The NYC calorie labeling saga continues
April 25, 2008
It’s hard to believe that New York City’s attempt to get fast food places to post calorie information is back in court again, but the New York State Restaurant Association is not giving up on this one. The federal judge has delayed the rules again, this time until next Tuesday. In the meantime, Starbucks, Subway, and Chipotle, among others, are supposedly already posting calories. Are they? Go see.
Starbucks near me has calories listed.
I’ll demonstrate why I don’t find calorie information compelling with a hypothetical visit.
Talle coffee please! (Zero calories, assuming you don’t add cream or sugar. Ingredients: roasted ground coffee beans and water.)
Hmm, perhaps I should get a goodie? They all look so good! They are a bit pricey, but one has to pay for quality.
- Reduced-Fat Blueberry Coffee Cake
Oh, that one looks yummy, reduced-fat too! What’s that number below say?
- Calories 320
Okay, I suppose that not so bad, I can fit that into a well planned diet… (Lets assume Nutrition Facts are listed.)
- Fat Calories 50
- Total Fat (g) 6
- Saturated Fat (g) 4.5
- Trans Fat (g) 0
- Cholesterol (mg) 10
- Sodium (mg) 390
- Total Carbohydrates (g) 54
- Fiber (g) 1
- Sugars (g) 33
- Protein (g) 4
- Vitamin A 2 %
- Vitamin C 2 %
- Calcium 8 %
- Iron 8 %
Hmm, okay, whatever, I suppose that’s acceptable. (Honestly, I have no ides if some of those numbers for fat calories, cholesterol or sodium are good or bad. No trans fat is good, everyone knows that, but it’s banned in NYC so it’s kind of pointless to list. Calcium and iron at 8%, whatever, are people really supposed to be keeping track?… Now, lets assume ingredients are listed.)
- CAKE (SUGAR, ENRICHED WHEAT FLOUR BLEACHED [FLOUR, NIACIN, REDUCED IRON, THIAMINE MONONITRATE, RIBOFLAVIN, FOLIC ACID], MODIFIED FOOD STARCH, NONFAT DRY MILK, LEAVENING [BAKING SODA, SODIUM ALUMINUM PHOSPHATE, MONOCALCIUM PHOSPHATE], DRY EGG WHITES, MALTODEXTRIN, WHEAT STARCH, SALT, CORN FLOUR, PEA FIBER, DEXTROSE, DATEM, PROPYLENE GLYCOL MONOSTEARATE, MONO- AND DIGLYCERIDES, GUAR GUM, SOY LECITHIN, SODIUM STEAROYL LACTYLATE, CORN STARCH, NATURAL AND ARTIFICIAL FLAVOR, SOYBEAN OIL, GLYCEROL MONOOLEATE, PROPYLENE GLYCOL, OLEORESIN PAPRIKA, POLYSORBATE 60, TURMERIC, ALPHA TOCOPHEROLS, POLYSORBATE 80), BLUEBERRIES, WATER, LITE SOUR CREAM (MILK, CREAM, MODIFIED FOOD STARCH, LACTIC ACID, MONO- AND DIGLYCERIDES, SODIUM CASEINATE [A MILK DERIVATIVE], SOY LECITHIN, SODIUM PHOSPHATE, GUAR GUM, CITRIC ACID, POTASSIUM SORBATE [A PRESERVATIVE], ACETIC ACID, XANTHAN GUM, LOCUST BEAN GUM, AND NATURAL AND ARTIFICIAL FLAVORS), SHORTENING (SUGAR, PALM KERNEL AND PALM OIL, CANOLA OIL, WHEY, NONFAT MILK, SOYA LECITHIN, TBHQ, ARTIFICIAL COLOR [TITANIUM DIOXIDE], NATURAL AND ARTIFICIAL FLAVOR), SUGAR, FLOUR (WHEAT FLOUR, NIACIN, IRON, THIAMINE MONONITRATE, RIBOFLAVIN, FOLIC ACID), BUTTER (PASTEURIZED CREAM, NATURAL FLAVORINGS), NATURAL FLAVOR, NATURAL AND ARTIFICIAL FLAVOR, BAKING POWDER (SODIUM ACID PYROPHOSPHATE, SODIUM BICARBONATE, CORN STARCH, MONOCALCIUM PHOSPHATE), ARTIFICIAL COLOR, SALT, NATURAL FLAVOR.
Oh my goodness! That’s a lot of stuff. What the heck is TBHQ anyway? (TBHQ is tert-Butylhydroquinone, I’m sure that was informative to anyone reading. In fairness, the base ingredients excluding the information in parenthesis are:)
- CAKE, BLUEBERRIES, WATER, LITE SOUR CREAM, SUGAR, FLOUR, BUTTER, NATURAL FLAVOR, NATURAL AND ARTIFICIAL FLAVOR, BAKING POWDER, ARTIFICIAL COLOR, SALT, NATURAL FLAVOR.
Ingredients are listed on Starbucks website but are not readily available in the stores, not that I’ve seen anyway. I’ve asked for ingredients in the past, but they are always out of the pamphlet literature, maybe that’s’ changed, I’ll have ask next time I’m there.
It’s not necessarily unhealthy to eat such products assuming a person doesn’t have an allergy. Perhaps a person simply wishes to avoid certain ingredients for all sorts of reason. Still, I think I’ve made my point.
Basing what goes in your mouth on calories and nutrition facts is folly.
Comment by Hylton — April 25, 2008 @ 1:34 pm
Calories will never be able to tell you anything beyond the energy content of the food but if someone is primarily concerned with weight maintenance that is all one needs to know. You could maintain a healthy weight with a daily diet of McDonalds and Starbucks (or Per Se and Bar Masa for that matter) so long as you expend as many or more calories as you ingest on average. Whether you will be “healthy” on any individual diet is an entirely different debate. With the rising incidence of obesity, I think NYC’s provision is a good first step towards informing the consumer how much they are eating. Once consumers understand that, then perhaps we can start to address the content of what they’re eating in a meaningful way.
Comment by Sean — April 25, 2008 @ 5:00 pm
Apparently Marion thinks people are eating too many calories, and she would prefer that people eat fewer calories.
She would prefer that people eat not so much. And she is in favor of laws that may help people not eat so much.
I guess it bothers Marion that some people eat a lot calories –presumably because they are un-informed. She thinks it is good to inform them how many calories they are eating, so they think “Gee, I’m eating more calories than I was aware of. I am eating more calories than experts say I should be eating. So I shall now start eating fewer calories.”
I think that is what Marion wants.
That’s a heck of a mission to be on, to make people stop eating so many calories.
I think it would please Marion if people would just stop eating so much.
Comment by Anton — April 25, 2008 @ 5:21 pm
I didn’t go to a chain today, but a friend reported that Cosi has their calorie counts up on their menu boards already. Excellent!
I am already more likely to visit chains because I can often find their nutrition info on the web. If I know it’s right on the menu, that will increase my chances of going even more. However, I don’t think the majority of Americans think like me…
Comment by Laura — April 26, 2008 @ 12:31 am