News & Politics - NYC bans trans fats in restaurants

elisheva · 12-07-2006, 06:45 AM

Quote:

New York City Board of Health adopts ban on trans fats in restaurant cooking
By Thomas J. Lueck and Kim Severson
Wednesday, December 6, 2006
NEW YORK

The New York City Board of Health has voted to adopt the nation's first major municipal ban on the use of all but tiny amounts of artificial trans fats in restaurant cooking, a move that would radically transform how food is prepared in thousands of restaurants, from McDonald's to fashionable bistros to Chinese takeouts.

Some experts said the measure, which has been widely opposed by the restaurant industry, would be a model for other cities. Chicago is considering a similar prohibition that would affect restaurants with more than $20 million in annual sales.

"New York City has set a national standard," said Harold Goldstein, executive director of the California Center for Public Health Advocacy, who predicted that other communities would follow suit.

Trans fats, also called trans fatty acids, are the chemically modified food ingredients that raise levels of a particularly unhealthy form of cholesterol and have been squarely linked to heart disease. They have long been used as a substitute for saturated fats in baked goods, fried foods, salad dressings, margarine and other foods.

While the trans fat regulation captured the most attention, the Board of Health approved a separate measure - also the first of its kind in the country - requiring some restaurants, mostly fast food outlets, to prominently display the caloric content of each menu item on menu boards or near cash registers.

Health officials said displaying calorie counts is meant to address what is widely regarded as a nationwide epidemic of obesity.

The city's prohibition on trans fats, which would be phased in starting in July, was a victory for Mayor Michael Bloomberg, an outspoken health advocate, and his activist health commissioner, Dr. Thomas Frieden.

After the city's aggressive campaign to ban smoking in restaurants and in public places that goes back more than a decade, the regulation governing trans fats has again thrust New York to the forefront of a significant public health issue.

Experts say eliminating trans fats need not change the taste of foods, but chefs and restaurant owners say it is hard to replicate the taste and texture of some items without them.

Both the trans fat and calorie regulations would be enforced by the health department's restaurant inspectors. Inspectors would check the packaging of ingredients used in restaurant kitchens for the amount of trans fats they contain, but prepared food would not be routinely tested. Violators would face fines of at least $200.

Both measures have come under fire as impractical and unwanted intrusions by the government into free enterprise and civil liberties.

Rebecca Cathcart contributed reporting.
Copyright © 2006 The International Herald Tribune | International Herald Tribune - World News, Analysis, and Global Opinions

Source - IHT

While I'm not so into state controls on junk food, trans fats serve no appreciable purpose except to extend shelf life (which, gross) and make things really bad for you. I'm not firmly for or against, though.

Thoughts? Nanny state gone crazy or state protecting health?

**sunnykerr** · 12-07-2006, 09:36 AM

I'm with you... it's a bit of both.

However, as trans fat serve no real irreplaceable purpose, and considering how terrible they are for a person's health... I mean, this is why they banned lead paint, right?

But it's shifty ground and I would hope they don't go overboard with that.

Lexis · 12-07-2006, 10:15 AM

Like the both of you, I'm also a little "hmmmm" with this issue.

The lead paint analogy I think is most apt for this situation - if the threat is big enough, the state has to do something.

Jacob1983 · 12-07-2006, 11:21 AM

I think this ban is ridiculous. Fatty foods are usually bad for you but they shouldn't be all be banned. There are a ton of foods that are deemed unhealthy but they aren't being banned. I don't see what the big deal is. If you go every once in a while and get a burger or taco at a fast food place, I honestly don't think it's going to kill you. However, if you eat out everyday then there would be a problem. This whole ban is like telling people what they can and can't eat. It's not right. I mean you can drink a beer and get in your car and kill someone but you don't see any lawmakers trying to put restrictions or a ban on drinking. That's one thing I don't understand about American society. We are so anti cigarette smoking and fatty/unhealthy food but we are all okay with drinking. I do think that smoking and fatty/unhealthy foods are bad for you but they gradually screw you up. A person can drink 1 beer or two and their life and/or other people's lives can be changed forever.

**sunnykerr** · 12-07-2006, 11:24 AM

Fatty foods aren't being banned, though. Trans fats are a whole different thing.

And it is just in restaurants. So if people want LDL cholesterol and clogged arteries that bad, they can always go to the nearest grocery story.

elisheva · 12-07-2006, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jacob1983 (View Post)

I think this ban is ridiculous. Fatty foods are usually bad for you but they shouldn't be all be banned. There are a ton of foods that are deemed unhealthy but they aren't being banned. I don't see what the big deal is. If you go every once in a while and get a burger or taco at a fast food place, I honestly don't think it's going to kill you. However, if you eat out everyday then there would be a problem. This whole ban is like telling people what they can and can't eat. It's not right. I mean you can drink a beer and get in your car and kill someone but you don't see any lawmakers trying to put restrictions or a ban on drinking. That's one thing I don't understand about American society. We are so anti cigarette smoking and fatty/unhealthy food but we are all okay with drinking. I do think that smoking and fatty/unhealthy foods are bad for you but they gradually screw you up. A person can drink 1 beer or two and their life and/or other people's lives can be changed forever.

Well, there are restrictions on drinking, and it's illegal to drive when your blood alcohol is at a certain level (although, not that I'm at all an expert on this but I think usually the issue is not 'one beer or two' but a much higher amount of alcohol - although it's best to be careful and have one sober person be designated driver). But you're right - alcohol is much more socially accepted than most other things.

And as sunnykerr pointed out, fatty foods aren't being banned - trans fats are. They're an altered form of fat which is more stable (thus increasing shelf life) but which are very very bad for you.

I guess iof the limit is banning trans fats in restaurants (and I suppose encouraging cut downs in processed foods as well?) this will be good for public health. However, if this extends much further, I'd be wary of that.

flagpolesitta43 · 12-07-2006, 05:23 PM

I'm not sure how I feel about this ban, I think it's a good thing for public health...but I don't like the government interfering so much.

Jacob1983 · 12-07-2006, 05:28 PM

Our society is just messed up. A person who eats a burger from Burger King or McDonald's is deemed bad but a person who drinks a beer and gets drunk isn't. When you start banning food, you become less of a democracy. I see nothing wrong with eating a burger from Burger King or McDonald's every once in a while. I think the restaurants in NYC will definately lose a lot of money from banning trans fat. I'm sure they have already lost a lot of money since banning cigarette smoking. People should be allowed to enjoy somewhat unhealthy but tasty food every once in a while.
And about beer and drinking, the best thing to do is to not drink at all. If you don't drink then you never have to worry about doing something bad and wrong to yourself and/or others. People will never support a ban on beer ever again but I do think that people need to wake up and realize that there should be more restrictions on it. A lot of activists spend way too much time on the whole "the truth" campaign. I would like to see some activists have some commercials and ads that are similar to the cigarette smoking "the truth" campaigns but be about the consequences and harmful effects of beer.

**sunnykerr** · 12-07-2006, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jacob1983 (View Post)

Our society is just messed up. A person who eats a burger from Burger King or McDonald's is deemed bad but a person who drinks a beer and gets drunk isn't.

If this was ever true (burger = bad, drunk = not bad) then I would call our society messed up, too. But I really don't think it's that simple.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jacob1983 (View Post)

When you start banning food, you become less of a democracy. I see nothing wrong with eating a burger from Burger King or McDonald's every once in a while. I think the restaurants in NYC will definately lose a lot of money from banning trans fat.

It's not banning food. It's banning a food process that is genetically engineered to enhance the food's shelf life.

This is the part that's exactly like banning lead paint. Paint wasn't banned, an ingredient in it was. You can still paint your house; people will still be able to buy and eat all the fatty foods they want to eat in restaurants.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jacob1983 (View Post)

I'm sure they have already lost a lot of money since banning cigarette smoking.

I can't speak for any other part of the world but my province implemented a smoking ban in all public places (so that includes bars and restaurants) back in May. And there were tremendous fears about revenue loss because Quebec is pretty well-known for having a lot of smokers. I do believe some even refer to us, as a whole, as "the smoking section of Canada."

