Calories on menus - Government Nannying?
Replies
-
Coming from the restaurant industry, I don't feel it should be mandatory for small companies. It is VERY expensive to get your food nutritionally analyzed-- it has to be sent to a professional lab. Additionally, menus have to be reprinted, new signs made that are in compliance, etc. Any time you want to add new seasonal items you would have to go through it all over again.
For a large chain where your net sales per location is $3 MIL and your net sales as a company is in the hundreds of millions, spending $50k overall on nutrition analysis followed up by say ballpark $5k per location on menus, boards, signs, etc, isn't going to kill your business. But, if you are a Mom & Pop little cafe with net sales of only 500k a year, and you are just barely squeaking by (because no one gets rich running a single small restaurant), mandatory menu analysis would shut down your business. If all restaurants were required to have nutritional analysis, we'd only have corporate chains around.
This exactly the problem currently, as I understand it. I hope that that can change in the future somehow so smaller restaurants can participate.
I ask all of them when I go. Most of them tell me they are asked all the time. I see that as a positive sign. The restaurants hate it.
is it really going to be that much of a burden to add one line that says Cal: XXX fat: XXX or even just calories?? Most people are happy to just know the calories forget micornutrients. Mom & pop generally have 1 location. 1 operation. Why cant' they just put up 1 board on the wall listing the calories and not put in on the menu?? that would suffice. If the consumer wants to know, they can walk thier happy *kitten* over to the list and look. I'd be happy to do that.0 -
I DON'T want the gov. involved in every aspect of my life!!
How is nutritional information being provided the government "getting involved" in your life? They aren't changing what you eat, they aren't forcing you to eat anything you don't want to, they're simply providing you with the opportunity to know what's going into your body.
once it ceases to become optional and the government forces you to do something that you do not want to do, then they are running your life, or your business or whatever....what comes after forcing restaurants to post said information? Are they next going to say that you can't serve a certain type of food, or limit drink sizes aka NYC....???
why does one follow from the other? providing information is providing information. Banning certain portion sizes, foods etc is totally different.
The government is already forcing the manufacturers of packaged food sold in shops to provide a list of ingredients and nutritional information. Is that government nannying? Should they change the laws so food companies don't have to do that any more? And did that lead to the government banning shops from selling any kind of food?
because that is the way that it always works...the government gets involved and says "oh, it is just for this one little thing" and then thirty years later they are running the whole industry. Look at medicare, they said it would only be a 60 billion dollar program, and now it is in the trillions and trillions and from that we get National Health Care and everything else...you give them an inch and they take thirty miles...
Government, by nature, always seeks to expand ....Give me an example of a Government in history that has ever gotten smaller?0 -
Government Nannying? Maybe. But then we want government nannying in some areas - in fact, we demand it.
In many countries people with heart disease, or diabetes or other lifestyle related illness receive health care as a right of citizenship from the public purse (that is me, as a taxpayer) The government, pays the medical bills. This is even becoming more prevalent in countries where people have been traditionally on their own to go bankrupt paying their own health care costs (or just do without the care and die...). As a taxpayer I like to see my investment as well taken care of as possible.
Those of us on MFP have taken an interest in nutrition and still manage to make lots of well intentioned mistakes. The less informed public are at a real disadvantage and any additional information they can get to make less poor choices is a step in the right direction.
As for the accuracy of restaurant supplied nutritional info, yes, it will be out by some amount because no two restaurant meals can be absolutely identical. They can be a decent guideline though - even if the figures are out, you can pretty much bet that a meal a restaurant says is 700 calories will be a better choice than the one that is 2700.0 -
A lot of places in the UK already do this, from coffee shops (Starbucks, Costa* etc.) to pub chains (JD Wetherspoons etc.), and it's listed alongside whether a meal is gluten free, vegetarian/vegan, or features a veg*n option. I don't consider it to be nannying in the slightest, I think it's a natural response to a growing interest and desire from consumers to know what they're eating.
*speaking of, it always horrifies me when I see the plaque in front of the cake slices with the calorie count on them in Costa.
