CSPI info on weighty foods at chains

[Carrot Top]

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.

[ . . .]

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

←

Artful implication with the use of "yes, Virginia" that the issues on the table are a myth, like Santa Claus, and that anyone who chooses to think otherwise is a child-like innocent, like the Virginia of the famous letter. Unfortunately, this implication does not compute as anything but sarcasm used in argument for emotional effect, in my book.

Again, you have said you do not make assumptions for others but it does sound rather as if that is precisely what you are doing in saying that "we all know what those consequences are--really we do."

I would agree with you though, in saying that this is not a simple issue. I don't believe that anyone said it was, though I could be wrong.

[JohnL]

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.

[ . . .]

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

←

Artful implication with the use of "yes, Virginia" that the issues on the table are a myth, like Santa Claus, and that anyone who chooses to think otherwise is a child-like innocent, like the Virginia of the famous letter. Unfortunately, this implication does not compute as anything but sarcasm used in argument for emotional effect, in my book.

Again, you have said you do not make assumptions for others but it does sound rather as if that is precisely what you are doing in saying that "we all know what those consequences are--really we do."

I would agree with you though, in saying that this is not a simple issue. I don't believe that anyone said it was, though I could be wrong.

←

I think my assumptions make more sense!

I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt.

My use of "Virginia" was exaggerated--not to mean these issues are myth's but that there is a lot of conventional wisdom that is just plain off the mark. These wisdoms often achieve mythological proportions!

(sheesh--even I no longer understand what i am saying). It is just that I am tiring of all these do good organizations (gotta be organized there's no money in standing alone). Creating or taking advantage of difficult problems and attempting to save all of us or our children.

The do good ban on trans fats is already creating new problems.

According to today's NY Times the baking industry has been told to get rid of all trans fats by large corporations attempting to do good.

(Starbucks is one outfit ordering all their suppliers to eliminate trans fat). well seems like butter has more trans fats than margarine so the bakers are using margarine which we have been told is not as good for us as butter but it has less trans fat.

The more we try to enforce a perfect society we get deeper into the.......

Let's just ban food we can all go on IV diets with our drips controlled by the state--we will all be thin we will be happy we will be...perfect!!

Farmland will revert back to forests --more trees--less global warming! The save the earth folks will rejoice--animals will run free --PETA will dissolve into ecstasy!!!

The sheer lunacy of it all!!!!

Edited March 7, 2007 by JohnL (log)

[Carrot Top]

I say forget about the organizations that are trying to lobby and focus directly on what the "problems" are specifically. Then choose a POV.

The trans-fat ban was a BAN which is different than what this situation is. That was a "NO" said to the public. This is not a "no", merely a "yes a little more of that, please".

[Tess]

eat in moderation

I think an awful lot of perfectly intelligent people don't know how to do that, at least when it comes to restaurant food. I'm an avid home cook, and I have also gone on diets where you track your fat and calories, and even so I feel I am lucky if I can make a ballpark guess about how much fat has been used in the preparation of restaurant food. Bourdain in (I believe) Kitchen Confidential has pointed out that it's usually much more than you think. That fat (and often more salt that you would use at home) is not all that obtrusive to the palate but can make the food so delicious that you'll go on eating longer without noticing it. Most of us on eG know enough about food to suspect something like that is going on or at least realize that's the cause of that little weight gain last week. But I have friends who are not dumb but don't really understand why their weight is out of control or at least don't know an effective way of dealing with it.

As it happens, I don't think that's a reason to put nutritional information up everywhere. For one thing, it probably won't be accurate. But I don't think this is a non-problem in the way you are suggesting.

(As far as the other part of your prescription, "Get some exercise," here again it's not that simple. Depending on your lifestyle it may take some education and require some complicated logistics to work in the kind and amount of activity that will be effective for you. That's why people hire trainers.)

[ludja]

I say forget about the organizations that are trying to lobby and focus directly on what the "problems" are specifically. Then choose a POV.

..

←

I agree very much with this sentiment. Thank you for stating it clearly and succinctly. I think this a good point to make in order for us to have an interesting and informative dialogue on this and related topics.

