The ordinance defines artificial trans fats as “trans fatty acids produced when cooking oil is chemically modified, as in oil that has been partially hydrogenated.”
City Council reverses foie gras ban May 14, 2008 Posted by Dan Mihalopoulos With Mayor Richard Daley running the vote, the Chicago City Council on Wednesday repealed its controversial ban on foie gras. Over the shouted objections of Ald. Joe Moore (49th), the ban's sponsor, the council used a parliamentary manuever to put the ordinance on the floor for a vote. The council voted 37-6 to repeal the two-year-old ban, which critics argued had made Chicago--and the City Council--a national laughingstock. Ald. Thomas Tunney (44th), a restaurant owner,forced the vote on the measure that prohibits restaurants in the city from serving the delicacy made from the engorged livers of ducks or geese. Moore, whose pleas for a debate were ignored by Daley, warned fellow aldermen "tomorrow it could happen to you." Read
Chicago hot dog restaurateur gets 1st foie gras citation since ban on delicacy's sale February 17, 2007 A hot dog restaurateur who advertised that he was selling foie gras despite the city's ban on its sale has become the first to be cited. A city health department inspector turned up just before Hot Doug's opened Friday, slapped owner Doug Sohn with a citation and confiscated the duck- or goose-liver delicacy. Sohn faces a fine of from $250 to $500 (€190 to €380) when he appears at a March 29 hearing. "I was poking the grizzly bear, and it snapped my head off," Sohn told the Chicago Tribune. Sohn said last month he framed the city's warning letter about the delicacy and placed it on his counter. He also advertised ingredients for foie gras-laced hot dogs on his Web site and on a board near the front door. The ban was passed in August because of what animal rights activists say is the inhumane way geese and ducks are force-fed to plump up their livers. The ordinance passed over the veto of Mayor Richard Daley, who called it the "silliest" ordinance the City Council has ever passed. Many restaurants have echoed Daley's opinion and continued to dish out the "fat liver," but have circumvented the ban on sales by offering it as a complimentary item. Sohn removed the offending sausages from his menu after Friday's citation, and did not say whether he would offer them again after his upcoming vacation in France — the birthplace of foie gras. Read
Foie Gras Ban in Chicago Is Flouted Jan 09, 2007
By DON BABWIN, Associated Press Writer CHICAGO (AP) -- Five months after the city ordered restaurants to stop selling foie gras, it's liver and let liver in Chicago. While some fancy restaurants and gourmet shops no longer offer the goose or duck liver delicacy, others are flouting the ban, listing foie gras on their menus and, in one case, framing the city's warning letter. Evoking Chicago's Prohibition-era past, when a password could gain entry into a speakeasy, at least one restaurant is rumored to be serving foie gras to customers who ask for the "special lobster" dish. And one place has cleverly skirted the ban by offering foie gras as a complimentary item. (The city ordinance bans the SALE of foie gras.) The city has sent out but a smattering of warning letters, conducted one inspection and has yet to levy its first fine, making it clear that is has little stomach for sniffing out violators of the nation's first ban on foie gras. "We need to focus as much as possible on things that actually make people sick and kill people," said Health Department spokesman Tim Hadac. "Our mission is to protect human health and not the health of geese and ducks." Hadac called the ban the department's lowest priority. Foie gras was banned in Chicago because of what animal rights activists say is the inhumane way geese and ducks are force-fed to plump up their livers. The penalty: a fine of at least $250. Mayor Richard Daley has called it the "silliest" ordinance the City Council has ever passed. And many restaurants have acted accordingly. At one business, the owner has treated his warning letter as if it were from a celebrity praising a great meal. "I did frame the letter and put it up on the sales counter," said Doug Sohn, owner of Hot Doug's, a gourmet sausage store.
The health department said it has received just nine first-time complaints about an establishment -- each one prompting a warning letter.
"As much as some supporters of the law and animal rights activists beat their chests over the issue, we frankly don't get a lot of complaints," Hadac said. The city's one inspection ended without a citation because the restaurant, Bin 36, noted on its menu that the foie gras terrine was a complimentary addition to the wild mushroom confit salad. What inspectors didn't ask, said executive chef and partner John Caputo, is whether the salad would cost as much if it didn't include foie gras. It wouldn't. Activists, though, say the ban is working. "Our supporters are going into restaurants and we're told that they are not selling foie gras," said Gene Baur, president of Farm Sanctuary, a national farm animal protection organization. But those supporters apparently are not going to restaurants such as Sweets & Savories, which continues to sell foie gras and has not been the subject of a single complaint. "I kind of feel left out," said the restaurant's owner, David Richards.
At Copperblue, the menu includes "'It isn't foie gras any Moore' duck liver terrine" -- named after the ordinance's chief sponsor, Alderman Joe Moore. Chef and owner Michael Tsonton will not say how the dish differs from foie gras, and nobody with the city has asked.
Moore said he realizes the Health Department has more pressing issues. But he is dismayed to see restaurants flouting the ordinance. "It evinces a certain degree of arrogance on the parts of these establishments," he told the Chicago Tribune. Read
 Busybody politicians, get off our backs September 6, 2006
By John Stossel If you want to buy or sell foie gras in a Chicago restaurant, you'll have to break the law. Not that this stops anyone. Restaurants all over Chicago sell the French delicacy -- even restaurants that never sold it before. They openly thumb their noses at the new law. City officials say cracking down on foie gras pushers won't be a high priority. But the law is on the books, ready whenever the authorities want to harass some troublesome restaurateur. The ancient Chinese philosopher Lao Tzu said, "The more laws and order are made prominent, the more thieves and robbers there will be." In this case the politicians are catering to the animal-rights lobby, which complains that geese and ducks are force-fed to make the fattened-liver paste. (The American Veterinary Medical Association investigated the process and has abstained from condemning it.) Political leaders say they work hard to advance the general welfare. What they really do is help vocal and well-organized special interests. Sometimes I think the type of people who run for office are the most dangerous people. Most of us want to run our own lives, or help people by offering them charity, or selling them things. The people who want to run other people's lives are . . . different. In pursuit of their vision of the perfect world, they justify even absurd restrictions on our freedom. For example: In Belton, Mo., it is illegal to throw a snowball. In New Jersey and Oregon, it is illegal to pump your own gas. In Kern County, Calif., it is illegal to play bingo while drunk. In Illinois, it is against the law to hunt bullfrogs with a firearm. In Massachusetts, it's illegal to deface a milk carton. In Fairfax, Va., the use of pogo sticks is outlawed on city buses. In Palm Harbor, Fla., it is illegal to have an artificial lawn. Some of these silly laws are old, but dumb as they are, they are still on the books. The bureaucrats' bad ideas never go away. They don't repeal old laws; they just pass new ones. Plan on painting your porch on your day off? Don't do it in Spring Hill, Tenn. The city council banned any "alteration or repair of any building" in a residential neighborhood on Sundays, even do-it-yourself work. The mayor of the tiny community of Friendship Heights, Md., said he had to protect his citizens from cigarette smoke. So several years ago, he got his town to pass the most stringent anti-smoking law in America. It banned cigarette smoke not just in restaurants, bars, and offices, but outdoors, too. The mayor is a doctor who should have known that only the flimsiest of data suggests secondhand smoke hurts people. The suggestion of slight risk came from studies of people who lived with smokers, and were exposed to lots of secondhand smoke at home and in cars. The idea that outdoor cigarette smoke is a meaningful health risk is silly. Granted, secondhand smoke is a nuisance. But so are many other things. But the mayor was a zealot, and Friendship Heights banned smoking anywhere on city property, which meant no smoking on the sidewalks, the streets or the parks. I said to Mayor Alfred Muller, "You're another of these busybody politicians who want to tell other people how to live their lives." He replied, "Well, we're elected to promote the general welfare, and this is part of the general welfare." The mayor seemed very sincere, and the citizens of Friendship Heights felt protected by his concern. However, shortly after I interviewed him, he had to register as a sex offender after touching a 14-year-old boy's genitals in a restroom at Washington National Cathedral. The mayor got probation, and the village council repealed his law. Now we finally know what it takes to get a law repealed. The people who have the biggest passion for restricting other people's behavior are the very people we should worry about most. Unfortunately, they keep running for office. Read
