Calories on menus - Government Nannying?

Confuzzled4ever

I think they should provide the information, I do not think the goverment has the right ot force them too.. I also think there should be a little asterick that says *estimated caloric content* as real chefs to not measure and the amounts of items used will vary per plate.

More places should also do a smaller portion option.

why? I like getting 2 meals for the price of one! I place my order and ask for a box right away. Put half my plate in the box before I even start eating. win win for me!

You are in control of what you eat.. not the resturant.

rassha01

Should restaurants be forced? No.
Should restaurants choose to provide? Up to them, but if their customers want it, then yes.
Should the data be trusted? Ask anyone who has worked in a restaurant kitchen, NO. Keep in mind, your average oil ladle is a 2oz ladle... Really think that 450 calorie three egg scramble is really *just* 450 cals? :laugh:

But what about situations where customers are clearly asking for it but still not being provided? Nando's is one that comes to mind which I have personal experience with. I've emailed them to ask for their nutritional info and they just completely ignored me. I got an auto response saying they got my message but never a reply from -gasp- an actual human.

If you do not like what a restaurant is doing then don't spend money at said restaurant. That is the beauty of the free market, you get to vote with your dollars. Instead of going to that establishment, spend your money at one that posts their nutritional information ...

oldmanstauf

Restaurants should not be coerced by the govt. to add nutrition facts to their menus, but I commend those who do it on their own. It also makes me more likely to eat there than at a place that does not provide them and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

Ready2Rock206

Where I live we already have this law. Mom & Pop type joints are excluded. I personally love it. Makes it so much easier to make good decisions. Sometimes you just don't realize the salad has twice as many calories as the bacon cheeseburger (anyone ever been to Red Robin?!). The government isn't telling you not to eat the 2000 calorie bacon double cheeseburger - they're just giving you the information so that you can make your own choices. All the high calorie items are still there and are still being ordered just as frequently.

silken555

It doesn't have to be on the menu, but it would help for it to be available if only on their website. I think it would be the responsible thing to do.

CoffeeLush

Coming from the restaurant industry, I don't feel it should be mandatory for small companies. It is VERY expensive to get your food nutritionally analyzed-- it has to be sent to a professional lab. Additionally, menus have to be reprinted, new signs made that are in compliance, etc. Any time you want to add new seasonal items you would have to go through it all over again.

For a large chain where your net sales per location is $3 MIL and your net sales as a company is in the hundreds of millions, spending $50k overall on nutrition analysis followed up by say ballpark $5k per location on menus, boards, signs, etc, isn't going to kill your business. But, if you are a Mom & Pop little cafe with net sales of only 500k a year, and you are just barely squeaking by (because no one gets rich running a single small restaurant), mandatory menu analysis would shut down your business. If all restaurants were required to have nutritional analysis, we'd only have corporate chains around.

sarajeanelles

I DON'T want the gov. involved in every aspect of my life!!

How is nutritional information being provided the government "getting involved" in your life? They aren't changing what you eat, they aren't forcing you to eat anything you don't want to, they're simply providing you with the opportunity to know what's going into your body.

This

Marll

And, don't get me started on portions. But, I hope after the dust settles on calories, I do hope all restaurants are forced to publish portion sizes. In other words, the meal you are about to eat serves 3. That kind of thing. I think it would also help a lot. Total calories is one small part of the battle. In the USA, the larger problem, IMO, is portion size.

Isn't that the truth.

Smartphones are a wonder. When at Nothing but Noodles, one day I googled the nutritional info. Not only did I discover that one of the dishes packed a whopping 900 calories per serving, I realized that the single BOWL they served was listed as having 2.5 'servings' in it, so actually the dish they served was 2250 calories! In one bowl.

Because it comes in one bowl, it leads you to think that the bowl they served was 900 calories. (Which in itself was a great deal). But looking at the nutritional info, it made clear that rather than a huge serving of 900 calories, the bowl on your tray it is in fact it's 2250 calories! (They have better options available. The Asian Salad or even the lettuce wraps are actually quite reasonable. And knowing the difference between the calories in a serving of lettuce wraps versus the 2250 calorie "serving" of another dish is extremely useful information to have. Just think, by scarfing down a single bowl of one dish in a chain restaurant, it's possible to exceed many people's entire daily allowance of calories and then some.)