Also, I think it is useful for anyone interested in these issues to at least look at some of the specific factors and information out there behind the rise in the types of food and portions offered at restaurants and the supermarket.

[JohnL]

This thread started as a result of a "lobbying" groups declarations and efforts.

Discussing portions and types of foods offered in restaurants doesn't get very far.

Aside from metabolic and genetic or other physiological problems, we all know what the relationship between diet and exercise and weight gain (or loss) is.

People simply do not wake up one day and "discover" they are obese.

We all tolerate levels of weight gain or loss and reach our own level of comfort or discomfort.

Most of us are responsible for our condition.

If one is gaining weight and is uncomfortable about it then we are each capable of reviewing what we are eating and making the appropriate adjustments. Some folks can not get it that we are not "victims" of restaurants, fast food, agribusiness, TV commercials or whatever.

Information is fine, it is a good thing. But as already indicated here in this thread, when restaurants make the info available many people do not access it or ignore it.

So the answer is not make it bigger or more prominent short of forcing people to memorize it by law--even that won't work people will still eat what they want to eat.

Adding salads to menus has not worked either--not enough people order them.

Lifestyle changes are difficult. people have to make them for themselves.

And the one truth that remains is:

eat in moderation

exercise.

and you will be well.

[munchymom]

If one is gaining weight and is uncomfortable about it then we are each capable of reviewing what we are eating and making the appropriate adjustments.

←

If we are eating in restaurants that refuse to disclose the nutritional content of the food they're serving, then we don't know exactly what the source of the problem is. (One could choose to eschew all restaurant food and only eat food prepared by oneself at home - that's not a route I was willing to take.) It's not intuitive which foods are healthier than other foods, nor is it obvious from a menu name which foods have more calories and which fewer. ("Chicken and Broccoli Pasta", anyone?) When I was doing Weight Watchers, I would sometimes eat at chain fast-food places (which provide info on their websites) instead of independent delis or whatever, because I wanted something "countable." Because even after studying all the materials and reading all the calorie guides, I couldn't guess from looking just how many calories were on that plate. And before doing the research and reading the materials, sometimes I made the wrong choices, thinking I was being healthier. Gee, I'd really like a hamburger and fries, but I'll get the salad with chicken because it's healthier, right? Oops - turns out the salad, once you include the oil in which the chicken was cooked, and the salad dressing, has more calories and fat than a burger and fries. Who knew?

When many of us have posted in this thread about the difficulties we've had with this, to just keep repeating, "Duh. It's obvious. Everybody knows," well...it's kind of frustrating. That's what made me dig up all that research I posted upthread - I thought maybe I was the only one who couldn't accurately estimate the nutritional content of a restaurant plate. Turns out not to be the case.

[ludja]

^Portion size is also very difficult to guage and sometimes it is not possible to bring leftovers home. Most restaurant portion sizes are much larger than what would be appropriate for one of three daily meals. I suspect that in general, people's notion today of what constitutes a "normal" portion size has also been severely skewed by the example of restaurant portion sizes.

[Fat Guy]

Is anybody seriously contending that putting calorie counts on menu boards will cause people to lose weight? Incessant threats of death, destruction, humiliation and hospitalization across all media don't work, but putting calorie counts on menu boards -- that'll do the trick!

Information won't make a damn bit of difference. If there is an obesity epidemic (a questionable proposition), it has occurred exactly in sync with increased availability of information about calories, nutrition and weight. So the question becomes, when information fails -- and it will -- to cause people to slim down, what will be next? How much coercion are we as a society willing to accept in pursuit of the goal of making people thin?

[Carrot Top]

I'm not so sure that it's in cause of making people "thin" but rather helping people be healthy if they are not. There is a personal testimony in the thread above from someone who did wish to have the nutritional information made more easily available, on-site at the restaurant. Probably there are more people that feel this way.

I was waiting for the slippery slope part to arise.

[ludja]

I am not sure if adding calorie and fat gram information to menus will help or even if it could have other unintentional negative effects. For that reason, I'm not personally for any type of legislation in this regard and at this point. Also, as some of the previous posts have pointed out, if you do put information on the menu, what would be the best or reasonable way to do it? What type of restaurants should it apply to?

Right now, I think it is a least useful to understand for oneself what the portions and calories are for dishes served at fast food and at sit down chain restaurants. I also don't think it is harmful for this information to be disseminated through various channels independent of how the restaurants themselves decide to handle it.

[Carrot Top]

I'm against legislation, too. But I would like to have the chains be pro-active in terms of providing the information to those who would want it, on-site. A simple page that could be given to the customer if they asked for it - with a small note on the bottom of the menus that this information *was* available upon request - would be a good thing to my mind.

But of course I use post-it notes to remind me to do things. I like them.

So naturally I would like the equivalent available to me in these situations. It *might* remind me to make the best choice available in terms of what I chose from the menu for myself.

[ludja]

I'd have thought the information in the original and subsequent posts would be of interest to everyone whether thin, medium or large and no matter one's attitude on staying that way or not. Some of the results of eating this way on a regular basis could certainly be health-related even independent of weight gain persay, as CarrotTop pointed out.

To me, it was interesting to become fully aware that these restaurants frequented by millions of people weekly across the country are very often serving single portion items that exceed the total "daily recommended" calorie intake and often double or triple the recommended fat intake. I think it is good to be aware of that fact.

[Tess]

Is anybody seriously contending that putting calorie counts on menu boards will cause people to lose weight? Incessant threats of death, destruction, humiliation and hospitalization across all media don't work, but putting calorie counts on menu boards -- that'll do the trick!

Information won't make a damn bit of difference. If there is an obesity epidemic (a questionable proposition), it has occurred exactly in sync with increased availability of information about calories, nutrition and weight. So the question becomes, when information fails -- and it will -- to cause people to slim down, what will be next? How much coercion are we as a society willing to accept in pursuit of the goal of making people thin?

←

I don't think calorie counts and other such information will cause anyone to lose weight (or get healthy-- good point in subsequent posts), but I think it can and does help some people. Maybe not people who don't care about their weight, but people who would like to control it better. I know I spent a couple of years thinking I was eating moderately while my weight crept up, and the minute I started actually applying numbers to what I was eating, everything became a lot clearer. I can now-- with practice-- pretty much maintain by doing what feels natural but to shift any poundage, I need to do math.

I'm still not in favor of forcing anyone to provide that information, but I think it's good if they do. Uh, to the extent that it's accurate.

[JohnL]

I'm not so sure that it's in cause of making people "thin" but rather helping people be healthy if they are not. There is a personal testimony in the thread above from someone who did wish to have the nutritional information made more easily available, on-site at the restaurant. Probably there are more people that feel this way.

I was waiting for the slippery slope part to arise. 

←

I don't mean to be rude (ornery and cantankerous maybe)

But it seems a lot of this is about helping others.

This is fine up to a point but people need to help themselves.

I get antsy when a group of folks decides that another group of people has a problem and proceed to "help."

Education and awreness are good. Especially in schools. we need to be careful that a line is not crossed.

Interestingly, on tonite's local news there was a story of some study that compared the effectiveness of various popular diets. (Atkins won) it was revealed however that all diets effectiveness was negatively impacted because people start them but do not maintain them and thus end up where they started.

"It's that old devil in me"

I am all for providing information and support to enable people to help themselves but that is where it needs to end.

[Carrot Top]

I am all for providing information and support to enable people to help themselves but that is where it needs to end.

←

So if corporate chain restaurants decided to have a line on the bottom of their menus that said "Nutritional information available upon request" and there was a sheet with this information available behind the host station that the servers had access to, so that they could bring this informational sheet to the diners that requested it, how would that sit with you, John?

[annecros]

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

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

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

From the site:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just saying.

Edited March 7, 2007 by annecros (log)

[annecros]

I am all for providing information and support to enable people to help themselves but that is where it needs to end.