The Windy City Gone Wimpy August 31, 2006
NICK GILLESPIE
I FONDLY REMEMBER visiting the Sears Tower in Chicago almost 20 years ago. Before being allowed to enjoy the view from what was then the world's tallest building, visitors had to sit through a promotional film about how rough and tough and great and booming the Second City was. (Never mind that the proud hometown of baseball's sad-sack Cubs had already slipped to third place in population, behind Los Angeles.) At some point in the film, the narrator — possessed of a tooth-rattling basso profundo usually reserved for more elevated art forms, such as NFL highlight reels — proclaimed, apropos of nothing, that "Chicago ain't no sissy town!" He was, if memory serves, quoting an alderman or some other species of criminal native to the Windy City. But it turns out that Chicago is a sissy town because that "stormy, husky, brawling … City of the Big Shoulders," in Carl Sandburg's evocative 1916 poem, seems hellbent on putting a chokehold on just about everything that makes a city a city. Namely, fun. Local pols evidently are more dedicated to rooting out gluttony among residents than reining in a police department neck deep in an ugly torture scandal. Over the last year, the Associated Press recently reported, Chicago snuffed out smoking "in nearly all public places" and pulled the plug on using cellphones while driving. This April, the "Hog Butcher for the World" (Sandburg again) became the first city in the country to ban the sale of foie gras, on grounds that force-feeding geese to make the tasty treat is more cruelty than Al Capone's adopted hometown can bear. In July, the City Council held hearings on banishing trans fats from Chicago's fast-food chains, as if such a move could do much to clear arteries in the birthplace of the deep-dish pizza (Men's Fitness magazine has declared Chitown the fattest city in the U.S.). There was also talk of forcing dog owners to implant identifying microchips in pooches (though not pit bulls, because if the council got its way, the breed would be no more welcome in Chicago than Mrs. O'Leary's cow). Council members, the Chicago Tribune has noted, "have threatened to use their legislative might to improve living standards for elephants … require taxi drivers to wear crisp white shirts and matching pants and socks … [and] require cigarette vendors to display photos of diseased lungs prominently." More recently, the council passed a "living wage" ordinance requiring big-box retailers such as Wal-Mart and Target to pay a minimum of $10 an hour plus benefits by 2010 or face draconian penalties (perhaps a deep-dish plate of a kinder, gentler foie gras, or repeated showings of that old Sears Tower promotional film?). "Come and show me another city … so proud to be alive and coarse and strong and cunning," Sandburg wrote 90 years ago. What a difference a near-century makes. Sure, the White Sox, a baseball franchise rivaled only by the Cubs for long-term ineptitude, won the World Series last year, and may yet make the playoffs this year. But even if the team miraculously repeated, how could Chicagoans legally celebrate? By not talking on their cellphones while driving? By eating soy pate? By paying Wal-Mart greeters a living wage — if you can still call residing in a city of dead pleasures living? The worst part about Chicago's clampdown on seemingly every urban excess is that it's not even original. One need look only to America's two biggest cities, New York and Los Angeles, to see similar buzz-killing rules firmly in place, with more in the pipeline. In years gone by, people poured into cities to escape the conformity and monotony of life on the farm or in the small town. Now they go there to frown at aberrant behavior and pick up after their dog. In this, alas, Chicago is truly America's third city — and sadly, not the last. Read
Contraband foie gras, anyone?August 30, 2006
