Calories on menus - Government Nannying?

MyM0wM0w

Should restaurants be forced to provide their calorie/sodium information in such a highly visible manner, or is this another case of the government sticking their nose where it doesn't belong?

Hellz yes! Why WOULDN'T they want to put it out there, unless they are ashamed. I want to know what they offer and the nutritional info so I can chose what I want to eat. I'd eat out a heck of a lot more if all restaraunts had that option.

Edited to add : And blah blah blah to turning this into an anti Obama soapbox.

lyndausvi

Under Obamacare there IS a national law regarding nutritional info. It just hasn't been taken into effect yet. Granted I am curious if it will ever see the light of day, but part of the Obamacare bill included nutritional info on I believe all restaurant chains of 20 or more.
Edit to add the first source I found on Google: http://thanksobamacare.org/index.php?id=8

It's been a pretty hot topic lately so I'm surprised people don't know about it since every chain and their mother are suddenly crying over it.

You're right, but it does not apply to small operations.

And it does not require an FDA lab.

It requires:

"‘‘(iv) REASONABLE BASIS.—For the purposes of this clause,
a restaurant or similar retail food establishment shall have a
reasonable basis for its nutrient content disclosures, including
nutrient databases, cookbooks, laboratory analyses, and other
reasonable means, as described in section 101.10 of title 21,
Code of Federal Regulations (or any successor regulation) or in
a related guidance of the Food and Drug Administration."

http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf Pg 500

Interesting. Thank you for clarifying. I'm curious how this is going to be enforced and regulated.

What I find entertaining is some of the chains making a stink about how hard this is going to be already do it here in California. So if they are already providing nutritional info at Ca locations it can't be that hard to figure out is it? Or am I just completely missing something....

My DH is a chef for a major hotel chain. All of the properties serve different food, so just because they do it in CA doesn't mean the food is served in Atlanta. But I agree that for a chain like Mc Donald's it should not be hard to figure out.

DH just changed his menu and had to re-print them at a cost of $15K. Reprinting room service menus cost way more to change. Since a lot of fast food chains are actually individually owned and they are basically small business owners. Changing menus and signs can be costly. I think people would be surprised at the cost of doing business when it comes to restaurants.

On another note, how do daily specials fit into all this? Does the server say "Today we have a 834 calorie dish with blah, blah and blah as a special"

Overall I like the idea and have used the information. On the other hand it takes some of the creativity of chefs like my DH. He is part of a 'big chain' but not really because all the restaurants are different within the company. He makes up specials on a whim, loosely based on a recipe and he rarely measures anything out. It's just trial and error.

Nightterror218

several chain restaurants already have nutritional value for their foods on their websites. Would not be to hard for them to put them on menus. Depending on where you go places already post the calories of means on their menus.

I do not think this is government interference, since it is not the federal government doing this. It is either cities or states saying they want this.

SoDamnHungry

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

I agree with this poster. Our government isn't tell you what you can and cannot order. It's helping the consumer make informed decisions.

Love it!

brower47

I guess I'm not a member of the choir. I don't think chains or small mom and pop eateries should be forced to provide the information.

Consumers can choose where they eat. If a restaurant doesn't choose to provide the info, a customer can choose not to dine there.

It's called voting with your wallet. Most chains already provide it (maybe not on the menu but online). I'd rather not have yet another department in the government dedicated to this sort of nit picking. I also shudder at the possible litigation aspects.

I prefer being responsible for myself in as many aspects of life as possible, this one included. It's such a small thing for me to control individually but, considering the sheer number of different types of eating establishments that exist, that's a huge waste of time and resources for a government to get involved in when the possible benefits are so inconsequential.

Will forcing restaurants to provide this information make a dent in obesity rates? Highly unlikely. I'd rather my government focus its energies and my money in more productive areas where it might actually make a difference.

babyluthi

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:

Herein lies the problem.
It is a great idea, but who is going to police it?
A restaurant can put whatever calories they ike on thier food, but is it the truth?
I wouldn't trust it.

Quinn_Baker

I simply Think it is right to be able to know what is in the food you're eating. it's kind of like when companies have to include all of their policies in the fine print. Its not government interference, it's just our right to know

metacognition

Bureaucratic nannies often begin with feel good, common sense measures. Any law that imposes an unnecessary overhead to businesses in our current economy is morally wrong. Offering calorie counts is not necessary for providing safe or quality food to customers. It is an optional service.

It's an expense to the restaurant to have their food laboratory tested for calories and their signs / menus reprinted.
Franchises are individually owned and the costs will move down to the small business operators.

Smart restaurants will cater to the desires of their clients.
If I want a place to have nutrition information I ask or limit my meals to places that care enough to offer it.

Does this law help me individually ? Yes because I like precisely counting calories. No because the price of food at these places goes up to balance the additional cost. I can't afford to eat out anyway, so it doesn't matter. Maybe it's not so bad that fast food joints like McDonalds have priced themselves out of my budget. I don't believing in spending $5 for a ready made chicken sandwich on a microwaved bun, when I can get a reasonable meal for 20% of the cost at home.

Morgaath

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

I agree with this poster. Our government isn't tell you what you can and cannot order. It's helping the consumer make informed decisions.

Pretty much. I remember years ago, my girlfriend being shocked to learn that the "healthy, made with fresh ingredients" Taco Salad she ordered had more calories and fat in it than the burger and fries I was eating.
If no one tells you, how will you ever learn?

What I think is funny is I sit down and put together a fairly good calorie count based on the foods I eat here on MFP...but a big name company with standardized products and sizes says it cost to much money for them to do it. Really? Maybe the real issue is that some of them have no idea what really is in the food (A friend worked at a big chain fast food place years ago as a manager. The official corporate book said the beef had to be at least 51% beef. Never once was the other 49% mentioned).

MercuryBlue

I agree, it should be mandatory to have calories on menus. People can choose to ignore it if it doesn't interest them, so I don't see how providing that information to customers who are interested would be harmful in any way. I can't tell you how many times I've gone to a restaurant and gone crazy trying to calculate on my own how many calories I was eating. I'm kind of a math/numbers girl, and I am really dependent on that information when trying to lose weight- it's just the only thing I've ever found works for me, personally. I need to know what I'm eating and what I'm burning, so I can track it. I guess my point is that, I see it as something that would be far more helpful than harmful in the long run.

But, on the other hand, if they're going to do this than they sort of have to get better control over providing consistent-sized portions. It seems to me that I've read a few articles in the past that said, because of human error and guess-work when portioning dishes, a meal will frequently have as many as several hundred more calories than advertised. So if they're going to post that information, care should also be taken to make sure it's as accurate as possible.

michael9346

More and more of Americans are committing suicide and don't even know it. Why? Because they have no clue what is in their choices at their favorite restaurants. We focus only on calories because we need to lose weight, but what about sodium? (high blood pressure) cholesterol ( clogged arteries) Seems the government stuck their noses in on the smokers. Is this any worse? Watch any food network show and these ignorant chefs are screaming "more seasoning" then they reach into a salt bowl and toss in a handful of salt. My solution? Quit buying cheap grades of product and let your customer decide if he wants "seasoning" .

I was in a Smokey Bones Restaurant the other day and overheard the table in front of me (2 people) order 2 appetizers, 2 combo rib dinner with 2 sides, as well as 2 beers. I didn't stick around to see what they ordered for dessert, but giving them the benefit of the doubt that they didn't order dessert I figured out their calories on EACH meal. Approximately 6400 calories. Sodium? 13,300 Mg sodium. EACH!!! Do you really believe for one minute they have any clue what they just consumed? Of course not. The restaurant chooses not to show the nutritionals on the menu.

I have made the decision to not patronize any restaurant that does not post nutritionals on their website or have a copy available for their guests in the restaurant. If I would have made this decision 10 years ago maybe, just maybe, I could have saved $100,000.00 dollars on my triple bypass open heart surgery.

aloranger7708

I don't think its controlling at all. People have free will and are able to choose. Most people don't care about calories, to be honest. When my boyfriend goes to McDonald's he orders the 580 calorie Big Mac with a side of fries and a large drink without hesitation. I think its great to have the calories there for people who actually care, like me, for when I'm "forced" () to eat fast food and want to make the best decision possible.

brower47

Is the point of this to help people not become overweight or lose weight? Is it designed to help fight obesity? I think it is.

Then answer me this. Nutritional labels (in the US) became mandatory on most food products in 1990. Has the rate of obesity gone up or down since then?

Does anyone really think this will have an appreciable effect?

Is the cost really worth the result, that result being next to nothing?

JUDDDing

Is the point of this to help people not become overweight or lose weight? Is it designed to help fight obesity? I think it is.

Then answer me this. Nutritional labels (in the US) became mandatory on most food products in 1990. Has the rate of obesity gone up or down since then?

Does anyone really think this will have an appreciable effect?

Is the cost really worth the result, that result being next to nothing?

Both

Up, but fewer people are cooking for themselves now too.

Yes - we rattle on and on about how we need to provide more education but balk at a simple, required tool like this?

Yes, because in the whole scheme of things, the cost is also nearly nothing - in my opinion. I've never heard a restaurant complain about printing costs when they regularly reprint to increase prices - have you? So I reject the printing argument. This is a known periodic expense and they could have already complied on their regularly scheduled updates.

