The motivating idea is that consumers should be free to make their own choices -- but that those choices should be informed ones. Most restaurants have little incentive to disclose calorie information on their own. The new FDA rule is meant to force such disclosure, and then to rely on the operation of the free market.I'm amazed that this kind of guesswork and casual hopefulness is all that supports such an expensive and troublesome new requirement.
The FDA hopes that once consumers see calorie counts, they will make healthier choices, and there is evidence to support the agency’s optimism.... The evidence is far from unequivocal, however. Some studies find little or no effect....
But... [s]ometimes disclosure requirements affect providers more than consumers, prodding them to change their offerings. As a result of the FDA’s rule, many restaurants, cafeterias, convenience stores, movie theaters, vending machines and so on will offer healthier foods -- at least as long as their customers want to buy them.
December 1, 2014
Cass Sunstein thinks the FDA's new requirement that food sellers post calorie counts "could turn out to be a game-changer."
So the argument that businesses should go through all this expense and trouble is that it just might work.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
114 comments:
"I'm amazed..."
Seriously?
People should be informed; and if a prepared food retailer decided to perform the research, more power to them; but that's not what this is. It's nanny state politics, which cause harm. Those that really don't care whether Mama's famous lasagna is high in calories are forced to pay for those that do. That's wrong, and foolish.
Less the Party of Science, more the Party of Joyless Scolds, making themselves feel justified by reference to truthy-sounding science-y bs.
Worse, there is no consumer demand for this labeling. Consumers are going to pay the cost of the labeling for little practical benefit.
Does anyone really think that popcorn with butter is about the same calories as popcorn without?
worse. This is corporatism at its worst.
The largest chains only have to do this once, or can build systems to allow the franchises to custom count daily menu items.
It will but the smaller chain operations at a disadvantage and throughout the system, reduce menu choice and the employment of fresh products.
The only way to make the rules work is with frozen, portion controlled ingredients...
The food pyramid is another example of credentialed people, told they are now experts, making policies based on flawed science.
They are unaware of how little they know.
Didn't read--did he address the fact that this didn't work at all when they tried it in NYC?
It's an idea that makes a logical sort of sense--if you know how many calories something has, you may be more likely to limit your caolories (or at least it makes this easier for the health conscious). But just as often people just don't care, or they actually want more calories (figuring it'll make them less hungry later in the day) or don't know what the numbers mean (how many calories is unhealthy?).
Curious beat me to it right out of the box.
Eat less, exercise more.
People are fat because they don't do that.
How people like Sunstein think: The average dope doesn't realize that a double bacon cheeseburger is more fattening than a salad. If we just tell them, then they will be fit and healthy.
What do you think the people in these departments do all day? The FDA has people coming up with new rules every day. The EPA has people coming up with schemes to make the air and water microscopically cleaner. God knows what the drones in the Department of Energy do all day, but it sure as hell doesn't involve making any.
Way to go Cass. Another nail in the democrat coffin. Your basic assumption that consumers are ignorant about caloric content, high fat, and high sugar is wrong. They make tradeoffs like foregoing expensive Obamacare which makes lab tests for A1C, cholesterol, tryglicerides, mammograms, prostate cancer, drug/alcohol abuse, etc. more expensive than food and water. Your priorities are wrong and an irritation for all citizens worried about their future.
The proper response to people like Cass Sunstein should be ridicule and laughter.
A microcosm of the whole "liberal/progressive" mindset. If you can dream it it must be achievable. If it isn't achieved it's someone else's fault that they weren't true believers.
I'm amazed that this kind of guesswork and casual hopefulness is all that supports such an expensive and troublesome new requirement.
I'm not. 'A' is 'A'. This is who Progressives are. The slow stroll towards fascism continues.
Another academic telling us how to fix a problem that doesn't exist.
The only problem with Sunstein's thinking is that putting calorie counts would require consumers to be able to add. So now we're back to the failure of the public education system...
Rumpletweezer, you left out my favorite - the Department of Education.
These folks have to keep coming up with new regulatory schemes. How else can they justify pay raises?
Where have you gone, Calvin Coolidge?
When all food items are labeled with calories, and this still doesn't work, the next step will be a gluttony tax and a new elaborate bureaucracy to implement the "Fair Portions Act".
Our government has become way too powerful.
Acting on the slightest whim of progressives.
Perhaps after pushing the carb-heavy food pyramid for so many years, government should get out of the good diet business.
I love how this is put forward as a consumer empowerment rule just before admitting that its best hope for success comes not from consumer demand, but from a lack of consumer objection ("[s]ometimes disclosure requirements affect providers more than consumers, prodding them to change their offerings...at least as long as their customers want to buy them").
The Drill Sgt is exactly right that this is corporate welfare--it favors chain restaurant assembly line food production over the mom and pop "made it just for you" approach. Does anybody think that's better?
A new rule from the Food and Drug Administration will require calorie and other nutrition information to be disclosed by chain restaurants -- including bakeries, cafeterias, coffee shops, convenience stores, movie theaters and vending machines. (my emphasis)
So there's some minor sanity to this rule. Frankly, given the extent to which corporations are able to absorb regulations that single-proprietary businesses cannot, I'm not shedding any tears for the chains.
Moochie unleashed in her last 2 years of harassment of the American people.
"I'm amazed that this kind of guesswork and casual hopefulness is all that supports such an expensive and troublesome new requirement."
Snark, surely.
You are "amazed?"
That is all that underlies most of their stuff when you start looking at it, and question their, "the science is settled."
As for calorie labeling; you really think people do not know which foods are "rich" or "lean" without reading a long list of ingredients and calorie contents? Or that they actually are going to read them?
Especially those the proponents of this nonsense claim they are aiming to "protect?"
Since I am no cook, and don't greatly care, I use a lot of ready-made entrees, and I have long wondered about the calorie contents listed on them, and I suspect that the numbers are mostly based on what the manufacturer thinks will pass the FDA as "a reasonable estimate" rather than any actual "scientific" testing.
And foods inherently vary depending on where and how they were grown, what the weather was like that year, etc., but the list on the packaging never changes.
But Henry,
If you have 19 outlets, are you going to open another?
Better think about that.
Big business go along with a lot of this because they can absorb the cost, and the regulations protect them from competition by the small fry trying to grow bigger.
When you spend somebody else’s money on somebody else you don't care what it costs or what you get. You only care about your control of over other people and enforcing your will.
Hagar wrote If you have 19 outlets, are you going to open another?
If you have 19 outlets, you've already codified your calorie counts for your 90% prepackaged menu. Hell, Sysco probably already did it for you. If you're running a single franchise, your parent company has already done it for you.
The two questions that concern me the most are these:
1) Who will want to go from 1 to 2 (or from x to x+1)? There is always an arbitrary cut-off.
2) How long before the FDA goes for the single-proprietors?
We need an app that can identify undercounts in calories, an app that can lead us to lawsuits against the restaurants for low-balling the calorie counts in their war against human beings.
I would like them to provide a label indicating the percentage-chance the food will cause audible flatulence. This would be especially helpful at fast-food drive-thrus for those groups who are going to be in the vehicle for a long time.
No beans until Spokane.
I am Laslo.
Do you read all the warning, disclaimers, terms and conditions you agree to on all the stuff you buy? Everything has tons of politician required and lawyer enforced crap that no normal person has the time to even read. Now these assholes think the public is going to read nutritional information as they hurry to grab a quick bit to eat at a vending machine, fast food restaurant or food truck?? All this money would be better not spent so food prices could be somewhat lower and more affordable.
When - exactly - did "We the People" give the Feds permission to make us do these things?
I am sure the data indicates the general public does not even read all the currently required warnings and other government crap on everything.
By the way, we all know the relative amount of calories in everything we eat without the Democrats telling us that a bacon double cheeseburger with mayo is fattening.
Oh Lord, how I hate the government. I don't need anyone to tell me that the popcorn I buy at the theater with fake butter is not good for me. I buy it because it's a tasty way to watch a movie!
Same with McDonalds or the fancy French place down the street. I know what's "good" for me. But it usually tastes like dreck...
This will just allow a certain group of people to feel superior because they can show everyone how healthy they can eat. And then one day we'll find...uh...no.
Want to eat healthy, eat at home and fix your own food. Eating out is about treating yourself...for most of us anyway.
An "Operational Definition" of the"Nanny State" AND another effort to weaken and destroy the USA.
How many people does FDA employ to think these things up? Someone's friend has been employed to do this. Probably ex-military, as they are hired preferentially.
As a matter of ACTUAL fact (as opposed to hope or conjecture) several scientific studies have recently surfaced which confirm that people largely ignore calorie count information about their foods--whether in restaurants or in grocery stores..
How people like Sunstein think: The average dope doesn't realize that a double bacon cheeseburger is more fattening than a salad. If we just tell them, then they will be fit and healthy.
I don't think that comes into Sunstein's thoughts at all. I think Sunstein likes telling people when to jump and how high.
Interesting quote, " led customers to reduce their average calories per food purchase by 14 percent.
Consumers bought fewer items..."
So consumers bought "smarter" (as defined by bureaucrats) as well as buying less.
More expense through the regulations, lower sales, greater opportunity for lawsuits, potential to stifle expansion of a chain. Win-win-win-win.
I'm amazed that this kind of guesswork and casual hopefulness is all that supports such an expensive and troublesome new requirement.
Why? It worked for Obamacare...
and Iraq....
and the stimulus....
and Syria....
and Fast and Furious...
Everything about Obama and the Progressives is guesswork and casual hopefulness.
MathMom "I think Sunstein likes telling people when to jump and how high."
Bingo! Cass Sunstein likes to call himself a libertarian, but really he is just another power-mad freak.
"I'm amazed that this kind of guesswork and casual hopefulness is all that supports such an expensive and troublesome new requirement."
This is nothing compared to the EPA.
Why would the idiot who voted for Hope and Change be surprised by this?
Own it.
"So there's some minor sanity to this rule. Frankly, given the extent to which corporations are able to absorb regulations that single-proprietary businesses cannot, I'm not shedding any tears for the chains."
First of all, the very fact that this exempts "non-chain" establishments (or any establishments, for that matter) betrays the whole point of the rule. Why should customers of only some types of eateries be able to enjoy the knowledge of how many calories their meal will contain?
Second, as the answer to the first question will likely have to do with the ability of the vendor to absorb the costs of reprinting menus and signage, just because some "chains" (and I emphasize "some" because of course many chains are actually losing money, and others are opperated at a razor thin margin franchise level--why should a francisor of a McDonalds be treated differently than an owner of a stand alone burger joint?) can absorb these costs doesn't mean that those costs won't have negative consequences at the employee, customer or supplier level. That's still money from the company, and shareholders/owners are loathe to cut their own profits and as usual will first see where else they can cut costs or increase prices to make up the shortfall. The counterman who loses a nonessential shift will bear the brunt of sagging profits before Joe Shareholder takes a lower distribution.
"Cass Sunstein likes to call himself a libertarian"
Yikes!
A frozen meal by one manufacturer is listed with 325 calories. Substantially the same meal, same ingredients, same amounts, tastes and feels the same, by another manufacturer is listed with 520.
I don't believe it much.
@Original Mike
Really.
LOL, the people who self-identify at times as Libertarian !
Why not? It doesn't cost the government anything, and there is always a chance it can be a revenue-generating fine machine.
By the way NONE of this money will be paid for by businesses.....every penny will come from the public who eat food. At the margin food prices will rise a bit and the public will have less money to spend on things they value.
So let's try a little Obama adviser fusion:
When dealing with businesses, a well informed pubic is a good thing, as it helps them make the correct decisions.
When dealing with government, a well informed pubic is a bad thing, as it prevents them from making the correct decisions.
Brando said: why should a francisor of a McDonalds be treated differently than an owner of a stand alone burger joint?
Because the parent company will provide the information.
The counterman who loses a nonessential shift will bear the brunt of sagging profits before Joe Shareholder takes a lower distribution.
That's a valid point, but I expect the costs will be far lower than the outcry suggest. Most of the food sold in chain venues is essentially pre-made in a factory setting where razor-thin margins of profit are maintained by razor-thin margins of error in foodstuff measurement. It would be a simple matter of quality control to add calorie count to the database.
In almost comical contrast, one should imagine what happens if Sunstein's scheme succeeds. Almost by definition the outcome would be to put the chain franchise out of business except in the highest trafficked areas.
That, of course, is comically unlikely to happen.
Cass Sunstein likes to call himself a libertarian
Libertarians like legal pot. I'll bet Cass passes Test #1.
Libertarians want the government to get out of our faces. Cass fails Test #2. Bigtime.
I like Laslo's question - how many calories is"Cass Sunstein"?. I say we find out by empirical analysis.
Henry,
"A new rule from the Food and Drug Administration will require calorie and other nutrition information to be disclosed by chain restaurants -- including bakeries, cafeterias, coffee shops, convenience stores, movie theaters and vending machines. (my emphasis)
So there's some minor sanity to this rule. Frankly, given the extent to which corporations are able to absorb regulations that single-proprietary businesses cannot, I'm not shedding any tears for the chains."
Understand, this sort of regulation that starts with an arbitrary size cut off sees the size go down over time. If chains of 20 or more are forced to do labeling to inform the consumer, why let a chain of say 16, or 10, or 5, or eventually 2 continue to bamboozle the consumer?
If I recall correctly the Federal income tax originally topped out at 5% and applied to only a sliver of the population.
Yeah, this cutoff makes as much sense as the cutoff of punishing campus "rapists" only if they go to the college of the claimant.
No beans until Spokane.
The Beasties' lesser-known follow-up to No Sleep 'Til Brooklyn.
"Because the parent company will provide the information."
Costs borne by the parent company will certainly affect the franchisees--the likes of Susstein tend to think the only effect of these things would be some insanely rich guy buying a slightly cheaper Rolls Royce next year. But these things tend to affect either customers or low level employees (as they say, s*it rolls downhill).
As to the low costs, I understand that for a single location the cost of putting this info up isn't huge. And I don't mind government mandates that cost money to businesses where the overall benefit to society is far greater than the cost--for example, health codes requiring employees to wash hands may cost the employer quite a bit, but preventing widespread sickness can balance that out. Posting calorie counts has very dubious benefits here, and seems to be being pushed as "hey this might work, let's do it" rather than "do customers really need to know that a Big Mac is unhealthy?"
Now, if a vendor is selling salads and advertising them as "low calorie" or "healthy" then I have no problem with the government coming after them for fraud if the salads are calorie bombs. But otherwise, let's cater to common sense and stop babyfying the public. We're gradually becoming a society where we lower ourselves to the lowest common denominator.
You've got posting diarrhea again, Laslo.
How about saving your thoughts up for a second or two, and putting them in one big awesome post?
"I'm amazed that this kind of guesswork and casual hopefulness is all that supports such an expensive and troublesome new requirement"
Sort of like voting for Obama.
Nutrition data on packaged foods haven't exactly turned supermarkets into paleo-diet heaven. I take the FDA's claims with a grain of salt (sodium, 35 mg).
The Obama admin doesn't so much change the game but the rules of the game, midstream, on a whim.
Posting calorie counts is just the first step. Once they have restaurants determining and posting calories, the next step will be telling them how many calories can be in a given item.
It will be like CAFE Standards. CAFE standards for cafes.
I'm amazed that this kind of guesswork and casual hopefulness is all that supports such an expensive and troublesome new requirement.
1) Something must be done.
2) This is something.
3) This must be done.
The reason so many conservatives are skeptical of government answers to problems is rooted in the cause of your amazement.
Please. Sometimes the elites are idiots. I see the calories and blank. Don't care.
I know they're on the sign and still don't care. If I want orange chicken I get orange chicken. Don't care about the calorie count.
Lots of otherwise intelligent people have the intention heuristic, "If people mean well, the results will probably be good. If they don't, the results probably will be bad."
For a contrary view, there is Adam Smith (from Book 1 Chapter 2 of The Wealth of Nations) "[Unlike] almost every other race of animals], ... man has almost constant occasion for the help of his brethren, and it is in vain for him to expect it from their benevolence only. He will be more likely to prevail if he can interest their self-love in his favour, and show them that it is for their own advantage to do for him what he requires of them. Whoever offers to another a bargain of any kind, proposes to do this. Give me that which I want, and you shall have this which you want, is the meaning of every such offer; and it is in this manner that we obtain from one another the far greater part of those good offices which we stand in need of. It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages."
And the famous invisible hand quote (from Book 4 Chapter 2 of The Wealth of Nations):
"But the annual revenue of every society is always precisely equal to the exchangeable value of the whole annual produce of its industry, or rather is precisely the same thing with that exchangeable value. As every individual, therefore, endeavours as much as he can both to employ his capital in the support of domestic industry, and so to direct that industry that its produce may be of the greatest value; every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. It is an affectation, indeed, not very common among merchants, and very few words need be employed in dissuading them from it."
Cass Sunstein has let us know for a while who he is.
Much better to be at the top of the food pyramid, empowering the 'workers' at the bottom.
"SomeoneHasToSayIt said...
You've got posting diarrhea again, Laslo.
How about saving your thoughts up for a second or two, and putting them in one big awesome post?"
Thanks for drawing this to my attention. I don't like diarrhea. I have deleted all of my comments except one. Hopefully that makes your reading experience more enjoyable.
I am Laslo.
Catastrophic Anthropogenic Gastric Caloric Consumption (CAGCC) is another threat that will end the world. However, the threshold of CAGCC will vary widely between individuals, between days, between geographies, between lifestyles, between ages, which ensures that models are only good for planners, but human beings will still be required to monitor their own systems. The global statistic will mislead people and will cause misaligned development in individuals who are not aware of local conditions.
This disadvantages small chain owners (3 - 5 locations) in favor of big businesses that can be more readily shaken down for campaign contributions. What's new? Democrats hate small business owners, and this has been true as far back as I'm aware.
Still, it could be worse for them. They could be small business owners in Ferguson. In Ferguson key components of the Democrat coalition (poor blacks egged on by white gentry progressives) burned the small businesses to the ground.
Stupid. It's already available. All the big fast food joints have nutritional information on their websites and information sheets under the counter - many with sodium and cholesterol counts. Taco Bell has a Fresco menu if you want to order healthier. Funny, I never do. Applebees has Weight Watcher items on the menu and even if you aren't a WW, everyone knows those are the healthier choices. Check out
Dotties Weight Loss Zone for your local chains.
Let's face it, if all of us are paying for your health care, we all get a say so over your risky behavior. Unless you are having unprotected sex. That cannot be gainsaid. (Yes, I know Althouse hates that word, but in its fustiness it conveys my disgust with political correctness.)
"I'm amazed that this kind of guesswork and casual hopefulness is all that supports such an expensive and troublesome new requirement. "
really Ann??? this is pretty typical for nanny state. they base their decisions on the thinnest "evidence"
I wonder if the White House Chefs post the calories on the State Dinner menus.
I'm amazed that this kind of guesswork and casual hopefulness is all that supports such an expensive and troublesome new requirement.
Really? This is ALL the government can do.
We have that here in Seattle.
As far as I can tell, no one pays any attention to the new information.
About 10 years ago I watched the NIH testify before Congress about obesity. They recommended funding (go figure) for a massive information campaign about the evils of obesity. Everyone of the "experts" were grossly overweight.
I guess information isn't the answer.
Cass Sunstein is thinking of changing his name to Ass Sunshine.
For obvious reasons.
The founder of a major sports bar in Ohio came to speak to our Rotary Club when I lived in the midwest. His was an entertaining presentation on the considerations of opening a new type of business, that he ultimately went on to franchise and make a lot of money out of.
They specialized in typical sports-bar food, in other words, stuff that is not good for you. At one point he decided he should put calorie counts on his menu.
He said the only person who ever commented on the addition was his mother, who reprimanded him for serving so much fat food.
I wonder if the White House Chefs post the calories on the State Dinner menus.
Wouldn't it be awesome if that was asked at a Press Conference?
Scott M,
"1) Something must be done.
2) This is something.
3) This must be done."
The underpants gnomes are determining our national policies - not Valerie Jarrett and Michelle Obama.
And the constitutional authority for this is?
I would like to put a nutritional label on Cass Sunstein. With an industrial stapler.
Joe:
Commerce Clause. Everything and Obamacare can be argued to fall under the Treasury's jurisdiction. It's the ultimate double-edged sword that the Founders could not have predicted.
"I'm amazed..."
Seriously?
----
They are unaware of how little they know.
Thread enders.
Cass is clearly misinformed if he thinks Americans, as a whole, will read the lists and decide on that basis. He's a Leftie, and they do believe such things.
The more I hear Sunstein talk, the less I care about what he has to say.
Is he unaware that this experiment has already been tried in California and doesn't do anything?
(Even if "working" justified the intrusion, which it doesn't.)
More than just feel-good policy.
And the people behind this know exactly what they are doing.
This is another addition to the mass of regulation that burdens business.
This is a deliberate process of expanding the regulatory bureaucracy and, more importantly, the mass of consulting firms that feed off regulatory requirements. With every such set of rules there will come requirements to test, report compliance, inspection, oversight, exception handling, appeals, courts, lawsuits, etc. There will be specialists in all these areas making their living off the rules, and more than likely recruiting from the bureaucracy in an incestuous loop.
All this will add burdens to smaller or new entrants into the field, serving as a barrier to entry and an obstacle to small businesses.
Same process that has been ongoing for decades, paralyzing the economy. Its being sucked to death by leeches, and this is how the leeches work.
If you read Why We Get Fat, the argument is that calories, and calorie counting is in fact bullshit. You can't actualy count calories, nor work off precise numbers of calories by excercising. The issue is not calories but what you're eating. Things that drive insulin levels are what determine fat in body. Not calories.
So, here we are spending money forcing restaurants to list stats that may in fact be useless for weight loss.
It's mind-blowing to read through the text of the FDA rule on this. But it provides a breathtaking peek into the bureaucratic mind on overdrive. And just imagine the time spent on coming up with something like this:
Initial Nutrition Analysis
We estimate the annual number of the largest restaurant chains that will need to produce substantiation of their standard menu items to be 541 (503 covered restaurant chains + 38 voluntary restaurant chains) with an average of 117 unique menu items that will require an initial nutrition analysis. This leads to 63,297 (541 chains × 117 items) individual chains-specific restaurant records. In addition to chain-level nutrition analysis, each individual restaurant establishment will likely have a small variety of standard menu items that are unique to the individual establishment. We estimate there are 11,684 restaurants establishments (10,866 covered + 818 voluntary) with establishment-specific items. Each of these restaurant establishments has an average of five establishment-specific menu items. This leads to 58,420 (11,684 establishments × 5 items) individual establishment-specific restaurant records.
There really is no controlling folks who are capable of spending their working lives doing stuff like that. We are well and truly screwed.
Whatever happened to freedom?
We used to talk about it in elementary school. Don't hear about it much anymore.
Half the population and three-quarters of the Democrat base can't read or do arithmetic above a grade school level, and you think they're going to stand there aisle squinting at that 6-point type to decide whether or not it is good for them? Ain't happening...
When I see the slightest evidence that Michelle Obama has ever let a calorie escape with its life...
I am not amazed. The very basis of the nanny state is "do something nd hope it works".
This particular instance was not Obama waiving a magic a la illegal immigrant amnesty. The requirement for menus to have calorie counts was baked into the ObamaCare law (ACA).
SEC. 4205. NUTRITION LABELING OF STANDARD MENU ITEMS AT CHAIN
RESTAURANTS.
(b) Labeling Requirements.--Section 403(q)(5) of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 343(q)(5)) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(H) Restaurants, Retail Food Establishments, and Vending
Machines.--
``(i) General requirements for restaurants and similar
retail food establishments.--Except for food described in
subclause (vii), in the case of food that is a standard menu
item that is offered for sale in a restaurant or similar retail
food establishment that is part of a chain with 20 or more
locations doing business under the same name (regardless of the
type of ownership of the locations) and offering for sale
substantially the same menu items, the restaurant or similar
retail food establishment shall disclose the information
described in subclauses (ii) and (iii).
``(ii) Information required to be disclosed by restaurants
and retail food establishments.--Except as provided in subclause
(vii), the restaurant or similar retail food establishment shall
disclose in a clear and conspicuous manner--
``(I)(aa) in a nutrient content disclosure statement
adjacent to the name of the standard menu item, so as to
be clearly associated with the standard menu item, on
the menu listing the item for sale, the number of
calories contained in the standard menu item, as usually prepared and offered for sale; and
``(bb) a succinct statement concerning suggested
daily caloric intake, as specified by the Secretary by
regulation and posted prominently on the menu and
designed to enable the public to understand, in the
context of a total daily diet, the significance of the
caloric information that is provided on the menu;
``(II)(aa) in a nutrient content disclosure
statement adjacent to the name of the standard menu
item, so as to be clearly associated with the standard
menu item, on the menu board, including a drive-through
menu board, the number of calories contained in the
standard menu item, as usually prepared and offered for
sale; and
``(bb) a succinct statement concerning suggested
daily caloric intake, as specified by the Secretary by
regulation and posted prominently on the menu board,
designed to enable the public to understand, in the
context of a total daily diet, the significance of the
nutrition information that is provided on the menu
board;
``(III) in a written form, available on the premises of the
restaurant or similar retail establishment and to the consumer
upon request, the nutrition information required under clauses
(C) and (D) of subparagraph (1); and
``(IV) on the menu or menu board, a prominent, clear, and
conspicuous statement regarding the availability of the
information described in item (III).
Hmm.. re-reading it. It looks like Sec 4205 only requires that menus cite that the info is available upon request. It doesn't require it printed in the menus themselves.
Why should we rely on informing consumers in a free market? Why not Obamafood, where we hide all information on pricing and offerings and require everyone to buy food insurance online? We could require licensing of all food providers and we already have foodstamps, a kind of Foodcaid, for the poor.
If these do-gooders really want to do something about obesity in this country, there is a solution that would not trample people's freedom in the slightest. Namely--they could put an end to the farm subsidies which help keep food prices low. You'll notice food prices are quite a bit higher in most foreign countries--I was aghast in France to discover Coke cost as much as wine in a lot of restaurants (ok, house wine, but still).
But hey, why not have several intrusive government programs working at cross purposes and then wonder why nothing seems to be working?
Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?
I'll belive the nannystaters are serious when the resturants and grocery stores are prohibited from selling anything but vegetables to people with body mass indexes over 30. And all the people who unpatriotically remain fat are rendered and converted to bio-diesel fuel.
Sarc/off. I think.
I'm amazed that this kind of guesswork and casual hopefulness is all that supports such an expensive and troublesome new requirement.
Now you're into comedy? You can't seriously throw that out there, like Obamacare wasn't built on the same sand?
I can remember a discussion about the costs of the employer mandate. I said that those costs would be passed along to employees and consumers. I was told they wouldn't, that the cost would come out of profits. I asked by what mechanism. Yes I remember that conversation well, it was the first time anyone had ended a conversation with me by calling me a capitalist Nazi (preceded by a dumbfounded look because they hadn't thought of where the costs would actually come from).
Jupiter "I would like to put a nutritional label on Cass Sunstein. With an industrial stapler."
I like the way you think.
I recommend applying it to his forehead.
He can think of it as a "nudge".
Isn't proof that this is bullshit that it exempts chains under 19 restaurants and privately held establishments? If this was so critical, why except anyone? (Will the congressional cafeteria post calories? Will senators and congresspersons care?)
As for the commerce clause; fine, all food crossing state lines must have a nutrition label, but how does that extend to the menu? And what if a chain is exclusive to a state and has more than 19 establishments?
"Guesswork and casual hopefulness" is all that supports most legal changes: it's kind of funny for a law professor to suddenly develop an aversion to change on that basis. What is Escola based on, other than guesswork and casual hopefulness? What is Duke Power based on? I could name a hundred cases, that propose significant social change on no more evidence than Cass Sunstein musters.
More important than counting calories is counting minutes and steps. Sleep and motion, respectively, are critical to normal body function.
"I'm amazed that this kind of guesswork and casual hopefulness is all that supports such an expensive and troublesome new requirement."
What--you've never read Thomas Sowell's The Vision of the Annointed?
Diogenes,
"By the way, we all know the relative amount of calories in everything we eat without the Democrats telling us that a bacon double cheeseburger with mayo is fattening. "
You (and plenty of other commenters) need to read Taubes. It's not just a matter of calories in, calories, out--the sort of food it is makes a great deal of difference in how it interacts with our digestive, blood-sugar-regulating, and fat storage systems.
In the case of the cheeseburger: toss the bun, you'll probably be fine.
MathMom,
"I like Laslo's question - how many calories is"Cass Sunstein"?. I say we find out by empirical analysis."
OMFG. That's just brilliant! How many of our fellow-commenters know what you are insinuating?
Lydia,
"There really is no controlling folks who are capable of spending their working lives doing stuff like that."
Well, there is, but it's not particularly civil.
Stop the presses! Jimbino wins the thread (and the whole f'n internet for today) at 2:52 PM. That was positively brilliant, sir!
"Cass Sunstein likes to call himself a libertarian"
I call him something different: evil; and I don't say that lightly, or about very many people.
But he genuinely is. In fact, he's particularly dangerous because of his calm, quite pose which is used to mask Yet Another Tyranny.
Because you're all too damn stupid to look after yorselves.
I'd be interested in his definition of "healthy." I'm pretty sure I'm not going to agree with Ol' Cass.
Post a Comment