Poison isn’t very appetizing; unfortunately, it pervades much of the American diet. Trans fat, after all, is just a poison that happens to be cheaper to produce and boast a longer shelf life than healthier fats and oils. The New York City Board of Health in December voted to eliminate the substance from restaurants city-wide by 2008. The unprecedented ban should serve as an example for a similar Cambridge initiative.

Trans fatty acids are a side product of the partial hydrogenation of plant oil. According to the National Academy of Sciences, “trans fatty acids are not essential and provide no known benefit to human health.” In fact, trans fats decrease levels of HDL ‘good’ cholesterol and increase levels of LDL ‘bad’ cholesterol in the body. This directly increases a person’s risk of heart disease and stroke.

The Cambridge City Council has already voted to encourage restaurants to voluntarily decrease the use of trans fat in their cooking, but when New York City officials tried a similar scheme they found it futile. Only the threat of legal action can persuade restaurants to eliminate trans fats from their menus.

Health experts have said that ditching trans fats would not significantly affect the taste of food served at city restaurants. Trans fats have little taste and can be successfully replaced by many safer products in recipes. They are used because they are cheap.

Some opponents to a ban claim that even if trans fats were excluded, some other dangerous substance would eventually replace them. But there is no reason to accept one harmful substance today out of fear that another may lurk around the corner. If another poison quietly enters our diet in the future, the Council can assess that situation when the time comes.

Others fear a paternalist “slippery slope” of government regulation: next we will see attempts to ban alcohol, cigarettes, or even sugars. However, there is an important distinction between these products and trans fats, namely that consumers can weigh the risks of the former with their benefits, whereas trans fats provide no benefits, only risks. Furthermore, restaurant patrons are often unaware that their meal even contains trans fat. Simply labeling foods that contain trans fats is near impossible to regulate in restaurants, where ingredients are not usually listed.

It’s possible that the Council fears stressing its relationship with the restaurant industry, but the city should be primarily concerned with resident health, not with political relationships. Any costs that must be swallowed by the restaurant industry or passed along to consumers will be worth the increased benefit to resident health and the long-term decrease in health care costs. Since many restaurants already restrict trans fat use and others are considering limits, the cost of changing should not be vast and, in some cases, can even be neutral. Restaurants just need a focused deadline and direction to actually follow through.

If a firm were dumping poisonous wastes into the city water supply to cut costs, the Council would take action. Now, when restaurants are hiding poison in our food to cut costs, the Council should do the same. Let’s make it sooner rather than later.

James M. Wilsterman ’10, a Crimson editorial editor, lives in Wigglesworth Hall.