NYC Plans Limits on Restaurants’ Use of Trans Fats

[rbailin]

From today's NY Times:

New York City Plans Sharp Limits on Restaurants’ Use of Trans Fats

In my opinion, a more insidious law proposal than the foie gras ban in Chicago.

What's next? A limit on grams of saturated fat per serving? Or even serving sizes themselves?

Bob

[raji]

I equate trans fats with cheap/fast foods... maybe the real chefs on the board can chime in, but is this a required ingredient in anything people on this board would be into?

[Pan]

I am having a hard time seeing any benefit to trans fats. Is there anything that wouldn't be better with either butter, some kind of animal fat (duckfat, etc.), or oil?

From the article:

“Like lead paint, artificial trans fat in food is invisible and dangerous, and it can be replaced,” said Thomas R. Frieden, the city’s health commissioner, after the Board of Health vote yesterday. “No one will miss it when it is gone.”

[Edited to insert quote.]

Edited September 27, 2006 by Pan (log)

[Mallet]

The Board of Health vote comes a year after it conducted an unsuccessful campaign to persuade restaurants to eliminate trans fats from their recipes voluntarily. It said yesterday that despite mass mailings about the hazards of trans fats and training programs for 7,800 restaurant operators, about half the city’s restaurants continued to serve trans fats, about the same as before the campaign.

The only exclusions from the restrictions would be packaged food items, like candy, that remain in the manufacturers’ original packaging when served, as well as naturally occurring trans fats, which are found in some meats and dairy products.

I almost hate to say it, but this doesn't sound so bad. First, only artificial trans-fats are to be regulated. Second, this step was taken after an usuccessful attempt at education/voluntary reduction.

Maybe this will push NYC McDonald's to fry it's fries in beef tallow once more

Edited September 27, 2006 by Mallet (log)

[Taboni]

Maybe this will push NYC McDonald's to fry it's fries in beef tallow once more 

←

Yeah I think I hear veggies weeping across the city!!!

[Fat Guy]

It might make sense to ban trans-fats if we had unequivocal proof of their harmful properties, however there is no clear evidence that eating a moderate amount of trans-fats here and there has any effect on health or mortality. Trans-fats are at worst in the same category as sugar, saturated fats, eggs and other products that are most likely harmless in moderation but possibly more harmful as we increase our intake.

As a result, a ban on trans-fats presents -- as rbailin points out -- the possibility that the government will ban any food it deems hazardous to our health. The problem is that any food is hazardous to human health when consumed in sufficient quantity, but most foods are not harmful at all if consumed occasionally.

This false certainty on the government (and health lobby's) behalf is also dangerous because it comes in cycles: much of the reason so many of us ate so many trans-fats as kids was that the government was telling us to replace butter with margarine. There was a sense of total certainty about it. Now, the certainty runs the other way: margarine is evil. Where will it end?

[Mallet]

It might make sense to ban trans-fats if we had unequivocal proof of their harmful properties, however there is no clear evidence that eating a moderate amount of trans-fats here and there has any effect on health or mortality. Trans-fats are at worst in the same category as sugar, saturated fats, eggs and other products that are most likely harmless in moderation but possibly more harmful as we increase our intake.

As a result, a ban on trans-fats presents -- as rbailin points out -- the possibility that the government will ban any food it deems hazardous to our health. The problem is that any food is hazardous to human health when consumed in sufficient quantity, but most foods are not harmful at all if consumed occasionally.

This false certainty on the government (and health lobby's) behalf is also dangerous because it comes in cycles: much of the reason so many of us ate so many trans-fats as kids was that the government was telling us to replace butter with margarine. There was a sense of total certainty about it. Now, the certainty runs the other way: margarine is evil. Where will it end?

←

I'm not sure that the evidence supports the claim that trans-fats are no worse than sugar, saturated fats, or that eliminating trans-fats will have negligible benefits. A few studies I quickly pulled off Pubmed

1

2

The problem with the butter/margarine thing is that you are replacing trans fat with satured fat. In most cases (e.g: vegetable oil), what is likely to happen is trans-fat being replaced with unsaturated fat, and the evidence for this being beneficial seems pretty much unequivocal. Note also that study 1 claims that the bulk of trans-fats in human breast milk comes from partially hydrogenated vegetable oils, and not dairy products.

I'm not sure how to respond to the slippery slope argument. IMHO, in this case I have a hard time seeing the negative.

Edited to add that false certainty is certainly a bad thing, but that shouldn't stop us from making the most sensible decisions based on the evidence at hand, keeping in mind the pros and cons.