And all I can say is that they talking about it on the news, because bar owners associations tried to sue the government over it and whatnot, and it just hasn't been the case. I mean that revenue loss has simply not happened.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jacob1983 (View Post)

People should be allowed to enjoy somewhat unhealthy but tasty food every once in a while.

This ban on trans fats will never, ever prevent anyone from enjoying "somewhat unhealthy but tasty food every once in a while." For one thing, trans fats are not connected to taste. For another, this is food in restaurants. Everything at the grocery store will still have the same amount of trans fats it had before.

I think the distinction is that, when you go to a restaurant, you don't control the amount of trans fats you consume because you don't know. They did studies and found ridiculous amounts of trans fats in places you wouldn't necessarily expect them to have. Like at a Wendy's, the burger was totally clean of trans fats, but the salad dressing was full of it, so that was worse...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jacob1983 (View Post)

And about beer and drinking, the best thing to do is to not drink at all. If you don't drink then you never have to worry about doing something bad and wrong to yourself and/or others.

I totally, 100% agree with this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jacob1983 (View Post)

I do think that people need to wake up and realize that there should be more restrictions on it. A lot of activists spend way too much time on the whole "the truth" campaign. I would like to see some activists have some commercials and ads that are similar to the cigarette smoking "the truth" campaigns but be about the consequences and harmful effects of beer.

There are campaigns. The MADD campaign, for one.

The thing is that, drunk moderately, there is no inherent health risk to beer. Sure, it impairs jugement, but it's not something where you can necessarily trace the direct impact.

Obviously, drunk driving and alcoholism are a whole other story. But, for the most part, a guy or a girl who drinks a cool one at the end of the day every once in a while isn't doing anything irreperable to his health. As far as I can tell anyway, not drinking myself.

Cigarettes, beyond the fact that they have very clear damaging impacts on a smoker's health, also affect the people around that person. To be very specific to what I know, aside from second-hand smoking, there's the whole fact that there are people out there who, like me, have asthma and people who, like me, are allergic to nicotine.

S.A.S.H.A. · 12-07-2006, 09:29 PM

I have no problem with this sort of ban.

Sasha

migamoo · 12-07-2006, 09:36 PM

I don't think this is a bad thing. They are just trying to help provide people with something healthier to help fight obesity. If there's something wrong with that, it's lost on me.

-Kelly- · 12-07-2006, 11:26 PM

I think it's a great idea.

elisheva · 12-10-2006, 09:11 PM

Another article on this topic that has slightly more information:

Quote:

Trans Fat War’s First Victory

FOR a land renowned for its love of hamburgers, hot dogs and all kinds of junk food, it was a significant move. Last week, health officials in New York voted unanimously to phase out the use of artificial "killer" trans fats in the city's 24,000 food outlets.

The new rules mean that from July next year, restaurants must switch to cooking oils that contain no more than tiny quantities of trans fat, and a year later the same limits will apply to all types of food.

While restaurant owners are grumbling about the ban and have even threatened to sue the city, health officials are in no doubt about the impact it will have, claiming it is of equal significance to the ban on toxic lead in paint four decades ago.

The move by New York, which is renowned for being a leader on public health issues, could herald similar bans elsewhere. Legislation passed in the United States means it is already a requirement that food labels show the amount of trans fats in their products.

In contrast, across the Atlantic, those who are concerned about trans fats in the UK are left in the dark when it comes to knowing exactly how much they could be consuming. Trans fats, also known as trans-fatty acids (TFAs), can be found in a wide range of products such as ice-cream, crisps, biscuits, breakfast cereals and fast foods, but their presence is rarely flagged up.

Shoppers have instead to scrutinise the back of food packs for words such as "hydrogenated" and "partially hydrogenated vegetable oil" or "vegetable shortenings" to ascertain whether that evening's dinner might contain TFAs.

Yet, with the nation's waistline already bulging because of diets laden with saturated fats and a startling lack of exercise, is it actually worth spending too much time worrying about what impact trans fats might be having?

Unsurprisingly, American campaigners believe it is a matter of major concern. Jenn Breckenridge, director of the Trans Fat Free NYC campaign, described the New York restaurant ban as a "radical decision - in a good way".

