invite responseComments 1 - 22 of 22 Search these comments
frodo
2011 Jan 18, 5:22am
I think it's important to remember that the motivation for these regulations is not just behavioral modification.
No one is guiltless regarding this health pandemic. Liberal or conservative. . . But let us not pass up an opportunity to smear, because of a great piece of behavioural psychology. ;)
i read the calories at fast food places and i buy less food as a result.
700 calories for a freakin $2.99 breakfast at mc donalds not including a drink!!!!
How much did they spend on that study - to show that people ignore the calories when they eat fast food ? Nobody who is concerned about calories is going to even be in the fast food restaruant anyhow.
I disagree; I eat fast food all the time, and love seeing the calorie information. On a day when I'm doing a lot of exercise, I feel free to eat something that has a lot of calories, and if I'm getting less exercise than usual that day, I'll choose something healthier.
Just because there's no difference in buying habits between those that look at the numbers and those that don't doesn't mean that the numbers have no value. The ones who do look now know to get a little more exercise after eating their tacos.
Cvoc13
2011 Jan 19, 1:09pm
How does that affect housing? I wasted 2 Cal.s writing in responce to your post.
elliemae
2011 Jan 19, 1:38pm
But let us not pass up an opportunity to smear, because of a great piece of behavioural psychology.
Frodo,
where the hell have you been? Your father & I have been worried. You don't write, you don't call...
So far as the orig post, people who eat fast food are usually well aware that their consuming high calorie content. Those people who eat junk all day probably don't care about the calories as well. I'd venture to guess that many people limit the amount of fast food that they eat although I'm not sure how healthy they're eating at home either.
Done!
2011 Jan 19, 11:44pm
Exactly and let's be honest, Fast food is already bad for you, crappy food enough.
Their customers are already hard wired for dollar menus. So subjecting them to this type of thankless social experimentation. Just takes from the actual food content they can put in their product.
Thanks now there's even more "pieces are parts" in those tacos and less actual food you want willingly eat.
Quit possibly adding to the caloric content, by skimping on ingredients, because they have to comply to make sure all of the prepress and printing of those Calorie menu posters are printed and hung. So that measly 5% of their customers might actually take the time to read them.
FNWGMOBDVZXDNW
2011 Jan 20, 12:18am
On a percentage basis, it hardly costs any money to print some Calorie data for the customers. So the cost is about zero, and the payoff is huge.
Even if each person that walks into the door buys the same thing, they might walk in the door less frequently or occasionally try something healthier.
They might not get a large tub of popcorn at the movies if they know it will make them gain 1/2 pound.
You can't slap a warning on a pack of cigarettes and expect someone at the register to decide not to buy them. But you can hope to get change over the long haul by education.
Liberals want to help people make better decisions.
Conservatives want to give people the freedom to make their own decisions.
If you provide good information, you can help people make better decisions for themselves. This seems like a no-brainer.
If you withhold the information, the only people you are helping are a few executives at fast food companies.
elliemae
2011 Jan 20, 1:44pm
Liberals want to help people make better decisions.
Conservatives want to give people the freedom to make their own decisions
And, like, some people just want others to just 'be.' It's a love fest.
The conservatives do no want to give people the freedom to make their own decisions. They generally oppose this kind of labeling that would give the consumer more information. Conservatives in this case are pro-ignorance.
Progressives/liberals end up disappointed when consumers take the new found information and optimize on most calories for their dollar.
The conservatives do no want to give people the freedom to make their own decisions. They generally oppose this kind of labeling that would give the consumer more information. Conservatives in this case are pro-ignorance.
Progressives/liberals end up disappointed when consumers take the new found information and optimize on most calories for their dollar.
Show me which conservative and liberal presidential candidates in the last election were not members of the same pro-communist thinktanks, and maybe I'll continue pretending that both sides don't work for the same international central bankers who own 169 central banks in nearly every country worldwide. Go lookup the Hegelian Dialectic as it applies to communist theory, sometime. You've been taken for a ride.
The US is working feverishly to meet minimum guidelines for international health standards set by the World Health Organization. Once the major developed countries pass these guidelines, then Codex Alimentarious will become international law. This is also why our health care was revamped by Obama -- to meet these same minimal international guidelines. This has been in the works for years.
The pop culture news item mentioned above is ultimately tied to setting public perception about food regulations. Check Codex law for details. Not something to wait around for the news media to cover. They will never ever ever ever ever cover it. Just like any of the UN-related standards being applied to the US. They even go the distance to teach the masses to think that anyone who discusses it openly is a nutjob. Wonderful people backing the UN. That is, the World Bank and IMF. Bunch of powerful rich manipulative bastards, IMO.
FNWGMOBDVZXDNW
2011 Jan 20, 11:37pm
Even if each person that walks into the door buys the same thing, they might walk in the door less frequently or occasionally try something healthier.
This is an excellent example of a faulted conclusion. A more correct conclusion would be “posting calories on menus has little effect on what *repeat* customers buyâ€.
In all likelihood, many former customers no longer patronize Taco Time, preferring to seek healthier choices. The study would not capture this.
YesYNot saysLiberals want to help people make better decisions.
Conservatives want to give people the freedom to make their own decisions.
Thanks, Einstein.
Wow, your main point was just restating what I wrote, and then you end with the Einstein bit. When did you become a grumpy parrot Nomo?
Jason–
You and Billy Jack need to get together.
