Adrian Northrup

In today’s world, health has become a big issue. Municipalities across the country are considering laws to ban smoking in public buildings or to require restaurants to place nutritional information on their menus.

On Tuesday, the New York City Board of Health unanimously voted to ban the use of all artificial trans fats at restaurants, making it the first city in the nation to do so, according to a report from the Associated Press.

According to the ruling, restaurants – from the neighborhood deli to five-star establishments – would have to discontinue using most frying oils containing the substance by July and all other trans fat-loaded products by July 2008.

To force restaurants to comply is unnecessary. In fact, since the Food and Drug Administration began requiring companies to list trans fat content on their labels Jan. 1, many of the nation’s leading food makers have already come up with plans to reduce the amount of trans fat in their products, according to the report.

So far, Wendy’s International Inc. has introduced a zero-trans fat oil, and Yum Brand Inc. companies KFC and Taco Bell said they too will cut trans fats from their products, according to the Associate Press.

McDonald’s Corp. has been working with more than a dozen alternative blends, but so far, it has not committed to a full switch.

According to an article published Tuesday in The New York Times, McDonald’s CEO, Jim Skinner, said last month the company is making “very good progress” in developing alternatives and would be ready for the ban.

I applaud the FDA for requiring this change as well as the companies that have decided to stop using trans fats on their own, but the idea of banning the use of trans fats is somewhat over-the-top. The fact that companies are changing their ways seems to imply their fear is not that of violating a law, but one of the public not purchasing their product, if it contains too much trans fat.

If companies are willing to change their products without a law that requires them to do so, what is the point?

Limiting the ban to restaurants doesn’t really fix the problem. Trans fats will still be around in the foods sold at grocery stores and those that people eat in their own homes.

Because trans fats are less expensive to produce and have a longer shelf life, requiring companies to use an alternative to such fats could have the potential to raise the price of food in restaurants. This could also increase the chance that people will just stay home, where they are free to consume the same artery-clogging artificial trans fats they would in restaurants.

According to the FDA, trans fat is made when manufacturers add hydrogen to vegetable oil – a process called hydrogenation.

Hydrogenation increases the shelf life and flavor stability of foods containing these fats. It can be found in partially hydrogenated vegetable oil. The FDA estimates the average American eats 4.7 pounds of trans fats each year.

I’m not opposed to healthier eating habits, but I agree with Dan Fleshler, a spokesman for the National Restaurant Association, who said, “We don’t think that a municipal health agency has any business banning a product the Food and Drug Administration has already approved.”

If researchers develop ways to produce alternatives for the same cost as trans fat-based products, it would be more of a viable option. But why single out the restaurant industry?

“Nobody wants to take away your french fries and hamburgers – I love those things, too,” said New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg in the Times article. “But if you can make them with something that is less damaging to your health, we should do that.”

I agree, but if that is the case, why doesn’t the FDA create a similar policy that would apply to all food makers?