So not only do laws like this try to regulate personal choices, but they present information that is of little use.

Well, if we’ve discussed it then it must be true. I’m sure there would be no other expense associated with reprinting menus, making sure every food item was prepared in the same manner, lost business as people didn’t like to eat at a place that had the unhealthines of the food they were eating written ON THE MENU, or the fact that the new menus seemed tacky (or any of the other reasons Radley cited). You’re so right that there is only a negligible expense. AND you’re also right that as long as there is no expense then it’s a good idea.

(I was explaining why libertarians might still be opposed to this law while staying true to their principles: it’s unfair as it only targets big business. Is this really up for debate?)

How about the city of New York hire those same lazy intenrs to create a database for all the people in the city to LOOK UP online and so they can make informed decisions. It’s the government providing a free service at NO COST to taxpayers, without making people’s dining experiences less enjoyable and creating a teensy-weensy inconvenience for SOME restaurants by FORCING them to do something. Either that or we could argue that informaiton should be more than just readily available, it should be shoved in your face, even though you are an adult. Sign me up for that!

We all went over the very first day. A family size brimming gourd of stew cost only two straight sticks. But there were a lot of problems. The rocks we had to sit on were hard, service was slow, only one rest room, no wheel chair ramps, etc.

So, the very next day, a bunch of folks in the neighborhood got together and formed a city council, elected a mayor, and passed a few laws to help ol’ Og understand how to run his new invention. By the end of the week, Og’s Stew Pot was renamed TGI Fridays and they had their IPO that spring.

Everything went along just great for about 10,000 years, until the warriors from the land of Torrogod conquered our land. They were uncivilized but powerful. Our cultures clashed, but we learned from them and they learned from us. For example, they showed us that there could be all different kinds of restaurants. They didn’t have to all be called TGI Fridays and be exactly the same. In exchange, we showed them how to set up a city council and pass laws.

When the state says “Your label is incorrect” the business says “Prove it.” The state has to provide the lab results, and then the business goes to court and says to the judge “Your honor, the State of New York is upset that we are presenting the worst cast scenario to our customers. If a customer will eat something with 10000 calories, they won’t be harmed if it actually had 1500 calories.”

This is why I’ll never own my own business. Too passive-aggressive. Cheers!

it’s about putting more obstacles and expenses in front of “big business”

Huh? How do you figure that the law’s intent is to create expenses for “big business?” I certainly don’t see it that way. We’ve already discussed that “big business” can hire a few interns (at a minimum cost) and use existing databases on the Internet to find the caloric values of each ingredient, individually, and then add them together. Two or three interns can take care of this over the summer with time to spare.

As for those who want the info should look it up, I can’t agree with that, either. Maybe some people will actually see a number on the menu that will surprise them (as has happened to me when looking up nutritional info online). Why not have it available for those who’ve never thought that a regular Quizno’s sandwich could have over 1000 calories!

Also, from a libertarian standpoint, this law isn’t about giving consumers more infomration, it’s about putting more obstacles and expenses in front of “big business” and protecting the little guy, which libertarians naturally hate because it’s very anti-free market.

So while the principled argument here is most effective, but in the practical elements also make some sense. It seems clear that consumers enjoy chain restaurants that are doing better at resemlbing local, high quality restaurants. Fast food has started to offer more variety and customizable options, and we’ve seen the emregence of places liek Quizno’s (over subway), or Panera and other chains whose niche is to offer higher quality food, that’s highly customizable. The simple fact is that chains are more viable economically but peple still want to eat at nice, friendly places that make high quality food, not some generic chain spitting out cookie cutter entrees.

This law interfere’s with that because the next time I go into a Ruth’s Chris in New York, I’ll wonder whether I am in fact sitting in a world-class steak house or a frickin’ TGI Fridays because the nutrition information will slapped all over the menu (like anyone isn’t already splurging a bit at a Ruth’s Chris). Not to mention that maybe I’d rather live in ignorant bliss about my 1800 calorie meal.

If you want information, look it up? Is that so hard?

Some I found by googling the hell out of them and others I found to be right there on the restaurant’s webpage. BK even allowed you to find out how many calories were in a sandwich by personalizing it (i.e. uncheck the mayo). Subway actually had 6 sandwiches printed on their cups and napkins (I believe they’re still there). That saved me time since I didn’t have to count/look up how many calories were in my meal.

I believe that if people went into a McDonalds and saw that a Big Mac had less calories than a Crispy Chicken Club, maybe they’d choose the BM over the other and save themselves 90 calories right there. The same goes for one of their salads. If they could plainly see that the Caesar had 190 calories but the Creamy Southwest dressing had only 100, maybe they’d pick the one with 90 fewer calories.

