Energy-content disclosures to be required for restaurants

[cinyc]

When I first saw the title of this thread, I thought that this was going to be about restaurants somewhere being required to disclose how much energy was used to produce and transport their food, thereby allowing consumers to know how much of a 'carbon footprint' their food was responsible for.

Irrelevant information that would be promptly ignored by the public - just as a few recent studies have shown that the overwhelming majority of consumers ignore restaurant calorie counts.

[cinyc]

When I first saw the title of this thread, I thought that this was going to be about restaurants somewhere being required to disclose how much energy was used to produce and transport their food, thereby allowing consumers to know how much of a 'carbon footprint' their food was responsible for.

Irrelevant information that would be promptly ignored by the public - just as a few recent studies have shown that the overwhelming majority of consumers ignore restaurant calorie counts.

I disagree. I was in NYC a couple of years ago and the calorie counts on the menus were breathtaking. Not that I thought the average restaurant meal was good for you or a reasonable portion size but actually seeing it precisely made a huge impression on me and my choices. It's really damn hard to order the giant cheeseburger and onion rings when 1500 calories is staring back at you. In any case, it's about giving consumers the information to make informed decisions. I can't see how anybody could be against this. It's not telling people what to do. It's just giving them information.

Recent studies have shown that most people don't care about these calorie counts.  That's a fact.

[cinyc]

When I first saw the title of this thread, I thought that this was going to be about restaurants somewhere being required to disclose how much energy was used to produce and transport their food, thereby allowing consumers to know how much of a 'carbon footprint' their food was responsible for.

Irrelevant information that would be promptly ignored by the public - just as a few recent studies have shown that the overwhelming majority of consumers ignore restaurant calorie counts.

I disagree. I was in NYC a couple of years ago and the calorie counts on the menus were breathtaking. Not that I thought the average restaurant meal was good for you or a reasonable portion size but actually seeing it precisely made a huge impression on me and my choices. It's really damn hard to order the giant cheeseburger and onion rings when 1500 calories is staring back at you. In any case, it's about giving consumers the information to make informed decisions. I can't see how anybody could be against this. It's not telling people what to do. It's just giving them information.

Recent [url=http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=quesadilla-study-diners-ignore-calo-11-01-14]studies have shown that most people don't care about these calorie counts.  That's a fact.

That study is about poor kids. The overall population cares and has a right to this information. Why would you want to supress their ability to make an informed decision? Own stock in lardburger?

I linked to two studies.  One of adolescent behavior after New York enacted its labeling law, another of changes in eating behavior at the Taco Time chain in King County, Washington after it enacted a similar law.  There was no change in what was ordered at Taco Time, either.

Who said anything about suppressing people's ability to make an informed decision?  If people don't care about calorie counts, they don't care about calorie counts.  I'm not sure why forcing something to be posted is good public policy if studies show doing so doesn't change behavior in the supposedly "correct" way.  Nutrition information - including information about things that are a heck of a lot more relevant than a simple calorie count - already must be made available upon request at chain restaurants.