“To better understand this movement against fast foods, one has to appreciate first of all that many individuals do not like fat persons.” — Gary Becker
A calorie count mandate may be coming to Oregon. Newly introduced legislation would require all restaurants operating in Oregon that have more than 10 locations nationwide to publish calorie information on their menus. Multnomah County, which contains Portland, already has similar rules going into effect on March 15, so the impact will be somewhat mitigated by the fact that many of these restaurants will already be forced to comply. Nonetheless, there are many reasons to oppose this bill.
The proposal is essentially a classist reaction against the overweight, an attempt to shame them into changing their eating habits; you won’t see anyone suggesting that Le Pigeon disclose how many calories are in their delicious pork belly anytime soon. Nor is there much evidence that the measure will be worth the cost to smaller chains, given that consumers partially offset calorie-rich restaurant meals by eating more healthily at other times of day and that the numbers may be inaccurate or highly variable. And most importantly, the information is often available already, even if not prominently posted on the menu. As I wrote for The Agitator in August:
The alternative is not zero information. Chain restaurants are already responding to consumer demand for nutritional information without mandated displays. Many have been making it available on their websites or in literature within the restaurant, readily accessible for interested consumers. Some, like Subway, tout the healthiness of their menu and prominently advertise it. Others, like Hardee’s/Carl’s Jr., flaunt their excess. In between are hundreds of other restaurants that highlight their healthier offerings or entrées that comply with popular diets. There’s no compelling reason to think that the trend toward greater transparency won’t continue or that this multiplicity of approaches is somehow inferior to the single right way dictated by local government.
For more cases against calorie count mandates, see Christopher Flavelle, Radley Balko, Jacob Sullum, Katherine Mangu-Ward, and Carol Hart.
Permalink - Share/Save - Comments (8)
Jacob Grier is a freelance writer, barista, mixologist, and magician in Portland, OR. He writes, eats, and drinks a lot. His articles have appeared in The Washington Post, Reason Online, The Oregonian, and other publications.
Follow me on Twitter
As a fat person who enjoys fast food, may I interject one statement at this juncture? I’ve often thought to myself, “Gee, I could go for either a fried fish sandwhich or a fried chicken sandwhich. If only their respective carolie counts were prominently displayed, I could choose the ‘healthier’ option.”
Oh, wait, let me correct that statement slightly. I was wrong to say that thought has often occurred to me. A more accurate way of stating it would be to say the THOUGHT HAS NEVER, EVER, ONCE CROSSED MY MIND. Those nutritional tables on the back of the tray menu do make for entertaining reading material if I forget to bring the paper, however.
I recall seeing an article at some point a couple years ago about a group that attempted to do a calorie count of a French Laundry meal.
They went in and secretly bagged one of everything that was served to them to take it back to the lab. They had to distract the waiters, and be secretive, and all of that, and obviously some bits of sauce and such stayed on the plates. But if I recall correctly, the end result came in over 4000 calories.
I am putting on a dinner on Sunday that I am guessing will be 3500 or so. But don’t tell them that before they eat it.
I actually think Kevin’s point is one of the more compelling reasons for prominent displays of calorie counts. People forget to think about eating healthy, and specifically forget how unhealthily they might be eating. The libertarian argument is “people are making specific and rational choices with their consumer decisions” but it turns out - much like Kevin - that they’re not even thinking about the issue. That doesn’t mean it’s not important to them (we’re talking about health, it’s important to just about everybody, and most people at some point resolve to eat in healthy ways), it just means that, for whatever reason, that criteria didn’t play into their decision (and I can think of lots of reasons why that criteria might not occur to people at the time they’re making their menu selections, including the pervasive advertising and upselling that goes on inside of restaurants). A reminder to consider an important criteria would be helpful to ensure that consumers are actually making rational decisions.
Maybe we don’t need full-out calorie counts. Maybe we just need something that reminds consumers to consider their health when making their menu selections.
I’d also point out that we’ve taken the “remind the consumer” approach in lots of areas. The Truth in Lending Act would be a perfect example.
@Matt: For example, requiring every fast food restaurant to display a tub of human fat removed by liposuction at the check out counter? Since the costs would be the same for all restaurants, we wouldn’t even have to just limit it to chains. Brilliant!
Seriously though, while I completely disagree with you about the propriety of nagging people when they just want to enjoy their hamburger, I give you credit for being honest about why support this legislation. Most advocates pretend it’s merely about neutrally presenting facts consumers need to make an informed decision.
Note that rational decision making doesn’t have to take place at the counter, and that sometimes the rational thing to do is forget about nutrition and just enjoy yourself. For example, if I’m debating between going to Five Guys or Subway for lunch, at the time I’m rationally weighing my preferences. But once I’ve made the decision to go to Five Guys, my pleasure is maximized by indulging and no longer having to be reminded about things like calorie counts.
Also, for the record, I have never, ever eaten at a Subway.
Jacob -
I’m also curious what you’d say if the cost of displaying calorie counts was borne by the taxpayer?
Why would I want to spend tax dollars on a program I think is ineffective and annoying?
Matt, I’m sorry if my point wasn’t clear. It was that when I go into a fast-food restaurant I’ve *already* decided not eat a healthful meal and so prominent calorie counts would not affect my decision either way. The reason the thought’s never occurred to me is not because I’m forgetful or inattentive, but rather because I’ve very conscientiously decided to eat badly. I suspect I’m the rule rather than the exception.