Calorie counts: Coming soon to a restaurant near you?

11th November 2009

Calorie counts: Coming soon to a restaurant near you?

posted in Food News, Legal Issues, Rachel |

We’ve discussed the pros and cons of posting calorie counts on restaurant menus before. Now Politico’s Glenn Thrush points out a little known provision in the House health care bill that would mandate such conspicuous calorie-counting. He writes:

Buried deep in the House health care bill is a provision, likely to raise nanny-state hackles, requiring fast-food chains and vending machine owners to notify customers of calorie counts — by conspicuously posting nutritional information on menus or machines.

The provision — Section 2572 — requires retail food establishments “part of a chain with 20 or more locations” to list calorie counts “on the menu board including a drive-through board,” as is currently required in New York City and other localities.

A “vending machine operator shall provide a sign in close proximity to each article of food or the selection button” that includes similar data.

The idea is popular among progressives and public health types who think it could reduce obesity, hypertension and diabetes rates — particularly among inner-city folks whose diets are disproportionately composed of cheap, tasty, calorie-loaded Big Macs, Whoppers and Chalupas.

But conservatives and libertarians see it as a major encroachment of the nanny state that has no place in a bill that’s supposed to address affordability, insurance industry abuses and expanding coverage.

The provision basically merges the language in the LEAN act, which I endorsed because it makes nutrition information — and not just calories – available upon request, and the more stringent, in-your-face MEAL act, which robs consumers of the choice of ignorance and is limited solely to the posting of calories. Studies show that since posting calorie counts on menus in New York, patrons consumed about 106 fewer calories per purchase. At that rate, it will only take the average consumer, oh, one month to lose a single, solitary pound — and that’s assuming that they’re not overindulging their bodies’ energy needs at other times through the day. Frankly, I doubt that anyone chomping down on a 1,500-calorie, double-cheese-with-bacon Angus burger is all that concerned about caloric intake or how healthy what they’re eating is. Your thoughts on the provision or its place in the health bill?

Click to Bookmark

This entry was posted on Wednesday, November 11th, 2009 at 9:54 am and is filed under Food News, Legal Issues, Rachel. 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 November 11th, 2009, Lu said:

1) If you’re eating at McDonald’s, Burger King, etc., you’re probably not concerned about calorie counting. 2)It shouldn’t have a place in the health bill. It’s two separate things. 3)I think people are going to eat what they want to. If they choose to know the calorie content of their food that’s one thing, but, to make it law? Not sure that will really help the health of the nation. At the end of the day, if we went out to get a Big Mac, won’t we just eat it anyway?

posted on November 11th, 2009 at 10:23 am

2 On November 11th, 2009, Heather said:

I agree with Lu — if you’re eating fast food, then it’s pretty apparent that the calorie counts are going to be high, so it doesn’t really make sense in that regard. In fact, I remember last time I saw someone eating McDonald’s, it already had the calorie counts plastered on the side of the box/wrapper. I’m more interested in seeing ingredients versus calorie counts, because that’s my one gripe about eating out is not knowing all the crap they put in your food (which is why I eat at home 95% of the time).

posted on November 11th, 2009 at 10:35 am

3 On November 11th, 2009, No Celery Please said:

I don’t really care too much about the fast food places, because I have a general idea of what the nutritional value of the items on those menus is.

But I love the vending machine idea… I often wish they would stock those machines with the nutrition info facing out so I could make a more informed choice out of them.

posted on November 11th, 2009 at 10:51 am

4 On November 11th, 2009, Forestroad said:

I disagree with the assumption that if you’re eating at a fast food joint, you’re probably not concerned about calorie counting. I didn’t start eating at McDonald’s until I started calorie counting, bc they posted their nutrition info right on the box and it actually wasn’t as bad as I thought it was. A McDouble and 4-piece chicken nuggets pack fewer than 600 calories for $2.20, which is pretty darn good for dinner on the run, if you don’t care about fat, sodium, and general nutrition (i.e. eating a meal that somehow makes “meat” out of mostly corn and soy). Although I will admit that an unintended side effect of people eating less nutritionally because of calorie counts is unlikely to become a big public health problem. I just take issue with the assumption that people who eat fast food must be wholly unconcerned with calorie intake/their waistlines.

