BOSTON - Restaurants and fast food menus may soon become healthier statewide, with the House giving initial approval to a bill that would ban serving food containing trans fat.

The House overwhelmingly approved the trans fat ban 114-34 last week.

The legislation was filed by Public Health Committee Chairman Rep. Peter Koutoujian, D-Waltham, and is now headed to the Senate.

If the bill becomes law, it would require restaurants across the state to eliminate by 2010 foods containing vegetable shortening, margarine or any partially hydrogenated vegetable oil unless the amount of trans fat is under 0.5 grams per serving.

The bill's supporters say the legislation is necessary to protect public health. "Hydrogenated fats are poisons," said Rep. Steve D'Amico, D-Seekonk, who co-sponsored the bill. "Trans fat is a dangerous chemical that damages arteries, causes heart disease and kills people. It's a public health issue."

Several studies have shown the consequences of hydrogenated fat. Health officials say it especially contributes to heart disease by generating "bad" cholesterol and reducing "good" cholesterol.

According to the bill's sponsors, trans fat products are estimated to have contributed to up to 4,000 premature deaths annually in Massachusetts.

Opponents say imposing a trans fat ban statewide amounts to a "nanny" state dictating consumer behavior.

"I don't think the government needs to tell that," said Rep. Jay Barrows, R-Mansfield, who voted against the bill. "Let's give the consumers some credit."

Attleboro area Republican lawmakers all opposed the bill, arguing that consumers have choices to make and that the state shouldn't regulate what people eat.

"It's not that I feel that trans fat is healthy," said Rep. Betty Poirier, R-North Attleboro. "We're talking about adults. It's their decision. We can't legislate human behavior, or then we need to make smoking, liquor and all the things that are unhealthy for people illegal."

D'Amico said the legislation is not about policing what people eat, but protecting consumers.

"The argument is that people should be able to choose," D'Amico said. "But you can't choose when you don't know what is in the food you eat."

D'Amico also considers that banning trans fat will push processed food companies to use safer alternatives. "A lot of processed food industries are starting to get away from trans fat," he said. "We are helping to hasten that."

Opponents say the fact that restaurants and fast food chains have already started eliminating trans fat food from their menus provides is another reason not to legislate it at the state level.

"The market is changing and is evolving towards healthier choices," Barrows said. "Many fast food places have done that already. There are so many other priorities to focus on."

Peter Christie, president of the Massachusetts Restaurant Association, said that the industry has already started eliminating trans fat and that restaurateurs responded favorably to the bill.

"The industry has already begun a big movement towards eliminating trans fat," he said. "I understand the argument that we don't need a nanny state but the political reality is that it would happen in Massachusetts in time, anyway."

The association was first wary of the timeline and implementation of the legislation, but now supports it after amendments were adopted.

Instead of implementing it within a year, restaurants now have until August 2009 to change fry oil fat and until February 2010 to remove any trans fat from their menus.

The proposal also includes Department of Public Health training for the restaurant industry.

"The timeline is reasonable and they try to invest in educating and helping in the process," Christie said. "It's very reasonable."

Massachusetts would be the first state in the country to ban trans fat if the bill passes.

Cities and counties have adopted similar bans, such as New York City and Philadelphia. Brookline also adopted a ban.