Health-care law requires calorie count for restaurants with 20 locations.

[Thunder]

http://rochesterhomepage.net/content/fulltext/?cid=165181

Obama really wants the American people to be healthier and better informed. What a Commy!!!!

;)

[Tailgater]

Eating fast food makes you fat and eating out for the most part. Is there anyone on this planet that still needs to be informed of this? I don't get the 20 restaurant line either. What makes 19 so special?

What does this have to do with commies?

[Skeptical Greg]

That makes me feel so much better about this legislation now..

[Thunder]

Eating fast food makes you fat and eating out for the most part. Is there anyone on this planet that still needs to be informed of this? I don't get the 20 restaurant line either. What makes 19 so special?

What does this have to do with commies?

the commy part..is a joke. i am ALL for this law.

the 20 restaurant part is to target fast-food places. it would be great if all restaurants had to post calories, but fast-food places are the big problem.

NYC already has this as law. now the whole nation will. very good thing.

would have been even better if the law banned smoking indoors, nation-wide.

[Tailgater]

the commy part..is a joke. i am ALL for this law.

the 20 restaurant part is to target fast-food places. it would be great if all restaurants had to post calories, but fast-food places are the big problem.

NYC already has this as law. now the whole nation will. very good thing.

would have been even better if the law banned smoking indoors, nation-wide.

It would be cool if they banned people with 20% or more body fat from eating out at all.

[thaiboxerken]

I do like this. In Japan, where they have a similar law, I lost quite a few pounds because it helped me estimate my calorie intake.

[Thunder]

this will just be another unneccessary burden upon job-creators.

-GOP

[casebro]

I thought that all the biggies did this already, but you may need to ask for it?

But also, the whole body weight = bad health concept has been proven false. Commonality does not equal causality. Diabetes is the cause of the ill health among fatties. -diabetes + higher BMI = longer life than the 'normal weight'.

[Tailgater]

I thought that all the biggies did this already, but you may need to ask for it?


You're right. Last couple of times I went out there was a healthy menu section at sitdowns and I've seen calorie charts at the major fast food chains for a long time now. It needs to be a law though so people who want to gorge that extra burger know that they should walk home.

But also, the whole body weight = bad health concept has been proven false. Commonality does not equal causality. Diabetes is the cause of the ill health among fatties. -diabetes + higher BMI = longer life than the 'normal weight'.

Expand on bolded? Most of the obese people I know have a list of other problems due to the strains of the weight on the body and inactivity.

[Iamme]

the commy part..is a joke. i am ALL for this law.

the 20 restaurant part is to target fast-food places. it would be great if all restaurants had to post calories, but fast-food places are the big problem.

NYC already has this as law. now the whole nation will. very good thing.

would have been even better if the law banned smoking indoors, nation-wide.


Yes. Most laws are made for our well being. Having the choice for us to make bad choices has no place in a perfect society! We need someone in power over us telling us to make the best choices, because that keeps the cost down for everyone in the country. A heaven on Earth is having someone who knows what is good for us tell us what to do. And of course they are right, because they are smart and have scientific evidence that bares out what they say. How can anyone argue with truth and facts? I just love living with all these laws that are good for us. It makes me feel really good knowing we have a gov't that cares. I cannot stand just going out and doing stuff and making dumb choices or mistakes, as that can hurt others, not just me.





















Give me a barf bag!!!!!!!!!

[Thunder]

Yes. Most laws are made for our well being. Having the choice for us to make bad choices has no place in a perfect society

this new law allows the public to make an informed choice, about what they eat. we have an obesity epidemic in the USA, incase you didn't know.

but I guess Republicans prefer an uninformed public. easier to make money off them, that way.

"don't tell them how many calories are in a triple-Whopper!!!! they might choose to buy the regular Whopper instead!!!!"

[Tailgater]

People who fall under the "epidemic" really don't care if they eat a 400 or 600 calorie whopper. IMO, if you eat at Burger King, you are not really concerned with weight in the first place. They are the same people I see going for the fifth plate at the buffet. I like seeing the calorie chart, but honestly, I'll get what I want understanding that if my pants are tight I need to lay off of it or get some extra exercise.

ETA: The "McDonalds made me fat because they didn't inform me" argument is ridiculous.

[tesscaline]

I thought that all the biggies did this already, but you may need to ask for it?

Your standard fast food chains (McDonalds, etc.) do, but your larger not quite so fast food chains don't. Denny's, IHOP, Applebee's, TGIFriday's, and the like. Some of them have reduced calorie menus in which they do give you the calorie count, but for the most part, if you're ordering a regular meal, you have no idea how many calories it is.

Personally, I think that the 20 restaurant line is a bit on the high side, but I get that they're trying to offer as much flexibility as possible to accommodate small business owners.

[Thunder]

People who fall under the "epidemic" really don't care if they eat a 400 or 600 calorie whopper. IMO, if you eat at Burger King, you are not really concerned with weight in the first place. .

I buy a Whopper about once a month. I love them. I also often just get a salad and a small fries.

I am very glad they list their calorie count. Its scary to find out just how many calories there are, and very good to know how one can get the taste they love, but consume 1/3rd the amount of calories.

I cannot understand how anyone could see the listing of calories at restaurant food, as a "bad" thing.

well...that is..unless you own massive amounts of stock in Burger King and Wendy's.

[Skeptical Greg]

this new law allows the public to make an informed choice, about what they eat. we have an obesity epidemic in the USA, incase you didn't know.

but I guess Republicans prefer an uninformed public. easier to make money off them, that way.

"don't tell them how many calories are in a triple-Whopper!!!! they might choose to buy the regular Whopper instead!!!!"

I really hope you are joking ...

Is this really the best thing you can pull out of this 2,000 page boondoggle?


Why should people make healthier eating choices if the guvment is going take care of them for free ?


Is there some place where we can actually read the whole text of this bill ?

I bet it's full of nonsense like this ..

[Thunder]

Why should people make healthier eating choices if the guvment is going take care of them for free ?

"free"????

who said its free? u should try reading the damn law before you comment on it.

Wikipedia has a great point-by-point list of all the major sections of the new law.

and "why should people make healthier choices"????

wow...the GOP has got some straaaaaaaaange ideas for this country.

do you prefer to live in a country of fat, diabetic, heart-diseased, slobs?

oh...right...Burger King stocks. I forgot. sorry.

[One Eyed Jack]

This is a useless law. It has been shown in practice that posting calorie counts does not change eating habits. It's nice information to have, but it changes nothing.

[Thunder]

This is a useless law. It has been shown in practice that posting calorie counts does not change eating habits. It's nice information to have, but it changes nothing.

please provide evidence that it does not change eating habits.

the law has been active in NYC for a few years now, and in European countries for a few more.

[Tailgater]

I buy a Whopper about once a month. I love them. I also often just get a salad and a small fries.

I am very glad they list their calorie count. Its scary to find out just how many calories there are, and very good to know how one can get the taste they love, but consume 1/3rd the amount of calories.

I cannot understand how anyone could see the listing of calories at restaurant food, as a "bad" thing.

well...that is..unless you own massive amounts of stock in Burger King and Wendy's.

I never said it was bad. Silly more like it. Silly we need to pass legislation over it.
Have you seen one of those posters at Wendy's showing the whole menu while you wait in line? It's nice to have, but the fat lady in front of me still ordered the biggie double bacon cheeseburger meal.

[thaiboxerken]

This is a useless law. It has been shown in practice that posting calorie counts does not change eating habits. .

Evidence?

[Tailgater]

please provide evidence that it does not change eating habits.

the law has been active in NYC for a few years now, and in European countries for a few more.

Provide evidence that it does. Most of the major chains have been doing it for years already. Show the decline in obese people the last couple years due to this.

[Delvo]

I cannot understand how anyone could see the listing of calories at restaurant food, as a "bad" thing.If all that's listed is calories, then those who follow it are likely to end up shifting their diets in some other way without knowing they're doing it. "Light" items usually have more salt, for example, but you wouldn't know it if salt content isn't shown.

[Thunder]

Provide evidence that it does. Most of the major chains have been doing it for years already. Show the decline in obese people the last couple years due to this.

it has only existed in NYC since 2008. i was not arguing that it defintely has effected people's eating habits.

and yet, One Eyed Jack said that posted calorie counts do not change eating habits.

he made the claim, so it is up to him to back it up.

this is how skepticism works.

[Tailgater]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/31/health/main326858.shtml

Oh, the numbers of obese are growing every year. Easy and fast trumps fat, salty, no nutrient food concerns. Eat at Subway!

[Thunder]

Have you seen one of those posters at Wendy's showing the whole menu while you wait in line? It's nice to have, but the fat lady in front of me still ordered the biggie double bacon cheeseburger meal.

The big board inside and the drive-through menu at Burger King lists the calorie counts quite promenantly. this has definitely influenced my choices.

[MatildaGage]

It's comical in public health when we advocate for environmental strategies & people tell us we should just do health education instead.....because all people need is information to make the right decisions (proven false).

Now we get a law passed to ensure they have information to make right decisions....and they don't want that either.

The only reason to resist this law is resistance to change.

[Tailgater]

If all that's listed is calories, then those who follow it are likely to end up shifting their diets in some other way without knowing they're doing it. "Light" items usually have more salt, for example, but you wouldn't know it if salt content isn't shown.

That's correct. Calories can be misleading if you're slurping down fried, salty, devoid of nutrition food, but if the food is at the bottom of the chart, it must be good for me.

[quixotecoyote]

The only reason to resist this law is resistance to change.Or resistance to democrats.

[Cavemonster]

People who fall under the "epidemic" really don't care if they eat a 400 or 600 calorie whopper. IMO, if you eat at Burger King, you are not really concerned with weight in the first place. They are the same people I see going for the fifth plate at the buffet. I like seeing the calorie chart, but honestly, I'll get what I want understanding that if my pants are tight I need to lay off of it or get some extra exercise.

ETA: The "McDonalds made me fat because they didn't inform me" argument is ridiculous.

Actually, this is quite useful in informing people of counterintuitive truths about nutrition.

For instance, all the big fast food chains offer salads, they're quite popular. But some of the salads, with the dressing and bacon bits etc, actually have the same or more calories and fat than the burgers.

The same thing with fries, many may think they're fattening, but not as bad as the burger itself and just have a snack of fries to be a "little lighter".

People who eat fast food regularly aren't always people who don't think at all about health. They're people who are short on both time and money, and a lot of them try to make somewhat healthier decisions from the limited set of fast food options. In these decisions, common sense doesn't serve them well.

For instance, did you know that a sausage biscuit has one and a half times as much fat and calories as a sausage Mcmuffin?

That the large shake has twice as many calories as a Big Mac?

That the quarter pounder and the grilled chicken sandwich have the same amount of calories?

[Tailgater]

Ya, I seem to remember the food groups in school over 20 years ago and I recall knowing not to east fast food before it was popular to blame my fat kids problems on the drive thru and not myself.

[Tailgater]

Actually, this is quite useful in informing people of counterintuitive truths about nutrition.

For instance, all the big fast food chains offer salads, they're quite popular. But some of the salads, with the dressing and bacon bits etc, actually have the same or more calories and fat than the burgers.

The same thing with fries, many may think they're fattening, but not as bad as the burger itself and just have a snack of fries to be a "little lighter".

People who eat fast food regularly aren't always people who don't think at all about health. They're people who are short on both time and money, and a lot of them try to make somewhat healthier decisions from the limited set of fast food options. In these decisions, common sense doesn't serve them well.

For instance, did you know that a sausage biscuit has one and a half times as much fat and calories as a sausage Mcmuffin?

That the large shake has twice as many calories as a Big Mac?

That the quarter pounder and the grilled chicken sandwich have the same amount of calories?

No, I bring my lunch to work with me and eat fast food a couple times a month at most. When I do, I eat whatever I want because I'm not there to eat healthy. It's cheaper and more time efficient to take an hour or so on the weekend to stock up on lunch items at the grocery than to go wait in line every day. Like I said, I'm all for transparency with the menu, but people who dump dressing and bacon bits on a salad don't care about their weight as well as anyone who eats anything at Mcdonalds. It's all basically junk food.

[Tailgater]

The big board inside and the drive-through menu at Burger King lists the calorie counts quite promenantly. this has definitely influenced my choices.

