Calorie Count

If you'd just told me in the abstract about a proposal to force chain restaurants "to prominently display calorie information" I would have been skeptical, but the vigor with which the affected businesses are fighting back makes me think this may well be a good idea after all since most of the non-Subway firms involved appear to think that keeping this information secret is vital to their business models.

After all, this won't prevent anyone from buying a Big Mac or some KFC — the only reason for thinking it would be bad for business is that these businesses believe that consumers wouldn't want to eat their products if they were better-informed about them. That, in and of itself, seems like a compelling reason to think the information should be provided. It's worth endlessly repeating that policies aimed at improving America's diet and exercise habits are likely to do more for public health than are reforms to the health care finance system.

Photo by Flickr user drewzhrodague used under a Creative Commons license

Comments

this post makes me hungry.

Posted by David | October 28, 2007 12:25 PM

Now I want some Wendy's. Matt you damn shill.

Posted by aleks | October 28, 2007 12:45 PM

Sounds like communism to me. If you think the fat slobs who eat Wendy's simply don't know that it is fattening and unhealthy because Wendy's is keeping that calorie info top secret, then you need to put your crack pipe down and back away slowly from your keyboard.

Posted by jim | October 28, 2007 12:57 PM

Research Proposition 65 which I believe has been conceded to have been very effective.

Posted by jerry | October 28, 2007 1:05 PM

I saw an interview once where a fat girl around 12 or so told the reporter that she'd like to eat healthily but she couldn't afford to buy Subway every day like Jared.

Posted by aleks | October 28, 2007 1:11 PM

yep, having to display the nutritional information with the food that you are selling is just like communism.

Posted by smith | October 28, 2007 1:21 PM

Right -- if everyone is already aware of all the info, then this has no effect at all. Boo!

Posted by Barbar | October 28, 2007 1:25 PM

I saw an interview once where a fat girl around 12 or so told the reporter that she'd like to eat healthily but she couldn't afford to buy Subway every day like Jared.

Fat women are unattractive, plus they sweat a lot.

Posted by Big Tent Democrat | October 28, 2007 1:27 PM

It's true that diet and exercise would do more for American's health, but there's more money to be made in the health care system, even if it's reformed, because people will still be paying shitloads, even if it's through taxes and spread out.

The last thing the health care industry - doctors, drug companies, health insurers, etc. - and the politicians that depend on their support want is a preventative medicine campaign that reduces demand for their services and products.

Besides, pigging out on the couch all day, then getting fixed cheaply at the hospital is a "have your cake and eat it too" kind of situation. Don't think consumers aren't falling for the Wal-Mart Economy's "a lot for a little" promises.

Posted by Visceral | October 28, 2007 1:49 PM

See also the opposition to labeling genetically engineered foods, or that time Monsanto took legal action against a business which was labeling its own milk as being hormone-free, or the uproar each time there's an attempt to mandate better nutritional labeling, etc.. It's all about keeping information from the customer, to prevent them from making fully informed decisions.

Posted by Dan S. | October 28, 2007 2:15 PM

It's not a secret, Matt. The information is generally available on-site to anyone who wants it. In some places, it is on the flip-side of the placemat. This won't make one bit of difference except to make some do-gooders feel good about themselves while enabling a few more budding Cartmans to embark on useless careers asserting their authority?

Posted by RW Rogers | October 28, 2007 2:23 PM

The information is generally available on-site to anyone who wants it. In some places, it is on the flip-side of the placemat.

Uh, the whole point is that in most places, it isn't. Go to a Quizno's and try to find how many calories are in a Chicken Carbonara. It's not posted, it's not on the placements, and the employees don't know either. They don't even put that info on their website.

Posted by Andrew Levine | October 28, 2007 2:34 PM

Sounds like communism to me.

I don't see how it is communism.

But it certainly is authoritarian.

As I've said before, the left's authoritarianism far exceeds anything that might be promoted by the likes of Rudy Giuliani.

Posted by Al | October 28, 2007 3:12 PM

As I've said before, the left's authoritarianism far exceeds anything that might be promoted by the likes of Rudy Giuliani.

Define your unit of measure.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | October 28, 2007 3:16 PM

Define your unit of measure

You multiply the degree of authoritarianism represented by a particular policy by the number of people affected.

