Posted on 02/27/2007 1:09:06 PM PST by Froufrou
An advocacy group that once lobbied for mandatory nutrition labels for groceries has set it sights on restaurant chains and is asking the federal government to require large chains to offer calorie, fat and sodium information on menus.
The Center for Science in the Public Interest on Monday criticized several food chains for promoting what the group calls "x-treme eating" with dishes that include more calories and fat than most people should eat in one day.
The government recommends that the average American consume around 2,000 calories per day, with less than 10 percent of the calories coming from saturated fat.
A "colossal burger" at Ruby Tuesday contains 1,940 calories and 141 grams of fat. One serving of an appetizer at Uno Chicago Grill called "pizza skins" contains 1,030 calories and 67 grams of fat; the pizza skins dish contains two servings, bringing the total to more than 2,000 calories and 134 grams of fat.
Nutritional information for many chain restaurants - including Ruby Tuesday and Uno - is available on the companies' websites, but CSPI wants the information right on the menus. The group says that after years of lobbying the restaurants to offer the information voluntarily, it is resorting to government force.
CSPI has already convinced lawmakers in 19 states and cities to introduce legislation that would require nutrition labels on menus in restaurants with more than 10 locations around the country. It would apply to restaurants from Ruth's Chris Steakhouse and the Palm to McDonald's and Starbucks.
New York City in December became the first city to pass the law. A federal version of the Menu Education and Labeling (MEAL) Act was introduced in both houses of the U.S. Congress last year but never came to either floor for a vote.
"The food police are not going to take this away from you," CSPI executive director Michael Jacobson said during a news conference in Washington, D.C., Monday.
"The restaurants have every right to make these foods, and you have every right to eat them, but I think at the very least, these restaurants should give consumers the information that would enable them to make decent eating choices," he added.
Margo Wootan, director of nutrition policy for CSPI, said diners often don't realize how many calories they are consuming during a meal at a restaurant. "Without nutrition information it's difficult to compare options and to make informed choices," she said.
"Studies link eating out with higher caloric intake and an increase in rates of obesity," she said. "It's very easy to eat a whole day's worth of calories at a single sitting at a restaurant."
J. Justin Wilson, a spokesman for the restaurant industry-funded Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF), said "it doesn't take a warning label for someone to know that something covered with cheese and bacon is not a health option."
Wilson showed up at CSPI's news conference to hand out cookies from Potbelly Sandwich Works with tongue-in-cheek warning labels saying the cookie "contains lots of calories, plenty of fat, and tons of yumminess."
"Including calorie information on menus will not make Americans healthier," Wilson argued. "Give consumers some credit. They already know the difference between a banana and a banana split, or a milkshake and a diet soda."
Wilson said that "almost every menu out there has a healthy option" and that "sometimes people just want a hamburger."
He said including nutrition information on obviously unhealthy food will add "a heaping pile of guilt along with their dinner if they decide to treat themselves."
I'd like a label that says, "If it's not prepared the way you ordered it and delivered to you within 15 minutes, you get your money back!"
Don't give them any ideas. These people are ruthless, brilliant, organized, relentless and have more money than some small European countries. They WILL pry the steak from your cold dead hands if they have to. They will win eventually. Not tomorrow, not next year, but if you went into a diabetic coma after eating a chocolate eclair and woke up 20 years from now, you will not recognize the world that you left.
Hell, just for kicks and giggles, I might join them after they're done coercing me to quit smoking. Just for the pleasure I would get from watching them pry the mozzarella sticks out of the hands of the 350 pound woman who complained about my smoking while she stuffed her face full of beef burritos.
My wife works in one. Those burgers are the stuff!
That's true, but the difference will generally be negligible--and I disagree that the cost would be very expensive. First, most restaurants already do this and it doesn't appear to be cost prohibitive. Second, if I can figure out the nutritional value of the food I cook at home in about five minutes, how difficult should it be for a restaurant?
Be careful! They might decide to ban chocolate!
Common sense would take care of a lot of the problems you mentioned. Smoking is ugly and stinky. (I used to smoke.) Overeaters are selfish. (I used to be overweight.) It wasn't fear of sin taxes that made me change my mind.
I quit smoking because I was tired of my clothes, my house and my kids smelling of cigarette smoke. I lost weight because I wanted to look good in the clothes I bought or made.
If someone wants to count calories and list nutritional info on everything, fine. I don't have to read it.
And I'll never get out of this world alive, so what have I got to lose in being logical about life, food and bad habits?
Well, that might be true for you, but there are lots of people who would like to know what's in the stuff they eat, even at restaurants.
Again, I'm not saying that we need a law--market forces have done a nice job of forcing restaurants to publish this information anyhow--but I'd like to see the holdouts step up to the plate and let people know the information so they can make an informed choice. After all, isn't the idea of a free marketplace predicated on each party having perfect information?
Did you notice the camouflaged nannystater on this thread?
Abolutely. That's the same way they sold us welfare in 1938 and food stamps in 1964. The same way they sold abortion under 'free choice for women' in 1973.
It's wrong.
OK. I'll make you a deal: When you get all the nutritional information in all the places you want it, you read it twice ~~ once for you and once for me.
I'll just sit in a corner, eating my thick juicy steak, none the wiser. That way, we can both get what we want. Deal?
Sure, I don't care what you do. Eat whatever you want. Why should I care?
Ya know? When I made up my mind to quit smoking, I did it in one swell foop. I also gave up my coffee and my alcohol on the same day that I gave up cigarettes. And the secret is this: When you get darn sick and tired of it, you'll quit smoking, for whatever reason you want to use. It came down to what I wanted more, not what was "best" for me.
Losing weight was the same thing. I was tired of looking like I did. I didn't feel good, I had a bad attitude, and I had a closet full of nice clothes I couldn't get into.
So I quit.
;o])
The left is out of control, and wacky.
Customer: "I'll have Today's Special?"
Waiter: "Very good sir. It should be back from the lab in two to three days."
I agree with you on that one. It sickens me to realize that this great nation has turned into one massive get rich off everybody else scheme.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.