posted on November 11th, 2009 at 10:58 am

5 On November 11th, 2009, JennyRose said:

To me this seems like an extension of the rules that require packaged grocery store food to have nutritional information. Americans cook less and eat out more since the rules regarding packaged foods went into effect. A big part of my ED recovery is to avoid looking at the calorie counts on food packages. They are there but I have learned to ignore them. I am striving to be an intuitive eater so I would ignore other calorie counts as well.

I have mixed feelings, calories alone aren’t too helpful for most people but nutritional information is. I am not a big fan of fast food personally but it is obviously extremely popular and should not be above regulation.

posted on November 11th, 2009 at 11:29 am

6 On November 11th, 2009, mccn said:

I think I’m aligned with Rachel here – I support provisions that will make all nutrition information more available – as a juvenile diabetic, that information not only helps me make informed choices, it helps me manage my diabetes when I eat something I haven’t prepared, and helps me avoid dangerous high or low blood sugars. But I don’t endorse providing calorie counts alone – I think that calorie counts are one of the least important items of nutritional information (at least, I am unaware of any medical condition that requires their monitoring) and I think it leads people to focus on the wrong things.

posted on November 11th, 2009 at 11:35 am

7 On November 11th, 2009, Rachel said:

I just take issue with the assumption that people who eat fast food must be wholly unconcerned with calorie intake/their waistlines.

I doubt that anyone eating a Big Mac and large fries is all that concerned about calories, but you’re right in that not all who eat fast food are uncaring of nutrition. This provision doesn’t just apply to fast food; it also applies to any chain restaurant. I wouldn’t say that I count calories, but I am health-conscious and try to follow a low-glycemic diet and so would appreciate having the option of nutrition information be made available on demand when dining out. And as a vegetarian, I second the idea of also making ingredient information known. I never order soups in restaurants because they’re usually always made with beef or chicken broth and most of the time, the servers and even the manager can’t even tell me if menu items are truly vegetarian or not.

posted on November 11th, 2009 at 11:38 am

8 On November 11th, 2009, Forestroad said:

Apart from my lengthy tangent about being a sometimes calorie-conscious mcdonald’s eater (and some days I save up for the big mac and fries too lol), a system that would work for me would be the way a lot of restaurants do it–having calorie counts available online rather than on the menu, which can detract from the experience of eating out for some people. However, I realize that the people who might benefit most from having the calorie counts actually plastered on the food might not be the same ones who have the time and resources to go online and look at calorie counts before consuming. So I’m kind of torn on this one.

posted on November 11th, 2009 at 11:44 am

9 On November 11th, 2009, JennyRose said:

Forestroad – what do you mean by “saving up” for a big mac and fries? What is it that you save? Just curious.

posted on November 11th, 2009 at 11:49 am

10 On November 11th, 2009, Brundle said:

I say the more information, the better. True, maybe a calorie count focuses on the wrong thing. But it’s a start, at least.

11 On November 11th, 2009, Nina said:

I don’t mind this bill very much. All they’re doing is posting calories, right? It’s not like they’re saying, “DON’T EAT THIS, FAT ASS!” See, then I’d have a problem.

posted on November 11th, 2009 at 11:53 am

12 On November 11th, 2009, Miriam Heddy said:

Rachel wrote: “Frankly, I doubt that anyone chomping down on a 1,500-calorie, double-cheese-with-bacon Angus burger is all that concerned about caloric intake or how healthy what they’re eating is” and “I doubt that anyone eating a Big Mac and large fries is all that concerned about calories…”

I’d just point out that you’re considering calories only in terms of a presumed desire to avoid them, which is the assumption behind the MEAL act. Yet from a FA perspective, it makes sense to question that–and to look at how easily we slip into assuming that calories must necessarily be bad, or that there’s something obviously wrong with “chomping down” on them.

