digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

NYC Restaurants Counting Calories!

reuters.com — A new rule requiring New York chain restaurants to post calorie information on their menus took effect on Friday, marking a first for a U.S. city. Starting on Saturday, health inspectors can slap fines of up to $2,000 on fast-food and casual-dining chains if calorie counts are not displayed on their menus in the same font and format as the item.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • verycoolwinter, on 07/20/2008, -42/+36The government should not tell a business how to operate...period.
    • pintomp3, on 07/20/2008, -10/+23more information for consumers is a good thing... period.
      • Pirate45, on 07/22/2008, -1/+5Pretending to be in authority over others and backing it up under threat of force is a bad thing...period.
      • FierceGrape, on 07/22/2008, -1/+6If consumers want the information they can ask. If the business doesn't provide them with the information they can leave. You don't have to give them your money if you don't like it. Get a grip.
      • suprememilo, on 07/22/2008, -0/+4The buisness is doing you a service, it's not the other way around like so many people want to think.
      • kirk444, on 07/22/2008, -1/+0Yeah, the service isn't doing you a business!

        What is it that I wanted to think, again?
      • mousky, on 07/22/2008, -2/+1Then let people demand that information.
    • bradhart2, on 07/21/2008, -4/+2Agreed, of course most fast food customers could care less about it...
    • artwork, on 07/21/2008, -5/+21So the govt need not require cigarette containers to have a health warning? Or require pharmaceutical companies to list side effects? How would giving customers accurate information hurt them?
      • ShakeWell, on 07/22/2008, -5/+1Cigarettes, even in moderation, have negative health effects.

        Side-effects of drugs are essential information that consumers/patients need to be aware of.

        The "side-effects" of weight gain or rising cholesterol isn't quite the same. Eating overly rich/greasy/sugary foods cause weight gain is common sense. It's not the government's role to punish establishments for not making sure the customers have common sense...

        Perhaps a better way to encourage the placement o caloric values next to menu items would be tax incentives, instead of fines as punishment for not doing so.
      • mousky, on 07/22/2008, -3/+1Yes, the government need not require that. People should be demanding that information. If a tobacco or drug manufacturer does not want to provide, then people have the choice of not using that product. At some point in time people, not the government, need to be responsible.
    • CobaltBlue, on 07/22/2008, -9/+2Wow. Murder, Inc. would love having you run the government.
    • Murdats, on 07/22/2008, -4/+11you are right, bring back the slaves.

      and who is the government to tell the pharmaceutical companies to implement quality control and to not use harmful substances.
      • mousky, on 07/22/2008, -3/+1Yet, despite all that government mandated quality control, some drugs are found to be unsafe after receiving FDA approval. Some people continue to misuse drugs despite all the warnings.
      • Paulish, on 07/22/2008, -1/+1Because the FDA saves so many lives, you know, withholding life saving drugs and all...

        And slavery is slavery, I don't need a government to know that, but I would need a government to institutionalize it. You should read some of DiLorenzo's work if you think we did such a good job of getting rid of slavery. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Dilorenzo
    • onwardknave, on 07/22/2008, -0/+1Enjoy your Salad Surprise. If the government didn't regulate restaurants, you might find rodent droppings or worse in your foods. Restaurants already include anything which would save them money. Trans-fats and corn syrup are ubiquitous in American processed foods. New York has taken bold steps to keep its population healthy.
      • mousky, on 07/22/2008, -2/+2And with government regulation we still find rodent droppings or worse in our foods. Why can't people take responsibility for ensuring that their food is safe? We all complain about how bad a job government does, yet we turn to the government to make us feel safer and secure. Does anyone really believe that the TSA has improved security on airplanes?
      • EtherGnat, on 07/22/2008, -1/+2"Why can't people take responsibility for ensuring that their food is safe? "

        Right, just demand to go back and inspect the kitchen next time you're in a restaurant. Make sure you make them do things like empty out the ice machine so you can make sure its been cleaned. Also take samples of all the food for testing, check to make sure there's not lead in the cookware, etc..
    • Testiculese, on 07/22/2008, -1/+2One of the frameworks for government IS TO REGULATE COMPANIES.

