Calories on menus - Government Nannying?

coolraul07

Where I work, our cafeteria has teamed up with MFP and they have bar codes on little printed signs that you can scan with your phone and the info populates your diary. How cool would it be if everyone started doing that?

Same here. That's how I found out about MFP in the first place. Even if it's not on MFP, their own website has NI for 95+% of their food options.

coolraul07

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

I wish I could take credit for the following quote, but it fits nevertheless.
"Having a 'non-smoking' section in a restaurant is like having a 'non-peeing' section in a swimming pool."

theslimapple

I agree with showing the calorie content of the food you're about to ingest. I worked as a fine dining cook for french, cajun and creole restaurants, and there are a lot of hidden calories in the foods you may think are healthy. For example, a broccoli soup might sound very healthy, but not if it's loaded with heavy cream and/or salt. The only way to know would be to have the calorie content next to the item on the menu.

It may seem like 'nannying', but, to me, whatever helps the consumer make smart decisions about their health is worth considering.

Kindone

no, they should not be forced to provide that information. As a business owner, it is each individual owners responsibility to determine what they will or will not post.

Besides, you do not get fat from not knowing what the calorie count is...you get fat from eating too many calories...

Whatever happened to personal responsibility?

How can I take personal responsibility if I don't have complete information? How can I not eat too many calories if I don't know how many there are? The only way would be to prepare all my food at home, so you just lost a customer.

As for being forced...it's a bit sad in my opinion that government involvement is necessary.

Since when did people - in general - become so stupid that they cannot determine what is good for them and what is not ...???

It is not that difficult to look over a menu and determine what is, what is not, good for oneself...

It is impossible to know if the cook tossed a cube of butter into a dish you think you know what it contains. I am a high maintenance consumer who always asks for *this* to be held or *that* to be subbed, but you really just don't know what's in there without adequate info.

I ordered an item at a stand where they assured me the only item they carried with wheat was a flour tortilla. I ordered accordingly. When the item came to me, I could see the fish was coated before cooked and asked "does this have a flour coating?" "Oh.. yeah."

That potential mistake could have meant two days in bed with a fever, bodyaches, and gastro issues along with missed work. I am more than happy to advocate for myself and be a (diplomatic and polite) PITA, but I cannot rely on others to be as vigilant as I am. Please give us information to make smart choices. That's all.

(edited for typos)

rpweed1

This is a complicated issue. On one hand, the restaurant industry has so many regulations placed on them. On the other, it's more government regulation.

I just wanted to add to this conversation by sharing a personal story. We enjoy going to Buffalo Wild Wings every now and then for drinks and to catch a ball game. Being very conscious of our caloric intake, we were ecstatic to find that our menu finally had the calories listed next to each item. We made a comment to the manager about how awesome it was. He looked worried and told us that Corporate made them throw all of those menus away and he was not aware that there were still some "calorie menus" floating around.

When asked why that was, he said that the Corporate HQ's for Buffalo Wild Wings had determined that there was a considerable profit loss when they were using the menus with the calories. Apparently, when the restaurant patrons were aware of the calories in each dish, they tended to order less food.

Fortunately, being "regulars," the manager allowed us to take the menu with us.

JUDDDing

It sure is convenient when they do provide the information.

(Though I've seen studies that only about 15% of people actually use said information even when it is posted).

Yes, and in the US this is quite clear when you see the 69%+ of us who are overweight.

However, even with that I have NO problems with there being regulations saying that they must provide access to information as to what is in food.

I think we have the RIGHT to know what's in the food that we eat. We're buying it. Why are people so willing to give corporations more rights than ourselves, as individuals? As an individual I deserve to know what's in what I pay for.

And since they basically have to be regulated into providing such information -- write rules requiring it.

We have to meet building codes requiring that we build structurally safe buildings (and have done so since the dawn of civilization, way back with Hammurabi). We have traffic laws so that we can travel with some limited order and generally understood ways of driving. Plus, general safety. We have water regulations so that we have safe drinking water, etc.

