In The News: "For The First Time"??!!

Encouraging -- yet disturbing -- news courtesy of The Washington Post: "The Environmental Protection Agency for the first time will require pesticide manufacturers to test 67 chemicals contained in their products to determine whether they disrupt the endocrine system, which regulates animals' and humans' growth, metabolism and reproduction, the agency said yesterday."

Two thoughts immediately came to mind.

First? "Victory!"

Second? "For the first time?? What have they been waiting for??"

Well, I suppose the article gives some indication of what they might have been waiting for -- science-fiction turned reality.

After all, "researchers have raised concerns that chemicals released into the environment interfere with animals' hormone systems, citing problems such as male fish in the Potomac River that are bearing eggs."

That's what I call a substantial "oops!".

Oh, there's even more jaw-dropping material.

"Pesticide industry officials said they had anticipated the move, which was set into motion in 1996 by the passage of the Food Quality Protection Act, and they planned to cooperate on the matter."

Well, gee, pesticide industry officials. I certainly hope that after 13 years of contemplation you are willing to cooperate with the matter.

How, exactly, did it take over a decade for this act to take effect?

This is certainly one to watch. Testing is set to begin this summer, and results are expected by 2011.

In The News: Game On!

Today's Los Angeles Times reports on the subtle nutritional shift occurring at Dodger Stadium and other massive ballparks across the country -- healthier food!

Although 1,000-calorie nacho plates and 300-calorie cups of beer are still present, they are now joined by "wholesome new neighbors: curried chicken salad made with low-fat mayonnaise, turkey sandwiches on whole wheat, and fruit and yogurt parfaits."

And, oh, be still my heart. Not only will fresh fruit skewers soon be available, but "for the first time, a registered dietitian, also part of the Kaiser link-up, had a hand in fine-tuning the items."

This nutritional "aha" moment isn't just limited to the City of Angels.

"This year, the [San Diego] Padres are expanding their FriarFit program... which includes $1.50 healthful menu items for kids such as whole wheat animal cookies, a fruit cup, and 1% milk, plus a FriarFit cart offering fruit salad, sushi, veggie burgers and dogs, and a mandarin salad. This food, too, was created with the help of a nutritionist, from UC San Diego."

Now it's time for zoos and amusement parks to step up to the plate. Keep the curly fries, cheeseburgers, and jumbo hot dogs on the menu if you want, but also offer options for health-conscious patrons.

In The News: Supplementing Their Way Through The Recession

I'm slightly alarmed by this New York Times article that details the surge in supplement and multivitamin sales since last October's infamous stock market crash.

"Sales of vitamins and nutritional supplements, which have grown consistently for years, have surged in recent months. The Vitamin Shoppe has tracked a rise in new customers of about 20 percent over the last six months," the paper reports.

Facing unemployment and rising healthcare costs, some of the consumers interviewed for the piece are turning to echinacea, oregano oil capsules, and protein supplements to stay healthy.

One woman even repeats a classic myth, explaining how "energetic" and "strong" she feels as a result of taking vitamins.

Eek! I am most disturbed by the notion that people in financial hardship are throwing away their money on products that have not been shown to promote health.

The vast majority of studies on echinacea, for example, have not shown much of a benefit compared to a placebo.

Oregano oil? There have been no human studies, and at best it is touted as a way to possibly, perhaps, maybe minimize the symptoms of sinus infections.

Protein supplements, meanwhile, have absolutely nothing to do with health.

As I have said before, there is no reason why anyone consuming enough calories from many food groups should be concerned with getting more protein.

And then there's this: "Amy Breslin, who is 33 and studying to be a physician’s assistant, has pared back on fresh fruits and vegetables and stocked up instead on fish oil capsules and antioxidant supplements."

Her reasoning? Organics are expensive, so she gets a better "bang for her buck" with capsules and supplements.

I hear this line of logic many times. Here are my problems with it:

* While the lack of pesticides used in organic farming is wonderful , conventional fruits and vegetables offer plenty of nutrition. Many people erroneously think that conventional produce is akin to eating rat poison.

* Fish oil capsules and antioxidant supplements do not offer the same health benefits as eating actual fish and produce.

