Transitioning Away From Trans Fats
Written By: David Snyder on Thu, Aug 9th 2007
These days, the legislature is becoming one of our regular dining companions. Whether it’s a foie gras ban or some other food-related issue, it seems as though the government keeps finding new ways to sneak its fork toward our dinner plate.
One of the proposed “public-safety measures” now clogging up legislative dockets around the country is a ban on trans fats in food sold in restaurants. Which, of course, begs the question: Is a ban on trans fats too tough for foodies to swallow? Or is it something we should all take to heart?
Trans fats are synthetic fats that are made by bombarding plant oils with hydrogen atoms to make them more saturated. This process stabilizes the fats, giving them a longer shelf life. However, it turns out that trans fats are spectacularly unhealthy. Studies show that trans fats increase the risk of coronary heart disease because they increase the levels of bad cholesterol (LDL) and lower the levels of good cholesterol (HDL) that helps protect your arteries. Other studies suggest that trans fats may promote obesity and diabetes, affect fertility, and create free radicals, among other negative effects.
Once trans fats started to be seen as a health risk, legislatures and restaurants both responded. Last December, New York City was the first major metropolitan area to ban the use of all but a small amount of trans fats in restaurants. Philadelphia soon followed suit. Now, some state legislatures are considering state-wide bans. Some restaurants, though, were ahead of the curve. Fast food chains, believe it or not, notorious for using trans fats, are making a switch, and it has been reported that as many as half of New York’s restaurants have already phased out trans fats.
Some argue that a trans fat ban is an intrusion on our freedom to choose what we can and can’t eat. As long as information about trans fats is disclosed, opponents say, people can decide for themselves. Plus, now that we know trans fats are bad and a lot of restaurants are voluntarily banning them anyway, is it really necessary for the legislature to get involved?
In this case, it is.
First, the problem with mere disclosure is that it doesn’t preserve choices; it actually takes them away. If, for example, you’re an informed foodie who is committed to preventing heart disease, and your favorite restaurant merely discloses that it uses trans fats, you could be faced with a Hobson’s choice: Eat the trans fats, which you wouldn’t knowingly do, or not dine at the restaurant at all. Making the ban mandatory allows you to have your cake and eat it too.
Second, there are varying degrees of “voluntary.” Recently, a health advocacy group claimed that it found that French fries made at two popular chains contained twice the maximum daily recommended amount of trans fat. Though the chains say their fries are in compliance with the new law, the advocacy group says the results are inconsistent with the public statements these chains are making about trans fats. A mandatory ban helps consumers hold restaurants accountable. And it allows consumers to make choices that are as informed as possible.
