Brklyn Councilman David Yassky opposing health menu law

boygabriel

So last year The New York City Board of Health passed the much celebrated measure banning trans fats in city restaurants. While that's a great cause, I was happier about the less-celebrated part of the measure: that most major food chains in NYC would have to prominently display calorie information next to each item on any publicly displayed menu.

Part of the reason Americans (and New Yorkers) have such an obesity problem is not necessarily just the types of food we eat, it's also the amount of food we eat. I fully believe that if calorie information was prominently displayed in establishments like fast food chains, many consumers would be spurred to eat a little healthier. Instead of that 1500 calorie caramel macchiato at Starbucks, why not just get a regular cup of coffee if it means saving 1200 calories? It may seem obvious to you, but many people don't even think about the calorie difference between a double-cheeseburger with bacon and a regular simple cheeseburger. If we're going to east fast food, we may as well be vigilant about it. I don't want to tell people what to eat, or in any wat restrict their options. But I do believe we should take the simple step of making nutritional (or lack thereof) information more readily available so that consumers have more tools at their disposal when deciding what to eat.

But according to yesterday's New York Times, councilman David Yassky (Brooklyn's 33rd city council district) is planning on supporting Councilman Joel Rivera of the Bronx's new proposal to over-turn the calorie labeling part of the Board of Health's measure passed last year. The reason, according to Rivera?

“It’s a compromise,” Mr. Rivera said. “It brings to the table the No. 1 goal of informing the consumer, while not making it too expensive for the industry.”

Give me an effin break. We're going to bury calorie information on a poster in the corner of the restaurant that no consumer will read, ever, because McDonald's can't afford to add another column of text to all their displayed menus? This is a joke.

Yassky's reasoning:

“When I’ve worked on menu-labeling bills across the country, there aren’t strong arguments against it based on the merits. The reason these policies haven’t passed is because of politics,” Ms. Wooten said. “New York City found a way to bypass the politics by having the policy put in place by health experts.”

Skirting the Council has irked some lawmakers.

“This is a major policy shift, and it should have been subjected to the democratic process,” said Councilman David Yassky of Brooklyn, who said he would co-sponsor Mr. Rivera’s bill.

Yassky is implying that had the Board of Health's measure been passed via the City Council, he would have fully supported it, but because the legislation was passed via a back door, he opposes it? Again, give me a break.

The Times article says this bill probably won't pass the City Council, meaning the measure would stay in effect. However I just wanted to update everyone on what one of our council members is doing (or not doing) in regards to public health.

sweet tea

why should fast food places have to display calorie counts and other restaurants not? it is because of who is assumed to eat there?

for the record, i don't eat at mcdonalds (unless i'm on a road trip), but i'd be irritated if i ordered at sorrel and was told how much i was eating. for that matter, if i order a chai latte at s'bucks, i'm pretty clear that it's got more calories than a chamomile tea. and i think people order double cheeseburgers because they're bigger than regular cheeseburgers, not just because it's more fun to say.

the rule seems weird and paternalistic to me.

boygabriel

sweet tea wrote: why should fast food places have to display calorie counts and other restaurants not? it is because of who is assumed to eat there?

the rule applies to anyone who has menus posted up in the open. (pretty much only fast food and pizza places.) I don't know why the rule was written that way. probably because as you mentioned, people don't want to open a menu in a sit-down restaurant and read calorie information. For the most part I agree with you

for the record, i don't eat at mcdonalds (unless i'm on a road trip), but i'd be irritated if i ordered at sorrel and was told how much i was eating. for that matter, if i order a chai latte at s'bucks, i'm pretty clear that it's got more calories than a chamomile tea. and i think people order double cheeseburgers because they're bigger than regular cheeseburgers, not just because it's more fun to say.

