Headline in the news: “N.Y. bans trans fat in food — Restaurateurs fight proposal.” (Headline I would love to see: “N.Y. seeks to ban politicians and political appointees from restaurants — Citizens cheer proposal.”)
The Grand Canyon evolved into its present awe-inspiring state of beauty because water eroded stone over millions of years. What is the connection? Your rights as a restaurateur and my rights as a dining consumer, similar to the granite and rock present throughout the Grand Canyon, are eroding — but at lightning speed. Self-serving special interest groups are intent on creating a society that reflects their vision of the perfect world, and what we eat, drink and smoke (legally) are being targeted for elimination in foodservice locations where we work, live and play.
But aren’t artificial trans fatty acids bad? Shouldn’t we try to make people aware of the health issues? Isn’t it in everyone’s best interests to ban trans fats? Don’t we need the government to ensure that restaurants contribute to the health and well being of our customers?
Yes. Yes. No. Only if we become a Communist country.
THE SLIPPERY SLOPE
It’s important to look at this “trans fats” issue in a larger context: increasing regulation and local government intervention in the restaurant industry.
Before addressing the need to protect us all by banning trans fats in restaurants, let’s take a look at some other issues instigated by health and animal welfare groups.
Smoking in Restaurants: Roughly three years ago New York City banned smoking in restaurants. Smoking is harmful to your lungs and has been associated with multiple cancers.
We all know this, yet smoking is still legal. Many smokers feel that an occasional cigarette actually reduces their stress level and even enhances confidence in certain social situations.
Could their rights have been protected in New York City and the other cities where outright smoking in restaurants has been banned? Absolutely — any of these government entities could have created a new category of licensed restaurants that allow smoking. Other restaurants not licensed would prohibit smoking. However, banning smoking in restaurants is the beginning of a much larger campaign that would expand the smoking ban, and providing a solution that considers the rights of smokers is not the objective of the groups pushing for this ban.
Raw Eggs: New Jersey banned the use of raw or undercooked eggs in restaurants in 1992, and other states have requirements as to their use in meals and notifications to customers about the potential dangers associated with raw or undercooked eggs.
The health risk is slight, but nevertheless important. Eggs that are raw or undercooked may be contaminated with Salmonella. The recent problem with infected spinach points to the potential dangers and havoc that problems in our nation’s food supply poses for restaurants and consumers.
Is this slight health risk sufficiently compelling for the government to take away this option? Some politicians, probably up for re-election, believe so.
So if you are the “daredevil” type and like your eggs a little “runny,” or love real Hollandaise sauce or any food item that uses raw eggs as an ingredient, don’t stop to eat in New Jersey.
Foie Gras: Unlike smoking and raw eggs, the argument related to this delicacy made from duck and goose liver is not that it is unhealthy for consumers. Rather, Chicago has banned the serving of foie gras because of the “undue suffering” caused by force-feeding the animals through a pipe. This feeding method fattens the animal’s livers, thereby providing excess profits at the expense of cruel treatment.
Opponents of this ban claim that the feedings are not painful and that the feeding method leads to greater production, thereby reducing the need for more animal livers.
Other states are following with their own bans and restrictions, and foie gras producers are facing lawsuits from the Humane Society.
Some of the prohibitions go beyond the production of foie gras, and like Chicago’s, include its sale in restaurants. Therefore, even imported foie gras would be prohibited.
FREE-MARKET SOLUTION
Let’s get back to the trans fats issue and see if a solution other than its outright ban might work.
First of all, given the knowledge that trans fats are not as healthy as other options, why would people choose food that has trans fats as ingredients?
The primary reason comes down to the way the final product tastes. Many consumers prefer the taste of items created with trans fats as opposed to substitute oils. As well, there is the economic issue. Trans fats extend the shelf life of the oils and typically are less expensive than many current options. Lower cost ingredients enable you to attract customers who are more price sensitive.
However, since options are available, albeit less tasty (to some palates) and more expensive, isn’t it good policy to force people to change their preferences by eliminating their options?
No — changes like these should occur voluntarily, and can be motivated by educating consumers and increasing demand for alternative ingredients.
We all know that air bags save lives and that some vehicles are safer than others. The automobile industry is heavily regulated, particularly in regard to emissions, and penalties may apply for vehicles that do not achieve minimum fuel efficiencies. However, changes related to many safety features, such as anti-lock brakes and air bags, occurred primarily because of consumer demand, not government regulation.
Would consumer preferences eventually lead to substitute ingredients for the trans fats used so frequently today? The evidence says “yes.”
Both independent and chain restaurants have already made the decision to significantly reduce, or even eliminate, trans fats in their product. According to the New York Times, Sylvia’s, Juniors, Carnegie Deli, Ruby Tuesday, Au Bon Pain and Wendy’s are some of the restaurants to have made the switch. And this occurred without government intervention. (The change also creates marketing opportunities for these restaurants.)
Businesses are successful because they meet the needs of their customers. Customer preferences change and the most successful businesses respond accordingly. Some hotel chains are now banning smoking in their rooms; not because of government regulations, but because they recognize that many of their customers prefer completely smoke-free facilities. Consumers get to choose between smoking and non-smoking facilities; the government does not force a “healthier” option on the traveling public.
So the “free-market” solution will work, when given the opportunity, where a consumer’s health is the issue. What about “undue suffering” by animals? Will businesses change their product lines and menus to reflect this concern?
Again — yes, and Whole Foods Market illustrates this very well. In June 2006 Whole Foods stopped selling live lobsters at their stores nationwide. They felt that the current supply channel made it too difficult to ensure the “health and well being of lobsters outside their natural environment for a long period of time.”
This decision reflects their corporate ethics and core values, and is consistent with the expectations of their customer base.
Whole Foods still sells “frozen raw and cooked lobster products from suppliers meeting specific quality standards,” thereby accomplishing the dual objectives of meeting customer needs and assuring that the corporate philosophy is not compromised.
PROTECT YOURSELF
This “slippery slope” is getting steeper; it’s not leveling off. Eliminating various snack foods in schools is occurring nationally as over half the states have already enacted legislation designed to “protect students.”
Regulation concerning genetically modified foods, including crops and animals, is on the horizon. There may be a big difference between how your customers and special interest groups define “modified,” and your business may once again be negatively impacted.
What can you do to protect your interests? Pay attention to these issues and share your concerns with locally elected politicians. They will listen to you and you can have real influence. (They will also hit you up for a donation prior to their next re-election; just be careful when you answer the phone.)
If you haven’t yet joined your state restaurant association, do so now. The Association fee you are charged is a very small investment in a group that knows how to lobby on your behalf.
If we don’t stop these special interest groups quickly, pretty soon they’ll try to outlaw meat in restaurants! OK, OK — I know that’s a little silly and an overreaction to current events.
Oh wait — I’m wrong. It’s not a ridiculous concern on my part. Eight restaurant chains in California were recently sued by an organization, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. This organization is backed by anti-meat advocates who are dedicated to eliminating meat consumption.
This slope is looking steeper every moment.
Mason Harris, popular speaker and author of ENTREE Marketing: Six Critical Principles for the Overworked Restaurateur offers the YouGotMeals (www.yougotmeals.com) loyalty and email marketing program. Feel free to share your questions, comments, and marketing issues with Mason via email at mharris@yougotmeals.com, or sign up for your own copy of the Pre-Shift newsletter at www.yougotmeals.com.
copyright 2006 Robin Technologies, Inc. Phone: 301-881-6325 x 110
