San Francisco Orders Restaurants To Display Calorie Information, Industry Laughs

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 []
San Francisco Mayor Signs Menu Labeling Bill [CSPI]


Edit Your Comment

  1. PenguinBlue says:

    1. I don’t think you can blame chain restaurants for people’s poor nutritional choices.

    2. Please don’t ever abbreviate San Francisco as “Frisco” again.

  2. Couldn’t be bothered to look up how to spell Schwarzenegger?

  3. Dobernala says:

    @PenguinBlue: The reality of individualism is that when given the freedom to do so, people often make poor decisions, whether its their choice of food or choice of leaders they elect.

    Nobody wants to hear that but its 100% true. Thus, I really do not care one bit about the cries people make about losing their precious ability to degenerate themselves or others.

  4. smallestmills says:

    First sentence should read “…but the industry couldn’t care less” as in COULD NOT care less. Just a peeve of mine.

  5. XTC46 says:

    I don’t think restaurants should have to do this. I mean it is nice, but if you think that the loaded double baked potato slathered in butter and sour cream is healthy, or that your salad, which has chicken and a mayo based dressing is healthy, you are kidding your self. People need common sense.

  6. XTC46 says:

    @smallestmills: thank you for mentioning that. It is a peeve of mine also, because when people say “i could care less” it really inst saying much. I could care less about most things in the world, but the ones I couldn’t possible care less about…thats some kind of hatred.

  7. DAK says:


    Your 2 points warmed my heart. You’re doing the Lord’s work, I say!

    Honestly, if you want people to know that you’ve never been within a day’s drive of San Francisco, just refer to it as “Frisco”.

  8. dakotad555 says:

    Don’t anyone DARE tell me my cheesy-poofs covered in chocolate sauce isn’t good for me. I want to live in denial.

  9. BStu says:

    Yeah, lets just keep blaming fat people for all the nation’s problems. Whee.

  10. matto says:

    @xtc46: There is a glut of fast-food product intentionally marketed as a “healthy” “alternative”. The fast food industry spends billions marketing these products as exactly that- menu items that are good for you. The majority of customers are no match for this barrage of advertised lies. This bill is all about forcing fast food restaurants to come clean about their fake “healthy” menu items.

  11. matto says:

    Also using “Frisco” means you:

    1: Wear a flourescent-colored fanny pack.
    2: Have no qualms about shorts and dark-colored polyester socks
    3: Are probably wearing Crocs right now.
    4: Totally love those Blue-Blockers you picked up at Walgreens.

    Carey- are you a recent transplant?

  12. Bloberry says:

    OK. If you don’t want to be fattened up like a “gingerbread cash cow” then DON’T EAT CRAPPY FOOD! I have a zillion resources for nutritional information – I don’t need a display on the menu in order to know that something dripping with grease or salads with 1/2 cup of salad dressing are going to be bad for me. Let’s all wake up!

  13. LatherRinseRepeat says:

    I’m all for providing nutrition info to help consumers make better decisions about where/what they eat. But making it into law AND requiring restaurants to pay a $350 fee is ridiculous. Nanny laws are gonna kill small business, or cause restaurants to increase their prices.

    And yes, please don’t use “Frisco” anymore.

  14. Buran says:

    Cities DO have the right to regulate businesses located within their borders, you know.

  15. Carey Alexander says:

    @matto, PenguinBlue: I’m spending the day with someone from out west whose judgment won’t be trusted again. It’s been changed to San Francisco, unless someone suggests a better alternative.

    @LatherRinseRepeat: The regulation applies to chain restaurants with 20+ locations, not small businesses.

  16. Shadowfire says:

    @Buran: Yes, but you don’t have a problem with this only affecting chain stores? That doesn’t strike you as a bit discriminatory?

  17. @Shadowfire: I think its also ludicrous that they’re funding the inspector by charging each chain restaurant $350 a year.

  18. Mr_Human says:

    @PenguinBlue: San Fran is even worse

    And ditto on the “could care less” thing. Really hate that.

  19. pmcpa says:

    Subway out of business? Where? I hate the place, but last time I checked, they are all over the place. Guess Sunday stories don’t have to be fact checked!

  20. RobinB says:

    It’s all very patronizing.

  21. TruPhan says:

    Have you seen Burger King’s new plans for a Whopper Bar? The thing looks like sex. I’m starving already.

  22. Adam Hyland says:

    @Dobernala: No, that isn’t the reality of individualism. this is what happens when we have a complex society and people presume that certain habits or outcomes are a state of nature. The road to obesity has been littered with craven companies, well meaning food scientists and strange government regulations. In no way does this mean that “individuals make bad choices systematically”.

    You can’t get any more paternalistic than the notion that people are incapable of looking out for their self interest–and by and large you can’t get any more wrong. The one thing people are wired to look out for is their self interest. That may result in outcomes that aren’t good for society. It may result in outcomes that look paradoxical to us because incentives and signals can be obscured across culture lines. It may, in fact, result in bad outcomes for them when genuine problems exist. But it doesn’t mean that people can’t come to decisions on their own.

    Perhaps what you might mean to say is that a multi-billion dollar industry exists solely to cloud the judgment of those individuals on the subject of food–convince people that packaged is good, frozen is fresh, etc. And that resultant from that glaring distortion you have a populace that consumes too much processed food.

    Is that what you meant?

    As for the regulation itself….bah. It’s not REALLY that onerous, but it certainly isn’t a great moment in consumer protection. What is more important than knowing that Big Mac is 1k calories is knowing where it came from and how it is processed. But even then city and state regulation aren’t really the answer.

  23. Adam Hyland says:

    @pmcpa: /sarcasm.

  24. Daniels says:

    I wonder if any politician will ever have the stones to say “you people are fat because you watch too much television.”

    All the fat food regulation in the world doesn’t solve the problem of people working 10 hour days and then coming home and sitting on the couch watching TV until they go to bed.

  25. Adam Hyland says:

    @Daniels: I would much rather have a politician that can say that we have a price support system for corn that is pushing out healthier inputs and alternatives in an ENORMOUS amount. I would rather have a politician that can say that we have set inaccurate and unhealthy dietary guidelines for 45 years. I would rather have a politician honestly admit what the impact of 60 years of anti-urban legislation has been on people who drive 2 hous to and from work and sit all day.

    Once we get a politician that can talk about all that, we’ll find one that can make fun of fat people.

  26. bohemian says:

    The issues isn’t the fully loaded baked potato or a salad drenched in thousand island dressing. It is the hidden fat & corn syrup in restaurant food.

    Butter, lard, sugar all are great ways to make something taste better as a short cut to actual skilled cooking. The hidden amounts of these things are much at issue. One of the best chicken soups I have ever had has 10 sticks of butter in a large pot of the soup. The cook let me in on her secret. The stuff is like crack.

    Too much of the restaurant food is using these kinds of short cuts to make things “tasty”.

  27. Buran says:

    @Shadowfire: Perhaps I do, but I also know that if you do business in a location, you MUST obey all laws that apply to your business. It’s not optional. They need to stop whining.

  28. Yeah, people should know that the obviously bad food is bad. McDonald’s, KFC, Pizza Hut are all in this category.

    But what about the seemingly healthy food that’s loaded with hidden calories, fat, sugar, sodium? How does a salad with romaine, tomatoes, cabbage, onions and raisins be healthy when you make it at home but in a restaurant it’s suddenly loaded with salt, trans fat and sugar… without dressing? As someone who avoids fast food and tries to make healthy decisions at restaurants, I’d like to know if the salad I think is healthy truly is.

    If they’ve got nothing to hide, why not be forthcoming?

  29. Sudonum says:

    The locals refer to it as “The City”
    Word. My wife and I just started Weight Watchers. It is nearly impossible to eat out and get anything other that a steak. Even a piece of fish can be slathered in butter. For the Weight Watchers plan I need to know calories, fat, and dietary fiber amounts. If restaurants aren’t willing to provide that, then fine, I won’t take my business there. Ever.

  30. Jeff_McAwes0me says:

    I’m sure this will be effective. Just as effective as this is:


    People know certain foods are bad for them, even a huge warning on the label won’t stop people from slowly killing themselves with crap.

    You should really go after the companies that advertise supposedly ‘healthy’ foods that are actually just as bad as the unhealthy foods.

  31. katylostherart says:

    complete waste of legislative billing hours #9349857394857

  32. lemur says:

    @ceejeemcbeegee (star deficient): I agree with your observation but I would add that having nutritional information even for things that are clearly “bad” does help. I watch what I eat and I watch my weight. I used to be obese but now I’m maybe just a bit over where I should be weight-wise.

    A popular opinion is that people should just avoid junk food but experience shows that few people can follow that ideal all the time. Once in a while, a pizza is nice. But there’s the thing: not all junk food pack the same amount of calories or fat or whatever ingredient you want to check on. And sometimes the differences can be very surprising. If I think I’m going to enjoy two items just the same but one of them has half the calories, then that’s what I should have. But if the restaurants are not displaying nutritional information, how can I make an informed choice?

  33. HawkWolf says:

    Why is it a bad idea to have food labeling at restaurants? Everything you buy at the supermarket that is packaged food (except alcohol, for the most part) contains nutritional information in the same format. Restaurant food doesn’t have this. McDonald’s does, but I’ve noticed they put the information on the bottom of the burger container. Hmm. Which you will see maybe when you throw it away.

  34. Shadowfire says:

    @Buran: “Need to stop whining?” I don’t see it as “whining,” so much as telling the government to go screw themselves. That’s how people stand up to laws that they feel are discriminatory, repressive, or unconstitutional – they fight them, in the court of law, and the court of public opinion.

    @HawkWolf: It’s not a bad idea to have labeling in restaurants. It is a bad idea to regulate such a thing. If the restaurant wants to place the label, they will; if they don’t, they won’t. Likewise, if you don’t like a restaurant’s decision to not label their food, -don’t-give-them-your-money-.

  35. katylostherart says:

    @HawkWolf: it’s just odd to have it right on the menu. and i’m assuming by chains they’re not just saying fast food franchises. things like chillis, applebee’s, denny’s, and a number of “higher end” franchises that do not display any of their nutritional information anywhere a customer might look. you’d have to ask a manager for the book on it.

    subway doesn’t really display their nutritional information so much as a comparison of their healthiest choices against things like a big mac and a whopper and it’s certainly not right on the ordering board. mcdonalds puts their info right on all the packaging but it’s also not listed on the items on the overhead menu. anywhere else i haven’t been ever or recently enough to recall.

    the lack of mom & pop inclusions is kind of stupid though. just because it’s only 5 locations instead of 50 doesn’t mean it’s any healthier or even just less processed.

  36. Buran says:

    @Shadowfire: I see it as whining. So do lots of other people, as shown by repeated threads on this issue. Subway proves it’s doable by by just doing it, already, instead of finding every excuse under the sun to bitch. And frankly, blindly disobeying the law is not the answer — that just gets you punished under whatever remedies are outlined under the law. Do you really think you can run a red light and get out of the fine by saying “well, I don’t think that law is just, so I’m going to ignore it”? Hardly.

  37. Shadowfire says:

    @Buran: Oooh, a car analogy!

    Hey, running a red light can get other people killed. Me gorging myself on Big Macs for three meals (or more) a day only gets myself killed.

    I think a more appropriate analogy would be “well, the FCC says that NBC should pay them $texas for showing a butt cheek, and NBC disagrees.” In which case the response would be “yes, NBC should tell them to go take a leap.”

  38. lemur says:

    @katylostherart: “the lack of mom & pop inclusions is kind of stupid though. just because it’s only 5 locations instead of 50 doesn’t mean it’s any healthier or even just less processed.”

    The reason mom and pop places are not required to do it has nothing to do with a presumption that their food is healthier. It has everything to do with recognizing that a) smaller joints do not benefit from the economies of scale that chains benefit from and b) that smaller places often do not streamline their production process like the chains do.

  39. Starfury says:

    The San Francisco government doesn’t have anything better to do with it’s time….like dealing with the homeless that litter the streets and the persistent smell of urine in some areas.

    I live in the SF Bay Area and can easily take BART to SF if I want to…but I don’t. It’s dirty, stinks, and having hordes of people begging for money is not something I want to deal with or expose my kids to.

  40. Trai_Dep says:

    “Each restaurant” paying $350 means that McDonald’s (not each franchise) would pay it. Hardly a hardship, especially when they don’t simply do so voluntarily.
    The salads offered at these places counterintuitively are ladled with insane amounts of sugar, fat and calories. Labeling these sorts of items is what’s useful, not the double-bacon-4x-pattied-deep-fried-chili-cheese burgers.
    Coincidentally, it’s these “healthy” alternatives that the big fast food chains are the least anxious to have to declare.
    If you like capitalism, you have to like informed consumers making free choices. Say no to totalitarian communism and embrace reasonable labeling. Yeesh.

  41. Trai_Dep says:

    @Carey: Hate to break the news to your “West Coast” friend, but they’re officially cast out from The Golden State and must move to Minnesota. Hope they like canned fruit!

  42. Trai_Dep says:

    @Starfury: Please stay in the East Bay. We’ll all be happier for it.

  43. appetite says:

    $70,000 for a ‘half-time inspector’. San Francisco government should spend more time regulating itself and less time over-regulating business. I’m as progressive as they come, but this city’s government is just plain useless. They are raising their parking tickets by $10 to make up for budget shortfalls (they currently bring in $85 million a year in parking ticket revenue), yet the head of Parking and Transportation banks $350,000 a year in salary. And transportation is still a mess. Don’t think for a second that these calorie counters are going to achieve anything. Gavin Newsom just enjoys making headlines.

  44. corbyz says:

    @xtc46: If you’re against large chain restaurants being required to print ingredients/nutritional info, why aren’t you against nutrition labeling on all grocery items in the grocery store? After all, we should all just know how many calories must be in that cheese, frozen dinner, or in those crackers.

    And you have to admit it… when you ACTUALLY find out how many calories are in fast food meals… it quite often is shocking and surprising just how MUCH more it is that you ever could have guessed. Some burgers have like 1600 Calories! Some SALADS have around 1200 or 1400! Was that common sense/knowledge?

    For me, as a vegetarian, I’d love chain restaurants (if not ALL restaurants) to list ingredients and nurtitional info. At a restaurant, I pretty much just have to take the waiter’s word that the sauce or whatever has no chicken broth in it, for example. And I have had them be wrong about this before. (Did you know the alfredo sauce at Macaroni Grill has chicken broth in it? It does. Then again did you know an order of fettucine aldredo from there is probably enough for 3 or 4 dinners, Calorie-wise?)

  45. Buran says:

    @Shadowfire: So what if it’s a car analogy? What do you have against cars?

    The point is, YOU do not get to pick what laws you obey. YOU do not get to pick which laws you can ignore without consequence. Period.

  46. Abbott says:


    Oh, the steaks are slathered in butter, alright. Working at a couple chain restaurants I discovered they all out-butter Paula Dean. The butter is in everything. Dateline type exposes on secret bacteria and hidden semen in our cocktails and Applebee’s entrees doesn’t surprise me. I’m always shocked by how much BUTTER they manage to work into everything!

  47. kdollarsign says:

    calories on the menu would ruin my damn meal. Down with calorie counting. if we’re trumpeting awareness, I’d rather have greater exposure to the processes by which we get our food.

  48. kdollarsign says:

    PS – no one seems to understand what calories are. They are units of energy. They are a means to diet, not a means to become healthy.

  49. nequam says:

    @Sudonum: Locals refer to San Francisco as NYC?


  50. @Shadowfire, katylostherart: the lack of mom & pop inclusions is kind of stupid though. just because it’s only 5 locations instead of 50 doesn’t mean it’s any healthier or even just less processed.

    The difference is not a matter of expecting one to be healthier than the other.

    The chains have already done the math and calculated their nutritional info. The city just wants it accessible, not too much to ask in my opinion. Personally, I’d be fine with a supplemental brochure instead putting it on the menu.

    But for the mom & pop stores, it is an undue burden to require them to perform a complete dietary analysis. I’d guess they haven’t done one. They might need to hire a consultant to do it right. (I’d support some sort of a voluntary incentive to the mom & pop stores to comply.)

  51. modenastradale says:

    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.

  52. magic8ball says:

    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?

  53. spamtasticus says:

    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.

  54. modenastradale says:


    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.

  55. aikoto says:

    @PenguinBlue: People who blame only the consumer are just as wrong as those who blame only the restaurants.

  56. nadmonk says:

    @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.

  57. spamtasticus says:


    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?

  58. spamtasticus says:

    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.

  59. Wally East says:

    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.

  60. Sudonum says:

    @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” [] Not too sure that’s applicable anymore.

  61. Sudonum says:

    What’s a “sigarette”?

  62. AMetamorphosis says:



    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 ???

  63. etherealclarity says:

    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.

  64. MissPeacock says:

    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.

  65. modenastradale says:


    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?

  66. AnnC says:

    @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.

  67. modenastradale says:


    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?

  68. spryte says:

    @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.

  69. Sudonum says:

    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?”

  70. modenastradale says:


    Yeah, exactly. They say “The City” in every metropolitan area.

  71. Adam Hyland says:

    @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”.

  72. Sudonum says:

    @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.

  73. That-Dude says:

    @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.

  74. That-Dude says:

    @Sudonum: Didn’t see this, but I always like San Fran . . . Frisco is blah, SF is harsh, San Fran kinda rolls off the tongue.

  75. dodonnell says:

    @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.

  76. spryte says:

    @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.

  77. Garbanzo says:

    @magic8ball: Nope. There is no other nickname that won’t make you sound like an idiot. Sorry.

  78. magic8ball says:

    @Garbanzo: Aww. :(

  79. Rusted says:

    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.