People who eat at fast food restaurants do, in fact, care about calories, and may even care about health. Often, they’re quite concerned about getting enough energy for the dollar to keep their families going, and though chronic dieters (and here, you’re speaking from a dieter-mentality) may well see fast food as overly caloric, someone without a lot of time or money is likely to see it as a good value–with more calories meaning more energy to get through the day with a smile on their face.

posted on November 11th, 2009 at 12:19 pm

13 On November 11th, 2009, Rachel said:

Forestroad – what do you mean by “saving up” for a big mac and fries? What is it that you save? Just curious.

I dunno about Forestroad, but sometimes if I eat a very rich high-fat and/or high-cal meal, I try to eat healthier the rest of the day or the day after. For some people, this could be disordered eating, but in itself I don’t think it’s all that disordered. I see it as just being cognizant of your body’s energy needs and eating accordingly.

I don’t mind this bill very much. All they’re doing is posting calories, right? It’s not like they’re saying, “DON’T EAT THIS, FAT ASS!” See, then I’d have a problem.

Ahh, but some could argue that because this provision is being made in the name of fighting obesity, that’s the exact sublimial message being sent and received by consumers.

posted on November 11th, 2009 at 12:20 pm

14 On November 11th, 2009, Bronwyn said:

I don’t know if I like the idea of just a calorie count- this reminds me of my most disordered days when the calorie count was all that mattered and the nutritional value went to the wayside.

I’d like to see detailed ingredient lists and nutrition information, but more than a calorie count.

posted on November 11th, 2009 at 12:26 pm

15 On November 11th, 2009, Rachel said:

Often, they’re quite concerned about getting enough energy for the dollar to keep their families going, and though chronic dieters (and here, you’re speaking from a dieter-mentality) may well see fast food as overly caloric, someone without a lot of time or money is likely to see it as a good value–with more calories meaning more energy to get through the day with a smile on their face.

@Miriam: As one who’s worked with poverty and homelessness advocacy groups in the past, I’ve made this same argument before, so it’s not as if I’m simply viewing the situation through the lens of a chronic dieter mentality. And for the record, I’m actually not a chronic dieter. The first real diet I ever went on was the one that developed into my eating disorder and I’ve long since recovered from that.

There are health-conscious patrons of fast food restaurants, but I doubt that these people are likely to order the 1,500-calorie, double-cheese-with-bacon Angus burger. Most people who eat these kinds of high-fat and high-cal burgers consume them for their taste and not their nutritional content. The question remains whether conspicuously posting calorie counts will triumph over tastebuds.

posted on November 11th, 2009 at 12:33 pm

16 On November 11th, 2009, Samantha said:

No! No! No! I’m doing my best to FORGET the amount of calories in everything I eat. The last thing I need is to be scared out of my mind seeing the cals in things.
I don’t eat out very much though, but still it’s a nightmare to me.

“Most people who eat these kinds of high-fat and high-cal burgers consume them for their taste and not their nutritional content.”
Actually many people consume them because it’s what’s cheap, not just for taste. Healthier items are considered (and are in many cases) more expensive & time-consuming & it’s hard to blame the swamped mother of three trying to make ends meet when she feeds her kids McDonald’s at times.

posted on November 11th, 2009 at 1:00 pm

17 On November 11th, 2009, Vegas710 said:

There are also people who think they are choosing the lower calorie option and are not who would be happy to know they should eat the double cheeseburger instead of the chicken deluxe. It’s not like this is going to make fast food suddenly better for us but I think more information is always better. I think it’s important to be aware of the ED’s that those around us may be struggling with but that doesn’t always mean ordering the world around their needs. As a chronic over eater, calorie counts help me.

posted on November 11th, 2009 at 1:18 pm

18 On November 11th, 2009, Frankincensy said:

My instinct is that the more nutritional info available, the better, although I fully understand how it can be triggering and unhelpful for some; I have been known to put my hand over the calorie count on a packet or box because sometimes it’s just better not to know and thus not to freak out. However, I don’t think this tactic is necessarily healthy for all people in all circumstances. Presumably “nutritional information” is going to include things like fat and sugar content, not just calories? Many people may find that more useful from a health perspective than calorie counts alone, and they may make different choices that aren’t reflected in the calorie difference.

The availability of healthier choices is another factor. A person buying a high-calorie, high-fat fast food meal may not be put off by nutritional info if that meal is all they can afford or access; there’s no benefit in telling someone their choice is harmful if they have no other options.

posted on November 11th, 2009 at 1:22 pm

19 On November 11th, 2009, Shoshie said:

Ugh, I hate the calorie count thing, just because it seems so dumb. A pizza bagel at Noah’s Bagels is something like 400 calories. But, if you get it with artichokes and spinach, it’s 420 calories. OMG! More calories! I’ll skip out on my veggies.

Or just eat the extra 20 calories because spinach and artichokes are delicious and I like vitamins.

Also, for comparison, a cookie at Noah’s is about 260 calories. Clearly this is WAY better than the pizza bagel with spinach and artichokes.

posted on November 11th, 2009 at 1:30 pm

20 On November 11th, 2009, goodbyemyboy said:

Limiting the availability of detailed information to calorie counts (which everyone is forced to see whether or not it might be harmful to them) just reinforces the idea that healthy = low calorie and nothing else. And the fact that it’s only required in fast food places and chain restaurants reinforces the idea that cheap calories are bad for you but somehow if you go to an expensive restaurant and eat butter and foie gras, that’s okay. It’s frustrating.

posted on November 11th, 2009 at 1:40 pm

21 On November 11th, 2009, Frankincensy said:

Shoshie – that’s a good point. Lower-cal doesn’t always mean it’s a healthier choice, although the makers of 100-calorie packs and other such products would probably like us to believe so.

22 On November 11th, 2009, Steph said:

I for one am a bit wary of this provision. I have heard that McDonalds stretched the truth a bit when calculating its nutritional information. I agree with No Celery Please that the ingredients should be listed (but disagree about whats in a hamburger- meat “mash” that’s been trimmed from bigger pieces, sprayed with ammonia and stuck together by a company after it receives the pieces from several different factories- and thats not hippie rhetoric either- don’t mean to preach, but take a look at this if you’re interested: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/04/health/04meat.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1&hp Sorry for the lengthy aside! If anyone knows of people who make good, wholesome burgers from whole cuts of meat, let me know!)

Anyways, the bottom line is that restaurants may lie or not update their calorie information. And who is going to check up on them to make sure the information is accurate? Not many people, I am willing to bet. So my thinking on this issue is that its just an action by the seemingly helpless government in the face of the “obesity crisis” to pacify the masses into thinking they are doing something ultimately, it won’t change anything or make things substantially better. Also, I’d like to see those studies that show New Yorkers eat 106 less calories when they know the information.

When it comes down to it, calorie information probably won’t do diddly squat except make my mother exclaim “Oh my! Look at how many calories are in that! I can’t believe I ever ate that. Now I know better- never again will I touch that!” and scold me for not caring.

posted on November 11th, 2009 at 1:48 pm

23 On November 11th, 2009, Laura said:

I understand why people would be annoyed with the emphasis on only calories and not nutritional information in general, but I don’t have a problem with… simply giving the public more information that they already had. Rachel, when you say that health-conscious people are not “likely to order the 1,500-calorie, double-cheese-with-bacon Angus burger,” as dumb as this sounds… some people don’t know that the burger is 1500 calories.
I could be at a party at one of those places or in a rush, and I want to eat something but don’t want to look like a weight obsessed bitch and ask for the amount of calories (I know, I know, my own problem, but maybe it’s just self-conscious ED history-related baggage). The mandate for the calories is a little weird, but all it is is more information to many Americans who don’t actually realize how much they are consuming. No complaints on my end.

posted on November 11th, 2009 at 1:52 pm

24 On November 11th, 2009, hsofia said:

My husband has been to a fast food restaurant in Seattle that is experimenting/piloting this. He says it did affect what he ordered. Looking at the calorie listings, he realized that one side of fries had as many calories as a burger, but more fat. He chose not to get the fries several times. A few times he also ordered a second, smaller burger instead of getting the meal because it was less fat and fewer calories, but more protein and more food.

I think these nutritional boards should have actual nutrition on them, not just caloric info. Like how many vitamins and minerals are you (not) consuming in this place). But I have gone to restaurant websites to get that kind of information. Not everyone will/can.

posted on November 11th, 2009 at 2:11 pm

25 On November 11th, 2009, JennyRose said:

Rachel said;

Sometimes if I eat a very rich high-fat and/or high-cal meal, I try to eat healthier the rest of the day or the day after. For some people, this could be disordered eating, but in itself I don’t think it’s all that disordered.

But that could also mean you are eating intuitively. Our bodies do like variety. It would be disordered if you said if I have burgers and fries, I can only eat light foods for the rest of the day. You are honoring your body if you eat what you need which is understandably lighter food. In the old days my diet mentality would have said, I blew it so I might as well eat whatever I want.

I do think all this discussion about the health qualities of fast food is on a slippery slope toward good food/bad food.

posted on November 11th, 2009 at 2:38 pm

26 On November 11th, 2009, Samantha C said:

I think the calorie counts are a bad idea only because so many people have such a skewed relationship with them. I’m all for the information being made avaliable – in a pamphlet at the register perhaps, or on-request. But when it’s staring me in the face, I second-guess myself, and then I never get enough food. I only eat 2 meals a day with a couple snacks, so it’s perfectly reasonable for one of those meals to be 800-1000 calories, on an intellectual level. But I’m so used to thinking that everything over 300 (what a huge number that seems like!) is bad, that when it’s plastered in front of me that way, I don’t end up getting enough food. It’d be better for me to get a larger sandwich at Quizno’s (say), with deli meat and vegetables and nutrition, than for me to halve the sandwich and be starving again in a few hours, with nothing more to eat but chips. But I can’t think that way when I see the calorie count. All I think is what a disgusting pig i’d have to be to eat a 900-calorie sandwich.

posted on November 11th, 2009 at 2:40 pm

27 On November 11th, 2009, Rachel said:

Actually many people consume them because it’s what’s cheap, not just for taste.

Yeah, but the burgers that are the highest in fat and calories are also among the most expensive on the menu, so it stands to reason that if you’re eating fast food because it’s cheap, that you’d get the less expensive burgers, which are also lower in fat and calories. I haven’t really gone to a fast food joint since turning vegetarian more than six years ago (save for Subway and Chipotle). I got a soda from Wendy’s last week and was absolutely floored at the cost of burgers these days.

In his new book, David Kessler also discusses the way that Big Food engineers food so that it not only affects your tastebuds, but also your neurochemistry so that you crave it more and more. Brandon used to be a regular fast food connoisseur and he said that after he stopped, he began to notice how much it had dulled his taste buds.

posted on November 11th, 2009 at 3:49 pm

28 On November 11th, 2009, Rachel said:

I for one am a bit wary of this provision. I have heard that McDonalds stretched the truth a bit when calculating its nutritional information.

Good point. Calorie counts only provide an estimate, not a concrete number of what a dish actually contains. For example, some independent group recently did a sample study at several Chipotle restaurants and found that the same item varied by several hundred calories depending on the location.

posted on November 11th, 2009 at 3:54 pm

29 On November 11th, 2009, Rachel said:

I am actually all for making complete nutritional information available on demand to consumers who request it. My only quibble with this provision is that it denies people the choice of not knowing and that it applies to the posting of calories while ignoring the importance of other nutritional elements.

I also want to reiterate that all food, even a 1,500-calorie Angus burger, has its place in a healthy diet. I know that there is a natural, socially-conditioned response to equate “less healthy” with “bad,” but I also hope that everyone understands that the discussion here is on the nutritional value of certain food items, minus the moralization. A 1,500 Angus burger may not be the healthiest choice, but that doesn’t necessarily make it a bad choice.

posted on November 11th, 2009 at 4:05 pm

30 On November 11th, 2009, Michelle said:

I agree with you – I am all in favor of providing as much nutritional information as is practical, in-store. I just don’t think it should be shoved in people’s faces. For some people with eating disorders, it could be triggering. As for me, I personally would just like to continue to enjoy an ice cream cone once every couple of months without the menu telling me I’m being “bad” (not sure if my favorite shop has 20+ locations). Also, I don’t think it’s the best idea to emphasize calories over other information, as if What Makes You Fat is the be-all and end-all of nutrition.

posted on November 11th, 2009 at 7:33 pm

31 On November 12th, 2009, Entangled said:

I hate this. A lot. One of the keys to getting over my disordered eating was not knowing how many calories I’m eating. I know to some people that’s horrifying and counter-intuitive, but to me it’s the only way to be healthy. If I knew, I wasn’t eating enough. I was spending half the day dizzy and ill, headachey and weak with hunger, because that’s how I end up if I eat the mass media / diet industry approved number of calories for someone my size. I need closer to twice that amount to feel human and be able to exercise but the calorie obsession in that culture did a number to make me feel guilt just for doing what I needed to live.

I like what Jamba Juice does. They have a big, laminated book of ingredients and nutrition information for all their products. It’s easily accessible and easily avoidable and includes ingredients as well as detailed nutrition, which for a lot of people is much more important than calories.

Also, as Rachel pointed out, these numbers are only rough estimates. It’s pretty creepy that people treat them with almost religious reverence.

posted on November 12th, 2009 at 2:31 pm

32 On November 12th, 2009, merri said:

We already have that law in CA, or maybe just san francisco. It’s not on all restaurants, but chain ones (and we don’t have it on vending machines). I was at a chevy’s and saw all those calorie counts on each item on the menu, and it was kind of off-putting. I don’t count calories anymore, it’s not good for me, and the menu was trying to force me to… I wasn’t the only one at the table who didn’t like it. Of course, I ended up eating one of the least calorie things on there which is not like me anymore, but I felt guilted into it. I think that the upon request law is good, but it ruins the entire atmosphere of a meal to have stuff like that listed there, makes it less fun. And I agree with you, Rachel, most people know this stuff isn’t good for you anyway. If you’re eating at fast food places because they’re cheap, you still know it’s not too healthy, but you still eat there because that’s what you can afford. And of course some people like the taste. The high calorie chevys was really tasty! Lol

posted on November 12th, 2009 at 6:42 pm

33 On November 13th, 2009, Liza said:

OK, I live in NYC so I’ve been dealing with this for a year or so already. Speaking as someone who has never technically had an eating disorder (but yo-yo dieted and had a rather contentious relationship with food for a long time), I still find it triggering and upsetting.

Sometimes it will impact what I order, sometimes not. I find that most often I will order what I was going to order anyway but then feel guilty and gross after I see the calorie count.

It upsets me because I have worked really hard to not think about food as morally good or bad and to concentrate on health and nutrient over what’s “fattening.” But this derails that and puts my brain back in a bad place.

I am not a fan. It’s upsetting and I’m sure as hell not any healthier for it.

posted on November 13th, 2009 at 1:55 am

34 On November 13th, 2009, Bree said:

I think it should be available upon request and not plastered in public for everyone to see. It can be very triggering and disturbing to those suffering from ED’s and disordered eating.

I also have a problem with the way this is trying to be enforced. I understand those in favor of it see it as nutritional education but to me, it’s yet another way to shame people, especially those who are fat, for their choices to eat fast food or visit chain restaurants.

posted on November 13th, 2009 at 12:02 pm