I call BS, but only because it's you Parky.:D

[Thunder]

Or resistance to democrats.

resistance to your own well-being?

resistance to being informed?

resistance to having knowledge about what you eat?

but yes, just call it "resistance against big brother".

call it "resisting the New World Order" for all I care.

[Bob Blaylock]

If all that's listed is calories, then those who follow it are likely to end up shifting their diets in some other way without knowing they're doing it. "Light" items usually have more salt, for example, but you wouldn't know it if salt content isn't shown.


The answer to that is obvious. The next law should require sodium content to be listed next to each item on the menu, along with calories, all in at least the same size type as the price.

And while we're at it, how about some other important parameters as well.

I'm diabetic, so shouldn't the menu list the amount of sugar, and of non-sugar carbohydrates, and perhaps the total glycemic index, next to each product, in the same type size as well?

And for those who are concerned specifically with fat content, shouldn't the amount of fat be listed next to each item?

[Bob Blaylock]

The only reason to resist this law is resistance to change.


Or resistance to democrats.


Or resistance to government sticking its nose where it doesn't belong. But then that's really pretty much the same thing as what Quixotecoyote said, isn't it?

[Roboramma]

Ya, I seem to remember the food groups in school over 20 years ago and I recall knowing not to east fast food before it was popular to blame my fat kids problems on the drive thru and not myself.

Me too. On the other hand, on the occasions when I do eat fast food, generally because I'm short on time and prefer to eat something rather than skipping lunch, I try to make the healthiest choice within my available options. And it seems that this might make that easier without creating a large cost burden for the restaurants. So what's the problem?

[Thunder]

Or resistance to government sticking its nose where it doesn't belong.

yes. the govt. has no business forcing restaurants to inform the public as to the calorie count of their foods. we prefer an uninformed public!!! Americans should not have the freedom to make educated decisions about the food they eat!!

:confused:

[thaiboxerken]

yes. the govt. has no business forcing restaurants to inform the public as to the calorie count of their foods. we prefer an uninformed public!!!

:confused:

Don't pay him any attention. He's one of those that prefers unregulated businesses.

[BobTheDonkey]

Me too. On the other hand, on the occasions when I do eat fast food, generally because I'm short on time and prefer to eat something rather than skipping lunch, I try to make the healthiest choice within my available options. And it seems that this might make that easier without creating a large cost burden for the restaurants. So what's the problem?

I agree here.

I work graveyard shift (6pm - 6am). While I bring my lunch most nights, at least once a week I wind up eating fast food. Not because it's what I want to eat, mind you...but because after 10pm there's nothing else readily available (home is 20 min drive, so...40mins round trip plus cook time = not enough time to eat + cost of fuel = no real savings over eating fast food).

Remember people - it's not what you eat, it's how much you eat. It's eating fast food in quantities larger than what your body can properly process that constitutes an unhealthy lifestyle - which really isn't any less healthy than doing the same with food cooked at home.

I fail to see how requiring calorie count is more regulative than the current food-labeling requirements for groceries...

[Thunder]

I fail to see how requiring calorie count is more regulative than the current food-labeling requirements for groceries...

that's the whole point. customers can't tell the calorie count of the food before its cooked. we can't see the FDA calorie labels of the packages before the meat, bread, mayonaise, is opened and use.

this law, will allow Americans to make more informed decisions about the foods they buy.

at the very least, people will know what kinda **** they are eating. and at the very most, they will make a lower calorie choice, or even decide to walk out and go to a healthier place to buy food.

what POSSIBLE harm could there be..in having a better-informed public?

what rights are being violated, by having Americans know the calorie count of their foods?

[Dog Town]

The big board ...

Get him...he's seen the Big Board!:D

[MontagK505]

Why not make it illegal for people over a certian BMI to purchase cheese burgers. Place a BMI measuring device at each fast-food place. The doors won't open for you if your BMI is too high.
The Nanny State knows best!

[LTC8K6]

This is what you get when you haven't read the bill, but you vote for it and sign it anyway...strange provisions and unintended consequences.

Turns out that children aren't necessarily covered for pre-existing conditions right away at all, despite the impressive number of times that was mentioned and the number of stories and victims trotted out...

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/29/health/policy/29health.html

[BobTheDonkey]

This is what you get when you haven't read the bill, but you vote for it and sign it anyway...strange provisions and unintended consequences.

Turns out that children aren't necessarily covered for pre-existing conditions right away at all, despite the impressive number of times that was mentioned and the number of stories and victims trotted out...

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/29/health/policy/29health.html

I don't know...

This bit:

The new law says that health plans and insurers offering individual or group coverage “may not impose any pre-existing condition exclusion with respect to such plan or coverage” for children under 19, starting in “plan years” that begin on or after Sept. 23, 2010.

seems pretty cut and dry. Insurance companies may not exclude coverage of pre-existing conditions for children under 19 after Sept 23. Plan years, of course, differ depending on when coverage begins - i.e. I buy my plan today, my next plan year starts 3/29/2011.

The interpretation the Ins Cos are taking is an attempt to redefine the law in their favor - even if only for 3 years worth of it.

[LTC8K6]

seems pretty cut and dry

That's not the fine print, though...that's just the overview we already heard about.

[LTC8K6]

Anyway, the point is that this giant bill, like several others, was rushed through without being read, and in some cases, without a clue as to what it actually contained.

[Roboramma]

Why not make it illegal for people over a certian BMI to purchase cheese burgers. Place a BMI measuring device at each fast-food place. The doors won't open for you if your BMI is too high.
The Nanny State knows best!

What does that have to do with the OP? The issue has nothing to do with the government saying that people can or cannot eat any particular type of food, simply with the inclusion of information about the contents of the food that's being sold.

[BobTheDonkey]

Anyway, the point is that this giant bill, like several others, was rushed through without being read, and in some cases, without a clue as to what it actually contained.

You mean this bill that took a year to debate and push through Congress was rushed through?

If that's rushing...well...it's no wonder that Congress never seems to accomplish anything.

[Thunder]

Why not make it illegal for people over a certian BMI to purchase cheese burgers.

i got no problem with that.

smokers make my insurance premiums go up.

fat people eating crap and not exercizing, makes my insurance premiums go up.

why should i pay the price for other people's bad behavior?

[GreyICE]

Is there some place where we can actually read the whole text of this bill ?

I bet it's full of nonsense like this ..
Really. We're living in the information age, and you're asking this? (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=full+text+of+united+states+laws)

Provide evidence that it does. Most of the major chains have been doing it for years already. Show the decline in obese people the last couple years due to this.
Hold on a sec, let me google that for you. Hmm, first result.
http://blog.eatwellguide.org/2010/03/healthy-monday-yale-makes-calories-count/

Really people, is there something about a health care bill that causes people's brain cells to malfunction? Might have to rethink my support, we seem to be lowering the collective IQ here.


Anyway, the point is that this giant bill, like several others, was rushed through without being read, and in some cases, without a clue as to what it actually contained.

The Affordable Health Care for America Act was introduced on October 29th, 2009. It was signed into law March 23, 2010.

If this process got any less rushed, it could accurately be referred to as glacial.

But lets compare it to rushed legislation. The Patriot act was introduced on October 23rd, 2001, and signed into law October 26th, 2001.

So, by your definition of rushed, err... um... what? Once again, its a case of what I can only call the 'health care lobotomy' - what seems like perfectly normal people discussing this bill act like they have the intelligence of Forrest Gump, with none of the common sense.


i got no problem with that.

smokers make my insurance premiums go up.

fat people eating crap and not exercizing, makes my insurance premiums go up.

why should i pay the price for other people's bad behavior?
Did you really just suggest installing a BMI indexer in every fast food joint in America as something that you can't see a problem with? Nevermind pulling it off for drive throughs? What if it's winter, and I'm wearing 20+pounds of clothing, how much do I take off to meet your BMI requirements? Just strip in the restaurant?

Health Care lobotomy. It's really the only explanation.

[Skeptical Greg]

........

Wikipedia has a great point-by-point list of all the major sections of the new law.........
I look forward to looking through the other 1,999 pages ...

Federal laws mandating healthcare. Precisely what our founding fathers had in mind ...:rolleyes:

[Hellbound]

I look forward to looking through the other 1,999 pages ...

Well, it's kinda like a sausage. No one's really sure exactly what goes into it; most of the meat is pork, and you're pretty much just expected to swallow it.

(courtesy of a bit on the Corey & Jay show, 100.3 FM)

:D

[TraneWreck]

Is this really the best thing you can pull out of this 2,000 page boondoggle?

No, it's one of many excellent provisions in the bill, including, but not limited to, kids staying on their parents' insurance to 26, increased funding for community health clinics, allowing small businesses to write off as much as 50% of their health care costs, you can't lose health insurance if you lose your job, the closing of the medicare prescription drug doughnut hole, the end of yearly caps for coverage, the end of denying or kicking people off of plans due to preexisting conditions, the cost controls that will save around $1.5 trillion over 20 years, the exchange, and so on...

In fact, there's nothing really objectionable about the bill, it's only real weakness was in that it didn't go far enough. Over the years I would imagine things like the public option will be added and it will be strengthened.


Why should people make healthier eating choices if the guvment is going take care of them for free ?

Because the United States pays about 2x as much for health care as the other industrialized nations. The best method of long term cost control is preventative medicine. A healthy population is central to reigning in our excessively expensive but under-performing system.


Is there some place where we can actually read the whole text of this bill ?

I bet it's full of nonsense like this ..

I hope when you read it you realize how large the print is. 2,000 pages of legislation is about like an 800 page novel. So about like reading a Harry Potter book. Given that this has been going on a year, unless you want everyone to know it takes you a year to read a Harry Potter book, you should probably drop that little bit of whining.

As for the bill, it was published online:

http://www.opencongress.org/house_reconciliation

[GreyICE]

Provide evidence that it does. Most of the major chains have been doing it for years already. Show the decline in obese people the last couple years due to this.

I look forward to looking through the other 1,999 pages ...

Federal laws mandating healthcare. Precisely what our founding fathers had in mind ...:rolleyes:
Like the internet, automobiles, electricity, space travel, nuclear weapons, and outsourcing.

Maybe our founding fathers were smart enough to realize they couldn't plan for the future and wrote some general guidelines that were not meant to be bowed down to and worshiped like they were the lost books of the goddamn bible, containing God's wisdom passed down to humanity?

Or maybe I'm insane and that's exactly what they intended, since they deliberately excluded things like provisions to amend it and stuff.

P.S. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[TraneWreck]

Anyway, the point is that this giant bill, like several others, was rushed through without being read, and in some cases, without a clue as to what it actually contained.

Maybe I've missed something, but are you honestly arguing that a bill that was debated for a year was "rushed through?"

If you're talking about the reconciliation bills, they were substantially shorter and only dealt with modifications to the existing Senate bill that passed months earlier.

Anyone who didn't know what was in the bill didnt try to find out. There was ample time, especially when you're collecting a salary funded by taxes to know what's in the bill.

[Thunder]

Federal laws mandating healthcare. Precisely what our founding fathers had in mind ...:rolleyes:

oh..cry me a river. the govt. also mandates that children be educated. wanna whine about that too?

[TraneWreck]

oh..cry me a river. the govt. also mandates that children be educated. wanna whine about that too?

Speaking of Founding Fathers and mandates:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/joe_conason/2010/03/25/militia

But, but, but...

[Thunder]

Speaking of Founding Fathers and mandates:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/joe_conason/2010/03/25/militia

But, but, but...

its up to you, but I believe this new info deserves its own thread.

The Founding Fathers passed a law ordering all men to buy a gun and a whole sort of supplies for it.

[Tailgater]

Hold on a sec, let me google that for you. Hmm, first result.
http://blog.eatwellguide.org/2010/03/healthy-monday-yale-makes-calories-count/

Really people, is there something about a health care bill that causes people's brain cells to malfunction? Might have to rethink my support, we seem to be lowering the collective IQ here.


Here, let me actually help you answer the question asked.

http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/trends.html#State

As information has increased, so has fat people. Go figure. We've been on an upward health/fat awareness trend for the last few decades yet have skyrocketing obese figures. I'm still not saying I disagree with having the information, but overall trends say most people disregard it.

[TraneWreck]

its up to you, but I believe this new info deserves its own thread.

The Founding Fathers passed a law ordering all men to buy a gun and a whole sort of supplies for it.

Yep. It's all based around the inherent ambiguity every time a Conservative (I should say fairly, this sort of thing came out of th mouths of liberals a great many times during the Bush administration--the current issue, however, is the teabaggers') says, "_____ is unconstitutional."

