7 ms·

Restaurants prepare for new calorie-count rules

9 points by kevinxray 17y ago

biggitybones 17y ago
This is at it's core the classic government vs. personal responsibility issue. This is already required in NYC for chains. It's kind of nice to know that the Five Guys burger and fries I'm about to throw down for lunch satisfies all of the calorie and fat limits recommended for the day in just one meal. At the same time, is there a need for government to mandate this? I think it's a good tool for people who are looking to be a bit smarter about their consumption habits. Most people understand that the food they're eating isn't good, but I think the problem is that few understand just how bad it actually is. High fat/calorie restaurant chains have little incentive to do something like this, so maybe the .gov getting involved is needed.
- theBobMcCormick 17y ago
  I think it's a little more complicated than that actually, it appears that the restaurant industry actually lobbied for the new regulation. (http://reason.com/blog/2010/03/22/conspicuous-calorie-counts-com http://reason.com/blog/2010/03/22/conspicuous-calorie-counts...). In this case, it seems to be less a case of the federal government vs personal responsibility, so much as industry pushing for the federal law to avoid having to deal with emerging individual state and local laws. I'm assuming the industry might also be planning to use the labeling to help defend against some of the lawsuits that are being brought against them by people with obesity related disorders.
gregwebs 17y ago
This policy move is completely misguided and paradoxically almost guaranteed to make people more overweight. Anyone who thinks this is a good idea should read Gary Taubes's review of the obesity literature in Good Calorie, Bad Calorie. Our society appears to have become obese in large part from gorging ourselves on nutrient-depleted carbs (sugar, flour). This is just going to encourage people eat even less fat and more carbohydrates because of the calorie difference between fat and carbohydrate.
- unignorant 17y ago
  I think you are right in terms of the ultimate effect (more weight gain). People are already taken in by the various psuedo-mythologies concerning fats, and so they will be scared into eating more empty carbs. Somewhat orthogonally, I think the government is overstepping its bounds. That said, as someone who actually has a reasonable idea of what is "healthy," I'll be quite happy see what is in the food I may or may not be ordering. Say, for instance, what kind of oil is going into a salad, or searing some fish...
- potatolicious 17y ago
  I think this is a great idea actually, assuming step 2 is followed: proper nutritional education. In Canada, nutritionists are heavily subsidized by the health system (the idea being that whatever the cost now certainly beats giving you a new heart in 20 years), and in fact nutrition courses are free for people in at-risk weight ranges. This has worked out great for me personally - I used to be obese, and this type of education has been instrumental in allowing me to return to normal weight. In fact, given the depth of the obesity problem in America, I would think that this sort of education should be mandatory in the schooling system. All the labeling in the world will do you no good until your population learns what the labels mean.
  - fnid2 17y ago
    Is there a correlation between the availability of good information and informed decisions? We know that fast food is bad for us. Even stepping inside one to buy something means that you're going to get something not good for you. Availability of information at McDonald's does not help you buy and consume good food, because if you are at McDonald's it's already too late. You are probably an exception because you were motivated to lose the weight in the first place. I suppose I'm one of the lucky skinny types that overweight people hate, but it seems to me that obesity is less about knowing what is in your food and simply eating less of it. If calories consumed are greater than calories burned, you gain weight. While traveling around Europe, I happened to be at the same hostel as a Canadian doctor and he was more than happy to share lots of opinions with me -- especially about the U.S. health care system. So I asked him about weight and food. He said simply: People get fat because they eat too much. He also said, drink a lot of water and eat slower. Later, I read an article that most people can't tell the difference between thirst and hunger. If you drink water when you feel hungry, often the hunger pangs go away. Of course that couldn't be true for me! So I tested it and sure enough, when I got hungry, I'd drink water and I wouldn't be hungry anymore. Food is just like TV or cigarettes. It alleviates boredom. It gives us a good feeling to eat. We eat foods that are too dense with calories. Steak. Chicken. Twinkies. We are emotionally trained to think meat is better. In my rural area, vegetarians are weird. "You don't eat meat?? Why?!? OMG, I could never live without meat. What are you a sissy?" But it isn't like that. Food is mostly emotional -- always has been. The reason all those women in the really old paintings are plump is because it was a sign of wealth. Rich kings could keep their women fat. Turns out they were the ones who could afford to pay painters as well, so we don't see all the skinny people who lived back then, but skinny is the norm, not the rule. In the U.S., people think it is hard to be skinny, when the opposite is true -- it's hard to get fat. Funny that your username is potatolicious and you're commenting on a food thread...
dhyasama 17y ago
How much wiggle room is built into the law? As mentioned in the article, portioning varies by location and chef. What happens if a chef adds an extra tablespoon of ranch dressing or gets a shipment of slightly larger chickens? The US is such a litigious society that it's a question of when, not if, lawsuits will be filed. I'd like to think provisions for this are built into the law but I doubt it. Also, what about specials? Have some fish left over from the weekend and want to run a special? Well figure out your exact portions, calculate calories, and reprint your menus. Oh wait, the fish went bad while you were doing all of that. Sorry. Try again next week.
- iron_ball 17y ago
  Specials and limited-time items are not included in the requirement.
- potatolicious 17y ago
  I'm not sure about the state the article is about - but in Washington it only applies to chains, which have sophisticated supply chains that ensure a pretty narrow tolerance of serving sizes and contents. This certainly doesn't apply to your corner mom and pop shop where serving sizes and contents vary by the plate.
thetrumanshow 17y ago
Ways to make money from this: 1) Make a brochure for your area "Eating Better in NAME_OF_TOWN USA". List all the meals that have the lower calorie counts. Ask the local businesses to pay to be listed. Publish this bi-annually. Do this in every town you can. 2) Start an eating-healthy club that uses goal-setting and social shaming to help people lose or maintain their weight. Ask local businesses to sponsor membership fees in exchange for listing their lower-calorie menu items in your newsletter. Do this in 1000 towns. You'll need to find someone local to set this up. Start by contacting people in outgoing/enterprising professions such as real-estate. More ideas?

9 points by kevinxray 17y ago

This is at it's core the classic government vs. personal responsibility issue. This is already required in NYC for chains. It's kind of nice to know that the Five Guys burger and fries I'm about to throw down for lunch satisfies all of the calorie and fat limits recommended for the day in just one meal. At the same time, is there a need for government to mandate this? I think it's a good tool for people who are looking to be a bit smarter about their consumption habits. Most people understand that the food they're eating isn't good, but I think the problem is that few understand just how bad it actually is. High fat/calorie restaurant chains have little incentive to do something like this, so maybe the .gov getting involved is needed.

theBobMcCormick 17y ago
I think it's a little more complicated than that actually, it appears that the restaurant industry actually lobbied for the new regulation. (http://reason.com/blog/2010/03/22/conspicuous-calorie-counts-com http://reason.com/blog/2010/03/22/conspicuous-calorie-counts...). In this case, it seems to be less a case of the federal government vs personal responsibility, so much as industry pushing for the federal law to avoid having to deal with emerging individual state and local laws. I'm assuming the industry might also be planning to use the labeling to help defend against some of the lawsuits that are being brought against them by people with obesity related disorders.

gregwebs 17y ago

This policy move is completely misguided and paradoxically almost guaranteed to make people more overweight. Anyone who thinks this is a good idea should read Gary Taubes's review of the obesity literature in Good Calorie, Bad Calorie. Our society appears to have become obese in large part from gorging ourselves on nutrient-depleted carbs (sugar, flour). This is just going to encourage people eat even less fat and more carbohydrates because of the calorie difference between fat and carbohydrate.

