Food Policy 33 (2008) 497–503
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Food Policy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/foodpol
Getting rid of trans fats in the US diet: Policies, incentives and progress
Laurian J. Unnevehr *, Evelina Jagmanaite
326 Mumford Hall, 1301 West Gregory Drive, Urbana, IL 61802, United States
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Accepted 14 May 2008
Keywords:
Nutrition labeling
Food service
Food industry
Trans fats
Supply chain
a b s t r a c t
Artificial trans fats in foods increase chronic disease risk in the US population. Federal nutrition label regulation enacted in 2003 requires mandatory disclosure of trans fat content on packaged foods. This action
created incentives for the food industry to reduce trans fats both in response to consumer demand and
through competition to maintain product reputation. Subsequent public actions include a ban on trans fat
use in New York city restaurants and lawsuits against food companies, which created further incentives
to remove trans fats, especially in the food service industry. Industry has reformulated packaged foods
and found substitutes for restaurant fry oils and trans fats are disappearing from the US food supply. Market response extends throughout the supply chain, and has spurred research to alter oilseed crop characteristics. The widespread and relatively rapid industry response likely has improved the quality of
US diets, and demonstrates the potential for policy actions to spur such improvements.
Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Processed foods choices in the US food market display a remarkable variety, which can mask certain underlying similarities in
product content. Widely used ingredients or formulations can have
broad based impacts on diet quality, with possible consequences
for public health. Relative prices and available technologies determine product formulations, and when changes occur, they can
happen without much consumer awareness, especially when substitute ingredients do not change flavor or product quality. Industry incentives to pursue healthier ingredient formulations are
debatable, although likely on the rise as consumers become more
health-conscious. In some instances, public policy has emerged
to mandate ingredient and nutrient disclosure, and less frequently,
to regulate product content, usually with much debate about
industry cost and public health outcomes.
One notable case of an ingredient with public health consequences is found in the growing use of partially hydrogenated oils
during the last quarter of the twentieth century. Partial hydrogenation allowed the substitution of relatively inexpensive soybean oil
for alternatives with higher saturated fat, such as palm oil and lard.
But partially hydrogenation also introduced artificial trans fats into
the US diet, and these were identified as a public health threat in the
1990s. Beginning with US Food and Drug Administration’s proposed
regulations in 1999, attention to this public health issue has created
incentives for industry to reduce trans fat content in foods. The
reduction of trans fats in the US food supply provides a case study
of the links among policy actions, product composition, and public
health.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 202 694 5400; fax: +1 202 694 5661.
E-mail address: [email protected] (L.J. Unnevehr).
0306-9192/$ - see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2008.05.006
We begin by providing the background on how this ingredient
became a health and policy issue. Then we outline the market
incentives created by three kinds of actions in the public arena,
drawing on the economic literature regarding previous policies.
Next, we consider how these market incentives are playing out
at different points in the food supply chain. This evidence reveals
the economic constraints to changes in food product composition
and improvements in dietary quality. Finally, we draw lessons
from this case for other efforts and interventions to improve food
product composition.
Background
Partially hydrogenated oils, especially soybean oils, have been
used in US processed foods for several decades, beginning notably
with margarine. Partial hydrogenation makes these oils suitable
substitutes for saturated fats, such as butter, lard, or palm oil, because partial hydrogenation provides stability, flavor, and texture
similar to saturated fats in many uses. Partial hydrogenation raises
the melting temperature of vegetable oils, so that they remain solid
or semi-solid at room temperature, and also increases their shelflife. Historically, margarine and vegetable shortening products,
using partially hydrogenated oils, replaced butter and lard in US
diets in the 1950s and 1960s. Partially hydrogenated soybean oil
replaced palm oil in many processed food products, such as cookies
and crackers, beginning in the 1970s, in part due to a belief that it
was more healthful than palm oil, which has the highest saturated
fat content of any commonly used vegetable oil.
Partial hydrogenation creates artificial trans fatty acids (hereinafter used interchangeably with trans fats). Low levels of trans
fatty acids are found in animal products, and thus have always
498
L.J. Unnevehr, E. Jagmanaite / Food Policy 33 (2008) 497–503
been part of the human diet. However, the level of trans fatty acids
introduced through the combination of partial hydrogenation and
the product substitutions in the US diet is not something historically observed. Studies of the potential negative impact of this
trans fatty acid intake on heart and circulatory health began
emerging in the 1970s, but they were inconclusive. Scientific opinion regarding the risks associated with trans fats did not coalesce
until the 1990s. Research findings associated trans fatty acid intake
with elevated risk of coronary heart disease, through its effects in
worsening the ratio of harmful to beneficial cholesterol and
increasing systemic inflammation (Mozaffarian et al., 2006). Trans
fatty acid intake is also associated with increased risk of type 2 diabetes. An estimated 30,000 premature deaths per year in the US are
associated with artificial trans fatty acid intake (Mozaffarian et al.,
2006). Replacing trans fatty acids with saturated fat would reduce
health risks, so that its use in place of saturated fats is not justified
on a health basis.
