Hahahaha! So Much For Government Mandated Health

[tex]

Hi All,

Researchers in New York City discovered that after the calorie content of menu selections were posted on the menus of fast food restaurants, patrons, (the ones who even noticed that the calorie counts were on there), said that they ordered healthier selections, because of it. (Well now, that sounds good, doesn't it? - exactly what the researchers, and the do-gooders who promoted the law, wanted to hear)

However, when the researchers checked the details of what people actually ordered, afterward, they found that customers had actually ordered food with more calories, on the average, than a typical customer had ordered before the labeling law went into effect, in July of last year.

Why am I not surprised? Those do-gooders who are always trying to protect us from ourselves, will never learn, (nor will the gullible politicians and bureaucrats who cater to them).

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/06/nyreg ... ml?_r=2&hp

“I think it does show us that labels are not enough,” Brian Elbel, an assistant professor at the New York University School of Medicine and the lead author of the study, said in an interview.

No kidding! So what are they going to do next - post armed guards in restaurants, who will dictate what customers can order? My gut feeling is that if someone hasn't been educated about healthy food choices before they enter a restaurant, then it's way to late to try to educate them after they are drooling over a menu.

Tex

[Delta]

The old saying still applies "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make 'em drink."

I took some pictures for you, go and look see.

[adelie]

Yea, I always laughed at the company picnic at my last job too. They decided to combine the company picnic and a health fare. So are you supposed to have your free cholesterol screening done before or after you eat the provided lunch of hot dogs, chips and soda?

Karen

[tex]

Dan,

You weren't kiddin' about taking some pictures. Those are super! They make me wish that I had the time, energy, and money, to go check out that territory myself, but that's a looooooooooooong way from Texas, and I'd probably freeze my butt off, at that latitude. I'm thinking that musk oxen don't stray south of the article circle, and I rarely stray north of the Mason-Dixon line.

Thanks,
Tex

[tex]

Karen,

That does seem like sort of a paradoxical situation, to say the least.

Tex

[Delta]

Dan,

You weren't kiddin' about taking some pictures. Those are super! They make me wish that I had the time, energy, and money, to go check out that territory myself, but that's a looooooooooooong way from Texas, and I'd probably freeze my butt off, at that latitude. I'm thinking that musk oxen don't stray south of the article circle, and I rarely stray north of the Mason-Dixon line.

Thanks,
Tex

Tex,
I told you I took them for you. With a handle like "Tex" chances are you have deep roots in the southwest. So I figured I would do the lookin' and picture takin', and you would see the Yukon. I must say for a person who enjoys hunting it's mighty tempting to go and just "look". Stunning place to see, you would say the same about the people there as Texans, salt of the earth, welcoming, and hardy as a redwood tree. I asked someone if they knew where I could find a "wifi", God's truth - He says to me "A wife, well young man you could try going to church, but your better off going to Juneau"

[mbeezie]

While I agree that labels aren't enough to change behavior, I am in favor of restaurant menu labeling. Some people, not all, will use the information to make a better choice. Don't you want to know what you are eating? For those watching their weight it can be confusing. Most dieters opt for grilled chicken or salads becasue they have learned that these things are healthy choices, but these things can be loaded with fat and calories. Restaurant owners bear no responsibility in the choices people make, but being able to make an informed decision is important to me as a patron. And wouldn't it be great if they were also mandated to list the allergens? Fat, calories and waistlines are one thing, but hidden allergens and anaphylaxis or gut damage is another. When it comes to something we ingest, there should be no secrets.

Mary Beth

[tex]

I asked someone if they knew where I could find a "wifi", God's truth - He says to me "A wife, well young man you could try going to church, but your better off going to Juneau"

Hahahahahahaha. I'll bet that was sound advice, too.

Well, I have to say that you've got me pegged, and I sure like this arrangement.

Many thanks - I'm lookin' forward to makin' more great trips like that in the future,



Tex

[tex]

Mary Beth,

Oh, I agree that calorie content and allergens should be listed. Personally, I tend to look for allergen information, but my eyes don't focus very well on nutritional info, because I eat the same things, virtually every day, and rarely eat out, anyway. I'm sure that many people will carefully read that information, though, and make a mental note to take it into consideration the next time they dine out, and then proceed to order whatever they want, but a few will surely benefit from the listings, and order more wisely, at least occasionally. I'm just amused that the law was passed to fight obesity, and it apparently had the opposite effect.

The proponents were looking for an easy, and cheap fix. Well, you don't change a lifetime of eating habits, with an easy and cheap fix, (unless you mandate a famine, or something of that sort). It takes a lot of training, and a powerful incentive. Pavlov's dogs learned to salivate at the sound of a bell, because they had a lot of training, (association), and an incentive, (food). IOW, they had to learn to associate the sound of the bell, with food.

The law to put calorie content on menus, on the other hand, didn't include an incentive, (at least, it didn't include an incentive clearly recognizable by the average fast-food diner), and it didn't include any training to associate those calorie listings with the incentive, in the cases where an incentive may have been recognized. The problem is, a reverse incentive is firmly entrenched in our minds, because we all know that the foods with the highest calorie content, taste the best. That's a tough act to follow, if you intend to "train" people to eat lower calorie foods.

There is an easy and cheap solution, to this problem, however. Clearly, the "best" way to pull this off, would be to invoke reverse psychology, and simply significantly "overstate" the calorie content of low-calorie foods on the menu, and significantly understate the calorie content of high-calorie foods. Then, a simple add campaign to advise people to simply "eat what they want", to stay healthy, would result in them eating the healthiest choices.

Tex

[JLH]

Ruby Tuesdays had calorie info printed in their menu for a short while. I guess it didn't go over very well.........