NYC Bans Trans-Fats
Today, (well, actually yesterday, I'm writing this in the middle of the night) New York City's health department banned trans-fats in restaurants. The process looks like it might well be fraught with litigation, but I think they'll succeed. I should elucidate that the ban is neither immediate, nor complete for some time. Further, even when the ban is complete, you'll still get some trans-fats that occur naturally in some foods.
The basic structure of the ban is as follows: use of hydrogenated oils for frying or as an added ingredient is prohibited as of July (2007); then a year later, the synthetic trans-fats are banned from any presence in foods.
What did I just say? Let's look at the french (should that be capped?) fry as an example. If a restaurant buys prepared french fries, then in about 6 months, they are prohibited from using hydrogenated oils to fry in. The fry may still contain some trans-fats because the factory that prepared it may have used hydrogenated oil to improve handling or flavor characteristics. A year later, that french fry can't contain even that small amount of trans-fat.
What does this mean in real terms? Fats come in solid and liquid forms, and there are differences between how the two behave, feel in your mouth, etc. There are also flavor differences between various fats. Most of us are familiar with trans-fats as the can of Crisco (or equivalent) in the cabinet that we use for baking. You can't make a flaky pastry without solid fats. This ban likely means that in some applications, lard or other animal fats will be substituted for the hydrogenated vegetable fats. This has implications for those who have dietary restrictions due to religious, health, or personal belief issues.
In other applications, the impact on flavor is a factor. I understand that from a flavor viewpoint, it's usually possible to use an non-hydrogenated version of an oil and retain the same flavor. There may be slight flavor differences if hard fats are required, though I suspect that food and flavor technologies have advanced to a level where they will be almost undetectable.
Further, I've heard that while non-hydrogenated hard fats are costlier than their hydrogenated cousins, they are normally absorbed less and don't break down as fast in use. This means two things, first, lower actual costs of use (though higher start-up costs) and a healthier product due to lower oil absorbtion and thus, lower calorie products. I suspect that there is a bit of untruth there, fat tastes good to us, and so some restaurants will likely choose oil blends that are more readily absorbed, thus, the absorbtion reduction will be compromised by restaurant choice in exchange for improved taste.
The basic structure of the ban is as follows: use of hydrogenated oils for frying or as an added ingredient is prohibited as of July (2007); then a year later, the synthetic trans-fats are banned from any presence in foods.
What did I just say? Let's look at the french (should that be capped?) fry as an example. If a restaurant buys prepared french fries, then in about 6 months, they are prohibited from using hydrogenated oils to fry in. The fry may still contain some trans-fats because the factory that prepared it may have used hydrogenated oil to improve handling or flavor characteristics. A year later, that french fry can't contain even that small amount of trans-fat.
What does this mean in real terms? Fats come in solid and liquid forms, and there are differences between how the two behave, feel in your mouth, etc. There are also flavor differences between various fats. Most of us are familiar with trans-fats as the can of Crisco (or equivalent) in the cabinet that we use for baking. You can't make a flaky pastry without solid fats. This ban likely means that in some applications, lard or other animal fats will be substituted for the hydrogenated vegetable fats. This has implications for those who have dietary restrictions due to religious, health, or personal belief issues.
In other applications, the impact on flavor is a factor. I understand that from a flavor viewpoint, it's usually possible to use an non-hydrogenated version of an oil and retain the same flavor. There may be slight flavor differences if hard fats are required, though I suspect that food and flavor technologies have advanced to a level where they will be almost undetectable.
Further, I've heard that while non-hydrogenated hard fats are costlier than their hydrogenated cousins, they are normally absorbed less and don't break down as fast in use. This means two things, first, lower actual costs of use (though higher start-up costs) and a healthier product due to lower oil absorbtion and thus, lower calorie products. I suspect that there is a bit of untruth there, fat tastes good to us, and so some restaurants will likely choose oil blends that are more readily absorbed, thus, the absorbtion reduction will be compromised by restaurant choice in exchange for improved taste.
posted by Scooter at 2:29 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home