Source: From Maine Public Broadcasting Network
Representatives of Maine's restaurant industry say a proposal to require restaurants to post the number of calories in their offerings on their menus and menu boards will cost the state's eateries thousands of dollars apiece.
At an Augusta news conference today, the Maine Restaurant Association came out in oppostion to LD1259, which was up for a hearing on May 5, 2009 before lawmakers.
Dan Gore of Amatos says now is not the time to require expensive new mandates for restaurants. "The timing of this is poor in our view, as far as the additional cost that would be associated with us having to change all of our menu boards and lables and menus to comply," Gore told MPBN's Susan Sharon. He was unable to provide an estimate of how much it would cost the chain, but he said the expense would be borne by individual franchisees.
Dick Grotton of the Maine Restaurant Association says he's concerned about a "patchwork quilt of rules and regulations across the country." Grotton said he would prefer a federal measure now pending called the LEAN -- or Label Education and Nutrition -- Act. "We think a better way to go is to have federal legislation that wpuld make it the same for restaurants that have 15 or more in the country under the same name to follow the same rules everywhere they go," he said.
The federal proposal requires restaurants to make nutrition information available, but not necessarily on their menus and menu boards. The measure being considered in Maine is sponsored by House Speaker Hannah Pingree.
[Editor's Note: This is typical restaurant industry nonsense -- but they do have the presentation down quite well.]
Showing posts with label MEAL Act. Show all posts
Showing posts with label MEAL Act. Show all posts
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Rockland County, NY Takes Another Stab at Calorie Counts on Menu Boards
Rockland County Legislator Joseph L. Meyers has reintroduced a local law called the "National Food Service Establishments Calorie Posting Law. " Similar to legislation he introduced last year, the law, if passed, will largely mirror a similar and successful law in nearby Westchester County and New York City.
There is an abundance of speculation based on recent comments by Governor Patterson that New York may attempt again a state-wide version of a calorie posting law. If a state or federal law is passed, the Rockland law recognizes that it may be preempted, and permits a recognition of preemption by a mere resolution of the legislature. Such a resolution would render the local law void.
Efforts in Minneapolis/St. Paul to pass calorie posting laws have slowed as opponents to the law have cited the slumping economy and the added burdens to restaurants as reasons to delay passage.
There is an abundance of speculation based on recent comments by Governor Patterson that New York may attempt again a state-wide version of a calorie posting law. If a state or federal law is passed, the Rockland law recognizes that it may be preempted, and permits a recognition of preemption by a mere resolution of the legislature. Such a resolution would render the local law void.
Efforts in Minneapolis/St. Paul to pass calorie posting laws have slowed as opponents to the law have cited the slumping economy and the added burdens to restaurants as reasons to delay passage.
Monday, December 22, 2008
Philadelphia Mayor Signs New Calorie Posting Law
Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter signed a bill that orders most chain restaurants to display calorie, fat and other information. The bill was signed at the Center for Obesity Research Education at Temple University.
In November, the bill passed the City Council by a vote of 12-5. The law takes effect on Jan. 1, 2010.
The Philadelphia ordinance applies to restaurant chains — including coffee shops, ice cream parlors and convenience stores — with a total of 15 or more stores, whether in the city or elsewhere. It will require their outlets in the city to tell customers about calories, saturated fat, trans fat, carbohydrates and sodium.
Because it covers more items and has fewer exemptions, it is broader than laws passed in other places including New York City and California.
Philadelphia was once labeled the fattest city in the land by Men's Fitness magazine.
This is a follow-up to an earlier post on November 14, 2008 applauding Philadelphia's City Council for its passage of what may be the nation's toughest calorie and nutrition posting law.
In November, the bill passed the City Council by a vote of 12-5. The law takes effect on Jan. 1, 2010.
The Philadelphia ordinance applies to restaurant chains — including coffee shops, ice cream parlors and convenience stores — with a total of 15 or more stores, whether in the city or elsewhere. It will require their outlets in the city to tell customers about calories, saturated fat, trans fat, carbohydrates and sodium.
Because it covers more items and has fewer exemptions, it is broader than laws passed in other places including New York City and California.
Philadelphia was once labeled the fattest city in the land by Men's Fitness magazine.
