Tom Carper Got One Right
You heard about this on the news, but did you know it was Carper? I didn’t.
This one goes in the “credit where credit is due” file.
Senators suggest nationwide calorie labeling system, but would it help?
Without any fanfare amid the Wall Street bailout crisis, senators Tom Carper (D-Delaware) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) filed a bill that would require all restaurants and supermarket food service outlets with more than 20 locations nationwide to provide calorie counts for menu items.
I’m sure fat pigs and Libertarians will be outraged, but I don’t see anything wrong with giving consumers a little more information.
This is a great idea. Most people have absolutely no idea how many calories they’re eating and are often shocked when they find out. This information is also difficult to find, making it very difficult to eat out when you’re trying to lose weight. Hopefully the era of HFCS (high fructose corn syrup) is coming to the end and we can get more sensible diets.
so as not to disappoint you, jason….
or maybe I will….
Because of a wide variety of dietary problems in my immediate family, we won’t frequent a restaurant that won’t tell us what’s in the food they serve. I generally find that the market serves us pretty well in that–we’ve gotten up and walked out of several places, and we don’t use French’s mustard anymore because the company refuses to tell us if there is any sesame or tahini in the product.
On the other hand, do you really think you’re going to get good information out of this? Unlikely. What restaurant associations are going to do is develop some pretty standard average values that will probably have nothing to do with the actual product you are consuming–but you won’t be able to tell. Sort of like the current product labeling, which has enough loopholes and inconsistencies in it to drive a doughnut truck through.
(I don’t have the link, but about five years ago the agricultural research unit at a major university studied over 500 products off the shelf and found that 40%+ had major labeling inaccuracies. So much for bureaucratic requirements.)
Face it: you know that Domino’s pizza and the cheeseburger at Harry’s Savoy Grill are full of fat, and there is little or no evidence that any significant group of consumers will pay any attention to these labels.
In fact, that’s my little challenge for you tonight, jason. Find me a reputable study–any reputable study–that says knowing the calorie count in restaurants covered under this bill will affect the menu choices of even 5% of consumers.
Data, after all, is the difference between social engineering for your particular preference and actually doing something that will make a difference.
Fucking French bastards!!
This is a great idea, except that the chains have already been doing this for a while, so Carper is kind of front-running this issue.
It is actually fairly expensive to have the calories in your meals measured by a certified lab. That is why the smaller businesses can’t do it.
but about five years ago the agricultural research unit at a major university studied over 500 products off the shelf and found that 40%+ had major labeling inaccuracies.
Dep. of Ag. has been gutted by the REPUBLICANS. It is wonder we all don’t have Bovine Spongiform Encephalopath.
It is wonder we all don’t have Bovine Spongiform Encephalopath.
that would explain the 30 percenters
jason
The study was funded by Dept of Agriculture, and the rest of your sentence has nothing to do with the issue.
Has anybody got data to back up that this would lead to any real change or not?
It’s that simple: either you are supporting good science because it works, or you’re just doing your favorite Nanny State routine because it feels good.
Where’s the data, jason?
need to show calories on all beer man…still don’t understand that one
also on cigarrette’s the ingredients should be on there
Oh, and just to pick up your thought: I’d much rather have the Feds actually checking for contamination than playing calorie label police, wouldn’t you?
Steve,
no snark here.
Are you suggesting people that could be more informed is not a good thing? That being more informed or the ability to be more informed is not worthy of being implemented as law?
dv
cigarettes ain’t food; they are a legal recreational drug with all kinds of warnings right there on the label.
you want to do something about them–since there is no safe cigarette–the bite the butt and either eliminate the tobacco subsidies or try to make them illegal.
Oh, forgot, the Dems need to pick up a governor’s seat and a senate seat in North Carolina, so we won’t actually be hearing about that.
Oh, and just to pick up your thought: I’d much rather have the Feds actually checking for contamination than playing calorie label police, wouldn’t you?
who doesn’t like melamine with their baby formula?
cigarettes ain’t food; they are a legal recreational drug with all kinds of warnings right there on the label.
ingredients are on most things that are consumed though…right?
I don’t think listing ingredients or calories will make people change, but it will make them think. There are a significant portion of people who want this information and can’t find it.
dv
a no snark answer to
Are you suggesting people that could be more informed is not a good thing? That being more informed or the ability to be more informed is not worthy of being implemented as law?
I think information is always a good thing. I love information. it’s your second principle that I don’t agree with, at least in this sense:
I think that the burden of proof for government regulation is to prove that it would prevent harm by imposing a regulation or prohibition that has real costs. This has real costs associated.
I think it is little more than costly political masturbation to require labels unless you can actually demonstrate with data that doing so would make enough of a difference to be worth the cost.
The evidence from cigarettes (which has been studied multiple times by anti-tobacco advocates) strongly suggests otherwise. The labeling requirements in some cities have been studied and the results were highly inconclusive.
(One study in New York City showed people claimed that it made a difference in their ordering habits more than 10% of the time, but another study of restaurant patrons showed no dietary changes whatsoever.)
IF we’re going to spend the money, labeling for calories would be WAY DOWN my list after regular inspections for sanitation and contamination. Don’t you think we ought to take care of items that already kill and injure people rather than doing another feel-good?
UI: I don’t think listing ingredients or calories will make people change, but it will make them think. There are a significant portion of people who want this information and can’t find it.
Making people think is not the government’s responsibility.
Please define significant portion as a percentage, because that’s critical. How few or how many people need to want that information before we legislate for an entire industry?
As for the can’t find it part, 95%+ of the time I don’t buy it. You know a cream sauce is loaded with fat and calories, and you know that restaurant servings are many multiples of the recommended size. What else do you really need to know?