We have to have some rules in order function as an equitable society, where people have equal rights (meaning both sides have rights in this equation. The other side's doesn't trump mine) if we are to co-exist.

We have the right to know what's in the food we buy.

If we really want no regulations, go live in Somalia. See how well that works for general life safety and well being.

I agree, but I feel kind of dirty for doing so. :drinker:

The market should have met this need. (We, as consumers who should be fully informed, should not visit places that do not provide this information to us.) But it simply hasn't - and there is a steep personal and societal cost to not acting.

I use this information - the restaurants are the only ones who have it. I even used it pre-diet to make better choices where it was available.

No matter how much they whine - It's not that freaking hard for them to provide this info - and we know this - because we do this exercise on MFP daily (log recipes and measure portions). This is not about personal responsibility at all.

Bring on the law.

(shudder)

43932452

I don't agree that any Govt should push this but ..

I do think if restaurants care about their customers they
should print 2sets of menus .. like how they offer coffee/
decaf.. Some customers might care, others won't
but they will have a blend if interest and should cater to
both!

Kindone

When asked why that was, he said that the Corporate HQ's for Buffalo Wild Wings had determined that there was a considerable profit loss when they were using the menus with the calories. Apparently, when the restaurant patrons were aware of the calories in each dish, they tended to order less food.

Fortunately, being "regulars," the manager allowed us to take the menu with us.

I can see this being so. Sorry about their profits ..

That said, how about having those menus available for those who ask for them and not circulate the technical ones? I don't need a flashing billboard with the data. I just want it available!

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....???

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?

because that is the way that it always works...the government gets involved and says "oh, it is just for this one little thing" and then thirty years later they are running the whole industry. Look at medicare, they said it would only be a 60 billion dollar program, and now it is in the trillions and trillions and from that we get National Health Care and everything else...you give them an inch and they take thirty miles...

Government, by nature, always seeks to expand ....Give me an example of a Government in history that has ever gotten smaller?

NASA

I was referring to government in the abstract, not a program but a Government - US, UK, France, etc - that has from inception to where it is now, shrunk...

ndj1979

It is not that difficult to look over a menu and determine what is, what is not, good for oneself...

Except in some circumstances, it is. The calorie count, one assumes, will take account of how the meal has hypothetically been prepared and what it's been cooked in. A meal that appears healthy on a menu may not be as healthy as one expects by virtue of a multitude of reasons that exist beyond a simple blurb.

I work in the food industry, I don't need to patronised by your comments wrt "it's common sense". If it was as simple as "common sense", there would be far fewer issues with diet-related health issues.

Its not patronizing to assume that people are smart enough to figure out that if you eat the dish that is covered in cream sauce it is going to have a lot of calories. Do you really think someone orders something loaded with crap and thinks "oh this is sooo healthy for me..."???

People have health related issues because they choose to eat more than they take in and eat crap, not because there is not enough information posted on menus. I mean there is a plethora of information on the web, on the news, in books, magazines, etc, that explains what is going to happen if you do not eat well. You really think that there will be less health issues if the government forces business to post nutritional information, really? In my experience, government involvement makes the problem worse not better.

mojohowitz

I don't care if the government pushes it or not. I have had enough of that argument with paranoid sociopaths here at work. Seriously, go back to your bunker in Utah and shut your man-pleaser.

I CAN tell you that since Panera Bread starting posting calories I find myself going there if I HAVE to do fast food. However, you have to do a little homework to discover sodium content. It's horrific.

The more I learn about fast food the more I realize how terrible it really is. If the food is lower calorie, they make up for it with sodium and vice versa.

Solution: Eat protein, vegetables and whole grains, at home, as often as possible. Leave the griping about government intrusion to Ted Nugent.

Edit for craapy speeling.

jsj024519

they can't limit your intake, but I think the knowledge would help many people make better choices.

This^

susannamarie

Eh,

I think that forcing restaurants to adhere to calorie/sodium guidelines would be completely unnecessary government nannying. I don't want to be told that I have to order 2-3 meals to get in the calories I need for a heavy mid-day meal after some strenuous exertion.

But I think that *publishing* the information is a good idea. People can make up their own mind what to do with the information.

MobOfBricks

Hi everybody,
what an interesting thread!

As I grew up in restaurants, worked, managed and owned several and in different countries i will tell you this:

Providing nutritional info on my "Soupe du Jour", would have been the least of my problems as a restaurant owner.
Restaurant owners evolved and are evolving their practices every day.
Spending more money for a more "advanced" Chef that will make this, also his responsibility it s not a big deal. The same way it wasnt a big deal when the market forced me to get a website, or have WiFi, or pay my BMI fees, and the list can go on for days.

If the "government" decides to get involved, then they are going to need money for obvious reasons. Getting the "House" to vote for it is going to need Lobbying. Who is going to do it?

So my point is, that restaurants do not provide Nutritional info the same way "prop 37" was so difficult. We have Democracy, We the people are the government (not some extraterrestrial tribe) but we dont care enough. We will care for eachother once we become more responsible than we are today. Until that happens we will be eating a 2500 cal burger and thinking it s a 1000 cal "treat".

redheaddee

Yes I think restaurants should post the info, and most do. Should it be required by the government? No, but it will have to be otherwise many wouldn't do it. It is very eye opening to see how many calories are really in that "value meal" you just purchased. Maybe some people will make healthier choices as a result.

witmer1

I don't think it's government nannying. If we want to cure the obesity epidemic, it's necessary for people to be mindful of what they eat. It may also cause some companies to make their items lower in calories to cater to those making better decisions. I may not eat the most healthy things at every meal, but when I go out to eat, calorie counts on products or menus make my decisions much easier and aid me in my weight loss.

If companies are required to put nutritional information on packaged products, it makes sense that restaurants need to do the same. If you don't care how many calories are in something, don't read it. It's your choice.

ndj1979

Government, by nature, always seeks to expand ....Give me an example of a Government in history that has ever gotten smaller?

Irish Home Rule? The devolution of power from Westminster to Wales, N. Ireland and Scotland? (Scottish parliament could be a particular argument here.) The commonwealth and associated countries? The UK government has far less power now than it once did. There are so many examples of governments that have fallen or lost power and have 'grown smaller' simply because their nation's influence, power and reach has decreased if we're talking about it in literal terms.

But if you're talking about a small government WRT laissez faire politics, libertarianism and privatisation? In living memory, Thatcher epitomised that -- especially in comparison to the Labour government that directly preceded her Tory government. So: there's at least one for you.

Thatcher was a politician within a political party, not a government. The UK government has more power over their people today then they did in Thatcher's time..so I respectfully disagree with your example. Just look at National Institute of Healthy and how they determine who does, or does not, get care..

I am not talking about political party's or individual leaders, I am talking about government as something that, over time, encroaches on people's liberties/lives. It has happened in the US over the past 100 years....

Commander_Keen

you should email them, <the company > and tell them you will not give them 1 dime until they responce. You should also tell them, that you are going to encourage your friends to do the same.

When company's start to loose money, that is when they will start to listen

mdhummel

I like having access to the nutrition content on the menu, but it is hard for restaurants to publish accurate information since portions can vary. Larger meat portions or extra sauce can add up to a few hundred extra calories!

sevsmom

Playing devil's advocate here. . . if the government where you lives offers you health care be it universal or age/poverty related (Medicare/Medicaid) shouldn't that goverment take steps that help minimize the costs associated with your future health care needs?? Doesn't it make sense for them to try to stave off expenses in medical costs by providing people with ample opportunities to make informed/best practice choices?

I'm not a "big" government fan.

However, when we sit back and rely on the government to provide us with health care, we have to expect they will take steps to soften the blow of costs.

"We' (used collectively and not personally inclusively) expect our government to take care of so much, yet get riled when they step in to make necessary changes to mitigate future losses/expenses.

Calories on menus.