CSPI info on weighty foods at chains

[Carrot Top]

Then again, the chains have tried time and again to offer salad, vegetarian and various other healthy options, and have promoted them in advertising. It doesn't seem to have done much.

←

I can tell you one thing it's done - it's made me order salads and healthy options when they are available (and given the price points and ingredients I wonder if they might not be more profitable sometimes than some other menu items) and it's made me willing to even enter the doors of some fast-food places or chains more than I was before . . . and I'm not sure I'm the only one that feels this way.

It still feels as if the focus on "bad obesity" is a bad culprit to me. It feels as if the focus should be on "good health", and I think there are profits to be made there for everyone in this situation - perhaps not fast profits or huge profits, but profits nonetheless.

[annecros]

The measure used, the BMI, needs to be looked at closely, as well.

http://health.howstuffworks.com/bmi4.htm

From the site:

"In 1998, the National Institutes of Health lowered the overweight threshold for BMI 27.8 to 25 to match international guidelines. The move added 30 million Americans who were previously in the "healthy weight" category to the "overweight" category. Today, the NIH advises doctors and their patients to include BMI in a complete assessment of a person's body size and overall health."

Hardly surprising that there is an epidemic of "obesity" when you keep moving the goal line.

I have to wonder when "overweight" becomes "obese" as well. To me, they are two entirely different states of being. Ten pounds overweight and 100 pounds overweight have completely different implications.

Edited March 8, 2007 by annecros (log)

[rconnelly]

The Pew study linked earlier addresses some of these issues, in that people simply don't care what is on the label most of the time. It is not only because they want to be obese, or unhealthy, or have been hypnotized by that lovely Big Mac on the tube or the billboard.

FSU has been looking into it, and there is an awful lot going on in food choices:

http://www.gainesville.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a...3050325/-1/news

From the site:

""It didn't surprise me that people look at calories, because people are concerned about weight," said Ron Ward, a UF professor in food and resource economics. "I was a little surprised by how dominant that factor was."

For the study, Ward, who headed the research, and graduate student Carlos Jaureguicelied on more than a decade of food diaries from 40,000 households acquired from a private company.

From these food diaries, the researchers came up with a list of drivers that influence consumers' food-purchasing decisions. Those categories included health concerns, eating activity, demographics and perceptions about brands.

The factor that least affects looking at food labels is the demographics of the household involved.

For instance, the study looked into the likelihood of young people, those under 25, reading labels versus the likelihood of people who are older. It found that, although people are more likely to read labels as they get older, it's not a major factor in determining whether or not they read them.

Research also showed that people who value certain brands don't pay as much attention to labels. For instance, for people who always buy Kellogg's Raisin Bran, they're likely to continue buying it out of habit rather than any nutritional value it may have.

"They trust the brand so they aren't reading the content as much," Ward said.

While it is useful to pay attention to calories on food labels, there are also nutrients that consumers should be looking for on labels, said Elaine Turner, associate professor in food science and human nutrition at UF.

"One of the things calories don't tell you is the balance of nutrients that may be in the food," said Turner. "I think it is good that people look at calories, but they also should look at the serving size they represent and how the nutrients compare to another product."

For example, one brand of chicken noodle soup may have fewer calories, while another brand has more calories but lower sodium.

"A few more calories might have a better balance of nutrients," Turner said."

I am having trouble understanding how more of the same information that has not worked in the past, will work better in the future.

Maybe it is time for a deep breathe, and a new approach.

Just saying.

←

it is interesting that the Kellogg cereal company was founded by a health fanatic who wanted to promote healthy eating (along with colon cleansing) around the turn of the century I believe.

This inspired a 1980 movie "Health" by Robert Altman.

Many of these studies confirm the common sense. For example kids --teens and young adults would seem to be resistant to nutrition information--they are (most anyway) at a physically active stage in life and believe they will live forever.