Duh–cigarettes are a recreational drug–so then shouldn’t they post how many calories expended?
And Jason-I think I know which study you were referring to…the one that discredited spinach, and all the iron? And gave eggs too bad of a rap?
Steve,
You must not travel for business once. Unless you always want to get salad (and salads differ – some have cheese and fatty dressing for example) this information is very useful.
As for percentages – how many people use Weight Watchers, Jenny Craig and other diets?
You would all be surprised how many calories are some things called “heart healthy.” Try reading publications from CSPI (Center for Science in the Public Interest). There was a chain selling heart-healthy pasta that was 2000 calories (and covered with cheese). How would someone reading the menu know that this was so high in calories before ordering it? And this was a national chain that doesn’t publish any nutrition information.
UI
I travel on average 65-75 days per year on business; I eat a lot in airports. I do eat salads (although not as often as I should) and I don’t whine because it’s my damn responsibility to figure it out.
Notice that you answered my request for a percentage with a question–the % who use weight watchers etc. Two observations–
1) Raising a question is not the same thing as providing data. I don’t know how many people use that for diets, and you don’t either. The difference is that I don’t support a new law and you do. I argue that the burden of proof is on you to show that your new law would prevent harm.
2) It’s not the government’s responsibility to make adults eat healthy. I reiterate: you can already find out by common sense and a little research that 99% of what you’re served in commercial restaurants is the exchange for 56,000 days on jenny craig.
Here’s my alternative: if the diet industry is so important, then let them create Jenny Craig Seals of Approval so that restaurants can have their healthy dishes assessed by the organizations that actually have a stake in the outcome.
Imagine: Golden Corral introduces its Weight Watchers Friendly Buffet.
I like that a hell of a lot better than choosing calorie labeling over contamination and sanitation inspections, which is–when you get right down to it–the choice you’re arguing for.
Wait a minute UI? CSPI publishes much of this data already? You’re right. I’d forgotten.
So why is it so impossible to find, either for exactly what you’re eating or a nearly similar dish?
Ah, but you think the govt should provide you the convenience of having the info at table-side when you order, rather than expecting you to do your homework?
Sorry, that’s one piece of consumer laziness that I don’t feel obligated to pay for.
I don’t work for Weight Watchers, so I don’t know their numbers. There are Weight Watchers approved dishes at Applebees.
I live in the world as it is, not as it should be. Consumers are lazy, that’s the truth. We should make it easy for them, IMO.
You make my point UI: the burden of proof here should be on the people who want to pass the law.
When somebody has it, please feel free to share it.
Until then, I’ll put this down as something nice to have in a perfect world, but way behind keeping bugs out of the kitchen or cats out of the lo mein.
Nanny and the Professor State
“Soft and sweet, wise and wonderful
Oooh, our mystical, magical Nanny
Since the day that Nanny came to stay with us
Fantastic things keep happening
Is there really magic in the things she does?
Or is love the only magic thing that Nanny brings?
You know our Nanny showed us
You can make the impossible happen
Nanny told us
Have a little bit of faith and lots of love
Phoebe Figalilly is a silly name
And so many silly things keep happening
What is this magic thing about Nanny
Is it love….or is it magic?”
We should make it easy for them
There is the crux of our disagreement. I don’t think the purpose of government, legislation, or regulation is to make things easy for people that responsible people can already find out for themselves.
We’re probably not going to agree on that, or you would be a libertarian and I would be a liberal.
But even from that perspective, I’d have one hell of a lot more respect for Tom Carper if he’d actually tried to put teeth back into sanitation and contamination inspections rather than insuring that yuppies can get a calorie count of the lattes at Starbucks.
While we are on the topic, I would like to see labeling and quality monitoring on all recreational drugs…
I’m moving to the Netherlands!
i like lead in my childrens toys
CSPI can’t do it alone for every restaurant. I believe in smart regulation. I think companies have a responsibility to their consumers. I think restaurants have a responsibility to their patrons, just like I think there should be more regulation for credit scores. I think our current system is tilted to the big guy and not the little guy. Let’s give the little guy a leg up.
I highly recommend supporting CSPI, BTW.
“choosing calorie labeling over contamination and sanitation inspections”
That’s not an equal choice, Steve. Calorie labeling puts the financial onus on the business. (I agree, a responsible consumer can find the data pretty easily. And with the iphone revolution on the way, you’ll be able to access that data as you stand in line).
Contamination and sanitation inspections involve costs to the taxpayer — doing them the way you suggest would require doubling, at least, the inspectors working for the state, which is why it won’t happen. Lawmakers will choose the free (to them) solution every time, whether it’s actually a solution or not.
Let’s give the little guy a leg up.
Actually, UI, you get closer to my point than you may think. I don’t support correcting societal imbalances by having the government intervene for the “little guy” in non-harm issues. I support eliminating the ridiculous advantages the State also gave the “big guy”–like eliminating personal liability behind corporations.
I think, as Al just said, that what Carper is doing is window dressing instead of really dealing with serious issues. The only place I disagree with Al is that the labeling is not without cost to the taxpayers. There will be an enforcement cost, and there will be an implementation cost, which I will pay in the form of slightly more expensive restaurant meals.
“Face it: you know that Domino’s pizza and the cheeseburger at Harry’s Savoy Grill are full of fat”
OMG, those cheeseburgers are beyond divine!
*wipes drool from corner of mouth*
Sorry…continue your conversation, please.
oh sweet! The country is having a financial meltdown, and Carper is busy working on this…a no brainor.
Ron Wyden’s been trying to get content labeling for cigarettes for nearly 30 years. I wouldn’t rule it out.
woohoo
Big Nanny is little more than Big Brother in Drag.
What more needs to be said?