But if its just "a lot" of the restaurants and not All the restaurants then its not government mandated its consumer driven. I'm not denying that its nice and convenient to have the information on the menu. I really like it. But I don't think the government should mandate that information. Businesses should choose to put the information on their menus because its what the consumers want. We are responsible for making healthy eating choices, not business, not government.
and one thing that enables people to make healthy choices is having the information about what's in the food they're eating, like how many grams of protein, fat and carbohydrate is in it.
The government isn't making any choices for anyone, but having nutritional information available enables people to make informed choices.
And why is it such an issue with restaurant food, when it's already law in most countries in the world for packaged food sold in shops to have the ingredients listed and the nutritional information? Why is that okay, but requiring restaurants to provide similar information "nannying" all of a sudden? If the government is banning certain foods, or putting limits to how much fat restauranteurs were allowed to put in their food, that would be nannying. That would be the government making choices for people, but simply providing information.... how is that making choices for someone? It's not. It's providing them with the necessary information to make informed choices....
You have the ability to choose to avoid a restaurant that doesn't have the information if it bothers you that much. Give your business to those that do. Enough people do that, businesses will voluntarily put that information out there. As been stated before many small businesses won't be able to financially handle being mandated to provide the information.0 -
It is not that difficult to look over a menu and determine what is, what is not, good for oneself...
Except in some circumstances, it is. The calorie count, one assumes, will take account of how the meal has hypothetically been prepared and what it's been cooked in. A meal that appears healthy on a menu may not be as healthy as one expects by virtue of a multitude of reasons that exist beyond a simple blurb.
I work in the food industry, I don't need to patronised by your comments wrt "it's common sense". If it was as simple as "common sense", there would be far fewer issues with diet-related health issues.But if its just "a lot" of the restaurants and not All the restaurants then its not government mandated its consumer driven. I'm not denying that its nice and convenient to have the information on the menu. I really like it. But I don't think the government should mandate that information. Businesses should choose to put the information on their menus because its what the consumers want. We are responsible for making healthy eating choices, not business, not government.
(from the FSA webpage).The transitional arrangements mean that most of the requirements do not apply until 2014, with nutrition labelling becoming mandatory in 2016. Therefore, food businesses have time to get used to the arrangements and make sure they comply with new labelling requirements as they come in. Further information on the new regulation, the consultation and the FSA role in bringing in the new requirements can be found at the bottom of this page.
It's not government mandated at present, but EU legislation will require it to become compulsory. So the reason it's "a lot"? Is because companies are currently in a transitionary period. By-the-by, if my google-fu ( :') ) has served me correctly, menu labelling has been called for by the general public in the UK regardless, so the legislation is, at the very least, going to be welcomed over by and large.
But whatever: I'll just carry on being a gross leftie supporting informed public opinion, I suppose!0 -
This content has been removed.
-
A lot of places in the UK already do this, from coffee shops (Starbucks, Costa* etc.) to pub chains (JD Wetherspoons etc.), and it's listed alongside whether a meal is gluten free, vegetarian/vegan, or features a veg*n option. I don't consider it to be nannying in the slightest, I think it's a natural response to a growing interest and desire from consumers to know what they're eating.
*speaking of, it always horrifies me when I see the plaque in front of the cake slices with the calorie count on them in Costa.
But if its just "a lot" of the restaurants and not All the restaurants then its not government mandated its consumer driven. I'm not denying that its nice and convenient to have the information on the menu. I really like it. But I don't think the government should mandate that information. Businesses should choose to put the information on their menus because its what the consumers want. We are responsible for making healthy eating choices, not business, not government.
and one thing that enables people to make healthy choices is having the information about what's in the food they're eating, like how many grams of protein, fat and carbohydrate is in it.
The government isn't making any choices for anyone, but having nutritional information available enables people to make informed choices.
