< Back to Front Page Text size +

Boston steps toward trans fat ban

Posted by Karen Weintraub January 10, 2008 07:33 PM

By Stephen Smith and Tania deLuzuriaga, Globe Staff

Following the lead of New York City and Brookline, health regulators in Boston tonight took the first step toward banning artery-clogging trans fat from French fries, doughnuts, and other food sold in restaurants and corner stores.

The Boston Public Health Commission voted unanimously -- and with little discussion -- to give preliminary approval to a ban that would take effect late this year if it receives another thumbs up in the spring. Commission members were spurred to action by scientific evidence linking artificial trans fat to heart disease in humans and to diabetes and obesity in animal studies. Brookline approved a similar ban last May.

"There is no need to have artificial trans fat," said Anne McHugh, project director of the health department's Boston Steps program, which combats obesity, diabetes, and other chronic diseases. "It's just bad."

In many respects, though, the Boston ban appears to be a regulation in search of a need. New York City prohibited trans fat in the fall of 2006, and in the food business, as goes New York, so goes the rest of the restaurant world.

For large chains such as McDonald's and Starbucks, it made little economic sense to keep using the substance everywhere but New York. For mom-and-pop restaurants in New York and Brookline, an increasing selection of trans fat-free oils and other products made complying with a ban easier than many thought it would be, even if the healthier ingredients sometimes proved more expensive.

In Boston tonight, restaurateurs reacted to the health commission's move with a collective shrug. At the Milky Way Lounge & Lanes in Jamaica Plain, the cooks eliminated trans fat oils a year ago.

"It seemed to be what people want," general manager Carol Downs said. "I think it's a good move by the city."

Boyce Slayman Jr. has never used trans fats at his two-year-old Poppa B's soul food restaurant in Dorchester, because "the majority of people may not want them in their food."

"A small amount of people think using them adds flavor," he said. "It's a matter of how you're raised and taught."

Even bakers, who long cherished artificial trans fat for its ability to extend shelf life and to give certain pastries their flaky texture, have increasingly abandoned the ingredient.

"To my knowledge, nothing we have here contains trans fats," said Helen Matthews, one of the bakers at Fiore's Bakery in Jamaica Plain. "We do a lot of research to make sure."

Scientists at the Harvard School of Public Health conducted much of the landmark research into trans fat, establishing the link between the substance and cardiovascular disease in people. Primate studies have also shown that consuming trans fat can elevate the risk of a condition that is a precursor to diabetes, and also pack fat around the belly, where it is believed to be more dangerous than elsewhere.

Studies estimate that having as little as 40 calories of trans fat a day can boost the risk of a heart attack by 23 percent. A typical fast-food meal of chicken nuggets and french fries, if it's prepared with artificial trans fat, can easily contain more than 100 calories of the substance.

The quest to ban trans fat finds its roots in earlier campaigns to ban smoking from restaurants and taverns, a major public health intervention that faced stiff opposition from business owners. Champions of trans fat bans had anticipated a similar reaction, expecting to be branded as do-gooders who wanted to take the pleasure out of dining.

Instead, the bans faced surprisingly little opposition, and when Massachusetts lawmakers held a hearing to discuss a statewide prohibition last year, the president of the Massachusetts Restaurant Association said his confederation would not challenge the proposal.

The Boston prohibition would include all restaurants, including school and hospital cafeterias, as well as food that is prepared in kitchens inside groceries and delis. Consumers, though, would still be able to buy packaged snack foods containing trans fat, although even those products are increasingly going trans fat-free.

City inspectors will visit businesses to make sure they comply with the ban, and scofflaws could face fines of up to $1,000 for each violation.

A public hearing on the ban will be held in March, with a final vote anticipated later in the spring, said Fatema Fazendeiro, an attorney with the city's health department.

If the public health commission gives its final blessing, the prohibition would go into effect in two phases. The first, probably starting in November, would ban partially hydrogenated vegetable oil, used for deep frying, as well as margarine. The second facet would start being enforced six months later, banishing lard and other ingredients that bakers use to give doughnuts and croissants their texture.

