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!
http://harkin.senate.gov/pr/p.cfm?i=314244
Original Post by ds1973:Please clarify on point # 3. Are you insinuating that the price the consumer pays should NOT include a profit on the good or service?
In many cases, the production of a good incurs costs that are not paid by the producer and therefor are not passed onto the consumer, but someone still has to pay those costs. For the market to work at maximum efficiency, those costs should be paid by the consumer.
Please stop ignoring the most relevant of the 3 points above. For the free market to work at maximum efficiency, consumers need perfect information. This proposed legislation would improve the information the consumers have and therefor increase the efficiency of the free market.
Original Post by lysistrata: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.
Would that make the market run more efficiently? yup. Does that make it good policy? nope.
Original Post by lysistrata:
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.
I think this is a bit of a straw man, since that information is already out there and can easily be accessed by any consumer who is interested. By contrast, the nutritional content of a restaurant's food is known only to that restaurant, and in numerous cases is never made available to the consumer, unless they live in a city or state that mandates it.
Original Post by theholla:
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).
I agree that the best we can do is weigh the pros and cons, however I don't think you are the one who gets to do the "weighing".
The people making the initial investment (the businesses) are the only ones who should have the authority to weigh those pros and cons you mentioned. It's THEIR business that they developed with THEIR idea of what they wanted with THEIR money.
And for many of them, it's perfectly reasonable that a (potentially) more educated public would NOT outweigh the cost.
Original Post by floggingsully:
Original Post by ds1973:Please clarify on point # 3. Are you insinuating that the price the consumer pays should NOT include a profit on the good or service?
In many cases, the production of a good incurs costs that are not paid by the producer and therefor are not passed onto the consumer, but someone still has to pay those costs. For the market to work at maximum efficiency, those costs should be paid by the consumer.
Please stop ignoring the most relevant of the 3 posts above. For the free market to work at maximum efficiency, consumers need perfect information. This proposed legislation would improve the information the consumers have and therefor increase the efficiency of the free market.
Come on Sully, no one can have perfect information all the time. In this case, the information is: Bobs steakhouse doesn't provide nutritional information, but Outback does, so I'm going Outback.
Look, you go out to eat and it's a trade-off of factors that impact your decision to eat at a place. It's not always about eating the healthiest or the fastest. Sometimes it's about the ambiance, sometimes it's about the taste, sometimes price. It's about trading off those factors. You may choose to sacrifice quality for speed one day, but then prioritize quality the next. If you're really concerned about health, you won't eat at places that don't have nutritional information.
You can choose not to go to a restaurant that does not provide nutritional information. Or you can make simple healthy decisions while you're in there. Heck, I don't need the nutritional information at McDonalds to know that I should order the grilled chicken sandwich, no mayo with a diet coke, no fries. If I'm real hungry, I'd order two of those, stack the chicken in one sandwich and lose one set of buns. It's easy.
In this world, you'll find many situations where you have to make decisions without enough information. Even if it's possible to get enough information, you may have time or cost constraints preventing you from being able to.
The restaurant owner should have the freedom to post (or not) nutritional information, and you, the consumer, have the freedom to eat there (or not).
Original Post by floggingsully:
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?
No, I wasn't calling you a communist, you just remind me of this guy every time you say "in Econ 101".
Original Post by yummy_kitty:I agree that the best we can do is weigh the pros and cons, however I don't think you are the one who gets to do the "weighing".
The people making the initial investment (the businesses) are the only ones who should have the authority to weigh those pros and cons you mentioned. It's THEIR business that they developed with THEIR idea of what they wanted with THEIR money.
And for many of them, it's perfectly reasonable that a (potentially) more educated public would NOT outweigh the cost.
For most chain restaurants, an informed public IS the cost. When NYC imposed a similar law, many customers reacted by choosing the lower calorie/fat items on the menu - not having had any idea how many calories were in certain items. The restaurants then had to react by reformulating some of their recipes since they weren't selling any more. The reason that most restaurant recipes are closely guarded secrets is that they do not want the public to know how unhealthy/fattening some of the items are. I'm not talking about ribs/wings/fries. Everyone knows those are unhealthy. But a 1600 calorie salad that they're marketing as a "healthy choice"? Restaurants want to be able to lie to their customers.
Prior to 1990, package food nutritional labels were voluntary.
Are we too demanding of them now?
We're not demanding this of Mom and Pops pizzeria who've a 2nd location downtown. This is for national chains of 20 or more restaurants. With the money they budget for marketing, the can afford to be responsible with their customers especially when the math has fooled d the professionals.
Studies have repeatedly shown dieticians to misjudge restaurant predictions by up to 40%. Likely because for the salad with grilled chicken thats 500 calories here is one 1200 calories there.
Original Post by ds1973:
You can choose not to go to a restaurant that does not provide nutritional information. Or you can make simple healthy decisions while you're in there. Heck, I don't need the nutritional information at McDonalds to know that I should order the grilled chicken sandwich, no mayo with a diet coke, no fries.
Anyone who knows there way around this Food forum has seen the horror calories stories of foods that seemed like good choices but werent or the items we knew werent packed some calories only to be blown away by how extreme the actual calorie count is.
The theory seems to be if you are THAT concerned ...
Why do you have to be THAT concerned?
You should simply be able to make an informed decision of nationwide restaurants with 20 or more chains by them making data accessible and not just by choice and not because you had to go online and research them.
So do we stop railroading Kraft and other food manufacturers to let them return to voluntary reporting of food nutrition?
You're right. Providing nutritional info could cost them customers. That is another REASONABLE reason why they might not want to do it. I don't think it's sneaky or even "lying" for them to have a 1600 calorie salad (though most unhealthy salads are still nowhere near that high cal).
Not everybody is trying to lose weight. Some people could eat a veggie/avocado/pasta/meat salad for 1600 calories and it's a perfect meal for them.
The fact that everyone assumes salad = low calorie is a product of ignorance that needs to be addressed by other means of education, not publicly shaming the companies as if a salad like that is evil or something.
I've also noticed that the dishes touted as healthy and low-cal DO often have info voluntarily provided on the menu. Usually these items are separated into a "light/healthy" menu section, and the restaurants are eager to brag about the low cal options. Not everywhere, but it's present in enough places that consumers have options.
Original Post by sun123:So do we stop railroading Kraft and other food manufacturers to let them return to voluntary reporting of food nutrition?
Reducto Ad Absurdum.
I'll reply anyway: I think it would be inconvenient and annoying as hell if this happened. However, as long as they were honest about the actual ingredients (due to potential allergies), I would not think they were being unethical if they were allowed stop reporting nutritional info. I would buy the brands that DID report the info, and I'm sure most would report the info since it would gain them customers.
You said "Prior to 1990, package food nutritional labels were voluntary."
And guess what... Making the info mandatory did nothing to prevent the obesity epidemic, did it? Nnnope.
If people have known healthy options, they still voluntarily choose the unregulated unhealthy option. At some point I vote for individual accountabilty and common sense over corporate regulations.
EDIT: I just realized 90% of the bread, cheese, veggies, dips, and desserts that I buy (from the Farmer's Market) have NO nutrional labels. Guess what? I'm not obese! Although I know our common sense CAN sometimes fail us, it's not so innacurate that it would cause a thin person to become obese without other factors.
Original Post by yummy_kitty:
Not everybody is trying to lose weight. Some people could eat a veggie/avocado/pasta/meat salad for 1600 calories and it's a perfect meal for them.
So why not tell them that's what they're getting? I see no advantage to the customer in companies not providing nutritional information. They don't, to now, because collusion works. If nobody provides it, the customer doesn't have an option to go to another restaurant to get the info.
The cost to a restaurant chain of adding nutritional info. to their menu is minimal. They already have precision formulas for preparing each item (which is why the blooming onion tastes the same at any restaurant in the same chain) - so throw that info. into a calculator and you could work out the numbers in 10 minutes. They already reprint their menus every 4-6 months to include new items and promotions, so there's no extra cost there. The ONLY real cost to the company is that some of its more profitable items may start selling less well. But isn't that how the free market is supposed to work anyway?
It's not like the cost won't just be passed onto the consumer anyway. Which, ironically, could give a competitive advantage to the mom-and-pop joints that aren't legally required to disclose.
I'm on the fence about this one. Yes, consumers need information to make rational decisions. I'm not convinced it makes sense to require disclosure from some providers but not others. After all, if the cost is minimal, and if the cost will be passed on anyway ... why not a universal mandate?
At a lot of mom-and-pop joints, the menu changes daily, making it a lot more work (though still doable for most items). Maybe require it of everywhere that actually prints their menu rather than just using a chalkboard (with some sort of caveat based on company size so that Starbucks et al don't use that as a loophole)?
A similar rule to this is already in effect in King County, WA (too bad I don't live in King County). Most of these places have nutritional info online anyway, so it's a simple matter of including it on the menus.
I think it's a wonderful idea to implement it nationwide. It actually increases their business from me because I don't have to have internet access before I can order something.
Possibly a little off topic, but when I go out to a restaurant the first thing I avoid is a chain place I could go to anywhere.
I can't remember the last time I went to a restaurant that had calorie counts anywhere... the advice on here to check nutritional info online is impossible. Most places I like change their menus every day... a few cook food to order... one place I like, its entire specials board is in japanese and picking food is a riot.... the majority of them don't have websites... two of my favourite restaurants don't have names!!
I refuse to spend my precious money on food you could eat in London or anywhere!
ps. Side point: I seem to have noticed that Americans call places like McDonalds, kebabhouses or fish and chip shops "restaurants" - is this true? I guess I consider a restaurant somewhere you sit down and get served, not buy food to eat on a street corner. I do have an occasional gorgeous, dirty fish and chips, but usually just a good local one in a seaside town (so no calorie counts there either!) - McDonalds, ugh, cardboardfood.
Original Post by theholla:I think this is a bit of a straw man, since that information is already out there and can easily be accessed by any consumer who is interested. By contrast, the nutritional content of a restaurant's food is known only to that restaurant, and in numerous cases is never made available to the consumer, unless they live in a city or state that mandates it.
the information is out there, but to assume that it can be easily accessed by any consumer is dead wrong. the link between obesity and low socio-economic status is well established, and much of the nutritional information for restaurants (not to mention food in general - hello, how did we all find ourselves here?) is most-easily available on-line. not everyone has a home computer with internet; it's still a luxury. those of us with two or three computers may find this hard to believe, but the reality is that for some people accessing this information means making a trip to a public library or other access point and then - what? writing down the information for every meal they think they might ever want to eat? printing page after page (at--i dunno--20c/page?) and taking it all home, hoping you have what you need? then sifting through it at the drive-thru or the table while your family tries to order?
this legislation is about public health. if some businesses have to make adjustments, that's unfortunate, but lots of other businesses have made adjustments to accomodate the changing social context. and the restaurants that didn't contribute to the problem won't suffer any consequences.
Original Post by susiecue:
At a lot of mom-and-pop joints, the menu changes daily, making it a lot more work (though still doable for most items). Maybe require it of everywhere that actually prints their menu rather than just using a chalkboard (with some sort of caveat based on company size so that Starbucks et al don't use that as a loophole)?
the menues might change daily, but i'd be willing to bet the recipes don't change much.
Original Post by sun123:
Prior to 1990, package food nutritional labels were voluntary.
Are we too demanding of them now?We're not demanding this of Mom and Pops pizzeria who've a 2nd location downtown. This is for national chains of 20 or more restaurants. With the money they budget for marketing, the can afford to be responsible with their customers especially when the math has fooled d the professionals.
So what you're saying is "from each according to their ability..." Sounds marxist to me. Why should the government impose regulation on one type of restaraunt and not another? Let's not forget that a lot of "fast food joints" are franchises and owned by another "mom and pop" who just happened to have choosen a proven business model. Their margins are just as razor thin as the next guys. Maybe the answer is, they shouldn't impose this regulation.
There's a difference between providing No nutritional information and incorrect nutritional information. If done to mislead, incorrect information could be prosecuted as fraud.
Original Post by ds1973:Come on Sully, no one can have perfect information all the time.
Of course they can't, which is why the market will never opperate at optimum efficiency. But that doesn't mean it isn't a good idea to enact policies that improve the information consumers have and thus improve how well the free market works.
Original Post by ds1973:The restaurant owner should have the freedom to post (or not) nutritional information, and you, the consumer, have the freedom to eat there (or not).
Wait, are you arguing that the free market is the best solution or that individual freedoms are?
Original Post by yummy_kitty:However, as long as they were honest about the actual ingredients (due to potential allergies), I would not think they were being unethical if they were allowed stop reporting nutritional info.
So it's ok for the government to force companies to report certain information but not other information?