* Eating fruits and vegetables does not need to be expensive. Store-brand frozen fruits and vegetables are inexpensive.

Many people also forget that one of the most important things you can do for your immune system is FREE -- get 7 to 8 hours of sleep a night!

In any case, I need to send my crystal ball in for repairs. A few months ago I "predicted" to friends that The Vitamin Shoppe and/or GNC would suffer as a result of the recession.

In The News: Kidney Believe It?

This article in The San Francisco Chronicle -- courtesy of the Associated Press -- sheds light on a disturbing trend among children: higher incidences of kidney stones.

"At Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, for example, the number of children treated for kidney stones since 2005 has climbed from about 10 a year to five patients a week now, said Dr. Pasquale Casale."

Although pediatric kidney stones are often attached to inborn metabolic defects, the majority of these new cases involve children who test negative for such disorders.

One very likely culprit? Processed diets (specifically the high levels of sodium they contribute) within the context of low fluid intake.

This demonstrates, as I have been saying for slightly over a year now, that sodium is well on its way to becoming the next "hot button" ingredient (following in the footsteps of trans fats, high fructose corn syrup, whole grains, and Omega-3 fatty acids).

Expect even more companies to offer low-sodium varieties of products -- particularly ones aimed at children.

The sugar lobbyists, I'm sure, are popping a bottle of champagne as I type these words!

In The News: In The Zone

Today's New York Times reports the conclusion of an eight-year-long study of millions of schoolchildren completed by economists at the University of California and Columbia University: "ninth graders whose schools are within a block of a fast-food outlet are more likely to be obese than students whose schools are a quarter of a mile or more away."

This study is particularly significant since it adjusted for variables like income, education, and race, thereby making it easier to accurately pinpoint the effect of fast food restaurant proximity to weight.

More specifically, "obesity rates were 5 percent higher among the ninth graders whose schools were within one-tenth of a mile of a pizza, burger or other popular fast-food outlet, compared with students attending schools farther away from fast-food stores."

In a not-at-all surprising move, the National Restaurant Association is shrugging this off since "it did not take individual diet and exercise into account." The argument falls rather flat when you consider that the location of these fast food restaurants clearly had an effect on students' diets.

I have long been a supporter of zoning laws regarding fast food restaurants and schools, and this only strengthens my belief.

In The News: Starstruck

In an article titled "Is Gwyneth Paltrow's Food Advice Perfect for the Recession?" published in this week's New York Magazine, writer Mark Adams preposterously hails "the Goopster" (my nickname for her, don't you like it?) as some sort of nutrition visionary.

"We’ve entered a moment in which it’s perfectly acceptable to talk, if not boast, about the purity of one’s digestive functions, as Diddy did when he recently Twittered minute-by-minute details of his “spiritual” 48-hour juice fast," Adams states in his opening paragraph.

I almost threw my copy of the magazine across the room after that sentence.

If we are going to use "Diddy" -- a record label executive with more flops than I care to count and bigger delusions of grandeur than your average reality show contestant -- as a thermometer of nutrition trends and sensibility, we're in trouble.

Alas, let's continue.

Adams explains that that during the Great Depression, a man named Bernarr Macfadden launched a magazine titled Physical Culture, which published recipes along with health and fitness tips.

Adams equates this to Gwyneth Paltrow's health and wellness- oriented website, Goop.com, which is big on detoxing and cleansing (click here to read my impression of one of her recent postings).

"Macfadden’s main idea—one echoed by Gwyneth, Diddy, and anyone who has completed a Blueprint or Master cleanse—was that an empty stomach is the path to detoxification and wellness."

This notion that empty stomachs are somehow virtuous sets up a horrendously disturbing slippery slope that leads right into eating disorders.

"An empty stomach is the path to wellness" might as well be the mantra of someone living with anorexia nervosa.

Again, why are we looking to Gwyneth Paltrow and Diddy for health advice? Are people that blinded by fame that they consider celebrities to somehow know the answers to everything?

For that matter, Mr. Macfadden (who, in his defense, had some good ideas in terms of the virtues of whole grains) himself was a self-appointed nutrition expert (thus explaining his belief that 7-day fasts were healthy).

