Food Comparasion

[GordonCooks]

Am I the only one that thinks this article is a little ridiculous ?

It's like comparing gas mileage between a Maserati and a Kia

[MissAmy]

That is stupid. No one eats the Per Se tasting menu every day. Conversely, there are plenty of people who eat McDonald's either every day or very frequently. I think the nation's waist line is not the result of too many gourmet tasting menus. Please.

[Tess]

It is a silly article, but I was somewhat interested to see the calorie breakdown. If anything, I was surprised to see that you could have the version without extras for only about half of lots of people's daily calorie intake to maintain weight.

[JohnL]

Not silly at all.

The point of the piece as I see it is to indicate how these laws --the one mandating restaurants list nutritional information on menus--are idiotic and discriminatory.

The fast food industry is being singled out.

The fact is, if this is a good thing--adding nutritional information-- then all restaurants should do it.

People do not eat the tasting menu at Per Se every day but many people frequent various higher (than McDonald's) end restaurants any number of times each week.

There is no reason that these moronic laws should cover only "select" establishments.

I have no problem with mandating that every restaurant provide nutritional information if requested.

The fact is, fats and calories taste good. Whether we are talking about a Big Mac or haute cuisine. Quality has nothing to do with the issue.

Fairs fair--if this is so important that the city is writing a law then that law should cover everyone.

[DTBarton]

There seems to be no end to the procession of people/groups who think they need to scold everyone about what they eat.

I'm sure there are people who are ignorant or apathetic or both about what they're ingesting, but most people know that when you eat in a restaurant, be it fast food or fancy, there's probably a good dose of fat, salt, calories, etc. because that stuff makes food taste good. We are not all a bunch of dumb hicks, thank you very much.

If anything, I was surprised that the 9 course menu only had 1230 calories. That works out to a paltry 137 calories per course.

[JohnL]

Unfortunately, this is going way beyond "scolding."

there's nothing wrong with scolding or making a case but when people don't respond in the manner the scolders would like them to, the next step is laws, bans, taxes, regulations etc.

More unfortunately, this results in a loss of freedom or choice and higher costs.

The law in question is a good example. The point of the piece linked is that these actions make no sense. If the do gooders behind them believe that it is so important that we have nutritional information about the food we eat in restaurants then it is important that all restaurants be forced to provide this information.

They don't dare go after higher end establishments because the political fall out that would result. In short, fast food restaurants are an easy target.

In the end, the cost of printing this info on menus etc will be passed along to the consumer who will continue to ignore the info and eat based upon their own criteria. As they have always done.

[Tess]

If anything, I was surprised that the 9 course menu only had 1230 calories.  That works out to a paltry 137 calories per course.

For a real surprise, after reading that article I went to a few diet boards and looked up the estimated calorie values of dishes at different "upscale" chains (PF Chang's; Claim Jumper). Even a lunch salad at those places often has over 1000 calories. With entrees, the sky is the limit.

I didn't get where that article made an argument about the law, though, one way or another. Maybe you could extrapolate one, but it's not clear to me that that would be, "This menu at Per Se has as many calories as certain foods at chain restaurants, therefore they should also be forced to disclose calories (or neither should be forced to)?"

[Busboy]

Unfortunately, this is going way beyond "scolding."

there's nothing wrong with scolding or making a case but when people don't respond in the manner the scolders would like them to, the next step is laws, bans, taxes, regulations etc.

More unfortunately, this results in a loss of freedom or choice and higher costs.

The law in question is a good example. The point of the piece linked is that these actions make no sense. If the do gooders behind them believe that it is so important that we have nutritional information about the food we eat in restaurants then it is important that all restaurants be forced to provide this information.

They don't dare go after higher end establishments because the political fall out that would result. In short, fast food restaurants are an easy target.

In the end, the cost of printing this info on menus etc will be passed along to the consumer who will continue to ignore the info and eat based upon their own criteria. As they have always done.

←

It's actually pretty common for regulation to make exceptions for smaller concerns for the not-unreasonable reason that the cost benefit equation shifts based on the size and nature of the concern.

