Calories on menus - Government Nannying?
Replies
-
What an absurd position that providing data for consumers to make more informed choices is "government nannying." I suppose public companies shouldn't be required to published earnings reports and automotive manufactures shouldn't divulge fuel efficiency.0
-
I'm TOTALLY for the info!0
-
However, when we sit back and rely on the government to provide us with health care, we have to expect they will take steps to soften the blow of costs
I am definitely not sitting back and "relying on the government to provide me with healthcare". I was very happy with the way things were prior to Obamacare. Now my premiums have skyrocketed and I don't even go to the doctor!
I also don't expect the government to take care of me. I am fully aware of the fact that I am the one looking out for myself and my own well being.
Regardless I don't think that the government should be in my bedroom or my dining room. It IS going to get to the point where restaurants will be forced to put the calories on menus and probably get fined for not doing so. It will also get to the point where certain foods and drinks will be banned. Look at what was going on in New York (as far as I know that drink law didn't pass but I could be wrong). It's ridiculous. The government needs to stay out of the lives of the people who live here. It's not their business if I want to buy two 36 oz. soda drinks and have five big bags of chips with it. Who are they to say I can't?
Seriously, where will it end?0 -
What an absurd position that providing data for consumers to make more informed choices is "government nannying." I suppose public companies shouldn't be required to published earnings reports and automotive manufactures shouldn't divulge fuel efficiency.
Informing actual living people of what's in the food that they buy and eat violates the rights of a profit-earning contractural entity...or something. Why should actual living breathing human beings have the right to know what's going into their own bodies? Pfft. (This is sarcasm by the way. These are topsy-turvey days. Apparently the Randian rationale(?) is that the profitting business (that doesn't actually eat) has more right to know (or keep to themselves) what is in our food than the living human beings that actually buy and eat it do.)I am definitely not sitting back and "relying on the government to provide me with healthcare". I was very happy with the way things were prior to Obamacare. Now my premiums have skyrocketed
Look at the bright side, actual statistics show that, nationally, it slowed down the decades-long skyrocketing increases in the cost of actual healthcare. Someday that should be reflected by the insurance industry... if they aren't allowed to continue their regional non-competitive monopolies (as they've done in the past). http://peoplesworld.org/obamacare-is-already-lowering-costs/0 -
Thatcher was a politician within a political party, not a government. The UK government has more power over their people today then they did in Thatcher's time..so I respectfully disagree with your example. Just look at National Institute of Healthy and how they determine who does, or does not, get care..
I am not talking about political party's or individual leaders, I am talking about government as something that, over time, encroaches on people's liberties/lives. It has happened in the US over the past 100 years....
Within the UK, at least, a reference to Thatcher's government is acknowledged to specifically refer to the period of time in which the Conservative Party was in power under her rule and the Labour Party in opposition. Thus, I'll reiterate, that from the government in the '70s to the government in the '80s through to 1997, there was a decrease in size. Your original question didn't specify that the government presently be smaller than it was previously, only that it had, at one point, decreased. I certainly won't disagree that it's increased since 1997, courtesy of Tony Blair's New Labour, although since the Conservative Party has regained power, the size of the UK government has comparatively decreased. See: David Cameron, Small Government/Big Society.
Nevertheless, I would argue that the idea of a 'small government' in and of itself in somewhat flawed in light of the way that the world is connected at present. Unless there's a collapse of government, given the manner in which information is exchanged; the manner in which companies and the free market operate (obligatory LOL BANKS comment goes here); and the public demands greater access to information and demands for accountability, "small government" is just. It's flawed. The governmental system in and of itself at present is utterly flawed, but that's a debate for another time and place, and certainly not for a fitness forum.
That aside, wrt your mention of the "National Institute of Healthy" [sic], I'll admit to a relative lack of knowledge on that front. I cannot nor will I ever agree with a healthcare system that is not free at point of use nor freely available to everyone within a nation. I adore the premise of the NHS despite the flaws currently present in its practice.
