It should be required by federal law...
Replies
-
What happened in Germany?
seriously? Jesus, one generation passes away and all the lessons are forgotten.
This country was better off when even the government was against government, and there was no need for term limits for politicians because no one really wanted the job for long! I for one am glad to see Bloomberg and his stranglehold on soda sizes, and standard capacity magazines.
So shawmutt, what happened in Germany that is relevant to ingredient labeling in the US?
Here's a hint to help you organize your thoughts - the person asking the question is of Polish Jewish descent and lives in Germany.
So yes, seriously.0 -
Sounds like a first world problem to me.
Exactly, very fortunate0 -
The FDA aims for a 20% accurate level--enough to be useful without being unrealistic--so if that 8oz chicken was 7oz or 9oz, they would be just fine. If it's varying between 4oz and 12oz, there's a problem.Especially at dinnertime, when it's super busy, do you really think the cooks will pull out the foodscale to measure out 150 grams of chicken breast or vegetables,FDA: FDA does not intend to impose an unrealistic regime (e.g., to require exacting measurements or strict portion controls) in restaurants. However, the agency is requiring that a restaurant have a reasonable basis for believing that a food meets the nutrient requirements for a claim, and that it be able to provide reasonable assurance that the preparation of the food adheres to the basis for the claim.
As passed in California, it's been quite useful. The Cheesecake Factory revealed its blackened chicken sandwich has 1,400 calories and 2,000 mg of sodium. Even if a particular serving may range between 1120-1680 calories, and between 1600-2400mg of sodium, it empowers us to make informed choices. All of those sodium levels are above what I would allow except for a particularly celebratory occasion. And, again, I cited a study showing that consumers often do use this information to eat better.
The FDA aims for a 20% accurate level--enough to be useful without being overbearing--so if that 8oz chicken was 7oz or 9oz, they would be just fine. If it's varying between 4oz and 12oz, there's a problem.Especially at dinnertime, when it's super busy, do you really think the cooks will pull out the foodscale to measure out 150 grams of chicken breast or vegetables,FDA: FDA does not intend to impose an unrealistic regime (e.g., to require exacting measurements or strict portion controls) in restaurants. However, the agency is requiring that a restaurant have a reasonable basis for believing that a food meets the nutrient requirements for a claim, and that it be able to provide reasonable assurance that the preparation of the food adheres to the basis for the claim.
As passed in California, it's been quite useful. The Cheesecake Factory revealed its blackened chicken sandwich has 1,400 calories and 2,000 mg of sodium. A particular serving may range between 1120-1680 calories, and between 1600-2400mg of sodium. Even still, it empowers me to make better choices. All of those sodium levels are above what I would allow except for a particularly celebratory occasion. And, again, I cited a study showing that consumers often do use this information to eat better.
If one was trying to be "health conscious" and thought "healthiness" of a food could be determined in a vacuum and based off of sodium and cal counts, then Cheesecake Factory prob isn't your best choice
I also cited a study rebuking yours, that it makes no real difference in choices0 -
I also cited a study rebuking yours, that it makes no real difference in choices
Yep. They did a study on patrons in NYC after Bloomberg mandated the counts on the boards. Made no difference. The people concerned with calories had probably already done the research (shocking, I know!) and those that aren't concerned with calories didn't care either way.0 -
I've been accused of being a shill for Big Government before on MFP...
(...which is hilarious given my own personal libertarian-oriented beliefs...)
...so it seemed appropriate that I would jump into this thread on...
PAGE 17?!?
0 -
I absolutely 100% agree! Totally!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?
YES!! We NEED more laws. We do not have enough government control in our lives. Long live BIG GOVERNMENT!!!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.
They do. It's called only eating part of it. Now you can be super happy!
Yes, that would work if you could take 1/2 of your food home all the time, but that is not always possible, so paying for a 900 calories meal and only eating about 500 calories or less is a waste of money and food because the restaurant will be throwing away what the patrons don’t eat. Having smaller portions available in the menu is a win-win situation.
There's always the kids menu.
That is a silly answer because restaurant only offer children menus to those under 12, at least the restaurants that I go to. I am small but I certainly don't look like a 23 years old.0 -
Again, this isn't about the full size bags sold in the grocery store. This is about the little convenience packs sold in gas stations and near checkout. They look like "single serving bags" but don't actually contain one serving. The King Size Double Stuff Oreos for example are sold at checkout. You might think "okay King Size, well that's probably two servings." No, it's actually four servings of two cookies each. They list "140 calories" when in reality the package contains 560. (I picked that because it was one of the items in my son's Easter Basket.) That little SHORT container of Pringles that you see in gas stations (not the standard size one)? That's 2.5 servings, lists 150 calories, in reality 375.
