Say, Does Trans Fat Come With Those Fries?

If a consumer group and lawmakers get their way, restaurant menus will disclose use of partially hydrogenated oils.


By Julie Tamaki, Times Staff Writer

Researchers contend that trans fat — coveted by cooks for boosting the shelf life and texture of foods — increases the chance of heart disease. Now it's also giving the restaurant industry higher blood pressure.

The Food and Drug Administration, prompted by a consumer advocacy group, is considering whether to force restaurants to place notices in menus or on signs if they are using partially hydrogenated vegetable oil, the trans-fatty-acid-laden ingredient in many fried foods.

The restaurants are facing pressure on other fronts as well. Lawmakers in Congress and the California Legislature have introduced bills requiring nutritional labeling on chain restaurant menus. And McDonald's Corp. has been taken to court by another advocacy group that contends the fast-food chain has failed to make good on a promise that it would reduce its use of trans fat and saturated fat.

Trans fat, a natural component of animal and dairy fat, is created artificially when food makers add hydrogen to vegetable oil to make it more solid. Researchers contend that trans fat raises levels of low-density lipoprotein, or "bad" cholesterol, increasing the risk of heart disease.

Manufacturers of packaged foods, already facing a 2006 deadline to display trans fat content on the nutritional labels of their products, have unleashed a flurry of trans-fat-free offerings, including reformulated versions of Crisco shortening and Triscuit snack crackers.

The push for restaurants to disclose their use of trans fat comes as diners increasingly go out to eat. According to the National Restaurant Assn, about 46% of the food dollar is now spent outside the home, compared with 25% in 1955.

"We buy a lot of food outside of grocery stores," said Michael Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, the group that petitioned the FDA for the rule change. "People should be informed about that food."

Mandatory labeling, however, faces stiff opposition from the restaurant industry.

Restaurateurs are concerned that because cooking is not always a precise science, labeling could expose them to litigation if trans fat and other nutritional content differ from amounts listed on menus.

"What goes on in kitchens is a creative endeavor that is not necessarily dictated by teaspoons and tablespoons," said Jot Condie, president of the California Restaurant Assn.

Then there are the customers themselves. More than 60% of them customize their orders, making it nearly impossible to calculate the trans fat content in every variation, said Stephenie Shah, a senior legislative director at the California Restaurant Assn. For example, she said, there are 1.3 trillion combinations for a pizza when there are 15 toppings to choose from, all with varying fat content.

The restaurant industry also maintains that previous nutritional labeling efforts have failed to address health concerns, said Rick Berman, executive director of Center for Consumer Freedom, an advocacy group supported by restaurants and food companies. The main problem with nutritional labels, Berman said, is that they are aimed at people least likely to read them.

"The government shows that obesity is concentrated among people who have less than a high school diploma," Berman said. "Many of these people are functionally illiterate, yet all the bright-eyed bureaucrats and regulators think the answer is to provide fat grams and carbohydrate grams to people who don't read."

Jacobson said that sort of thinking was off-base.

"Trans fat has nothing to do with obesity," he said. "If all the trans fat were banned and replaced by other oils, there would be no effect on obesity. It has to do with heart disease.

"Nutritional labeling clearly hasn't been a panacea for America's health problems, but it has been a godsend for millions and millions of people who read labels carefully and are trying to protect their health."

Jacobson's group, which filed a separate petition with the FDA to prohibit partially hydrogenated oils as a food ingredient, contends that virtually all burger and fried chicken chains use the oils to fry foods, as do most casual dining establishments.

Some food suppliers also blanch certain foods, including French fries, in trans fat before freezing and shipping them to restaurants.

One anti-trans-fat group has taken the fight beyond petitions and legislation. BanTransFats.com, a California nonprofit, sued Oak Brook Ill.-based McDonald's this year, alleging false advertising over its 2002 announcement that it would cook its famous fries in an oil with lower levels of trans fat and saturated fat.

The company released a statement last year that said the change would be delayed.

Jacobson's group placed a full-page ad in Friday's New York Times that chastised McDonald's for "A Broken McPromise" and depicted a heart attack victim being resuscitated.