      On the other hand, the government should not tell a person how to live (outside of infringing other's rights)
  • brainnovate, on 07/25/2008, -2/+9Wow 2 grand... of course will they actually use that amount for a first offender... doubtful.
  • alapoet, on 07/20/2008, -9/+40You know, there's a lot of middle ground between "it's silly to require restaurants to post calorie information on their menus" (which I agree with)

    and

    "The government should not tell a business how to operate...period" (which is complete *****).

    Environmental regulations? Minimum wage? Child labor laws? Anti-trust? Compensation for workers injured on the job? We need those things, and we sure as hell can't depend on corporations to do them out of the goodness of their hearts. History proves that much.
    • sungoddess808, on 07/20/2008, -1/+18Agreed, but it is nice when restaurants inform customers of caloric value for foods & beverages served. I count calories and when I saw how many were in a Starbuck's mocha and some of their other tasty beverages, I went back to drinking black coffee (zero calories).
      • Hindu_Wardrobe, on 07/22/2008, -1/+2A black coffee and a side of anorexia, please! (Joking)
      • mal1964, on 07/22/2008, -0/+1"I count calories"
        At home,? Can you give more detail on your method for counting?
      • onwardknave, on 07/22/2008, -0/+2@mal1964: At home, read the nutrition label. Calories per serving and serving size are listed on most foods. For produce, search online for food calorie counters.
      • mal1964, on 07/22/2008, -0/+2@onward. Those are useless, Try counting the calories while making your grandmas meatloaf recipe, You have to start with a scale to weight all ingredients.
      • Melkor71, on 07/22/2008, -0/+0Try http://caloriecount.about.com/ - it's free, has all the nutritional information you'll need, and a support system in place.
    • personalj, on 07/22/2008, -2/+3The government's meddling in private business matters and Occupational Health and Safety made it very difficult for me to get a job when I was young, 17 as opposed to 18. There was a time when very young children could work in dangerous mills, and I couldn't even unload a truck...
      • hexydes, on 07/22/2008, -0/+4I agree with this. Like all things, the government stepped in, helped fix some very bad situations, and then when completely overboard and started micro-managing everything.

        The problem with government is it has no way to limit itself. Once it gets in, it seizes control, digs deeper and deeper, until finally there is a rule for everything, and rules about other rules.

        There should be a middle-ground, but unfortunately, there isn't. You're either left to let the market adjust itself (which it eventually does, but often not without painful consequences along the way), or let the government turn everyone into the lowest-common-denominator, with them controlling how everything works.
      • Murdats, on 07/22/2008, -2/+5yes and what happened in those times? lots of people died, should we let people die so 17 year olds dont have to wait a year to get a job?
      • DanMiller, on 07/22/2008, -0/+6Since when can 17 year olds not get a job? Perhaps nots dealing with heavy machinery but fast food, retail, and service industries love young workers with limited experience who will fill simple jobs for low pay.
      • Testiculese, on 07/22/2008, -2/+2You be working on an education...so you aren't unloading a truck all your life!
      • DanMiller, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1Testiculese.....the irony here hurts.
    • timothycrash01, on 07/22/2008, -2/+9Yes, but you're assuming that all these things (minimum wage, environmental regulations, anti-trust) are intrinsically good for us, and have no history of causing the problems they were created to prevent.

      Example 1: minimum wage sets a minimum standard for wage labor - and over time, eventually becomes the maximum. In other words, once the standard is set in place, then the motivation to ever pay above it is gone, and as we've seen, it takes massive lobbying and influence to get it pushed up. It could be argued that minimum wage causes more stagnation, and over time, a lower standard of living for those who live on it. An arbitrary minimum wage does not reflect inflation or changes in the market (whether positive or negative). If the market is in recession and minimum wage too high - then layoffs occur. If the market is in a boom, and the wage is too low, then standard of living decreases as market prices increase and workers can't afford as much.

      Example 2: Pollution (noise, air, water, etc.) used to be a property rights issue. I.e. If you pollute my water supply, I can sue you for damages. However, with environmental regulation, property rights is taken out of the picture, and it becomes an issue of environmental law, which is far more arbitrary and difficult to prosecute. (I.e. last year it was okay to do this, now it's not, okay, now it's definitely bad, wait, study shows it's okay, etc., etc., ) It's much easier for a corporation to get around the loop holes of environmental regulation, then it is to get around private property law. Reason being that property law is very black and white, and environmental law is new, always changing and open to interpretation.