It appears (I believe) that we're on somewhat different sides of the political fence and though I've ... been tempted to descend into hyperbole at times, I think I'm just going to say that I disagree with your stance (and you disagree with mine), but I respect your opinion and your right to it, and I hope you respect mine and my right to it.
And I hope we can both agree that whatever shape it takes, it's a pity that more people aren't taking more accountability for their health and fitness, and knowledge of related matters. Government nannying or not, studies have shown that the availability of nutritional information on menus is negligible with regards to results on dining choices; having not read the studies myself, I'd guess that for a vast majority it'd be a case of ignoring it, being unaware of RDAs and/or one's own calorific needs, or simple underestimating one's intake throughout the rest of the day.0 -
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.
It really is THAT much of a burden for a Mom & Pop to shell out $50k for a nutritional analysis. They can't just legally compute the stuff themselves on a calorie calculator and post it. It has to be through an FDA regulated lab.0 -
Basically, we have the right to know what we are eating.
'nuff said.0 -
What an absurd position that providing data for consumers to make more informed choices is "government nannying." I suppose public companies shouldn't be required to published earnings reports and automotive manufactures shouldn't divulge fuel efficiency.
Now that's a ludicrous response. Public companies are required to publish their earnings because they have investors.0 -
What an absurd position that providing data for consumers to make more informed choices is "government nannying." I suppose public companies shouldn't be required to published earnings reports and automotive manufactures shouldn't divulge fuel efficiency.
Now that's a ludicrous response. Public companies are required to publish their earnings because they have investors.
It appears you don't see the obvious parallels.0 -
They can't just legally compute the stuff themselves on a calorie calculator and post it. It has to be through an FDA regulated lab.
Do you have a source for this statement?
Since we don't have a national law in the US (which presumably we are talking about here - since you said FDA) it seems odd that you have details of this non-existent law.
The USDA has already calculated the calories in every conceivable natural raw ingredient.
Food manufacturers have to label the foods they add to the system...
Restaurants know what they put into their recipes...
Restaurants know with reasonable precision what the portion size is...
What info is missing?0 -
What an absurd position that providing data for consumers to make more informed choices is "government nannying." I suppose public companies shouldn't be required to published earnings reports and automotive manufactures shouldn't divulge fuel efficiency.
Now that's a ludicrous response. Public companies are required to publish their earnings because they have investors.
Right, but following the chain of thought - those investors (customers of a financial instrument) don't really NEED to know what they are buying (eating) do they?
All analogies suck - this one is no worse than most.0 -
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.
It really is THAT much of a burden for a Mom & Pop to shell out $50k for a nutritional analysis. They can't just legally compute the stuff themselves on a calorie calculator and post it. It has to be through an FDA regulated lab.
This is a push for larger, chain restaurants to provide total calorie and sodium figures. This will not apply to small business owners.0 -
It changed my life for the better when we passed that law in California. Beforehand, there was a lot of philosophical political conversations, but once it went into effect, nutritional choices were SO MUCH EASIER. I never realized that a tiny In-N-Out shake has 600 calories, or a creamy-looking Subway soup isn't half bad! I would KILL to have calories listed where I live now.0
-
They can't just legally compute the stuff themselves on a calorie calculator and post it. It has to be through an FDA regulated lab.
Do you have a source for this statement?
Since we don't have a national law in the US (which presumably we are talking about here - since you said FDA) it seems odd that you have details of this non-existent law.
The USDA has already calculated the calories in every conceivable natural raw ingredient.
Food manufacturers have to label the foods they add to the system...
Restaurants know what they put into their recipes...
Restaurants know with reasonable precision what the portion size is...
What info is missing?
Ah took the words right out of my mouth. :~)
Also: (so mom and pops would NOT have to sent it to an FDA lab.. plus I don't think this actually passed.. however it would be NICE and GOOD if they posted the info)
The 2011 proposed rules would require chain restaurants with 20 or more locations, along with bakeries, grocery stores, convenience stores and coffee chains, to clearly post the calorie count for each item on their menus. Additional nutritional information would have to be available upon request. The rules would also apply to vending machines if calorie information isn't already visible on the package.
