Sponsored science: opinions on calorie labeling
February 16, 2008
Today’s New York Times has a juicy article in the business section about the differing opinions of obesity experts about New York City’s proposal to require certain restaurants to post calorie information on menu boards. The head of one obesity society, who is a frequent consultant to the food and restaurant industry, apparently thinks calorie labeling will backfire by “inadvertently encouraging patrons to consume lower-calorie foods that subsequently lead to greater total caloric intake because of poor satiating efficiency of the smaller calorie loads.” Coincidence?
[…] unknown wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerpt […]
Pingback by » Sponsored science: opinions on calorie labeling — February 16, 2008 @ 10:59 pm
Who wants calorie labels? I want greenhouse
gas emission labels.
In Australia the figures would be something like:
200g Rump steak
10,000 grams CO2eq - methaneemissions
6,000 grams CO2eq - deforestation
13 grams CO2 food miles
300 grams CO2 cooking costs
Spaghetti Napolitana
200 grams CO2 emission 1/2 for
tomatoes
0 grams deforestation
13 grams CO2 food miles
300 grams CO2 cooking costs
Comment by Geoff Russell — February 16, 2008 @ 11:30 pm
I find it strange that this proposal only applies to chain restaurants. They are certainly the most maligned eating establishments, and perhaps for good reason, but just because you pay $25 for a burger doesn’t necessarily mean it’s any healthier than one that costs $1. If it is healthier, it’s most likely because the ingredients are of higher quality, which often isn’t reflected in calorie count, anyway.
I strongly believe that Americans need to change their eating habits, and that not eating burgers and fries is an essential step in this process. Although I agree that consumers should know what they are consuming, having calorie counts thrown in one’s face while ordering isn’t going to solve any problems. It’s merely a misdirected effort whose unfortunate externality is an infringement upon sellers’ and buyers’ freedoms. Real change will occur only when people are educated about nutrition and when they care enough about their own health to take action themselves.
Comment by Mia Morgenstern — February 17, 2008 @ 12:20 am
This fellow’s claims are infuriating! This is a real gem:
“Dr. Allison, who disclosed at the meeting that he was a consultant to Coca-Cola on obesity issues, warned that policies to restrict certain foods might backfire, citing research showing that birds put on weight when food is scarce, according to a newsletter article about the conference.”
Birds??? Scarcity??? Totally insane.
The food industry’s idea that disclosing true information to consumers about a product is EVER a bad idea - that facts will somehow be “misleading” - proves that they have zero respect for the people who buy their products.
Consumers are misled by the marketing ploys of the food industry (e.g. “whole grain” sugar-laden cereals, ketchup and lycopene), not by knowing the country their food comes from, whether their milk was treated with hormones, or how much fat is in their food. This information simply helps consumers make educated decisions - which is, of course, the last thing Big Food wants.
Comment by producestories — February 17, 2008 @ 12:23 am
Geoff … funny!
But I like it. It draws attention to how food choice affects the planet, and everyone/everything on it, not just how it affects the health of the one person eating the food.
Comment by Bix — February 17, 2008 @ 7:30 am
Coincidence?
Perhaps he is being attacked because he has dared to question some sacred beliefs, for which there is scant evidence.
Crusading for calorie labeling on restaurant food is just that, crusading. Since, as Allison points out, we are only GUESSING that putting horrifying calorie counts on foods will somehow make people ‘make healthier — low-calorie — choices.” It is satisfying and pretty to think so, but it is just a guess. It may be a worthy experiment, but it does not justify righteous indignation just yet.
The lesson is: NEVER, EVER question the beliefs of the establishment. You will be skewered.
After all, it is a known true fact that overweight is purely a behavioral problem. People eat too much (because they are ignorant or lack self-control) and don’t move enough.
Question that belief at your peril.
Comment by Anton — February 17, 2008 @ 4:42 pm
I think it would be helpful to have calorie counts/nutrition guidance on all foods at restaurants, even fine dining establishments. It would allow me to make more informed choices about allocating my calories and meeting my nutrition needs, while selecting food I will enjoy. If we have not read the recipe, we may not fully appreciate the ingredient content of a dish.
