One more shoe is dropping.
One of Chicago's most powerful aldermen is proposing the city become the first in the nation to ban restaurants from using artery-clogging trans fat oils.
Ald. Edward Burke, chairman of the City Council's Finance Committee, introduced the proposal Wednesday. It was criticized by Mayor Richard Daley, who said a ban was unnecessary...
And:
"Chicago has the opportunity to take a bold step and protect its citizens from the ravages of unhealthy trans fats by banning their use in restaurants," said Burke.
Burke said he is not sure if there is enough council support for the ordinance, which would apply to any establishment with a restaurant license.
Often used by restaurants and in packaged foods as a preservative, trans fatty acids are linked to cholesterol problems and the increased risk of heart disease. The Harvard University School of Public Health estimates 50,000 people die unnecessarily each year due to consumption of trans fats.
Its use can boost the fats in a food product by 20 percent or more, researchers say. Dietary guidelines issued by the federal government last year recommend people consume as little trans fat as possible.
OK, busibodies, go ahead and justify this one.
Why ban when you could just put a note on the menu or sticker on the door to inform customers?
How about a little black box warning like we use for cigarettes if trans fats are that dangerous?
My understanding is KFC's in Europe don't use trans fats, thanks to government intervention, while U.S. KFC's do use trans fats. Trans fats are very bad for you. Why shouldn't government get involved in protecting the public health?
In case you haven't noticed, two-thirds of the American public are overweight; one-third are obese. This causes hundreds of thousands of premature deaths and hundreds of billions in additional governmental health care costs.
Enough justification for you?
Ha! I knew someone would justify it.
"You know, if people are just too stupid to avoid unhealthy things, we need - absolutely must have - the government to make them illegal. There's just no other way to make stupid people behave correctly."
Thus spake the busybody.
just outlaw frying in all places of public accomodation and be done with it - if you want to fry, do it at home.
"Some folk built like this, some folk built like that
But the way I'm built, you shouldn't call me fat
Because I'm built for comfort, I ain't built for speed
But I got everything all the good girls need"
Willie Dixon
Crossover post from If I Had A Yammer
When healthier and just as tasty oils can be used that don't damage the public health, or damage it to a much lesser degree, why not require their use? How many people know when and where they are consuming trans fats?
There is an epidemic of heart disease, diabetes and other preventable diseases going on in this country and taking sensible steps to improve the public health, like restricting the use of trans fat, is certainly justifiable.
Let's see:
If you're fat, and you're concerned about your weight, perhaps fried fast foods may not be the best choice in the first place.
God forbid Mr. & Mrs. Tubby decide to go to Jimmy John's instead of KFC...
Heh. You're killing me, smalls. You're killing me.
"We just cannot educate the American people to make the right choices, and we certainly can't trust evil corporations to make the right decisions. I mean, these fat, stupid people are killing themselves, and they won't behave correctly at all! We must - we demand - that the government save them from their own behavior."
Thus spake the busybody.
We should put Kim Jong-Il in charge of choosing what Americans eat.
We're obviously incapable of choosing correctly ourselves, and good ole Kim has a great record of beating obesity through government intervention.
You're killing me, smalls. Just killing me.
Slayers of straw men.
That's what the busybodies said during the smoking ban debate.
"No, we'll never come after the food you eat - it doesn't impact the health of anyone around you."
You deride the "slippery-slope" argument as a straw man, yet here we are, debating a ban on a unhealthy food because we cannot allow people to make choices for themselves.
It's not a straw man - it's an entire movement to have government restrict more and more choices because they know better than individuals how we should behave. It's an insanely stupid basis for governmental action, yet here we are.
Just imagine how far this could go if the federal government paid for everyone's healthcare. How many things or activities would be banned in the name of "decreasing healthcare costs"?
My wife noticed in the News-Gazette that someone had been ticketed for leaving an animal in his car when the temperature was over 80. Great law, but it suggests some improvements. If it is not safe for an animal to be in a car, it is not safe for a human, either. How many times have we seen people sitting in cars in the parking lot waiting for their spouse to leave the shoe store. How often has it been over 80? I think we can get Tom Bruno behind this. And let's not forget people who aren't smart enough to come in out of the rain. I haven't decided yet if that ticket should be issued for excess wetness or public stupidity. Wait, if we issue tickets for public stupidity, who will write the new rules?