And why is it such an issue with restaurant food, when it's already law in most countries in the world for packaged food sold in shops to have the ingredients listed and the nutritional information? Why is that okay, but requiring restaurants to provide similar information "nannying" all of a sudden? If the government is banning certain foods, or putting limits to how much fat restauranteurs were allowed to put in their food, that would be nannying. That would be the government making choices for people, but simply providing information.... how is that making choices for someone? It's not. It's providing them with the necessary information to make informed choices....
You have the ability to choose to avoid a restaurant that doesn't have the information if it bothers you that much. Give your business to those that do. Enough people do that, businesses will voluntarily put that information out there. As been stated before many small businesses won't be able to financially handle being mandated to provide the information.
FYI: This is for larger restaurants only and will not apply to "mom & pop" locations. From the website listed:
Toronto Public Health is recommending provincial legislation to make menu labelling a requirement for larger chain restaurants. Other organizations, experts and health advocates who have recommended menu labelling include the Ontario Medical Association, Cancer Care Ontario, Public Health Ontario, Canada’s Sodium Working Group, Ontario’s Healthy Kids Panel, Centre for Science in the Public Interest, the Fitness Industry Council of Canada and many others.
- See more at: http://www.savvydiner.ca/about/#sthash.CmFipqnL.dpuf0 -
This content has been removed.
-
To babysit/nanny is to force actions that people don't want to do. Folks who don't care how many calories are in their hamburgers can and likely will buy as many of them as they please, posted calories or not. Folks who wish to not be buying four hundred calorie sandwiches tend to purchase more of them when they're not aware of the fact, so this helps them do what they want to do.
The forced action here is on the part of the restaurants, which would rather have more people buying four hundred calorie sandwiches. Yes, only fifteen percent or so would care... but what store wants fifteen percent of its customers to start buying less?0 -
I DON'T want the gov. involved in every aspect of my life!!
How is nutritional information being provided the government "getting involved" in your life? They aren't changing what you eat, they aren't forcing you to eat anything you don't want to, they're simply providing you with the opportunity to know what's going into your body.
once it ceases to become optional and the government forces you to do something that you do not want to do, then they are running your life, or your business or whatever....what comes after forcing restaurants to post said information? Are they next going to say that you can't serve a certain type of food, or limit drink sizes aka NYC....???
why does one follow from the other? providing information is providing information. Banning certain portion sizes, foods etc is totally different.
The government is already forcing the manufacturers of packaged food sold in shops to provide a list of ingredients and nutritional information. Is that government nannying? Should they change the laws so food companies don't have to do that any more? And did that lead to the government banning shops from selling any kind of food?
because that is the way that it always works...the government gets involved and says "oh, it is just for this one little thing" and then thirty years later they are running the whole industry. Look at medicare, they said it would only be a 60 billion dollar program, and now it is in the trillions and trillions and from that we get National Health Care and everything else...you give them an inch and they take thirty miles...
Government, by nature, always seeks to expand ....Give me an example of a Government in history that has ever gotten smaller?
Truth right there! It does start out small.. they already banned big gulps in NYC (not sure if that was repealed or not), what is next?? and now wiht Obamacare who knows what we are in for..
ps.. NASA is an agency within goverment.. just because they are currently shrinking does not mean that government overall is shrinking.. While NASA shrinks DHS gets larger.. DHS is a crap shoot. DHS is where they funnel money that is never heard from again.. DHS is the angecy responsible for removing so many of our rights it's unbearable. Dont' believe me?? Go to an airport, then refuse to be searched..(which in case you don't know.. it's illegal for them to search our person without our consent.. despite what the laws now say)0 -
Truth right there! It does start out small.. they already banned big gulps in NYC (not sure if that was repealed or not), what is next?? and now wiht Obamacare who knows what we are in for..
[/quote]
Well this thread is in regards to a movement in Toronto, Canada, so I doubt Obama is to be blamed.0 -
t0
-
I make restaurant choices based on the information I can find on their options. I prefer local and higher quality options, but if I have to guess if there is going to be wheat in my dish resulting in my losing two days of work, I will stay home or choose an option where the info is published or the staff cares about such things.
