Omg~Will The Ban Take The Cake?

Decorating By QuadCities Updated 26 Apr 2011 , 7:09am by jason_kraft

QuadCities Posted 25 Apr 2011 , 3:45pm
post #1 of 33

The legislation, which recently passed the Illinois House, would ban trans fats in foods .. If the Senate approves and our huge (edited) Gov. Quinn signs it .. this will not be good what so ever .. The best bakery in the Quad Cities might open shop in Iowa .. And for myself I work out of my home and I just started getting orders for graduations party's, summer weddings etc .. If this gets sign this will be the 2nd state ..

California was the first state to do this .. So for the California baker's how is this working out for you?

32 replies
Herekittykitty Posted 25 Apr 2011 , 4:07pm
post #2 of 33

[quote="Geneseo"]The best bakery in the Quad Cities might open shop in Iowa .. [quote]

Which bakery is this? BTW, I forgot to ask but would like to know for next time I'm home, are there any good, open to the public, cake supply shops in the QC?

jason_kraft Posted 25 Apr 2011 , 4:11pm
post #3 of 33

It's really not so bad, depending on how many of your recipes contain products with trans fats. The only trans fat item we used was Sweetex shortening for our buttercream, we've since switched to Sweetex Z and the main difference is that the buttercream is now softer and more temperature sensitive.

BTW I didn't think Illinois had a cottage food law, so I'm not sure you can legally sell items made from home (unless you build a separate kitchen on your property that passes health inspection).

QuadCities Posted 25 Apr 2011 , 5:24pm
post #4 of 33

[quote="Herekittykitty"][quote="Geneseo"]The best bakery in the Quad Cities might open shop in Iowa ..

Quote:
Quote:



Which bakery is this? BTW, I forgot to ask but would like to know for next time I'm home, are there any good, open to the public, cake supply shops in the QC?




Moline's Olde Towne Bakery .. High but good .. There may be other good bakery's .. which there is .. but I like this one ..

LindaF144a Posted 25 Apr 2011 , 5:25pm
post #5 of 33

I personally like that fact that this is a trend. Because CA banned transfat more and more company are taking the transfat out of their products. Nutella used to be made with transfat and now it isn't. This made my DD very happy because I refused to buy it for her.

My favorite flavor baking chips, butterscotch, are made with transfat. I won't use them until they take the transfat out which I hope is soon. I love butterscotch cookies.

QuadCities Posted 25 Apr 2011 , 5:27pm
post #6 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by jason_kraft

It's really not so bad, depending on how many of your recipes contain products with trans fats. The only trans fat item we used was Sweetex shortening for our buttercream, we've since switched to Sweetex Z and the main difference is that the buttercream is now softer and more temperature sensitive.

BTW I didn't think Illinois had a cottage food law, so I'm not sure you can legally sell items made from home (unless you build a separate kitchen on your property that passes health inspection).




I talked with an attorney on all this .. All is good ..

Thanks for your in-put .. thumbs_up.gif

jason_kraft Posted 25 Apr 2011 , 5:42pm
post #7 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by LindaF144a

I personally like that fact that this is a trend. Because CA banned transfat more and more company are taking the transfat out of their products. Nutella used to be made with transfat and now it isn't. This made my DD very happy because I refused to buy it for her.



I like the idea of making people more aware of trans fats in products, but I certainly don't agree with a complete ban. Require big warning labels and levy an extra tax on products with trans fat, like they do with cigarettes. It boggles the mind that an ingredient like with some practical applications is banned, while products like cigarettes are still legal.

BTW prepackaged foods are completely exempt from the CA trans fat ban. And trans fats are still allowed in all products in CA up to 0.5g per serving.

Sangriacupcake Posted 25 Apr 2011 , 6:31pm
post #8 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by jason_kraft

It's really not so bad, depending on how many of your recipes contain products with trans fats. The only trans fat item we used was Sweetex shortening for our buttercream, we've since switched to Sweetex Z and the main difference is that the buttercream is now softer and more temperature sensitive.




