CSPI info on weighty foods at chains

[rconnelly]

It's not like information is being held back from the public, is it? I think it is common knowledge that a pound of cheesecake is loaded with fat and calories. Do you know anybody who is ignorant of the fact that overeating is bad for you?

Fans of those particular places go for the large portions, knowing that they are going to be there an hour trying to finish a portion, then takeaway boxes of food.

Sure, people know it's a lot of food. Do they know how much food it is? It has been shown repeatedly that people are lousy judges of portion size. Even something as simple as the size of the plate can throw perceptions off. So I'll ask again: what's the matter with giving people facts?

←

Oh come on. I think everybody knows when they have a lot of food in front of them. If not, by the time they are half way through the portion they know.

People already have the facts. Printing a calorie count and fat content on the menu for each item? Not practical. Number one, I don't want an encyclopedia dropped in front of me that is punitive in "tone" at best, it's like scolding the customer. Number two, the best they can do is give an approximation, due to variations in the fresh ingredients and how closely the recipe is followed. Number three, what about a special? Who calculates the calories and fat in the super fantastic fish dish that the place is running on deal today and tomorrow?

There is nothing wrong with giving people information. My opinion, and it is only an opinion, is that just about everybody already knows what's good and bad for them. I don't want to be sent on a guilt trip every time I decide to treat myself to a dinner. It would make me grumpy. And I don't have any dietary restrictions and have never had to count calories. It has been my experience that those people who need to count calories can do so on their own, or just don't do it. Free country and all.

Now, informing the public that MSG or transfats are used in some dishes is fine. Just like letting people now that a dish is spicy, or contains nuts. It's in the public interest.

It's just a little overkill to expect a restaurant, even a chain, to print on its menus that this dish has a gazillion calories, and that dish has a gazillion and one calories, and that something contains less than 1% of the USDA's reccomended daily intake of iron.

Just my opinion.

←

I totally disagree that just about everybody knows what good and bad for them.

There are hundreds, nay thousands, of folks out there that live by old myths of what "is good for you". The idea of three square meals a day is still totally accepted and so people eat more than they should, eat foods that are full of fat, and so on and so on.

I'm not crazy about this group CPSI - but I was the one to start the thread with the idea that many Americans will continue to eat these types of meals because more is better, without a thought of what is going into their bodies!

[Andrew Fenton]

People already have the facts. Printing a calorie count and fat content on the menu for each item? Not practical. Number one, I don't want an encyclopedia dropped in front of me that is punitive in "tone" at best, it's like scolding the customer. Number two, the best they can do is give an approximation, due to variations in the fresh ingredients and how closely the recipe is followed. Number three, what about a special? Who calculates the calories and fat in the super fantastic fish dish that the place is running on deal today and tomorrow?

Points two and three are trivial. Chain restaurants have plenty of resources to estimate the nutritional content of their dishes; and those dishes don't vary much from restaurant to restaurant. (That's the whole point of a chain, after all.) Chains also don't offer many specials; but if they do, so what? Nobody's saying that there can't be some flexibility.

Your first point is more interesting, though. I don't know how numbers can have a scolding, let alone a punitive tone: they're just numbers. If, as you've said, you already know what you're eating, why would it bother you to have those numbers easily available?

There is nothing wrong with giving people information. My opinion, and it is only an opinion, is that just about everybody already knows what's good and bad for them. I don't want to be sent on a guilt trip every time I decide to treat myself to a dinner. It would make me grumpy. And I don't have any dietary restrictions and have never had to count calories. It has been my experience that those people who need to count calories can do so on their own, or just don't do it. Free country and all.

Exactly; and publishing the nutritional information would make it easier for some to count calories; others could choose to ignore it. What's the matter with that?

You're making two separate, and contradictory arguments. First, that everybody knows the nutritional content of what they are eating (and so making that information available is unnecessary). And second, that you'd rather be in the dark about the specifics of what you're eating (and so that information should be unavailable to all).

[annecros]

  Once again, I ask what the difference is between requiring labels on the food we buy in grocery stores and that we buy in restaurants?  (Or do people think there should be no labels on grocery store food as well?)  Once again, I also point to the example of Ruby Tuesday's, which shows that people do pay attention to the information if it's made available to them.

I also don't buy the argument that it's burdensome for a restaurant to figure out the nutritional information in a recipe - especially a chain restaurant whose recipes are already calculated to the most minute detail.  The computer software's out there to do it - they're already putting their recipes into the computer to figure out how many hundreds of thousands of gallons of corn oil they need to order - it would only take a couple of extra keystrokes to get the calories per serving.

I wouldn't go so far as to require that the restaurant menu have the nutritional information printed on it.  I think it would detract from the aesthetic experience of a restaurant meal.  But I think it should be made available for people who want to know.

←

Oh gosh, there is nutritional information everywhere. Just google it up, read a newspaper, or watch TV.

The difference between packaged consumer goods and a perishable commodity are dramatic. A large manufacturer can buy from a wide variety of sources for tomatoes for ketchup or corn for canned corn - thus trumping mother nature. Even at that, batches are adjusted with additives and ammendments in order to make the product uniform. That is what the "may contain" line is all about. Nutrional labels are updated regularly from season to season, as well.

Corn is a vivid example:

http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/sustainable/peet/...es/botcorn.html

From the citation:

"Kernel sugar content. In standard sweet corn cultivars, such as 'Silver Queen', kernel sugar content peaks at 5 to 11 percent. Peak levels last in the field only 2 days at 80 degrees F or 5 days at 60 degrees F before sugar is converted to starch. Even if ears are picked at peak sugar content, quality decreases rapidly after picking because of loss of sugar. In 24 hours after picking, sugar content declines 8 percent at 32 degrees F and up to 52 percent at 86 degrees F. Thus, it is difficult to pick sweet corn before it becomes starchy and difficult to get it to the consumer before sugar levels decline. For these reasons, 'supersweet' cultivars are now preferred for commercial sweet corn production. These cultivars start out sweeter, convert sugar to starch more slowly on the plant and lose sugar more slowly after harvest. In 1988, 98 percent of the sweet corn acreage in Florida was in sh2 supersweets. Acreages of sh2 are also increasing in New York and North Carolina. While any lines with more sweetness than the standard are sometimes referred to as supersweets, technically only those lines with the sh2 or shrunken 2 gene should be called 'supersweets'. The name 'shrunken 2' reflects the fact that so little starch is present in the kernel that it appears shrunken, even when compared to standard sweet corn lines with the su-1 gene. Peak sugar levels of sh2 hybrids range from 22 percent to 40 percent,compared to 5 to 11 percent in standard sweet corn.

