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 article info abstract
Article history: Artificial trans fats in foods increase chronic disease risk in the US population. Federal nutrition label reg- Accepted 14 May 2008 ulation 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 Keywords: use in New York city restaurants and lawsuits against food companies, which created further incentives Nutrition labeling to remove trans fats, especially in the food service industry. Industry has reformulated packaged foods Food service and found substitutes for restaurant fry oils and trans fats are disappearing from the US food supply. Mar- Food industry ket response extends throughout the supply chain, and has spurred research to alter oilseed crop char- Trans fats Supply chain acteristics. 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 remark- We begin by providing the background on how this ingredient able variety, which can mask certain underlying similarities in became a health and policy issue. Then we outline the market product content. Widely used ingredients or formulations can have incentives created by three kinds of actions in the public arena, broad based impacts on diet quality, with possible consequences drawing on the economic literature regarding previous policies. for public health. Relative prices and available technologies deter- Next, we consider how these market incentives are playing out mine product formulations, and when changes occur, they can at different points in the food supply chain. This evidence reveals happen without much consumer awareness, especially when sub- the economic constraints to changes in food product composition stitute ingredients do not change flavor or product quality. Indus- and improvements in dietary quality. Finally, we draw lessons try incentives to pursue healthier ingredient formulations are from this case for other efforts and interventions to improve food debatable, although likely on the rise as consumers become more product composition. health-conscious. In some instances, public policy has emerged to mandate ingredient and nutrient disclosure, and less frequently, Background to regulate product content, usually with much debate about industry cost and public health outcomes. Partially hydrogenated oils, especially soybean oils, have been One notable case of an ingredient with public health conse- used in US processed foods for several decades, beginning notably quences is found in the growing use of partially hydrogenated oils with margarine. Partial hydrogenation makes these oils suitable during the last quarter of the twentieth century. Partial hydrogena- substitutes for saturated fats, such as butter, lard, or palm oil, be- tion allowed the substitution of relatively inexpensive soybean oil cause partial hydrogenation provides stability, flavor, and texture for alternatives with higher saturated fat, such as palm oil and lard. similar to saturated fats in many uses. Partial hydrogenation raises But partially hydrogenation also introduced artificial trans fats into the melting temperature of vegetable oils, so that they remain solid the US diet, and these were identified as a public health threat in the or semi-solid at room temperature, and also increases their shelf- 1990s. Beginning with US Food and Drug Administration’s proposed life. Historically, margarine and vegetable shortening products, regulations in 1999, attention to this public health issue has created using partially hydrogenated oils, replaced butter and lard in US incentives for industry to reduce trans fat content in foods. The diets in the 1950s and 1960s. Partially hydrogenated soybean oil reduction of trans fats in the US food supply provides a case study replaced palm oil in many processed food products, such as cookies of the links among policy actions, product composition, and public and crackers, beginning in the 1970s, in part due to a belief that it health. 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 (herein-
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 202 694 5400; fax: +1 202 694 5661. after used interchangeably with trans fats). Low levels of trans E-mail address: [email protected] (L.J. Unnevehr). fatty acids are found in animal products, and thus have always
0306-9192/$ - see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2008.05.006 498 L.J. Unnevehr, E. Jagmanaite / Food Policy 33 (2008) 497–503 been part of the human diet. However, the level of trans fatty acids amended their petition in 1998. A preliminary rule was issued in introduced through the combination of partial hydrogenation and 1999, which brought forth a large volume of comment. In 2001, the product substitutions in the US diet is not something histori- the newly appointed director of the Office of Management and cally observed. Studies of the potential negative impact of this Budget, John Graham, sent a ‘‘push” letter to the FDA encouraging trans fatty acid intake on heart and circulatory health began them to finalize the regulation because ‘‘OMB believes there may emerging in the 1970s, but they were inconclusive. Scientific opin- be an opportunity here to pursue cost-effective rulemaking that ion regarding the risks associated with trans fats did not coalesce provides significant net benefits to the American people” (OIRA until the 1990s. Research findings associated trans fatty acid intake Prompt Letter, 2001). This type of request from OMB was unprec- with elevated risk of coronary heart disease, through its effects in edented, and brought significant attention to this public health is- worsening the ratio of harmful to beneficial cholesterol and sue (Graham, 2007). increasing systemic inflammation (Mozaffarian et al., 2006). Trans The prompt letter was motivated by the strong evidence of sub- fatty acid intake is also associated with increased risk of type 2 dia- stantial public health benefit. Because Coronary Heart Disease betes. An estimated 30,000 premature deaths per year in the US are (CHD) is associated with so many serious illnesses and premature associated with artificial trans fatty acid intake (Mozaffarian et al., deaths, and because even modest reductions in trans fats are asso- 2006). Replacing trans fatty acids with saturated fat would reduce ciated with reduced risk of CHD, the benefits from the rule were health risks, so that its use in place of saturated fats is not justified estimated to be quite large. For example, reducing trans fat intake on a health basis. by about 0.04% of calories would prevent about 600 heart attacks The scientific consensus is reflected in dietary advice to the US and 200 deaths per year. The final rule estimated benefits of $2 to public from two authoritative sources. The Institute of Medicine of $6 billion per year, or $13 to $27 billion cumulative over 20 years, the National Academy of Sciences recommended in their 2002 Die- from reduced illnesses and premature deaths. These benefits dwarf tary Reference Intake report that trans fatty acids in the diet be as the estimated one-time industry costs of $139 to $275 million for low as possible, as any intake above zero was associated with in- testing, re-labeling, and reformulation (USHHS/USDA, 2003). creased health risk (IOM, 2002). In 2005, the USDA’s Dietary Guide- At issue in the petition, comment, and final rule process was a lines recommended that trans fatty acid intake be less than 1% of debate over how to disclose trans fat content, and how to address total calories (USHHS/USDA, 2005). possible substitution between this ingredient and saturated fat. Sat- These consensus statements were based on clinical studies, but urated fat has been reported on the nutrition label since such labels estimated public health impacts rely on estimates of average trans were mandated in 1993. US diets continue to have too much satu- fatty acid consumption in US diets. Such estimates vary as there rated fat, which is associated with increased risk of both CHD and are no standard data on the amount of vegetable oil that undergoes cancer. As partially hydrogenated oils were developed and used partial hydrogenation (Eckel et al., 2007). Intake estimates have to substitute for saturated fats, the concern was that a move to dis- been made by the USDA and by the Harvard School of Public close trans fat content would lead to the use of more saturated fat. Health, and both agree that the major sources of artificial trans The 1998 CSPI petition asked that sum of saturated and trans fat be fatty acids in US diets are fried fast foods, pastries, margarine, reported on one line, with a breakout regarding the two ingredients and snacks such as cookies, crackers, and chips. Estimates based in a footnote. However, nutrition scientists maintain that trans fats on USDA intake data from the mid-1990s show the average Amer- are more harmful than saturated fat (Mozaffarian et al., 2006). The ican consumes 6.8 g per day of trans fats, of which 1.5 g are natu- expectation was that mandatory disclosure of trans fat content rally occurring trans fats in animal products, and the remaining would provide incentive to reduce trans fats in foods, and that even 5.3 g are from artificial sources (USHHS/FDA, 2003). Trans fat in- with some increase in saturated fat, public health benefits would take was estimated to be close to 3% of daily caloric intake, well still be positive. This continues to be a controversial issue, and we above the recommended 1% or less. The estimates of intake and will return to it in our discussion below of industry response. their sources sets the stage for understanding where and by how The response to this change in the mandatory nutrition label much such intake is being reduced through current efforts by the can be predicted from the literature regarding impact of the label food industry. 