Well obviously, but the point I think is that a lot of people don't stop to think about calorie intake. If they knew that double cheeseburger represented their entire day's intake, maybe they'd think twice and order a large meal, not a super-size one. As I said, Americans have a pretty serious problem with the size of our meals (you ever eaten in Europe? their meals are like half the size of ours and I don't think the Euros are exactly starving themselves to death.) Eating large meals is a cultural thing in America and it has some very unhealthy effects on our society. People are free to eat whatever they want, but why not present information that for decades was completely ignored, much to our detriment?

the rule seems weird and paternalistic to me.

Why is it weird to post health information publicly? It seems like a no-brainer to me. This rule seems minimally invasive and unlike other health legislation, it doesn't force a choice onto anyone, it is merely presenting information.

pitu

I'd love to see a poster on the wall with calorie and nutritional info, like the anti-choking poster also required by the health dept.

Then when I tell my girlfriend that her egg nog latte is 30,000 calories, she can check it out for herself and know that it's only 1,300.
:twisted:
Not that they wouldn't lie about it (frozen yogurt scandals nationwide, remember?) and then get caught by local tv news outlets doing ratings-grabbing exposes.

Fast food places could post the info pretty easily since it's uniformly produced factory food. I wouldn't expect Ali's Roti Shop to do it, since the menu and recipes are flexible.
I don't think it needs to be posted like the prices are, just available.
Although . . . can you imagine if it were . . . ?!

raw

I know I'm getting off topic, but why is corn syrup in the vast majority of processed food? And what the hell is maltodextrin? Even "health" foods I buy have ingredient lists only phramacists can decipher.

Maybe we should eat at McDonalds. Even if we put all efforts into eating "natural" plants and animals, we could be screwed.

If I went out and killed a wild turkey in the woods and ate it, I'd probably get cancer from the polluted water the bird drank. I might die after eating deer that grazed on grass produced by TruGreen ChemLawn.
(http://www.trugreen.com/)

Is food any better in other countries?

ilovecarbs

Raw, I actually asked the same question before and it's basically because corn syrup is a raw cane sugar substitute in th United States - that's why coke and pepsi here tastes different from in asia or south america. Apparently, the mark up on raw sugar is so high that manufacturers use corn syrup instead so we don't end up paying 4 bucks for a bottle of coke, etc.

Frankly, i see no harm in posting health info publicly.What pisses me of is when individuals take no responsibilities for their food choices and point fingers at the fast food giants. I mean, come on..sweetheart, if you ate 2 big macs a day and you look like a whale, you might wanna go easy ion those fries [-X

ilovecarbs

I realize the irony of my post and my screenname There's no pun intended. Honest!

emily

sweet tea wrote: why should fast food places have to display calorie counts and other restaurants not? it is because of who is assumed to eat there?

I think it's largely because it would be onerous for a one-location restaurant to test all their foods and reprint menus, whereas the assumption is that somebody like McDonald's or Au Bon Pain can handle it. I agree that it's a little unfair and paternalistic, but it seems like people have trouble figuring out to eat in general, so I guess it could help. Yassky's reasoning against it certainly seems underhanded to me.

BTW, my understanding is that corn syrup is cheaper than sugar because corn farmers are so steadily subsidized by the government. Hmmmm.

smokin joe

correct emily. corn syrup is about the cheapest filler allowed in food products. that's why it's the main ingredient in so many where it has no business being. when a company like nabisco, say, is trying to figure out how to squeeze even more profit out of oreos, for instance, they double the corn syrup, market the cookies as "double stuf" ("stuf" being extremely accurate labeling in this case), and then have a bag of cookies that has less of everything else, the more expensive ingredients, and much more corn syrup, which costs them pennies per bag.

the reason corn syrup is so cheap: heavy subsidies to the agribusiness corn producers (mainly archer daniels midland and cargill), who spend heavily on congressional races for the favor.

but now the price of corn syrup is going up, thanks to another subsidy that agribusiness has pushed: ethanol. rising gas prices combined with ethanol subsidies have made this cost-ineffective fuel look like the american answer to opec.

if the trend continues, adm and cargill will be sitting pretty while food manufacturers will either have to search for alternative fillers (sawdust-flavored oreos? with twice the fiber!), lower profits (yeah, right) or raise prices, the most likely scenario, which, since it's in everything, will cause inflation.

bon appetit!

armchair_warrior

people should eat what ever hell they want. those same people wont care about how many calories there are in their food to begin with.

only people care are the ones who probably watch out for extra calories.


slightly related note. also time to legalize all drugs and prostitution! and tax it!

linusvanpelt

I am deeply suspicious of the idea, in all forms, that if only all those other, knuckle-dragging, brainwashed ignoramuses out of there were forcibly exposed to the right information, they would [make the same social choices / take the same environmental measures / vote for the same people / worship the same God / eat the same food] as I do.

raw

armchair_warrior wrote: people should eat what ever hell they want. !

If I'm ever allowed to eat what ever the hell I want, I'm going to eat YOU, transfat and all. :twisted:

raw

ilovecarbs wrote: I realize the irony of my post and my screenname There's no pun intended. Honest!

I love carbs -- and baby penguin meat -- too. If I'm going to indulge in sweets, I'd rather eat an ice oatmeal cookie ice cream sandwich than drink a bunch of corn syrup in pasta sauce.

willregistersoon

Most of the fast food chains already have pamphlets you can ask for that have all of the nutritional information. I don't think it's the restaurants job to go out of their way to educate people on healthy eating habits. I disagree with this bill.

boygabriel

If it could be proven that simply listing calorie information would lead to people being healthier and living longer would you still be against this legislation?

pitu

July 17, 2007
The Consumer
Calorie Labels May Clarify Options, Not Actions
By RONI CARYN RABIN

If you were watching calories, would you go for the chicken Caesar salad at Chili’s or the classic sirloin steak? Subway’s tuna or roast beef sandwich? A Starbucks chai or a cappuccino?

Demand for calorie labels on restaurant food is sweeping the country. New York City is ahead of the trend — a law requiring calorie counts to be posted next to prices in some restaurants went into effect July 1, though it will not be enforced until October. But some 20 other states and localities are considering measures that would require chain restaurants to provide calories or detailed nutritional information right on the menu or menu board, often next to the price and in the same size lettering.

Although the laws would apply only to chains, which make up just 10 percent of outlets, they serve about two-thirds of restaurant traffic, experts say.

Restaurateurs don’t like the idea. They say the labels would be cumbersome and expensive, and that they would not make a dent in America’s obesity problem.

“Do you think people will stop eating McDonald’s French fries and Big Macs?” asked Rick Sampson of the New York State Restaurant Association, which is suing New York City over its law. “It doesn’t keep me from eating a candy bar even though the calories are listed on it right in front of me.” (A Big Mac has 540 calories; a medium order of fries, 380.)

But public opinion polls suggest that consumers are overwhelmingly in favor of menu labeling. And a 2005 survey of 5,297 adults by the food services company Aramark found that 83 percent of them wanted nutritional information in restaurants.

“Often, people are trying to do the right thing and make the healthier choice, but they’re just guessing at what the best choice is — it’s not always obvious,” said Margo Wootan, director of nutritional policy at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, the advocacy group that is leading the movement for menu labeling. “Because there’s no nutritional information, they’re not getting what they think they’re getting.”

The chicken Caesar salad at Chili’s is one of those items that might appear to be a healthier choice, but brace yourself: it contains 1,010 calories and 76 grams of fat, while the sirloin has 540 calories and 42 grams of fat (not counting side dishes).

Nor is a tuna sandwich the low-calorie choice at Subway: it has 530 calories, significantly more than the roast beef sandwich, which has 290. And a chai latte almost always has 100 more calories than a cappuccino of the same size prepared with the same kind of milk.

While many eateries publish caloric information on their Web sites, or even on food packaging, advocates of labeling say diners need to be able to see the information while deciding what to order.

Some entrees and appetizers provide a staggering amount of calories in a single dish, sometimes more than the 2,000 recommended daily for the average adult. Notorious among nutritionists is the Bloomin’ Onion at Outback Steakhouse, a battered, deep-fried onion resembling a flower that is served with a dipping sauce. The damage, nutritionists say, is about 2,200 calories and more than 100 grams of fat, most of it trans fat.

And it’s not just average diners who have a hard time estimating the calorie content of food in restaurants. Even trained dietitians have failed miserably at the task, according to Dr. Wootan.

A study by her group and New York University found that dietitians consistently underestimated the calorie content of restaurant food, figuring that a typical meal of hamburger and onion rings in a sit-down restaurant would have 865 calories. It had 1,550.

“There was a time when an orange was an orange, and an apple was an apple,” said Kelly D. Brownell, director of the Yale Center for Eating and Weight Disorders. “But people don’t recognize what’s in their food anymore — a Pop-Tart has 56 different ingredients. And the food industry is very good about cramming sugar, fat and salt into food, making it taste very good but making it a challenge to be healthy.”

Diners may order items they associate with health food — chicken over beef, for example, or a “California health sandwich” or “grilled vegetable wrap” — which may actually be laden in calories, experts say. A grilled chicken club sandwich at McDonald’s has more calories than a Big Mac, for example.

Officials who represent the restaurant industry point out that Americans still eat three-quarters of their meals at home. That may be true, labeling advocates say, but when they eat out they consume more calories than they do at home.

The real question is whether diners with more information would make wiser decisions. Studies show that only 10 percent to 20 percent of diners would choose lower-calorie options. “It’s not the whole solution to obesity,” Dr. Wootan said, “but it’s a very important part of the solution.”

Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

daver

And it’s not just average diners who have a hard time estimating the calorie content of food in restaurants. Even trained dietitians have failed miserably at the task, according to Dr. Wootan.

A study by her group and New York University found that dietitians consistently underestimated the calorie content of restaurant food,

I don't give a flying fuck if it changes eating habits or not, people have a right to know what they are eating. And as the article points out, it isn't so obvious anymore.

The chicken Caesar salad at Chili’s is one of those items that might appear to be a healthier choice, but brace yourself: it contains 1,010 calories and 76 grams of fat, while the sirloin has 540 calories and 42 grams of fat (not counting side dishes).

Nor is a tuna sandwich the low-calorie choice at Subway: it has 530 calories, significantly more than the roast beef sandwich, which has 290. And a chai latte almost always has 100 more calories than a cappuccino of the same size prepared with the same kind of milk.
<snip>
A grilled chicken club sandwich at McDonald’s has more calories than a Big Mac, for example.

You can't assume based on any set of rules anymore, bring on the labels.

pitu

yeah, right?
I'm a little embarrassed to be surprised about the tuna and the chicken being double the calories of the beef . . .

I don't generally go to fast food places, btw. But the once or twice that I have in the past decade, I got the fried fish.
Damn tartar sauce with 1000 calorie corn syrup.

raw

All restaurants should be required to display nutrition information on the food they serve. Many upscale places add flavor to their food by soaking it in butter, oil, sugar, and salt. Forget Mc Donald's; I'd prefer nutrition information on the Blue Water Grill.

raw

pitu wrote: yeah, right?
I'm a little embarrassed to be surprised about the tuna and the chicken being double the calories of the beef . . .
Damn tartar sauce with 1000 calorie corn syrup.

With America's demand for corn syrup, Aliens from Mars spying on humans in the United States would watch humans add corn syrup to the American food supply and assume Americans needed corn syrup to live.

boygabriel

America's obsession with corn syrup is a chicken & egg thing. Part of the reason it's in everything is because farm subsidies make corn one of the most profitable crops to grow. there's a glut of corn, we produce way more than we could ever need, and so the industry ends up dumping it in foreign markets, and also coming up with new places to use/sell it domestically, for example, putting high fructose corn syrup in everything.

the gov should stop subsiding corn production and use those subsidies on healthier crops.

alafairnadia

every time I eat outside of this country, I'm shocked at the (awesome) quality of food I get. everything, even the 'bad' stuff, tastes 100x better. I tried for months to recreate the awesome 2.50 euro sandwich I bought in paris - a slim baguette, butter, ham & cheese. impossible in this country. sad.