"board of health" news and stories

It's official. New York City has become the first in the nation to ban the use trans-fats at restaurants. The members of the Board of Health voted unanimously for the ban and heath advocates are already applauding the decision. Restaurants will have until July 2007 to switch to trans-fat free frying oils - meaning that all french fries in the city, as well as other fried foods will have to be trans-fat free by that time - and will have until July 2008 to remove all trans-fats from their food.

Trans-fats, which have been called "chemical abominations" by some health officials, are known to raise bad cholesterol and lower good cholesterol, changes which can contribute to an increased risk of heart disease. According to FDA estimates, "the average American eats 4.7 pounds of trans fats each year" in spite of the reductions that food processors have made with their use. They are favored in the restaurant and food processing industries because they are easy to work with, have a long shelf life and can increase the shelf life of foods that use them.

Source

New York's Board of Health is getting a lot of attention for their proposed ban on trans fats at restaurants in the city, but there is another proposal on the table that could have an even bigger impact on the dining community in NYC. The Board of Health is considering requiring some restaurants - beginning with chains and fast food establishments - to list the caloric content of their menu items on the menu. Not only that, but the calorie count must be "in type that is as large 'as the name or price of the item.'"

The NY Department of Health and Mental Hygiene is "intent on creating the nation's most rigorous system of calorie disclosure in restaurants" - which has restaurant owners worried about what they're going to serve. Chefs already admit that calories and fat aren't exactly major considerations when they are planning menus and restaurant owners are concerned that their offerings will have to change to such a degree that people won't want to eat out anymore. But the smaller eateries don't have to worry just yet because the rules will only apply to "restaurants with highly standardized menu items" that "already make their caloric content available on the Internet, in brochures or in some other format."

Source

If you thought that Chicago was the only city that wanted to ban trans fats, think again. Yesterday, the Board of Health in New York City voted unanimously to support a plan that would prohibit restaurants in the city from serving food that "contains more than a minute amount of artificial trans fats." The Board does have the power to adopt the plan, effective immediately, if it so chooses, but they have permitted a window of time for public comments, which will end with a public hearing on the ban on October 30th. If and when the plan is accepted, the ban will be phased in gradually. "Restaurants would be given until July to eliminate oils, margarines and shortening from the recipes that contain more than a half-gram of trans fat per serving," but would have until July 2008 to remove all menu items that exceed the limit of 0.5 g per serving. Trans fats occur naturally in some animal products, and those would be excluded, as would packaged foods that "remain in the manufacturers' original packaging when served."

Up to 20,000 restaurants could be affected by such a decision, so it is not surprising to note that the restaurant industry offered immediate resistance to the idea. Predictably, they cited increased costs and a change in the taste of some items, but because the change would be city-wide, it would at least apply evenly and is unlikely to actually change the dining habits of most New Yorkers. In other words, the protesting is unlikely to do much good.

Board members say that New York could set an example for the rest of the country, and that it would be a positive change for citizens, who eat more meals out than the average American.The city's health commissioner said that "no one will miss [trans fat] when it is gone." And he is probably right.

Source