In response to a NYC proposal to list nutritional info on menu boards, three major chains have now removed nutritional information from websites and locations - taking advantage of a loophole in the legislation that provides an exemption for restaurants that don't presently have nutritional information available. What do you all think?
Personally, I'm infuriated. I think that denying this information to consumers is a cowardly move - they look like they have something to hide. While I agree that we all have personal responsibility when it comes to what we order - yes, we all know that a quad burger with cheese and extra chili isn't "light" fare - I also whole-heartedly agree with making nutritional information available for those who care to know the calorie content of the foods they eat. As witnessed by the recent article on extreme foods and their gargantuan calorie counts, exactly how UN-healthy something is isn't always obvious - I, too, would have been taken in by "Chicken and Broccoli Pasta", thinking it a relatively healthy dish. The fact that these restaurants are taking advantage of a loophole created to protect smaller, much less profitable establishments is pretty low - and the fact that they're now removing information that was previously available is even lower.
I even think they're over-estimating the impact of listing the calories. Yes, there are a lot of us who would use that information to make more informed choices (which in many cases would mean eating elsewhere), but there are even more people out there who - unfortunately - don't really care and would go ahead and order that double with bacon anyways.
I get tired of people saying "Listen - if you choose to eat at McDonald's, then you know you're eating something high in fat and bad for you". Not always true - I chose salads until I realized how many calories (and sugar!) they manage to squeeze into those, too. Better than some items on the menu, sure - but not by much. How would I have ever known that without access to the nutritional information? What restaurants do to food isn't always obvious....I once had a sandwich from Arby's - turkey on honey WHEAT bread. It came with sprouts, tomato, lettuce and a tiny piece of Swiss cheese - I felt pretty smug eating it, and proud of myself for making a healthy choice. Imagine my surprise when I looked up the sandwich in my WW book at home (I was on WW at the time), and it was 18!!!!! points! I couldn't make an 18 point sandwich out of those same ingredients at home if I tried!! Sure, we can all make better choices - but we need INFORMATION to learn to make those better choices.
I dunno - I just think this is a sad state of affairs. We've crossed a line from debating access to MORE information to where companies are now outright hiding the information that was already available, and I for one think it's a gigantic step backwards.
Ahh, but is it that simple? Yes, we all (should) know a cheeseburger is less healthy than a chicken salad.....but would YOU know that in some restaurants, the chicken salad can actually have MORE calories? I have a lot of common sense, know a great deal more about nutrition and calories than I ever thought I would, but there are many restaurant dishes where my very best (and informed ) guess would be way off, because they do a lot of things to the food in restaurant kitchens that people never do when they cook at home. Common sense will only get you so far.
I'm curious - do you also think that there shouldn't be requirements in place for nutrition labels on foods in the grocery store? What's the difference? Doritos has to list that they have xx calories and fat grams per serving of their product....how is that worse than Wendy's having to reveal the calories in a spicy chicken sandwich? Why is it accepted (and expected) in one regard, but not in another?
(1) Yes . . . everybody has to be responsible for what they eat . . .
(2) Yes . . . all restaurants (not just fast food chains) should be required to list nutritional information in a prominent place, preferably on the menu.
If (2) took place, then (1) would be a lot more possible. IMHO, one of the best things that ever happened was the requirement for grocery store food to carry this information. The food service industry requirement will eventually come to pass. Just hope it is sooner rather than later.
(3) Yes . . . it is absolutely terrible that some places that at least had it on their websites, have now pulled it off. No wonder they get so much blame; they do little to prove that they do not deserve it.
Have a great moving and shaking evening, gang . . .
I think the NY law is ridiculous and ill thought out. Other locales that have wanted to protect small local places have done it by defining how many buisness make a chain, not rather or not the company was already offering information. And making them put it on the menu board, for God's sake! It should be required to be available, but a pamplet or side poster is more than sufficient, as long as you can have the information if you want it.
Ahh, but is it that simple? Yes, we all (should) know a cheeseburger is less healthy than a chicken salad.....but would YOU know that in some restaurants, the chicken salad can actually have MORE calories? I have a lot of common sense, know a great deal more about nutrition and calories than I ever thought I would, but there are many restaurant dishes where my very best (and informed ) guess would be way off, because they do a lot of things to the food in restaurant kitchens that people never do when they cook at home. Common sense will only get you so far.
I'm curious - do you also think that there shouldn't be requirements in place for nutrition labels on foods in the grocery store? What's the difference? Doritos has to list that they have xx calories and fat grams per serving of their product....how is that worse than Wendy's having to reveal the calories in a spicy chicken sandwich? Why is it accepted (and expected) in one regard, but not in another?
What I think is that if these are truly major, IE national, chains, then NY just hurt ME here in Texas with this stupid law. Because if the nutrition info is gone from the website in New York, it's gone from the website nationwide, and it makes it that much more difficult for me to get the nutrition info.
I think that tsatske is right, that a board off to the side like McDonald's, Wendy's, & Burger King all have right now, and/or a brochure, are adequate. You can't make people care what they put in their mouths by putting the nutrition info on the menu. God knows when I go to McD's I'm in the mood for a splurge, and means I am studiously avoiding looking at the calories on the packaging.
And as far as the chicken thing goes...I know how bad it can be, yes. And I also know that, nutritionally speaking, a Fruit & Walnut Salad from McDonald's is roughly equivalent to a 3Musketeers candy bar. Knowledge I gleaned from the McDonald's website.
