This law is great - I think...
At least my first reaction was that it's great. But I don't eat out often - maybe once or twice a month. So can't I just eat what I want to eat and be left alone? Sure, but most people eat out several times a week and may be unintentionally clueless as to what they are putting in their bodies. And even if I only eat out once or twice a month, I suppose knowing the calorie or fat content won't do me any harm. Information certainly can't hurt us.
New York City chain delis, cafes and restaurants have to tell you how many calories are in every cookie, muffin or sit down meal you order - or face large fines. The eateries required to do this must have 15 nationally placed outlets to make the labeling mandatory. Of course, any cafe can do it but most choose not to. Who is going to order their favorite dish when they see that it contains 1500 calories?
So places like Starbucks, Dunkin' Donuts, TGI Fridays and other well-known chains are now required by law to show the calorie count of those cookies or bagels you sneak with your morning coffee. And most people are horrified - 500 calorie cookies and 600 calorie muffins are causing them to scale back on what they are eating - which is the intention of the law. But the restaurants aren't happy. They are currently fighting the law but will face fines up to $2000 by this coming Friday in NYC if they refuse to comply.
According to this MSNBC story, written by health writer Roni Caryn Rabin,
"Putting the brakes on thoughtlessly inhaling calories is exactly the effect New York City health officials hoped the law would have. They say calorie labels could reduce the number of obese New Yorkers by 150,000 over the next five years, and prevent 30,000 cases of diabetes.
New York is not the only city pushing calorie labels. New laws in Seattle and California’s Santa Clara and San Francisco are scheduled to go into effect later this year, including some more stringent than New York’s, requiring restaurants to post information about sodium, carbs, fats and cholesterol in addition to calories. "
Source http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25464987/
Everyone knows their daily doughnut isn't a great idea but we tend to think of salads as good choices. This new law will change a lot of that as
"...many New Yorkers are finding that even the foods they thought were lower calorie really aren’t. Vicki Freedman, who lives in Manhattan, watches her weight and always tries to choose a light option when eating out. But the 26 year old just discovered that the Friday’s pecan-crusted chicken salad, served with mandarin oranges, dried cranberries and celery, has 1,360 calories.
“That surprised me the most because they market it as a healthy option,” she said. “It’s like false advertising. You think it’s better than the burger and the fries. It’s misleading.” (The cheeseburger served with fries is, indeed, 1,290 calories.)
Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25464987/
Not every consumer is happy with this law. Many prefer blissful ignorance! One customer was very unhappy at her menu showing her exactly what she was eating -
"At T.G.I. Friday’s, one of the few sit-down chain restaurants to have already added calorie counts to menus, a group of young women gasped as they studied the menu, barely able to find a meal under 1,000 calories, never mind an appetizer or dessert. Both Stephanie Fowler and Lindsay Green asked about the suddenly popular Classic Sirloin — at 290 calories, it was one of the lowest calorie items on the menu — but learned the restaurant ran out by the time the dinner rush started"
“I’m so upset,” [Fowler] said, noting some entrees — like the Jack Daniels ribs and shrimp dinner — contain almost 2,000 calories, and the desserts were more of the same (the brownie obsession is 1,500 calories). “I wish they wouldn’t have done this.”
But then Fowler noticed that the waiter had handed her friend an old menu, which didn’t have calorie counts on it.
“You got a menu without anything on it?” she asked her friend. “Can I have yours?” "
Source - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25464987/
Now that's denial!
Tell Us -
Do you feel like the women above - is all this too much information? Or do you like this law and would you like to see it in your town? Would it change what you choose from the menu?
All user-generated information on this site is the opinion of its author only and is not a substitute for medical advice or treatment for any medical conditions. Members and guests are responsible for their own posts and the potential consequences of those posts detailed in our Terms of Service.
Add a Comment5 Comments
Just a suggestion:
If the restaurant offers senior selections, but not "weight watchers" smaller portions, go for the senior because they're usually smaller, anyway.
But, sometimes there's only a child's portion, and sometimes the children's menu is downright awful.
Mom and I go through this often. If I don't have the opportunity to opt for a smaller portion, I simply ask for a take-home box and divide the meal in half to set aside for lunch the next day (or, one of my college bound kids will show up and have it for dinner, haha!).
July 17, 2008 - 4:40pmThis Comment
I agree that this is a good start.
A problem I foresee is illustrated by one woman's comment in the original article: "...[she] discovered that the Friday’s pecan-crusted chicken salad, served with mandarin oranges, dried cranberries and celery, has 1,360 calories...'It’s like false advertising. You think it’s better than the burger and the fries. It’s misleading.' (The cheeseburger served with fries is, indeed, 1,290 calories.)".
Sure, the salad option is misleading, which is a problem. However, choosing a cheeseburger and fries RATHER THAN the salad because the salad has 70 more calories is not a healthy option, either. There is more to "nutrition" than calorie counting, and in this example, it's obvious: the salad has leaner protein, fruits and veggies; nothing fried like it's "lesser calorie" counterpart.
As the previous post says, "knowledge is power" and I hope we don't just look at the calories as the only judge of what is healthy or not. Calories are NOT inherently bad...they give us fuel, so I hope they are put into context as one of many nutrition tools.
I do hope this will provide restaurants more incentive to provide smaller portions (this will help their calorie-count numbers go down!), as well as to provide some actual healthy options.
July 17, 2008 - 2:33pmThis Comment
I think that we all need to brace ourselves for more shocks as we begin to see nutrition facts on menus and company web sites. As a dietitian that provides restaurants with nutrition analysis (www.cookedapple.com) I am continuously shocked by the amount of calories in the dishes served in restaurants. The liberating point is that this information is available, and we have the power to make decisions about what we order and how much of it we chose to eat. Because this information is required in some areas, it is forcing many restaurants to reformulate, giving us more choices.
July 17, 2008 - 1:34pmThis Comment
Regardless whether anyone wants to pooh-pooh the premise behind French Women Don't Get Fat, or Japanese Women Don't Get Old or Fat, or anyone else on a healthy regimen who doesn't get fat, the fact remains that we're seeing high rates of obesity and morbid obesity among children, as well as adults, in our more affluent societies. This translates to higher costs of health care and insurance as more people are diagnosed with diabetes, high cholesterol, heart disease or other serious conditions as a result of their weight and eating habits.
That a law is being enforced to provide caloric content of menu items doesn't bother me in the least. I look for the nutritional information at a restaurant. I also allow myself the occasional indulgence, as deprivation has the opposite of intended effects upon most people, myself included.
I look at this law as an extension of the Federal requirement to provide nutritional information on products you buy for consumption.
July 16, 2008 - 5:39pmThis Comment
Know some people might argue that governments shouldn't mandate what businesses do too tightly, but I don't think providing information about a product for consumers is a bad thing.
For example, my husband recently purchased a prepackaged salad from a grocery store only to find out that it the two servings he ate totaled 800 calories. Ouch.
Why shouldn't consumers have information made available to them that allows them to choose healthy options?
And frankly, most of the people I know consider dining out a 'splurge' in both money and calories, so they may not be so concerned about what they're eating.
Think something like this might come in handy for people who have certain health conditions such as diabetes and need to keep a closer eye on what they eat.
July 16, 2008 - 3:08pmThis Comment