While it is reasonable to expect commercial sweet corn crops in the future to be dominated by sh2 hybrids, some people say the sh2 hybrids are too sweet and lack the characteristic sweet corn flavor and tender kernels. Kernels of many of the newer supersweet releases are as tender as those of standard cultivars, however. The original supersweets were also harder to grow and even the newest sh2 hybrids challenge the grower because of isolation requirements from other types of corn. See the appropriate sections of this chapter for special management practices for supersweets including isolation requirements.

Sweet corn cultivars with the se gene offer a third option for roadside marketers or those who will use or sell the corn within 1 to 2 days of harvest. These sugar-enhanced types start out with higher sugar content than standard sweet corns, but convert sugar to starch at the same rapid rate after harvest. Cultivars which are homozygous for the se gene have peak sugar contents of 12 to 20 percent while those heterozygous for the se gene have sugar levels of only 7 to 15 percent. The advantages of these cultivars are that they have the same tender kernels and creamy texture (sometimes described as 'real corn flavor'), as standard corn, but seedling emergence characteristics are better and isolation requirements less stringent than for the sh2 hybrids. Se hybrids are susceptible to some soil pathogens, however, and, like standard sweet corn, must be isolated from sh2, field and popcorn types. If planted next to standard sweet corns, individual kernels may be like those of the standard sweet corn, but this is much less objectionable than when starchy, hard kernels develop on the ear, as is the case when standard sweet corn pollinates sh2 gene corn cultivars."

That's just harvest to eating time variance in sugar content for corn. It doesn't take into account crop conditions, climate, etc. etc.

Produce distributors invest a great deal of time and money in equipment to determine ripeness and sugar content in fresh fruits and vegetables. I've seen the equipment used with my own eyes, and yes, plums from the same orchard can vary in sugar content by up to 75% when they hit the shelf or the back door of a restaurant.

The same is true for anything mother nature produces. Sure, refined white sugar has a stable calorie count, and zero fat. Two cows can have dramatic variances in fat content, even within the same USDA grade.

Ruby Tuesday's is pulling numbers out of thin air. Best they can do is a ballpark, and that's a pretty big ball park.

I thought we had documented the fact that people are living much longer, healthier lives than ever in the history of mankind on another thread here somewhere? I'll have to look around...

[annecros]

You're making two separate, and contradictory arguments.  First, that everybody knows the nutritional content of what they are eating (and so making that information available is unnecessary).  And second, that you'd rather be in the dark about the specifics of what you're eating (and so that information should be unavailable to all).

←

Umm, I have a malabsorption issue in my small bowel. I have to eat nutrionally dense foods in order to sustain life. I know exactly what I am eating, and make my choices accordingly.

Sometimes I enjoy a little iceberg lettuce, though. Because I want to.

[munchymom]

No nutritional information is going to be perfect. I think it's a hell of a lot closer than "out of thin air" - these chain restaurants are very tightly controlled in the amount of stuff they put in, so they can control their costs, and they're very tightly controlled in the kind of ingredients they use, so they can maintain their vaunted consistency of flavor. Yeah, the cook might plop three more french fries on one plate than on another, that kind of thing, but a close estimate is reasonable to acheive.

[ludja]

...

I think it is more interesting to consider why restaurants would even serve a chicken and broccoli pasta dish that weighs in at 2060 calories and 128 g of fat?   The calories for this meal are described as the equivalent of two 12-ounce sirloin steaks, two buttered baked potatoes, and two Caesar salads.  Something seems off to me.

...

←

...

Reading through this though I find myself agreeing with a lot of JohnL's points. I am more interested in the question of why eating trends have developed towards their current state in north america in the way that they have. Industry undoubtedly had some role in the emergence of these trends but I think it is ultimately market driven. There are people buying and enjoying these massive portions that didn't used to exist; it doesn't seem that they respond favorably to low calorie alternatives either.

These restaurants are providing these massive calorie dishes because there are people willing to buy them; if they weren't marketable they woudln't be on the menu.

...

←

I think some interesting points are brought up in an article by Michael Pollan regarding the phenomena of supersizing--which applies not just to the supersize options offered at fast food joints, but also to the evolution of "regular" portion sizes, especially at chain restaurants to their current proportions. It makes sense that these concepts do apply to chain restaurants to a larger extent than they do to independent restaurants due to the economies of scale available to the former.

The article is “Fat Land: Supersizing America” by Michael Pollan. click

I think it's best to read the article but I've tried to capture the main points below. (A more complete treatment of this phenomena and how it fits into the even larger and more genernal picture of the U.S. food supply and its production is given in his book, The Omnivore's Dilemma.

At least from a business perspective, the fattening of America may well have been a necessity. Food companies grow by selling us more of their products. The challenge they face is that the American population is growing much more slowly than the American food supply -- a prescription for falling rates of profit. …

The answer couldn't be simpler or more imperative: get each of us to eat more. A lot more.

…

There's only so much food one person can consume (unlike shoes or CD's), or so you would think. But Big Food has been nothing short of ingenious in devising ways to transform its overproduction into our overconsumption -- and body fat.

The industry term for this conundrum of being able to increase profits when bounded by a given number of consumers and the amount of food that they can eat in one day is "fixed stomach". In The Omnivore's Dilemma Pollan also mentions the term used by economists, "inelastic demand".

The article than describes how the concept of supersizing developed as an idea and strategy to sell people more food—given the restraints of psychology and price. The main point is that they found through testing and starting in about the late 1960's that people would be willing to eat more if the individual serving size was increased as opposed to choosing the route of ordering multiple servings.

