Washington State to consider trans-fat ban

by Nicole Weston, Posted Dec 13th 2006 @ 1:01PM

Soon, New York City might not be the only place in the country with a ban on trans-fats in restaurants. The Washington State Board of Health and Public Health commended the NY Board of Health and said that the ban "is a step in the right direction and is boosting awareness of the ingredient's link to heart disease and stroke." They will spend the next several months conducting their own studies to see whether or not to follow suit and ban the use of trans fats in the state.

The biggest issue holding them back from making the decision at this point is whether or not a change could drive small companies out of business. The National Restaurant Association has raised concerns in the past over whether the demand for trans-fat free oils will meet the growing demand, saying that the deadlines imposed by the NY Board of Health could cause restaurant owners, especially small ones, to pay a premium for the oils just to meet them, while larger restaurants will have the clout to work out more equitable deals with suppliers.

Many Seattle restaurants and smaller chains have already shifted to trans-fat free products, or are in the process of doing so. They say that it is an important issue to their customer base and they want to make them happy. The fact that these changes are already taking place could encourage the Board of Health to move forward with the issue.

Source

Filed Under: Trends, Health & Medical, Chefs & Restaurants, Restaurants
Tags: ba, ban, fat, fats, food, health, healthy, medical, nutrition, restaurants, seattle, trans fats, TransFats, trend, trends, washington, washington state, west coast

Chew on This

Royal Wedding Cake Details Revealed! - YumSugar

Make Your Own Pop Tarts - CHOW
Denny's Introduces a Maple Bacon Sundae - Eater
Whole Foods Opening Bars in Stores - USA Today
Rules Of Bar Etiquette -- For The Bartender - HuffPost Food

Reader comments (Page 2 of 2)

12-14-2006 @2:49PM Stephanie said... Robyn,

In that case, I think governments role should be in changing the boundries, not in making consumer's decisions for them. Let's attack the real problem, not just the symptom. Maybe it is overly idealistic (almost certainly it is), but I really would like to see an educated population make choices and then take responsibility for thier own decisions.
Reply

Vote upVote downReport

12-14-2006 @3:33PM Robyn M. said... Becki,
First, thank you for being more polite to me this time; I genuinely appreciate that.

Second, I care about the health of our population because I'm a citizen of this country, and I think that commits me to more than just a begrudging sharing of land resources. We all have a vested interest in the health of the population, if for no other reason that an extremely sick population is not productive, and will monopolize increasingly scarce medical resources (which would be the case regardless of if we have a govn't run or totally privatized medical system).

I'm sure that we have a very deep disagreement about some of the fundamentals of political and social philosophy--that is, how far is the hand of govn't justified in reaching? I actually used to agree wholeheartedly with you. About 10 years ago, I was a card-carrying Libertarian; "Anarchy, State and Utopia" was my bible (a book you should read... hm, or maybe not, since I disagree with you now.). But I'm now convinced that an unfettered free market is almost always a menace to the general population. It can be very effective in specific instances, or in the short run, but in the long run it usually tilts towards the money. Eventually, almost any situation will pass a watershed point wherein the market no longer has the resources to reign-in one side--nor does it have any interest in doing so. That side can now effectively run roughshod over the public--as we see the food industry doing. They will make small concessions to try and keep us happy, but it's never more than a "let them eat cake" strategy. Just keep us happy enough to keep coming back... and spend a ton to convince us that we should. Of course, you are welcome to disagree. Isn't open debate wonderful?
Reply

Vote upVote downReport

12-14-2006 @5:02PM Stephanie said... "I'm not a big conspiracy theorist..."

Me thinks Eric doth prosest too much. This he says after explaining the conspiracy that ADM has over protecting their soybean interests... I wonder, are the drug companies in on this conspiracy too? (Hmm, create market for heart disease drugs??) or do they have their own.

"Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean that everyone isn't out to get me!"
Reply

Vote upVote downReport

12-14-2006 @10:12PM Robyn M. said... "This he says after explaining the conspiracy that ADM has over protecting their soybean interests... "

Well, in fairness, ADM has been busted in the past for conspiring to price-fix in an international soybean pricing scheme. Not quite the same thing as what Eric is talking about, but ADM's certainly got the behavioral history...

Oh cr*p, they ARE out to get us! =)

BTW, Eric, what sort of Crisco were you looking at? Mine is all partially-hydrogenated. Do you have the "no TFs" version?
Reply

Vote upVote downReport

12-15-2006 @12:31PM Stephanie said... Hi everyone,

I apologize for my last comment (#23). I wrote it, then thought better of posting it. Somehow it got on there anyway-- probably my mistake, but I am certain I did not click on the "click here to confirm" button. Oh well, sorry.
Reply