Calories on Fast Food Menus: Should it Become Law?
As a growing number of states adopt the practice of making fast-food restaurants list calories on their menus, Congress continues in its struggle to implement this obesity-combating tactic nationwide, reports Reuters Health.
California is the first U.S. state to require fast food restaurant chains to list calories on their menus, with New York City following suit earlier this year. There are currently more than a dozen states that are considering similar health code provisions, a move aimed at promoting healthful eating.
While some lawmakers in Washington, D.C. remain someone resistant, contending that this is a matter better left to the states, there is hope for national passage of this measure when Congress goes next goes into session.
Congressional proponents of the passage of this health code prevision include:
- Sen. Tom Carper of Delaware (D)
- Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska (R)
- Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut (D)
- Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa (D)
However, support has also come from what would consider to be an unlikely place: a member of the fast food industry.
Jonathan Blum, a senior vice president with Yum Brands, stated that his fast food company supports a uniform nationwide approach that would apply to supermarkets, convenience stores and restaurants, including his own Pizza Hut and Taco Bell brands. Furthermore, Yum has pledged to display calorie information on menus at its company-owned stores by 2011.
Considering World Health Organization reports that one in three adults living in the U.S. are overweight, this caloric content listing measure -- though not a panacea for the weight crisis we face -- is certainly a move in the right direction.
69 Comments
Add Your Comment
ADVERTISING
New
- FROM DIET BLOG
- On-Off Fasting: Does It Work?
- 400 Calorie Fix
- 5 Factor World Diet
- Quick Giveaway: Powerhouse Weight Loss Game
- FORUM
- Low Carb Atkins Diet- Tips to Cut the Carbs.
- How Can I Gain a Healthy Weight and Keep it?
- How Do I Eat Healthy at University?
- Starving Myself and Exercising, But Not Losing an Ounce?
Categories
| Body Image Celebrities Diet Pills Diets Exercise |
Fast Food Funny Stuff Success Stories Teens and Kids Tips and Tools |
RSS Feed
Follow @DietBlog on Twitter
Who really believes such laws will do any good to combat overweight and obesity?
The polititians are on board as a PR stunt, to show how much they "care" about us. The role of government is NOT to police our caloric intake.
The free market, not polititians, ALREADY provides calorie counts. Ask at the fast food counter, or look on the wall beside the counter, or go to CalorieLab.com or NutritionData.com.
Note: more government equals less freedom.
-Steve
ReplyI sure haven't noticed calories on food products making any major difference to the obesity problems of the world. So in theory - it sounds like it should be helpful - but I wonder, will it really make any difference?
ReplySame here Cari! I'm sure it will make a difference with some people, but these folks probably already pay attention. For most, no difference, I agree. Think about it, has putting calorie content on alcoholic products had an impact?
ReplyI have a right to have the information readily available to make decisions on what I am eating.
I shouldn't have to ask someone for the information, steal someone's laptop in the store, or plan what I'm having for dinner and look up nutrition information before I leave the house every day.
This isn't restricting any one. No one is "less free". The government isn't making them serve certain foods, or regulate what people eat. They are providing information, THAT IS ALL.
This is giving power, information, and choice to the consumer.
ReplyA RIGHT is never something that is forced to begin to someone or entity. A RIGHT is having the ability to pursue whatever it is you desire by your own capacity.
Laws like these are utterly useless, and in no way shape or form do they help any reasoning person. It's just another publicity stunt by politicians and the companies (Yum brand) that saddle with them.
ReplyI want the nutrition information where I can find it. If all fast food chains listed it on theire websites or had a brochure it would be different. I've spent over an hour trying to find information from Braum's. I can find info on prepackaged items for sale in their dairy stores, but not their fast food. They aren't kidding me. These larger chains know what's in their food, they don't want us to know. I can not find info on IHOP, Waffle House, or cracker barrel either. I count calories and you can't estimate at some of these places. I don't want to have the government regulating what I eat, but I don't want to have to spend hours planning my meal out before I go. I do pay attention to calories at restaraunts that provide this info.
ReplyI heard about this a couple weeks ago. I don't mind the government exercising it's authority to get things done but I don't think this will work. Would all restaurants have to do this? What about small family owned ones? It would be a nightmare of cost. Instead of making it mandatory why not create some kind of incentive to businesses who do provide this information. It would certainly cost less than enforcing mandatory nutrition info and it would be less detrimental to smaller businesses.
ReplyNo. The government is too involved in our daily lives as it is. It's not their responsibility to make sure we know what we're putting in our mouths. It's OUR responsibility. As the previous poster said, the nutritional info for nearly every fast food chain is available--you just need to seek it out.
Besides, it seems to me (at least in my circle) that the people who actually look at labels are those who already concerned about, and watch, what they are eating.
"Government is not the solution to our problem. Government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
Reply"Furthermore, Yum has pledged to display calorie information on menus at its company-owned stores by 2011"
Do his menu items have so many calories that he is not able to count them before 2011?
If he was really supportive he would tell his managers: "do it with the next two months or start looking for another job."
ReplyI have to agree with all of the thoughts here - the government shouldn't have to intervene. People are responsible for their own health, and most people know that fast food isn't their healthiest option.
Steve has a really good point, that the free market already provides the information. If someone is really concerned about what is in their fast food, they can find it fairly easily.
The last thing any U.S. law will do is solve the obesity problem. Fortunately, that is one that is left in the hands of the people.
Be strong. Be well.
John Sifferman NSCA-CPT
ReplyThat's all well and good that the fast food companies are making their menus more healthy but I don't like the idea of the govt telling me what I can and can't eat.
ReplyI understand some of the negative comments here, but over time, social and environmental cues do have an effect on habits---for instance, smoking has become much less convenient and socially acceptable throughout the past several decades . . . ergo, since the 1960s, the percent of Americans who smoke has declined significantly.
This particular measure regarding caloric-content display is a small step, to be sure, but combined with others it may have a good effect. I've been pondering exactly these kinds of questions lately.
ReplyI have to say I think this is a positive move. Any situation that provides people with the opportunity to make a more informed decision is a step in the right direction.
ReplyIn Puerto Rico is already a law; but the letters of the chart are so small that nobody can see it. or they do like McDonalds, they put the chart so high that you have to look almost to the sky to see it!!
ReplyNo. People should be free. People who run restaurants should be free.
If you need to see the numbers, only go to restaurants that post them. You're free to choose.
If restaurants are forced to post the calorie numbers, the proponents of the laws should be forced to go to those restaurants and buy and eat the food.
No calorie police.
ReplyI am really surprised by the number of you guys that are taking a stand against our ability to make a more informed decision. Having nutrition info posted at the point of purchase does not interfere with our ability to make the food choices we want.
ReplyCheri, you miss the point entirely. Having the information is not a bad thing, nor is it the thing people are taking a stand against. We hate that the government mandates every little behavior these days and gets involved in *EVERYTHING*. What I shove in my mouth is NOT the government's business, be it in the kitchen or the bedroom.
Please do not create straw men and then argue against them. No one is arguing against informed choice. What we are saying is that information ALREADY EXISTS without the government mandating anything to anyone.
ReplyIt sounds like you are creating the straw man. The government is not interfering in any way with your rights. You will have the exactly the same ability to choose what to eat. The only difference is that the caloric information will be more readily available. That enhances your freedom - it does not restrict it.
ReplyThe Government is interfering with the rights of a business to put whatever it wants on its menu. It's called FREEDOM. I don't want the Government forcing a private business to do something it doesn't want or need to do.
Let the markets work. If people want this kind of information then the companies will gladly provide it to stay competitive.
The ONLY time the Government has to mandate something is when not enough people want it which suggests that it isn't need.
ReplyIf restaurants feel like they're losing their freedom and their "rights" are being infringed upon, they must already realize they're selling SHIT to the masses. If they were proud of the menu then they would flaunt the nutritional benefits!
ReplyIt interferes with the ability of the restaurant owner to make the choices he wants -- specifically, it forces him to print his menu to the satisfaction of the calorie/menu police.
People should be free. Restaurant owners and managers are people. They should be free to make their own choices.
And you can choose to eat there or not because you're also free.
ReplyThis a great idea that promotes market efficiency. More information is never harmful to the consumer - it enhances choice, rather than restricting it. It makes consumers more, not less, responsible for their decisions - because they will be better informed.
The government is not preventing anybody from eating any particular food.
And in fact it is not easy to find out the caloric content of food at the point of sale. It is difficult and time-consuming.
ReplyIt is easy. But so what if it weren't? Does the world owe you an easy life where everything you could possibly want is easy?
Diets aren't easy. That's why people who need everything to be easy fail at their diets. They'd rather complain about things not being easy than to make an effort. (And why not? The world owes them ease, right? Why does the entire world keep failing them and making them fat?)
ReplyThe justification for the law is that information about products should be easily obtainable by consumers so they can make informed decisions. I don't think the world owes me an easy lifestyle - that's a pretty stupid straw man argument - but democratic governments should pass sensible laws that increase information for consumers and impose very minimal costs on businesses.
ReplyIf you want the calorie information, look it up on the Internet. You've heard of the Internet, right?
If you can't be bothered to do that, then you don't really need to know the number of calories. Else you'd find out.
And you won't succeed at your diet anyway, because dieting isn't the easiest thing, and people who can't be bothered to do the easiest things won't be able to stick to their diet.
ReplyI do look it up on the Internet. If I choose I can also pressure the goverment to make it mandatory for restaurants to post such information at the point of sale to make it even easier to find out such important information, which comes at a low cost to the restaurant.
I don't need to succeed on my diet, because I am not on a diet. I am at a very healthy weight right now.
ReplyDoes such a measure help against the obesity of the millions? I do not think so.
ReplyIs it the task of the government to take such a measure? I do not think so.
But I welcome this measure. Whenever I want to try some new food, I first try to find out how many calories, carbs and fat are in it. You know: low calories, high complex carbs, low sugar, low fat.
If I cannnot get this information, more often than not I avoid the new experience.
Sure, I normally avoid fast food. But still: Sometimes - for some reason - you may prefer fast food to other / no food. And then it is very helpful to know what burgers or desserts are low cal.
I think posting nutritional info is a good thing. Yeah, it may not help solve the obesity crisis but for me, I like to know what is going in. I also mostly avoid fast food, but when I do, I like to choose the best option.
With info posted, people are still going to eat what they want to eat. No one is forcing them to change. If they feel bad because they are eating something that has 2000 calories in it that is their problem.
ReplyI don't think it will help anything on the obesity front. I'm pretty sure most people that DO care about how many calories they're eating make sure to find that info out before eating their food. I agree with the other posters that said that the government shouldn't be policing the restaurant industry and telling us what we can/can't eat. How does the government know that I may have run 15 miles today and I damn well deserve my 500 calorie burger? Like others have said, many restaurants already provide nutrition info for their dishes; you just have to take a few minutes to look it up before you eat. Most fast food joints have lists of the nutritional info right at the cash register...all you have to do is pick up the pamphlet and read it. Oh, but that would require some personal responsibility...can't have THAT now, can we?
ReplyThe government already polices the restaurant industry in numerous ways - through zoning laws, health and safety laws, minimum wage laws, etc. Do you object to all of those on principle, or is there some reason why you think that requiring caloric information is particularly bad?
Also, most packaged food sold in grocery stores is required to have much more nutritionally information. Do you also object strongly to that?
ReplyThis is a silly argument. We force them to do X, why not Y?
Forcing people to do things against their will is wrong, that's why. It shouldn't be done unless it is absolutely necessary. Calories on menus is not absolutely necessary.
You just want to force people to make choices you like. This time, it's restaurant menus. Let's have restaurant menu police force restaurant owners to meet the satisfaction of The Designated Chooser: "blah".
What if a restaurant says no? Prison? Shut the place down? How does that give consumers the "choice" to go there if you and your menu cops shut the restaurant down?
ReplyWell, you sound like some sort of extremist libertarian. I don't believe laws are only justified when "absolutely necessary." I believe they are justified when the benefits outweigh the costs. Here, the costs of providing caloric information are very low and the benefits are obvious - in fact, these sorts of laws are pretty popular since people tend to like easily accessible information about the products they buy. The politicians wouldn't be pushing these laws if the majority of people did not favor them.
That's how democracy works. We the people decide whether certain rules and regulations are benefial. The same way we decided that restaurants should meet certain health and safety standards, should pay minimum wage, and so forth.
ReplyYou sound like some sort of extreme totalitarian control freak.
How do we get more choice if you go around shutting down every restaurant that doesn't satisfy your whimsical preferences?
If the cost is so low, you'll be happy to personally pay for it yourself out of your own pocket, right? Why don't you start a foundation to persuade or financially reward restaurants that follow your guidelines?
Because it's cheaper to force people. Because it's easier to threaten them and their livelihood. Because you want what you want and you're happy to use force to get it, like an organized crime boss might.
Please learn to mind your own business. The restaurant owner will mind his. He doesn't force you to eat at his restaurant. You don't force him to print his menus to your satisfaction. That's what manners and respect are. That's how a free society works.
ReplyBravo, Ben.
Mike Howard and blah are just a couple of goose-steppers who think they know what's best for everyone.
ReplyNo, actually, in a democracy people can push for beneficial laws that restrict how businesses operate. Every free society regulates businesses. The only places you see businesses operate without regulation are in totatlitarian societies such as China.
ReplyGreat points, blah - agree with your sentiments completely.
ReplyThat's because you're a left wing fascist.
ReplyHa ha. Him and Arnold Schwarzenegger too.