Another point that is discussed is the issue of saiety. That is, how can or will people eat more if they are full? Isn’t that a constant? Studies on saiety show that people when given larger portion sizes will eat up to 30% more than they otherwise would have. (This definately fits with my experience and eating more than I "need to" sometimes is certainly pleasurable. But is this a good way to eat on a regular basis?) This phenomena is described as being related to an “elasticity” in hunger which may well be a good evolutionary advantage. The key is, though, that the advantages of this behavior are found in times where potential famine or low food supply is a possibility and arguably not when food is available twenty four hours a day and seven days a week.

Lastly, the article ties in how the decreased cost of manufacturing food permits sellers to increase the price of food relative to the portion size so that they can still make a good profit. Pollan's book also discusses how processed food, including but not restricted to the famous example of corn and corn syrup, critically fit into this cycle.

What makes supersizing such an effective business strategy is the cheapness of basic foodstuffs in America. Since the raw materials of soda and popcorn, French fries and even hamburgers represent such a tiny fraction of their retail price (compared with labor, packaging and advertising), expanding portion size becomes a way to multiply sales without adding much to costs.

This last point is also fleshed out in a lot more detail in Pollan's book.

In any case, reading the article and the book made me think a bit more deeply about the issues raised in this and other threads. How one decides to respond on a personal level to this information and how or if we as a society decide to work to "combat" some of these trends is, I think, a separate issue. Nevertheless, there will be many who will be resistant to even being informed.

I also think it is a bit simplistic, once becoming aware of some of these issues, to think that the state and size of food offerings at restaurants (and also on supermarket shelves) is only driven by consumer "choice".

Edited March 1, 2007 by ludja (log)

[JohnL]

...

I think it is more interesting to consider why restaurants would even serve a chicken and broccoli pasta dish that weighs in at 2060 calories and 128 g of fat?   The calories for this meal are described as the equivalent of two 12-ounce sirloin steaks, two buttered baked potatoes, and two Caesar salads.  Something seems off to me.

...

←

...

Reading through this though I find myself agreeing with a lot of JohnL's points. I am more interested in the question of why eating trends have developed towards their current state in north america in the way that they have. Industry undoubtedly had some role in the emergence of these trends but I think it is ultimately market driven. There are people buying and enjoying these massive portions that didn't used to exist; it doesn't seem that they respond favorably to low calorie alternatives either.

These restaurants are providing these massive calorie dishes because there are people willing to buy them; if they weren't marketable they woudln't be on the menu.

...

←

I think some interesting points are brought up in an article by Michael Pollan regarding the phenomena of supersizing--which applies not just to the supersize options offered at fast food joints, but also to the evolution of "regular" portion sizes, especially at chain restaurants to their current proportions. It makes sense that these concepts do apply to chain restaurants to a larger extent than they do to independent restaurants due to the economies of scale available to the former.

The article is “Fat Land: Supersizing America” by Michael Pollan. click

I think it's best to read the article but I've tried to capture the main points below. (A more complete treatment of this phenomena and how it fits into the even larger and more genernal picture of the U.S. food supply and its production is given in his book, The Omnivore's Dilemma.

At least from a business perspective, the fattening of America may well have been a necessity. Food companies grow by selling us more of their products. The challenge they face is that the American population is growing much more slowly than the American food supply -- a prescription for falling rates of profit. …

The answer couldn't be simpler or more imperative: get each of us to eat more. A lot more.

…

There's only so much food one person can consume (unlike shoes or CD's), or so you would think. But Big Food has been nothing short of ingenious in devising ways to transform its overproduction into our overconsumption -- and body fat.

The industry term for this conundrum of being able to increase profits when bounded by a given number of consumers and the amount of food that they can eat in one day is "fixed stomach". In The Omnivore's Dilemma Pollan also mentions the term used by economists, "inelastic demand".

The article than describes how the concept of supersizing developed as an idea and strategy to sell people more food—given the restraints of psychology and price. The main point is that they found through testing and starting in about the late 1960's that people would be willing to eat more if the individual serving size was increased as opposed to choosing the route of ordering multiple servings.

Another point that is discussed is the issue of saiety. That is, how can or will people eat more if they are full? Isn’t that a constant? Studies on saiety show that people when given larger portion sizes will eat up to 30% more than they otherwise would have. (This definately fits with my experience and eating more than I "need to" sometimes is certainly pleasurable. But is this a good way to eat on a regular basis?) This phenomena is described as being related to an “elasticity” in hunger which may well be a good evolutionary advantage. The key is, though, that the advantages of this behavior are found in times where potential famine or low food supply is a possibility and arguably not when food is available twenty four hours a day and seven days a week.

Lastly, the article ties in how the decreased cost of manufacturing food permits sellers to increase the price of food relative to the portion size so that they can still make a good profit. Pollan's book also discusses how processed food, including but not restricted to the famous example of corn and corn syrup, critically fit into this cycle.

What makes supersizing such an effective business strategy is the cheapness of basic foodstuffs in America. Since the raw materials of soda and popcorn, French fries and even hamburgers represent such a tiny fraction of their retail price (compared with labor, packaging and advertising), expanding portion size becomes a way to multiply sales without adding much to costs.

This last point is also fleshed out in a lot more detail in Pollan's book.

In any case, reading the article and the book made me think a bit more deeply about the issues raised in this and other threads. How one decides to respond on a personal level to this information and how or if we as a society decide to work to "combat" some of these trends is, I think, a separate issue. Nevertheless, there will be many who will be resistant to even being informed.

I also think it is a bit simplistic, once becoming aware of some of these issues, to think that the state and size of food offerings at restaurants (and also on supermarket shelves) is only driven by consumer "choice". One needn't look to plots or conspiracies but simply economics.

←

It is equally "simplistic" to argue that Madison avenue and corporate America are responsible for "tricking" us into acting irresponsibly.

We are awash in information and unfortunately, those who are reasonable and have a more balanced perspective are often not heard. Pollan says many interesting things--he has an agenda. He often takes information and uses it to advance his agenda. I am as skeptical of pollan as I am of Madison Avenue.

Things are not so simple--as Pollan would have us believe (or Madison Avenue).

Take alcohol--beer wine liquor.

There is not a single case to be made from a health standpoint (I haven't seen it) that we need alcoholic beverages in our diets. In fact most humans do not have a natural taste for wine beer or liquor-- these are "acquired" tastes. Most kids do not "like" the taste.