Nobody is arguing that putting the nutritional info somewhere accessible in a fast food joint will cause people to eat a healthy meal, but they might be able to save 100 or 200 calories and make it so that it’s not AS bad for them.

Having the caloric values for foods helped me to meet my goals and lose the weight.

But… but… how’d you find those caloric values if they weren’t right there on the menu? Magic?!

I’m sure they’ll be covered when it comes to lawsuits.

That’s actually a problem. If the numbers aren’t accurate, and you can’t sue them when they’re inaccurate, then they’ll just lie.

I’ve seen this information provided by fast food restaurants and while it wouldn’t stop me eating there in an emergency, I no longer eat at one normally. I’d love to see a calorie count next to an item (no need for all the nutritional elements).

.02

#14 Michael Chaney

Why, at this point would a restaurant need to send something to be tested? It should be trivial to put this information together based on the ingredients, all of which have been tested or are well-known (such as fruits and vegetables, various meats, etc.).

I regularly put together the nutritional information for what I eat, based on the individual ingredients. The lab-work is already done.

This is exactly what I was going to post. There are DOZENS of websites out there that will tell you how many calories there are in a slice of tomato or in a leaf of lettuce. The same goes for meat, mayo, ketchup, mustard, pickles, onions, etc. Everything that goes into 99.95% of meals in a restaurant has already been tested and quantified. All a restaurant would have to do is research it, calculate it, and publish it. It doesn’t seem that hard to me.

I’ll tell you why I’m actually for this law. Seven years ago I decided to go on a diet and exercise to lose some weight (I was 230lbs and wanted to get down to 190lbs). Needless to say, I still ate out at places that had nutritional info available at the time (like Subway and Burger King) and when I ate at restaurants that didn’t have the nutritional info available, I’d look it up and calculate it myself. I pretty much had memorized how many calories there were in the foods I ate the most. It took me 8 months, but I did lose the 40 lbs that I set out to lose, even while eating out three or four meals a week. I had set myself on a goal of no more than 2500 calories on days when I worked out (five days a week) and 2200 calories on days that I didn’t (Wednesday and Sunday). And you know what? Having the caloric values for foods helped me to meet my goals and lose the weight.

Restaurants that are big enough to have 15 or more franchises can afford to pay a few interns that can do all the research and calculations. There is no reason why this couldn’t be put together in 4-6 months. Also, as long as they label their material saying that calories are estimates and they may vary widely with customized orders, I’m sure they’ll be covered when it comes to lawsuits.

This asshole is so comfortable in justifying using force to get what he wants that the force disappears from his sight. He cannot see it and therefore does not give it any weight when discussing the views of others. So that’s why he thinks that “libertarians and associated anti-government types” are opposed to the concept of restaurants providing more information to consumers rather than the idea of pointing guns at restaurant owners and forcing them to behave.

Need anyone say more?

Option 2) Put a single computer kiosk logged in to a dedicated nutrition database in the corner, tell people to look it up themselves.

Option 3) Never have more than the required number of restaurants in one chain. Once you hit 9 or 14, then incorporate a new business, i.e. “Applebees Northside, Inc.” Applebees Southside, Inc.” etc…

Besides, the only purpose here is to create another person here to ‘bribe’. You put whatever nutritional info you want on the menu, then ‘grease’ whatever jackass is in charge of making sure your food really complies…just like the health inspector, building inspector etc…

(1) Calculating calories. Calorie content values (in kcal) required by this section shall be based upon a verifiable analysis of the menu item, which may include the use of nutrient databases, laboratory testing, or other reliable methods of analysis, and shall be rounded to the nearest ten (10) calories for calorie content values above 50 calories and to the nearest five (5) calories for calorie content values 50 calories and below.

Sounds to me like “nutrition databases” is the method you’re talking about.

How can a system allow thousands of embalming preservative agents for human consumption–and–deny the consumer the right to suffer his own choices?

No lab will ever measure the intake of poor nutrition of poor souls. Food is a basic need, nourishment is an instinct. these cannot be legislated, commonsense must be allowed to surface at some point in the maturing process, society must let the people grow up.
or out…

When potential fines, lawsuits, or operating licenses are at stake, restaurants will want to make sure the data they put up reflects the food the way they prepare it.

Meanwhile, from a standpoint of defending or appealing a challenge to their claimed nutritional info, a restaurant will want to be able to claim it has made a good faith effort to establish the info it presented. If the standard practice is (and it would be) to have a lab test the meals, or at least the components, then a restaurant can look careless if it hasn’t gone through the same effort. An owner will want to be able to say, “Look, we submitted it to XYZ Certified Nutritional Testing Labs and we used the results they gave us in the menu.”

I regularly put together the nutritional information for what I eat, based on the individual ingredients. The lab-work is already done.

(Of course, with the whole obesity epidemic, I may have to wait until this fat-labeling scheme whips everyone into shape…)