"Many more people are going to lose their health insurance before anything approaching universal coverage gets passed. Meanwhile, we might all be better off if we literally tightened our belts and followed the stars for a while instead," Adams feebly concludes.

No, Mr. Adams. We shouldn't follow the stars. We should simply use common sense. Cut back on processed junk, eat more fruits and vegetables, add whole grains to our diet, keep tabs on calories, and stop turning to celebrities for nutrition advice.

In The News: Is Sugar's "Time Out" Over?

The New York Times recently profiled sugar's triumphant return.

"Blamed for hyperactivity in children and studied as an addictive substance, sugar has had its share of image problems," the paper reports, "but the widespread criticism of high-fructose corn syrup has made sugar look good by comparison."

As much as the The Sugar Association loves this shift in consumers' attitudes, I am absolutely dismayed that the issue at stake is whether sugar is more nutritious than high fructose corn syrup.

A much more accurate -- and healthful -- concept would be to simply decrease the intake of added sugars, period.

I understand the political, economic, environmental, and farming business implications behind high-fructose corn syrup that make it a bigger threat than sugar, but the fact remains that eating 100 grams of added sugars each day -- whether as high fructose corn syrup or sugar -- adds up to 400 extra calories.

Dr. Robert H. Lustig of the University of California, San Francisco Children’s Hospital sums it up perfectly: “The argument about which is better for you, sucrose or HFCS, is garbage. Both are equally bad for your health.”

In The News: More Is Not Better

Today's Sydney Morning Herald briefly touches upon the problem of vitamin mega dosing among pregnant women, particularly since extremely high doses of vitamins A, D and E during pregnancy have been linked with birth defects.

Historically, the field of nutrition looked at health problems from an "undernutrition" standpoint; that is, what can happen when we don't eat enough or get a sufficient amount of nutrients?

We are now starting to see an increasing amount of studies focus on the problem of overnutrition.

Whether it's too many calories, or too much of one specific vitamin, it is important for consumers to realize that the key to health, much like Goldilocks' dilemma, lies in getting just the right amount.

Although harmless, the last wave of overconsumption I witnessed -- at least here in the United States -- was the bottled water craze. It's almost as if people forgot that their bodies had thirst mechanisms!

Drinking three liters of water a day doesn't accomplish much of anything other than more frequent trips to the bathroom.

In The News: Cardiovascular Precociousness

Troubling news courtesy of the latest National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey: "overweight children as young as age 3 can begin to show signs of cardiovascular disease risk factors."

Yikes.

The study specifically analyzed levels of HDL ("good") cholesterol and C-reactive protein (an inflammation marker that accurately predicts cardiovascular disease) in 3,098 children between the ages of 3 and 6.

Results? Low HDL and high C-reactive protein levels were found in children with high BMIs and large waist circumferences.

This is particularly disturbing since 24 percent of children in the United States between the ages of 2 and 5 are overweight, and 12 percent classify as obese.

Additionally, while it is common knowledge that heart disease is a "pediatric" disease in the sense that the damage often begins in childhood, many people don't see clinical markers until later in life. This certainly begs for a different viewpoint.

One also can't help but wonder about possible health consequences when obesity begins as early as age three.

In The News: Aisle-Worthy

An interesting piece of legislature passed in my home country of Argentina yesterday.

All supermarkets in Buenos Aires are now required by law to house healthier options and diet-specific products in clearly marked aisles.

This means, for instance, that all gluten-free products must be in the same aisle (as opposed to spread out in different aisles depending on what food category they belong to.)

Additionally, product varieties that classify as "lower in fat/calories/sugar" must all be housed in one aisle. Under this new law, low-fat mayo, lower-in-sodium soups, and reduced-sugar cereals would be clustered together.

Legislators say the goal is to "facilitate consumers' search for products that meet their dietary needs."

I like this idea quite a bit.

While by no means a perfect solution (ie: how about housing 100% whole grain products? Who decides what makes a product "healthy" enough to be placed in these aisles? What if a product is lower in fat but has the same amount of -- or more -- calories?), it's a start.

I also appreciate the decision to make food shopping slightly easier -- especially for those avoiding certain ingredients due to allergies and intolerances.

