creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Steve Chapman
Steve Chapman
16 Feb 2012
Food and Conscience

Factory farming and its abuses were once the province of an eccentric minority that invited ridicule and scorn.… Read More.

12 Feb 2012
False Fears About a Nuclear Iran

"The stupidest thing I have ever heard." — Meir Dagan, former head of Israel's intelligence agency,… Read More.

9 Feb 2012
Appease This!

On April 1, 2001, a U.S. spy plane and a Chinese fighter collided over the South China Sea, forcing the … Read More.

Force-Feeding Food Facts

Share Comment

The 21st century has many problems, but a shortage of information is not one of them. Trying to avoid being endlessly barraged with facts is like trying to stay dry in a hurricane. But no matter. One government body after another has the idea that some people need more information, and it will be supplied or else.

The targets of this campaign are restaurants. New York City has a new law commanding chain outlets to post the calorie count of every item on menus and menu boards. The legislatures in New York and California are considering state laws to require even more extensive disclosures.

The reason, as the New York City Health Department explains, is that "New Yorkers get a third or more of their calories away from home. The lack of readily available calorie information in food service establishments makes it easy to consume too many calories without realizing it."

Imposing this mandate is supposed to help combat obesity. The Los Angeles County Department of Public Health asserts that if just 10 percent of restaurant patrons cut their intake by a mere 100 calories per meal, we would see a 39 percent decline in weight gain.

But the entire effort rests on assumptions that are unexamined and unfounded. The first is that consumers place a high value on the information being mandated. Actually, most of it is already accessible (online, among other ways) to anyone who is interested. In many places, it is available onsite, on tray liners or pamphlets.

Americans may say they would also like to see dietary information on menus. But providing it costs money, in a fiercely competitive industry. If patrons really wanted such disclosures, no law would be needed. Restaurants, eager to attract customers, would already be providing the numbers — just as they strive to offer other things that bring in business.

Among the attributes that most people look for when they dine out, nutritional information is below tasty fare, reasonable prices, courteous service, pleasant surroundings, agreeable lighting and free parking. It's probably tied with clean restrooms and free mints at the cashier's counter.

The belief that more facts will generate wiser decisions is appealing but, at least in the realm of food, yet to be proved.

No one seems to have noticed that as nutritional labeling has expanded, so have American waistlines. The federal government first required packaged foods to carry such information in the mid-1970s, and today, we are collectively fatter than we were then.

What does that suggest? Either people don't notice what's in the food they buy, or they don't let the knowledge affect what goes in their mouths.

"You can certainly say that most people certainly don't understand the food label," former Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Lester Crawford told the 2004 World Obesity Congress. "And it's not because they can't understand it, it's because they don't care to understand it."

If people don't heed the information they already have, they aren't going to waste effort digesting an additional onslaught of facts. The assumption is that people eat badly because they don't acquire the essential knowledge about their food. But it may be they fail to obtain those facts because they prefer to eat whatever they like. Not everyone approaches dinner as a research project.

There is little research to suggest that calorie alerts will make any difference in obesity rates. In 2004, the American Journal of Preventive Medicine reported that when women of normal weight were given this kind of information, it had no effect on what they ate, and that facts furnished in restaurants were also irrelevant in dining decisions.

A study in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association found that people who dine out frequently are less likely to pay attention to nutritional data than people who eat mostly at home. It suggested that "those who have a less nutritious diet are less likely to use food labels and have less interest in doing so."

As anyone who's ever raised a teenager knows, continually bombarding people with information that is useful or even crucial to their well-being is not always productive. Menu laws may not increase our ability to make good food choices. But they will certainly improve our ability to tune out.

Steve Chapman blogs daily at newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/steve_chapman. To find out more about Steve Chapman, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.


Comments

1 Comments | Post Comment
DOES ANYONE REMEMBER WHEN THEY STARTED PUTTING WARNINGS ON CIGARETTE PACKS? Watch out people, your government offspring is again about to launch an all out attack and if you don't protest, you will soon find yourselves without freedoms or choices. We all know our food choices and our foods do not cause obesity, there are multiple factors which we either can't or won't change. Including lack of exercise, heredity, metabolic disorder, Whatever the reasons, is anyone else just completely outraged by the constant interference by government agencies in our personal decisions? Before anyone gets on their "holier than thou" pedestal, consider government brainwashing. You think the healthcare system is drained by people's lifestyle choices. Not true. It's drained because it's a faulty system ruled and run by corruption. A sacred cow the government won't bring down. Those within the healthcare system know this and it's not a secret. An elephant in the room.
We all know how they broke the tobacco industry and managed to fatten their coffers with the unwilling tithes of the producers and smokers of tobacco. Told us it's not the tobacco but the additives, it's not the cigarette but the second hand smoke, it's not the second hand smoke, it's the addiction..ad nauseum. When in truth, it is the asbestos and lead and other toxins in our homes and worksites, the pollution of our air, water, our land and our food, which create a perfect environment for opportunistic disease. But who wants to hear that? If you hear it and believe it, you will insist the government regulate industry and big business. Instead of doing that, they will regulate you and your choices. Believe it. Well, "they" were succesful with the war on tobacco. During this war on tobacco, healthcare workers (amongst them, many educated smokers)said more people died of obesity related illness than did from cigarette smoke, why don't you regulate obesity? Well guess what people, they decided on to the next, best thing, regulating our food.
First we must read (remember those cigarette pack warnings), then what's certain is we will all pay! Pay more to enjoy less. A funny thing though, those who clean up the highways and those same healthcare workers said more accidents and illnesses (and crime) were caused not by a poor diet or cigarette smoke, but by too much ingested alcohol or drugs. "They" didn't win "the war on drugs"so they started other wars...the war on cigarettes and now the war on obesity. Oh yes, let's not forget our governments other wars, when we can't defeat one enemy, we start an attack on another. Business as usual.
Comment: #1
Posted by: liz
Sat Jun 28, 2008 5:13 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Steve Chapman
Feb. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 31 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 1 2 3
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Author’s Podcast
Michelle Malkin
Michelle MalkinUpdated 27 Feb 2012
Marc Dion
Marc DionUpdated 20 Feb 2012
Mark Levy
Mark LevyUpdated 18 Feb 2012

31 Jul 2008 Consenting To Be Abused

18 Oct 2007 The Entertaining Evolution of Mitt and Rudy

17 Mar 2011 Big Mo and Other Sports Myths