The Menu Education and Labeling Act would require fast-food and other chain restaurants to post calories on menu boards and food display tags.


I am SO excited about this. It would really make life easier for us and healthier for everyone else.

I posted this on another thread that considered the question of nutritional labelling for restaurants and menus, so I've reposted it below. I think that the idea is good, what is actually happening when labelling is required shows how far we have to go in this area.
While nutritional information is available, it is OFTEN INACCURATE. The numbers can be posted, but there is variation between orders due to the hand-made nature of the items.
Starbucks and Dunkin Donuts got into trouble over this: a news agency actually tested the food to see how close the nutritional info was to the actual item, and there was up to a 50% variation:

http://www.nrn.com/breakingNews.aspx?id=364150

According to the WCBS-TV report, Starbucks’ blueberry muffin was labeled as having 420 calories, but after testing was found to have 580 calories, approximately 40 percent more than the listed amount.

In addition, the investigation found the chain’s peach apple tart was labeled as having 120 calories, but really had 280.

and

“Accurate calorie postings are the responsibility of restaurant chains,” the department said in a written statement. “Under the health code, each chain must have a sound scientific basis for the information it posts. When questions arise about accuracy, restaurants must show that their calorie counts come from a verifiable source, such as a laboratory or a nutritional database. Any restaurant that cannot provide a sound basis for its calorie information will be cited for a health code violation.”


AND

http://www.clickorlando.com/money/17967339/detail.html which looked at Applebees, and found

The Macaroni Grill skinny chicken is supposed to be 500 calories but had 931, tests showed. The simple salmon was posted as having less than 600 calories, but tested for 1,266 calories.




Also
http://www.allbusiness.com/retail-tr.../758888-1.html

Nutritional facts listed on a restaurant's Web site or brochure are generally not completely accurate and list several disclaimers for consumers.

So, I think this information is great as a guideline and helps me decide what to have, but I don't think it will deter anyone from ordering, say, the Domino's Bread Bowl. And especially since a restaurant can post anything and the regulators don't conduct the testing, it takes the intervention and testing of these items by investigative reporters, for example, to bring these problems to light...

Kira

I realize it isn't perfect, but it is definitely a step in the right direction.

I think that the variants, big or small, make these counts less usable for calorie counters...just too many kitchen variables to know whether you're getting that exact amount to log. I think posting the info is actually more useful for NON calorie counters, people who know that 6 dollar avocado bacon chili burger is bad, but don't know HOW bad. Early reports from food vendors in NYC have indicated that sales have gone down on the higher calorie items (which presumably, most of the calorie counters were avoiding anyway) when those calories are posted. Even people who don't know or care much about nutrition know that having 1600 calories in your giant burger and fries, and another 500 in your appetizer, isn't so great.

What DOES make this a benefit for calorie counters is that restaurants, having seen the sales fall on their high-calorie items when information is posted, have more incentive to provide lower calorie options, which makes eating out easier, even if the exact numbers aren't correct.

I totally agree that this is a step in the right direction.
And I sure hope you are right, Ms Mandalinn! Your post says it quite well, that different choices may be made if you just knew how BAD some of this stuff was for you...

The Outback's Bloomin Onion was developed in 1988, and since it was put on the market it has sold over 133 MILLION of these making around 13 million sold EVERY year!!!: http://www.reuters.com/article/press...08+PRN20080310

The Bloomin Onion's nutritional information:http://www.thedailyplate.com/nutriti.../bloomin-onion
2310 calories: 134g fat: 241g carbs: 35g protein.
Yikes!!!

I wonder how sales would be affected if this info was put on the menu beside the photo of the Bloomin Onion...

Kira

I also think it will help people who think they are heating healthy because its a chicken sandwich over a hamburger. Even a grilled chicken sandwhich can have a ton more calories than you think because of the cheese and sauce they put on it. People get salads because they think the word "salad" means you are eating healthy. But when they put the bacon and cheese and blue cheese dressing on it, its acutally worse than the burger would have been. So I think it will help people who may want to make the healthier decision but don't really know how.