I like having available the separate menus with information I need (separate menu that shows allergen issues). I would definitely make my choices based on published nutritional info and, as it is, tend to spend a lot of time going through online menus/nutritional data before I even hit the restaurant.
It would be nice if this was done voluntarily without government mandate. At this point, obesity is a crisis and this seems really necessary.0 -
A lot of places in the UK already do this, from coffee shops (Starbucks, Costa* etc.) to pub chains (JD Wetherspoons etc.), and it's listed alongside whether a meal is gluten free, vegetarian/vegan, or features a veg*n option. I don't consider it to be nannying in the slightest, I think it's a natural response to a growing interest and desire from consumers to know what they're eating.
*speaking of, it always horrifies me when I see the plaque in front of the cake slices with the calorie count on them in Costa.
But if its just "a lot" of the restaurants and not All the restaurants then its not government mandated its consumer driven. I'm not denying that its nice and convenient to have the information on the menu. I really like it. But I don't think the government should mandate that information. Businesses should choose to put the information on their menus because its what the consumers want. We are responsible for making healthy eating choices, not business, not government.
and one thing that enables people to make healthy choices is having the information about what's in the food they're eating, like how many grams of protein, fat and carbohydrate is in it.
The government isn't making any choices for anyone, but having nutritional information available enables people to make informed choices.
And why is it such an issue with restaurant food, when it's already law in most countries in the world for packaged food sold in shops to have the ingredients listed and the nutritional information? Why is that okay, but requiring restaurants to provide similar information "nannying" all of a sudden? If the government is banning certain foods, or putting limits to how much fat restauranteurs were allowed to put in their food, that would be nannying. That would be the government making choices for people, but simply providing information.... how is that making choices for someone? It's not. It's providing them with the necessary information to make informed choices....
You have the ability to choose to avoid a restaurant that doesn't have the information if it bothers you that much. Give your business to those that do. Enough people do that, businesses will voluntarily put that information out there. As been stated before many small businesses won't be able to financially handle being mandated to provide the information.
Unfortunately, this is not true. There are restaurant owners that will never ever publish that information unless forced.
Then don't give them your business.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
they can't limit your intake, but I think the knowledge would help many people make better choices.
I agree with this poster. Our government isn't tell you what you can and cannot order. It's helping the consumer make informed decisions.
Well said!
Agreed. I think the first step in any real solution to the obesity epidemic is providing complete and honest information. This is one part of that.0 -
I personally think that while yes, the government is being pretty controlling, they are absolutely right on wanting establishments to provide nutrition information. I mean, it can also make it VERY surprising how much you actually are eating and can make you more accountable.
I think at the very least calories should be listed and other information could be available if you need it (like sugars or carbs). I think it should be a requirement for restaurants everywhere.0 -
Not to mention all of the GMOs that are pumped into our food. I like to look for non-GMO foods in my market. I will gladly pay more knowing that what I am feeding myself and my kids are not some weird Monstanto science experiment.0
-
Government, by nature, always seeks to expand ....Give me an example of a Government in history that has ever gotten smaller?
Irish Home Rule? The devolution of power from Westminster to Wales, N. Ireland and Scotland? (Scottish parliament could be a particular argument here.) The commonwealth and associated countries? The UK government has far less power now than it once did. There are so many examples of governments that have fallen or lost power and have 'grown smaller' simply because their nation's influence, power and reach has decreased if we're talking about it in literal terms.
But if you're talking about a small government WRT laissez faire politics, libertarianism and privatisation? In living memory, Thatcher epitomised that -- especially in comparison to the Labour government that directly preceded her Tory government. So: there's at least one for you.0 -
Not to mention all of the GMOs that are pumped into our food. I like to look for non-GMO foods in my market. I will gladly pay more knowing that what I am feeding myself and my kids are not some weird Monstanto science experiment.
i LOVE Monsanto. big agricultural companies like that have made food more readily available and more easily attainable. so many people all around the world are alive now because of big agriculture, when in the past they would have succumbed to starvation or vitamin A deficiency.
i say, "three cheers for Monsanto!"0 -
Same here. That's how I found out about MFP in the first place. Even if it's not on MFP, their own website has NI for 95+% of their food options.Where I work, our cafeteria has teamed up with MFP and they have bar codes on little printed signs that you can scan with your phone and the info populates your diary. How cool would it be if everyone started doing that?0 -
I wish I could take credit for the following quote, but it fits nevertheless....