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 Three kinds of actions in the public arena create market consumer choice of food products (eg., Chern et al., 1995; Kim et incentives al., 2000). Furthermore, past studies also suggest that the food industry will undertake product reformulation in response to de- Three types of actions in the public arena have created incen- mand from health-conscious consumers, which will ultimately im- tives for the food industry to remove artificial trans fats, beginning prove diets for all consumers. The landmark study by Ippolito and with the 2003 FDA regulation that amended the mandatory nutri- Mathios (1990) regarding disclosure of bran content in breakfast tion label. The long development of this regulation and media cereals demonstrated that bran content of cereals and bran intake attention to this dietary issue also spurred lawsuits against major by all consumers increased, even those not specifically seeking food industry firms by public interest groups and the 2006 New bran content. Mojduszka et al. (1999) found that more low fat York City ban on trans fats in restaurant foods. We consider the products were available as a result of the 1995 nutrition label reg- evolution of these public actions and how they created incentives ulation, although they questioned whether average ‘‘healthfulness” for the food industry. and therefore average diets where improved through such product introductions. Thus, while the evidence is not conclusive, past Mandatory disclosure of information required by the nutrition label studies suggest that adding trans fat content to the nutrition label amendment will lead to both consumer selection of lower trans fat products and industry product reformulation to reduce trans fat content. FDA issued a regulation in 2003 that made disclosure of trans fat content mandatory on the nutrition label, beginning January Product liability and lawsuits 1, 2006. This regulation had a long process of evolution before it became final. The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) The FDA rule making process brought substantial attention to petitioned FDA to establish such a requirement in 1994, and the trans fat issue, resulting in public actions in other arenas out- L.J. Unnevehr, E. Jagmanaite / Food Policy 33 (2008) 497–503 499 side of federal regulation. In 2003, a public interest group, Ban- lic health issue before in the US Relevant precedents occur in the TransFats, filed suit against Kraft foods citing the health impact tension between federal and local regulation of other industry of trans fats in their commonly consumed snack foods, such as practices, such as labeling or recycling. As New York City is a major Oreo cookies. Kraft settled out of court by agreeing to reformulate market, the food industry has three alternatives in response. The its major brands. This same group also filed a lawsuit against industry can challenge this regulation as creating a barrier to inter- McDonald’s in 2005 for their failure to adequately inform the pub- state commerce, either in the courts or through seeking federal leg- lic about their delays in removing trans fats from fried foods. islation restricting local actions. Food service companies can McDonald’s agreed to donate $8.5 million to nutrition education reformulate product specifically for this market at additional ex- in their suit settlement. The CSPI filed suit against KFC in the Dis- pense, or they can reformulate product for all markets and thus ad- trict of Colombia in 2006, charging that its use of partially hydro- dress current and potential bans. Given the negative media genated oils was endangering public health, and although this attention to trans fats as result of all three kinds of public actions, suit was thrown out, KFC subsequently announced major efforts product reformulation places the food service industry in a better to eliminate trans fats in their foods. light in terms of meeting consumer health concerns. Since 2002 there has been increased legal activity to establish All three actions in the public arena—mandatory labeling, prod- food firm liability for chronic health impacts of food products uct liability claims, local bans—have created incentives for the food and services. The most notable lawsuit, Pelman v McDonalds, pur- industry to remove trans fats from food products. Such incentives sues damages for obesity resulting