If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
"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." |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Eateries wary of menu labels - Plan would require nutritional data"
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Eateries wary of menu labels - Plan would require nutritional data"
I think that the restaurants are worrying about the wrong thing. Most
people who eat out a lot don't think about how many calories they are eating - they just don't care. Those people aren't going to ask for or read the nutrition information. However, there are many people who would eat out more often if we could figure out how to make healthier choices. My husband and I ate at restaurants about once to twice a week before I went on WW, now we rarely eat out and when we do it's usually at fast food places that provide nutrition information. I suspect I'm not alone - I'm sure that a lot of people who are on Atkins or WW or are just counting calories are reluctant to eat out because they can't factor it into their program. Diane M. "John B." wrote in message om... 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." |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"Eateries wary of menu labels - Plan would require nutritional data"
"Chris" wrote in message 45... (John B.) wrote in om: The "blossom-cut, deep-fried onion at 2,882 calories" shows 58 points with just the calories. I believe it is 80 when you factor in fat and fiber. Holy cow!! Carol |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"Eateries wary of menu labels - Plan would require nutritional data"
***snip***
The "blossom-cut, deep-fried onion at 2,882 calories" shows 58 points with just the calories. I believe it is 80 when you factor in fat and fiber. The comments made at the end of the article speak to adding the nutrition information as some choices are counter-intuitive and the consumer needs the right information to make a better choice. Burger better than chicken...I vote burger! I'm glad I split the onion 9 ways the last time I ate one, though I don't see how people can eat a whole one. After I manage to eat 3 or 4 of the "petals" of the nearly a hundred on the onion, it is already soggy and gross. -Brie 228/193.5/145 -- Started Weight Watchers together February 2002: Chris 332.4/184.4/185 Pat 198.4/???/155 2002 combined loss 139 2003 combined loss ??? Total combined ??? lbs |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"Eateries wary of menu labels - Plan would require nutritional data"
thanks, Lee
John B. wrote in message om... 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." |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"Eateries wary of menu labels - Plan would require nutritional data"
very true, Lee
Diane wrote in message . .. I think that the restaurants are worrying about the wrong thing. Most people who eat out a lot don't think about how many calories they are eating - they just don't care. Those people aren't going to ask for or read the nutrition information. However, there are many people who would eat out more often if we could figure out how to make healthier choices. My husband and I ate at restaurants about once to twice a week before I went on WW, now we rarely eat out and when we do it's usually at fast food places that provide nutrition information. I suspect I'm not alone - I'm sure that a lot of people who are on Atkins or WW or are just counting calories are reluctant to eat out because they can't factor it into their program. Diane M. "John B." wrote in message om... 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." |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Eateries wary of menu labels - Plan would require nutritional data"
Diane wrote:
I think that the restaurants are worrying about the wrong thing. Most people who eat out a lot don't think about how many calories they are eating - they just don't care. Those people aren't going to ask for or read the nutrition information. However, there are many people who would eat out more often if we could figure out how to make healthier choices. My husband and I ate at restaurants about once to twice a week before I went on WW, now we rarely eat out and when we do it's usually at fast food places that provide nutrition information. I suspect I'm not alone - I'm sure that a lot of people who are on Atkins or WW or are just counting calories are reluctant to eat out because they can't factor it into their program. Diane M. Now, I go the other way! I'd FAAAAAAR rather eat at a pub where I can get a fresh salad with home cooked ham than at a fast food place! I know how to calculate the points on the plate for a few slices of lean ham, how to say 'no thanks' to chips and ask for bread instead (I can avoid spreading that - who needs butter on a nice thick slice of fresh wholemeal bread?), and what to allow for cole slaw, mayo, and whatever. I've not eaten a burger willingly for 20 years, unless I made it: I never could stand them, even before the BSE scare. The only red meat I eat these days is venison! It will be nice to be able to eat beef mince again - spag bol made with chicken mince is all very fine and tasty, but I much prefer it made with beef! Roll on the gall bladder op! Here in the UK the little 'Eating Out' guide is very good, and I can see at a glance that a gammon steak with pineapple and veg is 7 points, whereas a Big Mac is 9.5 WITHOUT the fries! Sorry - no contest! And at the pub I can usually have boiled new potatoes rather than fries if I want the carbs. Not only that, but after a decent pub lunch I'm full - after a big Mac I am still hungry enough to eat the furniture, and I have stomach ache! -- Kate XXXXXX Lady Catherine, Wardrobe Mistress of the Chocolate Buttons http://www.diceyhome.free-online.co.uk Click on Kate's Pages and explore! |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
long-term induction or just 20 carbs | Lyne | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 100 | May 4th, 2004 12:28 AM |