Should they be required or not? Maybe just for restaurants that gross a certain amount?

With obesity rates climbing (20-30% for most states) to high rates, and the high cost to our health care system for the care of obese patients, shouldn't we mandate at least minimal nutrition information appear on the menus of at least the larger restaurants? Certainly they have the resources to do so...and if the onion rings cost $.35 more as a result so be it.

Of course the pure free market guys will say, "let the market decide. if consumers want nutrition labels on their menus they'll demand it and won't go to a restaurant until they adopt the labels." the problem with that thinking is most people aren't committed enough to boycott a restaurant...and there is the larger public good to think about. i'm sure if business had their way, we wouldn't have nutritional labels on food at the grocery store...but I think we can all agree (except for the wackos) that those labels serve a good purpose, and its good that they were implemented.

Maybe even just have a separate nutritional menu and people can ask for, if not on the main menu. Fast food places do this...surely restaurants can too. What do you guys think?

9/12/2007 6:10:36 PM

Quote :

"shouldn't we mandate at least minimal nutrition information appear on the menus of at least the larger restaurants"

sure...right after we mandate exercise

9/12/2007 6:22:01 PM

The government does already mandate that nutritional information be available for all foods at all major restaurants upon request. The restaurants, particularly fast food chains like McDonalds, just have them tucked away from the menus (unless they're trying to advertise a food as being healthy).

[Edited on September 12, 2007 at 6:31 PM. Reason : correcting a verb conjugation.]

9/12/2007 6:30:51 PM

Quote :

"the problem with that thinking is most people aren't committed enough to boycott a restaurant..."

Doesn't sound much like an issue the government should be involved in then. If people are unwilling to invest their own time, money and effort into a cause, what right do they have to mandate that other people do so? Plus, what ^ said.

9/12/2007 6:42:12 PM

Quote :

"The government does already mandate that nutritional information be available for all foods at all major restaurants upon request. The restaurants, particularly fast food chains like McDonalds, just have them tucked away from the menus (unless they're trying to advertise a food as being healthy)."

fast food is easy enough...i'm talking about the outbacks, applebees, chilis etc of the world. but all/most other restaurants would be nice too. If ANY of those chain restaurants provide nutritional info for their entire menu thats news to me. what government law are you talking about?

9/12/2007 6:44:43 PM

Quote :

" Doesn't sound much like an issue the government should be involved in then. If people are unwilling to invest their own time, money and effort into a cause, what right do they have to mandate that other people do so? "

so you think the people of this country should have boycotted buying things at grocery stores until nutritional labels were added to the products there?

common
public
good

ntm health care costs for us all

9/12/2007 6:46:24 PM

When people go to a restaurant, they don't care about the nutritional information. If people cared about nutrition, they wouldn't be fat in the first place.

It would do absolutely nothing to have this information on the menu. However, they should be required to note any ingredients that could trigger a food allergy (this is already done though, I assume).

9/12/2007 6:46:46 PM

When people go out, they don't care about nutrition?????????? WTF?

I eat out periodically. I have to make an educated guess at the calories, protien, fat, carb contents.


I like the idea.

9/12/2007 6:54:12 PM

When MOST people go out, aka, the Typical American.

It doesn't make sense, IMO, to force businesses to do this with the gov.'s hand, just so satisfy a relatively small amt. of the population. Especially since a lot of smaller restaurants would be unable to easily accurately figure out what nutrients are in their food.

9/12/2007 7:03:17 PM

It is never the individual's for being fat. It has to be the restaurants, trans fats, and everything else, never the person.

9/12/2007 7:09:04 PM

^That's just not true.

I would argue that most fat folks recognize the part they played in their condition.

9/12/2007 7:18:06 PM

This is not really a huge burden on restaurants, so I don't mind any such law requiring this info to be posted.

9/12/2007 7:24:21 PM

I think you've got a piss poor argument for what's a rather good idea.
It would be nice if yes, restaurants provided that information.
I dont see a problem with legislation require it because it shouldnt be that big of a deal to my knowledge.

However health care costs or buisness conspiracy are both poor reasons to argue for it.
Freedom of information/choice is a better one if you ask me.

9/12/2007 7:58:28 PM

Quote :

"The restaurants, particularly fast food chains like McDonalds, just have them tucked away from the menus (unless they're trying to advertise a food as being healthy)."

except that they are, you know, on the back of EVERY placemat

note: ruby tuesdays USED to do this but stopped. i wonder if it is because people stopped eating some of their signature items like their huge burger (was like 100g fat and 1100 calories).

it was pretty nice when they did though

[Edited on September 12, 2007 at 9:01 PM. Reason : ..]

9/12/2007 8:59:16 PM

Quote :

"When MOST people go out, aka, the Typical American. It doesn't make sense, IMO, to force businesses to do this with the gov.'s hand, just so satisfy a relatively small amt. of the population. Especially since a lot of smaller restaurants would be unable to easily accurately figure out what nutrients are in their food."

You don't know dick about "MOST" people.

I think it would go a long way to getting people to understand what is going into their bodies. It isn't at all intuitive to the average unenlightened individual just how bad certain things are for them. You'll get some people it doesn't matter at all, some people will start to be curious, and not care, some will care, etc etc. It would be a bell curve distribution of effect on the population.

I'm not fat, and I know I would love having the information handy when I am at a restaurant to help me decide on what to go with.

Having said that, this isn't a cost free task. New menus will cost money, and I don't really like the government forcing a business to implement it. I do think it is a good compromise to give them a period of time to roll this in. That way, as part of the normal menu replacement/changing process, it can be implemented so that the cost impact is minimized.

9/12/2007 9:32:37 PM

Well the problem is most restaurants aren't like mcdonald's or store-bought-food. Food is prepared at the discretion of the chef, so if he is feeling generous there may be more cheese or steak cuts aren't the exact same size.

Also, me personally, I would rather not have that nutrition information cluttering up my menu. I would prefer not to know that my meal has 2300 calories or whatever.

9/12/2007 9:58:10 PM

They can get close enough, these people work with food all day long, don't act like they don't know what they are dealing with.

If I can look at one dish and see that it is ~50grams of fat, and another that is ~20 grams of fat, if they are both +-5 gram accuracy, thats close enough for me.

9/12/2007 10:07:20 PM

I can see it now...

The Department of Homeland Obesity.

9/12/2007 10:24:20 PM

You libertarians and your fear.

9/12/2007 10:25:08 PM

^^ haha

9/12/2007 10:32:43 PM

I could care less, but that's b/c I rarely eat fast food.

I'm not down with it costing more either. That's silly.

9/12/2007 10:40:56 PM

Quote :

"Well the problem is most restaurants aren't like mcdonald's or store-bought-food. Food is prepared at the discretion of the chef, so if he is feeling generous there may be more cheese or steak cuts aren't the exact same size. Also, me personally, I would rather not have that nutrition information cluttering up my menu. I would prefer not to know that my meal has 2300 calories or whatever. "

Yeah there would be extra cost in testing all the food to figure out the prepared fat content.

You can pretty much assume if you are eating at a restaurant the fat content is horrible. If you want to remain thin you are gonna have to make your own food or get with someone that likes to cook and knows how to make good healthy meals.

People don't choose restaurants based on nutrition info, if someone is going to go drop 9-20 bucks on a meal out they want that shit to taste better than something they could have thrown together at home. If the restaurant has to immerse it in butter/grease or use the fattiest meat they can find thats what they are gonna do. Thats what the market has always demanded and thats why we are all fat asses.

Maybe we should know more about what we eat but at the end of the day if it tastes good its probably gonna cause a heart attack and if its healthy probably gonna taste like card board. You really cant have both.

9/12/2007 10:57:53 PM

Quote :

"If people cared about nutrition, they wouldn't be fat in the first place. "

If the restaurant wants to do it, they should. They should be able to choose what goes on in the business they own. If the business owner doesn't want to, they shouldn't be forced to do it against their will.

9/13/2007 12:58:01 AM

there's a reason restaurants don't offer this information freely

just like there's a reason cigarettes don't say "THIS WILL INCREASE YOUR ODDS OF BEING DIAGNOSED WITH LUNG CANCER" on the box

srsly

9/13/2007 1:08:16 AM

Quote :

"skokiaanThis is not really a huge burden on restaurants, so I don't mind any such law requiring this info to be posted"

Sure, until they get sued because their food doesn't exactly match their nutritional data. And yes their will be lawsuits. This is just helping us go down the road of making good food illegal.

