Calorie Counts Proposed For Menus, Grocery Stores And More

  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • del.icio.us
  • RSS
Share
197

WASHINGTON -- Like it or not, many restaurant diners will soon know more about what they are eating under new menu labeling requirements proposed by the Food and Drug Administration.

The new requirements will force chain restaurants with 20 or more locations, along with bakeries, grocery stores, convenience stores and coffee chains, to clearly post the amount of calories in each item on menus, both in restaurants and drive-through lanes. The new rules will also apply to vending machines.

The calorie counts, will apply to an estimated 280,000 establishments. Required as part of health overhaul legislation signed into law last year, they are designed to give restaurant diners information that has long been available on packaged goods cooked at home. The FDA estimates that a third of calories are consumed by eating out.

"We've got a huge obesity problem in this country and its due in part to excess calorie consumption outside the home," says Mike Taylor, FDA deputy commissioner for foods. "Consumers generally when you ask them say they would prefer to have that information."

But don't expect calorie shock when ordering at the movie theater, where a tub of popcorn can contain well north of a thousand calories – movie theaters are exempt, along with airplanes, bowling alleys and other businesses whose primary business is not to sell food, according to the FDA.

Read More...

Tags: , , , , , , ,

197 Responses to “Calorie Counts Proposed For Menus, Grocery Stores And More”

  1. April 2, 2011 at 8:15 am #

    This is how it starts. First government sanctions a point of view with labels and then they’ll tax it. If your ordering in a drive thru lane you arent there for the steamed fish and vegetable plate.

  2. April 2, 2011 at 8:14 am #

    Diabetics need carbs, fiber, protein and fat, too. Minimum would be net carbs (carbs minus indigestib­le fiber.) Calories don’t really help us calculate our insulin requiremen­ts.

  3. April 2, 2011 at 8:06 am #

    "Consumers generally when you ask them say they would prefer to have that informatio­n."

    Consumers generally will say yes to anything that doesnt cost them something.

  4. April 2, 2011 at 7:32 am #

    I’d use that.

  5. April 2, 2011 at 5:05 am #

    Actually post the ingredient­s would be even more useful.

  6. April 2, 2011 at 5:04 am #

    It’s about time. Great law.

  7. April 2, 2011 at 5:00 am #

    My point is that if you’re eating that often at chain restaurant­s, you probably don’t give a damn about your weight anyway.

  8. April 2, 2011 at 4:50 am #

    Baloney. It had an impact on me the first time I saw the calories posted in some restaurant­. I had in mind one thing to order and when I found out it was about 850 calories, I chose something else with about 400 calories. I qualify as ANYONE, so you’re wrong.

  9. April 2, 2011 at 4:48 am #

    (Insert rolling eyes icon here.)

  10. April 2, 2011 at 4:47 am #

    This is an excellent idea. I’m totally behind it.

  11. April 2, 2011 at 4:26 am #

    OK, now what result is expected? Do we thinks Americans are suddenly going to stop eating for entertainm­ent and eat for nutrition? Americans approach eating is wrong!!!! Eating needs to be about the body’s needs, not the tongue and the emotional state only!!!

  12. April 2, 2011 at 3:40 am #

    It is about time!!!!!!­!!!!!!!!!!­!!!!!!!!!!­!!

  13. April 2, 2011 at 3:06 am #

    Quite elitist, if you ask me. Ignorance rules!

  14. April 2, 2011 at 3:04 am #

    My mom defended her cigarettes and also accepted her lack of respirator­y function as if it was her first born. All the way to the grave.

  15. April 2, 2011 at 2:54 am #

    But but…I thought Ignorance was Strength.

  16. April 2, 2011 at 2:31 am #

    Knowledge is sooooo last century.

  17. April 2, 2011 at 2:30 am #

    Informatio­n is not nanny state. It’s a state of awareness.

    I’m sure there are places like FatBurger that will proudly post the calorie count of their 1800-calor­ie burger (I think it’s a couple of patties, egg, and bacon) and some people will order it. No one’s going into FatBurger looking for a low-cal treat.

  18. April 2, 2011 at 2:27 am #

    Very well put.

    Education is not dictatoria­l.

  19. April 2, 2011 at 2:11 am #

    Opponents said this was government telling us what to eat. In reality, it is government telling restaurant­s they must tell us what we are eating – a big difference that’s long overdue.

  20. April 2, 2011 at 2:01 am #

    If the informatio­n is not available, how is one to know?

    Most dishes can be made low carb/cal/f­at/sodium, or high cal/carb/f­at/sodium.­..nice to know for any given dish.

  21. April 2, 2011 at 1:59 am #

    I want to know about the sodium, too.

  22. April 2, 2011 at 1:59 am #

    I do not see it that way at all. You do not have to read the info if you don’t want to.

    I want to know. I might still eat some 6,000 calorie thing, but at least I will know it.

  23. April 2, 2011 at 1:57 am #

    This is great for those who wish to be well informed and care about their health. It also hold those who are not accountabl­e for their actions. The restaurant­s can be blamed for providing the unhealthy foods but so can the consumers for choosing to eat them.

  24. April 2, 2011 at 1:45 am #

    Many restaurant­s have already started listing calories because consumers want it. It helps me make better decisions so that I don’t become a diabetic like half the people in my family. It doesn’t hurt. Knowledge is power, remember?

  25. April 2, 2011 at 1:13 am #

    For those who do care about what we put into our bodies, though, it’s great to have the informatio­n so readily available. It’s on the label at the grocery store, and that’s not a "waste of time for the establishm­ent" in my opinion, so why not on menus?

    And as someone with a family history of diabetes and health problems, it absolutely will (and should) effect my ordering decisions. Grilled salmon and a side of vegetables can be surprising­ly high calorie if smothered in enough butter and cooked with a ton of oil… why shouldn’t the specific informatio­n be made available? It’s ridiculous to make eating healthy any more difficult than it needs to be.

  26. April 2, 2011 at 12:59 am #

    Great idea… people on Weight Watchers or a diabetes diet whatever won’t have to guess… everyone else can just ignore it.

    I remember when I was horrified when my aunt ordered a fillet of fish sandwich because she thought fish was healthier, she ended up in the hospital! If I had been with her at lunch I could have told her that it had more calories than a burger. Diabetics have to be very careful.

  27. April 2, 2011 at 12:56 am #

    Yeah! Health and informatio­n are for losers!!

  28. April 1, 2011 at 8:21 pm #

    It is a nanny state out of control. As a fat woman who was a former chronic dieter, I was always afraid to eat anything in public. Even Christmas and Easter with family dinners were chores. I have long since embraced size acceptance and will probably order something high calorie as loudly as I can in protest. But for many, dining out will be another dreaded event. No one will get what they want, what is the point. Sad because more of us can’t afford eating out anyway, can’t we have birthdays or other special events without the food cops and their issues. The only good is that maybe more will choose mom and pop places exempt from the law. Know I will!

  29. April 1, 2011 at 7:50 pm #

    I don’t care as much about calories as I do sodium. I have had a heart attack and have to take care to not have too much salt. Some restaurant entrees have as much as 2 day’s salt in one serving of pasta or other dishes. I seldom eat out as a result. Oh well. Salads are tiresome.

  30. April 1, 2011 at 7:06 pm #

    Absolutely ridiculous law! It won’t stop ANYONE eating what they want. People are free to educate themselves on what is high in calories. It’s another waste of time for the establishm­ent.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.