The-F-Word.org

There are currently 28 responses to “Buyer beware calorie counts best policy?”

Join the conversation! Post your comment below.

1. 1 On October 20th, 2008, vesta44 said:

   As far as I’m concerned, if I want to know what the calorie counts are, I’ll ask for that information. But the accuracy of those counts is in question, because not all restaurants in a chain use exactly the same ingredients in exactly the same proportions all the time. So those calorie counts are best-guess estimates, not accurate reflections of actual calories.
   Since I don’t count calories, I don’t care how many calories are in any food I may want to eat. If I’m hungry for it, I’m going to eat it, and eat whatever amount it takes to satiate me. 100 calories more or less here and there isn’t going to make gain or lose any weight, so I don’t sweat it anymore.

   posted on October 20th, 2008 at 1:07 pm

2. 2 On October 20th, 2008, Isabel said:

   I think calorie counts should be available, because I always support consumer information, but I agree that they should be optional out of sensitivity to consumers with eating issues.

   posted on October 20th, 2008 at 1:15 pm

3. 3 On October 20th, 2008, Bree said:

   I believe the information should be available, especially if someone needs to be on a special diet for health reasons or allergies, but I don’t think it should be posted publicly.

   Goverments and special interest groups who lobby for this are so blinded by the so-called obesity epidemic, they fail to realize that this could be a huge trigger for those suffering or recovering from ED’s. I don’t see the problem of someone asking for the information separately.

   Also, this law smacks of classism. They aren’t requiring calorie counts to be posted at upscale, privately owned restaurants, but chain eateries, where many poor people go to get a meal that is cheap and quick.

   I really don’t feel this will make the majority of people make healthier food choices. Sure, there will be people who will always eat a salad and drink water or iced tea—nothing wrong with that. I do it too. But nine times out of ten, people go to have a good time and eat what they want. Wondering how many calories that hamburger or turkey wrap has is the least of their concern.

   posted on October 20th, 2008 at 1:29 pm

4. 4 On October 20th, 2008, Twistie said:

   I agreed with number two and number three on the poll, but voted for three. I do think calorie counts everywhere can encourage an unhealthy relationship with food. On the other hand, there is nutritional information that would be helpful to my diabetic husband, to my friend with gluten problems, to my friends with high cholesterol, my friends with high blood pressure and my brother with low blood pressure, my friend with the potentially lethal allergy to peanuts and the one with such a severe allergy to strawberries that she can break out in hives if there’s a strawberry two tables over.

   nutritional information/content information can be helpful to a lot of people. But pretty much the only people who need calorie counts are people who are counting calories. I neither need nor want it, but if it’s on every menu, chances are I’ll start looking and worrying and maybe even obsessing because I have an obsessive personality.

   I want to be able to get the consumer information I need, but I don’t want to have information I don’t need shoved in my face every time I go out to eat. I know a cheeseburger has a lot of calories. I don’t need to be shamed when I see it on the menu, whether I’m hungry for it or not.

   posted on October 20th, 2008 at 1:35 pm

5. 5 On October 20th, 2008, ladykuri said:

   I would like to see full nutritional information (including ingredients) available for the asking, but posting any of it on the menu board is just silly IMO. I want to see things like protien, fiber and whether it contains any additives that are going to give me grief, not calories because calories are not my concern. Getting enough protien and fiber to make my body happy and avoiding things that make it unhappy are.

   posted on October 20th, 2008 at 1:43 pm

6. 6 On October 20th, 2008, Rachel said:

   Vesta said: 100 calories more or less here and there isn’t going to make gain or lose any weight, so I don’t sweat it anymore.

   Well, the problem is that discrepancies aren’t just simple cases of 100 calories. Sometimes, foods can contain hundreds more calories than we think they do and yes, can contribute to a higher weight than is healthy for a person. In this case, knowing calorie counts allows one to make better and healthier choices for them.

   Although I have to wonder… do people really care about health and calories when they eat out at places like Taco Bell and KFC?

   It is true that calorie-counting is an imperfect art. Check out this New York Chipotle menu (calorie counts are the numbers to the right). That’s some pretty large ranges there. And as the site notes, the information doesn’t match up to the nutritional information provided by the company.

   Still, however imperfect they may be, I think knowing calorie counts at least allows us practice healthy eating better than if we don’t know calorie counts. In fact, I would take this a step further and require that other numbers like carb counts, protein and even ingredients be made available to consumers — calories aren’t the end-all-be-all to health. But by that same token, it can also be very unhealthy for the more than 10 million Americans struggling to overcome an eating disorder to constantly be bombarded by calorie counts. All of which is why I believe that such information should be readily available to consumers, but not thrown in their face. Ignorance may be bliss, but it should still be optional.

   posted on October 20th, 2008 at 1:46 pm

7. 7 On October 20th, 2008, linsey said:

   Calorie counts are one of the only really triggering things for me still. I would avoid any place with them, probably.

   If they are going to post calorie information, I think they should post other, probably more important, info too. Like, ingredients, fiber, protein, hydrogenated oil, etc. But then, the industrialized food chain is the issue here, and numbers and lists aren’t taking that to task.

   I agree that the policy is classist, and promotes the idea people are unhealthy because of poor personal choices.

   posted on October 20th, 2008 at 2:34 pm

8. 8 On October 20th, 2008, Carrie said:

   I think the information should be available, but not posted on the menu. I mean, this is supposed to empower choice, right? So that the consumer can choose the “healthier” options (if health=low cal, which is doesn’t, but that’s the premise of this)? Then why not give consumers the choice to base their food selections on what they feel like having?

   I mean, yes, you could “ignore” it, but it’s on the menu, and that’s sort of the point of putting the calories on the menus.

   I find this highly disturbing. And before it goes nationwide, someone really aught to see whether or not it actually works. I mean, food has had nutrition labels for years, and I’m not sure what a difference it really makes. Fear and panic are getting head of logic and reason here.

   posted on October 20th, 2008 at 3:32 pm

9. 9 On October 20th, 2008, Claire said:

   I’m going to agree with everyone else and say I think the information should be available, but should it be on a menu board/right in our faces? Heck no! As someone who has suffered from an eating disorder, you know what, when I go out to eat, I’d rather just not know how many calories something has. The last thing I want to do is sit in a restaurant completely freaking out over the amount of calories everything has (except for maybe one tasteless item on the menu). But if I had a food allergy or specific needs re: protein/fiber/carbs etc, then I would be glad to have this information available if I requested it.

   posted on October 20th, 2008 at 4:03 pm

10. 10 On October 20th, 2008, Godless Heathen said:

    I think there’s more important things to worry about, personally. For instance, knowing where the food came from is a big one for me, I like eating locally whenever possible. Also, chain restaurants could really work on expanding their vegitarian options, I’m sick and tired of eating iceburg lettuce salads. Of course the information should be available, but I’d much rather see COOL on a menu first.

    posted on October 20th, 2008 at 4:07 pm

11. 11 On October 20th, 2008, lynnie said:

    What a way to ruin eating out. And it’s classist to boot. Only chains have to post calories? So if you can afford to eat at a fancy, upscale restaurant- which aren’t usually part of a chain- you can just enjoy your nice meal out without any calorie counts to make you feel guilty. More importantly, the owners and cooks of that restaurant can make food based on what they think will taste good, look good and sell well. They don’t have to spend their time breaking the meal down to a calorie count- which I imagine would stifle their creativity and hurt sales.

    I just hate this kind of thing. I can’t afford to eat out very often, and if I do go out, I don’t want to have my meal ruined because I ordered one of the more caloric meals. I resent the assumption our government is making that fat people are stupid. Because we must be too dumb to eat right and need help making food choices.

    posted on October 20th, 2008 at 4:44 pm

12. 12 On October 20th, 2008, Nic said:

    I have very divided feelings about this. On one hand, I believe that people have the right to know what is in the food they’re putting into their bodies. But, on the other hand, (a selfish hand, perhaps?) I do NOT want to see calories on menus. I’m currently trying to recover from anorexia and bulimia, and I know from experience that it is almost impossible for me to eat certain foods if the calorie count is staring me in the face. It makes eating even more of a traumatic experience. I like it when the information is available, so I can, say, look up whether my meal has lots of fiber or whole grains, or something like that, but if it’s right there on the menu, I always end up either in tears or ordering the least caloric item on the menu, no matter how hungry I am.
    Just my personal opinion.

    posted on October 20th, 2008 at 5:16 pm

13. 13 On October 20th, 2008, Melissa said:

    Personally I think calorie counting can be a very obsessive past time. However, I’m inclined to think that people with eating disorders, such as anorexia, who obsess over calories wouldn’t even consider eating pasta or french fries in most restaurants- whether or not they had the calorie information listed.
    I understand how listing the calories would make it easier for general people who don’t have an eating disorder to get an idea of what they are consuming. But I don’t think it should be listed in the menus under the meal description. The nutritional value should be available if requested, but not on the menu.
    The idea of listing the actual calorie content on a menu really, IMO, depicts all to well the obsession in our society to diet and control weight through a method that is not always shown to be the key to weight loss.
    It’s not always calories in calories out.
    I think it would be more valuable to list how nutritious a dish is, with vitamins and minerals than how many calories it is.

    posted on October 20th, 2008 at 5:47 pm

14. 14 On October 20th, 2008, JeanC said:

    I think the government needs to get out of people lives and get back to running the country the way the founders meant it to be run. That means the nanny state has got to go.

    If I want to know what the calorie count of something is, I’ll look for the info myself. I don’t need Nanny Sam plastering it everywhere I look.

    I have long ago decided I need to be made Empress of the Universe and start whacking government busy bodies upside the head and make them mind their own business.

    posted on October 20th, 2008 at 6:27 pm

15. 15 On October 20th, 2008, attrice said:

    I don’t get how this policy is nanny state politics. No one is telling you what you can or cannot order. Sure, I can acknowledge that in our society people might feel pressure to order lower calorie food, but no one is forcing them too.

    Also, this law applies to chain restaurants because they’re pretty much the only places where calorie counts will mean anything at all. Many chain restaurants get their food pre-packaged or they have extremely strict instructions on how much of each ingredient goes into a dish. Sure, the measurement will be inexact, but you would literally have to change the way non-chain restaurants (including the many awesome locally-owned mom and pop places I like to eat around here) operate in order for them to offer accurate calorie information.

    On the whole I think this is a good idea. In restaurants, I think they should explicitly offer menus that don’t contain the caloric information for those who don’t want it, but I don’t know how to solve the problem of places like starbucks. I don’t want to trigger anyone, but I know that even companies who now provide nutrition information like to keep it in out of the way places or behind the counter in order to keep the information from affecting people’s ordering decisions. So long as the law specifies that the information must be kept well stocked and in plain view of everyone, I don’t think it has to be in the case next to the food.

    posted on October 20th, 2008 at 8:13 pm

16. 16 On October 20th, 2008, Sherie S said:

    I think it is outrageous and as Orwelian as it gets. The government is trying to force us to think about calories which really means keep us weight obsessed. Harkin harps about childhood obesity as well. What really needs to be disclosed is how much money he accepts from weight loss interests. Is any politician anything other than a puppet who lets his/her strings be pulled by corporate interests?

    What is truly sad is that fewer and fewer people will be able to eat out with the economy tanking. And the government, who has just made us all into modern serfs by indebting us beyond belief, now wants to take away all pleasure in eating! Of course, keeping us weight obsessed assures a market for BigDiet/Pharma (BARFMA). But according to the power-elite who rule this country that is fine. We exist for their benefit anyway! We might as well starve as we work our fingers to the bone for the parasites at the top.

    Harpy Harkin needs to be voted out of office. A government who has made such a mess of things should keep its big nose out of our dinner plates!!!

    posted on October 20th, 2008 at 9:07 pm

17. 17 On October 20th, 2008, Bean said:

    One thing to note about the chain restaurants vs. privately owned:

    Having worked in a number of chains, all the food comes pre-packaged in specific portions. No matter where you go the food is prepared to fairly exacting standards. You know with a great deal of certainty what’s in each of those portions nutritionally (fiber, protein, calories, etc.).

    On the other hand, privately run places may change their menu weekly. It’s extremely difficult to determine calorie, fat, protein etc. counts. Often, it involves a lab. Those restaurants really can’t be forced to post nutritional info without risking them going under. Most privately run places are on a shoestring budget and are struggling to stay afloat.

    It’s not really about classism, but what’s actually feasible. And it’s just not feasible for places that don’t have production line cooking to have accurate nutritional information.

    posted on October 20th, 2008 at 9:57 pm

18. 18 On October 21st, 2008, Rosie said:

    What I would really like to see is a readily available list of all the ingredients in food at chain restaurants. I generally prefer to eat at local type places, but sometimes we do go to chains. The servers often don’t know everything that goes into the food, certainly not because they are bad servers, but because so much of their food comes to them from centralized suppliers ready to be prepared and few, if any items, are made from scratch.

    Personally, knowing if there is MSG, sugars or artificial sweeteners, weird soy-based fillers and things like that is more important to me than knowing the calorie counts in food. I’ve worked very hard on giving up the calorie obsession game and replacing it with eating whole, nutritious foods and listening to my body to tell me it’s okay to stop eating when I’m satisfied. I think seeing the calorie counts right there when I’m trying to decide what to eat would not be particularly healthy for me.

    I also think this could be potentially very dangerous for young girls and teenaged girls, who are starting diets at an earlier and earlier age. Does a 12-year-old girl need to know how many calories are in her entree so that the calorie-and-fat-gram talk at the table can become a part of every meal even earlier than it already does?

    posted on October 21st, 2008 at 2:26 am

19. 19 On October 21st, 2008, Amy said:

    This is a case of the government telling restaurant owners what they’re allowed to sell and restaurant customers what they’re allowed to buy. Think about it: they’re considering making it illegal to buy and sell food unless it comes with a side order of calorie information. If you want to run a restaurant without spending hundreds or thousands of dollars to have your food’s calorie counts analyzed, you can’t do that. And if you want to buy food without being reminded that many people think everyone should be obsessed with calories, you can’t do that.

    I also worry that this could be a slippery slope towards other government “health” interventions. Once all of the calories have been logged and posted, what’s to stop the calorie police from setting maximum calorie counts for certain foods, for our own good. Telling us how large our doughnuts can be, or how many calories our sauces should have, or how many grams of fat should be in our pies. In Britain, the House of Lords heard testimony a year or so ago over whether the government there should regulate how thickly bread should be sliced for fear that sandwiches were becoming too high in calories.

    I understand the desire for information. But when we give the government the power to intrude and tell sellers what is and isn’t acceptable, we give them the power to take away from us our right to negotiate with those sellers ourselves. If we want that information, we as buyers should demand it from the businesses we buy from. We shouldn’t use the law as a blunt tool to make them give it to us. That’s not what the law is for.

    posted on October 21st, 2008 at 2:48 am

20. 20 On October 21st, 2008, Rachel said:

    However, I’m inclined to think that people with eating disorders, such as anorexia, who obsess over calories wouldn’t even consider eating pasta or french fries in most restaurants- whether or not they had the calorie information listed.

    Probably not someone who is actively struggling with anorexia, no. But for someone (like me) who is struggling to recover from anorexia and bulimia, seeing calorie counts on menus can be very triggering.

    posted on October 21st, 2008 at 10:34 am

21. 21 On October 21st, 2008, Faith said:

    As someone still struggling with her ED, I can’t decide if I’m for the calorie counts as part of my ongoing struggles or because I actually think information is power. I am a researcher (in a different field) and so generally, I think that giving people more information is generally a good idea. I don’t think that just because there’s a calorie count, people won’t buy the McGriddle or the Whopper supreme — calories on processed foods haven’t stopped anyone from buying Twinkies, for instance.

    I don’t know. I guess my ED brain is fighting with my healthy brain. Not quite sure who’s winning.

    posted on October 21st, 2008 at 10:36 am

22. 22 On October 21st, 2008, Sherie S said:

    How interesting. According to the website Open Secrets, Herbalife Int is one of Harkin’s largest campaign contributors with a donation of over $72,000 dollars. Then there is a separate Herbalife donation, along with over $15grand from Roche.
    http://www.opensecrets.org/races/contrib.php?cycle=2008&id=IAS2
    This is not about health. This is about keeping weight first and foremost in the public’s mind. We know that as part of the marketing blitz for fen-phen Wyeth sponsored Koop’s Shape Up America. Even though that organization claimed to be promoting healthy lifestyle, they knew it would also create fear and be and impetus for the public to take the poison pills.

    posted on October 21st, 2008 at 3:43 pm

23. 23 On October 21st, 2008, attrice said:

    You know, if there were any proof that having nutritional information posted in restaurants made people more likely to buy diet products, then I would agree that Harkin’s support is suspicious. However, spinning it as some kind of vast conspiracy put together to get people to buy herbalife products takes more than a few logical leaps. As it is, the most obvious profit motive here is the restaurant industry who doesn’t want people ordering cheaper side dishes or splitting meals when it’s revealed that some of their dishes contain almost an entire day’s worth of calories.

    posted on October 21st, 2008 at 4:55 pm

24. 24 On October 22nd, 2008, Sherie S said:

    I hardly spinned it as some kind of vast conspiracy to buy herbal life products. But I don’t think one has to be a rocket scientist to make a connection between Harkin and the antiobesity campaigns he has sponsored, and who his campaign contributers are. This is hardly the first time Harkin has harped about obesity. Furthermore, I think it is quite reasonable to look at where any candidates money is coming from. Certainly, even MSM is looking at who was funded by all the financial houses and who supported the bail out bill. Furthermore, if all these health campaigns did not have some effect, why did Wyeth, the maker of fen-phen sponsor Shape Up America? Is there any real “proof” a former surgeon general moralizing about healthy habits makes people run and buy diet pills? And why did they stop sponsoring the program when fen-phen was taken off the market.? IMO anyone who thinks there is no credence to “follow the money” is either very naive or has an agenda of their own! Peace!

    posted on October 22nd, 2008 at 6:36 pm

25. 25 On October 22nd, 2008, Sherie S said:

    Not to belabor this point, but here is Harkin’s own site and his positions on obesity. There are pages and pages! He uses the standard inflammatory language and makes the usual threats about obesity being responsible for the high cost of health care:

    http://tinyurl.com/5bydon

    posted on October 22nd, 2008 at 6:54 pm

26. 26 On October 23rd, 2008, attrice said:

    I agree it’s extremely reasonable to look at who is giving money to politician’s campaigns. And, if Harkin sponsors a bill to ease regulation or block regulation on herbal supplements, I would point to his ties to herbalife as well as the ‘natural’ food/medicine association that gave him a large contribution. My point was that tying his stance of posting calorie counts with herbalife is a really big stretch.

    If all you were getting at is that Harkin believes obesity to be a major health concern and so do several of his contributors then I would also agree with you. But your wording made it sound as if this particular action (putting calorie counts of menus) would somehow benefit herbalife and was therefore little more than a politician trying to do some quid pro quo for a major donor.

    posted on October 23rd, 2008 at 2:21 pm

27. 27 On October 29th, 2008, It’s better to go LEAN » The-F-Word.org said:

    [...] the posting of calorie counts will end with chain restaurant menus? Think again. The New York Times reports today on the rising ubiquity of promoting calorie [...]

    posted on October 29th, 2008 at 12:17 pm

28. 28 On November 2nd, 2008, Useless information « Exceptionally Fat said:

    [...] similar proposed laws) check out this post from the Rudd Center’s blog or any one of these three posts from [...]

    posted on November 2nd, 2008 at 10:08 pm

Leave a Reply