In The News: That's More Like It

The Los Angeles Times shares encouraging news today -- "Coca-Cola Co. and joint-venture partner Nestle agreed to pay $650,000 in a settlement with 27 states over claims that Enviga green tea burns calories, resulting in weight loss."

If you are not familiar with Enviga, it is a flavored sparkling green tea in the Nestea line of products.

The claim? Drinking three cans per day helps burn anywhere from 60 to 100 calories.

Coca Cola based that claim on the presence of EGCG, an antioxidant in green tea which has been the focus of several metabolic and weight loss studies (here is my take on the research literature.)

The man behind this lawsuit is Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, who added that moving forward, "any marketing of Enviga or a similar beverage that uses the terms "the calorie burner," "negative calories" or "drink negative" must clearly disclose that the product doesn't lead to weight loss without diet and exercise."

Small Bites salutes -- and thanks -- you, Mr. Blumenthal.

In The News: Oh, Look... Calories!

CNN is reporting the findings of a new study published in the New England Journal of Medicine comparing the efficacy of four diets -- high-carb, low-carb, high-fat, and high-protein.

Although not based on popular diets (the high-protein diet, for instance, does not provide the same distribution of nutrients as Atkins), the four eating plans had their particular distinctions (i.e: one offered 35 percent of calories from protein, while another increased the amount to 65 percent of calories from protein).

The conclusion? "All produced weight loss and improvements in lipids [as well as] reduction in insulin. The key really is that it's calories, not the content of fat or carbohydrates -- just calories," summarizes study co-author Dr. Frank Sacks of the Harvard School of Public Health.

Or, as the study itself beautifully encapsulates it: "reduced-calorie diets result in clinically meaningful weight loss regardless of which macronutrients they emphasize."

No matter which of the four diets the 811 overweight participants were on, they all "had a[n average] 750-calorie reduction per day."

Not surprisingly, they all lost weight.

Note that even the higher-in-fat diets followed American Heart Association guidelines (mainly sufficient fiber intakes and limited saturated and trans fat intake).

Let this be even further proof to the "saturated fat is the healthiest fat; everyone is lying to you!" camp that diets rich in polyunsaturated and monounsaturated fat do indeed lead to improved lipid profiles and weight loss.

Adding to the uniqueness of this study is that it is one of the few that tracked participants on these diets for two entire years.

How will "calories don't matter, it's all about limiting carbohydrates"enthusiasts explain yet another study showing weight loss can be accomplished while eating a substantial amount of carbohydrates?

In The News: Opening Up A Can Of... Worms

Did any of you watch 20/20's investigative report on the children of Appalachia two weeks ago?

If not, you can watch it here. Truly eye-opening -- and heartbreaking.

I finally caught up with it last night (thank you, DVR!).

One segment focused on the dental health of children and adolescents in that area; more specifically, the problem of "Mountain Dew mouth."

As a result of extreme soda consumption (Mountain Dew is given to children in sippy cups and considered an ailment for depression), children as young as two years of age are developing cavities.

Some elementary school students have such damaged teeth that the simple act of brushing is painful -- too painful to be accomplished.

In an attempt to help, dentist Edwin Smith spent $150,000 of his savings to turn an 18 wheel truck into a mobile dental clinic.

This segment has set off a firestorm among the nutrition community. All sorts of questions are being asked -- and hotly debated.

Is it accurate to blame soda -- and a specific brand at that -- for cavities?

Or does the lack of dental hygiene awareness and access to dental care set the stage for problems regardless of the types of food eaten?

After all, starchy foods like bread, rice, and crackers are just as likely to increase cavity risk. And many people drink soda and don't get cavities.

What is most interesting is Pepsi's response to this. Make that responses -- three of them!

Here is the first one.

Notice the drastic change in tone in their second statement.

And, finally, here is the short third statement that followed.

As if that wasn't enough, Diane Sawyer gave further updates on Good Morning America last week. The big announcement? PepsiCo. decided to pay for a second mobile clinic.

What role -- if any -- should Pepsi play in this? Is their donation of a second mobile clinic a form of aid or just a publicity stunt for good PR?

What about local and federal government? Should they be involved?

