Get ready to laugh: among Health magazine's top healthiest restaurants are - drum roll, please - Denny's, Bob Evans, and Romano's Macaroni Grill.

Hmm - the kings of maple syrup-drenched sausage and carb-heavy pasta dishes, respectively, are also the healthiest?

Granted, I don't go out to eat very often. But - are these places actually healthy? I find it hard to believe.

The magazine's other choices are equally as confusing: Olive Garden? Uno Chicago Grill? Last time I checked, phrases like "extra cheese" and "more breadsticks" were the norm at these haunts.

Most of the fast food chains out there are forthcoming about how bad their food is for you. Most places will give you a brochure that contains the nutritional information of their sandwiches, salads and fries. If they don't have a paper copy, they'll point you in the direction of their website. However, Quiznos has been holding out on their customers for some time, refusing to make public their fat and calorie statistics.

Last Friday, Quiznos finally released their data and it's not pretty in a couple ways. First off, they didn't design an easily navigated site, so you have to hunt and peck for the data. Second, their food is not particularly health conscious (not that that should be a surprising fact). According to the blog Fast Food News, the "Quiznos Tuna Melt has the highest calorie and fat totals of any of their sandwiches! The large Tuna Melt has over 2,000 calories and 175 grams of fat!! (The regular size has 1,420 calories and 118 grams of fat, the small 770 calories and 60 grams of fat!)" Now that's a hunky sandwich.

Starbucks is the latest chain to try to jump on the no-trans fats bandwagon, trying to demonstrate to customers how much they care about health and nutrition. Starting this week, approximately half of the stores in the US, including those in Seattle, San Francisco, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Diego, Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Washington, D.C., and Portland, Oregon, will have zero trans fats on their menus.

The company says that they have been planning the switch for two years now and that their nationally distributed pastries, primarily seasonal items like the Gingerbread loaf cake, are already trans-fat free. The rest of their pastries are baked by regional bakeries, which Starbucks contracts to provide pastries for their stores. These pastries vary from region to region, as do the recipes for them, so not every supplier has yet made a switch, but Starbucks seems to anticipate that it will not be long before they do.

So, if you're not located in one of the aforementioned areas of the country, does that mean you need to worry about trans fats at Starbucks? Not where drinks are concerned. According to the nutritional information on their website, very few of their drink products contain trans fats and those that do have only a very minimal amount. The pastries, on the other hand, vary widely by region, but judging from a random sampling of regional nutritional data (offered by zip code on the Starbucks website) your best bet will be a muffin or loaf cake if you want to minimize your trans-fat intake without cutting out pastries all together, at least until your area is declared trans-fat free, too.

Another piece of legislation was overshadowed by the press surrounding the New York City's trans fat ban, though they were passed at the same time. The issue is that the city is now going to require some restaurants to list the calorie counts of some of their foods directly on their menus. The rule only applies to about 10% of restaurants in the city, restaurants with standardized menus that already make the information publicly available. In other words, it applies to chain restaurants that publish their calorie counts or put them on their websites. It does not apply to high-end restaurants or to the corner hamburger stand, places at which you have no way of knowing what you're getting in terms of calories, nor does it apply to chain restaurants that do not make their nutritional information known.

This clearly discourages companies from disclosing nutritional information. In fact, it penalizes companies that are making this information available already. If you want to eat healthier, you probably already know that skim milk has less fat and calories than whole milk and don't need an amended menu board to tell you so. In their attempt to police eating habits of the city's residents, the city may actually be making it more difficult for interested people to count calories, as companies retract their official calorie counts to avoid having to change all their menus (while their competitors don't) by early next year.

New York's Board of Health is getting a lot of attention for their proposed ban on trans fats at restaurants in the city, but there is another proposal on the table that could have an even bigger impact on the dining community in NYC. The Board of Health is considering requiring some restaurants - beginning with chains and fast food establishments - to list the caloric content of their menu items on the menu. Not only that, but the calorie count must be "in type that is as large 'as the name or price of the item.'"

The NY Department of Health and Mental Hygiene is "intent on creating the nation's most rigorous system of calorie disclosure in restaurants" - which has restaurant owners worried about what they're going to serve. Chefs already admit that calories and fat aren't exactly major considerations when they are planning menus and restaurant owners are concerned that their offerings will have to change to such a degree that people won't want to eat out anymore. But the smaller eateries don't have to worry just yet because the rules will only apply to "restaurants with highly standardized menu items" that "already make their caloric content available on the Internet, in brochures or in some other format."

"Functional" foods have no official definition or regulation at the moment, but the FDA is hoping to change that soon, giving both manufactuerers and consumers some guidelines to go by. Functional foods are those that have something extra added to them that promises "a special [nutritional] punch," one which may or may not be backed up with solid science. For example, some products with herbs like ginseng and kava kava promise, respectively, to "energize" and "enlighten" - and because these things are directly attributed to the two herbs, that makes them "functional" foods. The functional label doesn't just apply to herbs, however. It applies to cereals that are fortified with extra nutrients, or juices that have calcium added to them.

Right now, adding extraneous nutrients to foods is a huge trend in the food processing industry. Consumers are looking for quick fixes to getting all the nutrition that they need, so when they're offered a soda with calcium added, they're going to opt for that over the regular product.

Calcium, of course, is not really the biggest problem. The FDA is more concerned with the companies that hint at claims of increased intelligence, stamina or energy, things that are difficult to prove and can be confusing for consumers. The companies themselves say that as long as their foods meet the existing food safety standards and the ingredients themselves are considered safe, they should be able to continue on as they are doing.

We'll have to wait to see what restrictions, if any, are implemented, but it seems likely that there will at least be some. After all, we live in a world where toy superman costumes come with warnings that "cape does not enable user to fly," so it is reasonable to assume that we will also see some sort of warnings associated with "functional" foods.

After its launch at the end of last year in the UK, the voluntary traffic light labeling system seemed to be a success. The labels use an easy-to-read, color-coded system to indicate that a product has a high, low or medium level of fat, saturated fat, sugar and salt. The premise behind the label is that it eliminates the time and hassle of label-reading, not to mention the stigma of "diet" foods, or being on a diet, which is a concern to some. Consumers learn that greens are good for everyday and the reds are fine once in a while.

Now, Australia is probably going to give the labels a go. They are hoping that, just like in Britain, consumers will opt for healthier foods over less healthy choices with more regularity. Surveys show that 9 out of 10 consumer find the system clear and easy to use, enabling 97% of consumers to make the better nutritional choice when comparing foods with the labels.

In the meantime, the British government is considering making the labeling system mandatory in the hopes of helping consumers further. Could the US be the next country to try the system?

Most of the individually packaged cookies sold in supermarkets and cafes are the size of CDs and at least 1/4 inch thick. These cookies often have 2-4 servings per package, making the nutritional information on the label seem deceptively low. Nana's all-natural cookies, sold primarily at natural foods markets such as Whole Foods, are one of the few cookies that are that large and still have only one serving. With a calorie count below 300 for each cookie, Good Housekeeping magazine got a little suspicious that these cookies might be too good to be true. They had the cookies tested at an independent lab and discovered that the Oatmeal Raisin had 460 calories, not the 264 listed on the label, and almost twice as much fat as claimed. The results were just as bad for their sunflower cookies.

To be sure, there are probably worse cookies - nutritionally speaking - on the market, but since all we have to go on is what the companies put on the packaging, it might be safe to keep in mind that if something really seems too good to be true, it could just be.

Burger King now has its own variation on the McDonald's McGriddle. Instead of swathing a sandwich in syrup-filled pancakes, the new French Toast Sandwich uses - you guessed it: french toast. Sandwiched between two round slices of maple-flavored, deep fried french toast is an egg, sausage and cheese filling.

The official nutritional information doesn't appear to be available yet, but it should probably receive honorable mention on the list of the worst foods you can eat. To estimate the fat and calories, I added up the nutritional information for the filling of the Egg, Sausage and Cheese Croissan'wich  (310 calories and 26 grams of fat) and the 5-pc. French Toast Sticks (390 calories and 20 grams of fat) and came up with 700 calories and 46 grams of fat. If it turns out to be anywhere near those numbers, that puts it at about the same fat and calorie content of the Enormous Omelet Sandwich. Yum.

For the longest time, the nutritional information available on the Starbucks website has only covered some of the most popular pastries, in addition to covering their entire drink menu. The problem with this is that many of the pastries are different from region to region. For example, Starbucks in Northern California are more likely to have Organic Banana Berry Muffins than in Southern California, and Starbucks in New York carry Black and White Cookies. It was possibly to obtain the information by calling their customer service center, but though it was a toll-free number, it often seemed like a lot of effort to find out the number of calories in a muffin. Recently, though, Starbucks revamped their on-site nutritional information. Now, you can input the zip code o the Starbucks you’re headed to and it will give you the nutritional information for all the pastries that they offer there. This will be great for anyone following a particular diet or simply wanting to watch what he or she eats, though I’m sure that some Starbucks patrons will probably happier not to know the fat content of their "low fat" Apricot Blueberry Muffin - which does not actually meet the federal guidelines for a  "low fat" item (under 3 grams of fat per serving), as Starbucks now shows that the muffin has 7 grams of fat.

McDonald’s debuted its new nutritionally conscious labels today at its franchises in Turin, Italy. The nutritional information of the foods is printed in easy to read bar charts with the fat, calorie, carbohydrate and protein content clearly listed, along with information about how their values compare to the recommended daily amounts. Not only will the release of this new packaging improve the perception of McDonalds as a restaurant option that can be included in the diet of a healthy lifestyle, but the 26 outlets in Turin should benefit. The 2006 Winter Olympics, which begin on February 10th, have attracted huge crowds to Italy, many of whom might be more inclined to visit the fast food restaurant to see the new wrapping first hand.

By the end of the year, McDonalds plans to have the new packaging at all of its outlets worldwide. The packaging will be released across the US beginning in February. You can take a sneak peek of the packaging at Fast Food News.

The Guardian reports that Cadbury Trebor Bassett and Mars, rivals in the world of chocolate confectionery sales, are joining together to support a campaign that places warning labels on chocolates in the UK. The "Be treatwise" campaign was conceived by the Biscuit, Cake, Chocolate and Confectionery Association. It takes a cue from the warning labels on cigarette packaging and encourages placing labels on products that will echo the government’s messages about maintaining a healthy lifestyle. Labels will feature a variety of different messages, such as "Be active for 30 minutes" and "Being Active doesn't have to mean sweating at the gym". The labels will also include standard nutritional information, including fat and calorie content.

According to the Heath Status Calorie Calculator, a 150lb person would have to jog for 30 minutes to burn off the number of calories in a Mars bar.