By Walter Williams Last year the U.S. Supreme Court, in its Kelo v. New London decision, ruled that the private property of one American could be taken and given to another American as long as it served a public purpose. The public purpose in that case was greater tax revenues for the fiscally strapped city of New London. The city figured that if it used its powers of eminent domain to force private homeowners out and then transferred their property to developers to build commercial property, there would be greater tax revenues. Many Americans were angered by this violation of both the letter and spirit of the Fifth Amendment, which in part reads, "... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Public purpose is not the same as public use. Public use means property can be taken, with just compensation, to build a road, a highway, a fort or some other public project. My response to the Kelo decision was "See, I told you so." For decades, Americans have been willing to allow politicians to trample over private property rights, so why should we be surprised when politicians become more emboldened? Here's a brief history. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers fined one landowner $300,000 for "destroying" wetlands because he cleared a backed-up drainage ditch on his property. The Fish & Wildlife Service told one landowner he couldn't use 1,000 acres of his property so the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker could have a place to dwell. Another owner was prevented from clearing dry brush near his home to make a firebreak because it would disturb the Stephens kangaroo rat. Building a deck on his house brought one owner a $30,000 fine for casting a shadow on wetlands. Smoking bans are another violation of private property rights supported by most Americans. If a person owns a restaurant, it is his right to decide whether or not he will permit smoking. If a restaurant owner wishes to permit smoking, he might put up a "Smoking Permitted" sign and let customers decide whether they wish to enter. Similarly, if an owner didn't permit smoking, he might put up a "No Smoking" sign and let customers decide. I'm guessing that a restaurant owner who didn't permit smoking would see it as a violation of his property rights if a coalition used the political arena to create legislation forcing him to permit smoking. It is no less of a property rights violation the other way around. Tyranny breeds tyranny. The Chicago City Council recently enacted a ban on foie gras – a French delicacy made of duck and goose liver. The ostensible justification given for the ban is that foie gras represents cruelty to animals because it involves force-feeding ducks and geese to fatten up their livers. Mayor Richard M. Daley has mocked the ban as the "silliest law" passed by the council. Pressured by animal rights activists, a Philadelphia councilman, following his Chicago brethren, has recently introduced legislation that would ban foie gras in Philadelphia restaurants. These bans are just more of the same – attacks on private property rights. Animal rights wackos won't be satisfied with banning foie gras. Why not ban lobsters for the same reason as the ban on foie gras? After all, putting a live lobster in boiling water can be interpreted as cruelty to animals. What about banning beef? Can't it be interpreted as cruel to leave a calf parentless by slaughtering his mother and father? John Adams warned, "The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. Property must be sacred or liberty cannot exist." Read
Don't expect lots of foie gras fines August 24, 2006
BY FRAN SPIELMAN City Hall Reporter Mayor Daley has said he's not about to turn city health inspectors into the foie gras police. That means enforcement will be complaint-driven, just as it is with Chicago's anti-smoking ordinance. If that's the case, don't hold your breath for a blitzkrieg of tickets. Over the past seven months, the smoking ban, which affects far more people than the foie gras law, has generated only 663 citizen complaints, 500 warning letters and 20 inspections. Thirteen establishments were cleared. Five are scheduled to be inspected. Only two got tickets. No complaints yet One was a convenience store where the cashier was smoking. Details of the other violation were not known. On Day One of the foie gras ban, City Hall received no complaints, which surprised Health Department spokesman Tim Hadac. "You can kind of take it for granted that those who support the ordinance will test the system, so we're anticipating calls early on," Hadac said. "But we're not anticipating a lot of calls from average Chicagoans. This is an issue of relatively limited interest that directly touches only a few high-end restaurants." In the case of the smoking ordinance, the city has established a three-strikes-and-you're-out policy of enforcement. Two warnings before citation Businesses get two warnings before citations are written. Foie gras violators will get two strikes. The first complaint will be followed by a warning letter. The second time, there'll be an inspection during which $250 fines can be issued on the spot.
