need to have medical insurance to get treatment, correct me if I’m wrong.”
That’s wrong. You can walk into any hospital or Dr’s office and have anything legal done without insurance - you just have to pay for it. If you can afford $10,000 elective or emergency surgery, you can pay cash. I once paid $900 for 6 stitches on my hand. I could have gone to a free clinic, or shopped around for the best deal, but it was an emergency, and I wanted it done at a good place. My insurance deductible at the time was $1000, so it was pretty much useless anyway.
Also, thanks to government spending, there are “free” clinics as well. “Free” as in there’s no cost at the door, but we all pay for it through taxes.
April 2nd, 2008 at 9:16 pm
Greg in Austin
“By trans-fats do they mean animal fats?”
No. Most animal fats are saturated fats, not the healthiest of all fats but still digestible. Transfats are created by hydorgenizing vegetable oils: a process not dissimilar to making plastics: the human (and all other terrestrial life) has not evolved to metabolize these things - accounting for their shelf life: even the microbes won’t eat them!
April 2nd, 2008 at 9:28 pm
Thanks Greg, I should have added “or pay cash” to my comment. Here in Australia we can get free (ie government funded) emergency & elective surgery. The trouble with elective is that you can be on a waiting list for 2 years or more for certain procedures.
April 2nd, 2008 at 9:30 pm
[…] to eat trans-fats?!?! Filed under: Uncategorized — Charles @ 9:30 pm There’s an interesting discussion over at the bad astronomy blog where the author, Phil Plait, bemoans the lack of taste in HoHos […]
April 2nd, 2008 at 9:36 pm
Hey Phil,
What you need to do is to compensate by deep frying the ho ho. After all, if people can fry Twinkies, chocolate bars, pizza, and Atkins bars, you can definitely fry the ho ho… in butter.
April 2nd, 2008 at 9:37 pm
Trans-fats (in more than trace quantities) are a byproduct of the hydrogenation of vegetable oil. Basically, someone decided butter (mostly saturated animal fat) was bad for us, so vegetable oil was the stuff everyone wanted. Unfortunately vegetable oil is liquid at room temperatures. So you hydrogenate it, and get margarine. Unfortunately, during that process you change the structure of the fat molecules, turning them into trans-fat. You can also get trans-fats by heating up ordinary vegetable oil, such as in a deep fryer.
It is very unlikely trans-fat has any taste. When it was first introduced it was believed that, because the trans forms are rare in nature, trans fat might not even be digestible. It turns out that not only does the body absorb it, but it preferentially packs it in around your internal organs. It’s also the last fat to be burned when you exercise, and has been shown to have some nasty hormonal effects compared to regular fat as well (fat is actually a kind of endocrine gland). It’s nasty stuff, and really completely unnecessary.
The alternatives? There are vegetable oil formulations that resist the formation of trans structures. They cost slightly more. Not much more, slightly more. Of course, you could just use butter (which has been shown to have fewer negative health effects than trans-fat).
So I really doubt your Ho Ho cardboard taste was due to trans-fat. Perhaps it was due to cardboard content. I don’t know about Ho Hos, but if I remember correctly, bread in the US is allowed to have a nonzero cardboard content.
April 2nd, 2008 at 9:42 pm
Sad indictment of the US medical system where someone would even consider shopping around for emergency treatment on the basis of cost and whether or not it was a good place.
If we, in Australia and probably most of the civilised world (I include good chunks of the 3rd world here) needed emergency care we would go to the closest emergency room and get FREE adequate to excellent care (of course stuff happens but most times the care would be very good).
We do have to wait for free elective surgery but that can depend on the surgery required.
April 2nd, 2008 at 9:59 pm
Hey, bassmanpete,
The wait time for elective surgery is much less here, with or without insurance. If I want to have teeth removed, or liposuction, or laser eye surgery, the wait time is typically less than 2 weeks. Sometimes its days. I cannot imagine having to wait 2 years for any procedure, unless I have to save up for it.
Can you have medical procedures done faster in Australia if you choose to pay for it yourself? I don’t know how your health care system works over (under) there.
