CSPI info on weighty foods at chains

[annecros]

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?

←

See, you are not taking into account the liability that goes along with product labeling.

Do you think for one second, that if the Cheesecake Factory put on it's menu that a salad had 2,150 calories, and the CSPI picked one up to go and had it analyzed and that it contained 2,200 calories, that the CSPI wouldn't jump up and down and throw a fit? So the kitchen put an oxheart tomato on top of the salad instead of the beefsteak tomato because it was what was available from the supply chain that day.

There is a reason why the USDA does not require nutritional labeling on fresh produce or fresh meat. When you do see it, you will note that it is abbreviated, generalized and not at all the equivalent to the information that you get on prepackaged food.

I still don't understand why people don't understand the huge variance in perishable commodities. Anything that is alive starts losing stuff when it is dead. It is just decomposition, and a hard and fast organic rule. Fresh is better than canned or frozen, canned or frozen is better than dried. Dried is better than nothing at all, and can sometimes add another dimension to your diet depending upon your particular situation.

I have been said to be a cynic, as I have said before. But within my experience with government agencies and special interest groups, they must take it up a notch to survive. Sometimes, it just gets silly.

Yeah, I think we are all blessed with at least a bit of common sense. Now, there are disorders that cause people to starve themselves. There are also disorders that cause people to overeat.

What about the rest of the 90% of the population?

[Andrew Fenton]

Anne, by focusing on fresh vegetables, you keep ignoring the main source of calories in a meal. I'll sayt it again: that tomato might vary in its nutritional details, but it only represents a tiny fraction of the caloric value of one of these dishes-- like 30 calories total, out of 1,500 or 2,000.

The bulk of calories, as you concede, come from processed foods, or items like butter and cheese. Those are quite predictable, which is why the pound of butter and the Kraft cheese in my refrigerator have calorie counts printed on the package. I've never heard of CSPI or anybody else suing over this information: have you?

But even if all that weren't true, there are a hundred things for which we accept good-faith estimates every day-- for example, vehicle MPGs, which can vary quite a bit from car to car. Somehow people manage to make decisions without being paralyzed by a lack of hyper-precise information.

I'm no fan of CSPI, mind you-- I think they're often off-base, and a little silly. But that doesn't mean that the idea of providing people information (even if it isn't accurate to ten decimal places) is a bad one. I think you're greatly exaggerating the problems involved.

Edited March 3, 2007 by Andrew Fenton (log)

[annecros]

Anne, by focusing on fresh vegetables, you keep ignoring the main source of calories in a meal.  I'll sayt it again: that tomato might vary in its nutritional details, but it only represents a tiny fraction of the caloric value of one of these dishes-- like 30 calories total, out of 1,500 or 2,000. 

The bulk of calories, as you concede, come from processed foods, or items like butter and cheese.  Those are quite predictable, which is why the pound of butter and the Kraft cheese in my refrigerator have calorie counts printed on the package.  I've never heard of CSPI or anybody else suing over this information: have you?

But even if all that weren't true, there are a hundred things for which we accept good-faith estimates every day-- for example, vehicle MPGs, which can vary quite a bit from car to car.  Somehow people manage to make decisions without being paralyzed by a lack of hyper-precise information. 

I'm no fan of CSPI, mind you-- I think they're often off-base, and a little silly.  But that doesn't mean that the idea of providing people information (even if it isn't accurate to ten decimal places) is a bad one.  I think you're greatly exaggerating the problems involved.

←

Hey Andrew,

Hope this finds you well. I don't remember conceding anything, but will have to take a look back to make sure. I thought the point was that the bulk of the calories came from agricultural products.

The nutritional information with the tomatoes is simply to keep things simple. Anybody can figure it out and research it and understand the concept.

The same applies to any meat in the product. Anything that mother nature produces, she randomizes.

It also applies to dairy, but not to such an extent as it is homogenized, sterilized, and basically is pure protein and calcium, and fortified with Vitamin D. Unless it is skim, then it really doesn't render any nutrition to the human body at all. It is not what comes out of the cow, usually. It is almost an artificial product, due to regulation.

Margarine, can you say trans fats? I knew that you could. Margarine is technically low fat and lower in calories than butter.

Why do you think that low calories and low fat equal better nutrition? You keep focusing on the low cal and low fat portion of the diet, but that food delivers no nutritional, or at the best very little, value.

For example, iceberg lettuce is low calorie and low fat. It also only delivers water and fiber to the consumer. How can that be good? Those salads McDonalds was pimping for a while imparted more nutrition in the dressing than the rest of the entire small drink sized cup. Think about it. A handful of iceburg, two grates of carrot, two slices of cuke, and one - maybe two - underipe cherry tomatoes.

Do you really expect to remain upright on such a diet?

Sure, you will lose weight on low calorie/low fat. Your body will go into starvation mode and consume itself. You will also lose weight on low carb/ high protein. Your body will go into starvation mode (ketosis) and consume itself.

I think CSPI is greatly exaggerating the problem. I don't think that restaurants can, or should be required to, provide information to the consumer that is accurate to the tenth decimal place.

In addition, if I read the article right, they want it mandated and regulated. By the feds. The feds need it to the tenth decimal place.

In CSPI's words

"It is time."

Heh.

Now, Andrew, explain to me why it is OK for the elite to eat Fois Gras - but not OK for the plebes to eat a salad at the Cheesecake Factory that may add up to 1,000 calories, but packs a much wider range of nutrients than that poor, abused liver ever will?

Why?

I sit and wonder.

I am open minded as well. So give me your best shot.

[Andrew Fenton]

I'm not sure why you keep on dragging in all these assumptions about what I mean to say-- they're not based on anything I've actually said. So let's just dispense with all of that: I haven't made any claims about proper nutrition, or what people ought to eat. Honestly, I don't particularly care what anybody else eats.

My point all along has been very simple. Give people information so that they can make their own decisions. I don't care how they get that information, and indeed, the best thing would be for restaurants to provide it on their own. That's what the internets, and little plaques and booklets, are for.

At this point, your remaining substantive argument against providing this information seems to be that "the feds need it to the tenth decimal place." But this is clearly untrue: just look at all the nutrition-labeled food products in your refrigerator and cupboard. No decimal places there.

Edited March 3, 2007 by Andrew Fenton (log)

[munchymom]

Yeah, I think we are all blessed with at least a bit of common sense.

←

The whole point of all those studies I dug up is that we all have common sense when it comes to food - and it's wrong. When people use their common sense to guess how many calories are on a restaurant plate, they guess that there are half as many as there really are. When the information is provided, people change their behavior. It's not that people are making free, informed choices to eat a whole day's worth of calories on one plate. In the absence of accurate infomation, people guess - and they guess wrong.

I think that part of the reason that even well-educated, well-informed people don't have the ability to instinctively guess the amount of food on a restaurant plate comes from a few places. Portion size is the first. If your food instincts evolved in an environment where you were served reasonable portions on home-sized plates, then when presented with a restaurant portion on a giant plate, the instinct is often still to "clean the plate". One of those old Weight Watchers truisms was that "it takes twenty minutes for the brain to realize that the stomach is full." That's twenty minutes in which one can do a lot of overeating - who here hasn't had that uncomfortable "oh, I ate too much" feeling? Secondly, people who use a reasonable amount of oil and sugar in their home cooking might not realize how much added oil and sugar is in a restaurant meal - it's a lot more than people who are concerned about calories would ever use at home. Also, some foods have become more caloric in the past few years - Ben & Jerry's ice cream tastes better than supermarket ice cream because it has less air and more fat in it, but if you grew up eating supermarket ice cream, you might not automatically realize that your cup of Ben & Jerry's is twice as caloric as that cup of supermarket ice cream you had every day when you were a kid.

Figuring out how much food you're eating really isn't a matter of common sense. It's hard work to figure it out, and when restaurants refuse to even give ballpark estimates of the amount of calories on a plate, it makes it a lot harder.

[Fat Guy]

It's hard to see a sensible objection to the idea of providing nutrition information. There may be some details that need to be worked out, but it seems like an overwhelmingly good idea.

It's true that nutrition information is only an estimate, however as long as the estimate represents an average it has just as much ultimate value as an absolute number would. In other words, if I estimate an order of fries to have 1,000 calories, and I eat two orders on two different days, it probably doesn't matter that, on account of inconsistencies in serving size, or the composition of potatoes, or whatever, that on one day my serving actually had 1,200 calories and on the other day it actually had 800.

I think it's also important to note that it is not at all burdensome to provide nutrition information. I'm not sure how many people reading along here have ever compiled nutrition information, but if you did you'd realize it's as easy as entering a recipe into a computer. Cheap software (which the federal government should make available as a public domain product) looks up the ingredients in a huge database, does all the computations, and spits out a Nutrition Facts label. No problem. No burden, or such a limited burden it's not worth worrying about. For some reason people are under the impression that only mega-corporations have the resources to provide nutrition information, and that's just false. It's easy for a mom-and-pop place to do it too. It's easy to do it for the daily special -- it just takes a few minutes.

It's probably worth noting that a whole lot of restaurants, and certainly the overwhelming majority of chain restaurants, do provide nutrition information. It's more a question of the venue: do they provide it on the menu or menu-board, in a handout available at the restaurant, or do you have to go online to do the research.

The proposal on the table now is to put this information on menus. As someone who is pro-information, I wouldn't have a problem with this (I also don't think it would accomplish much, but that's another story). There might be some aesthetic concerns, but if the information listed is just calories and fat it can probably be incorporated tastefully into a menu. If you have to list things out at the level of riboflavin and folic acid, then I think you have to go to an off-menu system, but making this available in the restaurant is still sensible, or at worst harmless.

One good point the advocates of this kind of on-menu information make is that it may encourage restaurants to compete by offering less caloric, less fatty food. In other words, with mandatory calorie counts on the menu, you generate incentives for the big chains to say, "Our food has fewer calories than their food!" If the focus of competition can be shifted away from big portions (actually, this is already happening -- there is no Super Size at McDonald's anymore) and towards fewer calories, that might be a good thing. Then again, it's hard to predict the unintended consequences -- the drive to reduce calories could lead to the introduction of a lot of artificial sugar and fat substitutes.

So, I think it makes sense to provide the information. I wouldn't invest much hope in the plan -- there are too many weak links all along the chain of reasoning from assumptions through implementation through predicted consequences -- but it's probably worth a shot.

As for the CSPI, well, we're talking about a group that favors fat taxes and other coercive solutions -- the information campaign is a friendly face that CSPI puts on, but it's only a small part of CSPI's program. But perhaps the most illustrative events have to do with the CSPI's involvement with trans fats. It has been mentioned many times in the press now (and it should be said that most of those mentions tie back to ConsumerFreedom.com, an advocacy group just as militant as the CSPI, just on the other side of every issue) that the CSPI is in large part responsible for the food industry's widespread use of trans fats. In the 1980s, CSPI went on the attack against tropical oils and animal fats, and was a major defender of trans fats. This is one restatement of that history. Now, the CSPI is opposing trans fats. While a different issue, it's a good illustration of the fact that proceeding with such apparent certainty, in an area where so much remains unknown, can backfire.

[annecros]

I'm not sure why you keep on dragging in all these assumptions about what I mean to say-- they're not based on anything I've actually said.  So let's just dispense with all of that: I haven't made any claims about proper nutrition, or what people ought to eat.  Honestly, I don't particularly care what anybody else eats. 

My point all along has been very simple.  Give people information so that they can make their own decisions.  I don't care how they get that information, and indeed, the best thing would be for restaurants to provide it on their own.  That's what the internets, and little plaques and booklets, are for.

At this point, your remaining substantive argument against providing this information seems to be that "the feds need it to the tenth decimal place."  But this is clearly untrue: just look at all the nutrition-labeled food products in your refrigerator and cupboard.  No decimal places there.

←

I apologize Andrew. After rereading my post, I can see how it reads as if I was attributing CSPI's attitudes to you personally. Please know that was not my intention, but I certainly should have worded the post differently in order to make it clear that I object to this special interest groups philosophy and tactics.

I have to be away for a couple of hours this moring, but will return this afternoon to respond to the rest of the post, and try to explain myself with more clarity.

[Andrew Fenton]

Anne, apology accepted.

Steven, no surprise that I agree with what most of what you've written. But as to one point:

It's probably worth noting that a whole lot of restaurants, and certainly the overwhelming majority of chain restaurants, do provide nutrition information. It's more a question of the venue: do they provide it on the menu or menu-board, in a handout available at the restaurant, or do you have to go online to do the research.

That's what I thought; and it's mostly the case when it comes to fast-food chains like Burger King. It seems to be less the case when it comes to sit-down, casual dining chains. At least, of the first four chain websites I looked at when thinking about this topic-- Cheesecake Factory, Olive Garden, Applebee's and Red Lobster-- none has that information for their menus. Two of them-- Olive Garden and Red Lobster-- do have nutrition information, but only for their light menus. To me, that suggests that these four chains worry that publishing that information will hurt their business.

[Mallet]

Maybe a lit late here, but I thought I might give a comparison for quick perspective. Behold, the Bouchon quiche! You almost feel yourself getting fatter only by looking at the ingredient list, and it is worth every single delectable bite. Here's a quick rundown (I chose the bacon and onion quiche):

-half a dozen large eggs (444 cal)

-half a pound of butter (1590 cal)

-2 cups milk (244 cal)

-2 cups heavy cream (821 cal)

-1 pound of cooked bacon (688 cal)

-1 tablespoon salt

-12 oz. flour (1344 cal)

Entire Quiche: 5131 calories

Recommended serving = 1/8 quiche = 641 calories

One of these "extreme" entrées is like eating close to half a Bouchon quiche, and I can't imagine it providing even close to the same amount of satisfaction

[godito]

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

I might be reading the articles wrong. In fact I probably am, as I'm reading everything fast, due to very little time, and therefore, maybe, should not even comment. However, this is what I gather:

1. When provided with information, customers tend not to choose the the high fot, high calory menu items. So the restaurant choses not to provide such information, favoring the sales of those items, as they are low cost - high profit. Here, I understand, sort of, the point of view of the business. But this proves that the demand is only there when we are kept in the dark.

2. If a menu includes a section with healthier choices, they tend to not sell as well, so this sections are reduced or eliminated. This also makes sence. In some places of the world, customers might feel insulted if the server recommended one of those "heatlhy choices" as the customers might believe that s/he is implying that they are fat or unhealthy (no joke, in some places diet coke is not called "diet", but "light").

So, restaurants are not selling their healthy dishes, but they don't sell their high fat ones either, as long as its nutritious information is readily available.

What alternatives do the business have? Well, find a happy medium, maybe? I'm only guessing, but I believe that if their whole menu was made healthier (not to the point where they eliminate fat and sugar, but enough, yes, that the food is balanced and tasty), they would not loose customers. Well, some, sure, but they would probably not make less money.

If it was required for them to post nutritional information, then they will have to change their recipes to make them healthier and not scare their regulars. I don't see a problem with this. I doubt they would close their doors or fire anybody.

[Fat Guy]

That's what I thought; and it's mostly the case when it comes to fast-food chains like Burger King.  It seems to be less the case when it comes to sit-down, casual dining chains. 

←

Pardon my sloppy language. I meant fast-food chains. The table-service chains do seem to operate differently.

[annecros]

Ran across this today when looking for information on something else, and thought it might shed some light on the topic.

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/?PubID=309

From the study:

"Asked to pick the top two from a list of five possible reasons that people eat so much junk food, respondents most often cited convenience (73%). Other reasons were that it's what people like to eat (44%); it's because of heavy advertising (37%); it's more affordable (24%); and it's because people don't know which foods are healthy (14%).

There is some variation in this pattern of responses depending on whether the respondent is or isn't a heavy consumer of junk food. Both groups agree that convenience is the biggest reason for America's junk food habit. But among those who say they rarely or never overeat junk food, there is a greater tendency to stress the importance of advertising as a factor in the consumption of junk food by others. Among those who acknowledge that they themselves eat too much junk food, there is more of a tendency to stress the fact that it's what people like to eat."

It appears that perspective colors opinion.

[JohnL]

Ran across this today when looking for information on something else, and thought it might shed some light on the topic.

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/?PubID=309

From the study:

"Asked to pick the top two from a list of five possible reasons that people eat so much junk food, respondents most often cited convenience (73%). Other reasons were that it's what people like to eat (44%); it's because of heavy advertising (37%); it's more affordable (24%); and it's because people don't know which foods are healthy (14%).

There is some variation in this pattern of responses depending on whether the respondent is or isn't a heavy consumer of junk food. Both groups agree that convenience is the biggest reason for America's junk food habit. But among those who say they rarely or never overeat junk food, there is a greater tendency to stress the importance of advertising as a factor in the consumption of junk food by others. Among those who acknowledge that they themselves eat too much junk food, there is more of a tendency to stress the fact that it's what people like to eat."

It appears that perspective colors opinion.

←

You are so right--perspective does color opinion!

Also thanks--the Pew study is very interesting.

My point has always been--people know they are overweight and they know how they got there.

This is very complex and there are no easy answers. The people who like to lecture us are quick to find easy answers that suit them.

[annecros]

Ran across this today when looking for information on something else, and thought it might shed some light on the topic.

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/?PubID=309

From the study:

"Asked to pick the top two from a list of five possible reasons that people eat so much junk food, respondents most often cited convenience (73%). Other reasons were that it's what people like to eat (44%); it's because of heavy advertising (37%); it's more affordable (24%); and it's because people don't know which foods are healthy (14%).

There is some variation in this pattern of responses depending on whether the respondent is or isn't a heavy consumer of junk food. Both groups agree that convenience is the biggest reason for America's junk food habit. But among those who say they rarely or never overeat junk food, there is a greater tendency to stress the importance of advertising as a factor in the consumption of junk food by others. Among those who acknowledge that they themselves eat too much junk food, there is more of a tendency to stress the fact that it's what people like to eat."

It appears that perspective colors opinion.

←

You are so right--perspective does color opinion!

Also thanks--the Pew study is very interesting.

My point has always been--people know they are overweight and they know how they got there.

This is very complex and there are no easy answers. The people who like to lecture us are quick to find easy answers that suit them.

←

I guess if you are really, really skeeved by a Big Mac (for whatever reason Big Mac's might skeeve you), you would naturally have a tendency to blame the commercial you see on TV for all the ills of mankind.

I agree with your position, but that comes from my perspective.

Anne, who is not the slightest bit overweight, but does overeat from time to time.

[munchymom]

So, if everybody already knows what's in the food they're eating, then what's the big deal about making the nutrition information available? Why resist it so hard?

It's not about forcing people to not eat food that's bad for them, it's about being able to make an informed choice. Potato chips have a nutrition label on them - a nutrition label that makes it eminently clear that these things contain no nutrition and way more fat and calories than are good for you. Nonetheless, people buy them by the megaton. Either they don't look at the label, or they look at it and say, "Well, it's not good for me, but I like it, and I'm going to buy some." And some people who are watching their calories look at the label and choose not to buy them, or to have them only when they really want them as opposed to every day. Why should making choices in a restaurant be any different? Why hide the ball?