←

So if corporate chain restaurants decided to have a line on the bottom of their menus that said "Nutritional information available upon request" and there was a sheet with this information available behind the host station that the servers had access to, so that they could bring this informational sheet to the diners that requested it, how would that sit with you, John?

←

Jumping in here.

Would enough customer's ask for it so that a new hostess would know where it is located?

[Carrot Top]

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

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

Just saying.

←

I adore that placed in that spot, Anne. Adorable.

My answer would be that I would call placing informational sheets at the chains the "Post-It" effect, and if I were a manager I'd want to give it a try. Why? Well . . why not?

Would enough customer's ask for it so that a new hostess would know where it is located?

←

Why? Are you thinking of being a hostess at one of the chains? Honey, you'd never get any work done if I came in to eat, 'cause we'd just have to sit and have a lovely tussle of a chat.

[annecros]

Would enough customer's ask for it so that a new hostess would know where it is located?

←

Why? Are you thinking of being a hostess at one of the chains? Honey, you'd never get any work done if I came in to eat, 'cause we'd just have to sit and have a lovely tussle of a chat.

←

Well, no. But I might want to ask for one. And wondering what would happen if a representative of CSPI asked for one and didn't get it. Do you think he would make the 17 year old cry?

Maybe.

[Carrot Top]

If he did he (she?) would risk some pretty damn bad public relations stories in the newspapers that would make the organization look pretty sleazy.

Hey. Sounds like a plan.

[JohnL]

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

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

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

From the site:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just saying.

←

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

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

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

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

[annecros]

The more we try to enforce a perfect society we get deeper into the.......

Let's just ban food we can all go on IV diets with our drips controlled by the state--we will all be thin we will be happy we will be...perfect!!

←

Sorry dear, that won't do. An IV is just used to replace fluids when the body requires hydration. A feeding tube ported directly into your stomach is the answer. Then you can inject the thrice daily slurry of nutrition that is absolutely designed to sustain life.

That age threashold, and the baby boom generation coming of age, is a good point that I had not considered. Things change, and so do demographics.

Edited March 8, 2007 by annecros (log)

[Carrot Top]

It seems to me that there is enough interest among consumers that eat at chains in the idea of "healthy food" (just because this is an interest in general in our culture, broadly, at this point in time) that the idea (of having the information available on-site but not forced upon the diner), could really be an excellent thing for both consumer and for the business.

The shape that this *should* take is not one of punishment or of warning *against* certain foods or certain portion sizes but rather the shape of having *more options* and having the knowledge to decide between all options available made easily available to the consumer.

I think this is such a good idea that if I were a DM of a corporate chain I would develop a proposal to give to the VP in charge of the area that would include the costs of doing this (including training for new seventeen year old hostesses, who, if they do *not* learn after being trained, might actually be made to cry by their manager rather than by the CSPI guy ) vs. the estimated profits that could be made by bringing more customers (of a slightly different variety perhaps) in the door, over a certain period of time - then give it a trial run. It would have to be shaped as a promotional idea and would have to have corporate support behind it for it to work well. Advertising costs would have to be part of the budget for this trial period.

These corporate chains are in fierce competition for customers. Generally they are all in one area, sitting there together like clumps of foreshortened trolls awaiting their diners with bright pink and blue shining signs decorated their fake-log-cabin fronts. The food is not all that different between many of them. Customer loyalty is a much-desired commodity in the corporate chain, and to get customer loyalty requires defining a personality that certain customer groups will enjoy over the other place next door. Meeting sales goals *counts*. And exceeding sales goals provides managers and DM's and VP's etc etc. better bonuses.

I can not see how offering this service would offend anyone and can see how it would rather, make some, very pleased and ready to come back and eat again, *soon*.

Great opportunity for a niche service, a foothold in the rough bark of the tall scrubby trees of the jungle.

[Fat Guy]

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

If the goal is to reduce obesity, I think it's probably most pragmatic just to skip over the calorie-information phase and move on to more coercive measures. Because the information won't help in any statistically meaningful way. Even those advocating these programs can't possibly think they'll accomplish anything.