The insurance companies here are just like every other company, in that they exist to make a profit. In order to make money, more people have to pay them for coverage than the number of people who actually use that coverage. If they cover a certain procedure that suddenly everybody wants or needs, then the rates for insurance will go up. That’s an oversimplification, of course, but its true for auto insurance, home insurance, flood insurance, etc.
A big issue in politics right now is the question of forcing every tax payer to pay for everyone’s health care. The costs of just the administration and paperwork for a national health care system is staggering, not to mention the costs of the medicine and hospital costs. Is the need for everyone to have “free” health care (even if you don’t need it, or can afford it yourself) worth forcing every American to pay into the system? That’s the billion dollar a year question!
Do we really need the government to tell us what not to eat or drink? Do we really need the government to bail out commercial airlines that can’t make a profit, or bail out homeowners who choose to take a high-risk high-interest loan on a home they can’t really afford? Those are also important questions.
April 2nd, 2008 at 10:05 pm
DustPuppyOI,
I was introduced to the deep-fried Twinkie a few years ago in Las Vegas. I didn’t actually eat one; I just have a vivid memory of the non-stop video ad playing for the delicacy on Freemont Street. The ad consisted of scantily clad ladies merrily munching upon fried Twinkies in, shall we say, a provocative manner.
April 2nd, 2008 at 10:18 pm
I see the problem. You shop at Target. The hohos had probably been sitting on the shelf for 5 years and become stale.
April 2nd, 2008 at 10:37 pm
shane said, “Sad indictment of the US medical system where someone would even consider shopping around for emergency treatment on the basis of cost and whether or not it was a good place.
If we, in Australia and probably most of the civilised world (I include good chunks of the 3rd world here) needed emergency care we would go to the closest emergency room and get FREE adequate to excellent care (of course stuff happens but most times the care would be very good).”
How much of your tax dollars pay for your “FREE adequate to excellent care,” I wonder?
Maybe Texas ain’t quite as civilized as them thar 3rd world countries.
We’z are basakward folks here.
In my case, I did go to the closest emergency room (about 4 miles from my house). Its just also happened to be one of the largest health care systems in Texas. If it was a life-or-death emergency (which this certainly was not) then I would have gone to the exact same hospital. I don’t consider it a sad example at all. Why would I want someone else to pay for my medical expenses when I can both A) afford to pay for them myself, and B) afford to pay for insurance that covers things that I cannot afford?
See, if I CHOOSE to pay for my own medical expenses, then I don’t have to rely on any one else (other than the doctors and nurses) to receive medical treatment. On the other hand, if I chose NOT to pay for insurance, or if I could not afford the costs, then I would have to rely on someone else’s charity, or go without treatment. Personally, I was not raised to depend on everyone else (especially the government) for my medical needs.
I certainly could have gone to a lower-cost clinic, or even gone to a relative who is a nurse. Heck, I could have flushed it out myself and used some super-glue to close the wound. But I knew that the quality of service was greater where I went, hence, the greater cost. Again, it was a choice.
April 2nd, 2008 at 11:08 pm
Tukla in Iowa: Sure, you can get used to almost anything. I’d rather enjoy myself and die young than eke out a miserable, long existence just so I can spend my last years on a respirator.
Meanwhile, beyond the boundaries of The Land Of False Dichotomies, folks live happy, fulfilling lives without a single Ho-Ho or other byndles of processed crap posing as food.
IRONMANAustralia: Oh wait. What about people who aren’t very good cooks?
Geez. Anyone can make a cookie. I was making cookies from scratch by myself when I was 12.
Kurt: I don’t people need to eat healthy, they need to eat healthfully. If anything on the store shelf was healthy it wouldn’t be there.
Yes, but- wait… what??
April 2nd, 2008 at 11:37 pm
Every one switching from canola and vegetable oil over to soy bean oil to save money means I can’t eat most processed foods anymore that I used to enjoy. Curse you soy allergy. Thank god for butter and grandma’s recipe book.
April 2nd, 2008 at 11:41 pm
ace bit of overkill do you not think.
