From reading your Harvard study I'll attempt to summarize the results.

They list several epidemiological studies and include risk analysis as follows. ( I inverted some risks for instance one study shows a r=.88 for lower trans fat consumption which is equivalent to a r=1.14 risk for high trans fat consumption. This allows apples to apples between studies.

Keys study
Risk of Mortality from saturated fat = 1.14
Risk of Mortality from Transfat = 1.28

Scottish Heart study
Risk of undiagnosed CHD women = 1.26
Risk of undiagnosed CHD Men = 1.08
These were reported as not statistically significant, which means it could be simple chance.

Boston Study
Risk of heart attack = 2.4

Euromic Study
Risk of Heart attack (MI) = .97
This concluded higher trans fat reduced heart attacks slightly.
But if they throw out the people in spain the numbers change to this.

Risk from 3rd quadrent of trans fat intake = 1.53
Risk from highest quardrent of trans fat intake = 1.44

The highest intake was slightly lower risk than somewhat less intake.

If the data was separated by country it goes like this
Spain Risk = .2
Moscow = .2
Finland = 5.0
Norway = 5.4
As the study said, "interpret is controversial"

3 studies relating 2% increase in trans fat to CHD.
HPFS = 1.36
ATBC = 1.14
NHS = 1.93
Pooled all 3 = 1.31

The problem is the studies are relatively all over the board and a risk factor of 1.31 is considered low. The studies may try to factor out other risks like obesity, smoking, diabetes, blood pressure, but those factors are also not well understood.

If every behavior that carried a risk factor of 1.31 was banned, we'd have to ban a lot. I'd rather not see it go that direction, but it seems that's the case. Eventually the crusaders that want trans fat banned will find something to ban that you'll disagree with.

By contrast the risk factor for smoking is a 12.

Trans fat is not the healthiest choice but it's not like smoking.

The lives that are claimed to be saved are just theoretical. Historically blood pressure is down, cholesterol is down, smoking is down yet CHD incidence have remain the same, when all the proponents of bans claim lives saved. The reason less people died from CHD is because of better treatment, but the same number of people have the problem.

Peace

Steve