Now it seems that the inevitable lawsuits have begun, (though we know of no direct connection between these particular test results and the lawsuits.)

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer says that a lawsuit filed earlier this month in King County Superior Court claims that Applebee's Weight Watchers menu has two to three times the amount of fat advertised.

"Applebee's made certain representations ... and independent lab tests showed that the representations they made were way off," says Jason Epstein, an attorney with Premier Law Group.

This isn't the only lawsuit to be filed about the issue. There's another one in Kansas. Applebee's parent company has responded to that one, telling the Washington Business Journal that the lawsuit is without merit.

According to the lab tests reported by WXYZ in Detroit, Applebee's Cajun Lime Tilapia was supposed to contain 6 grams of fat, but really had 14.3 grams of fat. Applebee's Garlic Herb Chicken also was advertised at 6 grams of fat, but really had 18. If you'd like to take a look at the results, click here. (PDF)

The P-I says that the Washington lawsuit is seeking class action status.

Suit accuses Applebee's of understating calorie counts [Seattle P-I] (Thanks, Rob!)

Last time I checked, an adult male should consume 2,500 calories a day, and this shake nearly meets that requirement! The saturated fat present in that shake is over 3 times the RDA of 20 grams, which will put you on the fast track for heart disease. Of course, that's if the Type 2 diabetes caused by all 266 grams of that sugar doesn't get you first.

While I believe that people should be held responsible for what they consume, I think corporations need to share just a little responsibility too, and not sell piles of liquid sugar and fat like this. I'd be surprised if even 1 in 100 of the folks that consume that shake know just how bad it is.

On the plus side, it does provide 120% of the RDA for calcium. Oh, and about 1600% of the RDA for Heath candy bars.

(Our tipster, Doug, came up with "death shake.")

For children between 4 and 8 years of age, the recommended amount of calories per meal, assuming three meals a day, is 430. If the child is active, the amount goes up to 565. Using these numbers as a guide, the CSPI looked at the biggest restaurant chains in the country, then whittled their list down to the ones that offer dedicated kids' menus and provide nutritional info. This meant the following were left out of the study because they won't provide nutritional info:

We don't need no stinkin' nutrition
• Applebee's
• T.G.I. Friday's
• Outback Steakhouse
• Olive Garden
• Red Lobster
• IHOP

Here's what the CSPI has to say about those restaurants that do provide nutritional info:

Chili's has 700 possible kids’ meal combinations, but 658, or 94 percent, of those are too high in calories, including one comprised of country-fried chicken crispers, cinnamon apples, and chocolate milk (1,020 calories) and another comprised of cheese pizza, homestyle fries, and lemonade (1,000 calories).

Burger King has a “Big Kids” meal with a double cheeseburger, fries, and chocolate milk (910 calories)

Sonic has a “Wacky Pack” with 830 calories worth of grilled cheese, fries, and a slushie.

KFC has a wide variety of side items, but there are few meal combinations that keep a reasonable ceiling on calories, according to the study. One example of a high-cal combo KFC kid’s meal (the chain calls them “Laptop Meals”) has popcorn chicken, baked beans, biscuit, Teddy Grahams, and fruit punch, which has 940 calories. (KFC has since dropped Baked Cheetos from its kids’ meals, and some outlets vary the number of chicken strips or sides.)

Most of the kids’meals (93 percent) at McDonald’s and Wendy’s are too high in calories, as are the possibilities at Burger King (92 percent), Dairy Queen (89 percent), Arby’s (69 percent), and Denny’s (60 percent—though its kids’ meals don’t include drinks). (Since CSPI’s study was completed, Burger King has introduced one new children’s meal with macaroni and cheese, apple “fries,” and 1 percent milk, which has a reasonable 420 calories.)

Subway’s kids’ meals came out on top. Only a third of its Fresh Fit for Kids meals, which include a mini-sub, juice box, and one of several healthful side items (apple slices, raisins, or yogurt), exceed the 430-calorie threshold. Subway is the only chain that doesn’t offer soft drinks with kids’ meals.

So how do you improve the nutrition of your kid's meal the next time you eat at a restaurant? A spokeswoman for the American Dietetic Association gave the following advice:

"Don't be too alarmed even when [studies] come out and seem hopeless," said Dawn Jackson Blatner, an American Dietetic Ass>ociation spokeswoman. "With a few swaps and switches, people really can make healthier choices at these fast-food joints, especially when the decisions are made before going in.

"Many of these restaurants have the nutrition information online that you can print out and go over with your kids even before you go, so that everybody is on the same page before they pull up to the drive-through or [head] to the counter," Blatner said.

She also suggested that "instead of getting the fries, go with the apple slices. Many [restaurants] offer carrot sticks or apple slices or no-sugar-added applesauce or oranges, which make a big difference over deep-fried fries."

And pay attention to how food is cooked. "Instead of the deep-fried nuggets, go for something like the grilled chicken, and you will save fat grams and calories," Blatner said. You'll also save calories by switching the soda, she added: "You can't go wrong with unsweetened iced tea, water or a skim milk."

As for the restaurants that refuse to provide nutritional info, maybe you should just eat elsewhere.

Click here for some specific replacement suggestions from the Chicago Tribune.

You can download a copy of the full CSPI report here.
(Photo: Getty)

Checkers/Rally's, whose fatalistic slogan "You Gotta Eat!" apparently justifies its menu of triple cheeseburger Nascar meals, double Philly cheese steak burgers (that's a double cheeseburger with a cheese steak on top) and thirty-two ounce medium sodas, has over 800 locations across 28 states, more than such chains as Boston Market and Roy Rogers. Unlike most fast food restaurants, which make nutrition information available on their website or in store, Checkers/Rally's is oblivious to such concerns (see picture above). Worse, inquiries by customers have been met with the same canned response:

"Thank you for your interest in the nutritional value of our menu items. We are currently reviewing our nutrition information due to several recent menu changes. We do not have a set date for the release of this information. You can find general information on this topic at www.Nutrition.gov or Food and Nutrition Information Center www.fns.usda.gov/fns or Healthfinder-Gateway to Reliable Consumer Health Information www.healthfinder.gov.
Thank you,
Checkers Drive-In Restaurants"

We emailed the company's PR person and asked why it didn't make this information available, but received no response.
For those wondering if some law requires Checkers/Rally's to make this information available, the answer is, probably not. According to the FDA, restaurants are generally exempt from any requirements to publish nutritional information. The exception to this rule is that whenever a company makes a health claim, such as low calorie, less fat, and so on, they are required to make available nutritional information sufficient to back up this claim. These types of health claims are becoming more common in fast food advertising, but are noticeably absent from Checkers/Rally's; perhaps this is intentional?

A Labeling Guide for Restaurants and Other Retail Establishments Selling Away-From-Home Foods [U.S. F.D.A.]
Checkers' Nutrition Info Missing: What Is Checkers Hiding?
Checkers Drive-In (Nutrition Information Is Not Available)

Overindulgence in Small Packages [NYT]

RELATED:
100 Calorie Packs Are Still A Scam, Cost More For Less Food
Like Those 100 Calorie Packs? You're Paying Twice As Much

I ordered the Zesty Chicken Border Bowl Fresco style without dressing. On the menu at the store, it reads under 9 grams of fat but on online, it reads 13 grams of fat. Please compare your special nutrition page for Fresco menu items to the Nutrition Calculator on the Taco Bell site. I made sure that I chose "Fresco Style" on the calculator and to be advertising something as under 9 grams of fat, but really having 13 is very misleading and wrong.

—--

Really, what's 4 grams of fat? But my point is that if you go the extra mile to order something that has under 9 grams of fat, then it should really come out that way.

I've attached a screen capture of the Taco Bell webpage where I compared the two items. Clearly have different amounts of fat.

UPDATE: Rob, the Director of Public Relations for Taco Bell, writes in to let us know that the nutritional information on the "Fresco Menu" is correct.

The nutritional information calculator on Taco Bell's website "inadvertently includes red strips" when it calculates the info for the Fresco Zesty Chicken Border Bowl. The actual bowl contains 8g of fat and 350 calories, as advertised. Rob says: "Appreciate you bringing this to our attention as we are currently working to fix it."

Actually, according to the article, "Higher gasoline prices can reduce obesity by leading people to walk or cycle instead of drive and eat leaner at home instead of rich food at restaurants." The study's author, health economist Charles Courtemanche, said he got the idea for the study one day while pumping gas—he was thinking that if it got much more expensive, he'd have to take public transportation, which would increase his daily exercise (via walking) by 30 minutes per day.

Gas hit a record high of $3.22 per gallon this past May.

"Higher gas prices seen trimming down Americans" [Reuters]
(Original photo: Joe Shlabotnik)

But does it go far enough? TV is just one component of the advertising spectrum, and the industry's move won't apply to "family"-type shows.

Maybe we should treat treat junk food ads like cigarette ads...

Gawker Media polls require Javascript; if you're viewing this in an RSS reader, click through to view in your Javascript-enabled web browser.

Um, let's feed the children meat and veggies? Not a byproduct of over-produced government subsidy corn? Soylent fat is corn husks!

Look, even the dude who got the gastric bypass isn't buying it. That man would rather cut his belly open and sew his stomach shut than eat this crap. —MEGHANN MARCO

The Today Show

From the study:

•In 1999 10.5% of children/teens had too much belly fat

•In 2004 17.4% of boys had too much belly fat

•In 2004 17.8% of girls had too much belly fat

We just love typing the words "belly fat." Anyway, your children are fat. And it's not just your children. Apparently, fat belly kids is a somewhat international phenomenon.

Hey, at least if everyone's kid is the fat kid, teasing will be evenly distributed. We suggest limiting the amount of fast food your child eats to none, but hey, like that's going to happen, right?

Belly Fat Of US Children Grew By Over 65% Since 1999 [MedicalNewsToday.com]

Proceed At Your Own Risk posits the logical extension of this argument: McDonalds caused the war in Iraq.

It can't all be the golden arches fault. The increased weight could also be attributed to the rise of of refrigeration, and polio vaccinations (you see how many calories you burn while tromping around in metal braces).

A soft drink that actually burns calories is like a burrito that makes your flatulence smell like bakery fresh cinnamon rolls: the holy grail of science. Every reasonable man is skeptical that it can be done; nevertheless, we fat-asses keep hoping.

Still, there's a good reason to believe that Coke's new Enviga drink, advertised as "The Calorie Burner," is a total scam, and Mouseprint has finely combed the small print to showcase the absurdity.

For one thing, the study that 'proved' that Enviga burned calories was only 32 people of normal weight. No one actually burned any fat, even when they were on placebos, but heck... "energy expenditure" was higher for Enviga drinkers. Whatever the hell that means.

Coke, of course, officially denies their drink burns calories, wandering around the wording of their fine print with a weasel-like slither. Heck, we're only marketing it as 'The Calorie Burner.' It's not like we're saying it burns calories or something!

Enviga from Coke: Burns More Calories Than it Contains* [Mouseprint]

That's a lot of oil, but split it up over 365 days, and it's not quite as scary. What's worse? How about eating a Hardee's 1,420-calorie Monster Thickburger, which gives you the privilege of ingesting 107 grams of fat in one sitting. Americans aren't shying away from the mega-calorie foods, according to new reports. Hopefully no one does THAT every day.

But telling you that fast food is bad for you and that fried slices of potato are full of fat is not exactly surprising. And there's no way that awareness of oil in food is going to stop us from eating the occasional bag of chips. In reality, we just wanted to use this photo in a post.

A packet of crisps a day? That's 5 litres of cooking oil in a year [Times Online]

Beef hacked off the side of a holy Japanese cow. Mushrooms decried in the wild by the quivering snout of a trained French pig. A single slice of cheese congealed from the lactations of an angel's snowy breasts.

Meet the most expensive hamburger in the world, sold at the Boca Raton Old Homestead Steakhouse for $124.50 each. The restaurant donates 10 bucks from each sale to the Make-A-Wish foundation. Gee, how generous.

Looking at the full list of ingredients, sure, it does look prestigious and swell. But I can't be the only one who looks at the picture above and finds their mouth's loins a quiver for a three buck Wendy's Bacon Double Cheeseburger.

Fla. Restaurant Sells $100 Hamburger [AP]

A positive correlation seems to exists between MSG presence and McDonald's sausage-based items.

Two other non-breakfast items, Chicken Selects Premium Breast Strips and Creamy Ranch Sauce are listed as containing the glutamic acid.

A small portion of the population is MSG intolerant and can develop one or more of the following symptoms: burning sensations, rapid heartbeat, headache, nausea, numbness in the back of the neck, radiating to the arms and back, violent dreams, etc. etc.

And with the dollar menu, getting high with The Ronald is cheaper than ever!

"Food Allergen & Sensitivity Info" [McDonald's] (Thanks to Courtney!)

The author, John Sotos, likens the obese to congealed miasmata of loathsome fat molecules drifting across the American landscape. And he's deadly in earnest.

Sotos writes: "Food calories are so pervasively and inexpensively available in our environment that they should be regarded as a pollutant. Just as an asthmatic can't help but inhale pollutants in the air all around him, we Americans cannot help but ingest the calories present in the environment all around us."

The solution? Sotos suggests government intervention or perhaps some sort of Fatty Kyoto accord to deal with the problem. Ultimately, he wants high calorie products to cost much, much more than low calorie ones.

Think that sounds absolutely bogus, a shocking violation of consumer rights? Sotos scoffs at you:

Some prospective losers would understand that change presents opportunity. They would welcome the program as an impetus to diversify and do the right thing for the public health. Potential losers having a narrower, self-serving vision might resist the program fiercely.

Yes, it certainly is narrow and self-serving to believe in the freedom to do something as simple as eat the food you want to eat without some busybody, hunched over with his entire forearm up his rectum, comparing you to an industrial spill and siccing the Hazmat team on you.

A Modest — and Slimming! — Proposal [Washington Post]

"The sleeping pill Ambien seems to unlock a primitive desire to eat in some patients...the drug's users sometimes sleepwalk into their kitchens, claw through their refrigerators like animals and consume calories ranging into the thousands," reports the New York Times.

A night nurse who took the drug describes one such experience. "One day," she said, "I got up my husband describes this in great detail I got a package of hamburger buns and I just tore it open like a grizzly bear and just stood there and ate the whole package."

So you can't sleep and you take Ambien. But you get fat from sleep eating so you take diet pills. Then you're depressed and anxious about your sleep disorder and weight gain and embarrassed about your new chemical dependency. So you take some Xanax.

Then one day, you eat an Altoid. All the drugs in your body chain reaction and you transmogrify into a tiny pill, clattering to the floor. Pfizer collects the capsule and prescribes it to immigrants to help them feel more American.

Study Links Ambien Use to Unconscious Food Forays [New York Times]