April 2nd, 2008 at 11:44 pm
Heya Greg. We pay our taxes, about average for the OECD, and we also pay a medicare levy of 1 or 2% on top of that. If we take out private medical insurance the levy gets reduced. Our taxes also pay for… well everything else the government spends money on - adventures in Iraq etc. Like it or not. Medicare is just another government expense. Just another socialised medicine thing. Americans get a bit paranoid when the socialised bit gets brought up but it works. Sort of. We still have the user pays private system. You can be private patient in a public hospital. You can choose who you want to service you. You just have to pay for it (or your insurance company does).
I can’t understand the user pays attitude when it comes to basic medicine. Health care should be a right not a privilege. If you don’t drive a car how do you feel about government road building?
Anyway, we don’t see it as relying on someone else’s charity or relying on the government. We see it as a safety net especially for those who can least afford it. The fact that you can end up in an emergency ward and end up with a bill for tens of thousands of dollars is just obscene.
I’ve heard that some hospitals will turn away people who don’t have insurance in the US. If this isn’t an urban legend then that is also obscene.
BTW, doctors and clinics are privately owned and operated in Australia. They’re not run by the government on the whole. When you go to the doc they either bill medicare directly and you pay nothing or you pay the doc and then you claim a refund from medicare. For this reason medicare sets a schedule of fees for a visit to a doc. For example if a basic visit is set at say $50 and your doctor charges $50 you are either not charged or get a refund from medicare for $50. If your doctor charges $100 you, or your insurance company, have to make up the difference. Medicare will still only pay $50. I’ve pulled the numbers from my a** and they’re only used to illustrate the example.
Or I think that is how it works here in Oz.
April 2nd, 2008 at 11:47 pm
Ya but … if you eat trans fats how will you manage all of the toxins and parasites?
April 3rd, 2008 at 12:09 am
I’ve got to say that this has been the most interesting thread in a while.
My first thought was the same as JackC, way back near the top. It’s very possible that your tastes have, uh, evolved since you were a kid, Phil, and something you couldn’t get enough of then you can’t stand now.
One thing I didn’t see mentioned, except peripherally, is that last year legislation was passed that loosened up the definition of “chocolate.” In addition to the cocoa solids, a certain percentage of cocoa butter (the oily part of the cacao bean) is required. That’s where a lot of the flavor of chocolate comes from. Without the cocoa butter, the brown food substance can’t be called chocolate, but needs some sort of marketing name. This legislation allowed the reduction (or complete replacement) of the cocoa butter with other (cheaper) oils. The result is usually dreadful. Think of the cheapest Easter candy you’ve ever had, usually those hollow bunnies. I’m not sure when this legislation goes into effect, but by Phil’s reaction its sounds like its arrived.
Ironman: I’ve enjoyed your posts and outlooks. As one libertarian to another, it’s always interesting to watch people come to grips with the fact that there are more than two poles on the political spectrum
- Jack
April 3rd, 2008 at 12:21 am
@ Greg in Austin,
It must be great to be very wealthy. As a fellow Americna with a pretty good health care plan, I can firmly attest that your evaluation of availability is utter BS.
I have a good dental plan as part of my wife’s insurance coverage (getting ironic, she works for a giant hospital), and I was told that my son had a cavity which needed to be treated as soon as possible. When I asked for the soonest possible appointment I was told that I could be squeezed in after only four months.
The only arguments I have ever heard against some form of socialized medicine have been of the “but I may have to be treated just like poor people” variety.
This argument is akin to the pope dismissing the Inquisition by citing the fact that he had never once been inconvenienced by it.
I don’t believe that everyone should possess the same wealth. I don’t believe that everyone should have access to the same goods. I do believe that in certain areas, the two most important being education and health care, there should not be a difference in any aspect of availabilty, cost, and impact, simply because of accidents of birth.
April 3rd, 2008 at 12:30 am
This is me, cheering loudly for this blog post.
I remember when I was a kid, looking forward to growing up so I could make all the decisions for myself. It’s endlessly disappointing to find a committee have made half of them for me before I even knew what they were.