      I'm not disagreeing with you - I'm just saying that all the supposed beneficial services of the government often 'cause more problems than what motivated them to be created.
      • DanMiller, on 07/22/2008, -2/+4Isn't one of the main arguments relating to illegal immigrants is that they will work for less than an American, thus driving down wages. Corporations are not interested in the good of the people who work for them, only for the profit they can turn. Minimum wage insures that those employed are not forced with the decision to take a low wage or face unemployment. The only way people will quit working is if the wage is so low that not working is a better opportunity cost for them, this happens to be very very low as seen in most third world countries. I understand the implications of instituting a price floor on wages however, the current minimum wage is much more valuable than simply throwing low skill laborers to the wolves.

        As for suing relating to pollution, consider that the worst polluters are large corporations with millions of dollars and a nearly bottomless pool of resources. If your argument that pollution should be okay as long as it's your own property than I think you miss the point. You can still sue if someone damages your property, the environmental regulations are in place to protect the environment.
    • dragon76, on 07/22/2008, -0/+2Do you know how many calories are in French fries? What if those French fries are first dipped into a sugary substance that makes them absorb more oil than normal?

      Fast food restaurants do not prepare food in a way that you could know how many calories are in it from the item it appears to be.
  • maxpower2911, on 07/20/2008, -8/+14Hurray for nanny states!
    • CobaltBlue, on 07/22/2008, -3/+10A nanny state would say you can't eat that, not require businesses to inform you of the calorie counts.
      • Nysul, on 07/22/2008, -1/+4They already did that with trans fats in restaurants in NY.
      • Testiculese, on 07/22/2008, -0/+1Transfats weren't optional, you were forced to eat them because of criminal corporations. There's a difference in removing dangerous substances from foods, to saying "You can't eat that cake".
    • brainscab, on 07/22/2008, -0/+4I used to think the same thing, but dude, I was floored when the muffin that I always get at dunkin donuts had over 600 calories. The thing is that everyone will pick the lowest calories they can get...
      thanks NYC
      • Paulish, on 07/22/2008, -1/+1How DARE Dunkin doughnuts force you to eat those 600 calories muffins! Ohhh the humanity.
      • brainscab, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1Yo dude, they didn't make me, I just had no clue that it had 600 cals, I chose the blueberry muffin because it looked healthy, but because of these labels I now know that it was really bad for me, and I can choose a French Curler which has 150 calories. Information is a good thing.
  • QualityGal, on 07/21/2008, -3/+4I wish all restaurants would *voluntarily* provide their nutritional information. Sure, I know a cheeseburger is never going to be health food. But if I eat it, will I be able to eat grilled chicken breast for dinner that night, or am I doomed to eat a lowly bowl of cereal to offset the damage? I hate guessing, because I'm probably wrong most of the time.
    • Testiculese, on 07/22/2008, -0/+1People who are digging you down must love not knowing what they are eating. (Future diabetics)
  • KerriW, on 07/21/2008, -1/+7Is this just in NY? It sounds like it would be popular in LA
  • poprocksandsoda, on 07/21/2008, -1/+13Saw this today at Burger King here in NYC and wondered why they showed the calories. It's very useful, but being told you're looking at 1900 calories for a burger and fries is mind-numbing.
  • disappointment, on 07/21/2008, -3/+9I suppose we should make all restaurants, not just fast food or casual-dining do the same.. if we're under the "WE NEED TO KNOW HOW MANY CALORIES ARE IN OUR FOOD WE'RE ABOUT TO BUY" mentality
    • docbob84, on 07/22/2008, -0/+4Exactly. That's what pisses me off about this rule, it only applies to fast food "restaurants". If you're going to make the justification that people should know what they're eating, make it for everyone. I would be willing to bet you can get a thousand calories worth of starchy pasta at a NYC restaurant and it would be a smaller portion than most people would think. I absolutely hate the mentality behind this law. If you're stupid enough to think you can eat at McDonalds every day, you kinda deserve to be fat. If you don't care, that's great and I'm not saying I'm going to make fun of you for it. But at some point, people have to take responsibility for themselves.
      • Paulish, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1At some point? At what point am I anyone else's responsibility but my own. At what point are you someone else's?

        But yeah, I still agree with what you are saying mostly.
  • wexmajor, on 07/22/2008, -3/+13"in the same font and format as the item"

    Sounds ***** annoying.
    • cadmiumpaint, on 07/22/2008, -0/+5its to make sure they don't bury the info in 4pt type somewhere.
  • highlyhigh, on 07/22/2008, -4/+5there was no doubt that new yorkers are sensible. now it looks like they're gonna be skinner, too.
  • akpwnz, on 07/22/2008, -2/+10Personally I enjoy the greasy food when I visit New York. No I am not a fatass, its called moderation. Someone fat and lazy won't give two ***** about the calories on the menu.
  • Owwmykneecap, on 07/22/2008, -10/+5pointless and ugly on a menu.

    Slim people are not that way because they count calories.
    • kwirk, on 07/22/2008, -1/+5Really? How do people become slim, then? Magic?

      Weight loss/gain is a simple equation: calories consumed > calories burned = weight gain

      Counting calories is EXACTLY how to maintain body weight
      • Owwmykneecap, on 07/22/2008, -1/+1You dont become slim.

        You become Fat.
      • Paulish, on 07/22/2008, -0/+1No. People who count calories avoid nutrition. Some of the most nutritional foods have lots of calories. No joke, a while back there was an article that said avoid nuts because they had too many calories. They completely ignored all the nutritional value in peanuts. When I was a kid my mom would make me feel guilty for eating fruit because it was "sugary". This calories ***** is insanity. People starve themselves by limiting calories and restricted nutritional value. They become unhappy because their body is deprived of everything necessary for healthy living, and they fail their diet and start eating terribly again. Eating less calories is not healthy eating, its just another way to live unhealthy.
    • 1randomguyO8, on 07/22/2008, -0/+4you dont have to be a full fitness freak to understand it either.
      Say you buy a footlong from subway and right next to it says 400 calories and then you got to burger king(hungry jacks here in Aus) and you see a whopper for 1200 calories..

      It makes it so much more easier.. I would to see that introduced here in Australia.
  • marinebro0306, on 07/22/2008, -6/+3And in other news, NYC is requiring that all restaurants hand feed their customers.
  • mal1964, on 07/22/2008, -3/+2You can put a number on the menu, But it will be just for show.
  • hellahyphy, on 07/22/2008, -9/+2so many overweight people in New York City. I couldn't find a single grocery store anywhere in Manhattan, but I found 7 Mc Donald's. lol
  • suprdaddy, on 07/22/2008, -1/+3In your average cheeseburger there's about 800 calories. That's the burger alone witout any fries or ketchup.
  • Pirate45, on 07/22/2008, -9/+5The Nanny State marches on.
  • MrTito, on 07/22/2008, -1/+11I like the idea. I'm not a health nut by any means. People should be way more wise about what they eat. I'm not one of those "sue McDonalds for making use fat" people. ***** them, take some personal accountability. With that said, it is nice to have all the information you can get. Losing weight is easy if you are informed - If you cut your daily caloric intake by 500 calories then you'll lose a pound a week. So for people who do want to be aware, like me, I appreciate this move. Wish it was more widespread.

    A reference from How Stuff Works about dieting. It seems A LOT of people don't know this:

    http://www.howstuffworks.com/diet4.htm
    • austinisi, on 07/22/2008, -0/+1You could've gotten the information prior to the new law. Most chain fast food restaurants have information fliers in their stores, and you can find them if you ask for them. Many also have the information online.
      • MrTito, on 07/22/2008, -0/+1Yes you can. But a good number of places (TGI Friday's, Buffalo Wild Wings) do not post that information and have refused to do so in the past. Hence, this law.
  • myhandleondigg, on 07/22/2008, -1/+4I'm just scared that with all this anti-fast food stuff, I won't be able to enjoy the full effect the 2 or 3 times I eat it a month.
  • TylerM, on 07/22/2008, -5/+4You can thank the democrats in NYC for that. Sorry to say but the Democrats here in NY state think that they have to take care of you. Earning us the name "Nanny State". I just wanna be able to go out for one night in the city without having to think about what exactly I'm eating. GET OUT OF MY LIFE GOVERNMENT! You may bury me because I said something bad about a Democrat but what political party runs New York City? Besides, both parties are acting like crap these days.
    • kwirk, on 07/22/2008, -0/+3"I just wanna be able to go out for one night in the city without having to think about what exactly I'm eating."

      Ignorance is bliss, I guess.
      • TylerM, on 07/22/2008, -3/+1Exactly, if I'm not overweight, and I take care of myself, why do I need someone to tell me what's in the food I'm eating? I'm a big boy thank you.
      • kwirk, on 07/22/2008, -1/+1More information for the consumer is never a bad thing. You're only 17, you're probably too young to remember the time before nutrition info on food packaging became standardized by the FDA.

        Obesity is one of the biggest health issues facing America right now. Maybe this move by NYC will awaken restaurant diners to how unhealthy these meals really are, and give them motivation to live a healthier lifestyle. You may not be overweight, but the price of obesity affects all of us through higher health and insurance costs. Something needs to be done to combat this.

        Besides, fat chicks suck.
    • EtherGnat, on 07/22/2008, -1/+2"I just wanna be able to go out for one night in the city without having to think about what exactly I'm eating. GET OUT OF MY LIFE GOVERNMENT!"

      Then don't worry about it. Do you worry every time you go to the grocery store because nutritional information is printed on all the food? What's the difference?
      • Paulish, on 07/23/2008, -2/+1Don't worry about the government... Just keep on living your life and takin' it in the ass.
  • cadmiumpaint, on 07/22/2008, -1/+4well maybe this will shock people into kicking bad habits. Fast food has made America fat.....i'm a fan of anything that helps educate people on what they are putting in their bodies.
    • docbob84, on 07/22/2008, -2/+0There's plenty of information available about what people are putting in their bodies. Fast food has made America fat? Wow... next thing you know, you'll be telling me cigarettes cause cancer. Sorry but if you don't know this by now, no amount of information is going to make it through your skull. The problem with this law, like the labels on cigarettes, is that the people they're supposed to "help" won't care enough to change their habits because of it, and the people who DO pay attention to their calories are not the ones going to McDonalds in the first place. I eat at McDonalds semi regularly for convenience sake; I do it in moderation and have an idea of how many calories and fat are in my orders, and I change my workout over the next few days to compensate. I don't care if I had to scream to the cashier "I want a thousand calorie cheeseburger and a fifteen hundred calorie large fries", I wouldn't change due to the convenience and I'm sure most NYC residents who eat at McDonalds will feel the same way. This is simply pandering, trying to appear to make a difference by passing a useless law.

      That said, the Trans fat ban is great because its just that, a BAN. They're not going to BAN fast food altogether, it would be suicide.
    • Paulish, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1Send them to reeducation fat camps! Oh, I doubt you literally meant anything. Because doing that to people would be a violation to rights, but forcing people to post stuff in their own restaurant is not. Right, got. Makes sense.
  • austinisi, on 07/22/2008, -4/+5The best article I have seen arguing against the new law.

    http://www.reason.com/news/show/127143.html
    • MacEnvy, on 07/22/2008, -0/+1What? That's not a good argument at all, and it isn't worthy of the usually awesome Reason Magazine. Every one of his reasons were weak at best and rationalization at worst.
  • jgc7, on 07/22/2008, -3/+6I live in New York, and it is really nice. I tend to overeat, but now it is much easier to not splurge with a 1000 calorie lunch. Personally, I find my self eating at McDonalds/Subway and the chain restaurants more now than I did before the signs went up.

    It's not that different than the smoking ban... No bar owner wanted to be the only dick in town that kicked smokers out, but now that the ban is in effect, everyone is better off including the smokers. People go to bars more and hangout longer because it is more pleasant, and smokers are now welcome to loiter outside and smoke.
    • SmokinWeed, on 07/22/2008, -1/+0Dude, that's ***** ridiculous.. people went to bars more when they could smoke there, I'm sure about it.
      • Testiculese, on 07/22/2008, -0/+1Wrong. Delaware has the same ban. The bars are packed (Even the bars right on the PA border, you can smoke in PA still). Even the smokers say it's nicer in the bar without the haze and stench. Sure as hell is nicer for me, I can actually go to the bar now.
    • lovebane, on 07/22/2008, -0/+1thats like saying you want to keep the fat people out like you keep the smokers out.

      putting up numbers doesn't mean ***** if the person didn't care to begin with to eat at a place that is known to be bad for their health.