from consumption at the food are created directly through consumer response in the market- chain. Although none of these lawsuits have succeeded in obtain- place, the avoidance of litigation and liability costs, or the direct ing awards, the Pelman v McDonalds lawsuit was given new impe- ban on ingredient use. There are also indirect incentives through tus in September, 2006, when a New York court refused to dismiss media attention that shapes product reputation in the long run the case, and ruled that McDonalds must respond to allegations of and competition in the marketplace to maintain brand quality deceptive advertising. The food industry concern with such law- and loyalty. Next, we consider specific industry actions and their suits is evident in their lobbying efforts at the federal and state lev- potential to improve diets. els 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 Three stories of food industry response industry as a whole clearly has incentives to avoid such liability where possible. At issue in the regulatory analysis and public debate surrounding Thus, the lawsuits regarding trans fats brought additional media trans fats was the scope, feasibility, and cost of industry response. attention to the issue, as well as the potential for liability to be Reformulation is technically feasible for all current uses of ingredi- established. Firms that were sued have a public relations incentive ents with artificial trans fats, but the speed, cost, healthfulness, to alter product content, as well as incentive to avoid potential and scope of possible reformulation were hotly debated in both future liability in similar lawsuits. Other companies also see incen- the federal and the NYC regulatory analyses. Would reformulation tives to avoid such lawsuits and negative publicity through pro- increase the use of saturated fats? Would reformulation take several active removal of trans fats. Furthermore, when leading brands years or several months? Would reformulated food be more costly remove trans fats, other brands must pursue equal standards of and not widely available to the average consumer? Can reformula- quality and safety in order to remain competitive. tion be accomplished entirely at the processing stage or will it re- quire different oils or the development of different oilseed crop Banning product ingredients characteristics? As industry response is now well underway follow- ing the policy actions of the past few years, it is possible to take a One other notable consequence of the FDA regulatory process snapshot of industry activity that provides preliminary answers to was the pursuit of ingredient bans in various cities and states (Eck- these questions. We collected evidence from industry interviews el et al., 2007). The first such ban, imposed by the New York City and product label data that reveal three dimensions of response. 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 Food service industry replaces frying oils July 1, 2008.1 This regulation impacts some 20,000 restaurants and 14,000 food service suppliers. The NYC ban followed Denmark’s Major food service companies have announced intentions to re- example, where artificial trans fats allowed in processed or restau- place frying oils with trans fats in their national operations, start- rant foods was limited to 2% in 2004. The action reflected sentiment ing with Wendy’s in 2005. The NYC ban spurred several more among some public health advocates that an outright ban of this announcements in 2006, including KFC/Taco Bell, McDonalds, artificially created ingredient would go further towards public health and Burger King. Three aspects of these announcements are nota- than disclosure of information about product content. Furthermore, ble. First, all announcements placed complete removal of trans fats in contrast to the federal regulation, the NYC ban addresses trans fats in the future. Thus, overnight reformulation was clearly not feasi- in restaurant foods, which are an important source of trans fats in ble. Second, in many cases, a market leader announced its new pol- consumption. The CSPI has a pending petition with FDA to remove icy, and then other firms followed suit. For example, Disney resorts artificial trans fats from the GRAS (Generally Recognized As Safe) list announced that trans fats would be removed from foods served in for food ingredients, which would result in a national ban in practi- their parks by 2008, and subsequently Universal Studios made a cal terms. similar announcement. Third, the announcements often revealed Banning a product ingredient or specifying product formulation that product testing had been underway for some time, as the issue is the most restrictive type of regulatory response to emerging has been on the horizon for over a decade before the NYC ban. nutrition information, and it has not been used for this type of pub- 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 1 The NYC regulation has two phases. Trans fats were to be removed from oils used fries, from virtually none in McDonald’s in Denmark to over 10 g 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 per serving in KFC outlets in eastern Europe. This study showed of finding substitutes for the two types of uses of partially hydrogenated oils. 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. Table 1 For national food service chains with strong brand reputations, New food products claiming ‘‘no trans fat” on the label uniform product quality is essential. 2004 2005 2006 Frying oils play a role in both taste and texture (Hoffman, 2007). Total number of new 232 442 523 Products such as chicken nuggets or French fries are par-fried dur- products claiming ‘‘no ing processing before delivery at individual outlets. At the restau- trans fat” rants, these products are fried again before serving. The oils used at Number of product 32 39 48 categories with ‘‘no each step influence both taste and sensory characteristics, such as trans fat” introductions mouth-feel or ‘‘greasiness”. The desired characteristics will vary Top five product categories Snack bars (26) Snack bars (68) Chips (63) among products and among firms. The oils used for par-frying dif- with most ‘‘no trans fat” Cookies (26) Cookies (46) Snacks (59) fer from the single oil that is used at the restaurant level, and this products (number of Breads (24) Breads (42) Cookies (52) complicates the process of finding reformulation alternatives. products within Chips (19) Chips (36) Breads (50) category) Crackers (18) Snacks (33) Meals (45) Partially hydrogenated soy oils or blends using such oils are Number of companies with 140 263 320 commonly used in fast food outlets in the US (Eckel et al., 2007). ‘‘no trans fat” They have the advantage of greater stability and a longer shelf-life introductions in comparison with conventional oils, which might have to be re- Top five companies with Hain (16) Altria (28) PepsiCo (23) most ‘‘no trans fat” Altria (11) Hain (13) Nestle (15) placed twice as often, significantly increasing restaurant costs products (number of Kellogg (7) Conifer (12) Altria (14) (Hoffman, 2007). Replacing partially hydrogenated soy oil is possi- products for each Atkins (7) PepsiCo (11) Snyder’s (9) ble through blends of conventional oils, such as cottonseed or sun- company) HealthHandful (6) NaturesPath(8) ConAgra (8) flower to provide greater stability; or through use of soy oil with Source: ProductScan Inc. database of new product introductions. low linoleic acid content. Low lino soy has greater stability than conventional soy, although it still must be changed more often issue. The number of new food products claiming ‘‘no trans fat” than partially hydrogenated soy. on the label increased dramatically from only 64 in 2003 to 544 In addition to fixed costs of testing and developing alternatives, in 2006, and products claiming ‘‘no trans fat” were over 10% of variable cost factors in reformulating fast foods to eliminate trans all new food product introductions in 2005 and 2006. Companies fats include the cost of new oil blends for par-frying, cost of new oil introducing ‘‘no trans fat” products include those owning the ma- blend for in-restaurant frying, and the shelf-life of the new restau- jor brands referred to above, as well as companies with a natural rant oil. Securing reliable supplies of the new oils, whether they are foods orientation, such as Hain (Table 1). However, it is not only conventional oils in limited supply, such as sunflower, or new crop industry leaders or firms with strong health reputations that are varieties of soy, takes time and this accounts for some of the lag in leading in this market trend. Over the past three years, the number implementation of plans to remove trans fats. of companies introducing ‘‘no trans fats” has increased from 139 to 318, so many different firms are now involved in making and mar- Packaged food product reformulation keting such products. Product introductions with ‘‘no trans fats” occurred in increas- Several major food companies announced efforts to remove ing numbers of product categories (as defined by ProductScan) trans fats from leading brands over the past decade, starting with and a wide variety of kinds of products during 2004 through Unilever in the 1990s, and more recently Nestle (2002), Kraft 2006 (Table 1). Most introductions occurred in the categories (2003), Campbell’s (Goldfish crackers, 2004), Kellogg’s (Keebler chips, cookies, snacks, and snack bars. In Table 