The-F-Word.org

Posting calorie counts: Is honesty the best policy?

18th July 2008

Posting calorie counts: Is honesty the best policy?

posted in Food News, Health/Nutrition, Pop Culture |

Roni Caryn Rabin — yes, the same Roni Caryn Rabin — has an article out on MSNBC about the newly enacted New York law which mandates chain restaurants to post the calorie counts of each food on its menu in the same size and font as the price. Restaurateurs have not yet exhausted their legal challenges to the law, but the city will start fining violators up to $2,000 beginning Friday. Officials say the law will help reduce the number of obesity in New York by 150,000 over the next five years, and will prevent some 30,000 cases of diabetes.

New York restaurants are already feeling the squeeze of the new regulations. One TGI Friday’s restaurant ran out of its Classic Sirloin — one of the lowest calorie items on its menu — before the dinner rush. Other patrons are reporting “sticker shock” at the newly-revealed calorie counts of their favorite foods, with many choosing to forego them altogether. Some restaurant customers have even requested old menus, sans calorie counts, so they can continue to eat in calorie-free bliss.

I’m kind of straddling the fence on this new law, which may be surprising to some given my past eating disordered history, but in all fairness, I will make cases for both before offering up my final thoughts.

Con Position:

We shouldn’t base our food choices on the basis of calories alone, and this law certainly encourages people to do exactly that. In Roni’s article, she speaks to several women who suddenly reconsidered their food choices based on nothing more than calorie count. The posting of calories is also frustratingly triggering for people who are recovering from an eating disorder or even disordered eating, and seeing how eating disorders are already on the rise, we should be pushing people towards recovery and not further into eating disorder hell. And simply encouraging patrons to cut calories won’t necessarily make the Big Apple thinner. Keep in mind: These regulations affect only chain restaurants. Given that poor people are disproportionately fatter than other classes, these regulations will only affect only a fraction of the obese demographic city officials hope to slenderize. I mean, just how many poor people have the financial means to spend $8 on a 600-calorie Starbucks cappucino and 400-calorie muffin? If city officials were truly serious about reducing obesity, they’d start by reducing poverty. Two things that would have a bigger effect than posting calorie counts? Make fresh fruits and vegetables and healthy food more accessible and affordable for working families and reduce crime rates so people have safer places to exercise and recreate.

Other cities, including Seattle and California’s Santa Clara and San Francisco are scheduled to have similar laws go in effect later this year, only their laws require sodium, carbs, fats and cholesterol numbers — all of which also play roles in health and body weight — to also be posted. For some people with certain health conditions and especially those with diabetes, carbohydrate counts are more important numbers to know for health than are calorie counts. And listing calorie counts exclusively not only further demonizes calories in general, it also reinforces the old and flawed equation of calories in/calories burned to be the end-all-be-all in regulating body weight. It isn’t. There are a multitude of reasons why we weigh what we do and what we eat and how much we eat are just a couple out of a vast many.


Pro position:

On the flip side, we already have detailed nutritional information posted on the foods we buy at the grocery store, making this new law not very much different. Restaurants are supposed to make available nutritional information on the foods they sell, but not all restaurants post these in conspicuous places or even have information ready and on-hand for customers. Case in point: I’ve fallen in love with Whole Foods’ vegan meatloaf and vegan General Tso’s chicken. Whole Foods lists the ingredients of each of its deli counter items next to the item, but they do not have nutritional information available for them either in the store and on its website. Because I have hypothyroidism, I try to eat low-glycemic foods and I wanted to know the carbohydrate counts for these items. I contacted customer service, who gladly provided me with the information, but I had to send an email requesting it and then waited nearly two weeks for the information. If Whole Foods didn’t have such awesome customer service, I may never have known the nutritional information for these items. Sure, I could just not shop there if not having the information is that important to me, but who benefits? I don’t buy two items I love and can’t prepare and cook myself, and Whole Foods doesn’t get my business. It’s a no-win situation for all.

Also, many restaurants do deliberately mislead customers about the food items they sell, touting certain offerings as healthy when, in fact, they aren’t the most healthy option. In Roni’s article, she quotes a woman who was surprised to find that TGI Friday’s pecan-crusted chicken salad (served with mandarin oranges, dried cranberries and celery and promoted as healthy) contains 1,360 calories — more than half of the recommended caloric daily amount the average woman needs — while the cheeseburger served with fries weighs in at 1,290 calories. While we’ve made great and obvious gains in educating people on nutrition, there still exists a gross national lack of knowledge about the foods we eat and on nutrition in general. And thanks to crazy fad diets that promote potatoes as evil and foods processed with chemicals and synthetic sugars as “healthy,” our ideas about health and nutrition are even more skewed. These regulations may provide consumers with some much-needed nutritional perspective.

While listing calorie counts may possibly encourage disordered eating habits, the problem is not in the listing of the information itself, but in the ways that people understand and then act on the information posted. People do not base their food intakes on calories alone; they’re often subject to and influenced by region, culture, ethnicity, gender, age, religion and a number of other factors. Even if we erased every bit of nutritional information from items we buy at the grocery, eating disorders would continue to exist because at their root, eating disorders are not about food — they’re about our relationships with food and the ways in which we express our feelings through food.