"It's two years after McDonald's said it was going to phase out partially hydrogenated oil," Jacobson said. "We thought two years was a long-enough time, and the company hasn't done anything."

McDonald's declined to comment specifically about the lawsuit or the ad. In a statement e-mailed to The Times, the company said: "As we reported in February of 2003, the change has taken longer than anticipated, but we are continuing with ongoing tests. As previously stated, [trans fatty acid] information has been added to our nutrition information materials, including our website, in-store nutrition brochures and tray liners beginning next month."

Some casual dining chains already use trans-fat-free oils to fry foods, including Ruby's Diner. Ruby's also will begin offering trans-fat-free FitFries at all its outlets Tuesday. The fries cost about 60 cents more per order than their conventional counterparts and will automatically be included in kids meals.

Doug Cavanaugh, chief executive of Newport Beach-based Ruby Restaurant Group, said his company was responding to an industry trend of providing healthier fare. He predicted that more food suppliers would offer foods blanched in trans-free oil, allowing chains to list more trans-free items on menus.

"Onion ring manufacturers are going to do the same thing," Cavanaugh said. "I guarantee you they're probably in their laboratories as we speak. This is not going to go away."

Last month, a variety of vendors were peddling trans-fat-free oils at the Western Foodservice & Hospitality Expo in Los Angeles. And ads touting the oils have surfaced in trade publications.

The restaurant industry points to these voluntary efforts as evidence that mandatory labeling is not necessary.

Many restaurants have expanded their menus to include healthier fare or already provide nutritional information on company websites. Visitors to a website run by San Diego-based Jack in the Box Inc., for example, can calculate the amount of trans fat contained in any combination of menu items.

Ruby Tuesday Inc., a Maryville, Tenn.-based chain not related to Ruby Restaurant Group, also switched to trans-fat-free oil nearly a year ago. But it abandoned its voluntary effort to provide nutritional information on menus this year, opting instead to print the information on tabletop guides. The guides allow the company to reflect ingredient changes without reprinting menus and permit customers to view the information throughout their meal.

"As is often the case in the restaurant industry, we make tweaks to the menu as needed," said Angie Heig, a Ruby Tuesday spokeswoman. "Making these minor adjustments has a direct impact on nutritional information."

Despite such voluntary efforts, proponents of mandatory menu labels plan to press ahead with legislation.

U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) plans to reintroduce his menu-labeling measure next year, said Maureen Knightly, Harkin's press secretary. His attempt for the current session was folded into a broader health bill that the senator's office believes will not clear Congress this year. Harkin wants restaurants with 20 or more locations to disclose calorie, saturated fat, trans fat and sodium amounts on menus.

State Sen. Deborah Ortiz (D-Sacramento) is weighing whether to reintroduce next year a similar menu-labeling measure in California. Her effort last year to require chain restaurants to post the nutritional content of standard menu items on a wall, or to customers upon request, failed after facing resistance from opponents including the California Restaurant Assn. and the California Chamber of Commerce.

Ortiz said she offered to address opponents' litigation concerns, including inserting a disclaimer that there could be variations based on serving size and special orders.

"We took away that argument and they still opposed it," Ortiz said. "Ultimately, I concluded if the consumers had this information they may not buy … the cheaper, high-fat products."

Ortiz said the measure failed to clear the Assembly Health Committee after a group of moderate Democrats withheld their votes. "It was an indication of the industry's influence into that committee," she said.

But Berman contends it's not industry influence that is blocking such laws, it's the public's lack of interest: "There's no groundswell among consumers for information they're not particularly interested in."


http://www.latimes.com/business/la-...dlines-business

The only things that would normally contain Trans-Fat are the frying oils, cooking oils, Shortenings, and Margarine. The toppings on a Pizza aren't going to change the Trans-Fat content one iota. The only way a Pizza would have Trans-Fat is if they put Margarine/Crisco in the Dough, in which case they could simply give one figure: x slices contains y amount of Trans-Fat, and it would hold true no matter what you put on it, because its in the dough, not the toppings. As for fried foods, any figure there would be based on how much oil its expected to retain. The Trans-Fat isn't going to vary any more than the Total Fat, when it comes to fried foods, as long as they stick to a specific Oil/Shortening, and don't go mixing all kinds of Oils/Shortenings in varying proportions.



First off, being Fat does not mean you're stupid. I also highly doubt the claim that most Fat folks don't have a HS Diploma. If that were true, it would only be because so many kids [too young to have yet graduated HS,] are becoming Overweight/Obese. And, it is a misrepresentation to say that these kids are illiterate. If you can teach 2nd/3rd Graders the parts of a plant/human body, there is no reason they wouldn't be able to read a Food Label and understand what Fat, Carbohydrates, Fiber, Trans-Fat, Protein, etc...are.

As for overweight/obese adults. Both of my parents are Obese. In fact, my dad weighed about 380-390 lbs at his highest. Both of them have Graduate Degrees, but sadly fell for the LF Lie. They tried numerous times to lose weight over the years by cutting out Fat...only to fail like everyone else. My Grandfather had a frigging PhD [and could read/write/speak several languages fluently, as could my dad] and yet struggled with his weight for at least the last 30 years of his life. My uncle was obese also, and is the only family member who didn't have a HS Diploma [as he dropped out of school back in the 50s,] but he was not illiterate as they suggest. While he probably couldn't have written War and Peace, he could certainly read a label [in 2 languages in fact, as he was bilingual] with no trouble. I reached my highest weight, just after I received my first College Degree. I know people with PhDs who are bigger than me.



This is my preferred soluition. Partially Hydrogenated Oils are unnatural, and thusly would have been granted GRAS (Generally Reconized as Safe) Status by the FDA decades ago, because they'd existed before the law creating the FDA came to be, and at that time, they weren't yet aware of the dangers. But, by law the FDA is supposed to deny GRAS Status if the product is unsafe. They denied Stevia GRAS Status purportedly [the real reason is believed to be because of NutraSweet] because it may decrease fertility in rats. If decreasing fertility in rats is a sufficient excuse to deny GRAS Status to something that is otherwise perfectly healthy, then how can something that kills Hundreds of Thousands of People every year be considered safe ??? Which is worse, slightly less fertile rats or hundreds of thousands of people dying from Cancer, Heart Disease, and Diabetes every year...because of Partially Hydrogenated Oils ???



If they'd finally accept that Tropical Oils are perfectly healthy and don't cause Heart Disease, they could go back to using them. I don't expect to see Animal Tallows make a return [in the US] because of other issues [religious, etc...] aside from the Heart Disease question. But, there's no reason they can't use Tropical Oils. McDonalds uses Beef Tallow/Tropical Oils in Australia, and Canola Oil [which may contain some TFAs, but nowhere near as much as Crisco] in Britain according to their website. So, why do they have to use Trans-Fat heavy Partially Hydrogenated Oils over here ???

I think the problem is that some folks hate the saturated fats, and some hate the trans-fats. Some even hate the polyunsats. You can roll out evidence for and against each of these types.

Frying french fries in a different oil isn't going to make them healthy. Any high fat, high carb food is going to be unhealthy. You think beef tallow makes a less unhealthy fry, Joe Blow thinks hydrogenated oil makes a less helthy fry. Why don't both of you forego eating fries, and let the consumer decide which TASTES BETTER. Since its their grave, so to speak.

Making a restaurant give out nutrition info is BS. Its all here on the web, we can make our own estimates. I wouldn't even trust their numbers anyway. I personally think its better not to get anal about counting every sinlge last carb or calorie, and work on simply selecting foods that we know are low and good for us.

Actually, if you are going to eat french fries, it would be the healthiest to cook them in lard ( 50% monosaturated) and capable of withstanding fairly high heat; then, were they dipped in butter, instead of ketchup, your blood sugar and insulin response would be about the minimum possible for eating a potato.

Sure, that is also why they used the transfats too, when nutrition-minded consumers objected to the saturated fat. I can see where a corporation might get tired of trying to satisfy the nutrition-minded vocal minority, when their average consumer doesn't give a hoot and only wants a tasty fry.

I'm told they dip fries in mayo in Europe. Those people are always ahead of the times.

Speaking for taste, I always liked the taste of McDonalds' fries, even back when they still cooked 'em in Animal Fat (Beef Tallow ?) There's really no significiant taste issue when it comes to frying them in Saturated versus Trans-Fats. There may be a difference though in Satrurated versus Unsaturated Fats.

