Playing Chicken ...

We were barely at our desks yesterday when a bright red tub of Kentucky Fried Chicken arrived with a notice that it was made, like all KFC chicken henceforth, without trans fat. What the tub turned out to contain was, at least by our taste, fried chicken that was noticeably gelatinous and soggy, a far cry from the crispier chicken we used to crave. If that is chicken without trans fat, count us out. We predict that KFC's decision is going to confront all those health-food zealots waging holy war against trans fat with the question of what next. Clearly it's a message that has gotten out here in New York, where the Board of Health is holding hearings on the trans fat ban that an out-of-control Health Department has sprung on the city, while outside the Board of Health, industry officials spoke out for the so-called ethnic foods that make the city the culinary capital of America.

The fact that KFC's announcement has even some small number of people thinking the chain's product will be more healthful is a sign of exactly how far off the rails the obsession with trans fat has driven the debate about obesity and public health. Consider a hypothetical lunch of a breast and a drumstick (extra crispy, of course), with a biscuit on the side, all washed down with a large Pepsi. The meal, by KFC's old recipe, clocks in at 9.5 grams of trans fat, according to information on KFC's Web site, of which the six grams in the chicken will disappear after the conversion to new oils (biscuits won't get the makeover until — or should it be if ? — a suitable substitute is found). And even without those six grams of trans fat, well, the meal will still be, at least by the terms of KFC's critics, bad for you.

That's because in addition to the trans fat, our hypothetical meal also features 1,090 calories, compared to the 2,000 that nutritionists recommend for total daily intake for a healthy adult. Our meal will also contain 2,300 milligrams of sodium, 96% of the total recommended daily intake. If you're watching your cholesterol, watch it soar — you've just consumed 205 milligrams, or 69% of your daily allowance. It's hard to find anything good for you in this meal. Dietary fiber, calcium, and vitamins A and D all stand at zero, although at least there's some iron, not to mention protein, in the chicken.

We don't mean to single out KFC, which has grown to be such a big franchise because its chicken has been so delicious. Most fast food is rich and caloric, trans fats or no. So are many fancy restaurant dinners. And, for that matter, many meals people fix for themselves in the privacy of their own kitchens. But our hypothetical meal shows that eliminating trans fats is not going to make everyone healthy, and it's not going to reduce America's obesity problem. The fetishization of trans fat has only distorted the public's perception of what exactly makes unhealthful food unhealthful. Healthy eating is about balance and moderation, not fixating on individual ingredients.

We recognize that many health problems, especially obesity, are related to diet. We're not against "public health." But a ban on trans fat will do little to address that and comes with its costs. A ban threatens the kind of small, local, often ethnic restaurants that are as important to New York's culinary culture as the hautest of haute cuisine, which is why those who rallied outside the Board of Health yesterday were there in the first place. They know what their interests are. It's foolish to think that by bankrupting small eateries and depriving consumers of choice in the name of banning a single ingredient, the government can improve the American diet. The only result is going to be a dearth of local restaurants and a less appetizing chicken wing.