The scientific consensus is reflected in dietary advice to the US
public from two authoritative sources. The Institute of Medicine of
the National Academy of Sciences recommended in their 2002 Dietary Reference Intake report that trans fatty acids in the diet be as
low as possible, as any intake above zero was associated with increased health risk (IOM, 2002). In 2005, the USDA’s Dietary Guidelines recommended that trans fatty acid intake be less than 1% of
total calories (USHHS/USDA, 2005).
These consensus statements were based on clinical studies, but
estimated public health impacts rely on estimates of average trans
fatty acid consumption in US diets. Such estimates vary as there
are no standard data on the amount of vegetable oil that undergoes
partial hydrogenation (Eckel et al., 2007). Intake estimates have
been made by the USDA and by the Harvard School of Public
Health, and both agree that the major sources of artificial trans
fatty acids in US diets are fried fast foods, pastries, margarine,
and snacks such as cookies, crackers, and chips. Estimates based
on USDA intake data from the mid-1990s show the average American consumes 6.8 g per day of trans fats, of which 1.5 g are naturally occurring trans fats in animal products, and the remaining
5.3 g are from artificial sources (USHHS/FDA, 2003). Trans fat intake was estimated to be close to 3% of daily caloric intake, well
above the recommended 1% or less. The estimates of intake and
their sources sets the stage for understanding where and by how
much such intake is being reduced through current efforts by the
food industry.
Three kinds of actions in the public arena create market
incentives
Three types of actions in the public arena have created incentives for the food industry to remove artificial trans fats, beginning
with the 2003 FDA regulation that amended the mandatory nutrition label. The long development of this regulation and media
attention to this dietary issue also spurred lawsuits against major
food industry firms by public interest groups and the 2006 New
York City ban on trans fats in restaurant foods. We consider the
evolution of these public actions and how they created incentives
for the food industry.
Mandatory disclosure of information required by the nutrition label
amendment
FDA issued a regulation in 2003 that made disclosure of trans
fat content mandatory on the nutrition label, beginning January
1, 2006. This regulation had a long process of evolution before it
became final. The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI)
petitioned FDA to establish such a requirement in 1994, and
amended their petition in 1998. A preliminary rule was issued in
1999, which brought forth a large volume of comment. In 2001,
the newly appointed director of the Office of Management and
Budget, John Graham, sent a ‘‘push” letter to the FDA encouraging
them to finalize the regulation because ‘‘OMB believes there may
be an opportunity here to pursue cost-effective rulemaking that
provides significant net benefits to the American people” (OIRA
Prompt Letter, 2001). This type of request from OMB was unprecedented, and brought significant attention to this public health issue (Graham, 2007).
The prompt letter was motivated by the strong evidence of substantial public health benefit. Because Coronary Heart Disease
(CHD) is associated with so many serious illnesses and premature
deaths, and because even modest reductions in trans fats are associated with reduced risk of CHD, the benefits from the rule were
estimated to be quite large. For example, reducing trans fat intake
by about 0.04% of calories would prevent about 600 heart attacks
and 200 deaths per year. The final rule estimated benefits of $2 to
$6 billion per year, or $13 to $27 billion cumulative over 20 years,
from reduced illnesses and premature deaths. These benefits dwarf
the estimated one-time industry costs of $139 to $275 million for
testing, re-labeling, and reformulation (USHHS/USDA, 2003).
At issue in the petition, comment, and final rule process was a
debate over how to disclose trans fat content, and how to address
possible substitution between this ingredient and saturated fat. Saturated fat has been reported on the nutrition label since such labels
were mandated in 1993. US diets continue to have too much saturated fat, which is associated with increased risk of both CHD and
cancer. As partially hydrogenated oils were developed and used
to substitute for saturated fats, the concern was that a move to disclose trans fat content would lead to the use of more saturated fat.
The 1998 CSPI petition asked that sum of saturated and trans fat be
reported on one line, with a breakout regarding the two ingredients
in a footnote. However, nutrition scientists maintain that trans fats
are more harmful than saturated fat (Mozaffarian et al., 2006). The
expectation was that mandatory disclosure of trans fat content
would provide incentive to reduce trans fats in foods, and that even
with some increase in saturated fat, public health benefits would
still be positive. This continues to be a controversial issue, and we
will return to it in our discussion below of industry response.
