And it’s not just about buying poster board and listing calorie counts. It’s about figuring out how many calories each item has to begin with.I'm not really seeing why these regulations make sense for a restaurant. But I do see the perverse incentive on grocery stores to get rid of in-store preparations and rely on pre-labeled packaged things.
“All those items have to be sent out to a nutrition lab,” [a Kroger spokesman said]. “That’s a pretty big undertaking... These regulations make sense for a restaurant, but that’s not the case for a bakery in a grocery store... We might have thousands of SKUs for birthday cakes and thousands of types of prepared pizza. The problem is it forces us to label all of that, down to the olive bars and salad bars.”
May 13, 2013
"Big grocers have big problems with Obamacare’s calorie labels."
"[I]f forced to comply, Krogers would need to spend $20 million to come into compliance with the new regulations."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
99 comments:
Typical leftist government stupidity. Wasting people's money on crap. If you are dumb enough to need a calorie count in a baked goods section calories are the least of your problems.
We should just offer to bribe the DNC if they will help get rid of this all time biggest clusterfuck of a law. We'll just send them big checks if they get it repealed. It would be worth a lot of money from each of us to avoid this disaster. Thousands and thousand per person. You will be paying and dealing with this the rest of your life like you just had another child, that never grows out of its diapers.
Dear Wonkblog,
It's Kroger or Kroger's. Not Krogers.
God forbid they write about Piggly Wiggly.
I'm not really seeing why these regulations make sense for a restaurant.
Because a restaurant has fewer items on their menu and they don't change as frequently?
In Whole Foods for example, hot and cold bars have more than 20 prepared items each..
Isn't the problem here an obese and gluttonous government? How do we solve that?
This is the worst kind of regulation. If consumers wanted it and were willing to pay for it those labels would already be in common use.
A simple solution is one sign in the bakery section that says: Stuff in here can make your ass huge.
By law in California we have signs in virtually every public place that say essentially there are carcinogens present in this building. They are so ubiquitous that they are now effectively invisible and serve no purpose whatsoever. Obamacare is full of that crap.
Lefties could care less about what the cost of doing business is for any business large or small. As long as they can bleat that they have the highest ideals in mind they will be patted on the back by university hacks and various media cretins. Quit whinning.
goodbye deli counter.
Guess who will pay for that $20 million in additional costs for Kroger's?
Isn't the problem here an obese and gluttonous government? How do we solve that?
It used to be having informed voters kicking the rascals out. However, with what appears to be a decisive majority that relies on the government teat, I fear its only going to get far worse.
Indeed. Seems Kroger's is a bit egocentric in their argument. Why is their instore bakery any different than a stand alone restaurant bakery?
Look on the bright side. If all those prepared foods in the markets disappear people will have to learn to cook. Won't they?
Obama's Forward resembles Mao's Great Leap Forward. morons who have never done anything telling people "you're doing it wrong".
Follow the money. If this stands, a lot of money will go to those nutrition labs to test thousands of products. It'd be interesting to see how many of those labs are big Obama donors. He has a track record of doing things that channel money to his cronies.
If all those people now have to cook, that falls right into the lap of the folks that want to pay people to cook at home...
Soon enough there will be a government agency that does nothing but go around breaking grocers' windows.
I read the calorie counts on the frozen dinners I buy, and do not believe they are anything but shots in the dark.
I do not think it is that easy to determine the calories in a frozen dinner to start with, and then it is unpredictable how the different ingredients will interact, besides different people have different metabolisms. And of course, nominally the same ingredients will have different calories depending on where they were grown and what the weather was like.
This is all a bunch of you know what, even for factory processed foods!
If you know the caloric count of the ingredients (flour, lard, sugar,...) and I think those are well known, you should be able to compute the caloric content of the finished product. And it's not like the Govt has the time to take your supermarket cruller, deemed to contain 210 calories (isn't it strange that calories are always a round number?), and test it to make sure.
Unless you're run by Conservatives, of course.
Kroger (KR) is up about 20% YTD.
You may add this to all of the other Administration's efforts to weaken and destroy the USA.
Bagoh20,
Don't forget the pregnant labels and the general alcohol labels, and...
I blame Moochelle
From here on I refuse to eat anything prepared in my house since it isn't labeled with calorie information. I cooked an African dish last night but now I simply can't eat it because I don't know how many calories it contains. I forgot to measure the ingredients (well, it's a cook-by-sight recipe so there are no measurements) so now I have to throw it out.
'Obama's Forward resembles Mao's Great Leap Forward. morons who have never done anything telling people "you're doing it wrong".'
Mao was a Johnny come lately in this case. Take a look at the Schlecter chicken supply house interactions with FDR's New Deal inspectors in the 1930's.
bagoh20 said...
It would be worth a lot of money from each of us to avoid this disaster.
And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
But we've proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane.
It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
For fear they should succumb and go astray;
So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
You will find it better policy to say: --
"We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
No matter how trifling the cost;
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
And the nation that pays it is lost!"
Dane-Geld
I'm just glad that because of their opposition to Obamacare Kroger's is finally being called what it is: A Big Grocer (you know kind of like that evil WalMart). Nothing irks me more than the NIMBY's protesting a Walmart as taking away from "local grocers" and saying, "They should put in a local store, like King Soopers (Kroger owned)."
Send 3 identical Healthy Choice dinners to 3 different laboratories and you will get back 3 different calorie counts.
It's a fraud to start with.
Professor, are you in favor of this at all?
How do we even get up in the morning?
We need legislation from Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi that forces us to hang a sign at every front door in the nation that reads:
"Caution, life is scary and you might die. Best to stay inside and wait for your government check to arrive. Two and a half Men is on the TV, full of pro-democrat propaganda goodness. Smoke pot and have casual sex. We will provide the Morning After Pill to you at no charge! Please begin your day with this blue pill and your official pro-Obama incantations. Also, MSNBC will be available on cable at Tea Party expense. Those
extremists are forced by the IRS to pay for your perfect life."
Kroger is pretty big. It's the small grocer who can't afford it.
(Kroger has lost a half million on one store around me on just power failure food spoilage, and it's not worth their money to put in generators, which would cost per store. Labelling though spreads out its cost across stores.)
Which is all the more reason we need to heavily regulate "Big Food".
"Professor, are you in favor of this at all?"
No.
It would be much quicker to remove all the intermediate steps and go straight to soylent green which the UN has just recommended be made out of dead bugs. In which case I guess it will have to be called soylent grey or, more aptly and enticingly, Cucaracha.
Calories in calories out is bullshit anyway. Stop worrying about calories and worry about eating things that don't cause you to become fat.
Of course the govt is going to regulate the shit out of this and force companies to spend millions on crap information.
"Because a restaurant has fewer items on their menu and they don't change as frequently?"
I think that depends on the restaurant. Particularly restaurants that try to be innovative and responsive to their customers' requests.
I agree with Ann: This no more makes sense for restaurants than for grocery stores. Or, if it makes sense for "chain" restaurants, it also makes sense for any restaurant with a fixed menu. Hey, if the recipe doesn't change, it's not like you have to the calorie calculation more than once.
I doubt the Kroger's spokesman's suggestion that Kroger's (or anyone else, for that matter) might have "thousands of SKUs" for prepared pizzas. It's true that if a grocery store chain (or a chain pizzeria, for that matter) had to list every possible combination of ingredients, toppings, half-and-half topping combinations, &c. on the menu, it would be a useless menu, because it would be enormous and impossible to organize systematically.
That's why it's never done that way. No one has a SKU for "medium deep-dish, marinara sauce, cheese, sausage and bell peppers and olives 1/2, pepperoni and garlic and mushrooms and fresh basil other half."
But it wouldn't be impossible to have calorie counts for (1) a basic pizza (cheese, sauce, no toppings); and then (2) calorie counts for a whole or half pizza's ration of each particular topping for each size pizza. It would still be cumbersome as hell, and would require customers who can do basic addition (who grow less numerous by the day), but not impossible.
I've noticed, incidentally, that the San Francisco Chronicle's Food section, while generally providing calorie figures for recipes it publishes, won't do so for anything involving a marinade, because it's too difficult to tell how much of the marinade is going to end up in the actual dish.
Ann Althouse said...
"Professor, are you in favor of this at all?"
No.
Thank you.
MadisonMan said...
If you know the caloric count of the ingredients (flour, lard, sugar,...) and I think those are well known, you should be able to compute the caloric content of the finished product. And it's not like the Govt has the time to take your supermarket cruller, deemed to contain 210 calories (isn't it strange that calories are always a round number?), and test it to make sure.
Unless you're run by Conservatives, of course."
Tell us again who the micromanager/nanny-types are?
Around here the Kroger's subsidiary is Fred Meyer. The local store is as I've seen Wal-Mart "super-stores" described (I actually have never been in a Wal-Mart). One end is a very comprehensive grocery store, including (yes) an in-house bakery. The middle is mostly clothing. The far end is a pretty good hardware and gardening outfit, with an extensive outdoor nursery. The hardware part isn't on the level of, say, Ace, possibly because there's an Ace a couple hundred yards up the street.
There are a lot of things you can't buy there, but in the ordinary run of things, not all that many that you're likely to need immediately. The main problem is finding stuff; the place is huge. (In fairness, the staff are great; you need but ask. Some people still really hate doing that, though. Like me.)
A simple sure fire way to count calories: if you like it has too many calories. If you hate it it's low cal.
Follow the money. If this stands, a lot of money will go to those nutrition labs to test thousands of products. It'd be interesting to see how many of those labs are big Obama donors. He has a track record of doing things that channel money to his cronies.
The IRS will get right on that...
Labeling Requirements
Inspection, Compliance and Enforcement Guide (from before the new rules)
Seems pretty simple compared to quantum physics.
A reasonable compromise would be to establish just a couple of calorie categories, the way meat is graded.
Instead of "prime", "choice", etc., there'd be "tasteless", "fattening", and "hello, lardass!".
If everything government spent money on was seen through the prism of how many average individual taxpayers are needed to fund this or that it would put in perspective just how awful big government has become. Imagine if the IRS sent you a letter stating you have been chosen to have your annual tax payments allocated just for promulgating this regulation.
These posted lists do have an effect. I stopped going to Starbucks. There's so many skinny people buying stuff there that it lulls you into a false sense of virtue. But their products are truly virulent. I go to Dunkin Donuts, partially because the coffee is better but also because it is frequented by so many lard asses that their presence serves to inhibit consumption.
MadMan, one can calculate the total calories in any dish by adding up the calories of all the ingredients. One can then determine a "serving" and divide the total by the servings to get calories per serving. But what if your serving has more sausage than your dinner partner's serving? Might your serving have more calories? Yes. Because you only get average calories per serving when dividing the total by the number of servings.
With a cake from the bakery - the customer is not, I repeat, not going to cut the "serving size". Any "calories per serving" information will be quite meaningless in the long run.
I like it when they print the words in red "hot" on menus that tells you right off which ones are hot and which ones are safe.
Then they pointed out which items were specifically for vegetarians
Then menus helpfully pointed out which items are ♥-healthy
Then they started pointing out which ones have peanut products in them, or processed in the same plant as peanuts, or at one time possibly looked in the direction of a peanut.
And lately we saw GF, and were wondering, girlfriend? good food? Aha! Gluten free.
It's like we wanted all that or something, as if the information were demanded, because we're all so f'n special.
All that information on the menu, and it was the worst pad Thai ever. The rice comes to you as a solid clump, which tells you the cooks do not know how to deal with rice.
I propose a CAFE standard. One caloric number for the grocer's whole fleet of consumables. Something like:
Kroger's: 642.
That would simplify the analysis. Just dump equal amounts of every item into one bag, send it to the lab, and get the single number back.
... and of course, Kroger can at least afford to comply.
An "independent" store could never afford to, and would simply just rely on an outside vendor.
As always, regulatory overhead harms smaller players and thus helps the larger ones in comparison (even if they, as in this example, would still prefer it not be present in the first place).
Less government seems to always be the solution these days.
I submit that we have more than we need, by rather a lot, not Just Barely Enough To Prevent Anarchy.
Oh, I forgot, no MSG.
They've been listing nutritional info on food packaging for decades now and we're fatter than every. We're fine where we're at. We don't need to expand a nearly worthless policy.
"Kroger (KR) is up about 20% YTD"
I guess that makes this a good idea.
Leland said...
Indeed. Seems Kroger's is a bit egocentric in their argument. Why is their instore bakery any different than a stand alone restaurant bakery?
5/13/13, 11:19 AM
Because their employees are Teamsters, duh.
cubanbob said...
If everything government spent money on was seen through the prism of how many average individual taxpayers are needed to fund this or that it would put in perspective just how awful big government has become. Imagine if the IRS sent you a letter stating you have been chosen to have your annual tax payments allocated just for promulgating this regulation.
It takes the full income taxes of several families to pay for the salary and benefits of a single government employee. For the sake of simple numbers, suppose the average taxpayer paid in $10,000 a year in income taxes. That mean it takes the taxes of 10 such taxpayers to pay for one low-mid grade federal employee.
"This is Fred. He's a mid-level flunky at a government agency. That $10,000 we took from you last year pays for about 200 hours of Fred's time. If Fred actually gave a damn, he might thank you for your contribution to his way of life. But Fred doesn't give a damn. He's a government employee. He doesn't have to give a damn about you or anything else."
Warning: This bread may contain flour.
kimsch, I am unfamiliar with the concept of 'serving size' you talk about when it comes to cakes. Are you saying people sometimes share cakes?
The comments at the linked article come in two flavors:
1) Kroger is rich, they can afford it, this is just another example of an evil rich corporation whining, so stick it to them.
2) I'm both an expert in food testing and a lawyer familiar with this kind of labeling regulation so you can believe me when I tell you you can just add up the calories of the basic ingrediants and you're done. So this is blown out of proportion and Kroger is just an evil corporation etc etc.
(I'm kind of surprised how many comments at this Althouse post are of the second variety.)
BTW, should we start sending cockroaches to these nutrition labs to get ahead of the UN? Does it matter if they are a wood cockroach or not? Because sometimes those wood cockroachs prefer other types of grain.
MadMan, LOL. If there was a like button I'd press it.
There's also this:
We might have thousands of SKUs for birthday cakes and thousands of types of prepared pizza.
How many different pizza combinations?
For a Papa Murphy's:
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker
If you can only use one kind of crust per pizza, and one size per pizza, the total number of topping and cheese combinations (including all the way up to both cheeses and all toppings) comes to 268,435,448 toppings/cheese combos. Multiplying that by the 6 different pizza crust types (3 sizes per crust X 2 crusts) makes 1,610,612,688 different possible pizzas.
If these foods are locally prepared and sold then how does the federal government regulate them? Where's the "interstate commerce" part?
MadisonMan said...
kimsch, I am unfamiliar with the concept of 'serving size' you talk about when it comes to cakes. Are you saying people sometimes share cakes?
I believe it refers to the number of cakes you are expected to consume in a single sitting.
"If it saves even one life..."
Google "Obamacare saves lives"
Doesn't anybody care about the children?
The regulations are really a reverse incentive. Seeing the calorie counts on everything in a restaurant just makes me think that if everything has that many calories anyway, why even try to control calories. The numbers are eye popping. A simple burger and fries is 1600 calories. Even a nice salad with grilled chicken is like 1300 calories. And we're supposed to live on 1500. So, either you stop going to restaurants, EVER, or you stop looking at the calorie counts, in which case, why put them there in the first place, because now you're both fat and plagued with guilt.
This will of course cause slightly higher costs for your food, but the real noticeable effect will be that the store will just offer less variety. Anything that's not popular enough will just not be worth the startup cost to bring it in, so less new stuff, and less unique stuff of limited appeal. It's the usual effect of the left: least common denominator, no choice, boring crap.
Multiplying that by the 6 different pizza crust types (3 sizes per crust X 2 crusts) makes 1,610,612,688 different possible pizzas.
I plan to taste test everyone of those pizzas too.
Unkown wrote:
The regulations are really a reverse incentive. Seeing the calorie counts on everything in a restaurant just makes me think that if everything has that many calories anyway, why even try to control calories. The numbers are eye popping. A simple burger and fries is 1600 calories. Even a nice salad with grilled chicken is like 1300 calories. And we're supposed to live on 1500. So, either you stop going to restaurants, EVER, or you stop looking at the calorie counts, in which case, why put them there in the first place, because now you're both fat and plagued with guilt.
But calories are really not the issue anyway. A hamburger (absent bun) will not raise your insulin levels the way french fries or a soda will. And that's what gets you fat.
Not the calories themselves.It's keeping track of a largely useless measure.
makes 1,610,612,688 different possible pizzas.
My studies show that the 12-inch wheat crust half pepperoni/half black olive with extra cheese and mushrooms under-reported per-slice calorie counts by 6.
To whom do I complain about this outrage?
I should clarify. It's not that calories themselves are useless. Its trying to count them that's useless.
There is no way for you to know how much energy you are burning off when you do varoius excercises and so the calories out side of the equation is useless.
Also, 100 calories of meat versus 100 calories of candy will effect your body differently.
Here's an interesting link that shows what 200 caloris of various food looks like on a plate:
This is what 200 calories looks like
Now take the avocado and take the Smarties candies. If your diet in a day consisted of 1000 calories worth of avocado versus 1000 calories of smarties candies what does that mean? I can't guarantee you would lose weight if you ate avocados, but your insulin levels would be spiking like crazy with the smarties candies. Yet, they're both 1000 calories.
Meaning, the number of calories is irrelevant. What's more relevant is what is consumed.
1000 calories of avocados a day might actually be fine, a thousand calories of twinkies, not so much.
It's not the number, it's what's being consumed.
If you're over the age of 18 and you don't know how much of various junk you can eat without getting fat(ter), then all the calorie counts in the world aren't going to do anything worthwhile. You're either stupid or you don't care.
If you know the caloric count of the ingredients (flour, lard, sugar,...) and I think those are well known, you should be able to compute the caloric content of the finished product.
You probably aren't allowed to do that.
Anybody who cares about how many calories are in things has an app on their phone (or a book, if they are old school). Those calorie counts on menu boards are so distracting that I can't even read a menu at a restaurant anymore.
At a fast food type restaurant, that is.
Strict Compliance is the answer!
The orders are the orders.
The Dems are fast making the Federal Agencies into USMC Drill sargeants commanding we a transform our individual identities and an end civilian life as free people.
Ann Coulter was the first to point out that the Airport rules were uselessly designed to cow us into submissive lines of prisoners who never speak back.
This will of course cause slightly higher costs for your food, but the real noticeable effect will be that the store will just offer less variety
Ding, ding, ding! Forget about your local place serving up some special using an in season veggie or fruit. Instead, they'll serve pre ordered crap that has already been calorie counted.
Kroger used to have a really good little cafe that made burgers and a great breakfast when I was a kid.
And the best part is the full effects of this "train wreck" will be hitting the public just about Election Day next year.
"I do see the perverse incentive on grocery stores to get rid of in-store preparations and rely on pre-labeled packaged things."
Perverse? It's the most logical step the grocery stores could take.
The margin on pre-labeled packaged food is very low, the store prepared food distinguishes one grocery store from another. The high costs on labeling the food will raise the price of the food, lower the demand, lower innovations.
How many food preparers will lose their jobs after losing their employer provided insurance?
Obamacare: destroys jobs, sector by sector. It's coming for yours next.
Obamacare mandates junk food junkies to get their junk food fix, their fattening, artery clogging, heart stopping baked foods from the Mexican owned Hostess Brands.
We don't need no stinkin' grocery stores or restaurants.
The government should just make some People Chow that I get by pressing a bar every morning on my way to pay taxes, I mean, work.
Just another business opportunity for someone who can make a calorimeter. We used a simple one in physics class to determine the caloric content of various objects. All you have to do is burn an object to ash in a calorimeter and measure the temperature rise in the surrounding water bath.
It seems it would be super cheap to make, though it would entail wasting lots of fine birthday cakes and other food.
The nanny gummint that is requiring this nonsense is the same nanny gummint that prohibits labeling beer cans and bottles with the alcohol content!
It is perverse in the sense of disincentivizing service to us, the customers.
Knowing the calorie counts of the ingredients and adding them up, would presumably be from the government listing of such counts and would represent the "official truth," which the establismhment cannot be blamed for relying on.
Kind of like the automobile manufacturer's posting the EPA mileages for their cars, knowing full well that no one drives his car to match the EPA cycle.
People are much too credulous in accepting "Government standards" or "Federal Specifications" to be trustworthy standards they can rely on.
Indeed. Seems Kroger's is a bit egocentric in their argument. Why is their instore bakery any different than a stand alone restaurant bakery?
More choices are available at a Kroger's or any other in store deli. To calcluate the calories in a ham sandwich on a roll, with lettuce or no lettuce, peppers or pickles, swiss cheese or cheddar or provolone or no cheese, mayo or not mayo, mustard or not, tomatoes etc etc etc....The sandwich permutations are endless. Do you think that the store will calculate for all of these or just give you ONE choice of sandwich. Take it or leave it.
Our choices are going to be more and more limited by the meddling of Big Brother. The costs of everything are going to be going up for the same meddling reasons.
We don't NEED to have calories calculated for us. If you can't figure out what is higher in calories than something else, then why should the rest of us have to suffer for your stupidity.
Personally, I either never look at the calories on the restaurant menu or purposely order the higher calorie items. I'm going OUT to eat and it is a treat. Screw the calories.....I want something that tastes GOOD.
"To whom do I complain about this outrage?"
Like many regulations, this one will end up helping the lawsuit industry more than anyone.
This is just another reason (as if any more were needed) to hate fat people.
Pogo said...
We don't need no stinkin' grocery stores or restaurants.
The government should just make some People Chow that I get by pressing a bar every morning on my way to pay taxes, I mean, work.
I think they're working on it.
All they need is BarryCare to provide the raw materials.
I can start ordering thusly: I'd like a small italian sub: 300 calories of bun, 155 calories of salami, 300 calories of bologna, 120 calories of tomato and lettuce, and 55 calories of Eye-talian dressing.
Larry J said...
cubanbob said...
If everything government spent money on was seen through the prism of how many average individual taxpayers are needed to fund this or that it would put in perspective just how awful big government has become. Imagine if the IRS sent you a letter stating you have been chosen to have your annual tax payments allocated just for promulgating this regulation.
It takes the full income taxes of several families to pay for the salary and benefits of a single government employee. For the sake of simple numbers, suppose the average taxpayer paid in $10,000 a year in income taxes. That mean it takes the taxes of 10 such taxpayers to pay for one low-mid grade federal employee.
"This is Fred. He's a mid-level flunky at a government agency. That $10,000 we took from you last year pays for about 200 hours of Fred's time. If Fred actually gave a damn, he might thank you for your contribution to his way of life. But Fred doesn't give a damn. He's a government employee. He doesn't have to give a damn about you or anything else."
5/13/13, 12:36 PM
An excellent comment on why the wit holding tax should be abolished.
Perhaps the next republican Administration should amend the tax return form with a checklist of each and every item in the federal budget and ask each tax payer to tick off the ones they support. That might just motivate congress a bit.
Just when I thought you couldn't make a costlier, clunkier, cost-shifting law, Obama, you go and do something like this.
Bravo!
I had my money on Cash 4 Clunkers as your piece de resistance, but I all I had to do was wait.
And it warms my heart to think of the kind of idealistic rent-seekers and bureau-logues who will benefit most. Just the thought of those green, red, black and brown progressive bedfellows fighting over the spoils and cannibalizing the private sector is enough to make a man proud of his country.
California, here we come, if we're lucky.
Bravo, sir, Bravo!
Close the deli, close the bakery, fire everyone.
Progress!
I think it's a great idea. Most of those deli salads are drenched in fats. We need to protect upper class Americans who shop at Whole Paycheck.
I mean it's not as if you can't buy more stuff in the produce department instead of the in-between aisles. No we need government to FORCE you to buy the right foods.
Remember Kroger employs union workers, so screw 'em.
"Anybody who cares about how many calories are in things has an app on their phone "
That's an excellent point. A person can get the info close enough for government work by looking up a similar item on a smart phone, so all this isn't needed even if you accept the justification for it. Billions of wasted dollars were just saved right there, but nooooooooooo.
Well played Mary Beth. Well played.
And they'll be in at least 2 languages!
Dust Bunny wrote:
More choices are available at a Kroger's or any other in store deli. To calcluate the calories in a ham sandwich on a roll, with lettuce or no lettuce, peppers or pickles, swiss cheese or cheddar or provolone or no cheese, mayo or not mayo, mustard or not, tomatoes etc etc etc....The sandwich permutations are endless. Do you think that the store will calculate for all of these or just give you ONE choice of sandwich. Take it or leave it.
I suppose that Kroger's can have a chart that has every possible ingredient you could possibly put on a sandwich and the customer could then add up the calories, or they could create a program that has all that info and prints it out on your receipt, if you so desire. But it does sound excessive and costly.
Seeing Red wrote:
And they'll be in at least 2 languages!
Shouldn't it also be in braille so that the blind can figure out what the calorie count is?
Is there nothing the Obama Admin can't totally fuck up?
Gee, I was going to buy this large ice cream cake but now that I see the calorie count I guess I won't.
Nobody (okay, very few people) ever look at the calorie count listed on packaged goods. But, hey, let's make grocery stores put calorie counts on their in-house foodstuffs and pass the cost along to the customer. I'm already paying 10 cents extra for each flimsy plastic grocery bag. Pile on more pointless consumer costs. Yay!
Clint Eastwood is right: Leave people alone.
Ann you are a statist.
Post a Comment