Tatupu70 --
Anything else in your bag other than personal attacks? Is that all you have to offer the discussion?
tatupu70
2011 Jan 20, 11:45pm
Jason--
Yes, quite a bit. You're a bit sensitive--I was just suggesting that you and Billy Jack seem to share similar views of the world and might enjoy some time together. That's hardly a personal attack.
Even if each person that walks into the door buys the same thing, they might walk in the door less frequently or occasionally try something healthier.
Nomograph says
This is an excellent example of a faulted conclusion. A more correct conclusion would be “posting calories on menus has little effect on what *repeat* customers buyâ€.
In all likelihood, many former customers no longer patronize Taco Time, preferring to seek healthier choices. The study would not capture this.
YesYNot says
Liberals want to help people make better decisions.
Conservatives want to give people the freedom to make their own decisions.
Thanks, Einstein.
Wow, your main point was just restating what I wrote, and then you end with the Einstein bit. When did you become a grumpy parrot Nomo?
How about the possibility of a paid-for Nomo? A disinformation provocateur with an agenda here. It's easy to spot these people on the Intertube forums. They do the same thing over and over. Anyone who offers up hard documented proof of central banker foul play is labeled a conspiracy nutjob, immediately and repeatedly.
No discussion involving facts happens because of it, and these paid-for a-holes win what they are after... that is, the perpetuation of lies that continue to keep people in the dark.... a very profitable situation for a central banker.
How convenient that they have setup the public perception that anyone who challenges them is a complete nutjob. I wish I had the money-out-of-thin-air to purchase enough media and an army of peons to perform the same stunt.
The problem is, it's not going to earn anyone with a brain any respect. They're just serving the purpose of pissing off the people even more.
Jason–
Yes, quite a bit. You’re a bit sensitive–I was just suggesting that you and Billy Jack seem to share similar views of the world and might enjoy some time together. That’s hardly a personal attack.
Yea, you're a saint, straight from heaven. Here to help create the appearance that anyone who tells any semblance of truth is absolutely psychotic.
With friends like you, who needs enemies?
tatupu70
2011 Jan 20, 11:57pm
Anyone who offers up hard documented proof of central banker foul play is labeled a conspiracy nutjob, immediately and repeatedly.
If you or anyone has documented proof of central banker foul play, please post it. I've yet to see anyone post anything close to documented proof--it's always read between the lines stuff. Or links to obscure blogs. That's not proof.
I love a good conspiracy. Please open my eyes.
"Customers pay little heed to calories on menus
Posting calories on menus has little effect on what customers buy, according to a recent study."
Wait that's not what I heard. It's just common knowledge now, that if people are presented with the facts, or in this case the Caloric content, then people will swamp to "Wholefoods" and give everyone's Berkshire Hathaway position in their 401K an uptick for the month.
"Customers at TacoTime (a western Washington chain) who read how many calories are in their chimichangas, burritos and tacos on the restaurant's menu were just as likely to order them as people who don’t have that information."
So file it under who gives a Rat's Ass? Where's my Burrito Supreme?
"For 13 months, researchers recorded food purchases at seven suburban TacoTimes and seven inside Seattle, Washington. Seattle passed a law requiring that all fast food chains post their calories, fat and sodium content to the menus in 2009."
O.K. Who got paid to do WHAT?
"Once the law went into effect, public health researchers in Seattle and researchers from Duke-National University of Singapore Graduate Medical School compared what people were buying at TacoTimes inside and outside the city.
Contrary to their hypothesis, “We found no difference,†said lead author Eric Finkelstein. “We looked at the variables – the transactions, total calories per transaction, food, dessert, entrees. We weren’t able to find any effect whatsoever.â€"
It took 13 months to realize the obvious? The potential customer is already there, and it's not like there's the Soy Taco option, or that is why they customer is even there. It's a Taco, they've been eating them all their life. They were given them two times a Month through out their school years for school lunch. If the tacos are so goddamn dangerous, then maybe it's because our Government is subsidizing farmers and food suppliers to make Frankenfood and inject it onto the American people. The problem isn't the fat and sugar in food, the problem is what they've done with the sugar and fat in food. People aren't stupid, vilifying food, and giving no affordable alternative, isn't going to pull them back from the trough. If the Liberals are so guilt riddled over the health pandemic that our lust for money and greed has created. Than quit screwing with the food supply and enabling the manipulation of our food supply for corporate profits. Our government should only be there to make sure food is safe to eat, nothing else. Especially not subsidizing the very spot in our food supply that poisons the other 80% of our food supply.
"The findings suggest that having calorie information did not change public health behavior."
Of course not, people think, "Hey the government wouldn't let us eat this crap if it wasn't good for us... RIGHT?"
"This may not be totally surprising. After all, obesity rates have continued to soar after pre-packaged foods were required to carry nutritional content, said Finkelstein, an associate professor of health services at Duke-National University of Singapore.
Similar studies about calorie counts in menus have found either small, marginal effects or no difference at all.
“This is just one chain, so it’s possible to find more compelling results in different chains,†Finkelstein said, about the TacoTime’s study.
Regardless, nationwide changes are coming. The health care reform bill, passed last year, requires fast food chains to post their nutritional information on menus. The FDA’s rules on for this are due in March.
While calorie info on menus may not unleash widespread weight loss, it could have some benefits, Finkelstein said.
“My sense is that if these laws are to have an effect, it’s going to be on the supply side,†he said, referring to fast food companies. "
Now you're learning
“If they’re embarrassed about 2,000-calories lunches, they might try to skimp on calories, sodium and fat.â€
Wop! well apparently not!