Brad Hollerbach is the Director of Information Technology for the Southeast Missourian. His opinions are his own and do not reflect those of the newspaper or its editorial board. He writes this blog primarily for his own amusement and to parody the absurdities of the world we live in. He lives with his wife and two cats that don't really care for one another in Cape.

Proposed Restaurant 'Calorie' Law Bites

Posted Wednesday, September 30, 2009, at 12:00 AM

A bill is working its way thru Congress that -- if passed -- is going to take a whole lot of the fun out of eating out.

The proposed law will require restaurants with 20 or more locations doing business under the same trade name to post "the number of calories, grams of saturated plus trans fat, grams of carbohydrate, and milligrams of sodium" right next to each item on the menu.

No longer will you be able to just pick something guilt-free off a restaurant menu because the photo of the entrée "looks good." If this bill passes, it will be virtually impossible to select something from a restaurant menu without your eye wandering over to all the dietary data.

Do your really want to know that the Double-Double 7-Layer Chocolate Death Cake you've been craving all week from your favorite restaurant has 5000 calories and contains a pound of unsaturated fat?

I know I don't. But even if I somehow am able to put on my menu blinders and manage to not look at the dietary data, I know that my wife will look for me. I can hear her already.

"Do you REALLY NEED that piece of Double-Double 7-Layer Chocolate Death Cake? Just look at the calories. That's like a weekend at the gym. How about a nice fruit plate?"

And you're not going to be able to sneak around the dietary data by going through the drive-thru. No, the politicians have thought of that too. Drive-thru menu boards will have to include calorie information right next to each item. I just want to scarf down that deliciously crisp McDonald's French fry and not worry that the large container I just bought contains 500 calories, 220 of which are fat.

Knowing that information can just ruin your appetite.

The bill is even targeting chains with salad bars or buffets. Those restaurants will have "to place a sign that lists the number of calories per serving adjacent to each food item or beverage offered."

Good luck with that one. Many of the restaurant buffets I've been to require customers to play "Guess That Entrée!" where all of the offerings are a bit of mystery until you take the first bite.

Some of the pizza buffets are especially bad about not labeling their fare. Who can blame them? They bring out a fresh pizza and hungry customers have devoured it faster than you can say, "I believe those 500 grams of unsaturated fat will make your butt bigger."

Even vending machines are not being spared by these nutrition Nazis. The bill -- as it is currently written -- will require all businesses who operate 20 or more vending machines to provide "a conspicuous sign disclosing the number of calories contained in each article of food dispensed from such machines."

Forget about hitting the break room vending machine to relieve a little mid-day work stress with a Snicker bar and a Coke. As soon as you see that that combination will result in 500 calories and 25% of those are fat, most people will likely say to heck with the stress and go find a less-governmentally hen-pecked vice such as smoking.

While reading about this proposed legislation, I became curious about how it originated and who the heck was endorsing it. According to the Washington Post, California became the first state to enact a menu-labeling bill for chain restaurants last fall. No surprises there. A lot of pea-brained ideas originate from that state.

It was also no surprise that ten of the thirty-nine co-sponsors of the legislation also are from The Golden State.

I thought it was noteworthy that none of the endorsing Representatives are from any of the top 14 fattest states -- Missouri is thirteenth -- and only eight sponsors are from the top 25. Looks to me like the Skinny Minnie states are trying to throw their weight around and foist their healthy agenda off on the half of the country that doesn't care for tofu and yogurt.

I'm afraid to tell them, but when they start trying to legislate our fast food, the sleeping bear that is the obese majority of America is going to rise up!

Maybe not all at once or right away, but I promise you, there is going to be some rising. And as soon as we can get motivated to get off the couch and have a little snack to boost our blood-sugar -- rising up can take a lot of you, so it's best if you get fortified first -- obese America will fend off these politicians who are trying legislate away our Constitutional right to eat ourselves to death, guilt-free!

I'm quite curious about the likelihood that Texas Representative Gene Green will be re-elected when his Houston constituency discovers that he endorsed this bill. Texas is the 15th fattest state in the Union and Green is the only Lone-Star congressman endorsing this legislation.

Personally, I think his electorate should stone him, or I suppose it would be more ironically appropriate if they used eggs or tomatoes or maybe some cream pies. I highly recommend pelting him with a big handful of Double-Double 7-Layer Chocolate Death Cake. A nice big blob of that in his face would certainly make a statement.

That is, of course, if you can spare a few hundred calories. And you don't need them to get fortified.

Comments

View 13 comments or respond

Community discussion is important, and we encourage you to participate as a reader and commenter. Click here to see our Guidelines. We also encourage registered users to let us know if they see something inappropriate on our site. You can do that by clicking "Report Comment" below.

Ahh, Brad, This is pretty tough to read so early in the morning... Now I feel extra hungry. You do make death by chocolate sound so tempting.

-- Posted by jcwill on Wed, Sep 30, 2009, at 7:52 AM
Really?! This reminds me of the whole 'McDonald's caused me to be unhealthy' fiasco. I guess people just don't have common sense anymore when it comes to eating healthy.

Most people should know that the Double-Double 7 Layer death cake is unhealthy for them without having to see the nutritional information. I can understand Congress' attempt to offer a disincentive at the restaurant for an unhealthy population, but I don't think it would make a difference anyway. It's a person's choice to eat something unhealthy, and I don't think this is going to change that.

Pass me the cake... and Brad, we should take a road trip to Texas to give Gene Green his just desserts.

-- Posted by almighty on Wed, Sep 30, 2009, at 8:18 AM
Almighty, while I just used Gene Green as an example -- he was the only rep endorsing this from the top 15 fattest states -- there were certainly other congresspersons worthy of a pie-in-the-face for ignoring their constituent's core Midwestern values like over-indulging in restaurants, guilt free.

For instance, also endorsing this bill is Rep. Bruce Braley of Iowa (#17 fattest state), Rep. Ron Kind of Wisconsin (#26 fattest state. Go figure. I would have thought that state would be a lot fatter with all that cheese.) and Rep. Janice Schakowsky of Illinois (#27. Probably one of those "northern" Illinois Representatives).

Thanks for reading.

-- Posted by Brad_Hollerbach on Wed, Sep 30, 2009, at 8:54 AM
Why does government feel they have to regulate every aspect of our lives under the guise of it being "for our own protection?" Because we let them get away with it!

-- Posted by travellin man on Wed, Sep 30, 2009, at 9:29 AM
Gene Green - Democrat

Bruce Braley - Democrat

Ron Kind - Democrat

Janice Schakowsky - Democrat

The only Republican that I could find that has publicly announced support is Senator Lisa Murkowski from Alaska, there may be others but that's all I found in a few minutes of 'googling'. Some of the biggest supporters appear to be Sen Tom Harkin, Democrat from Iowa, and Senator Tom Carper, Democrat from Delaware.

-- Posted by gomer on Wed, Sep 30, 2009, at 10:42 AM
The bill's original 39 Representative sponsors are all Democrats. Alaska -- the 14th fattest state -- had no Representatives initially support this bill.

When I originally checked, the bill was still in a House committee, although Gomer's comment about Senator Murkowski makes me wonder if the Senate is already drafting a comparable law.

TFR.

-- Posted by Brad_Hollerbach on Wed, Sep 30, 2009, at 10:55 AM
I'm not in agreement that dietary info needs to be posted on the Menu, and I really don't think this is something that needs to be legistlated. Most chain restraunts have had this information available for years if you care enough to ask for it or look it up online.

However, more so that the calorie content, the portion size is the real issue - what we think is a portion size and what is really a portion size are often two very different things. That slice of death by chocolate cake might be big enough to really be 3-4 portions! If the calories content is bothering you, ask for an extra plate and fork and share it with your date.

-- Posted by farmwife2 on Wed, Sep 30, 2009, at 11:36 AM
You're right Farmwife2, this information is already available for most chain restaurants.

The issue that particularly baffles me is how are restaurants with buffets and salad bars "realistically" going to implement a law like this? Have scales and measuring cups on the buffets? Like that's going to "work." I think that's the problem with many of our elected officials. They don't live in the "real" world.

And as the bill is written so far, it reportedly only affects 25% of the restaurants nationwide. For instance some "chains" operate more than 20 restaurants with DIFFERENT names. They would be exempt from this law.

Others with large amounts of revenue -- I'm guessing Lambert's in Sikeston would qualify -- would also not be affected even though they could afford the costs of determining how many calories are in that piece of Double Double 7-Layer Chocolate Death Cake. That information is not cheap.

All in all, this is dumb proposed law that will have zero affect on changing the eating habits of consumers.

By the way, when my wife and I have dessert out, we usually split it. We love the Carmel Pie at OCharley's but it is oooooooohhhhh sooooooo rich. Way too much sweet for just one person.

TFR

-- Posted by Brad_Hollerbach on Wed, Sep 30, 2009, at 12:22 PM
I don't care for deserts with the possible excption of an occasional piece of Godiva chocolate. I don't care for Hersheys.

About some things I'm a real snob.

-- Posted by voyager on Wed, Sep 30, 2009, at 5:13 PM
I found an article where Murkowsi stated she would support similar such legislation if it made it to the Senate, but not necessarily the same version mentioned in your blog. There are many articles where it mentions that Harkin is an ardent supporter of such a bill.

-- Posted by gomer on Wed, Sep 30, 2009, at 6:44 PM
While I grew up on Hershey bars,Voyager, when I want a chocolate bar, I typically eat a British-made Cadbury bar from a stash we keep in the cupboard.

I never knew why I preferred the Cadbury's from Britain so much (the Cadburys you often see in U.S. stores are made under license by Hershey) until I read an article in the Wall Street Journal a few weeks ago.

European chocolate contains vegetable fat, which the U.S. bans in chocolate. Hershey, therefore, has to use more cocoa butter that according to the article in the WSJ is "harder, melt slower and deliver its flavor over a long period of time." If the manufacturer uses condensed versus powdered milk that too can "radically alter taste and texture."

That might explain your preference for Godiva.

TFR

-- Posted by Brad_Hollerbach on Thu, Oct 1, 2009, at 8:34 AM
This law is pretty stupid for a number of reasons.

First off, in homogonized restauraunts (like fast food chains), you can provide nutrtional information becasue they are based on standard recipes.

However, others you can't. Salad bar would be a prime example. When using fresh vegetables and fruit, a number of issues can effect taste. For one, seasonality. Then if you add more or less of somthing, your nutrtional info is no longer accurate.

Plus, what about restauraunts that don't batch cook. When you break things down and individually prepare them, your standard recipe is also no longer valid.

The law sounds great in theory, but impossible to implement.

-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Thu, Oct 1, 2009, at 5:19 PM
Interestingly the side effect of this is that the local restaurants might get more business from people who don't want to see the calorie counts. On the other hand there could be the issue that they start to have people asking for nutrition info (i.e. calorie counts) and when they don't have it people would leave.

-- Posted by athenaebelle on Sat, Oct 3, 2009, at 12:27 AM

Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires a subscription.