The Nannies Of New York – Part Two

Well, as I noted back in September, the New York City Health Department was considering a ban on trans fats. Today they enacted the ban.

The board, which passed the ban unanimously, did give restaurants a slight break by relaxing what had been considered a tight deadline for compliance. Restaurants will be barred from using most frying oils containing artificial trans fats by July and will have to eliminate the artificial trans fats from all of their foods by July 2008.

But restaurant industry representatives called the ban burdensome and unnecessary.

"We don't think that a municipal health agency has any business banning a product the Food and Drug Administration has already approved," said Dan Fleshler, a spokesman for the National Restaurant Association.

Health Commissioner Thomas Frieden said recently that officials seriously weighed complaints from the restaurant industry, which argued that it was unrealistic to give them six months to replace cooking oils and shortening and 18 months to phase out the ingredients altogether.

The ban contains some exceptions; for instance, it would allow restaurants to serve foods that come in the manufacturer's original packaging.

Trans fats are believed to be harmful because they contribute to heart disease by raising bad cholesterol and lowering good cholesterol at the same time. Some experts say that makes trans fats worse than saturated fat.

The panel also passed another measure that has made restaurants unhappy: Some that chose to inform customers about calorie content will have to list the information right on the menu. The rule would generally apply to fast-food restaurants and other major chains.

The problem here is the local banning of Federally approved products. This could become a real nightmare of patchwork requirements across the country. In effect, New York City's actions will have economic impact on the rest of the country as producers pass the costs of doing business in New York on to everyone. And as more and more municipalities impose differing requirements, the cost of meeting all of these will be passed along as well. There actually is a reason why certain things belong at the Federal level. There may well be a constitutional issue with this rule as it may well run afoul of the interstate commerce clause.

UPDATE: Jay at Stop the ACLU is also unhappy with this. He asks: "Whats next, chocolate?". That would bring villagers with pitchforks, Jay. But if they went after fruitcake, everyone would get behind them…..