BETA
This is a BETA experience. You may opt-out by clicking here

More From Forbes

Edit Story

The Trans Fat Ban and Labels On Salt And Soda Won't Make Us Healthier

This article is more than 8 years old.

The U.S. Food & Drug Administration has finally made good on its long-threatened ban on trans fats, announcing today that food companies have three years to get the ingredient out of their products. The move comes just days after San Francisco legislators passed a bill slapping warnings on ads for sugary drinks and New York mayor Bill de Blasio said he wants warning labels on salty restaurant foods. But will it make us healthier? Not likely, say some food and nutrition experts.

All three moves are largely aimed at reducing the burden of heart disease, the nation’s number-one killer. And smaller initiatives had already been taken towards that goal: The FDA required food makers to list trans fats on their labels starting in 2006, for example, and that same year, New York City banned trans fats at restaurants. But despite the fact that deaths from heart disease have fallen somewhat, the numbers show we still have a huge problem on our hands: About 84 million Americans suffer from heart disease, which causes about 2,200 deaths a day, or one every 40 seconds, according to data collected by the Johns Hopkins medical school.

Why isn’t policing the food supply working? Because food is just one piece of a much more complicated puzzle. “There are so many risk factors for heart disease,” says Ruth Litchfield associate professor in the Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition at Iowa State University. “There are still behaviors such as smoking, lack of physical activity, excessive weight, high total fat intake. They also contribute. So this one particular component is not the magic bullet.”

The FDA has determined that partially hydrogenated oils (PHOs), the main source of trans fats, are not “generally recognized as safe,” according to the press release announcing the ban. The agency estimates that its 2006 labeling mandate contributed to a 78% drop in the consumption of the harmful fats between 2003 and 2012, but it notes that the Institute of Medicine recommends that trans-fat intake be as low as possible. Hence the all-out ban.

“Studies show that diet and nutrition play a key role in preventing chronic health problems, such as cardiovascular disease and today’s action goes hand in hand with other FDA initiatives to improve the health of Americans, including updating the nutrition facts label,” said Susan Mayne, Ph.D., director of the FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, in the release.

Perhaps, but whether this ban will actually reduce the incidence of heart disease is open to question. “The risk of an outright ban of artificial trans fat is that we don’t know the totality of its impact. What will food companies replace them with?” asks Paul Marantz, associate dean for clinical research education and professor of epidemiology and population health at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York.

Marantz adds that after New York City banned trans fats in restaurants, the total calories purchased by consumers actually increased. “How will this [ban] affect people’s eating patterns?” he says. “History should give us a little humility when it comes to making broad policies like this.”

Some of the companies most likely to be affected by the trans fat ban include ConAgra Foods , which still uses the ingredient in some of its Marie Callenders frozen pies and dinners, as well as its Fleischmann’s stick margarine. Some of General Mills ’ famed Pillsbury and Bisquick products also contain the newly banned fat.

ConAgra provided this statement in response regarding the trans fat ban: “ConAgra Foods began removing PHOs from our foods nearly a decade ago, and we have removed the vast majority from our foods.” General Mills did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Some advocacy groups are blasting the FDA for instituting a policy that’s going to force food makers to find more expensive alternatives to trans fats. Jeff Stier, senior fellow and Risk Analysis Division Director at the National Center for Public Policy Research points out that the food industry has policed itself to the point where the average amount of trans fats consumed daily has fallen from 4.5 grams in 2006 to just a gram, according to the Centers for Disease Control.

"Today, trans-fats are generally used at very low levels for specific purposes that are difficult or costly to replace,” Stier said in a statement. "The FDA's scary assumptions are based on wobbly models piled on top of wishful thinking and doused with junk science."

Moves to regulate sugary drinks and salty foods aren’t drawing much praise, either. San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors voted unanimously on June 9 to require soda ads on billboards and other public spaces to read: "WARNING: Drinking beverages with added sugar(s) contributes to obesity, diabetes and tooth decay." The legislation emerged after the city failed to pass a soda tax as part of an effort to combat rising obesity rates.

Also on June 9, New York Mayor de Blasio said he would present a plan to include warnings in menus next to any dishes containing more than 2,300 milligrams of salt, which is the widely recommended daily limit. A salt shaker would serve as the symbol for the offending item. Salt intake has been linked to high blood pressure, another risk factor for heart disease.

Michael Jacobson, executive director for the Center for Science in the Public Interest, told the Associated Press that de Blasio’s proposal was too conservative, because for some people, a meal with half the daily recommended salt intake is still too much. Others say the entire endeavor is a bad idea because of recent evidence that eating too little salt can be as harmful as consuming too much of it.

Litchfield believes the real problem is that warning labels on their own don’t do much good. Only when there’s a penalty associated with bad habits—particularly a financial penalty—do people actually change their behavior, she says, pointing to two primary targets of public health initiatives: smoking and seat belt usage. “In 1983, before there were any seat belt laws, you had about 14% of people using a seat belt. Then you started having states pass laws, and by 1990 seat belt use jumped to 50%,” Litchfield says. A similar phenomenon occurred with smoking. “One study looked at youth, minorities and low income audiences, who tend to be more likely to use cigarettes. For every 10% increase in the tax on cigarette use you’d see a 7% decrease in smoking,” she says.

So with trans fats out of the picture, are taxes on sodas and salty fast foods likely to end up on legislators’ menus next? Litchfield said she wouldn’t be surprised to see that, but she harbors doubts that any of it will actually lower rates of obesity and heart disease.

“We’re picking on one industry when there are so many players here,” Litchfield says. “Would [taxes] be impactful? Absolutely. It would decrease consumption. Would that be enough to make a dent? I’m not sure.”