April 3rd, 2008 at 12:40 am
Twinkies. Oh, god, I mourn the Twinkies. Don’t tell me about tastebuds, don’t tell me about making my own snacks. I cook, I bake, I eat real food 99.9% of the time. When I want junk food I know precisely what it is I’m doing. Thank you, go away now. Twinkies… *weep*
Once every 2-3 years I crave them, buy a box, dole them out over a month and then go another couple of years without them. The last time I bought them… UGH!!! They tasted exactly as I expected them to — sweet, sweet, and sweeter. But the texture… God. Oily, heavy, and the filling the worst! Twinkie filling used to be light and fluffy and a little bit gritty on your tongue. You could lick it out or suck it out and y’know we all did. This stuff? It’s like pure fat. Compresses on itself when you lick. Heavy and greasy. Vile and disgusting.
Because I eat them so rarely I don’t know when the swap was made but given that it’s a pure texture issue I suspect transfat paranoia.
Give me back my Twinkies, dammit!!!
April 3rd, 2008 at 12:52 am
Trans fats don’t affect taste, they probably reformulated the flavorants when they made the trans fat change. Trans-fat is tasteless, it’s just a cheaper way of giving something an eternal shelf life. So it kills you and does nothing to improve the taste, it just lets the company sell you year old crap. There’s nothing remotely lamentable about the death of this stuff.
April 3rd, 2008 at 1:53 am
I think removal of trans fats is a good thing. They are not ‘normal’ (for those that don’t know, the hydrogens from unsaturated and polyunsaturated fatty acids flip from one side of the chain to the other - hence ‘trans’ - causing them to stiffen, raising cholesterol and increasing heart disease risk). They are worse than saturated fats, so you have to eat a lot less of them.
Also, it is worth remembering that until 2006 (I think, certainly not before then), trans fats weren’t even listed on food labels in the US; you didn’t even know you were eating them, so other people were already making your decisions for you.
Furthermore, with so many people saying “I can be sensible, I can make my own decisions”, I’m curious to know how many of those people know what a ’safe’ level of consumption for trans fats is? Perhaps I’m being unfair here, and many of you do know, but if my past experience is at all representative, most people will overestimate this amount by at least a factor of 6.
April 3rd, 2008 at 3:26 am
BA, I think you have conflated correlation with causation.
Transfats are industrially produced materials chemically distinct from anything occuring in nature, and so we haven’t had the time to evolve to digest and metabolise them. Stick to _real_ fat for flavour.
As several other posters pointed out (between the Ron Paul posts), it’s more likely that some other ingredients were changed, possibly to make up for increased cost of whatever was substituted for the transfat, that ended up spoiling the flavour. Solution: be prepared to pay more for your HoHos.
SecondTimePoster.
April 3rd, 2008 at 3:29 am
How to cook your TRANS FAT Hot Dawgs and see stars!
http://www.evilmadscientist.com/article.php/hotdogs#comments
Life insurance recommended.
April 3rd, 2008 at 4:05 am
If you are wondering why that high-fructose corn syrup was so common: It is because of the limiting of imports of the much-better-all-round cane sugar has put the price of it too high. If cane sugar was available in the US at the international price, then no one would bother with corn syrup. Everyone, including international cane producers here in Australia, would be much better off. Excepting, of course, some inefficient sugar cane growers in some electorally important regions of the states….
Bah. Democracy is such a loss - but then again, so is everything humans try. Oh, excepting rad-awesome telescopes and planetary probes!!!
April 3rd, 2008 at 4:07 am
@Gonzo: “Phil’s assumption is right for Phil. You said it yourself, taste is subjective. Whether an alien is piloting a UFO is decidedly not.”
And whether you can taste the difference between transfat and non-transfat is not either according to some of the posts here.
I don’t personally know whether you can or not, but as a skeptic I can’t just take Phil’s word for it.
You are confusing two issues here. The first of which is, that if Phil doesn’t want to eat them anymore due to the bad taste he perceives then he has every right to make that choice and needs no justification. Asking him to prove they taste bad to him is like asking me to prove my favourite colour is blue.
And hell, when it comes right down to it, I wouldn’t stop him buying gold-plated speaker cables for his stereo system if he thought it “enriched the sound”. But is his perception an accurate reflection of reality? That is - the very objective reality that there is a discernible difference?