But a firmer and less temperature sensitive shortening is exactly why I like my original Sweetex! Besides, it goes extremely well with my full-fat, sugar-laden, cholesterol-filled, low-fiber, high-carbohydrate cakes!!!!!!!!!! icon_lol.gif

LindaF144a Posted 25 Apr 2011 , 8:47pm
post #9 of 33

I do take responsibility for what goes into my mouth. But there is a lot that I used to love that I can no longer eat due to transfat. At least with it taken out, I can enjoy it again. So I'm being selfish.

I like it that I can now eat Nutella. I banned that stuff from my diet for a long time. It tastes so good, but not good for me to overlook the health benefits. Now that they make it without the transfat I can eat it again.

Purely a selfish reason, but if it takes government mandates for the large companies to change their product ingredients, then I am all for it. They certainly are not going to do it with a letter from me.

dawncr Posted 26 Apr 2011 , 12:50am
post #10 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geneseo


I talked with an attorney on all this .. All is good ..

Thanks for your in-put .. thumbs_up.gif




Can you PM me the name of your attorney? I'd like his/her advice on how this can be done in the home in Illinois.

Thanks in advance.

Kitagrl Posted 26 Apr 2011 , 2:04am
post #11 of 33

Trans Fats is not the problem. Lack of exercise in our computer/video game/scared-of-playground-games culture is the problem.

Our bodies are made to be active and work the "bad" things out of our systems....but today, nobody really does that.

Philadelphia banned trans fats a few years ago in the city limits but gave bakeries an exception, at least for awhile...haven't heard any updates on that. I think there is no reason to ban them, at least for bakeries, because anybody knows you don't just eat bakery food every day. And if they think that's okay, well then, they deserve clogged arteries I guess. hahahaha.

That or if they just work it all off, that's fine too.

FromScratchSF Posted 26 Apr 2011 , 2:53am
post #12 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kitagrl

Trans Fats is not the problem. Lack of exercise in our computer/video game/scared-of-playground-games culture is the problem.

Our bodies are made to be active and work the "bad" things out of our systems....but today, nobody really does that.

Philadelphia banned trans fats a few years ago in the city limits but gave bakeries an exception, at least for awhile...haven't heard any updates on that. I think there is no reason to ban them, at least for bakeries, because anybody knows you don't just eat bakery food every day. And if they think that's okay, well then, they deserve clogged arteries I guess. hahahaha.

That or if they just work it all off, that's fine too.




Hi Kitagrl! Love your cakes, totally disagree with your statement. You can't "work it out of your system", and it's not just the people that have no self control that are dying in unprecedented numbers of heart disease in the US. Trans fats are an unnatural genetically engineered fat created in a lab and added to food to make it have a longer shelf. Trans fats cause significant and serious lowering of HDL (good) cholesterol and a significant and serious increase in LDL (bad) cholesterol; make the arteries more rigid; cause major clogging of arteries; cause insulin resistance; cause or contribute to type 2 diabetes; and cause or contribute to other serious health problems. Source: http://www.bantransfats.com/abouttransfat.html

If you aren't reading your labels and making an effort to NOT eat processed food with trans-fats, even if you are not fat, work out, don't play video games etc, you are probably eating 7 times the the maximum amount of trans-fats the AHA and CDC say is acceptable. http://www.cdc.gov/features/heartmonth/

Removing it in food only sets us back to 30 years ago, where things like heart disease and diabetes were rare. How is that bad?

Bans on what poisons corporations can put in our food is necessary and should be embraced as being in our best interest. Especially this one, since every health-related organization, including the CDC and AHA all say this stuff is no-joke bad.

Not to debate, just want to clarify.

Jen icon_biggrin.gif

LindaF144a Posted 26 Apr 2011 , 3:12am
post #13 of 33

Thanks Jen. You said it best. As someone who works out daily and sometimes twice a day, you cannot "work off" something that does everything Jen stated. I wish I could. And BTW, DH eats something i baked everyday. He is in top physical shape, and at his last blood work all cholesterol numbers were excellent. Why? Well aside from the daily run we do, he eats what I bake - free of any chemicals and tea Afars.

jason_kraft Posted 26 Apr 2011 , 3:13am
post #14 of 33

Interesting articles, Jen. The consensus from CDC and AHA seems to be that trans fat intake should be kept below 2g daily, so I can see why the ban was applied based on the content of fast food people consume daily (i.e. large fries = 8g trans fats).

