War on Nummy Treats

As seen at WSJ.com (subscriber link):

The Board of Health voted Tuesday to make New York the first city in the nation to ban artery-clogging artificial trans fats at restaurants — from the corner pizzeria to high-end bakeries.

The board, which passed the ban by a unanimous vote, did give restaurants a slight break by relaxing what had been considered a tight deadline for compliance. Restaurants will be barred from using most frying oils containing artificial trans fats by July, and will have to eliminate the artificial trans fats from all of its foods by July 2008.[...]

New York’s move to ban trans fats has mostly been applauded by health and medical groups, although the American Heart Association warns that if restaurants aren’t given ample time to make the switch, they could end up reverting to ingredients high in saturated fat, like palm oil.

The panel also passed another measure that has made restaurants unhappy: Some that chose to inform customers about calorie content will have to list the information right on the menu. The rule would generally apply to fast-food restaurants and other major chains.

I can understand and definitely appreciate pushing for greater / more blatant nutritional disclosure. However, an outright ban on transfats seems a bit excessive and overly intrusive, even if the ban was passed with good intentions.

I’ve seen information on today’s hearing of the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygene cropping up in many news outlets, including the BBC. Here’s a bit of what the New York Times has to say on the matter:

But the New York City Board of Health, the city’s powerful arbiter of public health rules, is considering a plan to make it much harder to avoid the cold, hard numbers by requiring some of New York’s 20,000 restaurants, including outlets of the nation’s fast-food chains, to list calories on menus and on clearly displayed menu boards.[...]

The proposal was lost amid the other much splashier recommendation the board is considering to prohibit the city’s restaurants from serving food containing more than a tiny amount of trans fats, the chemically modified ingredients considered by doctors and nutritionists to increase the risk of heart disease.

Perhaps part of the reason that this got lost is that the idea isn’t quite as annoyingly intrusive as a complete ban on transfats. Making people more blatantly aware of the health consequences of their food choices is not a bad idea, I think. However, to deny people the option to make bad decisions is over the line, in my opinion.

The NYT article mentions that only a (relatively) few restaurants would be impacted — those that have standardized dishes, and already make nutritional information available. Those facilities would have to display calorie counts as prominently as they display the price.

Considering the software available to analyize the nutritional metrics of food, I think it might be within reach to extend that to all eateries, not just a few fast food outlets which might be tempted to circumvent the rule by withholding their nutritional facts in an effort to avoid the “already available” clause.

In other news, I happened to notice that KFC is planning to drop transfats from their products, prompted by the threat of a ban in NYC.

From today’s New York Times:

The New York City Board of Health voted unanimously yesterday to move forward with plans to prohibit the city’s 20,000 restaurants from serving food that contains more than a minute amount of artificial trans fats, the chemically modified ingredients considered by doctors and nutritionists to increase the risk of heart disease.[...]

The city would set a limit of a half-gram of artificial trans fats per serving of any menu item, sharply reducing most customers’ intake. The fats are commonly found in baked goods, like doughnuts and cakes, as well as breads and salad dressing.

Officials said that the typical American diet now contains 5.8 grams of trans fats per day, and that a single five-ounce serving of French fries at many restaurants contained 8 grams of trans fats.

You know, I can appreciate a health department wanting to encourage the citizens it serves to eat better, and a little goading of restaurants to find healthier ways to prepare the food they serve is certainly welcome. However, doesn’t this smell a little too much like excessive government meddling?

The regulation is up for public debate at the end of October and a final vote in December, according to the NYT article. I wonder if a black market for bagels, doughnuts, and french fries will be cropping up in the city this winter.

Seen on the newswires:

The Center for Science in the Public Interest said it is
planning to campaign against the global cafe chain because of the increased
risk of obesity, heart disease and cancer associated with high-calorie,
high-fat products it sells.[...]

“Regular consumers of Starbucks products could face Venti-sized health
problems,” Jacobson said, referring to Starbucks’ use of the ‘Venti’
designation for ‘large.’[...]

A 20-ounce Venti banana mocha Frappuccino with whipped cream contains 720
calories and 11 grams of saturated fat, and a banana cream crunch bar weighs
in at 630 calories and 25 grams of saturated fat. By comparison, a
McDonald’s Corp. Big Mac has 560 calories and 11 grams of saturated
fat.

Somehow, I suspect that folks ordering a venti banana mocha Frappuccino with
whipped cream don’t expect it to be particularly healthy.

I agree with the idea of making it easier for consumers to make informed
choices, which appears to be part of the thrust of the campaign. However,
there is a place for nummy treats in the world; and working to ban them or
make them less nummy just annoys me.

From The Daily Mail:

Delegates at the powerful American Medical Association’s
annual conference will demand a levy on the sweeteners put in sugary drinks
to pay for a massive public health education campaign.

They will also call for the amount of salt added to burgers and processed
foods to be halved.

The moves come as U.S. doctors - like their British counterparts - are
becoming increasingly alarmed at the growing number of deaths linked to
obesity.

I agree with the idea that the U.S. has a growing obesity problem, and I
agree with the idea that consumption of certain junk foods/beverages needs
to be cut significantly.

However, I’m less keen on the idea of taxing “bad” foods, save perhaps as a
funding mechanism to offset the costs they cause on the national health care
system. That’s a bit closer to government interference with peoples’
private lives and personal choices than I’m comfortable with.

From San Antonio:

A Texas lawmaker filed a bill Thursday that would require school districts to measure the body mass index of students and include the information in regular report cards.

The headline on the story is “Lawmaker Wants to Grade Children on Weight”. I wonder how long it will be before such measures become a component of P.E. grades…at least in those school systems where P.E. hasn’t been cut or reduced due to funding issues.

There’s an article in the Financial Times:

The food industry has been given a year to stop advertising junk food to children and improve product labeling or face possible legislation in the European Union…

The article goes on to say that the EU has precedent on restricting advertising (of tobacco) on consumer protection grounds, and the promotion of healthy liestyles.

Quoting Markos Kyprianou, EU health and consumer affairs commissioner: “[Europe] considered obesity to be a US problem… we made fun of Americans in a way. It is a European problem now.”

Well, thanks to the socialist backbone common in many European social programs, they at least appear to be focusing on the health aspect of the issue. If we ever had nationalized health care in the U.S., I’d expect a similar push for restricting junk food and other unhealthy products…but on a cost basis. (As in, “health care costs too much; we’re going to ‘encourage’ people to live healthier lives.”)

According to this article in The Scotsman, junk food advertisments are being restricted to later than 9pm in Britain.

I don’t know about you, but it’s the nighttime when I wish I didn’t see such commercials.   That’s when I’m most prone to getting the munchies.