And as I said before, there may indeed be a change in the taste that is an indirect result of switching from transfats, (for example more or different preservatives to compensate for the beneficial properties of transfats, or the rapid degradation of a Ho Ho with a reduced shelf-life) - so in that case he’d still be right in perceiving a difference even if you can’t actually taste the difference between the original transfat ingredient and the substitute.
But even if Phil was claiming that a UFO landed in his backyard, three little green men jumped out, and took him to the planet Venus for the weekend, I still can’t just take his word for it. It may have actually happened, or he might be stone-cold freakin’ nuts, but that doesn’t help me much when I hear it secondhand.
As I said, a perceptible taste difference may, or may not, be an objective fact - and we could test that, (pity we can’t catch a bunch of aliens and put them in a police line-up and do the same). And assuming you can actually taste the difference - whether you personally like the old taste or the new one better, is of course, entirely a matter for your palette.
And consider what you would conclude if Phil could not tell the difference in a double-blind test.
All I’m saying is he’s jumping the gun to blame transfats, (directly), for the bad taste he perceives - not that he doesn’t subjectively perceive it, or his subjective perceptions require objective justification.
But there are two issues here, and you’re obfuscating one with the other. Your basically confusing the difference between a person seeing a light in the sky, and them jumping to the conclusion that it’s caused by an alien spacecraft without adequate grounds to do so.
April 3rd, 2008 at 4:48 am
Wow, the kooks really came out of the woodwork for this one.
Yes, this is just another food fad. Americans love their food fads. “You eat too much, and you don’t exercise enough” isn’t an acceptable answer to their problems. So, a “better” (that is, false, but more palatable) answer must be found. This has led to a succession of different ingredients being blamed for what is actually a simple lifestyle problem. The result is a population who are convinced that if only they eat the “right” things they can stuff their faces night and day and not suffer for it.
Simultaneously you have corporations looking for an economic edge. If the population thinks “sugar” is bad you can put “corn syrup” into your product instead. If you can buy one white fatty substance for less than another, why not switch? But the industry has no economic interest in harming your health, perceived or otherwise, so if Americans all decide that water is dangerous and they don’t want it in their food, the industry will just sigh and figure out a way to remove all the water. There’s no point telling the American consumer “Water isn’t bad for you” he doesn’t want to hear that. Get on with the job of removing it, before he’s distracted by pretty lights or a loud noise.
Meanwhile you have a further group trying to make themselves rich by pretending that food’s much more complicated than it really is. This is the group selling you expensive “supplements” and telling you that your existing food isn’t nutritious. A brief meditation on what we know about our fellow animals would suggest that you can probably eat more or less any type of food, since other animals have adapted to do so. Sure enough, when we look at the science this is true. Nutrition isn’t difficult. You need some energy, some protein and a few vitamins, all of which are found in thousands of “bad” processed food products in the freezer at your local supermarket just as much as in the gourmet food aisle and the “natural foods” section. Would it taste better if you killed a cow, butchered it yourself and made roast beef with home-grown roast potatoes and carrots? Maybe. The feeling of achievement might contribute something to the experience. Is it actually better for you nutrition-wise than the store-bought frozen meal? Not really.
America’s problem with food is quantity, not quality. That’s the result “Super size me” papers over with its relentless focus on McDonalds. Morgan eats too much, feels ill and gets sick. McDonalds is just wallpaper.
April 3rd, 2008 at 6:11 am
BA, what has probably occurred is not that the trans-fats supply the flavour, but that the process used to remove trans-fats has also removed many of the flavour components.
I am not aware of any molecules where we can taste the difference between a trans- double bond and a cis- double bond.*
*OK, here’s the chemistry. Single C-C bonds are free to rotate about the axis of the bond, but double bonds are not.** Thus, because each carbon atom has four covalent bonds connecting it to aother atoms, a C=C double bond in a long-chain molecule can have one of two geometries. Either the rest of the long chain is connected to diagonally-opposite bonds either side of the C=C double bond, or it will be connected to bonds on the same side of the C=C double bond. The former is called a “trans-” double bond (also called E, from the German word “entgegen” meaning “opposite”), the latter is called a “cis-” double bond (also called Z, from the German word “zusammen” meaning “together”).