      If you've got the wit to put a law like this out, you should have the half wit decency to think for yourself to know what is and isn't good for your health.

      look at me, we're going green and eating less.. ***** that ***** man..
    • Paulish, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1Wooowwww. This new authoritarian government we are building in America is very much reliant on the theme of "For your own good" and "For the greater good". I guess rights mean nothing anymore.




      And remember, buck your seat belt, or you owe us money!
  • virtualonliner, on 07/22/2008, -0/+11I do not understand why some people have opposition on this issue. I mean, come on, it is not like some stringent limitation on your ability to do business, neither government is telling you how to do business as some say. It's just requiring them to display A FACT, just like price of am item on menu. Some people say that it is pointless as people will eat what they want regardless. If some people do that, then so be it. But I am sure there will be others who will watch their calories. All it takes is to make your menu a little "ugly", if you will say so. IMO, that is but a small price for health.
  • grungegbunny, on 07/22/2008, -0/+1So whats the rationalization behind the rule only working with chain restaurants?
    • SmokinWeed, on 07/22/2008, -0/+0Maybe no one else could really afford to pay the fine.
    • disappointment, on 07/22/2008, -0/+3The Mob owns the sit-down classy restaurants, duh.

      Besides, we're all about attacking fast food places and casual dining places.. surely people don't get fat by eating at other places! That 1300 calorie chocolate mousse cheesecake which people willingly pay $17 had nothing to do with it.
    • ShadyG, on 07/22/2008, -0/+0It's only practical for restaurants with fixed menus and deterministic cooking methods. The time and expense involved in getting a meal tested for nutrition value means that adding anything to a menu will necessarily be a rare occurrence. Compare to a "real" restaurant, with its specials and its soups of the day, and a competent and artistic chef who decides a few drops of olive oil would go really well on this side dish. Once you post the data, your production methods must be mechanical, or you get nailed.
  • Branchex, on 07/22/2008, -0/+1If you can't figure out what is and isn't good for you on your own how are numbers thrown in gonna help. Seems like NYC gov. just wants to help the stupid diet plans.
  • austinisi, on 07/22/2008, -4/+2A couple of points:

    1) First, it's expensive to send an entrée to a nutrition lab for testing. Labs typically charge $850 to $1,000 for the service, and most restaurants will want to test an item more than once to ensure accuracy. Any "have it your way" customization of an item would also need to be tested, which means a typical sandwich might need to be tested dozens of times to account for the various condiments and accouterments a restaurant may want to offer.

    2) Either restaurants will dramatically cut down on variety and serve only meticulously portioned cookie-cutter dishes, or they'll merely pass the costs of testing additional dishes on to consumers.

    3) Of course, most of the really large chains already make nutritional information available—either online or in pamphlets you can find at the restaurant. Calorie counters and people watching their sodium or sugar intake can find this information relatively easily if they need it. And they can choose not to patronize those restaurants that don't make it available.

    4) Then there are the lawsuits. When McDonalds voluntarily agreed to post its nutritional information on the Web several years ago, it wasn't long at all before the nutrition fanatics at the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) attacked the company because a couple of McDonalds employees served covert CSPI reps overly large ice cream cones.

