Just read this article and thought it might be worth passing on, I know I always eat off the "low fat/low cal" menu when I go to chain restaraunts.
TAMPA, FL -- Restaurants often claim to have low calorie meals or things on their menus with half the fat. But our two month investigation back in May found that some restaurants making those claims aren't always serving up what they advertise.
Now, a customer has hired an attorney to put the restaurant and weight loss industry on notice.
It's known as your 'neighborhood grill' but Applebee's Restaurant is accused of being not such a good neighbor.
Applebee's parent company and Weight Watchers are accused in a 27 page lawsuit of making low fat claims about meals, often loaded with fat and calories.
This follows an ABC Action News investigation from May, when we worked with sister stations in seven different cities around the country. We bought and tested seven meals, claiming to be low in fat and calories from Applebees Weight Watchers' menu. And the results were not always what the restaurant claimed they would be.
While the calorie difference was slight, the fat was over on every item we tested, doubling and even tripling in three of the meals!
That's why a northeast law firm filed a class action suit on behalf of consumers across the country.
Lawyer Alison Foster said,"This lawsuit is really about the false advertising, where people bought something that was advertised different than what they thought they were getting."
They claim the entrees on Applebee's special Weight Watchers section are listed as 'healthy menus' but often "inaccurately represent the caloric and fat content of the food at issue."
"It's sort of a betrayal--it's taking advantage of people who want to pay attention to their health and instead selling them something that's going to hurt them," Foster said.
Meanwhile, Weight Watchers says "the company does not comment on current litigation."
And an Applebee's spokesperson said, "We take claims about our Weight Watchers menu
seriously. We believe variation between listed and actual food nutritional content is inevitable. We are reviewing the claims, but we don't think they have merit."
During our investigation six-months ago, ABC Action News purchased low fat, low cal items at some of the most popular restaurant chains and put them to the test.
Following our labs instructions, each menu item was placed in a ziploc bag, labeled, packed on ice, shipped, and tested for caloric and fat content at EPA certified AnalyticalLaboratories in Boise, Idaho.
Test results showed the cajun lime tilapia meal on the menu at Applebee's, which was supposed to have six grams of fat, instead had 12-grams of fat!
Also, the italian chicken and portobello sandwich was supposed to have six-grams of fat, but tested three times that with 18.6 grams!
"We want to have an informed consumer," registered dietician Nancy Holder said from
University Community Hospital. She analyzed our findings and suggested that viewers think about what they're eating.
"What is concerning is that what they're presenting as being healthful meals really have more calories and fat than the individual might think," Holder said
I think the problem here is more with the cooks at the restaurants than with the chain itself.
Keep in mind that cooking is kinda ... an uncontrolled science. You can create something in a test kitchen that has a very specific calorie and fat count and that's legitimate.
But.
Move that item into a working kitchen that's serving 1000 people a day or so, and it's inevitable that things are going to get sloppy. A line cook at a chain restaurant is not going to be super careful about making sure that the griddle is completely oil free for the WW chicken breast. Nor is he or she going to carefully measure out 1 oz of cheese the way the test kitchen chef would. And if the server accidentally sprinkles your entree salad with the full fat dressing instead of the light version ... well, oops, it's busy and I forgot, but I'm not going to throw away a whole plate and maybe have my pay docked because of it.
I have hugely mixed emotions about this type of lawsuit. On the one hand I do believe companies should be held liable for the information they provide. On the other hand, I do think there has to be an element of personal responsibility on our ends and the understanding and acceptance that a restaurant is a restaurant and you cannot expect the level of precision in a chain restaurant as you would get from your home kitchen or even a fine dining place where each meal is individually cooked.
Personally if I choose to eat in a restaurant, I do investigate options and make the best possible calorie choice, but I also acknowledge that it's entirely possible for the count to be way off, just depending on the circumstances.
I pretty much don't trust anything unless I made it
Part of the discrepancy pretty understandably comes from the way the food is prepared... One chef may put a sprinkle of parm on your vegetables while the next shift's chef is a bit more, let's say, liberal with it. One may forget you didn't want your roll buttered before it was grilled, another might not. Yes, it is supposed to all be standard, but there is a lot of room for human error.
I've heard about a few investigations like this within the past few months... I guess bottom line is that even though the menus are misleading, a sandwich with 18g of fat advertised as 6g of fat is still going to be better (relatively) for me than a salad with fried chicken and ranch dressing and cheese and croutons on it, without an advertised calorie/fat content, which I know to pack a higher calorie and fat punch by virtue of being a smart consumer.
I mean... when I look at a menu and the healthy options section lists 600 calorie dishes... I know I'm not going to be up to much good no matter what I get!
I have hugely mixed emotions about this type of lawsuit. On the one hand I do believe companies should be held liable for the information they provide. On the other hand, I do think there has to be an element of personal responsibility on our ends and the understanding and acceptance that a restaurant is a restaurant and you cannot expect the level of precision in a chain restaurant as you would get from your home kitchen or even a fine dining place where each meal is individually cooked.
I totally agree. But when something is supposed to have 6 grams of fat & ends up with 18, I think that's a little more then a lazy line cook. It's more then likely out & out lying on their part.
But when something is supposed to have 6 grams of fat & ends up with 18, I think that's a little more then a lazy line cook. It's more then likely out & out lying on their part.
I really have to disagree.
The difference between 6 grams of fat and 18 grams of fat is less than 1T of canola oil.
Let's take the chicken and portobello sandwich: which is supposed to be 6 grams and tested with 18 grams.
Say the grilled chicken gets some spillover oil from whatever is cooking next to it on the grill. And say the portobello mushroom gets the same. Then say the chef accidentally grills the bun with oil (because most sandwiches you get from a restaurant have grilled buns/bread) because he's slapping together 12 sandwiches for lunchtime and just isn't paying attention.
So suddenly you have extra fat and calories, purely by accidnt, and no lie.
A line cook at a chain restaurant is not going to be super careful about making sure that the griddle is completely oil free for the WW chicken breast. Nor is he or she going to carefully measure out 1 oz of cheese the way the test kitchen chef would.
I think all that is probably very true. They just aren't going to measure like you might.
I have a different opinion about it. I think if your restaurant can’t keep a track of the calories and fat of its food, it shouldn’t advertise it.
To me it is about consumer’s right. I know I could just cook and get my truly health food home. But maybe I didn’t because I heard this restaurant have low fat-calorie, so maybe tonight I can take a break from the kitchen...
Perhaps if that restaurant didn’t advertise something it can’t control, I would have chosen to go to somewhere else, where they really follow cooking procedures to keep track on calories, or maybe I just wouldn’t take a risk and stay home and cook.
But if because of that false advertisement, I was fooled to go to that restaurant and I think something should be done about it.
Considering the money restaurants pay for market research and test markets, test kitchens... there's no reason that the fluctuations couldn't be accounted for and the information passed on to the consumer (even if it's at best, a disclaimer that calories/fat could be in excess of the stated amount by x to x%)
I think that a certain margin of error is understandable, but how much? If the restaurant were simply putting the information on the menu (with an explanation that these are estimated calculations and possibly could vary a certain amount) as an added (but unadvertised) service, that would be a different issue. However, I agree that when the promotion of the item is hinging on it's calorie or nutritional content, there's a higher burden of responsibility.
If the restaurant advertises a dish at 350 calories and it tests at 400 that's a lot different than a dish advertised at 350 calories that turns out to have 700 calories. At what point does "acceptable margin of error" become "intentionally misleading advertising?"
Perhaps if that restaurant didn’t advertise something it can’t control,
If we were talking about a greater difference, maybe I would agree, but when we're talking about the difference that a single tablespoon of oil could make, then I think that falls under kaplods comment above:
Quote:
At what point does "acceptable margin of error" become "intentionally misleading advertising?"
I think expecting and demanding that any situation under human control (and with as much margin for error as cooking) be 100% accountable is just unreasonable.