**Hey, there is a reason, but do you want to get into molecular orbital theory?
April 3rd, 2008 at 6:26 am
Long Time Listener said:
“Transfats are industrially produced materials chemically distinct from anything occuring in nature, and so we haven’t had the time to evolve to digest and metabolise them. Stick to _real_ fat for flavour.”
Not quite. Cis-fatty acids are more usual, but trans-fatty acids do occur in nature.
From the website of the British Nutrition Foundation:
“Trans fatty acids occur seldom in nature but can be found in ruminant fats and milk”
Source:
http://www.nutrition.org.uk/home.asp?siteId=43§ionId=603&parentSection=324&which=undefined
Trans-fatty acids are found in many processed foods, particularly if cis-fatty acids have been hydrogenated (the conditions of the hydrogenation reaction also permit isomerisation of the double bonds). We are quite capable of using trans-fatty acids as an energy source. (If we were not, they would not be fattening!). Why trans-fatty acids are considered bad I do not know, unless they influence the ratio of blood-borne HDL and LDL (high-density lipoprotein and low-density lipoprotein, otherwise known as “good” and “bad” cholesterol, except I cannot recall which is which).
April 3rd, 2008 at 6:27 am
Are you sure they haven’t always been transfat free, just now labeled because of the fad? Ho-Ho’s have always sucked. Little Debbie Swiss Cake Rolls are about a thousand times better.
Actually, all of the Hostess line fails in comparison to Little Debbie, though the cupcakes are passable and Little Debbie doesn’t have a Twinkie equivalent.
April 3rd, 2008 at 6:29 am
I mention the labeling because it always cracks me up to see things like candy corn or soda labeled “fat free” or something like lard labeled “sugar free”.
April 3rd, 2008 at 6:41 am
@sirjonsnow “Actually, all of the Hostess line fails in comparison to Little Debbie, though the cupcakes are passable and Little Debbie doesn’t have a Twinkie equivalent.”
Yes they do:
http://www.littledebbie.com/products/GoldenCremes.asp
Although these are 1000x better:
http://www.littledebbie.com/products/BostonCremeRolls.asp
April 3rd, 2008 at 7:00 am
Oh, hell. Not only are you starting to sound like Penn Jillette, you’re going to start looking like him, too.
April 3rd, 2008 at 7:09 am
Obviously the obesity rates in the states show that most people don’t have the same sense of control and understanding of what trans fats can do to a person. I think its still important to ban trans fats, if not for the sensible people then for the ones who don’t care and are putting stress on the health systems with thier heart attacks and other complications of obesity.
April 3rd, 2008 at 7:16 am
HoHos are terrible, and I’ve thought that since long before the anti-trans-fat fad. Maybe they were good way back when, but I’m betting the change had more to do with replacing real ingredients with high-fructose corn syrup.
April 3rd, 2008 at 7:25 am
Craig:
No, I don’t think I’m making too big a deal, especially if we look at the broad transfat bans some cities have put in place. Transfats make people sick. If people get sick because corporations sucker them into eating unnecessary and dangerous food, then we all bear the cost.
IronMan:
No “tyrannical majority” involved here. Your right to injure yourself ends when your behavior affects someone else. Eating transfats makes people sick. If you end up in getting a bypass because of eating transfat, the rest of us help pay for it. My medical insurance premium goes up annually, whether I file a claim or not. Most of that increase comes from something other than malpractice insurance costs.
(Yes, you have a right to eat transfat, or a pound of bacon daily, or whatever. And I have a right to do whatever I can to stop you.)
People who try to scare other people about the costs of “Universal Health Care” need to admit that we already pay far too much for health care, and we pay it to fat corporations. The free market does not exist in American health care, and, even if it did, could not provide health care for all. The existing corporate dominated system has amply demonstrated it is uninterested and incapable of providing adequate health care for everyone.
The notion of personal control of health care in the U.S. is a chimera. If you are hospitalized, your care is ultimately in the hands of the corporations paying for it, not you.
Sensible folks (like me, of course) who support the idea of a market need to recognize when the market cannot provide necessary services. Health care is such an instance. To continue to argue for the “free market” as the fix for our health care woes is either to accept millions of unecessary illnesses and deaths or value support for an ideology over the actual wellbeing of people.
