Give me my Trans Fat.

I want to be healthy. I want to live a long full life. I also want to be able to make my own choices. I like my trans fat. I understand its not good for you, but so are a lot of other things. ex: alcohol, tobacco, not exercising, etc. etc.
I recently discovered that my entemann's cake, cheese-nips, potato chips, and pepperidge farms were missing trans fat. I dont know how long this has been going on but I didnt like the way my entemann's doughnut tasted. I am sure it was missing the trans fat. I have to admit that everything else tastes the same. If taste is going to be compromised then take it, but if not leave my trans fat alone.

Trans fatty acids (commonly termed trans fats) are a type of unsaturated fat (and may be monounsaturated or polyunsaturated).

Trans fats occur naturally in small quantities in meat and dairy products from ruminants. Most trans fats consumed today, however, are industrially created through partial hydrogenation of plant oils and animal fats — a chemical process developed in the early 1900s and first commercialized as Crisco in 1909.

Unlike other fats, trans fats are neither required nor beneficial for health.[1] Eating trans fat increases the risk of coronary heart disease.[2] For these reasons, health authorities worldwide recommend that consumption of trans fat be reduced to trace amounts. Trans fats from partially hydrogenated oils are generally considered to be worse than those occurring naturally.[3]

Trans fats are increasingly being linked to chronic health conditions (see below), are tightly regulated in a few countries, are mandatory on product labels in many others, and are the central issue in several ongoing lawsuits (particularly against fast food outlets). Many companies are voluntarily removing trans fats from their products, or establishing trans-free product lines.

NYC Trans Fat Ban: Food Fight Over Safety

French Fries, Fried Chicken, Doughnuts Among Items That Could Be Affected

(CBS/AP) NEW YORK A city plan to ban restaurants from selling meals containing an unhealthy artificial fat could open a new front in a national fight over the safety of America's food supply, legal experts said. In recent years, states and a few cities interested in ridding kitchens of suspected toxins have become increasingly bold about mandating warning labels about potential hazards like lead in candy, mercury in fish or pesticides in vegetables. Some of those measures have prompted fierce opposition from the food industry and members of Congress who say the states are exceeding their authority. Experts said New York City would take the boldest step yet if its Board of Health approves a proposal to ban restaurants from preparing foods containing more than trace amounts of artificial trans fatty acids. Announced Tuesday, the ban on trans fats would bar chefs at thousands of restaurants from using partially hydrogenated vegetable oil, an indisputably unhealthy ingredient, but one that has been in some types of shortening and frying oil for decades. Doctors don't like trans fat because of the havoc it wreaks with human cholesterol levels and some studies have blamed it for an epidemic of heart disease deaths. Yet, federal regulation has been light and public health law experts said they were stunned that New York would ban a substance the Food and Drug Administration only began listing on food labels this year. Lawrence O. Gostin, an associate dean at Georgetown University's law school and director of the Center for Law and the Public's Health, called the city's action "breathtaking. He said it is sure to prompt a lawsuit challenging the city's authority to enact such a measure. Big fast food companies that use artificial trans fats to prepare french fries, muffins and doughnuts might also sue over the potential impact of the rules on interstate commerce, he said. "Certainly if there is a local deli in New York that is regulated by the local health department, it is clearly for the city to decide what is safe and what isn't," Gostin said, "But if you're talking about large chains like McDonald's or Burger King … then there are powerful questions of federalism at stake." "On the other hand," he added. "When the federal government refuses to act or neglects to act in the face of a major health crisis, then sometimes you need cities and states to step in to the vacuum and protect the public. And this might be one of those cases." Anthony M. DiLeo, a professor of health care law at Tulane Law School who also teaches at Tulane Medical School, said public health agencies have a well-established right to ban items that are inherently dangerous, like spoiled food or lead in paint. But the limits of a city's authority when it comes to something like trans fat are less clear, he said. "You get to something here that is not a bacteria, it is not a virus, it is not an immediate danger ... One meal containing a trans-fat is not dangerous, per se," DiLeo said. "If you have the authority to ban that, you would have to assume you have the authority to ban all sorts of things that, in small amounts, can't be harmful, but in large amounts could be." The commissioner of New York City's Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Thomas Frieden, said he is confident the ban could survive any legal challenge. The Supreme Court has held that health departments have the authority to prohibit the sale of foods that are impure, unfit for use or which spread disease -- and Frieden said there is ample evidence indicating that artificial trans fats cause heart disease. The substance, invented as a substitute for natural animal fats like butter or lard, has more in common with cancer-causing agents, Frieden said, than with other foodstuffs that can be unhealthy if consumed in gluttonous amounts, like saturated fats or salt. "If these were cancer deaths, people would react very differently," Frieden said. Members of the public may weigh in on the proposed ban over the next few months. It is not expected to come before the Board of Health for a vote until at least December. Yet to be seen is whether the proposal will attract the attention of Congress, which has frowned lately on attempts by the states to aggressively regulate food safety. One bill, passed in the House and now under consideration in the Senate, would prevent states from requiring food labels tougher than those already approved by the federal government. The National Uniformity of Food Act has been most strongly opposed in California, which has moved to require warning labels on a list of commonly consumed foods, but Frieden has also been an outspoken critic.

(© 2006 CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.)