Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.

What new or revised public policy/law would make it easier for people to maintain a healthy weight?

Options
11112131517

Replies

  • dra760
    dra760 Posts: 55 Member
    To clarify>>>I believe maintaining healthy weight starts with how we learn to eat as children. Hence my focus on children.
  • ceiswyn
    ceiswyn Posts: 2,256 Member
    I find it interesting the number of times in this thread people have expressed an interest that more place be required to label calories and that calorie accuracy should be higher. I think it is easy to see how it would help someone using MFP or any other calorie tracker, but I think it overestimates how much anyone makes calorie based food decisions.

    I recall (and I should probably look up) a study that showed calorie counts don't seem to impact food decisions at restaurants. The suggestion was that the numbers are just to abstract. Instead, they found there was a difference in behavior when menus were required to color code foods - low calories had green for go, while high calorie options were in red, and in between had yellow - there was a much greater change in food behaviors. I wonder how much it would work in the long run, or if it people would slowly build up blinders.

    I strongly suspect that most people don't know how many calories is a reasonable amount for a meal. They may know the general guidance of '2000 for women, 2500 for men' (which I think is too high, but that's another subject), but they've certainly never thought about how that would actually divide up into meals, snacks and drinks.

    It probably doesn't help that restaurants seem to think that 'low calorie options' mean anything below 500/600 kcal. Whereas for most people, that's not low, that's about right...
  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,887 Member
    Great, now I have that Naughty by Nature song running through my head. (Pretty sure it meant something different that could definitely not be written on MFP, however.)

    Not really seeing why having calorie counts in chains is supposed to be hard to accomplish. Most chains around here already have calories available and it's great.
  • kimny72
    kimny72 Posts: 16,011 Member
    edited June 2019
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    Great, now I have that Naughty by Nature song running through my head. (Pretty sure it meant something different that could definitely not be written on MFP, however.)

    Not really seeing why having calorie counts in chains is supposed to be hard to accomplish. Most chains around here already have calories available and it's great.

    So you're not down with OPP then? :lol:

    Yeah, chain restaurants have been required to post calories in NY for a number of years now, and I've never heard of any struggling to do it.

    It is problematic for a lot of smaller businesses, which is why they are always (to my knowledge) excluded by theses laws.

    I mean, I don't really think the calorie counts on menus are really helping fight the obesity epidemic, as either the numbers are meaningless to most folks I know or they are being willfully ignorant anyway and ignore them. They're great for those of us keeping track though <shrug>.
  • mmapags
    mmapags Posts: 8,934 Member
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    Great, now I have that Naughty by Nature song running through my head. (Pretty sure it meant something different that could definitely not be written on MFP, however.)

    Not really seeing why having calorie counts in chains is supposed to be hard to accomplish. Most chains around here already have calories available and it's great.

    It isn't hard to accomplish at all. There are software programs that make it fairly simple. Cheftec for example, the one I worked with in the past when I managed a the flagship location of a small chain of restaurants. It's simple, you plug in the ingredients and amounts and is spits out the nutritionals. For chains that have a mostly stable menu with seasonal items and a few coming off and on the menu based on sales, it's pretty easy.

    The thing is, as kimny pointed out, it hasn't really changed consumer behavior. The Cheesecake Factory has published their nutritionals for years. Their "Wellness Salad is" 840 calories. Their "Mushroom Burger is 1400 calories. Their "Pasta Napolitana" is 2470 calories. Their sales remain high and growing slightly (To be expected that the growth has slowed. They are a mature chain at this point) not dropping.

    Plain fact is people don't really care. It proves the point that you can't legislate morality or personal judgement.

  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,887 Member
    edited June 2019
    mmapags wrote: »
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    Great, now I have that Naughty by Nature song running through my head. (Pretty sure it meant something different that could definitely not be written on MFP, however.)

    Not really seeing why having calorie counts in chains is supposed to be hard to accomplish. Most chains around here already have calories available and it's great.