Portion size is one of those things that drives me insane. Packaging is purposely deceptive to make you think that whatever the package is (bowl, plate, etc.) is ONE serving, and then you might look at the nutritional info and find out it's 2.5 like was pointed out above.

I can understand more, on let's say a bag of potato chips or Oreo cookies, where the package clearly contains multiple servings, but on something like a candy bar, or a beverage, the package/container should be considered ONE serving and have the nutritional data reflect that. People will make better choices when they see things like "This candy bar has HOW MANY calories/carbs/sugar, etc?!"

I know that personally I have issues with portion size and eat more than I should, and have to consciously limit my portions even of good things in my diet. The problem with being American is that it's hard to even wrap your head around the concept of a "normal" portion size because it's so skewed in all the packaging, restaurants, etc. When I am presented with a "normal" portion of anything I feel like I'm being ripped off because of the conditioning with larger portions. A good info graphic:

luckynky

It's funny that people think the government is stepping in too far, and yet, there was a time when it was very controversial to have labeling on foods. Lol. This is a next step. Just remember that. Resistance to change is weird. But, in 20 years, people will all be so happy hat restaurant menus have nutritional values on them. Lol

I have to agree with the idea that there is always a big uproar of people crying about how the government is forcing something on them, when it's clearly something that would be helpful to consumers. I mean, not everything the government does is for the consumer's interest (obviously, and no, I am definitely NOT pro-government in general). But I see so many people get all bent out of shape about things where I live like a smoking ban, which would ban smoking in places like restaurants. Really? You have to smoke while you're eating? I know people who don't smoke, but still get upset because they don't think the government should tell them what to do. So, it becomes complete idiocy. You know, the old adage: "cut off your face to spite your nose." Like the government shouldn't tell someone they can't go into your house and take whatever they want. There are plenty of times when the government needs to stay out of things, but it's not all one-sided. People just automatically get defensive, even if it's something that would actually be beneficial to them.

77tes

I love having nutritional info available online or printed on the menu, and I do choose restaurants that provide the information.

Do I think restaurants should be compelled to provde it - NO! No one is forced to eat at the restaurant, and if consumers want to know the info, they can choose their restaurants accordingly.

FREEDOM is worth the inconvenience!

Ready2Rock206

Coming from the restaurant industry, I don't feel it should be mandatory for small companies. It is VERY expensive to get your food nutritionally analyzed-- it has to be sent to a professional lab. Additionally, menus have to be reprinted, new signs made that are in compliance, etc. Any time you want to add new seasonal items you would have to go through it all over again.

Where I live smaller places are excluded. Also rather than having it right in the menu they often just have a separate nutritional guide either on the table or available from the waitress. So they can just add to or change the nutrition guide when needed.

ndj1979

I DON'T want the gov. involved in every aspect of my life!!

How is nutritional information being provided the government "getting involved" in your life? They aren't changing what you eat, they aren't forcing you to eat anything you don't want to, they're simply providing you with the opportunity to know what's going into your body.

once it ceases to become optional and the government forces you to do something that you do not want to do, then they are running your life, or your business or whatever....what comes after forcing restaurants to post said information? Are they next going to say that you can't serve a certain type of food, or limit drink sizes aka NYC....???

Joreanasaurous

Meh. I live in Cali so we already have something like this and I know part of Obamacare has something like this for the rest of the country that hasn't been implemented.

Knowing the calories or not hasn't affected my eating habits in the least. I could care less either way.

neandermagnon

A lot of places in the UK already do this, from coffee shops (Starbucks, Costa* etc.) to pub chains (JD Wetherspoons etc.), and it's listed alongside whether a meal is gluten free, vegetarian/vegan, or features a veg*n option. I don't consider it to be nannying in the slightest, I think it's a natural response to a growing interest and desire from consumers to know what they're eating.

