“Artificial trans fat is an unnecessary and dangerous ingredient in food.” So claims the city’s Board of Health and Mental Hygiene in its recent citywide proposal to ban trans fat. According to some researchers, that statement is largely true. With a wealth of medical research and no shortage of official opinions to back it up, the demonization of trans fat with its heart-damaging additives goes virtually unchallenged. Dr. Walter Willet of the Harvard School of Public Health echoes the mass of professionals in calling it “a toxic substance that does not belong in food.” The oil made a massive retreat from grocery store shelves earlier this year when the FDA forced manufacturers to include trans fat information on their labels, but it still has a firm foothold in many of the city’s 20,000 eateries, particularly fast food restaurants. With recent estimates showing that more than a third of New Yorkers’ meals are eaten in these establishments, a ban almost guarantees a drop in trans fat intake, which seems like a good thing. But while the fat is certainly unhealthy, it’s no E. coli spinach terror. While it’s clear that people should avoid it whenever possible, increasingly vocal citizens question whether the Bloomberg administration’s massive ban is legitimate or effective in improving health.
“We don’t feel it’s in the purview of a non-elected body to impose a ban on the restaurant industry,” says Charles Hunt, Executive Vice President of the New York State Restaurant Association. “It’s best left as a matter of choice with restaurateurs and customers.”
And consumers often do regularly choose to eat Krispy Kreme donuts and KFC chicken, which both reportedly use the oil. Introduced mid 20th century, artificially produced trans fat was originally considered a healthier alternative to saturated fat. Today, the medical tables have turned and trans fat has been named as one of the chief causes of the dramatic rise in heart disease in the United States. Nevertheless, in January, a Harvard University study reported, “per capita consumption of trans fatty acids has not changed greatly since the 1960s.” This suggests that myriad other causes of heart problems may be in play, possibly ignored by the Bloomberg legislation. The eradication of trans fat will effectively offer a false sense of security because food won’t necessarily be any healthier. Actual fat, calorie and cholesterol levels will not be regulated, so barring any other sweeping decrees deciding what New Yorkers can eat, citizens will have to be just as vigilant in their food choices.
The legislation may also have serious repercussions for the food industry, which is the city’s largest employer with over 225,000 workers. “It will create big supply and demand problems,” predicts Hunt. “Many items [restaurants] use, they do not make themselves.”
New trans fat-free substitutes might be hard for city restaurants to find. Hunt points to McDonald’s and its aborted attempt to find a suitable alternative to trans fat in recent years. Hunt claims there weren’t sufficient supplies available, and he adds that smaller operations will have an even tougher time switching oils because of their limited resources.
National companies have more capital but, historically, those that have shown a willingness to change their cooking methods have done so free of legislative mandate. Notable instances involve Wendy’s and Kraft, who both embraced trans fat-free food lines in response to growing customer demand and interest groups. After all, huge corporations care about the bottom line and they can increase profits by placating the masses. Most of those who’ve removed trans fats voluntarily have made it a marketing scheme, notes Hunt.
Other dissenters point to the Mayor’s attempt to foist his personal interpretation of health on New Yorkers. Much like 2003’s smoking ban, some citizens feel a loss of freedom at the hand of Bloomberg’s ethics. But unlike the smoking ban, secondhand trans fat ingestion has yet to reveal health risks.
“It’s the same type of expansive view of public health [as the smoking ban],” says Radley Balko of the Cato Institute, a non-profit public policy research foundation, adding that businesses shouldn’t have to move with the changing tide of public health. “It’s kind of silly. The same people who were pushing for a change from animal fats to trans fats years ago are now supporting the trans fat ban. You can’t expect the food industry to change based on the public health outrage of the month.”
For the past year, the Board of Health tried to decrease trans fats without legal action. They employed an educational campaign in hopes of convincing restaurants to eliminate trans fats by providing information about its dangers. It failed. According to the Board, some restaurants abandoned the fat, yet there was little net decrease across the city. They ignored the fact that pandering to companies is rarely effective if there is not a clear financial advantage. With that in mind, some feel that tax money would be better spent educating consumers, not restaurateurs. But maybe it’s simpler than that: Maybe some people merely enjoy the unhealthy burgers and fries they eat, regardless of medical findings. It’s completely possible that some New Yorkers just like chewing the trans fat.
“I’m very conscious of trans fats in the food I buy, but I go to a restaurant to enjoy myself,” says Hunt. “Too much of anything—whether it’s alcohol or milk—is bad for you. One meal with trans fat is not going to kill anybody.”