However, I have seen many very compelling arguments about the negative impact upon society of alcoholic beverages.

The case seem to be right there staring us as society in the face. Alcoholic beverages should be banned! Society would be better from a health standpoint.

Are we ready to take this perfectly logical step?

Or are things a bit more complex?

Pollan likes to make assumption (based on information/data/studies of course) and then proceed with his thesis. OK--he starts with obesity, makes the case it is bad and then the case we have an epidemic at hand. I am not so sure that any of this is reality. what's "obese"? I know, there is a definition but take obese to the next step--unhealthy. Is a three hundred pound NFL lineman who can outrun most of the non obese population and is by most standards more healthy than the average person---someone who should lose weight (and his job) immediately?

I know this is an extreme example but the Pollan and the CSPI people like to use "extreme" examples to make their case. Pollan does offer plenty of food for thought but his "utopia" also involves trade offsa--there are negative consequences to what he proposes.

see where this is going?

Are we truly worse off healthwise today with all the fast food and chain restaurants than we were long ago before these places existed?

Does the fact that some kids spend a lot of time in front of TV sets and computer terminals and gameboys rather than run around outdoors perhaps play a not so insignificant role in any real health problem? Should we as a society force the industry to put timers on gameboys? ban them?

or maybe we should provide good balanced and fair information to parents and let them take whatever action they deem appropriate?

Maybe we should all watch A Clockwork Orange again (reading the book is too much to ask these days). Are there tradeoffs in removing pleasure from the equation? Should we continue to rely upon individuals to make informed choices and enjoy certain leasurable things accepting a level of trade off (consequence) they deem appropriate for them and their families. or should "society" take control and "do something"???

It is just not so easy.

[annecros]

No nutritional information is going to be perfect.  I think it's a hell of a lot closer than "out of thin air" - these chain restaurants are very tightly controlled in the amount of stuff they put in, so they can control their costs, and they're very tightly controlled in the kind of ingredients they use, so they can maintain their vaunted consistency of flavor.  Yeah, the cook might plop three more french fries on one plate than on another, that kind of thing, but a close estimate is reasonable to acheive.

←

But, there is no control over seasonality or consistency of ingredients.

I agree that the recipe is very strict, but a grape tomato in August is a very different creature than a grape tomato in January. Same for beef. Steaks are hugely variable in fat content and trace minerals. Even 80/20 ground chuck is "no less" than 80% lean. Big difference between 80% and 85% when considering fat intake. Pork, onions, carrots, peas, green beans, chicken, the potatoes sliced up for the french fries (matters much more than the count of fries on the plate) and what soil they were grown in and under what conditions. Even the prefab stuff from SYSCO is going to have variances from season to season, and even package to package.

Naw, thin air. An average, not even an adjusted mean. Certainly not tested on a gas cromatograph per plate. Are you telling me you've never encountered a bad pint of berries? Would you expect them to be a "close estimate" in nutrional value to the good pint of berries?

The stuff Ruby Tuesday's is putting out, and McDonald's for that matter, is just marketing material meant to sell a product. Buyer beware.

And just eat a balanced diet, with lots of fruit and veggies, and don't eat too much of anything.

ETA: I do want to repeat - human beings are living longer and healthier lives than ever before in the history of mankind.

Edited March 1, 2007 by annecros (log)

[Carrot Top]

It seems to me that if a corporation (which is what chain restaurants are) is able to provide its customers with an abundance of service and goods, above and beyond the expectations of its customers (which is what chains try to do, with big servings, comfort-taste "full"-feeling laden foods, easy access off the highway, quick service, standardization and consistency of offerings for high recognition level, supposedly clean accomodations, etc.) then that same corporation should be able to provide an abundance of information as to exactly what it is doing, if the general customer base has concerns over whatever issue is at hand.

There is a high level of interest among the general public today, about the caloric content of foods.

Why not be pro-active as a corporation and offer the information in the way most likely to succeed, for its customers, which would be a user-friendly way - not requiring research on a website that is on the computer at home, but information *right there* at the restaurant, available for perusal upon request, with a note on the bottom of the menus that this information is available if requested.

Why not? Is there any reason why this should not be done, or a reason why it is not being done now?

One of the good lessons I took away from life at a certain corporation ( a corporation often considered one of the "best" by those who measure these things) in terms of corporate culture and management, is that you should never just offer your "customer" one hundred percent. If they expect one hundred percent, offer them two hundred. If they expect two hundred, find a way to give them four hundred percent. Never stop, never quit, trying to please the customer beyond their expectations. That translates into excellence, and that translates into very happy customers.

There is opportunity here, for these chains, in this way, to my mind.

As long as they can find a way to be honest without being frightening at the same time.

[Andrew Fenton]

Anne, while it's true that agricultural products can vary widely, it's also true that chain restaurants are extremely good at managing their supply chains and maintaining consistency. That's the whole point of a chain restaurant. Consistency is also a reason for using more highly-processed, non-seasonal ingredients. And more often than not, that's where the calories live-- not in fresh fruits and vegetables.

Or to put it another way, it's a safe bet that the 2,000 calories in that chicken broccoli pasta aren't coming from the broccoli...

[ludja]

...

Maybe we should all watch A Clockwork Orange again (reading the book is too much to ask these days). Are there tradeoffs in removing pleasure from the equation? Should we continue to rely upon individuals to make informed choices and enjoy certain leasurable things accepting a level of trade off (consequence) they deem appropriate for them and their families. or should "society" take control and "do something"???

It is just not so easy.

←

I don't completely understand your emotional and unrelated response to the information in the article, John. You quoted my entire post, but are there some specific points in the article that you agree or disagree with or a have a comment on?

This discussion is primarily interested in noting and exploring how portion sizes and caloric loads have increased, particularly at chain restaurants. You may legitmately not be interested in this topic or assign it any significance but some of us are interested and do think it is important. It is not even immediately relevant for the purposes of this discussion whether you, I or anybody consider obesity to be on the rise or a problem. I won’t mention the other red herrings you included in your post, except one.

