April 21, 2010

"I don’t want to be thinking... about how many calories are in this slice of (delicious!) olive bread..."

"...or in that crème brulee or pile of pea shoots sauteed in sesame oil with garlic. And I certainly don’t want to see that information on a menu. Two words that have no place on a good restaurant’s menu: 'Nutrition information.'"

ADDED: I note the phrase "a good restaurant." So is it fine as far as Sifton is concerned to require fast food joints to display the calorie counts? Exactly why?

70 comments:

Fred4Pres said...

I agree. I do not need to be saved.

Mark O said...

I'll take this crap seriously when our slippery president stops smoking. Really. Who smokes these days?

Anyway, that's why you should start dinner with a stiff drink, then you don't care about calories.

SteveR said...

If you have to ask, you don't want to know.

c3 said...

disagree (I do want to know)but I can't say that it "should" be on the menu.

I do however follow the general rule I used to tell my patients (when I had patients)
"If someone else made it probably has a lot of fat and salt"

MadisonMan said...

I agree that Nutrition Information does not belong on a menu. Give credit for a little intelligence to the restaurant patron.

I looked at the linked-to food diary. The man does absolutely no between-meal snacking!

Fred4Pres said...

Restaurant food is loaded...LOADED...with butter. It makes things taste good. If you worry about that, get a salad with no dressing.

k*thy said...

Though I'd be curious to know, I don't, either, need to have the nutritional value in my face. The information wouldn't change my choices. While I'd love to have a slice of pie after dinner at our favorite little diner, I don't always, not b/c I'm obsessing about calories, but because I'm just too full.

rdkraus said...

We could let restaurant choose whether to list this info on their menus, then let their customers decide for themselves if they want to patronize restaurants with or without such menus.

This would involve assumptions that people are (1) free and (2) responsible for themselves.

LOL.

Big Mike said...

I always thought that the point of the nutritional information rule was to force mom & pop restaurants to close in favor of large chains that can afford to do the testing.

Who knew that passing ObamaCare would mean no more Thai food?

mesquito said...

"Good restaurants" should be exempt, of course. Fast-food joints must comply because, you see, that's where stupid people eat. And stupid people need to have the gummint looking out for them.

Oh, and the Olive Garden annd Red Lobster are not Good Restaurants. Of course.

Triangle Man said...

Nate Silver just did an interesting analysis of fast food chicken sandwiches compared to the KFC "Double Down". I probably won't be ordering the chipotle chicken sandwich at Panera anymore.

Putting the nutritional information on the menu will interfere with its marketing value, but I wouldn't mind having the information someplace handy.

rhhardin said...

I'd prefer foot-pounds.

There's no reason to go metric.

Richard Dolan said...

"So is it fine as far as Sifton is concerned to require fast food joints to display the calorie counts?"

It's a subject he doesn't address, and his silence doesn't permit an inference one way or the other. Nor is his silence surprising, since we expect restaurant critics to review places that might interest his readers. Fast food joints don't make the cut.

Nanny Bloomberg does have a view on these things. But there is no reason to believe that Sam Sifton, son of the late Judge Charles Sifton of the EDNY, shares those views. The whole tone of his piece is that of a Food Libertarian, a guy who wants the food on the plate to be freed from politically correct diktats so that its taste and presentation are the focus of attention.

Brava, Ann. You've finally found something in the NYT worth reading.

Christopher said...

>>I note the phrase "a good restaurant." So is it fine as far as Sifton is concerned to require fast food joints to display the calorie counts? Exactly why? <<

Because to paraphrase InstaGlenn, following government mandates is for the little people.

mesquito said...

If you really want to know what a Good Restaurant is, it's the kind of joint where you'd take a picture of the place setting and put it on your blog.

vet66 said...

Mesquito; you have it exactly right. For us proles in the flyover states we need the elites to tell us how to keep in eat properly. It is the drudgery of noblesse oblige that requires them to "teach your children well" with apologies to CSN&Y.

They can then enjoy their scantily plated french fare without a hint of remorse because, you see, it is their due. We are such children, after all.

Joseph said...

If you don't want to know, don't look at the nutrition information. But lots of people do want to know. Disclosure isn't a cure-all, but I think its often the best compromise between banning bad things and having no regulation whatsoever. More information makes for a more efficient marketplace.

PatCA said...

I think the DEA needs to go to his apartment and take his salt.

chuckR said...

As Americans, we have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of published nutritional data at all eateries of any type.
Further, I look forward to having to estimate a similar breakdown for all home cooked meals and to transmitting that data to BHO's health care nutritional surveillance unit, the better to demonstrate that I have been a right(or is it left)eating subject of the state.

wv: nisess - the on-going intrusion of government into strictly private matters is not nisess.....

Dust Bunny Queen said...

So is it fine as far as Sifton is concerned to require fast food joints to display the calorie counts? Exactly why?

He didn't say anything of the kind. You are putting words into his mouth, instead of creme brulee. I gathered from his article that he thinks the obsession with calories is rather dumb. I also sense some irritation with the food Nazis that want to control the fine pleasure of eating and dining.

Since, as a food critic, he probably never eats at anything less than a "good" restaurant, I don't think he was implying that other "less good" restaurants should have calorie/nutrition information.

Restaurant eating....even McDonald's....is not daily fare. If I want to go to a restaurant and eat a fat laden, high calorie, high sugar, high salt, completely unhealthy meal that is accompanied by liquor and desserts: that is MY business.

The government wants to think that we are all too stupid to control our personal lives and "for our own good" they will take control of everything.

mesquito said...

Disclosure isn't a cure-all, but I think its often the best compromise between banning bad things and having no regulation whatsoever.

Oh, my. We are truly fucked.

rdkraus said...

Disclosure isn't a cure-all, but I think its often the best compromise between banning bad things and having no regulation whatsoever.

Every time you make one of these little compromises, you kiss off a little more freedom.

Until you have none.

Superdad said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joseph said...

Every time you make one of these little compromises, you kiss off a little more freedom.

Perhaps it decreases the freedom of chain restaurants to deceive their customers. But those customers also gain the freedom to make more informed choices, which I think is a more valuable freedom.

Superdad said...

If you want to know - ask to talk to the chef about it. If they won't let you vote for a place that will by spending your money there. If the market demonstrates that people want this information it will become available. But you can't complain about not having that information available if you have never asked for it. The market works when the actors actually act instead of whining like little children to momma regulator.

And Fred - get the dressing. Many of the vitamins and minerals in a typical salad are fat soluble so you need a little dressing to get the good stuff into your system.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

If you don't want to know, don't look at the nutrition information. But lots of people do want to know. Disclosure isn't a cure-all, but I think its often the best compromise between banning bad things and having no regulation whatsoever. More information makes for a more efficient marketplace.

If you want to know.....cook at home and use a software program that gives YOU the information and leave the rest of us alone.

The purpose of these rules are to control our personal choices.

In addition....these rules add needless costs to companies and small businesses that will eventually drive them out of business.

Then we will be left with a few national chains that produce their food in central manufacturing sites. All food will be standardized, portion controlled, frozen, shipped to the location, stored for months or even years until ordered and then microwaved.

This control will ensure that ALL dishes are exactly the same. Tasteless, uninspiring, boring and very expensive compared to the cost of assembling the fresh, real ingredients.

If this is the world you want to live in, feel free to buy your standardized uniform and get your shopping list from the government and be sure to report those who you see sneaking a bit of Fettucini Alfredo on the side.

mesquito said...

Perhaps it decreases the freedom of chain restaurants to deceive their customers.

Because, you see, they (the customers) are stupid.

kimsch said...

Fast food restaurants and many others have their nutrition information posted online. You can go to McDonalds.com, bk.com or panerabread.com and get the information.

A good site for checking the nutrition information per serving of something you cook (and you decide how many servings it ends up being) is sparkpeople.com. It has information on lots of packaged prepared foods and you can add nutrition information from packages too.

wv: miang = the name for my next asian inspired dish.

Edmund said...

Putting the nutritional information on the menu will interfere with its marketing value, but I wouldn't mind having the information someplace handy.


It is available already at chains, just ask. Just for grins I asked at a national burger chain and was handed a chart with data similar (if not identical) to the mandated nutrition labels on food packaging.

The change in the law that goes into effect after the rulemaking is done is to require it on the menu in any restaurant with more than 20 outlets. Presumably, most "good" restaurants won't have more than 20 outlets and won't have to comply. I expect that drive thru signs and the indoor ones will now be the size of billboards. The complicance costs are going to be huge.

I have read one story already of a local pizza chain that is probably going to close one of their 21 outlets so that they don't have to comply.

wv: snesses - the mess from a series of bad sneezes

MadisonMan said...

If I want to go to a restaurant and eat a fat laden, high calorie, high sugar, high salt, completely unhealthy meal that is accompanied by liquor and desserts: that is MY business.

Are you buying? Can I come? (chuckle)

If you want to know the calories in a food, ask your server, who ought to know how it's prepared. If it embarrasses you to ask, feign a food allergy so you have to know exactly what's in it.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Perhaps it decreases the freedom of chain restaurants to deceive their customers.

It also decreases the freedom of ALL restaurants to change their menus without huge costs.

It decreases the freedom of restaurant cooks to be inovative and change the recipies on the fly.

It decreases the freedom of restaurants to use fresh grown local ingredients as they are in season.

It decreases the freedom of the restaurant to add popular ingredients, delete unpopular ingredients or meals, cater to local preferences over national regulations, or create daily specials.

It decreases the freedom of the restaurant patrons to ask for additions or changes to their meals. Can't make changes ....it isn't in the gummbent approved nutrition list.

The costs of complying with the government regulations and mandatory nutrition labeling on menus and daily special menu boards is prohibitive and curtails the freedom to run your business as you AND your customers see fit.

Want more?

I used to own a restaurant/smoked food deli, so I do know a bit about this.

VW: sodely. What Joeseph would like all of our food to taste like.

Harsh Pencil said...

How the hell is a pizza chain going to comply with this? As it is now, the number of combinations when it comes to toppings is huge. I suppose they could put the calories of every damn topping on their menu. But will they have to make sure the 16 year old making the pizza measures every damn pepperoni? Ugh.

Maguro said...

Perhaps it decreases the freedom of chain restaurants to deceive their customers.

Get real, people already know restaurant meals are fattening but they like to eat there anyway. No one is being decieved.

pm317 said...

"So is it fine as far as Sifton is concerned to require fast food joints to display the calorie counts? Exactly why? "

Simple, silly! People who eat at fast food joints are poor, ignorant hicks and don't know any better -- they need to be told what is good for them; they need to be regulated/controlled by well meaning, good intentioned elite forces. People who dine in fine restaurants are educated, enough to know the harm it causes if consumed everyday or if they did risk it, they have the money to take care of themselves and they know that. Understood?

Joseph said...

DBQ: Not one of those things you list are true. I've worked in chain restaurants. The rule only applies to chain restaurants which already have hyperstandardized food choices, don't incorporate seasonal ingredients, don't allow their cooks to be innovative. Nothing in the rule would prevent restaurants from making changes requested by the customers. The costs associated with listing the info associated with already standardized menu choices is very minimal. The cost associated with changing the menu to accommodate new menu items is also minimal as these restaurants do so already with frequency.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

The rule only applies to chain restaurants which already have hyperstandardized food choices,

So far. Haven't you heard of 'mission creep'. You also don't live in California...do you? Nanny State squared.

Name me ONE government program that didn't expand beyond the initial intention or stated goal. It is a foot in the door to control everything we do.


The costs associated with listing the info associated with already standardized menu choices is very minimal

Minimal....I do not think that word means what you think it means.

If Olive Garden changes even ONE item on the menu, all of the menues nationwide need to be changed under these regulations. That doesn't seem to be so minimal to me.

Control freaks like you and the government food police Nazis should just STFU and mind your own business.

Contrary to what you think, people are smart enough to be able to make their own decisions. Keep pushing us and the decisions we eventually make, may surpise and dismay you.

On the other hand....at least the stupid rules have created a business opportunity for someone.

Slow Joe said...

Frankly, the fast food places have done a much better job being responsible than the fancy restaurants.

You can eat healthy, and have a pretty good idea what the implications are of your meal, at most major chain fast food places.

You have a much harder time at Cheesecake Factory, Macaroni Grill, or mush worse, a bona fide 4 star establishment.

So the whining is probably borne of ignorance. If you stop drinking the soft drinks, you're already probably doing OK.

Oligonicella said...

Joseph --

"Perhaps it decreases the freedom of chain restaurants to deceive their customers."

And perhaps you're blowing smoke up skirts. Please explain exactly what this deception is that you fear you're being subjected to that you aren't bright enough to figure out on your own.

"But those customers also gain the freedom to make more informed choices, which I think is a more valuable freedom."

They already can in other ways. Those who want to know, will. You, however, want a mandate for everyone who isn't interested. Why?

Joseph said...

"If Olive Garden changes even ONE item on the menu, all of the menues nationwide need to be changed under these regulations. That doesn't seem to be so minimal to me."

But they already change their menus infrequently because it costs money to do so. The fact that nutritional information is included does not increase the cost or the frequency of menu production.

"Contrary to what you think, people are smart enough to be able to make their own decisions. Keep pushing us and the decisions we eventually make, may surpise and dismay you."

People aren't stupid. That's what disclosure is all about: recognizing that they can make decisions for themselves. It gives people access to the information they need to make informed decisions.

Slow Joe said...

In fact, people who really care about this issue buy salads or Subway without mayo.

Or one of the other basic options out there at just about every fast food place. There's clearly a market for that, and yeah, it's clearly the minority of eaters. Fancier restaurants are far worse at giving a legit healthy option.

Here's the thing: most folks don't want to eat the government's idea of healthy or even their idea of healthy. They'd rather eat unhealthy food and live unhealthier lives, happily.

Some liberals think there's something wrong with this... and want to take away even this simple freedom. Everyone warned about this crap when they decided to take over health care.

Hey, you don't want to eat crap, don't. You think some restaurant sucks, don't eat there. Leave me to my preferences, and if I have to pay the price for that, that's the way personal responsibility should work.

Slow Joe said...

places that don't disclose compete with places that do... what's the problem?

If you want a disclosure restaurant, go to one. It's not complicated.

Slow Joe said...

And the government is plain out of money for enforcement of another set of rules.

If Texas wants to waste their money on this, they can afford to (because they don't waste their money on things like this). But the feds? Hell no. Once they've retired their debt maybe they can think about dominating businesses far outside the actual meaning of interstate commerce, Wickard be damned, such as selling some dude a sandwich.

That's the real problem. A lot of these power grabs have some victim and some concept of 'in this way it will help a little bit... maybe do nothing, but why not'? However, a million things like this have destroyed our future's prosperity and there's no hope to pay off the debt.

So no, democrats, you don't have the money for any more dumb attempts at pretending you're saving the world from my personal lifestyle. Cut out as many regulations as you possibly can leave to the states, and fire 99% of your employees outside the military.

mesquito said...

If you want a disclosure restaurant, go to one. It's not complicated.

Joseph isn't concerned about his own diet, which is no doubt immaculate. He's concerned with everyone else's.

Slow Joe said...

And since the democrats are in a mad frenzy to ban salt and certain fats, I don't want to hear the lie that this is just getting the information out there.

Any honest observer knows this is step 1 of an effort to regulate and ban. Even step 1 is wasteful and outside government's function. But it's just step 1.

Might as well put little yellow stars on my steak this week, pretending that's all you're up to.

Sigivald said...

The reply to Ann's question writes itself - it's boilerplate at this point - so there's no point in bothering.

(And the real practical problem with nutritional info on a "real" restaurant menu is that because the food is not mass-produced to a standard nationwise, and changes more often, it's insanely expensive to have it properly analyzed for content.

McDonalds knows exactly what's in each Big Mac (or close enough on average), and can do that.

But that ribeye you order at the chophouse? How much fat got trimmed off? And should they assume you eat any of the remaining fat?

It's a ludicrous requirement - and makes daily specials either impossible, or their nutritional info pure guesswork.)

Christy said...

Kimsch, thanks for the SparkPeople link. I'd never seen it.

People who care are pretty good at estimating calories, too.

A favorite restaurant in Baltimore,
Dalesio's of Little Italy
, has, or had, a menu page of healthy choices with nutritional info. I'm no longer able to check, and it isn't on the website, but it'd be interesting to see how that worked out for them. I do love that place, they take their wine list seriously. I once spent a late Sunday Summer afternoon, early dinner, with the bartender searching for a Merlot I liked. No luck.

jayne_cobb said...

I think I'm going to stop by McDonald's after class and get a triple quarter pounder.


Oh, and I'll put extra salt on my fries.

Kirk Parker said...

"But they already change their menus infrequently because it costs money to do so. The fact that nutritional information is included does not increase the cost or the frequency of menu production."

You are totally missing the point. Let's say the change to a slightly different oil for frying. No need to change the descriptions on the menu == no need for new menus. But now, suppose that materially changes the calorie count (e.g. it adds or removes 10 calories and the limit of significance is 5.) Now they do have to reprint all their menus, nationwide.

Pogo said...

November 2010 is the last chance we have for liberty to survive in the US, as anything other than a word on faded parchment.

If you want a national nanny to decide what you put in your own mouth, just like mommy used to do, by all means, vote these fascists with smiling faces back in.

But you'll not get another chance to reject this trajectory, not without violence.

kimsch said...

@Christy,

You're welcome. Sparkpeople is free too. I need to get back to tracking my calories and exercise there. It's nice too for tracking all sorts of other things, cholesterol, sodium, sugar, etc.

wv: mershec - what you found when you couldn't find a merlot that you liked ;)

former law student said...

So is it fine as far as Sifton is concerned to require fast food joints to display the calorie counts?

Maybe. Sifton goes on to state his restaurant criticism factors:

Restaurant criticism ought to be about deliciousness and sociology and art. It shouldn’t ultimately be about nutrition, this exchange notwithstanding.

So, as I read this, nutrition information would be relevant only to restaurants that lack all deliciousness, sociology, and art. IOW, McDonald's.

Synova said...

I donno.

Maybe he figures that one goes to a "good restaurant" for the ambiance, for the experience.

And one goes to McDonalds to grab some food.

One does not go to a fancy place to grab some food.

BTW, a salad with no dressing isn't as good for you as a salad with some fat on it. The special green-leafy vitamins are fat soluble (or so I've been told) so you need at least a little fat.

Synova said...

"Please explain exactly what this deception is that you fear you're being subjected to that you aren't bright enough to figure out on your own."

Point.

Pogo said...

Democrats: "We know better than you do what you should put in your own mouth".

kimsch said...

Food Porn Daily is a daily stop for me.

mmmmm

wv: laymeang

kimsch said...

crud, didn't complete the link.

Food Porn Daily

Freeman Hunt said...

Before I go to a restaurant, I look this information up online.

I know, I know, I must be a genius. No one else who wants this information could ever be expected to look it up or ask for it. I guess that's why it needs to be on the menu. By law.

The Government: It protects us from murder, rape, robbery, and ever having to take the initiative about anything.

Joseph said...

"Before I go to a restaurant, I look this information up online."

Good for you. To the extent that information is available online, that's a proactive approach to making healthy choices. But for all kinds of practical reasons most people don't look up the menu and relative nutritional information online for any given restaurant experience before eating out. Most people want to be able to look at the information when at the point when they are naturally deciding what to order. And restaurants don't want to offer that because they fear it will lead to people ordering less and eating out less. And so the government is responding to the public's interest. What a grotesque form of despotism democratic governance is!

Freeman Hunt said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Freeman Hunt said...

But for all kinds of practical reasons most people don't look up the menu and relative nutritional information online for any given restaurant experience before eating out.

Practical reasons like what? Like never bothering to do it?

Two things: (1) You can ask for this information at many restaurants, and they will bring it to you. (2) If you don't like the availability of a certain restaurant's nutritional information, don't eat there.

There are many places that I never, or very rarely, eat because they either don't make their nutritional information available or don't have any options that fit within the parameters I find nutritionally acceptable. I reward the restaurants that offer what I want by giving them my business.

I do not need some government nanny to go bossing everyone around for my supposed benefit, and I'm not so short-sighted as to want a government powerful enough to boss people around over every triviality. Are you?

howzerdo said...

Recently, counties in New York State have been passing laws requiring this. When I heard about the legislation, I thought, "who cares, what a stupid thing to regulate" (but being a lifelong NYer, I am used to this sort of thing).

I was in Dunkin' Donuts a few weeks ago getting a cup of coffee and noticed it had been implemented. They have added a column for calories after every selection on the big menu board behind the counter.

There was nothing all that shocking to me in the donuts or sandwiches, but some of the Coolatas were about a day's worth of calories. Not that I thought they were low-cal, but the extreme numbers shocked me. I see people slugging down Coolatas all the time.

I agree that we should be responsible enough to know what we are consuming on our own, and maybe (probably) seeing it on the menu board won't change behavior that much. Besides, these are private choices, no one's business.

However, I'll bet a lot of Coolata enthusiasts don't know how extreme the calories are in fancy iced coffee. Compared to a fried donut, it probably seems like a good choice.

After seeing the numbers on the menu board, I'm not as irritated by the regulation. The readily available information struck me as a good thing for consumers, and there was plenty of room on the menu board for it.

I still don't think independent restaurants should be required to do it. Without standardization (as Sigivald mentioned), I don't see how it is feasible.

William said...

The calorie counts are listed on the menu boards at Starbucks and Dunkin Donuts. Because of them I have skipped the whipped cream on the mint mocha frappuccino at Starbucks and declined the fried cakes at Dunkin. They really do inhibit your selection, but I won't be wasting away to nothing anytime soon. Starbucks just announced increased earnings this quarter so the effect on their profit margins is about the same as the effect on my waistline, i.e nil. This is pretty much a non issue for everyone involved.....At the high end restaurants the portions are so small, especially of deserts, that the management would probably be ashamed to publish the paltry calorie count. At the neighborhood restaurants, especially Cantonese and Mexican, the calorie counts would probably be a good guide as to the best items on the menu.

HT said...

Thank you Joseph for being a breath of sanity.

Fred Drinkwater said...

Back in, oh, the early '90's, I had a usenet exchange regarding the newly-mandated car child-seat requirements for kids up to 60 pounds. At some point I remarked that the mandate was stupid, and the Govt should limit itself to publishing the NHTSA and DOT reports about risks. (This was just after some independent agency had estimated increased child fatalities due to the increase in long-distance driving caused by the new airline mandates for child seats and the concomitant extra ticket.)

The gist of the responses was "Oh, that's fine for YOU, after all, YOU can READ and keep up on the INFORMATION. What about all those other folks?"

This new calorie chart & salt thing is just more of the same.

Aren't there any ADULTS in the house anymore?

WV: hectio - the process of going to heck in a flower-bedecked handbasket, which ought to at least make the journey less stinky.

Fred Drinkwater said...

Back in, oh, the early '90's, I had a usenet exchange regarding the newly-mandated car child-seat requirements for kids up to 60 pounds. At some point I remarked that the mandate was stupid, and the Govt should limit itself to publishing the NHTSA and DOT reports about risks. (This was just after some independent agency had estimated increased child fatalities due to the increase in long-distance driving caused by the new airline mandates for child seats and the concomitant extra ticket.)

The gist of the responses was "Oh, that's fine for YOU, after all, YOU can READ and keep up on the INFORMATION. What about all those other folks?"

This new calorie chart & salt thing is just more of the same.

Aren't there any ADULTS in the house anymore?

WV: hectio - the process of going to heck in a flower-bedecked handbasket, which ought to at least make the journey less stinky.

Eric said...

Back in, oh, the early '90's, I had a usenet exchange regarding the newly-mandated car child-seat requirements for kids up to 60 pounds. At some point I remarked that the mandate was stupid, and the Govt should limit itself to publishing the NHTSA and DOT reports about risks.

The funny part about that is car seats for children over the age of 2 don't have any statistical effect on child safety vs. normal seat belts. Not only is it nanny-statism, it's nanny-statism based entirely on recommendations from child-seat manufacturers.

Allison said...

I didn't take his "no place in good restaurants" to be slurring fast food joints. I took it to be slurring hipster restaurants that concentrate on *things other than food*. Like "health food" restaurants--such as the places were everything is raw, or everything is vegan, or everything is served in the pitch black by blind waiters.

Those are gimmicks, not good restaurants.

WV: aromel: the petite size smell of your food

Allison said...

btw,

a friend of mine had a brilliant idea:

let's go viral on the idea to send EVERY SINGLE MENU in the country to the FDA and to Congress.

Since they want to tell us where to put the nutritional information, which should give them all of the information they need.

Every menu. Every restaurant in the country should send every menu to Congress and the FDA. I'm sure the FDA has enough people to open that mail, don't you? Same with Congress, right?

Twitter it! Every menu!

Shanna said...

People who care about calories are capable of figuring out about how many are in everything. There are whole books available. We don't need it on a menu (although I do like that mcd's id's their calorie counts on the wrapper).

Ann Althouse said...

"People who care about calories are capable of figuring out about how many are in everything"

I think people lie to themselves about the calories though. The portions are so large that even a high estimate could be way low. No one wants to admit the cheeseburger and fries is a whole day's worth of calories.