As for what is heathy/unhealthy...most [though not all] folks now agree that Trans-Fat is at least "as bad" as Saturated Fat. So, switching back to something such as Beef Tallow (6S + 0T,) Lard (5S + 0T,) or even Chicken Fat (4S + 0T) versus Crisco and its ilk (2-3S + 1-3T) would be seen by many folks as at worst a lateral move. Some folks see both Saturated and Trans-Fats as bad, but Trans-Fat as slightly worse. These folks would see such a move as a slight improvement, but not as much as they'd prefer. Then, there's those of us who view Saturated Fat as healthy, but Trans-Fat as the devil incarnate. Such a move would be to us the perfect change.

There are also a few folks who think Trans-Fat is unhealthy, but not as much so as Saturated Fat [because Trans doesn't raise TOTAL Cholesterol as much as Saturated...This is of course because Trans lowers HDL (Good) Cholesterol and raises LDL (Bad) Cholesterol, while Saturated is believed to raise both.] These folks would see it as slightly worse. Then, of course, there's the Vegetarian/Vegan Groups such as PCRM and their ilk who would just raise a royal shitstorm if anyone ever went back to Animal Fats. There are also a few folks [Consumer Freedom ???] who think that all fats are safe. These folks could care less what fat McDonald's uses.

On the topic of Unsaturated Fats. There is a small number of folks who understand the problems associated with Polyunsaturated Fats, namely the Omega-6/Omega-3 ratio and ease of oxidation/rancidity. But, the vast majority of folks still view Polyunsaturates as healthier than Saturated or Trans-Fat. In addition, Smart Balance and possibly some others claim that their Trans-Fat Free Shortenings have a good balance of Omega-3 and Omega-6, which would take care of at least the first problem. As for the rancidity issue, that's pretty much gonna happen with any fat McDonalds decides to use, because they fry at 500-600 Degrees or something like that, a temperature which well exceeds the safe limits of ALL fats and oils.

But, Polyunsaturates aside, there are also Monounsaturates. Peanut Oil is probably out because they don't need nor want a lawsuit the first time somebody with a Peanut/Nut Allergy goes into Anaphalxis after eating their fries, not realizing what their fried in. Strangely, some Potato Chips are still fried with Peanut Oil, which makes it necessary to read the label if you have such an allergy, no matter what you're eating. Olive Oil is too delicate and expensive. That leaves Canola Oil, which has a pretty bad reputation among a small number of folks. Some folks believe the Omega-3s in Canola become Trans-Fat when heated. This is probably not correct, but it is still a relatively delicate oil nonetheless. But, again...considering the temps McDonalds uses, they're pretty much going to Oxidize/Turn Rancid ANY Oil/Fat they use very quickly. The best changes they could make would be to:

1) Abandon Trans-Fats. I don't really care if they use Saturated Animal Fats, Saturated Tropical Oils, Monounsaturated Vegetable Oils, or a mix of Polyunsaturated Vegetable Oils (as long as the w3:w6 ratio is not too far out of wack.)

2) Turn down the temperatures. Unfortunately, the high temperature also gives the fries their texture. So, turning the temps down would result in slightly limper fries. But, I don't believe it would affect the taste. But, on the same token, they wouldn't be loaded with cancer causing oxidized/rancid fats, etc...anymore either.

I think they fry at 350-400F. That is what we always ran our fryers at, in the restaurants I worked at. The oil breaks down fast enough at those temps. A polyunsat. oil will break down more quickly, I don't think its a rancidity problem though. I thought the fatty acids just got broken into smaller lengths. I do know the oil gets thin and the food boils when an oil has been in the fryer too long. The taste suffers, not a rancid taste but just not that crisp outside and more of a burned smell.

No doubt about it though, McDonalds is between a rock and a hard place, in deciding what to use in their fryers.

But doesn't heating any oil to the degree required for deep frying damage it to the point that it becomes a damaged unhealthy fat?

Koko-- pretty much as I understand it, and especially KEEPING the oil at cooking temperature al day. IMHO, it really wouldn't matter WHAT they cook them in.