Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Businesses United States

Food Calorie Counts Will Start Appearing in US Restaurants and Grocery Stores (qz.com) 196

Posted by msmash from the watch-it dept.
Americans are about to find it very difficult to avoid knowing how many calories they're consuming every day. From a report: That's because the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) this week decided to move forward with an Obama-era food labeling rule that requires restaurants, grocery, and convenience stores with 20 or more locations to post calorie counts for standard menu items. The interesting thing about calorie counts is that, while they undoubtedly offer more transparency around the foods we choose to eat, there's not a lot of evidence to show they affect people's purchasing decisions.

In 2017, a team of researchers led by a Harvard University professor conducted a systematic review of 53 studies on the topic. Their work was later published in the journal Obesity, and included an analysis of 18 studies of behavior in real-world restaurants, 9 from in cafeterias, and 21 from simulated settings. Five studies examined restaurant offerings. Overall, the review found that available research lacked strong designs, which ultimately makes understanding the effectiveness of calorie count labeling all the more cloudy.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Food Calorie Counts Will Start Appearing in US Restaurants and Grocery Stores More

Food Calorie Counts Will Start Appearing in US Restaurants and Grocery Stores

Comments Filter:

  • Pick your battles (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rmdingler ( 1955220 ) on Tuesday May 08, 2018 @08:40PM (#56577960) Journal

    The interesting thing about calorie counts is that, while they undoubtedly offer more transparency around the foods we choose to eat, there's not a lot of evidence to show they affect people's purchasing decisions.

    There are folks you cannot reach despite all the evidence you can muster... nonetheless, please continue to provide that information for the folks you can.

    • I can make a pizza that's about 250 calories a slice. When I go out to eat it's easy to forget that most pizzas are 600+ calories a slice.

      • Re:It works on me (Score:4, Funny)

        by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Tuesday May 08, 2018 @09:51PM (#56578312)

        I can make a pizza that's about 250 calories a slice. When I go out to eat it's easy to forget that most pizzas are 600+ calories a slice.

        Obvious solution: Take a pizza cutter with you to the restaurant, and cut each slice in half.

        • You jest, but this is what companies will do to game the numbers. Next time you are at the grocery store look at the nutrition information by serving on the front of frozen pizzas. You'll see within the same brand one reported serving size as 1/4 pizza, another 1/5 pizza, and another 1/6 pizza. If you can't establish a standardized serving size, then the nutrition information is going to be misleading at best. Also, what monster cuts a pizza into 5 slices?

          • "Also, what monster cuts a pizza into 5 slices?" - a monster that's serving 5 people?

          • In many other countries, nutrition info is given by (seemingly arbitrary) "serving size," but also "per 100g." This allows easy comparison between products. Perhaps USA consumers should lobby for this too?

    • Re:Pick your battles (Score:5, Insightful)

      by nmb3000 ( 741169 ) on Tuesday May 08, 2018 @09:02PM (#56578074) Journal

      There are folks you cannot reach despite all the evidence you can muster... nonetheless, please continue to provide that information for the folks you can.

      Absolutely. A lack of information makes it impossible for anyone to make an informed decision whether they want to or not.

      And obviously while putting calorie counts on menus won't prevent someone from ordering six Big Macs, I do think it can help people choose between two alternatives. As a random example, the fried rice at Panda Express has almost 40% more calories than steamed rice. So menu calorie info may not push someone away from Panda or from a side of rice, but it could easily make them consider getting steamed rice over fried.

      I also think it has a positive effect on many restaurants (even if relatively small) to try and reduce fat and sugar in their food and undermines attempts to trick people into thinking something is a "healthy" option when it's really anything but.

      • Personally I think it would motivate me to make progressively better choices. I'm still going to eat at fast food places occasionally, but if I got something with 1000 calories last time, I can at least step down to 800 next time and so on.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by sycodon ( 149926 )

          I have lost 30 lbs and about 4 inches since December. This was on that Ideal Protein diet, but all that really is, is cutting calories.

          Part of doing that is not going all nuts about it and occasionally treating yourself. Several restaurants in my area already include cal counts and those that don't can be found on various websites like this [myfitnesspal.com].