*speaking of, it always horrifies me when I see the plaque in front of the cake slices with the calorie count on them in Costa.

But if its just "a lot" of the restaurants and not All the restaurants then its not government mandated its consumer driven. I'm not denying that its nice and convenient to have the information on the menu. I really like it. But I don't think the government should mandate that information. Businesses should choose to put the information on their menus because its what the consumers want. We are responsible for making healthy eating choices, not business, not government.

and one thing that enables people to make healthy choices is having the information about what's in the food they're eating, like how many grams of protein, fat and carbohydrate is in it.

The government isn't making any choices for anyone, but having nutritional information available enables people to make informed choices.

And why is it such an issue with restaurant food, when it's already law in most countries in the world for packaged food sold in shops to have the ingredients listed and the nutritional information? Why is that okay, but requiring restaurants to provide similar information "nannying" all of a sudden? If the government is banning certain foods, or putting limits to how much fat restauranteurs were allowed to put in their food, that would be nannying. That would be the government making choices for people, but simply providing information.... how is that making choices for someone? It's not. It's providing them with the necessary information to make informed choices....

DeeVanderbles

I don't see this as government interference. In fact, I kinda wish all restaurants had more than just calories and sodium and also a small barcode next to each item so you can just scan it into MFP or some other site instead of trying to search for it and finding the next best thing if it's not listed. I'm sure we'll get to that point some day.

I realize that it's costly to reprint menus, get food analyzed, etc., but I think we're headed in that direction, I just wish I could use that technology now.

neandermagnon

I DON'T want the gov. involved in every aspect of my life!!

How is nutritional information being provided the government "getting involved" in your life? They aren't changing what you eat, they aren't forcing you to eat anything you don't want to, they're simply providing you with the opportunity to know what's going into your body.

once it ceases to become optional and the government forces you to do something that you do not want to do, then they are running your life, or your business or whatever....what comes after forcing restaurants to post said information? Are they next going to say that you can't serve a certain type of food, or limit drink sizes aka NYC....???

why does one follow from the other? providing information is providing information. Banning certain portion sizes, foods etc is totally different.

The government is already forcing the manufacturers of packaged food sold in shops to provide a list of ingredients and nutritional information. Is that government nannying? Should they change the laws so food companies don't have to do that any more? And did that lead to the government banning shops from selling any kind of food?

ndj1979

It's funny that people think the government is stepping in too far, and yet, there was a time when it was very controversial to have labeling on foods. Lol. This is a next step. Just remember that. Resistance to change is weird. But, in 20 years, people will all be so happy hat restaurant menus have nutritional values on them. Lol

I have to agree with the idea that there is always a big uproar of people crying about how the government is forcing something on them, when it's clearly something that would be helpful to consumers. I mean, not everything the government does is for the consumer's interest (obviously, and no, I am definitely NOT pro-government in general). But I see so many people get all bent out of shape about things where I live like a smoking ban, which would ban smoking in places like restaurants. Really? You have to smoke while you're eating? I know people who don't smoke, but still get upset because they don't think the government should tell them what to do. So, it becomes complete idiocy. You know, the old adage: "cut off your face to spite your nose." Like the government shouldn't tell someone they can't go into your house and take whatever they want. There are plenty of times when the government needs to stay out of things, but it's not all one-sided. People just automatically get defensive, even if it's something that would actually be beneficial to them.

because in a free country it should be up to the consumer and the business owner....if I want to let people smoke in my restaurant, then go somewhere where they don't allow smokers...maybe I have determined that I can make money by offering a restaurant environment where people can smoke...If I lose business because no one comes to my restaurant then I go broke and close up shop....

If I want top post nutritional information great, if not then go somewhere else...

Why do you care if people want to smoke while eating? That is a personal decision that they have made on their own...

kellijauch

I don't think this is government interference. I think this is just making it easier for consumers to make healthy decisions. I tell you what, I'd be a lot more inclined to eat at a restuarant that Does have nutritional information available, versus one that doesn't. Maybe it doesn't need to be on the menu, but have it available for customers upon request.