Sometimes they mean, "according to existing law and precedent, this is unconstitutional."

Sometimes they mean, "according to my view of how the country should be, asserted ad hoc solely for the purpose of the argument we're having right now, this is unconstitutional."

The two are very different, but that distinction is rarely made explicit.

[GreyICE]

Here, let me actually help you answer the question asked.

http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/trends.html#State

As information has increased, so has fat people. Go figure. We've been on an upward health/fat awareness trend for the last few decades yet have skyrocketing obese figures. I'm still not saying I disagree with having the information, but overall trends say most people disregard it.

Wow, do I have to whip out the pirates versus global warming graph (eliminating pirates may yet drown us all), or hat wearing versus life expectancy (hats kill you!)?

There's about 15 zillion confounding factors, including declining food prices, increased levels of chemical proficiency (associated with better tasting/more addictive food), more social acceptance of obesity, women in the workforce (thus removing the people who typically made healthy lunches/dinners rather than the fast-food garbage), etc. etc. etc.

When we try to cut all of these factors out, and directly examine how people's food choices are effected by more information, we find they make better ones on average. Which was exactly the question asked. The measure helps.

You prefer to use bad information with lots of confounding factors to good information with little. Why? Confirmation bias much?

You don't get to play with your own set of facts because you like them better. That's childish.

[Skeptical Greg]

its up to you, but I believe this new info deserves its own thread.

The Founding Fathers passed a law ordering all men to buy a gun and a whole sort of supplies for it.

And?

[Thunder]

And?

therefore the Tea Baggers and other GOPers should shut up about this BS about "this is the first time the Federal gov. has ever tried to force the people to buy something".

[Chris Hegarty]

I've thought about this for a little bit, and I like it quite a bit. Whenever I'm in New York I'm always happy to see the calorie counts at my usual haunts. It's actually kind of fun to go into Starbucks and see how many calories they manage to cram into everything bar coffee and tea.

[Thunder]

its true....that if you don't give a damn about your health..you are gonna eat whatever you want....regardless of posted calorie counts.

but if even 20% of customers at fast-food places use this info to make an informed decision and eat something healthier, then it is worth it.

[Skeptical Greg]

The 20% ( sounds kind of high .. ) who would be intelligent enough to do this, would be those who don't need a government nanny in the first place...

[Thunder]

The 20% ( sounds kind of high .. ) who would be intelligent enough to do this, would be those who don't need a government nanny in the first place...

federal law requires all food products to list their ingredients..and percentages of fat, sugar, sodium, etc.

do you consider this law..to be tyranny?

[BobTheDonkey]

The 20% ( sounds kind of high .. ) who would be intelligent enough to do this, would be those who don't need a government nanny in the first place...


I was just reading the stundie nominations...Your post is just about ridiculous enough to qualify - if only it involved a conspiracy...

If I'm reading your posts correctly, you firmly believe that forcing companies to provide nutritional information that all groceries already must have while still allowing the individual to determine whether or not to ignore same information is akin to a nanny-state.

If that's a nanny-state, what is it when the Gov't determines what you individually can and cannot eat based on your health/weight/etc?

[Thunder]

an informed public...is a people living under tyranny!!!!!

[LTC8K6]

When was the whole bill, as enacted, available for Congress and the public to read?

When could a Congress member read the full bill they would eventually pass?

IIRC, it was not available until shortly before the votes. Thus a rushed vote on something that had not been studied.

The admin is apparently now scrambling to correct the error regarding pre-existing conditions.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9EOJ7O00&show_article=1

[bpesta22]

Obesity is just evidence of good survival genes.

[TraneWreck]

When was the whole bill, as enacted, available for Congress and the public to read?

When could a Congress member read the full bill they would eventually pass?

IIRC, it was not available until shortly before the votes. Thus a rushed vote on something that had not been studied.

The admin is apparently now scrambling to correct the error regarding pre-existing conditions.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9EOJ7O00&show_article=1

Just a lot of nonsense there. If you recall, the Senate bill passed with a 60 vote majority before the Scott Brown election. That means all the goofball Republicans in the House, if they hadn't read the bill in the 9 months of debate, had from January 19th until last week to read the Senate bill and the short reconciliation changes.

As for the preexisting condition issue, it's all moot in 2014 when everything kicks in. The only issue is about children covered in group plans. You can blame the legislators, but after the bill was passed the insurers decided to try and find a loophole so they could kick kids off of those group plans for the next three years. In response, the Obama administration will deal with it:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/03/sebelius_to_insurers_make_my_d.html

This was a complicated piece of legislation. It will require vigilance and modification, but the loophole only exists if insurers act like ********.

Edit: The bills that passed both houses months ago have been available for...months. And various provisions in those bills have been publicly available since this all started in March of 2009. The full bills up for vote have to be published on line 72 hours before the actual vote. If you didn't know what was in them, that was your fault.

[Drudgewire]

I've just started calorie counting for the first time in my life. It's nothing short of a miracle I'm right on the bubble between "average" and "overweight." Looking at the little box on the food items I'm about to cook these last few days has made my jaw drop several times. The info has always been there, I just ignored it.

99% of the time I'm against the gummit sticking their nose in something, and the percentage goes even higher when Parky starts a thread supporting it (:p), but I really don't see a down side to this.

And the best part is if it gets me to stop eating fast food, I can use the savings to buy more guns like our founding fathers wanted. http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/clint.gif

[LTC8K6]

As far as I can tell, the reconciliation bill was not available to me until mid-March.

[LTC8K6]

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:H.R.4872:

[MontagK505]

i got no problem with that.

smokers make my insurance premiums go up.

fat people eating crap and not exercizing, makes my insurance premiums go up.

why should i pay the price for other people's bad behavior?

You could make smokers and people with high BMI pay higher insurance premiums. Or deny them health beneifits for smoking or fat related health problems. Then they wouldn't need to be informed, by the nanny state, they would be motivated to research this information themselves.

You could also instutute or expand the death penality for criminals who commit violent felonys. After all, why should your taxes pay for their bad behavior?:)

[LTC8K6]

http://biggovernment.com/mrichmond/2010/03/26/joint-committee-on-taxation-confirms-that-obamacare-does-not-enforce-individual-mandate/


If this is true, the whole program is going to crash quickly, imo.

[Policenaut]

I've just started calorie counting for the first time in my life. It's nothing short of a miracle I'm right on the bubble between "average" and "overweight." Looking at the little box on the food items I'm about to cook these last few days has made my jaw drop several times. The info has always been there, I just ignored it.

99% of the time I'm against the gummit sticking their nose in something, and the percentage goes even higher when Parky starts a thread supporting it (:p), but I really don't see a down side to this.

And the best part is if it gets me to stop eating fast food, I can use the savings to buy more guns like our founding fathers wanted. http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/clint.gif

There have been sites online for years that have been giving accurate calorie counts for all types of food including just about any item from any fast food chain or restaurant. Sites like - http://caloriecount.about.com/ If you wanted to know the information has been out there.

I still don't think this type of thing is going to have a major impact or possibly any measurable impact. If people continue to smoke cigarettes with packaging plastered with cancer warnings then what is going to stop someone from buying a cheeseburger because they now know how many calories it has. I'd surmise that most people realize that anything you eat out that you think is bad for you probably is. Does every restaurant have to tell you that dipping lobster or crab in drawn butter makes it artery clogging? It's all about common sense and people know this stuff is bad for them. I think they can see it in their waistline. It's just that fast food is easy to find, extremely cheap price to nutrition ratio, and most importantly it's fast. Convenience is a major factor and I think the only thing that can combat this is healthy chains and they have to be just as cheap as a McDonalds or a Wendys. You better be able to offer a bunch of healthy things for 99 cents besides a bundle of carrot sticks or else it's just not going to work. A healthy 99 cent turkey burger would be a good start.

[Richard Masters]

Your standard fast food chains (McDonalds, etc.) do, but your larger not quite so fast food chains don't. Denny's, IHOP, Applebee's, TGIFriday's, and the like. Some of them have reduced calorie menus in which they do give you the calorie count, but for the most part, if you're ordering a regular meal, you have no idea how many calories it is.

Personally, I think that the 20 restaurant line is a bit on the high side, but I get that they're trying to offer as much flexibility as possible to accommodate small business owners.

I went to TGIFriday's a week ago, and all the menu items included a calorie count.

[tesscaline]

I went to TGIFriday's a week ago, and all the menu items included a calorie count.That's a relatively new development for them, and is probably part of preparation for abiding by the new law. A year ago it wasn't the case. It still isn't the case for a lot of chain restaurants that aren't quite "fast food chains".

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

I have to shrug at this. In New York, as you said, they've had this for years and it makes very little difference. Sure, it's better that it be there but the difference is marginal.

I have glanced at the calorie menu at Starbucks, Subway, etc. but I've very rarely made choices about what to buy or not buy based upon it.

And, really, who on Earth doesn't know that Mickey Ds is bad for you? Of course they know it has a high amount of calories. That doesn't stop them from eating there.

There's also the fact that this is a symbolic gesture for many places. There's a scene in Supersize Me where the director goes to McDonalds' in New York and asks them for the calorie menu that they are supposed to have and they have it all right but almost all have it behind other posters or behind the counter where no one can read it or shoved into a corner or even in the basement.

So it's an empty and near useless warning customers ignore anyway and they shove it into a corner behind the mops anyway.

[GreyICE]

I have to shrug at this. In New York, as you said, they've had this for years and it makes very little difference. Sure, it's better that it be there but the difference is marginal.

I have glanced at the calorie menu at Starbucks, Subway, etc. but I've very rarely made choices about what to buy or not buy based upon it.

And, really, who on Earth doesn't know that Mickey Ds is bad for you? Of course they know it has a high amount of calories. That doesn't stop them from eating there.

There's also the fact that this is a symbolic gesture for many places. There's a scene in Supersize Me where the director goes to McDonalds' in New York and asks them for the calorie menu that they are supposed to have and they have it all right but almost all have it behind other posters or behind the counter where no one can read it or shoved into a corner or even in the basement.

So it's an empty and near useless warning customers ignore anyway and they shove it into a corner behind the mops anyway.

And, again with the brain cells.

The New York measure, as just the smallest little bit of reading would nshow, requires the calories to be printed on the menu itself, in the same font as the item. Overhead menu? Calories right next to it. No being shoved in the basement, or behind posters, or hiding somewhere.

So that's done.

Has it made a difference in NYC?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/weightloss/2009-10-26-calories-on-the-menu_N.htm

106 calories so far. Not terrible, and it may also encourage restaurants to offer lower calorie options

Did it make a difference on the entire nation. Lets see. Did one small measure passed in NYC make a difference on the average waistline of the entire United States of America?

For BAC: Health care kills brain cells. We have proof.

[TraneWreck]

As far as I can tell, the reconciliation bill was not available to me until mid-March.

But, of course, that reconciliation bill was almost identical to the President's suggestion that was made public a few weeks earlier.

Beyond that, it was very short. Not to mention that everything in the reconciliation side-car had been discussed for the better part of the year and many of the provsions were explicitly brought up at the health care summit and various follow-up Congressional debates.

The reconciliation bill was about 100 pages. Again, I recommend looking at an actual bill because the font is HUGE. In terms of a normal book, 100 pages of a bill is about 40-45.

There is a rule that says bills must be published 72 hours before the vote. If you're honestly arguing that 72 hours is not enough time for a Congressperson to read 40 pages of provisions they've been discussing for almost a year, then I don't know what to tell you. Maybe they should have the bills written in crayon with little mazes and puzzles to get them to read it.

Everything in the bill was well-known and discussed ad naseum.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

And, again with the brain cells.

The New York measure, as just the smallest little bit of reading would show, requires the calories to be printed on the menu itself, in the same font as the item. Overhead menu? Calories right next to it. No being shoved in the basement, or behind posters, or hiding somewhere.


You are right. Supersize Me was made in 2004, I guess when McDonalds could still get away with dumping the poster in the corner or not having it at all.

Now that I think about it, yes, I think the McDonalds in my city do have the overhead menu. I know Starbucks does and so does Subway and I think Burger King.

Silly me.

[TraneWreck]

http://biggovernment.com/mrichmond/2010/03/26/joint-committee-on-taxation-confirms-that-obamacare-does-not-enforce-individual-mandate/


If this is true, the whole program is going to crash quickly, imo.

I would recommend finding another source for your information.

From the article:

"There is really no precedent for a federal mandate of this scale requiring individuals to purchase a product or service."

First of all, anyone who drives experiences a similar mandate. But then there's this, which was linked earlier:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/joe_conason/2010/03/25/militia

So, that claim is 100% false.

As for the enforcement, by the time the mandate starts in 2014 it will be settled. There's initial ambiguity in the phrasing of the bill, something that occurs in 99.9% of all legislation ever passed on the planet Earth. But since health care represents the first time the lizard brains have paid attention to the legislative process, IT'S THE NEWEST THING EVER. Just like reconciliation and deem and pass.

But here's an explanation of how it probably will end up being enforced:

"If the IRS can reorder the priority of the tax dollars they take from you, then they can simply put any funds towards the mandate first. That way, if you attempt to go without insurance and then pay the IRS everything except the mandate penalty, you'll end up with a tax liability the exact size of the mandate penalty . . . for which they can now garnish your wages, put tax liens on your house, and otherwise do all the nasty stuff that they are authorized to do under Subtitle F."

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/03/can-the-individual-mandate-be-enforced/38153/

Obviously the reason they didn't just have the mandate function under Subtitle F was because of the hysteria that would occur in the nut-tard teabagger movement. Obviously the Dems should have just grown a pair and put the thing together correctly, but ignorant public outrage affected the whole process.

[Thunder]

Has it made a difference in NYC?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/weightloss/2009-10-26-calories-on-the-menu_N.htm .

thank you for posting this. good to know the calorie postings do make a difference. even a small one.

[jnelso99]

This was a complicated piece of legislation. It will require vigilance and modification, but the loophole only exists if insurers act like ********.

Why did the board edit out only one instance of the word "insurers"?

[TraneWreck]

Why did the board edit out only one instance of the word "insurers"?

Nicely played.

I will point out for those that are interested that Kathleen Sebelius, secretary of health and human services, basically told to the insurers to stop the BS.

They agreed:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/03/insurance_companies_agree_to_c.html

A PDF of the insurers' reply is contained in that post.

One little issue dealt with.

[Tailgater]

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2010/01/food-study-chains-diet-meals-understate-calorie-counts/1?obref=obnetwork

"The actual calorie counts in chain foods averaged 18% higher than what reestaurants listed, while diet meals were actually 8% higher in calories than what is listed on the labels."

15% Suckers. The single w/cheese is more calories than the double w/cheese you were avoiding.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/...the-menu_N.htm

"The calories from foods purchased at Subway increased significantly, possibly because diners were purchasing a special deal on 12-inch sandwiches."

Hilarious.

[Skeptical Greg]

First of all, anyone who drives experiences a similar mandate.
Nice try .. It's only similar in that the word ' insurance ' is being used...

One always has the option not to drive, without the fear of the IRS coming after them ...

[BobTheDonkey]

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2010/01/food-study-chains-diet-meals-understate-calorie-counts/1?obref=obnetwork

"The actual calorie counts in chain foods averaged 18% higher than what reestaurants listed, while diet meals were actually 8% higher in calories than what is listed on the labels."

15% Suckers. The single w/cheese is more calories than the double w/cheese you were avoiding.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/...the-menu_N.htm

"The calories from foods purchased at Subway increased significantly, possibly because diners were purchasing a special deal on 12-inch sandwiches."

Hilarious.

So, you're complaining that people don't use the information?

Just so you know, the population of NYC is, roughly, 8.4mil (19mil in the NYC Metro area). That's not including persons who work in the City but live outside the 5 boroughs. 15% of that population is 1.26mil (2.85mil metro). That's a pretty decent number of people (if the poll is accurate).

33 billion US citizens...15% = approx 5 billion people who would use this information to make a more informed choice. Seems like a pretty good idea to me.

And while you might think it's hilarious that Subway calories increased because of their deal - you ignore that Subway tends to be a healthier meal than, say, the fried crap at KFC/McDonalds/Burger King/et al. So even though more calories were consumed, those calories contained higher nutritional value.

[Tailgater]

So, you're complaining that people don't use the information?

Just so you know, the population of NYC is, roughly, 8.4mil (19mil in the NYC Metro area). That's not including persons who work in the City but live outside the 5 boroughs. 15% of that population is 1.26mil (2.85mil metro). That's a pretty decent number of people (if the poll is accurate).

33 billion US citizens...15% = approx 5 billion people who would use this information to make a more informed choice. Seems like a pretty good idea to me.

And while you might think it's hilarious that Subway calories increased because of their deal - you ignore that Subway tends to be a healthier meal than, say, the fried crap at KFC/McDonalds/Burger King/et al. So even though more calories were consumed, those calories contained higher nutritional value.

Who's complaining? It's just funny seeing people justify eating crap by eating 100 calories less of it and being misinformed about those 100 calories in the first place. That's ok because I'm sure we will create a fast food commitee to get that 18% misleading number fixed. Nice math though. FYI, only certain sandwiches are part of the "Jarred" diet and they come in 6 inch. I'm more for warning labels like cigarettes on the front door. "Warning-eating here is unhealthy and could cause obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure, and other related illnesses". Better?

[BobTheDonkey]

Who's complaining? It's just funny seeing people justify eating crap by eating 100 calories less of it and being misinformed about those 100 calories in the first place. That's ok because I'm sure we will create a fast food commitee to get that 18% misleading number fixed. Nice math though. FYI, only certain sandwiches are part of the "Jarred" diet and they come in 6 inch. I'm more for warning labels like cigarettes on the front door. "Warning-eating here is unhealthy and could cause obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure, and other related illnesses". Better?

Then slap that sticker on the front door of every house in the U.S.

Eating too much of anything can result in those diseases - regardless of whether it came from McDonalds or my kitchen. The difference is that at least in my kitchen, I can (if I so choose) be better informed about what, exactly, the ingredients of my food are as well as the nutritional values.

I simply find it amazing that forcing companies to provide nutritional information is nanny-stating. I don't find that nanny-stating. Nanny-stating is the point at which the Gov't determines what I, personally, am and am not allowed to eat. That is a nanny-state. What we're talking about is forcing companies to provide information on their products to the consumer.

[Thunder]

poor eating habits greatly contribute to heart disease, diabetes, and other very costly conditions. this costs a lot of money to treat.

which in turn.....increases the insurance costs for YOU and ME.

should we encourage the American people to eat healthier? you're damn right we should.

so, to put this into a context that Republicans and Conservatives are SURE to understand, Americans' poor eating habits eventually costs YOU more money!!!

we should encourage Americans to eat better and exercize. it will lead to them living healthier, longer, and happier lives..and save them and US a ton of health-care expenses.

get it? got it? good.

[BobTheDonkey]

poor eating habits greatly contribute to heart disease, diabetes, and other very costly conditions. this costs a lot of money to treat.

which in turn.....increases the insurance costs for YOU and ME.

should we encourage the American people to eat healthier? you're damn right we should.

so, to put this into a context that Republicans and Conservatives are SURE to understand, Americans' poor eating habits eventually costs YOU more money!!!

we should encourage Americans to eat better and exercize. it will lead to them living healthier, longer, and happier lives..and save them and US a ton of health-care expenses.

get it? got it? good.

Not sure if that was in response to my post or a general response to the thread's naysayers...

Regardless of to whom it's addressed, I'd like to point out that fast food is not necessarily a bad meal.

I am, by no means, overweight or fat (I have a BFI between 3 and 6) - but there is still at least 1 night a week that I eat fast food. Some days it's because I get to lunch late, other days it's because I just crave a BK whopper with cheese. Generally speaking, I eat healthy. Splurging every few days on fast food doesn't necessarily result in health issues - it's when someone eats too much fast food.

[CORed]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/31/health/main326858.shtml

Oh, the numbers of obese are growing every year. Easy and fast trumps fat, salty, no nutrient food concerns. Eat at Subway!

Great idea. I'll have a footlong meatball sub, with lots of oil and a bag of potato chips with it.

[GreyICE]

33 billion US citizens...15% = approx 5 billion people who would use this information to make a more informed choice. Seems like a pretty good idea to me.



Yeah, just... no.

[BobTheDonkey]

Yeah, just... no.

Haha...

You got me. It's 307mil, right? Don't know why I came up with 33B...somehow knew it was wrong...and yet...it sounded close to right.

Anyway... 15% of 307mil is still a sizable number of people - 46mil or so?

[TraneWreck]

Nice try .. It's only similar in that the word ' insurance ' is being used...

One always has the option not to drive, without the fear of the IRS coming after them ...

Ah, nice, you found the one part of my post that you could kind of respond to.

Notice that I said it was a "similar" mandate? Not "exactly the same in every way" mandate?

The principle is the same, people must buy insurance so there is a big risk pool.

The difference is with the product, not the concept of the mandate. As I linked before, George Washington mandated gun purchases. That must cause an overload of your winger circuits: mandate=evil, guns=good...does not compute.

They should have just said screw the mandate and had the uninsured pay through taxes, but the nuts would have lost their minds over the idea of taxing to pay for stuff, much better to borrow against the debt, like Bush.

[Thunder]

33 billion US citizens...15% = approx 5 billion people who would use this information to make a more informed choice. Seems like a pretty good idea to me.

this is a typo......right?

[BobTheDonkey]

this is a typo......right?

Just a bad memory on my part...

Sorry.

I corrected it already :o

[DC]

it makes me just feel bad when i know hom much cal. my tripple whopper has.
its enough to know it will kill me one day :D

[Skeptical Greg]

Ah, nice, you found the one part of my post that you could kind of respond to.Might as well go after the easy pickings..

Like ..

The principle is the same, people must buy insurance so there is a big risk pool.

Yeah, try to join homeowners insurance pool after your house has burned down, or the auto pool after you have a wreck ..
Or even better, why don't we allow people to by life insurance on someone after they're dead ?


They should have just said screw the mandate and had the uninsured pay through taxes ... Oh, you mean just like we do now ?

[GreyICE]

Yeah, try to join homeowners insurance pool after your house has burned down, or the auto pool after you have a wreck ..
Or even better, why don't we allow people to by life insurance on someone after they're dead ?

It's funny that this is exactly what they're avoiding. Let me give you some background.

There's something that you've alluded to called pre-existing conditions. The house is already burned, you can't get coverage for it. The auto is already a junker, you can't um... this doesn't work, you're required to insure them. Anyway, moving right on...

It's necessary for the current functioning of the health care industry that they have a way to deny people who just go 'oh, I'm sick, let me go get insurance.' However, they did this through the vehicle of pre-existing conditions.

It has gotten to the point where if you don't have medical insurance for one month (because of switching jobs, whatever), they'll happily deny you coverage for anything you come up with, because you had that 'before the insurance started' despite the fact that, y'know, that's completely unprovable.

Since they typically use this and a few other loopholes to dump people who are expensive, this is utter BS, and really needs to be stopped.

But if we stop that, how do we solve the preexisting problem? The same way we did with automobiles - make sure that everyone is insured.

It's so painfully simple that I'm really back to the premise that this bill kills brain cells again - the chances that you could somehow not understand that badly enough to write the rambling rant you did really seem to require some form of brain damage to me.

[WildCat]

I look forward to looking through the other 1,999 pages ...

Federal laws mandating healthcare. Precisely what our founding fathers had in mind ...:rolleyes:
All True PatriotsTM know the Founding Fathers wanted people to die of curable diseases at the steps of the hospital if they couldn't pay for the treatment.

[Thunder]

All True PatriotsTM know the Founding Fathers wanted people to die of curable diseases at the steps of the hospital if they couldn't pay for the treatment.

or if they didn't have health insurance.

[TraneWreck]

Yeah, try to join homeowners insurance pool after your house has burned down, or the auto pool after you have a wreck ..
Or even better, why don't we allow people to by life insurance on someone after they're dead ?

Yes, you have shown your incomparable skill at noticing obvious, superficial differences between kinds of insurance. Congratulations. For you, that's something to be proud of.

But because the question concerns the Constitutionality of the mandate, perhaps you want to focus on George Washington's mandate. You may be surprised to learn this, but he's one of the "Founding Fathers" you guys babble about but don't actual know much about.

Show me the part of the Constitution that makes mandating auto insurance appropriate but health care illegal. You know, they've had this mandate in Mass. ever since a certain Republican presidential candidate passed basically this exact bill. 2002ish, I believe.


Oh, you mean just like we do now ?

Uh, yes. That was precisely the point. Medicare for all.

Notice that if the mandate is, in fact, ruled unconstitutional, it won't result in a total repeal of the bill. The mandate will simply have to be dropped and another method of expanding the risk pool developed. Some form of taxation--like the payroll taxes that cover Soc. Sec.--will be the likely choice.

[WildCat]

I have no real evidence of this but I suspect the gigantic increase in the use of corn syrup as a sweetener since the 1970s has a role in this.

I've been in fat people's houses, lots of them. And my purely anecdotal opinion is that what they eat at home is worse than what you get in fast food joints.

More pure anecdotal evidence - There's a high school near me (Lane Tech) which lets their students go off-campus for lunch. It's a huge high school (4,200 students), so there are lots of fast food joints around there. Everything from healthy (sandwich shops) to burger, fried chicken and taco joints. But there's also 2 large grocery stores next door, and I have been in one of those grocery stores during the student's lunch break. I have never seen one of them buying healthy lunch items at the grocery store, which obviously has plenty of healthy choices available. The kids, and I mean 90+% of them, ate potato chips, tortilla chips, cheetos, snack cakes, hard candy, and similar crapola for lunch. I'm talking entire lunch, the main and only entree.

I don't think calorie count will make a difference for many people.

[pgwenthold]

I don't think calorie count will make a difference for many people.

Which, of course, is really irrelevant. It isn't going to HURT anyone, is it?

It will, OTOH, help some, and many (most?) it won't make a difference. Overall, that is a net benefit. Even if it only helps 10% of the population, that is 30 million people who will be helped.

The only ones who are going to be hurt are the places that need to provide the information, and in that case it is mostly in the cost of having to create the display. However, since it can be done at the corporate headquarters, the cost isn't going to be all that much. In fact, for those restaurants that have units in New York, they are finding it easier to have a federal law because they can just create what they need and send it to all their units, and they don't have to provide anything special for their New York locations. Moreover, since everyone has to do it, it doesn't put them at a competitive disadvantage. In fact, the restaurant industry is supportive, so it's hard to claim they are going to be seriously harmed.

Some good, no harm. What's the problem?

[BobTheDonkey]

I have no real evidence of this but I suspect the gigantic increase in the use of corn syrup as a sweetener since the 1970s has a role in this.

I've been in fat people's houses, lots of them. And my purely anecdotal opinion is that what they eat at home is worse than what you get in fast food joints.

More pure anecdotal evidence - There's a high school near me (Lane Tech) which lets their students go off-campus for lunch. It's a huge high school (4,200 students), so there are lots of fast food joints around there. Everything from healthy (sandwich shops) to burger, fried chicken and taco joints. But there's also 2 large grocery stores next door, and I have been in one of those grocery stores during the student's lunch break. I have never seen one of them buying healthy lunch items at the grocery store, which obviously has plenty of healthy choices available. The kids, and I mean 90+% of them, ate potato chips, tortilla chips, cheetos, snack cakes, hard candy, and similar crapola for lunch. I'm talking entire lunch, the main and only entree.

I don't think calorie count will make a difference for many people.

I file this away under the:

"It's a start, and it most definitely can't hurt the <insert problem here> problem"

file.

[Augustine]

Which, of course, is really irrelevant. It isn't going to HURT anyone, is it?

It will, OTOH, help some, and many (most?) it won't make a difference. Overall, that is a net benefit. Even if it only helps 10% of the population, that is 30 million people who will be helped.

The only ones who are going to be hurt are the places that need to provide the information, and in that case it is mostly in the cost of having to create the display. However, since it can be done at the corporate headquarters, the cost isn't going to be all that much. In fact, for those restaurants that have units in New York, they are finding it easier to have a federal law because they can just create what they need and send it to all their units, and they don't have to provide anything special for their New York locations. Moreover, since everyone has to do it, it doesn't put them at a competitive disadvantage. In fact, the restaurant industry is supportive, so it's hard to claim they are going to be seriously harmed.

Some good, no harm. What's the problem?

The largest impact will be on the local and regional chains with more than 20 locations. While the national chains may see little impact due to economy of scale, the smaller chains will not just have the cost of adding information to menus, but cost associated with the addition or alteration of any menu item, either in the testing of each new/changed menu item, or in the calculation of caloric content by measured ingredients (depending on how the law allows the caloric content to be determined). For McDonald's with tens of thousands US locations, minimal impact (or at least minimized due to economies of scale). For local or regional chain with 20-50 locations, greater impact (how much remains to be seen).

[TraneWreck]

The largest impact will be on the local and regional chains with more than 20 locations. While the national chains may see little impact due to economy of scale, the smaller chains will not just have the cost of adding information to menus, but cost associated with the addition or alteration of any menu item, either in the testing of each new/changed menu item, or in the calculation of caloric content by measured ingredients (depending on how the law allows the caloric content to be determined). For McDonald's with tens of thousands US locations, minimal impact (or at least minimized due to economies of scale). For local or regional chain with 20-50 locations, greater impact (how much remains to be seen).

Fair enough, but it also might result in new consumers.

I don't really ever eat fast-food. Mostly because a lot of the food sucks, but I would be far more likely to grab their food if I knew what I was putting in my body.

They drench the buns in corn syrup and put sugar in their sauces. Even things that seem healthy, like the salads, become calorie bombs when dressing is added.

If I knew roughly what the caloric content was, I would be less hesitant to grab some food.

There's not much evidence to suggest that anyone would be dissuaded from eating in such an establishment because of the calorie number, so it's possible the cost will be off-set by folks like me.

[Augustine]

Fair enough, but it also might result in new consumers.

I don't really ever eat fast-food. Mostly because a lot of the food sucks, but I would be far more likely to grab their food if I knew what I was putting in my body.

They drench the buns in corn syrup and put sugar in their sauces. Even things that seem healthy, like the salads, become calorie bombs when dressing is added.

If I knew roughly what the caloric content was, I would be less hesitant to grab some food.

There's not much evidence to suggest that anyone would be dissuaded from eating in such an establishment because of the calorie number, so it's possible the cost will be off-set by folks like me.

The provision does not apply solely to fast food; it applies to restaurants with more than 20 locations. At the national level this may be dominated by fast-food chains, but at the numbers around the threshold, in my area at least, I can think of more neighborhood restaurants/regional chains that are regular sit-down style meals, not "fast-food". It may be possible that the cost will be off-set by new customers, but it will still have a greater and disproportionate impact to any menu changes/alterations or seasonal dishes/specials.

[pgwenthold]

The provision does not apply solely to fast food; it applies to restaurants with more than 20 locations. At the national level this may be dominated by fast-food chains, but at the numbers around the threshold, in my area at least, I can think of more neighborhood restaurants/regional chains that are regular sit-down style meals, not "fast-food".

Oh, absolutely it will apply to Applebees and Outback and TGIFridays etc just as much.

Sure, there are those with 25 units that will say crap, why us, but someone is always going to be on the borderline.

[Augustine]

Oh, absolutely it will apply to Applebees and Outback and TGIFridays etc just as much.

Sure, there are those with 25 units that will say crap, why us, but someone is always going to be on the borderline.

You're still talking chains with 1000+/- locations. Think 20-50 times smaller. (Or even the upscale chains like Legal Seafood or Morton's.)

A lot of the explosive growth in restaurant chains has come from smaller restaurants breaking out into larger franchises: the Chipotle's in the mid- to late-90s, the Moe's, the Five Guys, or the Potbelly Sandwiches (all of whom went from small regional chains to 100s of locations). How will this requirement affect the current small/regional chains? Who knows? Like you say, someone is always going to be on the borderline. Someone will always be disproportionately impacted. Life's not fair.

Just noting that the cost is not merely printing up menus...

[Skeptical Greg]

All True PatriotsTM know the Founding Fathers wanted people to die of curable diseases at the steps of the hospital if they couldn't pay for the treatment.I promise to never mention ' Founding Fathers ' again..

I don't know where that came from, it was really lame; I hate it when other people use it ..

Back to your regular programming ...

[TraneWreck]

You're still talking chains with 1000+/- locations. Think 20-50 times smaller. (Or even the upscale chains like Legal Seafood or Morton's.)

A lot of the explosive growth in restaurant chains has come from smaller restaurants breaking out into larger franchises: the Chipotle's in the mid- to late-90s, the Moe's, the Five Guys, or the Potbelly Sandwiches (all of whom went from small regional chains to 100s of locations). How will this requirement affect the current small/regional chains? Who knows? Like you say, someone is always going to be on the borderline. Someone will always be disproportionately impacted. Life's not fair.

Just noting that the cost is not merely printing up menus...

Well, the bill also allows those smaller restaurant chains to write off as much as 50% of their health care expenses.

I'm not sure how franchises work with respect to tax law in this area. Does each individual restaurant file as an independent business, or is it for the full chain?

If each business gets that write off, it will more than cover the expense of the calorie info requirement.

[Augustine]

Is there a requirement to report caloric value of non-menu items? For example, the bowl of chips, the salsa, complimentary bread sticks, bread, olive oil, butter, etc.?

How should the caloric value of a steak be reported? As if all fat and gristle is consumed? The caloric value if all visible fat is trimmed off? Is there really that much similarity betwen cuts that one value for a 16 oz sirloin is accurate within a certain tolerance for any cut?

Should all dressings, toppings, etc be reported separately as sides, or should caloric value be computed as if we all slathered our salad/potato/whatever in the full quantity and consumed all?

:boggled: Who knows, business may go up just from curiosity of diners as to how businesses addressed the requirement...:D

[GreyICE]

Is there a requirement to report caloric value of non-menu items? For example, the bowl of chips, the salsa, complimentary bread sticks, bread, olive oil, butter, etc.?

How should the caloric value of a steak be reported? As if all fat and gristle is consumed? The caloric value if all visible fat is trimmed off? Is there really that much similarity betwen cuts that one value for a 16 oz sirloin is accurate within a certain tolerance for any cut?

Should all dressings, toppings, etc be reported separately as sides, or should caloric value be computed as if we all slathered our salad/potato/whatever in the full quantity and consumed all?

:boggled: Who knows, business may go up just from curiosity of diners as to how businesses addressed the requirement...:DThese are all questions they answered a long time ago.

For the steak, I believe its accurate to +/- 10% which seems a lot, except that humans can easily +/- 10% on what they digest for a calorie value of a meal, so it's good enough.

If it mirrors the NY rule, calorie values should be reported 'with the works' or separately for dressings, though in NYC companies can also report values for cutting various things or for adding various things (i.e. if you choose not to add granularity, it's the highest value). The value for 'pre-meal' snacks doesn't need to be shown anywhere, though I assume they probably have it if you ask. Don't eat bread if you're worried is a decent rule of thumb.

But these were actually rational and interesting questions (especially for someone who never lived in NYC)! Two thumbs up!

[Augustine]

These are all questions they answered a long time ago.

For the steak, I believe its accurate to +/- 10% which seems a lot, except that humans can easily +/- 10% on what they digest for a calorie value of a meal, so it's good enough.

If it mirrors the NY rule, calorie values should be reported 'with the works' or separately for dressings, though in NYC companies can also report values for cutting various things or for adding various things (i.e. if you choose not to add granularity, it's the highest value). The value for 'pre-meal' snacks doesn't need to be shown anywhere, though I assume they probably have it if you ask. Don't eat bread if you're worried is a decent rule of thumb.

But these were actually rational and interesting questions (especially for someone who never lived in NYC)! Two thumbs up!

I haven't been to NYC since 2007, and I don't recall this being in effect then. I imagine the restaurants that have NYC locations have a bit of an advantage, the rest will be looking to them for ideas. Not surprising that some of the calorie reports are off, based on some of the difficulty in quantifying the inherent variance in some of the non-fast-food places.

[BobTheDonkey]

Sorry, but I don't see those as truly rational/reasonable questions. They're more stalling/opposition for the sake of opposition questions.

Groceries already have nutritional values printed. Those values are going to vary just as much as what you'll find in a restaurant menu varies. It's a statistical measurement. There's no real mystery here. Again, just another argument-for-the-sake-of-arguing.

[dakotajudo]

But also, the whole body weight = bad health concept has been proven false. Commonality does not equal causality. Diabetes is the cause of the ill health among fatties. -diabetes + higher BMI = longer life than the 'normal weight'.

Obesity is a risk factor for metabolic syndrome (partly because fat itself acts as an endocrine gland), which leads to insulin insensitivity and ultimately adult onset, Type II diabetes. Thus, if diabetes is the cause of ill health among fatties, and obesity is the cause Type II diabetes, obesity is the cause of ill health.

Myself, I started counting calories because I got tired of competing up 1-2 weight classes (a year ago, December, I competed in a judo tournament in the -90K class; this past Nov, at -73). Knowing when one meal takes out half my daily allotment of calories makes a difference.

The first thing I tell people, when the ask about losing weight, is to measure every meal.


Consider this - what if the restaurants weren't required to list prices - you only found out how much to had to pay after you'd ordered? How often would you order more than you needed?

[Andrew Wiggin]

Haha...

You got me. It's 307mil, right? Don't know why I came up with 33B...somehow knew it was wrong...and yet...it sounded close to right.

Anyway... 15% of 307mil is still a sizable number of people - 46mil or so?

I seem to recall that 33 billion was a number at one time cited by the catholic church as the ideal carrying capacity of the planet, manifest destiny thus requiring that a perfect earth consist of 33 billion catholics and a big algae farm. Asimov did a story based on that idea, and it wasn't pretty.

A

[Andrew Wiggin]

What I'm hoping this particular law will accomplish is to shame restaurants into improving their menus. Making things with extra fat and salt is a cheap shortcut to good taste compared with using fresh, high quality ingredients. The problem has been how easy it is to hide the shortcuts: if you don't have to show the nutrition you get away with selling a cheap, fatty, salty burger as if it was somehow something good. Show the nutrition and you can't hide the shortcuts anymore. If the fast food chains make some changes to make their menus better nutritionally, then that affects even the folks who were too ignorant to know what the numbers meant.

A

[Augustine]

Sorry, but I don't see those as truly rational/reasonable questions. They're I see these as more stalling/opposition for the sake of opposition questions.

Groceries already have nutritional values printed. Those values are going to vary just as much as what you'll find in a restaurant menu varies. It's a statistical measurement. There's no real mystery here. Again, just another argument-for-the-sake-of-arguing.

Corrected for accuracy.

First, you are not exact in your statements on nutritional values. The only nutritional values required are on pre-packaged items; for example, this does not apply to meat from the butcher, fruits and vegetables from the grocer, or meats, cheeses, and breads from the deli.

Next, while you may view questions of practical implementation as stalling or opposition, it is quite appropriate to question how a "good idea" will get put into practice - that's where most of the difficulty lies, after all.

Finally, while you may think the point of my postings are to stall or oppose, my main thrust has been to remind people that this is not simply about fast food (which seems to have consumed much of the dialogue in this thread). In fact, fast food will be the least affected by this measure - largely because of economy of scale, more standardized menu items, more standardized food production, less aesthetic concern with display/menu, greater use of pre-packaging, etc. In my area, for example, I can think of small chains who specialize in organic ingredients, grass-fed, free-range beef and free-range poultry, customized food production, and vegetarian and ethnic dishes as the ones that I am curious as to how this will affect.

[Beerina]

Eating fast food makes you fat

Or not. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/26/AR2007122601485.html)

Do the arithmetic, says [McDonald's CEO Jim] Skinner. Americans eat 90 meals a month. In a nation with 900,000 restaurants, the average American eats three of those meals at McDonald's. Surely the other 87 meals are more of a problem. Even McDonald's core customers, who eat there 50 times a year, consume more than 1,000 meals elsewhere.



and eating out for the most part. Is there anyone on this planet that still needs to be informed of this? I don't get the 20 restaurant line either. What makes 19 so special?

Politicians can get away with beating up on chains better than mom-n-pop stores, when preening in front of the people.



Proponents claim "it works" because "most people say they take the information into consideration when ordering". But self-descriptions to appease questioners, who then tout their success isn't science, is it?

Reality check: studies show posting calories causes an average 100 calorie increase in average orders. Source: Dr. Dean Edell talks about it every 3rd day when bitchin' about how politicians and laws are not science-driven.

[GreyICE]

Proponents claim "it works" because "most people say they take the information into consideration when ordering". But self-descriptions to appease questioners, who then tout their success isn't science, is it?

Reality check: studies show posting calories causes an average 100 calorie increase in average orders. Source: Dr. Dean Edell talks about it every 3rd day when bitchin' about how politicians and laws are not science-driven. Um, a radio host says something and then its true?

I'll take my scientific studies over your anecdotal evidence about what a radio host might have said, thank you.

Reality Check: No it doesn't.

However, I think this entire debate from the libertarian wing is ignoring an essential fact - no one on earth has suggested Calorie counts are sufficient to ensure good nutrition. What they can do is allow motivated individuals to reduce their calorie intake and give education programs something to work with when it comes to helping people out. If you tell a kid that he shouldn't eat 700 calorie meals, that's one thing. But how does he know how many calories a meal has, if its not even on the menu? He can't help himself, and ends up ordering something like a salad (which, in many places, may have 800+ calories - he thinks its healthy, but it's anything but).

That kid now has the information needed to make good choices.

But he doesn't. So? Even the libertarian ideologues should realize that without information, there are no legitimate choices.

[BobTheDonkey]

Um, a radio host says something and then its true?

I'll take my scientific studies over your anecdotal evidence about what a radio host might have said, thank you.

Reality Check: No it doesn't.

However, I think this entire debate from the libertarian wing is ignoring an essential fact - no one on earth has suggested Calorie counts are sufficient to ensure good nutrition. What they can do is allow motivated individuals to reduce their calorie intake and give education programs something to work with when it comes to helping people out. If you tell a kid that he shouldn't eat 700 calorie meals, that's one thing. But how does he know how many calories a meal has, if its not even on the menu? He can't help himself, and ends up ordering something like a salad (which, in many places, may have 800+ calories - he thinks its healthy, but it's anything but).

That kid now has the information needed to make good choices.

But he doesn't. So? Even the libertarian ideologues should realize that without information, there are no legitimate choices.

To add to this:

Again, we find that it's a start. It's not perfect, it's not going to force people to be healthy. But, it does provide a rudimentary ability for people to choose to eat healthier.

We have to start somewhere.

[Augustine]

However, I think this entire debate from the libertarian wing is ignoring an essential fact - no one on earth has suggested Calorie counts are sufficient to ensure good nutrition. What they can do is allow motivated individuals to reduce their calorie intake and give education programs something to work with when it comes to helping people out. If you tell a kid that he shouldn't eat 700 calorie meals, that's one thing. But how does he know how many calories a meal has, if its not even on the menu? He can't help himself, and ends up ordering something like a salad (which, in many places, may have 800+ calories - he thinks its healthy, but it's anything but).

That kid now has the information needed to make good choices.

But he doesn't. So? Even the libertarian ideologues should realize that without information, there are no legitimate choices.

There is already information available: http://nutrition.mcdonalds.com/nutritionexchange/nutrition_facts.html

Or more generally: http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/

Let's face it: imagine you make a hamburger and fries at home. You buy ground beef from the butcher (no requirement to report nutrient information), kaiser rolls from the deli (no requirement to report nutrient information), and potatoes from the grocer (no requirement to report nutrient information). How do you calculate the caloric value of your meal? Has the butcher, the deli, and the grocer somehow failed to inform you as a consumer? Are you arguing that buying a hamburger and fries from McDonald's is better than making it yourself because McDonald's provides you the nutrient information more straightforwardly?

This debate is not about informed vs. uninformed. I support the USDA Nutrient Database wholeheartedly, and any means, funds, whatever to maintain it. While I appreciate that the intentions behind this new law may be noble, I don't think it has been thought through.

[Cactus Wren]

Fair enough, but it also might result in new consumers.

I don't really ever eat fast-food. Mostly because a lot of the food sucks, but I would be far more likely to grab their food if I knew what I was putting in my body.

They drench the buns in corn syrup and put sugar in their sauces. Even things that seem healthy, like the salads, become calorie bombs when dressing is added.

If I knew roughly what the caloric content was, I would be less hesitant to grab some food.

There's not much evidence to suggest that anyone would be dissuaded from eating in such an establishment because of the calorie number, so it's possible the cost will be off-set by folks like me.

As a Weight Watchers member who carries the WW "Eating Out Guide" in her car, I do know if not the specific calorie content at least the "Points (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weight_Watchers#.E2.80.9CPoints.E2.80.9D_formulas)" count for many items. Being able to identify that, say, a single serving of McDonald's chicken-breast strips -- or a Quizno's roasted-chicken flatbread salad -- has a Points count higher than my Points allowance for an entire day helps me to decide which items to buy and which to avoid.

[GreyICE]

There is already information available: http://nutrition.mcdonalds.com/nutritionexchange/nutrition_facts.html

Or more generally: http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/

Let's face it: imagine you make a hamburger and fries at home. You buy ground beef from the butcher (no requirement to report nutrient information), kaiser rolls from the deli (no requirement to report nutrient information), and potatoes from the grocer (no requirement to report nutrient information). How do you calculate the caloric value of your meal? Has the butcher, the deli, and the grocer somehow failed to inform you as a consumer? Are you arguing that buying a hamburger and fries from McDonald's is better than making it yourself because McDonald's provides you the nutrient information more straightforwardly?

This debate is not about informed vs. uninformed. I support the USDA Nutrient Database wholeheartedly, and any means, funds, whatever to maintain it. While I appreciate that the intentions behind this new law may be noble, I don't think it has been thought through.

Wait, what? Nutrition labels are required for all food sold in America. I don't know where you get the idea that you can package up food and sell it without having nutrition information on the label. My potatoes at the grocer have nutrition information, when I buy beef at the deli, there's nutrition information on the large piece of meat (and I can easily ask to see it), and as for rolls, unless you're getting them directly from a bakery, you'll get the nutrition information.

You almost actively have to work to avoid it.

As for the idea that the information is available on some website = the information is available to the consumer, I just have to disagree. It's really incredibly silly to imagine that anyone will have memorized the calorie counts for every meal at a restaurant even if they visited the website.

[Augustine]

Wait, what? Nutrition labels are required for all food sold in America. I don't know where you get the idea that you can package up food and sell it without having nutrition information on the label. My potatoes at the grocer have nutrition information, when I buy beef at the deli, there's nutrition information on the large piece of meat (and I can easily ask to see it), and as for rolls, unless you're getting them directly from a bakery, you'll get the nutrition information.

You almost actively have to work to avoid it.

As for the idea that the information is available on some website = the information is available to the consumer, I just have to disagree. It's really incredibly silly to imagine that anyone will have memorized the calorie counts for every meal at a restaurant even if they visited the website.

It is fact. Raw meat, poultry, fish, fresh fruits and vegetables, or baked goods that are prepared same day are not required to have nutrition labels. There is a voluntary labeling program that provides guidance, but it is just that - voluntary. Take a shopping trip to a local farmer's market or buy some meat locally (as in, from a farm in your area) and see how much luck you have with nutrition labels. So, it would not be hard at all to buy beef, rolls, and potatoes with no nutritional labelling.

The point with the website is that (at least in the case of McDonald's) the restaurants have been providing nutritional information to the consumer for several years now, in multiple media. I have seen the nutritional information board in nearly every fast-food restaurant I have been in. I find it incredibly silly to imagine that it is the responsibility of the business to do 100% of the homework for the consumer; especially since the consumer would have to do this homework themselves in the course of preparing their own meals anyway!

[tesscaline]

It is fact. Raw meat, poultry, fish, fresh fruits and vegetables, or baked goods that are prepared same day are not required to have nutrition labels. There is a voluntary labeling program that provides guidance, but it is just that - voluntary. Take a shopping trip to a local farmer's market or buy some meat locally (as in, from a farm in your area) and see how much luck you have with nutrition labels. So, it would not be hard at all to buy beef, rolls, and potatoes with no nutritional labelling.

The point with the website is that (at least in the case of McDonald's) the restaurants have been providing nutritional information to the consumer for several years now, in multiple media. I have seen the nutritional information board in nearly every fast-food restaurant I have been in. I find it incredibly silly to imagine that it is the responsibility of the business to do 100% of the homework for the consumer; especially since the consumer would have to do this homework themselves in the course of preparing their own meals anyway!
You seem to think that restaurants should be fully able to not inform consumers of the nutritional complement of their foods, and that the onus is on the consumer to protect themselves. So let me ask you: How is the consumer supposed to research how many calories are in a particular dish from a restaurant if they have no idea how that dish is prepared, or what ingredients it contains? Sure, if I order a hamburger, I can guess that there's meat in it. I might even be right about there being meat in it. I still don't know what fat content the meat they're using has... I know there's meat though. But what ELSE is in it? How much salt? Did they add sugar to try and fake the Maillard reaction? What about fats? Did they add oil on the grill? Did they even grill it at all? What if they fried it? Or microwaved it? Or some combination of all three? All that has an effect on the total calories of a meal.

In order for a consumer to "do their own research" about how many calories something from a restaurant has, and get anywhere near an accurate number, they'd either have to go stand in the kitchen, watch the cooking process from start to finish, and write down every single amount of every single ingredient the restaurant used. Of course, that way of going about it would pretty much make the whole "secret family recipe" thing that so many restaurants depend upon worthless, as now every single customer could go make the meal in their own home... But anyway. The other way to "do their own research" is that every single customer would have to take every meal they ever order at a restaurant to a laboratory that could test it for them, and tell them how many calories it has and which calorie groups those calories are from, spending thousands of dollars out of their own pocket and spending who even knows how many hours of their time just because they want to catch a quick meal out once in a while.

Do you think that either of those two solutions are practical? Honestly?

Or is it simply more practical for the single restaurant chain to get each of their dishes tested just the one time and publish that information?

[Augustine]

You seem to think that restaurants should be fully able to not inform consumers of the nutritional complement of their foods, and that the onus is on the consumer to protect themselves. So let me ask you: How is the consumer supposed to research how many calories are in a particular dish from a restaurant if they have no idea how that dish is prepared, or what ingredients it contains? Sure, if I order a hamburger, I can guess that there's meat in it. I might even be right about there being meat in it. I still don't know what fat content the meat they're using has... I know there's meat though. But what ELSE is in it? How much salt? Did they add sugar to try and fake the Maillard reaction? What about fats? Did they add oil on the grill? Did they even grill it at all? What if they fried it? Or microwaved it? Or some combination of all three? All that has an effect on the total calories of a meal.

In order for a consumer to "do their own research" about how many calories something from a restaurant has, and get anywhere near an accurate number, they'd either have to go stand in the kitchen, watch the cooking process from start to finish, and write down every single amount of every single ingredient the restaurant used. Of course, that way of going about it would pretty much make the whole "secret family recipe" thing that so many restaurants depend upon worthless, as now every single customer could go make the meal in their own home... But anyway. The other way to "do their own research" is that every single customer would have to take every meal they ever order at a restaurant to a laboratory that could test it for them, and tell them how many calories it has and which calorie groups those calories are from, spending thousands of dollars out of their own pocket and spending who even knows how many hours of their time just because they want to catch a quick meal out once in a while.

Do you think that either of those two solutions are practical? Honestly?

Or is it simply more practical for the single restaurant chain to get each of their dishes tested just the one time and publish that information?

Have you ever had a home-cooked meal where someone baked an apple pie from scratch? Or an apple-rhubarb pie? If you have cooked it, have you done the math to calculate the calories per slice and informed your diners? If you had it cooked for you, did you quiz the chef as to how many calories were in each slice?

If you are not doing these calculations for each meal you prepare in your home, or demanding these calculations when your parents or in-laws or friends prepare meals, why are these numbers so important that a restaurant provide?

ETA: I think the most practical solution is that if calories are that important to you, that you do the research prior to eating out, or learn how to apportion calories such that you can select dishes that meet your requirements in a general manner without demanding that a restaurant provide a level of nutritional information that most people do not maintain in the rest of their meals. I have known a few competitive bodybuilders who have been able to eat out in restaurants and yet achieve single digit bodyfat without being informed by the restaurant of the exact macronutrient profile of their meals.

[TraneWreck]

As a Weight Watchers member who carries the WW "Eating Out Guide" in her car, I do know if not the specific calorie content at least the "Points (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weight_Watchers#.E2.80.9CPoints.E2.80.9D_formulas)" count for many items. Being able to identify that, say, a single serving of McDonald's chicken-breast strips -- or a Quizno's roasted-chicken flatbread salad -- has a Points count higher than my Points allowance for an entire day helps me to decide which items to buy and which to avoid.

I remember reading that the most unhealthy possible fast-food meal was Taco Bell's Taco Salad. This was a number of years ago, so it may have been surpassed, but it's always amusing that we hear "salad" and think "healthy."

There are so many ways to sneak calories into a salad.

[tesscaline]

Have you ever had a home-cooked meal where someone baked an apple pie from scratch? Or an apple-rhubarb pie?Yes, and yes.
If you have cooked it, have you done the math to calculate the calories per slice and informed your diners?Yes.
If you had it cooked for you, did you quiz the chef as to how many calories were in each slice? At least once, yes.

I've been to culinary school. The above was a standard part of the curriculum.

If you are not doing these calculations for each meal you prepare in your home, or demanding these calculations when your parents or in-laws or friends prepare meals, why are these numbers so important that a restaurant provide?You didn't read my post at all did you.

ETA: I think the most practical solution is that if calories are that important to you, that you do the research prior to eating out, or learn how to apportion calories such that you can select dishes that meet your requirements in a general manner without demanding that a restaurant provide a level of nutritional information that most people do not maintain in the rest of their meals. I have known a few competitive bodybuilders who have been able to eat out in restaurants and yet achieve single digit bodyfat without being informed by the restaurant of the exact macronutrient profile of their meals.How can a person research such things when restaurants have "secret recipes" that they will not disclose the full ingredients for, or share the cooking methods of? How can someone "learn to apportion calories" when restaurants use deceptive practices to make you think something is healthy, or play into the fact that you think something is healthy to get you to buy it?

You have yet to explain how your "solution" is practical, or how it could even be accomplished in the first place.

Your anecdote about bodybuilders is ridiculous by the way -- one can achieve a very low body fat percentage simply through massive exercise (I knew many a track runner in high school who got below 10% body fat while still eating cheese burgers from Wendy's).

[not daSkeptic]

If you are not doing these calculations for each meal you prepare in your home, or demanding these calculations when your parents or in-laws or friends prepare meals, why are these numbers so important that a restaurant provide?

I think it's important that such information is known. Restaurants and food producers are in a better position to make the necessary research economical. In some cases, as Skeptichick pointed out, they are the only ones who can make it practical.

[Augustine]

Yes, and yes.
Yes.
At least once, yes.
I've been to culinary school. The above was a standard part of the curriculum.

So you quizzed the chef once out of how many times someone else prepared the meal? I would think this is probably less than 1% of meals you have consumed prepared by someone else but not in a restaurant environment.
Excluding your culinary school experiences, on what percentage do you calculate calorie counts for dishes prepared from scratch? (100%=all the time, 50% = half the time, etc.) Do you think this is average?

How can a person research such things when restaurants have "secret recipes" that they will not disclose the full ingredients for, or share the cooking methods of? How can someone "learn to apportion calories" when restaurants use deceptive practices to make you think something is healthy, or play into the fact that you think something is healthy to get you to buy it?

You have yet to explain how your "solution" is practical, or how it could even be accomplished in the first place.

My solution is simple: if you require this level of clarity over your caloric intake, perhaps you shouldn't be eating out. I have not seen any requirement for the accuracy of calorie reporting, and the model plans that are out there only require a 20% accuracy level (+/- 20%, see NPLAN).
Given that the average American eats out 4-5 times a week, or 24% of weekly meals, I think the people who do not know how to calculate calories for themselves do more damage with how they prepare the other 76% of their meals, and the people who already calculate the calories for the other 76% of their meals know how to estimate the other 24% within the 20% level of accuracy.
“Secret recipes” aside, if I require a certain amount of calorie control in a meal ordered in a restaurant, I select the entrée that is the most straight-forward and simple, and ignore the sauces - certainly I can get within the 20% tolerance. I would think as a culinary school graduate that you could predict most meals within the 20% tolerance as well. Further, anyone who has calculated the caloric value of any meal they have prepared themselves can probably get within 20% of a similar meal in a restaurant - no matter how "deceptive" they are.

Your anecdote about bodybuilders is ridiculous by the way -- one can achieve a very low body fat percentage simply through massive exercise (I knew many a track runner in high school who got below 10% body fat while still eating cheese burgers from Wendy's).

Thank you for another example of why the food in fast-food restaurants is not to blame for obesity.

[BobTheDonkey]

So you quizzed the chef once out of how many times someone else prepared the meal? I would think this is probably less than 1% of meals you have consumed prepared by someone else but not in a restaurant environment.
Excluding your culinary school experiences, on what percentage do you calculate calorie counts for dishes prepared from scratch? (100%=all the time, 50% = half the time, etc.) Do you think this is average?



My solution is simple: if you require this level of clarity over your caloric intake, perhaps you shouldn't be eating out. I have not seen any requirement for the accuracy of calorie reporting, and the model plans that are out there only require a 20% accuracy level (+/- 20%, see NPLAN).
Given that the average American eats out 4-5 times a week, or 24% of weekly meals, I think the people who do not know how to calculate calories for themselves do more damage with how they prepare the other 76% of their meals, and the people who already calculate the calories for the other 76% of their meals know how to estimate the other 24% within the 20% level of accuracy.
“Secret recipes” aside, if I require a certain amount of calorie control in a meal ordered in a restaurant, I select the entrée that is the most straight-forward and simple, and ignore the sauces - certainly I can get within the 20% tolerance. I would think as a culinary school graduate that you could predict most meals within the 20% tolerance as well. Further, anyone who has calculated the caloric value of any meal they have prepared themselves can probably get within 20% of a similar meal in a restaurant - no matter how "deceptive" they are.



Thank you for another example of why the food in fast-food restaurants is not to blame for obesity.

Really?

Because let's say that I eat home cooked, healthy food keeping my caloric intake well under control. Let's say I need a 3000 calories/day diet. I eat out 1x a day (for ease of calculation). And I'm persistent about sticking to my appropriate caloric intake. I can do everything I want at home to stick to 2000 calories throughout the day - but when I go to McDonalds that night and order a "healthy" chicken sandwich meal with >1000 calories, I just blew my 3000 calorie diet for the day.

Imagine if I was trying to stick to the recommended 2000 calorie diet? The difference between a 500 calorie meal and a 1000 calorie meal is fully 1/4 of my daily allowance. This is, without a doubt, good information to have.

Or are you saying that only people who don't care about their weight/health should eat out?

What about that office party? Or the business lunch/dinner? etc.

[MikeMangum]

I cannot understand how anyone could see the listing of calories at restaurant food, as a "bad" thing.

The listing of calories at a restaurant isn't a bad thing; it is in fact a good thing. Forcing restaurants to comply is the bad part.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3W8D7pflcwM

It will force those chains that have more than 20 locations, but not much more than 20 locations, to close some of those locations. In the video linked above, the pizza chain (which has 21 locations) is going to have close 2 of them to get down to 19, putting dozens of people out of work.

[MikeMangum]

I cannot understand how anyone could see the listing of calories at restaurant food, as a "bad" thing.

I suppose you think that sexual promiscuity, rudeness, bad grooming habits, and mumbling should all be punished by the government? I can't see how anyone could see sexual moderation, politeness, good grooming, and enunciation as "bad" things.

[BobTheDonkey]

The listing of calories at a restaurant isn't a bad thing; it is in fact a good thing. Forcing restaurants to comply is the bad part.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3W8D7pflcwM

It will force those chains that have more than 20 locations, but not much more than 20 locations, to close some of those locations. In the video linked above, the pizza chain (which has 21 locations) is going to have close 2 of them to get down to 19, putting dozens of people out of work.

This requirement didn't force those restaurants to close. Rather, the restaurant owners decided to close the 2 restaurants as a response to the requirements of this bill. Pretty petty response, if you ask me (and, really, pretty poor business as well).

[tesscaline]

So you quizzed the chef once out of how many times someone else prepared the meal? I would think this is probably less than 1% of meals you have consumed prepared by someone else but not in a restaurant environment.At least once, I said. And how many time I actually did it is irrelevant to the actual topic of the thread.
Excluding your culinary school experiences, on what percentage do you calculate calorie counts for dishes prepared from scratch? (100%=all the time, 50% = half the time, etc.) Do you think this is average?You've missed the entire point of the discussion. This is not about what information I provide myself with about food that I make for myself. This discussion is about what information is made AVAILABLE to the general public about food prepared by companies looking to sell that food to the general public. If you can't tell the difference between the two scenarios, I'm sorry. Regardless, I will not aid you in continuing your strawman.

My solution is simple: if you require this level of clarity over your caloric intake, perhaps you shouldn't be eating out. I have not seen any requirement for the accuracy of calorie reporting, and the model plans that are out there only require a 20% accuracy level (+/- 20%, see NPLAN). How is this a practical solution to the topic at hand? Key word there: practical.

I happen to think that it is practical for the entity providing a product to be the one to detail what goes into that product, and how much of an effect using that product might have on the average consumer. Just like with chemical products, where the manufacturer is required to provide MSDS to the proper regulatory agency. And just like with pharmaceuticals, where clinical trials must be conducted and side effects warnings are required to be provided to consumers.

Or do you think that patients should be required to do their own research into any and all medications, and just not take them if they're not able to fund that research?

Given that the average American eats out 4-5 times a week, or 24% of weekly meals, I think the people who do not know how to calculate calories for themselves do more damage with how they prepare the other 76% of their meals, and the people who already calculate the calories for the other 76% of their meals know how to estimate the other 24% within the 20% level of accuracy.

“Secret recipes” aside, if I require a certain amount of calorie control in a meal ordered in a restaurant, I select the entrée that is the most straight-forward and simple, and ignore the sauces - certainly I can get within the 20% tolerance. I would think as a culinary school graduate that you could predict most meals within the 20% tolerance as well. Further, anyone who has calculated the caloric value of any meal they have prepared themselves can probably get within 20% of a similar meal in a restaurant - no matter how "deceptive" they are.I think you're seriously deluded about the differences between what is prepared in a restaurant and what is prepared at home. You've still offered no explanation as to why your solution is practical, or even actually possible since you've brushed off the "secret recipe", as well as the different preparation technique issue, entirely.

Thank you for another example of why the food in fast-food restaurants is not to blame for obesity.I never said it was. Who is "to blame" for obesity has absolutely nothing to do with anything I've said, actually.

Also: This discussion is not specific to fast food restaurants. It is applicable to any restaurant chain with 20 or more locations. There are a lot more than just fast food establishments who have 20 or more locations.

(please stop screwing around with all the fonts, it makes it very difficult to quote you properly)

[tesscaline]

I suppose you think that sexual promiscuity, rudeness, bad grooming habits, and mumbling should all be punished by the government? I can't see how anyone could see sexual moderation, politeness, good grooming, and enunciation as "bad" things.What do those things have to do with the subject at hand?

[TraneWreck]

I suppose you think that sexual promiscuity, rudeness, bad grooming habits, and mumbling should all be punished by the government? I can't see how anyone could see sexual moderation, politeness, good grooming, and enunciation as "bad" things.

Well, if you came up with a system to put a sign above disease-ridden genitals that said, "use at your own risk," I'd probably support that.

All this provisions does is help inform the citizenry. Good idea.

[BobTheDonkey]

Well, if you came up with a system to put a sign above disease-ridden genitals that said, "use at your own risk," I'd probably support that.

I was under the impression that this was the idea behind required sex-ed in high school? Leave with the assumption that the aforementioned sign could/should be hanging over the genitalia of anyone the student comes into contact with... :D

[Cavemonster]

The listing of calories at a restaurant isn't a bad thing; it is in fact a good thing. Forcing restaurants to comply is the bad part.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3W8D7pflcwM

It will force those chains that have more than 20 locations, but not much more than 20 locations, to close some of those locations. In the video linked above, the pizza chain (which has 21 locations) is going to have close 2 of them to get down to 19, putting dozens of people out of work.

The guy in the video had me going for a second there, then I decided to read the actual Lean Act, because the provisions as he described them did seem like a large burden.

http://www.nationalnutritionstandards.com/senatelegislation.html

The information is not required to be displayed on the menu board.
The calories for items listed on the menu board can also be listed on a sign on the same line as the menu board, or at eye level somewhere in line approaching the point of purchase. This would be satisfied by a laminated 11" x 17" sign on the wall near the register, total cost <$1 per establishment.

Neither is the information required to be printed in the menus, especially not the catering menus since the act only covers food served at the establishment. The information for the paper menus can be in the menu, in an insert or attachment, or in a separate accompanying menu. This can be satisfied by one laminated 8.5" x 11", double sided, at each table, at a cost of >50¢ per table.

Assuming 50 tables (Generously, I'm sure it's less than that) and 21 locations, they could be up to code with plenty of extras in all locations for less than $600.

Either, he has misread the mandate, or he thinks that those stores are worth less than $600, or he's trying to make a political point.

[Augustine]

At least once, I said. And how many time I actually did it is irrelevant to the actual topic of the thread.
You've missed the entire point of the discussion. This is not about what information I provide myself with about food that I make for myself. This discussion is about what information is made AVAILABLE to the general public about food prepared by companies looking to sell that food to the general public. If you can't tell the difference between the two scenarios, I'm sorry. Regardless, I will not aid you in continuing your strawman.


Whether or not you provide this information is relevant, particularly if you are expecting a business to provide you information that you do not provide yourself or demand in other situations. If you are demanding calorie reporting for 24% of your meals, that you do not require for the other 76%, what exactly is the calorie reporting intended to accomplish? If you don't demand calorie information at Thanksgiving, Halloween, or the Fourth of July barbecue, why is it so important for the 24% of time a restaurant can be on the hook?

I happen to think that it is practical for the entity providing a product to be the one to detail what goes into that product, and how much of an effect using that product might have on the average consumer. Just like with chemical products, where the manufacturer is required to provide MSDS to the proper regulatory agency. And just like with pharmaceuticals, where clinical trials must be conducted and side effects warnings are required to be provided to consumers.

Or do you think that patients should be required to do their own research into any and all medications, and just not take them if they're not able to fund that research?


Strawman. Food is not pharmaceuticals. If you are not aware of the effect of macronutrients and calories on your body, as I said, you should not be eating out at all - or probably not even living independently. It is not an issue of restaurants not providing detail - after all, there is a menu, with descriptions listed - it seems to be an issue of not providing sufficient detail for certain individuals. When I go to the farmer's market, I don't demand the nutrient profile for the tomato. When I go to purchase cheese or cuts of meat from a local farm in the area, I don't demand the nutrient profile for the flank steak or the goat cheese. When I sit in Morton's, and get a steak with potato, I don't need the nutrient profile - I asked for a steak and potato, and that's what I got!

I think you're seriously deluded about the differences between what is prepared in a restaurant and what is prepared at home. You've still offered no explanation as to why your solution is practical, or even actually possible since you've brushed off the "secret recipe", as well as the different preparation technique issue, entirely.

I may be seriously deluded, but since my solution is merely the status quo, it is by definition possible, and most certainly practical. It's worth noting that all the nutritional information provided by all the fast food chains is currently voluntary - why is that not an option? Why was voluntary compliance not considered? Why mandatory?

I never said it was. Who is "to blame" for obesity has absolutely nothing to do with anything I've said, actually.

Also: This discussion is not specific to fast food restaurants. It is applicable to any restaurant chain with 20 or more locations. There are a lot more than just fast food establishments who have 20 or more locations.

(please stop screwing around with all the fonts, it makes it very difficult to quote you properly)

If you go back through this thread, you will see that I have made that point multiple times. Large fast food chains are actually the big winner with this legislation. Small chains or "real food" restaurants (and we the consumers who like them) will be the ones that suffer from the secondary effects of this legislation.

The obesity comment was not intended to counter anything you said. I do appreciate another example that fast food does not lead to obesity, however, as that has been mentioned previously in this thread as a justification for this legislation.

[tesscaline]

Whether or not you provide this information is relevant, particularly if you are expecting a business to provide you information that you do not provide yourself or demand in other situations. If you are demanding calorie reporting for 24% of your meals, that you do not require for the other 76%, what exactly is the calorie reporting intended to accomplish? If you don't demand calorie information at Thanksgiving, Halloween, or the Fourth of July barbecue, why is it so important for the 24% of time a restaurant can be on the hook?Because I can easily find that information out for myself, and control exactly which ingredients are used in what I make. I cannot, however, control what ingredients are in a restaurant's offerings. In many cases, I cannot even find out what ingredients are used in a restaurant's offerings because they protect their recipes as "trade secrets". Because I cannot find out what they're doing to the food, I have no way of finding out how many calories are in those offerings. I could guess, based upon the ingredients I can readily identify, however there are key aspects to restaurant prepared foods that greatly impact their caloric values that you simply can't know just from looking at a description of a dish. Is the baked chicken higher or lower in fat than the pan roasted chicken? Can you tell me that off the top of your head, knowing nothing other than that it is chicken which was either baked or pan roasted?

Strawman. Food is not pharmaceuticals. If you are not aware of the effect of macronutrients and calories on your body, as I said, you should not be eating out at all - or probably not even living independently. It is not an issue of restaurants not providing detail - after all, there is a menu, with descriptions listed - it seems to be an issue of not providing sufficient detail for certain individuals. When I go to the farmer's market, I don't demand the nutrient profile for the tomato. When I go to purchase cheese or cuts of meat from a local farm in the area, I don't demand the nutrient profile for the flank steak or the goat cheese. When I sit in Morton's, and get a steak with potato, I don't need the nutrient profile - I asked for a steak and potato, and that's what I got!No, it is not a strawman. Pharmaceuticals are substances that humans take into their bodies which have an effect on their health. Foods are substances that humans take into their bodies which have an effect on their health. The issue here is one of information. Do you agree that people have a right to know what they are putting into their bodies, or not?

I may be seriously deluded, but since my solution is merely the status quo, it is by definition possible, and most certainly practical.I'm sorry, but do you actually believe that the current state of matters is really working? Really??
It's worth noting that all the nutritional information provided by all the fast food chains is currently voluntary - why is that not an option? Why was voluntary compliance not considered? Why mandatory?How exactly can one legislate something for "voluntary compliance"? Yes, currently it's a voluntary thing for restaurants to publish caloric values for their offerings. However, legislators have decided that not enough chains have started publishing this information, and legislators have decided that food is enough of an issue that they cannot just sit around and hope that restaurants will take their customer's health into account over their bottom line.

These large restaurant chains are not being asked to do anything that other large scale processed food manufacturers have not been asked to do. Or are you against caloric labeling on foods in grocery stores too? Should we all have to carry around mental encyclopedias full of information like how many calories "modified food starch" has?

If you go back through this thread, you will see that I have made that point multiple times. Large fast food chains are actually the big winner with this legislation. Small chains or "real food" restaurants (and we the consumers who like them) will be the ones that suffer from the secondary effects of this legislation.I'm sorry, I don't consider IHOP or Denny's to be "real food". Remember, we're talking about chains with 20 or more locations. None of the restaurants I go to that serve "real food" have more than 10 locations, and most of them don't even have more than 1 or 2 locations. Of course, I'm slightly more discriminating about food than a lot of people. It may well be that someone considers Denny's to be "real food". For that person or persons, I hold much pity.

As to the "suffering" of chains not as large as McDonalds or Burger King -- I think the long term benefits outweigh the immediate costs.

The obesity comment was not intended to counter anything you said. I do appreciate another example that fast food does not lead to obesity, however, as that has been mentioned previously in this thread as a justification for this legislation.Fast food, in and of itself, does not lead to obesity, no. Too much of it can. More specifically, too much of the wrong sorts of fast food can. And given how deceptive fast food establishments (as well as other restaurants) are about their "healthy choices", I happen to think that requiring caloric information about all food served is a step in the right direction -- i.e. educating people about what food they should eat and in what quantities so that they can make more informed and better decisions ultimately leading to better health overall (not just in terms of obesity, but in terms of heart disease, diabetes, gout, or even food allergies as well).

You seem to think it's important that people be educated about what they're eating. I happen to agree with that. I am boggled, however, by your response to legislation that requires information about nutrition to be disseminated openly. I would think that, as someone who wants people to be educated about what they're eating, you would be for giving them more information and not against it.

[SnuggleSmacks]

Chain restaurants and food vendors with 20 or more locations are required to display the caloric content of their foods on menus, drive-through menus, and vending machines. Additional information, such as saturated fat, carbohydrate, and sodium content, must also be made available upon request.

ZOMG!! I was just debating with some friends about this in the bar a couple of weeks ago. I'm sure Americans will continue to make bad choices, but we should at least have the right to make educated bad choices!

[lionking]

There has been at least one other thread about this.

[Accidental Martyr]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=171251&highlight=Calorie