          I've learned three things from all of this: Food can be very tasty with only a little bit of effort using herbs and other spices and still be dirt cheap on calories, veg

      • I live in a state that requires menu listed calorie count. It does have an effect on what I decide to order.

        I can have this chicken breast with bacon risotto and butter smothered mushrooms at 2500 calories;
        I can order the fettuccine lobster with white sauce at 1200 calories;
        or I can order the steak with garlic mashed potatoes at 800 calories.

        Knowing that, if I'm in the mood to eat more healthy, I can actively choose how healthy i want to eat at dinner that night.

        Not knowing numbers, I'm only guessing.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by sycodon ( 149926 )

          Ironically the counts are sometimes counter intuitive.

          Steak and potatoes has long been vilified. But there you have it, right there.

      • And obviously while putting calorie counts on menus won't prevent someone from ordering six Big Macs, I do think it can help people choose between two alternatives.

        But the fast food places have been providing calorie counts for years now...

      • I also think it has a positive effect on many restaurants (even if relatively small) to try and reduce fat and sugar in their food and undermines attempts to trick people into thinking something is a "healthy" option when it's really anything but.

        I have a strong suspicion this is precisely the reason behind this. The best known example of this "Food that is only marketed as being healthy" phenomenon is probably McDonalds' salads that are so laced with sugar-filled dressing and croutons that calorie-wise you may just as well go for a Big Mac instead.

        I'd have gone far enough and made then also include percentages of daily caloric needs for the average adult, but this is definitely better than nothing.

      • Re:Pick your battles (Score:4, Interesting)

        by rhazz ( 2853871 ) on Wednesday May 09, 2018 @07:54AM (#56580102)

        I also think it has a positive effect on many restaurants (even if relatively small) to try and reduce fat and sugar in their food

        In Canada we've had this for a while now, and this seems to ring true, especially with serving size. I go to Broadway's regularly and get a club sandwich with fries. It used to come on a plate where they'd put as many fries as would fit, but a couple years ago they started limiting the fries to a more reasonable fixed portion. This is likely because their menus now indicate the calorie size of a serving of fries, and "as many calories as can fit on your plate" doesn't sound very good.

      • As a random example, the fried rice at Panda Express has almost 40% more calories than steamed rice. So menu calorie info may not push someone away from Panda or from a side of rice, but it could easily make them consider getting steamed rice over fried.

        I do not know about other people, but I know that if I was ordering from Panda Express and considering getting a side of rice the information you gave would tell me that the fired rice tastes better than the steamed rice.

        Or to put it another way, the only time I can imagine the calorie information influencing my decision on what to order at a restaurant would be when I am having trouble deciding between two items. I would expect the item with more calories to have more flavor than the other and would th

    • Anecdotally: after calorie counts showed up on the menu, the number of my friends who wanted to order a blooming onion dropped dramatically (that thing is ~3000 calories).

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by Anrego ( 830717 )

        As someone who did the whole weight loss via calorie counting thing several years ago, entirely this.

        I know going out is going to be high calorie, I accepted and planned for that. Where it made the most difference is in things that I knew were bad, but not "wholly sweet fuck" bad.

        Also for the restaurant, when you've got someone like me who is counting calories, just being a known quantity can make you more appealing. Even knowing how much slack and lies are in those numbers, it's hard not to become obsessed

    • Agreed. The fact that the majority ignore it helps explain why developed nations' waistlines are expanding. I know my former fat self didn't used to care.

    • Except that is make fast food menus much more difficult to read, especially the sign menus behind the counter or at the drive through. The information is available by request or on the internet, it does not need to be plastered everywhere. Has this information actually helped you loose or maintain a healthy weight? Or it it just making you feel better about yourself? Ohhhh....I made a healthy choice! Now I can have a bag of cookies!

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday May 08, 2018 @08:47PM (#56578002)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jonwil ( 467024 )

      I also use calorie counts sometimes, e.g. if I am trying to figure out which kind of meat to put on my sandwiches I will consider which one is healthier (e.g. ham vs pastrami vs roast beef vs salami vs whatever) and pick a healthier option.

      • What does calorie counts have to do with being a healthy option? 1000 calories of vegetables are more healthy than 100 calories of red meat.