Restaurateurs See Faux Pas in Ban on Foie Gras August 23, 2006
Kari Lydersen Don't come between foodies and their foie gras. That was the message sent by Chicago diners who dug into foie gras dishes Monday, on the eve of the city's ban on foie gras taking effect. High-end restaurants had special foie gras tastings to protest the ban, and even a few down-home sandwich and pizza joints added it to their menus for the occasion. At the 676 Restaurant & Bar on Chicago's Magnificent Mile, chef Robert Gadsby topped foie gras with Pop Rocks candies, wrapped it in prosciutto and blended it into hot chocolate as part of an "Outlaw Dinner" that also featured such controversial ingredients as wild morels, absinthe, unpasteurized imported cheese and hemp seeds. While the seven-course, $140 dinner was completely legal, all the ingredients have been banned at some point. Gadsby, a chef known for his pop cultural, eccentric approach to American food, called the foie gras ban "ridiculous." "What's next?" asked Gadsby, who also hosted an Outlaw Dinner last month at his Noe Restaurant & Bar in Los Angeles, where foie gras will be subject to a statewide ban by 2012. "They'll outlaw truffles, then lobster, beluga caviar, oysters. There are diners who eat to fill a hunger urge, and there are diners who eat to be dazzled. If you take away the luxury ingredients, how can you dazzle them?" The Chicago City Council passed the foie gras ban in April, joining California and several European countries that outlawed foie gras alleging animal cruelty. Foie gras, French for "fatty liver," is produced by force-feeding grain to ducks and geese until their liver enlarges as much as 10 times its normal size. "This isn't telling people what to eat; this is basically a statement against cruelty to animals," said Alderman Joe Moore, sponsor of the ordinance. "This is a product of animal torture, pure and simple. It doesn't need to be on menus in Chicago." Chicago restaurant luminaries Charlie Trotter and Rick Tramonto agree and have both vowed not to serve the liver dish. But others want to fight. On Tuesday, the Illinois Restaurant Association and Allen's, the New American Café in Chicago filed a lawsuit challenging the ban. The suit alleges the ban violates the state constitution, and will cost the city $18 million in lost revenue and taxes. The city Department of Public Health will respond to initial reports of foie gras sales with a letter; if there is a second report, health inspectors will pay a visit. Health department spokesman Tim Hadac said there is little departmental enthusiasm for the ban, which Mayor Richard M. Daley has mocked as the "silliest law" passed by the council. "We're not exactly chomping at the bit to enforce this," Hadac said. "It's an animal rights issue; it doesn't appear to relate to human health in any way." The ordinance bans only the sale of foie gras, so restaurateurs have speculated that they can get around it by giving away foie gras or serving it at private parties. Read
Angry chefs cook up lawsuit over foie gras ban
Some chefs plan to keep serving delicacy, say ban oversteps city's authority Aug 22, 2006 CHICAGO - Saying the City Council stuck its beak where it didn’t belong, a restaurant association sued the city Tuesday in hope of making foie gras legal again. Meanwhile, a handful of chefs said they will continue to serve the duck and goose liver delicacy — it just won’t appear on the bill. “The law says we can’t charge for it. It doesn’t say we can’t give it away,” said Michael Tsonton, chef and partner at Copperblue. The ban was approved by the city council in April and implemented Tuesday. Animal rights activists contend that the production of foie gras — which involves force-feeding ducks and geese to enlarge their livers — is inhumane. The lawsuit showed that chefs aren’t content muttering in their kitchens about the ban. A related news conference featured several white-jacketed chefs standing before a banner that read “Freedom Of Choice On The Menu.” The suit, filed by the Illinois Restaurant Association and one restaurant, argues the council overstepped its authority. Aldermen may agree that the production of foie gras is inhumane, but they can’t ban it because none of the force-feeding occurs anywhere near Chicago or even Illinois, the suit says. The lawsuit followed months of complaints, fund raisers, petitions and special events. In a show of solidarity Tuesday, restaurants that don’t typically serve foie gras, including one pizzeria, gave diners what may be their only chance to utter the phrase, “Mushroom, sausage and foie gras pizza, please.” Chefs have called the ban an attack on their right to choose what kinds of dishes they want to create and an attack on the rights of consumers. They also say the ban will cost more than $18 million a year in lost sales, tax revenues and tips — and may even dissuade chefs from opening restaurants here. “Whether the treatment of animals in Canada, France or New York leading to the production of foie gras is or is not humane is not a problem suitable for legislation