I'm crossing my fingers that parallel proposals -- to ban trans fats and provide nutritional information on menus -- currently making the rounds in Minneapolis and St. Paul become a reality in the near future.Although there are no plans for for state-wide implementation of these public health nutrition policies, it's still quite exciting to see them pop up in more cities across the United States with each passing month.
For the record, "sixty-three percent of Minnesotans are either overweight or obese, according to the Department of Health."
The Minneapolis and St. Paul proposals, like most other cities', "affect only restaurant chains with 15 or more establishments."
I take issue with such distinctions.
Why should a fast food chain with 11 establishments not be held accountable?
And why should an order of fries containing 4 grams of trans fat be granted immunity if it is served at a "mom and pop" restaurant?
Posts
2 comments:
It's not that the "mom and pop" image grants it immunity, it's just that these smaller restaurants don't have the money to get all their products tested in a lab, and since the recipes might not be standardized like a larger restaurant, the nutritional value might fluctuate so much that the info on the menu is meaningless.
Vincci,
I understand that from a calorie labeling perspective, but I don't see why one-off stores shouldn't be expected to stop using trans fats in their cooking.
Post a Comment