If, for example, there is an economic benefit in reducing obesity (lower health care costs, less absenteeism, better gas mileage, whatever) and if producing calorie counts will reduce obesity and bring those benefits, those benefits can be weighed against the costs of producing the calorie counts. Since the regulation would cost a major chain operation almost nothing as a percentage of their revenue -- because they serve a consistent menu to millions of people -- any demonstrable benefit would be pure gravy. On the other hand, the relative costs to a small restaurant with a menu that changes daily would be high, while the number of people affected are few, and thus the cost-benefit equation is arguably negative -- the cost of meeting the requirements would be greater than the economic benefits derived.

If it can be demonstrated that calorie counts do indeed have positive economic benefits, this is a relatively sensible way way of putting them in play. If.

[phaelon56]

I'd call it idiotic rather than just ridiculous. I think it's simplistic thinking and pandering to force any food purveyor to do this - the fact that the law is not applied equally makes it worse.

This breakdown for the total Per Se meal if all items are included:

The total rises to 2,416.2 calories, 107.8 grams of fat, and 203.7 grams of carbs

is especially interesting when compared to something like... for example... Lay's Kettle Cooked Chips. It's not unusual for a single person to knock off a full bag of these in an evening - and some even add dip. A single 8 oz bag has 1,680 calories, 88 grams of fat and 200 grams of carbs. And that's just a SNACK for many people.

I think nearly all rational people of just about all educational backgrounds and walks of life have an intuitive understanding of how many foods have more fat and calries than we need to exist. And I doubt that the average McDonald's Big Mac buyer pays any more attention to the nutritional info than I would at a fine dining restaurant fo it were made available to me.

But apart from that - the premise for the article is, in my opinion, shaky at best to begin with.

[JohnL]

My beef is, what we eat should be a personal decision. We should make the choice based upon what risk reward benefits make sense to us and our families. Not the government, not special interest groups and certainly not unelected bureaucrats like our current health commissioner!

These laws often amount to forced compliance on the part of consumers by removing choice from the equation. Not the case specifically here. But over regulated market places ultimately are not good for anyone.

This law specifically makes no sense. It is a feel good effort (like warning labels on cigarette packs) that is of little proven value. More insidiously, it is another step in a bad direction leading to greater government meddling in the market place.

Again, if this is a good idea it is a good idea across the board and all should be forced to comply! After all there are a lot of "unsuspecting" consumers who do not eat at fast food restaurants and need top know what they are getting at JGV or Per Se. In fact the magazine makes a good case that eating regularly at places other than McDonald's et al is probably more deleterious to one's health! The patrons of Per Se are more at risk!!!

This is more than a just a slippery slope, it is logic defying. It makes no sense.

What does make sense is to inform people about nutrition and allow them to make their own decisions in a free and open marketplace.

[scubadoo97]

For a real surprise, after reading that article I went to a few diet boards and looked up the estimated calorie values of dishes at different "upscale" chains (PF Chang's; Claim Jumper). Even a lunch salad at those places often has over 1000 calories. With entrees, the sky is the limit.

I recently saw an article that listed the calories at chain restaurants like Fridays, Outback and many others and chain fast food like McDonalds and Wendys. The fast food calories looked very small but so were the portions by comparison. I too was surprised that the upscale restaurant meal wasn't higher in calories. Now would I rather eat torchon of foie gras or 2/3 of a Big Mac. mmmm?

I know that when I go out for dinner at a restaurant that I can expect higher calories and fat. Ever take home part of your meal and look at it the next day. Yuck! No surprise there. I don't think restaurants should have to post their dietary values. Unlike a chain restaurant the menu of a restaurant may change often which would make it difficult to maintain this information accurately. What the public needs to be watchful of is restaurants and chains that advertise something as healthy or diet that isn't. When a salad which is advertised as healthy but contains more fat and calories than a double burger is where this information is helpful. Also fast food is eaten more often. Some people may eat 2 meals a day at a fast food joint.

[Darcie B]

My beef is, what we eat should be a personal decision. We should make the choice based upon what risk reward benefits make sense to us and our families. Not the government, not special interest groups and certainly not unelected bureaucrats like our current health commissioner!