It doesn't explain why bakeries are included in the scope of the ban. Regular Sweetex has about 4g trans fat per serving, so if the amount of shortening corresponds 1:1 with a cake serving, and you had a slice of cake once a week, you would still be under 30% of your trans fat limit. It also doesn't explain why CA exempts prepackaged food from the ban.

QuadCities Posted 26 Apr 2011 , 3:13am
post #15 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawncr

Quote:
Originally Posted by Geneseo


I talked with an attorney on all this .. All is good ..

Thanks for your in-put .. thumbs_up.gif



Can you PM me the name of your attorney? I'd like his/her advice on how this can be done in the home in Illinois.

Thanks in advance.




There is a lot of people in Illinois doing this out of their HOMES .. Plus, I call were I bake my cakes out of my home, because it's next to my HOUSE .. my home .. Sorry for confusing anyone of were I bake ..

mcaulir Posted 26 Apr 2011 , 3:18am
post #16 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by FromScratchSF

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kitagrl

Trans Fats is not the problem. Lack of exercise in our computer/video game/scared-of-playground-games culture is the problem.

Our bodies are made to be active and work the "bad" things out of our systems....but today, nobody really does that.

Philadelphia banned trans fats a few years ago in the city limits but gave bakeries an exception, at least for awhile...haven't heard any updates on that. I think there is no reason to ban them, at least for bakeries, because anybody knows you don't just eat bakery food every day. And if they think that's okay, well then, they deserve clogged arteries I guess. hahahaha.

That or if they just work it all off, that's fine too.



Hi Kitagrl! Love your cakes, totally disagree with your statement. You can't "work it out of your system", and it's not just the people that have no self control that are dying in unprecedented numbers of heart disease in the US. Trans fats are an unnatural genetically engineered fat created in a lab and added to food to make it have a longer shelf. Trans fats cause significant and serious lowering of HDL (good) cholesterol and a significant and serious increase in LDL (bad) cholesterol; make the arteries more rigid; cause major clogging of arteries; cause insulin resistance; cause or contribute to type 2 diabetes; and cause or contribute to other serious health problems. Source: http://www.bantransfats.com/abouttransfat.html

If you aren't reading your labels and making an effort to NOT eat processed food with trans-fats, even if you are not fat, work out, don't play video games etc, you are probably eating 7 times the the maximum amount of trans-fats the AHA and CDC say is acceptable. http://www.cdc.gov/features/heartmonth/

Removing it in food only sets us back to 30 years ago, where things like heart disease and diabetes were rare. How is that bad?

Bans on what poisons corporations can put in our food is necessary and should be embraced as being in our best interest. Especially this one, since every health-related organization, including the CDC and AHA all say this stuff is no-joke bad.

Not to debate, just want to clarify.

Jen icon_biggrin.gif




Yes, yes and more yes.

Any amount of exercise barely works off the amount of calories in a pretty healthy diet.

carmijok Posted 26 Apr 2011 , 3:35am
post #17 of 33

[/quote]

Bans on what poisons corporations can put in our food is necessary and should be embraced as being in our best interest. Especially this one, since every health-related organization, including the CDC and AHA all say this stuff is no-joke bad.

Not to debate, just want to clarify. [/quote]

World's best oxymoron:
"I'm from the government...I'm here to help you"

Here's a little more clarification. It was all these 'health organizations' looking out for our 'best interests' that caused trans-fats to be put in our food to begin with! Trans-fats were initially heralded as the answer to all the 'bad' fats like real butter and oils such as coconut oil. They were really down on that particular oil...made a big deal about McDonald's frying their fries in it and theaters using it for popcorn. Funny since it's now being proven to be actually good for you!
Meanwhile, companies spent millions turning around their businesses to comply with this stuff and then get told a few years later that they have to change again!
I take any 'expert' with the FDA, CDC, and AHA with a grain of salt...oops! I forgot...salt is 'bad' too!
But thank goodness they are looking out for us! I would hate to have to make a decision on my own!
thumbs_up.gif

jason_kraft Posted 26 Apr 2011 , 3:45am
post #18 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by carmijok

Here's a little more clarification. It was all these 'health organizations' looking out for our 'best interests' that caused trans-fats to be put in our food to begin with!



They were operating based on the best science available at the time. Since then the field has advanced considerably, and recommendations have been updated to follow suit. In the absence of perfect knowledge this is the best we can do.

Quote:
Quote:

Funny since it's now being proven to be actually good for you!



I wouldn't exactly say that butter and oil are good for you...they are fine in moderation, but eating an excess amount of butter and oil is just as unhealthy as trans fats. It just so happens that the average amount of trans fat intake (mostly thanks to fast food) was several times the recommend limit.

Quote:
Quote:

Meanwhile, companies spent millions turning around their businesses to comply with this stuff and then get told a few years later that they have to change again!



The switch from saturated fat to trans fat took place about 25 years ago.

cakeninja82 Posted 26 Apr 2011 , 4:20am
post #19 of 33

I like fat......it's tastee

Sugarflowers Posted 26 Apr 2011 , 4:36am
post #20 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by cakeninja82

I like fat......it's tastee




Funny! I love butter, real butter. It also doesn't make my stomach hurt like soy bean oil based products do. Butter can make almost anything taste even better.

Butter Fanatic
Michele

cakeninja82 Posted 26 Apr 2011 , 4:44am
post #21 of 33

Bacon



That's it,one word,no explanation needed.

carmijok Posted 26 Apr 2011 , 4:51am
post #22 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by jason_kraft

Quote:
Originally Posted by carmijok

Here's a little more clarification. It was all these 'health organizations' looking out for our 'best interests' that caused trans-fats to be put in our food to begin with!


They were operating based on the best science available at the time. Since then the field has advanced considerably, and recommendations have been updated to follow suit. In the absence of perfect knowledge this is the best we can do.

Quote:
Quote:

Funny since it's now being proven to be actually good for you!


I wouldn't exactly say that butter and oil are good for you...they are fine in moderation, but eating an excess amount of butter and oil is just as unhealthy as trans fats. It just so happens that the average amount of trans fat intake (mostly thanks to fast food) was several times the recommend limit.

Quote:
Quote:

Meanwhile, companies spent millions turning around their businesses to comply with this stuff and then get told a few years later that they have to change again!


The switch from saturated fat to trans fat took place about 25 years ago.




Yes, it was 25 years ago. At my age, and in the great scheme of life, 25 years is not that long ago. I remember all the hoopla about it! All the media was bashing the food industry and their use of (gasp) fats...and touting the latest trans-fat craze...how good they were going to be for everyone! All the EXPERTS in their infinite wisdom --using the ultimate science of the day--decided they knew best! Turns out they didn't! So in the meantime companies and corporations who were doing business in good faith--many with research that proved the opposite of what they were being told-- had to comply with regulations that turned out to be WRONG. And now they're told to change yet again. I find it interesting that many of those same companies and corporations are today being bashed again for using trans-fats...something they didn't ask for to begin with! I can't imagine why they just don't all jump on the old government-regulation-bandwagon based on today's science which may or may not prove to be correct another 25 years from now! I mean it's only money, right? Changing your entire business, having to readjust recipes, test products, market and produce a new product to suit the whims of the experts-du-jour should be no big deal, right? It's all in our 'best interests', right?
Lord, save me from good intentions!
And FYI..I was referring to coconut oil, which IS good for you.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mercola/coconut-oil-benefits_b_821453.html
Back in the ancient days of the 80's, the entire media was raking movie theaters over the coals for serving popcorn popped with coconut oil...and of course all the fast food places were being told that coconut oil in their fries was killing people!
It's funny now because health advocates today actually recommend people take it as a supplement! Butter is a fat that has been consumed for centuries. But ANYTHING in huge quantities is not going to be 'good' for you! That falls back on individual responsibility...not the CDC, AHA and whatever other Food Police there are. I prefer to make up my own mind and decide what's best for me and my family. No government regulation will ever do that because their 'science' changes on a whim. Again...I take them all with a grain...shoot...let's make it a whole TABLESPOON full of salt. icon_twisted.gif

FromScratchSF Posted 26 Apr 2011 , 5:38am
post #23 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by jason_kraft

Interesting articles, Jen. The consensus from CDC and AHA seems to be that trans fat intake should be kept below 2g daily, so I can see why the ban was applied based on the content of fast food people consume daily (i.e. large fries = 8g trans fats).

