Calorie counts on menus?

wonski

hardCopy wrote: »

Restauranteurs are just afraid people will stop eating out when they see the numbers on the menu.

No. They are not.
Do you really believe it?

It is an extra work that could drive their costs up. Not the additional calories.

Some supermarkets have put that information well before the law. Sales were not affected. And it was not just calories but sugar, fat etc printed on the labels

seamus

Lots of hysteria going on about this.

Working out the calorie content of an average dish is pretty straightforward if you have ten minutes, a calculator and access to the internet. This isn't going to add significant overheads to any business with the exception of reprinting menus.

I love how the restaurants association is complaining that it's unenforceable because there are so many restaurants.

Uh...so how does the FSAI do it, then?

wonski

seamus wrote: »

Lots of hysteria going on about this.

Working out the calorie content of an average dish is pretty straightforward if you have ten minutes, a calculator and access to the internet. This isn't going to add significant overheads to any business with the exception of reprinting menus.

I love how the restaurants association is complaining that it's unenforceable because there are so many restaurants.

Uh...so how does the FSAI do it, then?

But you are going to pay for this. And you will get nothing in return.

That is the point.

seamus

wonski wrote: »

But you are going to pay for this. And you will get nothing in return.

That is the point.

I will get the ability to make a more informed choice.

And any restaurant which increased prices to pay for this will find itself out of business pretty quickly.

The cost is minimal. They probably wouldn't even need to print new menus, just provide an additional datasheet.

wonski

seamus wrote: »

I will get the ability to make a more informed choice.

And any restaurant which increased prices to pay for this will find itself out of business pretty quickly.

The cost is minimal. They probably wouldn't even need to print new menus, just provide an additional datasheet.

Do you really go to the restaurant for it?

I doubt it.

Like I said this would affect businesses around Ireland and offer nothing in return to customer. You come for food, not for calories:D

The "more informed choice" is a b******t in my opinion.

Calories count is useless, anyway. Fat, Sugar and Salt are more important to me tbh. And, unless you test them, you can't be sure of the content.

A_Sober_Paddy

wonski wrote: »

Do you really go to the restaurant for it?

I doubt it.

Like I said this would affect businesses around Ireland and offer nothing in return to customer. You come for food, not for calories:D

The "more informed choice" is a b******t in my opinion.

Calories count is useless, anyway. Fat, Sugar and Salt are more important to me tbh. And, unless you test them, you can't be sure of the content.

Calories in and calories out, basic thermodynamics(hope thats the correct word) if we burn 2500 Kcals a day and consume 3000 kCals a day we'll gain weight. no matter how mush of it is sugar/fat/salt

runawaybishop

A_Sober_Paddy wrote: »

Calories in and calories out, basic thermodynamics(hope thats the correct word) if we burn 2500 Kcals a day and consume 3000 kCals a day we'll gain weight. no matter how mush of it is sugar/fat/salt

Except that 3k calories = 3k units of energy. Our bodies are not that efficient.

A_Sober_Paddy

runawaybishop wrote: »

Except that 3k calories = 3k units of energy. Our bodies are not that efficient.

but you've only burned 2.5k calories and thus have excess which our bodies will store, if this is done over a long period of time your'll get an nation of obese people...oh wait

wonski

A_Sober_Paddy wrote: »

Calories in and calories out, basic thermodynamics(hope thats the correct word) if we burn 2500 Kcals a day and consume 3000 kCals a day we'll gain weight. no matter how mush of it is sugar/fat/salt

Sounds legit.

blackvalley

JohnK wrote: »

along with their 800 calorie cup of coffee.

Eight Hundred Calorie cup of coffee :eek::eek:. Where , how, please explain.
Three cups of coffee could equal the total reccomended daily adult calorie intake

runawaybishop

A_Sober_Paddy wrote: »

but you've only burned 2.5k calories and thus have excess which our bodies will store, if this is done over a long period of time your'll get an nation of obese people...oh wait

Not the point i was making. Your body doesn't 100% convert calories into energy. You probably sh1te out 30% of peanuts, for example. You also dont process all booze etc etc.

wonski

runawaybishop wrote: »

Not the point i was making. Your body doesn't 100% convert calories into energy. You probably sh1te out 30% of peanuts, for example. You also dont process all booze etc etc.

I process all my booze, hell yeah:D:D:D

A_Sober_Paddy

runawaybishop wrote: »

Not the point i was making. Your body doesn't 100% convert calories into energy. You probably sh1te out 30% of peanuts, for example. You also dont process all booze etc etc.

Yeah the fiber, which doesn't have a calorie load

100g of peanuts
kCals 570
Carbs 21(21x4=84)
Fat 47(47x9=423)
Protein 25(25x4=100)

Totals is 607...oh wait there is fiber of 9g(9x4=36)

607-36=571 the same calorie load that is attributed to the nuts, the zero load of the fiber is already accounted for

runawaybishop

A_Sober_Paddy wrote: »

Yeah the fiber, which doesn't have a calorie load

100g of peanuts
kCals 570
Carbs 21(21x4=84)
Fat 47(47x9=423)
Protein 25(25x4=100)

Totals is 607...oh wait there is fiber of 9g(9x4=36)

607-36=571 the same calorie load that is attributed to the nuts, the zero load of the fiber is already accounted for

No, the bits you dont chew properly pass though. Proteins also take more energy to digest initially than say sugars. None is this is exactly new info or not widely known.

deathtocaptcha

It's a great idea as it creates more transparency and informs customers better about what they're eating...

The argument that this is an additional expense for restaurants is ridiculous... it's the cost of printing menus... hell you could even print calorie numbers out on an A4 page and stick them on top of existing menus...

It's easy to guesstimate the calorie count of food by looking at the calorie count of raw ingredients... i could do it if presented with ingredients... sure it's a bit of hassle initially but it would take maybe a day at most for a chef to come up with fairly good estimates of calorie counts for an entire menu.

Provided they're spot checked and within ~10% accuracy or so, nobody is going to complain.

MrWalsh

I thought they said on the radio that the additional expense for restaurants was that they had to have 5 of each dish independently tested (to take an average) and that they had to pay for the testing, as well as the 5 of each dish not being paid for. Then on top of that they had to reprint menus etc..

I don't see why they can't just put the calories on the menus and then have periodic inspections/calorie checks.

Alun

MrWalsh wrote: »

I thought they said on the radio that the additional expense for restaurants was that they had to have 5 of each dish independently tested (to take an average) and that they had to pay for the testing, as well as the 5 of each dish not being paid for.

For a fast food establishment that had a fixed menu that rarely changed maybe that could work, but for any half decent restaurant that had daily specials, based on whatever was in season and fresh in the markets that day, utterly impossible. If that's true then no wonder it's being challenged.

hardCopy

Alun wrote: »

For a fast food establishment that had a fixed menu that rarely changed maybe that could work, but for any half decent restaurant that had daily specials, based on whatever was in season and fresh in the markets that day, utterly impossible. If that's true then no wonder it's being challenged.

I don't think that bit is true

uberalex

One thing I find useful is to see the relative calorie value of things.
Like here http://www.jdwetherspoon.ie/pdf/irish_nutritional_leaflet_autumn_2014.pdf

Something to. One is the cost of things like honey and banana porridge, which has as many calories as a bacon roll, or the fact that the super food with salmon has nearly as many as the Lasagne. Yes you can argue until blue in the face about moderation, macros etc but it can be a useful guide. If I'm choosing between two dishes I might like, I might choose the lesser one. I might also avoid a trap, like a "healthy" option that's actually a calorie bomb.

JohnK

blackvalley wrote: »

Eight Hundred Calorie cup of coffee :eek::eek:. Where , how, please explain.
Three cups of coffee could equal the total reccomended daily adult calorie intake

Take a look at some of the drinks from the likes of Starbucks or Gloria Jeans - loads of them, though not all, can be far higher in calories than you'd think just by themselves and if you start getting extra pumps of random syrups it goes up even more. Then think of the number of people who get those virtually every day of the week.

http://globalassets.starbucks.com/assets/b603196b2292476199a5bc6ea65b2cd8.pdf

http://www.gloriajeanscoffees.com.au/Drink%20Menu%20-%20Nutritional%20and%20Ingredient%20Info.pdf

Get Real

JohnK wrote: »

Take a look at some of the drinks from the likes of Starbucks or Gloria Jeans - loads of them, though not all, can be far higher in calories than you'd think just by themselves and if you start getting extra pumps of random syrups it goes up even more. Then think of the number of people who get those virtually every day of the week.

http://globalassets.starbucks.com/assets/b603196b2292476199a5bc6ea65b2cd8.pdf

http://www.gloriajeanscoffees.com.au/Drink%20Menu%20-%20Nutritional%20and%20Ingredient%20Info.pdf

Very good point, in fact, from the first link, some of Starbuck's Frappucinos (large size) have the roughly the same amount of calories as a Big Mac.

This doesn't really surprise me, and I never buy them, but I think (and hopefully I'm wrong) many, many people overlook things like this, blaming "traditional" foods such as burgers, when in fact the entire convenience food sector is full of crap.

Now my goodness do I enjoy this crap but I think in the media, there is too much of a target on pizza, burgers, chips etc, when people are going out buying calorie laden, sugar pumped stuff and they don't associate it with the problem because of the perception of the venue they buy it in.

blackvalley

Of course if you take any regular coffee and start adding random syrups , creams , toppings etc you can produce a drink which has any number of calories .
BUT once again i ask " can you point to a coffee drank by normal humans on a regular basis that contains Eight Hundred calories"

bizzyb

What a pile of rubbish. If people don't give a sh*t about chemicals, additives, preservatives in our food, they are not going to be worried about calories. Another example of the government jumping into a ridiculous decision without any thought, start at ground roots and look at the crap that is on supermarket shelves for our children. For me eating out is to socialise with friends if I'm lucky once a month, and to eat nice food you would never cook at home, count calories my a@#e!!!

CarpeDiem85

I definitely agree with this being done. There seems to be a lack of education or maybe ignorance around food these days. How food companies and the food industry are allowed to put so much Shiite in our food is beyond me. I was in getting a coffee one day and one coffee had 550 calories, just over a quarter of your calories allowance for one day! I definitely would think twice about ordering something with a very high calorie content but I would be careful about this at home anyway. Once you get into the habit of keeping a lid on your calorie content, it'll become second nature. I'm not obsessed about it but I would not eat one meal that contained 2000 calories regardless of how tasty it was. A much much needed measure in my eyes, something needs to done to curb our expanding waistlines.

CarpeDiem85

Wooppaaa. I just checked a few calorific dishes. They don't look like much on a plate but you're well beyond your calories allowance for the day and they wouldn't fill you at all. This is American but unfortunately that's the way we're heading too.

JohnK

blackvalley wrote: »

Of course if you take any regular coffee and start adding random syrups , creams , toppings etc you can produce a drink which has any number of calories .
BUT once again i ask " can you point to a coffee drank by normal humans on a regular basis that contains Eight Hundred calories"

The Starbucks "Eggnog Frapp Coffee Base, with whip" comes in at 544 for the small and 846 for the large - "normal humans" drink quite a lot of those* when they're in season. I admit thats on the very extreme end but there are plenty more coming in at the 500-600 range (Peppermint Mocha Latte with whip: 614 / without whip: 544). People who'd order those would probably balk at getting a Big Mac thinking its far worse for them yet that comes in at only 490.

*=So many in fact that when Starbucks dropped it from the menu there was an outcry demanding it be brought back http://fortune.com/2014/11/06/starbucks-brings-back-eggnog-latte-after-outcry/

Tom Dunne

I think it is utterly ridiculous.

If people are concerned about calories, how many times a week realistically would the average person eat out? Say once, possibly twice, most likely to socialise. You know, to switch off and relax. Are the majority of people really going to be worried about calories on a social occasion?

Just another example of the nanny state imposing unreasonable requirements on establishments.

JohnK

Part of the problem is that people aren't concerned simply because they don't know just how loaded with calories a particular item is. Giving the information just means more people can go out more often and make better informed decisions.

Shenshen

Alun wrote: »

For a fast food establishment that had a fixed menu that rarely changed maybe that could work, but for any half decent restaurant that had daily specials, based on whatever was in season and fresh in the markets that day, utterly impossible. If that's true then no wonder it's being challenged.

How is it utterly impossible?

They can price up the dish based on the ingredients use, so why would it be impossible for them to provide the approximate calorie count based on the same information?

Shenshen

Tom Dunne wrote: »

I think it is utterly ridiculous.

If people are concerned about calories, how many times a week realistically would the average person eat out? Say once, possibly twice, most likely to socialise. You know, to switch off and relax. Are the majority of people really going to be worried about calories on a social occasion?

Just another example of the nanny state imposing unreasonable requirements on establishments.

If you don't want to know, just ignore the information - very, very easy to do.
I'm not sure how it's "nannying" to force restaurants to provide information to their customers?