Some restaurants in New York now have to post calorie content of food

4-17-2008 @8:36PM Frank said... I think it's just a dislike of government intrusion in general.

It's more of this "food police" attitude, where governments regulate these sorts of things. This specific policy may not be a big deal, but it opens the door to more and more intrusions by government agencies.
(Just like how Police stopping you for a moment randomly isn't a big deal in and of itself, but it could lead to a eventual erosion of all civil liberties. I realize that's pushing it a little...)


On a personal level this also annoys me because the people who seems to really care about this (read: rich, mid-upper class liberals) don't even eat at these kinds of places. They're busy eating at fancy "independant" restuarants where the food is likely to be equally high calorie and high fat, simply at a higher cost, which means it doesn't get labelled as "junk food". (i mean should we compare a "gourmet" burger from a restaurant to a BigMac and see which is higher fat/calories?)

It's just strikes me as another example of the "I know better than you" and "Nanny-state" kind of policies they like to put into place. But again, that's just a personal thing. I don't like being told what to do...
Reply

4-17-2008 @8:37PM Etana said... I don't pretend to know much about this as I don't like in NY...but, it seems to me that this may irreparable harm if some restaurants have to post and others do not. I understand why it would make sense for only chains to do this and it would be ridiculous for a restaurant that changes its menu every night to have to figure out the calorie count for every dish. But imagine if one chain burger place (lets say Red Robin) has to post the calorie count and another, smaller burger place down the street doesn't. People will go to the smaller place, cause it will make them feel less guilty about ordering the bacon burger, despite the fact that the burger may be worse for them. I am all for supporting small restaurants, but this would be unfair to chains.
Reply

4-17-2008 @9:29PM indycote said... Ok...so it only affects 10% of the restaurants in the city? I'm guessing that's largely going to be fast food type chains that already have calorie information available at least, by request.

What about all those high-priced restaurants? I'd be willing to bet that those upper-class meals that people are paying $100's of dollars for have just as much calories (if not more) than what you can find at your local Mc D's. I know there are some salads that even have more than 1000 calories.

I believe that all restaurants should have information available in case a customer is interested. The government means well and obesity is a problem. We just need to get off our asses and eat healthier at home more often and MOVE.
Reply

4-17-2008 @10:20PM Malren said... Ever seen a fast food menu board? The law applies to those as well.

And now you know why it's utterly stupid.
Reply

4-17-2008 @10:48PM MightyFrog said... One important piece of info not included in the story: how are the calories supposed to be counted? If chefs have to portion out every ingredient in every dish and come up with a calorie count, that's a huge pain--and what happens when a recipe changes, or supplies run low and the chef has to make a substitution? But even worse, would restaurants have to get the counts done at a lab? In that case, they'd have to cook one of each dish and pay through the nose for chemical analyses to be run.
Reply

4-17-2008 @11:18PM Shayna Glick said... MightyFrog: You make a valid point. the thing to keep in mind though, is that the rules only apply to chains with more than 15 locations nationwide. You can assume that if its chain, they are going by standardized recipes and are usually very conscious of getting uniform portions. That all plays into cost control. If everything is standard, it shouldn't be too hard to figure out the calories of each component. The lab aspect had not occurred to me, though. thanks for that.
Reply

4-18-2008 @1:54AM crismoon@gmail.com said... If you have ever done the computations on the information required for compliance, you will understand how difficult it is in the rather free-form atmosphere of a restaurant kitchen (as opposed to a commercial production kitchen). Accurate nutritional information requires accurate measurement, and yes, it is assumed that 15 locations would have standardized controls, but not always.
Its a very complex dynamic, and the reasons things like this are being required are more about politics than anything. People need to take some responsibility of their lives and their health, and not leave it up to the govt.


Reply

4-18-2008 @6:20AM Matt said... How, in God's name, are people supposed to "take some responsibility of their lives" when they don't know what's in the food? How much salt is in the hamburger, or the bun? I'm a heart patient who must eat low-sodium or, well, I retain fluids, and then I can't breathe, and then I die. No hamburger is worth dying for, not even on Slashfood.

CSPI made a $7 report called Anyone's Guess: The Need for Nutrition Labeling at Fast Food and Other Chain Restaurants which you can have for free by clicking on that link (caution: 2.5MB PDF file). It first makes the point that obesity and dietary problems are costing society tons of money, and then goes on to emphasize that you can't avoid bad foods if you don't know what they are. I've posted on here before when people say "just use common sense and you'll eat healthy" to note that without reading labels, you can't know how much fat or sodium or how many calories is in something. You think you can guess, but you can't, and often times you're wildly off. Go look at a chain's menu and pick out the items you think are lowest in calories or sodium. Then go find the nutritional information (if they even offer it) and see how you fared. You'll be shocked.

As for any confusion about why restaurants oppose this? That's simple. If you knew the Arby's Santa Fe salad with Grilled Chicken, Santa Fe dressing, and Tortilla Chips had 760 calories, 30g of fat (10g of saturated fat) and 1650mg of sodium, you probably wouldn't order it as a "healthy" meal. You might suspect that the Au Bon Pain Turkey Club on Foccacia isn't that healthy (830 calories, 42g of fat, 14g of saturated fat, 2070mg of sodium), but you might think that the baked grilled chicken with blue cheese and caramelized onion is a lot better. It's some better (672 calories, 29g fat, 9.3g saturated fat, 1901mg sodium).

For comparison, a Big Mac has 540 calories 29g of fat, 10g of saturated fat, and 1040mg of sodium. In almost every way, the "unhealthy" Big Mac is the same or better than the Au Bon Pain baked grilled chicken sandwich (with blue cheese and caramelized onions).

No one likely thinks a Burger King "Enormous Omelet" sandwich is healthy, and it's not (730 cals, 45g fat, 16g saturated fat, 1940mg sodium). No one thinks a Krispy Kreme original glazed donut is health food either, but the numbers? 200 calories, 12g fat, 3g saturated fat, 95mg sodium. You'd have to eat 3.5 donuts to get the same calories as the Enormous Omelet sandwich, and while you'd get slightly more fat, you'd get less saturated fat and less than 15% as much sodium.

If that was on Burger King's menu board, you think sales of Enormous Omelet sandwiches would increase or decrease? If Au Bon Pain was next to McDonald's and people could see that "lighter" sandwiches were no better than Big Macs, do you think Au Bon Pain sales would go up or down? If people at Arby's seeking a "light" salad figured out that it had more calories, fat, and sodium than a Big Mac, do you think that would help sales?

Chains don't want numbers on menus because they don't want you to know how huge these numbers are. It's that simple. When people know how much they're eating, they eat less, and the restaurant association doesn't like that.

Me, I still like eating out, but there are few places I can do it because most of the chains around here either have no low-sodium dishes (I can't really afford more than about 1200mg of sodium in any meal) or, if they're regional chains, they simply refuse to publish nutritional info at all because they're afraid people won't want the food. I would love to eat again at Johnny Carino's, Zio's, or The Cheesecake Factory, but they refuse to publish nutritional information. Applebee's leaves out sodium and other numbers, and chains like Red Lobster only publish a few numbers (calories, fat, and carbs) for a few chosen entrees. And yes, knowing what's in the fast food has made me not eat it, especially since it stresses my heart. I wind up eating out at Chili's and Macaroni Grill (both Brinker restaurants), Jason's Deli, Souper Salad, Outback (for a few entrees I've found info on), and that's about it. They will at least tell me if I'll get sick from eating the food.

This is not about small restaurants, or daily specials (which are exempt from most proposed legislation like this), or anything like that. This is about chains that know exactly how much goes into each portion but refuse to tell you because, if you knew, you wouldn't buy it. That's all it's about—hiding the totals from you so you'll order in blissful ignorance.
Reply

4-18-2008 @6:22AM Matt said... Gah, unlike other Weblogs Inc. blogs, Slashfood stripped my HTML (including my emphasis). The link to the CSPI report is:

http://cspinet.org/new/pdf/anyone_s_guess_final_web.pdf

Sorry about that.
Reply

4-18-2008 @7:10AM JB said... Having worked in Chain restaurants, Fast Food restaurants, and Fine Dining Restaurants, I fully agree with what Matt says about restaurants both 1. Having the means to show the nutritional data, and 2. Not wanting to because of the impact on consumer choices. I researched the topic a few years ago for a class I took because I was concerned about the impact on my job as a fine dining cook. While I learned that the ruling would not apply to independent restaurants initially, it is clear that they would like to broaden the scope to include more restaurants. Almost every chain restaurant uses standardized recipes. Additionally, most sauces, dressings, soups, meats, and desserts are prepared and portioned at a central commissary (factory)to ensure consistency from property to property. When these recipes are generated (even the seasonal ones) they go through a rigorous testing process (including basic nutritional information) to forsee the impact on the company as a whole.
Reply

4-18-2008 @10:15AM dr.ellen said... The harm comes from people like my husband who don't want to know. They'd rather be "fat and happy." Ruby Tuesday had the calories of every menu item listed on the menu - my husband got disgusted and we never went back until the nutritional information was removed from the menu. I don't necessarily think it needs to be on the menu, but should be available on request or on the internet. Bob Evans has the nutritional data of every single menu item on their website, so I don't buy the argument that chain restaurants can't do that.
Reply

4-20-2008 @4:59PM bigkingken said... I would have say that the fight is more about what government can and can not do, and what its role should be in a person's every day life, more than about money (well, to me personally at least, since I don't own a restaurant.) The government can't make us eat healthy, but they can influence what we eat by forcing nutrition information upon us. Is that within the government's right? How far are you willing to let the government control our lives, even if its for our health? Should smoking be illigal? What about wearing a seat belt? How far is too far when "educating" the public about what it "should and shouldn't" do?
Reply

4-18-2008 @12:47PM Nijnsky said... Like where would they put that information... Here is our Menu list, Wine list, and our Calorie list.

Doing an independent website uhh... You can find McDonald's and other fast food joints on CalorieLab.com... Which is easily viewable on your phone.

I think the quickest way is to knock this out is use QR sites. Next to your menu items.

That would be HOT.


Reply

4-18-2008 @2:36PM Malren said... Why would someone who is so sodium sensitive that too much will KILL THEM eat in a fast food/chain restaurant?

That's what people mean by responsibility. Now we all have to suffer and pay extra and put up with stupid regulations and ridiculously crowder signage because Matt can't stay out of chain restaurants. Even though it might kill him to eat the wrong foods.

If your health is that precarious, you should be cooking your own food. And please, no whining about lack of time or skill. It takes longer to drive and eat out than it does to whip up delicious, fast healthy meals at home using simple recipes you can find online. Costs less, too.
Reply

4-18-2008 @6:04PM Michael Schmitt said... Supposedly, the information is there so that people will make informed decisions and "is aimed at curbing obesity". Now, what happens if this idea DOESN'T curb obesity? Will the city reverse the legislation? Of course not!

This is why there is so much pushback on this issue; it is unfair to chain restaurants, there is no feedback into the legislative system to make sure that they ARE curbing obesity, and this is just another one of the fluff pieces of law that makes the legislators feel happy about themselves and show their constituents that the legislators are doing something.

It's just like the law that is being mulled over to ban cell phone talking on planes. Oh wait, cell phones are ALREADY BANNED on planes, but legislators just want to show that they are doing something.

What a waste of taxpayer's money.
Reply

4-18-2008 @6:22PM Joe said... Marlen, something else to keep in mind is that meals play a huge social function in our society. There are many friends of mine who frequently (for some, only) eat out, and if I want to share a meal with them that's where I have to go. Sometimes I can cook for everyone at home, but it is more trouble, and unless they're fairly close friends there can be more implied by an evening and dinner at home than meeting up at a restaurant. Sometimes you'll get to choose where you eat, sometimes you won't.

Also, since when is providing people MORE information a bad thing? I agree that putting the calorie content ON the menu may be overkill, but I can't really disagree with the sentiment. If sometimes people saw the numbers I think it could make a positive impact. If the nutritional information is available on request it will almost never be requested except by the people who are truly concerned, and not by the MANY more people who don't know that they SHOULD be concerned. Personally, I'd say the information has to be posted very near to the menu board at fast food restaurants and on a separate handout that is placed on every table for sit-down places.

Reply

4-18-2008 @6:40PM Malren said... @Joe: I agree with what you are saying, but: Matt up there is saying that too much sodium will *KILL HIM*. That's the kind of thing where you have to say "Sorry, I can't really go to a restaraunt." It's well beyond "social function" when the wrong meal can kill you.

And if won't actually die from one bad meal, and he's using hyperbole to make some point about posting nutritional data, then he deserves to lose the debate and be ridiculed for being dramatic.

Either way, it shouldn't be something that is forced on the rest of the world. Responsibility sometimes means sacrifice and effort. Tough to hear, but this "I'm a victim" nonsense has been taken too far.

I don't know *ANYONE* who doesn't know that these foods are not just not the best choice, but outright BAD for you. As adults, most people choose not to give a crap.

I guess we need to *force* them to care, eh? We must know better. if only the right laws were passed and we could force people to care, and to make the properly-approved choices!

Nanny states suck. This is just one of a million examples of why. If people don't give a crap what they eat, who the hell are we to try to make them?
Reply

4-19-2008 @10:44AM Patrick said... Most of you are missing the point: this law is intended to elucidate the nutritional information that chain restaurants want to hide. As was mentioned by a few astute commenters, restaurants with chains of 15 or more aren't working with a 'hectic, freeform kitchen environment,' they have highly controlled recipes that must be followed to a T. And restaurants like applebee's, TGIFs, and olive garden are barely even cooking anymore anyways, using prepackaged frozen ingredients that get heated up in the 'kitchen.' I work in a restaurant that has 3 other locations and we have strict recipe guidelines, too, right down to the teaspoon of parsley garni. Chain restaurants don't want to put the info up prominently because it will disgust people with their 1000 calorie salads and 60 grams of fat sandwiches. I don't understand what logic lies behind peoples' fear mongering reactions, other than a desire to remain blissfully ignorant. Yes, you can find out info online, but I'd rather just go to a restaurant, in the same way that I'd rather just see a stop sign, and not have to look online where the dangerous intersections are. You don't complain that supermarket food has nutritional info printed on it, in fact you probably use that information to construct healthy and nutritious meals for your family, don't you? So why can't restaurants that essentially use pre-packaged food/recipes do the same thing? They spend thousands (in the case of smaller chains) and millions (nationwide) to create ad campaigns where skinny women sing and dance and occasionally burst out into jogging-inspired bits of rappin' and rhymin' over the new "Kickin' Blue Cheese Awesome Lite Choice Salad Wrap" but suddenly it'll break the bank if the chains have to legibly print up the information next to the item on the menu that that salad wrap has 60% of your day's fat and calories. No, what'll cost them money is that very fact: the actual product doesn't jibe with the ad campaign. And the 'bad for you indulgence items' are typically even worse (though as matt pointed out even this isn't always true). Smaller restaurants shouldn't be obliged to do this because it puts an unnecessary burden on them financially, but the chains are certainly obliged to, in my not so humble opinion.
Reply

4-19-2008 @11:26AM Christine said... Jeez, how about we blame the victim here - Matt specifically stated that he will ONLY eat at restaurants that give him accurate nutritional information so he knows EXACTLY what is going into his body. Just because he has a problem with sodium doesn't mean he's never allowed to eat out again - give me a break.

I am all for chains being forced to divulge their nutritional content. I cook a lot at home and refrain from eating out as much as possible, but when my friends go out to dinner and invite me, or when we're not close to home and too hungry to wait, I want to have the information I need to make a good decision.

It's not discrimination and it's not unfair to ask a restaurant what exactly is in your food. I have a right to know!
Reply