[Dr Caleb]

[QUOTE BY= Brent Swain] I thought the definition of transfat is hydrogenated oil. Is it?[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> It is (for certain oils), but you are not paying attention to the companies definition of 'Zero', as sufficiently small fractions of 'one'. They round 0.9% as 'zero'.<br />

[rearguard]

The redefinition of the word "zero" to mean something other than zero is a common trick (or form of fraud) used by legal systems to create laws which appear to imply one thing to the layman and quite another to those who create the laws and those who meticulously study the text of the law. <br /> <br /> It's interesting that the law makers have decided to move this otherwise hidden form of fraud into the mainstream. I hope doing so exposes the concept to a large number of people who otherwise would not have become aware of it.<br /> <br /> With respect to Kraft and the other companies that choose to make use of this clearly fraudulent concept, all their products should be avoided even if they contain nothing bad. I don't care how well rubber stamped this form of bullshit is, it's still bullshit and the company heads know it.<br /> <br /> Last I read up on this nonsense, there was a back room "free trade" dispute going between Canada and the USA, where Canada defines "zero trans fat" to mean that a "serving" must contain no more than .2 g of trans fat, while the USA defines it to contain be no more than .5 g of trans fat.<br /> <br /> I have no idea where the dispute (if you can call it one) currently sits, nor do I care, I simply avoid all foods with any level of trans fats.<br /> <br /> <a href="http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/nutrition/gras-trans-fats/tftf_interim_report_rapport_preliminaire_e.html">Interim Report Of The Trans Fat Task Force</a><br /> <br /> Be aware that some foods contain low levels of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans_fat">naturally occuring trans fats</a>, however these trans fats would not be listed since it is not an added ingredient, nor do they cause the same health problems (if any at all).<br /> <br /> All added trans fats are synthetically made, and do not resemble natural trans fats, therefore the synthetic version should not be considered as a food item - if you eat it, you may as well be eating <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olestra">Proctor & Gamble's Olestra®</a>.<br />

[Milton]

Interesting reply rearguard. I have the same aversion to Kraft products as you and am also boycotting wikipedia, as far as I can tell the dark side operates it. I don't know where they came up with the idea that trans fat occurs naturally in ruminants or any other animal except in the sense that a man made additive is involved somewhere and man is a naturally occuring product of Mother Nature.<br /> <br /> I notice that they provide no details of this naturally occuring phenomena, if anyone has the inside scoop perhaps they would share it with us and dispel some ignorance.

[Wraun]

If you know something is wrong in Wiki, you can edit it to correct it. How can it be "operated by the dard side" if it's users who are contributing/editing it's content?

[rearguard]

"If you know something is wrong in Wiki, you can edit it to correct it. How can it be "operated by the dard side" if it's users who are contributing/editing it's content?"<br /> <br /> Wikipedia is generally very good with items that have little political content.<br /> <br /> With certain controversial subjects, Wikipedia no longer allows anyone to edit the content, and even when you can edit the content, the powers that be can and will override even perfectly valid edits if they are deemed to be disagreeable.<br /> <br /> I used to edit but now I just post comments in the discussion section - that's the only place left where you can get the full story on controversial subjects. <br /> <br /> Unfortunately, the "archiving" of sections out of the discussion page can be used to hide away disagreeable comments.<br /> <br /> Have a look at this entry concerning the Sept 11 attacks<br /> <br /> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_attacks<br /> <br /> You'll notice that the article is written in a way that assumes everything the government says is factual without any basis for doing so. Normally the word of a monopoly with an obvious bias and a history full of compulsive lying is never taken for granted, yet that's how wikipedia often operates when it comes down to certain political subjects - the vast sea of perfectly valid edits is always somehow overridden by a few insiders. What really happened on 9/11 is tossed out in the "conspiracy theory" section, despite the obvious fact that the US government's version of events is a conspiracy theory by itself, and is in fact much more baseless than most of the alternatives.<br />

[rearguard]

[quote] Last I read up on this nonsense, there was a back room "free trade" dispute going between Canada and the USA, where Canada defines "zero trans fat" to mean that a "serving" must contain no more than .2 g of trans fat, while the USA defines it to contain no more than .5 g of trans fat."[/quote]<br /> <br /> Just in case anyone missed it, I'll translate the above:<br /> <br /> The packaging label "zero trans fat" by its own definition means a trans fat content that is anywhere from 0% to 100% transfat. In other words, the use of the "zero trans fat" label is designed to be completely and intentionally misleading.<br /> <br /> But how can even pure trans fat be legally labeled as "zero trans fat"?<br /> <br /> Well, if a "serving" contains no more than .5 grams of trans fat and if a "serving" is also .5 grams, then even pure trans fat may be packaged with the "zero trans fat" label affixed.<br /> <br />