Then we get to the hottest button issue of all. How does this problem begin to get addressed? Education? Policy? Some sort of hybrid?

I'm even more disturbed by the fact that, as a result of mountaintop mining for coal, tap water in much of the Appalachian region is contaminated and undrinkable.

Please weigh in with any opinion(s) you may have.

In The News: Not-so-Extreme Makeover

The New York Times reports that Snapple is not only changing their tea's label font as well as the shape of their bottles -- they are also axing high fructose corn syrup and replacing it with sugar.

Although both sweeteners are equal from a caloric standpoint, high fructose corn syrup brings other issues to the table -- genetically modified crops, unbalanced farm subsidies, and such low prices for corn that it's no wonder you can get 24 more ounces of soda for two additional pennies!

What's most interesting is that Snapple is also slightly decreasing the sweetness of its tea.

"The old ingredient list for Lemon Snapple Iced Tea: “water, high fructose corn syrup, citric acid, tea, natural flavors.” Calories: 200.

The new ingredient list: “filtered water, sugar, citric acid, tea, natural flavors.” Calories: 160."

FYI: The above quote appears to suggest that sugar is less caloric than high fructose syrup. It's not. This new Snapple formula simply contains fewer grams of added sweeteners.

Unfortunately, thee lower-calorie news is counter-balanced by developments that bother me -- the new Snapple bottles have the words "All natural" and "Made from green & black tea leaves" in larger font.

Meanwhile, PepsiCo will roll out limited quantities of Pepsi Throwback and Mountain Dew Throwback in April.

The selling point? A notalgic logo and the replacement of high fructose corn syrup with sugar.

Although calories -- and sugar grams -- will go unchanged, at least mercury contamination won't be a concern.

By the way, Pepsi Throwback is not a brand new idea -- it takes several pages from England's Pepsi Raw.

The impetus behind all this? Easy -- company executives are seeing consumer backlash to high fructose corn syrup and this is one way to prevent profit margins from shrinking.

In The News: "Second Hand" Obesity

Today's New York Times reports on a new pooled analysis study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association which concluded that "obese women are more likely to have babies with rare but serious birth defects, including spina bifida and other neural tube defects."

Although spina bifida is generally associated with insufficient maternal intake of folic acid, lead study author Dr. Judith Rankin theorizes that in the case of obese women, "insulin resistance and undiagnosed diabetes may be playing a causative role in birth defects... though the precise mechanism is not known."

This new study gives further credence to weight-loss recommendations given to obese women planning to start a family.

In The News: Nutrition 101

Thank you to Small Bites reader Vincci Tsui for alerting me to this study published in the latest issue of Health Education & Behavior.

The conclusion of the 4-year-long randomized dietary intervention study?

"Without specific efforts to reduce total energy intake, dietary modification does not reduce obesity or result in long-term weight loss."

Well, knock me over with a feather! I am absolutely SHOCKED.

Not.

Believe it or not, my acknowledging that calories play a role in weight management has resulted in some bloggers (who I refuse to link to) labeling me as "way out there" and putting me in the same category as those who advocate eating only raw foods or adopting a fruitarian lifestyle.

According to these people, I'm apparently part of a vast conspiracy to make people overweight and unhealthy.

Does having detractors mean I officially "arrived"?

In The News: Shakeup

As I predicted in late 2007, sodium is quickly becoming the new trans fat in terms of public awareness, advertising focus (the amount of product touting "now with less sodium!" stickers continues to grow), and nutrition policy.

Today's New York Times profiles "a new campaign to lower the amount of sodium America eats" developed by Dr. Thomas Frieden, the commissioner of New York City’s Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.

Over a recent lunch with food company executives, Dr. Frieden made his wishes very clear: "identify the foods that are contributing the most sodium to people’s diets and cut the level of salt by 25 percent. Do it in unison with out competitor [and a decade after that], cut it by another 25 percent."

As optional as that may sound, Dr. Frieden did not shy away from proposing stricter legislation on sodium content in foods if companies did not appear to make an effort.

When this man talks, food companies tend to listen, particularly since he is one of the main brains behind trans fat bans and calorie labeling laws that are rapidly spreading throughout the United States.

