Calorie Counts On Menus – Good Idea or Nanny State?
An article in this weekend’s News Journal highlighted Senator Dave Sokola’s bill to require chain restaurants to place the calorie counts on the menus. As a dieter I would be thrilled if restaurants would include calorie counts, it’s very difficult to eat out because most of the time you don’t really know what you’re getting. Not everyone is thrilled with the idea, look at what sometimes-poster Matt Opaliski says in the article:
Matthew A. Opaliski enjoys going to restaurants to eat — not to worry about gaining weight.
“If I stop at McDonald’s and it says that the Big Mac is 300 calories … I’m getting it anyway,” the 35-year-old Greenwood resident said.
Actually, there are 520 calories in a Big Mac, but “calorie counters aren’t at McDonald’s,” Opaliski said.
I totally disagree with this statement. As someone who has participated in Weight Watchers I can tell you for sure that dieters go to places like McDonalds, and they are much more likely to go if they know they can get lower calorie foods there.
The NJ highlights that a study has shown that placing calorie counts on menus does help to curb calorie consumption at restaurants:
Calorie posting at Starbucks coffee shops led to a 6 percent reduction in calories per transaction — from 247 to 232 — according to a Stanford Graduate School of Business study published earlier this month.
…The study also found that beverage calories per transaction did not change substantially, while calories from food per transaction fell by 14 percent.
Overall, Starbucks revenues were not affected by the calorie-posting requirement.
This sounds like a win/win to me. However, Delaware’s Restaurant Association opposes the bill:
Sokola’s bill is opposed by the Delaware Restaurant Association — not because the group is against people knowing what they’re eating, but because the bill could create a “patchwork” of local and state requirements that would change from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. States such as California and cities like New York have already enacted calorie notification laws.
So, what do you think? Is this a good idea or is it more nanny state? Will it be too expensive to implement, as the Delaware Restaurant Association suggests?
I do have one caution, though. If this bill gets enacted, I hope it contains language that the calorie count be for the actual portion you’re getting served. When you’re counting calories even with labelled items, you’ll sometimes see something labelled as 2 or 3 portions when it’s meant to be eaten as one meal (like a can of soup for example).
Tags: Delaware Politics, Dieting
Sure, why not. The bill is aimed at the chains and they already have this info anyway, so making it prominent would be a good idea like cigarette warnings.
I’d much rather see a bill requiring employers to allow lunchtime access to low-calorie food. In a lot of workshops, the only place you can get to and back in 30 minutes is McDonalds or similar. If the answer is “bring your lunch,” then proper facilities should be provided (refrig, microwave, running water, clean quiet place to eat).
Same for fitness incentive programs. Requiring or encouraging employees to lose weight or be more fit is a joke, unless time or facilities are provided for exercise during the workday.
There is some research that suggests (suggests, people) that parents choosing food for their kids will choose lower calorie options if they have information about the number of calories in menu choices.
On the other hand, there is some evidence out there that the calorie counts being reported by these restaurants are far too low.
But I can’t imagine why anyone would object to having this information. The Delaware Restaurant Association is really on the wrong track with this “patchwork” business — by pointing out that CA and NY have laws already (as do other places) the patchwork already exists. A Delaware state law will be pretty uniform across the state — and if this is targeted at chains then apparently the majority of them have already done this work to comply with CA and NY law, right?
My initial vote would be Nanny state, but I don’t think that it’s a big enough deal to warrant much of a fight either way. Cassandra, I heard on the radio this morning (some AP feed from a Dover AM station) that suggests that as long as people were aware (studies based on NY City’s law) of how many calories one should eat in a day (like present packaging of many items in the grocery store presently) then the law was effective. If they didn’t know the # of calories they should eat in a day, then not so much.
So are the calorie police coming after the neighborhood steak shop that throws an extra bit of fries and cheese on my lunch which throws the calories way off for this item? 🙂
If this must be passed, just make restaurants have it “available upon request” and leave those of us who know we’re consuming too many calories alone 🙂
There’s nothing in the law to force people to buy one thing over the other. Most nutrition labels I’ve seen give you the %daily allowance which is usually for a 2000 calorie per day allowance. Even someone who doesn’t know how many calories they should eat should be hesitant to buy a milkshake that provides 1/2 of your daily calories, shouldn’t they?
“Even someone who doesn’t know how many calories they should eat should be hesitant to buy a milkshake that provides 1/2 of your daily calories, shouldn’t they?”
No. They wouldn’t know that the milkshake provides 1/2 of their daily calories, as per your statement above.
IU, I think my point (as h mentioned) is that many people DON”T know that 2000 calories is the daily target unless that’s mentioned in the packeging/labeling
Nutrition info isn’t just about calories — lots of folks have restrictions on sodium, sugars, types of fats in their diets and so on. This info is useful for them too.
I kind of think of this as truth in advertising, you know? This way you actually know what you’re getting. There’s nothing wrong with requiring nutritional stats of restaurants.
And yes, calorie counters *do* go to McDonald’s. Sometimes it’s all you can get and it’s better to eat something than nothing. You just have to be aware of what it is you’re getting.
i wonder what kind of a political battle a nationwide ban on transfat would cause….
People may louldly advocate for their right to put any kind of poison they want in their bodies…. do doubt the Repubs would take up that standard. “No nanny state” and what not. The question is, would the ACLU fight against it?
So let us further draw that out… precedent will have been established that people can chose what to put into their bodies.. even if it is bad for them… hellooooooooooo legalization of other currently banned poisons!
just a little stream of consciousness there.
Mrs X, i would argue that it is better to eat nothing, have a large glass of water and eat a nutritious meal later, rather than cave to McGreasies
The first guaranteed effect would be that restaurants will have their costs increased. Evaluating each dish and it’s various formats and portions must take some time and money. Redesigning, printing and maintaining larger menus to accommodate the information brings in more cost. I’m not sure how other states do it, but do you see a table that figures out whether you should have provolone or american on your burger? Or is there simply an “Add Cheese” calorie range?
Will we have a new regulatory commission to oversea calorie counts? Or will the currently over-stressed food service regulators have to take on another task?
I’ve never noticed 100% consistency in any chain restaurant, a heavy hand on the extra virgin in a pasta dish could throw the numbers off significantly. What if they run out of an ingredient and have to substitute it for an evening or weekend?
Basically, if you can’t figure out that a salad without dressing is better than a salad with dressing, I’m not sure I could convince you that there’s a sun in the sky. If you haven’t discovered that your lunch could be placed into a cooler and you need a meditation zone to enjoy that lunch, you may be to weak to succeed in this world.
I’ve lived 30 short years and never do I recall having to go to a fast food joint. I have been to a couple, but it was never in the middle of a glacier or desert. I think there are dueling studies on the effect of these laws, but I just see it as a setup for more control in the future. After a couple of violations, the state will come in and tell you what you can serve, etc. These laws do get in the way of business. That little fact about Starbucks said that revenue was not affected, but it did not mention increased cost leading to lost profit.
However the most ardent libertarians say that the market relies on information to work. This isn’t perfect, as the non-chains are excluded, but it does go a long way to giving the market (consumers) information on which to decide. Most chains already have this data available, so the actual implementation and costs should be minimized.
And if you are paying attention to the legislation, it requires this info from outlets who have 20 or more outlets countrywide. Meaning that sub shop on the corner doesn’t have to participate, but the McDonalds does. And the McDonald’s is already complying with this law in other states. Now they have to reprint menus here.
Twenty outlets country-wide or county-wide? Country-wide is a very low threshold. And what is the justification for treating chains differently?
Yes, it is probably easy for McDonald’s, but less so for Applebee’s, Olive Garden, or Panda Express. It will still cost them money in a very tough time for the service industry.
And lower calories does not equal a healthier diet, so I don’t even see the benefit of eating a couple less ounces of garbage. I’m no libertarian, but let people eat what they can choose and afford.
The article says 20 or more locations throughout the country. And since Applebees, Olive Garden and Panda Express are in some of those states that already have this requirement, the work is pretty much done except the printing.
And having nutritional info available certainly doesn’t restrain people from ordering what they want on a menu. You just got better data to work with, as LG points out.
This argument is all very similar to the debate over establishing food safety monitoring, at all. The problem of adulterated food was a popular cause for free-thinkers and agitators and eventually the government stepped in to do something about it.
Brooke, how is calorie counting comparable to ebola counting? I don’t think anyone will argue that it is okay for chains to have different health standards, but some how the same people will argue that there is a higher standard for calorie counting?
Still looking for the reasoning for treating larger companies different than medium or small ones.
To address your second point first…wha? When aren’t larger companies treated differently than smaller companies? They have different regulations for benefits, discrimination, bailout money… come on.
In your first point, where did ebola get into this? Food safety started with chalk in bread and arsenic in cough medicine. Transfats are probably more dangerous than most chalk… and the public has a right to know that. Same thing for the impact on health of calories that people don’t realize they are consuming. People assume their food is safe. The government has a reasonable case for helping them do that, just as laws protect the public from unlicensed drivers and houses made of cardboard.