←

While I agree with you that we should all have freedom to choose, other people's choices can end up costing us all money. I really don't care if someone wants to eat Big Macs every day and weigh 500 pounds. My concern is that the 500 pound fellow will cost us all with expensive health care as he ages (bypass surgery, etc.). If he has health insurance it raises the rates for all insureds and if he doesn't have insurance, Medicare/Medicaid will probably cover it and this too comes out of everyone's pockets.

What I vainly hope for is personal responsibility for every person's choices. Making bad choices more expensive is one way to do it but may not be the best way. I fear greater and greater nanny state rules and regs instead of making people responsible for their choices.

I don't think that printing nutritional information on a menu is going to significantly change eating habits, whether at Mickey D's, Per Se, or Applebee's. However, I disagree with many who think that most people have a handle on how many excess calories they eat. There are a lot of uneducated and/or not-overly-bright people who have no idea how they are getting fat. My husband worked with a woman who believed that since most people in her family were fat she was destined to be fat. She said this while eating bags of chips and copious amounts of Twinkies at her desk all day. She truly did not or could not associate her eating with her weight.

Edit for clarity (I hope).

Edited May 1, 2007 by Darcie B (log)

[Tess]

After all there are a lot of "unsuspecting" consumers who do not eat at fast food restaurants and need top know what they are getting at JGV or Per Se. In fact the magazine makes a good case that eating regularly at places other than McDonald's et al is probably more deleterious to one's health! The patrons of Per Se are more at risk!!!

The article does not make that case, in my view. If anything, to me, it suggests that you can be relatively safe eating at Per Se. 1200-1300 calories is not that much.

I may or may not agree with you on the question of the wisdom of the law now being passed, but I still don't see the article making a case-- one way or the other.

[JohnL]

the law supposedly covers restaurants that serve "standardized portion size, formulation and ingredients."

That sounds like any high (or middle end) restaurant.

Per Se, JGV, Grammercy Tavern et al offer all three!

The magazine is correct noting that the exception has more to do with politics.....

this is one dumb law.

[rooftop1000]

Personally what I noted was that over 25% of the calories in the meal came from the dinner rolls, and that although the article states that there are 39 grams of fat and 75 grams of carbs in the aforementioned dinner rolls, it fails to note their size

tracey

[Megan Blocker]

Personally what I noted was that over 25% of the calories in the meal came from the dinner rolls, and that although the article states that there are 39 grams of fat and 75 grams of carbs in the aforementioned dinner rolls, it fails to note their size

tracey

←

They're not very big, though the butter has an extremely high fat content (which is why it's so delicious). Moreover, since it's Per Se, the rolls are brought to the table rather than left there in a basket, so you're unlikely to have more than one.

[JohnL]

The article clearly states that the total meal at Per Se amounts to app 2,400 calories. Most people do eat the rolls!

This is equivalent to eating four and a half big Macs! or Ten hot dogs at Gray's Papaya. Most people eat nowhere near this amount of at either Mickey D's or Gray's!

Let's stop nit picking this.

Shouldn't people know that by not eating the dinner roll etc they could reduce the caloric impact of the Per Se meal. They would if Per Se had to list the calories next to each dish!!!

That is the point of the article and the reason this law is absurd.

If this law is to help consumers make healthy eating choices when they dine out then why apply it to a select segment of the restaurant industry?

The reason for the exemption is equally absurd. If Per Se doesn't exercise portion control and careful standardization of ingredients then who does?!

This prompts recall of an episode of Top Chef where the contestants were required to design dishes to caloric and health standards.

Exempting Per Se and others is political cowardice. Nothing more or less.

The law is dumb and discriminatory.

The pleasure/food/health police forced the fast food places to provide nutritional information and they did (a good idea IMOP-- by the way).

When no one responded to this or the healthier foods the fast food industry offered voluntarily, the police decided to mandate the calories be on the menus.

the next logical/illogical step is forcing all of us diners to sign a waiver we read and understood the info when we ordered our food.

When that doesn't work the police will determine we do not know what is best for ourselves and healthy foods will be forced on us by removing all the unhealthy choices!

Edited May 2, 2007 by JohnL (log)

[gfweb]

The article clearly states that the total meal at Per Se amounts to app 2,400 calories. Most people do eat the  rolls!

This is equivalent to eating four and a half big Macs! or Ten hot dogs at Gray's Papaya. Most people eat nowhere near this amount of at either Mickey D's or Gray's!

Let's stop nit picking this.

Shouldn't people know that by not eating the dinner roll etc they could reduce the caloric impact of the Per Se meal. They would if Per Se had to list the calories next to each dish!!!

That is the point of the article and the reason this law is absurd.

If this law is to help consumers make healthy eating choices when they dine out then why apply it to a select segment of the restaurant industry?

The reason for the exemption is equally absurd. If Per Se doesn't exercise portion control and careful standardization of ingredients then who does?!

This prompts recall of an episode of Top Chef where the contestants were required to design dishes to caloric and health standards.

Exempting Per Se and others is political cowardice. Nothing more or less.

The law is dumb and discriminatory.

The pleasure/food/health police forced the fast food places to provide nutritional information and they did (a good idea IMOP-- by the way).

When no one responded to this or the healthier foods the fast food industry offered voluntarily, the police decided to mandate the calories be on the menus.

the next logical/illogical step is forcing all of us diners to sign a waiver we read and understood the info when we ordered our food.

When that doesn't work the police will determine we do not know what is best for ourselves and healthy foods will be forced on us by removing all the unhealthy choices!

←

Even if it might be reasonable to ask that all restaurants supply nutritional information it is completely impractical for a small place (even Per Se) with a constantly changing menu to give accurate nutritional numbers.

[JohnL]

I am not sure I buy the "impracticality"

Determining/estimating the caloric content of a dish seems to require a few minutes and a scale.

Most of the dishes at Per Se (or any place) are not concocted for the first time each night. The problem with a lot of restaurants is seemingly "innocent" items are often covered with a rich sauce or are finished with fat unsuspecting consumers should know what they are eating.

By the way, how about inclusion of places serving coffee drinks, large and small? people ought to know that those latte's and frappachino's are "silent killers."

The problem is, in the real world, people go to McDonald's and Per Se for the same basic reason. They want to eat food that tastes good. For the pleasure of eating.

There are plenty of ways consumers can be informed. Information is good, so is education. Most people don't plan meals based on caloric content. In fact, most people do not "plan" meals. They eat primarily for the pleasure. These laws banning this or that and mandating this or that are just plain dopey. Government is always looking for ways of expanding their powers and justifying more and more money for ineffective programs.

The enactment of this law which covers fast food places and exempts high end restaurants just like the law telling chefs and businesses what they can cook or cook with is no more than a band aid (if even that).

It is easy to pass laws. Easy to ban things. Business or consumers will be forced to pay the freight. And politicians will continue to exempt themselves and anyone with any influence.

We have all sorts of laws dictating how vehicles are driven and at what speed, seat belt laws--the governor of NJ just suffered serious injuries in a crash wherein his vehicle was traveling way beyond the "legal" (for all the rest of us I guess) without wearing a seatbelt (I suppose this law was just for us too). Like most people, the accident will probably prompt him to buckle up in the future (then again maybe not).

In the end, I would rather see our city government fixing up the schools and instituting good science classes wherein nutrition is taught.

Bring back physical education (what about home economics where more nutrition can be taught along with basics like how to balance a checkbook?) and fix up the parks and playgrounds. Silly me, I thought my tax money goers to these kinds of things which IMOP will be more effective in improving society.

And less costly in the long run than more laws, mandates, regulations, bans, additional departments, more government employees, inspectors, tax increases to pay for thiem etc etc etc.

Hey!

I got a great idea. Quick and easy., The answer the solution!

CALORIE OFFSETS!!!!!!!

That's right. I eat two big Macs (with cheese) and a mochachino frappa calorino and I give the equivalent cost to a skinny acetic dour, health nut or maybe anyone who will pledge that they will skip a meal or eat a low cal meal!

Yeah that's it!

I feel good cause I am helping make society a better place and I get to stuff my face at the same time. I wanna do my part ya know!

Folks we are precariously close to a world where we are governed by the ministry of silly walks!