Obama's Trans Fats Ban Could Cost Americans $11 Billion

Obama's Trans Fats Ban Could Cost Americans $11 Billion

President Barack Obama's Food and Drug Administration has issued a ban on trans fats that could cost as much as $11 billion.

A release from the FDA states that the agency "has made a final determination that there is no longer a consensus among qualified experts that partially hydrogenated oils (PHOs), which are the primary dietary source of industrially produced trans fatty acids, are generally recognized as safe for any use in human food."

The FDA said it examined "the costs of all significant effects of the removal, including packaged food reformulation and relabeling, increased costs for substitute ingredients, and consumer, restaurant, and bakery recipe changes."

Based on those factors, the agency estimated the cost of implementing the ban over the next three years at $6 billion, but acknowledged that the figure could go as high as $11 billion.

The FDA also estimated that banning trans fats could prevent up to 23,350 coronary heart disease deaths annually, saving as much as $440 billion. But that estimate is questionable given that manufacturers already have largely decreased the amount of trans fats in foods due to labeling requirements, and trans fat consumption declined about 78 percent between 2003 and 2012, CNN reported. The FDA's lowest estimate is 1,620 deaths.

Until now, companies could still list products as "trans fat free" even if they had 0.5 grams of fat, but the new ban should end that.

Trans fats were introduced into the American diet around 1911 in the form of shortening or hydrogenated vegetable oil used for cooking and making pies. Products likely to contain trans fats today include frozen pizza, doughnuts, canned frosting, margarine, and some buttered popcorn.

Companies can petition the FDA for a special permit to use PHOs, but they can't be used without FDA approval.

The FDA ban is an example of "flawed regulatory policymaking," according to Dan Goldbeck, a research analyst for regulatory policy at the American Action Forum.

He wrote: "A regulatory order that within hours of its release grabs dozens of headlines and admits to affecting the economy by billions of dollars annually ought to undergo a more rigorous, standardized, and transparent process than this action."

The FDA's move, he adds, "calls into question how much the agency truly considered the economics of regulating."