Why do you care if people want to smoke while eating? That is a personal decision that they have made on their own...
"Having a 'non-smoking' section in a restaurant is like having a 'non-peeing' section in a swimming pool."0 -
I agree with showing the calorie content of the food you're about to ingest. I worked as a fine dining cook for french, cajun and creole restaurants, and there are a lot of hidden calories in the foods you may think are healthy. For example, a broccoli soup might sound very healthy, but not if it's loaded with heavy cream and/or salt. The only way to know would be to have the calorie content next to the item on the menu.
It may seem like 'nannying', but, to me, whatever helps the consumer make smart decisions about their health is worth considering.0 -
no, they should not be forced to provide that information. As a business owner, it is each individual owners responsibility to determine what they will or will not post.
Besides, you do not get fat from not knowing what the calorie count is...you get fat from eating too many calories...
Whatever happened to personal responsibility?
How can I take personal responsibility if I don't have complete information? How can I not eat too many calories if I don't know how many there are? The only way would be to prepare all my food at home, so you just lost a customer.
As for being forced...it's a bit sad in my opinion that government involvement is necessary.
Since when did people - in general - become so stupid that they cannot determine what is good for them and what is not ...???
It is not that difficult to look over a menu and determine what is, what is not, good for oneself...
It is impossible to know if the cook tossed a cube of butter into a dish you think you know what it contains. I am a high maintenance consumer who always asks for *this* to be held or *that* to be subbed, but you really just don't know what's in there without adequate info.
I ordered an item at a stand where they assured me the only item they carried with wheat was a flour tortilla. I ordered accordingly. When the item came to me, I could see the fish was coated before cooked and asked "does this have a flour coating?" "Oh.. yeah."
That potential mistake could have meant two days in bed with a fever, bodyaches, and gastro issues along with missed work. I am more than happy to advocate for myself and be a (diplomatic and polite) PITA, but I cannot rely on others to be as vigilant as I am. Please give us information to make smart choices. That's all.
(edited for typos)0 -
This is a complicated issue. On one hand, the restaurant industry has so many regulations placed on them. On the other, it's more government regulation.
I just wanted to add to this conversation by sharing a personal story. We enjoy going to Buffalo Wild Wings every now and then for drinks and to catch a ball game. Being very conscious of our caloric intake, we were ecstatic to find that our menu finally had the calories listed next to each item. We made a comment to the manager about how awesome it was. He looked worried and told us that Corporate made them throw all of those menus away and he was not aware that there were still some "calorie menus" floating around.
When asked why that was, he said that the Corporate HQ's for Buffalo Wild Wings had determined that there was a considerable profit loss when they were using the menus with the calories. Apparently, when the restaurant patrons were aware of the calories in each dish, they tended to order less food.
Fortunately, being "regulars," the manager allowed us to take the menu with us.0 -
It sure is convenient when they do provide the information.
(Though I've seen studies that only about 15% of people actually use said information even when it is posted).
Yes, and in the US this is quite clear when you see the 69%+ of us who are overweight.However, even with that I have NO problems with there being regulations saying that they must provide access to information as to what is in food.
I think we have the RIGHT to know what's in the food that we eat. We're buying it. Why are people so willing to give corporations more rights than ourselves, as individuals? As an individual I deserve to know what's in what I pay for.
And since they basically have to be regulated into providing such information -- write rules requiring it.
We have to meet building codes requiring that we build structurally safe buildings (and have done so since the dawn of civilization, way back with Hammurabi). We have traffic laws so that we can travel with some limited order and generally understood ways of driving. Plus, general safety. We have water regulations so that we have safe drinking water, etc.