Multiplication is a stumper for a lot of people.
Math, why you so hard?
I'm so glad that politicians are spending time making sure people don't have to be quite as observant. You think they were hiding the information or printing it in Swahili but no, they just make you do a little primary school math. :huh:
DYEPizza-cut-into-five-equal-slices???
:huh: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.
They do. It's called only eating part of it. Now you can be super happy!
Yes, that would work if you could take 1/2 of your food home all the time, but that is not always possible, so paying for a 900 calories meal and only eating about 500 calories or less is a waste of money and food because the restaurant will be throwing away what the patrons don’t eat. Having smaller portions available in the menu is a win-win situation.
There's always the kids menu.
That is a silly answer because restaurant only offer children menus to those under 12, at least the restaurants that I go to. I am small but I certainly don't look like a 12 years old.
Edited by me.0 -
Again, this isn't about the full size bags sold in the grocery store. This is about the little convenience packs sold in gas stations and near checkout. They look like "single serving bags" but don't actually contain one serving. The King Size Double Stuff Oreos for example are sold at checkout. You might think "okay King Size, well that's probably two servings." No, it's actually four servings of two cookies each. They list "140 calories" when in reality the package contains 560. (I picked that because it was one of the items in my son's Easter Basket.) That little SHORT container of Pringles that you see in gas stations (not the standard size one)? That's 2.5 servings, lists 150 calories, in reality 375.
Multiplication is a stumper for a lot of people.
Math, why you so hard?
I'm so glad that politicians are spending time making sure people don't have to be quite as observant. You think they were hiding the information or printing it in Swahili but no, they just make you do a little primary school math. :huh:
DYEPizza-cut-into-five-equal-slices???
:huh:
Oh, I pizza. And usually I beer when I pizza because... Awesome.0 -
We don't need MORE laws, but I understand how you feel. It would be fantastic if everyone put at least some nutritional info on their menus, but definitely shouldn't be a decision by the government. They control enough of our lives. :P
It's nice to pull up to McDonalds and order a water because I feel guilty about gross amount of calories they have posted on the board. lol A realization each time that I shouldn't have pulled in to begin with. :P0 -
Adding to what I said, it would be great if every restaurant that has a website has nutritional info online. Most do anymore, but not all. That's pretty readily available to people and isn't INYOURFACEOMGCALORIES. lolz0
-
agreed, it should also have everything as uncooked weight, I hate when it says cooked weight because everyone cooks things differently and loses different amounts of water/fat like with bacon etc
i count cooked weight when I log.
and my thoughts on the OP's idea- the mfp data base is huge... I think that would be an unnecessary burden on businesses.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?
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.
So, people by their own free will decide to drink beer, eat wings and indulge in a bunch of fried food. BWW makes money serving these people who, by their own choice, are patrons of the restaurant. That money goes to providing jobs to employees, jobs to suppliers (who then in turn provide jobs to employees), taxes for all this regulation everyone wants and so one, and so forth.
BWW posted the calorie counts and their sales dropped. So, to protect their margins (and those jobs, and all that tax money you want), they reversed the order.
Are you actually suggesting that BWW should do things that have been proven to hurt their sales simply because some people are too lazy to Google information? Or too stupid to know that beer, wings and french fries are fattening? C'mon.
Edited to add: I love BWW. I drink beer, I eat wings and I have a great 'ol time. I know that this is a high calorie endeavor. Being personally responsible for myself, I go for a run before the shenanigans and then get right back to my good habits after. It's not hard.
Would be awesome if BWW had the nutritional information online though...and if they disclosed how many grams are in a boneless chicken wing. I have spent several hours of my life trying to track down that valuable little tidbit of information.
That said, if the only way I'll find out is by governmental intervention, then I would prefer never to know the answer.0 -
Ignoring the realities of mandating restaurant nutritional information for one minute, if magically this information was accurate and didn't cost anything, I'm sure many of us would find this information helpful right? Heck, this website is built around the concept of counting calories.
This would be just one more source of information we could use to track our nutritional intake. So I don't understand the reactions that cite "personal responsibility" or whatever else insult to show opposition to this.