It doesn't explain why bakeries are included in the scope of the ban. Regular Sweetex has about 4g trans fat per serving, so if the amount of shortening corresponds 1:1 with a cake serving, and you had a slice of cake once a week, you would still be under 30% of your trans fat limit. It also doesn't explain why CA exempts prepackaged food from the ban.




Bakeries would fall into that category because we make food behind the scenes and are not required to disclose our ingredients. Heck, we aren't even required to disclose the nutritional value - it's voluntary. If we did, then the consumer would be able to make an informed decision if they want to eat it or not.

I want the ban to go farther... and I think it will given time. thumbs_up.gif

jason_kraft Posted 26 Apr 2011 , 5:45am
post #24 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by carmijok

But ANYTHING in huge quantities is not going to be 'good' for you! That falls back on individual responsibility...not the CDC, AHA and whatever other Food Police there are. I prefer to make up my own mind and decide what's best for me and my family.



Agreed...which is why I support government requiring full disclosure of ingredients as opposed to banning them outright.

Quote:
Quote:

No government regulation will ever do that because their 'science' changes on a whim.



Science does not change on a whim. When advancements are made in understanding human physiology and how different foods interact with the body, government recommendations should change accordingly. Dismissing the role of government regulation in the food arena because research improves our understanding of nutrition and can sometimes invalidate previously held beliefs is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Quote:
Quote:

I mean it's only money, right? Changing your entire business, having to readjust recipes, test products, market and produce a new product to suit the whims of the experts-du-jour should be no big deal, right?



Actually, yes. The cost involved in making minor modifications to your recipes every 25 years is practically a rounding error compared with the amount of money food manufacturers spend on R&D every year.

jason_kraft Posted 26 Apr 2011 , 5:49am
post #25 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by FromScratchSF

Bakeries would fall into that category because we make food behind the scenes and are not required to disclose our ingredients. Heck, we aren't even required to disclose the nutritional value - it's voluntary. If we did, then the consumer would be able to make an informed decision if they want to eat it or not.



Exactly my point -- the law should have required big stickers on cake boxes that say "contains X grams of trans fat per serving", along with recommended daily limits for trans fat consumption.

Quote:
Quote:

I want the ban to go farther... and I think it will given time.



Unfortunately I think you're right, it's only a matter of time before the entire US is trans-fat free. Except for industries with strong lobbies like the manufacturers of prepackaged food, they will probably be able to buy their way out of the ban like they did in CA.

FromScratchSF Posted 26 Apr 2011 , 6:05am
post #26 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by carmijok

All the EXPERTS in their infinite wisdom --using the ultimate science of the day--decided they knew best! Turns out they didn't! So in the meantime companies and corporations who were doing business in good faith--many with research that proved the opposite of what they were being told-- had to comply with regulations that turned out to be WRONG. And now they're told to change yet again. I find it interesting that many of those same companies and corporations are today being bashed again for using trans-fats...something they didn't ask for to begin with! I can't imagine why they just don't all jump on the old government-regulation-bandwagon based on today's science which may or may not prove to be correct another 25 years from now! I mean it's only money, right? Changing your entire business, having to readjust recipes, test products, market and produce a new product to suit the whims of the experts-du-jour should be no big deal, right? It's all in our 'best interests', right?
Lord, save me from good intentions!
And FYI..I was referring to coconut oil, which IS good for you.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mercola/coconut-oil-benefits_b_821453.html
Back in the ancient days of the 80's, the entire media was raking movie theaters over the coals for serving popcorn popped with coconut oil...and of course all the fast food places were being told that coconut oil in their fries was killing people!
It's funny now because health advocates today actually recommend people take it as a supplement! Butter is a fat that has been consumed for centuries. But ANYTHING in huge quantities is not going to be 'good' for you! That falls back on individual responsibility...not the CDC, AHA and whatever other Food Police there are. I prefer to make up my own mind and decide what's best for me and my family. No government regulation will ever do that because their 'science' changes on a whim. Again...I take them all with a grain...shoot...let's make it a whole TABLESPOON full of salt. icon_twisted.gif




To clarify, it wasn't health organizations that lobbied to make coconut oil evil, it also wasn't health organizations swapping out sugar for HFCS and adding hydro and partially hydro oils in food - it actually was the corn industry which has a major voice in every government agency in the US that commissioned health reports, lobbied the government, and gradually made the switch to most products in your conventional grocery store containing one or both. These major food companies never "fought" adding trans-fats - there's no regulation forcing Coke to use HFCS instead of sugar. They did it because it's cheaper and maximizes their profit.