My thoughts:

So, my final thoughts on the matter is this: Restaurants should be required to make available complete nutritional information to customers — if they want it. Instead of posting calorie counts on the menu, a note instead should be posted alerting customers that such information is available upon request. Or, restaurants could give customers the option of a menu with nutritional information and a menu without nutritional information. Information is power, but while this kind of in-your-face posting of calories is intended to help customers make better choices, it also robs them of a choice — the choice of not-knowing.

What are your thoughts?

Click to Bookmark
This entry was posted on Friday, July 18th, 2008 at 7:00 am and is filed under Food News, Health/Nutrition, Pop Culture. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

There are currently 47 responses to “Posting calorie counts: Is honesty the best policy?”

Why not let us know what you think by adding your own comment!

  1. 1 On July 18th, 2008, Epiphany AloneNo Gravatar said:

    “Two things that would have a bigger effect than posting calorie counts? Make fresh fruits and vegetables and healthy food more accessible and affordable for working families and reduce crime rates so people have safer places to exercise and recreate.”

    While I agree that this would make for a healthier, more fit NYC, it wouldn’t make for fewer fat people.

    posted on July 18th, 2008 at 8:05 am

  2. 2 On July 18th, 2008, LindaNo Gravatar said:

    That’s a toughie. Restaurant owners are dishonest with their customers about the nutritional content of their food (like “turkeyburgers” with 900+ calories), but customers want to be lied to, as well. It’s mutual. I think that it should be easier to get nutritional information, and that restaurants should be required to give it IMMEDIATELY and ON DEMAND, not squirrel it away on a website, which most people will not be able to access at the restaurant.

    posted on July 18th, 2008 at 8:55 am

  3. 3 On July 18th, 2008, rickiNo Gravatar said:

    I agree with you on the position of calories-on-menus. What a downer, if you were, say, going out for a birthday meal and were immediately presented with how much everything on the menu “cost” in calories.

    On the other hand, sometimes it would be nice to know. I’d like to have the information as an on-demand thing.

    For me, eating out is an infrequent treat. I know restaurant food will be higher in calories and fat than what I prepare at home. But if I’m doing it for a treat - I don’t want to be told. It’s not that much different in my mind to having someone come up and wag their finger in my face and go, “Should you really be eating that, DEAR?”

    Now I realize that’s my issues and nobody else’s, but being told that the sandwich I am about to consume contains 950 calories and 27 grams of fat would make me less able to enjoy it. And as a result, there’s not much point in my ordering it, if I can’t enjoy it. And I don’t go out to a restaurant just to order a damn salad with “dressing on the side.” I might as well buy a bag of lettuce and a bottle of salad dressing at the store and save myself $10.

    posted on July 18th, 2008 at 9:29 am

  4. 4 On July 18th, 2008, JessNo Gravatar said:

    McDonalds and other fast food places used to have a little fold out you could pick up that had everything on it. I think that is the best way– just make a little thing that staff can hand out. That way, those interested can get all the information they need without upsetting those who don’t want it. It’s possibly cheaper than re-printing menus, too.

    posted on July 18th, 2008 at 9:32 am

  5. 5 On July 18th, 2008, attriceNo Gravatar said:

    I was thinking of blogging this story, but you’ve said almost exactly what I was thinking.

    One other thing that I’m wondering is if this could lead to restaurants using fresher ingredients or (GASP!) having actual cooking going on in the kitchen. Making really calorie-dense food and then giving you a ton of it seems to take the place of having fresh ingredients or making more flavorful food (not that there’s not lots of yummy joy in simple food too sometimes.)

    The law also requires all fast food places to post calorie info, but still I agree with you that if you want people to choose healthier options, those options must actually be, you know, available. The idea that people with very limited money who have to deal with food scarcity will change their food choices based on the fact that mcdonald’s food has a lot of calories (which they most likely already know) is just absurd to me.

    posted on July 18th, 2008 at 9:34 am

  6. 6 On July 18th, 2008, RachelNo Gravatar said:
    While I agree that this would make for a healthier, more fit NYC, it wouldn’t make for fewer fat people.

    I disagree. I do believe what we eat and how much we eat plays a role in body weight. It’s been shown that calorie for calorie, junk food and processed foods are much cheaper than fruits and vegetables, therefore people on a limited food budget are more apt to buy these kinds of foods. These foods offer little to no nutritional benefits, and because they’re processed with artificial sweeteners, sugars, and chemicals, and are much higher in calories, fat and carbs, they can cause weight gain, especially in someone who is genetically predisposed to weight gain.

    posted on July 18th, 2008 at 9:53 am

  7. 7 On July 18th, 2008, devilNo Gravatar said:

    I just order what I want to eat. I couldn’t care less about the precise number of calories/fat grams in the food.

    If we’re going to cry for blatant honesty about restaurant food, let’s also make them publish the number of rat hairs and bug parts per entree. Now THAT’S info I might read before ordering.

    Bleh. This law will not make NYC, or anyplace else, thinner. Why does NYC need to be thinner anyway?

    posted on July 18th, 2008 at 11:00 am

  8. 8 On July 18th, 2008, yellowhammerNo Gravatar said:

    I don’t understand why people can’t order something and realize the calories are high because its enough for two meals, eat half of it, and relax.

    posted on July 18th, 2008 at 11:20 am

  9. 9 On July 18th, 2008, Miriam HeddyNo Gravatar said:

    I suspect that, if this continues, it will trigger a move on the parts of certain restaurants to change their recipes. Starbucks, for example, may switch to using skim milk as the base for all their drinks rather than having that as an option.

    What strikes me as interesting about all this is the way that it will put in *men’s* faces information that most women carry around with them (in some form or another) all the time. Calorie-counting and food anxiety remain primarily female obsessions, and men are the ones who typically don’t seek out or know the calorie-counts of given foods. With this appearing on every menu of every chain restaurant, men will suddenly become privy to a whole world of knowledge from which male privilege usually protects them.

    posted on July 18th, 2008 at 11:37 am

  10. 10 On July 18th, 2008, SarahNo Gravatar said:

    I have to say, I’m generally in favor of providing people with as much information as possible and letting them make their own decisions. I think everyone pretty much agrees that Nutrition Facts labels on packaged foods are good and useful things– why not in restaurants? I’d actually be in favor of more than just calorie counts. Allergen labeling in restaurants could save lives, and ingredient lists would make life a whole lot easier for diabetics, celiacs and other people who have to carefully monitor what they eat. A lot of people are shut out from eating at restaurants simply because of a lack of information.

    posted on July 18th, 2008 at 12:07 pm

  11. 11 On July 18th, 2008, maggieNo Gravatar said:

    re: starbucks moving to skim milk?

    probably not. the ceo and founder had a hard enough time accepting that people would want anything other than whole milk (because that’s what they use in european coffee bars), and it took a good many years before other milk was available. we (i work for the evil empire tm) recently switched over to 2% as standard because of customer demand, but nonfat is way more expensive because of processing and junk. so probly not. :)

    posted on July 18th, 2008 at 12:38 pm

  12. 12 On July 18th, 2008, LizaNo Gravatar said:

    Personally, I think that calories and nutrition information should be available, but only upon request. Not everyone wants to base their decision off of calories, and even if you don’t intend to, having them there can have an influence, consciously or subconsciously.

    This could be especially damaging to someone who is recovering from an eating disorder, plus to someone who has had disordered eating (but not a full-fledged ED) and is trying to change as well.

    I had noticed the change when I was in a Brooklyn Applebee’s recently and was considering writing to corporate and give them a piece of my mind. I suppose it’s good that I didn’t, since this is a New York thing and Applebee’s corporate didn’t have a choice (though I probably should have written about the fact that we got up and left because it took at least 40 minutes for our food to come, then when it did every dish was wrong and one had been dropped). I hate Applebee’s, but damn that Oriental Chicken Salad is good. Guess I’ll have to make it at home now.

    posted on July 18th, 2008 at 2:13 pm

  13. 13 On July 18th, 2008, RachelNo Gravatar said:
    Miriam - I thought that, too, especially as more cities adopt similar laws. Or, it may prompt restaurants to reduce portion sizes to reduce the sticker shock of its caloric contents. The thing is, all the things that make restaurant food taste good are often high in calories and fat. Whole milk, butter, cream, pasta, etc… If restaurants change the recipes, they also change the flavor. And if they change the flavor, they risk losing customers. It really does seem like a no-win situation for restaurants.

    posted on July 18th, 2008 at 2:24 pm

  14. 14 On July 18th, 2008, RachelNo Gravatar said:
    I don’t understand why people can’t order something and realize the calories are high because its enough for two meals, eat half of it, and relax.

    The hubby and I went to the Cheesecake Factory last Friday. He ordered the eggplant sandwich and I ordered the portobello mushroom sandwich. We would have been better off just ordering one sandwich. Between the both of us, we didn’t finish one sandwich or the mountain of fries that came with it. Our two dishes contained literally enough food for four people. One way restaurants can reduce calories is to offer reasonable portion sizes. In theory, it would reduce entree prices, which is always attractive to customers, and food costs overall.

    posted on July 18th, 2008 at 2:27 pm

  15. 15 On July 18th, 2008, LindaNo Gravatar said:

    Rachel–Re: your last post. I think American society is still caught up in the “best value”– i.e. most for the least cost–mentality. People are slowly getting the idea that this may not be true, but it takes time to change a culture.

    posted on July 18th, 2008 at 2:41 pm

  16. 16 On July 18th, 2008, BreeNo Gravatar said:

    I agree with those that say it should be available upon request. Seeing how many calories something is on a menu can be very triggering for those recovering from ED’s, it’s a shame NYC as well as other states considering this law don’t think about that. But when you’re blinded by fat hatred, logic does go out the window.

    Personally, I don’t count calories. When I go out to eat, I know the meal I’ll get will be a lot, and I don’t go sit down at a restaurant and spend 1 1/2 to 2 hours just to munch on a salad and ice water. I could do that at home if I wanted to. Also, if I know I’m going out to dinner and it’s going to be a pretty decent meal, I will eat less during the day to save room. Because when I go out, I want to relax and enjoy dinner and sometimes dessert!