2, we matched brands, 2005), and Frito-Lay chips (2006). It is notable that the ear- the new product introduction categories from the ProductScan liest announcements came from European firms, where use of par- data to the dietary sources of trans fats reported in the regulatory tially hydrogenated soy was not as common as in the US, and thus, analysis. It appears that many product introductions are providing reformulation was not as onerous. The announcements in the last ‘‘no trans fat” alternatives in the categories ‘‘cookies and crackers” three years reflect the attention brought to this issue through law- and ‘‘potato chips, corn chips, and popcorn”. It is notable that suits as well as debate about the upcoming nutrition label regula- ‘‘cake, doughnuts, and pastry”—the single largest source of artificial tion. Many companies chose to implement the disclosure of trans trans fats—does not have nearly as many product introductions. fats earlier than the January 1, 2006 deadline, particularly when This reflects the relative technical difficulty of finding substitutes they were able to disclose zero trans fats on products. for partially hydrogenated oils used to make self-stable pastry Partially hydrogenated oils impart longer shelf-life to packaged products (Eckel et al., 2007). foods and often provide particular taste or texture characteristics We used these product label data to examine ingredient use in that are difficult to replace. However, the feasibility of reformulation ‘‘no trans fat” products. For all products introduced in 2005 and for many uses is clear now with a few years of experience. Even Cri- 2006 claiming ‘‘no trans fats”, the most commonly used oil ingre- sco, a product that relied heavily on partial hydrogenation for its dients were canola, sunflower, and soybean oil, with other healthy texture, was reformulated entirely in 2007 with no trans fats (Crisco, oils such as corn or safflower oil also prominent in use (Table 3). 2007). Similarly, most tub margarines now have zero trans fats. Sub- Palm oil, which is high in saturated fat, also appears among com- stitutions in packaged foods can use different techniques, including monly used ingredients, but is not as commonly used as healthier substitute ingredients such as saturated fats or modified oils, differ- alternatives. Some products (11%) still use partially hydrogenated ent processes, additives, or even packaging to enhance shelf-life. oils, because the regulation allowed 0.5 g per serving of trans fats Reformulation has sometimes taken place as part of the normal in products claiming ‘‘no trans fat”, and use of small amounts of product cycle, or in other cases through incurring significant short partially hydrogenated oils has facilitated reformulation for some run costs to speed up the change. For example, when Kraft reformu- products. Taken together, less healthy oil alternatives such as palm lated Oreos in response to the 2003 lawsuit, it required over 30,000 oil, butter, and partially hydrogenated oils, appear in perhaps as man hours and 125 plant trials during a two year period. many as 30% of ‘‘no trans fat” products.2 We examined the product label data available in the Product- Scan Inc. database from Datamonitor for packaged food introduc- 2 Most products list multiple oil ingredients and thus it is possible that fewer than tions claiming ‘‘no trans fat” on the label. These data provide 30 percent of all products use less healthy oils, if these oils are used together in insights into how the packaged food market is responding to this particular products. L.J. Unnevehr, E. Jagmanaite / Food Policy 33 (2008) 497–503 501
Table 2 Table 4 Comparison of dietary sources of trans fats and new product introductions 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 Product categories that Estimated daily New product introductions in are major dietary dietary intake of 2004, 2005, and 2006 Ingredient % of Ingredient % of sources of trans fats artificial trans fats claiming ‘‘no trans fat” products products using using Grams Percent Number of Percent of intake intake new new All cookie product introductions, 2001–02 ‘‘No trans fat” cookie product products products introductions, 2005–06 Partially hydrogenated oils 42 Palm Oil 28 Cake, doughnuts, pastry 1.391 30.0 88 7.3 Butter 13 Butter 17 Margarine 0.967 20.9 13 1.08 Vegetable Shortening 12 Partially Hydrogenated 15 Cookies and crackers 0.571 12.3 434 36.25 Oils French-fried potatoesa 0.486 10.5 – – Corn/Cottonseed/Safflower 8 Canola Oil 14 Yeast bread 0.404 8.7 116 9.69 Oils Potato chips, corn 0.281 6.1 141 11.7 chips, popcorn All chip product introductions, 2001–02 ‘‘No trans fat” Chip product Household shortening 0.250 5.4 24 2.0 introductions, 2005–06 Salad dressing 0.159 3.4 21 1.75 Corn oil 41 Corn oil 56 Breakfast cereal 0.084 1.8 31 2.59 Partially hydrogenated oils 36 Sunflower oil 42 Candy 0.044 0.9 38 3.17 Sunflower oil 20 Canola oil 23 Uncategorized new – – 291 24.3 Vegetable oil 16 Vegetable oil 19 productsb Source: ProductScan Inc. database. Most products use more than one oil ingredient. Total 4.637 100.0 1197 100.0 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 Sources: Estimated dietary intake of artificial trans fats is from USHHS, 2003, pp. 185 and for ‘‘no trans fat” Chips 2005–2006, it is 99. 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. cations of oil profiles that are feasible include low lino, high oleic, b Not all product introductions fit into the summary categories reported by USHHS. 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 Table 3 their conventional counterparts and more heart-healthy because Oil Ingredients most frequently used in products claiming ‘‘no trans fat” high oleic content lowers cholesterol and slows artherosclerosis Oil ingredient 2005–06 ‘‘no trans fat” Percent of 2005–06 (Eckel et al., 2007). High stearic soy could be used in baking appli- products using ingredient ‘‘no trans fat” products cations; it has greater saturated fat content than conventional soy using ingredient but less than palm oil, and appears to have less effect on cholesterol Canola oil 151 15.6 levels. Among conventional oils, cottonseed oil, for example, can Sunflower oil 137 14.1 provide greater stability, but imparts a ‘‘greasy” texture to fried Soybean oil 136 14 Corn/cottonseed/safflower 125 12.9 foods. Sunflower and canola oils are naturally more heart-healthy Palm oil 113 11.7 than many other oils due to low saturated fat and high oleic con- Partially hydrogenated oils 104 10.7 tent. Industry representatives emphasize that there is no single Olive oil 77 7.9 substitute for partially hydrogenated soybean oil; each food appli- Butter 76 7.8 High oleic 37 3.8 cation requires some blending and adaptation to meet particular processing, storage, and taste requirements (Eckel et al., 2007). Source: ProductScan Inc. database. Most products use more than one oil ingredient. Widespread efforts to remove trans fats have increased the de- Total number of products claiming ‘‘no trans fats” for 2005–2006 is 965. mand for modified oilseed crops and for minor conventional oils, creating challenges for supply chain coordination. Coordination Ingredient substitution is best understood within particular can begin with the oilseed variety used, and extend to the need product categories. We examined cookies and chips for more in- for dedicated supply chains of oils produced for particular food sight into how reformulation is being accomplished. For each cat- uses. One example is the development of low linoleic soybeans. egory, the oil ingredients used in all new products in 2001 and In the 1980s, a naturally occurring soybean genetic variation 2002 are compared to those used in ‘‘no trans fat” products intro- that produces low linoleic acids in oil was discovered. Pioneer duced in 2005 and 2006. For both product categories, partially introduced a low lino soybean variety in the 1990s, but this did hydrogenated oils were the dominant oil ingredients in the not find a market, and was withdrawn. As interest in alternatives 2001–02 products, appearing in 42% and 36% of cookie and chip to partially hydrogenated oils started to receive more attention, products, respectively (Table 4). Cookies claiming ‘‘no trans fat” Monsanto began work on a low lino variety in 2001. The goal used primarily palm oil or butter in 2005–06, indicating that trans was to incorporate this characteristic into an agronomically viable fats are likely being replaced with saturated fats in cookie reformu- variety, and they released their Vistive line in 2005. This variety lations. In contrast, chips claiming ‘‘no trans fat” used primarily carries the genetic modification for glyphosate resistance, as this sunflower, corn, or canola oil, all of which are healthier substitutes characteristic is now found in varieties planted on over 80% of US for partially hydrogenated oils. This contrasting outcome for the soybean acreage. Thus, Vistive has costs of production comparable two product categories highlights how the technical scope for sub- to the GM soybeans that are now conventionally grown. The low stitutions differs among products. Some products must rely on sat- lino trait does not require genetic modification, but its incorpora- urated fat alternatives, at least in the short run, while others can tion into viable lines was speeded by the use of marker assisted use healthier substitutes. selection, a tool of modern biotechnology. Even so, the develop- ment and