Crisco in the Crosshairs:
New York City Trims the (Trans) Fat
Civil libertarians are groaning. Chefs are insecure. But, presumably, health insurers are happy with New York City’s recent ban on trans fat. Why? Because fewer of their premium-paying customers will check into the clinic for heart problems.
First the low-down on trans fat: It’s terrible for you. According to Wikipedia, eating it tempts coronary heart disease. It’s also associated with obesity, diabetes and liver dysfunction.
Citing the American Journal of Public Health, the Wikipedia entry on trans fat claims the substance is responsible for 30,000 deaths annually in the U.S.
The problem, though, is age-old: What’s bad for you also tastes great. Will New York’s fries and cookies taste as good after the ban? Perhaps not, although many maintain that trans fat isn’t as crucial to flavor as many think. (Read a great article in today’s New York Times about how chefs are coping with the new regulation.)
Trans fat occurs in some food naturally, but most of the trans fat we consume is the result on an artificial process called partial hydrogenation. Because of the economics of production and, ironically, the erroneous belief that the trans fats of margarine were healthier that the saturated ones of butter, fast food companies incorporated trans fat into their recipes in the 1960.
Knowledge of the health hazards has many fast food operations scrambling to alter their frying techniques, however. In 2003, the FDA decided to require food manufactures to come clean about their use of the stuff. New York City joins Denmark in imposing a blanket ban on the use of trans fat.
With the exception of their New York restaurants, McDonald’s (it’s weird to call McDonald’s restaurant, isn’t it?) hasn’t been able to kick the trans fat habit. They say removing the lethal substance would "jeopardize the iconic nature of [their] french fry.”
I suspect, though, that their fries will retain their iconic nature in the trans-fat-free Big Apple.
Comments
What a great step New York has taken to ban trans fats. Health is something we all need, in order to have a good life. Without our health, all the money in the world would mean nothing to us. Also, we couldn't enjoy our families as much. Good health also means lower life insurance policies, which is good news for everybody too. I definitely think that in the future, we'll see an increase in insurance marketing that encourages people to pursue a healthy lifestyle, because of its personal health benefits, and financial ones (lower premiums).
Posted by: Michaela Roberts | December 13, 2006 09:17 PM
Thanks for the comment, Micheala.
Although I tried to be even-handed when I wrote the post, I suspect my bias came through: I heartily support New York's trans fat ban.
The list of benefits is too long to mention here. Suffice to say, though, New Yorkers will be healthier people because of this step.
As for your last point, I hope you're right. Insurers have huge incentives to encourage healthy behavior.
Here's to hoping they put more resources into raising that awareness!
Posted by: Jeb Foster | December 14, 2006 07:49 AM
Remember, when we let bodies such as the city of NY decide what is good for us, we also run the risk of them intruding in other areas where they might not be so welcome.
Be careful what you wish for.
Posted by: James Harvey | December 14, 2006 04:13 PM
True that, James.
Although the phrase is tired, it is a "slippery slope" when government steps in and decides what's good for us.
However, I compare the case of trans fats to that of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). In the late 80s, governments banned the use of CFCs because they depleted the ozone layer.
The decision was particularly easy because not only were they bad for the environment, there were easy substitutes for these ozone-depleting substances. Many businesses moaned and groaned, but in the end, they weren't affected all that much by the ban.
The same goes for trans fats--they're harmful and there are readily available substitutes. When businesses like McDonald's drag their heels on trans fat, they risk looking incredibly self-serving, placing their own somewhat arbitrary use of a dangerous substance ahead of the safety of their consumers.
In the end, I think it's too bad governments have to step in and enforce such rules. But the sad reality is that there are many businesses out there that lack the integrity of companies like InsureMe.
Posted by: Jeb Foster | December 15, 2006 08:05 AM
There is talk in Canada of following New York's ban on trans fats. Although the fear of government intrusion is real, Canada also has to foot the bill with the added health expenses associated with obesity. It also drives up our private health and life insurance premiums
Posted by: Carin | September 11, 2007 09:50 AM