Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Big Apple to Go Trans Fat Free

By Anna Lappé, AlterNet. Posted December 6, 2006.


The New York Board of Heath voted in favor of banning trans fats, an additive that helps the shelf life of food but not the health of consumers.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Anna Lappé

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

With the unanimous Board of Health vote to ban trans fat in New York yesterday the city has become the second in the nation to require restaurants to eliminate the use of the artificial ingredient in their foods. Tiburon on San Francisco Bay -- a slightly smaller metropolis -- beat the Big Apple to it in 2004. (The other NYC Board of Health proposal approved today will require restaurant chains operating in the city to post calorie content on menu boards. Might make you think twice about a 1,110 calorie Mickey D's Vanilla Triple Shake.)

At the public hearing on these two proposals on October 30, a diverse cross-section of New Yorkers from academic institutions such as Columbia University's Medical Center to public health centers such as the Institute for Urban Family Health to community organizations crammed a meeting hall to voice their nearly unanimous support of both proposals.

In the snaking security line on the way to the hearing, I overhead a woman explaining to her neighbor: "You can find trans fats in Parkay, I Can't Believe It's Not Butter, in most cookies..." Her list went on and on and on and on. Trans fat -- as the woman, who is a prominent public health advocate in the city, was trying to convey -- are everywhere, we just don't see them, rarely realize when we're eating them.

It didn't used to be this way. Trans fats were developed in the 1940s, in a process through which vegetable oil is hydrogenated, converting unsaturated fatty acids into saturated ones. (If you see "partially hydrogenated" on an ingredients list, that's trans fat). In processed foods, trans fats replace naturally occurring solid fats like butter and liquid oils.

Trans fats became popular with industry because they enable products to sit on shelves longer. The other winning element? They can be less expensive than other fats traditionally used in baking. By the 1960s, trans fats had become ubiquitous in baked products and fast foods. They've been with us ever since.

Today, most of our dietary trans fat intake comes in the form of cakes, cookies, crackers, and bread as well as French fries, potato chips and popcorn. Restaurants are another major source. And while the government now requires trans fats be listed on nutritional labels, restaurants have no such required transparency.

So what's the trouble with trans fats? For several decades the evidence has been accumulating. The results are pretty damning.

Testifying at the public hearing, Dr. Walter Willett, whose team at the Harvard School of Public Health has been at the leading edge of this research, reminded the council members, the TV news crews, and the hundreds gathered that trans fats are known to increase coronary heart disease, one of the leading causes of death in the United States. Currently, 12.5 million Americans have the disease, with half a million dying every year from it, according to the USDA.

As even the FDA acknowledges, consumption of trans fat raises low-density lipoprotein, or "bad cholesterol" levels, which increases the risk of the disease. Based on more than two decades of study of more than 200,000 participants, Willett and his colleagues estimate that trans fat consumption is responsible for tens of thousands of premature deaths annually from coronary heart disease.

In a recent report from The Netherlands, researchers suggest that eliminating trans fat in the U.S. could avert between 72,000 and 228,000 coronary heart "events" -- as they call them -- each year.

In his testimony, Willett's colleague Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian added that trans fats increase inflammation -- a risk factor for diabetes, among other ailments -- and are linked to weight gain. Even more troubling are findings that even very low levels of consumption can lead to higher risk: consuming just 5 grams of trans fat -- that's roughly 2 percent of your daily calories and just under the average 5.8 grams of trans fat we Americans consume -- can increase your risk of heart disease by 25 percent. (It is precisely these health concerns that led Denmark in 2004 to ban trans fats use in the country).

As these studies show, the trouble with trans fats is now well-documented. There is no longer cause for debate, but this isn't to say there's no debate. Industry is still working overtime to confuse the public. Consider this claim on one industry-backed website, Trans Fat Facts: "Trans fats have been a staple in the American diet for decades. And during that time, American life expectancy has seen dramatic increases. In fact, it recently reached a record high." It seems the authors missed the statistics lesson on causal relationships.

With all the sound science, maybe we should be asking why not ban trans fats? That's just what many people are doing.