This is a follow-up to an earlier post on November 14, 2008 applauding Philadelphia's City Council for its passage of what may be the nation's toughest calorie and nutrition posting law.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Industry Successes In Menu Board/Calorie Posting Wars, Ohio And Georgia Lost to Industry Tactics, A Call To Action
Industry Successes in Menu Board/Calorie Posting Wars
Ohio Prempts Local Action
In 2005, Ohio proposed HB423. The bill would have required restaurants that are part of a chain having 10 or more locations nationally and 5 or more locations in Ohio, to list calories, saturated fat, trans fat, carbohydrates, and sodium on the menu or menu board for standard menu items as usually prepared and offered for sale. The proposed law was progressive and in-line with other jurisdictions trying to tackle obesity and related diseases. The bill never passed.
In a complete turnaround of principles, Ohio recently passed HB 217 (now Chapter 43). That law gives exclusive authority to Ohio’s Director of Agriculture to regulate the provision of food nutrition information in food service establishments. Under the law, "Food nutrition information" includes the caloric, fat, carbohydrate, cholesterol, fiber, sugar, potassium, protein, vitamin, mineral and sodium content of food.
The Ohio law quite clearly prevents any political subdivision in Ohio from enacting or adopting local legislation relating to the provision of food nutrition information at food service operations. The law takes away local options in Cleveland, Columbus and Toledo (and everywhere else in Ohio) from even considering calorie posting laws in their jurisdictions. It preempts all local initiatives, and quashes the disclosure movement as it existed in Ohio before its passage.
Georgia Takes Away Local Options
Georgia passed HB 1303 and enacted, Act No. 504 in 2008. It prohibits any county board of health or political subdivision of the state including municipalities, county and local government authorities, boards, and commissions from regulating the display of food nutrition information at food service establishments. So Atlanta will not be joining Philadelphia, New York City and other progressive communities in their efforts to post calorie counts in fast food and chain restaurants. Georgia preempted any government entity in the state from even considering the passage of menu board laws within the state of Georgia.
Regressive politics at its worst.
These two states took affirmative action to preempt any local jurisdiction in their states from passing menu board laws. When industry took New York City to court to challenge its menu board law, it argued that federal law preempted states and local entities from passing such laws, and that menu board laws were under the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government. Well, industry lost that argument. In fact, the federal government specifically excluded calorie postings on menu boards from its federal legislation and intentionally left the states to pass such laws.
Having lost the federal preemption argument, and left with the likelihood that many municipalities in the country would pass calorie posting laws, industry changed its strategy.
It engaged its favorite legislators to sponsor laws in the House and Senate called the LEAN Act. The primary purposes of the LEAN Act are to create a federal preemption of calorie posting and menu board laws (and to preclude state and local governments from being able to pass such laws), and to enable restaurants to post calories in places other than on menus and menu boards (where customers are likely to see them). The LEAN Act permit postings in menu supplements or on signs other than where prices are posted.
Industry’s other strategy was to get to state legislatures and have their favorite state assemblymen and senators introduce laws that preempt local jurisdictions in their states from passing calorie posting and menu board laws. Georgia and Ohio are two of industry’s successes.
Voters in Georgia and Ohio should recognize that they’ve been had and ask for a statewide mandate requiring calorie posting and menu board laws similar to those in California and New York City. Alternatively, they should ask for repeal of their state’s preemption law. Repeal would enable local counties and cities to consider their own protective legislation, and allow local initiatives to combat obesity.
As another alternative, voters in Georgia and Ohio (and everywhere else) should support the federal MEAL Act. It largely mirrors New York City’s successful menu board law and would apply it nationally. Although both the LEAN Act and the MEAL Act will likely die in Congress this year, both are certain to be reintroduced in the new 111th Congress next year.
Ohio Prempts Local Action
In 2005, Ohio proposed HB423. The bill would have required restaurants that are part of a chain having 10 or more locations nationally and 5 or more locations in Ohio, to list calories, saturated fat, trans fat, carbohydrates, and sodium on the menu or menu board for standard menu items as usually prepared and offered for sale. The proposed law was progressive and in-line with other jurisdictions trying to tackle obesity and related diseases. The bill never passed.