Of course, there is that aforementioned (by me) age line where a lot of us experience a change in our metabolism! Suddenly, we seem to burn far less calories and everything we eat seems to show up as excess avoirdupois

←

As an aside, wasn't the movie called "Wellville"?

[ludja]

I guess scrolling doesn't take *that* long, but consider trimming quotes to the relevant portion...

(The plus side is that it builds up suspense...)

Edited March 8, 2007 by ludja (log)

[Carrot Top]

I guess scrolling doesn't take *that* long, but consider trimming quotes to the relevant portion...

←

Darn it all, ludja, but I was counting on all that scrolling to be my weight-loss exercise for the day.

[ludja]

I guess scrolling doesn't take *that* long, but consider trimming quotes to the relevant portion...

←

Darn it all, ludja, but I was counting on all that scrolling to be my weight-loss exercise for the day.

←

I occasionally forget myself, but trimming quotes both helps to focus the discussion and makes for easier readibility.

Sorry for the diversion! I'm looking forward to any new perspectives anyone has on the topic!

Thanks for mentioning the movie, JohnL and rconnelly. It sounds like the movie reconnelly was referring to was 1994's The Road to Wellville based on Kellog's life. And it looks like "Health" or "H.E.A.L.T.H." by Altman in 1980 is a different movie which spoofs the politics and hypocrisy behind the scenes of a fictional world health organization.

Edited March 8, 2007 by ludja (log)

[JohnL]

I guess scrolling doesn't take *that* long, but consider trimming quotes to the relevant portion...

←

Darn it all, ludja, but I was counting on all that scrolling to be my weight-loss exercise for the day.

←

I occasionally forget myself, but trimming quotes both helps to focus the discussion and makes for easier readibility.

Sorry for the diversion! I'm looking forward to any new perspectives anyone has on the topic!

Thanks for mentioning the movie, JohnL and rconnelly. It sounds like the movie reconnelly was referring to was 1994's The Road to Wellville based on Kellog's life. And it looks like "Health" or "H.E.A.L.T.H." by Altman in 1980 is a different movie which spoofs the politics and hypocrisy behind the scenes of a fictional world health organization.

←

You are correct!!

Thanks

Not only does one's metabolism change after forty but the memory.....

Ya know this might make for an interesting food and health related double feature!!!

I haven't seen these films in years.

Nice opportunity to make a large bowl of popcorn (no butter of course)

Edited March 8, 2007 by JohnL (log)

[ludja]

Although a few reviews I saw online gave Altman's, "Health" a low rating, I think it would be fascinating to see how he spoofed these issues 27 years ago. So much has changed since then in terms of personal and public health perceptions, diet and restaurant trends that it might be surprising, funny or sad to see what he spoofed then and how.

[JanMcBaker]

Then again, the chains have tried time and again to offer salad, vegetarian and various other healthy options, and have promoted them in advertising. It doesn't seem to have done much.

←

With the attempts of restaurants to promote healthier options, I wonder if part of the problem is pointing them out as such. Are the healthier dishes listed as just another item on the menu, or are they highlighted in some way to draw attention to the possible reason for ordering them?

There's other things I was writing down as I read through the posts on this thread, and after reading the original article. There was a mention of restaurants serving the size dishes that they do because that's what people want. There's also the thought that restaurants push these size portions on people. There may not be a specific conspiracy to make people eat more, but I feel it's not as simple as some of the posts on this thread make it seem.

A conspiracy, for want of a better word, is not as far-fetched to me as it may have seemed at one time, especially after reading the book 'Mindless Eating.' Oh, and remember those incriminating memos regarding cigarettes? Anyway, here's my thinking on it-- Companies are in business to make money, and to make their shareholders happy. The companies mentioned here happen to be in the food business. Market share has to keep increasing to make them all happy. If the number of people aren't increasing to consume a given product, then the companies have to find some way to increase consumption. If the sales numbers aren't increasing and their customer base is somewhat stagnant, then they have to find a way to make their existing customer base consume more of their product. Hence, bigger plates, bigger portion sizes, etc., and they sell more. Companies may not necessarily be 'out' to make people fat, but if that happens to be a side-effect of selling more of their food, I'll bet they think 'oh, well-- too bad.' Companies are out to sell their product and make money-- they couldn't care less what you do with it after you buy it, or how it affects you, as long as you keep buying it.

