A few months ago, Chicago Councilman Edward M. Burke proposed a city-wide ban on trans-fats, but it doesn't seem like there is a significant amount support for a total ban, because he has modified his proposal to force fast food places and other restaurants to post warnings about trans fats. The legislation is targeted at large companies and only applies to companies that have a gross annual income of $20 million or more, so no warnings would need to be posted at a small burger joint or at the local diner regardless of how much trans fat they use.
Thomas Tunney, another Councilman from a different Chicago district, pointed out that other cooking fats "have their own problems," implying that such a ban could prompt people in government to consider what other foods they might restrict in the name of health. Scientists do not even agree as to how bad trans fats actually are for you, so there is no baseline from which Burke and his supporters are operating from when they turn their attentions to "bad for you" foods.
Chocolate-stuffed bananas on the grill
Tyler Florence welcomes new daughter
Beware kids' menus!
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
10-26-2006 @ 4:02PM
Jon said...
Why does that small business exception exist? We're talking about warning labels, not something costly or difficult. Small restaurants should post warning labels about trans-fats just like the big chains.
Reply
10-26-2006 @ 4:42PM
Dmnkly said...
Jon... I think the reason for the discrepancy is a matter of the evolution of the proposal, rather than intentional design.
Originally, the proposal was to ban trans-fats across the board (not including packaged foods). Some groups cried foul, claiming that this would be a financial burden on smaller operations (a BS reponse to a BS proposal, IMHO), so Burke amended the proposal as a big box ordinance, which it seems to have remained when the nature of the proposal changed again.
Of course, now that he's talking about disclosure instead of a ban, it would make sense to get all of the mom and pop places back on board... but Burke and the Chicago City Council have made it a habit lately to spurn logic at every possible opportunity, so this is pretty much par for the course, I'm sorry to say.
Reply
10-26-2006 @ 4:45PM
Peter said...
Jon - I totally agree. Either the rule applies to everyone or no one.
Besides, people probably eat more of their restaurant food in total from local places than huge $20 million a year corporations.
Reply
10-26-2006 @ 10:48PM
Villarreal said...
I would want to assume, that someone extremely intelligent, an expert in the food matter, is toutoring Burke telling him that his actions have real bases and he's not banning trans fats because his wife told him that an article in a health magazine said that trans fats are the devil and we'll die if we eat them, they are even deadlier than alcohol and alquitran at the same time.
My point is: is he doing this because he thinks is bad or beacuse science officially says that trans fats are that bad as for banning them first than other compounds that science has confirmed are bad? like polymerized chains of carbon which induce cancer in people and are very common in the BBQs
Reply