Calorie disclosure laws: Good for public health?
More and more cities and even some states are getting on the calorie-disclosure band-wagon, requiring chain restaurants to publish calorie counts on their menus. This blog isn't the place to debate their legal, ethical, or constitutional merits but I'll admit I think these types of rules probably over-step certain boundaries.
Nonetheless, I feel quite certain that these increasingly common laws can have a significant positive effect on public health. Many people may dislike seeing the information and some will undoubtedly go out of their way to ignore it--or even indulge in a sort of bravado by choosing the most outrageously high calorie options. But most people are motivated to make more responsible choices.
Menu calorie disclosure is not required where I live but I travel frequently to New York, where it is. As a nutritionist, I'm supposed to be more in touch with these realities than the average consumer. But I'm still shocked to see just how many calories even healthy-sounding restaurant and take-out meals contain. The calorie counts have a major impact on what I end up ordering.
As more consumers do the same, the signal goes back loud and clear to the restaurant operators: lower (or even reasonble) calorie count dishes sell. This encourages them to put more healthy options on the menu and the cycle repeats. With two-thirds of us overweight and most Americans eating out more often than in, I can't help but see this as a positive development.
Your thoughts?
 older posts |
home | newer posts  |
| Good news for diabetic coffee lovers? | | Nutrition Data Blog | | Men's Health Week begins today. How do guys' diets stack up? |
Posted by: Ben | Oct 1, 2009 5:20:23 PM
MediaCurves.com conducted a study on 402 viewers of a news clip featuring restaurants that provide nutritional information to their customers. Results found that the majority of respondents (84%) reported that restaurants should be required to list nutritional information. The study revealed that 60% of respondents indicated that requiring all restaurants to list nutritional information would help to decrease the national obesity rate.
More in depth results can be seen at:
http://www.mediacurves.com/HealthCare/J7577-CalorieCounting/Index.cfm
Thanks,
Ben
Posted by: Alisha | Aug 21, 2009 5:20:44 PM
I think having restaurants put calorie count and other nutritional information on menus is a great idea! I personally always have a hard time when I go out to eat figuring out the calorie count of what I eat. Since I don't have an accurate number of what is in what I'm eating, I may be taking in more or less than I think I am. I know that making restaurants do this would help me a lot.
Posted by: Jenny | Jul 8, 2009 9:43:32 AM
Initially this sounds like a really good idea to educate people on what they are putting into their mouths ... but then I started to wonder about things. Like, obsessions with calorie counting? People ceasing to enjoy food anymore as they're more worried about calories. Also, portion sizes;surely this is usually the problem with going out - too much food, but we still feel the need to eat everything on the plate so as 'not to waste money'?!
Saying all that though - I eat everything and always struggle to make a decision on what to have in the first place!! Maybe this will make the decision for me!!x
Posted by: Paula | Jul 1, 2009 10:56:18 PM
What I wonder is "Who makes sure what they publish, is accurate" I have found many same items with label flaws...
Posted by: Abima Adrian. | Jul 1, 2009 2:52:48 AM
I would like to aagree with you to some extent. However, in African and moreso Ugandan context where busness depends on demnd-supply forces of market and where there is no legal guideline on consumption it becomes alittle difficult.More so fattening is associated with good wealth and social status.The matter is also complicated by the fact that,unlike in developed countries, most families do have their meals at home.
I would therefore advocate for a discipline on healthy eating habits to be included in our teaching curricullum so that the infants at primary level are taught about calorie counts and its impacts on human health instead of treating the effects at a later stage or massive sensitisation on media.Encourage physical activities to burn of extra calories hence weight loss.
Posted by: courtney | Jun 30, 2009 11:37:24 PM
i am not sure how i feel about this.
a donut can be 100 calories and a whole grain bar with real fruit and no added sugar could be 200. it doesn't make the donut a better choice. it matters where the calories are coming from.
i think this might cause people to become obsessed with calorie content while ignoring other important factors.
Posted by: Saul | Jun 30, 2009 7:39:23 PM
I am against calorie disclosure laws.
They do nothing good for most people who really DON'T want to know how many calories their meal they're about to enjoy has.
Of course people who read this site and probably count their calories anyways probably like the idea. But you can already find the calorie content of food from chains in a million sources.
Why pass superficial laws for the laziest calorie counters, that negatively impact the dining experience for others and won't change how non health nuts eat?
Finally it's common knowledge the food from most chains is not good for you, and that sit-down restaurant food is even higher calorie than fast food. It's not healthy eating, even if you DO count the calories.
So definitely not these laws are pointless.
Posted by: gwagsie | Jun 30, 2009 10:38:02 AM
This rationale reminds me of the cereal ads on TV claim it takes 10 bowls of a whole grain (natural) cereal to = the vitamins in 1 bowl of Total, which is "totally" missing the point. We now know that vitamin supplementation is of no value at best and harmful at worst, & that we have to get our nutrients in their natural state in whole foods. Counting calories is the same issue...calories are not the issue; food quality is the issue. Counting calories has not made us more fit, better nutrition will. Let's mandate that restaurants offer a menu selection that includes a variety of high quality, fresh, whole foods, and smaller sized portions.
Posted by: Terry | Jun 29, 2009 8:11:10 PM
We have this law in King County Washington and I love...LOVE IT, LOVE IT, LOVE IT.
It has definitely affected my choices. It's shocking to read the caloric/fat/sodium content of most menu items. There are now about two entrees that both my husband and I are willing to consume at Olive Garden after seeing what the others contain.
Now, I look for the nutrition data everywhere and find I'm disappointed when it's not available.
I hope the law becomes standard across America.
Posted by: Kimberly Joki | Jun 29, 2009 3:57:07 PM
I too am a frequent traveler to the Big Apple and the law there requiring calorie counts next to the meal options really causes you to think twice. There are times of course when you DO want a high fat burger, but most of the time, the calorie posting helped me make a healthier choice. For example, after a recent trip to NYC, my fiance and I started a new habit (after realizing that there were enough calories in one McDonald's meal for the two of us). We began buying meals that we could share. We still got to cap our burger craving, but at a caloric intake that was more appropriate for a single meal (300-400 cal). I love the idea of having this information at my fingertips when I am out and about, it makes health-conscious living THAT much easier.
Posted by: Amanda | Jun 29, 2009 1:22:18 PM
Definitely agree. Everyone should have the option to know what is in their food. No, not everyone is going to make a healthier choice, but I think it will make a slight difference in the majority of people's choices at times.
Posted by: Lisa | Jun 29, 2009 12:46:43 PM
Are intolerance tests such as Vega/Scio reliable? ALso can anyone recommend a good Nutrition analysis software for a nutritionist based in the UK?
Posted by: Gene Kelley | Jun 29, 2009 12:41:19 PM
100% totally agree. Question should be, why would they NOT post this valuable information about what they are about to serve us to put into our bodies?
Posted by: Lisa | Jun 29, 2009 12:01:34 PM
I would love to see the same nutritional information we see on grocery packages, not just the calorie count. For health reasons and just because I feel better, I try sticking to a lower carb diet most of the time. Would be much easier if I knew exactly how many carbs are in the food (and for those counting "net carb" to also know the fiber content)
Posted by: Amanda | Jun 29, 2009 11:59:57 AM
I think this is a great idea...my son and I went to McDonalds I know they are not the healthiest place to eat but I had teh big Mac meal and a regulat ice tea and while sitting there I thougth i would read the calories and other information and i was horrified at what my calorie intake was. I went home and mentined this idea to my husband about posting the calories beside each meal and he said "Yeah than no one would eat ther", but I was horrified to find out a medium Ice Tea has 495 calories. YUCK! Back to diet beverages I go!
Posted by: susan | Jun 29, 2009 11:42:07 AM
As an analysis, most restaurants have standard menus... when they prepare a recipe, they have ingredients, and measures. Utilizing these they can use the tools from this website to get the info (divide by amount of meals for each recipe) close enough to real amounts... and state on the menu this information: "estimate calculations based on ... etc." It is more of a will than the way.
Posted by: susan | Jun 29, 2009 11:37:05 AM
It is wise that anything that enhances a person´s awareness and self-help should be encouraged. Wiser still would be an easy to see graphic wheel with %fat (dividied into trans, poly, mono and omega3), %protein, % carbohydrates... the number of calories could be right beside the wheel.
Posted by: bobbi | Jun 29, 2009 11:28:06 AM
I would love this! Not that I go out to eat much these days. And when we go to McDonald's-I do order the salad because my kids want to go, not me!
I think they calories are estimates, not exact-so a pat of butter here or there won't be much different. I thought you could run recipes through one of the nutrition web sites for calories-I know allrecipes.com posts calories for member's recipes.
Posted by: Katie | Jun 29, 2009 11:08:14 AM
The problem is that it's really expensive to have this analysis done. So big chains can afford it, but it will be a huge expense for independent restaurants.
The other part of that is that many independent restaurants feature new dishes and recipes often, which they'd then have to pay to have analyzed more often. Which would probably result in fewer offerings - which would probably kill most of their appeal in the first place.
Additionally, if you get it analyzed, you've got to stick to the exact same preparation method. So no adding extra butter if the tomatoes are bland, etc.
If restaurants want to offer this information, I think it's great. But I don't think it should be required. If it really matters to consumers, they should stick to restaurants that make this information known.
Posted by: Sandy | Jun 29, 2009 10:55:20 AM
If this is required, the artificial sweetner content also needs to be included. These chemicals can be more dangerous than the calories. Also, individuals actually looking at calories are probably the one's this program is not directed towards as they know how to go to a web site, etc...to get the information.
Posted by: Jessica | Jun 18, 2009 2:42:29 PM
I'd say it can be either or. If the restaurants do not list the actual number of serving they place on the plate, people will think their two to three servings on the plate is only one serving.
Posted by: Bart | Jun 15, 2009 2:49:35 PM
I'm all about calorie disclosure. It's my body and I'll eat what I want (including high calorie items at times), but please allow me to make informed decisions at your restaurant. Otherwise I'll go somewhere that will.
Posted by: Sara Lamberto | Jun 14, 2009 9:46:48 PM
It is a good thing that this information is being disclosed. The problem is that what is actually served at a restaurant may be considerably more food, sauce, etc. than what was measured in the test kitchen.
Monica's Response: Excellent point, Sara!
Posted by: Mary P | Jun 14, 2009 6:30:29 PM
yes more information is a good thing for the people who are interested in becoming a healthier individual but will it really help the obesity epidemic??
People know that cigarettes are bad for you and ultimately lead to lung cancer or heart problems but they continur to smoke. Obese people will not stop endulging in food because the information is put in front of them.
Posted by: Jordan | Jun 14, 2009 12:01:05 PM
I like the idea but I worry about people who "feel more comfortable" with what they're eating because of the labeling and who are no longer able to sense the calorie differences in foods.
It's important at first to look at calories but after awhile, it might be best to start sensing what it physically feels like to eat 200 calories or 90 calories.
And I would hope that constant exposure to caloric information would not numb consumers to large numbers, but when it comes to Americans and their food, any defense mechanism is called quickly for duty.
Posted by: Yvette | Jun 13, 2009 1:33:55 PM
I believe the new labeling labels will help educate people & they will make better food choices. However, the bottom line - I make our breakfast, lunch & dinner most days of the week. That way I can better control what we eat. Eating out is a battle; the portion sizes are too large and its just not as healthy. I keep asking our gym restaurant to offer half size salads. If I ate the salad that they serve I would be eating probably 800 calories - that's ridiculous for a restaurant that's located in a gym.
Posted by: Sameer | Jun 13, 2009 1:12:38 PM
I agree 100%. I wish ALL states in US have calorie disclosure laws - at least the state where I live. It helps a lot to choose the right food. I was in a sandwich place in NYC and was shocked to see bread bowl + soup close to 1000 cals. I wouldn't have guessed it and would have picked it without knowing the number. As soon as I saw the cal number, I picked something else - soup (300-400 cal) without bread bowl.
Posted by: Guy | Jun 13, 2009 12:34:53 PM
I completely agree, we need total disclosure. If people know exactly what it is that they are consuming then I think that they will be forced to make better choices.
Posted by: Maha | Jun 13, 2009 4:15:56 AM
I agree. It would make my occasional restaurant outing so much easier, and probably more frequent. As someone who's finally on board with watching her health, I avoid restaurants because I don't know the nutritional info so I can't work it into my plan as easily. Tonight is a great example: Graduation dinner at a restaurant. I ordered grilled salmon with olive oil and lemon juice served with roasted potatoes and fresh vegetables. That's the menu description, which sounded innocuous enough. What I got was a meal drenched in oil. I had to use a napkin to get the oil off the veggies, the salmon was good, but I had to grin and bear it, and the potatoes were basically cubed french fries, which I didn't eat. If I'd seen the calories, I might have been able to either make a better choice or know to ask more questions about the meal.
Posted by: Kendall | Jun 13, 2009 2:15:55 AM
I feel that full disclosure/more info. is GREAT! What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander; this doesn't cross any "boundaries" not already crossed by the laws/regs/whatever that require food labels on prepackaged food. IMHO, restaurants shouldn't get a pass--at least (and especially) chains.
My impression is that restaurants balk because they think people won't eat there. For me: 1. I want to make more informed/better choices. 2. If I know the calories, I might save half as leftovers more often--but still order similar to how I did before the info was on the menu (or web site, or whatever).
Posted by: Eugenia Van Bremen | Jun 12, 2009 6:49:09 PM
I'm curious as to what boundaries these laws cross. As food has such an impact on health, I feel it's far more important that I be given knowledge of what I put in my body; I have to live with any consequences from that.
People are still free to chose what they eat, how is getting more knowledge about those food choices problematic?
I live in New York City, and frequent the B&N Starbucks. It amazes me to compare what you get for the calories. The sugar cookies are so much higher in calories than I expected; I can make a choice of something chocolaty (which I wanted more) and consume less calories.
Before we could see the calorie information, I'd have always assumed a sweet made of chocolate would have more calories & fat, than a non-chocolate one.
Ultimately, this had made me feel a lot more comfortable with my food choices.
Posted by: darla | Jun 12, 2009 6:47:29 PM
I would be thrilled to always have access to the nutrition info when eating out. It's almost impossible to guess which menu items are the better choice and as a personal chef who concentrates on healthy eating, I'm more educated than most. There are too many hidden factors -- ingredients, portion sizes, etc. (Is the tuna salad barely coated with mayo or drenched in it? On thick bread or thin?)
With the disturbing current trends in obesity (esp. among children), it's clear that something needs to be done. Is it government's role to play? I'd argue that we've already established that government has a role in food safety and information. We already mandate that packaged foods display nutr. info and no one seems to be in a huff about that. Since chain restaurants are producing very regular menus, it's feasible for them to likewise make the info available, even if the numbers are estimates. I don't see how the two situations are different.
Since a large portion of our government budgets focus on health care, I'd say that any efforts to educate the public and give more access to information is worthwhile. Of course we can't mandate diets (and shouldn't), but cigarettes have a warning on their box to make sure you know what you're getting into, right?
Posted by: SD | Jun 12, 2009 5:59:41 PM
I just agree to some extent.
First off, when people choose by calories, they are still doing so from HIGH-CALORIE and less nutrient food that these restaurants features.
Secondly, how many people who visit McDonald is speically going for slices of apple or a Spicy Thai salad? They are coming for BigMac! Whats the chance of ppl choosing healthiness over the enjoyment of the food when they are exposed to the greasy smell? No mention when people start getting used to the big num of calorie.
Anyway it is a long way to go before seeing its economic effect...
