
U.S. Bans Trans Fat - adventured
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-16/u-s-bans-trans-fat-in-a-boost-for-palm-oil-and-a-blow-for-pie
======
cowpig
> The U.S. market size for palm oil is 2.6 billion pounds (1.2 billion
> kilograms) annually, he said. He expects that to increase by half a billion
> pounds a year once trans fats are eliminated.

This is really, really bad news.

[http://www.saynotopalmoil.com/Whats_the_issue.php](http://www.saynotopalmoil.com/Whats_the_issue.php)

~~~
acaloiar
To select just one of their arguments--that palm oil's production results in
deforestation/climate change--one can make the same sort of argument about
nearly any industry. E.g. if solar power companies of the future were to
deforest mass swaths of land to make way for large solar farms, then one might
argue that the solar industry contributes to climate change. It's a poor
argument because the production of solar energy in no way necessitates
deforestation; similarly palm oil production does not necessitate
deforestation, animal cruelty, and non-sustainable production methods.

I'm not arguing for or against palm oil. I know virtually nothing about palm
oil; I'm simply criticizing the source.

~~~
kokey
Currently the biggest pressure on demand for palm oil is for biofuels. The
result has been a significant recent and planned expansion of palm oil
plantations in Indonesia and Malaysia. It doesn't help that many countries now
have a mandatory biofuel component. I think the potential increase in demand
for replacing trans fat is probably not that big compared to what comes as a
result of demand for biodiesel.

~~~
toomuchtodo
I guess we should ramp up electric vehicle production to eliminate the need
for those biofuels.

------
LordKano
Does anyone else remember when the Center for Science in The Public Interest
pressured everyone to move away from saturated fats to trans fats?

The people leading the charge on this are the primary reason why we went to
trans fats in the first place!

~~~
lmkg
Yeah, that's how science works.

We start from a position of ignorance, and we incrementally gain new pieces of
knowledge. Years ago, we learned about the health risks of saturated fats and
moved away from them. More recently, we learned about the risks of trans fats
and are now moving away from them. The people at the Center for whatever are
updating their position based on the latest findings rather than sticking to
outdated facts that have been disproven. I wish more policy-makers would do
that.

Our knowledge and understanding of the totality of nutrition and health is
still pretty small, in part because there are lots of interacting components
and because many aspects of nutrition are correlated with ethnicity and
lifestyle. Nonetheless, it has been demonstrated that trans fats are bad for
your health, independent of other factors. We shouldn't keep consuming them
just because science didn't manage to uncover this fact until recently.

~~~
ams6110
But they were 180-degrees wrong on trans fats. They were touted as a _healthy_
replacement for saturated fat.

A fundamental tennent of all heath care/policy is "first, do no harm." If you
change or do nothing, people are no worse off than they were to begin with. If
you want to change something, you better be _damn_ sure you aren't making
matters worse.

~~~
njharman
Chicken and egg. Hard to tell if widespread use of X is not harmful in anyway
until widespread use of X has been studied.

~~~
jessaustin
Should we be looking forward to the arsenic diet, then?

~~~
njharman
> is not harmful in anyway

------
azdle
> “I don’t know how many lives will be saved, but probably in the thousands
> per year when all the companies are in compliance,” said Michael Jacobson,
> executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

Ironic since CSPI is one of the major reasons that we are using trans-fats
today.

~~~
talmand
One of them? From what I've read and documentaries watched, they are the major
reason. Typically example of people going out of their way to order people how
to live their lives for the "better" but ends up being worse. Plus it seems
they are being revisionist about trying to act as if their pro trans-fat
stance never happened.

~~~
LordKano
They are the primary reason.

------
Vraxx
Thank goodness. This will finally put an end to companies including trans fat
in their products but labeling 0 grams of trans fat due to serving size and
other stupid tricks. I think consumers as a whole can get over pie crust not
feeling the same for a little bit, as well as a slightly different texture for
frosting.

~~~
nsxwolf
This already happened several years ago. There was about a year where all
snack foods were utterly disgusting - Cheetos were like fried glass, potato
chips were limp and off tasting, Oreo cookies were brittle and the filling
tasted like chemicals.

They slowly figured out replacements for the trans fats that improved the
quality. We'll never know quite what they are because of trade secrets. But
it's probably far less natural than hydrogenated oils.

Oreo cookies, by the way, never recovered. They are terrible.

