http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/125/2/244

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/100/2/312

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a933637419

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/100/6/1035

What are the chances we see Tom devote a post talking about these new studies which disconfirm his prior-held belief? My guess? 0%.

I apologize for my previous position on menu laws. You are 100% correct as always, Marcus. Clearly these studies prove that when labels encourage people to eat less during a restaurant single meal (especially the study in which the total dropped by a stunning 15 calories per entree on average), that automatically translates to people eating less throughout the week and losing weight. This of course explains why the 1990s laws requiring nutrition labels and recommended daily intakes on all packaged food products led to such a dramatic reduction in obesity.

“Nutrition and public health experts said the findings showed how hard it was to change behavior, but they said it was not a reason to abandon calorie posting.”

In other words, they know it’s hard to change behavior, and prove it by refusing to change their behavior! Recursive Fail! Ha!

Looking forward to getting a copy of your film! (I just ordered it on Amazon)

I’m going to go against the grain here a little bit and say that more information is not a bad thing. The idea behind providing calorie counts may not be working yet, but I think there are quite a few factors at play here:

1) Most people (as you mentioned), at McDonalds are not consciously trying to reduce their caloric intake, and they don’t know how many calories they should have to lose weight. If we use the premise of FatHead vs SuperSize Me, the primary difference was your daily caloric intake, right? Macronutrient ratios aside, if there was a 3000 calorie difference between your diet and Spurlocks, having the calories on the menu would save you quite a bit of extra work, to find this information and total it up. If you think that this is a small amount of work, I’d argue that any additional work to find the nutritional information for the average consumer (even me, who is not the average), is too much. We simply can’t expect every consumer to go to the internet and look these up before going to lunch. So in theory, the idea isn’t totally off base.

2) I recently found a menu for the Cheesecake Factory that listed all the calorie counts. I was shocked to see that the two of the tuna dishes on the menu were well over 1600 calories. Now this information can often show that even our intuition can be way off at times, and it actually might serve to hold restaurants more accountable for the types of meals they are serving. Portion sizes are amongst the biggest problems today, and perhaps if part of the responsibility was placed upon the restaurant, the consumer wouldn’t have to be so informed all the time. So, while I can understand the resistance to more regulation, I don’t see putting calorie counts on menus as something harmful.

3) Our decisions are made in a split second in many cases. We look at a menu and decide what we want to eat using the information we are given. Usually this is a photo, a description and price. You are right, for those who aren’t trying to lose or maintain a healthy weight, this information may go ignored, but for those who are (and there are a lot of people who are usually “dieting”), this info at the point of purchase is a game changer, IMO. It allows us one more piece of information to compare a Big Mac meal to a Cheeseburger meal, which sometimes is all we need to make that split second decision when were are fighting against temptation. I won’t say all the time, but at least it’s a tool on our side. And in this environment we need all the tools we can get!

So all of this assumes you buy into the notion that excess calories is causes most of the obesity problems — or would you prefer carbs to be listed? I would suggest that calories make more of a difference than carbs, despite the roll simple carbs may play in the issue.

I don’t think this idea is the end-all be all, but I think it is just another attempt to help consumers eat just a little less each day. A lot of things still need to change, so trial and error shouldn’t be too harshly criticized.

Just some food for thought (0 calories)!

I still have some problems with menu laws. For one, they’re clearly not changing eating behavior, as demonstrated by a recent study. That doesn’t surprise me, since people who are motivated to lose weight go find the info, and people who don’t aren’t motivated to lose weight.

But the other reason — the more important reason to me, as a libertarian who values freedom above all — is that it’s none of the government’s business, regardless of whether you or I think calorie counts displayed on menus are a good idea. I’d be against these laws even if people did respond to them by eating less. Health in this country would vastly improve if we outlawed sugar and HFCS, but I’d be against that law as well.

So, maybe something like this:
I’ll have the QP value meal.
Are you aware that the QP value meal contains 2,000 grams of saturated fat? People who eat 2,000 grams of saturated fat in a single meal may experience high blood pressure, heart palpitations, or erectile dysfunction… Is that OK?

I’m sure verbal warnings are on CSPI’s wish list.

I find it easy to avoid carbs, whether they’re listed or not. I just skip all sugar and starch. But yeah, sometimes at a ballgame, I make exceptions.

That will no doubt work the same wonders as the American Heart Association seal of approval here.

As an aside, I was in the MEN’S restroom of a well know chain restaurant and saw the warning sign about pregnant women consuming alcohol. Next time I use the restroom there, I’ll have to check for pregnant women first.

I can only imagine the conversation that led to that one … “And if the pregnant lady isn’t convinced by our sign, maybe we can get her boyfriend to take her drink away.”

I’m afraid you’re right … they can’t resist meddling.

And that cost will be passed on to the people who eat there.

Yup … I view politicians as being like the quack doctor who rushes in and bleeds the patient. The patient dies, and the quack says, “Well, at least I did something.”