    These menu labeling bills have put restaurants in a no-win predicament. Their best bet is to mechanize their kitchens and to take all variety and spontaneity out of their menus—which isn't exactly a good outcome for consumers. And you can bet that when the latest round of menu labeling bills fails to make us any skinnier, the nutrition activists will start taking aim at the smaller chains and independent restaurants too.
    • EtherGnat, on 07/22/2008, -0/+1It wasn't enough you already posted the link to that article twice? How many times are you going to post it?
  • bryannnnn, on 07/22/2008, -0/+10um, this works. i went to taco bell today, looked at the menu, felt like a piece of *****, left and got a sandwich instead...
  • EgaoNoGenki, on 07/22/2008, -0/+3No big deal; they post calorie information regularly here in Japan.
    • 1randomguyO8, on 07/22/2008, -0/+2Yeah but that makes you an anti-american communist :/
      /s
  • scoottie, on 07/22/2008, -0/+3i cook at home to be healthy ... i go out to eat for some guilty pleasure
    • brainscab, on 07/22/2008, -0/+4you will still have that choice, but now you are informed about it.
      • scoottie, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1not saying thats bad but tbh i don't give a crap whats the calorie count when i go out, i want to leave in a food coma and feel guilty the next day until i go out for my morning bike ride
    • Paulish, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1Common sense. Let me bask in it for a moment... Alright, i'm done.
  • ahtu, on 07/22/2008, -0/+2What the hell, how is getting more information a bad thing?
    This would be really useful when eating out.
    Choosing the 1500 calorie burger would become that much harder if you know what calories stand for and how much you should get per day.
    • Testiculese, on 07/22/2008, -0/+1Especially when the 600 calorie burger is right below it. (Still a lot, but you go out knowing it's going to be more)
    • mousky, on 07/22/2008, -1/+1It's not getting information that is a bad thing. It's using government coercion to get that information that is a bad thing.

      A common thread these days is the so-called 'lack of responsibility'. Yet, we keep turning to the government to 'fix' things or to make our decision-making easier. We are transferring our personal responsibility to the government. Then we turn around and complain about the poor job that government does!

      Take responsibility and don't eat at restaurants that publish nutritional information.
  • chieffan, on 07/22/2008, -0/+0Placing warnings about cancer on smokes doesn't stop people from buying them. Neither does putting calorie information on a box of twinkies. Why would it stop them in a restaurant?
  • extrema, on 07/22/2008, -0/+1Guy who needs glasses : Wow! The price of gas sure had an impact on the price of food... 1500$ for a cheese burger! I couldn't afford classy restaurants, now I can't even buy a glass of Coke at McDonald's.
  • Singerspell, on 07/22/2008, -0/+0I live in New York and the problem is that the calorie counts as displayed on the menus are confusing. Often they show a range of calories, such as 490-960, with no explanation as to what size meal, or elements of the meal the range applies to. It's a good idea, but not well-executed.

  • gubatron2, on 07/22/2008, -0/+1I'm gonna go to my local mac donald's and see if they posted anything.
  • Paulish, on 07/22/2008, -0/+1People, like me, oppose this on grounds of principle. You have a slippery slope, if the government can make a company do this one ooooohhhh so simple task which is good for everyone, why could it not do X. And so you see you get this progressing expansion of government power. We may start with interfering in corporate affairs, but it will hit home some day just wait. Some people may say im a nut when I say we go from imposed calorie charts to rigidly imposed meal structures that must be followed (no more big macs) or something similar, but look where America is today. USA was founded on a minimal republic with almost no government. Look at the monster the government has become.

    Yeah, its not bad if the consumer has access to health information and I think it would be nice if all restaurants gave that information WITHOUT government coercion. It would certainly show which establishments actually care, and not because the government tells them to (or else). The reality is though, if someone on the street comes up to you and says "Hey kid, want to buy my delicious hamburgers?" but wont tell you what is in them, who is at fault for for eating the hamburgers? What makes corporations so much more trustworthy? And if people DO decide to eat them, what can we do? Certainly not restrict the rights of others.

    PS: I am a health nut, and refuse to eat at fast food restaurants, except on rare occasions.
  • drvfstnwild, on 07/23/2008, -0/+0'bout time. People wonder why America has become the fattest country in the world. Maybe if people are more informed then they will make an educated decision on it. They will make the decision. At least the companies can't say we didn't tell you before hand. Similar to the whole suing McDonalds and all those places for not informing people that it is not wise to eat the stuff on a daily basis.

    People say were did we go wrong. This "could" be one way in fixing some problems. It won't change overnight but I like the idea.

    Knowledge is power.
  • nanochile, on 09/02/2008, -0/+0You have an issue if you are regularly eating at fast food chain restaurants especially living in a place like NYC with tons of dining options. Eat there once in a blue moon and you won't have to worry about counting calories.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.