It should be required by federal law...
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 -
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.
Thanks, I learn what I can. I'm not a believer in keeping information from us 'regular' people for fear we'll misunderstand and misuse it, that justification has been used too many times by the powerful to keep the rest of us in line. But I don't pretend I have the education background I need to jump right on any piece of information and get it right the first time. I just do the best I can. Also, I could use a few less things to worry about! But never out of ignorance. Ignorance is only bliss until it gets you killed.
Meanwhile, I don't advocate forcing smaller, less profitable businesses to label their calories at a high cost to them. Just the big, profitable chains. Although a tax break on small businesses willing to voluntarily do so could sweeten the deal enough to make it worthwhile to them. I could go for that.0 -
But someday I might, and if that happens, yes, I would like profitable businesses to provide me with nutrition information, and in my opinion it's reasonable to make them do so.
1. Who is going to determine which business are profitable and so should be providing said information?
2. Who is going to pay for the person who is going to run this kind of analysis?
3. Are you willing to pay higher prices for the additional expenses that businesses, especially small businesses, will incur as a result of this mandate?
4. What is reasonable? If a business has a profit margin of 1% and your need for nutritional information makes them unprofitable, is that reasonable?
And....
Here is the kicker....
5. Why can't you assume some personal responsibility and do some research for yourself to make your own choices? Are you that busy? Is it that hard? If you order a cheeseburger with french fries and dessert, you can pretty much assume it's going to have a high calorie count. If you order a salad will a number of high calorie items on it, guess what? High calorie count.
Good lord.
If the nutrition info is available online, I'm willing to see it as a reasonable compromise. If it isn't available anywhere, I can't take proper personal responsibility for myself if I don't have the correct information, except of course to avoid any place that doesn't provide it. There goes the power luncheon I had planned to participate in. Darn, was so looking forward to it. Guess I could sip ice water while my future colleagues stuff their faces?
If it's not a huge burden for food companies to put nutritional info on the packaging it shouldn't be for restaurants, either. But silly me! I haven't asked you: Would you agree that forcing anyone to label their food with ingredients and calorie counts is just big government overstepping their bounds? Should we put a stop to that as well? After all, it costs money to regulate, enforce, and carry out.
Next you'll want cooks to weigh your food as they prepare it. Lol.
It isn't that there isn't info out there, it is that mandating more info isn't necessarily more valuable and has many costs.0 -
Well. I only read the first two or three pages and all I can conclude is the OP should make sure his mommy is weighing the crusts she cuts off of his PB&J sammich every morning so he knows how many calories are in his lunch.
LOL. I die.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.0 -
Sounds like a first world problem to me.
Where is the "Like" button for this post? The last thing we need is more laws protecting people from their own laziness or refusal to educate themselves.0 -
The premise of this thread is sad really as it is indicative of people who have taken calorie counting (MFP) and nutritional values to the extreme.
It is meant as a tool to keep you on track to help you live a longer, healthier and hopefully happier life, but people seem so committed to the concept that everything has to have a nutritional/calorie value applied to, labeled and stamped on it.
Seriously are people so insecure about their adherence that they can no longer enjoy a meal at a restaurant, a friend's house or cake at a birthday, living in the moment and just enjoying themselves.
Is self-imposed moderation and a fragment of common sense beyond people nowadays.
A night out enjoying yourself and *gasp* even going over your calorie goal or not hitting your macros is not going to undo all the work you have put in.
This is meant as a tool to develop a healthy relationship with food and your body but the level of obsession displayed in this thread denotes a different relationship altogether.
Time to reassess your eating habits for some people and I am not talking about nutritional values...
...each to their own of course! Me I shall enjoy the company of my friends and family whilst out eating while others can stress about finding a franchise that caters to their fanaticism and insecurities about food values.0 -
But someday I might, and if that happens, yes, I would like profitable businesses to provide me with nutrition information, and in my opinion it's reasonable to make them do so.
1. Who is going to determine which business are profitable and so should be providing said information?
2. Who is going to pay for the person who is going to run this kind of analysis?
3. Are you willing to pay higher prices for the additional expenses that businesses, especially small businesses, will incur as a result of this mandate?
4. What is reasonable? If a business has a profit margin of 1% and your need for nutritional information makes them unprofitable, is that reasonable?
And....
Here is the kicker....
5. Why can't you assume some personal responsibility and do some research for yourself to make your own choices? Are you that busy? Is it that hard? If you order a cheeseburger with french fries and dessert, you can pretty much assume it's going to have a high calorie count. If you order a salad will a number of high calorie items on it, guess what? High calorie count.
Good lord.
If the nutrition info is available online, I'm willing to see it as a reasonable compromise. If it isn't available anywhere, I can't take proper personal responsibility for myself if I don't have the correct information, except of course to avoid any place that doesn't provide it. There goes the power luncheon I had planned to participate in. Darn, was so looking forward to it. Guess I could sip ice water while my future colleagues stuff their faces?
If it's not a huge burden for food companies to put nutritional info on the packaging it shouldn't be for restaurants, either. But silly me! I haven't asked you: Would you agree that forcing anyone to label their food with ingredients and calorie counts is just big government overstepping their bounds? Should we put a stop to that as well? After all, it costs money to regulate, enforce, and carry out.
Next you'll want cooks to weigh your food as they prepare it. Lol.
It isn't that there isn't info out there, it is that mandating more info isn't necessarily more valuable and has many costs.
I posted about this awhile back. Food manufactures have a huge leeway of %20 in their package estimations, so no, the cook shouldn't have to go nuts weighing and measuring. A decent estimate for %90 or so of available dishes would be fine, thus even excluding dishes that change regularly from day to day or week to week. And only for large and profitable companies, exclude the mom and pops, what few remain.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.
The biggest problem here is people eating at Buffalo Wild Wings ...0 -
Do I like when a restaurant has the nutritional information YES, do I think we need the government mandating yet another area of our lives NO! One meal isn't making a difference estimate what you had and move on, and if you are so worried about it don't go out to eat at that establishment.
Amen!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.
I just like BWW more and more. Great wings and a good selection of beers. And, if you're eating there for the salads then you're doing it wrong.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions