378073 Tue Mar 06 11:40:39 -0800 2007 46 29 Not About Food 0 2358406 I read about the new law in New York City about listing calories directly on the menu in restaruants. While I prefer to have nutritional information readily available (i.e. calories, fat content, fiber), does anyone think this would actually make people make better decisions? My opinion is that people who care about calories will not order those items anyway and are not the target of such regulations. I think that the intended target will likely ignore or not understand the calorie count, defeating the purpose of the law. Plus, is it really possible to know the exact calories in each prepared dish? Thoughts? Tue Mar 06 11:40:39 -0800 2007 35837 Sacto_Damkier 1 2358499 I don't think it is a terrible idea. I think people are sometimes oblivious as to what is actually healthy for them. People order the "healthy salad lunch" and forget about the additional items that will in fact make their nutritious meal not so great for them, like bacon or cheese or whatever it may be. Listing the calories certainly won't hurt anyone. Tue Mar 06 12:06:50 -0800 2007 2358406 64159 Faraway11 1 2358807 I don't think it's necessarily a good idea to have them listed in their entirety. As a person who's made sacrifices food-wise to lose weight, I know there's days where you HAVE to splurge and knowing the caloric content would just ruin that escape. But Faraway has a great point. I've heard of restaurants serving 1000 calorie salds with 20 grams of fat, simply due to the stuff you don't think about. I think a compromise in casual restaurants might be to supply each table with a set of the calories, much like they do with specials (either as an insert or separate). That way the option is always present, but not necessarilly forcing you to pursue it. Then people who don't care and people who don't know will each be able to do as they wish. Tue Mar 06 13:05:52 -0800 2007 2358406 76461 MeAndroo 1 2359705 I think it's a good idea, although it might seem intrusive at fine dining restaurants. I have to say that once Baja Fresh started publishing their calorie counts, I never ate another burrito there. I'm saving my burrito calories for when I happen to be in the REAL burrito havens! Tue Mar 06 17:04:16 -0800 2007 2358406 12460 Chowpatty 2 2360603 Same thing happened to me! I used to eat Chipotle a lot, too. Now, no more Baja Fresh or Chipotle. If I'm going to blow 1K+ cals on a burrito I'm going all out on a Carnitas super burrito with guac from a taqueria. Tue Mar 06 23:47:47 -0800 2007 2359705 10832 Humbucker 1 2359797 I think there's a happy medium. The info should be readily available - in a booklet on the table for sit-down places, on a big board for take-out - so the people who care can find it and not feel like killjoys for asking. I'm always careful when eating in restaurants, but sometimes something that appears healthy can be the opposite - like "steamed veggies" drenched in fat and salt, or a lowfat pasta dish that's five times the right serving size. Having the nutrionals there gives you a reality check. Tue Mar 06 17:44:08 -0800 2007 2358406 10681 piccola 1 2359840 It's an excellent idea. Why? Well, even though it can only provide averages, it will help show much of the calories hidden from the eyes. Like the extra oil or butter that might go unnoticed by the untrained eye and tongue. It can help people determine how much of a serving they will actually eat, thus going a looong way to address the issue of portion control that is essential to both fine dining and health but that has been lost in much of American dining in the past 20 years. And it is possible to create average calories (and nutrional info) per serving from any well-crafted recipe. I do it all the time, using a simple Excel spreadsheet into which I have embedded formulas. Cost=zero. For each component ingredient, provide the total weight in grams of fat, protein, alcohol sugars, carbs & fiber. Formulas will calculate total calories; determine portion size (and any well-run restaurant will carefully calibrate portion sizes to ensure its profit margin) and divide by the number of portions. Very simple indeed. And very informative. Tue Mar 06 17:59:08 -0800 2007 2358406 13819 Karl S 1 2359904 The law only applies to fast food restaurants. You won't see how many calories are in your foie gras at Jean Georges. http://travel.nytimes.com/2006/12/13/dining/13calo.html Tue Mar 06 18:17:17 -0800 2007 2358406 16011 oolah 1 2362189 I'd love it if it were just a number at the end of the description - like a little 60% grey text number + kcal. That's it. No elaboration, nothing else. I was seriously craving a salad one night and the fridge was empty so the husband and I went to one of our gazillion local chain restaurants (the sum total of Bowie restaurants unless you want Chinese food) - Unos. It was a 10-15 minute wait so we fiddled around with the calorie kiosk thing and discovered that the salad I was going to order "spinach, chicken, gorganzola, leave off the chicken" was 800+ calories. The "shroom" pizza my husband normally orders is 2000+ calories. Ugh. We left and went to Chipolte where I had one of their vegetarian salads - where depending on my mood (guacamole or not) I eat 400-600 calories. Wed Mar 07 11:18:30 -0800 2007 2358406 63906 odkaty 2 2362336 It's even worse when people eat Chinese or Indian buffet, thinking it's "healthier" than McDonald's but not realizing how much oil is added to keep it all glistening and attractive under or over heat.... Wed Mar 07 11:43:47 -0800 2007 2362189 13819 Karl S 3 2362842 Score! I just found an article proving my point - calories should be included! http://www.cspinet.org see "Chain Restaurants Charged with Promoting 'Extreme Eating'" How sick are some of those caloric totals? Ugh. I might be ill. Wed Mar 07 13:46:01 -0800 2007 2362336 63906 odkaty 4 2365476 Great article, odkaty. Thanks very much. I know I reconsider what I am ordering when I know the calorie & fat & sodium counts of what I am ordering. p.j. Thu Mar 08 09:47:55 -0800 2007 2362842 13038 p.j. 4 2365873 this is the same group that created hysteria over movie popcorn and chinese food a few years back. Thu Mar 08 11:00:09 -0800 2007 2362842 30273 hotoynoodle 1 2365488 I think it's brilliant. But I can see how some people might be turned off by it. I agree with MeAndroo, it should be an option. Thu Mar 08 09:51:32 -0800 2007 2358406 50693 JoLi 1 2365791 I can't decide if I like this idea or not. Then, I never eat at the chain restaurants to which this legislation would apply. For sure it would massively reduce my eating out -- not sure if I want to keep my blissful ignorance or not? Thu Mar 08 10:43:53 -0800 2007 2358406 45908 orangewasabi 1 2365901 i'll be the voice of dissension here. for years the fact of gigantic portions, supersizing, and add-ons has been all over the news and in every magazine and newspaper. bagels used to be 3oz, now they are 6 or 8. that's a full day's worth of carbohydrates. a salad twice as big as your head loaded with bacon and gorgonzola and nuts and creamy dressing and probably 5 or 6 oz of chicken (2 days worth of protein) can't possibly be a "healthy option." restaurants are providing a service. when did people become so out of touch with what they put in their mouths that they think it should be the restaurant's responsibility to nanny them? i don't eat at chain restaurants, for numerous reasons, but you can decide to not order the "colossal burger" and be pro-active about your own health. Thu Mar 08 11:07:30 -0800 2007 2358406 30273 hotoynoodle 2 2365993 I think the official point at which people became out of touch with what they're eating was when the % of obese people in America passed 1 in 5. It's approaching 1 in 4. The number is skewed because I'm pretty sure it's based on BMI, which is unrealistic, but the trend is still there. This issue really boils down to your political viewpoint, and whether you want the government further regulating the restaurant industry. Should people be more pro-active about health? Absolutely. Is that happening? On the average, no. On a personal level, I find looking up nutritional content to be a great way to eat right. Seeing that burger has 900 calories tends to curb my craving...not always, but often enough. Thu Mar 08 11:25:13 -0800 2007 2365901 76461 MeAndroo 3 2366626 it's actually 60% now, with a special category of *super-obese* on a dramatic uprise. Thu Mar 08 13:23:40 -0800 2007 2365993 30273 hotoynoodle 4 2366674 Well that's depressing. I had googled a 2005 report on obesity that put it at 23%. I guess a year and a quarter make a difference. Thu Mar 08 13:32:38 -0800 2007 2366626 76461 MeAndroo 2 2372198 I once saw Paula Dean asked about the amount of butter she put in her recipes. Her response was I am your cook not your nurse. I agree with your point that it is not the restaurants job to tell people what they should already know. On the other hand this tends to be the American way of doing everything. Don't want people to be obese, make the restaurant monitor them. Don't want people to smoke, make it harder to find places that allow smoking. I also think you are right about portion size. When I do go out, I never eat more than half the food on my plate, simply because that is the appropriate amount of food. Interestingly I frequently get many comments from companions about how little I eat. People no longer have any idea about what a proper portion looks like. Sat Mar 10 06:09:08 -0800 2007 2365901 71053 bonmann 3 2373691 I think your logic here is wrong. It's not asking the restaurants to monitor people, it's asking them to provide info so people can monitor themselves. Kind of like governments need to make info public so people can make informed decisions. A lot of food prep in restaurants is counter-intuitive. I never would have thought McD's used beef tallow in their fries, because common sense says fries are cooked in oil. So it's good to make restaurants become transparent. Sat