Quote :

"synapse common public good ntm health care costs for us all "

... yeah that's great, you probably think that 8 year olds belong in car seats as well. After all it reduces the health care costs for us all. Maybe if we let people pay for their own health care then we could mind our own damn business.

9/13/2007 1:23:00 AM

Quote :

"It is never the individual's for being fat. It has to be the restaurants, trans fats, and everything else, never the person."

Quote :

"^That's just not true. I would argue that most fat folks recognize the part they played in their condition."

just totally missed that sarcasm did we?

9/13/2007 2:45:14 AM

Quote :

"The Department of Homeland Obesity."

In all seriousness, I'd rather we have this, than Homeland Security. Fat people are a greater threat to this country than terrorists every were or will be.

9/13/2007 6:55:32 AM

THANK YOU MOTHER CAN I HAVE ANOTHER?

Quote :

"Nutrition Labels on Menus at Resturants"

should be 100% voluntary. Period.

This nanny state crap has got to end.

Quote :

"Maybe if we let people pay for their own health care then we could mind our own damn business."

Quote :

"Maybe if we let people pay for their own health care then we could mind our own damn business."

Quote :

"Maybe if we let people pay for their own health care then we could mind our own damn business."

Quote :

"Maybe if we let people pay for their own health care then we could mind our own damn business."

9/13/2007 8:04:02 AM

Quote :

"Sure, until they get sued because their food doesn't exactly match their nutritional data. And yes their will be lawsuits. This is just helping us go down the road of making good food illegal."

Yeah right. Where is this epidemic of lawsuits since many restaurants already provide this information?

9/13/2007 9:12:53 AM

companies should be required to present their ingredients and nutritional information for those that want it. they shouldnt' have to put it on the menu, but it should be readily available.

9/13/2007 9:17:15 AM

^^ the tide of public opinion has yet to sway enough to make these sort of lawsuits stick. Just like lawsuits against Tobacco only became possible lately now that just about everybody views "Big Tobacco" as evil.

9/13/2007 11:36:30 AM

Quote :

"at the end of the day if it tastes good its probably gonna cause a heart attack and if its healthy probably gonna taste like card board. You really cant have both."

Doesn't have to be true, at least not the second half.

**********************************************

I like this idea. Food manufacturers are required by law to have certain minimum nutritional info on their packages. So why can't there be a law making it mandatory for restaurants also?

Those saying that people would not look at the info... you would be surprised at how many *will* look at it, and make use of it.

A law can easily be introduced, giving owners some amount of time to do it, say 3 years. Any restaurant owner can spend the money required to hire an outside lab to come in and analyze their food, over 3 years.

Quote :

"Food is prepared at the discretion of the chef, so if he is feeling generous there may be more cheese or steak cuts aren't the exact same size. "

That's not a real objection. I am sure a degree of accuracy (say, +-5%) could be specified on the menu. And standard meals prepared by a restaurant are usually pretty unifom over time. Of course, there should be a disclaimer on the menu that any customer mods to the dish could make the nutritional info not applicable, depending on the level of mods.

9/13/2007 4:29:04 PM

hey, here's an idea...

instead of mandating that fast food places tell us what we already know (their food aint healthy), why don't we try something different? People claim we should address obesity because its costs affect us all, right? So, why don't we just make the cost of obesity actually affect the people that are obese? You know, by removing the requirement that hospitals have to treat people, even if they can't pay? Nix medicare/medicaid coverage for obese people except in extreme circumstances. Then, either the fat people lose weight, lose all their money on medical care and thus lose weight, or they die. Problem solved. AND, health care costs go down, because a SERVICE (not a right) is no longer mandated to be given without payment.

9/13/2007 7:47:31 PM

Do the obese or even moderately overweight have to pay more in premiums than we do?

I like the way ^ this guy is thinking.

But where do you draw the line?

9/13/2007 7:55:02 PM

^^ i like that thinking.

Quote :

"instead of mandating that fast food places tell us what we already know "

no one is talking about fast food places. in fact, fast food places HAVE nutrition info available to the public. we are talking about every restaurant out there. chain or independent, fast food or sit down, fancy or cheap.

9/13/2007 8:23:02 PM

do they pay more? well, do I pay more for being a smoker or an alcoholic?

and where do I draw the line? well, super extreme cases, where the weight gain is not the result of simply not taking care of one's self. Jerry Lewis's case comes to mind.