April 3rd, 2008 at 7:27 am
What is all the fervor about? Science has proven that transfats are bad, like cigarettes and CO2, it must go in order to save the children. It is a small sacrifice for the benefits expected. We must move to a substainable lifestyle that will require many more small sacrifices in ‘Western’ lifestyles to save the Earth.
April 3rd, 2008 at 7:27 am
I’m apalled that BA won’t get behind this all-American concept. Transfats are singularly responsible for ALL of the obesity in the USA. The fact that there is no longer a deferred gratification concept (moderation — HA HA) in our populace means that big government must take the place of common sense. Remember — large-ettes outnumber you & your skinny friends by a huge margin…. Taste means nothing QUANTITY is now the name of the game. [Big government is probably ahead of this & working on portion control legislation]
April 3rd, 2008 at 7:32 am
Okay, I give up. Will someone please explain to this Old Fart just what the “teh” in “teh suck” means. Is it an acronym, or nonsense sound like bah! or phooey! or … ?
I guess I’m just not up to snuff when it comes to this, so please help!
Mikel
April 3rd, 2008 at 7:52 am
Maybe they were past their expiration date. Sometimes stores put things on sell just before they expire.
Besides, the best snack food EVER is Ding Dongs. Creme filling, surrounded by chocolate cake, encased in a chocolate shell. MMmmmmm.
http://www.hostesscakes.com/dingdongs.asp
Though, their description kinda creeps me out- “bite right into that creamy center and get a mouthful of chocolate goodness.”
April 3rd, 2008 at 7:52 am
I have to agree about the evils of regulation “for the public good.” I think food companies should be able to color foods red using lead chromate, like they did at the turn of the previous century. Customers who don’t want lead in their diet can simply avoid those foods. Similarly, I think companies should be able to put chalk dust in water and sell it as milk, another common practice 110 years ago. Customers who don’t want cheap milk won’t buy it.
Taking this line of argument to its logical extreme, I think companies should be allowed to put lethal doses of potassium cyanide or nerve agents in food. People who don’t want to die suddenly just won’t eat those foods. You can leave these things to the American consumer without a lot of stifling government regulation by fascist New World Order bureaucrats.
April 3rd, 2008 at 7:56 am
Billg said:
“Eating transfats makes people sick. If you end up in getting a bypass because of eating transfat, the rest of us help pay for it.”
Hang on a sec there, Bill.
What do you mean by “eating trans-fats makes people sick”? Is that in comparison to cis-fats, or in comparison to saturated fats, or in comparison to less fat altogether?
IIRC, too much saturated fat and too much cholesterol lead to the formation of atherosclerotic plaques, which are implicated in heart diseases. So, what is the basis of your assertion?
April 3rd, 2008 at 7:56 am
@billg:
“No “tyrannical majority” involved here. Your right to injure yourself ends when your behavior affects someone else. Eating transfats makes people sick. If you end up in getting a bypass because of eating transfat, the rest of us help pay for it. My medical insurance premium goes up annually, whether I file a claim or not.”
Well, my right to injure myself would not affect you if instead of relying of insure to pay for everything from emergences to typical checkups, we instead either (a) purchased cheaper health care that only covers emergencies or (b) saved our own money for emergencies instead of spending it all on needless consumer electronics. Perhaps if we all paid our own bills, we would be more observant about the $300 asprine and do something about it, instead for just giving the bill to the insurance company to pay for it.
But if want to play that gave, then perhaps people who get X amount of additional welfare dollars for each child they have should be limited to one child since their right to have children is affecting me in the form of higher taxes.
Someone else mentioned earlier about people being turned away for not having insurance. I’m not sure about private providers, but an emergency room, by law, is not allow to turn away someone who cannot pay for service. I’ve spent plenty enough time in the emergency room during my wife’s pregnancy to read that sign several times.
April 3rd, 2008 at 7:59 am
Greg in Austin writes:
[[Also, thanks to government spending, there are “free” clinics as well. “Free” as in there’s no cost at the door, but we all pay for it through taxes.]]
Is that bad?
