It should be required by federal law...

lemurcat12

What places that aren't already covered by the FDA rules that are being implemented, not to mention that already have nutrition information available on the internet, are we talking about? What places (other than Buffalo Wild Wings, I guess) are the concern? That's what I'm not understanding.

lindsey1979

I never compiled a list, but I definitely know that I've encountered places over the years, as I'm sure many others have. And personally, I'd like it to be available on the premises, not just the internet because plenty of people don't have convenient access to the internet. Not everyone has a smart phone where they can access it on the fly, or have internet in their home. Many do, but plenty don't -- and they should have access to the information in a reasonable manner too.

Either way, does it really matter how many we're talking about? If they're already in compliance, then it's no additional burden. It would only be a burden for those that aren't already providing such information. Who cares if it's 5 or 5 million.

lemurcat12

Edit to simplify, since the argument was played out hours ago.

(1) whether you've seen such restaurants or not, the question was whether they would be covered by the already existing law that the FDA is promulgating. That law is controversial still, for various reasons, but nothing in the thread--which granted, I did not read super carefully, suggested that we were debating that law, vs. a demand for something more. Thus, my concern about what restaurants we are talking about since I think it's a terrible idea when applied to local places without standardized items.

(2) beyond that, the fact that restaurants with such information available are widespread indicates to me that it's not an issue of customer power and choice. More options provide such a choice and if people actually want it they can choose the restaurants that have it since numerous such restaurants exist--the vast majority of major chains, certainly. What's the real harm of a few others wanting to carve out a niche as the decadent places where calories don't count? Do people really stop overeating if we make them stop?

IMO you'd have an argument about it being needed to give the customer power if there were no such options, not because my favorite local pasta place might not have it, for whatever reason.

lindsey1979

Edit to simplify, since the argument was played out hours ago.

(1) whether you've seen such restaurants or not, the question was whether they would be covered by the already existing law that the FDA is promulgating. That law is controversial still, for various reasons, but nothing in the thread--which granted, I did not read super carefully, suggested that we were debating that law, vs. a demand for something more. Thus, my concern about what restaurants we are talking about since I think it's a terrible idea when applied to local places without standardized items.

(2) beyond that, the fact that restaurants with such information available are widespread indicates to me that it's not an issue of customer power and choice. More options provide such a choice and if people actually want it they can choose the restaurants that have it since numerous such restaurants exist--the vast majority of major chains, certainly. What's the real harm of a few others wanting to carve out a niche as the decadent places where calories don't count? Do people really stop overeating if we make them stop?

IMO you'd have an argument about it being needed to give the customer power if there were no such options, not because my favorite local pasta place might not have it, for whatever reason.

I guess I just don't see this as particularly controversial, at least in concept. I look at the proposed regulation as I do with any regulation. Philosophically, I'm not a fan of regulations as a general rule, but practically, I understand their value as many people will fail to do the right thing on their own (either out of ignorance, difference of opinion as to what is "right" or "best" or outright greed or laziness). So, I usually look at it in a benefit vs. cost breakdown. Does the benefit of the regulation make it worth the cost to those burdened (from a societal perspective)?

For me, and this general idea, it's a no brainer so long as certain caveats are included. For restaurants that serve fairly consistent foods, it's a relatively small burden to figure out their calories and macros -- they can analyze their recipes just like we do at home as individuals. And, once they do it, that's it. That to me is a very small burden. Same with posting this somewhere easy -- either on the menus themselves, which seems like the easiest, most straightforward way to do it, or available upon request at the establishment. Small burden, and many establishments are doing this on their own already.

The exception I would make are for small businesses. This would cover both your mom & pop shops and likely your restaurants that change their menu often (which I usually associate with some mom & pop shops and fine dining establishments). If the fine dining establishments make so much money that it would boost them out of the "small business category" (and I'm not sure what that number would be, but $5M/year as suggested in the Canadian legislation seems reasonable to me), then I don't have a lot of sympathy for this extra burden. If I'm dining somewhere where the dinner bill is $1000, I don't have a lot of sympathy for a pauper's plea in that case.

So, once again, to me, the benefit is considerable in providing such information to consumers and the burden is pretty minimal. Can you stop people from overeating? Of course not. But, you can provide them greater information and some, maybe even many, will make better choices once they're aware of the facts. I think misinformation drives a lot of the overeating problem.