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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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’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.
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.
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: 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)
