US Healthcare Bill Requires Restaurants to Display Calories, But Will it Help?

http://singularityhub.com/2010/03/28/us-healthcare-bill-requires-restaurants-to-display-calories-on-menus-but-will-it-help/

by kkleiner • 16 years ago

9 22 16 years ago

singularityhub.com

texel• 16 years ago

I know this is just a single data point, but they've already instituted a law like this within King County. It has certainly changed the way I order when I'm out. Accuracy of the numbers notwithstanding, you can clearly see huge differences in calorie counts between different menu items, and I've personally steered clear of some of the more daunting ones that I might have otherwise ordered.

Once again, that's just me, and it doesn't really speak to the accuracy of the figures.

nt• 16 years ago

Ditto in NYC. You'd be surprised ( or at least I was ) to find out that certain salads are quite the calorie bombs while other dishes ( ex. pasta bolognese ) have far fewer calories than you'd think.

digitallogic2• 16 years ago

I was thinking the same thing about NYC (though I don't live there) as I remembered reading that a study found it did have an impact on people's eating habits: http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/news/starbucks.html

throw_away• 16 years ago

Agreed. Before this was instituted, I didn't think that it would change my behavior at all, but there's something in seeing all the choices reduced down to a single, easily comparable caloric number. At first, I avoided the super-high calorie choices (there are options at many restaurants that are > 1200 cal), then actively looking for the lower calorie items, and then finally avoiding fast food altogether.

I don't lead a particularly healthy lifestyle. I smoke & I drink, but the warning labels on those products never really altered my behavior, but for some reason the fast food calorie ones have.

antidaily2• 16 years ago

Maybe it will help people who think ordering a large caesar salad is healthy.

jerf2• 16 years ago

Of course, if the problem turns out not to be food calories but food composition, the only thing this will do is push more useless information into people's faces. Making it more prominent won't make it more useful.

Personally, I would take this as further condemnation of the calorie counting approach to health in the first place. Our ancestors did not need it, and there's nowhere in the human body to input raw calorie counts into our satiety mechanism. This is the classic hacks piled on hacks pattern, instead of fixing the root problem.

antidaily2• 16 years ago

But every nutritionist says "calories in, calories out"; that effectively counting calories and eating less is the only sure way to lose weight.

digitallogic2• 16 years ago

On the surface, yes, less calories eaten than burned will result in losing weight, but only following this rule on the surface is dangerous.

* Do you get enough of the necessary nutrients? * Do you eat so little that your body starts to reduce it's metabolism? * Do you have exercise program that continues after you stop a reduced calorie diet to rebuild the lost muscle tissue (your body burns both muscle and fat tissue when compensating for the missing calories)? * After the diet do you return to normal eating habits, or eat a diet that is balanced against your physical activity?

jerf2• 16 years ago

Yes, but none of them can produce a study where that approach actually works beyond small, trivial weight changes. I don't care how many people tell me to do things that don't work, it doesn't make it work. Even if you put the "scientist" label on them, though to be honest, when a "scientist" tells me to do things that science itself has shown not to work I begin to wonder about the label "scientist".

I'm not 100% confident about the "low carb" or "paleo" diets, but I am quite confident the standard line about fat and calorie counting being the key to losing weight is false. Science has abundantly demonstrated this. I recommend "Good Calories, Bad Calories" for a long discussion. In this case I particularly recommend the discussion about how equality symbols do not imply a causal direction.

I'm a little strident here because having dug into the issue I feel downright betrayed by people pushing "calories in/out" as if it's, well, truth. Because while the raw thermodynamics is true, everything else built on top of it is basically false.

replicatorblog• 16 years ago

I think it is a fine idea, but I don't think it will be effective. Has the average person become heavier or lighter since the introduction of the Nutrition Facts Label on packed food was introduced in the 90's? The issue is the length of the feedback loop and the power of momentum. I saw some other stat that showed even after heart attacks only 30% of people changed their lifestyles.

lethargus5• 16 years ago

I believe this will just keep the moderately health conscious people being health conscious but will leave the ignorant unchanged and continue to make poor food choices. Take McDonald's packaging for example. They have been putting nutrition information on their packages for some time now but do you think that deters Joe Blow from ordering his super duper extra large king size Coke and fries?

Do you really need nutritional information hitting you in the face to realize that deep fried chicken that you're going to eat is bad for you?

It's not as if they use this information to decide between a hoagie and a salad. They use it to decide if they should get the huge hoagie or the one a couple of inches smaller.

thehigherlife• 16 years ago

Having it on the package is a little different though since you don't find out about the calories until after you order. When the counts are before you make the decision it may have a more profound effect.

lethargus5• 16 years ago

Yes I know, seeing it on the package after you order it couldn't possibly stop you from repeating the same mistake and avoid ordering it the next 100 times.

sounddust2• 16 years ago

Even if it only makes moderately health-conscious people more healthy, it will still be a net benefit to the overall health and productivity of Americans. And if it reduces healthcare costs of the average American by even a minuscule amount, it will easily compensate for the effort required to put up the calorie coutns (which is honestly not very hard nor expensive)

lethargus5• 16 years ago

The moderately health-conscious person is not the average American. The average American is ignorant and overweight and has led a life of poor eating choices. Not because of lack of information, but because of lack of caring and lack of habit. No nutritional label is going to change that.

Unfortunately the government is in the business of creating illusions. As long as we slap a label on something we create the illusion that we are making progress.

This is along the same lines that the government thinks they are making school lunches healthier by adding a fruit cup with their food but pay no attention to that fruit cup being loaded with sugar because of the heavy syrup in the container.

It just creates the illusion that we are doing something healthy, but not actually fixing the problem.

I do not believe that there is much we can do about the majority of adult Americans, but we could start shaping the future for the children and foster proper eating habits from the beginning.

vishaldpatel• 16 years ago

It'll force some restaurants to rethink their menus.

TNO• 16 years ago

I'm still buying the cheeseburger...

US Healthcare Bill Requires Restaurants to Display Calories, But Will it Help?

Related Stories