"Trans fat" is a current darling of the food lobby. It has been implicated in heart disease. If you examine packaged food in US supermarkets, you'll see they now divide fat content into trans- and non-trans- fat. Apparently this allows consumers to compare brands and choose healthy options. Just like you always do at the supermarket, right? If there are 2 options and one is on special $2 off, you'll buy the more expensive one if it has less trans fat, right? ;-)

With that background, the law suit starts to make more sense if it is true that KFC has more trans fat than other fast food joints. Logic dictates they should have told consumers this- actually that's even part of the lawsuit that they should start doing so.

But the reality is that in the USA you have to expect that food ready-cooked with oil, even in a restaurant, will contain trans fat. Consumers want their food cheap, fast and plenty. Trans fat isn't only cheap, it also helps food last longer. That's one of the reasons it's added so often.

So my question would be: are you prepared to pay $2 extra for a dish to be cooked with olive oil? Or $4 extra for extra-virgin olive oil? Or $5 extra for organic olive oil? that's the sort of cost you have to expect when most of the food comes pre-prepared, meaning the restaurant will have to stock multiple versions of food that won't last as long without the trans fat.

But perhaps it will come to that- maybe menus will allow you to choose a dish cooked with sump oil or with a healthier option. Then nobody can complain that they ate a bucket of crispy chicken every day, and it was the unhealthy oil used without their knowledge that made them get fat and develop artery disease.