~~~
Vraxx
I still go to stores and see products proudly labeled with 0 grams of trans
fat that actually contain trans fat after consulting the ingredients list.
This did not stop years ago.

~~~
nsxwolf
The wholesale frying/baking of foods in vegetable shortening did in fact stop.
There are still small amounts of trans fats in many foods per the FDAs
allowance.

~~~
Vraxx
"Small amounts" is certainly a very relative term given that the serving size
can be arbitrarily small to misrepresent the amount of trans fat actually
present as 0 grams.

For example, say I'm selling a product with the ingredients list "Partially
hydrogenated soybean oil". If I label the serving size as .49 grams I could
label the amount of trans fat as 0 grams per serving. Now this is obviously an
exaggerated example, but it's easy to see from this example that a product
could contain a non-trivial amount of trans fat with a specifically chosen
serving size to label the amount of that trans fat as 0 grams (trivial).
Therein lies the issue.

~~~
roryokane
I learned in Nutrition class that there are standard serving sizes for various
types of food. I think it probable that the FDA requires companies to use
those standard serving sizes, and forbids them from choosing arbitrarily small
sizes like you fear.

For example, one serving of meat is about the size of a deck of cards. If a
company sells a meat product the size of two decks of cards, the FDA probably
requires that the product be labeled as containing two servings.

~~~
Vraxx
Hmm.. That is interesting and comforting to know actually. I always figured
there was some lower bound that a company would get called out on somewhere
along the process if it was too egregious, but it's nice that there's at least
some semblance of a standard.

------
danso
This story is a great reminder that there's a lot of potential for studying
Regulations.gov API and writing an interface (and heuristic) for surfacing
interesting rules and regulations...the trans-fat rule has been up for comment
for long while now:

[http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FDA-2013-N-1317](http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FDA-2013-N-1317)

Maybe I'm in the minority of people who hadn't heard that this transfat
regulation was soon to be implemented (as a former New Yorker, it caught me by
surprise)...but there are probably many upcoming rules that are worth knowing
about before they get published.

------
tswartz
Pros and cons to everything. Replacing trans fat with palm oil will likely
increase the negative impact some of that industry has on the environment.

[https://news.vice.com/article/indonesia-is-killing-the-
plane...](https://news.vice.com/article/indonesia-is-killing-the-planet-for-
palm-oil)

------
mhurron
> “I don’t know how many lives will be saved, but probably in the thousands
> per year when all the companies are in compliance,”

I doubt it. People are going to continue to eat way to much of things they
shouldn't, or too much of things that should be only eaten in moderation. It's
not like Trans-Fats are the only thing people are eating too much of that is
killing them.

~~~
mason55
Very few things in food are categorically bad for you. Even stuff like fat &
sodium, which people generally think of as "not good for you" are required for
your body. If you tried to make a list of foods that actively harm you or that
cannot be made a part of a healthy diet then your list would be very small.

Transfats are one of the few things that the above does not apply to. They are
actively bad for you and there are no known redeeming qualities.

~~~
Someone1234
It is quite disturbing how big the anti-fat (in food) sentiment got in the
1980s and 1990s. And even though it has been heavily debunked, people still
look at fat quantity in food to decide what is "healthy." Ignoring the fact
that fat (not transfats, regular dietary fat) is extremely good for you, and
won't cause you to gain weight.

There are even still "low fat" foods on the shelf which intentionally remove
dietary fat and replace it with complex carbohydrates (mostly sugars), which
are bad for you.

Remember the whole "red meat will kill you!" thing? Yeah, utter nonsense.
There's a small amount of cancer risk from the cooking process (and
glazing/smoking) but broadly speaking raw meats are one of the healthiest non-
vegetables you can eat. Much healthier than processed foods. The more fat the
better.

When you order a burger, the bun is by far the most unhealthy part. Then the
sugared sauce (e.g. ketchup, mayo, etc), then the american "cheese," and last
of all the meat. But most modern burgers are just "sugar delivery devices" in
the sense that the % of meat is tiny and % of sugar (from bun, cheese, and
sauce) is getting higher and higher.

~~~
mcintyre1994
Sorry to comment without adding anything beyond my upvote, but I think this
may be a typo :)

> broadly speaking raw meats are one of the healthiest non-vegetables you can
> eat.

