More restaurants, either by mandate or by choice, are bombarding diners with calorie counts, salt content and, in one case, the carbon footprint of a meal. But some experts are wondering if all that information is simply confusing people.
Article Source: msnbc.com
from:msnbc.comAre we getting TMI about the food we order?
Seeded on Thu May 13, 2010 2:46 PM EDT (msnbc.com)
— Filed under: health, diet-and-nutrition, lifestyle, government-and-politics, nutrition, psychology, restaurants, food-and-drink
Leave a Comment:
It's no surprise that consumers face data overload because we are drowning in information, much of it garbage. The problem is that most of us are poorly equipped to distinguish fact-based, "important-to-my-health" information from false, sensational or valueless information. The news media digests and regurgitates scientific publications that warn us about too many calories one day, then too much cholesterol, then trans fats, then too much salt, then E. coli scares, then mercury in otherwise healthy seafood and on and on. How about if a credible, intelligent and objective news source (??) summarizes all of the dietary health issues that have a meaningful correlations with good health and rank the importance of each health issue mentioned above? Nah....that's probably not newsworthy. Just keep jumping from one confusing, sensational story to another. Besides, unhealthy diets fuel new medical procedures and the development of costly new drugs to combat largely self-inflicted diseases like diabetes. It all seems somewhat futile.
berkeleywellness.com
Sorts through the responsible research with meta analysis of data, and addresses concerns raised by hype and misinformation.
Some of the info is subscriber-based (yes, we do have to pay something for quality information), but much of it is free.
Look the only four things we need to look at is:
Calories
Fat & Saturated Fat
Sugar/carbs
Salt
They can put whatever else they want there, this is all I read.
The rest of the info is for lawyers and government bureaucrats.
If they want to get crazy, they can list all the chemical ingredients too, but I won't read it.
Point is, people can look for what they want to see and ignore the rest. That's the way to avoid information overload.
I mean really, what do people want: a scale of one to ten: 1=don't eat me you'll die and 10=eat me and you'll stay slim and trim forever.! It doesn't work that way, it's not what you eat, it's the proportion for how often you eat bad things, how often you exercise, what your metabolism is like, etc. Geez, to be realistic people have to consult a daily computer to plug in all the information, then all the food information, then see what 'might' be true. Of course, I remember when butter and eggs where considered extremely harmful, now it's margarine and egg substutites and fat substutes that are harmful. Your doctor changes his mind yearly over what's good and bad, how can industry keep up with their wishy washyness?
Carbon footprint is the absolute dumbest new term and concept of the decade. Go dig a hole and squat in it; then your carbon footprint will be minimal and I can come by and laugh.
A lot of people resent government intruding in this fashion. They say that government shouldn't act as a parent to adult citizens.
That is because a lot of people prefer to remain ignorant and make bad choices.
Can you give me one rational argument for how requiring that food manufacturers provide basic information that allows me to protect my pocketbook and my health constitutes government intrusion, especially since the Commerce clause in the Constitution clearly establishes the governments right to regulate commerce?
I want to know what I am getting for my money, and regardless of my level of emotional maturity I can't find out if the manufacturer does not tell me what is in the food they are selling. they are not going to do that if they don't have to. They demonstrated that for decades.
There is no basis in history or in research to trust the for-profit sector to tell me the truth about what they are selling me without the government requiring that they do so. Every consumer protection law in this country that makes sure the food you eat is not poisoned and the air you breath is reasonably clean is there because of government.
The fact that some people prefer to remain ignorant and make bad choices does not mean that consumer protection is not the responsibility of government or that the general population should suffer because of the laziness or irrational "thinking" of the few.
Tell me, if not our duly elected and constitutionally authorized government, then who else is going to stand up against the food industry, the drug companies, the manufacturers who want to pollute the environment and make them consider our health and safety?
The government isn't telling you what to eat. It is forcing restaurants to provide nutritional information about the food they are selling. Don't you like knowing what you're buying?
Now, telling you that you can't prostitute, smoke dope, or marry your sister -- that is acting as a parent to adult citizens.
