FDA: Restaurants on front lines in obesity fight (wants portion size cut)

CNN/AP: FDA: Restaurants on front lines in obesity fight
Friday, June 2, 2006

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Those heaping portions at restaurants -- and doggie bags for the leftovers -- may be a thing of the past, if health officials get their way.

The government is trying to enlist the help of the nation's eateries in fighting obesity. One of the first things on their list: cutting portion sizes.

With burgers, fries and pizza the Top 3 eating-out favorites in this country, restaurants are in a prime position to help improve people's diets and combat obesity. At least that's what is recommended in a government-commissioned report 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....

http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/diet.fitness/06/02/restaurants.obesity.ap/index.html

Brilliant!

A little bit. For a while.

Things like ice cream, yogurt, bagels, bread, etc. I'm sure there are others, but not that I buy or have noted.

The canned ground coffee is where the size reductions started years ago but now I've noticed that the bagged beans are being sold in 12 oz sizes more often than not.

I learn something new every day.

Time to put the "Democrats want to control American's lives" rightwing mantra to rest.

That and we are a party of fiscal responsibility and we have kept the values of Lincoln.

that would be too logical!

Turning the tables - I like it. Wish the "leadership" of the party would.

sugars, and other equally shitty substances in our food
people wouldn't have to worry about obesity.

Why doesn't the FDA figure that one out???:think:

Try to buy something that doesn't contain HFCS (high fructose corn syrup). It's virtually impossible!

It's EVERYWHERE. I'm trying to avoid it as much as possible, but . . .

Sometimes I think they just want people to get fat.

That HFCS is not good stuff for our bodies...

green tea is a so good for you in reducing and eliminating crap from your body. water will rehydrate you and make your skin look so much better. Green tea actually has a natural antibiotic associated with it. A Japaneese friend turned me on to it. She told me it was one of the reasons that Japaneese drink it so much... it takes care of any "fish" problems associated with sushi specials.

I hate soda except GUS http://drinkgus.com/

Very occasionally alcohol. I hadn't had a soda in close to a decade, and had a Coke last year at a festival when it was really hot outside. It was sickening sweet to me, and I only drank half of it. It made me nauseous for about an hour. Too much sugar at once? I don't know. I can't believe I sued to drink several of those a day....

http://www.splendaexposed.com/ sucralose
http://www.sweetpoison.com/ aspartame
http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art15448.asp saccharine

I drink water, skim milk or fresh fruit juice.
Here is a good alternative sweetener but the FDA won't okay it as a sweetener only as a supplement
http://www.stevia.net/fda.htm
it does taste like saccharine which is a little bitter. My food store sells as a sweetener in the health food department. :shrug:

In addition to tea and coffee.

I kicked the HFCS soft-drink habit in January 1980. At that time there were very few alternate choices. Seltzer was virtually unheard of--usually associated with Keystone Cops spraying it from seltzer bottles. So I started drinking club soda with twists of lime. Now, however, it's a much different story with a variety of flavors to choose from!

My favorite flavor used to be Canada Dry's cranberry-lime, but they discontinued it! :grr:
Now I drink lemon-lime. Kinda like 7up without the HFCS or artificial sweeteners :9

and going back to 100% fruit juice and tea.

Hubby and I dropped 15 pounds each within 2 months. My weekly headaches dropped to very infrequent headaches, usually when there is a large pressure system moving in. Actually, it is rare that get a headache now.

Here's the trick:
Buy products made outside the US.

Here's an example: the ingredient list differs greatly depending on the country of manufacture. If you look at (for example) preserves made in the US, you will see HFCS, and if it is made in europe, its more likely to be sugar.

(here's the reason: they grow less corn and more sugarcane in europe than they do here, hence HFCS is not economical to use there)....

My doctor pointed out study after study showing a link between High Fructose COrn Syrup and diabetes type 2. The increase in HFCS in processed foods corresponds precisely to an increase in diabetes 2!

Look at these links:

http://www.newstarget.com/003002.html

http://www.newstarget.com/009333.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A8003-2003Mar10?language=printer

http://www.westonaprice.org/modernfood/highfructose.html

http://www.defeatdiabetes.org/Articles/food040429.htm

http://www.noweightgaincookbooks.com/worse_than_sugar.htm

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/health/2002658491_healthsyrup04.html

http://www.navdanya.org/dwd/campaign-corn-syrup.htm

Oh, my Doctor DID point these links to me.

but the development of type II involves numerous variables, it's incredibly simplistic to think that removing HFCS from your diet is going to magically "fix" blood sugar metabolism.

that was not helpful. Many educated people, including that doctor, are not statisticly literate. I assume you are arguing correlation is not the same as causation -

Studies showing a link between HFCS and Type 2 diabetes do little to show that it causes diabetes. Type 2 Diabetes is also linked with being poor, having a sedentary lifestyle and being middle-aged. One or more of those variables could be responsible for the link without the HFCS being blameworthy.

From the evidence presented, "HFCS causes Type 2" is as fallacious as "black skin causes crime rates".

with inferential stats. They are clinicians for goodness sake, and should be providing good sound info to their patients.

diabetes. I was once horribly hypoglycemic, but after cutting out HFCS and sugar the symptoms disappeared. Nasty stuff.

read about them.... amazing stuff

It is in many breads, what I once thought were "healthy" cereals, and in so many additional products.
Funny, but I can tolerate REAL sugar, but you won't catch me eating cookies or other sweets unless I baked them from scratch myself.

I have since met others who share this same reaction.

I also have a strong family history of diabetes. I got really severe hypoglycemia for years and finally figured out that HFCS was making it worse. I can have things with real sugar also, but I can't tolerate HFCS or any artificial sugars without it really screwing up my health.