    It isn't hard to accomplish at all. There are software programs that make it fairly simple. Cheftec for example, the one I worked with in the past when I managed a the flagship location of a small chain of restaurants. It's simple, you plug in the ingredients and amounts and is spits out the nutritionals. For chains that have a mostly stable menu with seasonal items and a few coming off and on the menu based on sales, it's pretty easy.

    The thing is, as kimny pointed out, it hasn't really changed consumer behavior. The Cheesecake Factory has published their nutritionals for years. Their "Wellness Salad is" 840 calories. Their "Mushroom Burger is 1400 calories. Their "Pasta Napolitana" is 2470 calories. Their sales remain high and growing slightly (To be expected that the growth has slowed. They are a mature chain at this point) not dropping.

    Plain fact is people don't really care. It proves the point that you can't legislate morality or personal judgement.

    I agree with this. What it does it make it easier for those of us who do care, and removes an excuse. (I do think it also sometimes leads to restaurants adding some lower cal options. I've seen that with some places, and it also helps you figure out whether a quick serve place like Pret a Manger or Potbelly's or whatever will have workable options. Both do, IMO.)

    My argument (such as it is, I'm not really arguing) is NOT that it's some miraculous public policy that will solve the obesity crisis (like I said, calorie counts have been common around here for some time and people don't seem to have gotten thinner), but that it's not some hugely awful and burdensome thing.

    I also would never suggest that the requirement should extend to all restaurants, and most of the restaurants I personally go to don't have them.
  • mmapags
    mmapags Posts: 8,934 Member
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    mmapags wrote: »
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    Great, now I have that Naughty by Nature song running through my head. (Pretty sure it meant something different that could definitely not be written on MFP, however.)

    Not really seeing why having calorie counts in chains is supposed to be hard to accomplish. Most chains around here already have calories available and it's great.

    It isn't hard to accomplish at all. There are software programs that make it fairly simple. Cheftec for example, the one I worked with in the past when I managed a the flagship location of a small chain of restaurants. It's simple, you plug in the ingredients and amounts and is spits out the nutritionals. For chains that have a mostly stable menu with seasonal items and a few coming off and on the menu based on sales, it's pretty easy.

    The thing is, as kimny pointed out, it hasn't really changed consumer behavior. The Cheesecake Factory has published their nutritionals for years. Their "Wellness Salad is" 840 calories. Their "Mushroom Burger is 1400 calories. Their "Pasta Napolitana" is 2470 calories. Their sales remain high and growing slightly (To be expected that the growth has slowed. They are a mature chain at this point) not dropping.

    Plain fact is people don't really care. It proves the point that you can't legislate morality or personal judgement.

    I agree with this. What it does it make it easier for those of us who do care, and removes an excuse. (I do think it also sometimes leads to restaurants adding some lower cal options. I've seen that with some places, and it also helps you figure out whether a quick serve place like Pret a Manger or Potbelly's or whatever will have workable options. Both do, IMO.)

    My argument (such as it is, I'm not really arguing) is NOT that it's some miraculous public policy that will solve the obesity crisis (like I said, calorie counts have been common around here for some time and people don't seem to have gotten thinner), but that it's not some hugely awful and burdensome thing.

    I also would never suggest that the requirement should extend to all restaurants, and most of the restaurants I personally go to don't have them.

    Yes, we are in total agreement. Interestingly, down here in Oaxaca there are very few chain restaurants. so you just need to exercise your best judgement and make good choices. One thing that does stand out though is that the trend of huge portions is not a thing here as it really has become at many chains in the U.S. Some of those The Cheesecake Factory meals are enough for 2 or more people. I went to a BBQ place here yesterday afternoon and got beef ribs. 4 good size ribs with a side salad. It was a lot by Oaxaca standard but less that I would see in a typical U.S. BBQ place.
  • tbright1965
    tbright1965 Posts: 852 Member
    As kind of a corollary to this topic, how do people feel about farm subsidies and the Farm Bill in the US? What would change if these did not exist?