At the hearing, 53 people spoke in support of the ban, from a steely-voiced octogenarian, Florence Rice, president of the Harlem Consumer Education Council to a six-year-old who asked the Board to please help her "stay healthy," and "out of the hospital." In total, the Department received 2,266 public comments, 95 percent were in support of the ban. Across the street from the official hearing, a public rally organized by volunteers of the Trans Fat Free NYC network included trans fat free treats and speeches from a local restaurateur, Michael Jacobson from the Center for Science and the Public Interest, a provider of trans fat free oils to the restaurant industry, and yours truly.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: food, trans fat, nutrition, trans fat ban

Anna Lappé is a founding principal of the Small Planet Institute and the co-author, most recently, of Grub: Ideas for an Urban Organic Kitchen (Tarcher/Penguin).

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
vanguard
Posted by: rsaxto on Dec 6, 2006 1:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Tiburon and NYC are the vanguard of cities that understand how to make Americans more healthy. The other cities are run by Neanderthals and greedy criminal corporations killing people prematurely without a twing of conscience.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is stupid...
Posted by: bigtonio15 on Dec 6, 2006 1:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This decision annoys me about as much as Chicago deciding to ban foie gras this summer. It is NOT the government's job to tell me what I can and cannot eat, and furthermore why is it the government's job to keep people healthy? It's not like anyone that drives Krispy Kreme or McDonalds, or even regularly eats out at 4 star restaurants should honestly expect that are eating the most nutritional meal possible. If you make the decision to eat out all the time, it is your OWN fault. Personal responsibility people, personal responsibility. I don't have cholesterol problems so why should I be forced to have french fries that will likely taste different because someone else was being stupid and went to McDonald's three times a day for twenty years and now has heart disease? Give me a break.

Read my blog.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: This is stupid... Posted by: charlief
» RE: This is stupid... Posted by: bigtonio15
» RE: This is stupid... Posted by: pball
» RE: This is stupid... Posted by: freyda
» I agree with the O.P. Posted by: ABetterFuture
» Choices Posted by: jmarley
» So...... Posted by: BenjamminH
» RE: This is stupid... Posted by: yesman
» RE: This is stupid... Posted by: rsaxto
Next Eliminate Corn Syrup!
Posted by: williameon on Dec 6, 2006 4:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Corn Syrup is in everything!!!!!!!
READ THE LABEL!!!!
Avoid at all costs!
It turns directly into fat!
Ever wonder why there is a childhood diabetes and obesity epidemic!
Corn syrup and hydrogenated oil.
It’s in everything!!!!
Poison!!!!!!
Yes I think it is the responsibility of the Local Government to protect
The health of its citizens.
At the turn of the century a fat woman was an oddity!
Now they’re everywhere!
Inside of every obese person is a skinny one.
Searching for the nutrients that are missing from their diet.
It’s a shame that in today’s world
People are ground up, blown up and stuffed for mounting:
on
The Cor-pirate CEO’s Mantle!
All bow down to the CORPIRATE religion of greed.
Welcome to Americo where
The roads are paved with the bones
of Corpirate victums!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Next Eliminate Corn Syrup! Posted by: UnEasyOne
» Corn Syrup and Cuba Posted by: 538T
Why not do it the American way?
Posted by: colinmeister on Dec 6, 2006 4:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If trans fats are causing heart disease, sufferers from this disease and bereved relatives should sue the manufacturers, just like smokers' dependents have sued tobacco companies.

Law suits are the American way, not regulation. I prefer to fry my food in butter, and bake with butter and lard, by the way.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Why not do it the American way? Posted by: Daniel Shays
Got bad news from my doctor
Posted by: UnEasyOne on Dec 6, 2006 4:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
last week. I have become borderline diabetic. Bad chloresterol is up. Have to give up carbs. How am I gonna live without potatoes and gravy? Had almost stopped eating in restaurants - history of heart desease in my family - transfats are suicide. Ah, free choice. That's why it's legal for me to drive drunk, to randomly fire an AK47 whenever I want, to burn whatever I want whenever I want on my own property. Those things aren't legal you say? Because my irresponsibility is likely to lead to the death or injury of others? Buncha wimps!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

TOO much interference
Posted by: pemmom on Dec 6, 2006 5:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I find this decision to be too much interference in peoples lives. First Chicago and Foie Gras, now this. Meat, dairy and anything else the veganistas feel needs to go will be next. It's all linked. Your rights to eat what you want are being whittled away.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: TOO much interference Posted by: UnEasyOne
» RE: TOO much interference Posted by: pball
» Seen it, your point? Posted by: pball
» You do know... Posted by: pball
» RE: TOO much interference Posted by: freyda
Oh, great...
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Dec 6, 2006 5:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Now I'll have to go to Jersey to get trans fat.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Oh, great...lmao Posted by: UnEasyOne
I can't believe some of the comments on here
Posted by: kelt65 on Dec 6, 2006 6:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Comparing this to prohibition is just ridiculous. The use of trans fats has nothing to do with culinary choices, it is an industry practice which is uneccessary and unhealthy. Do you think it is too much government intrusion that it's illegal for companies to add poison to your food? Please.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Government is ALREADY interfering...
Posted by: BenjamminH on Dec 6, 2006 7:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Fro anyone who complains that this move is unnecessary govt intervention, I will ask if you know what the 3 most heavily subsidized crops in the US are...
Sugar, corn ,and beef.
I'd be against a ban on trans fats if the playing field was leveled.
The truth is we live in a nation where heart disease, diabetes, etc, have increased at an alarming rate. Why is this? Is it because we as nation have evolved to a state where we do not care about our own well being and consciously make unhelathy choices? No, it's because we live in an environment where you have to work hard in order to stay healthy. Aside from the unhealthy food that is cheap, plentiful, and highly advertised, we work in increasingly sedentary jobs, and have abandonded walking and public transportation.
Hooray NYC for 2 reasons:
For enacting the trans fat ban...
...and for extending the phase in period so that restaraunts can meet these goals with minimal disruption.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Basically trading trans for saturated...
Posted by: pball on Dec 6, 2006 7:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's a mixed blessing - in a restaurant environment trans fats aren't used as shelf-life extenders (prepared food doesn't sit around that long), but rather as a cost-effective substitution for saturated animal fats. Really, the only two examples I can think of off the top of my head that you'd find in a kitchen that cooks mostly from scratch are vegetable shortening and possibly margarine if cost control is significant. The cheapest trans-free replacements? Butter and lard or palm oil, pretty heavy-duty saturated fats.

I find it personally irrelevant, because the latter, particularly butter, are IMO vastly superior in culinary terms - but I'm sure many health-conscious people would recoil in horror at a menu headlined "Yes, we're trans fat free...we only cook with butter and lard!" I guess little has changed about the maxim if you want to eat healthy, don't eat out. At least I won't have to deal with margarine at the diner anymore (really, I hate that shit).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I have a better idea, tax transfats
Posted by: AdamG on Dec 6, 2006 7:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It shouldn't be too hard. Look at how much is consumed by America as a whole, look at roughly how much heart disease and cancer is possibly attributed to it, look at how much public money is spent mitigating the negative effects, and tax it accordingly. Just add it to the stcker price like cigarettes. Probably wouldn't be a bad idea to stipulate it to go to medicare and such (which pays for some of the negative health effects) and some toward educational programs to get kids and adults alike to learn healthy eating habits. Hell, it might not even be a bad idea to channel some of the money into supporting the opening of real grocery stores in the ghetto so at least poorer people have access to real food rather then booze, cigarettes, and junk food, all at inflated prices.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is, of course, genious
Posted by: popsicle67 on Dec 6, 2006 7:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Finally, a law that has good unintended consequences. It was Julia Childs who said "Don't be afraid of butter" and in the past few months as I have been helping a friend perfect the recipes she will use in a bakery she wants to open I have learned that butter is to be rejoiced. I see this movement more as a campaign to stamp out mediocre cooking than any Orwellian evil. You can simply taste the difference and if any resaurant's customers were ever exposed to the flavors that
are achieved by cooking with real fats there would be no reason for a law, the people would clammer for real fat. I myself am quite portly, and I find I am both more satisfied with a meal and satisfied with much less because the flavors are so much more vibrant and rich. Consequently I find my clothes fitting much looser and my blood pressure is better and I have much more energy so nothing but good for the consumer can come out of this law.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» A-frickin-men brother. Posted by: pball
Choices?
Posted by: CardiacRN on Dec 6, 2006 9:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Unless you want to grow all your own food or live in an area where there are numerous "healthy" food sources you better hope the government does something about the safety of what you eat.

Try going into a supermarket or grocery store in the less prosperous part of any city. You will rarely, if ever, find any organic foods or non-superprocessed choices. Why do you think that the USA was the first country in history where you can spot the poor by their obesity?

Anyway... if you want to be like the New Yorker I heard on the radio who was all pissed off about the ban because he "likes fatty foods" I'll be there to wipe your ass for you when you're dying of diabetes and heart disease and can't reach your own butt. Enjoy! You give me great job security.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Choices? Posted by: pball
» RE: Choices? Posted by: Burton
good!
Posted by: lindalee on Dec 6, 2006 10:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm baffled by attitudes here. Restaurants and food manufacturers should be taking our health more seriously and especially the health of children. This ban forces them to stop cutting those corners that are dangerous to our health. The only reason to use trans fats is for shelf life!! This isn't a good enough reason. I discovered the evils of transfats 10 years ago and have been preaching ever since. My mother can finally stop taking cholesterol lowering medication....all I had to do was throw her whole cupboard out! She didn't know because the food companies don't care about her health. Now we have it in our power to force them to use ingredients that won't kill us. Good!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

America's All-Star Shopping List . . .
Posted by: katyalynn on Dec 6, 2006 1:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Fat, Sugar, Salt, High-Fructose Corn Syrup, Bleached, Enriched Flour . . .
. . . .

Take a stroll down almost any aisle in the supermarket and try to locate products where these are not the primary ingredients. Of course you must replace "Fat" with "Partially Hydrogenated Oil" but otherwise the gangs usually always there 1,2,3 ...

...but, just what will the little piggies do without their added source of fat? Oh my! Stop burdening the already over-burdened healthcare system perhaps? I have no problem with people putting shit into their bodies IF their own insurance picks up the tab but when the rest of us have to foot the bill (Medicaid or Medicare) for some fat ass's angioplasty or triple bypass surgery, that is where I draw the line. The state of California shells out over $8 billion a year for obesity related treatment. Of course the healthcare system is almost as much to blame as the moron who ate KFC all his life but that's for another day.

Sorry, that money is better spent on those who aren't going to "light up" as they exit the hospital or have Domino's Pizza back on speed dial as soon as they are discharged.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

why not go directly to the source
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Dec 6, 2006 6:27 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and enact the law that Homer Simpson always expouses (and a frequently found slogan on a white trash guy's tshirt): Its simple: Enact the "Not Fat Chicks" ordinance.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You just eat too much, stupid!
Posted by: Brucewxx on Dec 6, 2006 8:12 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Please just use common sense. No matter what kind of ban a government has or how many "un-healthy" food it bans, the Americans are still getting heavier and un-healthier, as they just eat too much. Nothing can change that. They used trans-fat to replace real butter years ago, the over-weight has been getting worse. So many different diet programs are advertizing on TV, the people are putting more weight on still. The only way you can get healthy is to control how much you eat and what you eat yourselves, but most people don't wants to make the hard decision to do it and wish the government to invent a silver bullet to help them. This is just pure stipid. Why don't they ban Big Mac, as it is much worse than the trans-fat? How low the government can go?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Food Sleuth
Posted by: foodsleuth on Dec 6, 2006 10:43 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Anna is eloquent and right on target in her assessment of trans fats. This is a food safety issue, and I want the freedom to eat out and not have to worry about ingredients in my food making me sick. I look at food safety like this: some foods can make us sick in 24-48 hours -- E. coli- contaminated hamburger or spinach, for example. Others take a bit longer, like trans fat. I don't want either contaminating my food. Thanks to smart New York policy makers for recognizing the value of placing public health at the forefront.
Melinda Hemmelgarn, M.S., R.D.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Freedom Is Slavery Posted by: Burton
great start!
Posted by: CyberBrook on Dec 7, 2006 8:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is a great start, but...

Getting rid of trans fats is only a small part of Eco-Eating... regardless of restaurant bans, social policy, or whatever, we can take personal responsibility for our selves, our communities, and our environment!

By the way, cholesterol is much more dangerous than trans fats, but don't expect that to be banned anytime soon (for what it's worth, I think they did in one Indian city).

Eco-Eating: Eating as if the Earth Matters
www.brook.com/veg

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bloomberg hates freedom
Posted by: Burton on Dec 10, 2006 2:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The ban on transfats is one more example of Bloomberg hating freedom. He has also been cracking down on victimless crimes like marijuana use and firearms possession. He is revealing himself to be an enemy of freedom. And, as usual, too many "progressives" can be counted on to join the anti-freedom crusade.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Here come the Food Police!
Posted by: Artemis3 on Jan 2, 2007 6:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I live by the motto 'moderation in everything'. Also, 'Personal Responsibility'. It's not the job of government to monitor what we put into our bodies. The ban is idiotic, IMO.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]