Don't ban trans fats, disclose them

Trans fats lurk in partially hydrogenated oil, thick lard-like goo that is beloved by the food industry because it maintains its shelf life for long periods without refrigeration, enhances texture for some foods and is cheap. Scientific evidence is strong that it's also terrible for you, increasing the risk of heart disease and diabetes.

The statelegislation would be costly for restaurateurs, and its health benefits are questionable. Eateries would be almost certain to replace partially hydrogenated oil with other types of fat that are only moderately better. Palm and coconut oils, for example, are very high in saturated fat and were themselves targeted by health experts before hydrogenated oil replaced them on dietitians' hit lists. Moreover, there's reason to worry that if the ban makes Californians believe restaurant fare is healthier, they'll load their plates with even more fatty food. There is zero difference in calorie content between trans fats and other fats: You'll get just as chubby eating cookies made with butter as with hydrogenated-oil-laden shortening.

Consumers are wise to be careful about what they eat, and they have a right to know what's in their entrees. At the same time, people who chow down on French fries and pastries are perfectly aware that they're not eating health food, and don't particularly care. That's why it's usually a better idea for regulators to require more labeling of foods than to ban them outright.

SB 1420 from Sens. Alex Padilla (D-Pacoima) and Carole Migden (D-San Francisco) is a better approach than AB 97. It would require big restaurant chains to include nutritional information on their menus, including the amount of saturated and trans fats. That would encourage them to serve leaner food, allow the health-conscious to make better choices and let others pig out to their hearts' discontent.