And then there's the comments that we already know that BWW is high in calories and fat so why bother with nutritional information. Many things I buy in the supermarket are considered "high calorie and fat" foods but I still want to know exactly what I'm dealing with so I can track this information. I don't see how this could be construed as not taking personal responsibility or that I should just "run before the shenanigans" and that would somehow mean I was taking personal responsibility.
For the record I couldn't find nutritional information on the BWW site and instead found it on a third party site:
http://www.nutrition-charts.com/buffalo-wild-wings-nutrition-information/
Now, of course providing nutritional information is expensive and there are issues of accuracy, enforceability, consistency, etc. And if someone were to say that mandating all restaurants to provide them would be impractical, I would agree. But it would have nothing to do with "personal responsibility" or the like.0 -
Ignoring the realities of mandating restaurant nutritional information for one minute, if magically this information was accurate and didn't cost anything, I'm sure many of us would find this information helpful right? Heck, this website is built around the concept of counting calories.
This would be just one more source of information we could use to track our nutritional intake. So I don't understand the reactions that cite "personal responsibility" or whatever else insult to show opposition to this.
And then there's the comments that we already know that BWW is high in calories and fat so why bother with nutritional information. Many things I buy in the supermarket are considered "high calorie and fat" foods but I still want to know exactly what I'm dealing with so I can track this information. I don't see how this could be construed as not taking personal responsibility or that I should just "run before the shenanigans" and that would somehow mean I was taking personal responsibility.
For the record I couldn't find nutritional information on the BWW site and instead found it on a third party site:
http://www.nutrition-charts.com/buffalo-wild-wings-nutrition-information/
Now, of course providing nutritional information is expensive and there are issues of accuracy, enforceability, consistency, etc. And if someone were to say that mandating all restaurants to provide them would be impractical, I would agree. But it would have nothing to do with "personal responsibility" or the like.
Is that your spirit animal in your profile pic?0 -
Ignoring the realities of mandating restaurant nutritional information for one minute, if magically this information was accurate and didn't cost anything, I'm sure many of us would find this information helpful right? Heck, this website is built around the concept of counting calories.
This would be just one more source of information we could use to track our nutritional intake. So I don't understand the reactions that cite "personal responsibility" or whatever else insult to show opposition to this.
And then there's the comments that we already know that BWW is high in calories and fat so why bother with nutritional information. Many things I buy in the supermarket are considered "high calorie and fat" foods but I still want to know exactly what I'm dealing with so I can track this information. I don't see how this could be construed as not taking personal responsibility or that I should just "run before the shenanigans" and that would somehow mean I was taking personal responsibility.
For the record I couldn't find nutritional information on the BWW site and instead found it on a third party site:
http://www.nutrition-charts.com/buffalo-wild-wings-nutrition-information/
Now, of course providing nutritional information is expensive and there are issues of accuracy, enforceability, consistency, etc. And if someone were to say that mandating all restaurants to provide them would be impractical, I would agree. But it would have nothing to do with "personal responsibility" or the like.
It has everything to do with personal responsibility. I make a choice to go out to eat, I make a choice to pick the chicken fried steak smothered in sausage gravy instead of the grilled chicken with steamed vegetables. I make the choice to eat a delicious Reeses peanut butter cup sundae (which was absolutely delicious). Is the restaurant responsible for what I picked?? Is the government responsible??
No I am responsible for what I put in my mouth no one else. I could have stayed home, I could go out and make a different choice but I made those choices no one else, no one held me down and said you will eat all this yummy delicious food.
Take responsibility for the choices you make.0 -
Client : " I'll have the 16oz steak, chips and cream cheese sauce please"
Waiter : " Sorry sir, the BMI detector in your chair has declared that your weight and BF% are too high and denied you that option.. you can have the cabbage soup"0 -
Russian agree
It is very important 0 -
Client : " I'll have the 16oz steak, chips and cream cheese sauce please"
Waiter : " Sorry sir, the BMI detector in your chair has declared that your weight and BF% are too high and denied you that option.. you can have the cabbage soup"
That's funny. But it's fantastic in Russia at the moment.0 -
Client : " I'll have the 16oz steak, chips and cream cheese sauce please"
Waiter : " Sorry sir, the BMI detector in your chair has declared that your weight and BF% are too high and denied you that option.. you can have the cabbage soup"
Well that would be a way to enforce it lol I love it0 -
I agree, I also think that packages of stuff like a package of candy or other small package multi portion items should disclose calories for full container... say sports drinks and such they typically haveu three or so servings a bottle, why not list the calories on the front of the bottle for the entire contents, the truth is people do not always look at things have three servings in a container of personal size... maybe thats just getting over zealous, but darnit if I dont hate grabbing a small package of something and then having to count out every single piece lol being picky I know lol
Yes I do like how in Australia all packaged food states the calorie (well actually the kilojoule) content per 100g or 100 ml - does not matter how big the container is, the standard is 100mg/100ml.
I'm not sure what the law about calorie/nutritional displays are here - but all large chain places like KFC,. Mcdonalds, etc have this on display boards - smaller and non chain places do not - for all the reasons of impracticality already mentioned upthread.
I think if one is viewing this as a lifestyle change, one has to be prepared to guestimate at times - if I go out somewhere that doesn't have this information, I estimate amounts and look for generic equivalents in the data base - garlic sauce, home made, 1/2 cup, for example.
Of course it wont be accurate but, unless one eats out a huge percentage of the time, it will still work out ok in the overall averages of things.0 -
Ignoring the realities of mandating restaurant nutritional information for one minute, if magically this information was accurate and didn't cost anything, I'm sure many of us would find this information helpful right? Heck, this website is built around the concept of counting calories.
This would be just one more source of information we could use to track our nutritional intake. So I don't understand the reactions that cite "personal responsibility" or whatever else insult to show opposition to this.
And then there's the comments that we already know that BWW is high in calories and fat so why bother with nutritional information. Many things I buy in the supermarket are considered "high calorie and fat" foods but I still want to know exactly what I'm dealing with so I can track this information. I don't see how this could be construed as not taking personal responsibility or that I should just "run before the shenanigans" and that would somehow mean I was taking personal responsibility.
For the record I couldn't find nutritional information on the BWW site and instead found it on a third party site:
http://www.nutrition-charts.com/buffalo-wild-wings-nutrition-information/
Now, of course providing nutritional information is expensive and there are issues of accuracy, enforceability, consistency, etc. And if someone were to say that mandating all restaurants to provide them would be impractical, I would agree. But it would have nothing to do with "personal responsibility" or the like.
Seriously? You need the government to mandate this for you. I just Googled BWW and nutrition information and got a ton of information in return. The information is out there - it's up to you to find it.
This has everything to do with personal responsibility. YOU make the choice to go to BWW. YOU make the choice to eat the food. YOU make the choice which items to eat and how much to eat....
If I've already indulged and my friends want to meet me at BWW for a football game, I can make the choice to say no. Or eat before I go. Or be the designated driver. That's personal responsibility.
And in regards to running before eating there, that is also personal responsibility. And healthy living. If I know I am going to consume a ton of calories, I'm going to get some exercise in. It's my responsibility to balance my exercise and eating choices and I can do it without a government mandate. So, either I'm really smart or other people are really lazy because it's just not that hard.0 -
Ignoring the realities of mandating restaurant nutritional information for one minute, if magically this information was accurate and didn't cost anything, I'm sure many of us would find this information helpful right? Heck, this website is built around the concept of counting calories.
This would be just one more source of information we could use to track our nutritional intake. So I don't understand the reactions that cite "personal responsibility" or whatever else insult to show opposition to this.
And then there's the comments that we already know that BWW is high in calories and fat so why bother with nutritional information. Many things I buy in the supermarket are considered "high calorie and fat" foods but I still want to know exactly what I'm dealing with so I can track this information. I don't see how this could be construed as not taking personal responsibility or that I should just "run before the shenanigans" and that would somehow mean I was taking personal responsibility.
For the record I couldn't find nutritional information on the BWW site and instead found it on a third party site:
http://www.nutrition-charts.com/buffalo-wild-wings-nutrition-information/
Now, of course providing nutritional information is expensive and there are issues of accuracy, enforceability, consistency, etc. And if someone were to say that mandating all restaurants to provide them would be impractical, I would agree. But it would have nothing to do with "personal responsibility" or the like.
It has everything to do with personal responsibility. I make a choice to go out to eat, I make a choice to pick the chicken fried steak smothered in sausage gravy instead of the grilled chicken with steamed vegetables. I make the choice to eat a delicious Reeses peanut butter cup sundae (which was absolutely delicious). Is the restaurant responsible for what I picked?? Is the government responsible??
No I am responsible for what I put in my mouth no one else. I could have stayed home, I could go out and make a different choice but I made those choices no one else, no one held me down and said you will eat all this yummy delicious food.
Take responsibility for the choices you make.