Posted by Al | October 28, 2007 3:52 PM

At most of the major fast food restaurants (e.g., McDonald's, Taco Bell) the nutrition information is easily available online, and often at the restaurant itself. It's also intuitively obvious to all Americans who aren't mentally retarded that cheeseburgers and the like aren't low-calorie foods.

Eating fattening fast food is, for Americans, like having multiple concurrent sex partners and not using condoms is for Africans. Lack of information isn't the problem.

Posted by Fred | October 28, 2007 4:24 PM

What is this wild wish for vengeance on overeaters? People know that cheeseburgers are high-calorie, but how many people know *how* high-calorie? Every calorie counts when you're trying to lose weight - is it a requirement for functioning in this society that you have the calorie counts for hundreds of items in dozens of restaurants memorized so you can keep roughly to your diet? Heck, even when I was a health nut I was unaware that KFC Rotisserie chicken was as high-calorie as it's original recipe. What's so horrible about people being able to count calories without having to drive home to google up the calorie difference between an small and medium shake?

Posted by Curt Adams | October 28, 2007 4:34 PM

This is THE SAME as putting a warning label on cigarettes, a cheap and easy tactic that has proven to be very efficient.

It's so communist to promote systemic efficiency. Why, it's the Capitalist Way to promote artificial economies which bust every 7-10 years!

AI, it's authoritarian to OUTLAW fast food, not to inform consumers. What are you, some kind of fucking idiot?

Posted by Luke | October 28, 2007 4:45 PM

Of the 16 fast food/burger websites I surveyed, only 3 did not have calorie information: Big Boy, Fuddruckers and Quizno's. (Quizno's promises nutritional information in "Fall 2007"; they're up against their own deadline. So, to answer Andrew Levine, it's not just the Chicken Carbonara, it's all their food.) I might add that my favorite "fast casual" restaurant, Culver's, has nutritional information.

The bigger the fast food chain is, the more likely they are to already have nutritional information. However, they're likely to be in a corner near the registers on a poster or a brochure at the counter or behind the counter with the numbers in 8 pt font. I imagine that the public health types want to actually label food wrappings with say, 20-30 pt font numbers.

Whether or not this would be a good idea, this IS a pretty big requirement.

Posted by Klug | October 28, 2007 4:52 PM

But it certainly is authoritarian.

Yes, validly passed enactments that are a net positive in freedom for consumers and markets (providing them with information they would otherwise not have) while imposing a trivial imposition on powerful corporations with strong incentives to concealing information from consumers is far more authoritarian than arbitrarily confiscating the property of innocent individuals could ever be! That makes perfect sense!

Posted by Scott Lemieux | October 28, 2007 5:07 PM

That box confuses me. Do people think that eating chicken nuggets with a fork and knife means it's no longer fast food, and therefore lowers its calorie content?

Posted by Toadmonster | October 28, 2007 5:57 PM

What's odd is how ideology -better, tribalism -extends not just to issues like AGW, but even to these kind of questions. Take Al and Fred for example - it's entirely predictable that they would come out against this idea, but not at all clear, in any sensible, coherent way, why. After all, this is government action to make the market function more efficiently".

Posted by Dan S. | October 28, 2007 6:30 PM

mo' information; mo better. This is, quite arguably, a good use of gov't as information broker. I'm not exactly sure how authortarian it is, but perhaps that's merely the latest kneejerk buzzword these days.

Posted by Duder | October 28, 2007 7:50 PM

To clear the air, the NYC regulations require the posting of calorie information on menus (like the lightboards above the registers) in typeface at least as large as the menu item's name or the price. Click here for actual proposal.
(Page 12 shows what they like.)

Matt's posting of a Wendy's wrapper isn't helpful and the NYT editorial is equally useless in terms of the actual proposal.

While this proposal is not nearly as onerous as food wrapping labeling, I believe this will not move consumer behavior near as much as they hope. As far as I could tell, their evidence that it would help was that it lowered Subway consumers' caloric intake by 100 calories. An effective solution, IMHO, would induce a Wendy's consumer to walk back out the door and look for a shwarma.

