New York moves toward trans fat ban

[Celebration]

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20060927-114111-4068r

NEW YORK, Sept. 27 (UPI) -- The New York City Board of Health has unanimously agreed to push forward with a plan to severely limit the amount of artificial trans fats used by restaurants.

The board agreed to begin a period for the acceptance of written public comments and scheduled a public hearing for Oct. 30 ahead of a vote in December to decide the fate of the chemically modified ingredients, which doctors and nutritionists have warned increase heart disease risks, The New York Times reported Wednesday.

The proposal, which would ban all but the smallest amounts of trans fat in the city's 20,000 restaurants, would be the first of its kind to be adopted by a major U.S. city. A similar proposal is being considered in Chicago for restaurants that bring in less than $20 million in annual sales.

Some officials have compared the trans fat proposal to measures that banned lead paint in the city in 1960.

[Orrex]

1. One loophole that should be closed

It's my understanding that certain products with a low amount of trans-fat per serving are permitted to tout themselves as having zero trans-fat. As a result, consumers may be lulled into a false confidence in their diet.

It'll be interesting to see the results of this law.

[Nikia]

4. I think that sometimes small smounts arise during processing

Of certain oils like soybean oil and canola oil. I'm just learning more about that myself (recently became employed in quality/r&d at a company that uses small amounts of oils in some products).
Also, small amounts (already less than 1%) may be found in a sauce or seasoning used in a small amount in the final product that do effectively make the transfats measured as negligible.
I think that eventually transfats, as a significant percentage of fat, will fall out of favor because of all the bad publicity. Some food manufacturers have already made changes. We need to keep publicizing the products and restaurants who do persist in using them.

[hvn_nbr_2]

2. Why "for restaurants that bring in less than $20 million" in Chicago?

That doesn't make any sense to me. Sounds like, well, if you're big enough and popular enough (or big enough to make big political donations), you can continue to kill your customers, but Mom 'n' Pop taco stands better shape up.

[Nikia]

3. Because they don't want National chains like McDs and KFC

To be banned there.
I think that all single location restaurants, even expensive popular ones, have lower sales than that as do most locally owned chains. The local owners have a choice whether or not to use trans fats.