It should be required by federal law...
Replies
-
Good. We've established such a law is feasible (already implemented in some places[1]), promotes the general wellfare (study[2] and user comments on here), and didn't require a giant new bureaucracy.
[1] https://www.countyofsb.org/uploadedFiles/phd/EHS/Calif Menu Labeling Guidlelines.pdf
[2] http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/15/us-health-menu-calorie-idUSBRE91E15O20130215
Amazingly, the Cheesecake Factory found ways to include vast quantities of calories, sodium, and saturated fat in their grilled chicken entrees. That an item was cooked on a grill does not preclude it being marinated and basted with salt and oil. By letting the consumer know, we put the power in their hands to make a good choice. Again, studies show when consumers do have that info, they tend to make better choices.I can pick something and modify it and end up with grilled chicken breast, some tomatoe sauce, veggies, and have it be OK.
While it's been established this benefits the general wellfare of the populace, certainly, any change should be via legal means, either by direct vote or vote for a representative advocating this.How is forcing them to do something that clearly their clientele do not mind
The law gives local enforcement agencies the responsibility to verify the restaurant used a "reasonable basis" to determine the nutritional information is reasonably accurate (+/- 20%). This "reasonable basis" may include (by law) standardized recipes, adding up the nutritional value of the component items, staff training, and measuring tools to prevent gross errors. As with health code violations, audits wouldn't catch every violator every time, and complaints would play a role.The problem is, how do they regulate how accurate it is?
California excluded small businesses. Solve the biggest/easiest problems first.I think this wouldn't be a bad idea for larger restaurants especially chains to have this.
0 -
But someday I might, and if that happens, yes, I would like profitable businesses to provide me with nutrition information, and in my opinion it's reasonable to make them do so.
1. Who is going to determine which business are profitable and so should be providing said information?
2. Who is going to pay for the person who is going to run this kind of analysis?
3. Are you willing to pay higher prices for the additional expenses that businesses, especially small businesses, will incur as a result of this mandate?
4. What is reasonable? If a business has a profit margin of 1% and your need for nutritional information makes them unprofitable, is that reasonable?
And....
Here is the kicker....
5. Why can't you assume some personal responsibility and do some research for yourself to make your own choices? Are you that busy? Is it that hard? If you order a cheeseburger with french fries and dessert, you can pretty much assume it's going to have a high calorie count. If you order a salad will a number of high calorie items on it, guess what? High calorie count.
Good lord.
If the nutrition info is available online, I'm willing to see it as a reasonable compromise. If it isn't available anywhere, I can't take proper personal responsibility for myself if I don't have the correct information, except of course to avoid any place that doesn't provide it. There goes the power luncheon I had planned to participate in. Darn, was so looking forward to it. Guess I could sip ice water while my future colleagues stuff their faces?
If it's not a huge burden for food companies to put nutritional info on the packaging it shouldn't be for restaurants, either. But silly me! I haven't asked you: Would you agree that forcing anyone to label their food with ingredients and calorie counts is just big government overstepping their bounds? Should we put a stop to that as well? After all, it costs money to regulate, enforce, and carry out.
Next you'll want cooks to weigh your food as they prepare it. Lol.
It isn't that there isn't info out there, it is that mandating more info isn't necessarily more valuable and has many costs.
I posted about this awhile back. Food manufactures have a huge leeway of %20 in their package estimations, so no, the cook shouldn't have to go nuts weighing and measuring. A decent estimate for %90 or so of available dishes would be fine, thus even excluding dishes that change regularly from day to day or week to week. And only for large and profitable companies, exclude the mom and pops, what few remain.
Actually there are more small restaurants than you think. I spent a week in California eating exclusively in restaurants (my father liked taking me out) and we only ate at small places - from the local bagel shop to the sushi place to the fancy pants French restaurant.
