At least it's not my alderman this time...

The Chicago Sun-Times wrote:One week after New York City stole Chicago's thunder by mandating calorie counts and becoming the nation's first city to ban artery-clogging trans fats, Ald. Edward M. Burke (14th) proposed that Chicago follow the Big Apple's lead.

The quote is slightly misleading; the new proposal is about calorie counts, not trans-fats. This would only apply to restaurants with $10 million or more in annual sales. The trans-fat ban is pending, and limited to restaurants with over $20 million gross annual sales.

I think the information should be available upon request, but I don't think that it should be mandatorily required on menus and menu boards. Personally I think I'd even be ok with "available" meaning "within a reasonable amount of time but not necessarily instantaneous." Requiring that all of this information be gathered ahead of time seems like quite a burden.

Just curious -- do even high end boutiquey places (Alinea, Trotters) come anywhere near $10 million annually? What about tourist destinations like Uno's? I imagine Leona's is over that mark. My reaction definitely changes (rationally or not) based on whether I'm thinking of the targets as faceless multi-national chains vs. the larger local institutions.

Some quick "back of the napkin" math tells me that even super-high-end places like Trotters and Alinea would even have a hard time hitting that number (166 people nightly averaging roughly $200 each for 300 nights of the year, seems high to me. Possible, but that just barely will get you to 10 mil.)

I think these clauses are designed to make this ordinance directly hit chains.

They had an item about this on the news last night. And this guy is also pushing to have all restaurants required to print nutrition information for all dishes on the menu. Someone they interviewed pointed out that this would be particularly difficult for places that made frequent menu changes, and would be impossible if any special requests were accommodated. The news commentators even used the term "food police," so at least they seem to have picked up on the fact that this is not popular.

Old datapoint, but for 1999, Bob Chinn's was the top-grossing restaurant in the area, at $22.4MM, Gibson's at $14.1MM, Shaw's Crab House at $11.0MM - Harry Caray's just misses at $9.0MM

So not many places would be affected.

source data here

So not many places would be affected.

As eatchicago noted above, this would affect primarily chain (and specifically fast foot) restaurants, which were likely the intended target.

ksbeck wrote:

So not many places would be affected.

As eatchicago noted above, this would affect primarily chain (and specifically fast foot) restaurants, which were likely the intended target.

Don't most of those fast food places list nutrition information already? I thought that was their kneejerk reaction to the food nannies a few years ago.

stevez wrote:

ksbeck wrote:

So not many places would be affected.

As eatchicago noted above, this would affect primarily chain (and specifically fast foot) restaurants, which were likely the intended target.

Don't most of those fast food places list nutrition information already? I thought that was their kneejerk reaction to the food nannies a few years ago.

Two different issues. Chains affected by ban on transfats. Everyone affected by requirement for calorie counts and nutritional breakdown -- at least if you can believe the evening news.

Cynthia wrote:

stevez wrote:

ksbeck wrote:

So not many places would be affected.

As eatchicago noted above, this would affect primarily chain (and specifically fast foot) restaurants, which were likely the intended target.

Don't most of those fast food places list nutrition information already? I thought that was their kneejerk reaction to the food nannies a few years ago.

Two different issues. Chains affected by ban on transfats. Everyone affected by requirement for calorie counts and nutritional breakdown -- at least if you can believe the evening news.

It's the calorie and nutritional info that I am talking about. I think most fast food style chains already have that info posted somewhere or available on request as a result of a previous witch hunt.

stevez wrote:It's the calorie and nutritional info that I am talking about. I think most fast food style chains already have that info posted somewhere or available on request as a result of a previous witch hunt.

I realize that was what you were talking about. But on the news last night, they said they're considering a new law in Chicago where ALL restaurants must list this info -- Moto, Alinea, Trotter's, Prime, Topolbampo, everyone. That's what made it news. And that's what made it scary. Some of these places change menus nightly, and could never keep up.

Cynthia wrote:

stevez wrote:It's the calorie and nutritional info that I am talking about. I think most fast food style chains already have that info posted somewhere or available on request as a result of a previous witch hunt.

I realize that was what you were talking about. But on the news last night, they said they're considering a new law in Chicago where ALL restaurants must list this info -- Moto, Alinea, Trotter's, Prime, Topolbampo, everyone. That's what made it news. And that's what made it scary. Some of these places change menus nightly, and could never keep up.

That would be scary. Originally they said the law would only apply to establishments with high dollar gross revenue as pointed out earlier in the thread. This would be something new and much more sinister and/or better designed to grab some TV time for those spotlight loving Aldermen who are running for office.

it's supposed to help us stop gaining weight (as opposed to the trans fats ban, which addresses other health issues). The people they interviewed last night, all diners in nice restaurants, pointed out that they pretty much knew the stuff they were eating wasn't diet food -- it was a party, and they didn't want to think about calories. They said they thought it would be depressing to have the info on menus, but they would probably ignore it. They weren't overeating because they were ignorant. They were overeating because they were partying.

Other people interviewed pointed out such issues as frequently changed menus at nicer restaurants and, of course, the fact that nicer restaurants substitutions or special requests would make tracking the calories, sodium, and saturated fats impossible.

So if you live in Chicago, it might be a good time to let your alderman know what you think about this.

Cynthia wrote:So if you live in Chicago, it might be a good time to let your alderman know what you think about this.

I live in Chicago, but I'm having a hard time getting worked up about this. I think I think the proposal is actually a good thing--and that it might even be a good thing if every item on every menu in town had nutritional info, not just the menuboards at the big chains. (I'm ignoring for the moment the onerous expense this would place on small business owners. That's a real problem, and I wouldn't want to place that burden on them. I'm just saying that, in an ideal world, in which providing the info was cost-free, it would be a good thing for people to have the information.) After all, this isn't about banning anything. It's about giving people information. If eating is a party, and it is, how is that party dampened by knowing what you're eating? And if knowing what you're eating is really enough to dampen the party, maybe you shouldn't be eating it! If being a grownup means making choices knowing full well the consequences, how can knowing the consequences be a bad thing? As long as there's no scolding involved, I don't see how this is a nanny-state thing. And you telling me there's 65 grams of saturated fat in the crème caramel I'm about to eat is not scolding me--it's simply raising my consciousness about the levels of saturated fat in the crème caramel I'm about to eat. You're still trusting me to make the decision. If the pleasure is worth it, the knowledge won't put me off my feed. But yes, it may just make me consider if the pleasure is worth it. And if the answer for me is no, it's not worth it, then it was a darned good thing I considered the matter. If the answer for you is yes, it's worth it, asking the question didn't harm you, either.

riddlemay wrote:I'm ignoring for the moment the onerous expense this would place on small business owners. That's a real problem, and I wouldn't want to place that burden on them.

Yeah, but how can you ignore the impact it would have on so many of the mom and pop places that turn out great food, but just scrape by financially? Does anyone really want to place an onerous expense on them, probably driving some out of business? And since when did the nutritional analysis companies have such a big lobbying presence in the city?

I agree that the information would be nice to have, but I think the practicalities outweigh that niceness.

I do a lot of our nutritional analyses using Genesis R&D, but that is just a computerized estimate based on the ingredients, and all of the ingredients have to be listed in their database for it to work. When I have to go to an outside lab for an actual nutritional analysis, it costs about $800 per item.

The nutritional info you get from that is dependent on the recipe and serving size, so if the cook is a little heavy handed with the oil while making your entree, and gives a larger portion than the one sent in for analysis, you might see the nutritional information on the menu and think you're only eating an 800 calorie, 30 grams of fat entree when in reality you're chowing down on a 1200 calorie, 60 grams of fat entree instead. I foresee lawsuits because of this, and all chefs will be required to weigh portions during plating.

Fujisan has hit on the practical impossibility. Non-chain restaurants have far too many variables to deal with to make all this a reality-at least with any hope of being truly accurate. The image of an honest attempt to control these factors to ensure a truly valid set of statistics smacks of science fiction.

There are two separate issues. One is the practicality of applying the law to smaller restaurants, and we all agree that for a variety of reasons it's not practical. But the other is whether the law represents an egregious intrusion of the "nanny-state" into our affairs, and, since the law is only about providing information and not banning foods, I don't see that it is. The interesting question to me is: In the hypothetical (and, we all agree, unreal) situation that the law could be applied to every restaurant, would that be a bad thing or a good thing? I think that it would be a good thing. Information can never be a bad thing, as long as it remains up to the individual how to make use of it. In some cases, the information will cause a change of decision ("you know, this crème caramel probably isn't worth a heart attack") and in those cases, a change of decision is probably correct! In other cases, the information will cause no change of decision ("screw it, I ran twelve miles today, and this delicious crème caramel isn't going to hurt me") and in those cases, that's arguably the right outcome as well. (Since we're all grownups and equally capable of running our own informal cost/benefit analyses when it comes to our cardiovascular systems versus our taste buds. The one thing even an informal cost/benefit analysis requires, however, is accurate information.) Information cannot possibly degrade the exercise of personal responsibility--it can only enhance it.

riddlemay wrote:As long as there's no scolding involved, I don't see how this is a nanny-state thing.

I guess it depends on how you define nanny state. Here, the state is intruding into a private transaction and telling one of the parties to that transaction that they must do something. Now, the state does this all the time in ways that are likely justified (e.g., in this same context (restaurants) with food safety/health regulations), so it's really a question of where you draw the line. From my perspective, this is not a matter of life and death (certainly not in a immediate sense, as a bacterial outbreak from unclean kitchens may cause), so the state has less of an interest that would warrant an intrusion. There's certainly a potential market solution, in that if enough consumers feel strongly about getting caloric information on their meals, some restaurants will provide that information to differentiate themselves in the market and meet those consumer's needs. The same argument could be made for labeling of genetically modified foods (an issue mentioned in another thread hereabouts) -- and you actually see a market solution there in that many foods at Whole Foods-type stores and in the organic/natural aisle at the traditional chains will say "No GMO." The producers of those foods have recognized that saying that this has no genetically modified components is a differentiator and selling point without the requirement of the government mandating GMO-related labeling.

Perhaps a better example is the labeling of trans fats on product nutritional info panels -- once the general public got worked up about trans fats, many products started including trans fat info on their labels. This was before the FDA labeling requirement went into effect in January 2006. It could be argued that some of this action was simply in anticipation of the FDA requirement, but it's likely that a number of producers would have self-regulated even in the absence of that requirement, because consumers cared about the issue. Here in Massachusetts, one of the mainline dairy companies (Hood) has now started labeling on its milk jugs that its cows are not treated with rBGH, even though there is no labeling requirement and even though rBGH has not been found to present any food safety risks. Why? Because consumers here don't like the idea of that hormone being used to stimulate additional milk protection.

Nanny state action, to my mind, is when the state intrudes on a matter that is not of pressing public policy concern to regulate an area that may well have a market solution. And market solutions are almost always desirable to state-imposed solutions in matters of economic affairs.

In theory it's hard to argue against 1)information always being useful, and 2)providing info is nannying. All things being equal-gimme info. The nannying would come with attempts to enforce all this. Eateries would be swarming with nannies. The theory can't be separated from the practicalities, and anyone trying to enforce this stuff should not be encouraged IMMHO*. I realize some of the above discussion is philosophical, and that if there were no ramifications the info would be nice.
*In my most humble opinion

The thing the nannies aren't taking into consideration is that almost no one is overweight because of (or not solely because of) eating at restaurants that don't list nutritional information. The obesity problem in the U.S. is anchored in chain restaurants, which do supply the info, and in sitting in front of the TV at home eating -- and just about everything you take home has nutritional information. And articles are published all the time about how many calories there are in that 24-ounce steak and giant muffin. People are not overweight because they don't have information. I have stacks of information, and I still constantly battle my weight. Never before have we had more information available, and never before have we had so many folks with weight problems. So clearly, information is not the issue.

Adding nutritional information will hurt restaurants without having any significant impact on America's obesity problem. And I think that is something that identifies it more surely as a nanny state-type interference -- it causes a huge number of problems without actually changing the original situation.

For what it's worth, we're not alone in this. A few cities in Canada tried to pass laws requiring all restaurants to print nutritional information on menus, and the laws have as yet failed to pass. (Just think what it would do to a place like Montreal, with deep-fried foie gras and poutine.)

I dislike government interference. Their jobs are to keep me safe, keep the roads open, and make commerce possible. It's not their job to worry about my weight. That's my mother's job.

As a P.S. on the TV connection to the weight problem -- studies have shown that when kids watch TV, their metabolic rates are actually about 13 percent lower than when they do nothing! Lying quietly in a dark room burns more calories than sitting watching TV! Kids go into a kind of trance state. If they're eating while they watch TV, they are going to have problems -- not just overweight -- the Diabetes Foundation views it as connected to diabetes, too.

So essentially, the problem is that we need to get out and run around a lot more. As one friend of mine told his doctor, "I'm not going to eat less. Just tell me how much I need to walk to compensate for what I eat." The doctor told him, and my friend now walks 10 miles a day.

The most apt analogy I can think of is on the federal level, in the law requiring auto makers to prominently post gas mileage figures for their vehicles. No one says you must buy a car that gets good mileage--each of us remains 100% free to make the opposite decision--but for those who are concerned about good mileage (whether because of their own pocketbook concerns or concerns for the general environment), there would be no way to go about making a decision without the information. The free market could drive some auto makers to provide this on their own, but most of us (I think) would agree that it's more a good thing than a bad thing that it's mandated.

Sounds like fodder for the next round of frivolous lawsuits. Let's see. Order a meal advertised as 1200 calories, 65 g of fat. Take it to a lab and find that it is actaully 1500 and 85 grams of fat. Sue for misrepresentation.

Restaurants will need a resident attorney to stay open.

Yes, but in the Gas Mileage scenario the government assumes the cost of testing the product, not the restaurant. And the government is the one people have to yell at if the estimate is grossly off. And the 50,000 cars of each model sold are identical.

In a real restaurant it's virtually impossible and ridiculously expensive to get nutritional data for every dish on the menu. It would be the end of chef's specials, no one would use produce fresh from the green city market (because you don't know if those 5oz of carrots contain 18 grams of carbs or 23 grams of carbs, so you can't post nutritional data), et cetera.

I think it'd be great if every restaurant could magically get accurate nutritional data for everything that leaves the kitchen. But this is the real world, and the only places that can do that are places that are so tightly controlled and automated that there is no room for human error or input. And those places already have nutritional information.

What this comes down to is more of the "nanny state" in Chicago.

Why not let the restaurants and customers decide this one?

If customers want to know -- they can go to places that post it.

I am a big believer in that government should be doing a better job at the basics. I want my streets safe and my restaurants clean. The City should do a better job of routine health inspections for restaurants, rather than being focused on the mundane. Given a choice being using my tax dollars to enforce posting calorie information, or using those dollars to post more cops on the street to prevent crime, I will take more cops on the street any day.

Lets please keep in mind LTHForum has a no political discussion policy.

Posting Guidelines

- Sometimes food conversations have political or religious implications. We don't want to stifle talk that brings in that larger world, but there comes a point where a discussion leaves the road of culinary chat and takes off for a completely different destination—at which point it belongs on a completely different board. So here's a pocket guide:
--Talking about a mayor who cooks killer waffles is good.
--Talking about a mayor who kills waffle cookers is starting to drift.
--Talking about a mayor who waffles on killings in Cook County is off-topic.

Enjoy,
Gary for the moderators