Removing industrial trans fat from foods
BMJ 2010; 340 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c1826 (Published 15 April 2010) Cite this as: BMJ 2010;340:c1826
All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
In many jurisdictions it is unlawful to render food injurious to
health. For example the UK Food Safety Act section 7 states:
"Rendering food injurious to health
(1) Any person who renders any food injurious to health by means of any of
the following operations, namely—
(a) adding any article or substance to the food;
(b) using any article or substance as an ingredient in the preparation of
the food;....
(2) In determining ...whether any food is injurious to health, regard
shall be had—
(a) not only to the probable effect of that food on the health of a person
consuming it; but
(b) also to the probable cumulative effect of food of substantially the
same composition on the health of a person consuming it in ordinary
quantities.
Note in particular the emphasis in section 7(2)(b) on probable
cumulative effects when consumed in ordinary quantities.
If it is the case that people on poor diets consume significant
quantities of industrial TFAs, even where the average is quite low, it
would appear that using industrial TFAs as food ingredients, in any foods
that some consumers would eat regularly and frequently, may be unlawful in
the UK.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Keep the language simple
Published in April, but noticed by the Independent in September (1) -
the regular column "Errors and Omissions" takes the authors of this
editorial to task for referring to "the poor" as "socioeconomically
disadvantaged subgroups". Guy Keleny asks - and I echo him - "Does this
mean that we are thinking any more clearly than our great-grandparents
did, or are we just addicted to high-sounding jargon? And are the poor any
better off for being given a fancy label?"
The answer to Guy's questions are, "No", "Yes", and "No".
1 Keleny G. Errors and omissions. The Independent 17 Sept 2011, p 48,
col 3.
Competing interests: No competing interests