unignorant 17y ago
I think you are right in terms of the ultimate effect (more weight gain). People are already taken in by the various psuedo-mythologies concerning fats, and so they will be scared into eating more empty carbs. Somewhat orthogonally, I think the government is overstepping its bounds. That said, as someone who actually has a reasonable idea of what is "healthy," I'll be quite happy see what is in the food I may or may not be ordering. Say, for instance, what kind of oil is going into a salad, or searing some fish...
potatolicious 17y ago
I think this is a great idea actually, assuming step 2 is followed: proper nutritional education. In Canada, nutritionists are heavily subsidized by the health system (the idea being that whatever the cost now certainly beats giving you a new heart in 20 years), and in fact nutrition courses are free for people in at-risk weight ranges. This has worked out great for me personally - I used to be obese, and this type of education has been instrumental in allowing me to return to normal weight. In fact, given the depth of the obesity problem in America, I would think that this sort of education should be mandatory in the schooling system. All the labeling in the world will do you no good until your population learns what the labels mean.
- fnid2 17y ago
  Is there a correlation between the availability of good information and informed decisions? We know that fast food is bad for us. Even stepping inside one to buy something means that you're going to get something not good for you. Availability of information at McDonald's does not help you buy and consume good food, because if you are at McDonald's it's already too late. You are probably an exception because you were motivated to lose the weight in the first place. I suppose I'm one of the lucky skinny types that overweight people hate, but it seems to me that obesity is less about knowing what is in your food and simply eating less of it. If calories consumed are greater than calories burned, you gain weight. While traveling around Europe, I happened to be at the same hostel as a Canadian doctor and he was more than happy to share lots of opinions with me -- especially about the U.S. health care system. So I asked him about weight and food. He said simply: People get fat because they eat too much. He also said, drink a lot of water and eat slower. Later, I read an article that most people can't tell the difference between thirst and hunger. If you drink water when you feel hungry, often the hunger pangs go away. Of course that couldn't be true for me! So I tested it and sure enough, when I got hungry, I'd drink water and I wouldn't be hungry anymore. Food is just like TV or cigarettes. It alleviates boredom. It gives us a good feeling to eat. We eat foods that are too dense with calories. Steak. Chicken. Twinkies. We are emotionally trained to think meat is better. In my rural area, vegetarians are weird. "You don't eat meat?? Why?!? OMG, I could never live without meat. What are you a sissy?" But it isn't like that. Food is mostly emotional -- always has been. The reason all those women in the really old paintings are plump is because it was a sign of wealth. Rich kings could keep their women fat. Turns out they were the ones who could afford to pay painters as well, so we don't see all the skinny people who lived back then, but skinny is the norm, not the rule. In the U.S., people think it is hard to be skinny, when the opposite is true -- it's hard to get fat. Funny that your username is potatolicious and you're commenting on a food thread...

dhyasama 17y ago

How much wiggle room is built into the law? As mentioned in the article, portioning varies by location and chef. What happens if a chef adds an extra tablespoon of ranch dressing or gets a shipment of slightly larger chickens? The US is such a litigious society that it's a question of when, not if, lawsuits will be filed. I'd like to think provisions for this are built into the law but I doubt it. Also, what about specials? Have some fish left over from the weekend and want to run a special? Well figure out your exact portions, calculate calories, and reprint your menus. Oh wait, the fish went bad while you were doing all of that. Sorry. Try again next week.

iron_ball 17y ago
Specials and limited-time items are not included in the requirement.
potatolicious 17y ago
I'm not sure about the state the article is about - but in Washington it only applies to chains, which have sophisticated supply chains that ensure a pretty narrow tolerance of serving sizes and contents. This certainly doesn't apply to your corner mom and pop shop where serving sizes and contents vary by the plate.

thetrumanshow 17y ago

Ways to make money from this: 1) Make a brochure for your area "Eating Better in NAME_OF_TOWN USA". List all the meals that have the lower calorie counts. Ask the local businesses to pay to be listed. Publish this bi-annually. Do this in every town you can. 2) Start an eating-healthy club that uses goal-setting and social shaming to help people lose or maintain their weight. Ask local businesses to sponsor membership fees in exchange for listing their lower-calorie menu items in your newsletter. Do this in 1000 towns. You'll need to find someone local to set this up. Start by contacting people in outgoing/enterprising professions such as real-estate. More ideas?