Calorie counts to be added to restaurant food menus

steddyeddy

The Davestator wrote: »

This may be so but it doesn't alter the fact that you have injested the calories.

But it decides how the calories are used. Be they stored as fat or stored as glycogen which is stored in the liver or muscles. How they are stored in my opinion is the most important aspect of fat loss and general health.

K-9

woodoo wrote: »

I'm against this. Its not going to stop the greedy from getting fat. It will just be a headache for restaurants and they will change their menu's less.

I don't think it will do much on that score, but it will provide information and I'd say many might get a surprise at some of these "healthy" options.

Lia_lia

I think it's a loada shite anyway. People should be responsible for knowing what they put into their body...and not rely on a menu for calorie contents. Anyway calories often don't really matter. Salt/sugar contents would be a lot better.

Plus it's just going to make people even more obsessed with food...had enough of it already!

steddyeddy

K-9 wrote: »

I don't think it will do much on that score, but it will provide information and I'd say many might get a surprise at some of these "healthy" options.

Bingo! Theres a lot of miss information around about dieting and fat loss.

Cookie_Monster

Can we have a list of E-numbers as well? What about GDAs or fat content or type or vitamin and mineral content?
where does it end...

seamus wrote: »

If this measure does occasionally make someone choose the steak over the salad because the numbers make them feel guilty, then great..

errr... why would you need numbers telling you to choose the steak, esp if it has 5 times the calories?

southsiderosie

Lia_lia wrote: »

I think it's a loada shite anyway. People should be responsible for knowing what they put into their body...and not rely on a menu for calorie contents. Anyway calories often don't really matter. Salt/sugar contents would be a lot better.

Plus it's just going to make people even more obsessed with food...had enough of it already!

But how are you supposed to know if you don't know the ingredients? That's the point! And since most restaurants are not going to post their recipes, then nutritional information is the next best thing.
If I order fish with vegetables, I have no idea if that dish will come slathered in butter, how much salt the fish was cooked with, if there will be sauce on the fish (which I have certainly been surprised by in many restaurants), etc.

Personally, if I am going to an expensive restaurant, then I really don't care about the calories, because it is a rare treat and usually the portions are smaller anyway. But when I am traveling for work and constantly eating on the go, it would be nice to know what exactly I'm getting myself into when I have to get $10 take out or order room service.

Finally, it is easy to not be obsessed with food when you have never had a problem with your weight. But since that is not the case for a huge percentage of the population then, yes, people who are trying to lose weight are going to want to know the calorie count (or at least have a ballpark figure).

prinz

Lia_lia wrote: »

I think it's a loada shite anyway. People should be responsible for knowing what they put into their body...and not rely on a menu for calorie contents.

Yay, let's do away with ingredients on products too... and allergy information for that matter. I mean people shouldn't rely on being told what's in the food they consume.

Lia_lia wrote: »

Salt/sugar contents would be a lot better!

Should people not be responsible for knowing what they put into their body? Or does it not apply to salt and sugar?

Mint Sauce

Tbh, when I'm going to a takeaway I already know its not going to be healthy.

Displaying the Calorie count is just to satify certain groups and make the goverment look good.

In terms of restrarant food, the count is never going to be consistant what with changes to menus and daily specials.

starbelgrade

southsiderosie wrote: »

TBH, I don't get all of the nanny state comments. This is actually a way to let people make their own conscious decisions. A nanny state approach would be to ban foods like soda or deep fried Mars bars. Instead, by making information readily available, the government can at least take the position that they are not going to tell anyone what to do, but they will give them the information to make healthier choices.

Secondly, it is not hard to get a rough estimate of the caloric value of a recipe - I do it all the time on myfitness.com (and there are plenty of other websites out there). I suspect that many restaurants are resistant to this because the amount of fat and salt in restaurant food is unreal - that is why it tastes so good!

I agree that most people who aren't interested in losing weight would not be interested in knowing the nutritional value of the foods they eat. But I do think it would be valuable for people who think they are making healthy choices. There are a lot of 'upscale' fast-food places in the US (Panera Bread for example) where people feel like they are making a healthier decision to eat there over McDonald's. But when Panera started posting their nutritional information, it became clear that a lot of their 'healthy' options were just as calorie and salt-laden as a Quarter Pounder Extra Value meal.

Having read the arguments by other posters for adding a calorie count to menus, I can see that there are many good reasons for doing it.

It makes sense for many food places to produce a calorie counted menu and for the likes of Panera, it had no effect on their sales. In some places it might even increase sales as some people will choose to eat where they know the calorie count over places which don't publish them.

But I don't think it should be mandatory and this is where the Nanny State-ism comes into play. Instead of allowing people to choose based on their own wants, desires or needs, it is trying to force all businesses to conform to producing the equivalent of a Weight Watchers points system menu with little or no public consultation or consultation with the businesses it will effect and with little or no evidence to suggest that the introduction of these measures will have any positive effects or make a blind bit of difference.

This, to the restaurant trade is as much of a blind sweep in the dark as Sherlock's SOPA law is to the internet in Ireland.

There are so many other ways in which the government could try to improve the food eating habits of the nation rather than to introduce a measure that in largely untested and unproven and will most likely have the most negative impact on the smaller, better restaurants who have menus which change regularly based on the seasonally available produce.

And for once, it would be nice to see an Irish government elect a Health Minister who could lead by example instead of putting someone in charge who clearly doesn't give two ****s about their own health. It's akin to putting a gambler in charge of the Department of Finance. Oh, wait.. we did that already...

K-9

starbelgrade wrote: »

But I don't think it should be mandatory and this is where the Nanny State-ism comes into play. Instead of allowing people to choose based on their own wants, desires or needs, it is trying to force all businesses to conform to producing the equivalent of a Weight Watchers points system menu with little or no public consultation or consultation with the businesses it will effect and with little or no evidence to suggest that the introduction of these measures will have any positive effects or make a blind bit of difference.

It isn't mandatory, it's a threat to make it so if they don't get more uptake. McDonalds and Subway have agreed to it but they say the uptake is poor apart from that. No point having a voluntary industry code if most aren't going to volunteer.

This is isn't state nannyism. Far from it. The state proposes an industry code and the industry shows little interest.

This, to the restaurant trade is as much of a blind sweep in the dark as Sherlock's SOPA law is to the internet in Ireland.

SOPA isn't voluntary. I don't like nanny statism but that's the problem with the private sector, can't be trusted to self police, might as well join the generalisation game.

And for once, it would be nice to see an Irish government elect a Health Minister who could lead by example instead of putting someone in charge who clearly doesn't give two ****s about their own health. It's akin to putting a gambler in charge of the Department of Finance. Oh, wait.. we did that already...

Ah I suppose it's AH, but I thought the thanks whoring references to his weight had ended after page 2.

southsiderosie

starbelgrade wrote: »

Having read the arguments by other posters for adding a calorie count to menus, I can see that there are many good reasons for doing it.

It makes sense for many food places to produce a calorie counted menu and for the likes of Panera, it had no effect on their sales. In some places it might even increase sales as some people will choose to eat where they know the calorie count over places which don't publish them.

But I don't think it should be mandatory and this is where the Nanny State-ism comes into play. Instead of allowing people to choose based on their own wants, desires or needs, it is trying to force all businesses to conform to producing the equivalent of a Weight Watchers points system menu with little or no public consultation or consultation with the businesses it will effect and with little or no evidence to suggest that the introduction of these measures will have any positive effects or make a blind bit of difference.

Fair enough. The places that want to be seen as healthy alternatives will do/have done this already anyway (Subway comes to mind). Maybe that's why it is voluntary for now - if it fosters a noticeable shift in the take-out market, then perhaps that is all we can ask for. Like I said before, I don't go to a nice restaurant to worry about calories...pass the bloody steak and the creme brûlée, please!

starbelgrade wrote: »

And for once, it would be nice to see an Irish government elect a Health Minister who could lead by example instead of putting someone in charge who clearly doesn't give two ****s about their own health. It's akin to putting a gambler in charge of the Department of Finance. Oh, wait.. we did that already...

LOL...no comment...

starbelgrade

K-9 wrote: »

It isn't mandatory, it's a threat to make it so if they don't get more uptake. McDonalds and Subway have agreed to it but they say the uptake is poor apart from that. No point having a voluntary industry code if most aren't going to volunteer.

This is isn't state nannyism. Far from it. The state proposes an industry code and the industry shows little interest.

So they are suggesting something that if the industry doesn't like, it will become mandatory? And that's not Nannyism?

K-9 wrote: »

SOPA isn't voluntary. I don't like nanny statism but that's the problem with the private sector, can't be trusted to self police, might as well join the generalisation game.

By this however, you are assuming - as the government are - that there is a fundamental need for this issue to be policed. I don't believe there is because I have seen no evidence to suggest otherwise. So to introduce a measure which may or may not have any effect on health on a "volunteer or we'll make it mandatory" basis is an unwarranted step.

K-9 wrote: »

Ah I suppose it's AH, but I thought the thanks whoring references to his weight had ended after page 2.

I wasn't thanks whoring. I honestly believe that O'Reilly, no more than Harney before him, gives two fucks about the general health of the nation, no more than they give two fucks about their own. Having a person who actually cares about health in charge of the nation's health system might actually be a good idea, the same way that having someone who has a basic grasp of economics & markets being in charge of Finance would be a good idea.

K-9

starbelgrade wrote: »

So they are suggesting something that if the industry doesn't like, it will become mandatory? And that's not Nannyism?

Was trying to word it so that you couldn't come up with that but I couldn't!

It's unfair on McDonalds and Subway if Burger King, Dominos and my local chains like Four Lanterns and the Sandwich Company don't adhere to it. Voluntary codes are based on good faith and the Government trusting the private sector to regulate itself.

If the private sector chooses to ignore that faith, well!

As for nanny statism , reminds me of employers crying foul at every new labour law for decades. We should have no small business sector at this stage if employer groups are right.

By this however, you are assuming - as the government are - that there is a fundamental need for this issue to be policed. I don't believe there is because I have seen no evidence to suggest otherwise. So to introduce a measure which may or may not have any effect on health on a "volunteer or we'll make it mandatory" basis is an unwarranted step.

It's an informative issue. Often I don't read the nutritional information on stuff I buy in the shop but it is good to have it there, on the side of the jar, packet etc. I'm sure that was moaned about as nanny statism by some.

I wasn't thanks whoring. I honestly believe that O'Reilly, no more than Harney before him, gives two fucks about the general health of the nation, no more than they give two fucks about their own. Having a person who actually cares about health in charge of the nation's health system might actually be a good idea, the same way that having someone who has a basic grasp of economics & markets being in charge of Finance would be a good idea.

You think he doesn't care about his own health and he a doctor?You'd need to ask him tbh if he is on a suicide mission or not!

Chucky the tree

starbelgrade wrote: »

But I don't think it should be mandatory and this is where the Nanny State-ism comes into play. Instead of allowing people to choose based on their own wants, desires or needs

There are so many other ways in which the government could try to improve the food eating habits of the nation rather than to introduce a measure that in largely untested and unproven and will most likely have the most negative impact on the smaller, better restaurants who have menus which change regularly based on the seasonally available produce.

Currently people don't have a choice though. When I go to a restaurant I've no idea how many calories I am eating, that shouldn't be allowed happen. I've never heard anyone complain about food producers having to put information on their products in shops and supermarkets, yet asking restaurants to do it is grossly unfair, makes no sense tbh.

I fail to see any negative impact it will have on small business. If the cost of a few extra ink cartridges a year our going to be the death of a business then it has no chance of surviving anyway.

starbelgrade

The main problem I have with this K-9 is not that the likes of the Fast Food places having to publish the calorie content, it's the fact that if the majority of them don't, then it will become mandatory for everyone to do it.

This will effect small businesses a lot more than larger ones and there's no proof that it has any effect on general health and eating habits. In the States, it had little or no effect on the sales of the likes of McDonalds or Panera and companies like that are the biggest offenders when it comes to the contribution to obesity.

Measures like these have no effect on the food giants - be they the restaurants, food suppliers, food producers or supermarkets that have radically changed not only the foods we eat but the quality of the foods we eat.

This is simple window dressing while the important issues such as the long term effects of eating biochemically adulterated meats supplied by supermarkets & fast food places remains unaddressed, while current food labelling & tracibilty systems are at best vague and at worst a joke, while the small producers of high quality, high welfare and ethically produced foods are being systematically wiped out by the food giants, and while the increasing amount of people caught in the food poverty trap increases daily.

As I said - if O'Reilly honestly cared about the foods we eat, he would know that there are a lot more important issues at hand and that this is basically a smoke screen that will give the pen pushers in likes of the Food Safety Authority something to do in order to look like their doing something to justify their existence.

This will be a pointless and costly exercise and will do little or nothing for to change the eating habits of the nation.

K-9

starbelgrade wrote: »

The main problem I have with this K-9 is not that the likes of the Fast Food places having to publish the calorie content, it's the fact that if the majority of them don't, then it will become mandatory for everyone to do it.

This will effect small businesses a lot more than larger ones and there's no proof that it has any effect on general health and eating habits. In the States, it had little or no effect on the sales of the likes of McDonalds or Panera and companies like that are the biggest offenders when it comes to the contribution to obesity.

Measures like these have no effect on the food giants - be they the restaurants, food suppliers, food producers or supermarkets that have radically changed not only the foods we eat but the quality of the foods we eat.

Fair point and would agree with my original post. If I'm going out to a nice restaurant it's a rare occurrence and if anybody watches cookery programmes the secret ingredient usually means, loads of butter and sugar!

A voluntary code that McDonalds and Subway subscribe to but not Burger King, Supermacs or Dominos is pointless. So yes, sometimes Governments have to step in sometimes. Is it Nanny statism, not to me, it's Burger King etc. not adhering to an expected standard. I'd wonder why they didn't adhere to something McDonalds did first, before going on the nanny state road. I'd point the finger at a huge global multi-national corporation first, rather than a rather small, rather insignificant Government.

This is simple window dressing while the important issues such as the long term effects of eating biochemically adulterated meats supplied by supermarkets & fast food places remains unaddressed, while current food labelling & tracibilty systems are at best vague and at worst a joke, while the small producers of high quality, high welfare and ethically produced foods are being systematically wiped out by the food giants, and while the increasing amount of people caught in the food poverty trap increases daily.

As I said - if O'Reilly honestly cared about the foods we eat, he would know that there are a lot more important issues at hand and that this is basically a smoke screen that will give the pen pushers in likes of the Food Safety Authority something to do in order to look like their doing something to justify their existence.

This will be a pointless and costly exercise and will do little or nothing for to change the eating habits of the nation.

Can we not tackle both areas and aim for higher standards rather than aim for low standards everywhere?

cuilteanna

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Currently people don't have a choice though. When I go to a restaurant I've no idea how many calories I am eating, that shouldn't be allowed happen.

It bothers me a lot which is why I hate going out to eat. It's always a guessing game as to what's been added to any dish or what it's been cooked in and the result is that I just don't enjoy it and prefer to stay home.

Scanlas The 2nd

southsiderosie wrote: »

Lia_lia wrote: »

I think it's a loada sh[SIZE="2"]i[/SIZE]te anyway. People should be responsible for knowing what they put into their body...and not rely on a menu for calorie contents. Anyway calories often don't really matter. Salt/sugar contents would be a lot better.

Plus it's just going to make people even more obsessed with food...had enough of it already!

But how are you supposed to know if you don't know the ingredients? That's the point! And since most restaurants are not going to post their recipes, then nutritional information is the next best thing.
If I order fish with vegetables, I have no idea if that dish will come slathered in butter, how much salt the fish was cooked with, if there will be sauce on the fish (which I have certainly been surprised by in many restaurants), etc.

Personally, if I am going to an expensive restaurant, then I really don't care about the calories, because it is a rare treat and usually the portions are smaller anyway. But when I am traveling for work and constantly eating on the go, it would be nice to know what exactly I'm getting myself into when I have to get $10 take out or order room service.

Finally, it is easy to not be obsessed with food when you have never had a problem with your weight. But since that is not the case for a huge percentage of the population then, yes, people who are trying to lose weight are going to want to know the calorie count (or at least have a ballpark figure).

To you and everyone else, butter is good for you.

The Davestator

steddyeddy wrote: »

But it decides how the calories are used. Be they stored as fat or stored as glycogen which is stored in the liver or muscles. How they are stored in my opinion is the most important aspect of fat loss and general health.

I think you need to head over the health & fitness forum and read the stickies about nutrition

starbelgrade

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

To you and everyone else, butter is good for you.

True - real butter contains lots of good stuff and has more beneficial attributes than it does adverse ones.

It's also surprisingly easy to make butter. All you need is cream, a food mixer and a bit of time. And if the cream comes straight from a cow, then all the better as the pasteurisation process kills a lot of the nutrients in milk.

Anyone who thinks that spreading "low-fat" shite on their bread is better than using butter is only fooling themselves.

LeinsterDub

I think it's a good idea. I've been using my fitness pal recently and the amount of things that you scan and it returns greater than 400 cals for 1 item shocked me.

I couldn't believe a bag of microwave popcorn was 501 cals or that a banger style sausage was 410. Having this information at hand lets people make choices if they want. I'll have half a bag of popcorn or I'll replace the sausage with a other boiled egg

Lia_lia

southsiderosie wrote: »

But how are you supposed to know if you don't know the ingredients?
If I order fish with vegetables, I have no idea if that dish will come slathered in butter, how much salt the fish was cooked with, if there will be sauce on the fish (which I have certainly been surprised by in many restaurants), etc.

Well you could, you know, ask the waiter! I've worked in a restaurant all the way through college, people often ask me whether there is a lot of butter/salt etc in the dish. So I just ask the chef. It's not a big deal. People often ask for vegetables without butter, which is grand.

If they don't want sauce they can just ask for no sauce...every second table I have ask these kinds of questions. And as staff we know the ins and outs of every dish we serve because we have to. Maybe not the actually calorie content, but if someone if trying to lose weight they should be able to know what to order to suit their needs without looking at the calorie contents.

And on the butter/sweetener note I can't help but laugh at some people I serve at work. You'd get people who insist on having diet coke and sweeteners with their coffee and skimmed milk but then they have an extra serving of dessert which is full of sugar and cream Americans are the worst for it!

prinz

Lia_lia wrote: »

Maybe not the actually calorie content, but if someone if trying to lose weight they should be able to know what to order to suit their needs without looking at the calorie contents.

So you think none of the products of your weekly shop in the supermarket/shop etc should bother including calorie and nutritional information on the packaging?

LeinsterDub

Lia_lia wrote: »

You'd get people who insist on having diet coke and sweeteners with their coffee and skimmed milk but then they have an extra serving of dessert which is full of sugar and cream Americans are the worst for it!

If I've decided to have the Cake at lets say 500 cals I'd rather not compound the calorific intake the by adding a other 25% of the cals in the cake by having a Coke

RandomName2

prinz wrote: »

So you think none of the products of your weekly shop in the supermarket/shop etc should bother including calorie and nutritional information on the packaging?

The most important aspect of such information is 1. the ingredient list (which is mandatory on all such commercial products, including cosmetics!) and 2. nutritional list (which contains information about protein, carbohydrate, mineral/vit content, etc.). Also allergy advice is generally supplied (for both food and cosmetics)

Calorie content is arguably one of the least significant aspects of the above - and the proposed legislation of the OP would not cover nutritional value or even give mandatory details concerning possible allergies.

I think there would be a case to make restaurants legally obliged to be able to provide a list of ingredients and nutritional values of their products if expressly asked for by customers. Making it mandatory to have calories, and calories alone, be listed beside products on menus? I mean, come on. :pac:

Whilst SouthSideRosie et al might say that the proposed legislation itself is not too draconian in terms of nanny-statism, I could see it as a gateway for further measures which would be (although that is arguably not debating the issue on its own merits).

LeinsterDub

RandomName2 wrote: »

I could see it as a gateway for further measures which would be (although that is arguably not debating the issue on its own merits).

Measures such as?

K-9

LeinsterDub wrote: »

If I've decided to have the Cake at lets say 500 cals I'd rather not compound the calorific intake the by adding a other 25% of the cals in the cake by having a Coke

It might also be a habit or a taste thing, they always take sweetener. I'd prefer Diet Coke myself.

Stercus Accidit

When I lived in California they had this, I would compare the price of the burgers with their calory count, and try to buy as many calories as I could for my dollars.
McChickens for 1$ were bought many at a time, given the natural Irish tendency towards value for money, we would likely see similar behaviour here!

seamus

Calorie content is arguably one of the least significant aspects of the above

Quite the opposite. Ingredient list is important if the consumer has allergies or is attempting to avoid specific ingredients. From a health POV, the specific ingredients aren't all that important.

The nutritional values are of limited use in this sense, because tracking nutritional value is like calorie counting on steroids. Nobody is going to be influenced to make different choices based on the iron or calcium content of a meal. In most cases provided that someone varies their food (i.e. not eating chips for every meal), the body will looks after itself nutritionally and even badly overweight people usually tend to not have any malnutrition problems.

Nutritional deficiencies are not a national health problem. Obesity is.

I think there would be a case to make restaurants legally obliged to be able to provide a list of ingredients and nutritional values of their products if expressly asked for by customers.

Estimating the compound nutritional value of a dish is significantly more difficult than the calorie content.

prinz

RandomName2 wrote: »

The most important aspect of such information is 1. the ingredient list (which is mandatory on all such commercial products, including cosmetics!) and 2. nutritional list (which contains information about protein, carbohydrate, mineral/vit content, etc.). Also allergy advice is generally supplied (for both food and cosmetics) Calorie content is arguably one of the least significant aspects of the above-...

Unless of course somebody is actively looking for the calorie content information. I just find it laughable that if I were to buy a frozen dinner in Tesco it would be automatically assumed I have a right to that information... and there it would be right on the product. I could pick it up, review, buy it. Perhaps exchange it for something else.

If I bought the same dinner in a restaurant then I should just know what the calorie and nutritional info is. That line of argument doesn't make much sense to me.

RandomName2 wrote: »

I think there would be a case to make restaurants legally obliged to be able to provide a list of ingredients and nutritional values of their products if expressly asked for by customers. Making it mandatory to have calories, and calories alone, be listed beside products on menus? I mean, come on. :pac:

I agree. A nutritional summary would be nice. As for this threatened legislation then as far as I'm concerned it's a step in the right direction and a step closer to better nutritional info... because you can't have it all, doesn't mean you should give up on anything. Either way, most of the arguments against including calorie information could me multiplied tenfold for a bigger nutritional breakdown.

saiint

So food business have 6 months to put calories on food menus voluntary? but if they dont do it they face complusion to do it? how does that make sense
their saying they can choose to do it but if they dont their gonna be made do it

RandomName2

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Measures such as?

'fat tax' on food
legal restrictions on sizes/portions of certain products
restrictions on advertising for high calorie foods
'healthcare tax' on people who are overweight
legislative strangling of companies associated with the manufacture/ selling of high calorie foods

etc.

Today cheese is being targeted (fat) - tomorrow it will be fruit (sugar) !

prinz

RandomName2 wrote: »

Whilst SouthSideRosie et al might say that the proposed legislation itself is not too draconian in terms of nanny-statism, I could see it as a gateway for further measures which would be (although that is arguably not debating the issue on its own merits).

You mean like expanding the amount of information they would be required to provide to diners?

RandomName2 wrote: »

I think there would be a case to make restaurants legally obliged to be able to provide a list of ingredients and nutritional values of their products if expressly asked for by customers.

JohnMarston

If you're like me and go to a restaurant once in a blue moon, i cannot see why calorie counting should matter.
If you're going every day of the week and wonder why you're piling on the weight then you need a change in lifestyle.

seamus

All not bed ideas, however

RandomName2 wrote: »

'fat tax' on food

Tricky to implement. Are you taxing based on calorie density, saturated fat content, carbohydrate content? You also have the problem that you have fitness supplements specifically designed for weight gain. Should they be penalised?

legal restrictions on sizes/portions of certain products

The only people who win there are the manufacturers. That would work great for ready meals for single people, but what about the mother buying a ready made lasagne for her family? "Sorry, you'll have to pay for 3 individual products at a higher price because we can't sell big lasagnes"

A more moderate response would be to require manufacturers to write in big letters across their packaging, "This tiny portion of food which is about enough for a dog, has been designed to feed 6 people". Then the purchaser is being given more information to make a better informed choice.

restrictions on advertising for high calorie foods

I would ban food advertising on TV altogether. Only fast food outlets advertise food.

'healthcare tax' on people who are overweight

Do they get taxed when they arrive in hospital, or do they have to submit a "weight return" to revenue every month declaring their current weight? And who decides what "overweight" means. Will a 17st superfit rugby player be taxed under this scheme?

El_Dangeroso

seamus wrote: »

Quite the opposite. Ingredient list is important if the consumer has allergies or is attempting to avoid specific ingredients. From a health POV, the specific ingredients aren't all that important.

I wouldn't agree with this at all, sure how much you eat is important, but what you eat is equally important for health.

This idea that as long as you eat enough calories you're getting all the nutrition you need isn't backed by the science at all.

JohnMarston wrote: »

If you're like me and go to a restaurant once in a blue moon, i cannot see why calorie counting should matter.
If you're going every day of the week and wonder why you're piling on the weight then you need a change in lifestyle.

YES, thank you for some common sense. Restaurants should be a once in a while treat! You should not base you're diet on them! Chefs have and will always cook for taste, not health, otherwise they would not be in business very long.

We all cooked from scratch from home for generations and we didn't have to worry about fats/carbs/calories in order to stay thin, why is that?

RandomName2

seamus wrote: »

Quite the opposite. Ingredient list is important if the consumer has allergies or is attempting to avoid specific ingredients. From a health POV, the specific ingredients aren't all that important.

But it begs the question, is obesity all that significant? I mean, notwithstanding its prevalence, or people's personal preference, but rather its risk to the nation? Heart attacks and strokes account for a very significant number of deaths in this country, but I am unconvinced about its causation stemming from obesity (obesity may, however, stem from the root cause). Cholestoral (depending on type) and plaque significant contributory factors to cardiac disease - but both have very little to do with calorie intake per se.

By this reckoning a bag of nuts would be less healthy than a bag of pork scratchings, or a handful of olives would be less healthy than a packet of smarties. :pac:

Moreover, I am concerned by a governmental policy which will deliberately single out calories to the exclusion of all else, and, forgive me for being sceptical, but at a time like this I can't help but feel how it will be bent towards some sort of revenue generation technique. Getting a moralistic fervour on one's side would give great impetus in the generation of moral taxation (as is currently the case with cigarettes).

Although I'll agree with prinz that if, as a consumer, you are looking specifically for this information, it is annoying if it is unobtainable. Surely, this does leave an opening in a niche market for companies which specifically do this though? (e.g. Subway)?

RandomName2

seamus wrote: »

A more moderate response would be to require manufacturers to write in big letters across their packaging, "This tiny portion of food which is about enough for a dog, has been designed to feed 6 people".

hardCopy

saiint wrote: »

So food business have 6 months to put calories on food menus voluntary? but if they dont do it they face complusion to do it? how does that make sense
their saying they can choose to do it but if they dont their gonna be made do it

Do it now voluntarily and spare us all the expense of drafting legislation and we'll let you decide the size, layout and design of this information.

Ignore this request, cost the state extra money and you'll be told exactly how it should look and be forced to ruin the aesthetic of your establishment and given no room for novel design in your printed menus.

seamus wrote: »

A more moderate response would be to require manufacturers to write in big letters across their packaging, "This tiny portion of food which is about enough for a dog, has been designed to feed 6 people". Then the purchaser is being given more information to make a better informed choice.

Like a bloody 500ml bottle of coke with a "handy" nutritional label on the front with calorie content per serving (*2 servings per bottle).

Sea Filly

JohnMarston wrote: »

If you're like me and go to a restaurant once in a blue moon, i cannot see why calorie counting should matter.
If you're going every day of the week and wonder why you're piling on the weight then you need a change in lifestyle.

+1.

I can see the case for eat-on-the-go type places having calorie content displayed, as many people rely on these places if they travel a lot with work. But a sit-down, less fast food type place? Nah.

southsiderosie

Lia_lia wrote: »

Well you could, you know, ask the waiter! I've worked in a restaurant all the way through college, people often ask me whether there is a lot of butter/salt etc in the dish. So I just ask the chef. It's not a big deal. People often ask for vegetables without butter, which is grand.

You would be surprised by how many people in the food industry have absolutely no idea what they are talking about. I can't tell you the number of times I've been in a cafe, and asked if they had soy milk or some kind of non-dairy 'milk' for coffee (or worse yet, a latte) and been told "Um, we have skim milk!". I had a friend in Dublin who is celiac, and he had to stop eating out in restaurants because of the number of times he was given wrong information on ingredients (he actually moved back to Italy to start his own gluten-free restaurant).

Lia_lia wrote: »

If they don't want sauce they can just ask for no sauce...every second table I have ask these kinds of questions. And as staff we know the ins and outs of every dish we serve because we have to. Maybe not the actually calorie content, but if someone if trying to lose weight they should be able to know what to order to suit their needs without looking at the calorie contents.

That is just not true. The restaurant version of food is usually much higher in calories because of the far more liberal use of high calorie additives (cream in sauce, etc) than people who are trying to watch their weight would cook with at home. Again, this is why it tastes so good!

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

To you and everyone else, butter is good for you.

My point is that if you order steamed vegetables and they come drowning in butter (or cream sauce), then you've kind of lost the point (from a caloric point of view) of ordering steamed vegetables or grilled fish!

seamus

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

I wouldn't agree with this at all, sure how much you eat is important, but what you eat is equally important for health.

This idea that as long as you eat enough calories you're getting all the nutrition you need isn't backed by the science at all.

Talking about ingredients specifically, they're irrelevant nutritionally. It makes no difference if the meal you're eating contains calcium from a cow which was eating grass before it was cooked, or from a slab of lab-grown fungus. Calcium is calcium and its source is irrelevant. The specific ingredients are terribly useful because they allow people to avoid specific ingredients, but nutritionally they're of very little use.

In terms of diet, I didn't say that just eating to your calories will provide all the nutrition you need. I said that provided someone eats a varied diet and not the same thing for every meal every day, they won't need to spend much time worrying about nutrition. Which is a fact. Otherwise we'd be in the midst of a malnutrition epidemic. Which we're not.

We all cooked from scratch from home for generations and we didn't have to worry about fats/carbs/calories in order to stay thin, why is that?

Because very few jobs were sedentary and food was more expensive.

But it begs the question, is obesity all that significant? I mean, notwithstanding its prevalence, or people's personal preference, but rather its risk to the nation? Heart attacks and strokes account for a very significant number of deaths in this country, but I am unconvinced about its causation stemming from obesity (obesity may, however, stem from the root cause). Cholestoral (depending on type) and plaque significant contributory factors to cardiac disease - but both have very little to do with calorie intake per se.

There is an undeniable link between obesity and early mortality rates as well as a host of other problems. Obese people die younger, spend more time in hospital, take longer to recovery from surgery and suffer more complications in surgery.

While I don't disagree that there are other things like cholesterol which could be targetted, aiming at obesity will have a series of beneficial side-effects. Speaking as someone who has lost a serious amount of weight through calorie counting (I really couldn't have done it otherwise), watching your calories has the effect of forcing you to improve your diet because you otherwise can't function. So while a calorie counter could just eat mars bars, they wouldn't. Cos you'd be starving after eating your 5 or 6 bars for the day. You discover that you can continue to have large, satisfying meals at a low calorie cost by using things like vegetables, reducing the starch content of the meal and doing things like removing creamy sauces and replacing them with non-cream ones. This has a direct knock-on effect on the volume of salt, sugar, fats, cholesterol, etc etc etc that you consume.

So calorie counting in most cases has the unintended consequence of automatically adjusting your diet to a more healthy one, even though all you were doing was calorie counting.

This is why it's such a powerful way of improving public health. Healthy eating campaigns, five-a-day, etc, are fine. But nothing is quite as simple as calorie counting. You get a figure that you can eat. Don't eat more than that. It's easy and people will figure out what works for themselves. And all of the other diet-related health issues automatically benefit from this change in diet.

starbelgrade

seamus wrote: »

It makes no difference if the meal you're eating contains calcium from a cow which was eating grass before it was cooked, or from a slab of lab-grown fungus.

Calcium-wise, it might not make a difference, but the meat from a cow reared on grass will taste a lot better.

Varied

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

James needs to follow these guidelines carefully himself. He's quite a tubby chappy.

Over at Labour something has to be done with Pat Rabbitte. He has an enormous gullet, kind of like what you'd see on a frog. Must be all that hot air building up.

Classic

I can imagine all the knackers trying to follow these guidelines.

"anto! Dese cheeyse borgurs have foive hundred calories, geh me a dieh coke!"

:pac:

Sea Filly

seamus wrote: »

Calcium is calcium and its source is irrelevant.

In the case of iron, for example, this is totally untrue. Iron from meat is easier for the body to process and utilise than iron contained in plant metter. It is present in a form that the body can break down better than plant-derived iron. It's more bioavailable.

Could be the same for many other micronutrients, including calcium.

bosswinger

If the government are looking to reduce the high and increasing levels of obesity in Ireland, asking restaurants etc to show the calorie content of their meals will have very little effect but it is better then nothing. It may help some people in some way, be it choosing a lower calorie option or realising the caesar salad can be very high in calories when all the croutons etc is included which is better then nothing.

A far better way to reduce the high levels of obesity is not to look at the once a bull moon treat (which is the case for most people), but the 3,4,5,6... meals/snacks each day people are eating. The level of knowledge of what is good and what isn't is just terrible in this country. People know that fruit and veg is good for them and a better option then a pizza or takeaway curry but its things like eating 4 slices of "wholemeal, nutty, high fiber, bla bla bla" bread with a mountain of a spread on it or a bowl of Special K for breakfast is a bigger issue! To change this will take a long long time, loads of investments in many many schemes etc. To do what is needed is going to be very hard and will take a very strong group of politicians to go against the big multinationals, whose very existence hinges on us eating their unhealthy products (high percentage are anyway).

I am all for a proper program of education in healthy eating in schools etc but only if they have done proper research and not backed or sponsored by companies with a vested interest. Even if this is done you can have a well educated child who knows what's good and bad for them but if they come home from school and a plate of chicken nuggets and chips covered in red sauce is put in front of them what are they supposed to do??

It is going to be very hard to get people to change their eating habits if they don't want to or see a need to change. I have tried cooking healthy meals for my family when I get a chance but low and behold when I don't cook its back to the unhealthy breaded, saltly and butter covered (I know butter isn't bad but the amount my family use is!!) dishes that they have been eating all their lives.

El_Dangeroso

seamus wrote: »

Talking about ingredients specifically, they're irrelevant nutritionally. It makes no difference if the meal you're eating contains calcium from a cow which was eating grass before it was cooked, or from a slab of lab-grown fungus. Calcium is calcium and its source is irrelevant. The specific ingredients are terribly useful because they allow people to avoid specific ingredients, but nutritionally they're of very little use.

Completely untrue, whole foods are more than the sum of their parts, I've studied nutrition for years, and one thing I'm sure of is how little we know about how various nutrients interact with one another in whole foods. Many vitamins require co-factors for correct usage, and we don't even know what most of them are. The fortification of foods is a classic example of this, we are now starting to find evidence that folate fortification has a negative impact on health, folate in real food doesn't do this.

seamus wrote: »

This is why it's such a powerful way of improving public health. Healthy eating campaigns, five-a-day, etc, are fine. But nothing is quite as simple as calorie counting. You get a figure that you can eat. Don't eat more than that. It's easy and people will figure out what works for themselves. And all of the other diet-related health issues automatically benefit from this change in diet.

I will re-iterate my point from before that mandating calorie counts on everything doesn't actually work. People do not eat less (incidentally people think they are eating less when asked!). I posted some studies showing this in an experimental and in an observational setting.

So you are basically demanding an ineffective, expensive measure be introduced based on what exactly?

Feathers

The fact that the government is mandating calorie information only feeds into the line of thinking that so long as I stay under RDA calorie guidelines I have a healthy diet.

The other main reason I'd be against it is that, yes, it makes you aware of your calorie intake, but it doesn't do a lot to change it — if I'm out at a restaurant and every starter on the menu is over 400 calories, what do I do then? & a significant amount of the time that people are in restaurants, they mightn't have a choice over where they are going, if it was a work event, family occasion or friend's birthday — you have to have something on the menu.

If they wanted to mandate anything, why not say that for each section on the menu, there has to be a 'light' option, under a certain calorie limit? This at least gives people the option if they're watching intake & then also wouldn't make people feel guilty, if that's an issue, for their butter sauce & chocolate fondant.

Hazys

I live in the US where in my state, this is already the law.

I put on a lot of weight near the end of last year, i was uptop 210lbs (15st). In the first 4 months of the year, i dropped 30lbs (2.5st). I did a lot of gyming to lose the weight but the major difference was i downloaded a calorie counter app. Knowing exactly where you are overeating is a major help.

I set a goal of about 1,800 calories a day. Knowing the calorie amount of everything i ate, was a tremendous help to knowing how to lose the weight. People say if you have any bit of cop on you should be able to guess the amount of calories...BS! Only if you studied nutrition in college would you be able to get a decent guess on all the different types of food you eat.

One example was this sandwhich franchise i went to a couple times a week which had two sandwhichs i ate. Knowing that one sandwich was 750 calories and the other was 950 calories mad a huge difference to meeting my goals. Easily cutting out 200 calories a day makes a huge difference when you are aiming for 1,800 calories.

Restaurants and foods have to provide the ingredients of their foods, why not the amount of calories?

Feathers

Hazys wrote: »

Restaurants and foods have to provide the ingredients of their foods, why not the amount of calories?

On request, maybe? I've never gone into a restaurant that had an ingredient list below each dish.