    Not a fan of farm subsidies either. However, I think the food stamp program is attached, so good luck getting rid of such subsidies.
  • LyndaBSS
    LyndaBSS Posts: 6,964 Member
    To the OP question, laws only work if people obey them. People can't follow simple traffic laws, don't know how any food consumption law would work. :/
  • paranormalkitty
    paranormalkitty Posts: 4 Member
    As kind of a corollary to this topic, how do people feel about farm subsidies and the Farm Bill in the US? What would change if these did not exist?

    Not a fan of farm subsidies either. However, I think the food stamp program is attached, so good luck getting rid of such subsidies.

    The school lunch program is also tied to it.
  • Emmapatterson1729
    Emmapatterson1729 Posts: 1,295 Member
    I agree with other comments; I wish nutritional values and ingredient lists were more available for restaurants. We never eat out, because we like to know exactly what we're eating.

    I remember, years ago, when some restaurants started putting calories beside the menu items, and people were shocked that the turkey burger (they'd been ordering because they thought it was lower calorie) was double the calories than the beef burger.

    I also wish food labels went more in depth, like back to displaying potassium and magnesium, and clearer ingredient lists (get so sick of hidden ingredients on American food labels).
  • Five0Six
    Five0Six Posts: 110 Member
    mcfly216 wrote: »
    The point is no one is forcing you to purchase those items. A rational thinking person knows that if they eat fried chicken everyday they will gain weight. On top of that nearly all of the things you listed have nutrition info available to a majority of the world.

    This is true, but a lot of people aren't rational. They're food addicts, or grew up in a family with extremely dysfunctional eating, or have eating disorders, or any number of things. Health education is much better than saying "Just say no" - and is far more likely to have a long-lasting impact on a person who wants to change their food habits.

  • mcfly216
    mcfly216 Posts: 13 Member
    Five0Six wrote: »
    mcfly216 wrote: »
    The point is no one is forcing you to purchase those items. A rational thinking person knows that if they eat fried chicken everyday they will gain weight. On top of that nearly all of the things you listed have nutrition info available to a majority of the world.

    This is true, but a lot of people aren't rational. They're food addicts, or grew up in a family with extremely dysfunctional eating, or have eating disorders, or any number of things. Health education is much better than saying "Just say no" - and is far more likely to have a long-lasting impact on a person who wants to change their food habits.

    I completely agree that health education is important. But outside of schooling those responsibilities fall on the individual or the parents. If one chooses to eat a restaurant, or get a cheeseburger from a food truck ect... that is their choice. They can make whatever meal it is at home and know exactly what is going into it. As far as a law goes unless you make it illegal to eat those foods people are still going to eat garbage. I wouldn’t be opposed to a law to help with childhood obesity as to charging the parents with child endangerment.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,865 Member
    ceiswyn wrote: »
    mcfly216 wrote: »
    Not a thing, we have enough laws and regulations as it is. Generally a restaurant is going to have a meal higher in calories than you can make at home. Humans managed thousands of years without being obese. No nuntrion labels, no macro counting they got by. If you can’t manage your weight (excluding medical reasons) that’s on you. One meal at a restaurant isn’t going to cause obesity.

    ...no convenience stores, no chocolate bars, no cake or cookies, no ice cream, no restaurants, no modern fruits, vegetables and grains, no fatty meats, no food without walking miles to hunt or gather...

    ...sorry, what was your point again?

    Obesity is a relatively new issue...it's really only the 80s and forward that it has been a real issue. In the 60s and 70s only about 13% of adults were obese. We had convenience stores, chocolate bars, cake and cookies and ice cream and restaurants and modern vegetables and grains and fatty meats long before obesity became an issue.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »
    Saying people don't have the time to use existing information to get informed on nutrition is BS. Information is out there people just don't chose to access it. I would bet a higher % of the general population knows who was doing who on the latest episode of the Bachelor or Bachelorette than knows basic nutrition information like how many calories in a gram of protein, fat or carbohydrate.

