From our Swindon Correspondent:
There’s some talk going around about the idea of restaurants having to, by law, put calories on menus.
So, why? What’s the benefit to the consumer? Well, we might say that it gives consumers more information. This doesn’t seem like a bad thing, but who has ever gone into a restaurant not knowing what the healthy and unhealthy stuff is? We already spend billions on education and public health telling people that deep fried pork balls are bad, and grilled chicken is better. That the fresh fruit salad with yoghurt is going to be better than the black forest gateau. Did this not work? Should we be cutting this spending because people need it spelt out in numbers?
Because this isn’t free. It’s the sort of information that suits restaurants that are quite industrial, like McDonalds and Subway. Everything’s prepared to a standard size and shipped in, so it’s not hard to calculate. What’s someone running a pub in Cornwall, who adapts their menu to the fish that are landed, of varying sizes to do? Spend their time figuring it all out from what they did when throwing it together at the grill? Do we want Men From The Ministry taking the dish and calculating the calories, and fining restaurateurs for their inaccuracy?
Can’t we just leave all of this to the market? Subway seem to have a marketing campaign based around how healthy many of their subs are, and they provide nutritional information to support this. If you really want to know how many calories you’re eating, go to Subway. If Bob’s Cafe doesn’t want to tell you how many calories are in his full english breakfast, go elsewhere.
The language we use matters - it provides clarity to our own thoughts and enables…
It is now generally acknowledged that the structure of the NHS needs to be overhauled…
In the film Apollo 13, a loss of oxygen causes the crew to start inadvertently…
There's an idea out there which seems intuitive but then so many ideas do seem…
When we think about the darkly opaque goals of modern central bankers as they relate…
As the papers recently filled with the distressing images of desperate souls looking to escape…
View Comments
Advertisements for olive oil have been banned on London Underground by Transport for London. The reason given is because olive oil contains a large amount of calories. In other words olive oil is rich in that which keeps us alive and without which we would all be dead.
On the issue of restaurants listing calories on their menus, how are they accurately supposed to count them? On the continent most restaurants give the weight of the serving, of course this is generally inaccurate, except at restaurants that serve prepacked foods, in other words the not very good ones. No doubt mandating calorific values will be easily adhered to by McDonald's, less so by those restaurants that cook fresh food to order.
Government in recent years has an appalling record when it comes to dietary advice, a graphic of what we are supposed to eat, according to HMG, can be found here:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/618167/government_dietary_recommendations.pdf
This is a low protein diet that is also low in satisfying fats and high in sugars, no wonder obesity is on the rise when we are being encouraged to eat a fattening high sugar diet.
Those who support the nanny state might pause for a moment, what if the nanny turns out to be an idiot?
That the NUTRITION FACTS are often not factual is as minor a point as that the evolving mask mandates allow bandanas, fabric masks, and crocheted masks. It is not about achieving the goal but showing what side you are on.
The frequent reversals of government nutritional advice are best explained by the fact that the right to "petition the gov't for redress of grievances" is most easily exercised by corporations.
Hear hear! Even people who don't want their decisions made for them at gunpoint are all right with full disclosure at gunpoint. Being fully informed is so unquestionably good that it justifies any means.
Of course there are costs. The business must learn about the mandate, communicate it to its workforce, comply with it (down to font and type size), document its compliance, and assign someone to study any changes to the rules. As always, established chains are geared up to do this; start-up competitors are not. Voilà, racket!
I spent the New Year's day holiday a few years ago putting calorie information on the menu board at my pizza franchise. Didn't affect sales at all. Most people going out for fast food don't pay any attention to the calorie information.
The good news on this mandate was that it only affected chains with more than a certain amount of stores. Mom and Pop restaurants weren't bothered.
This experiment has already been carried out in New York and I don't think anyone here will be surprised to here that it failed. As reported on the Freakonomics blog:
"Some time ago, we wondered if New York City’s new law requiring certain restaurants to post calorie counts might provide good material for academic researchers who care about obesity.
The answer: yes!
Brian Elbel, an assistant professor of medicine and health policy at the NYU School of Medicine and the NYU Wagner School of Public Service, was the lead researcher on a new study called “Calorie Labeling and Food Choices: A First Look at the Effects on Low-Income People in New York City” (abstract here; pdf here).
Elbel sent researchers into the field to measure the caloric habits of low-income people who eat at fast-food restaurants including McDonald’s and KFC. They gathered data before the calorie-posting law went into effect, in order to measure the change, and in addition to gathering data from New York fast-food restaurants, they also gathered data from equivalent restaurants in Newark, N.J., which doesn’t have a caloric-posting law, to serve as a control.
What did they learn?
“We found that 27.7 percent [of people] who saw calorie labeling in New York said the information influenced their choices.”
Great news, right? Um, no:
“However, we did not detect a change in calories purchased after the introduction of calorie labeling.”
Yikes. This is a great example of how well-intentioned incentives, even if they are successfully presented, fail to move the needle. There are obviously a million more questions to be asked in this realm. For instance:"
I also remember later research finding that poor people were using it to ensure they got the biggest calorie bang for their buck.
I'm pleased that poor people got something out of it. But as far as I'm concerned, I judge by how much of a bother is it, how much does it cost and do I like it.
If I thought I was getting too fat, I'd just substitute Milo for solid food. I can't see any point in my making catering for myself any more of a hassle than necessary.
Cue... unintended consequences:
2 000 Calorie meal, £5,50
3 000 Calorie meal £3,75
Hungry people opting for highest calorie meal for best value for money.
And people chose food depending on taste, mood and fancy, not nutritional content per se.
But there comes a point, already surpassed, when there is so much noise that more noise just gets lost.
Burger King have been labelling calories for decades, and that's exactly what I use it for - maximise food, minimise expenditure, just as I did back at uni, working out that no-brand frosties gave the biggest food bang per buck, maximising the amount of my money I could spend on things *I* wanted to do rather than on just staying alive.
The crazy thing is that most of the “junk food” outlets (McD’s, Pizza Hut, etc.) are already providing this information.
The picture at the top of the article shows a buffet restaurant: when the customer can help himself to whatever size portion he desires what useful information could the proprietor supply?
That's easy. "A 100gm serving contains N calories."
But whether this is a useful action or not is a poinless question. The point of the proposal is to give PHE a justification for keeping their jobs. Nothing to do with health...
Agreed, but then the customer needs to know the weight of the spoonful of food he’s just added to his plate. (Not to mention then doing the required calculation to determine the number of calories.)
The serving spoon is 100g.
But you did not read my last point. The aim of this legislation is NOTHING to do with enabling people to count calories.
My opinion of the usefulness of the proposal is similar to yours; like taking the knee’ at football matches it’s a pointless gesture that will achieve nothing. My original comment was intended to highlight the impracticality of the measure.
Why is everybody commenting about mandatory calorie markings? Can't you see that calories, or obesity, or health are NOTHING to do with the issue at all?
What is going on here was precisely explained by the great C. Northcote Parkinson over 65 years ago. It is the standard expansion of a bureaucracy, once it has fulfilled its original remit, into any new area which will enable it to continue to justify its existence.
If it were not overeating it would be staying out in the sun too long, or not enough, or wearing trousers too tightly... - ANYTHING that the bureaucrats can assert is a public health issue which requires their study, monitoring and regulation. Anything requiring more output and staffing from PHE.
So complaining that calorie marking will not work is a pointless complaint. It means more work for PHE, so they CERTAINLY won't listen to any proof that it is useless or unworkable. You should save your breath... they will be wanting to monitor that next.....
They are doing! as the next Big Thing is "guidance" that local governments mandate face masks, 6 weeks after the end of the epidemic; focus on minor "hot spots" with the junk claim they were caused by too-rapid liberalization; and, after doubling testing, claims that a doubling of "cases" means it is still a State of Emergency, as it will be until the morning after 3-Nov.
I never look at the calorie count for any food - and I am not in the slightest bit overweight.
I do know a number of people, however, who are overweight, and they do look at calorie counts.
Perhaps this demonstrates that giving people calorie information males them fat?
I wonder what would happen if a small restaurant chose just to 'round up' all the calories for all its dishes to some arbitrary amount "750 Calories* ... actual value may be lower". Would be cheap to implement (is this effectively banning specials) and if they are overquoting would be hard to prosecute for... even if its completely pointless to the consumer
Who's talking "prosecution"? That implies innocence-until-proven-guilty and the right to defend yourself and even confront your accuser (there would have to be an accuser). They'd get FINED by the relevant agency, just as though they had used the wrong typeface.
The most irritating thing is when you've got a single serving pre-packed meal like tuna salad or something which is, say 330g and the breakdown of calorific information is either per 100g or per "serving" (which is never the entire tiny packet, but usually 1/3rd of it which is idiotic).
Sure, it doesn't exactly take a rocket scientist to multiply the per 100g by 3.3, but that is beyond the capabilities of the vast majority of the barely literate who are the ones that struggle with obesity.
It's almost as if it were designed to create jobs for Tarquin and Floella whilst not being meaningful or useful to the vast majority of the public.