In that case, why should any company provide nutritional information for their packaged food that you buy in the supermarket? After all, it's your choice if you want to eat Reeses peanut butter cups and it's your responsibility to find out the nutritional information. You could get a bomb calorimeter and find the information by yourself without the manufacturer having to do it for you. After all, personal responsibility.
Like I said, I admit it would be impractical for many restaurants to provide this information, but I don't how it's a slight against someone's "personal responsibility" for wishing the information were available. And yes, consumers can avoid Reeses peanut butter cups (or whatever else) if the company didn't provide nutritional information and that would be incentive for the manufacturer to provide said information, but just preferring to have the information be available doesn't make someone magically not "personally responsible."0 -
I haven't read the whole thread, though I commented early on. The issue is the statement at the top of this thread. "It Should be required by federal law" Voting by the pocket book motivates most businesses and allows for personal freedom and responsibility0
-
Have joined this conversation a bit late, but it seems like someone has been living with the fairies. What an overcomplicated mess this would create.0
-
Ignoring the realities of mandating restaurant nutritional information for one minute, if magically this information was accurate and didn't cost anything, I'm sure many of us would find this information helpful right? Heck, this website is built around the concept of counting calories.
This would be just one more source of information we could use to track our nutritional intake. So I don't understand the reactions that cite "personal responsibility" or whatever else insult to show opposition to this.
And then there's the comments that we already know that BWW is high in calories and fat so why bother with nutritional information. Many things I buy in the supermarket are considered "high calorie and fat" foods but I still want to know exactly what I'm dealing with so I can track this information. I don't see how this could be construed as not taking personal responsibility or that I should just "run before the shenanigans" and that would somehow mean I was taking personal responsibility.
For the record I couldn't find nutritional information on the BWW site and instead found it on a third party site:
http://www.nutrition-charts.com/buffalo-wild-wings-nutrition-information/
Now, of course providing nutritional information is expensive and there are issues of accuracy, enforceability, consistency, etc. And if someone were to say that mandating all restaurants to provide them would be impractical, I would agree. But it would have nothing to do with "personal responsibility" or the like.
Seriously? You need the government to mandate this for you. I just Googled BWW and nutrition information and got a ton of information in return. The information is out there - it's up to you to find it.
This has everything to do with personal responsibility. YOU make the choice to go to BWW. YOU make the choice to eat the food. YOU make the choice which items to eat and how much to eat....
If I've already indulged and my friends want to meet me at BWW for a football game, I can make the choice to say no. Or eat before I go. Or be the designated driver. That's personal responsibility.
And in regards to running before eating there, that is also personal responsibility. And healthy living. If I know I am going to consume a ton of calories, I'm going to get some exercise in. It's my responsibility to balance my exercise and eating choices and I can do it without a government mandate. So, either I'm really smart or other people are really lazy because it's just not that hard.
I'm just going to quote myself form my earlier post:
For the record I couldn't find nutritional information on the BWW site and instead found it on a third party site:
http://www.nutrition-charts.com/buffalo-wild-wings-nutrition-information/
Like I said, I found the information on a third party website which is all well and good, but I would feel a lot more confident about its accuracy if it were on the official website.
Yes, personal responsibility involves making the choice to avoid BWW or any other restaurant if it can't fit in my nutritional requirements. However, merely wishing that official nutritional information be available so that I can make better decisions doesn't make me "personally irresponsible" all of a sudden.0 -
Expensive? it would take about 2-4 hours (depending on menu size) to sit down with a menu and go through every item and calculate the totals. Then you could print out 1 copy for each table and laminate it and it could cost less than 50 bucks.
There is no excuse not to let your customers know whats in what they are eating.
Completely in "I could be wrong" territory here, but I thought the requirement was that for nutritional facts to be listed, the item had to be analysed by a lab and within a certain margin of error, not just worked out on paper.
This. Your waiter doesn't just get to go in the back and make up the calorie counts. Any law is going to have strict requirements that involve spending money.
Also, how would this work for chains? Most chains have the same menu items but buy from different distributors? How do you know the meat or cheese in a Texas Roadhouse in Minnesota is the same as one in South Carolina?0 -
What this would require is that EVERY. SINGLE. RESTAURANT would require a dietician or have somebody trained - fine if you are McDonalds, an unnecessary expense for small businesses.
Anyway, is this just to deflect from irresponsibilities. Is it sour grapes off the back of getting too overweight?
Why have other nations not needed such legislation?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