It should be required by federal law...
Options
Replies
-
It's done here in California.
... only in chain restuarants with more than 20 locations. I was there last week and most places I went did not have it.
But in for the coddling with the information dump that most people will ignore. In California every single restaurant had a carcinogen warning and the end result is a popluation of inured people.
But if a carcinogen counting website ever catches on, California will be the state for dining out. Also, I've just bookmarked California's carcinogen list for the next time I find some new and bizarre ingredient on a list of whatever I'm planning to eat.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1143069-if-toxins-scare-you-stop-eating?
Yes indeed, there are things that cause cancer which we cannot avoid, some foods have harmful chemicals in them before we start mucking around with them. Others have had harmful chemicals bred out by humans. Yay us! However, we should do what we can to keep our toxicity burden low. And that requires someone unbiased to do the research and publish the information as best they can.
unbiased research to bolster your confirmation bias?
One problem is that we need far more well done, replicated, unbiased studies. But there are a few that exist, at least for some chemicals:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1247384/
Cadmium is a cumulative nephrotoxicant that is absorbed into the body from dietary sources and cigarette smoking. The levels of Cd in organs such as liver and kidney cortex increase with age because of the lack of an active biochemical process for its elimination coupled with renal reabsorption. Recent research has provided evidence linking Cd-related kidney dysfunction and decreases in bone mineral density in nonoccupationally exposed populations who showed no signs of nutritional deficiency. This challenges the previous view that the concurrent kidney and bone damage seen in Japanese itai-itai disease patients was the result of Cd toxicity in combination with nutritional deficiencies, notably, of zinc and calcium. Further, such Cd-linked bone and kidney toxicities were observed in people whose dietary Cd intakes were well within the provisional tolerable weekly intake (PTWI) set by the Joint Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization Expert Committee on Food Additives of 1 μg/kg body weight/day or 70 μg/day. This evidence points to the much-needed revision of the current PTWI for Cd. Also, evidence for the carcinogenic risk of chronic Cd exposure is accumulating and Cd effects on reproductive outcomes have begun to emerge.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jat.1135/abstract?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false
Abstract
Many compounds in the environment have been shown capable of binding to cellular oestrogen receptors and then mimicking the actions of physiological oestrogens. The widespread origin and diversity in chemical structure of these environmental oestrogens is extensive but to date such compounds have been organic and in particular phenolic or carbon ring structures of varying structural complexity. Recent reports of the ability of certain metal ions to also bind to oestrogen receptors and to give rise to oestrogen agonist responses in vitro and in vivo has resulted in the realisation that environmental oestrogens can also be inorganic and such xenoestrogens have been termed metalloestrogens. This report highlights studies which show metalloestrogens to include aluminium, antimony, arsenite, barium, cadmium, chromium (Cr(II)), cobalt, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, selenite, tin and vanadate. The potential for these metal ions to add to the burden of aberrant oestrogen signalling within the human breast is discussed. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Here are two at least a partial counters to these (you're welcome, now you don't have to find it yourself):
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691502000595
Abstract
Dioxins are highly toxic by-products of incineration processes and of production of chloro-organic chemicals. Accidental poisonings have occurred repeatedly. The main human exposure is via the dietary route. Species comparisons of toxic effects on the basis of ingested doses are not possible because of the highly differing toxicokinetics between humans and experimental animals. On the basis of internal doses or body burdens acute toxic and tumorigenic responses are observed at similar levels in humans and rats. PCB/PCDD/F contamination at levels which have been reported of marketed chicken meat and eggs in 1999 in Belgium may have increased body burdens by approximately 10%. However, it is estimated that a several hundred-fold higher uptake would be necessary to reach body burdens leading to overt toxicity in normal human subjects.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15287390500360042#.U2jzSPldVjI
Abstract
Recent National Toxicology Program (NTP) cancer bioassay data for 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p‐dioxin (TCDD), 2,3,4,7,8-pentachlorodibenzofuran (4-PeCDF), 3,3′,4,4′,5-pentachlorobiphenyl (PCB 126), and a mixture of these three compounds offer opportunities to assess the accuracy of current World Health Organization (WHO) 1998 toxic equivalency factors (TEFs) for these compounds under a variety of assumptions. An evaluation of the current TEF values for these compounds using body burden in nanograms per kilogram as the dose metric is presented. Average lifetime body burdens were estimated for all compounds at all dose groups based on measured tissue concentrations at 4 time points during the 2-yr NTP studies. Poly-3 adjusted tumor incidences for hepatocellular adenomas, cholangiocarcinomas, and the two tumors combined were modeled using a quantal multistage model and the Hill model with lifetime average body burden as the dose metric. Benchmark doses for a 10% response (BMD10) for each compound and the mixture were estimated. With TCDD as the reference standard, relative potency (REP) estimates were derived from ratios of the BMD10 estimates for PCB 126, 4-PeCDF, and for the toxic equivalent (TEQ) mixture. On a body-burden basis, PCB 126 and 4-PeCDF were 2- to 3-fold and 10- to 12-fold less potent than predicted based on the WHO TEFs, respectively, while the TEQ mixture was approximately 3- to 5-fold less potent than predicted by the TEFs. The current WHO TEF values, which were derived from data on noncancer endpoints evaluated on an administered dose basis, overpredict the carcinogenic potency of these compounds on a body-burden basis compared to TCDD.