Edited March 8, 2007 by JanMcBaker (log)

[annecros]

A conspiracy, for want of a better word, is not as far-fetched to me as it may have seemed at one time, especially after reading the book 'Mindless Eating.'  Oh, and remember those incriminating memos regarding cigarettes?  Anyway, here's my thinking on it-- Companies are in business to make money, and to make their shareholders happy.  The companies mentioned here happen to be in the food business.  Market share has to keep increasing to make them all happy.  If the number of people aren't increasing to consume a given product, then the companies have to find some way to increase consumption.  If the sales numbers aren't increasing and their customer base is somewhat stagnant, then they have to find a way to make their existing customer base consume more of their product.  Hence, bigger plates, bigger portion sizes, etc., and they sell more.  Companies may not necessarily be 'out' to make people fat, but if that happens to be a side-effect of selling more of their food, I'll bet they think 'oh, well-- too bad.'  Companies are out to sell their product and make money-- they couldn't care less what you do with it after you buy it, or how it affects you, as long as you keep buying it.

←

Great thoughts, and some that have come to mind for me. But then, one must explain the "breakout" companies like Cheescake Factory (which is actually a throwback to Morrison's Cafeteria type places where you got too much to eat, and had to order on the line so of course you bought more than you could eat because you are hungry and everything looks and smells so good) that created a new niche that competitors had to come back into and attempt to regain market share lost. I think it was a competitive situation, more than a share gaining situation.

I just don't see a conspiracy. I see a market responding to the ever loving dollar, though, and to the demands of the customer.

[JohnL]

Why is it that health food restaurants are not as popular as MacDonalds?

As for the cigarette companies "infamous" memos. We have known that cigarettes are not healthy for us since mark Twain wrote Tom Sawyer and earlier. So why did we continue to smoke? We can claim that ads made us pick up the first cigarette and the evil tobacco empire got us addicted but at some point we need to realize that personal choice is the key factor. I am all for education and information to help us make our choices.

Companies are not as jaded as you seem to think. Most, in fact, do care what people do with their products after purchase and how they are affected by these products.

Yes, there are some bad apples but we have laws and rules and regulations.

[ludja]

Then again, the chains have tried time and again to offer salad, vegetarian and various other healthy options, and have promoted them in advertising. It doesn't seem to have done much.

←

With the attempts of restaurants to promote healthier options, I wonder if part of the problem is pointing them out as such. Are the healthier dishes listed as just another item on the menu, or are they highlighted in some way to draw attention to the possible reason for ordering them?

.

←

Good point regarding the segregation of "healthy" items to one part of the menu, JanMcBaker. I often wondered how that affects people's ordering choices. For those that are explicitly dedicated to ordering lower calorie items it might be helpful, but it may put off many others. I know my Dad would flat out nor order something if it was labeled "healthy" although he has not problems ordering cups of soup, salads, etc that would fall under that category.

Edited March 8, 2007 by ludja (log)

[ludja]

...

There's other things I was writing down as I read through the posts on this thread, and after reading the original article.  There was a mention of restaurants serving the size dishes that they do because that's what people want.  There's also the thought that restaurants push these size portions on people.  There may not be a specific conspiracy to make people eat more, but I feel it's not as simple as some of the posts on this thread make it seem. 

...

←

Thanks for mentioning, "Mindless Eating"; I may check that out. Some of the issues you outline regarding the very real economic drive for restaurants to increase serving are also discussed in this article by Michael Pollan which I give a link for in this post: click

I also don't think there is a conspiracy for restaurants to serve supersize portions rather I think it is purely a straightforward business decision to increase profits. While there is nothing wrong with that persay, the results in persuing that goal may not always be best for society or the consumer in the long run. (There are other examples of this in our society as well.) Poor diet and too much food have effects over a much longer time period and direct cause and effect between long term diet and particular health issues is not simple to understand or study.

The restaurants and other processed food makers are not in controll of a conspiracy in the sense that they hold all the strings (factors) in achieving the outcome. Nor do they hide what their goal is; namely, to increase profits each year for their shareholders. And as you pointed out, they need to do this no matter how much cheaper foodstuffs becomes or no matter what the population growth. Chain restaurants are not increasing portion sizes because of consumer demand, rather they are constantly trying to figure out how to sell more food (more portions or larger portions). That is their job, but is it not necessarily good for us.

I think a number of factors "conspire" to achieve the upselling that the restaurants have successfully implemented. So, if this upselling is considered a problem (i.e. obesity and health-related issues) one can look at all the factors involved.

Some of the factors that aid businesses in increasing their profits are the use of powerful marketing tools (often directed at children), benefitting from government- subsidized tax breaks for production of for eg., soy and corn and lobbying efforts of very large food processing companies in order to have foodstuffs cheap enough so that they can increase profits even as they increase portion size. And, these factors all dovetail very neatly into the other drivers in people's lives that affect their food choices--convenience for those with less time, a "good" deal (lots of food for relatively cheap prices), natural instincts for people to like fats and sugars, a trigger for saiety that can be easily and persistently overrun, etc.

Thinking about making calorie and fat information available for people at restaurants may be helpful but it is only one of many factors that affect our food choices. I think that people who are interested in losing weight or increasing their health should look at all the factors within their controll.

Does this mean that we should ignore the existence of all factors that are beyond our direct personal choice or that we should not attempt to understand the complex set of factors that are behind our own personal choices?

This is what JohnL seems to recommend although I don't understand why. Although some change might be effected by people's votes if some of these issues become part of the national dialogue, I agree with JohnL that the quickest and most direct way to effect change is through ones personal choices. Unlike JohnL (perhaps), I think it may be easier for people to make the "right" choices for themselves if they understand more explicity, the factors behind their "simple choices" and in some cases, to be given information to help them make their choices.

Edited March 8, 2007 by ludja (log)

[misstenacity]

Let's get it out of the way that I am about as far from being in Friday's "pocket" as you can get, but they are responding to the portion-fiasco in a way that is, I hope, sustainable:

TGI Friday's introduces "right size" portions

Given that this must have been in the works for many months now, with the extreme eating article newly out, they couldn't have timed this much better, IMO.

[JohnL]

...

There's other things I was writing down as I read through the posts on this thread, and after reading the original article.  There was a mention of restaurants serving the size dishes that they do because that's what people want.  There's also the thought that restaurants push these size portions on people.  There may not be a specific conspiracy to make people eat more, but I feel it's not as simple as some of the posts on this thread make it seem. 

...

←

Thanks for mentioning, "Mindless Eating"; I may check that out. Some of the issues you outline regarding the very real economic drive for restaurants to increase serving are also discussed in this article by Michael Pollan which I give a link for in this post: click

I also don't think there is a conspiracy for restaurants to serve supersize portions rather I think it is purely a straightforward business decision to increase profits. While there is nothing wrong with that persay, the results in persuing that goal may not always be best for society or the consumer in the long run. (There are other examples of this in our society as well.) Poor diet and too much food have effects over a much longer time period and direct cause and effect between long term diet and particular health issues is not simple to understand or study.

The restaurants and other processed food makers are not in controll of a conspiracy in the sense that they hold all the strings (factors) in achieving the outcome. Nor do they hide what their goal is; namely, to increase profits each year for their shareholders. And as you pointed out, they need to do this no matter how much cheaper foodstuffs becomes or no matter what the population growth. Chain restaurants are not increasing portion sizes because of consumer demand, rather they are constantly trying to figure out how to sell more food (more portions or larger portions). That is their job, but is it not necessarily good for us.

I think a number of factors "conspire" to achieve the upselling that the restaurants have successfully implemented. So, if this upselling is considered a problem (i.e. obesity and health-related issues) one can look at all the factors involved.

Some of the factors that aid businesses in increasing their profits are the use of powerful marketing tools (often directed at children), benefitting from government- subsidized tax breaks for production of for eg., soy and corn and lobbying efforts of very large food processing companies in order to have foodstuffs cheap enough so that they can increase profits even as they increase portion size. And, these factors all dovetail very neatly into the other drivers in people's lives that affect their food choices--convenience for those with less time, a "good" deal (lots of food for relatively cheap prices), natural instincts for people to like fats and sugars, a trigger for saiety that can be easily and persistently overrun, etc.

Thinking about making calorie and fat information available for people at restaurants may be helpful but it is only one of many factors that affect our food choices. I think that people who are interested in losing weight or increasing their health should look at all the factors within their controll.

Does this mean that we should ignore the existence of all factors that are beyond our direct personal choice or that we should not attempt to understand the complex set of factors that are behind our own personal choices?

This is what JohnL seems to recommend although I don't understand why. Although some change might be effected by people's votes if some of these issues become part of the national dialogue, I agree with JohnL that the quickest and most direct way to effect change is through ones personal choices. Unlike JohnL (perhaps), I think it may be easier for people to make the "right" choices for themselves if they understand more explicity, the factors behind their "simple choices" and in some cases, to be given information to help them make their choices.

←

I believe that good information is very important.

However, these issues have become very politicized so much of the information is slanted or corrupted in service of an agenda.

I also have a big problem with forcing information on people. If restaurants list nutritional information and serve healthy food and people still ignore the info and the healthy meals then printing larger information making it more obtrusive is equivalent to shouting at people. What's next? Having a nutritional expert take each customer by the hand as they enter the restaurant and reading them the dangers and options before allowing them to eat? having each customer sign a waiver?

People are quick to quote from Pollan or others and yet I wonder how many seek out more balanced information? How many people simply take writers like Pollan or organizations like the CSPI at face value and do not question what they say.

Not that everything they say is necessarily wrong --I think Pollan has some valid thoughts. How many of us are really thinking?

[ludja]

I read an interesting book that I thought I would pass on to people that have been interested in this thread.

Food Politics :How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition and Health by Marion Nestle (2002)

The author is a faculty member in the deparment of Nutrition and Food Studies at NY University. In addition she has significant government experience with previous appointments in the Dept. of Human Health and Human Services, Dept. of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration.

There is so much information in the book that it is difficult to summarize. Here is a quote from the dust jacket:

We all witness in advertising and on supermarket shelves, the fierce competition for our food dollars.  ... Marion Nestle goes behind the scenes to reveal how the competition really works and how it affects our health.  The abundance of  food in the U.S.--enough calories to meet the needs of every man, woman and child twice over-- has a downside.  Our overefficient food industry must do everything possible to persuade people to eat more--more food, more often and in larger portions--no matter what it does to our waistlines or well-being.

...

…

In this book we see that the food industry plays politics as well as or better than other industries, not least because so much of what food companies do takes place outside the public view.

If other people read the book or already have perhaps we could start another thread; I just thought I would point it out here. The book is pretty densely filled with information; and the content is well referenced.

The focus in this book is more on corporationsa and industries that produce food rather than chain restaurants but the underlying themes and information are critical to also understanding the trends in portion size, calorie amount and fat and sugar amounts in chain restaurant food that have been discussed in this thread.

Edited April 24, 2007 by ludja (log)