The response to this change in the mandatory nutrition label
can be predicted from the literature regarding impact of the label
and of other information disclosure efforts in the 1980s and
1990s. Previous studies suggest that new information, either
through the media or through the nutrition label, will influence
consumer choice of food products (eg., Chern et al., 1995; Kim et
al., 2000). Furthermore, past studies also suggest that the food
industry will undertake product reformulation in response to demand from health-conscious consumers, which will ultimately improve diets for all consumers. The landmark study by Ippolito and
Mathios (1990) regarding disclosure of bran content in breakfast
cereals demonstrated that bran content of cereals and bran intake
by all consumers increased, even those not specifically seeking
bran content. Mojduszka et al. (1999) found that more low fat
products were available as a result of the 1995 nutrition label regulation, although they questioned whether average ‘‘healthfulness”
and therefore average diets where improved through such product
introductions. Thus, while the evidence is not conclusive, past
studies suggest that adding trans fat content to the nutrition label
will lead to both consumer selection of lower trans fat products
and industry product reformulation to reduce trans fat content.
Product liability and lawsuits
The FDA rule making process brought substantial attention to
the trans fat issue, resulting in public actions in other arenas out-
L.J. Unnevehr, E. Jagmanaite / Food Policy 33 (2008) 497–503
side of federal regulation. In 2003, a public interest group, BanTransFats, filed suit against Kraft foods citing the health impact
of trans fats in their commonly consumed snack foods, such as
Oreo cookies. Kraft settled out of court by agreeing to reformulate
its major brands. This same group also filed a lawsuit against
McDonald’s in 2005 for their failure to adequately inform the public about their delays in removing trans fats from fried foods.
McDonald’s agreed to donate $8.5 million to nutrition education
in their suit settlement. The CSPI filed suit against KFC in the District of Colombia in 2006, charging that its use of partially hydrogenated oils was endangering public health, and although this
suit was thrown out, KFC subsequently announced major efforts
to eliminate trans fats in their foods.
Since 2002 there has been increased legal activity to establish
food firm liability for chronic health impacts of food products
and services. The most notable lawsuit, Pelman v McDonalds, pursues damages for obesity resulting from consumption at the food
chain. Although none of these lawsuits have succeeded in obtaining awards, the Pelman v McDonalds lawsuit was given new impetus in September, 2006, when a New York court refused to dismiss
the case, and ruled that McDonalds must respond to allegations of
deceptive advertising. The food industry concern with such lawsuits is evident in their lobbying efforts at the federal and state levels in pursuit of ‘‘common-sense consumption laws”, which have
now been passed in 20 states (LaMarche, 2006). Although such
laws protect restaurants from obesity related lawsuits, the food
industry as a whole clearly has incentives to avoid such liability
where possible.
Thus, the lawsuits regarding trans fats brought additional media
attention to the issue, as well as the potential for liability to be
established. Firms that were sued have a public relations incentive
to alter product content, as well as incentive to avoid potential
future liability in similar lawsuits. Other companies also see incentives to avoid such lawsuits and negative publicity through proactive removal of trans fats. Furthermore, when leading brands
remove trans fats, other brands must pursue equal standards of
quality and safety in order to remain competitive.
Banning product ingredients
One other notable consequence of the FDA regulatory process
was the pursuit of ingredient bans in various cities and states (Eckel et al., 2007). The first such ban, imposed by the New York City
Board of Health in December 2006, required restaurants of certain
kinds to reduce artificial trans fats to less than 0.5 g per serving by
July 1, 2008.1 This regulation impacts some 20,000 restaurants and
14,000 food service suppliers. The NYC ban followed Denmark’s
example, where artificial trans fats allowed in processed or restaurant foods was limited to 2% in 2004. The action reflected sentiment
among some public health advocates that an outright ban of this
artificially created ingredient would go further towards public health
than disclosure of information about product content. Furthermore,
in contrast to the federal regulation, the NYC ban addresses trans fats
in restaurant foods, which are an important source of trans fats in
consumption. The CSPI has a pending petition with FDA to remove
artificial trans fats from the GRAS (Generally Recognized As Safe) list
for food ingredients, which would result in a national ban in practical terms.
Banning a product ingredient or specifying product formulation
is the most restrictive type of regulatory response to emerging
nutrition information, and it has not been used for this type of pub1
The NYC regulation has two phases. Trans fats were to be removed from oils used
in frying and spreading by July 1, 2007. The 2008 deadline applies to oils used in
baked goods or fried dough. This phase-in of the ban recognizes the relative difficulty
of finding substitutes for the two types of uses of partially hydrogenated oils.
499
lic health issue before in the US Relevant precedents occur in the
tension between federal and local regulation of other industry
practices, such as labeling or recycling. As New York City is a major
market, the food industry has three alternatives in response. The
industry can challenge this regulation as creating a barrier to interstate commerce, either in the courts or through seeking federal legislation restricting local actions. Food service companies can
reformulate product specifically for this market at additional expense, or they can reformulate product for all markets and thus address current and potential bans. Given the negative media
attention to trans fats as result of all three kinds of public actions,
product reformulation places the food service industry in a better
light in terms of meeting consumer health concerns.
