Mr. Cheung questions whether it makes sense for states to be devoting resources to banning artificial trans fat from restaurants.  Of course it does, particularly when the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and U.S. Department of Agriculture have shown no inclination–except for FDA’s valuable labeling requirement on packaged foods–to expunge artificial trans fat from the food supply.  The states’ actions have had a salutary effect on spurring companies big and small to get rid of the most harmful oil of all.  Mr. Cheung states that “[T]he inevitable inconsistencies will likely lead to less industry compliance,” but he doesn’t provide–because it doesn’t exist–a shred of evidence that the laws have been inconsistent or that industry has not been able to fully comply.

Though Cheung stated, “When a restaurant stops using trans fats it likely uses saturated fats instead,” he’s simply wrong again.  Restaurants deserve credit for replacing partially hydrogenated oil with mostly polyunsaturated oils, which reduce the risk of heart disease.

Likewise, he says about snack foods, “But look at the nutrition label and you will find that they still use plenty of saturated fats.”  Wrong again.  For instance, Frito-Lay, the biggest maker of snack foods, switched to unsaturated oils that are low in saturated fat.

Then he suggests that trans fat should not be banned from restaurants when other harmful substances, like salt, abound.  Different issues need to be handled separately.  First, trans fat is unique, because it is so harmful and so easily replaced with more-healthful oils.  There’s been a massive switch away from trans over the past several years without any disruption of taste or cost.  Excessive salt, too, causes great harm…and levels can and must be reduced.  In fact, New York City’s health department, following the lead of the British government, has proposed sensible sodium-reduction targets for manufactured and restaurant foods.  I suspect that the FDA shortly will join that effort.

Finally, Mr. Cheung says that we should focus on the immediate harm caused by Salmonella and other pathogens, the focus of Marler Clark’s litigation, rather than the longer-term harm caused by trans fat.  Putting aside the fact that trans fat likely has been causing tens of thousands of unnecessary fatal heart attacks annually, we can and should be addressing both hazards.

Michael F. Jacobson, Ph.D., is the executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest.  CSPI has long sought reductions in foodborne pathogens and reductions in artificial trans fat and salt, in restaurant foods, packaged foods, and fresh foods.

If you remember being advised not to eat oysters in months without an ‘r’ in them, Vibrio is part of the reason why.

It doesn’t have to be this way. And thanks to a recent announcement from the Food and Drug Administration, it soon won’t be–unless the shellfish industry gets its way.

For eight years under the Bush Administration, the FDA basically outsourced shellfish safety to the industry and the states that host it, by letting a committee called the Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference experiment with minimal, and as it turns out, ineffective measures to minimize the danger. And what a failed experiment that turned out to be! During this time, at least 118 died agonizing deaths from septicemia and another 130 survived excruciating illnesses caused by eating untreated oysters. Septicemia, or blood poisoning, is marked by severe skin lesions and fluid-filled blisters. Amputation can be required to prevent death.

All along, several inexpensive technologies have been used by some processors to kill Vibrio in oysters. Just freezing the oysters would do the trick, but more advanced techniques like warm-water pasteurization and hydrostatic pressure are also readily available. Those techniques have minimal or no effect on taste, but result in a totally safe product.

At a recent meeting of the ISSC, Michael Taylor, senior adviser for food safety for FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg, made the announcement that beginning in 2011 the agency will require summer Gulf oysters to undergo one of these post-harvest processing techniques.

As if on cue, though, some Gulf Coast politicians and some in the industry have begun grumbling about the inconvenience of the proposed new regulations. Even before the meeting was over, industry representatives were in conference calls with Members of Congress to strategize on ways to block FDA. They’ve started a noisy campaign in their communities, raising fears about job losses to get local officials on their side.

But while some oystermen and local officials are complaining, other enterprising companies in the Gulf that process oysters are presumably planning on expanding their businesses, in anticipation of the new rules going into effect And for many years, Costco, Legal Sea Foods (an East Coast restaurant chain), and other companies have made a point of only selling safer oysters–improving their reputations for food safety while simultaneously pleasing and protecting their customers.

FDA officials should, and I believe will, resist pressure coming from the industry and move forward with the shellfish safety plan they announced last month. A dozen or so preventable deaths shouldn’t be coldly dismissed as the cost of doing business, when the cost of actually preventing the deaths is so small.

“Serving Safer Shellfish:  Why the FDA Shouldn’t Back Down,” originally appeared Nov. 4 at the Huffington Post.  Republished with permission from Michael F. Jacobson.