JUDDDing

But, on the other hand, if they're going to do this than they sort of have to get better control over providing consistent-sized portions. It seems to me that I've read a few articles in the past that said, because of human error and guess-work when portioning dishes, a meal will frequently have as many as several hundred more calories than advertised. So if they're going to post that information, care should also be taken to make sure it's as accurate as possible.

Portion control is already a large part of properly running a restaurant.

But yeah, there will be some variance. Some variance is still better than no information at all.

ndj1979

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....

Within the UK, at least, a reference to Thatcher's government is acknowledged to specifically refer to the period of time in which the Conservative Party was in power under her rule and the Labour Party in opposition. Thus, I'll reiterate, that from the government in the '70s to the government in the '80s through to 1997, there was a decrease in size. Your original question didn't specify that the government presently be smaller than it was previously, only that it had, at one point, decreased. I certainly won't disagree that it's increased since 1997, courtesy of Tony Blair's New Labour, although since the Conservative Party has regained power, the size of the UK government has comparatively decreased. See: David Cameron, Small Government/Big Society.

Nevertheless, I would argue that the idea of a 'small government' in and of itself in somewhat flawed in light of the way that the world is connected at present. Unless there's a collapse of government, given the manner in which information is exchanged; the manner in which companies and the free market operate (obligatory LOL BANKS comment goes here); and the public demands greater access to information and demands for accountability, "small government" is just. It's flawed. The governmental system in and of itself at present is utterly flawed, but that's a debate for another time and place, and certainly not for a fitness forum.

That aside, wrt your mention of the "National Institute of Healthy" [sic], I'll admit to a relative lack of knowledge on that front. I cannot nor will I ever agree with a healthcare system that is not free at point of use nor freely available to everyone within a nation. I adore the premise of the NHS despite the flaws currently present in its practice.

It appears (I believe) that we're on somewhat different sides of the political fence and though I've ... been tempted to descend into hyperbole at times, I think I'm just going to say that I disagree with your stance (and you disagree with mine), but I respect your opinion and your right to it, and I hope you respect mine and my right to it.

And I hope we can both agree that whatever shape it takes, it's a pity that more people aren't taking more accountability for their health and fitness, and knowledge of related matters. Government nannying or not, studies have shown that the availability of nutritional information on menus is negligible with regards to results on dining choices; having not read the studies myself, I'd guess that for a vast majority it'd be a case of ignoring it, being unaware of RDAs and/or one's own calorific needs, or simple underestimating one's intake throughout the rest of the day.

ha - agree to disagre then ...I am cool with that ...

I was looking at government from conception to present ....they typically start small with less powers, and over time evolve into larger and larger institutions with more power. Once institutions have power they are not quick to cede it back..that is just the nature of bureaucracy ...

As fars as my political leanings, I think both parties are a bunch of idiotic buffoons who do not have a clue what the real american is thinking or wants...

but my motto on government is "less is better..." and I will leave it at that

cupcakes_and_cardio

I don't think it's "sticking their nose where it doesn't belong". A lot of people, including myself, would love to be able to know how much we're eating before we order, it's more convenient and in the long-run, healthier for everyone. For some people it won't matter either way, but I think it's a great idea.

ShengHuo

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.

How about using some common sense? I know that if I eat a bucket of fried chicken and mashed potatoes that I am going to blow out my calories for the day, so I choose not to have that. Or, if I am out at a nice place and I want a certain menu item but it comes with cream sauce I say "I would like that menu item with no sauce, or with vegetables and not the pasta..."

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...

Often times the food in restaurants have more added sugar and fat than what I would make at home. My cream sauces generally use milk, not full fat cream. How do I know what the restaurant uses if they don't tell me? My mashed potatoes are made with little butter and skim milk. How do I know how much butter is added at a restaurant? And things like that are general knowledge because we've been informed, via nutrition labels that the government "forces" companies to put on packaging. Do you think cereal companies, cheese companies, the cracker people, etc liked having to put that information on the packaging? The government made them. Why should I be able to compare which cereal has fewer calories, but not which burger at the same restaurant does? Do the regular fries or sweet potato fries have fewer calories or the same? And maybe those calories change depending on the place's recipe. How would I know if that information wasn't available to me?

So once again, how can I take personal responsibility if I don't have the information?

x3samanthasue

I don't think it should be required - but I wouldn't complain if it was. I personally love it when restaurants put the calories on the menu board. Some people might think seeing how high-calorie certain dishes are might turn people off, but I'm far more likely to order something spur of the moment when I'm out when I don't have to download a nutrition .pdf on my smartphone to scan through for something I can eat.

I do think that restaurants should be held to accuracy and honesty though when reporting nutritional information. I know that each dish/food item is prepared slightly differently so it's still an estimate, but I do sometimes wonder how accurate some things are.