I think you are also clouding the discussion by continuously bringing up agendas and conspiracies. It is useful to consider these potential influences only if the data itself are in question, but I think much of the "data" in this particular discussion are right there on the restaurant menus; namely, single portion dishes with calories and fat totals that exceed normal daily guidelines and that are very commonly found on chain restaurant menus.

As an aside, I don't agree with your analysis of the information that was presented in Pollan’s article as reducing to “consumers being simply tricked by Madison Avenue". It is not a simple topic, and I think the article discusses some of the different economic, psychological and historical factors that are involved.

Edited March 1, 2007 by ludja (log)

[annecros]

Anne, while it's true that agricultural products can vary widely, it's also true that chain restaurants are extremely good at managing their supply chains and maintaining consistency.  That's the whole point of a chain restaurant.  Consistency is also a reason for using more highly-processed, non-seasonal ingredients.  And more often than not, that's where the calories live-- not in fresh fruits and vegetables.

Or to put it another way, it's a safe bet that the 2,000 calories in that chicken broccoli pasta aren't coming from the broccoli...

←

Nah, those calories are coming from other agricultural products. Milk, butter and margarine. As far as I can tell, the big advertising ploy used by the larger and more successful chains is using fresh ingredients.

The calorie count between an underipe tomato and a vine ripe tomato is significant. The underipe low cal tomato will provide you with water, some fibre and some vitamin C. The high cal tomato will provide you with all that, plus A and B vitamins, trace amounts of iron, magnesium and calcium, and those lovely leukotrienes. Which nutritinal information do you think the chain is going to use?

South American Broccoli tastes good in January. It was also harvested three weeks prior to arriving at the SYSCO warehouse. No two ways about it.

Now, maybe one day, mother nature will be completely neutralized so that everything is identical in nutritional content, taste and texture. Today is not that day, however. I would think it would be quite boring, and take some of the fun out of eating, personally.

My opinion.

[annecros]

One of the good lessons I took away from life at a certain corporation ( a corporation often  considered one of the "best" by those who measure these things) in terms of corporate culture and management, is that you should never just offer your "customer" one hundred percent. If they expect one hundred percent, offer them two hundred. If they expect two hundred, find a way to give them four hundred percent. Never stop, never quit, trying to please the customer beyond their expectations. That translates into excellence, and that translates into very happy customers.

There is opportunity here, for these chains, in this way, to my mind.

As long as they can find a way to be honest without being frightening at the same time.

←

But isn't that what the Cheescake Factory and its competition are doing? Giving the customer 200%?

It is hard to argue with success. Somehow, people see enough of a value in this chain's offerings to willingly be put on a waiting list for 45 minutes to an hour in order to enjoy the priviledge of sitting at a table and eating a meal.

Have you looked at The Cheescake Factory's stock history? Impressive.

As far as the "nutrional" information is concerned, well, maybe I would be concerned if it could be done factually. That's just not really "real" information at this point in time, and most people know what is good for them, in my opinion.

[annecros]

I don't completely understand your emotional and unrelated response to the information in the article, John.  You quoted my entire post, but are there some specific points in the article that you agree or disagree with or a have a comment on? 

←

In all fairness to JohnL, I got the same impression when reading the original article you linked to. This quote from the article in particular implied conspiracy on the part of chain restaurants to me:

"“Burgers, pizzas, and quesadillas were never health foods to begin with, but many restaurants are transmogrifying these foods into ever-more harmful new creations, and then keeping you in the dark about what they contain,” said Michael F. Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI). “Now we see lasagna with meatballs on top; ice cream with cookies, brownies, and candy mixed in; ‘Ranchiladas,’ bacon cheeseburger pizzas, buffalo-chicken-stuffed quesadillas, and other hybrid horribles that are seemingly designed to promote obesity, heart disease, and stroke.”"

I'm not sure how to interpret that passage any other way. Perhaps I am reading CSPI's intent wrong.

I get the feeling that they are a special interest group in search of a drum to beat. But, I have been known to be a cynic sometimes.

My opinion.

[ludja]

I don't completely understand your emotional and unrelated response to the information in the article, John.   You quoted my entire post, but are there some specific points in the article that you agree or disagree with or a have a comment on?  

←

In all fairness to JohnL, I got the same impression when reading the original article you linked to. This quote from the article in particular implied conspiracy on the part of chain restaurants to me:

"“Burgers, pizzas, and quesadillas were never health foods to begin with, but many restaurants are transmogrifying these foods into ever-more harmful new creations, and then keeping you in the dark about what they contain,” said Michael F. Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI). “Now we see lasagna with meatballs on top; ice cream with cookies, brownies, and candy mixed in; ‘Ranchiladas,’ bacon cheeseburger pizzas, buffalo-chicken-stuffed quesadillas, and other hybrid horribles that are seemingly designed to promote obesity, heart disease, and stroke.”"

I'm not sure how to interpret that passage any other way. Perhaps I am reading CSPI's intent wrong.

I get the feeling that they are a special interest group in search of a drum to beat. But, I have been known to be a cynic sometimes.

My opinion.

←

Thanks annecros! I agree that the writing appears to be designed to "catch the eye", but I guess I was focused more on the calorie and fat numbers in the article and the "regular" dishes that that they listed as being equivalent to the "Xtreme" examples.

When I was replying to JohnL I was referring to the Pollan article on some of the factors on supersizing that he referenced in his reply to me. (See the link in post 31).

Edited March 1, 2007 by ludja (log)

[Carrot Top]

But isn't that what the Cheescake Factory and its competition are doing? Giving the customer 200%?

It is hard to argue with success. Somehow, people see enough of a value in this chain's offerings to willingly be put on a waiting list for 45 minutes to an hour in order to enjoy the priviledge of sitting at a table and eating a meal.

Have you looked at The Cheescake Factory's stock history? Impressive.

As far as the "nutrional" information is concerned, well, maybe I would be concerned if it could be done factually. That's just not really "real" information at this point in time, and most people know what is good for them, in my opinion.

←

Yes, Cheesecake Factory and its ilk are giving 200% in one particular category at least: portion size (and probably fat content of the food, too).

I have to say that I think most nutritional information that can be gleaned and used for informational purposes is gleaned fairly enough and in a good enough form to be of adequate use in these situations. That's another topic, perhaps.