The proposed rules exempted movie theaters, airplanes, bowling alleys and other businesses whose primary business is not to sell food. Alcohol would also be exempt.0 -
They can't just legally compute the stuff themselves on a calorie calculator and post it. It has to be through an FDA regulated lab.
Do you have a source for this statement?
Since we don't have a national law in the US (which presumably we are talking about here - since you said FDA) it seems odd that you have details of this non-existent law.
The USDA has already calculated the calories in every conceivable natural raw ingredient.
Food manufacturers have to label the foods they add to the system...
Restaurants know what they put into their recipes...
Restaurants know with reasonable precision what the portion size is...
What info is missing?
Ah took the words right out of my mouth. :~)
Under Obamacare there IS a national law regarding nutritional info. It just hasn't been taken into effect yet. Granted I am curious if it will ever see the light of day, but part of the Obamacare bill included nutritional info on I believe all restaurant chains of 20 or more.
Edit to add the first source I found on Google: http://thanksobamacare.org/index.php?id=8
It's been a pretty hot topic lately so I'm surprised people don't know about it since every chain and their mother are suddenly crying over it.0 -
I quoted instead of edited myself... Oops.0
-
Okay, I realize we're notoriously bad with geography, but did Obamacare need to be brought up in something about Toronto? Maybe I could change my Facebook location to Frostbite Falls...0
-
Under Obamacare there IS a national law regarding nutritional info. It just hasn't been taken into effect yet. Granted I am curious if it will ever see the light of day, but part of the Obamacare bill included nutritional info on I believe all restaurant chains of 20 or more.
Edit to add the first source I found on Google: http://thanksobamacare.org/index.php?id=8
It's been a pretty hot topic lately so I'm surprised people don't know about it since every chain and their mother are suddenly crying over it.
You're right, but it does not apply to small operations.
And it does not require an FDA lab.
It requires:
"‘‘(iv) REASONABLE BASIS.—For the purposes of this clause,
a restaurant or similar retail food establishment shall have a
reasonable basis for its nutrient content disclosures, including
nutrient databases, cookbooks, laboratory analyses, and other
reasonable means, as described in section 101.10 of title 21,
Code of Federal Regulations (or any successor regulation) or in
a related guidance of the Food and Drug Administration."
http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf Pg 5000 -
Under Obamacare there IS a national law regarding nutritional info. It just hasn't been taken into effect yet. Granted I am curious if it will ever see the light of day, but part of the Obamacare bill included nutritional info on I believe all restaurant chains of 20 or more.
Edit to add the first source I found on Google: http://thanksobamacare.org/index.php?id=8
It's been a pretty hot topic lately so I'm surprised people don't know about it since every chain and their mother are suddenly crying over it.
You're right, but it does not apply to small operations.
And it does not require an FDA lab.
It requires:
"‘‘(iv) REASONABLE BASIS.—For the purposes of this clause,
a restaurant or similar retail food establishment shall have a
reasonable basis for its nutrient content disclosures, including
nutrient databases, cookbooks, laboratory analyses, and other
reasonable means, as described in section 101.10 of title 21,
Code of Federal Regulations (or any successor regulation) or in
a related guidance of the Food and Drug Administration."
http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf Pg 500
Interesting. Thank you for clarifying. I'm curious how this is going to be enforced and regulated.
What I find entertaining is some of the chains making a stink about how hard this is going to be already do it here in California. So if they are already providing nutritional info at Ca locations it can't be that hard to figure out is it? Or am I just completely missing something....0 -
Okay, I realize we're notoriously bad with geography, but did Obamacare need to be brought up in something about Toronto? Maybe I could change my Facebook location to Frostbite Falls...
You're right... Clearly the parallels between a law in the US and a law there should be ignored. Especially when the poster asked for opinions on nutritional info being provided at restaurants, not just nutritional info for Toronto. Who could ever be so ignorant as to dry on their own personal experience on the exact same issue... Just in a different county.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.2K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 895 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions