Home > Table Talk > Archives > 2008 > March > 17 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USShould restaurants disclose calories on menus?
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
A couple of weeks ago, I picked up a breakfast menu at IHOP and looked at the section marked for special diets. Carb conscious, fewer fat grams and lower calorie choices were marked, which is more than I see on most restaurant menus.
But you couldn’t tell much about the food otherwise. The Big Breakfast Combo had less than 15 grams of carbs, but there was no information on calories or saturated fat (and with three strips of bacon, three sausage links, three ham slices and four eggs, you can bet there were plenty to be found).
The Garden Scramble had less than 600 calories in its omelet and two pancakes, but how much less? Was it 599 calories, or 210? And with just two breakfast items on the menu labeled as less than 600 calories, what kind of damage was I looking at from the dozens of other entrees?
If you were picking up those foods in a grocery store, you’d know, because of federal nutrition labeling requirements. In restaurants, you’re on your own.
Some cities and states have been considering menu labeling laws that would require nutrition disclosure. Last week, Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, introduced a bill that would require restaurants with more than 20 locations anywhere in America to include calories, fat and sodium content on menus for standard items. They’d also have to post calories on menu boards. (Daily specials and temporary menu items are exempt.)
His argument: Americans eat so many meals away from home, that restaurants ought to provide the same information available in supermarkets, so consumers can make informed choices.
The restaurant industry in general has opposed menu labeling laws as burdensome and unworkable, although a number of fast-food restaurants do provide complete information, if you go online to look for it.
Should restaurants disclose calories in what they’re serving you? Would you look at the information? If so, would it affect what you order?
Permalink | Comments (25) | Post your comment | Categories: Dining
.JPG)
-1.JPG)
Services »
Comments
By Charlie Foxtrot
March 17, 2008 11:06 AM | Link to this
More legislation will mean more lies on both sides. Of course restaurants shouldn’t be required to post nutritional info. If you want to give them a reason to post it, organize boycotts, hit them in their wallets and tell them you’ll come back if they post nutritional info. Financial incentives are the best way to get what one wants.
By One
March 17, 2008 11:38 AM | Link to this
And they should disclose health inspection scores, as well as where the meats/seafood comes from!!!
By jana
March 17, 2008 11:40 AM | Link to this
The majority of chain restaurants provide nutritional information on their websites. It wouldn’t be hard to also include this information on their menus.
As far as local restaurants, yes, it may be cost prohibitive for them to provide such information. However, if chain restaurants make this move, they will eventually follow suit.
Rather than legistlation to provide this, restaurants to should up and give us this information!
By CryBaby
March 17, 2008 11:47 AM | Link to this
As long as they also have someone to hold my hand when I go to the restroom. And wipe my mouth. And burp me after I finish eating.
By Debby
March 17, 2008 11:57 AM | Link to this
Just how is this going to be feasible for the mom and pop restaurants? Ridiculous! Any calorie-conscious person should know what foods to avoid.
By KJ
March 17, 2008 12:34 PM | Link to this
I started a diet two years ago, lost 70 lbs watching my calories. And now I tell people that dieting is addictive. You become obsessed with how many calories are in your food! While I do think it may help people realize what they are putting in their bodies, I don’t think it will stop them from doing it. When people go out to eat, they say they want to “indulge”, even if that means indulging five times a week. For those of you that want to know the calorie content, there are other ways to find it. Calorieking.com gives the menu from almost any restaurant you can come up with. And believe me, once you know how many calories are in your favorite foods, you will wish you didn’t!
By Rodney
March 17, 2008 12:53 PM | Link to this
I am opposed to this, but not for any anti-governance or cost-prohibitive reasons …
I’m against this because menus at restaurants are too big already. Physical size, not content. If restos are required to include nutritional information on everything on the menu, they’ll (the menus) be the size of encyclopedias!
Why can’t the restaurant publish the information on a separate document and have it available on request? If you’re concerned about the calories in a meal, you can ask to see the nutritional info pages and the server can bring it to you.
That way, you uber-dieters aren’t forcing the rest of us to wrench a wrist out of sorts by hefting a 10lb menu around the table!
By Voice of Reason
March 17, 2008 1:40 PM | Link to this
I think fast food joints should have that info readily visible and available. But if I’m going out to dinner at a nice place, I want to just enjoy my meal and not worry about how many calories, how many carbs, etc. We all know creme brulee or whatever has calories and fat. Fine! Don’t ruin my meal. Eat, drink and be merry. Calorie counting be damned! That’s why I’m no loner a size 10. :-)
But, if you listen to the news, etc., who really knows WHAT to eat! It’s all genetic. My mother lived until 89 and was fat all the 50-plus years I knew her. I’m almost feeling like…I can’t worry about this anymore.
By Voice of Reason
March 17, 2008 1:40 PM | Link to this
I think fast food joints should have that info readily visible and available. But if I’m going out to dinner at a nice place, I want to just enjoy my meal and not worry about how many calories, how many carbs, etc. We all know creme brulee or whatever has calories and fat. Fine! Don’t ruin my meal. Eat, drink and be merry. Calorie counting be damned! That’s why I’m no longer a size 10. :-)
But, if you listen to the news, etc., who really knows WHAT to eat! It’s all genetic. My mother lived until 89 and was fat all the 50-plus years I knew her. I’m almost feeling like…I can’t worry about this anymore.
By Rodney
March 17, 2008 2:11 PM | Link to this
I agree, VofR, that genetics probably play a large role in who lives and who dies.
My paternal Grandfather lived to be 94 years old, smoked cigars, ate pig ears (and a whole mess of other nasty things) and was active up until he finally passed away.
My maternal Grandmother is STILL kicking at 84, frying pork chops and turnips cooked with ham and biscuits and sugary sweet tea. She drives herself to town (quite well, actually) and is even helping my mother plant potatoes in their garden today!
It’s not what you eat (barring any diabetes or gastric intolerance) so much as how much of it you eat at a serving and how sedentary your lifestyle is.
By Carol Millman
March 17, 2008 2:15 PM | Link to this
Have we all gone completely insane - can we no longer think or do for ourselves?! I DO NOT feel restaurants should have to give out calorie, fat or whatever. When I dine out I usually know what I want and I’m pretty sure of the ingredients and I eat. I do not want calories and fat thrown at me. I know what I’m eating and it isn’t like I eat it everyday. Grow up people - think for yourselves!! Although, I do agree with one already posted comment - I also think restaurants should post their health inspections in the window.
By John
March 17, 2008 2:19 PM | Link to this
I can’t imagine why you’d need to know such trivia when dining out. At what break point do you decide whether to have the Big Breakfast or the Garden Scramble?
I’ve had the unfortunate experience of eating out with people who were counting calories and / or Weight Wathcer Points. What a drag on polite adult conversation that was!
By ron
March 17, 2008 2:23 PM | Link to this
O.k.,sweetheart.You need carb and calorie information on your food.Stay home and cook it.Hint:The big breakfast is more than any human needs.Another hint:Restaurants deep fry food.They use butter.They use saturated fat.They use salt.They pre-cook french fries and finish them off when you order so it’s faster.There’s enough grease in a normal french fry to clog an artery.If you’re on a diet trying to restrict carbs,calories,sodium,nuts,or anything such as that,stay home.
By that's just crazy
March 17, 2008 3:01 PM | Link to this
I think this is going a bit too far. Probably 1% of the public cares about this type of information, the other 99% just goes out to enjoy their food and not worry like the obsessive dieters, chronic health issues or narcissistic OCD sufferers. Common sense would dictate to watch what you eat, drizzle instead of drench syrup and salad dressing, and eat moderate portions. Those with a chronic health issue are usually pretty savvy too and go in knowing what they’re going to order. Some restaurants such as Applebee’s and others already have calories of certain items disclosed on the menu. We are going off the deep end in this country and are things really getting better?
By BossLady
March 17, 2008 3:04 PM | Link to this
Don’t you know what the low and high calorie foods are by now? We’ve only been taught that for decades. If you are interested eat lots of fruits/vegetables, grains and white meats, fish, chicken breast, pork loin. Avoid sodium, trans fat and starches. Have potassium, bananas and baked potatoes. Drink water instead of soda and fruit juices. Grill or broil instead of fry/boil
By Moderation
March 17, 2008 3:07 PM | Link to this
If a person is really concerned and the calories aren’t disclosed, then share an entree or divide it in half when it first comes and put the rest in a box to take home. Everyone knows portions are too big anyway so just don’t eat the whole plate. And an entree with three meats - bacon, sausage and ham - is just a heart attack waiting to happen and should not be eaten by someone who is health conscious anyway. The amount of sodium would kill a small town. Or eat one pancake (they’re usually huge) and one piece of each type of meat. Moderation, people, moderation.
By Jana
March 17, 2008 4:01 PM | Link to this
Why all the hostility against disclosing how many calories are in something? It wouldn’t take much to print in the menu, just a number beside the item name.
If everyone is complaining how fat america is, isn’t this a good place to start helping people know what they put in their bodies?
Besides, its hard to know whether that meal your eating is 1,000 calories or 3,000.
By majority rules here
March 17, 2008 4:29 PM | Link to this
Dear Jana: That’s the minority ruling the majority, and in this country the majority rules. A majority of the public is not interested. If you care, then go see a dietician to educate yourself about portions, etc. and healthier choices when eating out. Don’t put the ball in the restaurants’ court, they are in business to make money and they have enough to do already trying to please difficult customers, health inspectors, food critics, etc.
By Susan Hyatt
March 17, 2008 4:34 PM | Link to this
I wish all restuarants were required to disclose nutritional information. For those of us that need/want to count calories, I would make my decision on what to order using the nutritional information. I have used the internet to look up nutrition information and have based my ordering decisions on information provided. Many restaurants do not include this information on their websites.
By Dan
March 17, 2008 4:38 PM | Link to this
Jana I disagree with the whole idea simply on the basis of less laws are a good thing. However from a pragmatic point of view, fast food places are very precise about how much of each ingredient there is per serving. Real restaurants are a completely different matter, If you claim something is X calories and it isn’t you have a legal problem if you never make the claim not problem and in real restaurants there is diff calories and fat content in every dish (even the same menu items) and what if someone orders extra sauce, or mayo. Will they have to sign a waiver. This is a perfect example of political correctness and nanny state laws run amok.
By WTF?
March 17, 2008 6:52 PM | Link to this
I don’t want the government to get involved but it would be nice if restaurants had that info printed on a separate menu.
It is helpful for those who may want to indulge in foods they don’t normally eat to know what their intake is. Having just started weight watchers a few months ago I agree counting calories (points) gets addictive & now I’m searching for calorie/fat/fiber info all the time & have not eaten at a few resturants cuz they didn’t have that info available.
But admittedly if I really wanted to eat somewhere it didn’t stop me, I just guesstimated & cut back on my food intake on other days.
It should be mandatory at least in fast food restaurants where the menus never change (yes you can see that info on “most” websites, not all). Sit down restaurants that change menus often will be harder to do.
By Nickie
March 18, 2008 9:25 AM | Link to this
Most of the fast food places in my area have the calorie/carb/sodium,/etc chart on a bulletin board in the ordering area. Look for it if you need it.
By Aurora
March 18, 2008 9:51 AM | Link to this
IF restaurants posted calories, fat grams, etc. their business would be reduced to 50%.
I very rarely go to restaurants only because the food is so unhealthy, and extremely expensive and they just pile it on your plate. I can cook at home for less than 1/2 the cost of going out, and my meals are much healthier.
Of course, it’s always nice to have someone else cook, deliver my meal to me, and clean everything up every once in a while. To me, that’s a treat/luxury. But given the choice, I’d rather cook at home.
By John
March 18, 2008 10:50 AM | Link to this
I don’t expect a nutritional meal when I go out to eat. From the looks of a lot of my fellow diners, their not too concerned about their health/nutritional intake.
By Margo
March 18, 2008 11:17 AM | Link to this
Most people (78% in national polls) want nutrition information at chain restaurants. Yet, half of chains don’t provide any nutrition information to their customers.
Without nutrition information, it’s tough to compare options and make informed choices. How can you know that the tuna sandwich at a typical deli has 50% more calories than a roast beef sandwich? Or the Tendercrisp Chicken Sandwich (790 calories) has more calories than a Whopper (670 calories) at Burger King?
If companies can provide information on the fuel-efficiency of cars and care instructions for clothing, why not nutrition information — which many people need not only to manage their weight, but also their heart disease, diabetes, or high blood pressure? Too many people’s health depends on being able to make informed choices about what they eat for restaurants to keep this important health info from them.