And I have to say, when I see (so many) people around who can not fit into their clothes and who have difficulties moving their bodies well without strain at the least physical exertion, the question does arise for me whether they really know what is good for them. Certainly anyone who is in this condition (which I do see lots and lots of at fast-food places and at chain restaurants) has more right than I do, to contemplate whether their personal state of being is a healthy one. The only reason I think of it at all is because the few times I've gained ten to fifteen pounds for whatever reason, above where I usually am, I feel like sh*t. So the question is in my mind whether others would feel like sh*t too, carrying around extra weight.

I see nothing wrong with educating the public as to what they are eating. I think it is a fair thing to do and a good thing to do. Put in the form of something that could be read or not, it is not something forced upon anyone who does not want it.

[david coonce]

Also these folks are becoming pretty tiresome with their puritanical warnings of gloom and doom. For some reason if things are so bad--how is it that we are living far longer these days compared to a time when there were no chains? Listening to these people one would think we'd be tripping over dead bodies in the streets!

We're living longer because of medical science. Living longer doesn't necessarily equal a better quality of life. See: Terri Schiavo.

And while "4-star restaurants" are hardly bastions of health food, their portions are much smaller and their prices are higher, therefore they are an indulgence for special occasions for most people - I eat at "4-star" restaurants maybe 6-8 times a year

On the other hand, the prices at these kinds of chain restaurants are low enough that people can eat at them weekly, or more often. And we know about the portions. And that's not even considering fast food, which is cheap enough that eating it every day is cheaper than making food at home.

And way back there in Post #32, John L mentioned something about "banning" foods. CSPI has never advocated banning any food. They simply think that consumers should be informed about the products they're buying. We don't let restaurants serve rotten meat to customers; in fact, we have health departments that constantly monitor restaurants to make sure they're not serving potentially dangerous food to people. Why is it a big deal to mention that some food is really, really bad for you, and may even contain trans fats, which are indigestible by human beings and that mainstream scientists have declared unsafe for human consumption at any level. Is that "banning" food, or giving people useful information?

Edited March 2, 2007 by david coonce (log)

[annecros]

Here is the Cheescake Factory's home page:

http://www.thecheesecakefactory.com/

Photography of the food and plating make it clear that nobody is trying to "hide" ample portions.

The menu can be found here:

http://www.thecheesecakefactory.com/menu.htm

On page 2 of the menu are salad selections that are less than 590 calories. Notice they don't call them "diet" or "low cal" - but "weight management" selections. That's hefty for a salad, but low cal compared to cheesecake.

Going to the Cheescake Factory for a meal is not about being on a diet. That is not what they do. And if you can't find SOMETHING on that menu to eat, there is something wrong.

Somehow, I don't think they have "set out to promote obesity, heart disease, and stroke." I think they are providing the public with what they want. They are running a very successful chain, with the hook that there is something for everyone and plenty of it.

I have eaten at Cheesecake factory three times in my lifetime. It really isn't bad food for a chain, and better than many family run restaurants.

Here is what the founding principal is, and was:

"1978 The Cheesecake Factory restaurant opens as a 100-seat operation on North Beverly Drive in Beverly Hills, Calif. David Overton's goal is to showcase a model dessert-specialty restaurant for prospective foodservice customers of the wholesale bakery. He convinces Linda to work part-time at the front desk. The restaurant establishes the future chain's pattern of offering an eclectic menu, big portions and signature cheesecakes and turning a previous bank site into a multimillion-dollar-sales performer."

On the FAQ page concerning a question about nutritional information, they say:

"At this point, we do not provide nutritional information for our menu selections. We pride ourselves on using only the freshest and finest ingredients available. Everything on our menu is made in-house on a daily basis so that we can maintain the highest food quality standards."

I think they are being demonized here for thier success.

My opinion, as always.

Edited March 2, 2007 by annecros (log)

[annecros]

Yes, Cheesecake Factory and its ilk are giving 200% in one particular category at least: portion size (and probably fat content of the food, too).

I have to say that I think most nutritional information that can be gleaned and used for informational purposes is gleaned fairly enough and in a good enough form to be of adequate use in these situations. That's another topic, perhaps.

And I have to say, when I see (so many) people around who can not fit into their clothes and who have difficulties moving their bodies well without strain at the least physical exertion, the question does arise for me whether they really know what is good for them. Certainly anyone who is in this condition (which I do see lots and lots of at fast-food places and at chain restaurants) has more right than I do, to contemplate whether their personal state of being is a healthy one. The only reason I think of it at all is because the few times I've gained ten to fifteen pounds for whatever reason, above where I usually am, I feel like sh*t. So the question is in my mind whether others would feel like sh*t too, carrying around extra weight.

I see nothing wrong with educating the public as to what they are eating. I think it is a fair thing to do and a good thing to do. Put in the form of something that could be read or not, it is not something forced upon anyone who does not want it.

←

I am having trouble wrapping my mind around the concept that people "don't know what's good for them."

I just googled nutrition, and got 132,000,000 hits in 0.07 seconds. I just googled it in the News section, which reflects current print and TV media for those that don't have internet access, and got 14.453 hits in 0.36 seconds.

March is Nutrition Month, by the way.

Here are the USDA's Diet, Health and Safety publications:

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Browse/DietHealthSafety/

Here is the abtract from a critical study done by the USDA on its own dietary intake studies:

"Abstract

Dietary Reference Intakes (DRIs) are the most recent set of nutrient-based reference values,

which, together with recommended dietary assessment methods, are being used to

update estimates of nutrient adequacy of population subgroups. Recent estimates suggest

both dramatic dietary deficiencies and excesses for selected nutrients among some subgroups.

This report takes a critical look at the studies and methods used to set DRIs. The

findings show that errors in dietary recall data—either underreporting or overreporting

of intakes—may partially explain the inadequacies and excessive intakes. In addition,

the lack of sensitive, specific biochemical markers has resulted in DRIs for selected

nutrients to be based on less than optimal data. Because the DRIs are used by food and

nutrition assistance programs to set nutritional objectives, establish program benefits,

and evaluate program outcomes, it is important to understand the issues involved in

deriving the DRIs and how to interpret the results of dietary assessments."

I think we can safely say that the public is informed.

My opinion is not based on not informing the public. That would be silly. In fact, I have advocated labeling on restaurant menus in the cases where it is possible to do so (May contain MSG, trans fat, nuts, etc., etc.)

It is interesting to see the divergence of opinion on this issue. On MarkK's thread, recounting a specific example of children being harmed by family members due to dietary habits, it was deemed that the family dynamic not be disturbed and that the blatantly bad habits inflicting measurable damage on children be overlooked for the benefits of an older generation. Yet, in this case, grown adults responsible for themselves are deemed not capable of making dietary decisions for themselves, because they "don't know what is good for them."

This puritanical streak in the American physche certainly manifests itself in interesting ways.

[annecros]

We're living longer because of medical science. Living longer doesn't necessarily equal a better quality of life. See: Terri Schiavo.

←

I'll see your Terri Schiavo, and raise you an Emma Faust Tillman

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/30/nyregion...=rssnyt&emc=rss

and a

and a Fred Hale Sr.

http://www.redsoxconnection.com/fans/oldestfan2.html

Both lived very productive lives of over 100 years.

[munchymom]

So, on the one hand, food as an agricultural product is so wildly variable that any attempt to disclose the amount of calories, fat, etc. in the food is useless. On the other hand, somehow, "everybody" knows what's in the food they're eating. How can both these things be true at the same time?

[munchymom]

Here are a few cites suggesting that portion size influences consumption, that people do not estimate the nutritional content of restaurant food correctly, and that people do not assess their own eating habits correctly.

It's a lot to wade through but it's worth looking at if you care about these issues.

(By the way, if you want to see for yourself what's being written on these topics, go to a library with access to ProQuest or Ebsco and search on "Restaurants" AND "Nutrition".)

---------

Addressing Public Demand and Perceptions

Lee T Murphy. American Dietetic Association. Journal of the American Dietetic Association. Chicago: Dec 2006.Vol.106, Iss. 12; pg. 1990

In relating packaging and portion sizes to consumption, it is well supported by Rolls and colleagues, as well as in other research, that the size of a package or container can increase intake, as can the size of serving portions in kitchens and in restaurants (3, 4 and 5). Such increases occur even when the energy density of the food or beverage is altered (3, 6 and 7). This suggests that the impact of portion size on intake may be related as much to perception as it is to physiological factors. For instance, over half of American adults generally claim that they attempt to eat until they “clean their plates” (8). For these individuals, there is a visual cue established, and they eat or drink until they reach that benchmark. It is also important to note that consistently being presented with larger portions can have a deceiving effect on energy intake even for those who do not regularly “clean their plates.” Individuals who instead intend to eat one half or three quarters of what they are served are also likely to over-consume if given a larger portion size at the outset (9).

-------------

Copyright 2005 Gannett Company, Inc.

USA TODAY

October 19, 2005, Wednesday, FINAL EDITION

SECTION: LIFE; Pg. 9D

LENGTH: 426 words

HEADLINE: Fast-food customers get a rude calorie surprise

BYLINE: Nanci Hellmich

DATELINE: VANCOUVER, B.C.

In a study called "the McSubway Project," Brian Wansink of Cornell University and researchers at the University of Illinois intercepted 300 people as they finished their lunches at McDonald's or Subway. They asked them what they ate and how many calories they thought they had consumed.

The scientists then calculated the number of calories the diners actually consumed by adding up the calories in the foods and subtracting the calories in their leftovers. Among the findings presented this week at the annual meeting of the Obesity Society, an organization of weight-loss professionals:

*Customers at McDonald's consumed about 710 calories and estimated that they had eaten about 670 calories each.

*Those at Subway each ate about 560 calories but estimated only 335.

-------------------

Making Healthful Food Choices: The Influence of Health Claims and Nutrition Information on Consumers' Evaluations of Packaged Food Products and Restaurant Menu Items.

Journal of Marketing; Apr2003, Vol. 67 Issue 2, p19-34, 16p, 3 graphs

Kozup, John C., Creyer, Elizabeth H., Burton, Scot

This study suggests that though some findings from prior research on labeling may apply to restaurant foods, unfavorable nutrition information does not have equivalent effects when presented in different consumption contexts. Although the positive effects of favorable nutrition information appear similar for food products in both packaged goods and restaurant contexts, the negative effects of unfavorable information are stronger for a menu item than for a packaged good. Furthermore, the provision of nutrition information for a menu item generally has stronger effects than nutrition information presented on a packaged food product. This implies that many consumers do not realize the unhealthiness of many foods prepared outside the home.

-----------

Consumption of food group servings: People's perceptions vs. reality

P P Basiotis, Mark Lino, Julia M Dinkins. Family Economics and Nutrition Review. Washington: 2002.Vol.14, Iss. 1; pg. 67, 3 pgs

Conclusion

People's perceptions of their food group consumption are very different from their actual consumption, based on diaries. Adults underestimated their consumption of servings of grains, as well as servings of fats, oils, and sweets. They overestimated their consumption of fruit; milk products; and meat, poultry, fish, dry beans, eggs, and nuts servings. The only exception was for vegetable servings by males. The difference between what people thought they ate and the number of servings they consumed may be the result of their not understanding what constitutes a serving. Nutrition education needs to focus on explaining to people what constitutes a serving for the various food groups and how to estimate the number of servings they eat.

----------

Attacking the Obesity Epidemic: The Potential Health Benefits of Providing Nutrition Information in Restaurants

Scot Burton, Elizabeth H Creyer, Jeremy Kees, Kyle Huggins. American Journal of Public Health. Washington: Sep 2006.Vol.96, Iss. 9; pg. 1669, 7 pgs

Abstract

Requiring restaurants to present nutrition information on menus is under consideration as a potential way to slow the increasing prevalence of obesity. Using a survey methodology, we examined how accurately consumers estimate the nutrient content of typical restaurant meals. Based on these results, we then conducted an experiment to address how the provision of nutrition information on menus influences purchase intentions and reported preferences. For both the survey and experiment, data were analyzed using analysis of variance techniques. Survey results showed that levels of calories, fat, and saturated fat in less-healthful restaurant items were significantly underestimated by consumers. Actual fat and saturated fat levels were twice consumers' estimates and calories approached 2 times more than what consumers expected. In the subsequent experiment, for items for which levels of calories, fat, and saturated fat substantially exceeded consumers' expectations, the provision of nutrition information had a significant influence on product attitude, purchase intention, and choice. Most consumers are unaware of the high levels of calories, fat, saturated fat, and sodium found in many menu items. Provision of nutrition information on restaurant menus could potentially have a positive impact on public health by reducing the consumption of less-healthful foods.