But that is how science works - there isn't some magical process that tells you one study is worthy and another is not. Reader bias is an operational process because most of the toxicity processes are dosage dependent - queue in oxigen or water toxicity.
For example, one of the studies you posted talks about copper toxicity. All well and good, but copper is also an essential dietary element - copper deficiency leads to a bunch of dietary diseases.
That is how science works, and it shows the value of making whatever information is out there available in detail and accurately whenever possible.
Now that leads to more questions, though. Like, am I getting too much copper? Worth looking into, since it is part of my supplement. The more I know, the better I can take responsibility for my own health. Including in regard to calories eaten. Now I admit, I don't travel for business, so I mostly just don't eat out at all. 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.0 -
I find it so annoying! I sort of have to guess, or find meals similar online and try to add them up!
0 -
Does anyone else get as frustrated as I do when they go out to eat?
Nope.0 -
It's done here in California.
... only in chain restuarants with more than 20 locations. I was there last week and most places I went did not have it.
But in for the coddling with the information dump that most people will ignore. In California every single restaurant had a carcinogen warning and the end result is a popluation of inured people.
But if a carcinogen counting website ever catches on, California will be the state for dining out. Also, I've just bookmarked California's carcinogen list for the next time I find some new and bizarre ingredient on a list of whatever I'm planning to eat.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1143069-if-toxins-scare-you-stop-eating?
Yes indeed, there are things that cause cancer which we cannot avoid, some foods have harmful chemicals in them before we start mucking around with them. Others have had harmful chemicals bred out by humans. Yay us! However, we should do what we can to keep our toxicity burden low. And that requires someone unbiased to do the research and publish the information as best they can.
unbiased research to bolster your confirmation bias?
One problem is that we need far more well done, replicated, unbiased studies. But there are a few that exist, at least for some chemicals:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1247384/
Cadmium is a cumulative nephrotoxicant that is absorbed into the body from dietary sources and cigarette smoking. The levels of Cd in organs such as liver and kidney cortex increase with age because of the lack of an active biochemical process for its elimination coupled with renal reabsorption. Recent research has provided evidence linking Cd-related kidney dysfunction and decreases in bone mineral density in nonoccupationally exposed populations who showed no signs of nutritional deficiency. This challenges the previous view that the concurrent kidney and bone damage seen in Japanese itai-itai disease patients was the result of Cd toxicity in combination with nutritional deficiencies, notably, of zinc and calcium. Further, such Cd-linked bone and kidney toxicities were observed in people whose dietary Cd intakes were well within the provisional tolerable weekly intake (PTWI) set by the Joint Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization Expert Committee on Food Additives of 1 μg/kg body weight/day or 70 μg/day. This evidence points to the much-needed revision of the current PTWI for Cd. Also, evidence for the carcinogenic risk of chronic Cd exposure is accumulating and Cd effects on reproductive outcomes have begun to emerge.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jat.1135/abstract?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false
Abstract
Many compounds in the environment have been shown capable of binding to cellular oestrogen receptors and then mimicking the actions of physiological oestrogens. The widespread origin and diversity in chemical structure of these environmental oestrogens is extensive but to date such compounds have been organic and in particular phenolic or carbon ring structures of varying structural complexity. Recent reports of the ability of certain metal ions to also bind to oestrogen receptors and to give rise to oestrogen agonist responses in vitro and in vivo has resulted in the realisation that environmental oestrogens can also be inorganic and such xenoestrogens have been termed metalloestrogens. This report highlights studies which show metalloestrogens to include aluminium, antimony, arsenite, barium, cadmium, chromium (Cr(II)), cobalt, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, selenite, tin and vanadate. The potential for these metal ions to add to the burden of aberrant oestrogen signalling within the human breast is discussed. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Here are two at least a partial counters to these (you're welcome, now you don't have to find it yourself):
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691502000595
Abstract
Dioxins are highly toxic by-products of incineration processes and of production of chloro-organic chemicals. Accidental poisonings have occurred repeatedly. The main human exposure is via the dietary route. Species comparisons of toxic effects on the basis of ingested doses are not possible because of the highly differing toxicokinetics between humans and experimental animals. On the basis of internal doses or body burdens acute toxic and tumorigenic responses are observed at similar levels in humans and rats. PCB/PCDD/F contamination at levels which have been reported of marketed chicken meat and eggs in 1999 in Belgium may have increased body burdens by approximately 10%. However, it is estimated that a several hundred-fold higher uptake would be necessary to reach body burdens leading to overt toxicity in normal human subjects.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15287390500360042#.U2jzSPldVjI
Abstract
Recent National Toxicology Program (NTP) cancer bioassay data for 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p‐dioxin (TCDD), 2,3,4,7,8-pentachlorodibenzofuran (4-PeCDF), 3,3′,4,4′,5-pentachlorobiphenyl (PCB 126), and a mixture of these three compounds offer opportunities to assess the accuracy of current World Health Organization (WHO) 1998 toxic equivalency factors (TEFs) for these compounds under a variety of assumptions. An evaluation of the current TEF values for these compounds using body burden in nanograms per kilogram as the dose metric is presented. Average lifetime body burdens were estimated for all compounds at all dose groups based on measured tissue concentrations at 4 time points during the 2-yr NTP studies. Poly-3 adjusted tumor incidences for hepatocellular adenomas, cholangiocarcinomas, and the two tumors combined were modeled using a quantal multistage model and the Hill model with lifetime average body burden as the dose metric. Benchmark doses for a 10% response (BMD10) for each compound and the mixture were estimated. With TCDD as the reference standard, relative potency (REP) estimates were derived from ratios of the BMD10 estimates for PCB 126, 4-PeCDF, and for the toxic equivalent (TEQ) mixture. On a body-burden basis, PCB 126 and 4-PeCDF were 2- to 3-fold and 10- to 12-fold less potent than predicted based on the WHO TEFs, respectively, while the TEQ mixture was approximately 3- to 5-fold less potent than predicted by the TEFs. The current WHO TEF values, which were derived from data on noncancer endpoints evaluated on an administered dose basis, overpredict the carcinogenic potency of these compounds on a body-burden basis compared to TCDD.
But that is how science works - there isn't some magical process that tells you one study is worthy and another is not. Reader bias is an operational process because most of the toxicity processes are dosage dependent - queue in oxigen or water toxicity.
For example, one of the studies you posted talks about copper toxicity. All well and good, but copper is also an essential dietary element - copper deficiency leads to a bunch of dietary diseases.
That is how science works, and it shows the value of making whatever information is out there available in detail and accurately whenever possible.
Now that leads to more questions, though. Like, am I getting too much copper? Worth looking into, since it is part of my supplement. The more I know, the better I can take responsibility for my own health. Including in regard to calories eaten. Now I admit, I don't travel for business, so I mostly just don't eat out at all. 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.
Wat? How is forcing them to do something that clearly their clientele do not mind not having (or they'd stop going and spending their money) be reasonable?0 -
I am honestly okay with my health being my own personal responsibility and not the mandate of the government to regulate.
Do I appreciate nutritional information when I go out? Sure...in fact I might actually patronize a given location because it provides nutritional information. Should that nutritional information be held accountable to be accurate? Sure, things like better business bureaus and the FDA should have some oversight. Should it be mandated that anyone who sells food provide nutrition info? No.
^^ This.0 -
That is how science works, and it shows the value of making whatever information is out there available in detail and accurately whenever possible.
Now that leads to more questions, though. Like, am I getting too much copper? Worth looking into, since it is part of my supplement. The more I know, the better I can take responsibility for my own health. Including in regard to calories eaten. Now I admit, I don't travel for business, so I mostly just don't eat out at all. 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.
While you are reading the research on copper, I suggest you also read about the research and effects on cognitive overload.
And don't forget to add selenium, zinc to your reading list. Biotin, vitamins, etc... Chem trails, Hall effect on cells, ionosphere radiation, low frequency noise ... etc...clutter up the health fears.
BTW, the reality is that supplements aren't particularly needed by most people.
Forest versus trees.
Edit:
The reason it is unreasonable and not needed beyond what already exists (in the state of California) is that for it to be accurate it would require small restaurants to stop serving menu items decided on the day or at request. Going to Hobee's a very small chain would mean no more daily specials and a menu that would change less frequently - I imagine you have an expectation that the information provided is accurate and tested not a random guess by a cook?0 -
It's done here in California.
... only in chain restuarants with more than 20 locations. I was there last week and most places I went did not have it.
But in for the coddling with the information dump that most people will ignore. In California every single restaurant had a carcinogen warning and the end result is a popluation of inured people.
But if a carcinogen counting website ever catches on, California will be the state for dining out. Also, I've just bookmarked California's carcinogen list for the next time I find some new and bizarre ingredient on a list of whatever I'm planning to eat.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1143069-if-toxins-scare-you-stop-eating?
Yes indeed, there are things that cause cancer which we cannot avoid, some foods have harmful chemicals in them before we start mucking around with them. Others have had harmful chemicals bred out by humans. Yay us! However, we should do what we can to keep our toxicity burden low. And that requires someone unbiased to do the research and publish the information as best they can.
unbiased research to bolster your confirmation bias?
One problem is that we need far more well done, replicated, unbiased studies. But there are a few that exist, at least for some chemicals:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1247384/
Cadmium is a cumulative nephrotoxicant that is absorbed into the body from dietary sources and cigarette smoking. The levels of Cd in organs such as liver and kidney cortex increase with age because of the lack of an active biochemical process for its elimination coupled with renal reabsorption. Recent research has provided evidence linking Cd-related kidney dysfunction and decreases in bone mineral density in nonoccupationally exposed populations who showed no signs of nutritional deficiency. This challenges the previous view that the concurrent kidney and bone damage seen in Japanese itai-itai disease patients was the result of Cd toxicity in combination with nutritional deficiencies, notably, of zinc and calcium. Further, such Cd-linked bone and kidney toxicities were observed in people whose dietary Cd intakes were well within the provisional tolerable weekly intake (PTWI) set by the Joint Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization Expert Committee on Food Additives of 1 μg/kg body weight/day or 70 μg/day. This evidence points to the much-needed revision of the current PTWI for Cd. Also, evidence for the carcinogenic risk of chronic Cd exposure is accumulating and Cd effects on reproductive outcomes have begun to emerge.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jat.1135/abstract?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false
Abstract
Many compounds in the environment have been shown capable of binding to cellular oestrogen receptors and then mimicking the actions of physiological oestrogens. The widespread origin and diversity in chemical structure of these environmental oestrogens is extensive but to date such compounds have been organic and in particular phenolic or carbon ring structures of varying structural complexity. Recent reports of the ability of certain metal ions to also bind to oestrogen receptors and to give rise to oestrogen agonist responses in vitro and in vivo has resulted in the realisation that environmental oestrogens can also be inorganic and such xenoestrogens have been termed metalloestrogens. This report highlights studies which show metalloestrogens to include aluminium, antimony, arsenite, barium, cadmium, chromium (Cr(II)), cobalt, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, selenite, tin and vanadate. The potential for these metal ions to add to the burden of aberrant oestrogen signalling within the human breast is discussed. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Here are two at least a partial counters to these (you're welcome, now you don't have to find it yourself):
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691502000595
Abstract
Dioxins are highly toxic by-products of incineration processes and of production of chloro-organic chemicals. Accidental poisonings have occurred repeatedly. The main human exposure is via the dietary route. Species comparisons of toxic effects on the basis of ingested doses are not possible because of the highly differing toxicokinetics between humans and experimental animals. On the basis of internal doses or body burdens acute toxic and tumorigenic responses are observed at similar levels in humans and rats. PCB/PCDD/F contamination at levels which have been reported of marketed chicken meat and eggs in 1999 in Belgium may have increased body burdens by approximately 10%. However, it is estimated that a several hundred-fold higher uptake would be necessary to reach body burdens leading to overt toxicity in normal human subjects.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15287390500360042#.U2jzSPldVjI
Abstract
Recent National Toxicology Program (NTP) cancer bioassay data for 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p‐dioxin (TCDD), 2,3,4,7,8-pentachlorodibenzofuran (4-PeCDF), 3,3′,4,4′,5-pentachlorobiphenyl (PCB 126), and a mixture of these three compounds offer opportunities to assess the accuracy of current World Health Organization (WHO) 1998 toxic equivalency factors (TEFs) for these compounds under a variety of assumptions. An evaluation of the current TEF values for these compounds using body burden in nanograms per kilogram as the dose metric is presented. Average lifetime body burdens were estimated for all compounds at all dose groups based on measured tissue concentrations at 4 time points during the 2-yr NTP studies. Poly-3 adjusted tumor incidences for hepatocellular adenomas, cholangiocarcinomas, and the two tumors combined were modeled using a quantal multistage model and the Hill model with lifetime average body burden as the dose metric. Benchmark doses for a 10% response (BMD10) for each compound and the mixture were estimated. With TCDD as the reference standard, relative potency (REP) estimates were derived from ratios of the BMD10 estimates for PCB 126, 4-PeCDF, and for the toxic equivalent (TEQ) mixture. On a body-burden basis, PCB 126 and 4-PeCDF were 2- to 3-fold and 10- to 12-fold less potent than predicted based on the WHO TEFs, respectively, while the TEQ mixture was approximately 3- to 5-fold less potent than predicted by the TEFs. The current WHO TEF values, which were derived from data on noncancer endpoints evaluated on an administered dose basis, overpredict the carcinogenic potency of these compounds on a body-burden basis compared to TCDD.
But that is how science works - there isn't some magical process that tells you one study is worthy and another is not. Reader bias is an operational process because most of the toxicity processes are dosage dependent - queue in oxigen or water toxicity.
For example, one of the studies you posted talks about copper toxicity. All well and good, but copper is also an essential dietary element - copper deficiency leads to a bunch of dietary diseases.
That is how science works, and it shows the value of making whatever information is out there available in detail and accurately whenever possible.
Now that leads to more questions, though. Like, am I getting too much copper? Worth looking into, since it is part of my supplement. The more I know, the better I can take responsibility for my own health. Including in regard to calories eaten. Now I admit, I don't travel for business, so I mostly just don't eat out at all. 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.
Wat? How is forcing them to do something that clearly their clientele do not mind not having (or they'd stop going and spending their money) be reasonable?
Good point. A sensible country would put proposed federal laws to a national vote to find out what we actually do want government to regulate or not. We should look into this.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.0
-
Or as a responsible human that cares about nutritional information you can google "chili's nutritional information" which will lead you here
http://www.chilis.com/EN/LocationSpecificPDF/MenuPDF/001.005.0000/Chilis Nutrition Menu Generic.pdf?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1
and guess what is there. It is all their nutritional information as of April 20140 -
That is how science works, and it shows the value of making whatever information is out there available in detail and accurately whenever possible.
Now that leads to more questions, though. Like, am I getting too much copper? Worth looking into, since it is part of my supplement. The more I know, the better I can take responsibility for my own health. Including in regard to calories eaten. Now I admit, I don't travel for business, so I mostly just don't eat out at all. 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.
While you are reading the research on copper, I suggest you also read about the research and effects on cognitive overload.
And don't forget to add selenium, zinc to your reading list. Biotin, vitamins, etc... Chem trails, Hall effect on cells, ionosphere radiation, low frequency noise ... etc...clutter up the health fears.
BTW, the reality is that supplements aren't particularly needed by most people.
Forest versus trees.
Already got my nose buried in it, and will be branching out. Bogged down already because there are different forms of copper. You didn't have to get cute about the chem trails, though. If something isn't in a peer reviewed abstract, I don't chase it, unless I was skimming and picked a bad source or I'm just bored and having fun with popular conspiracy theories.0 -
Good point. A sensible country would put proposed federal laws to a national vote to find out what we actually do want government to regulate or not. We should look into this.
Contact your representative.....?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.0 -
I shared a desert at Chili's with a friend recently. After dinner I learned that that desert was 1,400 calories. I think it would be great to have a break down of calories, fat, protein and carbs. I would have made a better choice. I feel more strongly about providing real food and eliminating processed stuff.
You didn't make a better choice because you didn't bother to look. More info would definitely have helped you there . . .lol0 -
They should. And the big chains do, but I don't believe them at all!
Pret A Manger changes the nutrition info without changing the food. Wraps that were 400 are now 460 for example.
Just Salad calculates salads to be around 350-400 while Chop't gets up to 500 and Chop't puts less from the toppings on the salad.
Subway's ham sandwich 290? The 6" bun is 200 calories? Doubtful.
Eating out is a pain.0 -
I am honestly okay with my health being my own personal responsibility and not the mandate of the government to regulate.
Do I appreciate nutritional information when I go out? Sure...in fact I might actually patronize a given location because it provides nutritional information. Should that nutritional information be held accountable to be accurate? Sure, things like better business bureaus and the FDA should have some oversight. Should it be mandated that anyone who sells food provide nutrition info? No.
^^ This.
I agree with this but I just want to put it out there that the BBB is not a regulatory body. In reality, it's just another marketing tool for businesses that behave and it has no real authority. It's also pay for play most of the time.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.0 -
I shared a desert at Chili's with a friend recently. After dinner I learned that that desert was 1,400 calories. I think it would be great to have a break down of calories, fat, protein and carbs. I would have made a better choice. I feel more strongly about providing real food and eliminating processed stuff.
First it's dessert do you really need someone to tell you that it's going to be high in calories?
As for using this example for this argument, you could have easily gone here: http://www.chilis.com/EN/LocationSpecificPDF/MenuPDF/001.005.0000/Chilis Nutrition Menu Generic.pdf?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1
found out all the information, but you didn't... so how is mandating that all restaurants provide nutritional information going to help since most people don't not even ones that are actively counting calories???????0 -
Already got my nose buried in it, and will be branching out. Bogged down already because there are different forms of copper. You didn't have to get cute about the chem trails, though. If something isn't in a peer reviewed abstract, I don't chase it, unless I was skimming and picked a bad source or I'm just bored and having fun with popular conspiracy theories.
Well, good luck to you (seriously). May you come out the wiser and not overly worried about the minor stuff. Knowing stuff and then knowing to let it go is also a process and that is why I was "being cute" about that stuff.
I edited the post you quoted, a secondary point is we already have rules and laws that cover a lot of this for chains, asking smaller restaurants to provide equivalent info has a culinary, economic and quality cost, if enforced. Or one can recognize that the calorie info published at most places will be a fantasy.0 -
...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?
Right, that's what we need more regulation.
If customers wanted it badly enough, they'd demand it and stop going out to eat until it was provided, seeing how awesome it's changed consumer behavior where it is mandated, I don't see why you would want it nationwide.
What about restaurants that change their menu daily? And no it isn't as simple as putting it into an online tool, those nutrition facts on packaged products? Where do you think they come from or where do you think the nutrition info comes from on websites?
Yes Yes Yes0 -
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.
I'm not talking about consumer packaged goods companies and chain restaurants with million dollar budgets for regulation alone. You said that any profitable business should be responsible for testing and recording the calorie counts on their food. So, I ask you, who is going to determine which businesses are profitable enough to do this without sinking below the line?
You clearly have no idea what it's like to run a small business. Or really any business, in general.
And, you know what? You ALWAYS have a choice. If you don't like the fact that a restaurant doesn't post their counts, don't eat there. Sip ice water. Be a big girl. DEAL WITH IT. God forbid you experience a real problem - like not having the ability to purchase food in the first place.
Or, better yet, educate yourself on portion size. Ask for a special modification. Pick the healthy choice because, while it may not be as appealing as other options, there is almost always a healthier option on the menu. And don't tell me otherwise because I eat out 80% of the time, all of the country and all over the world.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 916 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions