-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
(NYTIMES) After Menu Labels, Parents and Kids Order Same Foods
- Thread starter Ripclawe
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
So I guess we shouldn't put ingredients or nutrional info on food packages because poor people don't read them?
Give me a break.
Give me a break.
I think the whole point was it was argued putting all this stuff out there would cause people to eat healthier.Ether_Snake said:So I guess we shouldn't put ingredients or nutrional info on food packages because poor people don't read them?
Give me a break.
The reality is people eat and drink what they like quality be damned. If I have a craving for an 1800 calorie hamburger one day a month im gonna eat that bad boy
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
antonz said:I think the whole point was it was argued putting all this stuff out there would cause people to eat healthier.
The reality is people eat and drink what they like quality be damned. If I have a craving for an 1800 calorie hamburger one day a month im gonna eat that bad boy
That is the exact same reason behind putting ingredients and nutritional info on food packages. Are you saying we shouldn't do that because poor people don't care?
Last I checked most people were not in low-income families, at least not here in Canada, so I don't see why we would claim that this is useless just because poor people don't give a fuck.
Seriously, the only ones that are going to cry us a river over this are fast food chains. I don't give a damn if it costs them to put this info up. And putting nutritional info on packages didn't change people's habits over night either.
Ether_Snake said:That is the exact same reason behind putting ingredients and nutritional info on food packages. Are you saying we shouldn't do that because poor people don't care?
Last I checked most people were not now-income families, at least not here in Canada, so I don't see why we would claim that this is useless just because poor people don't give a fuck.
I dont think its stupid to put the info out there but I dont think it does alot of good either. Most Fast food places in America for years have had the health factor of their food available for viewing at request. It does cost companies more money to start forcing people to look at these things on new menu boards etc when the people arent going to look anyways
Ether_Snake said:So I guess we shouldn't put ingredients or nutrional info on food packages because poor people don't read them?
Give me a break.
This isn't about poor people or info on packages, its about the goofy notion that put these laws in effect that once people saw the calorie counts staring at them, they would turn to veggies or something. It hasn't changed a damn thing.
That is for any level of income.
You certainly love to pick and choose what studies you like to look at:Ripclawe said:This isn't about poor people or info on packages, its about the goofy notion that put these laws in effect that once people saw the calorie counts staring at them, they would turn to veggies or something. It hasn't changed a damn thing.
That is for any level of income.
According to a report published by "The American Journal of Public Health," a study conducted at a New York City Subway restaurant---which voluntarily listed calorie content---influenced the purchase decisions of patrons. The study concluded that patrons who considered calorie information when ordering purchased items that on average had 52 fewer calories than those patrons who did not consider the nutritional data.
Children
A study conducted in 2010 suggests that parents make more health-conscious decisions for their children when ordering food from menus at McDonald's that listed calorie content, according to "Science Daily." A research team at the Seattle Children's Research Institute surveyed 99 parents with three- to six-year-old children who sometimes eat at fast-food restaurants. Half of the parents were given a menu with calorie information. This group of parents chose menu items for their children that contained an average of 102 fewer calories compared to the group of parents who chose meals from a menu without calorie information.
Long-Term Impact
According to "Time Magazine," New York City health officials claim that menu provisions to include calorie content have prompted several chains to provide lower-calorie foods. Wendy's now uses a lower-calorie mayonnaise in its chicken club sandwich, reducing the meal's calorie count by 17 percent, from 650 calories to 540 calories.
Read more: http://www.livestrong.com/article/287794-nutrition-facts-required-for-fast-food/#ixzz1ESFbeKGP
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
Ripclawe said:This isn't about poor people or info on packages, its about the goofy notion that put these laws in effect that once people saw the calorie counts staring at them, they would turn to veggies or something. It hasn't changed a damn thing.
That is for any level of income.
The article is about low-income families. The fact is now the info is THERE, so if I CARE I have access to it right away, which is how it should be, just as it is for packaged food.
Ether_Snake said:Are you saying we shouldn't do that because poor people don't care?
Why the shit do you keep saying that. I don't see anyone saying the labels need to be removed. I see people discussing no change in behavior even after they were added. That discussion could even lead to people suggesting we do even MORE than just labeling the menus, like someone suggested, perhaps teaching it in schools.
GoldenEye 007
Member
Everyone knew it all along. Nobody orders a double cheeseburger and fries thinking it is healthy.Guevara said:They may still order terrible, fatty food, but at least now they know it.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
Cipherr said:Why the shit do you keep saying that. I don't see anyone saying the labels need to be removed. I see people discussing no change in behavior even after they were added. That discussion could even lead to people suggesting we do even MORE than just labeling the menus, like someone suggested, perhaps teaching it in schools.
I suggest you read the rest of the thread.
DominoKid said:its not like nutritional info is gonna make me stop wanting McDonalds. only thing thats gonna stop that is if McDonalds suddenly becomes awful (i see you Food Snob GAF)
That's not food, it's garbage. Food has nutritional merit.
I <3 Memes
Member
This news is coming to you from our No Shit! department. Despite Republican vitriol about Democrats and the nanny state, there is sometimes truth to that. This is where Democrats stick their nose where it doesn't belong and it usually has no affect whatsoever.
Chicken Mcnuggets have tasty merit. That is all that matters to me.
1-D_FTW said:Food has nutritional merit.
Chicken Mcnuggets have tasty merit. That is all that matters to me.
timetokill
Banned
This study is stupid.
Nobody is going to walk into a McDonald's, look at the nutrition info, and say "oh, well, nevermind then! Guess I'll find somewhere else to eat" when the whole reason they went there in the first place was to get a Big Mac and fries. By the time you get there, you're already hungry and at your destination. You're not going to back out at that point.
What they should have been studying is whether or not people started going to McDonald's less overall. If last time you went there and ate it, and you felt a little guilty because you saw the nutrition info but you ate it anyway, did it make you think twice about going the next time? Probably not, but that's the aspect of behavior that would change, I'd imagine.
Nobody is going to walk into a McDonald's, look at the nutrition info, and say "oh, well, nevermind then! Guess I'll find somewhere else to eat" when the whole reason they went there in the first place was to get a Big Mac and fries. By the time you get there, you're already hungry and at your destination. You're not going to back out at that point.
What they should have been studying is whether or not people started going to McDonald's less overall. If last time you went there and ate it, and you felt a little guilty because you saw the nutrition info but you ate it anyway, did it make you think twice about going the next time? Probably not, but that's the aspect of behavior that would change, I'd imagine.
I <3 Memes
Member
timetokill said:What they should have been studying is whether or not people started going to McDonald's less overall. If last time you went there and ate it, and you felt a little guilty because you saw the nutrition info but you ate it anyway, did it make you think twice about going the next time? Probably not, but that's the aspect of behavior that would change, I'd imagine.
We dont need a study for that either. People already know that Mcdonalds isn't good for them and they go there anyway.
Schools should also start serving food that isn't unhealthy or crappy slop for breakfast and lunch. Maybe some of that extra spending per pupil could go towards that.Chichikov said:I think it's time we start teaching basic nutrition in schools.
It's an important skill for life.
Al-ibn Kermit
Junior Member
If you want to change people's daily eating habits, it has to start in school. I say replace elementary school PE (which wasn't all that active back when I took it) with a class where you construct a diet and stick to it during your lunch hour and your homework is "eating right" for dinner or breakfast. Whatever, kids are impressionable so you start it then and you get them to develop some decent eating habits.
Because humans have a biological mechanism to count calories, called hunger:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothalamus#Control_of_food_intake
The question is what disregulates this system, not how to brute force caloric balancing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothalamus#Control_of_food_intake
The question is what disregulates this system, not how to brute force caloric balancing.
I'm pretty sure sugar does this.teh_pwn said:Because humans have a biological mechanism to count calories, called hunger:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothalamus#Control_of_food_intake
The question is what disregulates this system, not how to brute force caloric balancing.
timetokill
Banned
I <3 Memes said:We dont need a study for that either. People already know that Mcdonalds isn't good for them and they go there anyway.
Most do, yes. But, for example, do people go there, say, 5% less in a year than they used to? Even changes in habits like that could be helpful.
I doubt it's changed much either way, but my point is they're looking in the wrong place if they're looking to see behavioral changes. Once somebody is at McDonald's they've already made their choice.
The children and teens in the study ate an average of 645 calories per meal
Hold on...isn't 645 calories per meal actually not that bad?
Fisticuffs
Member
tokkun said:Hold on...isn't 645 calories per meal actually not that bad?
yeah really i can take down double that in one sitting. Though i no longer go that route.
tokkun said:Hold on...isn't 645 calories per meal actually not that bad?
Yeah, 645 is pretty reasonable, if you can keep it to three meals of that. Maybe a little bit high, but not by much.
tokkun said:Hold on...isn't 645 calories per meal actually not that bad?
That's nothing. 645 x 3 = 1935 calories/day
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
I <3 Memes said:We dont need a study for that either. People already know that Mcdonalds isn't good for them and they go there anyway.
We dont need a study about cigarettes. People already know that cigarettes aren't good for them and they smoke them anyway.
Chopper Dave
Member
dudeworld said:I know mcdonalds is shit, I don't need labels to tell me that.
Yes and I would assume most people feel the same. How many people are really oblivious to the awful nutritional facts of fast food? They don't really need to know the exact calorie count to know it's shit as you say.
narcosis219
Member
tokkun said:Hold on...isn't 645 calories per meal actually not that bad?
Assuming 3 meals at 645, that's under 2000 per day. Seems fine from a caloric standpoint.
Wienke brings up a good point in the real thread--given that this applies to those Red Lobster/Olive Garden sitdown chains, and that studies show that middle/upper income people do take this information into account. The meals at those places are probably 2000-3000 when they include soup, salad, gigantic servings, and gigantic pizookie desserts.
wienke said:I don't think this will hurt fast food as much as you guys think. If anything, it's going to hurt the major sit down chains like Chilis or Olive Garden. Places like Taco Bell are pretty manageable in terms of calories. Olive Garden is a death trap by comparison.
Chopper Dave said:Yes and I would assume most people feel the same. How many people are really oblivious to the awful nutritional facts of fast food? They don't really need to know the exact calorie count to know it's shit as you say.
If, for whatever reason, you are forced into eating at a fast food restaurant, now you will be able to quickly and easily determine which menu item is least unhealthy.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.