Should restaurants not have items above X calories?

[Leaper]

So I was reading the latest edition of the book "Eat This, Not That!" and getting slightly annoyed at, among other things, their hysteria over carbs and the feeling I got from them that having an occasional soda would cripple even 112 pound me with diabetes. But one thing did catch my attention: their remarks that after calling out various dishes and drinks that were VERY caloric/fattening (e.g. the Awesome Blossom and some Baskin-Robbins Heath Bar drink) as "worst foods," they were dropped by their sellers.

I'm not sure what to think about this effort, and their pleasure in it. On one hand, it's entirely customer-based, I'm sure, and not via government fiat. On the other hand, it seems pat-on-the-head paternalistic. On the other other hand, maybe they wouldn't feel like they had to do this if restaurants and food manufacturers would just be honest (carefully selected box words and refusal to release any nutritional info are two pet peeves of the writers). On the other other OTHER hand, the book's writers seemed like the type who wouldn't rest until there isn't an ounce of carbohydrate or saturated fat left available anywhere in the country.

What do you all think? Any points or insights that can break me out of this internal conflict?

[elfkin477]

They should be required to disclose aproximately how many calories are in an item (and no, having it on a website only doesn't pass muster) on the menu like products in the grocery store must, but shouldn't be restricted from limiting dishes to X calories. That way diners can make an informed choice about how many calories they're eating, be it 200 or 2000.

[Iridescent Orb]

I agree with elfkin477. The government should ensure there is fair and adequate disclosure of the nutritional content, but consumers should make the actual purchase (or non-purchase) decision. This is similar to how stock markets are regulated – for example, the SEC (in the US) tries to ensure all relevant material facts are disclosed for securities offered for sale. They don’t stop people from making overly risky or bad investments, though.

[Lynn Bodoni]

I'd like a breakdown of calories available at the restaurant. Either the calorie count has to be displayed on the wall, as a poster or on a chalkboard, or it has to be available as a leaflet or booklet. And it has to be the true number of calories as the dish is served...that is, if a restaurant typically serves two cups of mashed potatoes on a plate, then the calorie count has to reflect that typical serving, and it also has to list any additional butter and/or gravy calorie counts, too.

I'd also love to see carb and fat grams listed for each item. Maybe sodium grams, too. A lot of people are concerned about their sodium intake. It's very easy to make a dish taste better by adding fat and/or sugar and/or salt.

When I was a teenager, I thought that fast food fish'n'chips was a relatively low calorie meal, and then I read one of those calorie count booklets...turns out that my favorite meal contained over a thousand calories, when the sides were included. I like malt vinegar, so I didn't have to add in the calories in the tartar sauce. Since I'm fairly short, and have an underactive thyroid, this is just about as many calories as I'm supposed to eat a DAY. And that doesn't count the calories in the soda! I reluctantly crossed that restaurant off as a usual stop for lunch.

[Sigmagirl]

Consumers should decide. There might be six or eight people sharing that Bloomin' Onion, and even then they might not finish it. Just because it's highly caloric doesn't mean it shouldn't be on the menu. But the nutritional information should be made available. Restaurants should not be allowed to conceal that information.

[IvoryTowerDenizen]

The thing is, I would seek out restaurants that disclosed such info. It wouldn't scare me off, but it would be a huge marketing plus for me.

[silenus]

I like those books. An informed choice is better than an ignorant one. But I agree, it would be best if restaurants honestly listed the calorie counts for their dishes.

[Enderw24]

This would work well for national chains where everything comes in prepackaged bags to be microwaved before serving and their uniform menu's already been through a test kitchen where a scientific analysis of the nutrients is available.
What about the restaurants that make all their dishes from scratch and the menu changes daily depending upon the seasonal ingredients they're shopping for that day? It's not like they've got a bunsen burner in the back where they can sample the energy output of the peanuts to calculate out a caloric count.

