Poll: Should calorie counts be added to more menus?

Beth720

I'm pretty sure it's a law at least in NYC that ant place that's "fast food" has to show the calorie counts on the menus. Starbucks, McDonald's, movie theaters, etc. As I'm typing this, I'm thinking of one place that I would consider "fast food" that doesn't list the cals...so I'm not sure what's up with that. But I seem to remember it being a big deal a couple of years ago.

I agree that it's definitely nice to have. But also I can see myself becoming obsessive about it - I have walked out of places muttering "too many calories!!" even if it was under my remaining amount. So it's sort of a double edged sword - it's good information, but can make you obsessive. And I don't have an obsessive personality, so I can only imagine if I did...

baker_c

YES, YES, YES!! You think your eating healthy when you have a grilled chicken sandwich on a whole wheat bun, what they don't tell you is they grilled your chicken in lemon butter and they put a huge glob of mayonase on your bun before they toasted it. Unless they put the caolires on the menus - you only think you are making a wise choice.

I go online for calorie counts before I make my decisions now - This way I know.

AngelDog1

I would say "yes".
But that's only if the calories and other nutritional items are accurate. I mean, I'm sure most reputable places would try their best to provide the most up to date information, but how do we really know for sure? Is there a research group or a committee or something that goes around to test everything on a menu just to make sure? Or are we as consumers just blindly assuming the posted nutrition is accurate? Just curious. :huh:

countrymama08

I know I spoke with staff at Applebee's when they started with WW points on their menu. They said it was not cost effective since they had to weigh and measure each items going into the recipe/dish. I think this would be an issue with some people since the calorie count could be off based on the size of a chicken breast or amount of oil used. Things are not measured in a kitchen when they are preparing quickly.

That said, I think if people understand this is accurateish then it would be nice. I would not like it on menus. I would like it available in some form whether it be website or flyer. Local establishments might be hurt by this is they are unable to publish it and remain in the black. I have heard they may be exempt.

On the school lunch issue...I think a lot of nutritious eating needs to start at home.

I know I have seen education on the food pyramid, proper portions, and healthy eating. The cafeteria serves french fries, baked nuggets, pizza, and other "junk." but they also serve a veggie daily and each student must take a fruit or veggie. Are they the tastiest? No, but then again... We have 2 cafe workers. One to take money and one to serve food. Between the budget, trying to accelerate academics, testing, federal core standards, and every other item in education, who will be paying for fresher food and more staff to cook and the hours needed.

I see packed lunched of chips, cookies, and "lunchables." I have a few friends who cook dinner. Then I have a bunch of friends and see various students who eat chicken nuggets for dinner. One friend asks her daughter what she wants for dinner. She does not want her to have issues with food so she does not push her to eat what they are having for dinner. She eats cheerioes for dinner, pasta, or kid cuisine. By not pushing the issue and giving her a dinner she is not eating healthy.

Sorry for the side track onto school lunch. I think it is a sticking point since I often hear people gripe but many don't carry through at home. Too many activities and too much work.

A final thought on calories on menus. I think it is a good idea but I also think there are a lot of people who obsess about calories and being bad and not understanding nutrition. They will eat calories and not food.

LuckyLeprechaun

I would say "yes".
But that's only if the calories and other nutritional items are accurate. I mean, I'm sure most reputable places would try their best to provide the most up to date information, but how do we really know for sure? Is there a research group or a committee or something that goes around to test everything on a menu just to make sure? Or are we as consumers just blindly assuming the posted nutrition is accurate? Just curious. :huh:

I heard somewhere that the calorie counts (and everything else) can be as much as 20% off. So the accuracy is definitely in question. Another reason I question the value of adding all those costs to every restaurant's overhead.

We know the basics, right? avoid fried, creamy or cheesy, instead choose baked, steamed or grilled. Increase lean protein and veggies, reduce sugars , fats and salty seasonings. Even if you don't know an accurate calorie count, if you follow those kinds of guidelines, you won't go too far off the rails. Don't eat massive portion sizes. This is what I do when I go to a restaurant that doesn't have easily accessible info...

HealthyChanges2010

Or are we as consumers just blindly assuming the posted nutrition is accurate? Just curious. :huh:

Unfortunately from what I've read when they did studies, it's very inaccurate, so though we work hard to look foods up, the cals/fats etc. they don't have to be precise, and often times up to 20% over what they say. Which seems alot to me. I rarely go out to eat, as in almost never anymore, it just doesn't appeal to me anymore. I can cook up whatever I'd like at home and have it far tastier, healthier, far less costly, leftovers and be fine with that. Blowing 1000 cals on a meal for a chicken sandwich doesn't appeal to me.

I agree, I do think some take the web info far too seriously but not sure what the answer is for those that dine out often?

Becca:flowerforyou:

LuckyLeprechaun

hey- confirmation of the 20%....super-scary huh?

Cytherea

I am surprised at how many people voted no!! I don't think the "nanny state" argument holds here at all. The government is not forcing the calorie/fat/etc. to be at or under a certain amount, they are requiring that the information is published, which is different. Personally, I'm all for the truth, however we come by it. I think that everything should be open. California passing the law about nutritional information perfectly coincided with my weight loss journey, and I am so grateful that it did. Sure, it won't help everybody, but for people who are health conscious, it will. They don't have to add it directly to the menu, many places have a supplementary "menu" with the dishes and the information listed. Some leave it on the table, some give it to you with the menu, and other places you have to ask, but they will find it for you. Personally, I think ANY of those options is ok, whatever is best for the restaurant. I don't like to go to chains, but sometimes you have to (say you are with friends or something) and I'd much rather be able to look it up beforehand or look at the information there and know what I'm eating rather than guess based on something else that may or may not be accurate. There are obvious guidelines to follow, but just because you got baked chicken doesn't mean that they didn't add a ton of oil when cooking it or who knows what else. Same thing goes for simple things, like vegetables and rice. If you ask for steamed vegetables, they add a ton of butter and salt to it. You have to ask for the steamed veggies plain, with nothing on them. Really annoying. And salad is never a good choice, even though it seems to be, and you have no idea what dressings are worse than others (other than creamy vs. oil-based)- they vary incredibly.

Long story short, I voted yes. I prefer going to smaller, non-chain restaurants, but it is so hard when I know I'm just guessing/estimating the caloric/etc. value of everything I eat. I think they might get even more business if they published these things- I know that I certainly would give them more of my business!!

HealthyChanges2010

I am surprised at how many people voted no!! I don't think the "nanny state" argument holds here at all. The government is not forcing the calorie/fat/etc. to be at or under a certain amount, they are requiring that the information is published, which is different. Personally, I'm all for the truth, however we come by it. I think that everything should be open. California passing the law about nutritional information perfectly coincided with my weight loss journey, and I am so grateful that it did. Sure, it won't help everybody, but for people who are health conscious, it will. They don't have to add it directly to the menu, many places have a supplementary "menu" with the dishes and the information listed. Some leave it on the table, some give it to you with the menu, and other places you have to ask, but they will find it for you. Personally, I think ANY of those options is ok, whatever is best for the restaurant. I don't like to go to chains, but sometimes you have to (say you are with friends or something) and I'd much rather be able to look it up beforehand or look at the information there and know what I'm eating rather than guess based on something else that may or may not be accurate. There are obvious guidelines to follow, but just because you got baked chicken doesn't mean that they didn't add a ton of oil when cooking it or who knows what else. Same thing goes for simple things, like vegetables and rice. If you ask for steamed vegetables, they add a ton of butter and salt to it. You have to ask for the steamed veggies plain, with nothing on them. Really annoying. And salad is never a good choice, even though it seems to be, and you have no idea what dressings are worse than others (other than creamy vs. oil-based)- they vary incredibly.

Long story short, I voted yes. I prefer going to smaller, non-chain restaurants, but it is so hard when I know I'm just guessing/estimating the caloric/etc. value of everything I eat. I think they might get even more business if they published these things- I know that I certainly would give them more of my business!!

:flowerforyou: