Proposal for nutrtion info on menus nation wide.............
So the government is working on getting a bill passed so all restaurants in the country(not just NYC and a fell other cities any more) have to post their nutrition facts on the menu if they have more than 20 chains :-). I think that is a great idea. Below is a link to the article and please share your opinions!
bring on the libertarians....
So everyone in NYC is now a healthy weight?... There has been a mass exodus from fast-food chains? ... Salads are now the most popular item on every restaurant menu?..... Ice-cre am parlours are going out of business? I'm all for more information but I think the problem needs more radical grass-roots solutions....
Original Post by gi-jane:
So everyone in NYC is now a healthy weight?... There has been a mass exodus from fast-food chains? ... Salads are now the most popular item on every restaurant menu?..... Ice-cre am parlours are going out of business? I'm all for more information but I think the problem needs more radical grass-roots solutions....
No, no, no and no but NYC diners who want it have access to nutritional info. Should we remove nutritional labels from bags of chips because Frito Lay is still popularly purchased?
The problem was that people couldnt make educated decisions because restaurant foods could be SO misleading. Without the revealing articles, who'd dream certain burgers were less calories than certain salads.
Lets not underestimate the power of information. This problem wasnt that fast food chains and ice-cream shops werent shutting down and societys obesity problem is too complex to think this would address it but it is a start.
More importantly, this is more than a start but a solution to a world of diners who want the choice to consider nutritional and caloric values when dining.
I think it's chain restaurants with sales over a certain amount that are required in NYC.........anyway, if anyone has ever been in a professional kitchen where the food doesn't come out of plastic container and is cooked from scratch for that day only or changes on the fly....it would be impossible and financial disaster for small independent chefs and restaurants to conform. Which ironically would leave only the fast food laboratory food establishments. Hurray for big brother.
Original Post by kortlynmoore:
So the government is working on getting a bill passed so all restaurants in the country(not just NYC and a fell other cities any more) have to post their nutrition facts on the menu if they have more than 20 chains :-). I think that is a great idea. Below is a link to the article and please share your opinions!
Yes, because it's always a great idea when the parasites in office, who create nothing, tell the producers how to run their business and force them to do it at the point of a gun.
I've travelled for up to two weeks at a time on business, only eating out at restaurants and somehow I've managed to not gain any weight without knowing any calorie information. How? By doing simple things like asking for vegetables instead of french fries, avoiding complimentary bread and butter, choosing grilled chicken, fish and leaner steaks rather than the "fish fry" or breaded & fried chicken fingers, ordering water or diet soda rather than regular soda or alcohol.
You can lead the fata$$es to vegetables, but you can't prevent them from ordering the french fries. 
Original Post by ds1973:
Yes, because it's always a great idea when the parasites in office, who create nothing, tell the producers how to run their business and force them to do it at the point of a gun.
As we all learned in econ 101, the free market only works efficiently if people are adequately informed. A law like this would actually improve market efficiency.
Original Post by floggingsully:
Original Post by ds1973:
Yes, because it's always a great idea when the parasites in office, who create nothing, tell the producers how to run their business and force them to do it at the point of a gun.
As we all learned in econ 101, the free market only works efficiently if people are adequately informed. A law like this would actually improve market efficiency.
If there is a competitive advantage to provide nutritional information, a restaurant would do it. For example, if the restaraunts market was healthy people who cared about caloric intake, it would be part and parcel of their offering. It's called developing a brand - that's how a free market provides high quality goods and services without the need for regulatory agencies. The law above is actually adding inefficiency to a given restaurant by mandating that they spend money to print out this information. If I have a chain of pizza and wing stores and the majority of my customers don't give a damn about nutritional information , this is adding an overhead to my operating costs that is of no value to me or my customers. It's biting into my margin and dictating to me how I can use my property.
Free market capitalism is the most efficient means to allocate resources, however each individual in the market does not need to be fully informed for the free market to be efficient. The market is efficient because of the mechanism by which prices send signals to producers about what consumers want, allowing them to allocate resources to fulfill those needs. Prices also act to ration goods or services by discouraging overconsumption by those who don't need it. For example, I don't need to know that construction materials are NEEDED in Florida because of a hurricane the prior week. I just know that the price of plywood is higher at the hardware store, so I'm going to postpone building that doghouse this weekend. The producers also know they should send more plywood to Florida because they're getting a premium price down there.
Besides, the real issue here is not making a market more or less efficient. It is: Is the restaurant owner a slave to the state or a free-thinking individual that should be left to run his business as he or she sees fit and profit or fail by their own decisions.
Alot of people don't even realize what foods are even bad! They assume because it's chicken it's safe. Sure, if it's not covered in a better and rolled in oil. But not everyone realizes this. I think it will help and most certainly not hurt the problem. At least it may give some people a chance to change their mind and order the grilled chicken instead of the cheeseburger. :)
Running a business has some rules/laws the owner has to follow for safety reasons. This is just another rule/law and it is for safety reasons seeing as how obesity is becoming a problem.
Original Post by ds1973:The law above is actually adding inefficiency to a given restaurant by mandating that they spend money to print out this information.
But will increase efficiency of the market. Each individual restaurant might have to pay more but they'd all prefer the market stay inefficient anyway.
Original Post by ds1973:
Free market capitalism is the most efficient means to allocate resources
Again, think back to your econ 101 class. The free market is the most efficient means to allocate resources if the following assumptions are met:
1) Consumers have perfect information
2) Consumers act rationally
3) (Which is left out of most text books) the cost to the consumer is the actual cost of the good.
If people are sooooooo worried about their health, then they shouldn't eat at restaurants who don't post nutritional information in the first place (this will avoid the guesswork that can be so tricky). Or they should do it in enough moderation that it won't make or break their whole diet, no matter how surprisingly high the calories could be.
By doing this, they will create a demand that will cause SOME restaurants to display info because they WANT to cater to the health-conscious demographic. The other restaurants who DON'T want or need those types of customers should not have to cater to them. You'd be making them play by the rules of a game that they aren't even participating in. It's like demanding a basketball player bring a baseball bat onto the court, because you're expecting him to "play sports" instead of basketball because there are more "sports fans" than basketball fans. Let businesses cater to their own demographics and nobody elses!
If I want to sell pizza to people who are not health conscious, then I shouldn't have to take responsibility for it if a health-conscious person is unable to guess which items are low-cal and which aren't. I have no responsibility to the general public other than to provide the services they've contracted me for.
Personally, I love when nutrional info is posted. But what's convenient to ME personally has no bearing on what is convenient to the entreprenuers in a financial sense.
As a consumer, I am not a helpless victim who is being put at risk by these companies. I'm a big girl, and I know how to avoid chains that don't post nutritional information if I want to. The chains who will post info are the chains that stand to gain customers and make a profit by doing so.
It is (and should continue to be) a financial choice, not a philanthropic one.
Original Post by floggingsully:
1) Consumers have perfect information
They do have the information. They know which restaurants post nutritionals, and which don't. This is ALL the information they need to make an informed choice if they've decided to only consume food with a known caloric content. The course of action should simply be to avoid businesses that don't meet your needs as a consumer (read: Don't eat at the McDonald's if you're pissed that they don't post calories).
As long as they're not given MISinformation by the restaurants, then they are not at a disadvantage.
Original Post by yummy_kitty:
Original Post by floggingsully:
1) Consumers have perfect information
They do have the information. They know which restaurants post nutritionals, and which don't.
having information =/= having access to information.
Original Post by floggingsully:
Original Post by ds1973:
Free market capitalism is the most efficient means to allocate resources
Again, think back to your econ 101 class. The free market is the most efficient means to allocate resources if the following assumptions are met:
1) Consumers have perfect information
2) Consumers act rationally
3) (Which is left out of most text books) the cost to the consumer is the actual cost of the good.
I have to agree with floggingsully on this one. Another thing to keep in mind is that here in America, the free market isn't actually free. We already have all kinds of rules and regulations, policies, and, even worse, subsidies that negate #3 - the same policies that have helped make superprocessed foods derived from corn and soy far cheaper than their whole food counterparts, driving cheaper than public transportation, and using fossil fuels like they're going out of style cheaper than fuel efficiency.
As for the actual proposal, I would support it all the way. The costs to the restaurants are negligable, since only big chains with standardized menues would be affected. Do I think it would help America's obesity issue? Not necessarily. However, I would personally be thrilled. As a consumer, I can't boycott restaurants that don't provide nutrition info on premises, since that would literally be every restaurant I have ever been to. Not eating out either isn't really an option, since I am seldom home during the week (full time job + 1/2 time student) and travel extensively. I try to get the nutrition information for a given restaurant online before I go, but that isn't always possible, and waiters get snippy if you ask them too many questions. Let's get that information out there!
Apologies for any typos - my spell-checker is acting up.
Original Post by yummy_kitty:
Original Post by floggingsully:
1) Consumers have perfect information
They do have the information. They know which restaurants post nutritionals, and which don't. This is ALL the information they need to make an informed choice if they've decided to only consume food with a known caloric content. The course of action should simply be to avoid businesses that don't meet your needs as a consumer (read: Don't eat at the McDonald's if you're pissed that they don't post calories).
As long as they're not given MISinformation by the restaurants, then they are not at a disadvantage.
See, this is RIGHT ON. If enough consumers cared enough about nutritional information being posted, then restaurants that posted that information would do better business than those that did not. Consumers would choose to frequent them more often. In that case, the lack of business, would be a signal to the business that there is something missing.
Sully, you sound like one of my socialist friends who used to always talk about how "in econ 101 we learned that there is always a going to be a certain level of unemployment in a free market system, so that's why communism is good".
Original Post by theholla:
Another thing to keep in mind is that here in America, the free market isn't actually free. We already have all kinds of rules and regulations, policies, and, even worse, subsidies that negate #3 - the same policies that have helped make superprocessed foods derived from corn and soy far cheaper than their whole food counterparts, driving cheaper than public transportation, and using fossil fuels like they're going out of style cheaper than fuel efficiency.
So you're helping me make my point here. Government interference disrupts the mechanism of free markets. It changes the signals. HFCS is cheap because of govt interference.
So you want to SOLVE the problems caused by government meddling with more government meddling. Maybe the government meddling should be reduced year-over-year so we can get back to living in a free society.
Original Post by floggingsully:
Original Post by ds1973:The law above is actually adding inefficiency to a given restaurant by mandating that they spend money to print out this information.
But will increase efficiency of the market. Each individual restaurant might have to pay more but they'd all prefer the market stay inefficient anyway.
Original Post by ds1973:
Free market capitalism is the most efficient means to allocate resources
Again, think back to your econ 101 class. The free market is the most efficient means to allocate resources if the following assumptions are met:
1) Consumers have perfect information
2) Consumers act rationally
3) (Which is left out of most text books) the cost to the consumer is the actual cost of the good.
Please clarify on point # 3. Are you insinuating that the price the consumer pays should NOT include a profit on the good or service?
Original Post by ds1973:
If there is a competitive advantage to provide nutritional information, a restaurant would do it.
I'm not a "free market" worshipper, but I agree with this statement. I do find it interesting, though, that the National Restaurant Association supports it if it is indeed such an inefficient and financial burden.
However, if the change only applies to chains, it doesn't really matter to me. The reason why I don't like to eat at most large chain restaurants has nothing to do with the lack of nutritional information, but rather the disproportionate attention they pay to putting license plates and bicycle parts on the wall instead of innovation and quality in the food and service.
Original Post by ds1973:Sully, you sound like one of my socialist friends who used to always talk about how "in econ 101 we learned that there is always a going to be a certain level of unemployment in a free market system, so that's why communism is good".
Really, because I'm in favor of policies that enhance the efficiency of the free market I'm being compared to a communist?
Original Post by ds1973:
Original Post by theholla:
Another thing to keep in mind is that here in America, the free market isn't actually free. We already have all kinds of rules and regulations, policies, and, even worse, subsidies that negate #3 - the same policies that have helped make superprocessed foods derived from corn and soy far cheaper than their whole food counterparts, driving cheaper than public transportation, and using fossil fuels like they're going out of style cheaper than fuel efficiency.
So you're helping me make my point here. Government interference disrupts the mechanism of free markets. It changes the signals. HFCS is cheap because of govt interference.
So you want to SOLVE the problems caused by government meddling with more government meddling. Maybe the government meddling should be reduced year-over-year so we can get back to living in a free society.
I think you misunderstood my point - in a world where the government is meddling in everything, free market arguments are pretty worthless. Assuming that your meddling reduction plan will not be implemented, the best we can do is weight the pros and the cons of any new initiative. In my estimation, the pros here (a better educated and potentially healthier consumer) outweighs the cons (a negligable investment on the part of a number of large companies).
Original Post by floggingsully:
Original Post by yummy_kitty:
Original Post by floggingsully:
1) Consumers have perfect information
They do have the information. They know which restaurants post nutritionals, and which don't.
having information =/= having access to information.
So maybe restaurants should also be mandated to educate consumers about what the nutritional information actually means, since mere nutritional facts will be worthless to consumers who don't know how many calories they're supposed to eat or what the different micronutrients are.
Do you know of a good indoor electric grill?
Consumer Search, a website that reports on the top-rated products based on expert and user reviews, selects these three as the best... Read more