The already proposed requirements aren't just guess and put it out there. There are pretty explicit and heavy...A restaurant or similar retail food establishment must provide
to FDA, within a reasonable period of time upon request, information
substantiating nutrient values including the method and data used to
derive these nutrient levels. This information must include the
following:
(i) For nutrient databases:
(A) The identity of the database used.
(B) The recipe or formula used as a basis for the nutrient
declarations. The recipe posted on the database must be identical to
that used by the restaurant or similar retail food establishment to
prepare the menu item.
(C) For the specified amounts of each ingredient identified in the
recipe, a detailed listing (e.g., printout) of the amount of each
nutrient that that ingredient contributes to the menu item.
(D) If this information is not available because the nutrition
information was derived from a computer program, which is designed to
provide only a final list of nutrient values for the recipe, a
certificate of validation attesting to the accuracy of the computer
program.
(E) A detailed listing (e.g., printout) of the nutrient values
determined for each menu item.
(F) If this information is not derived through the aid of a
computer program
Page 19236
which provides a final nutrient analysis for the menu item, worksheets
used to determine the nutrient values for each of these menu items.
(G) Any other information pertinent to the final nutrient levels of
the menu item (e.g., information about what might cause slight
variations in the nutrient profile such as moisture variations).
(H) A statement signed by a responsible individual employed by the
covered establishment that can certify that the information contained
in the nutrient analysis is complete and accurate and that the recipe
used to prepare the menu item is identical to that used for the
nutrient analysis.
(ii) For published cookbooks that contain nutritional information
for recipes in the cookbook:
(A) The name, author and publisher of the cookbook used.
(B) If available, information provided by the cookbook about how
the nutrition information for the recipes was obtained.
(C) A copy of the recipe used to prepare the menu item and a copy
of the nutrition information for that menu item as provided by the
cookbook.
(D) A statement signed by a responsible individual employed by the
covered establishment certifying that the recipe used to prepare the
menu item by the restaurant or similar retail food establishment is the
same recipe provided in the cookbook. (Recipes may be divided as
necessary to accommodate differences in the portion size derived from
the recipe and that are served as the menu item but no changes may be
made to the proportion of ingredients used.)
(iii) For analyses:
(A) A copy of the recipe for the menu item used for the nutrient
analysis.
(B) The identity of the laboratory performing the analysis.
(C) Copies of analytical worksheets used to determine and verify
nutrition information.
(D) A statement signed by a responsible individual employed by the
covered establishment that can certify that the information contained
in the nutrient analysis is complete and accurate and an additional
signed statement certifying that the recipe used to prepare the menu
item is identical to that used for the nutrient analysis.
(iv) For nutrition information provided by other reasonable means:
(A) A detailed description of the method used to determine the
nutrition information.
(B) Documentation of the validity of that method.
(C) A recipe or formula used as a basis for the nutrient
determination. The recipe used in determining these nutrient values
must be the same recipe used by the restaurant and similar retail food
establishment to prepare the item.
(D) Any data derived in determining the nutrient values for the
menu item.
(E) A statement signed by a responsible individual employed by the
covered establishment that can certify that the information contained
in the nutrient analysis is complete and accurate and that the recipe
used to prepare the menu item is identical to that used for the
nutrient analysis.
Again, there is no need for smaller places to do this stuff, and that should be fine.
It's fine by me if small businesses don't have to comply, and apparently the FDA is fine with it, too. I'm not even too arsed about wanting to see up to the minute calorie counts in the restaurant or in the stores on a giant board at delis. Just list it somewhere, even if it's only online it would be okay for the vast majority of people. They could keep an updated calorie menu at the register if someone doesn't have access and wants to know.0 -
I guess maybe the government should have us all on feeding tubes too.
Also, all you people crying BW3 aren't "real" wings or whatever, I am sure you like Pizza Hut or McDonald's or Don Pablo's. Don't let your obsession with "authenticity" stand in the way of you and Spicy Garlic sauce, mmkay?0 -
GEEZ Handbags down people!!
Honestly I don't think you need to go as far as enforcing it as law. However I would like to see customers pressure stores into providing this information as I would find it quite useful. I think stores would come around to it if customers just made their voices heard and let them know this was desirable. A venue that did this would instantly become more attractive to dieters and those who watch their calories and nutrition. And in case you haven't noticed there is quite a lot of us. This is a good idea but it's not right to stamp our feet we just need to let these business know that it's in their best interests too. Works the other way round too. If a company fails to provide this very easily provided info when pressured you can probably assume it doesn't want you to know what's in it's food.0 -
Actually, no.I guess maybe the government should have us all on feeding tubes too.
Also, all you people crying BW3 aren't "real" wings or whatever, I am sure you like Pizza Hut or McDonald's or Don Pablo's. Don't let your obsession with "authenticity" stand in the way of you and Spicy Garlic sauce, mmkay?
Does Don Pablo's even exist anymore?0 -
Added this to my playlist inspired by this thread0 -
I agree, it's hard to know what will be best and how many calories you are actually eating, guessing you can go either way either too little or too much mostly it's too little. I think with todays time it shouldn't be a problem having it online that way you can look before you go to eat and figure out what you want and if it will fit into your calories for the day.
ETA: though I don't think it should be a federal law, but it would be nice if they did. I know the chains pretty much do but it's the restaurants and smaller places that don't.0 -
I guess maybe the government should have us all on feeding tubes too.
Also, all you people crying BW3 aren't "real" wings or whatever, I am sure you like Pizza Hut or McDonald's or Don Pablo's. Don't let your obsession with "authenticity" stand in the way of you and Spicy Garlic sauce, mmkay?
Right?
We can just go back to this...make it easier on everyone.
Wouldn't it be great if we never really had to think for ourselves? The government can do everything for us...and then we would be a utopia. Just like North Korea.0 -
Good restaurants don't give every single customer the exact same thing as the last customer, so there would be too much variation for this to be worthwhile. Even if you did get the information, it would be utterly wrong.
And if you eat at chain restaurants (Chilis, Olive Garden, etc.) their food info is already on MFP, so the people who care already know.
So what would this law accomplish, again?0 -
Good. We've established such a law is feasible (already implemented in some places[1]), promotes the general wellfare (study[2] and user comments on here), and didn't require a giant new bureaucracy.
[1] https://www.countyofsb.org/uploadedFiles/phd/EHS/Calif Menu Labeling Guidlelines.pdf
[2] http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/15/us-health-menu-calorie-idUSBRE91E15O20130215
Amazingly, the Cheesecake Factory found ways to include vast quantities of calories, sodium, and saturated fat in their grilled chicken entrees. That an item was cooked on a grill does not preclude it being marinated and basted with salt and oil. By letting the consumer know, we put the power in their hands to make a good choice. Again, studies show when consumers do have that info, they tend to make better choices.I can pick something and modify it and end up with grilled chicken breast, some tomatoe sauce, veggies, and have it be OK.
While it's been established this benefits the general wellfare of the populace, certainly, any change should be via legal means, either by direct vote or vote for a representative advocating this.How is forcing them to do something that clearly their clientele do not mind
The law gives local enforcement agencies the responsibility to verify the restaurant used a "reasonable basis" to determine the nutritional information is reasonably accurate (+/- 20%). This "reasonable basis" may include (by law) standardized recipes, adding up the nutritional value of the component items, staff training, and measuring tools to prevent gross errors. As with health code violations, audits wouldn't catch every violator every time, and complaints would play a role.The problem is, how do they regulate how accurate it is?
California excluded small businesses. Solve the biggest/easiest problems first.I think this wouldn't be a bad idea for larger restaurants especially chains to have this.
LE SIGH.
It already is a federal regulation and excludes small businesses.
Implementation isn't complete yet.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/12/menu-labeling-law-calorie-counts-fda_n_2860331.html0 -
I don't think it should be a law but it would be very useful indeed. I just guesstimate, as does my hubby- he's diabetic so has to guess the carbs to get the right dose of insulin too, it would be really handy for him to have that info.0
-
Good. We've established such a law is feasible (already implemented in some places[1]), promotes the general wellfare (study[2] and user comments on here), and didn't require a giant new bureaucracy.
[1] https://www.countyofsb.org/uploadedFiles/phd/EHS/Calif Menu Labeling Guidlelines.pdf
[2] http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/15/us-health-menu-calorie-idUSBRE91E15O20130215
Amazingly, the Cheesecake Factory found ways to include vast quantities of calories, sodium, and saturated fat in their grilled chicken entrees. That an item was cooked on a grill does not preclude it being marinated and basted with salt and oil. By letting the consumer know, we put the power in their hands to make a good choice. Again, studies show when consumers do have that info, they tend to make better choices.I can pick something and modify it and end up with grilled chicken breast, some tomatoe sauce, veggies, and have it be OK.
While it's been established this benefits the general wellfare of the populace, certainly, any change should be via legal means, either by direct vote or vote for a representative advocating this.How is forcing them to do something that clearly their clientele do not mind
The law gives local enforcement agencies the responsibility to verify the restaurant used a "reasonable basis" to determine the nutritional information is reasonably accurate (+/- 20%). This "reasonable basis" may include (by law) standardized recipes, adding up the nutritional value of the component items, staff training, and measuring tools to prevent gross errors. As with health code violations, audits wouldn't catch every violator every time, and complaints would play a role.The problem is, how do they regulate how accurate it is?
California excluded small businesses. Solve the biggest/easiest problems first.I think this wouldn't be a bad idea for larger restaurants especially chains to have this.
0 -
Good restaurants don't give every single customer the exact same thing as the last customer, so there would be too much variation for this to be worthwhile. Even if you did get the information, it would be utterly wrong.
And if you eat at chain restaurants (Chilis, Olive Garden, etc.) their food info is already on MFP, so the people who care already know.
So what would this law accomplish, again?
You mean the law that is already on the books and the regulation being implemented?0 -
Problem solved. Cook all your own meals or go to restaurants where they do provide the nutrition information.
Easy solution.0 -
Good. We've established such a law is feasible (already implemented in some places[1]), promotes the general wellfare (study[2] and user comments on here), and didn't require a giant new bureaucracy.
[1] https://www.countyofsb.org/uploadedFiles/phd/EHS/Calif Menu Labeling Guidlelines.pdf
[2] http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/15/us-health-menu-calorie-idUSBRE91E15O20130215
Amazingly, the Cheesecake Factory found ways to include vast quantities of calories, sodium, and saturated fat in their grilled chicken entrees. That an item was cooked on a grill does not preclude it being marinated and basted with salt and oil. By letting the consumer know, we put the power in their hands to make a good choice. Again, studies show when consumers do have that info, they tend to make better choices.I can pick something and modify it and end up with grilled chicken breast, some tomatoe sauce, veggies, and have it be OK.
While it's been established this benefits the general wellfare of the populace, certainly, any change should be via legal means, either by direct vote or vote for a representative advocating this.How is forcing them to do something that clearly their clientele do not mind
The law gives local enforcement agencies the responsibility to verify the restaurant used a "reasonable basis" to determine the nutritional information is reasonably accurate (+/- 20%). This "reasonable basis" may include (by law) standardized recipes, adding up the nutritional value of the component items, staff training, and measuring tools to prevent gross errors. As with health code violations, audits wouldn't catch every violator every time, and complaints would play a role.The problem is, how do they regulate how accurate it is?
California excluded small businesses. Solve the biggest/easiest problems first.I think this wouldn't be a bad idea for larger restaurants especially chains to have this.
RE: 2
http://www.today.com/health/who-cares-about-calories-restaurant-menu-labels-dont-work-study-6C106779220 -
Actually, no.I guess maybe the government should have us all on feeding tubes too.
Also, all you people crying BW3 aren't "real" wings or whatever, I am sure you like Pizza Hut or McDonald's or Don Pablo's. Don't let your obsession with "authenticity" stand in the way of you and Spicy Garlic sauce, mmkay?
Does Don Pablo's even exist anymore?
Actually, no what? Food snobbery is ridiculous. I prefer non-chains where food is treated with consideration, but arguing that somebody shouldn't like BW3 because "OH MY GOD, COME TO BUFFALO". Just no.
And yes, yes they do.0 -
Good. We've established such a law is feasible (already implemented in some places[1]), promotes the general wellfare (study[2] and user comments on here), and didn't require a giant new bureaucracy.
[1] https://www.countyofsb.org/uploadedFiles/phd/EHS/Calif Menu Labeling Guidlelines.pdf
[2] http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/15/us-health-menu-calorie-idUSBRE91E15O20130215
Amazingly, the Cheesecake Factory found ways to include vast quantities of calories, sodium, and saturated fat in their grilled chicken entrees. That an item was cooked on a grill does not preclude it being marinated and basted with salt and oil. By letting the consumer know, we put the power in their hands to make a good choice. Again, studies show when consumers do have that info, they tend to make better choices.I can pick something and modify it and end up with grilled chicken breast, some tomatoe sauce, veggies, and have it be OK.
While it's been established this benefits the general wellfare of the populace, certainly, any change should be via legal means, either by direct vote or vote for a representative advocating this.How is forcing them to do something that clearly their clientele do not mind
The law gives local enforcement agencies the responsibility to verify the restaurant used a "reasonable basis" to determine the nutritional information is reasonably accurate (+/- 20%). This "reasonable basis" may include (by law) standardized recipes, adding up the nutritional value of the component items, staff training, and measuring tools to prevent gross errors. As with health code violations, audits wouldn't catch every violator every time, and complaints would play a role.The problem is, how do they regulate how accurate it is?
California excluded small businesses. Solve the biggest/easiest problems first.I think this wouldn't be a bad idea for larger restaurants especially chains to have this.
Well then. Thread over. Everyone wins.
Damn. Now I have to go find something else to do.0 -
Most places have info on their websites. I always look before ordering or going out. I thought it was common sense? Lol.
However I do believe GMO's should be properly labeled.0 -
The whole point of going to a chef-owned restaurant is that they're not assembling a meal out of items that have been lab tested. Would your proposed law have some kind of exemption for a chef who says "I'm doing a special with figs today, because I was at the market this morning and they looked amazing," or would we have to wait weeks for the lab analysis to come back before he can serve that? If I come in and say "could you substitute something for the red peppers, or add extra mushrooms, or whatever," would the server have to warn me that it would invalidate the posted nutritional information? (Because I'm sure as hell not eating somewhere if the server says "we can't, because they're already in the frozen packaged mix we got from corporate, but you can pick them out.")Moving right along. When food is packaged and distributed it has to be lab tested for nutritional value. When it is a matter of assembling a meal out of items that have been lab tested for nutritional value you do not have to re-test them, you just have to add them up.
It's mind-boggling to me how many people in this thread have apparently never been to a good restaurant! Chili's does not count, and if anyone says Olive Garden, I think I might cry.0 -
Good. We've established such a law is feasible (already implemented in some places[1]), promotes the general wellfare (study[2] and user comments on here), and didn't require a giant new bureaucracy.
[1] https://www.countyofsb.org/uploadedFiles/phd/EHS/Calif Menu Labeling Guidlelines.pdf
[2] http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/15/us-health-menu-calorie-idUSBRE91E15O20130215
Amazingly, the Cheesecake Factory found ways to include vast quantities of calories, sodium, and saturated fat in their grilled chicken entrees. That an item was cooked on a grill does not preclude it being marinated and basted with salt and oil. By letting the consumer know, we put the power in their hands to make a good choice. Again, studies show when consumers do have that info, they tend to make better choices.I can pick something and modify it and end up with grilled chicken breast, some tomatoe sauce, veggies, and have it be OK.
While it's been established this benefits the general wellfare of the populace, certainly, any change should be via legal means, either by direct vote or vote for a representative advocating this.How is forcing them to do something that clearly their clientele do not mind
The law gives local enforcement agencies the responsibility to verify the restaurant used a "reasonable basis" to determine the nutritional information is reasonably accurate (+/- 20%). This "reasonable basis" may include (by law) standardized recipes, adding up the nutritional value of the component items, staff training, and measuring tools to prevent gross errors. As with health code violations, audits wouldn't catch every violator every time, and complaints would play a role.The problem is, how do they regulate how accurate it is?
California excluded small businesses. Solve the biggest/easiest problems first.I think this wouldn't be a bad idea for larger restaurants especially chains to have this.
RE: 2
http://www.today.com/health/who-cares-about-calories-restaurant-menu-labels-dont-work-study-6C10677922
Since when is McDonalds a restaurant?
Arent people too afraid to accidentally sit down on a used hypodermic needle there when dining in?0 -
Exactly! It would be great to have it on the menu, but it is completely ridiculous to say it should be required by law! The poster's heart is in the right place, though, probably.0
-
OMG.
Actually, no.I guess maybe the government should have us all on feeding tubes too.
Also, all you people crying BW3 aren't "real" wings or whatever, I am sure you like Pizza Hut or McDonald's or Don Pablo's. Don't let your obsession with "authenticity" stand in the way of you and Spicy Garlic sauce, mmkay?
Does Don Pablo's even exist anymore?
Actually, no what? Food snobbery is ridiculous. I prefer non-chains where food is treated with consideration, but arguing that somebody shouldn't like BW3 because "OH MY GOD, COME TO BUFFALO". Just no.
And yes, yes they do.
It was a freaking joke.
But, no, I generally don't eat at those places you mentioned on purpose because if I'm going to spend money on food, I want it to taste good.
And, also, there are plenty of places outside of Buffalo that have fabulous wings. BWW isn't one of them.0 -
LOL.0
-
Sounds like a first world problem to me.
Agree!0 -
Mmmm now I want wings...booo....
I know! We should invent a regulatory body that prevents conversations about wings so that I'm not compelled to eat them. Stop making me fat people! :mad:0 -
No, no. You should be getting your wings elsewhere!
I'm not saying wings aren't delicious (though I gave them up with all meat a long time ago). I'm saying if you're going to BWW for wings, you're doing it wrong. ;-)...To have printed "Nutrition Facts" for every menu item in every restaurant in the country. It should be required to have it available either in print, at the front of the restaurant, or online for anyone to read. Does anyone else get as frustrated as I do when they go out to eat?
Buffalo Wild Wings did this for a short time.
What happened? Well they started losing sales to their higher calorie dense foods to items that were healthier options. Either A) People chose a different option or
They ate less of the things they liked because they were finally given the information they have been needing to make positive choices about what they stuff in their face.
So what was BW3s response?
They removed all caloric/nutrition info from all their menus (where it wasnt required by law) so that they could sell more food to unsuspecting people that wont go out of their way to seek that info themselves. Its a shame an establishment like that has to appear deceitful in its business practice. Bottom line is most businesses do it because they are forced to by law. Not because they want to be helpful to its patrons and offer the information freely.
The biggest problem here is people eating at Buffalo Wild Wings ...
Wings are delicious !!!
I used to eat about 18-24 on avg ...... Ive cut that in half since MFP.....because the info was available on MFP, not on their menu or website. I suspect that the nutrition info came from someone in California (where they are required by law to provide that) who entered it into the database ? So I thank them.
Should I be going there for their wheat grass and sushi?
I grew up in new York state and lived in Buffalo. I've even had the original wings, though a lot of people prefer Duff's to Anchor Bar. There's a bar around the corner from my house even here in Florida that has wings to rival the best Buffalo has. In fact, had I not gone vegetarian, my proximity to that bar would probably have resulted in me gaining 300 pounds just from the wings ...
Chain restaurant wings? NO!
Thank you for providing this illustration. Your timing was impeccable.0 -
I think this wouldn't be a bad idea for larger restaurants especially chains to have this. I wouldn't force this onto small mom and pop restaurants but that's about it. Most major restaurants have a nutrition list set up because certain states are already requiring them to have the information on their menus, like in Maryland for example.
But it's already available for most chains, so the only purpose for some new law seems to be to force it on the local restaurants where it's more burdensome.0 -
OMG.
Actually, no.I guess maybe the government should have us all on feeding tubes too.
Also, all you people crying BW3 aren't "real" wings or whatever, I am sure you like Pizza Hut or McDonald's or Don Pablo's. Don't let your obsession with "authenticity" stand in the way of you and Spicy Garlic sauce, mmkay?
Does Don Pablo's even exist anymore?
Actually, no what? Food snobbery is ridiculous. I prefer non-chains where food is treated with consideration, but arguing that somebody shouldn't like BW3 because "OH MY GOD, COME TO BUFFALO". Just no.
And yes, yes they do.
It was a freaking joke.
But, no, I generally don't eat at those places you mentioned on purpose because if I'm going to spend money on food, I want it to taste good.
And, also, there are plenty of places outside of Buffalo that have fabulous wings. BWW isn't one of them.
OMG what was a joke?
Because I was saying it's silly to claim that x chain that sells x food isn't "good" or "real" because they aren't as good as x local place because we're talking about food, which is a matter of taste and experience.0 -
I would love it if it was always available in some form...though I must say I do not like it so "in your face" as to be on every menu item all the time...example: needed something to eat at the airport in NY. Slim pickings. Went to a sports bar type place where every menu item had the nutritional info...couldn't find anything even remotely healthy but needed to eat.... I ordered terrible chili that was about 900 calories for a bowl. Plus is was expensive.I'd rather have been in ignorance if my choices are bad or worse and just get what sounds good.
But in general, yes, I wish I could always find the info if I wanted it. I just pick something from the database that sounds close when I don't have the actual info. It's not perfect, but it doesn't happen enough that it's really an issue.
On a side bar...it would be great if every place could offer lighter menu options, like under 500 calorie choices. That would make me super happy.0 -
I've seen at least 100 times around here someone talk about a chain restaurant and someone else come in and make a tongue-in-cheek statement about the food there not being good and everyone either laughs along or brushes it off or even agrees. I make a tongue-in-cheek statement about chain restaurant wings not being very good and it's WWIII.
OMG.
Actually, no.I guess maybe the government should have us all on feeding tubes too.
Also, all you people crying BW3 aren't "real" wings or whatever, I am sure you like Pizza Hut or McDonald's or Don Pablo's. Don't let your obsession with "authenticity" stand in the way of you and Spicy Garlic sauce, mmkay?
Does Don Pablo's even exist anymore?
Actually, no what? Food snobbery is ridiculous. I prefer non-chains where food is treated with consideration, but arguing that somebody shouldn't like BW3 because "OH MY GOD, COME TO BUFFALO". Just no.
And yes, yes they do.
It was a freaking joke.
But, no, I generally don't eat at those places you mentioned on purpose because if I'm going to spend money on food, I want it to taste good.
And, also, there are plenty of places outside of Buffalo that have fabulous wings. BWW isn't one of them.
OMG what was a joke?
Because I was saying it's silly to claim that x chain that sells x food isn't "good" or "real" because they aren't as good as x local place because we're talking about food, which is a matter of taste and experience.
Interesting.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 423 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions