@JennQPublic:

What? I have a lovely collection of Happy Meal toys.

Seriously, I think you've hit the nail on the head. People focus so much on one thing that they don't pay attention to the larger picture. NeverLetMeDown is correct that weight and health can be correlated, but it's not all about the weight. Diet should be about health, AND about enjoyment. It's really sad that we as a society have gotten so far away from this.

So not that different.

825 calories? Ech. But to be honest, I'd have thought it would be more.

@mythago:

Well, it's certainly highly correlated, and an easily measured proxy. Certainly, a 300lb NBA center is in much better shape than a 250lb 5' 10" desk jockey, but, in general, 200lb people are healthier than 300lb people.

I eat a lot less Chipotle now that I know a single burrito has like 1100 calories.

[www.chipotlefan.com]

The problem with calories on menus is that it only makes you think about your calorie intake for the minute you're ordering - not the whole of your day.

So 10% of the 28% actively decided to eat something with more calories?

And Jen - don't forget the good old days when you didn't have to worry about the milk spoiling because of the formaldehyde that was thoughtfully put in it.

To me this shows off more that the typical corporate anti-regulation noise is once again baseless and unfounded. Didn't they all say that making the information prominent would drive down sales?

When I found out my favorite Tully's latte had 670 calories, I ordered a chai. It worked for me.

The problem is that most people that go into fast food restaraunts go into them often, and thus already know exactly what they are going to order before they set foot into the building, and therefore never bother to look at the menu.

It would probably be more effective if they put signs on every door that state simply: "Eating our food is hazardous to your health"

On an obliquely-related topic... one of the clients whose publications I've handled regularly was the Center for Science in the Public Interest and their Nutrition Action magazine, which features on its back page a feature called Right Stuff/Food Porn. This page features in one column a glowing review of something they think you should eat (like some kind of rice cake snack) and, on the other, a raging condemnation of something they think you shouldn't eat -- which, one month, happened to be the Sara Lee Chocolate-Covered "Cheesecake Bites", which I'd never heard of until then, and turned out to be, after about twenty minutes in the freezer, one of the most awesomest things I've ever eaten, except for their later-produced chocolate-cheesecake version which, in the words of John Cleese, makes "my nipples explode with delight".

Thank you, CSPI!

It's amazing how easy it is to say something isn't useful for anyone just because you haven't found it to be useful for *you.*

@NeverLetMeDown: Dietary fiber will also reduce a food's points.

At the same time people are buying more fast food, two things happened:

1. Calorie signs were posted.
2. People are losing jobs in record numbers.

The cause of people spending more on cheap food is obviously the signs.

1) There's a minimum number of franchises before you're required to post the calories. I'm sure when supermarket labels first required nutritional info, it cost some mom & pop companies money as well. I still think it's a good idea.

2) Corporations are not "evil." Something that isn't sentient can't be evil. They are, however, designed (and often beholden to their stockholders) to make money whether or not the activities that will make them money hurt society as a whole. Therefore, these activities must be kept in check - in your theoretical free market, consumer choice handles this quite well. However...

3) There are over 300,000,000 people in this country. Over 8,000,000 in NYC alone. How many consumers would need to "demand this information or do business elsewhere" to actively affect a company the size of McDonald's bottom line enough that they would notice, let alone care? Of course, you'd need to multiply that number by Burger King, Taco Bell, KFC, and every other McDonald's competitor that all of those consumers would also have to avoid (and I'll even grant you that NYC certainly has more alternative dining options than most places in the US). If the only way corporations were motivated to change was through a majority (or even a minority sizable enough to make an economic dent in a company's bottom line) consumer action, we would still be eating cheeseburgers made with bits of Jurgis Rudkus in them.

@JennQPublic:

That's pretty much how the plan works. Clearly, you could in theory make some pretty weird choices (spend all your daily points on a pint of ice cream), but they're not sustainable (you'll be hungry all the time), so the points do tend to push you toward sane choices.

@TheFlamingoKing: I understand your point, but don't agree, but clearly there's a line to be drawn somewhere. Consider if we take your first paragraph and make a thought experiment which is a bit absurd...

"It's a nanny law when people are forced to display the RADIOACTIVE URANIUM content. It's not that the information about RADIOACTIVE URANIUM is bad - information is good for consumers. It's just unfortunate that the government has to use threat of force in order to get what it wants. Consumers could demand this information or do business elsewhere. That's the free market, non-force way to solve the problem. Maybe both ways work. Only one doesn't involve us losing our freedoms."

[www.mailtribune.com]

[asunews.asu.edu]

Their own website says their pretzel dog is 320 calories with no butter, and 360 calories with butter. A jumbo pretzel dog with butter is 610 calories!

[www.auntieannes.com]

@gggtur: Sometimes you really want a pretzel dog, and consuming fewer calories, even if it's something unhealthy like a pretzel dog, can be helpful. And sometimes you eat what you can get.

I keep track of calorie intake, and it is a tedious monitoring process that requires more than just reading labels, it requires committment. And passing this kind law isn't going to sway anyone who isn't committed in the first place, so this news is not surprising.

I personally like the labels since it makes things easier for me, but then again, I'm not the target audience.

i mean if kids were burning the calories they were consuming, we wouldn't be putting 8 yr olds on cholesterol meds.

@JennQPublic: i get the toy, but i have cousins who are anywhere from 7 months to 17 years old. always someone who could use a happy meal toy.

@Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?: The way things are going in the food industry, I don't expect it to be very long before they require so much nutritional information to be posted that there's no room to list the names of the food items. "Let's see, I'm diabetic, allergic to garlic and wheat, and I need something under 200 calories, 5 grams of carbs, 100 milligrams of sodium, and at least 30% of my RDA for vitamin A. Looks like I'll have the 'D', whatever that is."

"Would you like to make that a combo for an additional 300 calories, 13 grams of carbs...?"

@secret_curse: Maybe. I think the typical kid probably burns a ton of calories throughout the day. I think whenever I have kids, I'll have to make more of an effort to take them walking in the city or to a playground where they can actually run around. Can't run around in the parking lot of an apartment complex.

@pax: I definitely don't drink them for their health benefits. They just taste good and are a good treat once in a while when I want something sweet.

@pecan 3.14159265: But, those kids that weigh 1/3 of an adult probably burn waaaay more calories throughout the day, especially if the adult has an office job. When I was a kid, I'd have at least an hour a day of recess before getting home and playing outside for at least a couple more hours.

I know it swayed me. I knew the coffee I drank from Tully's/Starbucks was loaded with calories, but until I saw it right in front of my face, it didn't really resonate. I only order non fat now, with no extra flavors/sweeteners (ie, a regular mocha vs white mocha)

Similarly, I eat less fast food. I could be the posterboy for advocacy groups trying to prove this stuff works.

I've cut a lot of it out because I'm trying to lose weight. I do miss my Arby's loaded potato bites. :(

I like being surprised by now many milligrams are in my Tylenol. Is it pain-reduction-strength or liver-damage-strength? Not knowing is half the fun!

lolcats FTW!!!

It makes a lot more sense to require it BEFORE ordering rather thsan after. mcDonald's had a nice effort with its labeling on the wrappers... but that doesn't tell me what's in a big mac before i order the bic mac.

Will still check online nutrition info before going to order any food.

@pecan 3.14159265: So many commercially prepared smoothies are loaded with sugar, corn syrup, and preservatives. I only make my own at home (yes, really) anymore--that way I know they only contain fruit, yogurt, lowfat milk, orange juice and, in the a.m., oatmeal.

@JennQPublic: At the same time, you have to look at both short and long term goals. If you have someone who is morbidly obese, it may be better in the shrot run for them to hack off the calories and worry about the source later. Long term, they will need to focus on calorie source.

I don't know the WW system, but I'm guessing it is calorie focused. If she is buringing 1/3 of her calories on the mocha, but having that mocha is a motivator to adhere to the diet, it may serve her better than the low calorie OJ that discourages the diet. As she develops better calorie consumption habits, she should feel encouraged to improve the quality of her diet as well - perhaps getting a smaller mocha, with the eventual goal of elimination.

@Mange: Now I want Chipotle. But in my defense, I get a burrito bowl.

It's a nanny law when people are forced to display the calorie counts. It's not that the information is bad - information is good for consumers. It's just unfortunate that the government has to use threat of force in order to get what it wants. Consumers could demand this information or do business elsewhere. That's the free market, non-force way to solve the problem. Maybe both ways work. Only one doesn't involve us losing our freedoms.

The real problem is the unintended consequences. Forcing restaurants to list calorie counts hurts small business and helps large business. If McDonalds is forced to make calorie listings, they can afford to pay to have the food analyzed and also can mass produce signage for all their restaurants. If Joe's Pizza is forced to it creates a competitive advantage for McDonalds, because the cost of testing is much greater per location than it is for McDonalds. If I recall, the Yum corporation was actively lobbying for this law, because the increased cost it would place on their competition would hurt their ability to compete with Taco Bell and KFC.

People on this site hate unbending, "evil" corporations that seem to focus more on incoming dollars than the people they service. Then why are we encouraging a law that benefits those same unbending, evil corporations at the expense of the little, mom-n-pop diner?

@Saboth: Yeah, I in fact hate the government being too involved and I don't see an issue with this.

@TinkishDelight: I was browsing the Smoothie King website when I realized that two of my favorite smoothies clocked in at a whopping 554 calories each - this is a 20 oz. drink that is supposed to contain nothing but fruit and a little sorbet. 20 ounces!

I still drink them, but only if I'm not eating lunch. A low-cal subway sandwich still has about 650 calories.

Choosing a lower calorie option every once in awhile is not going to do you much good. It has to be a constant effort. And if you are making a constant effort, chances are you're not going to be making a choice between pretzel dogs and pretzel stix anyway.

@carlos_the_dwarf: I think your brain is a dwarf, too. I'm a huge Nanny State opponent but I agree with requiring chain restaurants to post the nutritional info of the items they sell. This is not the state telling you what you can and can't eat, it's simply providing you more information so you can make a more informed decision. I don't remember anyone complaining about nanny state intrusion when the labels were mandated on regular food items you purchase at the grocery store. Also, the majority of fast food items are made following a strict formula so it is easier to calculate than a restaurant where everything is made to order and the portion sizes vary widely.

It has helped me and my family to cut down on our fast food lunches/dinners and I'm sure it has done the same for others. We eat out about half as much as we did a year ago and the only reason is because we started checking the nutritional info. My wife and I have lost a combined 30 pounds in the last 8-9 months by eating at home more. We haven't changed anything else in our lives (no exercise, no smaller portions, no different purchases at the grocery store).

@pecan 3.14159265: Yes!!! The first time I saw that my Panera/Corner Bakery tomato and mozzarella sandwich weighed in at over 700 calories I was floored. That's without a drink or side. I haven't been able to eat one since.

@mythago: Well said. I've been trying to explain that very same point to some hard-headed co-workers today after they read the "study". Just because you eat more calories doesn't mean you're eating healthier. For example, I ate a sandwich today made with whole wheat bread (120 calories a slice compared to 110 for white bread). Would the sandwich be healthier if I used white bread instead?

@dreams305: So..what you're saying is people who aren't health-conscious are 1) Southern 2) Rednecks 3) Foreigners who speak English as a second language?

Try again.

@evilrobot: i can barely order from Chilis, TGI Fridays or any of those places any more. after looking at the nutritional tables for that stuff i was pretty shocked that even some things that seemed relatively healthy like a grilled oriental chicken salad has way more calories/fat and sodium than a Big Mac with fries.

I don't like the government having too much to do in our lives either, but I don't see anything wrong with providing some nutritional info on the food you are buying.

Or is the nutritional info on the stuff in your supermarket evil too?

@sponica (on furlough): Which is ridiculous since Happy Meals are supposed to feed children roughly 1/3rd the weight of an adult.

I pretty much know what Im about to eat if its healthy or not but new stuff I will take a peek at the label... mostly for gross stuff like mechanically seperated chicken for instance.

Time will tell.

I asked the waitress if they had seen an increase in popularity and she said that dessert has skyrocketed while the others bottomed-out pretty quick.

In a perfect world this may encourage restaurants to make their food healthier. Sometimes there's no reason for certain basic things to end up being so bad for you.

Anybody at the table that ordered dessert got the sorbet.

@evilrobot: It's akin to sticker shock. When you have an idea in your mind of what something is, but then see the real truth, it's shocking. I try to be the healthiest I can when I have to go to a fast food place. It's usually because we're on the road and that's the only thing there is. So I have to order something, but I'm more inclined to get the smallest size of everything and eat less of it.

It's helped me better budget my calories when one of my day's meals is from a quick service restaurant. It's also helped deter me from adding a milkshake to my order on many occasions. Freaking calorie bombs.

When standing in line at fast food restaurants especially, I run a very high chance of getting 'calorie-phobic' and leaving when faced with a menu listing the item nutritionals.

Also that "healthier choices" and "number of calories" are not synonymous. If I eat 100 calories of whole-grain bread is that the same as 100 calories of potato chips? In terms of food energy, sure, but not in terms of nutrition.