What bothers me is that HFCS is in so many foods I thought were healthy - yogurt, breads (as you mentioned), barbecue sauce, spaghetti sauce, etc. Organic foods usually don't have it, so that has at least helped when I need something a little more convenient.

the reverse of diabetes. What you should be doing is avoiding eating sugars and starches by themselves. That way you can moderate the spike in glycogen.

I have a high metabolism, I usually eat everybody else's leftovers. I want bigger portions,not smaller ones. Who's with me? :P

(Unfortunately, I have to watch my portions closely, or I'd be among the obese.)

As a lifetime member of Weight Watchers I count every bite of food that goes in my mouth even though I'm now at my goal weight but watching what I eat is my decision. If I can't put down my fork it's not the responsibility of the restaurant to cut down my portion sizes.

Whatever happened to this big personal responsibility kick I heard so much about?

Only as I move into my fifties have I actually had to start being a little careful. For most of my life, I've been able to lose weight just driving past a gym.

i need to eat up also to maintain a healthy weight

i think the fda needs to be reminded that there is also an eating disorder epidemic and that being underweight can kill in your 20s, being obese might kill you in your 60s but then again it probably won't

the link between overweight and shorter lifespan is not proven, the link between underweight and early death is VERY strong

just check the places where a high percentage of the population lives into their 90s --- places like bhutan and the caucusus. the folks living to 90+ are mostly very lean and muscular, diets are mostly whole grains and veg, very little meat.

it's not just how much you eat, but what you eat.

I see more fat kids who don't know how to eat healthy these days. Especially since Physical Education has been slashed from school budgets.

I realize everyone thinks the schools can solve every social and economic ill in the universe, but I'm telling you - the kids aren't getting fat AT SCHOOL. It's sitting on their asses AT HOME playing Gameboy all night and munching huge bags of Doritos.

Our menus have only 30% of their calories from fat. Portion size is controlled for calorie content. Who's doing THAT at home? The snack machines cannot have foods with minimal nutritional value - no candy bars, only baked chips, we don't sell pop in any school anymore. No deep fat fryers. I don't know what else we can do.

What's next, how many times we can shit too???

The entire political landscape has changed. Republicans are now:

The Party of Big Government
The Party against states' rights
The Party against the little guy
The Party of Big Spending
The Party against jobs
The Party for illegal immigration
The Party of fat cat politicians
The Party against freedom of speech
The Party against freedom of religion
The Party against freedom of the press
The Party against illegal search and seizures

Why does my family identify themselves with these things?

Sheer ignorance.

I know that I usually cannot a full portion of many restaurant meals. That is alright because I can have leftovers for lunch the next day.
If portion sizes at restuants are cut, people who want a lot of food will just go to all you can eat buffets.

Check your candy bars. I had one yesterday that had printed on it "candy is a treat, please consume in moderation".

Stupid. dumb. ridiculous.

This nanny-state crap is really starting to bug me.

If I want to eat a 5-pound pizza bacon cheese burger with fries and drink a bottle of fermented high-fructose corn syrup while smoking a pack of unfiltered camels that's my own goddamn business.

:rofl:

Trying to legislate healthy eating habits is bullshit.

I'd like it if restaurants simply offered smaller portions as an option. Sometimes I can't take a doggy bag home...in which case I usually have soup and salad or an appetizer for dinner.

...is one I have been griping about for years. They have Senior specials, Kiddie menus, but nothing for the Light Eaters. I have been forced by that alone to become part of the doggie bag brigade.

that offers smaller portions from the adult menu to kids. That's nice when I take my young son to a restaurant, so his choices are not restricted to grilled cheese or fried crap. Sometimes I'll share my meal with him when they don't offer this option.

I have some intestinal problems that prevent me from eating a whole lot at one time, which counts out most standard portions at restaraunts. I've also found that the menus rarely offer smaller portions. If you ask them, however, you might be surprised to find how many actually do provide them as an unlisted option.

Why they don't say you can get a smaller portion on the menu, I don't know, but it never hurts to ask. I've almost always been catered to -- they just make the same food, only half the amount.

what's wrong with a fucking doggy-bag?
Since when do they think that everyone always finishes their plate???
What are we going to have now, the Food-Nazis watching over us?

I could think of much better things that they could spend our tax dollars on....

on this issue (to say the least)

3rd problem-

"The 136-page report was prepared by The Keystone Center, whic according to the AP & CNN is an "education and public group" based in Keystone, Colorado.

Well, let's have a look a Keystone:

MEMBERS OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
David Greenberg
Co-Chairman of the Board
Senior Vice President and Chief Compliance Officer
Altria Group, Inc.
New York, NY

(That's what Phillip Morris is now called)

Howard “Bud” Ris
Co-Chairman of the Board
President
New England Aquarium
Boston, MA

David T. Buzzelli
Retired Vice President, Environment, Health & Safety
The Dow Chemical Company
Harbor Springs, MI

Thomas Connelly
Senior Vice President and
Chief Science and Technology Officer
DuPont Experimental Station
Wilmington, DE

Robert W. Craig
Founder and President emeritus
The Keystone Center
Keystone, CO

Eliot Green
Partner
Loeb & Loeb
New York, NY

Robert Hanfling
President and COO
KFx
Denver, CO

Dennis Parker
Retired Vice President
Conoco, Inc.
Houston, TX

Joe Pierpont
President
Pierpont Associates
Pomeroy, PA

William J. Roberts
Executive Director
Beldon Fund
New York, NY

Lois J. Schiffer
General Counsel
National Capital Planning Commission
Washington, DC

TRUSTEES
Barry Brandon
Senior Vice President and General Counsel
Seneca Gaming Corporation
Niagara Falls, NY

Richard N. Burton
Senior Vice President
MeadWestvaco
Miamisburg, OH

Rodger Bybee
Executive Director
Biological Sciences Curriculum Study
Colorado Springs, CO

Arthur L. Caplan
Director, Center for Bioethics
University of Pennsylvania
Philadelphia, PA

Shelby Coffey
Senior Fellow
Freedom Forum
Washington, DC

John E. Echohawk
Executive Director
Native American Rights Fund
Boulder, CO

James Ferris
President and Group Chief Executive
CH2M HILL Companies
Englewood, CO

Robert Follett
Retired Chairman
Follett Corporation
Keystone, CO

David E. Greenberg
Founder
Denver School of Science & Technology
Denver, CO

John J. Hall
President
Hall Consulting, Inc.
Chicago, IL

Paul Hansen
Executive Director
Izaak Walton League of America
Washington, DC

Lee Henry
Managing Partner
Riverwood Partners
Keystone, CO

Binka Le Breton
Director
Iracambi Rainforest Research Center
Brazil

Felice J. Levine
Executive Director
American Educational Research Association
Washington, DC

Gerald Lieberman
Director, State Education and Environment Roundtable
Poway, CA

Elizabeth Lowery
Vice President, Environment and Energy
General Motors
Detroit, MI

Roger McCarthy
Senior Vice President and COO
Breckenridge and Keystone Resorts
Breckenridge, CO

Erik D. Olson
Senior Attorney
Natural Resources Defense Council
Washington, DC

Diane Osgood
International Environmental Consultant
France

Harold A. Pratt
President
Educational Consultants, Inc.
Littleton, CO

Glenn T. Prickett
Executive Director, Center for Environmental Leadership in Business
Washington, DC

Stephen Ramsey
Vice President, Corporate Environmental Programs
General Electric
Fairfield, CT

Nicholas Reding
Retired Vice Chair
Monsanto
St. Louis, MO

Rodger Schlickeisen
President and CEO
Defenders of Wildlife
Washington, DC

Jeff Seabright
Vice President
Environment and Water
The Coca Cola Company
Atlanta, GA

Jerry Steiner
Executive Vice President, Global External Affairs
Monsanto
St. Louis, MO

Susan Tomasky
Executive Vice President and CFO
American Electric Power
Columbus, OH

Clinton A. Vince
Managing Partner
Sullivan & Worcester LLP
Washington, DC

Lawrence Washington
Vice President, Environment, Health & Safety
Human Resources and Public Affairs
The Dow Chemical Company
Midland, MI

Keith Wheeler
Executive Director
Center for a Sustainable Future
Shelburne, VT

Durwood Zaelke
Director of the INECE Secretariat
International Network for Environmental Compliance and Enforcement (INECE)
Washington, DC

Somebody ought to cut their "portions".:evilgrin:

One of those groups that looks for "compromises" that won't particularly offend the bottom line- while avoiding the grittier issues.

They have their place-

If people do not start taking care of themselves, then the health care in this country will be outrageous. I have worked at restaurant's and eaten at them too. The portions are very big, and the dishes are not made in a "healthy" way. Going out to eat for my family is a treat. It is perhaps enjoyed 2 to 3 times a month. And we always walk away with a doggy bag.

I don't necessarily support govt to regulate sizes, but restaurants should recognize that if they offered lunch portions as an option at dinner, they would #1 have the same person come more often, and #2 market to the budget minded person. This is a marketing tool that restaurants need to embark on like they have with the "heart" approved menu.

What the govt should try doing is providing incentives for maintaining healthy lifestyles. If people were given a tax break for walking or having tax breaks on gym membership, more people would make the "time" to work out.

How difficult is that?

Especially for fast "food".

that they are not typically made with health in mind. Everything is megasized and perservatized. Friers are typical unlike baking methods you would opt for at home.

Its just not a good idea to eat out a lot. People need to stop themselves and find creative ways of making cooking a family thing in their home instead of a one person job.

I'm single and don't cook for myself as much as I should. I never eat more than half a restaurant meal. Not everything can be taken home and re-heated. Burgers and fries for example....gross reheated.

I meet clients often for business meals, particularly lunches, where it's tacky to take a doggy bag. I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying that some consider it tacky.

Bottom line is, why should I have to pay for so damn much food that I don't want? Why don't people who want gigantic, over the top, portions pay extra to "super size", instead of all of us having to pay and get more?

I always order something from the menu that is reheatable or reusable in some way. That way, I'm covered. Rarely will I order burgers, fries, deep-fried items, or salads. (I usually get a small salad with the entree, and eat the whole thing; then I take home more of my entree instead.)

If I go to a deli, I get the most whole-foodish sandwich on the menu so the remains (ham, turkey, cheeses) can be reused in a salad or an omelette.

I eat out with a group of elderly parishioners nearly every Sunday. I'm always envious that they can order "senior portions", which are the right size for me, but I can't. I always end up with more food than I want or need. And I pay more than I'd like to, too.

Makes no sense.

Are they a regional thing or something?

I never thought about it being a regional thing. These parishioners and I often eat at Country Kitchen, which has one. But so do the local Greek-owned places, Bob Evans, at least two local pizzerias, lots of places.

Btw, I miss Friendly's. I used to love clamboats.

I actually hate Friendly's. I'd rather eat at a diner (come to think of it...one of them has a senior special). Plus there's a few homemade ice cream places around here that are better. I eat out a lot at a pretty varied assortment of restaurants and no senior specials.

Edited to add: I'm in NJ. I eat out in north NJ & NYC.

There's always a Senior Plate where I live (Michigan) and when I have traveled (most states in the east to middle parts of the country).

I lose half my appetite just looking at the plate of our normal restaurant sized meals. I already have the "I need a box/bag" idea in the back of my head before I start eating. I'm defeated before I even begin... :shrug:

That said, I'm used to portion sizes now and have become very good with restaurant leftovers, so I see no need to diminish portion sizes if they'll be charging the same price (which they will). I can figure out what I can eat, thankyouverymuch.

on edit: finish a thought, susanna

To me, it is physically impossible. In many cases just the thought of eating huge portions makes me nausous. (Whenever the local news runs an item about some kind of eating contest, I have to leave the room. Watching it will make me puke.)

If I eat too much, the excess gets returned; it is that simple.

My attitude tends to be "I paid for it, I should eat it". I've recently begun asking for a box to go at the time I order. This keeps me from overeating. "I paid for it, I should eat it--later, at home"

but the educational process was not pretty.

There was a kid who lived across the street from me I always felt sorry for. His parents would force him to sit until that plate was clean. If he hadn't eaten it by bedtime, he had it for breakfast.

I've often wondered what he looks like now.

But we did have a fairly plump spitz/Samoyed mix who liked brussels sprouts--God bless him!!

...and it was an ugly lesson for my parents that making me eat what THEY put on my plate (I would naturally take small spoonfuls, while they'd load it up) was a recipe for an after-supper cleanup. I would actually be sick when I, attempting the dutiful daughter routine, tried to eat it all. After that they let me pick and choose my food and how much. I credit that with the fact I have been a normal weight 95% of my life, barring a short period when I first married where I gained quite a bit more than I was expecting. He loved carbs - and we ate a lot of them - while I had always been a protein/veggie girl. True metabolism mismatch. Now we each eat what we like. We cook together, so it is easy; he does his thing, I do mine, and we usually sample off each others' plates. :-)

At restaurants, they seem determined to load 'er up, so I will jokingly tell the server when I order, "I am willing to bet you I will need a box." They always laugh and say, "lots of folks do." So even they know the issue exists.

I am only about 20 pounds overweight mostly due to a lack of exercise because I simply don't have the time. However, I eat what I want to eat. My health is my business, no one elses.

you say health care costs "will" be outrageous, i got news, they are already outrageous

it has nothing to do w. the fact that people are eating more, and everything to do w. the advanced technology that is involved in the development of new drugs, new surgical techniques, new imagining techniques, and training people to use all of this advanced technology

people who are underweight die much younger than people who are fat, as an example, anorexics often die of heart disease in their 20s, even the worst horror case of morbid obesity rarely would die before their 50s or 60s

look at statistics -- americans are fatter than ever and they are living longer than ever before in human history! people lie, politicians lie, but the math don't lie

so the fat hysteria thing is just the prejudice du jour and not based on reality

and none of it has anything to do with the size of portions served in restaurants

i am half the size of my husband and i eat more than he does, i have to in order to maintain my weight

everybody is different and i think i know better than Big Brother what i should be allowed to eat, thank you very much!

At a lower cost, if possible- but I do recognize that it costs almost as much to prepare a smaller portion as it does to cook a larger one-- most of the cost is the prep (and facilities for prep), not the food.

I really do think that most restaurants put too much food on the plate-- I usually either leave uncomfortably full, or waste a significant amount of food.

The lunch menu is smaller portions at less cost. I find that at times even lunch portions are too big. Anyway, the same type of staff is there in the afternoon as is there in the evening. I know the dishwasher and the chefs aren't making any less... the only looser is the server in tip money that is based on % of the bill

none of this crappy food with artificial flavors/sugars/genetic alteration/etc. I think this is the problem, what ever happened to good old fashion foods you buy from the garden/supermarket? They seem to be non-exisitant....

It's kinda goofy that I can find out if my cookies were ever within the same zip code as a peanut, but not if something in it is GMO. :shrug:

you are going to have to go out and grow or shoot it.

what they are actually going to propose is requiring restaurants to at least *offer* a normal size. I have no problem with this. If you want to eat a 5 pound hamburger and a gallon of soda at a sitting nothing will be stopping you. I usually only eat lunch in restaurants. My company doesn't have a refrigerator so if I have leftovers, they'd have to sit out for 5 or 6 hours before I could get them home to a fridge. So of course I throw them away rather than getting a doggie bag.

We can scoff at people who can't portion themselves, but I lost 20 pounds when I moved to China without even dieting because wonder of wonders, miracle of miracles- you can buy food portioned for one person instead of families of six. You can buy a single serving of yogurt (not three servings in a cup that will spoil if you don't eat it all or refrigerate it all right away.) You can buy single breasts of chicken (not 20 packs) that are literally half the size of the ones you buy in the U.S. A single chicken breast in the U.S. is 2-3 servings of meat. You can buy noodles pre-nested into single portions instead of a 2 lb bag of spaghetti. I go back to the U.S. and am absolutely appalled at the quantities of food I used to think were normal. Why did I eat so much? Because as a single person, I had no choice but to buy food packaged for families and then to try to eat it all before it spoiled.

So what the hell is wrong with offering the *option* of normal portions? Nobody is putting a gun to your head and forcing you to choose the smaller size. Right now, if you go to any fast food restaurant in the U.S. the smallest option for soda is larger than the largest option in most of Europe and Asia. Why is it fair that I be forced to pay for a drink that is larger than I want (and will make me sick if I drink all of it) just because "you can drink half of it and save the rest"? That's bullshit. Companies are making a fortune selling an extra 1/2 cent of syrup for 12 or 15 more cents and jeopardizing public health by doing so. Flour companies are required by law to enrich their products if processing takes away too many nutrients. Dairies are required to pasteurize their products by law. Does the loss of my freedom to eat unenriched flour and bacteria laced milk outweigh the general public health? So what is wrong with requiring companies to offer normal portion sizes (in addition to whatever other sizes they choose to offer)? Whose rights are impinged?

Even with my small family, we always have too much. There is always leftovers. But you can alway re-portion your sizes. If you get chicken, split it up--put what you don't use into the freezer. As far as pastuerizing milk, I doubt you would like milk from the cow. Maybe you do. But it literally has to go from cow to table and only lasts a few days. In this day of age, the milk would be spoiled by the time it got to the store and into your fridge.

The right of the restaurant owner to decide how much food he will sell for the price he determines.

Some of my favorite restaurants are my favorites BECAUSE they sell large portions. So now owners have to change all their menus, servers have to make the same number of trips to the table for less money and I get smaller portions.


Land of the free, home of the brave.

You don't get smaller portions. No one is saying the restaurant has to offer *only* smaller portions. I'm talking about requiring restaurants to at least *offer* single-serving portions to those who choose to order them. If you want larger portions, I'm betting the restaurants will continue to offer you that choice. After all, no one has said the restaurant can't offer more food and charge more money.

Restaurants will have to change their menus (or throw in an additional xeroxed page) but that's a small one time cost and it's nothing compared to what 1/3 of the American population having diabetes is going to cost the public.

As for the servers, I actively avoid going to restaurants because the portions are obscenely large and I know I can save a lot of money, wasted food and calories by packing my own lunch. I would go to restaurants more often if they offered human sized portions for a fair price. I can't imagine the few cents of tip that the servers would lose due to cheaper servings would outweigh the nothing that they're getting now.

And let's go back to that prospect of 1 in 3 of Americans having diabetes (and the related problems of heart disease, liver disease, kidney disease, hypertension, depression, neuropathy, blindness and on and on). This isn't a disease that kills people quickly. It's lengthy and debilitating and very, very expensive. And most of the people developing it as we speak are already living on the margins. Who is going to be picking up the tab for medication and insulin or surgery? And how does that cost compare with restaurant owners reprinting their menus?

I'm sure it costs dairies some money to pasteurize milk but the ultimate savings in not having people regularly hospitalized more than makes up for it. Again, no one is talking about taking away your fundamental right to have ridiculous amounts of food served to you. All I'm talking about is requiring restaurants to provide an *option* for those who are concerned about the long term health impact.

the people w. diabetes who are "marginalized" can't afford to eat in restaurants, that is just not the real world

if you want to help people who are marginalized and who cannot eat anything but cheap high carbs then forget abt going after the restaurants and go after the gov't and insist that they offer a more generous food stamp benefit to families on the edge

this is abt middle class food hysterics wanting to control what's on everybody else's plate

I'd say there are a sizable number of people who can't really afford health care but still eat at KFC or McDonalds a few times a week. And before you accuse them of being lazy, whiny, slobby, weak, terrible parents/people:

Fast food is the reality for most working people. I worked two full time jobs (80 hour weeks) for a while and eating period was a minor miracle let alone cooking at home and brown bagging lunch. I came home too tired to watch TV. One job was at a big box DIY store and the other at a big box office supply store. I'd say 3/4 of my coworkers at those jobs (and at other factory jobs I've had) were obese and at risk for type 2 diabetes (if they didn't already have it). They ate Doritoes and Coke over their 8-10 hours shifts and left work famished and too tired to do anything but pick up a bag of takeout on the trip home.

If you take marginalized to mean "homeless" and "unemployed" then I agree they aren't eating in sitdown restaurants. I mean marginalized in the sense of not having any kind of meaningful health care- people who are going to end up on Medicaid- the bill for which is going to land right on your doorstep.

And again- how is asking that restaurants be required to offer single-serving portions going to effect in the slightest way what's on your plate? If you don't want the smaller size, don't order it. Meanwhile, there should be a perspective-check when you walk into a restaurant. Just posting some numbers on the placemat isn't going to do it, but having to actively pass over the normal size portion and buy a Super-Biggie-Monster-Whopper whatever might cause a few people to think twice about their health. It worked for me.

and the portions are not at all large, not even the "biggie" portions or whatever they're called

i agree that marginalized people and even homeless people will go to macdonald's, burger king, etc. whoever is having the 99 cent burger of the day to fill their stomachs -- but, again, my friend -- those are NOT outsized portions, who are you kidding, we've all eaten there, we're not talking any 16 ounce porterhouse steak

come on, this is silly, it's hysteria, it's nonsense

and fast food restaurants already provide all that information anyway abt calories etc.

when i go to a nice sit down restaurant i expect to be pampered not to be nagged or assaulted with reading material based on the fear and hatred of fat people

i most especially do not expect to be assaulted w. "facts" that prey on women w. eating disorders and that could have triggering effects w. dire consequences on my health

i don't see why only the fat person's health is important and that it doesn't seem to matter how many young women are injured and killed by society's hysteria abt food

enough w. the damn food police

if you want such literature w. your food, eat at wendy's, eat at some chain, but keep your mits off the fine restaurants where people go to celebrate life and food, instead of fear and denial

did it specify sit-down restaurants? In fact, they specifically mention hamburger, pizza and chicken places as being targeted.

This attitude "The portions aren't even large!" is precisely why some perspective needs to be re-introduced to the American food industry. Let's look at McDonalds. 3 oz is a single serving of hamburger. That's what you get at McDonalds in Asia. Go to a McDonalds in the U.S. and the small option is 4.2 oz. You can also buy a double cheeseburger- 6.2 oz, a quarter pounder with cheese- 7.2 oz, a Big Mac- 7.8 oz or a double quarter pounder with cheese 9.9 oz. So I have 5 options for my burger. None of them is a single portion size and 4 of the 5 choices are 2-3 servings. 8 fl oz is a single serving of cola. The *child* size at a U.S. McDonalds is 12 fl oz. Small 16 oz, Medium 21 oz, Large 32 oz, Jumbo 42 oz. The *small* size is two servings, the jumbo size is almost 5. 2 oz is a single serving of fries. My choices at McDonalds are 2.6, 4 and 6 oz.

http://www.calorieking.com/foods/portionwatch/?action=viewcat&cat_id=6

Ordering a double quarter pounder with cheese and super sized drink and fries is 1780 calories. That's more than many people should be eating the whole day. Even if I go there and order the smallest size of everything, I can't get single serving sizes. Across the board restaurant serving sizes have grown 2-5 times since 1970. We don't even notice it because we've lived it all our lives. And it distorts not only our perception of serving sizes in restaurants but also what we eat when we go home.

Restaurants are required to tell you the calorie counts, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about offering frickin* single servings in the first place. I think reading material is bogus- nobody looks at it in the first place and it's too abstract. If you don't know that 100 calories of fries is a single serving how can you appreciate that a large fries is 3 servings? All they tell you is 300 calories- not what a single serving is. What I'm saying is that restaurants need to at least offer vaguely appropriate serving sizes instead of looking for the quick buck selling 5 servings packaged as one. And for the 900th time, nobody is talking about restricting the top end. All I'm saying is frickin* offer single sizes on the menu. How is that "preying on girls with eating disorders"?

a regular hamburger at 4.2 oz is not over the serving size for a hamburger. A "single portion" of a meat would be 3 oz, the weights on those burgers includes the whole thing: bun, pickle, ketchup, et cetera. It's not an oversized portion. As for the 12 oz. child's size soda, and having worked with soda fountains at HS jobs, a good portion of that is ice. We were always told to fill the cup just below the brim with ice (in several different jobs) and then fill it the rest with soda.

While eating 1780 calories at lunch is gross, I don't think that's below what many people should be eating daily, especially men. I eat more than 1780 calories a day and I'm not even active.

It's a common misconception that many Americans, yourself included, apparently believe.

Try asking for "literature" in most McDonald's, Burger King, Wendy's or any other large chain in the country. Most of them don't have it, even though they are supposed to.

The key is, crack down on the fast food companies, make them do WHAT THEY ALREADY PROMISED TO DO IN THE FIRST PLACE, and get the addictive shit out of the slop that passes for food there.

is because their wait staff's salary is based on a tip %. Loke I said before, lunchtime menus are more reasonably priced and better portioned... but ever see the wait staff bitch about having to work the lunch shift. They make maybe 2.50, if they are lucky 3.00 an hour. that money they never see... it goes directly to the gov't in taxes. So if there is more on the plate costing you maybe a 2.00, and a happy server making a higher % on that meal fare then you will retain staff. Also a reason really fancy shmancy restraunts only open at night.

howzabout this ~

We pass laws that require that restaurants only serve fresh, raw fruits and vegetables, some assorted nuts, legumes and organic brown rice, tofu and every other Tuesday, steamed fish.

Sure some people won't like it, but think how much money we'll save on health care.

Again, I only eat in restaurants at lunchtime when I'm at work. At home, I always cook for myself. I don't have a fridge at work so if the restaurant serves me three servings of food on one plate my choices are 1.) eat half of it and throw the rest away, hence wasting food and money or 2.) eat it all and get fat. I can't get a doggie bag that will keep food fresh for 6-7 hours.

So is it basically fair that when I'm trying to do the right thing (eat responsibly and healthily) my choices are to be either overcharged and forced to throw half my meal away or to break my diet? The result is that I avoid restaurants like the plague and try to either pack my own lunch or pick something up from the supermarket (but again the portions there are for lumberjack families of 10.)

There's no comparison between requiring restaurants to offer normal size portions (in addition to whatever else they choose to serve) and dictating their menus. Restaurants have had years to step up to the plate and start offering socially responsible portion sizes. Instead, as Hekate points out so well in her post, they are pushing as much of their product as they think they can get away with and distorting people's views of what constitutes healthy eating. The whole point of government is for it to step up on the people's behalf when business fails to do so. Are you being coddled by a nanny-state when they pasteurize your milk, inspect your beef, require processed flour to be enriched, dictate to farmer's what chemicals they can use, etc.?

"Are you being coddled by a nanny-state when they pasteurize your milk, inspect your beef, require processed flour to be enriched, dictate to farmer's what chemicals they can use, etc.?"

To that, I answer NO, absolutely not! The difference is that the food has to go through safety checks and etc, and scientifically approved vitamin enrichments, before being marketed to the customer. I wish every head of cattle were inspected before slaughter. The unseen dangers over which otherwise informed consumers have no control.

We as consumers, absolutely DO have control over how much food we eat.

Boom, problem solved.


Have you ever worked in a restaurant, by any chance?

You never define what is a "normal portion".

"..the smallest option for soda is larger than the largest option in most of Europe and Asia. Why is it fair that I be forced to pay for a drink that is larger than I want..."

No one is forcing you to order soda. Water is actually the most healthful beverage.

"Why did I eat so much? Because as a single person, I had no choice but to buy food packaged for families and then to try to eat it all before it spoiled."

Hey, I'm a single person too, living here in the U.S. For some bizzarre reason, I have the choice to buy small amounts of food. For some strangely fortuitous reason, I am somehow able to purchase small amounts of food suitable for one person, while somehow, you don't. That, or, I can make the food last longer without eating it all.
But really, you buy a 2lb bag of spaghetti noodles. It should last you several meals. Nobody puts a gun to your head saying: boil all the spaghetti now! LOL.

Today's foodie society demands self-control. Self discipline. As an average-height woman, I know that I can't eat as much as my taller boyfriend, who has a larger body. I also know that I can't eat as much as obese people, if I want to stay slim.

Is it up to the government to enforce my eating practices? Well, maybe, when they start paying for my health care!

for the 901st time, I support the FDA requiring that restaurants at least offer a normal size portion and then in addition to that whatever larger sizes they see fit. No one is saying restaurants can't serve a 3 pound slab of meat. I'm just saying if they do, they should also be required to offer a 3 oz steak.

You couldn't buy water in the last few fast food restaurants I was in and given the amount of salt in the food, not drinking anything with it wasn't really an option. Of course no one is forcing anyone to buy a soda (or to go to the restaurant in the first place). Given that I am buying a soda, however, why is the smallest size, the "child" size, still larger than the recommended portion size for adults?

Is it so hard to believe that the pervasive habit of packaging 2-5 servings of food as 1 serving (with a tiny label no one reads) has contributed to widespread misconceptions and lack of perspective about appropriate portions which has in turn led to an increase in obesity? I don't know where you shop, but when I lived in the U.S. I never saw a package of chicken breasts smaller than 6 or 8 to a pack. And again those chicken breasts are twice the size of what you buy in other countries. I never saw less than a pound of hamburger. A can of Campbell's soup is really 2.5 servings (who freezes half a can a soup?) A cup of yogurt is more than 2 servings. A frickin' Snickers bar is 2 servings. Of course if you're paying obsessive attention to your weight you could eat half a cup of yogurt and refrigerate the rest but nobody actually does this and the companies know this. That's why they don't sell food packaged as single portions. The "free market" obviously isn't taking care of this because the companies know that psychologically people don't want to waste food and they will continue to package food in ways that strongly encourage people to eat more than is healthy for them so they can charge them more for it.

It's not up to the government to enforce your eating habits but it is up to the government to protect you from predatory and irresponsible business practices. If a gas station refused to sell you less than 40 gallons of gas at a time (hey, use a can and save the rest for later!) don't you think the government would be all over it? If a pharmaceutical company only sold pills at double dosages and in twice the quantity required (people can cut the pills in half! and save the rest for the next time they're sick! if they overdose, they're just stupid and lack willpower!) wouldn't the government have a place intervening? So why is it totally unreasonable to ask that the government regulate the food industries marketing practices (and not your eating practices despite what people on this thread seem to insist on calling it)?

What fast food resturants were you in, because I have never had a problem getting water. Either getting a cup of ice water or some fast food joints have started to sell bottled water.

Perhaps it's only regional.


about buying food from the grocery store.

I'm single, and when I buy hamburger meat, or in my case ground turkey, I use half for the meal I'm making (and eat off that for a week). And then I freeze the other half for another meal.

about the soup: I eat one bowel of soup and save the rest for the next day.

and when I do go to fast food joints, lots of times I either get a kids meal or a salad.

Plus with the kids meals, you can get some cool toys. (joke)

the rich, richer. Who do you think owns most of these fast food restaurants? Rich people.

People will eat until they feel full.

Cutting portion sizes won't do a damn thing.

why not leave it to the person? Some people eat too much, is it the resturant's fault? Did that place make them come in and order? Did they force the food in their mouths.

I normally don't finsh my food. I nearly always have leftovers.

Or my friends finish it off for me.

I'm so sick and tired of this gov't telling us how to live our lives.



That said, when I go to a fast food resturant, I usually get the kids meal or a salad.

and there are some resturants that will let you get the senior meal. or they offer a low cal/low fat/low carb choice.

and there is always a salad...

Me too!
As if people need a mommy government to keep their eating habits in check. This is offensive. The FDA is implying that I, as an adult, don't have proper self control of my eating habits, or that I can't make the right choices on my own. How insulting! I have spent my adult life learning and developing my choices to stay slim and eat healthy, yet the * government thinks I need their help. :mad:

This govt assumes we can't figure out how to deal with restaurant food. As if we don't know how order the 6oz steak instead of the 16oz steak, or choose a side salad instead of fries.

Oh, and occasionally, I clean my plate because I'm starving and I haven't eaten all day. I think it's my prerogative to decide how much I am going to eat!

And yes, this smacks of the same patronizing "every woman should behave as a pre-pregnant woman".

These days they are blaming every other disease on obesity, and this is one way they think they can combat the problem and save themselves money. Sad they aren't doing this because they care about people but rather for the bottom line. Jerks! :mad:

And BTW-Whatever happened to g'ment keeping their noses out of everyones business?! :grr:

"Whatever happened to g'ment keeping their noses out of everyones business?"

Neocons are obsessed with everyone else's business.

If the FDA really cared about people's health, they'd be on the forefront of demanding wise use of our tax dollars in universal healthcare.

I doubt they'll change the prices. I barely eat half my meal when I go out to eat. I'm fine with that. I just take home left-overs. Actually almost no one really eats home cooked meals in my house and none of us are overweight. We eat normal portions and we're all thin to average.

Seriously people need to take some personal responsibility. If you eat three times the amount of food you're supposed to, then it's your fault that you're obese. We don't need more legislation because you can't or won't eat a normal amount of food. If you can't gorge at a restuarant, they'll just gorge at home.

Some restaurants provide for this by offering an extra place setting and side dish for a nominal charge when people are splitting up and sharing those gargantuan meals.

At least for me. I rarely eat more than half a restaurant meal.

I split with a friend whenever possible and still walk away full.

do you really want the FDA to regulate restaurant portions?

I also split meals. I believe in eating light too. I agree that many restaurant portions are too big, but, do we really need the government to step in?

IMO, it's between the restaurants and the customers.

That's exactly my issue, is the mere talk of the FDA regulating restaruant portions. What's next, they start regulating how and what we eat at home?

I mean come on, we women of child-bearing years already have to consider ourselves "pre-pregnant" (even if we have no plans of ever having children): thanks to the fine folks in Washington.

I see no problem with the resturants offering a smaller portion meal for some people. Heck some of them already have a child's menu and a senior menu. Why not offer something like that for everyone... But I don't like the FDA and Government trying to regulate how much we eat.


In the meantime, for those people who are complaining about the too much food on the plate... do what I do... don't go unless you are wanting leftover. Or order a salad. or spilt with a friend.

And how about offering the suggestion for a smaller portions menu for people along side the other to the resturant. If enoughe people ask for it, then I'm sure we can see a change.

But please don't let the FDA and the folks up in DC get their feet in the door with this one. I'm tired of them sticking their noses in our personal lives.

I'm so sick and tired of paying for food that I don't want or need. That MOST people don't need. 1/2 for most people is plenty. And I'm not exactly thin.

My experience with midwestern restaurants only includes Wisconsin & Chicago IL, and those were GREAT BIG helpings. You say portions in your midwestern hometown are too huge, and I believe you. :hi:

Restaurants need incentives to regulate portion size. As long as they make a good profit serving oversized portions, they will keep on doing what they have always done.

I encourage you to keep on sharing a plate of food with friends. If enough people do that, restaurants will eventually catch on to the fact that plate sharing = lo$t revenue, and they will adjust their ways to meet the customers' needs.

As long as govt doesn't pay for health care, IT IS NONE of the GOVERNMENT'S BUSINESS!!!

(edited to repeat... gov't does not pay for health care.)

I have self-control not to eat the giant sized portions I'm served. But a lot of restaurant food doesn't reheat well at home and I hate throwing away so much food. The waste of it really bothers me a lot.

I really don't get the nanny state argument against this at all. I just want the OPTION of getting smaller portions. The children's menu in most restaurants usually doesn't serve the kind of food I want, and I can't usually get to a restaurant by lunchtime to get the lunch menu. I really hate that I have to buy a portion that is way larger than I can eat and waste the rest.

Food has become product sold by corporations, whose only reason for existance is profit.

THAT is the source of the problem. We can argue forever about Personal Responsibility versus Big Brother and still end up nowhere.

Ask yourself my favorite question: Who does it serve? Or as my friend the accountant says in her gentle voice: Follow the money.

FOOD HAS BECOME A CORPORATE PRODUCT. ALL ELSE FOLLOWS FROM THAT.

Corporations exist to make money. Holding steady seems to be anathema to them -- they have to show continually-increasing profit or they feel they're failing. They've abandoned the idea that they exist to provide necessary goods or services -- now they all believe their only reason for existence is to provide profit to their shareholders.

How do you endlessly increase profits for your industry in a relatively stable population?

You push product by advertising.
You push product by increasing demand for increased portion size.
You push product by product placement (soda machines in schools).
You push product by adding the ingredient you manufacture (high fructose corn syrup, corn starch, corn syrup solids, dextrose, maltose, sucrose, fructose, etc.) into everything possible.

Ever really LOOK AT the Carl's Jr. ads?

Who does it serve?
Follow the money.

Personally, I want corporations heavily regulated, because they don't act responsibly without it.

Then you can talk to me about the average person's personal responsibility for what they put in their mouth.

Hekate

significant that he or she is actually in danger healthwise, it has little to nothing to do with the size of the portions he or she eats whenever he or she is in a restaraunt. My GOD. Don't people care about the emotional and/or genetic contributors to the problems of people who are or are perceived to be overweight? It's so sad that the FDA has now chosen to scape-goat our larger citizens (and restaraunt owners?) like this. Fellas? Don't you have other shit you could work on right now? Encouraging the development of male birth control pills/injections/whatever? Howzabout trying to make birth control for the ladies safe, effective and more available? No? Too busy ragging on "fat" folks, and now, I guess, the people who serve them meals as part of their profession?

It's so nice to know my tax dollars aren't being wasted these days.

And thin people can tell themselves they are morally superior to fat people when people jump on that medieval church rhetoric about fat. Frankly I'm sick of it. It is elitist snot.
I don't trust the FDA who gave us aspartame,e which makes you fatter to know SHIT about weight,and frankly NOBODY KNOWS why some people are fatter than others,pollution and inflammation looks promising after all we ARE living in a toxic chemical stew.And industry would rather us starve ourselves and act morally superior rather than QUESTION the chemicals and such that industry spews into our air water and food everyday.

How can the government have any authority to dictate to restaurants on this?

Please, our society is so weight conscious, it is to the point of absurdity. The market will take care of it for this one. That's the main reason for the doggie bags.
:rofl:

how about people show a little restraint? I think people should be smart enough to figure out how to lose weight if they are so dedicated without it affecting me.

no more all you can eat, it's all we allow you to eat next. :sarcasm:

That is one of the dumbest thing I have heard in a long time. If someone wants to gorge themselves on triple cheeseburgers and all-you-can eat pizza, then fine, that is their choice. But I do believe all restaurants should have nutritional info at the ready for the more health-conscious consumer.

some folks might actually read it, and consider. Others won't; but it should be readily available...You're right.

I went to the ice cream counter yesterday and asked for "one scoop" of my favorite flavor, in a cup.

I watched the service person reach in and get one scoop, and then reach in for another. I said to her, "Really, I just want the one scoop." As she reached in for the 3rd scoop, she replied, "you're going to pay for it anyway," (meaning the price of a small dish), "so I have to give it to you."

When she got back to the window I told her, I don't mind paying for the "small dish" but I really only want to eat one scoop. I'm going to throw away everything else, so rather than waste it, give me only what I ask for, charge me what you need to, but you can sell what you don't give me to someone else. In the rubbish, it's just waste.

1. HFCS is evil. We did an informal study in my house (its informal, just my wife, so YMMV) she ate until she felt almost full. then she sucked down a small snack with HFCS. Amazingly, she no longer felt the least bit full.

2. Smaller portions are only useful if the portions we are eating are well prepared, and nutritious. Very few restaurants think about health or nutrition, and to their values, the taste of the food (as well as how it's presented) is the most important thing, followed by whether they are following safe-food rules.

At any rate, I don't think americans care much about food portions as long as they are large. In a world where you can get sizes of 'medium, large, and super-size' and when marketing tells us that no one wants to hear 'small' with their food.

Americans tend to associate good food with quantity, not quality. McDonald's amusingly named 'value menu' is about quantity for the dollar, not 'good' (meaning good *for you*) but economical.

I've gotten to the point, that I prefer to eat at home. at least at home, I know what is in my food, and moreover, what is in the ingredients. I have succesfully minimized my intake of HFCS, partially hydrogenated anything, salt, sugar, and hormone laden anything (beef, chicken, pork, milk (after all, exactly what IS the half-life on the chemicals they feed those animals anyway?)) without sacrificing taste. Of course it does cost a bit more. but after all, you are what you eat, if you eat crap, what are you?

government controlled diets can't be far behind!

Is that when we get the government ordered mind-control drugs added to the diet?