It’s better to go LEAN

29th October 2008

Think 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 consciousness:

The makers of Coca-Cola and M&Ms will soon print calories on the front of packages, while other food manufacturers plan to introduce even more 100-calorie portions of popular brands.
Even fast food places, hardly bastions of healthy eating, are getting into the game: Dunkin’ Donuts recently added a low-calorie egg white breakfast sandwich; Così is using low-fat mayonnaise; McDonald’s large French fries have dropped to 500 calories this year from 570 last year; and Quiznos is testing smaller sizes and less-caloric sandwich fillings in its New York stores. Yum Brands, which owns KFC, Taco Bell, Pizza Hut and other fast-food restaurants, will start voluntarily posting calorie counts for individual servings in its restaurants nationwide later this year.
Some establishments, like Starbucks, are trying to substitute healthier ingredients in high-cal offerings or, if that would compromise taste, to reduce portions. Other restaurants are taking higher-cal items off menus completely, while others are reducing portion sizes to cut calories (but not costs).
A group of diners who discovered that some Applebees meals had more calories than advertised have filed a class-action lawsuit against the popular restaurant chain.
California last month became the first state to require calorie counts, although that law is less restrictive than New York’s. In all, nearly three dozen states, cities and counties have passed or introduced laws that would require calorie posting in some form with more in the works.
Two proposals are moving through Congress to make calorie postings uniform nationwide: The Labeling Education and Nutrition Act (LEAN) is backed by the restaurant industry and would give restaurants and grocers a choice of labeling formats, including posters near cash registers or disclosures on the backs of menus and would pre-empt tougher local laws; the Menu Education and Labeling Act (MEAL) is supported by public health advocates and closely mirrors New York’s law and would not pre-empt more stringent local laws.

From a reading of both bills, I endorse the LEAN act. While it mandates the posting of calorie counts on menu boards (or on an eye-level sign) and requires restaurants to post calorie counts, it allows restaurants the option to disclose information — upon request of the customer — in a variety of ways: on the menu, in an accompanying menu insert, in an appendix attached to the back of the menu, or in a supplemental menu. In other words, it allows consumers the choice to view or to not view calorie counts. Furthermore, the bill mandates that the nutrition information for all nutrients be made available upon consumer request. The MEAL act, by contrast, requires restaurants to post calorie counts (and saturated and trans fat grams and sodium content) “on any menu board or other sign listing the food for sale.” This provision would apply to salad bars, buffets and even vending machines, but mercifully excludes irregular menu items and condiments — ketchup and mustard, it is to be assumed, are not major contributors to the nation’s obesity epidemic. Provision of nutritional information apart from forementioned calories, fat and sodium content, would be available on a voluntary basis, or according to state and local law.

The LEAN bill has been referred to the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. You can email the committee your thoughts at help_comments@help.senate.gov. The MEAL act has been referred to the House Subcommittee on Health. Committee members and contact information listed here. Be sure to mention the specific bill numbers in your emails — The LEAN act is S. 3575 and the MEAL act is H.R. 3895.

Click to Bookmark

This entry was posted on Wednesday, October 29th, 2008 at 12:17 pm and is filed under Food News, Legal Issues. 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.

1 On October 29th, 2008, Tiptoe

said:

I read about this as well and am interested to see what happens. I agree with you that I like the LEAN bill better as it provides more of a choice, but at the same time, industries must supply this information upon request.

Something else I read recently (and I can’t remember where off hand) was about some calorie postings being wrong. That a few places said such item was this amount of calories but when tested at a nutritional lab, there were significant differences in calories. Anyone else hear about this?

posted on October 29th, 2008 at 1:27 pm

2 On October 29th, 2008, Eucritta

The kcal and nutrient counts will never be entirely accurate, save for the given sample tested. Thing is, what’s being measured themselves vary: no prepared dish is exactly the same as another, no component will be evenly distributed throughout, and some components are variably affected by heat and time. More, the nutrients and kcal provided by vegetables and meats will vary, by year, by season, by region, by field or barn, by age, by method and quality of preservation used.

I also would expect there to be differences between labs, not necessarily due to quality but rather other aspects of practice, lab protocol, assay and reporting methods.

So, in short, they’re all estimates. And while some estimates will undoubtedly be better than others, I’ll be gobsmacked if we’ll ever be given the information we’d need to judge that.

posted on October 29th, 2008 at 2:13 pm

3 On October 29th, 2008, spacedcowgirl

Ugh. I don’t believe for a minute that the portion reduction at Starbucks or the increase in 100-cal pack options are about my health, even if you believed that lower-cal was necessarily healthier. The food industry sees an opportunity to cut their own costs (effectively raising prices for consumers–I seriously doubt that smaller scone is going to be any cheaper) and look like saints while doing it, so it’s a no-brainer for them. I wish that as a society we wouldn’t let them get away with it, but we totally will.

I agree with you, the LEAN option is the better. I am all about information being available but I don’t think it’s a good idea for people’s mental health to have it front and center on menu boards. The implication is not “choose the option that’s right for you” but “the one with the least calories wins.” I get a headache just contemplating going to a restaurant where calorie counts are posted, say with a group of women whom I don’t know well. The diet talk would be awful.

posted on October 29th, 2008 at 2:58 pm

4 On October 29th, 2008, Rick

The LEAN Act is probably fine for folks who are already asking for this sort of information, but to fight obesity and other ills, the MEAL Act would reach less-informed, and less-educated consumers. It would also serve as a constant reminder of just how many calories are in some fast food or chain restaurant items.

I was reading through the comments on the NY Times article today and most seem to say that if they were reminded of the calories without having to ask, it would affect their food selection. Also, there are lots of stories of restaurants that either “can’t find” or are “out of” the disclosures. Have you seen “Super Size Me?”

I go for the MEAL Act. I don’t trust the chain store restaurant industry and if they support it, I oppose it. They’ve also donated heavily (tens of thousands of dollars) to the sponsors of the LEAN Act.

I’ve been blogging on the issue. Read: http://www.foodrecalls.blogspot.com

5 On October 29th, 2008, Cammy

Companies that switch to individual 100-cal portions need to take the responsibility to switch to recyclable and biodegradable packaging, splitting the food up into tiny things like that creates a phenomenal amount of extra garbage, it’s extremely wasteful.

posted on October 29th, 2008 at 3:26 pm

6 On October 29th, 2008, Cammy

By the way, I also read that NYT opinion article, and the title bothered me, because there are tons of people that do indeed require more than 2,000 calories a day, suggesting otherwise is a sure way to fuel misunderstandings and self-consciousness.

posted on October 29th, 2008 at 3:30 pm

7 On October 29th, 2008, Rachel

The LEAN Act is probably fine for folks who are already asking for this sort of information, but to fight obesity and other ills, the MEAL Act would reach less-informed, and less-educated consumers.

You cannot force people to become healthier for their own good. You cannot also claim to empower people to make healthier choices while simultaneously robbing them of choice.

Also, there are lots of stories of restaurants that either “can’t find” or are “out of” the disclosures.

Right, and the LEAN act would require restaurants to make this information available upon request. The fundamental difference between the LEAN act and the MEAL act is that the MEAL act force feeds this information to you, regardless if you want it or not.

It’s estimated that some 27 million people suffer from an eating disorder. The MEAL act would, in essence, serve as a federally-sanctioned trigger for these people, as well as people recovering from dysfunctional relationships with food. The MEAL act is like Uncle Sam pouring a drink for a raging alcoholic and inviting him to take “just one sip for his good health.”

posted on October 29th, 2008 at 3:47 pm

8 On October 29th, 2008, Patrick

If it would put the information forward, it’s good. Ignore it if you want, but I don’t sympathize with your stance that it’s bad because it makes it harder for your head to remain in the sand. It sounds to me like you just want to avoid the data because you might not like what it says.

posted on October 29th, 2008 at 4:11 pm

9 On October 29th, 2008, Rachel

Right, Patrick. Because people with an eating disorder aren’t already aware of the caloric contents of most foods known to man. Absolutely.

I absolutely support making it a law requiring restaurants to provide complete nutritional information (not just calories, fat and sodium counts) to consumers immediately upon request. I disagree that the information should be shoved down the throats of consumers who, for reasons all their own, would rather not know such information.

posted on October 29th, 2008 at 5:02 pm

10 On October 29th, 2008, devil

“It’s estimated that some 27 million people suffer from an eating disorder. The MEAL act would, in essence, serve as a federally-sanctioned trigger for these people, as well as people recovering from dysfunctional relationships with food.”

Agreed. This is just another way for Big Brother to stick his nose in our business.

No good will come of posting calorie counts all over the restaurant. It will just upset people who are already battling food issues. For those of us who don’t care about the calorie count? We’ll get grief about our menu choices from the more annoying people at the table (as if they need more ammo). It’s lose-lose.

posted on October 29th, 2008 at 5:03 pm

11 On October 29th, 2008, Bree

For those who are suffering from ED’s or disordered thinking about food in general, nothing good can come from the MEAL plan. Those pushing for stringent labeling on food are too blinded by the so-called obesity epidemic to realize this may be a huge trigger. Having the information available upon request is the much better option.

Also, people who know they’re fat constantly get the message from every source that’s out there. For many people, it may not be that they’re uneducated, but that they are simply tired of being told how bad and less of a person they are for their size, and will eat what they want, not caring if random strangers get horrified at their choices.

posted on October 29th, 2008 at 5:59 pm

12 On October 29th, 2008, MrsDrC

My concern with BOTH of these is the concern troll at the next table. I’m NOT comfortable with going out to eat (which is NOT common in this household) and every other patron of the eating establishment knowing approx. how many calories I just ordered.

Wow, what a way to ruin a date night with my husband, or a special Birthday dinner. *stranger leans in from next table* “You know there are lower calorie/fat options on the menu.” BAM evening ruined. *stranger leans in from next table* “Maybe you should order something a little more healthy.” BAM arguement breaks out.

People already roll their eye’s in contempt of ANY fat person that dares set foot in a McDonalds. Never mind that person might be road tripping with the family and it’s a quick cheap meal before getting back on the road and there’s NO WHERE else to stop for food.

These bills are both just nightmares waiting to take form.

posted on October 29th, 2008 at 6:38 pm

13 On October 29th, 2008, twilightriver

This just means I won’t have to use Google to look this stuff up. Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem to be looking to make it any easier for people to get the ingredient lists of their meals.

It’s all well and good to post allergen warnings for common allergens, but doesn’t help those of us with a digestive intolerance to corn or senstitivity to artificial ingredients.

People think it’s easy to guess what kinds of food will contain which kinds of components, but sometimes the bread is safe and the meat isn’t. Sometimes, the vegetables have something on them you’d never see a need to add. Ingredient lists don’t tell you everything, but they usually show enough for people to be able to make a more safe decision for their sensitivities.

Or, we can just keep avoiding celebrating special occasions and treating friends to lunch because we might feel sick afterward.

posted on October 29th, 2008 at 8:06 pm

14 On October 30th, 2008, Rick

Industry recently formed a coalition called CRNI (Coalition for Responsible Nutrition Information) Its members include Auntie Anne’s Pretzels, Brinker International, Burger King, Carlson Restaurants Worldwide, Darden Restaurants, Domino’s Pizza, Dunkin’ Brands, Grocery Manufacturers Association, International Dairy Queen, International Foodservice Distributors Association, International Franchise Association, McDonald’s, National Chicken Council, National Council of Chain Restaurants, National Fisheries Institute, National Franchisee Association, National Restaurant Association, National Turkey Foundation, OSI Restaurants LLC., Sonic, and White Castle. They all support the LEAN Act.

On the other side, supporting the MEAL Act stands Public Citizen, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, the American College of Preventitive Medicine, the American Diabetes Association, the American Medical Association, the American Public Health Association, the California Center for Public Health Advocacy, the Medical Society of the State of New York, the Trust for America’s Health and many, many others.

These are battlelines to be watched.

Rick
http://www.foodrecalls.blogspot.com

posted on October 30th, 2008 at 1:23 pm

15 On October 30th, 2008, Rachel

Rick - I support the LEAN act for entirely different reasons than does the restaurant industry; often times, much harm is done in the name of science and the public good. Notice that the National Eating Disorders Association nor the Academy of Eating Disorders are among the latter list.

posted on October 30th, 2008 at 2:16 pm

16 On October 30th, 2008, spacedcowgirl

I regard The Center for Science in the Public Interest as irresponsible scaremongers on the topic of obesity and “evil foods,” so their endorsement is actually less likely to win me over to the MEAL side. Personally.

Man, I read the NYT piece and I don’t even know what to respond to so I’m going to have to take a break from this depressing topic. I have no idea why this “less calories is always better” mentality (because that’s clearly what is going on if a 350-calorie meal is edging out a longstanding, higher-calorie favorite at one restaurant) seems to be so pervasive. Eat 3 350-calorie meals a day and you’ll be consuming only 1,050 calories. That may be OK for a few people but there is something wrong with a system where we uncritically assume the 350-calorie meal is always better than the 500-calorie one, or heck, the 700-calorie one. I think MEAL promotes a mob mentality rather than giving people the space and option to decide what foods and calorie levels are right for them personally.

posted on October 30th, 2008 at 2:59 pm

17 On October 30th, 2008, spacedcowgirl

Oh, and ITA with MrsDrC. Like fat people aren’t scapegoated enough in our society? And like people don’t already assume they know everything about me when I commit the crime of ordering food at McDonald’s (something I do less than once a year on average, FTR) while fat? MEAL is the kind of thing that’s only going to give nosy people enough information to be dangerous.

posted on October 30th, 2008 at 3:01 pm

18 On October 30th, 2008, Sherie S

Test

posted on October 30th, 2008 at 9:37 pm

19 On October 31st, 2008, Sherie S

OK, this is just weird. I think this post has a comment vortex. I was going to say that BOTH sides have special interest behind them. As I already pointed out, one of the bills is sponsored by Tom Harkin, who gets many campaign contributions from weight loss industries. A sad fact in U.S. politics is that politicians represent those who back them, not the public anymore. Trust for America’s Health gets grants and funding from The Robert Woods Johnson Foundation. RWJF is associated with pharma giant Johnson & Johnson who make lots of weight loss products. The American Heart Association and Diabetes Association have long sold out. We all know how sleezy the Center for Consumer Freedom can be, but those advocating the bills have their own agendas too!!! And that is $$$

posted on October 31st, 2008 at 12:31 pm

20 On October 31st, 2008, Jose

Hi,

Fortunately I can eat pretty much anything and I’m still thin - I’d like to gain some weight - and I do use butter (yes the real thing) and I drink things with sugar (yes the natural thing and not chemical stuff).
Sometimes I wonder if all these substitutes for sugar and fat (natural things that our bodies use) aren’t doing some harm.
Cattle is given shreded(sp?) bones and we saw the results.
Although I live in Lisbon, I’m sent some edible things from USA, once in a while and I have to confess that some of the labels are somewhat “scary” when I read the ingredients.
Now permit me to critique a behaviour that is characteristic of women.
I see women eating a soup and a pastry instead of eating a full meal.
But then they eat a slice of pudding or some other dessert.
Or they eat a quiche (dunno the word in english) and a pudding (instead of soup).
Soup is one of the best things (probably the best) that one can eat (of course that I’m NOT referring to canned soup).
And to end on a side note, today while having something to eat at a snack-bar this morning I saw a grandmother giving a toddler a chewing-gum. My mother would not think about giving me a chewing-gum or coke when I was a toddler. Different times….

Take care,

José

posted on October 31st, 2008 at 7:38 pm

21 On November 14th, 2008, Sheila Weiss, RD, Director, Nutrition Policy, National Restaurant Association

With America’s growing health and obesity problems, it is important that more consumers have access to more detailed nutrition information, especially when dining out, in an easy and convenient way.

As readers of this blog are well aware, now we have the chance to provide consumers across the country exactly what they are looking for and need. There is a bill before Congress, the LEAN Act (Labeling Education and Nutrition) that will do just that, and its merits have been supported by this site. It is modeled after the federal Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA) that provides consumers nutrition information on packaged food and beverages.

But calories are just part of the information necessary to make smart food choices. Consumers should know about a broad range of nutrition information, including sodium, fat, cholesterol, carbohydrates and protein as well as calories.

That is why the LEAN Act will require that restaurants have detailed nutrition information—such as calories, trans fats, saturated fat, sodium, cholesterol, carbohydrates, sugars, and protein—available in writing in the restaurant. Using one national standard will help consumers get the same information wherever they happen to dine across the country. It will also give restaurants the flexibility to present written nutrition information in an easy and convenient manner that best meets the individual needs of their diners.

Passing the LEAN Act to establish a uniform national nutrition standard for chain food service establishments that also provides the flexibility to accommodate their inherently different needs is practical and fair. And it is the one way to make sure that more consumers get more nutrition information no matter where they dine.

Now we need Congress to pass the LEAN Act. And we need your help to get it done.

Please visit http://www.nationalnutritionstandards.com to get more information and help us bring more nutrition information to everyone across the country.

posted on November 14th, 2008 at 7:45 am

22 On March 17th, 2009, jay will

What exactly are restaurants (and the NRA and LEAN supporters) hiding from?

Plain and simple: it’s our right to know what we put into our bodies. Period.

Nutrition analyses on menu items is inexpensive, despite what the NRA and other opponents of nutrition labeling are reporting. I read one report recently that said a menu analysis would cost as much as $5,000 and would raise the cost of food, etc, etc. Saying that is like saying that a car could cost as much as $1 million. It’s very misleading. The truth is that restaurants can get nutrition analyses for $37.49 at http://www.eatricious.com/restaurants.

In addition, I would argue that if restaurants had some healthy options on the menu and did a decent job of promoting them, they would attract more clients and make more money. There is a growing population of people who actually care about what they eat. (that’s surprising!?)

From the chef’s perspective it makes sense to have healthy options too. If you take away bad ingredients you save money. Good chefs can keep things simple, healthy and tasteful at the same time. I submit that if a chef spent an hour adapting or creating a half of a dozen recipes for the menu people would love it. I know I would AND I would refer people. It’s a no brainer to me.

posted on March 17th, 2009 at 8:45 pm