Edited September 27, 2006 by Mallet (log)

[ghostrider]

This false certainty on the government (and health lobby's) behalf is also dangerous because it comes in cycles: much of the reason so many of us ate so many trans-fats as kids was that the government was telling us to replace butter with margarine. There was a sense of total certainty about it. Now, the certainty runs the other way: margarine is evil. Where will it end?

←

That seems to assume that there is never any net advance in knowledge. Much human history indicates otherwise.

In this specific case, the certainty doesn't completely run the other way, though it may in the minds of those who are pushing this ban. But Jane Brody's related piece in the Times a couple of weeks ago adds some interesting perspectives on potential problems with trans fat alternatives.

Brody makes me think that this proposed ban is rash and the consequences haven't been fully thought through. If the alternative is a bucket of McNuggets fried in palm oil, what is gained? And the answer will probably be more regulation, making "Where will it end?" ultimately a very good question.

[Fat Guy]

I'm not sure that the evidence supports the claim that trans-fats are no worse than sugar, saturated fats, or that eliminating trans-fats will have negligible benefits. A few studies I quickly pulled off Pubmed . . .

←

The point isn't that trans-fats can't be harmful, it's that it's not a binary situation: as with most any food product, if you eat just a little it's quite harmless and if you eat a lot it can be harmful. The issue is quantity. In other words, a ban on trans fats makes no more sense than a ban on sugar, butter, eggs, white flour or bacon, because all those substances have thresholds (probably different for each individual) up to which they can be part of a balanced diet and beyond which they can be bad for you. In addition, yes, there is plenty of good research to indicate that trans fats are no more harmful than saturated fats.

Gina Kolata's article in the New York Times from August, titled The Panic Du Jour: Trans Fats in Foods, provides a good overview. One excerpt:

The National Academy of Sciences, the Department of Health and Human Services, the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute and the Food and Drug Administration have all come to the same conclusion: Trans fats are on a par with saturated fats, like butter or lard. Both increase cholesterol levels and most people would be better off if they ate less of all of them. Period.

"I call it the panic du jour," said Dr. David Kritchevsky of the trans fat fears. Dr. Kritchevsky is a dietary fat and cholesterol researcher at the Wistar Institute, an independent nonprofit research center in Philadelphia. Trans fat, he added, "is an easy whipping boy."

[Nathan]

It is mass hysteria, that is all.

Trans fats, like other fats, are bad in terms of the overly voluminous diet that modern humans eat.

The real problem is that our bodies were engineered for subsistence diets and not equipped for the time of universal plenty that we live in now.

so, we seek succor from the mommy state.

[sammy]

How can this possibly be enforced?

[Sneakeater]

This is absurd.

[Sneakeater]

Maybe I should start lobbying my Council Member for a ban on big-box theme restaurants imported from other cities.

[Daniel]

How can this possibly be enforced?

←

They will just use the same guidelines set up by the smoking ban. How many people on here ignored The Smoking Bans infringement on the Owner's Rights, just because they didn't like smoke. Well, here they go again. And yes everyone can make an argument that TransFat is unhealthy.. But again, its not the point.

Government is a living thing who's natural instinct is to grow.

Edited September 27, 2006 by Daniel (log)

[Vadouvan]

How can this possibly be enforced?

Great Question, can it be done without freezing commerce or quadrupling it's cost ?

[Vadouvan]

They will just use the same guidelines set up by the smoking ban. How many people on here ignored The Smoking Bans infringement on the Owner's Rights, just because they didn't like smoke. Well, here they go again. And yes everyone can make an argument that TransFat is unhealthy.. But again, its not the point.

Government is a living thing who's natural instinct is to grow.

But wont it have to involve new FDA rules on food ingredients ?

We are talking going after some of the largest, richest companies in America with the best connected lobbying groups in Washington DC.

Cant it really be done without getting watered down till its meaningless ?

[Daniel]

They will just use the same guidelines set up by the smoking ban. How many people on here ignored The Smoking Bans infringement on the Owner's Rights, just because they didn't like smoke. Well, here they go again. And yes everyone can make an argument that TransFat is unhealthy.. But again, its not the point.

Government is a living thing who's natural instinct is to grow.

But wont it have to involve new FDA rules on food ingredients ?

We are talking going after some of the largest, richest companies in America with the best connected lobbying groups in Washington DC.

Cant it really be done without getting watered down till its meaningless ?

←

No, it doesnt have to involve the FDA rules..As the smoking ban doesnt come from any federal guideline. The lawyers behind this know exactly who is involved.. There is a movement in America to demonize big business.. Whether its Big Tobacco, the Food Industry, or the Wallmarts.. They go head hunting.. They put some poor slob against a huge faceless, mean corporation, and some jury is bound to give them a few million..

Its not really about protecting people with laws.. Its about making tons of cash off of mean old corporations..