    I think a better alternative would honestly, to reduce portion size. Red Lobster has done this (unfortunately they raised their prices as well). That way, we might be able to eliminate plate sharing fees many restaurants charge, and cut down on waste at the same time. In the case of restaurant food, bigger doesn’t necessarily mean better. The industry may balk, but I think a lot of people, fat and thin, would have no problems with reduced portions at reduced prices.

    posted on July 18th, 2008 at 3:48 pm

  17. 17 On July 18th, 2008, MeowserNo Gravatar said:

    It’s classist, IMESHO. The law applies only to chain restaurants. Nobody is going to go to Peter Luger’s or the Four Seasons and have a calorie count menu stuck in their faces, and it’s not like those restaurants serve Diet Food (unless you specifically request such). This law is being enacted solely to guilt-trip working-class women about their greedy, greedy appetites. (Most working-class men aren’t going to give a shit; most NYC men who do give a shit are of a SES that wouldn’t catch them dead in Starbucks or TGI Friday’s; most people wouldn’t give a shit about “obesity” at all if only men got fat, anyway).

    But you know, I was in New York recently. I went to Starbucks a couple of times. Seeing the calorie count on the board did not change my order. I agree with making all nutritional information readily available upon request, but if they really think this is going to make all the women into sylphs, that’s just silly.

    posted on July 18th, 2008 at 4:02 pm

  18. 18 On July 18th, 2008, TraceyNo Gravatar said:

    Great post.

    Was there a link to Rabin’s MSN article that I missed? I only saw the one to her FA article from the Times.

    posted on July 18th, 2008 at 4:13 pm

  19. 19 On July 18th, 2008, RachelNo Gravatar said:
    I thought I put it in there but I must have missed it. Good catch, Tracey. It’s there now.

    posted on July 18th, 2008 at 4:56 pm

  20. 20 On July 18th, 2008, MegNo Gravatar said:

    Hey, I was really impressed with your take of both sides of the argument on this one. Living in NYC myself, I find the caloric postings helpful when I’m walking into a chain resturant I’ve never been to before, or when I’m trying to get a ‘treat’ at starbucks without going way overboard with the calories.

    I’d also like to point out a couple of other initiatives that are in place in NYC to combat obesity. Mayor Bloomberg is trying to encourage more vegitable and fruit carts in the city :http://gothamist.com/2007/12/19/bloomberg_says_1.php

    Also there is an initiative going on to make sure that everyone living in the five burros is within 10 minutes walking distance of a park.: http://ga3.org/newyorksfuture/index.html

    It may not be perfect here, but we’re trying ^_^

    posted on July 18th, 2008 at 9:45 pm

  21. 21 On July 18th, 2008, dragonflyNo Gravatar said:

    I guess I am in the minority here, but I think it is great and I hope that more cities adopt this practice–although I agree that more than just calories should be listed. Putting the nutritional information in people’s faces probably will make some difference in what they order and once that happens, restaurants will be more likely to serve food that isn’t deadly.

    If someone wants to go out to eat for a special meal and have a 2000+ calorie meal, no one is going to stop them, but many, many people out there eat at restaurants a lot more often than just special occasions. I’m not a big calorie counter/dieter, but I do want to make good choices and a lot of restaurant food is much higher in calories than people might think. I’d like to know before I order that the breakfast burrito has 920 calories and 60 grams of fat (like the one at Hardees). Sure, already I know that fast food isn’t the best thing for me, but I sure wouldn’t have seen those kind of numbers coming (or the 900+ calorie “healthy” turkey burgers at Ruby Tuesday). Giving people more information is never a bad thing.

    posted on July 18th, 2008 at 9:48 pm

  22. 22 On July 19th, 2008, Moonlight0806No Gravatar said:

    I am glad that I do not live in a city with these new calorie label laws. I would not be able to go out and eat. I may be able to get in front of the menu but by the time it was my turn I would have talked myself out of eating all together. I went to a college that put up the calorie count right under the menu item. They had to stop because people stopped eating. Even my most body image stable friends had issues with it. Everyone i spoke to about the postings in the cafeteria told me it made them paranoid whether they had a previous history of eating issues or not.

    The information needs to be there, it needs to be accessible at the time you are ordering, but the key is choice. You can choose to look at the info or not, if the information is directly under the name of the food, then it is no longer a choice. If the restaurants are currently required to have the info available on site and they do not comply, then turn them in and the city should make them comply. I will support your right to choose to look at the information, if you will support my right not to.

    The comparison to grocery store labeling is faulty. Grocery calorie count info is NOT required to be directly under the name of the food, or even on the front of the package. It is just required to be somewhere on the package. If i don’t want to look at the calorie and fat content on a can or bag at the grocery store, i just don’t look at the back. You can’t do that if the menu is required to have the info directly under the name on the menu.

    I agree with Meowser That this is going to disproportionately effect people based on their SocioEconomic Class. All those expensive fancy restaurants with one or two locations will not be effected. If they are going to require chain food stores to have the info, they should require all restaurants to have the info. Laws should apply to all people not just some people.

    This law reeks of big government assuming that you are incapable of making informed decisions for yourself. They assume you are lazy and must be taught the error of your ways. I am an adult, it is my body, it should be my choice. Lets just say, I may not be visiting these cities any time soon.

    posted on July 19th, 2008 at 12:52 am

  23. 23 On July 19th, 2008, AlixNo Gravatar said:

    IMO, if health were the actual concern the law would be about, or at least *include*, allergen and sensitivity information — and apply to all restaurants. Finding out what is and is not gluten free, and/or prepared with cross-contamination in mind, for instance, is a nightmare.

    posted on July 19th, 2008 at 1:56 am

  24. 24 On July 19th, 2008, ToriNo Gravatar said:

    I think a separate pamphlet should be available at the door or wherever the customers place their order (whether it’s by the registers or at the tables), but not out-there-in-your-face or on the menu. I don’t think that the people who are overweight or whatever are usually the people who are paying attention — it’s the obsessive ED people (like me!) who pay too much attention and then go the wrong way with it or relapse. So I think it should definitely be available in the store, but I think that the people who are most likely to be paying attention are the people who don’t “need” to worry about it.

    posted on July 19th, 2008 at 1:08 pm

  25. 25 On July 19th, 2008, dragonflyNo Gravatar said:

    Moonlight wrote:
    “This law reeks of big government assuming that you are incapable of making informed decisions for yourself.”

    What you are saying here doesn’t make any sense. How can you possibly make an informed decision if you don’t have any information? The government isn’t requiring anyone to serve or eat healthy food, they are just requiring restaurants to provide people with the tools they need to make an informed decision.

    posted on July 19th, 2008 at 2:55 pm

  26. 26 On July 19th, 2008, susanNo Gravatar said:

    I think it’s a good idea. Some people will ignore it, but it will educate many people who think they’re making a healthy choice, only to find that their salad has 1500 calories and a day’s worth of fat.

    I definitely like the idea of smaller portion sizes even better though! Many dishes don’t make good leftovers.

    posted on July 19th, 2008 at 4:40 pm

  27. 27 On July 19th, 2008, TianaNo Gravatar said:

    Am I the only one who thinks that more calories = I’ll be less hungry afterwards? So basically if I was very hungry I’d choose something with a high count and if I was just the tiniest bit hungry I’d choose something with a very low count. Calories don’t have anything to do with health as far as I’m concerned. I agree that nutritional information should be made available, including allergens etc. like people have mentioned above. That would be very useful. But calories? What for? We all know that even if something is low in calories, it can be less than healthy. Not to mention that “healthy” means different things in different people.

    posted on July 19th, 2008 at 4:41 pm

  28. 28 On July 19th, 2008, JeanCNo Gravatar said:

    dragonfly, the statement does make sense when you realize the government has decided you are too stupid to find out the information ON YOUR OWN. It is NOT that difficult to ask your server questions about what you are planning on eating and if you had been as obsessive about calorie counting as I was back in the day, whip out your handy dandy calorie counter booklet and look everything up.

    Most of the chain restaurants DO have info both in their restaurants and on their websites with nutritional breakdowns. Heck I seem to recall booklets that contained the EXACT information for fast food joints and other restaurants you can buy, right next to the calorie counter books.

    As I said, the government has decided we are children who don’t know any better and are treating us as children who need Nanny Government to take care of us.

    posted on July 19th, 2008 at 7:12 pm

  29. 29 On July 20th, 2008, DJBNo Gravatar said:

    I can sympathize with restaurants being reluctant to post nutrition information about their menus. Especially when the numbers don’t look good. It can have a negative impact on the bottom line. If we have to keep it simple for the public, using calories only makes sense. Calories are usually calculated by the 4 4 9 method (which is 4 calories from Protein, 4 calories from Carbs, and 9 calories from fat). This helps people figure out how much they are eating with one number. That is our biggest problem - eating too much.

    posted on July 20th, 2008 at 11:09 am

  30. 30 On July 20th, 2008, LindaNo Gravatar said:

    I’m absolutely opposed to this. I would support a law that made it mandatory to have information available (especially ingredients.) But I don’t want it in my face, unsolicited. I want to enjoy my food without being constantly reminded of the moralizing hysteria of anti-fat crusaders. Imposing that on someone is just obnoxious.

    posted on July 20th, 2008 at 4:08 pm

  31. 31 On July 20th, 2008, Sherie SNo Gravatar said:

    I find the whole thing repulsive and ridiculous. I agree with those who say it is an intrusion by the food police. While I totally support them having the information available UPON REQUEST, I think it is way over the top to have it posted by the prices. I personally do not want to know how many calories are in something. I am strong enough to announce loudly and publically that I weigh 220lbs, am proud of every ounce and could care less about calories, but many people will not get what they want because of social pressure. And those who project their own issues onto fat people, like Michael Jacobson and the Center for Science in the Public Interest know this. It is really about controlling and shaming people. However, since our setpoint is what determines our weight in the long run and not just conscious food consumption, it will have NO effect. People will just eat more somewhere else. The only thing it will accomplish is to create even more shame and secrecy around eating. We will just enjoy eating out less! Which is the real shame considering people can do less and less of it because of the poor economy!
    I feel so strongly about this, I am going to boycott New York. And if I ever have to go there for any reason, I won’t eat at any establishment that stick calories in my face.

    posted on July 20th, 2008 at 6:50 pm

  32. 32 On July 20th, 2008, LindaNo Gravatar said:

    JeanC, the server does not usually know much about the food. And the website is far away when you are sitting in a restaurant. Why can’t you just ask and get a rundown? And why do so many people feel threatened by this information? If you don’t care about it, ignore it, just like I, a gentile, ignore information on the kosher status of food I buy.

    posted on July 20th, 2008 at 8:24 pm

  33. 33 On July 20th, 2008, Moonlight0806No Gravatar said:

    Linda- In general people do not avoid eating food because it has Kosher status, ED people do however avoid eating food because of its fat and calorie content. Making the comparison is silly. People with eating disorders feel threatened because it’s part of the illness, maybe you should do a little research. People with serious food issue can not just choose to ignore the information. That is like asking someone with a giant fear of snakes to walk up to one and put it around their neck.

    dragonfly - If you had read my whole post you would have seen that I said I support the information being there. It works something like this…. You want the information, you ask the server for the pamphlet, you don’t want the info, you don’t ask. Both sides win. As far as I know, they are already required to have the info available, why is it so important to them that it is constantly in our faces?

    posted on July 20th, 2008 at 10:05 pm

  34. 34 On July 21st, 2008, keshmeshiNo Gravatar said:

    the ceo and founder had a hard enough time accepting that people would want anything other than whole milk (because that’s what they use in european coffee bars)

    Howard Schultz thinks Starbucks’ coffee is in anyway similar to European coffee? Excuse me while I go roll on the floor laughing.

    posted on July 21st, 2008 at 2:09 am

  35. 35 On July 21st, 2008, LizaNo Gravatar said:

    why do so many people feel threatened by this information? If you don’t care about it, ignore it, just like I, a gentile, ignore information on the kosher status of food I buy.

    I have a few issues with this.

    1. If the number is right there next to the title of the entree (as it was in the evil, evil, horrible [for different reasons] Applebee’s I was recently in), you can’t help but see it. For many (probably most) people that number will stay in their head even if they want to ignore it. And for a lot of us that will influence our choice, whether we want it to or not. I’ve never had an actual eating disorder, but I have spent most of my life trying to fight being the fat girl with what could probably be classified as disordered eating, and knowing that my favorite salad had 800-some odd calories in it nagged at me and actually made me lose my appetite a little. I kept going over it in my head, like, what if I only ate half of the chicken on it? What if I did the old dip the fork tips in dressing for each bite to use less? How many calories would it have then? I hate grilled chicken, but would I save a lot of calories if I got that instead of fried? It would have ruined the meal for me, if we’d stayed to eat it.

    2. As someone else said, the kosher comparison is silly. As a fellow gentile I could give a crap if my food is kosher or not (except hot dogs - kosher hot dogs use better quality meat). It doesn’t matter. So I’m not going to avoid something because it says kosher on it. It may be a social construct, but putting calories on their does affect whether or not someone will order, eat and enjoy their meal.

    3. I have to wonder why a) it’s ONLY chain restaurants and b) it’s ONLY calories. Someone said that it was only chains because they were trying to make middle class women guilty for their greedy appetites (or something like that). While I don’t know if that was the original intent behind the law, it certainly feels that way. The government knows where their bread is buttered and wouldn’t want to piss off all the rich white Upper East Side residents who eat at the pricey independently owned restaurants and pay exorbitant city taxes (well, everyone pays exorbitant city taxes, but their high incomes obviously = more tax dollars…I don’t think the $48 I gave NYC this year did a whole lot). The chains, where all the peons eat get targeted. To combat the “problem” of poorer people’s limited nutritional options. This is a lot easier than, say, actually serving nutritional food at lower prices. If we’re so worried about the health of the poor and middle class, why is it only calories? Someone else mentioned allergens. While some restaurants occasionally print a “some items may contain peanuts” disclaimer, it’s at their own discretion. I’m about 99% sure it’s not the law. Shouldn’t we know if something contains peanuts, shellfish, wheat/gluten, dairy, eggs, phenylalanine, etc? And how about putting whether or not something is completely vegetarian or vegan? I remember when I was a vegetarian and I’d order something that sounded meatless and it would show up with chicken broth or tiny pieces of bacon or something else that the menu and the server both neglected to mention (yes, I frequently asked point blank if something was meatless). I’m sure vegan is harder because it’s easier to hide milk and eggs than meat. Not to mention, let’s include fat grams, protein content, sugar content, all vitamins and minerals, and all the other information that’s required on package labels? The fact is, it’s only calories because they DON’T actually care about health. Or if they do, they don’t know enough about it to give us the proper information. Right now all they’re doing is shaming teh fattyz and trying to scare us into not eating. And while they’re doing that they’re creating a potentially hostile or triggering environment for anyone who has ever had food-related issues (which, frankly, is a LOT of people). It’s incredibly irresponsible on the part of NYC’s government.

    And whoever said Bloomberg was encouraging fruit carts, I think that’s a good idea. As long as they’re monitored so the fruit is clean and fresh when you buy it (as fruit carts are now? eh…not so much. Let’s just say I wouldn’t feel right eating what I bought without washing it, which is hard when you’re on the go). I’d happily buy some strawberries or something to snack on as opposed to stale pretzels or falafel most days (sometimes you do just want some falafel or a hot dog or meat on a stick). I’m pro-healthy options, but it pisses me off when they’re marketed as combating the “obesity epidemic.” Especially considering the fact that NYC has a ton of skinny people eating the crappy street food and it’s just as bad for them as it is for me.

    posted on July 21st, 2008 at 11:47 am

  36. 36 On July 21st, 2008, LizaNo Gravatar said:

    Oops, forgot to address one thing.

    4. We aren’t threatened by caloric information. We’re offended at the implications behind the law, the anti-fat insinuations, the sad attempt at disguising said fat hate as “health” and the incompleteness of the information provided. We’re concerned about the potentially triggering affects this could have.

    Or I guess I should say I am these things, since I can’t speak for everyone.

    posted on July 21st, 2008 at 11:49 am

  37. 37 On July 21st, 2008, dragonflyNo Gravatar said:

    Moonlight,
    The problem with the “pamphlet” idea is that it has already been tried and it simply doesn’t work. First of all, the restaurants rarely have them available–even though certain types of restaurants are required to. When the pamphlets are available, they generally do not have newer or “limited time” items on them. They are also completely useless in a drive-thru situation where you would have to order the food before you could get to a window to get the pamphlet. Finally, some sit down restaurants have flatly refused to provide any nutritional information (Cracker Barrel and Red Robin are notorious for this practice), now it is no longer optional. Because New York (and other cities) are starting to require it on the menus, that information will soon be available for the rest of us.

    Again I say…giving people more information about the food they eat (or anything else) is always a good thing.

    posted on July 21st, 2008 at 11:55 am

  38. 38 On July 21st, 2008, LizaNo Gravatar said:

    Sorry for repeat posting, but I keep rereading and noticing new points.

    To those who say you won’t visit NYC: you’re the ones who will lose out. Despite this stupid law, I defend my adopted hometown as the greatest city in the world. I’m only 24 and have decided I will live here the rest of my life (barring something completely unavoidable - and no, a spouse wanting to live elsewhere isn’t on that list).

    As opposed to boycotting the city (which honestly won’t do anything since millions of tourists come here every year), how about writing to the mayor’s office? Here is a direct link to a contact form for the mayor. Keep in mind it’s 300 words or less. I was going to include a link for all the borough presidents but I can’t find them. If you poke around they’re probably there somewhere.

    posted on July 21st, 2008 at 12:05 pm

  39. 39 On July 21st, 2008, RachelNo Gravatar said:
    MO, if health were the actual concern the law would be about, or at least *include*, allergen and sensitivity information — and apply to all restaurants. Finding out what is and is not gluten free, and/or prepared with cross-contamination in mind, for instance, is a nightmare.

    Alix, I agree. I believe restaurants should offer customers complete nutritional information, although not necessarily printed on the menu. I also wish they’d list ingredients. I’ve gone to a number of restaurants and asked the server if a soup or other dish is made with animal-based products and I usually get a “Uhh, I don’t know” or they immediately reassure me it isn’t. I’m always suspicious of the latter kind of servers because their immediate responses make me think they’re too lazy to go find out and they just want me to go ahead and order already. Sometimes, even the managers don’t know what’s in their food products. As a vegetarian, I’d really like to know for certain before I order.

    posted on July 21st, 2008 at 12:19 pm

  40. 40 On July 21st, 2008, rickiNo Gravatar said:

    4. We aren’t threatened by caloric information. We’re offended at the implications behind the law, the anti-fat insinuations, the sad attempt at disguising said fat hate as “health” and the incompleteness of the information provided. We’re concerned about the potentially triggering affects this could have.

    Yes. Because the idea of having calorie counts stamped on the menu doesn’t seem that far off to me from restaurants hiring “bouncers” to check out patrons and telling them what’s OK and not OK to eat…I know I’d be a lot less prone to order what I WANTED (rather than some damn salad or other low-cal dish that I might as well just go home and eat out of my own fridge) because I’m tired of the fat-girl-eats-the-world stigma.

    I’m TIRED of being told that it’s wrong for me to get hungry. I’m TIRED of being told it’s wrong for me to want delicious food and instead punish myself for being a woman by subsisting on lettuce and dry crackers. I’m TIRED of being told it’s my duty to be slim and attractive, even if doing that duty makes me miserable.

    And to me, the in-your-face caloric information is just more of that - me feeling like I’m being told I don’t deserve the food I want, by virtue of the fact that I have a body type that stores fat.

    posted on July 21st, 2008 at 1:43 pm

  41. 41 On July 22nd, 2008, Moonlight0806No Gravatar said:

    dragonfly-

    1) You said that pamphlets do not work in a Drive-thru - Why can’t they put out a covered pamphlet holder at the ordering location with the pamphlets just like they do on realestate signs? Are you seriously suggesting it’s more important for a drive-thru customer to be inconvenienced to walk inside or ask for the pamphlet at the window if they want the information over everyone else’s choice to not be force fed the information?

    2) You say that people do not comply with the current laws about providing information. What makes you think that they are going to comply with the new laws then? Are you telling me that either way you trust the fast food company to be truthful about their calorie count because it is on a displayed menu instead of a pamphlet you have to request?

    3) Limited Time items - I suppose they will have to print a smaller updated “limited time” pamphlet as well. There is a bar in my town that prints their menu’s monthly to update their drink selection.

    If you were truly so concerned with the health aspect of the food you would realize that there is much more to a healthy food choice than calorie count. That this law is based on bad science and a pushy government. Low calorie doesn’t equate to healthy.

    posted on July 22nd, 2008 at 4:01 pm

  42. 42 On July 22nd, 2008, KristinNo Gravatar said:

    My problem with it is that calories don’t give us a lot of useful information. I think someone already pointed that out — how calorie-dense a food is really has nothing to do with how nutritious it is.

    I would MUCH rather see a complete list of ingredients. That way I can see if my entree is made with whole grains, real butter, fresh eggs and so on, or crap; and I can see if my dessert is made with real milk and cream, or crap. That tells me a LOT more about whether I’d want to put it in me.

    posted on July 22nd, 2008 at 4:43 pm

  43. 43 On July 22nd, 2008, CherielabombeNo Gravatar said:

    Meowser you beat me to it. My first thought was “Why does this apply to only CHAIN restaurants?” I agree that it’s classist. Which I suppose is not too surprising considering the myth that most fat people are poor. Why is it I’m only going to be told how many calories something has in it if I don’t have enough money to go elsewhere?

    My second thought is that if I lived in NYC I would simply stop going to chain restaurants. I go to restaurants to have an enjoyable meal and a good time with friends, not to obsess over how many calories is in my entree. I expect lots of folks will do the same.

    posted on July 22nd, 2008 at 5:23 pm

  44. 44 On July 23rd, 2008, JessicaNo Gravatar said:

    I really do not eblieve that the choosing of chain restaurants has anything to do with class or stereotypes, I always figured it was ease of compliance and enforcement, since non-chain restaurants do not have standardized menus. Being accurate with nutritional information is really hard! And totally depends on the food’s creator that day. I really started thinking…hasn’t anyone explored this yet? I came across an interesting article that at leasts tests some very fancy places: http://nymag.com/restaurants/features/31268/

    posted on July 23rd, 2008 at 1:44 am

  45. 45 On July 23rd, 2008, DianeNo Gravatar said:

    Hi Rachel,

    There’s a recent paper at the “Journal of consumer research” that explores what happens when people choose “low calorie options”. Here’s the reference and the asbtract:

    “The Biasing Health Halos of Fast-Food Restaurant Health Claims: Lower Calorie Estimates and Higher Side-Dish Consumption Intentions.”
    Authors:CHANDON, PIERRE (pierre.chandon@insead.edu) and WANSINK, BRIAN (Wansink@Cornell.edu)
    Source:Journal of Consumer Research; Oct2007, Vol. 34 Issue 3, p301-314, 14p

    Why is America a land of low-calorie food claims yet high-calorie food intake? Four studies show that people are more likely to underestimate the caloric content of main dishes and to choose higher-calorie side dishes, drinks, or desserts when fast-food restaurants claim to be healthy (e.g., Subway) compared to when they do not (e.g., McDonald’s). We also find that the effect of these health halos can be eliminated by simply asking people to consider whether the opposite of such health claims may be true. These studies help explain why the success of fast-food restaurants serving lower-calorie foods has not led to the expected reduction in total calorie intake and in obesity rates. They also suggest innovative strategies for consumers, marketers, and policy makers searching for ways to fight obesity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

    posted on July 23rd, 2008 at 10:03 am

  46. 46 On July 23rd, 2008, EmilyNo Gravatar said:

    Wow. Your thoughts really wrap the whole post up nicely and i must say i completely agree - you came to a very good conclusion, and you’re a really good author!

    posted on July 23rd, 2008 at 6:00 pm

  47. 47 On July 31st, 2008, miwomeNo Gravatar said:

    First time commenting–

    I’m a thin student very interested in all forms of social justice. As such I read several FA blogs and I think FA is right on. I advocate against fat=unhealthy and judging people’s habits on their fat bodies to the people in my life all the time. I also have an eating disorder from which I am nowhere near recovering.

    So my take on this: I totally see why this is terribly problematic in a variety of ways and I think your suggestion of optional information is probably good. Simultaneously, were I moving to NYC anytime soon, I would consider this a massive perk and be privately and secretly excited to be able to control for the times I’m forced out to meals.

    So, yeah, I’d say it’s bad for people with EDs or ED backgrounds.

    posted on July 31st, 2008 at 2:18 am

Leave a Reply


Socialized through Gregarious 42