Posted by Klug | October 28, 2007 7:59 PM

If the people who eat at Wendy's, McDonald's, etc. gave a rat's a$$ about the caloric content they wouldn't be eating there in the first place. I mean, is it a big secret that stuff like burgers and fries has more calories than things like apples and cucumbers?

Posted by kafka | October 28, 2007 9:49 PM

NYC regulations require the posting of calorie information on menus (like the lightboards above the registers) in typeface at least as large as the menu item's name or the price

It is exactly that which is the authoritarian part of the proposal. Requiring the restaurants to make the information available is not particularly objectionable. But the manner in which it is the information is required to be provided most certainly is authoritarian.

But, again, we see plenty of authoritarians on this thread.

Posted by Al | October 28, 2007 11:56 PM

Oh, now I get it, Al.
Kidnapping people, "disappearing" them, torturing them, and holding them indefinitely in secret prisons without charging them or even admitting they're being held affects very few people.

Printing calorie information on a wrapper or menu affects a lot of people, so people who support the latter are more authoritarian than people who support the former.

Posted by MikeN | October 29, 2007 12:24 AM

In L.A. - and not the Westside, the most "liberal" part of town - I can't think of a major chain that doesn't have the information displayed in a framed chart or available as a brochure.

This is probably just a power play, and I suggest we try to figure out what their next step will be. Perhaps banning trans fats. Did they already do that? Wait, I've got it: sending RonaldMcDonald to Sibir.

Posted by TLB | October 29, 2007 12:37 AM

I think both American consumers *and* McDonald's & co. could benefit from a coordinated "nutritional awareness" effort.
Here in Finland, McDonald's do display calorie information with their hamburgers. I think it makes perfect business sense too, as it allows McD over here to say they "promote a healthy lifestyle" etc.. It also makes it easier for their customers to select healthier alternatives (e.g. sideorder salads, country potatoes instead of french fries etc.). However, the most important issue at McDonald's is not what you eat -- it's the size of the portions, which is where the calorie information comes in handy.

MARCU$

Posted by MARCU$ | October 29, 2007 2:31 AM

If the people who eat at Wendy's, McDonald's, etc. gave a rat's a$$ about the caloric content they wouldn't be eating there in the first place. I mean, is it a big secret that stuff like burgers and fries has more calories than things like apples and cucumbers?

Everyone knows fast food isn't health food. What very few people know is what fast food is just mildly fattening, and what's a heart attack waiting to happen.

This would enable fast-food customers to make an informed choice while waiting in line. What on earth is wrong with that?

Posted by low-tech cyclist | October 29, 2007 5:43 AM

I agree that they should prominently display this information. But, I don't agree with the idea that the overall improvement of health should be society's main goal.

I think society's goal should be the availability of healthy options for people who choose it. For those who choose to be unhealthy because they don't care about their expected lifespan, then let them follow that road if they want to. Therefore, even if making health care available to everyone might not have the same health benefit as forcing everyone to eat in a more healthy way, I think the former is more desirable.

Posted by Jim W | October 29, 2007 10:56 AM

"NYC regulations require the posting of calorie information on menus (like the lightboards above the registers) in typeface at least as large as the menu item's name or the price"

The difficulty I see is that determining caloric info isn't easy. It's not too bad for McDonalds since they need to do it once for their products and it applies to thousands of stores. However, for a non-chain restaurant this could be a burden. Unless you only want fast food restaurants to do it, but the lasagna from the place down the street isn't exactly health food either.

Posted by JordanT | October 29, 2007 11:07 AM

Gang: Consistency, please. Food in supermarkets is labelled for nutritional content. What is it that magically occurs to this same food, that makes it a betrayal of corporate secrecy to label the nutritional content of prepared food?

I think the qualification that the restaurants must have a certain number of outlets in the city releases so-called "small businessmen" (Like centimillionaire Bobby Flay? Gag!) from an arguably onerous burden.

And free markets aren't free unless the distribution of information is symmetrical. So, please, Libertarians, cram your concern-trollism.

Posted by Jamey | October 29, 2007 11:18 AM

And Liberals, stop your paranoia. The nutritional information is not 'secret', like they know and they're not telling. For most chain restaurants, the information is available in the store or on-line.

Besides, everyone knows it's bad for you. Damn near everything sold by a restaurant of any size is bad for you.

Posted by Klug | October 29, 2007 11:40 AM

You multiply the degree of authoritarianism represented by a particular policy by the number of people affected.
Posted by Al

Scott Lemieux is right, of course, but this also seemed interesting — I wanted to take it at face value. So here goes. How totalitarian is this? Well, it requires slight extra work from the packaging, central management, and marketing departments of fast food companies; at least, those that don't already do so. And if the information is really that horrifying, they might have to make some changes in the manufacturing department too, to make the food a little less unhealthy. That's a minor effect on the companies, moderate at the worst. It affects tens of thousands of people who work at those companies. The other effect is on customers. A minor but at least somewhat significant effect, because as low-tech cyclist says, even if people still eat fast food they could shop around between restaurants or make better-informed choices within one restaurant. How many people does this affect? Probably hundreds of millions. Seriously. I'm pretty sure that almost everyone eats fast food at least occasionally. Even if you only stop at a McDonalds once a year when you're on a road trip or really really in a rush, it would still be nice to know exactly how bad for you a Big Mac is.

So we have a minor positive effect directly on hundreds of millions of people, versus a minor-to-moderate negative effect indirectly on tens of thousands. I don't think you thought this through very much, Al*, because if this is totalitarianism, you make it sound attractive.

* Of course, it doesn't matter much how I finish that sentence, does it.

Posted by Cyrus | October 29, 2007 11:46 AM

See also the opposition to labeling genetically engineered foods, or that time Monsanto took legal action against a business which was labeling its own milk as being hormone-free, or the uproar each time there's an attempt to mandate better nutritional labeling, etc.. It's all about keeping information from the customer, to prevent them from making fully informed decisions.

I wouldn't mind all those above things if people are also educated on the fact that there is no health risks for genetically engineered foods (in fact quite the opposiite) and there is little if any risk for milk derived from cows that were given hormones and antibodics. Thing is people don't get the education, thus they are making an uninformed decision, for telling this non relevant information without explaining what it means "begs the question."

How many people would drink something called dihydrogen monoxide if it was labeled as such instead of water?

Posted by Ramza | October 29, 2007 1:48 PM

There is risk from cows given hormones and antibiotics, though, Ramza-- cows on growth hormone get more infections, and the more infections there are, the more antibiotics used. Antibiotic over-use in the human and animal population is giving rise to antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Whose definition of "no health risks" do we use-- Monsanto's?

Posted by Persia | October 29, 2007 2:10 PM

note I said little risk for the hormones and antibiotics. Yes there is some theoretical risk (you describe what little risk there is), but it is an extremely small risk, and there has no documented cases of actual harm to humans due to hormone and antibiotics given to cows.

On the other hand there is no risk with genetically modified foods. This is because of the safety standards GM foods have to go through compared to non GM foods which don't get any tests at all.
1) They have to compare all proteins they are adding to the plant and see if there is any known allergic reaction to that protein (for example the 1993 Pioneer Hi-Bred Soybean/Brazilian Nut controversy, the system worked for the Soybean failed the first hurdle of testing).
2) Animal Testing
3) The GM foods must pass the Acid Test, all the proteins in the GM food must break down to the appropriate amino acids in the stomach.

On the other hand Non GM foods don't have to go through these form of testing. Furthermore Non-GM foods includes foods where the genetic code of the food was not directly modified, but they were exposed to chemicals and radiation that are known mutagens for the express purpose of creating genetic mutations. The goal is to create a genetic mutation, if it is a benefical one you try to obtain it and introduce it to a main line of plants through cross breeding. This has been the dominant practice of creating new traits in plants for the last 70 years before the advent of GM foods. Yes none of these new plants are ever tested for health reasons, they are not regulated. Our supermarkets as we known them wouldn't exist without these new forms of plants 30 years ago, let alone today.

Think about this for a second, would you prefer to eat a food where you are messing with the genetic code but you know exactly how you are doing so and the food is tested for possible health interaction.

Or

Would you prefer to eat a food with several random mutations, you don't know what, that wasn't tested, "only it appeared safe."

Posted by Ramza | October 29, 2007 2:41 PM