Mar 10 19:07:07 -0800 2007 2372198 10681 piccola 4 2375500 I agree--there are the obvious foods that we all know are fattening but who thought small non-buttered popcorn from movie theaters was so much worst than an extra large snickers bar? It's like having nutritional information on food in grocery stores. I don't understand how giving people information is monitoring them and I don't know how anyone could know how every item on every menu of every restaurant is prepared. Sun Mar 11 17:51:58 -0700 2007 2373691 39874 chowser 4 2380794 While I concede your point that it is supposed to be informational, I think by applying the law only to fast food restaurants is an odd way to provide educational information. If the information is truly useful for individuals to make choices then it seems it would be useful to everyone all the time. But if it is only applied at some restaurants it seem more like monitoring of those restaurants or types to restaurants rather than informational. Tue Mar 13 09:35:06 -0700 2007 2373691 71053 bonmann 5 2382928 I think it's because fast-food places use standardized recipes, so it's easier to calculate nutritional info. They also don't change their menus as often as other restaurants (when they do, it's usually to add/remove one dish). A regular restaurant would have to go through the whole process every time it changes the menu. One more point: fast-food places are owned by big companies with huge budgets, while most local restaurants are owned by entrepreneurs who can't always afford to have their menus tested, etc. The idea is to put pressure on companies, not local businesses. Tue Mar 13 18:29:46 -0700 2007 2380794 10681 piccola 6 2384021 I do understand your point but it just seems like the idea is to help everyone. But compliance is only required based on the restaurants ability to pay and not the need for information. It's not the concept I have a problem with it is the execution. Wed Mar 14 07:06:56 -0700 2007 2382928 71053 bonmann 6 3946678 Your comment begs a question: could state universities (i. e. extension services, perhaps) test the food of local restaurants for calories, fat, carbs and the like, perhaps for a small fee? Such services could also provide information about nutrition to restaurants, both local and chain (fast food and otherwise). Mon Aug 11 07:44:21 -0700 2008 2382928 115014 Braniff 1 2366644 Posting the calories/nutritional information wouldnt have an effect on me, I dont watch, or really care about either when picking an item off the menu.. When I go out, I go out to indulge, not worry about what might be deemed healthy or unhealthy by some.. For the record I am not obese either, I am 6'1 175. Thu Mar 08 13:27:19 -0800 2007 2358406 26725 swsidejim 2 2366691 I think there's definitely something to be said for that indulging feeling, not caring whether the meal has 100 or 1000 calories. It can be very liberating. I also go out mainly to have a good time and escape from whatever worries I may have, whether it be health related or not. But I also go out on occasion just to go out. I'd like to have access to nutritional value at some level and it's not always on the website. Perhaps it isn't a matter of having the caloric content on the menu or table, but available by request. Though this has the problem of being annoying and, to some, pointless to enforce, as shown in "Super Size Me." Thu Mar 08 13:36:02 -0800 2007 2366644 76461 MeAndroo 3 2366715 I can understand your reasons for wanting access to this information. As a former cook, and some one who knows what ingredients go into different dishes, I pretty much know what I probably shouldnt eat in excess.. I think as most of us know moderation is the key. Thu Mar 08 13:40:22 -0800 2007 2366691 26725 swsidejim 4 2366807 The caloric information is a key to gauge portion size. Unless we are familiar with the portions of a place (McDonald's most of us probably are by now...), it's difficult for a lot of people to get a sense of proper portion size without caloric information. It's like flying without radio capability. There are lots of non-obvious analogues to landmines. Like the fact that, when McDonald's switched from tallow to vegetable oil to lower the saturated fat content of its fries, the caloric load per unit serving went up by over 30%! Thu Mar 08 13:55:47 -0800 2007 2366715 13819 Karl S 5 2366838 I dont monitor portion size for myself. I also do not finish every morsel of food on my plate. I think it comes doen to self control, and moderation as I mentioned before. That and burning more calories than you take in, otherwise a person will gain weight. I think we all know alfredo sauce, and things like that are not lo-cal, and probably shouldnt be consumed every day. I think it is the diners responsibility to monitor themselves, & become informed, not the restaurants, or the governments responsibility. Just my humble opinion. Thu Mar 08 14:02:45 -0800 2007 2366807 26725 swsidejim 6 2367029 But providing the calories on the menu empowers people to become informed so they can better monitor themselves. It only requires restaurants to provide information; it does not dictate how the restaurants makes or serves the food. Thu Mar 08 14:56:01 -0800 2007 2366838 13819 Karl S 7 2367038 i hear, and understand where you are coming from. Perhaps I am at an advantage regarding knowing what most restaurant dishes ingredient list consists of since i made many when I was a cook. Thu Mar 08 14:58:45 -0800 2007 2367029 26725 swsidejim 8 2367357 I am a cook and am pretty good at deconstructing a fair bit of foods with my eye, but i also know that butter and oil and muscular fat can be hidden from the eye very easily, so that one can be quite surprised how things that look similar to the eye might been a few hundred calories apart in calories. That's what providing the information will help remedy. Thu Mar 08 16:28:31 -0800 2007 2367038 13819 Karl S 5 2368314 karl_s, "The caloric information is a key to gauge portion size. Unless we are familiar with the portions of a place (McDonald's most of us probably are by now...), it's difficult for a lot of people to get a sense of proper portion size without caloric information." a few years ago there was frozen yogurt chain in nyc. concept took off like wild fire. a *serving* was 100 calories. a local news channel ordered undercover at a handful of locations and were more frequently served 3-6 oz. so that carefree bit of sweetness was now a diet saboteur. one summer in college, i worked in an ice cream store. a "small" was 3 oz. we eyeballed the scoops. the owner would troop in every so often and weigh our cups. more often than not, we were serving 6-8 oz. so if a serving of fries at mickey d's is supposed to be 2oz (or whatever), have you ever seen the kid weigh it before you get it? where does the policing stop? and why is the onus on the restaurant? YOU (the royal you, not you, karl) are eating it. i'm befuddled by when americans became so helpless about their eating habits. stop blaming the chains. if people stopped ordering the colossal burger, they'd stop serving them. anybody remember the "mclean?" that lasted about 30 seconds. yeah, everybody wants healthy food. right. Thu Mar 08 22:30:36 -0800 2007 2366807 30273 hotoynoodle 6 2368486 Well, the proper policing for this is...profit. A restaurant that is going to remain profitable has to monitor portioning fairly well. Fri Mar 09 02:26:18 -0800 2007 2368314 13819 Karl S 1 2367461 I am fully in favor of all the information I can get. But I do not want it to ruin my dinner. It should be included in the menu at the back. I can cross-reference what I plan to order and then decide. I really do not want it up close and personal in the menu itself. What I do not want to see is: Seared Foie Gras with carmelized apples - Calories 1400; fat 24 grams you fat idiot Lettuce and Hearts of palm with a lite raspberry vinaigrette - Calories 140; fat 1 gram so you can live longer and not enjoy life. I want the information but not my mother on my shoulder. Thu Mar 08 17:00:55 -0800 2007 2358406 11290 jfood 2 2368149 Very funny reply. Thu Mar 08 20:39:53 -0800 2007 2367461 35837 Sacto_Damkier 2 2368684 Or big brother?? :-) I'd like the info right there plain as day on the menu for two reasons: 1- many people just don't realize what they are ingesting/what goes into a meal/or they cook smart at home and don't realize restaurants use full fat, lots of butter, whole milk, etc. Thus it holds the patron accountable. 2- In the same way the calorie/fat content holds the patron accountable for their own choice it holds the chef accountable for their decisions on portion size, extravagant ingredients (sorry, not all equate good eats) Thus my earlier suggestion that the calorie content be a light, subtle number. Nothing else. Say "Seared Foie Gras with Carmelized Apples (1400 kcal)" with the (xx) in 50-60% color and 2/3 size of the normal text. Emphasis on subtle. Fri Mar 09 06:06:51 -0800 2007 2367461 63906 odkaty 1 2368490 Personally, if I knew that a restaurant was listing its calories on the menu, I would probably avoid eating there. I would probably have a tendency to order based on nutritional vallue more than by what I really wanted. I mean, I wouldn't order whatever had the least calories but I might think twice if what really made my mouth water had one of the highest calorie counts. And that's no way to live because if you're going out to eat and paying the money for it, you might as well get what you like and eat it sensibly, ie don't stuff yourself. This is just another way to make people anxious about their lives and too fixated on numbers. I already have a tough enough time trying to remain free of this rigid anxiety, and I don't need to be staring at sterile numbers when I look at a menu. Fri Mar 09 02:41:40 -0800 2007 2358406 72715 ryssiebee 2 3946687 I disagree. There are a few restaurants in my area (such as the Cheesecake Factory, the Machine Shed and the food stands at the Iowa State Fair) which I will