"Eateries wary of menu labels - Plan would require nutritional data"

Spotted at http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/7167699.htm


Eateries wary of menu labels - Plan would require nutritional data

By JENNIFER MANN
The Kansas City Star

Hoping to address a nationwide epidemic of obesity, the Food and Drug
Administration is considering a proposal to require restaurants to
label menus with nutrition information.

It is a notion that gives the restaurant industry indigestion.

The idea bubbled up at recent FDA meeting at which regulators sought
input from the public to help battle obesity. The government estimates
that more than 60 percent of the population is overweight and that
obesity costs about $117 billion a year in economic losses and
health-care expenditures.

The National Restaurant Association labeled the idea as an unworkable,
unwieldy regulatory threat to a $425 billion-a-year industry.

"We're very much opposed to mandatory labeling," said Allison
Whitesides, the association's director of legislative affairs. "We're
not a box. We're not a can. We can't stick a label on a plate of
pasta.

"The industry has so many different types of restaurants, that menu
labeling is just not workable," Whitesides said. "Some menus change
daily, some nightly, some in the middle of a shift. Besides, folks
don't even necessarily know what those numbers mean, and there are
other components — not the least of which is personal choice."

The debate pits public health against private-sector profits, Big
Brother against free will.

Most current proposals, which include legislation introduced in six
states and Washington, would require chains with 20 or more
restaurants to label menus. U.S. Rep. Rosa DeLauro, a Connecticut
Democrat, plans to introduce federal legislation on the subject
Wednesday.

Jeff Cronin, communications director for the Center for Science in the
Public Interest, dismissed the restaurant association's arguments.

"The marketplace usually works better when people are armed with
information," Cronin said. "I think their (the industry's) fear — and
I don't know if it's justified or not — is that people would choose
regular-sized items over super-sized ones, and that could cut into
profits."

Bill Otto, an employee of Hallmark Cards Inc. who lives in Raytown,
recently was heading into Gates Bar-B-Q on Main Street for a late
lunch of a turkey sandwich. Otto, who has two arterial stents, said he
would welcome nutrition information from restaurants.

"I have to watch my cholesterol and triglycerides," Otto said. "So I
think people would be happy to have that kind of information,
particularly those with medical problems."

Super-sizing

In an effort to address the issues raised by rampant obesity, the Food
and Drug Administration held its first public meeting Oct. 23. The
agency is to deliver a report in February.

Alan Rulis, the FDA's senior adviser for applied nutrition and a
participant in the meeting, said the panel quickly decided to include
the restaurant industry in any discussions.

"We think it's quite valid, because people eat out so much," Rulis
said. "There is no way to address the obesity issue without taking
into account restaurant food."

Indeed, almost half of all the money spent on food is spent on fare
consumed away from the home. In recent years, the frequency of dining
out has increased across all demographic and socioeconomic categories.

As more people eat out, choices are abundant, beginning with the
quick-serve segment of the industry, which kicked off the super-sizing
of food.

Realizing that consumers love a value, many restaurants — chains in
particular — increased the sizes of their plates and glasses. Movie
theaters super-sized popcorn tubs. Straws at McDonald's have a
bigger-than-average circumference.

Indeed, folks who munch during movies might consider fasting for a
day. A large popcorn with butter has 1,650 calories, and a 42-ounce
Coke has 410 calories.

The abundance of food shows up in the statistics. The Agriculture
Department has concluded that the daily per capita food production in
the United States has reached a record high of 3,900 calories.

For several years, Food and Drug Administration guidelines have
recommended men and very active women consume up to 2,500 calories
daily. Other women and inactive men need only about 2,000 calories
daily.

Put simply, if you put food in front of people, they will eat it, said
Brian Wansink, a professor of nutritional science and marketing at the
University of Illinois who runs the Web site www.foodpsychology. com.

Wansink said that study after study bore out the theory. In one test,
consumers who received large tubs of popcorn ate 45 percent to 50
percent more than those who got smaller tubs.

He said that even when the popcorn was stale, people still ate 40
percent to 45 percent more.

"I think one theory that comes into play is the clean-your-plate
phenomenon," Wansink said. "We find that when we give people more,
they eat more."

Having said that, neither Wansink nor Paul Rozin, a food psychologist
at the University of Pennsylvania, thinks it would make much
difference if restaurants were required to put nutritional information
on menus.

"I don't think, even if you put it there, people will read it," Rozin
said.

Wansink pointed to another study that he oversaw in which he polled
people after they had eaten at Subway restaurants, which list some
nutritional information.

For instance, Wansink said, people would look at the information for a
vegetarian sub, and then order a meatball sandwich. When Wansink asked
the customers how many calories they thought they had consumed, they
gave the number of calories in the healthier choice, not the one they
ate.

Besides, Wansink said, the whole labeling effort smacks of Big
Brotherism.

"I'm a little uncomfortable with the whole mandate aspect," Wansink
said. "It sort of takes the fun out of eating."

Cool on mandates

Most restaurants are not too crazy about the idea, either, even ones
that already are addressing concerns of nutrition-conscious customers.

Consider Overland Park-based Applebee's International Inc., which with
about 1,550 restaurants is the largest casual-dining chain in the
nation. Applebee's recently formed an alliance with Weight Watchers in
which the two have developed 18 menu items that list Weight Watchers
points, a scoring system using calories, fat and fiber.

The response from consumers has been so overwhelming that Applebee's
pushed up the test phase to make sure that the items make it on menus
at all its locations by the second half of 2004.

Despite such early success catering to weight-conscious diners,
Applebee's Chairman Lloyd Hill says he finds the idea of mandatory
labeling distasteful. He prefers to respond to market forces.

"We conduct an exhaustive amount of guest research. We know what our
guests want, and we're successful because we give them what they want.
Our guests wanted healthier fare, so we're delivering a new Weight
Watchers menu," Hill said. "If we are to provide caloric information
on all of our products, it should be because that's what our guests
want, not because it's what the government requires."

Howard Gordon, senior vice president of the Cheesecake Factory, which
is known for its generous portions and decadent deserts, also said
that his chain serves what its customers want. He said that 70 percent
of customers take home leftovers.

"We don't do things just for the sake of doing it — we know what our
guests want. They continue to come back, because they know we serve
the freshest food the way our guests want it," Gordon said. "Besides,
people know cheesecake is fattening – they know that when they order
it."

Gordon, like others in the industry, repeatedly raised the issue of
personal responsibility. For instance, Gordon said, when he goes to
McDonald's, he knows by ordering the grilled chicken breast sandwich,
eating only half the bun and passing on the french fries, he is making
a better and healthier choice.

But some things, including seemingly healthier choices, are not always
what they seem.

For instance, McDonald's cheeseburgers, even with the whole bun, have
fewer calories, sodium, carbohydrates and less cholesterol than the
grilled chicken sandwich.

Even some items that diners would expect to be high in calories and
fat can be hard to swallow, including a blossom-cut, deep-fried onion
at 2,882 calories, some slices of carrot cheesecake at 1,450 calories
and cheese fries with ranch dressing weighing at 3,010 calories.

And that, said Cronin of the Center for Science in the Public
Interest, is one of the main reasons why people need data to make
informed decisions.

"For instance, who would think that a roast beef sandwich is a better
choice nutritionally than a tuna fish one? But it is," Cronin said.
"There are all kinds of counterintuitive examples."

"The bottom line is that some restaurants are finding success with
healthier choices, including McDonald's with its new line of salads,"
Cronin said. "I think that would be an example of a restaurant giving
its customers what they want."