San Francisco passed a resolution last week requiring chain restaurants to display calorie information on their menus, but the industry couldn’t care less. They will continue fattening us up like gingerbread cash-cows, regardless of whatever regulations pitiful municipalities hurl their way.
San Francisco’s proposal would cover about 200 restaurants with over 20 locations. Each would be required to pay an annual $350 fee to fund a half-time compliance inspector.
San Francisco joins New York City and Washington’s King County in the battle to protect consumers with information, a fight that has not gone well for municipalities. California Governator Arnold Schwarzenegger recently vetoed a bill that would require nutrition labeling throughout the state, and New York City was barred by a judge from enforcing its regulations until April 15, when the plan may be tossed altogether.
Subway is the only restaurant we know of to voluntarily display nutritional information on their menus, and apparently, they haven’t been driven out of business. Go figure.
San Francisco passes menu label ordinance [ThePacker.com]
San Francisco Mayor Signs Menu Labeling Bill [CSPI]
More From Consumerist
-
San Francisco Restaurant Ordered To Fork Over $525,000 In Back Pay To Employees
-
San Francisco Restaurant Flips The Bird To California Foie Gras Ban
-
More Than 50 San Francisco Restaurants Accused Of Scamming Customers & Employees By Pocketing Health Care Surcharge
-
Yelp To Include Health Dept. Ratings For Restaurants In Some Cities
-
Is It Ever Acceptable For Waiters To Be Unpleasant?
God, this again.
Yeah, yeah, “personal responsibility,” “free market,” rah rah, siss boom bah!
Of course diners have to make the ultimate decisions about what they’ll eat. The problem is that it is not possible to accurately estimate the nutritional profile of prepared dishes at most restaurants. Studies have shown that even when registered dietitians try to estimate the caloric content of chain restaurant meals, they’re often wrong by a factor of 100% or more.
We require nutritional labeling for packaged food, for this very reason — people should be able to know what they’re buying and consuming. Restaurant dishes should be no different.
OT: I know better than to call it “Frisco,” but calling it “The City” isn’t that useful when I’m talking to people in, say, Maryland. Is there another nickname I can use for SF without sounding like an idiot?
Why stop at calories? Lets make them list the molecules. Hell, every element in the food! This is beyond ridiculous. Be responsible for your own choices. If you are unsure then do some research. Stop asking the government to wipe your little noses. It is one thing if they are putting toxic crap in the food but this is over the top.
@spamtasticus:
What do you mean by “do some research”? By that do you mean, obtain a sample entree, take it to a nutritional lab, review the analysis and THEN decide whether to dine at the restaurant?
Calories, fat, protein, carbohydrates, dietary fiber, cholesterol, and sodium are the basic measurements that will allow most people to determine if a food meets their dietary requirements. Knowing the molecular composition of the food won’t help anyone — that’s just a silly straw man.
@PenguinBlue: People who blame only the consumer are just as wrong as those who blame only the restaurants.
@spamtastic: I think they are just pushing them to display basic nutritional information, which I’m all for. They require that on food in the grocery store. It makes it easier to make informed descisions about what you’re eating. And to be honest, a lot of places do not make it easy to find that info, in store, or on their web sites. They people who don’t care about it now will keep ignoring it, so it’s win-win. It is still up to the customer to make the final descision. To say that requiring this to be display is asking the gov to wipe our noses is a little over reaching. In my mind it’s no different than car manufactures posting horse power, fuel efficiency, point of origin, and price on their cars. It is a product they are selling, and I want to know what’s in it. No I don’t need EVERY detail, but I do want the basics easily available.
As a side note: I thought I was being at least kind of healthy when I get an Ancho Chile BBQ Burritto from Qdoba… Not quite: +1100 calories in that baby.
@modenastradale
I have a question for you. Is the tar rating on the side of a sigarette the reason you dont smoke or the fact that you generaly know that they are quite harmfull for you?
Another point guys. When customers start to demand this information the restaurants will do it. Just look at all the available organic foods. There is no reason why it should be a law, is my point. I don’t want to live in a nanny state. It is bad enough that in a few months there will be flying robot cop drones flying around here in miami. To keep an eye on the kiddies. Now if a restaurant advertises that something is low fat and it is not, that is wrong.
I don’t understand the blame the consumerists on this one. This regulation would actually completely enable that crowd. “They have all of this nutritional info and they’re still making awful choices!”
Seems like a dream come true.
@nequam: @magic8ball:
I’ve never been a local, but my sister lived there for many years. I always laughed when she used that moniker for “San Fran”.
Back in the 1949 the “famous” San Francisco columnist Herb Caen called it “Baghdad by the Bay” [en.wikipedia.org] Not too sure that’s applicable anymore.
@spamtasticus:
What’s a “sigarette”?
@xtc46:
WELL SAID !
People need to take personal responsibility for what they choose to eat.
Does anyone seriously think that because a rest posts dietary info people make better decisions ???
Someone mentioned that it’s extremely easy for someone to look up nutritional information on the internet. If you’re that concerned about calorie counting, why not look it up before you eat out? Or save some money and cook for yourself. Or, best yet, go to Subway or someplace that DOES post nutritional information! No need for a law here.
Most fast food places around here (B’ham, AL) already have large signs listing the nutritional values for all of their menu items near the register. It doesn’t get much easier than that. You can’t FORCE someone to look at them.
@spamtasticus:
I don’t smoke cigarettes because they smell nasty.
I do make food choices based directly on the calories, fat, protein, carbohydrates, dietary fiber, and ingredient list of the food, as I have specific nutritional guidelines to follow.
What’s your point?
@AMetamorphosis: So you are for people take responsibility for what they eat but are against people getting the information to make responsible choices? I’m not a mathematician but something doesn’t add up.
@AMetamorphosis:
The logical disconnect here is of mind-boggling proportions. How do you expect someone to take “personal responsibility” for their nutritional decisions if the information required to *make* those decisions is withheld from them?
Perhaps you didn’t realize, but nutritional information is NOT available for most restaurants. Most restaurants keep it a secret, or only publish one or two metrics (such as saturated fat grams) so that they can deceive customers into believing that an item is “healthy.”
In what world do personal responsibility and informed decision-making NOT require information?
@Sudonum: I live in SF and “The City” has practically become its name. Nearly everyone I know who lives in or near SF calls it The City. Laugh at your sister all you want, but trust me – it gets burned into your vocabulary
@magic8ball: The only other nickname I know of that doesn’t drive us natives nuts is SF, but no one I know really calls it that. Sorry – you’re stuck with names that will make us wrinkle our noses at you
@Starfury: I’m glad to hear that actually, because I don’t want to be exposed to your kids. FFS, there are wonderful things in this city and if a little stink is going to keep you away from them, that’s sad.
@spryte:
I know that “The City” is ingrained on the population of the Greater SF Area. However to the rest of the country, it’s like “Huh?”
@Sudonum:
Yeah, exactly. They say “The City” in every metropolitan area.
@magic8ball: San Francisco?
and, just for clarity, if I can’t call it Frisco (and I won’t), then I should legally be able to smack people who refer to CA, or parts of it as “Cali”, “Socal” and “Nocal”.
@Adam Hyland:
As someone who lived in Southern California from 1968-2000, I had no problem with “SoCal”, however I always hated “Cali” as well.
@nequam: @modenastradale:
I was thinking the same exact thing. /NYC-Metro born and bred.
When I lived in SoCal, i called San Fran, “San Fran”. When I lived in San Francisco, I called it the Marina or the Mission or Filmore, but I never called it the City.
@Sudonum: Didn’t see this, but I always like San Fran . . . Frisco is blah, SF is harsh, San Fran kinda rolls off the tongue.
@xtc46: You make a point I only partially agree with. If an item is obviously unhealthy, sure, people *should* use common sense; but in many cases it’s not clear that portion sizes are outrageous or that things that might otherwise appear healthy (especially salads) are in fact laden down with fats, sodium, refined sugar, and so on.
If including basic nutritional information helps people make better choices, I’m all for it. If it shames restaurants into offering better choices, I’m even more for it. From a pragmatic standpoint I’d think restaurants would be happy with that disclosure because it undermines any attempts to sue based on poor nutrition: as the product consumer you were presented with enough information to objectively see that, e.g., the McDeath Angus Third Pounder burger has almost half the number of calories an average adult male needs *for the entire day,* all the sodium he needs *for the entire day,* nearly a full day’s allotment of saturated fat, etc. So if you have a coronary or develop diabetes or experience other health problems and regularly subsist on their products, too bad so sad.
@Sudonum: Which is the same reaction we have to the rest of the country…
Snark snark.
Whenever I hear “Cali” I start hearing that Notorious B.I.G. track in my head. Not so bad in and of itself, but then I start singing it under my breath. I may look a little like Lady Sovereign but that doesn’t mean I should ever rap.
@magic8ball: Nope. There is no other nickname that won’t make you sound like an idiot. Sorry.
@Garbanzo: Aww.
More nannyism. Some people are agoing to gorge themselves no matter what is pasted on the wall.
“San Fran” came from a sports announcer who was almost as obnoxious as the late great Howard Cosell. “Cali” is bad too. Of course being more Southerner by upbringing then anything else, hearing a certain part of the West being called “The Southland” just makes me wince. My father, his father, and his father before him were all native San Franciscans.