2) This is important. It may seem nerdy or inconsequential but it really is important — the RIAA really stinks.
1) On the show today we discussed some proposals to make it mandatory for restaurants to put the caloric value of menu items right there on the menu, next to the item. This isn’t something I’ve thought about that much before but I have to say that it makes tons of sense. The “Center for Science in the Public Interest” let loose a study yesterday showcasing how some restaurant chains are pushing menu items that weigh in at over 2,000 calories… that’s absurd. This isn’t about restricting businesses, it’s about increasing consumer choice and making it easier for Minnesotans to make healthy decisions for themselves — Hey, if you choose the 2000 calorie burger after seeing it’s 2000 calories, I have no problem. We need this legislation in Minnesota now.
Eeeeehhhhh…I’m not so sure about this. As a chef at a small, independently owned, gourmet restaurant, the last thing our customers want to see when they’re eyeing the menu is a caloric count. They come to this establishment to enjoy top-shelf cooking without concerning themselves with specific details about the calories involved.
Besides, the independent restaurant in Minnesota is an endagered species. Look at the recent closures of Auriga, Five, and Levain. Admittedly, Five closed because of idiocy, so let’s just consider Auriga and Levain. Restaurants like these (and mine) often exist on a shoestring budget. The last thing we need to do is spend the scratch required to have scientific analysis performed on our dishes. Secondly, the last thing we need is to have some sort of unreasonable fine levied because a random analysis of a dish (performed at taxpayer expense) showed that it was 100 calories higher than we listed it, all because the cook splashed in a little too much olive oil during the cooking process. Thirdly, how am I supposed to create on-the-fly specials?
Look, this type of legislation is fine for a high-volume, set-menu type of place like McDonalds or Perkins. But if you try to force this kind of big-brother approach to the independently-owned restaurant (who, by the way, does more to support the Minnesota economy by purchasing Hope Creamery butter, Thielen Meats bacon, Dehn’s Farm herbs, and other Minnesota-produced items than ANY chain does) then you’re just being unreasonable.
*steps off soapbox, brushes off lapels, and walks away*
First of all, what restaurant? The loss of Levain and Auriga were both truly tragic. In fact, so tragic that I feel the need to rant for a quick second: Auriga was a damn institution! It had it’s ups and downs for sure, but this comfortable down-the-road-from-the-walker restaurant was dependably good. And in recent months Auriga was getting even better.
And then there’s Levain. It opened to such critical acclaim that I had to try it but wasn’t blown away off the bat. But as it found it’s footing it had really blossomed into a highlight of the Twin Cities’ dining scene. I guess location, location, location…?
Five… meh.
Okay, rant over; back to my point.
I actually already thought a little about this problem and tried to think of some solutions.
The first distinction is easy for me: if you have a drive-through window you have to have the full nutritional label on the packaging.
The second distinction is tougher: Chili’s vs. 112 Eatery. I think the former should have to list calories on the menu but the latter simply has to make ingredient listings available upon request. What’s tough is how to legally distinguish. I was thinking of maybe a simple “if you have more than 2 restaurants of the same brand” distinction but maybe that’s not fair. Maybe number of tables or total weekly customer volume for all branches (that might be the best). Something.
I feel for your concerns mds and I definitely think there should be exceptions for the small restaurant owners of the world, but we really need this in general. Obesity is a huge problem and these chain restaurants are a huge contributor. I doubt that small independent restaurants are frequented as often and load up the calories as efficiently so an exception for them, I think, is more than warranted.
But as usual I’ve gone on too long.
I think that requiring the caloric value of menu items will actually help smaller, locally owned restaurants.
Small, locally owned restaurants typically use less processed food and use local farmers’ produce. My guess is that small, gourmet restaurants are a healthier option compared to chain restaurants like Uno’s, Old Chicago, Applebee’s, etc. These facts might ultimately make them a more popular option for health concious consumers.
as a customer…I completely disagree with your statement MDS…”the last thing our customers want to see when they’re eyeing the menu is a caloric count. They come to this establishment to enjoy top-shelf cooking without concerning themselves with specific details about the calories involved.”
I absolutely want to know the caloric count so I can make better (and more informed)choices.
Yep, would love to see this at restaurants. I mean, let’s take this example… me and my wife walk into a restaurant, if it’s a weekend thing for a romantic night out I won’t care much for calorie count. Yet, I’ve found myself tending to certain restaurants for a quick takeout on evenings when there’s no time to cook at home. And how do I pick those? Well, quality of food and if it’ll hurt my workouts so much. So adding calorie count would help make me a regular at certain takeaways or at least make better choices.