Stephen Smith can be reached at stsmith@globe.com.

13 comments so far...
  1. In-state tuition for illegals and a ban on trans-fats - all in one day...

    Welcome to the Peoples Republic of Massachusetts. Commies are now in full control.

    Posted by KenS January 10, 08 08:12 PM
  1. We just moved back to Boston from NYC. After the trans-fat ban was enacted, it seems that the chef used more salt and sodium laden spices to add more flavor to the food. Boston chefs: please hold the salt !!

    Posted by Chris L January 10, 08 09:34 PM
  1. My concern is the trend of goverment to regulate your daily life. What you can eat , drink and do. I do not want the governement to tell me what I can and can not eat. It is just a beginning.

    Posted by Ron G January 10, 08 09:40 PM
  1. I think it is a good idea and so don't more and more folks as they learn about the risks. Remember, without some government intervention, Vioxx (and thousands of other dangerous concoctions) would still be available. Big business would roll their products down our collective throats without regard for the consequences.

    Posted by sophron January 10, 08 09:51 PM
  1. Thank God we have the government to save us from ourselves

    Posted by Rayball January 10, 08 09:59 PM
  1. KenS in 2 words: DRAMA QUEEN.
    Grow up, man.

    Posted by Brett January 10, 08 10:09 PM
  1. Ahh, trans-fats are so yesterday. The alternates that they now use are so much worse for health we may long for trans-fats in the days to come. Check that one out...it's true, baby, it is.

    Posted by cs January 10, 08 10:23 PM
  1. How can a ban on "artificial" trans fats exclude lard? This is either poorly reported or someone at the health department is being disingenuous.

    Posted by ChrisB January 10, 08 11:31 PM
  1. thank god!

    Posted by Mike January 11, 08 12:56 AM
  1. Wow, KenS, that really hits the nail on the head. Heathy food is clearly a commie plot, and heart disease is freedom. Thanks for clearing that up.

    Posted by Matt January 11, 08 01:31 AM
  1. Let's just turn this country into a police state. Don't get me wrong, all the research supports the fact that trans fats are on a whole not good for you. However, everyone's body is different. Some people can have trans fats occasionally without putting on fifty pounds or having their cholestorol top three hundred. Where do we draw the line? I suppose if they were banned some peoples health may improve, but are people that stupid that they need the government to dictate their diets? What a sad commentary on the state of affairs in this country.

    Posted by David Jones January 11, 08 02:30 AM
  1. It's not communism, it's the difficulty activists and bureaucrats have in understanding that the role of government is not to play "Mom & Dad."

    Anne McHugh is right - there's no "need" for artificial trans-fats. There's also no need for a whole bunch of things that aren't banned or legislated out of existence, including at least 50% of the people who work at City Hall.

    If I want to sit on my butt all day, smoking, eating Twinkies, and slurping down Jack Daniels without health insurance, it's my God-given right as an American. I don't need to ask for permission from the government to do what I like with my body. I was under the impression that that was the whole point of the right to privacy.

    Posted by CapnVan January 11, 08 02:44 AM
  1. This is America. We should eat whatever we want. What is wrong with people?? Ken is right. This smacks of communism. It is right up there with "It takes a village"
    For years we fought to keep democracy alive, now we hand our lives over to mommy and daddy government. A free society is not a safe society...... as Ben Franklin said "those who would give up a little bit of freedom for a little bit of safety deserve neither freedom nor safety.

    Posted by Maureen January 11, 08 11:30 AM
add your comment
Required
Required (will not be published)

This blogger might want to review your comment before posting it.

about white coat notes We post updates every weekday about the region's hospitals, labs and medical schools – covering everything from the latest research findings to what's on the minds of the innovative doctors, nurses and scientists who work here. Send news items and tips to whitecoat@globe.com

Contributors

blogger

Elizabeth Cooney covers health for the Worcester Telegram & Gazette. She previously reported on business and was an editor at the paper. Earlier in her career, she edited medical books and journals at Little, Brown, and worked for Boston magazine.

Boston Globe Health and Science staff:

archives