by the City of Chicago, let alone a substantial Chicago problem,” the lawsuit argues. A spokeswoman for the city’s law department said the argument that the city can’t regulate a product because it is not produced here simply does not fly. “Fireworks, guns, we regulate all those things and they aren’t produced in Chicago,” said Jennifer Hoyle, who said she had not seen the lawsuit. Alderman Joe Moore, who led the effort to ban foie gras, agreed. “We feel that this is a constitutional ordinance and an ordinance well within the city’s power to enact,” he said. More than a dozen countries, mostly in Europe, have banned production of the fois gras, pronounced fwah-GRAH and French for “fat liver,” on the grounds of cruelty. Attorney Barry Rosen, who represents the Illinois Restaurant Association, said he expects to file a motion for a preliminary injunction in the next few weeks. As for restaurants concerned that diners will go elsewhere, putting foie gras in garnishes may be a solution, at least until the legal battle plays out. Didier Durand, chef and owner of Cyrano’s Bistrot & Wine Bar, plans to do just that. “On the check you won’t see foie gras,” Durand said. “You will see roasted potatoes $16.” Read
Why Not Ban Triviality? July 21, 2006
By Christine Lin, Epoch Times San Francisco Staff
Chicago, the windy city, has gotten a bit stuffy. Formerly breezy and easy-going, the city recently enacted a series of bans, most of them serious but some of them quite odd. Within the past month or so, Chicago's City Council has banned foie gras (for animal cruelty), smoking in bars and restaurants (public health), cell phone use while driving (public safety), and now they are considering banning the use of trans fat oils in restaurants. Great. The world can use a lot more public health and safety and less animal cruelty, not to mention cruelty in general. But then Chicago lawmakers haul us into the realm of the truly wacky, where cab drivers must wear white collared shirts, khaki, black, or navy pants and matching socks are mandatory. Did council members suffer overbearing, mother-enacted dress codes as kids, and are now taking it out on Chicago citizens? However, Chicago's is not an isolated case of ban-fever. On the west coast, San Francisco's Board of Supervisors is considering a requirement that garbage receptacles, after each weekly collection, be whisked out of public sight. Entertainment value aside, are some of these bans serious indications of failings in city governments' effectiveness, or perhaps early signs of increasing limitation on our rights, on a city level? Why has Chicago's sudden assault on goose liver and mismatched socks come at time when the FBI reports that Chicago's murder rate is at least 2.82 times per capita the national average? Why do trashcans deserve a higher place on San Francisco supervisors' meeting agenda than the city's homeless crisis and crumbling public schools? Maybe there are questions government is tired of, or is not ready for, facing. It's commonly-known that when humans are faced with circumstances out of their control, they begin nit-picking at things they can. But whatever the reason for this sudden nation-wide fascination, I hope that government everywhere can gather enough courage to truly tackle the big problems, tangled and daunting as they are, before they snowball out of control or, worse yet, the city forces us all to eat our vegetables. Read
Burke may ask for trans fats cuts first July 20, 2006
BY FRAN SPIELMAN City Hall Reporter
The City Council's most powerful alderman offered Wednesday to follow New York City's lead and ask restaurants to voluntarily take trans fats off their menus before requiring them to do so. Ald. Edward M. Burke (14th) had already softened the blow by narrowing the focus to restaurant chains with at least $20 million in annual gross sales, delaying enforcement for two years and by phasing out trans fats, instead of banning them outright. On Wednesday, Burke threw another bone to Chicago restaurant owners who have endured back-to-back bans on smoking and foie gras. Instead of legislating an end to the artery-clogging cooking oils linked to heart disease and up to 50,000 premature U.S. deaths each year, Burke offered to follow a trail blazed by the Big Apple. Following New York's lead Last summer, New York City's health commissioner compared trans fats to potentially deadly asbestos and lead, and asked restaurants to take foods containing trans fats off their menus. To comply with a request endorsed by the New York State Restaurant Association, chefs were asked to narrow their list of ingredients and stop using many margarines and frying oils, and to re-write baking recipes. "If the New York model works, that's fine with me. But apparently it hasn't worked yet. Maybe it will have better luck in Chicago. If we do, then there's no need for legislation," Burke told reporters after the first in a series of public hearings on his ordinance. "But if the restaurants don't voluntarily comply with what they know they ought to be doing, we have no