[Carrot Top]

So, if everybody already knows what's in the food they're eating,  then what's the big deal about making the nutrition information available?  Why resist it so hard?

[ . . . ]

Why hide the ball?

←

I dunno. The reasons I am reading here seem to be Interfering Government and/or Delicate Sensibilities.

...............................

The ball perhaps is not pretty?

[annecros]

ETA: Never mind.

Edited March 6, 2007 by annecros (log)

[JohnL]

I think the problem is that industry (healthy or otherwise, large or small) does not want special interest groups using the government to establish rules and regulations for them.

We do need rules and regulations and there is always a fight between interests which is usually a healthy one that results in rules and regs but maintains a healthy free market.

My problem here is that I believe that outfits like CSPI are not fairly presenting a case. (industry doesn't have totally clean hands either). I also believe that the agenda of group like CSPI goes far beyond representing the consumer.

The debate should start with studies like the Pew study linked here which indicates the problem is much more complex and points to solutions that are not so easy.

It is easy to target things like advertising. Lot's of money there and finding a "culprit" that absolves everyone else of any responsibility ("the TV told me to eat at MacDonalds's") means there will be little resistance to heavily regulating an industry.

These consumer interest groups rely on money generated by often helping create the belief there is a problem rather than identifying real problems for consumers.

They are often driven by profit motives as much as the industries they look to keep in check.

[Fat Guy]

I think the primary issue is that many restaurant owners object to being forced to put nutrition information on the actual menus and menu boards right next to the dish names and prices. There's an illustration on the CSPI website:

Were the proposed laws simply requiring that the information be made available, there would perhaps be some resistance but it wouldn't be extreme, I don't think.

[annecros]

I think the primary issue is that many restaurant owners object to being forced to put nutrition information on the actual menus and menu boards right next to the dish names and prices. There's an illustration on the CSPI website:

Were the proposed laws simply requiring that the information be made available, there would perhaps be some resistance but it wouldn't be extreme, I don't think.

←

Then there is the matter of liability (a concern of any coporation that is perceived as having deep pockets, and McDonald's has won all the lawsuits contending that McDonald's "made" them fat to date) and enforcement of any law or regulation put in place. The information is useless if it is arbitrarily slapped on a menu board, and the regulations are useless if there is not a measure put in place to enforce the actions required.

I think it has been discussed before the limitations of food labelling on packaged consumer goods that are much more quantifiable - i.e. "per serving" and such.

For the record, I have never argued that people have less information. Only that the information that they do get be good, meaningful, usable information.

I don't think it will get past a court challenge, and I am certain it will be challenged in court.

ETA: Here's a good overview of product labeling accuracy from a FAQ from a group that deals with a lot of people on special diets. They are selling a product line, but the company was founded by an individual with a chemical engineering degree from MIT:

http://www.expertfoods.com/FAQ/labelaccuracy.php

From the site on prepackaged foods:

"Are the Nutrition Facts reported correctly?

According to a 1996 FDA spot check, nutrition labels had an overall rate of 92% correct. However, please don't take that to mean that each item sampled had exactly the amounts of nutrients specified on the label. The labels were correct according to the regulations, which is not the same thing.

What is correct "according to the regulations?"

As we explain in the sections on how the values are determined, there is a considerable amount of variability in food products. In a compromise between the difficulty of producing precisely-controlled foods and protecting consumers, nutrients are divided into two groups. "Good" nutrients consisted of: "vitamin, mineral, protein, total carbohydrate, dietary fiber, other carbohydrate, polyunsaturated or monounsaturated fat, or potassium" and must be present in at least 80% of the label value in every unit tested. However, the amounts may exceed the label value by a "reasonable" amount. Conversely, "bad" nutrients: calories, sugars, total fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, or sodium must be present in no more than 120% of the label value but may be less than the label value by a "reasonable" amount.

From the site on fresh foods:

"What about unprocessed foods?

Many companies use standard values that come from the USDA, their suppliers, etc. These standard values are often based on averages.