That's the interstate commerce clause. It gives the federal government authority to regulate commerce between the several States. It does not give the federal government authority to meddle in transactions where both parties are in the same State. Those transactions are protected from federal meddling by the 10th Amendment.
Requiring restaurants to post nutrition information is EXACTLY what the government should be doing. This is simply a matter of disclose that informs consumers about the product they are buying. I just hope they don't dumb it down and make it useless. 30% of people have blood pressure that is sodium sensitive. The only way to avoid driving up your blood pressure with restaraunt food is to have the information available so consumers can make an informed choice, if they choose to do so. For me, going to a restaurant is currently nothing but an exercise in guesswork and damage control because many foods that seem healthy are packed with sodium. In my experience, about 90% of restaurant foods have too much.
"Are we getting TMI about the food we order?"
No. It's about time the food suppliers, from top to bottom, started telling us more about our food in this country. I just watched Food Inc. the other night and WOW what a wake up call. Beyond calories, carbs, protein, fat, sat fat, and sodium, I want to know where my food comes from and how it was made. If given the choice between shrimp farmed in a chemical pool from China, or caught off the shores of Oregon, which would you choose? But they don't tell us this info because we don't demand it. I say give me all the information and let me make my own decision.
Totally agree. We have every right to know what we're putting in our bodies, and if it takes government intervention to make nutritional facts available to everyone, then so be it.
Tell you what...if you're overweight because you've been eating an over-abundance of fast food for ten years, it should be readily apparent that you should quit eating it...not what choices at any given fast food place should be healthier options.....the fried chicken sandwich versus the battered and fried fish sandwich. and the mayo. The secret sauce. The seasoned fries versus regular...bacon...you get my drift. Why are we blaming resturants for not imforming us? any reasonable adult should be able to make choices for themselves based on a high-school cooking class eucation. But, I guess, as long as I don't order fries and the high-school dropout behind the counter tells me how many calories there are and asks me if I'm sure I want them....
TOTALLY agree with you, Rick from Oregon. It makes me nuts that when we're finally getting to a point where information is even available, someone asks if it's "too much." Sorry, but providing info is the government "intruding"?! Without this information, we're like blindfolded sheep being spoonfed whatever crap the corporate food industries want to fork over, which, we can bet, will not be healthy for us or the planet.
I can't even believe this article was written with the spin it has. Exploring the best format of info...I get that, but questioning whether we're too "confused" to handle actual information about the food we're putting into our bodies? Give me a BREAK! We are not in kindergarten!
Definitely agree with Rick. I would love to know where my food comes from. Calorie counts aren't as interesting to me on restaurant food. I don't eat out often and if I'm eating out I'm there to enjoy myself and eat the bad stuff if that's what I desire (though I understand for others it may be important). If i can pick between, as Rick says, "chemical pool shrimp" or shrimp from the "shores of oregon" that will definitely affect my choices.
Right on, Rick from Oregon. Everybody ought to see Food, Inc. - and The Future of Food, as well.
Hey - if you don't want the information, just ignore it! What's the big deal?
Some people do want the extra information. Personally, I'd like to see what else is in fast food being listed... you know, the feces from the dead animal carcasses, antibiotics, chlorine and ammonia used in the meat processing, insect parts, msg and other chemical additives, etc.
Good luck with that last part...I'd like to keep the mystery behind Taco Bell. Just think...I'm taking off those last ten years of my life that will be slow and painful to live...like Denis Leary with his smoking and drinking. It's really okay with me. I'd rather not live to be 100 and physically falling apart all at once, remanded to a hospital bed day in and day out.
I am shocked by the title of this article. The idea behind a free market and consumer choice requires us to have facts and information. These nutritional facts are not marketing ploys or sales pitches. It took government action to require this information in the grocery store and the government must continue to push in order to get restaurants to comply. Obesity is a major problem in America and this is the most basic step necessary to address it. Without his information I would still be obese. Who would possibly be against having facts about the food they eat?
Of course, most people will ignore this information. Are we all required to heed the warnings on products we buy; cigarettes anybody?.