        • Re:They affect my behavior (Score:4, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 08, 2018 @09:30PM (#56578212)

          The obesity epidemic is still getting worse because everyone parrots 1970s diet "science". No, red meat is not bad for you. No, 1000 calories from potatoes or parsnips are not good for you.

        • Depends on the vegetables, but meat is a good source of a lot of nutrients. Protein deficiency in adolescence is devastating in terms of brain development. Unless you live in parts of the world that are lucky enough to have protein rich vegetables that grow natively or rich enough to be able to import them or otherwise supplement your diet, then meat of some sort is necessary.

          Even red meat isn't bad for you if prepared properly. A lot of the carcinogenic effects are from grilling it and burning parts of
        • Wait .. wouldn't it be better to posit, "1000 calories of vegetables are more healthy than 1000 calories of red meat"?

          If what you're saying is that calories by themselves mean nothing?

          That is, 1000 calories of vegetables would have more 'good' nutrients for you than 1000 calories of red meat

      • I also use calorie counts sometimes, e.g. if I am trying to figure out which kind of meat to put on my sandwiches

        Stress is demonstrably bad for your health. I recommend you eliminate this particular stressful situation by simply putting every available kind of meat on your sandwiches.

    • You know what I would really like? The ability to scan a barcode for each meal so it uploads the info into my calorie tracking app. I use MyFitnessPal whenever I can and the ability to scan food to track my daily intake (not just calories) has been an instrumental part of my weight management strategy

  • 20+ locations... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by b0s0z0ku ( 752509 ) on Tuesday May 08, 2018 @08:50PM (#56578018)
    Most chains with 20+ locations aren't worth going to anyway.

  • More information is always good (Score:4, Insightful)

    by dirk ( 87083 ) <dirk@one.net> on Tuesday May 08, 2018 @08:54PM (#56578034) Homepage

    This is going to be a tough one to measure the effect of (or lack thereof) but I think more information in the hands of people is always better. I think the long term effect may be seen more in restaurant choice than choice at a restaurant. If you like Big Macs and go to McDonalds, chances are seeing the calorie count on the menu won't make you get a salad. What may happen though is the next time you are hungry, you remember the calorie count and decide to go somewhere else where you prefered meal isn't as high in calories.

  • "Calorie counts"? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    What is this, 1977?

    How about showing sugar content, instead? Salt content? Sulfites, MSG, heavy metals, palm oil, country of origin for main ingredients? C'mon, if you're going to give us information, at least make it something worth knowing.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by MrL0G1C ( 867445 )

      2nd this, restaurants love to pump their products full of salt, I can't eat a dominos pizza for example, I'll feel very I'll the next day.

  • A worthless number (Score:1, Flamebait)

    by judoguy ( 534886 )
    It's a worthless number. As if calories are all the same. Think wood and nitro methane. Your car will treat them very differently.

    You body handles sugar very differently than fat. And the order of eating fat, sugars and protein makes a big difference in how the body handles those.

    • >"It's a worthless number. As if calories are all the same. You body handles sugar very differently than fat."

      No, it is NOT a worthless number. It is far from ideal, but way far from "worthless." Most people eat far too many calories each meal/day, regardless of the source or types of calories. And you can't come up with a single, unified, number that explains the energy content AND use of sugars, fats, proteins, and other components that will be useful... especially to lay-people.

      If one has an "avera

      • Most people eat far too many calories each meal/day, regardless of the source or types of calories.

        True, but the best solution is not to count the calories. It's better to avoid types of food that are designed to be addictive, and then just follow your natural hunger signals. Avoid processed foods, especially those made with sugar and seed oils. Eat real food that your great grandmother would have recognized.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Corbets ( 169101 )

          That’s a very unscientific approach - with your feelings - and I doubt it will appeal to many on this forum. Most of us are nerds, after all.

          I’ve personally lost 16kg over the last 16 weeks to get into amazing shape, and I can tell you that I did it by learning to count calories - in and out - while also taking into account minimum macro requirements. It’s a lot simpler than it sounds, but here are some good overviews for anyone who may be interested:

          https://forum.bodybuilding.com... [bodybuilding.com]

          https [bodybuilding.com]

          • That’s a very unscientific approach - with your feelings - and I doubt it will appeal to many on this forum

            I know. Quitting cigarettes also doesn't appeal to many smokers. I understand it can be hard to replace doritos, pizzas and jolt cola with real food, but it's still the best option.

            I’ve personally lost 16kg over the last 16 weeks to get into amazing shape, and I can tell you that I did it by learning to count calories

            Most people who lose weight counting calories, will gain it back when they lose motivation. Been there, done that. Now I'm keeping my weight in the healthy range without any effort, by not counting calories, but restricting myself to real food.

    • Think wood and nitro methane. Your car will treat them very differently.
      You body handles sugar very differently than fat. And the order of eating fat, sugars and protein makes a big difference in how the body handles those.

      So? It all gets turned into sugar/ATP one way or another.

      • If all the calories got turned to ATP, there wouldn't be an obesity problem.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mvdwege ( 243851 )

        A lot depends on the expected physical demands on your body. Once the food hits your digestion, your body will (usually) release reserve sugars into your bloodstream. If you need more, because for example you are doing strenuous exercise, taking your calories as sugars is better, because this will replenish your reserves faster.

        Fat takes longer to process into a form your body can use, carbohydrates are somewhere in between. Fat therefore is nice if you don't expect immediate physical exertion, or long-term

        • Fat takes longer to process into a form your body can use

          Note that you can improve the body's capacity for processing fat by eating low-carb for a while. This will create bigger pathways for burning fat, allowing you to exercise at higher level while burning more fat. This can be an advantage is long duration exercises because the fat stores are much bigger.

          your body will note it gets excess energy and convert the sugars to long term storage

          In humans, the pathway for de novo lipogenesis is actually quite restricted. You'd have to eat a huge amount of sugars before there's a meaningful amount converted to fat.

          More commonly, people eat a mix of mac

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by mvdwege ( 243851 )

            Actually, if your energy demand is high, the fat-derived molecules will stay in your blood and trigger a glucagon response, which wil lbreak them down. The chilomicrons only get removed from your blood and stored as fat if you really don't need the energy.

            The general for calories is: they hit the bloodstream first, and only if you don't need them they get stored. Which is why, as you imply, you need a balanced diet tailored to your expected physical exertion; also why there is no silver bullet diet.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Anrego ( 830717 )

      I think most (or at least many) people who use calorie counting recognize that 500 calories from Doritos isn't the same as 500 calories from chicken and veggies. It's still a useful tool for staying on the rails.

    • This isn't flamebait, this is 100 percent accurate. Your body is a biochemical machine, not a physics equation. Eating a handful of sugar is going to trigger different biochemical processes and hormones than eating a handful of celery. A high-celery diet won't turn you diabetic; a high-sugar diet sure as fuck will.

  • 100 Calorie Packs (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mentil ( 1748130 ) on Tuesday May 08, 2018 @09:27PM (#56578198)

    I love those '100 calorie packs'. It makes it easy for me to know I'm eating 500 calories when I eat 5 of them at once, because they're tinier than an infant's hand and fill me up less than a cup of water.
    I particularly love bags of popcorn, where it's "only 60 calories per serving!" and each serving is 1 tablespoon. Who eats 1 tablespoon of popcorn in a sitting? How do you even measure pre-popped popcorn in tablespoons?
    Europe does this right, food has 'calories per 100g' on every package.
    On-topic, restaurant meal quantities vary by cook, with eye-balling of usage of cooking oil and sauce. Also, if you order a dish that comes with rice, chances are you will be given lots of rice and only end up using half of it for that dish, yet the 'total calories' will include the entire container of rice.

    • Yep, the "calories per serving" has been abused all to hell and back. I recall reading the calories on a cup of instant noodles and thinking "that's a bit high for such a small meal", and then realized they were claiming it was "2 servings" - after which my reaction was "holy shit!"

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by vidnet ( 580068 )

      Europe does this right, food has 'calories per 100g' on every package.

      I've been counting calories on both continents and I've found that it has its pros and cons.

      For a bulk product like flour, I don't care how many calories are in a 27 gram serving. I want to know how many are in 100 grams so I can more easily do the math in my head.

      For an appropriately portioned food like an individual piece of chocolate, I don't care how many calories are in 100 grams. I want to know how many there are in this 15 gram pie

      • What helps is that most bulky food products in Europe are sold in round-number quantities, e.g 100 g or 200 g for a bar of chocolate, so for a quarter of a 200 g chocolate bar it's half the per-100-g kcal count. I don't think multiplying the per-serving value by three is easier.