[MeanOldLady]

Originally Posted by elfkin477

They should be required to disclose aproximately how many calories are in an item (and no, having it on a website only doesn't pass muster) on the menu like products in the grocery store must, but shouldn't be restricted from limiting dishes to X calories. That way diners can make an informed choice about how many calories they're eating, be it 200 or 2000.

Right. When we buy food at the market, we're given labels detailing the nutritional value of the food, so why not at restaurants? I've been in conversations with people who have no idea how many calories they're consuming. I've often heard remarks like, "Oh, it was a salad (or pasta) so I figured it didn't have that many calories."

[silenus]

Originally Posted by Enderw24

This would work well for national chains where everything comes in prepackaged bags to be microwaved before serving and their uniform menu's already been through a test kitchen where a scientific analysis of the nutrients is available.
What about the restaurants that make all their dishes from scratch and the menu changes daily depending upon the seasonal ingredients they're shopping for that day? It's not like they've got a bunsen burner in the back where they can sample the energy output of the peanuts to calculate out a caloric count.

It's not that hard to work out a rough count on your menu mainstays. The data is out there. The calorie count of a bernaise sauce isn't going to vary much, and the calorie difference between in-season broccoli and in-season asparagus is miniscule.

[DianaG]

Agreed. I don't meticulously count calories, but I have a reasonable idea of the caloric content of what I cook at home, because I know the caloric content of the ingredients. Not hard for a chef to work that out.

I've always wondered what exactly you have to do to an onion to make it have 837 gazillion calories.

[Sigmagirl]

They could at least tell us what is in the dish. A cup of rice is a cup of rice, and a pound of carrots is a pound of carrots. It's the sauces that always get you, and how much oil they use to fry things.

[pbbth]

I love when restaurants put calorie counts on the menu. I make much better choices when I have the information there in front of me than I would otherwise. I did kind of laugh when we were at Outback and they had introduced new smaller portions of food that were still two or three times as much as you should have in a meal. The smaller portion of steak was 6 oz and the smaller portion of mashed potatoes was almost 2 cups!

[Lynn Bodoni]

Originally Posted by DianaG

I've always wondered what exactly you have to do to an onion to make it have 837 gazillion calories.

Cut it so that it has a gazillion surfaces, bread all the surface, deep fry it, and serve it with a sauce that's full of fat and sugar, from what I understand. Of course, ANYTHING will end up with a gazillion calories after that treatment.

[friedo]

Originally Posted by Enderw24

This would work well for national chains where everything comes in prepackaged bags to be microwaved before serving and their uniform menu's already been through a test kitchen where a scientific analysis of the nutrients is available.

They're doing this in New York City now. Any restaurant with ten or more locations is required to display calorie counts in their menus.

As one of those curmudgeons who gets all uptight about damn gummint interference, but also someone who recently started assiduously counting calories, I'm not entirely sure how I feel about it.

[SenorBeef]

Originally Posted by friedo

As one of those curmudgeons who gets all uptight about damn gummint interference, but also someone who recently started assiduously counting calories, I'm not entirely sure how I feel about it.

I'm libertarian leaning myself, but I rarely have a problem with laws requiring information and disclosure to consumers. Making sure that everyone understands what they're getting in a transaction is an important part of commerce. It doesn't hurt anyone's freedom to provide them with honest information about what they're doing - the only problem I can see here is that it would be unduly burdensome if the legislation would make every small restaurant submit their entire menu for caloric examination from some expensive third party company. I would imagine having them make reasonable, honest estimations based on the ingredients could work here.

[tacoloco]

Nutrition information would be nice, but I doubt I'd even give it much consideration aside from a few specific things like sodium content.

I think you can look at the menu and figure out which choices are better for you. I don't need to know the calories because I'm going to moderate how much and what I eat.

And no restaurants should not be limited to foods under X calories.

[ivylass]

I think that's only half the solution. Yes, you can know how many calories are in a sandwich (it's one of the reasons I stopped ordering Chicken Caesar Salad...it's salad! It's chicken! How bad can it be? Very VERY bad) but how many of us know how many calories we're supposed to be eating in a day?

I saw a recent news report that having NY restaurants list nutrition info was not stopping people from ordering that 1500-calorie hamburger. Is that because they don't care, or don't know, their calorie range specific to them?

Oh, and taco, I have a quiz for you. Which should you order if you're counting calories, a McDonald's Regular Hamburder or a McDonald's Chicken McGrill Sandwich without mayo?

Answer:

SPOILER:

Although the grilled chicken is lower in fat (7 grams compared to the burger's 10 grams), the calorie winner is the hamburger. At 280 calories, a regular hamburger can satisfy your fast food craving without much damage. The Chicken McGrill, while still one of the healthiest choices at this location, weighs in at 340 calories--and that's with no mayo in sight. (Source, Sparkpeople.com)

[silenus]

Ignorance, probably. But knowledge is power, so the more information people have the better the choice they can make if they choose to.

[Troy McClure SF]

They should put whatever they want on their menus, but I think something like this is a great idea.

[Oakminster]

Originally Posted by friedo

They're doing this in New York City now. Any restaurant with ten or more locations is required to display calorie counts in their menus.

As one of those curmudgeons who gets all uptight about damn gummint interference, but also someone who recently started assiduously counting calories, I'm not entirely sure how I feel about it.

I say let restaurants serve whatever they want. People counting calories can either choose carefully or eat at home. Seriously, you just ordered the triple-cheese-bacon burger, large fries cooked in lard, and a Super-Sized Chocolate Shake. You need a calorie count to realize that prolly ain't a healthy choice?

[SenorBeef]

Originally Posted by Oakminster

I say let restaurants serve whatever they want. People counting calories can either choose carefully or eat at home. Seriously, you just ordered the triple-cheese-bacon burger, large fries cooked in lard, and a Super-Sized Chocolate Shake. You need a calorie count to realize that prolly ain't a healthy choice?

What about the aforementioned cesar chicken salad that turns out to be in the 1500 range? I don't think people expect that.

[tacoloco]

Ivylass, my cheap answer is that I assume anything from a fast food joint like McDs is gonna be a not-so-good choice. The less cheap answer is that's suprising information.

I still feel like I could make good choices from a regular restaurant menu. Chicken or fish, vegetables plain (no butter), etc. Or if I was in the mood to eat steak, ordering a smaller
steak, not eating all of it, no dessert.

FWIW, I'm not arguing against providing the information. I think it's a great idea.

[Oakminster]

Originally Posted by SenorBeef

What about the aforementioned cesar chicken salad that turns out to be in the 1500 range? I don't think people expect that.

If you eat something that tastes really good...it's prolly bad for you. Everybody knows that.

[SenorBeef]

Ah, yes, we should definitely choose food on the basis of whether we like it or not. From now on, no one eat food they like, since obviously it's bad for you. We must fight the idea of actually having data available tooth and nail, and instead judge on the subjective criteria of... if you like it, don't eat it.

[MeanOldLady]

I think he was making a joke, dear.

[Oakminster]

Originally Posted by SenorBeef

Ah, yes, we should definitely choose food on the basis of whether we like it or not. From now on, no one eat food they like, since obviously it's bad for you. We must fight the idea of actually having data available tooth and nail, and instead judge on the subjective criteria of... if you like it, don't eat it.

Nice, but that's 180 degrees away from what I'm saying. I'll order the triple cheese bacon burger, etc because I like it, and I don't give a damn what other people think about it. If I'm counting calories...I've prolly gone insane...but if I am, I'll do it at home.

[SenorBeef]

Originally Posted by MeanOldLady

I think he was making a joke, dear.

I don't think so. At least his attitude on other threads suggests to me that he is indeed opposed to having a mandate to provide information for people because if people were more awesome like him, they wouldn't need information to know what's up.

Originally Posted by Oakminster

Nice, but that's 180 degrees away from what I'm saying. I'll order the triple cheese bacon burger, etc because I like it, and I don't give a damn what other people think about it. If I'm counting calories...I've prolly gone insane...but if I am, I'll do it at home.

So what? How does having the information available hurt you then?

It isn't 180 degrees away from what you're saying. You're saying that you don't need calorie counts because it should be obvious based on the food you're eating. I'm saying it's not - things that seem like they would be relatively harmless turn out to be caloric giants based on the way the food is made.

[MeanOldLady]

So, Oak, were you attempting at humor when you said everyone knows anything that tastes good is bad for you?

If yes, my response is: "Very well, let us carry on then."
If no: "My bad."

[ivylass]

Originally Posted by tacoloco

Ivylass, my cheap answer is that I assume anything from a fast food joint like McDs is gonna be a not-so-good choice. The less cheap answer is that's suprising information.

That's my point. I would have thought a chicken sandwich sans mayo would be lower in calories than a hamburger. Having that info at hand would be very helpful.

So, I agree the restaurants should provide the info, but we also need education so people know why a 1500 calorie hamburger is not good for them. I bet you ask 10 Random People on the Street how many calories an active 35 year old woman should eat a day no one would come up with the right answer.

[ministryman]

Originally Posted by Leaper

So I was reading the latest edition of the book "Eat This, Not That!" and getting slightly annoyed at, among other things, their hysteria over carbs and the feeling I got from them that having an occasional soda would cripple even 112 pound me with diabetes. But one thing did catch my attention: their remarks that after calling out various dishes and drinks that were VERY caloric/fattening (e.g. the Awesome Blossom and some Baskin-Robbins Heath Bar drink) as "worst foods," they were dropped by their sellers.

I'm not sure what to think about this effort, and their pleasure in it. On one hand, it's entirely customer-based, I'm sure, and not via government fiat. On the other hand, it seems pat-on-the-head paternalistic. On the other other hand, maybe they wouldn't feel like they had to do this if restaurants and food manufacturers would just be honest (carefully selected box words and refusal to release any nutritional info are two pet peeves of the writers). On the other other OTHER hand, the book's writers seemed like the type who wouldn't rest until there isn't an ounce of carbohydrate or saturated fat left available anywhere in the country.

What do you all think? Any points or insights that can break me out of this internal conflict?

Yes!!

C'mon people! Why are getting all wee-weed up about this period?

The restaurant may have to post the contents, but the decision to scarf 1200 calories in a single meal is with me, the consumer.

If you are too stupid to realize that:

Catsup/Ketchup = CARBS
Sugar = CARBS
Starch = CARBS (and FAT if fried)
Breading = HIGH CARBS and FAT
MAYONNAISE = FAT
OIL = FAT
BUTTER = FAT
RED MEAT = CHOLESTEROL
EGGS = CHOLESTEROL
SHELLFISH = CHOLESTEROL

Frying = FAT
Sauteeing = FAT

Then stay out of a restaurant! Go to a library and get some books on nutrition.

[hd_thoreau]

I think that it should be the consumer's responsibility to eat healthy when dining out. At the same time though, I think that restaurants should be obligated to be able to provide a nutrition-fact sheet to show to the consumer, if they are asked for one.

[MeanOldLady]

Originally Posted by ministryman

Yes!!

C'mon people! Why are getting all wee-weed up about this period?

The restaurant may have to post the contents, but the decision to scarf 1200 calories in a single meal is with me, the consumer.

If you are too stupid to realize that:

Catsup/Ketchup = CARBS
Sugar = CARBS
Starch = CARBS (and FAT if fried)
Breading = HIGH CARBS and FAT
MAYONNAISE = FAT
OIL = FAT
BUTTER = FAT
RED MEAT = CHOLESTEROL
EGGS = CHOLESTEROL
SHELLFISH = CHOLESTEROL

Frying = FAT
Sauteeing = FAT

Then stay out of a restaurant! Go to a library and get some books on nutrition.

I would say all those things = DELICIOUS! Now seriously, a lot of people are too stupid to realize that. You wouldn't believe how many people eat at X Chain Restaurant everyday, then find out a single meal has 1,100 calories in it. Well of course! A lot of people don't actively seek out information, and will never come across it unless it's written in plain English in front of their faces. I think we should try to make information more readily available to people, even if they're "stupid." And hey, if they just find out today that their favorite burger from Carl's Jr has 1,250 calories in it and decide they'll eat it anyway, then we're done here.

I don't think any restaurant should be disallowed from serving foods with certain calorie amounts, but I do think they should voluntarily offer nutritional information.

[Oakminster]

Originally Posted by MeanOldLady

So, Oak, were you attempting at humor when you said everyone knows anything that tastes good is bad for you?

If yes, my response is: "Very well, let us carry on then."
If no: "My bad."

Humor with a point, so to speak.

[MeanOldLady]

Originally Posted by Oakminster

Humor with a point, so to speak.

Yeah, I interpreted it as "Everybody knows all the fun food (doughnuts or bacon, for example) is bad for you. Hardy har!" because, you know, a lot of fun food is bad for you. That's different from "Every enjoyable food in existence is unhealthy, and everyone knows this. Fact." But enough about that. Everyone carry on.

[Taber]

Originally Posted by ministryman

If you are too stupid to realize that:

Catsup/Ketchup = CARBS
Sugar = CARBS
Starch = CARBS (and FAT if fried)
Breading = HIGH CARBS and FAT
MAYONNAISE = FAT
OIL = FAT
BUTTER = FAT
RED MEAT = CHOLESTEROL
EGGS = CHOLESTEROL
SHELLFISH = CHOLESTEROL

Frying = FAT
Sauteeing = FAT

Then stay out of a restaurant! Go to a library and get some books on nutrition.

There is controversy over whether carbs are actually bad. There's controversy over whether fat is actually bad. There's controversy over whether food cholesterol correlates with blood cholesterol. There's good fat and bad fat. There are good carbs and bad carbs. Each person probably has a different idea of what is healthy and what is unhealthy. No food should be banned, but every food should have the information available, so people can make their own choices.

[SpoilerVirgin]

So I am very careful about what I eat, but for a very special, once-a-year type treat, decided to go to Chevys (Mexican chain restaurant). Imagine my surprise when I opened the menu and saw this. It sort of took all of the fun out of it.

I agree that it's probably a good thing to have nutrition information available, and would be a bad thing to ban certain foods entirely. There are plenty of people at a healthy weight who like a treat every once in a while.

[Red Skeezix]

Maybe restaurants should be required to provide nutritional facts on demand, but I don't think it should be included on the menu. And definitely not restricting the restaurant to foods below X Calories, or food without this week's buzzword evil ingredient. It's distracting and ruins the whole dining experience. Especially if you don't go out to eat that much.

And seriously if you are so concerned about the nutritional facts of a restaurant meal, then maybe you should just stay home and prepare the food yourself.

[BigT]

Originally Posted by Red Skeezix

And seriously if you are so concerned about the nutritional facts of a restaurant meal, then maybe you should just stay home and prepare the food yourself.

I don't understand this mindset, especially here on the Dope. Somebody dared asked a question about how healthy restaurant food is. Well, if he really wanted to know, he'd make all his own food. It's the same thing as saying "if you want to know if a plane can take off on treadmill, build your own."

And, seriously, your dining experience is ruined by there being a little pamphlet. That's how they do it around here, anyways. You'll also notice that the biggest offenders are usually fast food--you're telling me you have a dining experience at McDonalds?

Anyways. I used to think our town must be really progressive, as most fast food restaurants offer nutrition information. Or, at least, they used to. After seeing the little pamphlet places convered in dust for while, they each, at some point, disappeared.

Oh, and, as recently as last month or so, McDonalds put their nutrition information on their boxes.

[flodnak]

The Heath Bar shake Baskin Robbins used to sell (and apparently dropped) had twice the calories of a McDonald's shake of the same size - 2,310 versus 1110 for the 32 ounce cup. While neither one is a healthful choice, and you shouldn't drink half your daily calorie intake unless you just broke your jaw or something, I don't think one should expect the consumer to guess that two milkshakes could vary by quite that much.

Easily accessible nutrition information would be good customer service. Some fast food places are already doing this, with wall charts or pamphlets, though even within a single chain, not all franchises are equally on the ball.

[badbadrubberpiggy]

Originally Posted by Taber

There is controversy over whether carbs are actually bad. There's controversy over whether fat is actually bad. There's controversy over whether food cholesterol correlates with blood cholesterol. There's good fat and bad fat. There are good carbs and bad carbs. Each person probably has a different idea of what is healthy and what is unhealthy. No food should be banned, but every food should have the information available, so people can make their own choices.

Exactly. From the list up there, both eggs & shellfish do have cholesterol, but it hasn't been proven they will actually raise your levels of bad cholesterol.

As purely anecdotal evidence, I eat eggs and shellfish all the time, and my cholesterol levels are fabulous. Vegetables are also carbs, but would most people say vegetables are bad for you?

I think restaurants should be able to serve whatever food they want - it's up to the consumer to decide what they want to eat. Just because someone eats healthy 95% of the time doesn't mean they don't want a deep-fried burger topped with a wedge of cheese, and sandwiched between two Krispy Kremes every blue moon.

I do think they should have to disclose what's in it though. Sure, it's easy enough to say, "Of course fast food burgers and deep fried restaurant foods are bad for you!", but the supposedly healthy stuff at restaurants have a lot of hidden ingredients, too. I'd at least like to know if the veggies I ordered are going to come slathered in butter, or if that baked potato is going to be loaded, even though it doesn't say it on the menu.

[Duke of Rat]

I can see where having a rough estimate of calories might help diners make more informed choices, and I'd be all for that if that's where it stopped.

I'm afraid that human nature will intervene and people who are outraged that their favorite salad has 1500 calories will pressure the restaurant to make their favorite salad have only 150 calories, at the expense of the original flavor of the salad.

Now I go to the restaurant maybe once a month, expecting to get my decadent pleasure salad (or any other tasty dish that I like as a infrequent treat) and am told that they no longer have that item, would I like the bean sprouts tossed in spring water instead. No, I came here for the Death Salad.

I do almost all of my own cooking. I eat almost zero fast food. When I go to a good restaurant, I want the flavor bomb. Am I enjoying an unhealthy meal? Maybe, probably. Would I order the same thing if the calories were posted? Absolutely. Would I try to influence the restaurant to compromise their recipe? Absolutely not.


I don't really want to get into a political debate, but I've heard rumblings of a "soda tax", or something like that, to help pay for universal health care. If calories are posted, is it unreasonable to imagine that the government might try to get involved with the menu options? Certainly sir, here is your Death Salad, that comes to $78.95 with tax. Or I can get the bean sprouts tossed in spring water for $1.98 and chug a pint of Haagen Dazs on the way home and avoid the tax. Just as unhealthy, just as much my personal decision, I'm just as much an added risk to the healthcare system as Death Salad guy.

So I don't know. On the surface, it sounds like good intentions. In my Death Salad stuffed gut, I think it'll be misused eventually.

[Brown Eyed Girl]

No, restaurants should serve whatever high calorie item they can make a profit off. If they can profit off people not giving a shit about their health, so be it.

However, I would support any regulation, local or federal, requiring restaurants to provide, on demand, nutritional information and ingredients of what they serve. Seeing as how they have specifically chosen to keep consumers uninformed*, it appears that in the interest of consumers, the government should step in. That is, after all, it's job.

* I no longer eat at TGI Friday's because the company refuses to provide nutritional information, making it impossible for me to meet my own nutritional goals if I dined there. Yes, sometimes I like to splurge a little, but having nutritional information at least allows me to make informed choices about how much splurging I can do.

[ProfessorX]

I don't really care, but I do think they should be clear and up front about the contents of whatever they are giving you.
Generally you can guess but some things should be made clear so you know what you're putting into your body.

[Troy McClure SF]

Originally Posted by ProfessorX

I don't really care, but I do think they should be clear and up front about the contents of whatever they are giving you.
Generally you can guess but some things should be made clear so you know what you're putting into your body.

Exactly. I understand that some may find it obnoxious, but I've always been a fan of free information, even if it's not pleasant information.

[Larry Mudd]

Originally Posted by flodnak

The Heath Bar shake Baskin Robbins used to sell (and apparently dropped) had twice the calories of a McDonald's shake of the same size - 2,310 versus 1110 for the 32 ounce cup. While neither one is a healthful choice, and you shouldn't drink half your daily calorie intake unless....

Wait, half? The Canada Food Guide suggests 2000 as a reasonable daily caloric intake for the average adult. A 2310 calorie single-serving dessert item is insane.

[chrisk]

Originally Posted by ivylass

Which should you order if you're counting calories, a McDonald's Regular Hamburder or a McDonald's Chicken McGrill Sandwich without mayo?

Nitpick - as someone who is counting calories, I still don't believe that I 'should order' the choice with the lowest calorie count. The difference between those two items is very small, and I can certainly see how someone might find the chicken mcgrill more satisfying than a fairly small hamburger.

I have my target as 2500 calories per day at the moment (in conjunction with walking at least one hour per day for exercise,) and my usual choice if I go to mcDonalds lately is:
6 mcnuggets (310 calories)
medium fries (360 calories)
1 pack sweet and sour sauce (50 calories)
bottled water (0)

That adds up to 720, about 30% of my daily goal.

And yes, I definitely support anything that would make nutritional information more available, and not just on websites.

[Chronos]

Just to clarify, a McDonalds' "regular hamburger" is not a Big Mac or Quarter Pounder. The reason it has less Calories than the chicken sandwich is that it's about half the size of most of their sandwiches. Sure, some foods have more or less Calories than others, but the biggest determiner of how many Calories something has is just its size.

Back to the OP's idea, even if restaurants had no single item above X Calories, you could still order an appetizer, a side salad, a sugary drink, and a dessert with your main course, and get yourself way too many Calories anyway.

[amarinth]

Originally Posted by friedo

They're doing this in New York City now. Any restaurant with ten or more locations is required to display calorie counts in their menus.

As one of those curmudgeons who gets all uptight about damn gummint interference, but also someone who recently started assiduously counting calories, I'm not entirely sure how I feel about it.

They have the same rule here. Opening up the menu at the Cheesecake factory was not a good moment.

As no one is stopping them from selling a 3000 calorie item or stopping me from buying it, I don't think it's that interfering. Now, I have to take the responsibility for the fact that I ate all those calories. If anything, it's putting the responsibility back on me. That Burgerville receipt is awesome, too bad their food isn't.

according to this article, though, people (including me) aren't changing behavior.

[Lynn Bodoni]

Originally Posted by ProfessorX

I don't really care, but I do think they should be clear and up front about the contents of whatever they are giving you.
Generally you can guess but some things should be made clear so you know what you're putting into your body.

As someone with IBD, I would love to know if foods contain one or more of my triggers before I order them...and especially before I eat them, and before my body reacts to them. One of my triggers is black pepper, and sometimes I can eat some without triggering an attack, and sometimes I can't, but I'd love to know if some dish contains it, so I can avoid it if my bowels have been particularly touchy lately.

And, of course, anyone with a food allergy needs to also know this, even more than I do.