The first phase of California’s new law mandating the disclosure of nutritional information at chain restaurants went into effect yesterday. This is supposed to give consumers the information they need to make healthy eating decisions, but I think these two juxtaposed quotes in a Mercury News article on the subject capture the real forces behind this legislation:
Betty McGuire, who said she was buying a bag of fast food at Jack’s to give to a homeless person — she doesn’t touch the stuff — didn’t see a problem with the exemption for high-toned restaurants. “I would think the clientele is very different,” McGuire said, “much higher-end. They probably know what they’re eating.” She was not similarly confident about teenagers, whom she hoped “might think twice” now that they’ll have access to elaborate calorie charts.
Mechanic Victor Grijalva seemed relieved to learn that Jack in the Box will keep this information on its counter in a brochure, until he asks for it — which he has no plans to do. [JG: That part of the law goes into effect in 2011.] “I thought it was going to be posted,” he said. “If it was posted on the wall, it would definitely make a difference.” During breaks from working in the Midas garage, he often wolfs down the heart-stopping Bacon Ultimate burger, and would prefer not to be reminded that it accounts for nearly half his daily calorie needs.
The unstated prejudice underlying mandated calorie counts is that only the rich and educated can eat calorie-dense food responsibly; it’s the kind of people who eat at Jack in the Box who need to be nagged and shamed for their indulgence.
If the Senate has its way we’ll soon be nagged at every chain restaurant throughout the country. I wrote against these mandates here and here.
Previously:
Counting calories at Per Se
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
Interesting that Mr. Grijalva seems to say that a calorie count display would change his behavior. Now he may be lying, but let’s take him at his word for the sake of argument.
You’ve said in the past that people’s behavior won’t change when they get this information - they’ve already taken the unhealthiness of fast food into account and their overarching preference is for the cheap, quick, reliably mediocre food. You’ve linked to studies showing that people don’t order the healthy alternatives at fast food restaurants.
Quotes like Grijalva’s seem to contradict your argument. If enough people act like Grijalva and change their behavior…that’s one of your arguments gone. If we’re only talking restaurants like Hardees or McDonalds that make basically the same thing nationwide - and thus have a pretty regular, unchanging calorie count for their menus across the nation - then the extra cost to restaurants will be minimal. (I remember you arguing that restaurants which do special orders would have trouble compiling the calorie counts for the myriad combinations of their food.)
That basically leaves the arguments of prejudice and paternalism. I know I won’t fit in on this particular blog saying this, but I couldn’t care less about paternalism if there’s an actual measurable improvement in public health. Especially when the “paternalism” isn’t banning anything…it’s giving people information. Prejudice? Seems to me here that prejudice is in favor of the poor and uneducated. I wish it wasn’t there, but measures favoring the poor and uneducated over the elite and educated don’t bother me too much.
Then again, maybe this guy’s lying through his teeth. After all, he knows the calorie counts are there and chooses to hide from them. Or maybe he’s telling the truth, but he’s an aberration. My main concern is whether the policy improves health or not. The rest is a side-show.
@Ben: As far as I know no new studies have come out finding that posting the counts is very effective. Also, the argument isn’t that there will be no effect at fast food restaurants, but that any effect will be at least partially offset by people’s behavior at other times during the day. So maybe making health concerns more prominent at Jack in the Box causes him to change his order, but then having made the virtuous choice at lunch he feels justified in having a bigger dinner, drinking a few beers, or getting a Snickers bar from the vending machine. If people compensate in this way, then reductions in calories at fast food restaurants may not translate to better diets overall.
I think Ben laid it all out really well. And Jacob, your response seems awfully speculative “maybe it’ll help people at fast food restaurants but maybe they’ll off-set”. I’m with Ben - the bottom line is if there’s a result in health. Until you can actually show that there isn’t… then that’s some good paternalism.
Oh, and I’d be for calorie counts at high-end places too. Information is a good thing.
@Matt: I may be wrong, but that’s not speculative. It’s exactly what one would predict from economic theory and is consistent with the findings of this working paper:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1079584
Why is the burden of proof on the critics of calories counts? They aren’t the ones seeking to change the status quo or impose new costs on businesses. Pragmatically, wouldn’t the thing to do now be to watch what happens in NYC and California before rushing to impose calorie counts elsewhere?
The reason the burden falls to critics is two-fold:
1. The assumption that information is relative to rational decision-making.
2. The common-sense “people will eat healthier” conclusions indicated by comments like those from Grijalva. Even the studies showing off-sets in other health areas do demonstrate that there’s healthier eating at fast food restaurants. So on some level this does seem to work. And there’s no reason we can tinker with the unforseen consequences (like snacking later on) in other ways.
By “relative” I meant, of course, “relavent. Look at the time stamp and adjust for the East Coast time difference, and then realize why I made the mistake.