Calorie counts now required for vending machines, restaurants, and movie theaters

Many of the chain restaurants already have calorie counts btw, and have had for some time, on their menus, along with a range of 'healthy' choices. Off the top of my head, Chili's and Olive Garden have both done this for a long time.

HorsieJuice said:

Exactly. The large chains already have this information available on their web site. They just have to reprint the signs, which would come out to maybe a few hundred dollars per store.

Click to expand...

The new law only applies to chains with 20 or more locations, which means pretty large restaurant chains.

They have a long amount of time to comply with the new regulations, and with how regularly restaurants change their menus it should be an easy matter to include this change the next time they change their menu.

To put this into perspective, many fast food restaurants change their menu once a month with a new promotional item or limited time menu item.

McDonalds recently added the McRib to its menu. Jack in the Box just added a Sriracha sandwich. Pizza Hut just completely overhauled its menu with new ingredients and sauces, including new healthier pizzas claiming to be very few calories per slice.

Menus change and are reprinted regularly.

HorsieJuice said:

Exactly. The large chains already have this information available on their web site. They just have to reprint the signs, which would come out to maybe a few hundred dollars per store.

Click to expand...

At my local McDonald's, inside the restaurant the signs have been reprinted to have the information.

Out in the drive through, however, they went an even cheaper route and stuck on some number stickers. They look nice (not uneven or falling off), and I'm sure it didn't cost very much. Those menus are kind of old, they'll probably get nicer ones later with the numbers printed on.

So, sometimes it might not even be that expensive.

Hetta said:

Many of the chain restaurants already have calorie counts btw, and have had for some time, on their menus, along with a range of 'healthy' choices. Off the top of my head, Chili's and Olive Garden have both done this for a long time.

Click to expand...

California has required calorie counts since 2010 and New York since 2009.

...Yet we don't see the first thread complaining about these laws until the end of 2014.

New Yorkers try to swallow calorie sticker shock - Health - Diet and nutrition | NBC News

The New Calorie Count Menu Law for California Restaurants - Avvo.com

Its one thing to require resturants to do it. The meals are made in a cookie cutter fashion. But who needs this for vending machines? If you have to wonder what the caloric content of a snickers bar is before you get it, youre probably not smart enough to read it anyway. And all the info is on the package anyway. We need this for movie popcorn? Why? Watching your calories, avoid the butter. Arent a fat slob already, have some butter and enjoy your overpriced popcorn and movie. This isnt going to make anyone healthier, or give anyone any knowledge beyond that of trivia.

Here's an actual "Inside the Cup" view of a drink that I ordered from a fast food chain in Canada (with some in the U.S.) that we affectionately call "Timmie's".

The drink was topped with a fake chocolate whipped topping that I usually spoon off, enjoy separately, then have the drink. This time I did not. After about five minutes I tried to mix in the chocolate topping by 'swirling' the cup. I drank a bit more, then opened the lid. This is what I saw. I promptly put the lid back on and threw it out. I will never have one again.

At only 280 Calories, sometimes it's not just the nutritional info we need to be aware of...

looks like a cup of coffee by two girls you never want to have make your drink.

Protocol11 said:

If you have to wonder what the caloric content of a snickers bar is before you get it, youre probably not smart enough to read it anyway.

Click to expand...

*Adds another name on the list of people who call others stupid for wanting easily viewable nutritional information on this thread*.

Aah, yes.

conamer said:

The government knows less about nutrition that most people. Calories don't count. Can anyone knowing what a calorie is, attempt to explain what it has to do with how our bodies absorb nutrients? It never addresses how much energy is used in digestion either.

Click to expand...

they absolutley do if you want to lose weight or gain it, or maintain it.

You do dnot need to know how your body transfer each calorie to energy but you do need to know that if you are 5'4, female and say 35 years old, eating 3500 calories a day is a sure fire way to the fat farm.

dogs4thewin said:

Some places already do this any now.

It is both good and bad.

On the one hand, it allows people to be better informed. On the other, however when will it end? I do not want this to turn into the government FORCING us to restrict our calories, due to wanting to control us; particularly with the AXA.

Click to expand...

ohh lord

I don't get why people are objecting, if you don't care or don't want to know don't read the info.