Oh, please don't misunderstand - I don't care *where* they put the information, I just want it to be available one way or another. If it has to be on a menu, I don't mind - but if it can only be on a separate pamphlet or the website, that's fine with me. My problem with the above is that restaurants have now taken the step to REMOVE the information completely, which I think is really wrong.
Your last paragraph illustrates my point - the way that you know a Fruit and Walnut salad is equivalent to a 3 Musketeers bar is due to information you got from the McDonald's website. Now imagine that McDonald's didn't - and wasn't required to - reveal nutritional information, ever. How would you have figured this out? Studies reveal time and time again that most people don't "just know"....and while a lot of people don't care, a lot of people DO. If you don't care, ignore the information.
And I still say that I can't see any difference between chain restaurants (mainly, since they standardize pretty much everything) having to list nutrition information and products in supermarkets having to list the same information. Why is it OK for a food product on a shelf, but not a restaurant? You're right - it won't stop the people who want to eat that product from eating it....but what about the people who might make a different choice if they knew?
sugarlove, I agree with your points completely, but I also understand that if Wendy's (for example--I know other restaurants were listed as well) keeps their info on their website, then they HAVE to also post it on their big light-up menu boards in their restaurants in New York--it's the new law that was passed. I think that is absolutely ridiculous. Yes, they should have the info available, but no, it shouldn't be required to be on the menu boards. Aren't their menus cluttered enough as it is? I don't think they're doing it to be mean to those of who want the nutritional info--I think they're doing it to show New York lawmakers how absurd a law it was to enact in the first place. Unfortunately for them, though, it does have wider reach than just New York.
As for Wendy's argument that things are made to order, that's total BS. Yes, you can have the components of the sandwich altered, but they can provide the nutritional info for the sandwich as it is intended to be made and just note that removing or adding toppings to customize your meal may alter nutritional info.
My problem with the above is that restaurants have now taken the step to REMOVE the information completely, which I think is really wrong.
I agree that it's wrong--but it's what happens when you pass stupid laws with huge loopholes. Businesses figure out the obvious way to avoid the stupid law. And then the law winds up hurting far more people than it could possibly help.
Where you and I disagree, I think, is this: You see it as a problem with the business, I see it as a problem with the law.
See, before the law was enacted, the information was readily available. Now it is not. So tell me, what has the law helped?
This is reason number 3,867 why I am a Libertarian.
I think the food police need to stay out of it - there are too many laws. Be responsible and don't expect everyone else to do your work for you. The only way restaurant nutrition could be consistent would for every restaurant to be supplied from a commissary so the ingredients could be controlled. More cookie cutter food. Nutrition of food varies greatly by how long it has been stored, how it has been prepared, where it was grown.
I think that they should have the information SOMEWHERE. I never realized how many calories are in some of these dishes at resteraunts--Even salads (Many over 1000 calories) before this became available. It has caused me to not eat at some of my favorite places. If you look at a menu for 1 of my top ten (P.F. Changs), there are 2000 calories in one of the dishes, and many are over 1000. I just would rather not go there and tempt myself with the stuff.
I think that they should have the information SOMEWHERE. I never realized how many calories are in some of these dishes at resteraunts--Even salads (Many over 1000 calories) before this became available. It has caused me to not eat at some of my favorite places. If you look at a menu for 1 of my top ten (P.F. Changs), there are 2000 calories in one of the dishes, and many are over 1000. I just would rather not go there and tempt myself with the stuff.
It is amazing how many calories some of these things have, isn't it? I know this is a tangent. But I remember back when Ruby Tuesday's had nutrition info printed on their menus, my hubby & I went & I was wondering how the heck one even gets 980+ calories into a hamburger!
We have a Fresh City in our town, and what's really neat is that they have a kiosk with their website up on it prior to you get to the ordering queue. So you can browse their whole menu with nutritionly information online, and then make your selection. I think this is a really neat way for restaurants to present their information. Rather than redoing every single menu to list calories, if major restaurants just had one little kiosk (and it doesn't have to be on a computer... it could just be a posterboard or something) so that people who care to make their selections based on nutitional information can do that without avoiding the restaurant completely.
I guess my point is that I think it's key that the nutitional content in somewhere within the physical restaurant. It's not always feasible to look up a restaurant's website and nutition info prior to leaving home.
It has caused me to not eat at some of my favorite places. If you look at a menu for 1 of my top ten (P.F. Changs), there are 2000 calories in one of the dishes, and many are over 1000. I just would rather not go there and tempt myself with the stuff.
P.F. Chang's is one of the few big chains I *WILL* eat at - because they do post all their nutritional info online (in a very handy, easy to use format). They do have some super high calorie choices, but they also have delicious reasonable calorie choices. I usually get the spinach, brown rice and Cantonese scallops - it's easily enough for dinner at the restaurant and lunch the next day.
P.F. Chang's is a good restaurant for me - it's a crowd pleaser (so I can fit in with people that don't want to eat especially healthy) and I can make good choices. I decide what I want online before I get there and I don't even open the menu! I'm not really tempted by the other stuff because I like what I do order - those scallops are TASTY.
3 Chains Pull Nutritional Info
) guess would be way off, because they do a lot of things to the food in restaurant kitchens that people never do when they cook at home. Common sense will only get you so far.