"The health commissioner here in New York compares it to taking the lead out of paint," she said. "Here is this poison, we are surrounding ourselves in it and you're not going to miss anything when it is gone, except the illness.

"According to Harvard researchers, 500 people in New York alone die prematurely through trans fat intake each year - that is more than in car accidents."

Trans fats are formed during a process known as hydrogenation, which subjects oils to high temperatures to stabilise and solidify them, making them last longer.

They are also naturally present in small amounts in some foods, such as dairy products and meat, but it is the artificially produced ones that have been linked to negative health effects - in particular heart disease, due to the effect of raising the "bad" form of blood cholesterol.

Recent research by US scientists found that a 2% rise in the energy intake from trans fatty acids was associated with a 23% rise in the incidence of coronary heart disease. A study published earlier this year also found that consuming artificial trans fats could increase the size of your waistline, even if a relatively low number of calories are consumed, raising the risk of both heart disease and diabetes.

What is most frustrating to those opposed to trans fats is that they have no nutritional benefit at all and are solely used by food manufacturers to extend the shelf life of some products and enhance the taste of others.

According to the Food Standards Agency (FSA), the British watchdog body on food safety, consumption of trans fats in the UK is at a low level, with an average intake of 1.1% of total energy, below the recommended 2%. Of far greater concern, it believes, is the amount of saturated fats people are eating, which is higher than recommended. The agency is therefore concentrating on a strategy to reduce levels of these in the diet.

However, at the same time, the FSA has pushed officials in Brussels for a change in the law, which would force manufacturers to identify the trans fat content in a revision of labelling requirements which is due to be published next year.

"The agency recognises that some food products contain a high level of trans fats," a spokeswoman for FSA Scotland said. "Food labels are currently not required to show the trans fat content so consumers cannot identify products with high levels.

"The agency is therefore seeking an appropriate amendment when the EU nutrition labelling directive is revised."

The British Heart Foundation (BHF) agrees that saturated fats are more of a concern. Alex Callaghan, policy officer at the BHF, said: "Most of us consume trans fats within safe' levels, so this isn't an issue that should cause too much anxiety.

"As a nation, our high intake of saturated fats is much more of a threat to our heart health. We're calling for manufacturers and retailers to clearly label trans fats on food packaging, so that people can make informed decisions about their diet."

Dr Frankie Phillips, of the British Dietetic Association, also backed the labelling move, but she cautioned that people would also need to be educated about them.

"There are certain groups in the population who eat lots of foods that are high in trans fats, people who eat lots of pies, fried food, pastries, cakes and biscuits," she said. "Having trans fats labelled on food would be a useful move, but it would involve a huge amount of public health education so that people could actually understand what it means."

She added: "It would probably be a more important public health message to reduce your weight, stop eating as many saturated fats and take more exercise. I think that would be a more pertinent issue at the moment than trans fats."

Despite the lack of enthusiasm at a government level for a ban on TFAs, major supermarkets and food producers are keen to ditch them, even without the impetus of any legislation.

A survey carried out by the Sunday Herald has revealed that all of the major supermarkets in the UK will have phased out trans fats in their own-brand foods by next year.

As well as Sainsbury's, Tesco and Asda, who have previously announced the move, other food retailers, including Morrisons and Somerfield, are also working on cutting out trans fats from their products.

Marks & Spencer completed the removal of trans fats from its products in June this year. When quizzed on the reasons why, a spokeswoman said: "It is something that was of interest to customers and we are always looking to reappraise and improve our products."

Earlier this year, a snapshot report by the Food and Drink Federation, which represents food manufacturers, found that £1.5 billion worth of products had been reformulated to reduce trans fats. "There has been a real effort by manufacturers to see if they can replace them," a spokeswoman said. But she also argued that there is a "misconception" that trans fats are a real public health issue.

She added: "Whilst there has been a lot of action by manufacturers, in terms of how much it makes up our actual diet it is below government recommendations."

Oliver Tickell, who runs website tfX: the campaign against trans fats in food, believes that the impact of the food labelling legislation in the US, as well as legislation introduced in Denmark which has set strict limits on the amount of trans fats allowed in foods, has prompted welcome action.

"Both of those have made food manufacturers think very hard about how they develop products," he said. "It stimulated an enormous effort by the grocery industry to develop alternative forms, so these alternatives are widely available."

But Tickell pointed out that a major problem is that while labelling of food packages is better than nothing, consumers will still have no idea if they are present in everyday foods produced in restaurants, or work and school canteens.

He also rejected the FSA's claims that the average intake of trans fats is too low to have an impact on people's health.

"It is the part of the population who are socially and economically disadvantaged who are going to eat a lot of takeaways from fish and chip shops, or cakes, pies and other foods which have high levels of trans fats," he said. "In general, it is the people who are going to have health issues in all other kinds of ways.

"So on top of all their other difficulties, they are actually eating quite a toxic diet, and a diet that could be dramatically improved by requiring the removal of trans fats."

Others agree that far too little has been done in the UK to tackle the issue. Dr John Briffa, a practising medic and a writer with an interest in nutrition, argued that a strong food lobby in America has helped prompt the moves against trans fats there.

"I think, quite frankly, that our government has been a bit toothless and hasn't necessarily been as proactive as it could be about trans fats," he said. "In America they have quite a strong lobbying group, but we don't really have anything like that here."

What impact the New York ban will have on the rest of the world remains to be seen, but following the UK's ban on lead in paint in 1960 and the recent ban on smoking in public places, more legislation around the world on trans fats remains a possibility.

Meanwhile, concerned consumers in the UK must wait for a Brussels ruling in favour of trans fats labelling. A spokeswoman for the European Commission said proposals will "hopefully" be published in 2007.

Until then, shoppers must go on scrutinising labels closely for hints that their food could contain heart-clogging fats. Campaigners think this is simply not good enough.

"It would be better to have proper labelling than none at all, but it's not a solution" said Tickell. "There is very little pressure on the food service sector to do anything. We need a full ban - Denmark has already done it and the Danish economy has not collapsed or anything. So why can't they do it here?"

what the supermarkets/food producers say
Nestle Has an "ongoing, active reformulation programme" to reduce, and where feasible remove, TFAs in all products.

Morrisons Active programme to remove hydrogenated vegetable oils/fats. Aiming to complete process by spring 2007.

Sainsbury's Removing hydrogenated vegetable oils from its entire range of own-brand food and drink by January 1, 2007.

Marks & Spencer All trans fats removed from products since June 2006.

Tesco Pledged to remove hydrogenated fat from own-brand products by end of 2006.

Asda Only product in which trans fats remain in is biscuits, which will be removed by January 2007.

Co-operative Pledged to remove hydrogenated vegetable fats from all own-label products by March 2007.

Somerfield Working to eliminate all hydrogenated fats from own-brand products by July 2007.

Unilever Started to remove them in 1993. Products free from artificial trans fats.

Burger King Changed to "near 0%" trans fat frying oil in 2005.

KFC Says it is committed to removing trans fats from all its products and is "actively" working on an alternative cooking oil.

McDonald's Testing zero trans fat oil in some US restaurants. Says it is "encouraged" by the results, but not yet prepared to announce a national roll out for an alternative oil blend.

Pizza Hut No trans fats used in products.

9:59pm Saturday 9th December 2006

Source

Jacob1983 · 12-11-2006, 10:25 AM

If America ever did ban foods such as hot dogs, burgers, fries, and chips, I might have to leave the country. LOL

I just find it hilarious how America has its priorities set. It's like America cares so much about food but they could care less on more dangerous things such as drugs, tobacco, and alcohol. It's like a burger is more dangerous than cocaine, a cigarette, or a drunk driver. I do believe that America probably should be healthier when it comes food and fitness however our country should put more of a focus and emphasis on monitoring worse things such as tobacco, drugs, and alcohol.

migamoo · 12-11-2006, 11:04 AM

Policy makers in America want their citizens to be healthy. There's nothing wrong with that. Why do you make it sound like they are doing something horrible, Jacob?


Fan Forum > General Discussion > News & Politics > NYC bans trans fats in restaurants