other choice but to act," he said. "The goal is to get this out of Chicagoans' diet." Will hear from food chains Dr. Terry Mason, Chicago's newly appointed health commissioner, told the License Committee he would "not like to see trans fats used anywhere in Chicago." But Mason said he favors "the New York model" over Burke's legislative mandate. Mayor Daley has ridiculed Burke's ordinance as another BigBrother-style intrusion into the lives of Chicagoans. During Wednesday's hearing, public health advocates decried the dangers of man-made or processed fats that raise the levels of "bad cholesterol" and cause plaque to build up in arteries, increasing the risk of heart attack and stroke. When it was over, Schulter announced plans to summon CEOs of some of the nation's major fast-food and restaurant chains, including McDonald's, Kentucky Fried Chicken, Burger King and Starbucks, to another City Council hearing next month. They'll be asked to explain what they're doing to remove trans fats from their products and cooking ingredients and why it seems to be taking so long. Ban on trans fats may not have a place at city’s tables Leaders: Consumers, not government, should make diet decisions July 19, 2006 By George Diepenbrock (Contact) Should the city ban local restaurants from cooking their food with trans fats? Read
Burke OKs watered-down ban of trans fats July 18, 2006
BY FRAN SPIELMAN City Hall Reporter Chicago’s most powerful alderman on Tuesday narrowed his war against artery-blocking cooking oils to a single front: fast-food giants and major restaurant chains. On the eve of a City Council hearing on his headline-grabbing ordinance, Ald. Edward M. Burke (14th) signed off on a watered-down version that would ban trans fats — linked to heart disease and up to 50,000 premature U.S. deaths each year — only at establishments owned by companies with at least $20 million in annual gross sales. The Illinois Restaurant Association had complained that the original version would have been a costly burden for “mom and pop and ethnic” establishments. “They use a limited amount of partially hydrogenated cooking oil. They cannot afford the more expensive oil,” Illinois Restaurant Association president Colleen McShane told the Chicago Sun-Times on the day the all-inclusive trans fat ban was introduced. Now, Chicago restaurants burdened by back-to-back bans on smoking and foie gras would be off the hook. Only the McDonalds, Burger Kings and Kentucky Fried Chickens of the world would be saddled with the added cost. “It’s a mistake. It’s unfortunate. We missed an opportunity to impact a larger number of lives. It will substantially reduce the number of people positively effected by this legislation,” said Dr. Charles Baum, vice president for health affairs for Alexian Brothers Hospital Network. Michael Jacobson, executive director of the Washington D.C.-based Center for Science in the Public Interest, called trans fat the “single most harmful fat in the food supply. “It’s harmful whether it comes from small restaurants or large ones. All restaurants — from Joe’s Diner to McDonald’s — should be able to replace partially hydrogenated oil with healthier oil,” Jacobson said. “There’s going to be a temporary inconvenience. Restaurants will have to test different oils in different foods to see what works best. They might have to fry a food for a shorter or longer period of time or at a somewhat different temperature. But once they make the change, there shouldn’t be any significant change in their practices or costs." Instead of exempting independents, Jacobson advised Burke to delay enforcement at smaller restaurants. At the very least, restaurants excused from the trans fat ban should be required to “put a notice on their menus that says some foods contain trans fat which promotes heart disease to at least inform consumers,” he said. Dan Rosenthal, owner of Trattoria No. 10, Sopraffina Marketcaffe and Poag Mahone’s Restaurants, scoffed at the notion that restaurants cannot afford to cook with healthier oils. “The concept that cooking oil costs can impact small restaurants is ludicrous. It’s too small a portion of total food costs to have an impact on any restaurant’s bottom line,” Rosenthal said. But that doesn’t mean Rosenthal supports the effort to ban trans fats. Far from it. He agrees with Mayor Daley that it’s yet another example of government “trying to control peoples’ lives.” “Narrowing the focus of legislation to control what people can eat doesn’t make it better legislation. If people want to eat something that’s bad for them, that’s fine. This is one where the free market economy should decide the course of action,” Rosenthal said. “What’s he going to legislate next — the amount of fat content that can go into a burger or the amount of fried chicken somebody can eat during the course of a week? Ald. Burke would be doing much better for his constituents if he started working on issues of greater importance — like education, fiscal responsibility, corruption, graft and business as usual at City Hall. Ed Burke may be the next