I would like to think that every step towards trying to eliminate the horrible obesity epidemic in the USA is a good step.

Like I've said, what, eighty times in this thread? These numbers helped me drop fast food. Every person this measure helps will reduce the amount of money spent on healthcare for diseases related to diet.

I think that's worth a raise of $0.05 on popcorn prices.

-

NightHawkeye said:

1) It costs money.
2) It raises prices.

Click to expand...

The amount it raises prices will be negligible and any outlay can easily be amortized over the volume of sales that the affected businesses would do.

Vending machine operators and movie theaters would already know the nutritional content of the food they serve, because they'd be provided with that information by their suppliers. So these businesses would not require any laboratory testing; they'd merely have to print new signs.

The operators of chains with 20+ stores are the ones who'd have to get testing done, but even that won't be terribly expensive:

Let's say that it costs $1000 per dish to have it tested for caloric content (this place will do the whole nutritional test for $750), that means that amortizing that cost over 20 stores will average out to $50 per dish per store. Assuming that each dish is on the menu for a single year (and then removed entirely), that means that each store has to generate an extra ~$0.96 of revenue per dish per week in order to cover the cost of the testing. That's $0.137 per day. And if each dish is served only 10x per day (which is very low for a busy chain with 20+ locations), then the price of each dish would only have to be raised by 1.37 cents in order to cover that testing cost.

In short: the complaints about this aren't really about the cost of the testing. They're about the fact that, when confronted with the true nutritional data of the food they're eating, many people will consume less.

HorsieJuice said:

the complaints about this aren't really about the cost of the testing. They're about the fact that, when confronted with the true nutritional data of the food they're eating, many people will consume less.

Click to expand...

What is the source for this "fact" and how do you know? Seriously, how? Confronting one with information does not necessarily lead to less consumption. It's the fallacy of correlation implying causation. But you must show correlation first.

ImaginaryDay said:

What is the source for this "fact" and how do you know? Seriously, how? Confronting one with information does not necessarily lead to less consumption. It's the fallacy of correlation implying causation. But you must show correlation first.

Click to expand...

Fair enough - I'm speculating.

But the complaints can't be about the actual cost of implementing the rules, because the costs are practically nonexistent.

So if the outlay for implementing the rule is not an issue, then what is the issue? I speculate that it's because of a predicted drop in revenues, particularly with regards to the consumption of higher-calorie foods.

I speculate that the net result will be a reduction in the consumption of these foods, because at least some people will see this information and be motivated to reduce their caloric intake. I speculate that more people will be motivated to reduce their intake than will be motivated to increase their caloric intake, resulting in a net decrease in caloric consumption.

NightHawkeye said:

1) It costs money.
2) It raises prices.

Click to expand...

As someone who works in food manufacturing, I can assure you the cost to label such things is minimal, and the labeling can be critical beyond simply the calorie count, as ingredients matter. I have to watch out for anything claiming to be diet or low calorie, as I have a reaction to aspartme.

Most food already comes in a package, and it isn't much more expensive to have the food labeled, or at least have the facts up at the stand it is being sold at.

NightHawkeye said:

1) It costs money.
2) It raises prices.

Click to expand...

Citation needed.

Did McDonalds raise the price of their hamburgers when they did this? Nope.

Did it cost them significantly more than any other menu update such as adding the McRib to the menu in November, or adding the bacon clubhouse to the menu earlier this year? Nope.

Let's face it - your every argument against this is flawed. Chains update their menus regularly to add limited time offers or remove items that don't sell well. You've dug yourself into this position where you're adamantly opposed to something yet you can't quite give a good reason why anyone should be opposed.

I'm reminded of the increase in cost that Jack in the Box had to implement after a $2,000,000 (if I recall correctly) project to ensure the highest quality of meat for their chain. This was after three deaths in 1993 from a very deadly form of e. Coli that was traced to contaminated meat from their restaurant.

The increase in price to take the project cost was... $0.01 per pound of meat.

What is their biggest burger? I think it is a third pounder, but I may be mistaken. Either way, if it is a third pounder, that means an increase of $0.003 per burger.

How will customers ever be able to afford it?!?!