It may be possible that somebody who is accustomed to eating an overabundance of calories at a meal will not feel full if they consume a drastically lower calorie count at a specific meal. However, I think one of the many behavior modifications involved in successfully losing weight or maintaining healthy weight is to “reset the thermostat”, or learn how to feel satisfied with smaller amounts of food or more modest calorie counts on a consistent basis. I don’t think somebody else’s aversion to eating lower calorie choices should keep me from having access to the information to make informed decisions.
Comment by Sheila — February 17, 2008 @ 5:48 pm
I doubt the effectiveness of calorie labeling in restauraunts. There is an abundance of labeling in a supermarket and I rarely see consumers evaluating the labeling of food products there. Why should there be much difference at a restaurant? The reason that there isn’t likely to be much difference, is that obesity is a lifestyle that involves little if no exercise, and overeating. It takes a bit of work to get obese and after finally reaching such a level, you have acquired certain habits that perpetuate your condition. You have conditioned yourself to want large portions of food. Likewise, in order to lose weight, to abandon obesity, requires a lifestyle change. You have to condition yourself to take in less calories. To enjoy exercise. To eat to live and not live to eat as the proverbial saying goes. If anything, you shouldn’t have to rely on restaurants to prepare your low-calorie meals for you either. That is setting yourself up for failure. Because you rely on someone else in order to eat ‘healthy’. Fighting obesity will require a good deal of energy but it will be a rewarding endeavor and it starts not in calorie labeling in restaurants but with educating yourself on nutrition and exercise and the impact both have on your body.
Comment by rj — February 17, 2008 @ 7:23 pm
We are constantly admonished to “vote with out dollar” by free-market advocates who simultaneously lobby to black out the very information that would make it possible.
Business, governments and other entities can hope people use information the way they want–but in a truly free market, the ultimate decision in that regard is the prerogative of the consumer.
Comment by Fentry — February 18, 2008 @ 1:55 pm
Geoff - is it really true that spaghetti doesn’t cause deforestation? Don’t you have to dig something up to plant wheat?
Sheila - I don’t think you can psychologically reset what you’re calling the thermostat. The thermostat is a physiological phenomenon, and you can’t learn to be satisfied with less. To be satisfied with less requires consuming nutrient dense foods (which Geoff’s spaghetti, by the way, is quite likely not, especially if it’s made with white flour).
Comment by Migraineur — February 18, 2008 @ 5:53 pm
I’m not sure, Migraineur that Sheila isn’t right: I know when I don’t eat for a while, my stomach “shrinks” and when I do eat, I eat less.
I’m still a rather big boy.
In a slim defense of the hypothesis that lower calories per item doesn’t reset anything though, I am always a bit astonished at the grocer’s to see people with “low-fat” icecream and “low-fat” chips, and Lean Cuisine in their cart. They are often quite large and I wonder if they don’t eat more of these items, thinking that they are “low” in fat or calories–
Comment by Fentry — February 18, 2008 @ 6:51 pm
I don’t see posting calorie contents in restaurants as being very effective in the long run. on days when I am feeling more responsible it may help me make better food choices, but more often than not I am going to end up ordering what I want rather than what I ought to eat.
that said, I do think it should be mandatory for dining establishments to have such information on hand for those folks who want to know what they’re eating.
Comment by jen — February 19, 2008 @ 8:56 am
I completely agree with Fentry. I am tired of the disingenuous, hypocritical argument that consumers are the ones that drive the market when, in effect, we are given very little choice. Who among us woudn’t want to know if our milk is full of hormones? Yet, we are powerless in the fcae of lobbies and special interests - they are clearly the ones that “drive the market”.
I don’t think this should be a forum for bashin overweight people and their supposed lack of self control. People can be overweight for a lot of different reasons, and it isn’t always because they are lazy over-eaters. Why not give evryone a chance to make informed decisions at a restaurant? What can seem inocuous and like a relatively healthy choice can, in fact, turn out to be cooked in lots of fat or laden with cheese. Just because one wants a healthy lifestyle, it doesn’t mean that one shouldn’t be able to eat reasonably at a restaurant every once in a while. Having the tools to make smarter decisions can only be a step towards progress.
Comment by jay — February 20, 2008 @ 4:15 pm