But that's not the point - I agree with you that you should be able to make your own decision, but if you have no idea what I put in my cake/hamburger/chicken because you bought it at my bakery/restaurant since I have no obligation to give you my ingredients list or the nutritional value, how can you make any decision? At least they realize that it would run most small businesses into the ground if we had to have each and every food item we want to sell sent to the lab so we can give full disclosure.

Anyway, that's the point of the ban.

jason_kraft Posted 26 Apr 2011 , 6:14am
post #27 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by FromScratchSF

At least they realize that it would run most small businesses into the ground if we had to have each and every food item we want to sell sent to the lab so we can give full disclosure.



It wouldn't be that hard to disclose the amount of trans fats in a product...just note which ingredients contain trans fats, the trans fats per serving they have, and how many servings of said ingredients you use in the product.

FromScratchSF Posted 26 Apr 2011 , 6:20am
post #28 of 33

And not to pick on any one, but Oklahoma ties in 2nd place as the most obese state in the country as of 2010, Illinois is 26th... California is 41st. It may or may not be in relation to the trans fat ban or general health awareness we have, but maybe we are doing something right?

Just something to think about.

Jen

carmijok Posted 26 Apr 2011 , 6:23am
post #29 of 33

[quote="jason_kraft"][quote="carmijok"]

[quote]Dismissing the role of government regulation in the food arena because research improves our understanding of nutrition and can sometimes invalidate previously held beliefs is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

You mean the same research that brought the whole trans-fat debacle? The same research that said coffee was terrible for you but now it's a wonder drink? I believe nothing was broken at the time, but still the entire food market had to be 'fixed'...and now has to be fixed again. How long do you think these government entities would survive if their 'research' didn't show so-called results? I stand by my statement. Their science changes on a whim...based largely on how they can keep getting government grants.

Quote:
Quote:

I
The cost involved in making minor modifications to your recipes every 25 years is practically a rounding error compared with the amount of money food manufacturers spend on R&D every year.




MINOR modifications? Do you bake your cakes? Do you not know that 'minor' modifications can have unpleasant results in certain recipes? If you're trying to maintain the integrity of a recipe that your entire company is known for, you stand to lose everything if it doesn't work. And the audacity of these food manufacturers spending so much money on R&D when they have the government to do it for them, right? I mean, just because they are spending their own money doing their own research and developing new products so they can provide a product people want--what gives them the right to complain when some government agency pseudo-scientist tells them they need to spend MORE money complying with new stupid regulations that will probably be changed again when that same nanny research says 'oops'...they were wrong!

Well I know I'm sleeping better at night!

FromScratchSF Posted 26 Apr 2011 , 6:30am
post #30 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by jason_kraft

Quote:
Originally Posted by FromScratchSF

At least they realize that it would run most small businesses into the ground if we had to have each and every food item we want to sell sent to the lab so we can give full disclosure.


It wouldn't be that hard to disclose the amount of trans fats in a product...just note which ingredients contain trans fats, the trans fats per serving they have, and how many servings of said ingredients you use in the product.




It seems like it could be easy, but based on the shady loosy goosey labeling guidelines are in this country, I don't see how I'd be able to calculate anything that is contained in any product I use and put my label to it without it going to a lab.

"If a product contains less than a half gram of trans fat per serving (like 0.4g per serving), food manufacturers are allowed to claim it has zero grams of trans fat. Even more confusing is that often manufacturers of such foods will make labeling claims that their product contains âZero grams trans fat per serving,â which does not necessarily mean that the product contains zero grams of trans fat, period. Since most of us tend to consume more than one âservingâ of a food at any given time, we may be unknowingly eating a gram or more of trans fats from such foods, and exceeding the recommended limit.

Source: http://fyiliving.com/diet/nutrition/reading-labels-for-nutrition/#ixzz1KbkbKodq

Quote by @%username% on %date%

%body%