John
Next there should be a government ban on foods containing sugar, because sugar that is not burned off is converted to fat, and as everyone knows...obesity causes death!
Then there should be a government ban on clothing that does not entirely cover the body, because as everyone knows...exposure to the sun causes skin cancer!
Then there should be government ban on personal sound emitting devices like stereos, iPods, etc, because as everyone knows...loud noises cause hearing damage!
Anon's plan of total government control...er, I mean health protection, is on its way!
This definitely lightened my day. Great posts! :-)
A Modest Proposal: Ban French Fries in Champaign-Urbana
Wish you guys were as concerned about some of the Bush administration's infringements on personal freedoms!
You guys have a point, I'll admit, about food police. But there is a place for regulation. In the case of trans fat containing oils, there are no taste advantages that I'm aware of. It's just cheaper and more convenient for the restaurant owner or food manufacturer. And it damages health much more than regular oil. So I think government would not be out of line in banning it, or restricting it, or requiring explicit labeling.
And when corporations are spending millions on advertising to children, urging them for eat surgery or fatty cereals or snack foods, government, I think, has a right to intervene in some fashion, possibly restricting such ads or requiring health warnings or public service ads.
We have a health crisis in the country, folks, with two-thirds of adults overweight and Type II diabetes cases exploding. Health care costs are skyrocketing and it will only get worse. That affects your pocketbook, through health insurance costs, and government's bottom line, through Medicaid and Medicare. Can government do nothing to try and right the ship? How about some serious replies for once.
"We have a health care crisis in the country, folks, with two-thirds of adults overweight and Type II diabetes cases exploding."
Of course, what you really mean is that we have a stupidity crisis in the country. People are just too stupid to take care of themselves. Too stupid to be responsible for their own health.
If Americans - stick with me for a minute - on their own stopped buying foods cooked in trans fats, businesses would stop using it, right?
How's that for a serious solution?
And, yes, it may be hard for some people to understand, but I'm completely serious about allowing people to take responsiblity for their own dietary choices. Emphasis on the word "choices".
Yes, the government can do something about affecting my pocketbook - end medicare, medicaid and other welfare programs in their current state, and start forcing folks to be responsible for themselves.
Here's another serious solution, since you're worried about the cost to government health-care programs: everyone who is obese should be ineligible for government-funded health care. That way, people have a choice, and even stupid people can recognize that choices have consequences.
Plus, it'll save the government a ton of money. Everybody wins! (Except the stupid fat people who eat trans fats, but some have already decided they're too stupid to think for themselves anyway...)
Can government do nothing to try and right the ship?
Can they - probably, especially if liberals are in control. Should they - no. And they shouldn't ban skydiving or swimming pools, and they shouldn't ban soda and french fries in school, and they shouldn't ban smoking in bars, and they shouldn't mandate sunscreen and sunglasses, and they shouldn't mandate helmets for bikers or seatbelts for drivers. This is America - we should be free to do things that are bad for us.
If you are worried about the cost of healthcare, maybe the gov't should get out of the healthcare business (at the very least, not expand it).
Gordy, when the federal government finally began requiring trans fat labeling on store products this Jan. 1, years later than health advocates had been urging, guess what happened? Manufacturers stopped using them! People started checking to see if their crackers had trans fat.
But there's no labeling requirements at fast food restaurants, or regular restaurants. Guess what's happening? The restaurants use lots of trans fat because it's cheaper and nobody knows.
It's not a stupidity problem. People just need the knowledge and only government can force businesses to provide it. Maybe labeling would be the low governmental intervention solution. It seemed to work for snack foods. But there is a role for goverment.
"It's not a stupidity problem. People just need the knowledge and only government can force businesses to provide it. Maybe labeling would be the low governmental intervention solution. It seemed to work for snack foods."
I would argue that it is a stupidity problem. How hard is it for someone with a weight problem or heart trouble to avoid fried foods, regardless of the type of oil it's cooked in?
I just don't think it's the government's job to prevent stupid fat unhealthy people from eating foods they shouldn't be eating.
"But there is a role for goverment."
In all seriousness, is there anything, for you, in which you do not see a government role? Where, exactly, would you draw the line?
And how about my idea to kick everyone who is obese off the government-health-care dole? Too cruel?
I like how you ignore the fact that once trans fat labeling was required, manufacturers stopped using it. Gee, government doing a good thing, imagine that! But of course, it's unfair to the corporations and their right to earn the biggest profit they can by using the unhealthiest, cheapest ingredients.
And trans fat doesn't just injure the arteries of "stupid fat unhealthy people," it injures the arteries of regular, healthy people. It injures the arteries of your kids.
Incidentally, I don't favor kicking the obese off of government health care. That would be heartless. But they should be encouraged and educated to eat and live in a healthful manner.
"I like how you ignore the fact that once trans fat labeling was required, manufacturers stopped using it."
Aren't restaurants already required to make nuturitional information available to people? Most fast-food places have them displayed on the wall, or as brochures. What other kind of labeling do you want?
"Gee, government doing a good thing, imagine that! But of course, it's unfair to the corporations and their right to earn the biggest profit they can by using the unhealthiest, cheapest ingredients."
Damn evil corporations with their evil profit motive! How dare they provide people with a choice that can be freely purchased or freely ignored, according to the wants and needs of the consumer!
"And trans fat doesn't just injure the arteries of “stupid fat unhealthy people,” it injures the arteries of regular, healthy people. It injures the arteries of your kids."
Wait until the trial-lawyers find out.
"Incidentally, I don't favor kicking the obese off of government health care. That would be heartless. But they should be encouraged and educated to eat and live in a healthful manner."
I agree about encouragement and education - I just don't think the government should be doing it. But what you're supporting here goes much, much farther than that - you're actually choosing the foods that people are allowed and not allowed to eat. That's scary as hell.
Cooking oil is not a food.
the next thing those nanny-staters will do is inspect restaurants for safety! they may even go after child labor, and require safety equipment in mines! there's even some tlak they'll make laws against heroin and cocaine!!!
Hey, the government needs to stay out of the tlak business...I take my tlak like I take my coffee.
"Aren't restaurants already required to make nuturitional information available to people? Most fast-food places have them displayed on the wall, or as brochures. What other kind of labeling do you want?" Some have outdated or incomplete posters up. The recent publicity around KFC indicated that many posters of their's didn't even indicate the transfat content, and many didn't include recent food items added.
I'm not for banning Transfat, I'm for forcing labeling, however - including making it mandatory on menus in restaurants... perhaps not for each item, perhaps something like "Some foods in this establishment include TransFat. TransFat is an exceptionally unhealthy fat. Nutritional information on the restaurant's food is available upon request".
This is a minor intrusion by government, and will give businesses and consumers the freedom to choose - an informed choice...
Cooking oil is not a food? You better expand on that.
John
Exactly - no different than the "undercooked eggs/meat/seafood" warnings that already appear on menus.
Not that anyone pays attention to them, but they make the bureaucrats, attorneys, and busybodies feel better, so they must work.
We should put a warning on menus about calories, too. Something about how eating too many calories can make you gain weight, and gaining too much weight is unhealthy.
And once your require detailed trans fat labeling, guess what will happen? Fast-food restaurants will stop using trans fat. Wendy's is already doing it due to the negative publicity; others will follow.
Why? Not because people are "stupid," but because people are smart!
People who are obese simply eat far too much unhealthy fried, fatty food. That means not only restaurants, but fried fast food chains, snack foods, and soft drinks. No trans fat in soft drinks, but drinking 4,5, or 6 Dews in a day and no exercise will begin to show. Same can be said for snack foods even the ones without trans fat. Eating too many bags of Cheetos a month without some exercise will begin to show.
The simple fact is such foods are unhealthy for reasons other than trans fat and without any regular exercise people get fat. Adding a label in restaurants won't change people's eating habits. Did removing trans fat from snack foods make them healthier? No. They are still unhealthy when there is no moderation and no exercise. People will still consume far too much at restaurants even without trans fat.
People must be self disciplined to not pig out every time they go out if they frequently go out. People must regularly exercise to offset the calories consumed. This is nothing new and goes back decades. People who have any common sense realize this and act accordingly, however, those that choose to consume unhealthy amounts of soft drinks, fast foods, and snack foods without balancing it with the appropriate exercise will suffer the consequences of their choices. No amount of labeling will change those eating habits unless labels are put on foods that say something about ingesting 10 times the single serving of this product in a day will cause X, but I doubt that will change much either. I hope I don't give the busibodies another idea. :-)
As soon as we learned about partially hydrogenated oils (and other transfat sources), we started reading labels and avoided products with them. Most companies have taken the cue since the fat labeling mandate (not yet Oreida, darn you!)... Same will go for the rest of the free market when information is provided. Why are you against the information requirement?
I'm not trying to nanny binge / lazy eaters, but I would like to give people the information to make an informed decision about what food contains.
"Fast-food restaurants will stop using trans fat. Wendy's is already doing it due to the negative publicity"
wait a second - you just destroyed your own argument - Wendy's is already stopping the use of trans fat, and cutting into to their profits, WITHOUT government intervention. Stop the Presses!
But wait! Evil, profit-motivated corporations are incapable of responding to consumers demands - that's why we need a sleek, effiecient, responsive force like, say, the government!
Whole Foods is seeing growth at 20% per year - without gov't intervention - more power to them.
http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/investor/fr_list.html
Why are you against the mandatory provision of information to consumers? It isn't available now. OK, so Wendy's (we'll let you pick a salad) responded. What about the greasy spoon, Taffies, or Chili's??? Is it so much trouble to give ignorant people a fighting chance?
Strange parallel idea:
You: "...If people minded that the food was cooked by slave labor, they would stop eating the food there."
Me: "But they don't know that it was cooked by slaves".
You: "Other restaurants aren't using slaves."
Me: "But some are, and no-one knows much about it."
You: "Well, others are touting without government intervention that they are slave free."
Me: "The slaves need to be freed."
You: "They will be eventually."
Me: "You're right." ... sigh.
....
Your argument is that the market will eventually correct itself. I think you're right. Meanwhile, however, thousands of ignorant people are consuming the junk, oblivious that the food is cooked with the lowest grade possible oil.
Veritas, by removing trans fat from the snack foods, the manufacturers did make them healthier. The foods might not be healthy overall, but without trans fat, they are definitely healthier than with. I agree with a lot of what you wrote otherwise, but you are off base on that point.
Ug.
Is there a single person in CU that wants to know what Taffies REALLY puts in their "food?"
Idiot, how much more are you willing to pay for your french fries for the priviledge of knowing the kind of fat in which they were cooked? These simple labeling requirements are not cost free.
If you care, you could ask. The guy at the counter might even show you the box the oil comes in.
I kind of like my fries cooked in lard, but that's just me I guess.
Before I'm blown up by a suicide bomber, or my access to public facilities and benefits is reduced by the flood of illegal immigrants into the country, is it too much to ask our government to let me eat my fast food in peace?
No food is bad for you. Only poison is bad for you. Allergens are poisons (to you).
If you take in more calories than you expend, you will gain weight.
If you expend more calories than you take in, you will lose weight.
Transfat won't hurt you. A steady diet of nothing but transfat will kill you.
Carrots won't hurt you. A steady diet of nothing but carrots will kill you.
The American Heart Association recommends eating no more than 2 to 2.5 grams of trans fat per day. An order of McDonald's large fries contains 8 grams; a three-piece KFC chicken meal contains 15 grams.
The Canadian government is moving to restrict trans fat content in foods by 2008.
The World Health Organization recommended banning trans fats in 1978.
Jimmy John's are tasty. I love 'em.
Ever check the nutrition on 'em? Ugh.
No wonder they are so tasty.
"Fat ban" why didn't I think of that I keep going on diet's I could just have Urbana ban my fat.
I'm willing to bet that McDonald's could incorporate the label (or any other restaurant) in their regular menu replacement cycle at close to no additional cost.
Transfat won't hurt you??? you're kidding, right? I guess I'm a bit bitter since my dad died of a heart attack at 60 even though he exercised almost daily, was not overweight, was on cholesterol meds, and began eating relatively healthy around 40. His overall health was so great that the Dr. couldn't believe he hadn't had symptoms or minor heart attacks sooner but his heart had built alternate routes for the blood to go through. What did him in was genetics and clogged arteries. Perhaps if he hadn't grown up when labeling requirements were few and far between, and had started eating healthier earlier in his life, he'd still be here. But, no, the f____ people who want the government out of everything want everyone personally responsible for f_____ everything. Well, you know what, there's too much to know out there to be personally responsible for everything - a helping hand is important and the role of government. Putting a warning label is certainly unobtrusive, and if you don't think so, you seem to be darn blind of your overcommitted political bias....
Who here is talking fat ban besides the WHO? The rational people here are just asking for clear labeling.
I think the thread is called "Fat Ban" and when did people around here become rational.
Right on, CallMeAnIdiot!
From an article in the June 26 Kansas City Star (because at least Illini Pundit readers should know).
"Trans fats get their bad reputation from their ability to raise levels of the so-called bad cholesterol. Calorie for calorie, trans fats appear to increase heart disease risk more than any other nutrient, according to a recent study in the New England Journal of Medicine. Even small amounts can be harmful. The study's authors reported adverse health effects in people who at a mere two to seven grams of trans fats a day. The Food and Drug Administration says Americans typically eat about 5.8 grams of trans fats per day - nearly three times what the new guidelines allow."
"Why are you against the mandatory provision of information to consumers? It isn't available now."
Actually, it's included in the ingredients list under the names lard or partially hydrogenated oil.
Nutrition information is already required and was modified to reflect the dangers of transfat, so what more do you want?
The same information available at restaurants, in plain english (no, I'm not going to ask for spanish, etc.), readily available.
Is it ok for school meals using taxpayer dollars to be prohibited from using trans fats, since it's for minors who aren't fully responsible for their own decisions?
Why not leave obesity and diet choices to the insurance companies to factor into their premiums for health insurance, instead of mandating it by our already bloated government?
Trans-fat this, trans-fat that. I wish you would all stop harping on fat trannies. It takes all kinds.
Good point anon, 4:55. I don't want schools using trans fats, I would agree that it should be banned.
Why not let insurance companies factor it, I'm not suggesting we not let them. But, unfortunately, they aint, just like my nonsmoking butt has to pay for the smokers within the same health plan.
The market doesn't always work.
A frickin label, and feeding kids healthy foods in schools doesn't seem like too much to ask. Next thing you'll be complaining about people wanting soda machines out of elementary schools.
Good gracious! Whatever happened to personal responsibility?
Anything is bad you. Eight ounces of water will kill you if you suck it down the wrong pipe.
"Nutrient" is defined at merriam-Webster as "furnishing nourishment".
You're gonna die. Maybe a bad diet, maybe liquor, maybe genetics, maybe a bus.
I eat everything, but I don't stuff my face with crap. I drink a little. My parents died and I hope to live so long. I look both ways before I cross the street.
I think Mickey D's ought to list their ingredients and such. My anecdotal experience is that those who suck down Mickey D's won't read them and wouldn't understand them anyway. Those that would read them already know Mickey D's is crap,and don't go there anyway.
I like veggies. I like eating animals, too.
Much ado about nothing, imo.
"A frickin label." How big? Placed where? How much detail? Who will verify the accuracy? Where do I go to read the rules if I open a restaurant? Will there be an exemption for mom-and-pop's? What if I change the recipe for my veal cutlets? What if I start getting my pepperoni from a different supplier? Do I get sued if my label is wrong, or a fine? Who is in charge of this labeling program - the Dept of Ag?
Yeah, just "a frickin label".
red state, you've got me all worked up in a lather with your labeling hell scenario. my god, the awful possibilities
You're having veal cutlets? I just grabbed leftover pizza.
What's your address? I 'll be there in 20 minutes.
"You're gonna die. Maybe a bad diet, maybe liquor, maybe genetics, maybe a bus."
Just cause we're talking about death, somebody had to go and drag MTD into this. Haven't they reformed already? :)
:-)
Clang, Clang, Clang went the trolley, ding, ding, ding went the bell!
As I understand it (and I could be wrong-I'm not a scientist) high blood lipids are a non-factor for most people. A significant minority, though, will develop narrowing of the coronary arteries as a result of fat buildup and this causes heart attacks. Medical science has yet to devise a reliable test to separate those that that need to watch their fat intake from those who can safely ignore it. I had a great grandfather who drank, smoked and womanized himself to the tune of 94 happy years. We're all different, but I hope I inherited his genes.
I stopped at a McDonald's yesterday in the middle of a day long drive. I was concerned about what I was eating. Guess what? They've got these pamphlets there that tell you what's in the food. If you're too lazy to pick one up, you can turn over the liner on the tray and get nutrition facts there.
I somehow avoided trans-fats at McDonald's, even though the Iowa government still allows them.
You can also get nutrition info on the websites of most chains.
McDonald's includes ingredient lists here:
http://www.mcdonalds.com/usa/eat/nutrition_info.html
That McDonald's Web site does have good info, including trans fat levels. Hamburgers not so bad on trans fats; fries, fried chicken, many breakfast items, bad.
Big brother, a blood workup with cholesterol and other tests is a good indicator if someone has heart disease. From the reading I've done, people just don't die of heart disease if they have a blood cholesterol level of 150 or below.
"Who here is talking fat ban besides the WHO? The rational people here are just asking for clear labeling."
The legislation introduced in Chicago calls for banning - outlawing - the wrong kind of fat. Are you saying Alderman Burke isn't rational?
He never has been in the past.
Let's remember that the genius aldermen in Chicago have already banned the sale of Foie Gras in Cook County because it's too mean to geese.
This next action is a perfect example of the slippery slope that most libs claim is just a scare-tactic used by the Right.
From Johah Goldberg today at NRO:
"Progressivism is not merely the faux populism of the Internet. Nor is it solely the label for whatever policies self-described Progressives prefer. It is a faith Ӡoften grounded in Christianity, but not necessarily so Ӡin the redemptive power and professional competence of the state. And, frankly, I despise it."
I'd say that has some application here, and I agree with him.
Worse than the trans fat are the fumes from the deep fryers themselves. Sitting in a restaurant that is operating a deep fryer exposes the victim to billions of airborne particulates. Sitting in an establishment operating a deep fryer for two hours is the the equivalent of inhaling a teaspoon of grease. French fyers can also be blamed for hundreds, maybe thousands of deaths each year from structural fires and burns.
I look forward to a ban on deep fryers so that I can go to bars and listen to music without leaving with that horrible stench of grease on my clothing, and fearing for my life not only from the fumes, but from a possible fire.
Dear Let Us Give Thanks,
It is my sincere hope for your sanity that you are kidding. If you are not, console yourself in the knowledge that the "horrible stench of grease" will mask the cigarette smell.
John
Was doing a little trans fat checking at the grocery over the noon hour. Most foods now have minimal trans fat, thank goodness. But watch out for Keebler cookies. An unbelievable 1.5 grams of trans fat PER COOKIE!!!!! That's a death cookie.
They should outlaw those things. They're deadlier than cigarettes.
John, last week after I left a Chinese restaurant I had the problem with grease stench, and no one in the restaurant was smoking. I use the term, "stench" with tongue in cheek, because the word has seemed to be so popular among the nanny staters.
Eating in a restaurant is a matter of trust and involves more danger than just second hand smoke or inhaling grease particulates. Did anyone sneeze over your food in the kitchen? Someone had that spoon in their mouth. Was your place setting washed carefully ? Did the cook wash his hands after using the bathroom? Was any food product left unrefrigerated too long? Were the vegetables washed thoroughly?
Oh, and by the way...the food. American regulations allow one rodent hair for every 50g of the flour that goes into it. Wheat can contain up to 9mg of rodent droppings in every 450g of grain. A cup of coffee can contain 14 allegedly rodent-sourced carcinogens. Canned tomatoes are allowed up to either two maggots or 10 fly eggs in every 500g can. Rodent hairs are allowed at the rate of up to one in every 100g of peanut butter, one in every 450g of popcorn or 4.5 hairs in every 225g of macaroni or noodles. Wheat can contain up to 9mg of rodent droppings in every 450g of grain. I don't even want to talk about hot dogs and bologna. Read this and be very afraid. http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/dalbook.html#CHPTA. Can I take your order?
Eating in a restaurant will remain dangerous even after the ban. Life is dangerous. Don't be afraid.
Study by the Harvard School of Public Health estimates that replacing trans fats with unhydrgenated vegetable oils would, conservatively, prevent 30,000 premature coronary deaths annually and that epidemiologic evidence suggests the more accurate number would be 100,000 premature deaths prevented annually. Trans fats have the effect of increasing LDL (bad cholesterol) and lowering HDL (good cholesterol).
Regular saturated fat, while bad for you, only has the effect of raising LDL; it does not lower HDL.
Life is dangerous and you shouldn't be afraid. But take a pass on the french fries, fried chicken and breakfast foods from your favorite fast food joint until they stop using trans fat.
What is trans fat?
HSQDs love trans fat.
What is trans fat?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans_fat