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gw6Z9kOrASYzVgQLnUMR03Ue1zPw
ReplyIf you really believe in "we the people" then have the state you live in put up a ballot initiative and let people vote on it.
The same thing should be done with abortion, gay marriage, and all the other pet issues "liberals" are trying to force down everyone's throats.
ReplyI live in California. If it were put on the ballot, it would pass easily.
California just had a ballot initiate that imposes new restrictions on how food producers can raise animals. It passed 63-37 percent.
http://vote.sos.ca.gov/Returns/props/map190000000002.htm
A statewide ballot proposition requiring posting of caloric information would probably pass 80-20 percent.
In any case, it would be unnecessary since the Republican Governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, already signed a bill into law that does the same thing.
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gw6Z9kOrASYzVgQLnUMR03Ue1zPw
ReplyI live in California, and it is unnecessary to put it on the ballot since our Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger already signed such a bill into law.
And if it had been put on the ballot, it would have passed easily. Prop 2 - which restricts how farmers can confine animals - passed easily, 63-37 percent. Prop 2 will be much more costly to businesses than the calorie labeling law signed by Schwarzenegger, which was not at all controversial.
ReplyBlah, are you freaking kidding me? Politicians wouldn't be pushing them if the majority didn't favor them??
AHHAHAHAHAHA..
Can you say "WALL STREET BAILOUT"???
Dear God. With people like this it's no wonder the country's in the shape it is.
ReplyI think Hitler felt that the benefits of exterminating all the Jews outweighed the costs.
That's a profoundly asinine way to reason about legislation.
The benefits may be "obvious" to you, but not to other people.
The far more rational, sane approach is to leave people and businesses alone and let them respond to market demands.
ReplyWhat makes you think that Hitler wanted or even planned to "exterminate all the Jews"?
ReplyIn case that you simple believe whatever Jewish media tell you, you should not expect to be taken seriously.
No, actually, cost/benefit analysis is most economically rational way to analyze laws and regulations.
It's why Ronald Reagan issued Executive Order 12291, which made cost-benefit analysis a requirement for all government agency regulation:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=43424
ReplyAlso, how is requiring restaurants to post caloric information equivalent to telling people what they can and cannot eat? That makes no sense.
ReplyI disagree somewhat. I'd be against it totally if laws banned foods, but this is only freedom in information (and doesn't affect places small enough that this would be cost prohibitive to business growth.)
And so far as people make an effort to look ahead, not necessarily. Many people think they can tell what is healthy and have no idea what's really in some of this stuff. If they had it staring at them in black and white, they might make a different choice.
I have to be freedom of information-- people cannot really make a choice if they are not informed about it.
And sometimes a push is necessary to intervene in corporations because the bottom line for them is not always the best bottom line for us-- I suppose the issue becomes whether you think obesity is a mistake of individuals or a public health concern, and whether uninformed consumption of fast food (swayed by a very well funded advertising campaign, remember, that we do not have the money to effectively counteract with a public health campaign) can lead to obesity. The latter, the drastic increase in obesity and morbid obesity figures suggest at least somewhat of a causal correlation... I believe obesity is going to tax our healthcare system and government going forward. Just as the government must intervene against child labor, unregulated dumping of waste, questionable pesticides in farming, etc... the government has a responsibility here. Also,dealing with the fallout would probably require more, and less palatable, government intervention down the line. Because it is a public health concern, the government needs to intervene.
Government indeed should be limited and it should be avoided to give the federal government too much power. However, that doesn't mean it has no role: It is intended to deal with such national issues such as this worrying possibility.
ReplyWhy not take all the crazy stuff that makes us unhealthy and fat out of circulation...period? Why make everyone feel bad about themselves for ordering the food? If only heatlhy food was available, would we not eat it?
ReplyDon't stop there. Let's round up everyone who doesn't like to eat right and exercise and throw them in a gas chamber and make lamp shades out of their skin.
ReplyWhile I do think that this is a good idea, it has too many flaws. We have all seen, too many times, news stories on restaurants not being correct on the Nutritional amounts supplied to consumers. They say it is 300 calories and low and behold it was actually 600 or more. Fact is you never know if the cook added too much oil or cream or etc.
Beyond that though, I think it would be a far better idea to teach people what calories are and help them to figure out how many they should be consuming in a day. Obesity so often could be helped if people understood nutrition.
ReplyThanks for chiming in, Katie - I really enjoy the fantastic content you and Leigh put out there. Keep up the great work!
ReplyHaha Thanks Mike!
ReplyHi,
It is a really good decision to include calories in the menu .
-Nancy
ReplyExcept it wouldn't be a decision. It would be done by the force of the Government.
Oops.