9/13/2007 9:10:06 PM

I mean where do you draw the line on rate increases. Should those active in mountain biking, road biking, flag football have to pay more too?

9/13/2007 10:18:28 PM

hey, if a company wants to charge itself out of existence, then that is its problem. getting fatties off the public dime will only serve to drive down prices anyway, thus making insurance pointless

9/13/2007 10:52:29 PM

Quote :

"Yeah there would be extra cost in testing all the food to figure out the prepared fat content. "

I don't think you'd have to "test" most things. a cup of wholegrain pasta has certain stats, 2 tablespoons of heavy cream has certain stats, 1 large tomato has certain stats. add the shit up and you're good, within a percentage of accuracy.

Quote :

"if someone is going to go drop 9-20 bucks on a meal out they want that shit to taste better than something they could have thrown together at home"

thats obviously how you feel, but thats not how all people feel. many people diet. many people try to NOT clog their arteries up with shit. many people would like this information to be available so they know what they're putting into their bodies.

Quote :

"Sure, until they get sued because their food doesn't exactly match their nutritional data. And yes their will be lawsuits. This is just helping us go down the road of making good food illegal."

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html

Quote :

"you probably think that 8 year olds belong in car seats as well."

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

Quote :

"Maybe if we let people pay for their own health care then we could mind our own damn business"

Are you suggesting we get rid of group health insurance buying? every person buys insurance directly from the blue crosses of the world...instead of everyone at my work coming together into a group and buying insurance at a discount? i don't think you understand how our health care system works.

Quote :

"It is never the individual's for being fat. It has to be the restaurants, trans fats, and everything else, never the person"

Nobody is blaming anyone. We just want to be able to go out to dinner and know what we're putting into our bodies. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

Quote :

"companies should be required to present their ingredients and nutritional information for those that want it. they shouldnt' have to put it on the menu, but it should be readily available."

exactly.

Quote :

"You know, by removing the requirement that hospitals have to treat people, even if they can't pay"

We're a civilized society. Granted hospitals won't perform extravagant procedures for people who can't pay, but we don't kick them out to die behind the dumpster either.

Quote :

"do they pay more?"

I would assume/hope they do if theyre buying their own plan. But if they're part of a group plan (like most people), then no. Everyone pays the same...though everyone in that group pays more because of the fat asses' over consumption of health care.

9/13/2007 10:54:47 PM

Quote :

"hey, if a company wants to charge itself out of existence, then that is its problem. getting fatties off the public dime will only serve to drive down prices anyway, thus making insurance pointless"

Your argument doesn't hold water. Why would they charge fatties more then, wouldn't they be charging themselves out of existence?

9/14/2007 8:23:47 AM

Quote :

"Of course the pure free market guys will say, "let the market decide. if consumers want nutrition labels on their menus they'll demand it and won't go to a restaurant until they adopt the labels." the problem with that thinking is most people aren't committed enough to boycott a restaurant...and there is the larger public good to think about. "

There's no problem. And free market doesn't work the way you are proposing.

It's not that people will boycott, it's that restaurants will do it when it becomes a competitive advantage (ie when they can make more money, versus ensuring they dont make less).

Shit like this is exactly the type of thing we need to eliminate from our governmental bodies. All it does is cost everyone more money. It doesn't drive businesses to make healthier food, or drive people to eat healthier food.

Fast food has had mandatory nutrition for years, and it's neither slowed their use or changed their menus (except for the lame ass McDonald attempt)

Quote :

"We just want to be able to go out to dinner and know what we're putting into our bodies. "

Then when YOU go out to eat, buy two of your meal, go home, run it through a calorimeter and post it. This could easily be a HUGE market opportunity for a company to process menu's for thousands of smaller restaurants.

It however is not the domain of our government. The ONLY involvement they should be having in restaurants is to ensure the ingredients and operating procedures are sanitary and safe. It's the individual's choice to go out and eat in the first place, the restaurant has no responsibility to live up to YOUR personal nutritional choices.

If you are on a diet, that's YOUR choice, and what foods you allow yourself to eat is YOUR choice. The restaurant shouldn't be required to adhere to YOUR restrictions.

[Edited on September 16, 2007 at 8:57 PM. Reason : .]

9/16/2007 8:52:09 PM

^Yeah, I gotta agree. If you're that concerned with what you're putting in your body, then make your food yourself.

I think it's pretty much understood that most food prepared for you is loaded with all sorts of "bad" stuff...because the food tastes better that way (for the most part). The taste of butter, for example, is downright visceral...we are biologically designed to love butter. Taste test after taste test have shown that people fucking love butter and butter fat in their food. And restaurants are in the business of making tasty food to keep people coming back.

There are health food restaurants, and folks should feel free to patronize those establishments, but it's out and out foolish to ask Applebees/TGIFridays/Chilis/etc... to put nutrition facts on fucking fried mozarella sticks.

9/16/2007 9:14:57 PM

i wouldnt mind knowing what i'm putting in my body when i go to a restaurant


it would probably influence what i pick to eat...but i dont go to restaurants that often..

9/16/2007 10:40:14 PM

Quote :

"If you are on a diet, that's YOUR choice, and what foods you allow yourself to eat is YOUR choice. The restaurant shouldn't be required to adhere to YOUR restrictions."

This is true. However, a consumer would need the restaurant's nutritional information in order to make the appropriate choice.

9/16/2007 10:46:31 PM

no they don't. They can CHOOSE from the restaurants that CHOOSE to post their nutritional information. There are millions that do voluntarily. There is NO shortage of healthy options to eat out. It's completely ridiculous to require it, when the industry has already self-regulated itself.

You would be imposing significant overhead to the people it would hurt the most, namely small, single location restaurants. Like almost all government regulations on industry, it hurts the small guys and serves to further consolidate the industry.

9/17/2007 12:56:38 AM

9/17/2007 1:04:48 AM

^^ in adition to that, if you doubt that restraunts would provide that sort of information voluntarily you need only look at the abundance of restraunts advertising and switching to food items with "0 trans fat". No law or regulation requires it (except perhaps in california), just the demands of the people.

9/17/2007 6:18:29 AM

Quote :

"I would prefer not to know that my meal has 2300 calories or whatever."

Ha. Ignorance is bliss.

You know that triple cheeseburger is really bad for you...
[sticks fingers in ears] LA LA LA LA LA LA LA [/sticks fingers in ears] Continues to eat.

Quote :

"Are you suggesting we get rid of group health insurance buying? every person buys insurance directly from the blue crosses of the world...instead of everyone at my work coming together into a group and buying insurance at a discount? i don't think you understand how our health care system works."

I'd love it if they worked it out so that the obese/smoking/heavy drinking people paid more into the group coverage than the people that aren't fat, don't smoke, exercise, etc. Currently the obese on these plans get monetary incentives to do next to nothing to better their situation while the people that are already doing things that keep them fit get absolutely nothing - other than the benefit of not being fat in the first place.

Our group plan has several benefits for the overweight person. Free counseling, $100 if you are overweight as defined by these terms and you walk x number of steps per week, etc. I'd much rather see a plan that called for $25 less premium per month if your BMI (or whatever standard is the current fad of the year) is lower than x. That way the people that are doing what they are supposed to be doing are getting some monetary benefit and the overweight have the lower premium as an incentive.

Of course if they started doing that then people would probably want them to start doing it based on age, family history, etc. thereby defeating the purpose of group coverage.

[Edited on September 17, 2007 at 8:51 AM. Reason : -]

9/17/2007 8:38:12 AM

Quote :

"You would be imposing significant overhead to the people it would hurt the most, namely small, single location restaurants. Like almost all government regulations on industry, it hurts the small guys and serves to further consolidate the industry."

perhaps you missed:

Quote :

"Should they be required or not? Maybe just for restaurants that gross a certain amount?"

Quote :

"shouldn't we mandate at least minimal nutrition information appear on the menus of at least the larger restaurants?"

Quote :

"i'm talking about the outbacks, applebees, chilis etc of the world."

Quote :

"They can CHOOSE from the restaurants that CHOOSE to post their nutritional information. There are millions that do voluntarily"

Millions of restaurants do this? Obviously fast food places have this available...but what restaurants are you referring to? Applebees provides limited nutritional information for a small section of their menu, but that barely counts.

Quote :

"Taste test after taste test have shown that people fucking love butter and butter fat in their food"

It has nothing to do with butter, it has to do with fat, in general...and sugar, and sodium.

9/19/2007 1:29:35 PM

What about small locally owned places like the farmers market? Should they be held to these rediculus standards!

9/19/2007 1:43:07 PM