Burt Natarus. He’s constantly introducing frivolous legislation. It demeans his position and respect in the community from people who know that he’s capable of doing much better work." Burke could not be reached for comment on the decision to narrow the ordinance in a way that opens the door to the same equal protection arguments raised by the big box ordinance now pending before the City Council. The new version would mandate restaurants with more than $20 million of annual gross sale to take “artificial trans fats” off their menu of ingredients. If they don’t, they would pay through the nose — with fines ranging from $200 to $1,000 a day. The ordinance defines artificial trans fats as “trans fatty acids produced when cooking oil is chemically modified, as in oil that has been partially hydrogenated.” Last month, Wendy’s announced plans to remove trans fats from its frying oil, beating McDonald’s to the punch. Wendy’s restaurants in the United States and Canada plan to start cooking French fries and chicken in a trans fat-free blend of soy and corn oil. The new cooking oil mix is the product of two years of testing. It’s expected to dramatically reduce the trans fat content of a medium serving of Wendy’s fries from six grams to .5 grams. Wendy’s chicken items will contain no trans fats after the switch, officials said. McDonald’s is still looking for a healthier cooking oil that doesn’t impact the taste of its popular French fries — four years after embarking on the search. Burger King is still weighing several cooking alternatives amid similar concerns about taste. Read
Ald. Burke seeks ban on trans fats
June 28, 2006
BY FRAN SPIELMAN City Hall Reporter
Chicago restaurants already prohibited from selling foie gras would be forced to start cooking healthy — without oils containing trans fats linked to obesity, stroke and heart disease — under a crackdown proposed Wednesday by the City Council’s most powerful alderman.
Finance Committee Chairman Edward M. Burke (14th) followed through on a promise to make Chicago the first big city in the nation to prohibit restaurants from using oils containing artificial trans fats in food preparation.
“Chicago has the opportunity to take a bold step and protect its citizens from the ravages of unhealthy trans fats by banning their use in restaurants,” Burke said. “The end result could well be longer, healthier lives and reduced health costs for many Chicagoans.”
Last summer, New York City’s health commissioner compared trans fats to potentially deadly asbestos and lead and asked restaurants to take foods containing trans fats off their menus.
To comply with a request endorsed by the New York State Restaurant Association, chefs were asked to narrow their list of ingredients and stop using many margarines and frying oils. They were also asked to rewrite baking recipes.
The ordinance that Burke introduced at Wednesday’s City Council meeting goes far beyond New York’s request.
It would mandate Chicago restaurants take “artificial trans fats” off their menu of ingredients. If they don’t, they would pay through the nose — with fines ranging from $200 to $1,000 a day.
The ordinance defines artificial trans fats as “trans fatty acids produced when cooking oil is chemically modified, as in oil that has been partially hydrogenated.”
Medical experts have long linked consumption of trans fats to heart disease, stroke and obesity. That’s apparently why the Washington D.C.-based Center for Science in the Public Interest is behind Burke’s trailblazing ordinance.
“Partially hydrogenated oils probably kill 50,000 Americans per year prematurely. While manufacturers of processed foods have begun moving away from [them] after the trans fat labeling rules went into effect earlier this year, restaurants have been much slower to act,” said Jeff Cronin, a spokesman for the center.
“Wendy’s recently became the first big chain to switch, but other chains seem to be sticking with partially hydrogenated oils, even though they know it promotes heart disease. If Chicago restaurants stop using partially hydrogenated oils, it will immediately affect the health of Chicago residents. Fried foods at fast-food restaurants could be trans-fat free overnight. People who eat those foods will be at much less risk of developing heart diseas. Trans fats raise your bad cholesterol and lower your good cholestorol. That combination puts you at greater risk for an early heart disease death.”
Mayor Daley has ridiculed the foie gras ban and other City Council intrusions into the daily lives of Chicagoans. He begrudgingly endorsed the move to ban smoking in restaurants and phase in a ban at Chicago bars, only after it was clear that Health Committee Chairman Ed Smith (28th) had already lined up the votes.
It was not clear how the mayor would react to the City Council’s latest Big Brother intrusion — or whether he would flex his political muscle to stop try and stop it. The foie gras ban went through without a word from Daley.
Illinois Restaurant Association president Colleen McShane could not be reached for comment. Read
|