        I never count the portions of a chocolate bar anyway. I admire people who can leave an open package of chocolate and not touch it for a day. :)

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mentil ( 1748130 )

        I agree. Luckily, some packages say 'calories for this package'. That's also useful for, say, estimating how many people can be fed by a box of spaghetti.
        While I'm griping, rounding to the nearest half-gram in the US makes nutrition facts for small portions useless; being able to round down to 0 in any circumstance makes them doubly useless. Most of the nutrients listed aren't particularly meaningful; if someone REALLY cares how much Niacin they eat, they'd take a Niacin pill. One exception: iron content, t

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by bazorg ( 911295 )

      Europe does this right, food has 'calories per 100g' on every package.

      Sadly, over here in the UK we do have the contents per 100g, but sometimes it's in small print on the back of the package, while the front has in large print the nutritional info per serving, usually with a photo of something that is way larger and prettier than "a serving".

    • 2 years ago the FDA moved to limit the "serving size" BS. Now manufacturers are required to specify nutritional values for a "typical amount consumed in one serving," so no more 2.5 servings cans of soup or ice cream bars

      • I was just going to bring up Campbell's Soup which is 2.5 servings per can - (I just ran downstairs to confirm they STILL are).

        I'm more concerned with sodium than calories though. There are 410 mg per serving of their "Healthy Request" version of their tomato soup. That's over a gram in each can but 410 mg doesn't sound that bad. Personally I've always considered their soups to be 1 serving per can but calling them 2 servings would make sense to me..

        Sodium is my biggest complaint in most packaged foods.

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Shouldn't last too long. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SeaFox ( 739806 ) on Tuesday May 08, 2018 @09:40PM (#56578264)

    Just as soon as Trump hears Obama did it, he'll have it repealed.

  • when i go out to eat i like to get my moneys worth. now i will KNOWINGLY choose the meal with the most calories. its all about portion control. can't eat a large pizza every day expect not to get fat.

  • Calories (Score:3)

    by ledow ( 319597 ) on Wednesday May 09, 2018 @04:24AM (#56579444) Homepage

    Just because you inform doesn't mean anyone cares.

    Most people I speak to have absolutely zero idea what the recommended intake is, even to the nearest 1000 kcal. It's not because they couldn't find out. They just don't care.

    Pretty much, because it's highly subjective and variable between people anyway, but nobody has a clue what "100 calories" means. They don't even correlate "100 calories" of food with the work required on an exercise machine to burn 100 calories of energy (mainly because it's so vastly unbelievable how much energy is in one single treat, for example, but your body also burns an astounding amount of energy just sitting there doing nothing).

    Additionally - I *KNOW* that my greasy hamburger and fries isn't low-calorie. That's kind of why I ordered it. I wasn't IGNORANT. I was APATHETIC. As a certified Skinny Git(TM), I have to eat food with some actual substance to it or I waste away. I live on sugars and fats because my body processes them so [well/poorly depending on your outlook] that they just pass through me and if I don't, I can start to look like death within a few days. Either my gut bacteria is damn amazing at processing such food such that I don't get much left out of it, or they are so bad that they can only grab the easy pickings out of whatever I eat (either way, I don't really care!)

    To be honest, even the people who calorie-count have NO IDEA what they're doing either. It's usually those same people who are sitting there telling me how their muesli is so good for them (hint: Read the nutritional information, compare and contrast to sugar-frosted honey nut cornflakes, and then get back to me).

    I tend to find that those people with any modicum of interest in their diet then quickly descend into utter nonsense and are sitting there buying into everything from whole-grain to "good bacteria" to anti-oxidants. These things all exist, they all have some basis to them. But not to the extent that swallowing some bottle of green shite a day will make you super-human and never get ill, which is what they then start to believe (often contrary to their own evidence). Oh, and "carbs", don't get me started on "carbs".

    At some point you have to accept that people DON'T CARE that something is full of fat.

    I have to say that, despite being underweight my entire life, I honestly do not feel full unless I've had a sizeable amount of fat/sugar in a day. It's as simple as that. Putting on the calorie amounts won't change what I order, precisely because I have a good idea of what's the most fatty anyway and often order that, and that comes purely from what it tastes like and how filling it is.

    I can't imagine that there aren't people in the opposite position - who are fat and know exactly what the healthiest thing is anyway - but they're opposite in attitude, and will deliberately go for the fattiest thing anyway.

    You're not fighting ignorance here. We can find out the information about any food whenever we like with a quick command to our phones. You're fighting apathy. We can't even be bothered to look. Nobody cares, and often they choose something PRECISELY because it's unhealthy.

    The only reason to care about weight are:

    - Personal longevity. (They're really not going to "hurt" anyone else here, so it's a hard-sell)
    - Personal financial cost. (Unfortunately fast/fatty food is often cheaper than the healthier food, and certainly easier to come by).
    - Penalties (e.g. life insurance premiums, being charged for or refused surgery, etc. - again, the only person they're hurting is themselves).

    Thus, you can't solve people being overweight or eating unhealthily until pretty much after you have also solved the problems like people smoking, doing drugs, etc. too (which have the above AND the possible effect on others).

    I think we should have higher priorities. I also think that it's nice to be informed, yes, but in the UK/EU, nutritional information has been available for a long time and places like restaura

  • What does a label do when even the smallest snack clocks in at 800 kcal (the unit is kilocalorie, not calorie). I rather have them look for means to have the food and beverage industry offer better quality and lower kcals with far less additional substances of questionable health impact with far less corn sirup and salt. Plus, make serving sizes match reality. A can of soup is not two servings, it is one serving....same for a "family size" bag of chips.
  • There are also the guys who lift several hundred pounds and eat 4,000 calories a day. They will be very happy to find the cheapest/largest source of calories on the go!

  • not good for those with an eating disorder (Score:3)

    by _randy_64 ( 457225 ) on Wednesday May 09, 2018 @08:19AM (#56580234)

    As the father of a daughter who is recovering from anorexia, this is not a good thing. Seeing how many calories is in anything is one of the worst things for her. She's in recovery and handling things much better now, but we really don't need calorie counts in our faces everywhere we go. I guess that will further limit our restaurant and shopping choices to places that don't do this.

    Yes, I realize the obesity problem in the U.S. And that people with eating disorders make up a much smaller percentage of the population than overweight people. But believe me, after seeing her go through this, and now recovering, the last thing I want are more triggers all over the place to make her think about it.

    • Wouldn't this help your daughter make sure that she's getting enough calories?

      • No. There's no such thing as "enough". There's no such thing as too many. Calories are just something she's not even supposed to think about, so seeing calorie counts are a trigger that can send her spiraling downward. Recovery is about the food and learning to eat again without any thoughts of counting calories, good food, bad food, etc.

  • The interesting thing about calorie counts is that, while they undoubtedly offer more transparency around the foods we choose to eat, there's not a lot of evidence to show they affect people's purchasing decisions

    So, it won't help anything anyway, but we need to make everybody do this, because.

  • Years of looking at calorie labels and cooking my own food made me very good at estimating calories. I have also used kitchen scales exclusively for years so i have a very good idea how much really goes into things. I am also very in tune to the flavors and sensations caused by things like starch, sugar, fat, protein and salt. I can see how this is a skill not possessed by most people though. Pizza is devastating not only from a calorie perspective, but also fat, and especially salt. For years i made pizza

  • I'm in-and-around Toronto. It's been about a year since we started putting calorie counts on restaurant menus (with at least 5 locations).

    Yes it works well.
    Very well.
    For me at least.

    Before, I used to complain about calorie counts (and to some extent I still do) because they are so viciously incomplete. A large steak has a large calorie count (~900 for 14oz) but obviously I won't be hungry enough to eat again for at least 14 hours. On the other hand, a fancy cheesecake might have 1'400 calories, and I'll

  • I could hardly care less about the calorie count, I want to know how many carbs are in things. I'm tired of meat dishes that are full of added carbs.

  • Great, now I can make sure I get the most calories for my dollar.

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • At the risk of elevating the tone of this discussion, I'll ask a question: Where in the Constitution of the United States of America is the national government authorized to do this?

Slashdot Top Deals

A committee takes root and grows, it flowers, wilts and dies, scattering the seed from which other committees will bloom. -- Parkinson

Close