Here’s my take on national health care — I’m for it, even though I know it’s grossly inefficient compared to a free market. You know why? Because free markets ration things by the price mechanism. With socialized medicine, I have a much better chance of actually getting the health care I need, or at least more of it than I get now.
My wife has chronic polycystic kidney disease. She cannot get health insurance. So when (not if) she needs a kidney transplant, we have two choices: 1) Let her die, or 2) go into debt for the rest of our lives.
So I’ll vote for whoever gets the Democratic nomination, because it just might save Elizabeth’s life. I’d prefer national health care to national health insurance, but I’ll settle for the latter.
April 3rd, 2008 at 8:01 am
Mikel, “Teh suck” as in “to suck”.
To learn internet/gaming lingo, simply play a few hours of online games such as WoW (World of Warcraft). You can also learn a lot about Chuck Norris.
April 3rd, 2008 at 8:01 am
Mikel said:
“Okay, I give up. Will someone please explain to this Old Fart just what the “teh” in “teh suck” means. Is it an acronym, or nonsense sound like bah! or phooey! or … ?
I guess I’m just not up to snuff when it comes to this, so please help!”
“Teh” is a misspelling of “the” that has become so widespread in the internet that it has sort of become a word in its own right. In its strictest sense, it actually means “the”, but it has far wider uses than as a definite article. In conjunction with a “nounified” verb (in this case, literally, “the suck”) it allows the verb to retain its verb status but without any conjugation (i.e. it means that the users no longer have to recall that the third person present indicative requires an “s” at the end of the verb form, as in “it sucks” as opposed to, for instance, “they suck”).
Does this help?
April 3rd, 2008 at 8:03 am
I need to do some reading, because I can’t remember where in the US Constitution it says we have a right to health care…
To autumn, I never said I was wealthy. I will say I am healthy, in that I see a dentist twice a year, a regular doctor about once every two or three years, and only a few times in my life have I needed some kind of surgery or emergency care.
In your case, if your son needed dental work, could you not have gone to a different dentist? When I needed a root canal and my regular dentist could not schedule me in, they referred me to someone in Round Rock (a town close to Austin) who could get me that day. All of my orthodontics (which I did not get until I was in my late 20’s) were paid for out of pocket. It was expensive, and I could only do that at a time when both my wife and I were working and making enough money. I was driving a piece of junk car at the time, and instead of fixing it up, I had my teeth done.
Again, its all about a choice. Some families choose to have cellphones for their kids, cable tv or satellite, 2 cars, internet access and more, and yet complain that they cannot afford medical insurance or services. To me, THAT is BS. Its not always about being born rich or poor (and I was definitely NOT born rich. Quite the contrary.) Its about choosing where to spend your hard earned money.
As to your comment about heath care and education being equal, again, if its in the Constitution, then I’ve made a mistake. If not, then, well, we either DON’T get a federal health care system for everyone (we do have Medicare for retired folk) or we have to vote for an Amendment. Personally, I would not be in favor of government health care. If they handle it like they do public schools, then that would be scary.
April 3rd, 2008 at 8:04 am
Barton Paul Levinson said:
“Taking this line of argument to its logical extreme, I think companies should be allowed to put lethal doses of potassium cyanide or nerve agents in food. People who don’t want to die suddenly just won’t eat those foods.”
No, that’s just poor business sense. How would you get brand loyalty?
April 3rd, 2008 at 8:13 am
Phil,
Your sample size may be too small to warrant the strength of your conclusion. I recommend eating more HoHos from a larger variety of suppliers and different expiration dates.
I have noticed considerable variance in the quality of HoHos. Sometimes they have been better, sometimes worse. I wouldn’t characterize the trend as a decline necessarily. I would say the quality reliability is low.
Try this: Set up a post office box in Boulder and we’ll send you boxes of HoHos from all over the country.
April 3rd, 2008 at 8:14 am
Barton Paul Levinson said:
“Here’s my take on national health care — I’m for it, even though I know it’s grossly inefficient compared to a free market. You know why? Because free markets ration things by the price mechanism. With socialized medicine, I have a much better chance of actually getting the health care I need, or at least more of it than I get now.”
Here in the UK, we have the National Health Service, which has good points and bad points. For dealing with acu