http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25464987

Quote :

"New Yorkers try to swallow calorie sticker shock 600 calorie muffins? The first city to adopt law faces unappetizing surprises By Roni Caryn Rabin MSNBC contributor updated 8:34 a.m. ET, Wed., July. 16, 2008 Nora Cara was flabbergasted. She was about to order her usual morning coffee and muffin at Dunkin’ Donuts when she saw the new calorie labels. The chocolate chip muffin she had her eye on was 630 calories. “I was blown away,” said Cara, a 27-year-old homemaker from Forest Hills in New York City. “I’m not a no-carb type of person, and I usually don’t even think about it. But you pick up a little muffin with your coffee, and it has 630 calories in it? That’s a bit extreme!” New Yorkers have been in the throes of sticker shock since this spring when the Big Apple became the first city in the country to implement a law forcing chain restaurants to post the calorie count of each food in the same size and font as the price. Restaurants have not exhausted their legal challenges, but the city will start fining violators up to $2,000 beginning Friday, say officials with the city’s Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. While some sit-down chains and fast-food eateries are waiting until the last minute, coffee shops like Starbucks — home of the 470 calorie raspberry scone and 610 calorie cookie — have been replacing their menu boards and adding calorie tags to pastries in recent weeks. The result: Do a little eavesdropping in a New York City restaurant, and you may think you’ve stumbled into an Overeaters Anonymous meeting. At T.G.I. Friday’s, one of the few sit-down chain restaurants to have already added calorie counts to menus, a group of young women gasped as they studied the menu, barely able to find a meal under 1,000 calories, never mind an appetizer or dessert. Both Stephanie Fowler and Lindsay Green asked about the suddenly popular Classic Sirloin — at 290 calories, it was one of the lowest calorie items on the menu — but learned the restaurant ran out by the time the dinner rush started. Outside the Forest Hills’ Dunkin’ Donuts, Juan Restrepo, the 45-year-old owner of a construction company, said he was quitting corn muffins — 510 calories! — this time for good. “My daughter warned me about them,” he lamented. “I just didn’t listen.” Preventing diabetes Putting the brakes on thoughtlessly inhaling calories is exactly the effect New York City health officials hoped the law would have. They say calorie labels could reduce the number of obese New Yorkers by 150,000 over the next five years, and prevent 30,000 cases of diabetes. New York is not the only city pushing calorie labels. New laws in Seattle and California’s Santa Clara and San Francisco are scheduled to go into effect later this year, including some more stringent than New York’s, requiring restaurants to post information about sodium, carbs, fats and cholesterol in addition to calories. Such laws have faced stiff opposition and legal challenges from the restaurant industry. A judge struck down New York City’s first calorie labeling law, which would only have applied to fast food restaurants that were already making calorie information available on Web sites or posters. The law was then revised to apply to all chain restaurants with 15 or more outlets nationwide. “We’re still in court, but the ruling is in effect,” said New York City health department spokeswoman Jessica Scaperotti. Fines for the restaurants who haven't posted calorie counts by Friday will range from $200 to $2,000 depending on the violation, she said. Scaperotti said she didn't know what impact the calorie labels have made on consumer choices or sales. But, she said, “We know nutritional information is effective. If you go to the Starbucks near our office in lower Manhattan, the little cookies that are 80 calories each — they’re the first ones to go.” 1,360 calorie salad Many New Yorkers are finding that even the foods they thought were lower calorie really aren’t. Vicki Freedman, who lives in Manhattan, watches her weight and always tries to choose a light option when eating out. But the 26 year old just discovered that the Friday’s pecan-crusted chicken salad, served with mandarin oranges, dried cranberries and celery, has 1,360 calories. “That surprised me the most because they market it as a healthy option,” she said. “It’s like false advertising. You think it’s better than the burger and the fries. It’s misleading.” (The cheeseburger served with fries is, indeed, 1,290 calories.) Meals ordered at sit-down chain restaurants may have more calories than typical takeout fast-food, nutritionists say, because the portions are often larger and an entrée can be served on a plate smothered with French fries. In a takeout restaurant, the fries have to fit into a container, which limits the portion size. Managers at some restaurants, including an Upper East Side Johnny Rocket’s and Outback Steakhouse, said new menus including calorie counts would be on tables by Friday, or shortly thereafter. “We’re concerned,” acknowledged Eric Hagy, proprietor of Outback Steakhouse on Third Avenue in Manhattan. “I don’t know what effect it will have, but it will bring people’s attention to certain items that are high in calories, like the Bloomin’ Onion appetizer. It has over 2,000 calories, but it’s meant to be shared between two or three people.” At a Starbucks on the Upper East Side of Manhattan, barista Bishoy Ayoub, 18, said he’s noticed many customers switching to smaller drinks or reduced-fat drinks since calorie labels were posted several months ago. ‘Take off the labels’ “Some people actually tell us we should take off the labels, because it discourages them from ordering what they want,” he said. “But I think honesty is the best policy.” At a Wendy’s nearby, where calorie counts were just posted next to prices on the menu-boards behind the counter, customers didn’t flinch. “I figure I’ve got 1,350 calories here on my tray,” said Tristan Rowe, 26, who lives in Brooklyn, pointing to his lunch of a chicken club sandwich, junior bacon-cheeseburger, large fries and a large Coke (which actually added up to 1,680 calories). “It’s not going to change what I order — I’m not watching my waistline. I have a very active lifestyle.” Despite the eye-opening revelations, whether New Yorkers will switch to lower calorie meals remains to be seen. They may just switch menus. That’s what Fowler, the woman who was dining recently with her friends at T.G.I. Friday's, decided to do. “I’m so upset,” she said, noting some entrees — like the Jack Daniels ribs and shrimp dinner — contain almost 2,000 calories, and the desserts were more of the same (the brownie obsession is 1,500 calories). “I wish they wouldn’t have done this.” But then Fowler noticed that the waiter had handed her friend an old menu, which didn’t have calorie counts on it. “You got a menu without anything on it?” she asked her friend. “Can I have yours?” "

I have some friends who want to lose weight, but pay no attention to calories when they order. They say stuff like "I don't think what I eat is that bad". This at least lets them know. I guess it's not surprising people want to get rid of the labels. Ignorance is bliss.

7/16/2008 4:32:42 PM

I actually hope this sets a precedent for other big cities

But in all honesty, some of the people are damn retarded if they thought that food was somewhat healthy in the first place.

[Edited on July 16, 2008 at 4:35 PM. Reason : f]

7/16/2008 4:34:20 PM

this is brilliant

7/16/2008 4:36:07 PM

The big chain restruants are the worst

Chilis, Applebee's, Outback, etc.

They give you 2.5-3x a normal portion

You're lucky to find a salad under 1200 calories

7/16/2008 4:40:11 PM

this is a fantastic idea. If you're into fitness you've probably at some point begun to look into these calorie counts yourself and have a decent idea of what you're getting when you go out (which is why I don't eat out very often).

Hopefully this will get the average person to realize that they're putting way too much shit into themselves and that it's irresponsible to be getting these massive calorie counts with every single menu item. I'd like to think at some point that corporations will be forced to own up to the disgusting amount of calories that are in an average portion at most places.

7/16/2008 4:44:59 PM

Quote :

" I have some friends who want to lose weight, but pay no attention to calories when they order"

this annoys me to no end. you'll hear them say how they just can't manage to lose weight and they don't eat anything thats extensive but they won't miss having a doughnut on fridays when they get brought in, they constantly gulp down sodas and tell you about the other "not bad" indulgences they allow themselves every day.

people need to stop deluding themselves, open their eyes, and decide to make a commitment to personal responsibility if they can handle the TRUTH.

7/16/2008 4:52:15 PM

Drinks are probably the easiest things to cut out calories from, Ill admit I used to down at least a 2 liter of Mt. Dew a day if not more. Which was fine back in my young 20s when I was working at UPS to burn off everything I ever ate. After I quit there and started adding more beer I quickly gained some weight for the first time in like 10 years. All I did was stop drinking soda and only beer occasionally and went to almost all water and 10 pounds disappeared without really doing anything else.

7/16/2008 4:55:12 PM

I would love it if these policies were in place nationwide. I'm tired of not knowing what's the deal with my food- and cooking at home all the time just gets old.

7/16/2008 4:59:05 PM

This is a pretty good idea. If you're used to eating more than you should be, a 1500 calorie meal doesn't "feel" like that much. Eating is like spending money; you're less likely to overspend if you pay with cash, since it's a tangible thing that you have to watch dwindle away. When you use a credit card, you tend to forget (or willfully ignore) how much you're spending. The same principle applies here. It's harder to just pretend that you aren't overeating if the numbers are staring you right in the face.

7/16/2008 4:59:16 PM

I sure am glad the government can help me choose what food to eat, I couldn't decide what to eat otherwise!

[Edited on July 16, 2008 at 5:00 PM. Reason : more disappointed in this country everyday]

7/16/2008 4:59:21 PM

so you're against providing information to the consumer?

7/16/2008 5:00:49 PM

There has to be strict accounatability for it to work

Otherwise to make items look healthy

places could just put random numbers up

like ^^^ did when he came up with his screen name

[Edited on July 16, 2008 at 5:00 PM. Reason : x]

7/16/2008 5:00:49 PM

that's fraud and very very criminal

7/16/2008 5:01:31 PM

would be hard to enforce, especially for smaller out of the way places

Come try our 300 Calorie double bacon cheesburger !

7/16/2008 5:02:34 PM

when did I say I was against that?


if people are dumb enough to order a twice fried apple pie or what not they should understand it's not healthy, don't see the purpose in having the calories posted in the same font as the prices


plus it's just more govt

7/16/2008 5:02:57 PM

^^ you mean hard to enforce like health codes?

^ i know what you are

you're just a conservative bitch who hates anything that smacks of good or right...

[Edited on July 16, 2008 at 5:04 PM. Reason : .]

7/16/2008 5:02:59 PM

I consider myself pretty libertarian, but I don't see a problem with this. Nutrition labels are on food you would buy from the grocery store. I think people should know what they're being served. It isn't the federal government mandating this; cities have been able to implement laws concerning this kind of thing for a very long time.

7/16/2008 5:04:13 PM

I don't think it should necessarily be in the same font size as the rest of the menu, or even right next to the item. I'd settle for an added page on the back of the menu with nutritional info.

7/16/2008 5:04:52 PM

I really wish this was a nation wide thing.

7/16/2008 5:04:56 PM

it's very hard to see what is wrong with this

this is, perhaps, a very good middle ground to start fighting obesity in america

7/16/2008 5:05:04 PM

^^^

"nutritional information" is already available to the consumer if they ask for it

this is to put the nutrition information right in their face, everytime, when they order it

that's the new angle

and it's a great one

7/16/2008 5:06:47 PM

Quote :

"I sure am glad the government can help me choose what food to eat, I couldn't decide what to eat otherwise!"

more regulations. exactly what we need.

7/16/2008 5:07:12 PM

plz 2 keep the stickers off my bbq?

7/16/2008 5:07:16 PM

lol at pics

7/16/2008 5:08:23 PM

Quote :

"you're just a conservative bitch who hates anything that smacks of good or right..."

you're a god damn idiot, I'm not a conservative nor a bitch


but you sound like a whiny little helpless pussy


STUPID PEOPLE NEED STUPID RULES FOR THEM TO LIVE THEIR STUPID ASS LIFE

[Edited on July 16, 2008 at 5:11 PM. Reason : .]

7/16/2008 5:10:33 PM

what "rules"?

they're just putting the calories next to the food...

what's wrong with that?

7/16/2008 5:11:49 PM

you're the one clamoring on about "fighting obesity"

last I checked overeating and not exercising is an individual choice

7/16/2008 5:12:45 PM

sure is... and now that they have more information they can make "more informed choices"

am i right?

7/16/2008 5:13:28 PM

i saw these in the chipotle i went into last week - it was interesting but useful

7/16/2008 5:13:52 PM

Quote :

"I sure am glad the government can help me choose what food to eat, I couldn't decide what to eat otherwise! [Edited on July 16, 2008 at 5:00 PM. Reason : more disappointed in this country everyday]"

Hi Greg, how's the fishing life coming?

7/16/2008 5:13:55 PM

Quote :

"I would love it if these policies were in place nationwide. I'm tired of not knowing what's the deal with my food- and cooking at home all the time just gets old."

Cooking at home is awesome.

Quote :

""nutritional information" is already available to the consumer if they ask for it"

Sometimes.
Not always.

The reason this is a good idea? Most people have no idea how to even compare foods to choose the healthier option, or where to place food on the good-for-you/bad-for-you continuum.

Just look at any 'eating better when eating out' type of article. Things that are common sense are the bullet points in said articles, and a good many people claim to not realize that dairy-based sauces or dressings are so calorie-laden.

Granted, if we'd raise our kids to get off their asses, pay attention to what to eat (and do the same as adults), and teach some basic nutrition, this would be much less of an issue.

Quote :

"STUPID PEOPLE NEED STUPID RULES FOR THEM TO LIVE THEIR STUPID ASS LIFE"

What rules are being forced on consumers, through this policy?

Oh, right. None.

[Edited on July 16, 2008 at 5:16 PM. Reason : ljkdf]

7/16/2008 5:15:20 PM

damn, they went and watched WALL-E and decided they had to prevent that shit

7/16/2008 5:15:40 PM

I don't get it. They aren't say you can't eat the food, or limiting how much you eat. Why aren't you crying about how they have to print nutritional information on non-restaurant food? Why even put labels any anything? They can just have packages of food at the grocery store and you guess what's inside and buy it.

7/16/2008 5:15:41 PM

^^^^ it's been discussed ad nauseum that I'm not greg

guess you missed that


as far as I know fishing is going just fine for him and his crew

[Edited on July 16, 2008 at 5:17 PM. Reason : you people]

7/16/2008 5:16:32 PM

Quote :

"damn, they went and watched WALL-E and decided they had to prevent that shit"

Sarcasm, yes?

7/16/2008 5:16:38 PM

hahahaha, yeah

[Edited on July 16, 2008 at 5:17 PM. Reason : threads like this get me lolling]

7/16/2008 5:17:14 PM

there are already labels, thats what I am saying

7/16/2008 5:17:25 PM

^^^^^

because they feel they have too

right wing people, for some fucked up unknown reason, always feel they have to argue the side of the corporation

god knows why...

[Edited on July 16, 2008 at 5:17 PM. Reason : .]

7/16/2008 5:17:37 PM

I'm all for restaurants providing this information for customers if they CHOOSE to do so.


But the government forcing businesses to provide this information? Terribly immoral IMO.

7/16/2008 5:19:52 PM

It wouldn't be an issue if most of America had common sense

But since people think that any salad is healthy, don't realize that muffins and scones are just as bad as cakes and cookies, and usually eat at least at least twice the recommended amount of anything they order

I think the time has come for other people to police their eating habits


I, for one, am tired of seeing fatass after fatass gorge themselves

7/16/2008 5:20:22 PM

immoral?

get the fuck out of here... jesus

7/16/2008 5:20:39 PM

i consider myself pretty damn conservative and i think these are a pretty good idea.

i would like to see a calorie count beside what i order

[Edited on July 16, 2008 at 5:21 PM. Reason : i don't give a shit what other folks do or how fat they are, i'd just like to see if for myself]

7/16/2008 5:20:54 PM

Quote :

"hahahaha, yeah"

You gotta double check sometimes

Quote :

"there are already labels, thats what I am saying"

How many people do you know carry around the nutrional pamphlets from restaurants, if they're even available? Or have printouts from the web, or a phone that can access those pages from the restaurant? Keep in mind many of those pages are very heavy on flash.

And even if a restaurant's policy is to keep nutritional data in the restaurant to be available when customers ask...how often do you really think a waiter will be willing to go dig it out, if it's even there, and bring it to you?

Quote :

"But the government forcing businesses to provide this information? Terribly immoral IMO."

Immoral? You need a dictionary, madam.

Quote :

"It wouldn't be an issue if most of America had common sense But since people think that any salad is healthy, don't realize that muffins and scones are just as bad as cakes and cookies, and usually eat at least at least twice the recommended amount of anything they order"

Precisely.

7/16/2008 5:21:11 PM

It's New York City. Didn't they do the same thing with Trans-fats a couple years ago?

OMG the Government is trying to help me live longer and not become fat!

News Flash: This is not a bad thing!

[Edited on July 16, 2008 at 5:23 PM. Reason : s]

7/16/2008 5:21:45 PM

news flash


that big mac and fries you ordered isn't good for you

7/16/2008 5:21:45 PM

news flash

WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT A BIG MAC AND FRIES

lol

7/16/2008 5:22:07 PM

Quote :

"news flash that big mac and fries you ordered isn't good for you"

Quote :

"Vicki Freedman, who lives in Manhattan, watches her weight and always tries to choose a light option when eating out. But the 26 year old just discovered that the Friday’s pecan-crusted chicken salad, served with mandarin oranges, dried cranberries and celery, has 1,360 calories."

7/16/2008 5:23:13 PM

the best part of all this is that fast food restaurants will have to work towards providing healthier choices

either through

a) healthier food

or

b) smaller portion sizes (my choice overall... STOP GIVING ME 3x WHAT I FUCKING NEED FOR 3x THE MONEY)

[Edited on July 16, 2008 at 5:25 PM. Reason : .]

7/16/2008 5:24:46 PM

Quote :

"Immoral? You need a dictionary, madam."

Hey, if you think the only proper function of the government is to use physical force against foreign and domestic initiators of physical force (criminals and terrorists), then YES, this act passed in New York is immoral and completely disgusting to you.

7/16/2008 5:25:25 PM

Quote :

"colter All American 7326 Posts user info edit post block user ^^^^ it's been discussed ad nauseum that I'm not greg guess you missed that as far as I know fishing is going just fine for him and his crew [Edited on July 16, 2008 at 5:17 PM. Reason : you people]"

Look man, we know it's you, no need to hide. From your lyrics threads, to being at EI, to your political views, its all the same.

7/16/2008 5:25:53 PM