After another Thanksgiving, I thought I’d ease everyone back into the daily grind with something unusual for this web site: a culinary op-ed of sorts. Recently, the people in charge of New York City have begun a debate on whether or not to ban trans-fatty acids in restaurants. In order to understand the implications of this, it is necessary to know a little bit about what trans-fatty acids are, and why officials would want to ban them.
Normally, fat comes in four types: saturated, polyunsaturated, monounsaturated, and trans fatty acids. Saturated fat (such as butter, coconut oil, and palm kernel oil) is solid at room temperature, and is generally quite bad for you, in that it has been shown to be correlated with heart disease. Unsaturated fats are liquid at room temperature (olive, canola, soybean, corn, and vegetable oils), and while still bad for you, are less bad than saturated fats (although the fat content in your diet should come from unsaturated fats as much as possible).
The trouble is that all the flavour and goodness in various recipes comes from saturated fat. Some enterprising companies have discovered that if they add Hydrogen to an unsaturated fat like vegetable oil, it takes on properties that make it behave like a saturated fat (in terms of taste, texture, and body). These hydrogenated or partially-hydrogenated oils (which are sold as margarine, vegetable “spreads,” oleos, and shortening) are also called trans-fatty acids (or TFA for short).
Recently, authorities have become concerned because of a link between TFA’s and a number of health problems. TFA's have been shown to raise the level of LDL ("bad") cholesterol, while lowering the level of HDL ("good") cholesterol, which leads to an increased risk for heart attack and stroke. Also, there seems to be a correlation between TFA consumption and obesity levels. The federal government, which is in an excellent position to enforce such a ban nationwide, has been silent on this matter, so some municipalities have started to take matters into their own hands. New York City, as the first major city to consider this, is being watched very carefully. Fast-food restaurant chains such as McDonald's, Burger King, and Wendy's, worried about potential drops in profit margins, have already (supposedly) started investigating alternatives for their fried foods.The proposed ban would only encompass restaurants. People would still be able to purchase margarine, shortening, etc. for home use.
As a professional chef, I am opposed to this sort of regulation for two reasons. First is because it’s badly written legislation that unfairly targets restaurants. Only restaurants would be subject to a ban on ingredients that are otherwise perfectly legal to use. Restaurants generally use a shortening in their deep fryers because it’s cheaper to use, and it doesn’t have to be changed as often as oil (and believe me, changing the oil in a commercial deep-fryer is not trivial). As such, the practical implication of this ban would be to quadruple the cost of anything fried.
The second reason I am opposed to this ban is because I really believe that it is not for a government to regulate what I eat. I am an adult, and I should decide what level of risk I’m comfortable with. I understand that there is a large amount of obesity in our society, but at the end of the day, people are responsible for their own diets, and for their level of activity (or lack thereof). What will happen if this ban comes to pass is that restaurants will most likely revert to using saturated fats such as butter, which is why the American Heart Association does not support the ban as it is currently written.
This sort of regulation first started in the late 1970’s when officials were concerned about Peking duck (which requires that the duck is hung to dry for half a day). It then moved to artisanal sausages and salumerias, and now to TFA’s. As a result, a lot of old-style artisan work is being lost. I admire the New York City government’s intentions, however the practical implications would be to shield people from one danger, while exposing people to another. Where does this end? If they come after Five Guys next, then my friends, the terrorists have truly won.
| Permalink
Del.icio.us |
Digg This | 
Reddit | 
StumbleUpon | 
Facebook
Subscribe to this blog's feed
Comments (1)
Hi there,
Perhaps the law is poorly written, but the idea to eliminate trans-fatty acids from the diet is a major health concern that I wish governments would take the initiative to completely ban from all food that's meant for human consumption. Therefore, the initiative must start somewhere. For New York City, it's difficult to regulate all foodstuffs entering the city, so what they can control is what restauranteurs are putting in their dishes.
From everything that I've learned in various health and nutrition courses, TFAs are absolutely worse in every way than using conventional saturated fat, because not only do they raise LDL (like saturated fats), they also decrease HDL levels, which saturated fats do not do. Thus, the cardiovascular risk associated with consuming even small amounts of TFAs is far greater than consuming a diet that has equal amounts of saturated fats.
Secondly, TFAs are artifically produced and - to the best of my knowledge - never occur within Nature. Therefore, it seems like a very easy process to regulate.
While I agree that switching almost completely to polyunsaturated fats would be helpful, and that using unhydrogenated oils would drastically increase the cost and hassle in preparing food in restaurants, the underlying issue is that many people don't have the resources, education, or the time to make responsible choices in their diet. Also, since using TFAs in food preparation lowers the cost of producing food, then it becomes apparent that companies make sacrifices to human health just to eek out a few extra pennies per share for their investors. Maybe it's a cynical approach, but it's ubiquitous in the fast food industry. Isn't it ironic that the food that's most cheaply available is also the most unhealthy?
Perhaps this will change, but the era of the "health-conscious" consumer is only beginning to take widespread appeal. If there are enough people out there who refuse to eat unhealthy food, then slowly companies will begin changing their manufacturing processes... but this process is often slow.
As for switching to butter... I'd say it's an improvement over using TFAs. At least the human body knows how to metabolise it.
All I'm saying is that it's a step towards the right direction. Call it "freedom of choice" if you will, but sometimes it's just a rationalisation that people use when they don't wish to give up self-destructive habits.
Many countries within Europe have banned TFAs in prepared food, and even McDonalds operates there. The data (which I'll try to find) shows that it barely increases the cost of their products. It's a very small step towards improving the health of many Americans, and besides, saturated fats taste better, and are healthier for you.
Just my two cents.
Posted by Jeff | December 16, 2006 7:29 PM
Posted on December 16, 2006 19:29