FDA Wants Restaurants to Cut Portion Size
From USA Today, the FDA actually makes sense. Now that is news.
A new report suggests restaurants should dish food and fight fat at the same time, meaning menus with more fruits and vegetables, smaller portions and better nutritional information.It's rare that the FDA makes sense about anything, but in this case, they are on target. The downside is that this will never be enforced, so if you want to eat wisely when dining out, you'll need to take the iniative and do some research on your own.
With burgers, fries and pizza the Top 3 eating-out favorites in this country, restaurants are in prime position to help improve people's diets and combat obesity. At least that's what is recommended in a government-commissioned report being released Friday.
The report, requested and funded by the Food and Drug Administration, lays out ways to help people manage their intake of calories from the growing number of meals prepared away from home, including at the nation's nearly 900,000 restaurants and other establishments that serve food.
The 136-page report prepared by The Keystone Center, an education and public group based in Keystone, Colo., said Americans now consume fully one-third of their
daily intake of calories outside the home. And as of 2000, the average American took in 300 more calories a day than was the case 15 years earlier, according to Agriculture Department statistics cited in the report.
Today, 64% of Americans are overweight, including the 30% who are obese, according to the report. It pegs the annual medical cost of the problem at nearly $93 billion.
Consumer advocates increasingly have heaped some of the blame on restaurant chains like McDonald's, which bristles at the criticism while offering more salads and fruit. The report does not explicitly link dining out with the rising tide of obesity, but does cite numerous studies that suggest there is a connection.
The report encourages restaurants to shift the emphasis of their marketing to lower-calorie choices, and include more such options on menus. In addition, restaurants could jigger portion sizes and the variety of foods available in mixed dishes to reduce the overall number of calories taken in by diners.
Bundling meals with more fruits and vegetables also could improve nutrition. And letting consumers know how many calories are contained in a meal also could guide the choices they make, according to the report. Just over half of the nation's 287 largest restaurant chains now make at least some nutrition information available, said Margo Wootan, director of nutrition policy for the Center for Science in the Public Interest.
"If companies don't tell them, people have no way of knowing how many calories they are being served at restaurants. And chances are, they are being served a lot more than they realize," said Wootan, adding that Congress should give the FDA the authority to require such disclosure.
But the report notes that the laboratory work needed to calculate the calorie content of a menu item can cost $100, or anywhere from $11,500 to $46,000 to analyze an entire menu.
That cost makes it unfeasible for restaurants, especially when menus can change daily, said Sheila Cohn, director of nutrition policy for the National Restaurant Association.
Instead, restaurants increasingly are offering varied portion sizes, foods made with
whole grains, more diet drinks and entree salads to fit the dietary needs of customers, Cohn said. Still, they can't make people eat what they won't order.
"It's not really the responsibility of restaurants to restrict the foods that they offer," Cohn said.
Survey data suggest that consumers are sticking to old standbys, even when offered healthier fare.
When Americans dined out in 2005, the leading menu choices remained hamburgers, french fries and pizza, according to The NPD Group, a market research firm. The presumably healthier option of a side salad was the No. 4 choice for women, but No. 5 for men, according to the eating pattern study.
Government officials, scholars, industry representatives and consumer advocates contributed to the report.
Carb Health has nutrition info for some fast food restaurants.
Bodybuilding.com has a food nutrient database that is searchable.
Or go to a used bookstore and pick up a copy of Corrine Netzer's Complete Book of Food Counts, which includes restaurant foods.
Technorati Tags: Nutrition, FDA, Serving Size, Food Counts, Health, Diet










9 Comments:
How would you enforce this? The food police? LOL! "You served too big of a burger sir, now I will arrest you". Come on... I would love to hear your details on this one!
Did you miss the part where I said it wasn't enforceable?
Economically, it would be in their best interest, but that would require long-term thinking skills.
People are so used to being overweight now that they see that as normal, so good luck getting them to do anything for their health.
You did not say "it wasn't enforceable" you said and I quote: "The downside is that this will never be enforced". I am curious, why is it a downside that this is not enforced? (i.e. with force?)
BTW, thanks for your blog! I am with 90% with you most of the time, just a little curious on your thoughts on this one.
I think that what should be enforced by the FDA, but won't be, is that all restaurant chains that have outlets in more than one state (or have more than 10 or 15 outlets, or some other reasonable number) should be required to provide nutrition information on menu items.
Mom and pop diners should be exempt.
Did you know that you can go into a McDonalds and order a 3,000 calorie meal? They provide nutrition info, so I can research that. Only half of the national chains provide that info.
I see the results of super-size meals every day. Nobody needs a 1,200 calorie hamburger, or even an 800 calorie burger. Portion sizes should be controlled by the restuarants themselves as a way to save money (making more on each meal sold due to smaller portion size) and to keep their customers (diabetics tend to die from the disease, or from a heart attack).
There comes a time when businesses must act with integrity and in the best interests of their customers. The downside of capitalism is that it doesn't tend to reward ethical business behavior.
But then some people think I'm a communist, so take my opinion for what it's worth.
Peace,
Bill
Okay so you think the FDA should use force to make some restaurants (but not all of them) make their nutrition info available on menus, then you acknowledge that McDonalds does this, yet it makes not difference to the public at all. They still go to McDonalds by the millions even they know it is super fattening. I am I understanding you correctly?
You also state “Nobody needs a 1,200 calorie hamburger, or even an 800 calorie burger”, so restaurants should not serve what the public wants? But what you want? Again am I correct in your thoughts here? I am totally lost in your logic here.
How is McDonalds any different than beer makers? People fully know what they are buying when they buy booze, so should we have a "McDonald’s prohibition"? Bill makes the rules of how big a burger people can buy? Please explain how you think all this should be dealt with. I really do not understand.
What's your solution to the issue of having 62 percent of the population overweight and 30 percent obese?
Do you think that restaurants play no part in that, especially fast food?
Re your analogy: Liquor stores cannot sell during certain hours and beer can only have a certain percentage of alchohol, and malt liquor has limits on alchohol content. So some regulation of alchohol is okay, but not for the food industry?
More people die each year from obesity related illness than from alchohol. And you pay for it in higher taxes and higher insurance rates.
So, if I'm so wrong, you tell me what the solution is, anonymous?
I did not say you were wrong and yes obesity is a problem, I was just asking you to clarify your position and how your use of force would solve this? It is okay if you cannot do this.
It seems illogical to me that to have the FDA use the threat of force and turn people who sell food (you do not like or in quantities you do not like) like into criminals. This is absurd. I also think it is unethical.
Seriously what if the hamburger seller refused to reduce the size of his burgers even after he was fined by the FDA, would you have him thrown in jail? Where would it end?
Before we talk about my solutions to a complex issue, let us both rule out the use of force or the threat of violence.
The FDA has no enforcement arm, so there is no threat of force. They can issue warnings and guidelines, and if businesses refuse to comply, the Justice Dept. can act.
Personally, I think that there is no difference between requiring manufacturers to disclose nutrition info than there is in requiring restaurants to do so.
The worse case "use of force" would be fines. The food industry will pay fines on occasion rather than comply with the FDA, so I assume restaurants would as well.
Bottom line for me: I am more intereted in having them disclose nutrition info than I am in getting them to limit portion size. They reality is that if someone wants to eat a super jumbo heart attack burger and it isn't available, he'll eat three smaller ones.
But for those who want to eat healthy and have few options other than fats food, nutrition info should be available to help these people make a clear choice.
Finally, the FDA requires food manufacturers, finally, to list trans fat content in foods. McDonald's should be required to disclose that a small fries has 4.5 grams of deadly trans fats per serving. It's a public safety issue.
So what is your solution?
Peace,
Bill
I do not think there is one solution, and there is always going to be obese people as people are free to be fat. However, I think it's time to hit them in their pocket book. It is the one thing that really motivates the masses. I like the idea of something like health savings accounts because, among all the ways of financing health care, brings the full bore of moral hazard of being obese to bear on this desperate situation. You want to be obese, then it is to cost you a lot of cash.
Make being obese and sedentary (like smoking) more expensive to get health insurance. Why should our taxes subsidize obesity related illnesses with government healthcare? We give billions in farm aid so farmers can make cheap food, (like high fructose corn syrup) all this just makes the problem worse.
If we continue down a path of giving away (Medicare & Medicaid) cheap pharmaceuticals (or at little cost) and subsidizing cheap food, the public will continue to gobble up drugs by the truck load because people (generally) take the path of least resistance, which means lifestyle choices will be a low priority because it takes consistent effort.
It may sound crazy, but I am optimistic. I think the obesity has peaked as the public is aware, however there are just a lot of people who really do not care, until: 1) They are going to die if they do not lose weight 2) Losing weight will save them a lot money.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home