All three actions in the public arena—mandatory labeling, product liability claims, local bans—have created incentives for the food
industry to remove trans fats from food products. Such incentives
are created directly through consumer response in the marketplace, the avoidance of litigation and liability costs, or the direct
ban on ingredient use. There are also indirect incentives through
media attention that shapes product reputation in the long run
and competition in the marketplace to maintain brand quality
and loyalty. Next, we consider specific industry actions and their
potential to improve diets.
Three stories of food industry response
At issue in the regulatory analysis and public debate surrounding
trans fats was the scope, feasibility, and cost of industry response.
Reformulation is technically feasible for all current uses of ingredients with artificial trans fats, but the speed, cost, healthfulness,
and scope of possible reformulation were hotly debated in both
the federal and the NYC regulatory analyses. Would reformulation
increase the use of saturated fats? Would reformulation take several
years or several months? Would reformulated food be more costly
and not widely available to the average consumer? Can reformulation be accomplished entirely at the processing stage or will it require different oils or the development of different oilseed crop
characteristics? As industry response is now well underway following the policy actions of the past few years, it is possible to take a
snapshot of industry activity that provides preliminary answers to
these questions. We collected evidence from industry interviews
and product label data that reveal three dimensions of response.
Food service industry replaces frying oils
Major food service companies have announced intentions to replace frying oils with trans fats in their national operations, starting with Wendy’s in 2005. The NYC ban spurred several more
announcements in 2006, including KFC/Taco Bell, McDonalds,
and Burger King. Three aspects of these announcements are notable. First, all announcements placed complete removal of trans fats
in the future. Thus, overnight reformulation was clearly not feasible. Second, in many cases, a market leader announced its new policy, and then other firms followed suit. For example, Disney resorts
announced that trans fats would be removed from foods served in
their parks by 2008, and subsequently Universal Studios made a
similar announcement. Third, the announcements often revealed
that product testing had been underway for some time, as the issue
has been on the horizon for over a decade before the NYC ban.
Stender et al. (2006) tested trans fat and saturated fat content of
french fries and chicken nuggets at McDonald’s and KFC outlets in
over 15 different countries. They report a wide range, eg., in French
fries, from virtually none in McDonald’s in Denmark to over 10 g
per serving in KFC outlets in eastern Europe. This study showed
that reduced fats and trans fats are feasible in fried fast foods,
500
L.J. Unnevehr, E. Jagmanaite / Food Policy 33 (2008) 497–503
but did not reveal whether such reductions altered product quality.
For national food service chains with strong brand reputations,
uniform product quality is essential.
Frying oils play a role in both taste and texture (Hoffman, 2007).
Products such as chicken nuggets or French fries are par-fried during processing before delivery at individual outlets. At the restaurants, these products are fried again before serving. The oils used at
each step influence both taste and sensory characteristics, such as
mouth-feel or ‘‘greasiness”. The desired characteristics will vary
among products and among firms. The oils used for par-frying differ from the single oil that is used at the restaurant level, and this
complicates the process of finding reformulation alternatives.
Partially hydrogenated soy oils or blends using such oils are
commonly used in fast food outlets in the US (Eckel et al., 2007).
They have the advantage of greater stability and a longer shelf-life
in comparison with conventional oils, which might have to be replaced twice as often, significantly increasing restaurant costs
(Hoffman, 2007). Replacing partially hydrogenated soy oil is possible through blends of conventional oils, such as cottonseed or sunflower to provide greater stability; or through use of soy oil with
low linoleic acid content. Low lino soy has greater stability than
conventional soy, although it still must be changed more often
than partially hydrogenated soy.
In addition to fixed costs of testing and developing alternatives,
variable cost factors in reformulating fast foods to eliminate trans
fats include the cost of new oil blends for par-frying, cost of new oil
blend for in-restaurant frying, and the shelf-life of the new restaurant oil. Securing reliable supplies of the new oils, whether they are
conventional oils in limited supply, such as sunflower, or new crop
varieties of soy, takes time and this accounts for some of the lag in
implementation of plans to remove trans fats.
Packaged food product reformulation
Several major food companies announced efforts to remove
trans fats from leading brands over the past decade, starting with
Unilever in the 1990s, and more recently Nestle (2002), Kraft
(2003), Campbell’s (Goldfish crackers, 2004), Kellogg’s (Keebler
brands, 2005), and Frito-Lay chips (2006). It is notable that the earliest announcements came from European firms, where use of partially hydrogenated soy was not as common as in the US, and thus,
reformulation was not as onerous. The announcements in the last
three years reflect the attention brought to this issue through lawsuits as well as debate about the upcoming nutrition label regulation. Many companies chose to implement the disclosure of trans
fats earlier than the January 1, 2006 deadline, particularly when
they were able to disclose zero trans fats on products.