~~~
Someone1234
I'm not sure I follow? I am trying to say (maybe unclearly) that vegetables
are healthiest and then [unprocessed] meats. So meats are the healthiest non-
vegetable.

Vegetables, raw meats, everything else.

Fruits are a tough category as some are extremely healthy (e.g. Blueberries)
while others are barely better than candy (e.g. Figs, Grapes, etc).

~~~
Balgair
To clarify here: You mean eating, for instance, bacon that is less processed
(not injected with tenderizers, salt, msg, etc) is 'healthier' for you than
bacon that is processed (all that stuff injected). You do NOT mean that eating
less heated and cooked meat is 'healthier' than eating cooked meats. That the
cooking process is independent (mostly) from the 'healthiness' of the meat.

Am I correct here?

~~~
Someone1234
Yeah. I feel like the above post is gibberish now. :)

I should have said "unprocessed meat" not "raw meat" since raw is often used
to described uncooked meat.

Bacon gets a bad wrap because it is often cooked in unhealthy oils and smoked.
Both of which are "bad." You stick un-smoked bacon on a george forman grill
and you have a darn healthy piece of meat.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Bacon gets a bad wrap

"rap", not "wrap"

> because it is often cooked in unhealthy oils and smoked.

No, it gets a bad rap because its usually cured with nitrates/nitrites
(including must "nitrate free" bacon, which isn't, it just uses celery salt,
which contains nitrates that do exactly what other nitrates/nitrites do, but
because its considered a flavoring agent and not a preservative and isn't
synthized nitrate/nitrite, doesn't have to be labeled as a nitrate/nitrite),
which have some adverse health effects in certain circumstances (though the
USDA has taken action to require steps to mitigate those effects the same way
that, e.g., the naturally occurring sources of nitrates in green vegetables
naturally do, though the bad rap was already established by then), and also
because of the high quantity of animal fat, which itself has a bad rap.

Uncured bacon obviously exists and doesn't have nitrates/nitrites (even
stealth ones), but it probably isn't meaningfully more healthy than cured
bacon.

Cooking bacon in oil is silly; its often used as a _source_ of fat _instead
of_ oil in cooking.

------
jwally
By these standards, how is alcohol still legal?

Alcohol-Related Deaths: Nearly 88,000 people (approximately 62,000 men and
26,000 women) die from alcohol-related causes annually, making it the third
leading preventable cause of death in the United States.

-[http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/overview-alcohol-con...](http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/overview-alcohol-consumption/alcohol-facts-and-statistics)

EDIT: I'm not advocating that alcohol be illegal. I couldn't care less to be
honest.

I guess my comment was more of a question of how can you ban substance "A"
because "Its bad for you"; but not ban substance "B" which kills 90k people in
the U.S. annually? It just seems cherry picked is all. If the gov't is going
to ban bad things, how does substance "B" get a pass?

~~~
baldfat
Don't get me started. people seem to always look at me strangely when I tell
them I don't drink. People like it and it is important to them so anything
said against alcohol is RADICAL. People love being emotionally numbed and I
guess people have a right to depress their emotions with drinking or whatever
legal/prescribed drugs they want. There is very little said in terms of the
emotional/relationship cost of their use.

1 in 10 US Deaths are directly related to Alcohol Use
[[http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/alcohol-
responsible-1-10...](http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/alcohol-
responsible-1-10-u-s-deaths/)]

World Wide: In the age group 20 – 39 years approximately 25 % of the total
deaths are alcohol-attributable.
[[http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs349/en/](http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs349/en/)]

~~~
collyw
Road traffic accidents are the leading cause of death for young people. Why
not ban cars while we are at it.

~~~
kokey
I find alcohol is good way to explain to people outside of the US how it is
unlikely to get a ban on guns in the USA, even though it's obvious that would
prevent death by a madman going on a shooting spree at a school. It would be
like suggesting we ban beer in Germany or wine in France because of all the
known alcohol related deaths.

~~~
mordocai
A madman would steal a gun or otherwise obtain a gun illegally. Just like
people obtained alcohol illegally during prohibition.

I'm not really disagreeing with your main point, just the "it's obvious that
would prevent death by a madman going on a shooting spree".

Hell, if the US banned guns I would still own one I would just hide it better.

~~~
stefantalpalaru
> Hell, if the US banned guns I would still own one I would just hide it
> better.

You probably wouldn't, because the risk of ending up in jail or prison would
be unacceptable.

~~~
mordocai
Over someone who illegally has obtained a gun breaking into my house and
shooting me? I'll take the jail.

~~~
stefantalpalaru
The gun is not a shield, it doesn't prevent you from getting shot. It can only
help you if you shoot first at any sign of home invasion. Most of the time
it's just a family member or intimate acquaintance:
[http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506](http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506)

~~~
mordocai
The study sounds correct for what it studies. People who keep a gun in their
home are more likely to accidentally kill someone else that they already know.
That makes sense, since people without one aren't likely to grab a knife and
run at a perceived threat. Even if they did, it gives more time for the other
person to react and announce that they are a friend.

However, as an anecdote, most people I know of who actually know what they are
doing (as in people who are gun enthusiasts, not people who bought a gun "for
protection" and shot it enough to take a class then put it in a drawer)
announce themselves before shooting as the goal is to get the intruder to
leave.

Quite often this alerts the intruder to your location and, in the case that
they are an actual threat, they will charge at you (this is counter intuitive
for me, but most stories I've read of home invasion with an armed resident
seem to end this way). I only typically hear about these stories from
survivors, but the cases I know of the resident killed or wounded their
attackers and were safe.

Basically, that long-winded group of anecdotes is to say that it is not the
case that a gun can only help you if you shoot first at any sign of home
invasion. Anyone who actually knows something about guns knows that you only
point a gun at a target you have identified and are prepared to destroy. For
the most part, that means you won't shoot first at any sign of home invasion.

------
NoMoreNicksLeft
> “I don’t know how many lives will be saved, but probably in the thousands
> per year when all the companies are in compliance,” said Michael Jacobson,
> executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

"Saved" in this context means what, living 3 months longer because your heart
disease is slightly milder than it would otherwise have been?

------
leonardicus
That's nice, but I think will be ineffectual in practice. As soon as you start
cooking with any unsaturated fats, a portion will isomerize to trans fats. I
doubt major food manufacturers are using only trans-fat sources in today's
climate of health conscious (or hypervigilant) practices.

~~~
cko
I thought it required heat plus a metal catalyst to convert unsaturated fats
to trans fats.

~~~
hga
You'd also need a hydrogen source; catalysts might be available, but you need
bulk hydrogen to get anywhere.

------
nsxwolf
The food police were wrong and killed a lot of people with trans fats. Can we
have our lard back now? Oreo cookies taste like crap with whatever they've
replaced the trans fats with.

------
niuzeta
I still don't quite get it; couldn't they have just mandated the
usage/inclusion of trans-fat in product, and let the _consumers_ avoid it? By
the same standards, we're still letting people smoke and drink.

~~~
Vraxx
It's already required for them to label it, but there's several problems with
that solution that we've been dealing with since that was mandated.

For one, if you have less than 0.5 grams per serving in your product you can
label it as 0 grams of trans fat. This is a problem because serving size is
arbitrarily determined by the producer of the product, which with a small
enough portion size can still leave trans fat in significant portions while
labeling it at zero grams. Other tricks exist like using different types of
oils (trans and regular oils) in different manufacturing plants and
calculating the average amount over all locations the product is produced. The
other issue with this is that even relatively small amounts (relative to how
much food we consume) can be very detrimental to your health.

The other issue is related to the first and that even consumers that want to
avoid trans fats can have trouble doing so if they don't realize the first
point I made, and the only way to avoid that is to scan every ingredients list
for partially hydrogenated oils.

~~~
dagw
_For one, if you have less than 0.5 grams per serving in your product you can
label it as 0 grams of trans fat._

Simple fix. Require transfats to be reported in milligrams instead of grams

~~~
Vraxx
Oh I agree that would definitely have a good effect for increasing knowledge
of what one is actually consuming, but I think uncertainty comes into play at
some point.

In any event I don't think that banning trans fat was the only way to solve
the problems I listed. Though I do detest trans fat and it annoys me when I
can't consume or purchase a product because I noticed there is a non-trivial
amount of trans fat in it. In this way, banning trans fats is definitely a
convenient solution for me and I don't see many downsides to supporting it.

------
cheshire137
Maybe I'll finally be able to find snack cakes and biscuits without partially
hydrogenated oil. That stuff is everywhere, even when the label proudly claims
'0 trans fat!'. Such a crock.

~~~
criley2
The label currently can say 0 trans fat _per serving_ , and what they actually
mean is _less than 0.5g per serving_.

From the prev FDA rule:

>Trans fatty acids should be listed as "Trans fat" or "Trans" on a separate
line under the listing of saturated fat in the nutrition label. Trans fat
content must be expressed as grams per serving to the nearest 0.5-gram
increment below 5 grams and to the nearest gram above 5 grams. If a serving
contains less than 0.5 gram, the content, when declared, must be expressed as
"0 g."

[http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocuments...](http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/LabelingNutrition/ucm053479.htm)

------
thescriptkiddie
But vegetable shortening necessarily contains large amounts of trans fat. Does
this mean that currently vegetarian foodstuffs will switch back to lard?

~~~
jessaustin
Baked goods that require flakiness, and can't use trans fats, probably have to
include _some_ lard. Butter alone just doesn't seem to get the job done.

Of course the chemists might come up with some other bizarre substance they
can add to food, but I won't be the first to eat it.

------
hasenj
Shouldn't there be some kind of regulation on products that use a lot of
sugar? Specially those sold in large quantities ..

~~~
drivers99
They could start by putting a % value next to it, like they do with other
nutrients.

------
moron4hire
This issue is the most important health and safety issue in the country right
now. Add up all of the deaths due to obesity-related diseases and it's an
obvious low-hanging fruit for improvement. For all the yellow-jacket
journalism surrounding cars or drugs or strangers or vaccines or guns, they
are all drops in the bucket compared to heart disease.

But that said, I don't think the FDA or CDC are doing anything functionally
significant towards improving the issue. There is a greater underlying
question that still needs to be answered: why has the problem continued to get
worse, despite ALL efforts otherwise?

There is a gun against the head of 2/3rds of Americans and nobody is asking
how it got there and why it's still there. I'm afraid it's because we keep
arguing about the shape and color of the bullets and how you should really be
better at dodging bullets of you want to stay alive.

~~~
hga
Not necessarily; another "unnatural" recommendation by our betters, to shift
from fats and meats to carbohydrates, could easily be worse, and maybe
synergistic.

"Unnatural" in that we were advised to shift from natural saturated fats, and
from something resembling the more balanced pre-agriculture diet. And I'm
suspicious of mass quantities of unsaturated cis-fats, which I gather weren't
quite so common prior to cultivation of oil seeds.

~~~
moron4hire
Huh? You mustn't have read my post very closely.

~~~
hga
Ah, yes, I too narrowly focused on this particular issue of trans vs. cis and
saturated fats and incorrectly inferred what you meant by the "this issue".
Taking a step back, yep, the postulated (and being tested by Taubes and
company) carbohydrate hypothesis is a part of what your comment is addressing.

------
TorKlingberg
There is something about nutrition that always sparks a 500 comment thread on
HN. I am not sure why.

~~~
coldtea
Everybody eats? Not everybody uses Go/Haskell/Lisp/JS/etc?

------
kdamken
It's strange that they're putting these measures in place when sugar is
significantly more damaging to people. High fructose corn syrup would have
been a much better target.

------
protomyth
Since this is by regulation and not statue, what's to stop the next
administration from simply changing its mind?

~~~
adventured
The practical context of it all. Once most of the food industry moves away
from it, the cost of reintroduction and the well known health dangers
(terrible PR headlines), are what act to prevent companies from bothering to
lobby about it. The companies spend large amounts of money to move on to
alternatives, and that's that.

------
jokoon
I live in france and apparently there is no law to force manufacturers to
indicate those. I often see "hydrogenated oil", but I don't know if it's
possible to get away with those tricks mentioned in the article.

Got coronary disease in my family...

------
logicallee
wow - that is amazing. An outright ban. No, "strict labelling laws", no
"strict regulation" in the amount or limitation on the kinds of foods that can
still have it. Ban.

I'm surprised!

~~~
maxerickson
It is not an outright ban. As the fine article says:

 _Food companies will be able to petition the FDA to gain approval of specific
uses of partially hydrogenated oils if they have data proving the use isn’t
harmful. Companies will have until June 2018 to comply with the FDA’s
determination either by removing trans fat or gaining a waiver._

~~~
logicallee
I went on the title - I'm a busy guy! (Okay, I did skim.) Still, what you
quoted is quite different from how I thought something like this would go
down. In particular the standard of proving it isn't harmful is quite high!

I would have thought consumers would be allowed to choose it in certain cases,
despite its being harmful. (As they can in other cases.) Or, a small amount
might have been allowed even though it is obviously deleterious, e.g. in foods
consumed in small amounts and which are obviously exception and not considered
healthy.

~~~
maxerickson
The only real consumer benefit is that trans fats have properties that keep
costs down. I don't have a great characterization of how much they do that,
but I guess it is swamped by other costs, so it is probably better described
as trans fats being slightly more profitable for producers, not in terms of
them costing consumers less.

~~~
logicallee
You misunderstood, I didn't mean that there has to be a consumer benefit. I
just mean I thought consumers would still be able to choose it in many cases.
Or the amount could be limited, rather than banned. I'm not arguing for this,
I'm just saying it's shocking!

I mean, it is obvious that if you were to ban sugar, high fructose corn syrup,
corn starch, and even all-purpose white flour, forcing all food companies to
use alternatives, there would be an instant health benefit for the entire
country starting the same day. But that doesn't mean such a ban wouldn't
absolutely shock me, especially as an outright ban rather than limitation,
labelling, etc. The only thing I'm expressing is surprise.

~~~
a8da6b0c91d
> ban sugar, high fructose corn syrup, corn starch, and even all-purpose white
> flour,

There is zero evidence that any of these things are a problem when not eaten
to caloric excess.

~~~
logicallee
you're right. in contrast to my examples wikipedia's trans fat article says,

>Because of these facts and concerns, the NAS has concluded there is no safe
level of trans fat consumption. There is no adequate level, recommended daily
amount or tolerable upper limit for trans fats. This is because any
incremental increase in trans fat intake increases the risk of coronary heart
disease.

maybe a better example than the ones I listed (for which as you point out
there are safe levels of consumption), would be smoking tobacco, which I think
matches the above description and has no safe level. But it is not banned
outright. (at least not yet.)

------
ageofwant
And so dies the last of Indonesia's remaining natural forests. Covered by
cultivated palm trees.

------
geoffbrown
ADM, you are going to have to pry the coconut oil out of my cold, dead, greasy
hands!

------
neosavvy
But what about biscuits!!!

Fried Chicken!!!

Alton Brown recommends using Crisco, he's like a scientist.

~~~
buckbova
I use white lily self rising flour, buttermilk, and butter flavored crisco in
my biscuits and they are phenomenal. I add a little cornstarch for extra
crispiness. But I bet they would be better with original crisco before all the
changes.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisco#Changes_in_fat_content](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisco#Changes_in_fat_content)

I've tried with butter and low-fat milk and it just wasn't the same.

I use peanut oil for fried chicken. Not sure if it's healthy or not, I just
know it's good for frying.

------
a8da6b0c91d
Does this mean the end of no-stir peanut butter? I hate that stuff you have to
mix all the time.

~~~
thaumasiotes
I've always used peanut butter that comes separated. It's never reseparated
after being mixed, though. Do you keep your peanut butter refrigerated?

~~~
Nadya
People refrigerate peanut butter?

~~~
thaumasiotes
Yes, because otherwise it separates. :p

~~~
Nadya
Never had that problem.

Heretics.

------
anon3_
I thought this stuff was already banned in the 90's.

------
notNow
"As for frying, palm oil is expected to be a go-to alternative"

That's like jumping out of the frying pan into the fire, pun intended!

------
bamie9l
"As for frying, palm oil is expected to be a go-to..." uhoh

------
rm_-rf_slash
Huh, so apparently processed foods will be harder to make.

What a shame.

------
Omni5cience
I'll just leave this here: [https://news.vice.com/article/indonesia-is-
killing-the-plane...](https://news.vice.com/article/indonesia-is-killing-the-
planet-for-palm-oil)