    And more people are willing to look at new pics & videos of their "friends" and rate them, than do a couple of Google searches and learn how to "rate" the info available and learn from it.
  • steveko89
    steveko89 Posts: 2,223 Member
    The Canadian Province of Quebec has seen some success with the impact of restricting advertising of "unhealthy" foods to children since 1980. Certainly takes some time to make an impact on that level but I thought it interesting and befitting of this thread.

    Source: https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/health-canada-junk-food-advertising-1.4251950
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 37,029 Member
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    ceiswyn wrote: »
    mcfly216 wrote: »
    Not a thing, we have enough laws and regulations as it is. Generally a restaurant is going to have a meal higher in calories than you can make at home. Humans managed thousands of years without being obese. No nuntrion labels, no macro counting they got by. If you can’t manage your weight (excluding medical reasons) that’s on you. One meal at a restaurant isn’t going to cause obesity.

    ...no convenience stores, no chocolate bars, no cake or cookies, no ice cream, no restaurants, no modern fruits, vegetables and grains, no fatty meats, no food without walking miles to hunt or gather...

    ...sorry, what was your point again?

    Obesity is a relatively new issue...it's really only the 80s and forward that it has been a real issue. In the 60s and 70s only about 13% of adults were obese. We had convenience stores, chocolate bars, cake and cookies and ice cream and restaurants and modern vegetables and grains and fatty meats long before obesity became an issue.

    They have proliferated since the 60s and 70s. (I'm not blaming them for the obesity epidemic: Businesses respond to consumer demand.)

    But as a person who was already adult in the 70s (and old enough to be aware in the 60s), there's no question in my mind that ready-to-eat, drive-up, prepared food, in larger portions, is more common and available in more locations during more hours of the day, than was the case in the 1970s. The statistics suggest that people rely more on those food sources, and less on home cooking, over the same period. The grocery aisles devoted to ready-to-eat or ready-to-heat foods have also expanded, and the aisles devoted to ingredients (flour, sugar, etc.) have shrunk, also in response to relative consumer demand.

    So, PP (ceiswyn) is wrong, with respect to recent history, even though correct if one goes back far enough. But there has been a change in ubiquity of instant-gratification food options since the 1970s. Is it a cause, or an effect, of the obesity epidemic? Tougher question. Maybe just a synergy.
  • kellyjellybellyjelly
    kellyjellybellyjelly Posts: 9,480 Member
    Phirrgus wrote: »
    Calorie disclosure is all that really comes to mind for me. I've thought and read about initiatives to make healthier choices available, but that seems a bit of a dead end to me as when all is said and done, a person is going to choose what they want and not what someone else legislates/decides is good for a person.

    I would just love to know what that awesome Chimichanga I plan on this weekend is going to cost me though.

    Where do you draw the line? Mom & pop restaurants aren't required to post the calories & a lot of the edible cookie dough brands (looked at a few brands online that I had wanted to try) & I assume most mom & pop sweet treat makers don't list the calorie info online or at their bakery.
  • hotel4dogs
    hotel4dogs Posts: 72 Member
    Sorry if someone already said this, but it would be really helpful if manufacturers were obliged to use REALISTIC portion sizes in the nutrition information.
    One serving of ice cream, frozen yogurt, etc., is 1/2 cup. I actually measured it the other day, and it's downright laughable. It's just a few teaspoons full. I read somewhere, probably on MFP, that most people consume 4-5 servings of ice cream thinking that they're consuming one.
    Same thing with cereal, some serving sizes are 1/2 to 3/4 cup. I wouldn't have been overweight in the first place if 1/2 cup of cereal filled me up. Same source (MFP?) said most people consume 2-3 servings of cereal, thinking it's one.

This discussion has been closed.