Partially hydrogenated oils impart longer shelf-life to packaged
foods and often provide particular taste or texture characteristics
that are difficult to replace. However, the feasibility of reformulation
for many uses is clear now with a few years of experience. Even Crisco, a product that relied heavily on partial hydrogenation for its
texture, was reformulated entirely in 2007 with no trans fats (Crisco,
2007). Similarly, most tub margarines now have zero trans fats. Substitutions in packaged foods can use different techniques, including
substitute ingredients such as saturated fats or modified oils, different processes, additives, or even packaging to enhance shelf-life.
Reformulation has sometimes taken place as part of the normal
product cycle, or in other cases through incurring significant short
run costs to speed up the change. For example, when Kraft reformulated Oreos in response to the 2003 lawsuit, it required over 30,000
man hours and 125 plant trials during a two year period.
We examined the product label data available in the ProductScan Inc. database from Datamonitor for packaged food introductions claiming ‘‘no trans fat” on the label. These data provide
insights into how the packaged food market is responding to this
Table 1
New food products claiming ‘‘no trans fat” on the label
Total number of new
products claiming ‘‘no
trans fat”
Number of product
categories with ‘‘no
trans fat” introductions
Top five product categories
with most ‘‘no trans fat”
products (number of
products within
category)
Number of companies with
‘‘no trans fat”
introductions
Top five companies with
most ‘‘no trans fat”
products (number of
products for each
company)
2004
2005
2006
232
442
523
32
39
48
Snack bars (26)
Cookies (26)
Breads (24)
Chips (19)
Crackers (18)
140
Snack bars (68)
Cookies (46)
Breads (42)
Chips (36)
Snacks (33)
263
Chips (63)
Snacks (59)
Cookies (52)
Breads (50)
Meals (45)
320
Hain (16)
Altria (11)
Kellogg (7)
Atkins (7)
HealthHandful (6)
Altria (28)
Hain (13)
Conifer (12)
PepsiCo (11)
NaturesPath(8)
PepsiCo (23)
Nestle (15)
Altria (14)
Snyder’s (9)
ConAgra (8)
Source: ProductScan Inc. database of new product introductions.
issue. The number of new food products claiming ‘‘no trans fat”
on the label increased dramatically from only 64 in 2003 to 544
in 2006, and products claiming ‘‘no trans fat” were over 10% of
all new food product introductions in 2005 and 2006. Companies
introducing ‘‘no trans fat” products include those owning the major brands referred to above, as well as companies with a natural
foods orientation, such as Hain (Table 1). However, it is not only
industry leaders or firms with strong health reputations that are
leading in this market trend. Over the past three years, the number
of companies introducing ‘‘no trans fats” has increased from 139 to
318, so many different firms are now involved in making and marketing such products.
Product introductions with ‘‘no trans fats” occurred in increasing numbers of product categories (as defined by ProductScan)
and a wide variety of kinds of products during 2004 through
2006 (Table 1). Most introductions occurred in the categories
chips, cookies, snacks, and snack bars. In Table 2, we matched
the new product introduction categories from the ProductScan
data to the dietary sources of trans fats reported in the regulatory
analysis. It appears that many product introductions are providing
‘‘no trans fat” alternatives in the categories ‘‘cookies and crackers”
and ‘‘potato chips, corn chips, and popcorn”. It is notable that
‘‘cake, doughnuts, and pastry”—the single largest source of artificial
trans fats—does not have nearly as many product introductions.
This reflects the relative technical difficulty of finding substitutes
for partially hydrogenated oils used to make self-stable pastry
products (Eckel et al., 2007).
We used these product label data to examine ingredient use in
‘‘no trans fat” products. For all products introduced in 2005 and
2006 claiming ‘‘no trans fats”, the most commonly used oil ingredients were canola, sunflower, and soybean oil, with other healthy
oils such as corn or safflower oil also prominent in use (Table 3).
Palm oil, which is high in saturated fat, also appears among commonly used ingredients, but is not as commonly used as healthier
alternatives. Some products (11%) still use partially hydrogenated
oils, because the regulation allowed 0.5 g per serving of trans fats
in products claiming ‘‘no trans fat”, and use of small amounts of
partially hydrogenated oils has facilitated reformulation for some
products. Taken together, less healthy oil alternatives such as palm
oil, butter, and partially hydrogenated oils, appear in perhaps as
many as 30% of ‘‘no trans fat” products.2
2
Most products list multiple oil ingredients and thus it is possible that fewer than
30 percent of all products use less healthy oils, if these oils are used together in
particular products.
501
L.J. Unnevehr, E. Jagmanaite / Food Policy 33 (2008) 497–503
Table 2
Comparison of dietary sources of trans fats and new product introductions
Product categories that
are major dietary
sources of trans fats
Estimated daily
dietary intake of
artificial trans fats
New product introductions in
2004, 2005, and 2006
claiming ‘‘no trans fat”
Grams
intake
Percent
intake
Number of
new
products
Percent of
new
products
Cake, doughnuts, pastry
Margarine
Cookies and crackers
French-fried potatoesa
Yeast bread
Potato chips, corn
chips, popcorn
Household shortening
Salad dressing
Breakfast cereal
Candy
Uncategorized new
productsb
1.391
0.967
0.571
0.486
0.404
0.281
30.0
20.9
12.3
10.5
8.7
6.1
88
13
434
–
116
141
7.3
1.08
36.25
–
9.69
11.7
0.250
0.159
0.084
0.044
–
5.4
3.4
1.8
0.9
–
24
21
31
38
291
2.0
1.75
2.59
3.17
24.3
Total
4.637
100.0
1197
Table 4
Most commonly used oil ingredients for two major product categories, all new
products in 2001–02 and new products claiming ‘‘no trans fat” in 2005–06
Ingredient
% of
products
using
All cookie product introductions, 2001–02
Partially hydrogenated oils
Butter
Vegetable Shortening
42
13
12
Corn/Cottonseed/Safflower
Oils
8
All chip product introductions, 2001–02
100.0
Sources: Estimated dietary intake of artificial trans fats is from USHHS, 2003, pp.
41469–70; New product introductions are from ProductScan Inc.
a
Most French fries are consumed away from home and therefore this category
would not be addressed by new packaged food introductions.
b
Not all product introductions fit into the summary categories reported by
USHHS.
Table 3
Oil Ingredients most frequently used in products claiming ‘‘no trans fat”
Oil ingredient
2005–06 ‘‘no trans fat”
products using ingredient
Percent of 2005–06
‘‘no trans fat” products
using ingredient
Canola oil
Sunflower oil
Soybean oil
Corn/cottonseed/safflower
Palm oil
Partially hydrogenated oils
Olive oil
Butter
High oleic
151
137
136
125
113
104
77
76
37
15.6
14.1
14
12.9
11.7
10.7
7.9
7.8
3.8
Source: ProductScan Inc. database. Most products use more than one oil ingredient.
Total number of products claiming ‘‘no trans fats” for 2005–2006 is 965.
Ingredient substitution is best understood within particular
product categories. We examined cookies and chips for more insight into how reformulation is being accomplished. For each category, the oil ingredients used in all new products in 2001 and
2002 are compared to those used in ‘‘no trans fat” products introduced in 2005 and 2006. For both product categories, partially
hydrogenated oils were the dominant oil ingredients in the
2001–02 products, appearing in 42% and 36% of cookie and chip
products, respectively (Table 4). Cookies claiming ‘‘no trans fat”
used primarily palm oil or butter in 2005–06, indicating that trans
fats are likely being replaced with saturated fats in cookie reformulations. In contrast, chips claiming ‘‘no trans fat” used primarily
sunflower, corn, or canola oil, all of which are healthier substitutes
for partially hydrogenated oils. This contrasting outcome for the
two product categories highlights how the technical scope for substitutions differs among products. Some products must rely on saturated fat alternatives, at least in the short run, while others can
use healthier substitutes.
Farm level supply response to demand for alternatives
Substitution possibilities include use of oils from different crops
or use of oils from crop varieties with modified oil profiles. Modifi-
Corn oil
Partially hydrogenated oils
Sunflower oil
Vegetable oil
41
36
20
16
Ingredient
% of
products
using
‘‘No trans fat” cookie product
introductions, 2005–06
Palm Oil
Butter
Partially Hydrogenated
Oils
Canola Oil
14
‘‘No trans fat” Chip product
introductions, 2005–06
Corn oil
Sunflower oil
Canola oil
Vegetable oil
56
42
23
19
28
17
15
Source: ProductScan Inc. database. Most products use more than one oil ingredient.
The total number of products for All Cookies 2001–2002 is 373, for ‘‘no trans fat”
Cookies 2005–2006, it is 98. For All chips 2001–2002, total number of products is
185 and for ‘‘no trans fat” Chips 2005–2006, it is 99.
cations of oil profiles that are feasible include low lino, high oleic,
and high stearic. Low linoleic soy has greater stability and can be
used in food service applications, as mentioned above. High oleic
oils (including soy, canola, and sunflower) are also more stable than
their conventional counterparts and more heart-healthy because
high oleic content lowers cholesterol and slows artherosclerosis
(Eckel et al., 2007). High stearic soy could be used in baking applications; it has greater saturated fat content than conventional soy
but less than palm oil, and appears to have less effect on cholesterol
levels. Among conventional oils, cottonseed oil, for example, can
provide greater stability, but imparts a ‘‘greasy” texture to fried
foods. Sunflower and canola oils are naturally more heart-healthy
than many other oils due to low saturated fat and high oleic content. Industry representatives emphasize that there is no single
substitute for partially hydrogenated soybean oil; each food application requires some blending and adaptation to meet particular
processing, storage, and taste requirements (Eckel et al., 2007).
Widespread efforts to remove trans fats have increased the demand for modified oilseed crops and for minor conventional oils,
creating challenges for supply chain coordination. Coordination
can begin with the oilseed variety used, and extend to the need
for dedicated supply chains of oils produced for particular food
uses. One example is the development of low linoleic soybeans.
In the 1980s, a naturally occurring soybean genetic variation
that produces low linoleic acids in oil was discovered. Pioneer
introduced a low lino soybean variety in the 1990s, but this did
not find a market, and was withdrawn. As interest in alternatives
to partially hydrogenated oils started to receive more attention,
Monsanto began work on a low lino variety in 2001. The goal
was to incorporate this characteristic into an agronomically viable
variety, and they released their Vistive line in 2005. This variety
carries the genetic modification for glyphosate resistance, as this
characteristic is now found in varieties planted on over 80% of US
soybean acreage. Thus, Vistive has costs of production comparable
to the GM soybeans that are now conventionally grown. The low
lino trait does not require genetic modification, but its incorporation into viable lines was speeded by the use of marker assisted
selection, a tool of modern biotechnology. Even so, the development and release of the line took 4 years of investment (Stark,
2007). Other crop technology companies have released similar
lines subsequently (see Eckel et al., 2007, p. 2239 for an overview).
In 2007, industry estimates that 1.5 million acres of low linoleic
soybeans were planted, producing about 1 billion pounds of low lin-
502
L.J. Unnevehr, E. Jagmanaite / Food Policy 33 (2008) 497–503
oleic oil (Brintle, 2007). While this represents a remarkable increase
in acreage over only two years, it is still small relative to the estimated 3 billion pounds of partially hydrogenated oils currently used
just in food service (Brintle, 2007). Industry sources posit a three
year lag is necessary to meet the rapidly expanding demand for this
type of oil (Stark, 2007; Eckel et al., 2007). Seed must be produced,
farmers must be contracted to raise the crop, and it must be delivered through dedicated supply channels. This type of lag accounts
for the announcements from many food service companies and
some packaged food companies that promise future replacement
of trans fats, but do not specify an immediate change.
Early adopters of low lino soy oil in the food industry include Kellogg’s and KFC (Brintle, 2007). Such commitments facilitated the
early development of the market, which is served by farmers contracted through a cooperatively owned and dedicated crushing mill,
serving a dedicated food ingredient supplier. Costs are rising rapidly,
as elsewhere in the grains complex, due to competition from biofuel
markets, although the proportional premium for these crops remains about 30% above the conventional soy price (Stark, 2007).
Expansion of the market must rely on continued coordination along
the supply chain, but will likely bring in new entrants and new
forms of coordination. In addition to dedicated supplies of modified
soy or canola, there are also efforts to develop new sources of supply
for oils, such as sunflower, that are in shorter supply.
such as cookies and packaged pastries, it has been an oil with higher saturated fat content, such as palm oil. Some new oil substitutes
may have unknown health effects, and these will only become
apparent with time. In a worst case scenario, consumers may perceive a halo effect from the ‘‘no trans fat” claim, similar to the halo
effect of ‘‘low fat” claims, and this may lead them to over-consumption of snack foods. Such foods have been strongly implicated
in the trend towards rising obesity (MacInnis and Rausser, 2005;
Drewnowski and Specter, 2004), and removal of trans fat may
not offset the negative contribution of energy dense foods to overall dietary quality.
The trans fat case is remarkable for the speed and relative success of policy actions. Whether or how policy lessons transfer to
other nutritional concerns remains to be seen. Trans fats are somewhat unique in that they were an artificially created addition to the
diet, and there is no recommended daily intake. Reducing other
harmful components of the diet, such as sweeteners, saturated
fat, or sodium, is more difficult because each is a normal part of
the diet and some amount is necessary for health. What the trans
fat case may have accomplished is to draw attention to the feasibility of product change in response to widespread media and policymaker attention. It has encouraged some food firms to continue to
stake out healthful claims as part of their marketing strategy. It is
to be hoped that the trans fat story will be the first chapter in further efforts to meet growing demands for healthy food from an
aging and increasingly informed consumer population.
Lessons about constraints and policies from the trans fat case
Acknowledgements
The combined incentives created by mandatory disclosure of
trans fat content, potential product liability, and threatened or actual ingredient bans have clearly brought about a strong response
from the food industry. This is a powerful combination of actions
in the public arena, creating incentives for both packaged foods
and food services. Trans fats in the diet are clearly being reduced,
particularly those from fried fast foods and packaged snack foods.
While the data currently available make it difficult to measure the
extent of the reduction, it seems clear that most of the artificial trans
fats in the diet are on their way out. Many applications, such as fried
fast foods, are rapidly finding substitutes for partially hydrogenated
oils. Applications that are difficult to address, such as pastry, are currently the focus of research and development, and thus solutions are
likely to appear within a relatively short period of time. It took decades for use of partially hydrogenated oils to expand throughout the
food industry, but it seems likely that they will be removed from the
food supply within only a few years.
In making these changes, it is clear that the process of reformulation and replacement has spurred innovations that reach all the way
back to oilseed crop development. The applications of modern biotechnology to development of improved oilseeds with hearthealthy oil profiles may be the first major breakthrough in providing
innovations with consumer benefit (as opposed to agronomic benefit). It is also clear that the process of change takes time and market
coordination. While competition for brand reputation has spurred
activity, the pace of activity is naturally slowed by the complicated
process of finding alternatives for specific uses and the subsequent
need to secure supplies or equipment, or to implement change on
a large scale. Thus, policies such as mandatory labeling, that allow
market competition to determine the time required for adaptation,
lead to less costly and healthier substitutions. An ingredient ban
risks setting a deadline that leads to stopgap solutions, which might
not improve nutritional content or might impose higher costs.
Whether or not removal of trans fats will exacerbate over-consumption of saturated fat remains to be seen. At the very least, initial fears that this would be the case seem to be overblown. In
many important uses of trans fats, such as fried fast foods and
chips, the replacement will be a healthier oil, while in other cases,
We thank Cathy Wotecki and Richard Williams for comments
on an early draft. We acknowledge financial support for this research from the Illinois Agricultural Experiment Station and the
Economic Research Service of the USDA.
References
Brintle, Kelly, 2007. Ventura Foods. Personal communication, March 2.
Chern, W.S., Loehman, E.T., Yen, S.T., 1995. Information, health-risk beliefs, and the
demand for fats and oils. Review of Economics and Statistics 76, 555–564.
Crisco.com, 2007, Crisco products reformulated to contain zero grams trans fats per
serving. <http://www.crisco.com/whatsnew/zero_trans_fat.htm?docloc=http://
www.crisco.com/about/history/index.asp> (accessed 13.09.07.).
Drewnowski, A., Specter, S.E., 2004. Poverty and obesity: the role of energy density
and energy costs. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 79, 6–16.
Eckel, R.H., Borra, S., Lichtenstein, A.H., Yin-Piazza, S.Y., 2007. Understanding the
Complexity of trans fatty acid reduction in the American diet: American Heart
Association trans fat conference 2006: report of the trans fat conference
planning group. Circulation Journal of the American Heart Association 115,
2231–2246.
Graham, J.D., 2007. The evolving role of the U.S. Office of management and budget
in regulatory policy. Working paper 07-04 of the AEI-Brookings Joint Center for
Regulatory Studies, February. <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.
cfm?per_id=845561> (accessed 28.03.08.).
Hoffman, G., 2007. Restaurant Services Inc., Personal communication. January 30.
Institute of Medicine, 2002. Dietary Reference Intakes for Energy, Carbohydrate,
Fiber, Fat, Fatty Acids, Cholesterol, Protein, and Amino Acids (Macronutrients).
National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
Ippolito, Pauline M., Mathios, Alan D., 1990. Information, advertising, and health
choices: a study of the cereal market. Rand Journal of Economics 21 (3), 459–
480.
Kim, S.Y., Nayga, R.M., Capps, O.R., 2000. The effect of food label use on nutrient
intakes: an endogenous switching regression analysis. Journal of Agricultural
Economics 25 (1), 215–231.
LaMarche, J., 2006. Consumer News, Loyola Consumer Law Review.
MacInnis, B., Rausser, G., 2005. Does food processing contribute to childhood
obesity disparities? American Journal of Agricultural Economics 87, 1154–1158.
Mojduszka, E.M., Caswell, J.A., West, D.B., Harris, J.M., 1999. Changes in nutritional
quality of food product offerings and purchases: a case study in the mid-1990’s.
Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Technical Bulletin
No. 1880.
Mozaffarian, D., Katan, M.B., Ascherio, A., Stampfer, M.D., Willett, W.C., 2006. Trans
fatty acids and cardiovascular disease. New England Journal of Medicine 354,
1601–1613.
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 2001. Letter from Administrator
John D. Graham to Secretary of Health and Human Affairs Tommy G. Thompson,
L.J. Unnevehr, E. Jagmanaite / Food Policy 33 (2008) 497–503
Sept 18. <http://www.reginfo.gov/public/prompt/hhs_prompt_letter.html>
(accessed 28.03.08.).
Stark, D., 2007. Monsanto Corporation. Personal communication, February 22.
Stender, S., Dyerberg, J., Astrup, A., 2006. Letters to the editor: high levels of
industrially produced trans fat in popular fast foods. New England Journal of
Medicine 354, 1650–1652.
503
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2003. Food labeling: trans fatty
acids in nutrition labeling, nutrient content claims, and health claims, Final
Rule. Federal Register, vol. 68, No 133, Friday, July 11, pp. 41434–41506.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Agriculture,
2005. Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2005. <http://www.health.gov/
dietaryguidelines/dga2005/document/pdf/DGA2005.pdf>.