It should be required by federal law...

EvgeniZyntx

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.

socajam

Sounds like a first world problem to me.

Exactly, very fortunate

Acg67

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,

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.

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.

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,

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.

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 choices

PRMinx

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.

jofjltncb6

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?!?

RejsGirl

I absolutely 100% agree! Totally!

evanblove

...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!!!

Ely82010

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.

jofjltncb6

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:

Ely82010

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.

Strokingdiction

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.

Jamhorker

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. :P

Jamhorker

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. lolz

jerber160

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.

jofjltncb6

...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.

Yagisama

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.

MyChocolateDiet

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?

GiveMeCoffee

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.

Shropshire1959

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"

povic1705

Russian agree It is very important