Edited September 27, 2006 by Daniel (log)

[Daniel]

copy

Edited September 27, 2006 by Daniel (log)

[Fat Guy]

The proposed ban won't apply to packaged food products like candy bars and chips -- only to prepared foods. So that mostly avoids getting into FDA territory.

[Vadouvan]

That's interesting steven but without actually knowing the ratio of Junk vs real food that the average American the law is trying to protect eats, it strikes me as only targeting a small sector of consumption dont you think, given that is even actually worth pursuing ?

[dan.]

Given:

The proposed ban won't apply to packaged food products like candy bars and chips -- only to prepared foods. So that mostly avoids getting into FDA territory.

, how on earth does this have anything to do with big business? Daniel, are you trying to say that the city is trying to stave off lawsuits by enacting the ban? Honestly this reads more like busy body health officials overreacting and worrying about insurance costs.

[Busboy]

They will just use the same guidelines set up by the smoking ban. How many people on here ignored The Smoking Bans infringement on the Owner's Rights, just because they didn't like smoke. Well, here they go again. And yes everyone can make an argument that TransFat is unhealthy.. But again, its not the point.

Government is a living thing who's natural instinct is to grow.

But wont it have to involve new FDA rules on food ingredients ?

We are talking going after some of the largest, richest companies in America with the best connected lobbying groups in Washington DC.

Cant it really be done without getting watered down till its meaningless ?

←

No, it doesnt have to involve the FDA rules..As the smoking ban doesnt come from any federal guideline. The lawyers behind this know exactly who is involved.. There is a movement in America to demonize big business.. Whether its Big Tobacco, the Food Industry, or the Wallmarts.. They go head hunting.. They put some poor slob against a huge faceless, mean corporation, and some jury is bound to give them a few million..

Its not really about protecting people with laws.. Its about making tons of cash off of mean old corporations..

←

Essentially as glib an argument as those made by fat-banning do-gooders.

Given that this is a regulation rather than a lawsuit, there appears to be very little money to be made. In fact, it's the restaurant owners talking lawsuit.

And, in an age where large corporations unarguably wield immense power, the system fails to function without some sort of opposition to powerful interests (not that I detect any anti-trans-fat-trust crusading in this action).

And I'm interested in hearing why big tobacco should not be demonized.

Anyway, I'm with Fat Guy -- whose handle alone should give him cred on this -- in that this is a barn door we don't want to open, and that science changes it's mind too often to overreact now.

(I recall how, when my firstborn was born, there was vast scientific eveidence proving that letting babies sleep on their stomachs reduced crib death. By the time my second was born, the weight of evidence proved they had to sleep on their backs. Or maybe it was the opposite.)

[Vadouvan]

Things must be quiet at the health dept now that no one is doind any more sous vide...hehe..

[Daniel]

Well if busboy says my argument is glib, it must be without him even having to explain it.

I feel this law is a direct attack on the Fast Food Industry.. Although, there are many restaurants that will get caught up in it, its roots are in Fast Food.. Once you proove that the food is dangerous, now all you need to do is proove that someone might have known it was.. Next thing you know Chester Cheetoh was this dubious ploy to brainwash and kill our children.. They already did that to Ronald..

Chicago is trying to do the same thing, but they are more specific.. They actually state that this law would only apply to companies with annual revenues of more than $20 million.. Just like Chicago's attempt to raise minimum wage solely on big box stores.. What was the point of that? To protect the public from discount stores?

Its just a way for government to interfere in business. Plain and simple.

Edited September 27, 2006 by Daniel (log)

[JohnL]

Well if busboy says my argument is glib, it must be without him even having to explain it.

I feel this law is a direct attack on the Fast Food Industry.. Although, there are many restaurants that will get caught up in it, its roots are in Fast Food.. Once you proove that the food is dangerous, now all you need to do is proove that someone might have known it was.. Next thing you know Chester Cheetoh was this dubious ploy to brainwash and kill our children.. They already did that to Ronald..

Chicago is trying to do the same thing, but they are more specific.. They actually state that this law would only apply to companies with annual revenues of more than $20 million..  Just like Chicago's attempt to raise minimum wage solely on big box stores..

Its just a way for government to interfere in business. Plain and simple.

←

Your argument was not glib at all.

IMOP this is a basic case of rights and freedoms and choice.

Unfortunately, there's big money in regulation.

and big corporations have big money.

by the way--this goes hand in greedy little hand with the demand to regulate salt!

Just when I finally found the perfect diet for myself--lots of salt to get my blood pressure high enough to force the foie gras through my veins!!!

It is interesting to note that today with all the evil stuff we ingest our life expectancies

are higher than ever.

Edited September 27, 2006 by JohnL (log)