ReplyI have to agree with the comments - has putting the calorie content on other foods made any difference to obesity?? For those who ARE watching what they eat, this information is valuable - especially that online so you can plan where to eat. For the others - no amount of additional signs will fix the problem.
ReplyWhether the calorie count is listed on the menu or not, it still would only be an estimation. Every chef has their own way of doing things. (trust me, I know) Their reputations and jobs are at stake so if a dish becomes too dry or tasteless, they will add chicken broth, butter, cream or oil. Each of these is significantly different in their caloric value. You will never be able to rely on the numbers to be true and accurate. If you are really concerned with the amount of calories you are eating my suggestion would be to eat at home and save eating out as a special treat when calorie count is not an issue. When you cook at home, you know exactly what is going into the dish.
ReplyWe had several "healthy" fast food restaurants in Boston that provided nutritional information on each item on their menu. It would be very helpful to my clients if this was the norm.
ReplyI'm all for information (information is power) but listing the number of calories is only one piece of a very complex issue. I'm just as interested in the exact ingredients and how the food was prepared.
Also, people don't just make food selections based on calorie content. The reality is people decide what they want to eat or not eat based on personal taste (spicy, sweet, hot, cold), emotions, body image,cultural diet trends, habit, convenience, values (ethics, religion), positive/negative associations with food in the past and social situations.
ReplySeig Heil! Look at all the left wing fanatics who pretend to love liberty, call themselves liberals, and yet JUMP at the chance to have the government force people to do things. Amazing.
ReplyThis is so stupid. Why stop at calorie information? Why not a break down of all the ingredients in every single menu item?
Or, better yet, a surgeon general's warning! And let's ban trans fat! And ban HFCS! And ban not exercising! And ban being stupid. And ban being lazy.
Give me a f---ing break.
ReplyThey are NOT telling people what they can and can not eat! Wow, that does make no sense. It is not going to hurt anything, it can only help. Guess what people? You don't know if it will help the obesity crisis in this country. And, it's not going to hurt. Also- don't judge our government's people, maybe some of them really DO care. Do you personally know what they feel and think? I don't think so.
Obesity is a problem that leads to a whole list of morbiditic diseases and CAN kill you. We have a right to know the caloric content of our foods.
It is the government's job to help us along on being healthy as most of us are not healthcare professionals or are clueless as to how to get started making better choices.
This is not a war topic, this is helping our country be more informed about the things we purchase and more importantly the things we eat. How can you be against that?
ReplyIt would be great to have any nutritional information (incl sodium and fat) about meals served at restaurants available for the customer.
ReplyI prefer that the labels be voluntary and that as consumers we only support those whose products bear accurate labels.
ReplyKnowledge is power + Nutritional information = Power to the people
Those in favor of enabling predatory capitalism be damned.
ReplyI am in favor of the calories being displayed on the Menus, but I wonder if they include regular restaurants as fast food restaurants.
I understand that more government bogs down systems, but we have made progress with cigarette smoking thanks to a few laws.
I think the laws do affect our culture, and although I do not think adding the calories will have a major impact initially, over time I think it will help influence the culture.
ReplyI think the more information they can force companies to put on labels the better.
For those who wondered how this might help the obesity rate... well its not much but at least people will finally realize how many calories they are taking in.
Unlike the fat content (say 10g)... which shows up as a low number. Now 10g of fat is quite a bit, but it doesn't seem like a lot for those who are not aware.
Calories on the other hand... have a different psychological effect. If you see that the burger you are about to eat is like 1200 calories... you know that maybe you should watch what you eat.
This won't strike a chord with everyone... but even if it makes a few people think its a great start.
Sahil M
Replyflawlessfitnessbook.com
Some fast food restaurants have started to do this and it's a great idea.
They should also provide information on salt, sugar and fats included.
ReplyGreat blog!
Replybarry and ben are very angry.i think thre is a down side to too much government also,but when i eat out,i would like to know what,s in my food as some restaurants dont post complete listings of their food items on-line.mindless eating at home ,or anywhere else promotes obesity.when eating out,view caloric info beforehand,view info at restaurant if you can, and request that food be prepared with no additional fat,if you are health conscience.obesity related diseases are really putting a financial burden on our health care system,and physical burdens on the affected people.let,s have compassion for those who truly want to get and/or stay healthy because this in no way stops a person from eating whatever he or she wants it does however,let some restaurants know that they can,t just secretly fatten us up with hidden calories,to help keep us sluggish and fat.i was obese, and got down to a healthy weight due to nutritional information and exercise.barry and ben should know that life is too short to hold on to that kind of hostility.if someone has wronged you inyour life,forgive them so that you can be free.
Reply