STORYLINE News and Information

This storyline has only one article

Viewing thru of

Close timeline

County of Sacramento enforces Trans Fat Law

by Nallelie Vega, published on January 4, 2010 at 11:09 PM

No high resolution image exists...

Progress bar

Loading images

As of Jan. 1, California takes precautions to ensure restaurants and other food facilities follow the dictate's of Assembly Bill 97, which prohibits the use of oil, shortening and margarine with more than 0.5 grams of trans fat.  The law was authored by Assemblyman Tony Mendoza and signed by Governor Schwarzenegger in 2008.

 California became the first state to pass such a law, although cities such as New York and Boston have similar laws. According to Mendoza's Trans Fat Ban Fact Sheet, trans fat increases the risk of coronary heart disease, the leading cause of deaths in the country.

 "This is more than just legislation. This is a call to action that takes into consideration the health of our families," Mendoza said in a press release in 2008.  It continued: "... this is an invisible and dangerous ingredient that increases the risk of heart disease, stroke and high blood pressure. It had to be eliminated." 

The law also requires restaurants to keep nutrition facts for oils, shortening and margarine containing trans fat and will ban its use in baked goods, such as donuts, in 2011.

 But who will enforce the statewide law? 

"The AB 97 changes the food law that is enforced by local jurisdictions. In most cases it's the counties and the states, (even though) there's a few cities that do restaurant inspections. But essentially it's counties around the state (that) will be doing the enforcement," said John Rogers, spokesman for the Environmental Management Department. He added that his department will enforce the law in Sacramento County. 

To keep counties consistent, the state created a committee of representatives from the restaurant industry, local jurisdictions and the state to develop a guidance document, Rogers said. The document would be helpful not only to agencies regulating the law, it also would provide guidelines for the restaurant industry.  

According to a press release by the Environmental Management Department,  the California Restaurant Association is one of the groups represented in the committee.  But the restaurant association was not always a proponent of the bill. 

Daniel Conner, California Restaurant Association spokesman, said the group initially was against the bill because of concerns about the process involved in making the law.  He said the association wasn't concerned about trans fat; members didn't like a political body making decisions about ingredients. 

"We thought decisions (about trans fat) would be better handled at perhaps a federal level by an agency like the Food and Drug Administration, where they have the scientific expertise and the policies in place, so that they can evaluate these things, rather then have a state Legislature undertake that," Conner said, adding the group is now collaborating with state legislators to make the law more efficient.  

Conner said the law affected some eateries more than others.  Larger restaurant chains, such as Taco Bell, Kentucky Fried Chicken, McDonald's as well as large up-scale restaurants transitioned into healthier alternatives before the passing of the bill. 

"The thought was that the folks that were going to need the extra time, the extra year and a half to move away from trans fats, were, generally speaking, going to be independent 'mom and pop' restaurants, in particularly ethnic restaurants, who relied on trans fats in their cooking," Conner said, adding that bakeries would have similar issues moving away from trans fat.  

But not all small franchises needed the extra year. 

Joe Doumit owns Midtown Taqueria, a 'mom and pop' Mexican restaurant in East Sacramento. He said his restaurant has used trans-fat-free canola oil for years and that it hasn't changed the cooking.  

"I don't know much about that law; nobody from the state has come to talk to me about it," Doumit said in a thick accent.  "I got an informational package, but that's all I know."   

He said the Environmental Management Department inspects his restaurant every three months and he hopes to learn more about the law during the next visit. 

The Environmental Management Department will continue to conduct inspections three times a year, according to Rogers, and added that they are not planning on increasing that number. Instead, the department will incorporate the new trans fat regulations into its inspection process. 

For more information about the law or regulations, visit emd.saccounty.net.

Liked this article? Share it with your friends:

Conversation Express your views, debate, and be heard with those in your area closest to the issue.RSS Feed

edited on  January 5, 2010 | 9:22 AM
While this is well-meaning and probably good for our health, I have a problem in government telling us what we can eat. Look for our new national health care fiasco to soon tell us how much we can weigh, dictate our cholesterol and blood pressure limits and restrict many other aspects of lifestyle. Twenty pounds overweight and you'll pay more for health care, etc.
The good news is that the most heinous parts of ObamaCare will be overturned once Congress becomes more politically balanced and before they can be implemented. People will not tolerate being ordered as to what they can eat, how much they can weigh and how they must live their lives within the law.
5 1
REPLY
January 5, 2010 | 3:27 PM
Strange that people from the GOP such as recent heart scare victim Rush Limbaugh, (who dogmatically frame themselves as the party of responsibility) do not want people held fiscally accountable for their bad lifestyles when they involve overeating or smoking.

The national health care fiasco is that the government funds unhealthful food with Ag subsidies that result in a epidemic of obesity and its attendant ailments. If people will not tolerate being ordered as to what they can eat, how much they can weigh and how they must live their lives within the law, then that's fine: they can pay more for the privilege.
1 4
REPLY
January 5, 2010 | 9:26 AM
Perhaps a better option is to require disclosure (of ingredients considered suspect to health) on the restaurant menu, so that consumers can make choices.
5 0
REPLY
January 5, 2010 | 11:28 AM
CORRECTION: CALIFORNIA RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION SPOKESMAN, DANIEL CONWAY.
0 0
REPLY
edited on  January 5, 2010 | 5:22 PM
Nallelie, I understand that public schools are exempt from this law?
0 0
REPLY
January 6, 2010 | 12:04 PM
yes, public schools are exempt, but all other eateries must follow the new law
0 0
REPLY
edited on  January 7, 2010 | 7:30 PM
Ahhh, so it is good for the kids!
0 0
REPLY
Leave a Comment
User icon
Type your comment in the box below Edit your comment in the box below

Type tags into the box below.
Use commas to separate your tags.

Cancel Submit

Please Log in or Sign up

Existing Members

Sign In Progress bar Forgot Password?

New Users Create an Account Here
Progress bar
Verification email has been sent. To validate your account open the link provided in the message.
There was a problem sending your verification email. Please contact support@sacramentopress.com
Progress bar Login background Tag cloud top Tag cloud background Tag cloud bottom Login manager background