I think we as a society have made a business out of either blaming others for our decisions or forcing liability for a reasonable margin of human error.
No one wants to take responsibility for the fact that they choose to go out into an uncontrolled environment and eat something made in a very busy kitchen where quality control might be questionable at least.
I used to be a cook, trust me when i say that it is all in the cooks. I was making 7.50 an hour, there were people making less. We were told to measure everything, use ladels etc. But on a friday night when you are serving 1000 people per hour, its all about getting the food out. No offense to anyone here, but most cooks really don't give a crud if they made a mistake .Our job was to cook the food and photochick is right, if the wrong dressing or sauce or butter made it onto the food we were not to remake it. The whole thing about working in a kitchen like that is the managers are constantly on the cooks' case to get the food out FAST! and not waste , so if for some reason there was extra butter we would have to throw away a whole item, and remake it, both which were no-nos.
I know it sucks for people like you and i , who go into these restaurants thinking what we are eating is healthy, but the truth is, unless you cook it yourself you can't really control what happens.
It obvious some of you have never worked in a restaurant kitchen. Cooks take liberties with recipes all the time. WW and Applebees have worked out a recipe with the correct nutritional info, but what's to prevent the cook from adding some butter to make it taste better, etc.
Which cook doesn’t know a butter will make a meal fatter? If he/she is preparing a light meal they should be aware they have to follow the rules on cooking it.
Again, if the restaurant CAN’T guarantee the meal will be within certain calories, do not advertise it or it will be at risk of being sued. It is a matter of consumer’s right just like anything else.
It is too easy to relay on human mistakes as excuse. We are all human and we all make mistakes (so do I). My point is if they can’t control, most of the food prep to keep certain food in a range of calories, do not advertise it.
I've always been rather skeptical of light menus because the food that I would get rarely seemed to jive with the calorie counts the restaurant stated. I usually added an extra 100 to 200 calories and went about my day, and yet the more I think about it, the more it seems that advertising should not be allowed to be nearly as deceptive as it is allowed to be.
The HFCS issue on this website is the perfect example. If any commercial on the planet doesn't exagerate it's this one. HCFS is nutritionally similar to sugar, has the same calories as sugar, is made from corn, and is fine in moderation (even though it's not mentioned that if you eat any significant amount of processed foods, you're probably far exceeding an amount that could be considered "moderation"). As far as it goes, one of the most accurate commercials we see (does anyone really believe that Axe body spray will cause large breasted, blond women to attack and tear the clothes off young nerd boys).
On one hand, it is vital that people realize what ALL advertising is (10% truth and 90% hype), and on the other we need to realize that there is quite a lot of evidence that advertising works even when people are aware and skeptical of the obvious manipulation.
One phrase that drives me absolutely bonkers is when you hear someone say in a commercial "we couldn't say it if it wasn't true." HAH, that's the BIGGEST lie in advertising. However, when I see on my plastic soda bottle "do not open with cap directed at eyes," or on a soda bottle with a coupon on the label "do not cut until bottle is empty," or on a package of eyeglass cleaner "do not use on contact lenses,"..... it sure seems reasonable for the light menus to include a disclaimer (in fine print of course) explaining that some variation is inevitable (ideally with a % of error).
Just as restaurants and food service should not be able to pass off regular ice cream and frozen yogurt as sugar or fat-free (remember the Seinfeld episode) regular coffee as decaf, or a non-veg*n dish as veg*n, or other deceptive practices, I think there is an obligation for accuracy. How accurate do they have to be? I'm not sure that without a legal standard (whether that's a given percentage for all such menus or that the percentage required to be stated on the menu). we can expect any accuracy at all.
As more people are becoming health conscious, and yet the need and desire for eating out is not decreasing, I think that it's going to be more important than ever that such advertising be accurate. A degree of error is going to have to be established, I think (or a requirement to state the degree of error). With modern statistics, it should not be terribly difficult to determine how much error there is likely to be. If the difference is 100% - then cooks need to be retrained or the menu state that calories could be twice what they are quoted.
WW & Apple Bee's are lying to you....
