Trans Fats In New York: It's So Last Year
New York City has now banned trans fats. Effective July, 2007, restaurants will not be allowed to cook with trans fats and the following year it must be out of all foods served.
So basically the argument is this: it's for the health of the citizens (like the smoking ban) vs. a violation of rights.
First, I want to point out that I am in favor of this ban. This is a step in the right direction in my eyes, along the lines of the laws passed at the start of the last century following The Jungle. Back then, the muckraking book by Upton Sinclair caused enough of a stir that food processing laws were imposed.
Following the disturbing book Fast Food Nation and the documentary Supersize Me, it was only a matter of time before more legislation took place.
Look, we are fast becoming a fat nation. And, truth be told, it is largely our own fault. We spend too much time working and not enough time exercising. Television is our primary form of entertainment and, let's face it, the hours in front of the tube aren't shrinking our hips. It is our fault our lifestyle is this way.
That said, we cannot spend each moment worrying whether we can eat this or can't eat that. Restaurants cannot possibly display ingredients and nutritional value information on all of their meals. The local seafood joint is not a bag of Doritos.
Because of this, the removal of trans fats makes sense. Second-hand smoke is dangerous and therefore smoking has been banned. Likewise, when at a restaurant we should be able to eat knowing that those unhealthy trans fats are not in our foods.
Kudos to you, New York.
So basically the argument is this: it's for the health of the citizens (like the smoking ban) vs. a violation of rights.
First, I want to point out that I am in favor of this ban. This is a step in the right direction in my eyes, along the lines of the laws passed at the start of the last century following The Jungle. Back then, the muckraking book by Upton Sinclair caused enough of a stir that food processing laws were imposed.
Following the disturbing book Fast Food Nation and the documentary Supersize Me, it was only a matter of time before more legislation took place.
Look, we are fast becoming a fat nation. And, truth be told, it is largely our own fault. We spend too much time working and not enough time exercising. Television is our primary form of entertainment and, let's face it, the hours in front of the tube aren't shrinking our hips. It is our fault our lifestyle is this way.
That said, we cannot spend each moment worrying whether we can eat this or can't eat that. Restaurants cannot possibly display ingredients and nutritional value information on all of their meals. The local seafood joint is not a bag of Doritos.
Because of this, the removal of trans fats makes sense. Second-hand smoke is dangerous and therefore smoking has been banned. Likewise, when at a restaurant we should be able to eat knowing that those unhealthy trans fats are not in our foods.
Kudos to you, New York.
posted by E-Luv at 1:11 PM
6 Comments:
How in the world is this ban going to be enforced? While I agree with you on the core issues (trans fat bad, tv watching bad, no exercise bad, etc, ban on trans fat good, etc.) unless NYC is going to double, triple or quadruple the size of their health department, it is going to be virtually impossible to enforce. Also, will the fine tax payers of NYC accept a significant increase in the cost of these departments? I think this is strictly political, and with zero chance of compliance.
Hey, Jeff!
Though your concerns have some validity, enforcement of ban will not be as difficult as you claim. I know this as a former owner of a restaurant with over 17 years of experience in the Hotel/Restaurant Industry. From my knowledge and experience there’s one, relatively easy way to enforce the ban: Just like you, Jeff, go to grocery stores to get food to make at home, restaurants get their raw materials (ingredients) from wholesale distributors. There are a few “big-boys” (Sysco Foods and US Foodservice) and many smaller distributors – all of whom could be monitored to make sure that they do not sell/distribute products containing transfats. The number of food distributors is FAR less than the number of restaurants in NYC. In addition, since NYC is a MAJOR consumer of food ingredients for restaurants, it would behoove manufacturers to create products without transfats in order to remain competitive/stay in business. Hence, any increase in staff for government oversight will be negligible and quite possibly only temporary as manufacturers and distributors adjust to the law. Many years ago, California passed auto-emission laws because of Los Angles’ infamous smog problem...now look what’s happened. - BDWharton
BDwharton,
As a strict libertarian, I like this suggestion it helps keep the government involvement limited, though the whole idea of the government banning foodstuff is a whole other ball of wax. However, the ban does not directly effect the wholesale distributors since they are not based in NYC, and I don't see any incentive for them to comply.
The question is do the NYC restaurants alone have enough clout to influence this kind of change in their wholesalers?
Jeff
Jeff -
The Libertarian Party is intriguing. As a staunch Democrat, I’m glad Libertarians are making in-roads into this Country’s political establishment. I’m sure you’ll agree that John Stossle (ABC News) has made a positive contribution to this country and the Party.
As far as there not being any wholesale food distributors in NYC... Well... uhm... have you done a search in yellowpages.com? Under “Business Name/Category” type in “Food Products-wholesale”, and under “City and State” type in “NYC”, “Brooklyn”, “Bronx”, and then “Queens”. The results show a number greater than zero.
Do restaurants in NYC have clout? ………………Y E S. Not only does NYC have more restaurants, but it has more first-rate, highly acclaimed restaurants than any other city in the US. If a restaurant – especially a famous restaurant wants, needs, or has to have something (like no transfats), the sales representatives at the wholesale distributors will do his/her damdest to get it. If they don’t, they might lose the account (i.e., the incentive to comply you speak of). Remember the “low-carb” craze? Manufacturers, distributors and restaurants were bending over backwards to provide low-carb products to their customers/clients. A similar situation will happen with transfats...except it wont be a fad. - BDWharton
BW-
Again, you make some excellent points and bring out my ignorance in this area. Obviously there will be food wholesalers in NYC, the greatest restaurants in the world have to get there basic ingredients from someone locally. What I was trying to say is that US Foodservice and Sysco, the two big-boys your bring up in your comment, are not headquartered in NY.
It is funny that you bring up the whole low-carb craze (fad) and how the restaurants all starting supplying this market in a very short period of time. I guess that is the ultimate in demand sided economics. Honestly, I had forgotten all about that, (how quickly we forget)and never once put one once of thought into how it was possible that everyone was offereing low-carb alternatives on their menus.
I just wonder if the city government is savvy and smart enough to police the wholesalers as you suggest, rather than try to monitor the restaurants themselves, which was of course my first thought.
Under the premise you propose, this legislation might just work for the greater good. And hopefully the fight against trans fat won't just be a fad.
Jeff
Jeff - looks like we're basically in agreement. You are definitely correct about US Foodservice’s headquarters. USFood and Sysco are not HEADQUARTERED in NYC. But this fact is irrelevant. FYI, they have distribution centers all over the country which is more important. You see, when I had my restaurant here in CT, US Foodservice had two distribution centers where I got many of my ingredients. Sadly, even though the company offered/sold a particular product I wanted/needed (according to the company's website), they could not provide it to me. Why? Because I was the only one in the State (their district) that wanted it. Carrying the product wasn't cost-effective just for little'ol me. (I got what I needed from someone else.) If, however, there were more restaurants that needed/had to have it (like no transfats) it would be easy to get it from them. Here's another related tid-bit: I don't know if it's happening today, but a few years ago, McDonalds (based in Chicago) had slightly different recipes (salt on fries) depending on the geographic/demographic "taste preferences" of a region.
Lastly... you are also correct when you wonder if the government is savvy enough to make this legislation work. However, if the government can’t, people will by “voting” with their pocketbooks to force the change. Libertarian-ish of me? - BDWharton
Post a Comment
<< Home