Calorie counts to be added to restaurant food menus

Dave!

I didn't see any mention of this on Boards yet, though it's been in the news the last couple of days... What do we think of this initiative?

It presents a few logistical problems for restaurants that e.g. decide their menus on the morning, depending on the fresh ingredients they get. It makes a bit more sense when it's in the likes of chippers and other fast-food places, although I'm not sure the obese people are the ones who would pay any attention to the calories -- it'd be the people who are health-conscious already. It might make it easier for these people to monitor their intake though.

But for some of the upmarket restaurants, how often would a person go to one of these? Once or twice a month? They're not contributing much to obesity, it's the daily meals that make the difference.

Independent.ie
Health Minister James O’Reilly gives firms six months to put calorie labels on food
By Mark O’Regan
Wednesday July 04 2012

FOOD businesses have six months to get in shape and introduce calorie menu labelling on a voluntary basis - or else face the introduction of a compulsory scheme.

Minister for Health James Reilly has backed a call by the Food Safety Authority of Ireland for the introduction by food businesses to clearly show the calorie content of meals and portions they serve.

The authority recommends a ‘transitional period’ so that the scheme be introduced on a voluntary basis at first to allow businesses to develop the necessary technical tools to help the industry adjust to the change.

A new report published yesterday by the Authority shows 96pc of people support the introduction of calorie menus in all food outlets. A further 89pc say the calorie content should be clearly displayed beside the food and drink items on the menu. Some 84pc of consumers say labelling should also apply to alcoholic drinks.

“This is an issue I feel very strongly about and one I’d like to see come in by way of voluntary initiatives on behalf of the industry,” Minister Reilly said yesterday.

“I’ve met with some of the major chains such as McDonalds and Subway and they have already engaged with this process but sadly others have not. What are we afraid of that we don’t want to put the calorie content up. I want to empower people to make the right choice; we’re not about forcing people to eat differently, it’s about allowing them to make an informed decision.”

- Mark O’Regan

davet82

I hope they dont do this, ignorance is bliss

drunkmonkey

Its a daft law created by a fatty for fatty's. Fatty shouldn't be allowed to be minister for health. That's 2 obese health ministers in a row, madness.

Steven81

The times people go to a restaurant they wouldnt want to be conscious of what calories they are going to eat, on a daily basis good idea though

HazDanz

At least it's a start. Obesity is going to cripple this nation sooner rather than later so it's nice to see some initiative to come in which will allow people to be more conscious of what they are putting into their mouths.

chin_grin

davet82 wrote: »

I hope they dont this, ignorance is bliss

You accidentally a word there! :pac:

Terrible idea as those who go to restaurants are deciding to treat themselves anyway, not feel guilty for getting a steak over the salad.

Anyway I don't think people pay any attention to these counts at all, nor do they know what their recommended calorific intake would be day to day or what they would need to do to work that off.

RobbieTheRobber

Yeah now i can play calorie top trumps everytime I go for a meal with friends or family.


Whats that 800 calories in your main, well my starter has that many Winner winner you pay for dinner.

My name is URL

Seems a bit stupid to me. It's all well and good including calorie counts on the likes of McDonalds menus, which are rarely changed.. but it would be very difficult for a restaurant that alters its menu every few days or weeks.

Making it even more difficult for businesses to operate at a time when many are already struggling to do so.. Well played Ireland

chin_grin

My name is URL wrote: »

Seems a bit stupid to me. It's all well and good including calorie counts on the likes of McDonalds menus, which are rarely changed.. but it would be very difficult for a restaurant that alters its menu every few days or weeks.

Won't somebody please think of the admin costs!

DEFTLEFTHAND

James needs to follow these guidelines carefully himself. He's quite a tubby chappy.

Over at Labour something has to be done with Pat Rabbitte. He has an enormous gullet, kind of like what you'd see on a frog. Must be all that hot air building up.

prinz

Yeah I think it's a good idea, and I'd definitely pay attention to it tbh when eating out.

However I can see a problem for restaurants depending on the catch of the day in sea food etc, but it shouldn't really present a major obstacle, I'm sure estimates would do, say x weight of a certain variety of fish is whatever etc.

prinz

My name is URL wrote: »

Making it even more difficult for businesses to operate at a time when many are already struggling to do so.. Well played Ireland

In fairness the same line was trotted out by publicans when the smoking ban was coming in, and tbh IMO it was a resounding success. I am happier now going to the pub.

FizzleSticks

This post has been deleted.

Gone Drinking

For cafes/chippers/fast food places - Yes, people frequent these the most and that's probably the cause of a lot of obesity

For decent restaurants - No, if you go to a restaurant, its usually once a month or so and its to pig out.

Thats my opinion at least :pac:

seamus

My name is URL wrote: »

Seems a bit stupid to me. It's all well and good including calorie counts on the likes of McDonalds menus, which are rarely changed.. but it would be very difficult for a restaurant that alters its menu every few days or weeks.

This is nonsense. Five minutes of googling and you can come to a reasonable estimate for any dish. If someone is incapable of this basic modern skill, then screw them.

This seems to be the main argument from restaurant owners, but it hold no water. Chefs are well capable of estimating the content of their dishes - it's an essential part of pricing them - so applying the same skills to calorie estimation is easy.

It's a matter of estimation/averaging, you don't have to break out a science lab and start making measurements.

As for guilt-free, not knowing the content of the dish doesn't mean the calories go away. If you know that you shouldn't be eating it, but you do anyway, then you're not really eating guilt-free, are you?

If this measure does occasionally make someone choose the steak over the salad because the numbers make them feel guilty, then great.

Other fun arguments were that, "Sure don't people already kinda know what they're eating anyway? What's the point in this". No, they don't. People really haven't a fncking clue what they're eating and think a Caesar salad is good for you because it contains the word salad and a steak is bad for your because it's red meat.

It's not any kind of solution on its own of course. It needs to be supplemented with public information campaigns and dietary education in schools.

If anything this could help restaurant businesses because people might feel more inclined to go out for dinner regularly if they can get dishes that are tasty but not loaded with calories, and businesses can slice ingredients off dishes to reduce the calorie count while maintaining the same price.

starbelgrade

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

James needs to follow these guidelines carefully himself. He's quite a tubby chappy.

Over at Labour something has to be done with Pat Rabbitte. He has an enormous gullet, kind of like what you'd see on a frog. Must be all that hot air building up.

The Dail is full of fat bastards who think that Nanny Stating is the key to everything. The simple answer to the obesity problem is twofold - 1. Education and 2. better support and subsidies for locally produced and non-processed foods.

When I eat in a restaurant, I honestly don't care about the calorie content of the food. I eat healthily & a meal out is a treat. All this serves to do is create red tape in an attempt to make us look "progressive".

If the politicians really cared about the health of the nation, then a making a start on ending the cycle of food poverty would be a huge step.

And losing a few pounds themselves would be a definite start to making an impression as being that my local bistro needs to show the calorie content of their meals is a tad rich coming from a fat cunt in a suit with too much time & power in his hands.

sebastianlieken

This is a stupid and half witted thing to do. What about people who suffer anorexia or bolemia? It's going to be even tougher on them as their sicknesses usually involve rigorous and obsessive calorie counting.

SEPT 23 1989

More red tape for business designed by people who have never generated a cent in their lives

Capt'n Midnight

Does this mean restaurants will have to weigh portions ?

What's the story with carverys / places that give you seconds ?


NB: to loose 1 Lb of weight you need to reduce your intake / burn off 3,600 calories.

My name is URL

seamus wrote: »

This is nonsense. Five minutes of googling and you can come to a reasonable estimate for any dish. If someone is incapable of this basic modern skill, then screw them.

In that case, why can't people just inform themselves before eating out or ordering a meal. It shouldn't need to be legislated for. If some dope doesn't know what a healthy diet entails then screw them. Others shouldn't be punished for their ignorance and/or sheer laziness. The state shouldn't be charged with holding your hand through life.. this kind of thing erodes personal responsibility rather than enhance it.

prinz

starbelgrade wrote: »

When I eat in a restaurant, I honestly don't care about the calorie content of the food. I eat healthily & a meal out is a treat..

Then having the calorie content on the menu/display won't make a blind bit of difference to you. Superduper. However for people who are watching calorie intake it could make all the difference and lead to them choosing one restaurant over another. Tbh if I had a choice of two places to eat out and one published calorie info and one didn't, I'd go to the one with, even if I was going to eat the same exact food.

Big Nasty

They would be better off investing in general food education.

Do you think the woman feeding her kids processed foods doused in salt every night has a clue what she's actually doing to her children?

prinz

My name is URL wrote: »

In that case, why can't people just inform themselves before eating out or ordering a meal. It shouldn't need to be legislated for. If some dope doesn't know what a healthy diet entails then screw them. Others shouldn't be punished for their ignorance and/or sheer laziness. The state shouldn't be charged with holding your hand through life.. this kind of thing erodes personal responsibility rather than enhance it.

No need then for anti-smoking campaigns, drink aware campaigns, seat belts, safe driving, etc etc etc.

M cebee

it's silly nanny state nonsense

flutered

them over obese politicans need to lead by example, would it not be easier to ask the hotels to remove salt and cream from the menus, most of them obese massive pension awaiting power fueled idiots are not in touch with reality

Scioch

Good to know these things, you should always have some idea of what you are eating regardless of how often you eat it.

Spread

Lots of the restaurants out here (even fast food joints) have the figures on the menus or on the under-plate or coaster. For people who eat out a lot, either by choice or because of work demands, it is a handy way of keeping tabs on the calorie count entering your system. And just like other initiatives, early suspicion will give way to a more enlightened, er, waistline.

starbelgrade

prinz wrote: »

Then having the calorie content on the menu/display won't make a blind bit of difference to you. Superduper. However for people who are watching calorie intake it could make all the difference and lead to them choosing one restaurant over another. Tbh if I had a choice of two places to eat out and one published calorie info and one didn't, I'd go to the one with, even if I was going to eat the same exact food.

I have no issue with restaurants publishing their calorie content. As you point out, it may even have a benefit to their trade.

I do however, have an issue with government forcing restaurants to do this via legislation. In terms of trying to help people eat more healthily it is probably the least most effective method of trying to achieve this.

For most people, eating out is not something they do on a daily basis, so what you eat in a restaurant has a negligible effect on your diet and health. The real issue with obesity is what people eat at home and what they snack on.

The calorie content is published on almost every food you buy in a shop & supermarket, yet people are still overweight. It's not an issue of not having the information readily to hand - it's either an issue of people not caring enough about their own welfare to do anything about it, or one of being caught in the "food poverty" trap.

For the former, calorie counting menus will have no effect and the latter really don't really get to eat out in restaurants much anyway. To the rest, it will have little or no effect.

As I said, this proposed legislation will have as much effect on people's health as pissing in the wind.

Logical Fallacy

My name is URL wrote: »

Seems a bit stupid to me. It's all well and good including calorie counts on the likes of McDonalds menus, which are rarely changed.. but it would be very difficult for a restaurant that alters its menu every few days or weeks.

Making it even more difficult for businesses to operate at a time when many are already struggling to do so.. Well played Ireland

lol, no it wouldn't. It's really easy to work out the calories of any meal. It's even easier if you are building that meal from scratch, as all decent restaurants would. A mate of mine is head chef of a very nice restaurant in Dublin and has described it as an extra 20 minutes work whenever they change the menu.

c_man

Creating needless overheads for businesses so that hefty gov ministers can show they're "doing something about the obesity epidemic".

I would have thought that they could set a good example ala Enda, but nah.

Logical Fallacy

c_man wrote: »

Creating needless overheads for businesses so that hefty gov ministers can show they're "doing something about the obesity epidemic".

I would have thought that they could set a good example ala Enda, but nah.

What overhead is involved? Extra ink to print the calorie count on the menu?

smash

I don't think restaurants should be made display this, especially since their menu's change regularly. But I'd love to see fast food places have this.

c_man

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

What overhead is involved? Extra ink to print the calorie count on the menu?

Let me guess, you'd the first to applaud the first lardo to sue a place because the calorie count wasn't correct.

Logical Fallacy

c_man wrote: »

Let me guess, you'd the first to applaud the first lardo to sue a place because the calorie count wasn't correct.

Please highlight what you would see as the increased overheads due to a restaurant having to show the calorie count of meals.

Please answer the question, you made a point and I simply trying to get you to expand on it for the sake of the discussion.

Shenshen

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

lol, no it wouldn't. It's really easy to work out the calories of any meal. It's even easier if you are building that meal from scratch, as all decent restaurants would. A mate of mine is head chef of a very nice restaurant in Dublin and has described it as an extra 20 minutes work whenever they change the menu.

That's just the thing... I can work out roughly how many calories a meal I prepare at home contains. I have control over what goes in, and I will have a good estimate of the calorie count.

However, I have absolutely no idea what some cook or chef puts into a meal I eat in a restaurant. As a vegetarian, I've seen dishes containing fish and chicken labeled as "vegetarian option".
I've had salads that were little more than a few bits of unidentifiable vegetable clinging on for dear life on a huge lump of mayonnaise.
I've had baked potatoes drowning in butter.

I would be generally in favour of better descriptions of restaurant dishes and better labeling regarding vegetarian/ceoliac/possible allergens, and I am definitely in favour of giving a calorie count.

The argument about it "being a treat" is rather silly. They do display the price, does that put you off? Then why would the calorie count put you off?

SocSocPol

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Please highlight what you would see as the increased overheads due to a restaurant having to show the calorie count of meals.

Please answer the question, you made a point and I simply trying to get you to expand on it for the sake of the discussion.

The calculation of calories for a start, fot instance a baked potato, calories depend on particular potato type (rooster,golden wonder etc) then size or weight of potato.
Similarly exactly calculating the calories in any dish, a tad more flour means more calories.
Can you tell me how many calories are in a slice of apple pie? If the apples were relativley sweet less sugar would have been added , if they were quite sharp more would be needed, so it is nigh on impossible to give a calorie count and very expensive to calculate.

kowloon

Isn't 'obesity epidemic' a bit alarmist?

I wonder if it's all as serious as it's made out to be.

Stiffler2

Dave! wrote: »

I didn't see any mention of this on Boards yet, though it's been in the news the last couple of days... What do we think of this initiative?

It presents a few logistical problems for restaurants that e.g. decide their menus on the morning, depending on the fresh ingredients they get. It makes a bit more sense when it's in the likes of chippers and other fast-food places, although I'm not sure the obese people are the ones who would pay any attention to the calories -- it'd be the people who are health-conscious already. It might make it easier for these people to monitor their intake though.

But for some of the upmarket restaurants, how often would a person go to one of these? Once or twice a month? They're not contributing much to obesity, it's the daily meals that make the difference.

I think James needs to loose a bit of weight first before he can comment on anyone, although he's not as fat as Harney but still the health minister.

i am confused

mitosis

My name is URL wrote: »

Seems a bit stupid to me. It's all well and good including calorie counts on the likes of McDonalds menus, which are rarely changed.. but it would be very difficult for a restaurant that alters its menu every few days or weeks.

Making it even more difficult for businesses to operate at a time when many are already struggling to do so.. Well played Ireland

This. I cannot see the chef spending Tuesday working out the calorific content of next week's menu. It's a horrendous idea. If you want to fight obesity start by encouraging exercise and stopping the PC crap that is "Plus size", "curvy" thus letting shame correct the rest.

K-9

They should get Weightwatchers to count them!

It seems a decent idea for the likes of McDonalds but it seems a bit much for restaurants.

c_man

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Please highlight what you would see as the increased overheads due to a restaurant having to show the calorie count of meals.

The increased overheads are exactly that. calculating and showing the calorie counts, ensuring they're up to date etc. Needless overheads. You seem to know that its not much extra work, I dunno, but it's just another layer of bureaucracy.

I don't have a problem with that really, but I do think it's nonsense to have it mandated. As happens now, you can opt to take your custom to the many places that do this daily. What's the problem with that?

M cebee

it'll prob make this 'epidemic' worse anyhow
-the obese customers will select the high calorie stuff they enjoy
-and the anorexics will choose the low calorie stuff they want

Logical Fallacy

SocSocPol wrote: »

The calculation of calories for a start, fot instance a baked potato, calories depend on particular potato type (rooster,golden wonder etc) then size or weight of potato.
Similarly exactly calculating the calories in any dish, a tad more flour means more calories.
Can you tell me how many calories are in a slice of apple pie? If the apples were relativley sweet less sugar would have been added , if they were quite sharp more would be needed, so it is nigh on impossible to give a calorie count and very expensive to calculate.

Expensive to calculate? Really? How exactly do you figure that one? The first thing I would do when I was a personal trainer was to sit down and get someone to tell me what they ate daily, then 10 minutes later I would be able to tell them how many calories they had been eating.

You are aware that there are enormous free resources on the internet that give calories by weight of pretty much every available food?

In all honesty, I think all the people giving out about this are really reaching with the "cost" argument.

You are dreaming with your "very expensive to calculate" thing. You'd be better off saying "time wise, the chef will need to calculate it all, so you have the cost of his wages" or something like that.

As it is, you are trying to argue that doing a bit of maths costs money, simply the process?

Seaneh

Having worked in the catering industry for several years I can safely say that any chef who cannot estimate the calorie content of a dish in less than 5 minutes doesn't deserve to have a job.


Every chef who runs a kitchen has to cost their food anyway, so they know, on average, the quantities of ingredients that do into each dish, they have to or else they wouldn't be able to price them.
They know how much dairy there is in their mashed spuds, in their sauces etc, they know how much cheese when into their gratan and how big each portion should be.

It's easy work and doesn't create any additional cost to a restaurant, just means lazy head chefs will actually have to do a bit of ****ing work for once (not all head chefs are lazy, just most of them).

Scioch

Cheap calculator/pen and paper and a spare half hour would be all that is needed for a restaurant to do this.

So the overheads would be negligible.

Dr.Silly

honest to god, this is such bullsh1t it's not even funny.

Minister for Health .. this is the best you could come up with ?

How about School Canteens from creches to secondary schools .. oh no .. wait .. Jamie Oliver will look after that.

There's so many fcuked up things, and the best we can do is label a fcuking menu with calories.

I swear to God, I can't wait to get the hell out of this country

JohnMarston

Is it really that difficult for people to discern that something like potatoes and fish with a side salad = good for calories conscious and rashers, fried tomatoes,fried eggs with chips = not so good ?

seamus

My name is URL wrote: »

In that case, why can't people just inform themselves before eating out or ordering a meal.

Because that's not possible. The restaurant presents you with a finished meal, not with a list of ingredients. Seemingly small and healthy dishes can have twice the calories of larger ones.
The whole point is to allow consumers to inform themselves.

Others shouldn't be punished for their ignorance and/or sheer laziness.

Who's being punished? The cost to the restaurant is negligible. Other consumers can just ignore the calorie figure if it's of no concern to them. Who's losing out here?

The state shouldn't be charged with holding your hand through life.. this kind of thing erodes personal responsibility rather than enhance it.

On the latter point, I disagree entirely. This kind of thing encourages personal responsibility by allowing someone to make an informed choice rather than "not think about it" and splurge.
On the former point, if the state shouldn't be charged with holding one's hand, then logically the state should distance itself from any kind of personal intervention such as healthcare, education, pensions, and so forth. Every man for himself, is what you're saying.

When the state is providing things like healthcare, then the state not only has a right, but a duty to use legislation to attempt to create improvements in the day-to-day health of its citizens. We don't just pay taxes to fix people when they break, we pay taxes to try and stop people from getting broken in the first place.

[Diabolical]

I can see the obvious benefits from it - people will be more aware of what they're eating, making it easier to monitor their calories intake and maintain a healthy lifestyle, well that's what they hope anyway. The obvious downside being that obese people will probably completely ignore it anyway. They're obese from habit and terrible food, I doubt making them aware that their burger is 1000 calories will make a difference, of course they know the burger is bad for them, it's easier to live in denial. Saying that, maybe knowing for definite the calorie count and not being able to hide from the truth might shock some into action, I doubt it though.

I was listening to a bit on the news about it, and they were saying it will cost restaurants around €5,000 to calculate the calories, change the menus, boards etc. which is extortionate if it's a small family run restaurant, which the majority are. The worst restaurants such as KFC and McDonalds already have their calories up and to ask restaurants that changes their menus around every few days to do this is contemptible. Obesity is becoming an epidemic in this country, I agree, and it's nice to see some initiative I guess, but I think they're going about it the wrong way. Education is what obese people need, who's to say that the majority of obese people even know what their recommended daily intake should be? Or how much exercise they need to be doing? Telling them how many calories are in the one meal they eat in a restaurant maybe a few times a week or less just seems nonsensical and won't have any impact in the bigger picture of their lives. It's not fair to put the responsibility on the restaurants for the lifestyle choices of a few, it's just another act of the nanny state.

It's so poignantly ironic too, coming from the obese James O'Reilly.

Scioch

JohnMarston wrote: »

Is it really that difficult for people to discern that something like potatoes and fish with a side salad = good for calories conscious and rashers, fried tomatoes,fried eggs with chips = not so good ?

What about roast turnip in a boudegie sauce compared to a rutledge of squillion dans la pepperton bouvoir ?

Fact is most people have no idea what restaurants put into sauces and the preparation of food. Its not as simple as spuds = this and sausage = that. I'll have the spud. Whats in the mash ? Butter ? Cream ? You dont know.

Chuck Stone

If they must introduce stupid regulations then maybe they should stipulate that restaurants have to have over a certain number of seats or financial turn-over so that small and start-up businesses don't have to waste their time with it.

The people that don't give a **** about their weight won't read the calorie count thing anyway - they'll probably just butter it and eat it it.