release of the line took 4 years of investment (Stark, Farm level supply response to demand for alternatives 2007). Other crop technology companies have released similar lines subsequently (see Eckel et al., 2007, p. 2239 for an overview). Substitution possibilities include use of oils from different crops In 2007, industry estimates that 1.5 million acres of low linoleic or use of oils from crop varieties with modified oil profiles. Modifi- 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 such as cookies and packaged pastries, it has been an oil with high- in acreage over only two years, it is still small relative to the esti- er saturated fat content, such as palm oil. Some new oil substitutes mated 3 billion pounds of partially hydrogenated oils currently used may have unknown health effects, and these will only become just in food service (Brintle, 2007). Industry sources posit a three apparent with time. In a worst case scenario, consumers may per- year lag is necessary to meet the rapidly expanding demand for this ceive a halo effect from the ‘‘no trans fat” claim, similar to the halo type of oil (Stark, 2007; Eckel et al., 2007). Seed must be produced, effect of ‘‘low fat” claims, and this may lead them to over-con- farmers must be contracted to raise the crop, and it must be deliv- sumption of snack foods. Such foods have been strongly implicated ered through dedicated supply channels. This type of lag accounts in the trend towards rising obesity (MacInnis and Rausser, 2005; for the announcements from many food service companies and Drewnowski and Specter, 2004), and removal of trans fat may some packaged food companies that promise future replacement not offset the negative contribution of energy dense foods to over- of trans fats, but do not specify an immediate change. all dietary quality. Early adopters of low lino soy oil in the food industry include Kel- The trans fat case is remarkable for the speed and relative suc- logg’s and KFC (Brintle, 2007). Such commitments facilitated the cess of policy actions. Whether or how policy lessons transfer to early development of the market, which is served by farmers con- other nutritional concerns remains to be seen. Trans fats are some- tracted through a cooperatively owned and dedicated crushing mill, what unique in that they were an artificially created addition to the serving a dedicated food ingredient supplier. Costs are rising rapidly, diet, and there is no recommended daily intake. Reducing other as elsewhere in the grains complex, due to competition from biofuel harmful components of the diet, such as sweeteners, saturated markets, although the proportional premium for these crops re- fat, or sodium, is more difficult because each is a normal part of mains about 30% above the conventional soy price (Stark, 2007). the diet and some amount is necessary for health. What the trans Expansion of the market must rely on continued coordination along fat case may have accomplished is to draw attention to the feasibil- the supply chain, but will likely bring in new entrants and new ity of product change in response to widespread media and policy- forms of coordination. In addition to dedicated supplies of modified maker attention. It has encouraged some food firms to continue to soy or canola, there are also efforts to develop new sources of supply stake out healthful claims as part of their marketing strategy. It is for oils, such as sunflower, that are in shorter supply. to be hoped that the trans fat story will be the first chapter in fur- ther 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 ac- We thank Cathy Wotecki and Richard Williams for comments tual ingredient bans have clearly brought about a strong response on an early draft. We acknowledge financial support for this re- from the food industry. This is a powerful combination of actions search from the Illinois Agricultural Experiment Station and the in the public arena, creating incentives for both packaged foods Economic Research Service of the USDA. and food services. Trans fats in the diet are clearly being reduced, particularly those from fried fast foods and packaged snack foods. References While the data currently available make it difficult to measure the extent of the reduction, it seems clear that most of the artificial trans Brintle, Kelly, 2007. Ventura Foods. Personal communication, March 2. fats in the diet are on their way out. Many applications, such as fried 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. fast foods, are rapidly finding substitutes for partially hydrogenated Crisco.com, 2007, Crisco products reformulated to contain zero grams trans fats per oils. Applications that are difficult to address, such as pastry, are cur- serving.
Sept 18.