We have to have some rules in order function as an equitable society, where people have equal rights (meaning both sides have rights in this equation. The other side's doesn't trump mine) if we are to co-exist.
We have the right to know what's in the food we buy.
If we really want no regulations, go live in Somalia. See how well that works for general life safety and well being.
I agree, but I feel kind of dirty for doing so. :drinker:
The market should have met this need. (We, as consumers who should be fully informed, should not visit places that do not provide this information to us.) But it simply hasn't - and there is a steep personal and societal cost to not acting.
I use this information - the restaurants are the only ones who have it. I even used it pre-diet to make better choices where it was available.
No matter how much they whine - It's not that freaking hard for them to provide this info - and we know this - because we do this exercise on MFP daily (log recipes and measure portions). This is not about personal responsibility at all.
Bring on the law.
(shudder)0 -
I don't agree that any Govt should push this but ..
I do think if restaurants care about their customers they
should print 2sets of menus .. like how they offer coffee/
decaf.. Some customers might care, others won't
but they will have a blend if interest and should cater to
both!0 -
When asked why that was, he said that the Corporate HQ's for Buffalo Wild Wings had determined that there was a considerable profit loss when they were using the menus with the calories. Apparently, when the restaurant patrons were aware of the calories in each dish, they tended to order less food.
Fortunately, being "regulars," the manager allowed us to take the menu with us.
I can see this being so. Sorry about their profits ..
That said, how about having those menus available for those who ask for them and not circulate the technical ones? I don't need a flashing billboard with the data. I just want it available!0 -
I DON'T want the gov. involved in every aspect of my life!!
How is nutritional information being provided the government "getting involved" in your life? They aren't changing what you eat, they aren't forcing you to eat anything you don't want to, they're simply providing you with the opportunity to know what's going into your body.
once it ceases to become optional and the government forces you to do something that you do not want to do, then they are running your life, or your business or whatever....what comes after forcing restaurants to post said information? Are they next going to say that you can't serve a certain type of food, or limit drink sizes aka NYC....???
why does one follow from the other? providing information is providing information. Banning certain portion sizes, foods etc is totally different.
The government is already forcing the manufacturers of packaged food sold in shops to provide a list of ingredients and nutritional information. Is that government nannying? Should they change the laws so food companies don't have to do that any more? And did that lead to the government banning shops from selling any kind of food?
because that is the way that it always works...the government gets involved and says "oh, it is just for this one little thing" and then thirty years later they are running the whole industry. Look at medicare, they said it would only be a 60 billion dollar program, and now it is in the trillions and trillions and from that we get National Health Care and everything else...you give them an inch and they take thirty miles...
Government, by nature, always seeks to expand ....Give me an example of a Government in history that has ever gotten smaller?
NASA
I was referring to government in the abstract, not a program but a Government - US, UK, France, etc - that has from inception to where it is now, shrunk...0 -
It is not that difficult to look over a menu and determine what is, what is not, good for oneself...
Except in some circumstances, it is. The calorie count, one assumes, will take account of how the meal has hypothetically been prepared and what it's been cooked in. A meal that appears healthy on a menu may not be as healthy as one expects by virtue of a multitude of reasons that exist beyond a simple blurb.
I work in the food industry, I don't need to patronised by your comments wrt "it's common sense". If it was as simple as "common sense", there would be far fewer issues with diet-related health issues.
Its not patronizing to assume that people are smart enough to figure out that if you eat the dish that is covered in cream sauce it is going to have a lot of calories. Do you really think someone orders something loaded with crap and thinks "oh this is sooo healthy for me..."???
People have health related issues because they choose to eat more than they take in and eat crap, not because there is not enough information posted on menus. I mean there is a plethora of information on the web, on the news, in books, magazines, etc, that explains what is going to happen if you do not eat well. You really think that there will be less health issues if the government forces business to post nutritional information, really? In my experience, government involvement makes the problem worse not better.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K 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