In this case the only confused person in this situation is the writer of this article. Perhaps all the money that person received from resturant lobbying groups has fogged their understanding of the issue...
Yeah, but what the article miserably failed to point out was its main point. What if people begin to sue for obesity based on the fact that they were too confused over too much information in the labels. This will happen, just like the people that sued McDonalds over not displaying the fact that coffee was actually hot! Someday when we go to a restaurant or fast food place, we'll have to sign a disclaimer that we know everything about everything and that we choose to ruin ourselves by eating this food. Then of course that disclaimer will be used to allow the government to not spend millions of dollars trying to extend our lives by a few months.
How about just the simplest thing of all? Eat less! Exercise more! Problem solved!
Thank you! That works for me, too...
Doesn't work for the lawyers, by the way, they tracked your ID and they're coming to get you.
Bartman - sounds like a good idea. However, regardless of how much a person is eating and exercising, doesn't he have a right to know how much saturated or transfats are in the food he's eating, how much sugar and corn syrup, how much salt? Eating less and exercising will go a lot farther in promoting good health if one also has the option to eat healthy fats, no added refined sugars or corn syrup, and reduced salt.
The food industry wants you to believe that just eating less and exercising is the answer. They offer salads on menus saying they promote healthy options. What they neglect to tell you, as with the example of the chicken and bacon salad covered with creamy ranch, is that you're probably taking in more calories than if you had just selected the big mac.
In moderation these foods are fine (well, not really fine, but that's a much longer story). How many people eat fast food on a daily basis because it's fast, convenient and cheap. The real problem is that obesity, and the illnesses that accompany it, are increasing exponentially. While I don't care if people are overweight and out of breath after climbing a flight of stairs, it actually costs the rest of us, not eating this garbage, more in the form of higher health care costs.
It's time to get the nutritional facts out and place a wellness tax on these "foods."
How about a universal law stating that other people or businesses are not responsible for: 1) what you choose to eat; 2) how much you choose to eat); 3) how healthy your lifestyle is; and 4) what happens to you because of your eating decisions!
rrobeson - That would be all well and good if the rest of us weren't picking up the tab through increased health insurance and medicare costs. Studies show the majority of obese are lower income people. People with more money tend to eat healthier. Fast food is cheap.
"because it's fast, convenient and cheap", translated to mean too lazy to make good, nutritious meals at home
Andd therefore it's somebody elses fault that you're stupid, fat and lazy?
I hardly think consumers are being 'bombarded with information'. The thing is, and I believe studies have borne this out, people vastly underestimate the # of calories in a meal -- they'll see a meal and guess it's 500 calories, when it's really 1,200 (almost what an average woman should eat in an entire day). Most women are professional dieters and we are pretty well versed in the issues of Carbs, calories, fat grams -- is there a woman in America who hasn't had some point been on Weight watchers? I think it's about time that restaurants and fast food have to post or otherwise inform consumers about at least the basics on their meal: calories, fat grams, carb grams. Watch "Food Inc" - it will open your eyes to how a handful of companies dominate our food chain. Read "Fast Food nation" by Eric Schlosser (the movie was kind of lame, the book is excellent -- not only on addressing the issues of animal treatment at slaughterhouses, the disgusting things in meat, etc... but also some very timely information about how large agribusiness exploits illegal immigrants.)
I haven't ever been on weight watchers..i never intend to be, either. and I love my fries. I think if you eat in moderation, and it's slowly gaining, it should be just as easy to exercise in moderation within doctor's guidelines to take that little undesired amount of weight back off.
Jeeze catastic must be wonderful to be you. Clearly you've never had a genetic predisposition to obesity, been pregnant, been depressed, been put into a position of being sedentary a majority of the time, stopped smoking, or struggled with your weight ever (let alone from the time you hit puberty on). How spectacular you are, and it's too bad the rest of the world is not just like you. I know I'm not, and that every last thing I mentioned above fits me, and likely a portion of it fits a vast majority of people. I'd rather be fat and down to earth than skinny and arrogant.
Very few people are obese because of genetics. There's not really any excuse for a sedentary lifestyle either, unless you were injured in some way.
I love how you assume everyone who is in shape is automatically arrogant. Maybe we just know how to take care of ourselves.
ferrferr - very well stated! When Susan mentioned Weight Watchers in poast #9, I was wondering how long it would take before some arrogant, better-than-thou person made a comment like catastic made. Life is difficult. Everyone has a coping mechanism. For many people, that happens to be food. That doesn't make them second class citizens.
I would venture to guess that neither cacastic nor crstl are over the age of 25. Let's see how well they cope after they have a few kids, a full-time job, a household to maintain, mortages, debts, family illnesses, etc. They just might realize that it isn't always so easy to find the time to exercise when they have to drive kids hither and yon, come home dead tired from work, clean the house, wash the laundry, buy groceries, and do all of this alone if they end up as single parents.
There's only one exercise people need to master, and it takes no time at all to perform. It is called the push-back. Just push back from the table before you make a pig of yourself. You are what you eat. Eat less and there will be less of you. Simple.
Now with respect to corporate fast food, don't go there. Period. When you eat out, eat at locally owned places with actual cooks, not fast food assembly line workers. But most of the time, cook your own food. Real food prepared from fresh raw ingredients. It doesn't take long, and it is better for you than nuking a TV dinner, generally cheaper too.
Here's a hint, if your average meal costs more than $2, you are eating too much.
"Here's a hint, if your average meal costs more than $2, you are eating too much."
That's about the most rediculous statement that I've read in a long time! The cost of an average meal depends on the cost of the ingredients used in preparing the meal. Fresh produce and meats are expensive. Just because an average meal costs more than $2 doesn't in any way imply that the person eating it is consuming too much.
What's the carbon footprint of this boring-ass article?
For those that think that nutritional labeling is at best TMI and at worst government intrusion, consider this...I'm an active, healthy individual who just happens to be a Type 1 diabetic (not Type 2, which most often results from poor lifestyle choices). Knowing the carbohydrate content of foods is critical to knowing how much insulin to inject, thus maintaining my blood sugar at a safe level. So while many people may find no use for and ignore the nutrition labels, it's critical health information to me. I long for the day when restaurants are required to provide the same nutritional information that's now on packaged foods.
So to those that suggest a calorie-content-only label or doing away with nutritional information altogether, keep in mind that to some of us it's more than just something nice to know.
If you don't want to read the information, you can easily choose to ignore it. If you want the information and it's not there, it's almost impossible to get it.
One out of every 3 children in this Country is obese. Half of all adults are obese. If this were to make even a small dent in the problem, all of us would save billions, yes billions of dollars.
Another set of items I would like included on all products and meals is a listing if it contains any of the eight foods or food groups that are milk, egg, peanut, wheat, soy, fish as a group, shellfish as a group and then tree nuts -- and the tree nuts might be walnuts or pecans.
It's one thing to become obese after eating out over and over again. But it's another to have a severe allergic reaction, possibly death, or die from a cancer from food allergens that are easily avoidable.
Another possibility is for all of us to simply stop eating out and stop eating at all the fast food restaurants unless they begin to make this information available. It's easier for me to determine what's in a dish when I prepare it myself at home with ingredients that do have appropriate labeling. If I know what's in a dish at home, then why shouldn't I be able to know what's in a dish when I am out to dine?
Much of what is printed is useless. What we really need URGENTLY is alerts of GMO ingredients, pesticides used, steroids used, whether foods have been radiated, source or origin labeling, etc.
We eat out less than once every two months. Dealing with life threatening food allergies keeps us home. When we do go out, finding a restaurantthat can answer our questions concerning food preparation and content is difficult to find. For us, knowledge is power.
Some restaurants (Applebee's) inform their patrons they can not accommodate those with food allergies. They have it printed on the menu.
As for me, I will strive to order the largest carbon footprint, if only to annoy you greenies :)
When there was a place called Know Fat, they used to put the nutritional info on your receipt. Whether or not you bothered to read that section, or if you kept it for reference is a different matter. I guess if you really care that much... I didn't even know they did that, I was just looking at the receipt while waiting for my order. Now that place is gone and there's a UFood Grill (don't know if they changed owners, the fries seem like the same product) I checked it out again, but I didn't notice it this time. It's interesting to have it there, if it really matters to you. The idea that I'm supposedly eating healthier fast food is intriguing.
I really don't care. When I go out, it is for celebrating. Enough spoiling the fun.
This is just the start of a government (read SOCIALIST) take over of our lives in every aspect. Read on about the latest attempt of the government to regulate YOUR life !!
"Attorneys for the federal government have argued in a lawsuit pending in federal court in Iowa that individuals have no "fundamental right" to obtain what food they choose".
OMG !! What's next ? When & how you can make love to your spouse ??? The number of children you can have ? The career you go into ? Where you can live ? They've already got the auto industry, the banking indiustry, OUR HEALTH CARE & now they're after our investment industry & what we can choose to eat !! Sheesh !!
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=153133
what's funny about nutcases is that they are truly convinced they're onto something.
keep on gettin' nuttier! :) google will definitely help you formulate some preposterous conspiracy theories. I'm sure you're well aware of this by now, but feel free to take my advice for future nutty endeavors.
over and out.
Bill: Educate yourself. Look at some photographs of people taken 60 or 70 years ago. With rare exception, there were no fatties in the general population. Lean, mean, muscular sexual dynamos were the standard then. Now, go into any popular restaurant and look around. Nothing but a bunch of whales, too big to fit in the booths, all sucking down the calories.
I find this information very helpful. I am watching just total fat and calories and have already lost 23 lbs since the beginning of the year. If a restaurant can't or won't give me those two basic amounts, I just don't eat there.
Having the info is useful for many people, if you aren't interested or don't care about what you are eating when you eat out, just don't read it. What's the big deal?
in a world where people become progressively more helpless with each passing day, I can't imagine a better idea than to hold businesses accountable for educating the masses of ignorant, half-witted people that are incapable of helping themselves. SOMEONE has to do it, and lord prevail we be asked to be held accountable for what we put into our bodies.
I am delighted that the new law will require more restaurants to give consumers more information about their food. People who don't care don't have to use it. I vacationed in Seattle last summer and found that the nutritional information was very helpful. I've read the comments that say that people should know from what they're choosing whether it's healthy or not. (i.e., fish is good, bacon is bad.) But that ignores the component of how the food is prepared. I have a favorite dish at PF Chang's. It's a shrimp dish. When dining out, I often choose seafood with the idea that it is healthier for me. I was SHOCKED (and sad!) to find that my fave shrimp dish had more than 1300 calories in it!!!! Tasty, yes, but I've never ordered it again because that is almost the number of calories I strive for in an entire day. And I would never have known that if the restaurant didn't openly provide the information.
The government should mandate that the amount of calories, fat, salt, etc. be printed on each sales receipt so that everyone can be made aware of just what it is they're eating. Also, let's say if an average adult male should consume no more than 2200 calories daily and he just bought a meal totaling 2500 calories, he should know it. By doing so, at the very least, he'll be confronted with the knowledge that the reason he looks like a fat pig is because he eats like one.
If it's on the reciept, it's too late. You've already ordered it.
The quote from Barry Popkin, Professor of Nutrition, is something to ponder. Some restaurants are shrouding the health message by "confusing" the issue, being much to wordy, boring and confusing to the diner. Is this just another ploy by the Restaurant Industry to prevent health data from becoming the norm? The mandate should be that all data be concise and "easily understood".
excellent point RBTatt - look at the way they manipulate us with serving sizes - a muffin that's really 3 servings, but the label screams 'only 250 calories a serving'. you're right - they know that Americans, by and large, don't want to slow down for 10 minutes to analyze the menu. Read that "Eat this, not that' book - the one on restaurant meals was mind boggling !
You mean to tell me that one order of tacos can make the same difference as driving down the road a few miles with an internal combustion machine that spits out carbon monoxide???? Why do I think that information is skewed? How can that be?