60 minutes--restaurant calories (Page 2)

I respectfully disagree.  I think that what we have here is a very small subset of people who are actively health conscious and computer savy, compared with a greater number of American people who are unfamiliar or intimidated by the Internet and would like to be healthy, but don't understand why they aren't.

Now granted, most people under the age of 40 can log onto a computer and find the nutritional information with some help.  But what about older people who have no idea how to "get online."  I have plenty of relatives who have computers solely to get email and if something other then email pops up, they end up calling one of us for help.

Also, by saying that fast food companies don't have to post nutritional information in close proximity to the food, we should thus be able to free up tons of ink by not having to print nutritional labels on groceries.  Save the eels - we no longer need the extra ink.  Rather, before you go shopping, you can look up all the nutritional information you need for the grocery store.

You also say that this reduces "signage" burden for owners and that those who care about nutrition can look online.  Here's the problem - many people DO care and think they're CARING, but are grossly wrong.  That's part of the showing on the 60 minutes was that even when people THINK they are eating healthy, they're not.

People are persuaded by marketing.  I think conspicous posting of nutritional information should be mandatory in places where you order food.  I think the burden to the store owner is minimal compared with the benefits.

In my mind, I always seem to go back to the McDonald's Healthy Menu scenario.  They started selling salads and bottomed-out housewives would eat them by the dozen while their kids eat the 4 piece nuggets, fries and played with the lead-laden made in China crappy toy.  These salads were served with deep fried (aka Crispy) chicken and REGULAR dressing, thus giving them a nutritional profile comparable to a cheeseburger and fries.  But people walked away thinking "oh, good to me, I ate a healthy salad for lunch." 

Print their projected calories total on the receipt and give them the truth - on the spot.

HEY NOW!!!! I come by my fat honestly. Has nothing to do with being too lazy to research. Geez - in one sentence you condemned us to fatness, ignorance and sloth!

I know butter is fattening and I love it and eat it almost daily. I also buy whole milk and use half/half and LOVE heavy cream. YAY for butter fats! YAY for mayo! YAY for kettle chips (especially the salt & vinegar chips)!

I, also, know that if I eat more calories than I burn I will accumulate the excess fat.

Be careful what conclusions you draw about why some of us have more fat than we need! Most of us are armed with knowledge.

Very valid points.  I completely understand both sides of the arguments, but I guess I feel a little jaded in thinking that the vast majority of people can differentiate between healthy marketing and actual healthy food.  They talk about Subway's "Eat Healthy" campaign, but don't offer whole wheat bread.  What happened to all the Atkin's people walking around eat a Hambone and blowing in the wind like a waif?

I just feel like if they add nutritional information, that can be a great information leveler.  It can possibly offer a better perpsective.

Then again, remember how the U.S. Gov't required full disclosure statements for any loans to show the applicants what the actual APY will be, including hidden costs.  Most Americans don't read and/or understand that either.

Yes, at the end of the day it comes down to personal responsibility.  But it cheeses me to no end when I see people attempting to take personal responsibility but basically sabotaging their own efforts. 

If there was truth in advertising, you wouldn't have to include "results not typically" below every weight loss commercial.  I know people who go on SlimFast for 2 weeks, lose a couple pounds and then back to normal food and the gain is lost (or more appropriately - the lose is gained).

I think there will always be the contingent that know and don't care (e.g. SMOKERS!!!!).  But there are the contingent that think they know, care and just can't right their own ship.  It is for those people I think public posting of information is important.

As for Twinkies and Green Bean - yes that is an obvious choice.  But how many people realize the amount of sodium in a can of green beans?  That you can know because they print the information on the label. 

I'll order a diet (Pepsi) regardless of what else I order because I like the taste better than regular Pepsi.  Plus, it gives me an extra 250 calories to eat instead of drink

Hey, I know what I'm doing the second I pull into the parking lot of the restaurant food place (blowing my daily calorie balance).  Luckily, I don't do it that often. 

We have to be accountable for our choices (not just at the restaurant).  For a long time, eating healthy wasn't important enough to me to change my behavior.  Now it is. 

I agree.  It's like the whole coffee cup thing, where they had to put "caution, contents are hot". Like duh!

People have to start taking responsibility for themselves.  It shouldn't be the government's or the restaurant's responsibility to label everything into oblivion.  Go ahead and have the nutritional information available on request, this is necessary for people who have to watch their diet for medical reasons, but no need to actually post it. Some things are just common sense, and if you don't have common sense, well your on your own.  If it says fast food, then chances are, it's not going to be very healthy.

Apologies if I offended.  Wasn't my intention.  My wife is overweight and she too comes by it naturally.  But on average, it is well documented, that our population is overweight. 

There are exceptions to everything, but just like a business, you can't run a country on the exceptions.  If you do, you will run it into the ground.

Great, so then what, truly, is the goal of the legislation?  If there is a small business exemption, is the government TRULY interested in the well fare of its constituency (sp?) or do they just want to make it LOOK like they care.  I personally think it is the latter of those two. 

BTW, I still find it all terribly hipocritical.  If the health of the nation is of that much importance to our beloved government (who in reality WE put there) then ban cigarrettes outright.  Ban alcohol.  Ban ANY fat over a specific amount.  Enforce exercise.  Enforce portion control.  The selective nature of the regulations is equally as ludicrous as these "regulations" I've just listed.

And the best statement on this thread so far, You can put out all the information you want but if you don't understand what it means, it is worthless.  Thanks Sesh.

Todd,

No, their menu does not change, and depending on how they are set up (order board, laminated menu, folding menu, etc) it can actually be quite a big cost to a small outfit.  Most smaller outfits run on a very narrow profit margin.  The margin has been squeezed tighter by the larger national chains.  They do not have the capital to expend on that type of expense.  Nor for computers.  Or upgrades to existing computers. 

And if the menu does change, and say it is a new product they want to roll out, their cost for rolling out the new product has increased because they will either have to 1) test it to find out the nutritional content or 2) hope and pray that they can get the information via a data base.  Either way, it will increase the over all cost.  Maybe not by much, but any increase in cost will either have to eat into their profit margin, or be passed directly onto the consumer.

The market should be the driving force behind this, not the government.  If the market deems it a necessity, it would be a competitive disadvantage not to have it.  That is not the case right now because, as you rightly pointed out, a majority of individual could care less, or if they do care, they do not know what to do with the information if they had it.  Therefore, it is more about education and less about information availability.

Been there, tried that, and it failed miserably.  And it won't work any better the second, third, or fourth time here in the USA. 

Personally, I don't want anyone else deciding what is best for me or my family.  That's my job.  If I want to have a drink, I shouldn't have to file an application and wait for a permit.  If I want to buy real butter to put on my fresh-baked bread, I should be able to.  If I choose to buy a 14 mpg SUV (in our case, a van) I should be allowed to (don't worry, Greenies, we conserve energy in lots of other ways, like walking to the video store instead of driving).  I don't need (and I REALLY DON'T WANT) Ralph Nader or Al Gore as my nanny. 

I couldn't agree more.  I fixed one thing for you in italics.