not patronize because the food items have too many calories and too much fat. If I were to know how much fat or calories their food items had, I'd feel better about going there. Mon Aug 11 07:47:40 -0700 2008 2368490 115014 Braniff 3 3947767 Which is exactly why this thing should be at teh option of the eatery and not legislated. Let them choose to put them there or not and then let people vote with their wallets. Mon Aug 11 13:04:14 -0700 2008 3946687 111910 jgg13 1 2372331 Thank you for posting the NY times article. Really their descision came down to money - the city is the one who will pay for the health care of its citizens made ill by these restaurants. The city is trying to help reduce the obesity epidemic in an effort to save the precious city resources it will have to spend providing insulin and syringes to uninsured diabetics. It's not about whether it is 'cool' with us or not. The city has a job to do, and is trying to do it. http://travel.nytimes.com/2006/12/13/... If they raise a few citizens awareness, bravo! Sat Mar 10 07:37:45 -0800 2007 2358406 77833 lamoufette 1 2372480 I think in one way it might help, it could embarras someone that would order a 1900 calorie hamburger if the other people with them could see what a hog they are! Sat Mar 10 08:54:11 -0800 2007 2358406 12130 malibumike 1 2381170 I am one who really tries to watch what I eat. I have also gone back to my weight watchers program so imagine my surprise when I found the total calories/fats for those wonderful Panera Sandwiches that I love to eat... I usually can only eat 1/2 of sandwich and I never get the bacon or cheeses that come in most of them. That wonderful Crispini they now make is to die for (I must confess, I CAN eat the entire tomato & Basil crispini)... So imagine my horror when I looked up their calories/fats for the sandwiches I most adore! Some are over 500 calories each with HUGE amounts of fats... Here I thought they were the "healthiest" of the fast food places- no wonder they are so delicious. I really have to stop and think twice about eating there. I guess I have to say I would really like places to list calories/fat so I then know if it is healthy or not. Just as an aside... recently while waiting for a family member at a very large world renowned hospital in Boston I wandered to the cafe. They had all the specials for the day wrapped and prepared with little cards telling the nutritional values and calories/fat content of each. I was flabergasted to see they were serving things with over 50 grams of fat! I guess they figure if their staff/employees eat there regularly they are at least already at the hospital so no transportation for the bypass is necessary! Tue Mar 13 11:10:08 -0700 2007 2358406 12606 MeffaBabe 2 2381495 MeffaBabe, Two thoughts. I live in the home of Panera a/k/a St.Louis Bread Co. My lunch, which I try to keep under 5 pts. is one of the low-fat Panera soups with a whole-grain roll. It usually keeps me going through most of the afternoon. Then I eat a piece of seasonal fruit that I bring to work. The sandwiches are made to order. The smoked turkey on nine grain, with mustard (hold the mayo!!!!) is pretty decent. I do miss the pile of sprouts that they used to put on all their sandwiches. I haven't tried a Crispani: way too caloric, as are the Panini sandwiches. I join you in being appalled by the caloric and fat in most of their foods--and the salt in the soups. p.j. Tue Mar 13 12:13:52 -0700 2007 2381170 13038 p.j. 1 3948545 As the new law is targeting corporate chains, namely fast food, I think it will do very little to promote eating healthier and lighter in terms of calories. People who are conscious of what food goes into their bodies are not the usual frequenters of these establishments. Furthermore, many of the people frequenting these fast food chains simply aren't aware of how many calories are too much, too little, nutritionally devoid, etc. It's been shown in numerous studies, that despite having calorie counts available, people underestimate how much they actually eat time and time again. And then there is the simple issue of lack of care about how many calories are in a particular meal... the emphasis of many consumers is convenience, taste, and value. These caloric fast food meals fulfill these expectations for their purchasers. It certainly is not a bad thing to list the calories, but it's doubtful that it will work to truly reduce obesity. The city would have to adopt a massive nutritional education program, mandate exercise, give vouchers for fresh produce and proteins, etc. - steps way beyond its reach. People are choosing to eat themselves into disease, disability, and death. One can't avoid hearing about the obesity epidemic and all the health risks associated with extra weight, yet people continue to get bigger and unhealthier. It seems as if many people still live with "that won't happen to me" attitude, or just bury their heads deeper in the sand. Mon Aug 11 16:58:06 -0700 2008 2358406 174054 trishyb