Calories on Menus

[EL PRESIDENTE]

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2010/03/health_bill_calorie_count.html

By next year, chain restaurants across the country will have to post calorie information on their menus. You can't say we didn't warn you.

Part of the health care bill. Fuck that, when I'm dining out, I know its a gutbuster of a meal if I order some chicken fingers. I don't want to know about that shit on the menu!

 

[MickZagger]

Tough cookies.

 

[Denny Crane]

Those aren't calories, that 900 number is in dollars new taxes on that big mac you want to order.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

I can just imagine the carnage at the cheescake factory. It will also look rather ghey from a menu layout point of view.

 

[Eastoff]

It is only chains with more than 20 locations.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

cheescake factory! link says 200....maybe 20? who knows....I eat there once in a blue moon...maybe every other month.

 

[Eastoff]

Just to clarify "Waah I don't want to think about how many burgers I could have eaten instead of this piece of cheesecake"

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

"no menu please, I know what I want"
\

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

I wonder if they do this for soft drinks.

 

[Vacant.]

It is only chains with more than 20 locations.

That seems like such a small number. Should be much more.

 

[maxiep]

Once again, our government trying to look out for us. A nice thought, but another step toward a nanny state.

 

[The Professional Fan]

What are we, 8? This is fucking ridiculous.

 

[speeds]

Obesity...

 

[The Professional Fan]

Cool chart.

 

[tlongII]

Freaking stupid.

 

[maxiep]

If people wish to be fat, it's their choice.

 

[speeds]

If people wish to be fat, it's their choice.

Perhaps not consciously. Salads on menus, especially chicken Caesars and the like, can have surprisingly huge calorie totals. So can meals geared towards children.

Besides, many of these chains are already putting low-cal, low-carb sections on their menus. The changeover will hardly be noticeable.

The more information unhidden the better.

 

[maxiep]

Perhaps not consciously. Salads on menus, especially chicken Caesars and the like, can have surprisingly huge calorie totals. So can meals geared towards children.

Besides, many of these chains are already putting low-cal, low-carb sections on their menus. The changeover will hardly be noticeable.

The more information unhidden the better.

If you stop treating adults like children, then they'll perhaps behave like adults. More information is great, but not when it's mandated.

 

[Vacant.]

If you stop treating adults like children, then they'll perhaps behave like adults. More information is great, but not when it's mandated.

Or they'll abuse the freedom!

 

[speeds]

If you stop treating adults like children, then they'll perhaps behave like adults. More information is great, but not when it's mandated.

It already is mandated. The nutrition facts label is on virtually all packaged food and drink.

 

[Vacant.]

It already is mandated. The nutrition facts label is on virtually all packaged food and drink.

I don't see it on water, mate.

 

[maxiep]

It already is mandated. The nutrition facts label is on virtually all packaged food and drink.

Just a little bit more, just a little bit more...the nanny state is a warm embrace that turns into a choke hold.

If you desire to have the nutritional information presented to you, only frequent those restaurants who post it. If it's so popular, eventually everyone will do it.

 

[speeds]

I don't see it on water, mate.

On bottled water? There is one. Depends where you live I guess. I have one right now that has 0 for everything besides sodium (5mg/1%) and calcium (4%). It also has the PPM analysis on the side. Conversely I have a Vitamin Water bottle that has significantly less on it.

 

[Vacant.]

On bottled water? There is one. Depends where you live I guess. I have one right now that has 0 for everything besides sodium (5mg/1%) and calcium (4%). It also has the PPM analysis on the side. Conversely I have a Vitamin Water bottle that has significantly less on it.

Hehe, I was just pullin' your leg.

 

[speeds]

Hehe, I was just pullin' your leg.

Its hard to tell which posts are serious in this thread.

 

[Minstrel]

Just a little bit more, just a little bit more...the nanny state is a warm embrace that turns into a choke hold.

Honest question, maxiep, not snark: why is fighting obesity "nanny state" but fighting recreational drug use sound policy? In both cases, policy makers are trying to fight ill effects on society.

 

[Vacant.]

Its hard to tell which posts are serious in this thread.

The ones posted by Vacant are probably not.

 

[maxiep]

Honest question, maxiep, not snark: why is fighting obesity "nanny state" but fighting recreational drug use sound policy? In both cases, policy makers are trying to fight ill effects on society.

A couple of things. First, food is legal; drugs aren't. And although alcohol is legal, in excessive amounts it makes the other person dangerous when they get behind the wheel. No one caused an accident from excessive french fry eating. The only ill effects on society for obesity are to the individual. The ill effects for illegal drug use are borne by everyone, from increased crime to the damage impaired individuals do to others.

It's one of the fundamental reasons I'm against this health insurance bill. It takes what is a personal choice and makes it a societal one. Now, the fat person is a burden to society because they create excess health care costs. Before, that burden was borne specifically by the private insurance companies that chose to take them. And for the record, I think fat people, heavy drinkers, illegal drug users and other people with risky behavior should pay more. Instead of that, however, we're going to try to modify their behavior for the societal good. We're a nation of individuals.

 

[Vacant.]

A couple of things. First, food is legal; drugs aren't. And although alcohol is legal, in excessive amounts it makes the other person dangerous when they get behind the wheel. No one caused an accident from excessive french fry eating. The only ill effects on society for obesity are to the individual. The ill effects for illegal drug use are borne by everyone, from increased crime to the damage impaired individuals do to others.

It's one of the fundamental reasons I'm against this health insurance bill. It takes what is a personal choice and makes it a societal one. Now, the fat person is a burden to society because they create excess health care costs. Before, that burden was borne specifically by the private insurance companies that chose to take them. And for the record, I think fat people, heavy drinkers, illegal drug users and other people with risky behavior should pay more. Instead of that, however, we're going to try to modify their behavior for the societal good. We're a nation of individuals.

You could consider visual pollution an ill effect, no?

That is a very good point, Max.

 

[Minstrel]

A couple of things. First, food is legal; drugs aren't.

This is begging the question, though maybe my initial question was unclear. You support drugs being illegal, but I'm asking why making that illegal isn't "nanny state."

No one caused an accident from excessive french fry eating.

There's been no real evidence that anyone caused an accident from excessive pot usage, though. Essentially the only ill effects on society from marijuana usage is to the individual.

Yet, no one is suggesting making french fries illegal. You feel mandating posting the calorie count for them is excessive government regulation, but outright banning marijuana isn't. That seems surprising to me.