"Under Dr. Frieden's plan, which is based on one in the United Kingdom, targets for sodium reduction will be set for certain food categories. The prime suspects include cheese, breakfast cereals, bread, macaroni and noodle products, cake mixes, condiments and soups. The final list of sodium targets will be based on a formula that takes into account the amount of sodium in a product as well as how much food in that category people eat."

It is not too surprising that sodium consumption is higher now than it was seventy years ago, considering the increasing amount of processed foods that make up the "typical American diet" (remember, the more processed a food, the higher its sodium content and the lower its potassium levels).

While recommendations call for no more than 2,400 milligrams of sodium a day, the average adult in the United States consumes anywhere from 3,300 to 3,700 milligrams on a daily basis.

And while it is true that not everyone is equally sensitive to sodium, there is a large enough percentage of the population that is sensitive that justifies a concern surrounding the amounts of sodium in many products.

The most interesting thing about sodium is that our palates adapt rather quickly to higher or lower amounts.

After approximately 21 to 25 days on a lower sodium diet, foods that once seemed "moderately salty" tend to be perceived as "very salty."

Which brings me to another important point. Many people erroneously think that if a food doesn't taste salty, it does not contain sodium.

Not so. High amounts of sodium are often found in sweet foods.

A Baskin Robbins Oreo sundae, for example, contains 950 milligrams of sodium. That's 600 MORE milligrams than a large order of McDonald's fries.

In The News: Mercury In High Fructose Corn Syrup

Here's some unpleasant news.

The Washington Post is reporting on two recent studies published in Environmental Health which found that "almost half of tested samples of commercial high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) contained mercury, which was also found in nearly a third of 55 popular brand-name food and beverage products where HFCS is the first- or second-highest labeled ingredient."

Ranges varied from 0.005 to 0.57 micrograms of mercury per gram of high fructose corn syrup.

Keep in mind that Environmental Protection Agency figures, for instance, consider 0.1 micrograms per kilogram of body weight to be the upper limit for safe intakes.

This means, then that a 140 pound adult (63.6 kilograms) should consume no more than 6.36 micrograms a day.

The problem here comes with the high amount of high fructose corn syrup consumed by the average child, teenager, and adult in the United States -- 12 daily teaspoons on average.

Let's do some math.

Twelve teaspoons of HFCS equal 48 grams.

If those 48 grams came from the sample with the highest amount of mercury, that totals 27 micrograms of mercury in a single day!

Two more things worth pointing out.

First, sodas were found not to have any mercury in them despite consisting of mainly water and high fructose corn syrup. Perhaps this is due to some processing step?

Second, controversy is arising due to rumblings that the lead author of one study allegedly alerted the Food & Drug Administration about her findings several years ago but, for reasons not known to anyone, these findings were reportedly not followed up on.

The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy -- which participated in both studies -- is actively pushing for immediate changes in manufacturing that would not taint high fructose corn syrup with the infamous heavy metal.

Yet another bullet point for the ever-expanding "important issues in food safety" list...

And, more importantly, even more of a reason to limit the amount of processed, nutritionally inferior food (which is usually laden with added sugars, mainly in the form of high fructose corn syrup.)

PS: Thank you to reader Dennise O'Grady for providing me with the second link in this post.

In The News: Up Next... Indiana!

More positive news from the Midwest -- The Indianapolis Business Journal reports that "chain restaurants [with 10 or more locations] in Indiana would be required to make nutritional information available to customers at each location [either on a posted menu or printed documents] under legislation that has advanced in the Indiana House."

Lovely!

I am still looking forward to the day these policies become federal, though.

In the meantime, New York University's Department of Nutrition, Food Studies, and Public Health is set to determine what effect, if any, calorie labeling has had on New York City's fast food customers.

Prior to the law going into effect, customers exiting various fast food restaurants were asked to submit their itemized receipts in exchange for a free subway pass.

At some point next year -- well over a year after calorie labeling went into effect -- the same survey method will be employed.

This should provide some insight as to whether or not this type of legislative strategy ultimately has a positive impact on consumer behavior (i.e.: are Starbucks customers now favoring 150-calorie biscotti over 390 calorie banana bread slices?).

In The News: Your Move, Minnesota

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?