Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : My House -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Original Mad Dog who wrote (4984)	2/11/2003 6:08:43 PM
From: Original Mad Dog	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7689

February 11, 2003 HEALTH Consumer Reports Finds Trans Fats in Many Foods Range of Packaged Foods May Contain The Substance, but Labels Rarely Say So By CARL BIALIK THE WALL STREET JOURNAL ONLINE Spotlighting the hidden presence of trans fats in many popular packaged foods, Consumer Reports magazine has found substantial amounts of the unhealthy substance in items including breakfast cereal and frozen waffles. Many food researchers and health experts say trans fat is more harmful than saturated fat, because while both forms of fat raise the level of "bad" cholesterol, known as LDL, trans fat also lowers the level of "good" cholesterol, or HDL. This effect can increase the risk of heart disease. Although Americans eat five times as much saturated fat as trans fat, some researchers blame excess intake of trans fat, also called trans-fatty acids, for thousands of deaths in the U.S. annually. Trans-fatty acids are created by hydrogenating vegetable oil, which solidifies it. The report comes as the Food and Drug Administration is deciding how to require food manufacturers to label the trans-fat content of their products. Food makers aren't required by regulators to reveal how much trans fat their products contain. The agency plans to publish a final rule early this year, perhaps in March, according to a spokeswoman. Labeling laws wouldn't take effect until a year after that. The Consumer Reports study is unlikely to affect the FDA's decision-making process, but it may add to the pressure on food makers to reformulate their products to reduce the amount of trans fat. For the study, appearing in the March edition of the magazine, Consumer Reports researchers tested 30 top-selling foods. Scientists have long known that deep-fried foods, including French fries and dessert pies, contained large amounts of trans fat, but this study found it in less-obvious products. For instance, the magazine found 1.5 grams of trans fat per portion in both Kellogg Co.'s Cracklin' Oat Bran breakfast cereal and in the Battle Creek, Mich., company's Eggo frozen buttermilk waffles. Kellogg didn't return a call seeking comment. The magazine didn't contact the manufacturers to see if they disagreed with its findings. "We do respond to all complaints made by manufacturers who disagree with our test findings," a Consumer Reports spokeswoman said. Food processors already are under pressure to shift away from trans fats. PepsiCo Inc.'s Frito-Lay, whose tortilla chips were found in the study to have some trans fat, said last fall it would be reformulating some products by early this year. Fast-food companies have also responded to pressure from nutrition activists to reformulate their products. McDonald's Corp. announced in September that it would cut the amount of saturated and trans fats in its French fries. The magazine offered tips for recognizing trans fats, even when they aren't apparent on the label. For instance, consumers should suspect foods that include shortening, commercial baked goods, and deep-fried foods, although there are some prominent exceptions, including potato chips. If food labels list the amount of saturated, monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats, trans fat is likely to be the difference between the sum of those and the total fat listed. Companies aren't required to break out the nonsaturated fat, and most don't. Most claims on products (apart from nutritional label) don't take into account trans fat; so, for instance, "extra lean" foods may be high in trans fat. The FDA intends to revise that. The FDA is considering a number of options for how to label trans-fat content, including the use of a footnote that would read, "Intake of trans fats should be as low as possible." The Grocery Manufacturers of America, which speaks for packaged-food makers, says the group doesn't object to mandatory labeling of trans-fat content, but takes issue with that footnote. "We feel that overemphasizing that one nutrient would be to the detriment of customers paying attention to the rest of the nutritional label," a spokeswoman said. The trade group also claims that singling out trans fat would pressure manufacturers to replace it with saturated fat, which it says is equally bad. Write to Carl Bialik at carl.bialik@wsj.com5 URL for this article: online.wsj.com

To: Original Mad Dog who wrote (4984)	2/15/2003 2:37:48 PM
From: KLP	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7689

Hi OMD...Re the Article by Mr. Hamza and Inspections~A TOTAL Waste of Time~~ I wonder now, after yesterday, if anyone in any city around the globe read this piece...or for that matter, even wonder if anyone here on SI read it. You had no response to this article at all, and looking on SI, I don't see too many others had responded either. I had missed it, but my husband had cut it out from the WSJ to read...I too found it on opinionjournal, and then looked on SI to see who had posted it. So many people seem to be so willfully shortsighted, and seem to be so willfully ignorant of the situation. Glad to see you posted this....nearly every paragraph is a highlight, but here are some of the top ones....at least IMO. >>>>>>>>>>> Since the passage of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 we have witnessed a tiny team of inspectors with a supposedly stronger mandate begging Iraq to disclose its weapons stockpiles and commence disarmament. The question that nags me is: How can a team of 200 inspectors "disarm" Iraq when 6,000 inspectors could not do so in the previous seven years of inspection? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem is that there is nothing Saddam can declare that will provide any level of assurance of disarmament. If he delivers the 8,500 liters of anthrax that he now admits to having, he will still not be in compliance because the growth media he imported to grow it can produce 25,000 liters. Iraq must account for the growth media and its products; it is doing neither. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In the two decades before the Gulf War, I played a role in Iraq's efforts to acquire major technologies from friendly states. In 1974, I headed an Iraqi delegation to France to purchase a nuclear reactor. It was a 40-megawatt research reactor that our sources in the IAEA told us should cost no more than $50 million. But the French deal ended up costing Baghdad more than $200 million. The French-controlled Habbania Resort project cost Baghdad a whopping $750 million, and with the same huge profit margin. With these kinds of deals coming their way, is it any surprise that the French are so desperate to save Saddam's regime? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And MANY etc's! Message 18567254