This can lead to even more discrepancies than for processed foods. For example, there are numerous varieties of apples and their nutrient content will vary among types, by season, possibly by storage method, and so forth. So the probablility that a particular apple has the nutrients listed in the standard is not as good as the probability that a serving of applesauce, made from many different apples, meets its standard. "

Edited March 6, 2007 by annecros (log)

[munchymom]

That really does make for an ugly menu board- also possibly confusing to display numbers that are not the price. And presenting calorie count in isolation without additional nutritional information is of limited utility at best, and can be misleading. I give that plan a thumbs down. I like the way McD's does it now, with nutritional information printed on the obverse of the paper that goes on the tray. Easily accessible if you want it, but reasonably unobtrusive. If every restaurant had such a fact sheet available, I'd be thrilled.

[Carrot Top]

If every restaurant had such a fact sheet available, I'd be thrilled.

←

I don't usually ask but twice recently I felt the urge to. Once at IHOP, where I had not been for many years. After being startled by the portion sizes I asked the server what the calorie count was and got a response that seemed like the question was phrased in the Martian language - totally incomprehensible to them. Online the information was available and I think the breakfast counted out at something like two thousand calories ( , yes) with a lovely high fat count, too.

The other time after ordering a something-or-other at Starbucks I asked, and the server looked below the counter in the standardized recipe book to give me the information, after asking her manager if they had the information.

I wouldn't be surprised if most chain restaurants already have general nutritional information, either attached to the standardized recipe sheets or in the manager's office. And I wouldn't be surprised, also, if there is a line in each chain's policy and procedures manual that defines whether or not the information should be given out to customers who ask.

[Fat Guy]

Right, the point is not to provide the information to people who want it. It's to force the information on people who don't care enough to seek it out. This kind of approach goes beyond simple sharing of information. So it's not really a situation where you can say "If you're opposed to the CSPI's plan you're against information." Although, of course, those who advocate for such a plan will say that over and over.

[Carrot Top]

Well, I can remember when there were no health warnings on cigarette packets. That particular health-related intake of a substance went full circle, certainly. With lots of lawyers getting rich during the process.

With the health-related claims that are being made against obesity, and with the potential of charges that could be raised in the future of "negligence" in terms of not being fully to all crossed t's and dotted i's, communicative in terms of the health risks in terms of eating these huge portions or large amounts of fat, against the corporate chains (deep pocket bullseye just sitting there), I wonder if it might happen that the chains do become more completely or aggressively "user-friendly" in terms of providing this information . . .i.e. having it there to see on the spot rather than making the customer doing the work to find the information . . .

[JohnL]

The problem with this issue is its not a simple issue.

first the assumption is people are stupid or at best not aware or informed.

Most people who are obese know they are obese, understand that obesity can lead to health problems and yes Virginia, they even know (or at least have a pretty good idea why they are obese).

All without knowing the exact amount of calories in the krispy kremes they are scarfing down with a cup of coffee laden with three tablespoons of sugar and half and half.

Maybe, despite this many chose to be overweight or obese and live happily with the consequences. I don't know because I chose not to make assumptions for others.

Furthermore, maybe the so called explosion in obesity is a result of the baby boom generation attaining the age where one's (at least mine) metabolism changes and combined with the fact that we don't get as much exercise as we did at twenty five (I just can't play touch football anymore lest I pull or break something).

maybe it is not just that we are susceptible to the crafty messages the geniuses at MacDonald's and their ad agency folk are using on us. (subliminally of course).

Maybe, the fact that kids today are spending a lot of time in front of the TV or worse a game boy and parents would rather give em a cookie than say no or send them to a playground is just a bit of the problem and not the fast food industry conspiracy to get everyone addicted to twinkies!

Maybe we have met the enemy and the enemy is-------US!!!!!

maybe the complex problem has simple answers!

And maybe, just maybe we have all the answers--

eat in moderation

and get some exercise!!!!

if you chose to indulge then accept the consequences (we all know what those consequences are--really we do).