Sticker Shock
New York City officials begin enforcing a new rule requiring restaurants to post calorie counts, and some New Yorkers find the news hard to digest.
This week may mark the end of diet denial for many New Yorkers. On Monday the city's health department began issuing citations to chain restaurants that haven't complied with a new law requiring them to post calorie counts on their menus. Officials are hoping that putting the hard numbers front and center will inspire healthier dining choices and slow a growing epidemic of obesity.
Of course, most people already know that a cheeseburger isn't exactly weight-loss food, but prior to the new rule it was a lot easier not to face up to how many calories were in your favorite fast-food lunch. And not everyone is dedicated enough to hunt down the nutrition information on the corporate restaurant Web sites. Now the calorie numbers are right there next to the price of each item, in the same size type. And some of those numbers are less than appetizing. For example, a large cookie (Triple Chocolate Chunk) at Starbucks can cost you 610 calories—that's more than the 540 calories in a Big Mac.
Starbucks began posting calorie counts in their pastry cases weeks before the health department officials hit the streets to issue citations. In some stores the effect on customers was immediate. Many women were literally stepping back from the glass as they read the labels. "Oh man, I never would have guessed it was that much," said Saby Rodriquez of Brooklyn of the cookie calorie counts. "It definitely discourages me from buying." Indeed, the cookie and cheesecake calorie counts made a chocolate croissant look like chaste diet food, at a mere 261 calories. But even with the evidence of diet disaster right there in front of them, some of the men waiting in line didn't even see the calories on the food labels or weren't fazed if they did. "I noticed," said Peter Bless, "but it didn't register. And besides, it's Saturday. Who wants to count calories?" New York's restaurant association certainly hopes most people adopt Bless's attitude but says it plans to continue its challenge to the rule in court.
Meanwhile, gourmet diners may not be facing calorie counts on those pricey menus, but that doesn't mean the numbers are any less scary. A recent New York magazine analysis put a meal at Per Se, one of the best-reviewed restaurants in the city, at 2,416 calories—an entire day's allotment for a healthy adult. Of course, that was a nine-course extravaganza plus two glasses of wine and rolls, not just a fast-food sandwich, frothy coffee drink and pastry, which can land you about the same number of calories if you choose recklessly.
Should New York City's experiment with caloric deterrents help trim Big Apple waistlines, other cities may adopt similar laws. New York is a bit of a pioneer on the health front: it is also the only city to force restaurants to phase out their use of artery-clogging artificial trans fats. Only time, and the bathroom scale, will tell if these measures make citizens healthier or just take the fun out of Fun City.
© 2008
Loading Menu
Member Comments
Posted By: DodgerFan @ 05/12/2008 4:15:51 PM
Comment: The New York law is a good start, but it remains to be seen if this results in a statistically significant improvement in weight management. In order for this to happen, people need to be convinced that there are actaully very few healthy options when it comes to eating out, and people need to face the harsh reality that real sacrifices must be made in order to achieve a better dietary outcome.
Although not perfect, the USDA food pyramid does provide a workable concept that should be fairly effective for most people. And looking at the cold, hard numbers (2600 calories per day for a 6-0 180-lb male getting less than 30 minutes vigorous exercise per day, 1800 calories per day for a 5-4 125-lb female), there is no realistic scenario in which a person can eat out more than two or three times a week and stay within the caloric guidelines. Unless they practically starve themselves once they get home. But then they run the risk of deficiencies of important nutrients that are probably missing from the fast food or restaurant meal.
Eating out, including Starbucks, should be regarded as an occasional treat, maybe twice a week or so, at the most. Anything more than that makes it very difficult to stay within a reasonable calorie budget. Until people come to accept this, our nation's weight problem will probably continue unabated. We probably need to see a huge return of the good ol' brown bag lunch. But how can the brown bag lunch compete with burgers, tacos, pizzas, and all the other delicious choices offered by the fast food industry? No contest, the fast food will win every time. Which doesn't bode well for our nation's health.
Posted By: sandikaye1369 @ 05/12/2008 1:13:38 PM
Comment: I think it is an awesome idea/law that needs to go in to effect nationwide for anyone that serves food or beverage. I am pretty active myself (resistance and cariod training no less that 3 times a week) and I really do my best to make the best possible choices. I have said on many occasion when out at a restaurant that it would be so nice if the nutritional content ( if nothing else the calorie count) was listed on the menu. People can definately make better choices if they are properly informed. When I know ahead of time that I will be going out for a meal I make great use of the restaurant websites and i choose what I will eat according to the nutritional content listed. we are not always in a situation where we can get on the internet and look these things up, however. so to recap~ it would be a very good idea to make the nutritional content/calorie counts readily available to those of us that truly care about our health, the people that don't care will continue to overlook the information but i think in the long run we would definately see a change in the waiste line of America.
Posted By: skinnyminny2 @ 05/11/2008 12:20:58 PM
Comment: Yes I'm an athlete. Long distance runner so the lighter I am the better it is for me (50-60 miles/week). I don't feel unhealthy, I never get tired or fatigue and can fit anywhere. My resting heart rate ranges from the 40s to the 50s depending on stress level.