Truth is, McDonald's made their nutrition facts available years ago. If you're one of the bizarre, microscopic cross-section of America that cares about healthy eat and still eats at McDonald's, it's been there for you to analyze the whole time. Now that that calorie counts--and only the calorie counts--are on the menu, the only people it will impact are the nutritionally ignorant. They don't know/care about fiber, sodium and potassium, or protein/carb/fat balance (all absent from the menu). They actually believe that just because they're ordering small fries and a small Coke, they've healthified their meal. It simply won't register that they're still eating garbage.
It's a brilliantly creepy move on McDonald's part because it further legitimizes fast food as a credible nutrition source. I rarely eat fast food, but when I do, I don't worry about the nutrition facts. I order my burrito knowing that I'm eating a giant log of shit. (Admittedly a distasteful metaphor, but if I've dissuades you from eating fast food for a few weeks, then mission accomplished!) The thing is, most of my diet is made up of clean, healthy, nutrition food, so the damage I do with the occasional junky indulgence is negligible.
On the other hand, when you start counting calories of fast food, you concede that you're eating enough of it to require keeping track of its impact.
Furthermore, putting calories on the menu takes the onus off the eater to know what he or she is eating and puts it on the restaurant to act as a "Nanny Cafe" by spoon-feeding us information. I feel the same way about the increasing food fascism in New York.
Are we, as a people, becoming so diet-ignorant that we need the government and big business to manipulate us into eating better? Do we need to know the nutrition facts of fast food because what previous generations saw as a monthly indulgence has become a daily meal? Sadly, after watching this report on woman who lost 85 pounds eating at Starbuck's, it appears the answer is "yes."
The Starbucks Diet? This woman should be humiliated that her incompetence in the kitchen forced her to look to the inventor of the Venti Double Chocolaty Chip Frappuccino for diet help. (BTW, that's 520 calories and 69g of sugar that you ain't findin' on no menu.)
No need to do your own nutritional housekeeping, children. Aunt Starbuck and Uncle McDonald got your back, right?
Right?
I rarely disagree with you, Sensei, but in this case I think you're dead wrong. I understand your main point is that people who eat McDonalds several times a week, or daily, are nutritional MORONS who won't be changed by publishing calorie counts. And you're probably right. But changes around the margins count, too. If publishing calories means a more people choose the salad over the fries, well, Mickey D's will start offering a lot more of those kind of low-cal options. It'll never become a vegan, raw foods emporium, of course, but it might change. And, BTW, cigarette labeling and truth in advertising actually DID result in a lot of people quitting.
ReplyDeleteI'm right there with you that fast food should be considered entertainment, a rare indulgence, and not actual nutrition. But I am sometimes amazed at how many calories are in various junk foods. It's usually way, way more than I would have guessed. So I don't think it's a bad thing for McDonald's to add calorie information to their menus. If it makes some habitual fast food patrons decide not to "super size," then I guess that's a (pathetically small) drop in the bucket. Right?
ReplyDeleteAndrew -
ReplyDeleteThe salads and the fries tend to match calorically. And even if they didn't, the bulk of the calories in the salads comes from the horrific dressings and croutons. In the odd event someone switches to salad, it's basically robbing Peter to pay Paul.
I'm happy to be wrong about the smoking thing though. Can you send me a link?
How did you know my favorite Starbucks drink? ;-) When I have one of these, every few months or so, I share it. Calorie counting is what helped me lose those last 20 lbs. I started using the caloriecount.about.com website, and their Analysis page showed me that I wasn't eating enough protein, for example, and over time I started changing my eating habits to match my calorie allowance and macronutrient preferences.
ReplyDeleteCalorie numbers have been on fast food menu signs here in NY for a while. For the uneducated, it is at least an opportunity to consider how many calories they are putting down the hatch. For those of us who care, it's truth in advertising, which is a start. Well, truth assuming they are publishing accurate numbers, which is a whole other story.
I can't remember the last time I ate at McDonald's. There was a time in my life where I thought it would be strange to get "tired of it," as a wise older friend had become. Now I might be able to find something on the menu to eat, under duress, but not too often.
I have to disagree. I don't eat at McDonald's much - a couple times a month? More than I should, but I'm not beating myself up about it. I'm under no illusion that it is healthy. But I'm a food logger. I track my calories/fat/protein/carbs (of everything, not just "splurges") and I work treats/junk into my diet when I need/want to. I look up nutrition before eating out whenever I can, but if I'm stuck in a situation where I can't look up nutrition before I'm out (and I'm at a place I don't normally go, so I don't have my options memorized), calories on the menu are lifesavers. No, they don't give you the whole nutritional picture. But they do give you a much better idea of what you're putting in your face - a starting point. Calories aren't the only important number, but they *are* important. Maybe the average McD's customer won't be affected by it. Whatever. I'm not the average McD's customer, and I appreciate that it's there. That's all I care about.
ReplyDeleteKelly. I support your way of thinking and that's exactly my point. All those nutrition numbers are important and I think the fact that McDs makes those available is a good thing. However, by putting JUST the calories on the menus, it draws attention away from the more important details and makes people less informed than you think they are making healthy choices and can therefore eat at McDonalds more often.
ReplyDeleteDenis. I was using the Salad/Fries thing as a clever literary device, not a literal example. The biggest food-related crisis in this country right now is an obesity epidemic, which is largely about gross calories consumed, not macronutrient ratios. Anything that increases awareness about that is okay with me. Just as an example, I took my kids to In-N-Out recently and was considering a shake. Until I saw that the shake is something like 600 calories that I just don't need. Skipped it.
ReplyDeleteRe. Smoking labels. I'm sure there's a study to support any position, this being tobacco and all, but here's a link to a big study from the CDC. The graph is down quite a bit and shows the trend in % of smokers in the USA since 1965 to present. 1965 is when labeling was required and people began to understand the health consequences of smoking. Over that time it's down from something like 60% to 30%.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis is very witty writing - Your sense of humour made me read from start to finish! On a more serious note, We are up the creek without a paddle when it comes to nutrition these days with a seemingly and ever-increasing supply of processed and GM foods.
ReplyDelete