Edited March 2, 2007 by munchymom (log)

[munchymom]

I wanted to highlight one particular piece of one of the cites above as particularly germane to the original topic of this thread. (The others are more broadly toward the topic of "do people know what they're eating".)

Attacking the Obesity Epidemic: The Potential Health Benefits of Providing Nutrition Information in Restaurants

Scot Burton, Elizabeth H Creyer, Jeremy Kees, Kyle Huggins. American Journal of Public Health. Washington: Sep 2006.Vol.96, Iss. 9; pg. 1669, 7 pgs

"Survey results showed that levels of calories, fat, and saturated fat in less-healthful restaurant items were significantly underestimated by consumers. Actual fat and saturated fat levels were twice consumers' estimates and calories approached 2 times more than what consumers expected. In the subsequent experiment, for items for which levels of calories, fat, and saturated fat substantially exceeded consumers' expectations, the provision of nutrition information had a significant influence on product attitude, purchase intention, and choice."

(This post and the post above were both edited to close open parentheses. Open parentheses drive me nuts.)

Edited March 2, 2007 by munchymom (log)

[godito]

People are living longer these days, but I can't see how that's got anything to do with this particular topic. People are living longer because we go to fewer wars (My grandfather fought in world war 1. Out of 7 brothers, only 3 survived. The rest: dead before 30), we don't work on the field doing dangerous activities (we have machines to do them now), fewer of our children die of malnutrition (That is in the "western world", which elevates the life expectancy averages to hights that in some places of Africa would be considered a miracle), sicknesses can now be retarded of fully treated (Fewer people die of TB... or even the flu)

Now, we can all agree that it's dangerous to feed oneself with a burger like The Colossal. We don't need the nutritional information to know that if we order it, we're making a poor health choice. However, I do wonder if at one point we should demand some social responsability from chain restaurants. Super Size Me posted that question, and I think it's a good one. If it's so obvious that we make poor choices when eating, shouldn't restaurants do their best to offer different and healthier alternatives? "There is a market for it" is just not a good enough explanation

[annecros]

People are living longer these days, but I can't see how that's got anything to do with this particular topic. People are living longer because we go to fewer wars (My grandfather fought in world war 1. Out of 7 brothers, only 3 survived. The rest: dead before 30), we don't work on the field doing dangerous activities (we have machines to do them now), fewer of our children die of malnutrition (That is in the "western world", which elevates the life expectancy averages to hights that in some places of Africa would be considered a miracle), sicknesses can now be retarded of fully treated (Fewer people die of TB... or even the flu)

Now, we can all agree that it's dangerous to feed oneself with a burger like The Colossal. We don't need the nutritional information to know that if we order it, we're making a poor health choice. However, I do wonder if at one point we should demand some social responsability from chain restaurants. Super Size Me posted that question, and I think it's a good one. If it's so obvious that we make poor choices when eating, shouldn't restaurants do their best to offer different and healthier alternatives? "There is a market for it" is just not a good enough explanation

←

Certainly it is germaine. The chain restaurants are being accused of force feeding the public in order to directly cause diabetes, heart disease, obesity, and probably bad breath. It is a crises, so says the CSPI, and requires government regulation of private enterprise in order to prevent wholesale death and suffering.

Didn't you read the original article?

Some restaurants and fast food chains did and do offer different and healthier alternatives. They didn't sell:

http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/conte...0629_133435.htm

The entire article is worth reading, but from the cite:

"U.S. BARGAIN SHOPPERS. Stomach churning? Perhaps. But the Hardee's experience is a reflection of America today. Americans thrive on value and bargains. Good health be damned, if there's a good bargain to be found. If people can drive the extra 30 miles in their quest for everyday values to shop at discounter Wal-Mart (WMT) or hunt for treasures at warehouse club Costco (COST) or at the dollar store, why should they settle for less when they stop at a restaurant? “Value is a big lure,” says Brian Wansink, professor of food marketing at Cornell University in Ithaca, N.Y. “Compared to a basic burger, if you get something really huge for just 45 cents, more is worth trading up to, especially for young men who like to leave a restaurant feeling really full.”

Even McDonald's (MCD), which has been at the forefront of adding healthy items to its menu, like premium salads and sliced apples for children, recently launched the World Cup Burger during the six weeks of the World Cup soccer games. The burger, 40% larger than a Big Mac, is a whopping 1,227 calories, or more than half of the 2,000 daily recommended calorie intake.

As research already shows, Americans are eating more hamburgers, french fries, and fried chicken than before (see BusinessWeek.com, 11/9/05, “Fat Times for Fast Food”). And fast-food restaurants are giving it to customers in ever-more appealing forms. This year, in a nod to the increasing influence of new immigrants and globalization, almost all the nation's fast-food restaurants adopted new, spicy foods. McDonald's launched its spicy chicken sandwich, and Hardee's introduced a jalapeño sandwich, which became a permanent item after its limited-time introduction. Sonic (SONC) also introduced its own jalapeño cheeseburger. “Burgers are the No. 1 entrée ordered in America,” says Harry Balzer, vice-president at researcher NPD Food World. “It's good to experiment with different ways of consuming such a popular food and give people reasons to come back one more time.”"

What are the alternatives for the business? Ignore the demand, close up shop, and go home? Fire people? Not do business anymore?

I think it is basically backlash. When somebody tells you that you "should" do this, "shouldn't" do that, and "it's for your own good because you don't know any better" I think the basic human instinct is to rebel.

I haven't had one of the burgers at Hardee's. I do eat a Sonic double cheeseburger about once a quarter. Usually, I make the nutritional equivalent at home, and it tastes better. But with those numbers, somebody is buying and eating them.

Probably somebody that is lurking on this thread.