Calorie Counts Mandated in Healthcare Bill

[Droid101]

Weird side effects of the bill will start popping up. Like this one!

With the health reform bill now law, folks have begun poring over it to find its Easter Eggs, those hidden commands that hide something important behind them.

They found a good one.

As the Center for Science in the Public Interest notes (with great joy) chains with 20 or more locations must now post calorie counts on their menus. (An example from the CSPI is at right.) The group has been campaigning for this since 2003.

I have discussed this topic a few times and we don’t really want to know. Scientific results from displaying the data are mixed.

A study in New York City found people bought 50 fewer calories, on average, when this data was made clearly available. A Stanford study, released this year, showed a 6% reduction in calories purchased when the data was in plain sight.

But some of the data is surprising, as Michael Pollan noted to The Washington Post recently. If you know that salad, with crispy chicken and dressing, has more calories than the Big Mac, I’ll have some health righteousness with my burger, thanks.

As I reported in January, a University of Washington study found parents eager to police their kids’ calorie intake, when given the data, although their own behavior did not change.

And many restaurants have gotten good at hiding fat in free side dishes, as I noted at SmartPlanet. When the sides are added, restaurant calorie counts can be 18% higher than advertised.

Something else to consider. This requirement is waived for non-chain restaurants, or chains with fewer than 20 stores. So places like my locavore pub, Leons Full Service, are exempt. (Try the bacon in a glass with peanut butter.)

Same that fine local soul food chain, This is It!. If you really hate this regulation make these two guys your big brothers, at least until they get 14 more locations.

For the rest, this little experiment in social engineering is going mass market.

http://healthcare.zdnet.com/?p=3461

Also, the picture with the article was quite good.

http://i.zdnet.com/blogs/this-is-it-barbeque.jpg (http://i.zdnet.com/blogs/this-is-it-barbeque.jpg)

[AZRogue]

Providing more (accurate) information is rarely a bad thing. This is one by-product of the bill I can solidly cheer for.

So, Yay! :)

[Random Encounter]

And for a change of pace I will disagree with AZ on an issue.

Lower Calorie does not equal healthier.

But with that being the only data point provided you are going to have people skipping the large salad in favor of the bacon-grease-burger and thinking they made the healthier choice.

I have no problem with the information being available.
And I have no problem with restaurant companies deciding to do this on thier own if they see a benifit in doing so.

But I think it's a waste of time and money being forced on these businesses for no good reason.

[Redallia]

Something tells me this is going to be one of those things that just rife with unintended consequences (both the calorie count thing and the health care reform thing).

[Janos]

Lower Calorie does not equal healthier.

But I think it's a waste of time and money being forced on these businesses for no good reason.

But knowing the Calorie information does give you an idea how health it is even if it doesn't tell you everything. A lot of places intentionally hide their calorie information exactly because of how bad it is.

Red Robin only revealed their calorie information after the state required it, and learning that several of their burgers (including my all time favorite) was 1800 calories definitely changed my eating habits. And a few of those were advertised as "lite" options becaues they are healthier than other burgers.

[AZRogue]

And for a change of pace I will disagree with AZ on an issue.

Lower Calorie does not equal healthier.

But with that being the only data point provided you are going to have people skipping the large salad in favor of the bacon-grease-burger and thinking they made the healthier choice.

I have no problem with the information being available.
And I have no problem with restaurant companies deciding to do this on thier own if they see a benifit in doing so.

But I think it's a waste of time and money being forced on these businesses for no good reason.

It's okay, amigo. Even I disagree with me sometimes. Hell, if I got things the way I want them, I'd suffer worse than most! I just can't help it if what I think is right also would cause me hardship. :)

As for calories, you're absolutely right that they are not the only important piece of information we should have when it comes to choosing what to eat. However, and this is where I see this change doing some good, people are very good at lying to themselves. This is one change that will make it difficult for people to maintain that delusion, staring at the numbers next to the Big Mac they're ordering.

I don't think people should be forced to make certain choices, but providing information that throws the consequences of their choices into their face is something I approve of, even if it's only a partial revelation.

[Name Lips]

The problem with nutrition is that you can't boil it down to a single numeric scale. There's no one number you can look at to determine if an item of food is "good for you" or not. There's like 50 numeric measures, and what number or range you're shooting for depends a lot on your personal physiology, level of activity, and overall health.

Every one of us - even the dismally stupid ones - have been provided with a tremendously complex machine powered by an even more tremendously complex and powerful computer. And we're permitted to operate it without any instruction at all. Few of us have the background to really understand what makes this machine run...

And most of us simply have an understanding that food makes us go, and too much food makes us fat, and too little food makes us starve. You can convince people to add one "number" to that equation to look at, to figure out how much "food" is in a piece of "food" but few want to bother with considering anything more complex. Which is a waste of a really cool computer, now that I think of it.

[Lady_Acoma]

I know that for diabetics you end up taking classes to understand reading food labels and to figure out what an actual portion size is in foods (for example we are taught that for meat it is generally about the size of a deck of cards).

It is overwhelming for most people and they phase out quickly into it. Many of the people I have been through classes with just don't really get what the hell all the information is for on foods.

But hopefully in just having some understanding, even a tiny bit, they will try to make somewhat healthier decisions. Any kind of awareness is generally better then total ignorance IMHO.

[Name Lips]

I did read a study once (or, more accurately, an article that talked about a study) that said that so long as you meet the recommended daily allowance for all nutrients, the fewer calories you consume the better. The researchers were surprised because they expected there to be an amount below which it was dangerous to drop. If there is such a lower bound, you can't get to it while still eating 100% of the fat and protein and other nutrients you need to get by.