In a complete turnaround of principles, Ohio recently passed HB 217 (now Chapter 43). That law gives exclusive authority to Ohio’s Director of Agriculture to regulate the provision of food nutrition information in food service establishments. Under the law, "Food nutrition information" includes the caloric, fat, carbohydrate, cholesterol, fiber, sugar, potassium, protein, vitamin, mineral and sodium content of food.
The Ohio law quite clearly prevents any political subdivision in Ohio from enacting or adopting local legislation relating to the provision of food nutrition information at food service operations. The law takes away local options in Cleveland, Columbus and Toledo (and everywhere else in Ohio) from even considering calorie posting laws in their jurisdictions. It preempts all local initiatives, and quashes the disclosure movement as it existed in Ohio before its passage.
Georgia Takes Away Local Options
Georgia passed HB 1303 and enacted, Act No. 504 in 2008. It prohibits any county board of health or political subdivision of the state including municipalities, county and local government authorities, boards, and commissions from regulating the display of food nutrition information at food service establishments. So Atlanta will not be joining Philadelphia, New York City and other progressive communities in their efforts to post calorie counts in fast food and chain restaurants. Georgia preempted any government entity in the state from even considering the passage of menu board laws within the state of Georgia.
Regressive politics at its worst.
These two states took affirmative action to preempt any local jurisdiction in their states from passing menu board laws. When industry took New York City to court to challenge its menu board law, it argued that federal law preempted states and local entities from passing such laws, and that menu board laws were under the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government. Well, industry lost that argument. In fact, the federal government specifically excluded calorie postings on menu boards from its federal legislation and intentionally left the states to pass such laws.
Having lost the federal preemption argument, and left with the likelihood that many municipalities in the country would pass calorie posting laws, industry changed its strategy.
It engaged its favorite legislators to sponsor laws in the House and Senate called the LEAN Act. The primary purposes of the LEAN Act are to create a federal preemption of calorie posting and menu board laws (and to preclude state and local governments from being able to pass such laws), and to enable restaurants to post calories in places other than on menus and menu boards (where customers are likely to see them). The LEAN Act permit postings in menu supplements or on signs other than where prices are posted.
Industry’s other strategy was to get to state legislatures and have their favorite state assemblymen and senators introduce laws that preempt local jurisdictions in their states from passing calorie posting and menu board laws. Georgia and Ohio are two of industry’s successes.
Voters in Georgia and Ohio should recognize that they’ve been had and ask for a statewide mandate requiring calorie posting and menu board laws similar to those in California and New York City. Alternatively, they should ask for repeal of their state’s preemption law. Repeal would enable local counties and cities to consider their own protective legislation, and allow local initiatives to combat obesity.
As another alternative, voters in Georgia and Ohio (and everywhere else) should support the federal MEAL Act. It largely mirrors New York City’s successful menu board law and would apply it nationally. Although both the LEAN Act and the MEAL Act will likely die in Congress this year, both are certain to be reintroduced in the new 111th Congress next year.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Flawed Study on Effects of Calorie Labeling On Fast Food Meal Choices
Effects of calorie labeling and value size pricing on fast food meal choices: Results from an experimental trial.
A recent study published in the International Journal of Behavioral, Nutrition and Physical Activity concludes that additional research is needed to better evaluate the effects of calorie labeling and value size pricing on fast food meal choices.
It reaches this conclusion based on its published results which finds no significant differences between the average energy content (calories) of meals ordered from a menu that included calorie information (without value-size pricing) as compared to those meals ordered from a menu that did not include calorie information (but had value-size pricing). In other words, it found no meaningful difference in food choices when calories were posted on the menu. The study reports similar results across age, race and education levels.
This is a deeply flawed study.
The study should not have tried to tackle both calorie information and value-size pricing, particularly where it acknowledges that most participants did not understand the value-size pricing component. It only served to confuse the results.
There was no context given to participants regarding the calorie information. The study says, “[T]o put the calorie information in context the average daily calorie needs of adult men and women were provided in a ‘Calories Count’ information box in the right hand bottom corner of the menu.” Women were told that “most need less than 2000 calories in a day.” Men were told that “most need less than 2400 calories in a day.” The mypyramid.gov web site posts those calorie amounts for males and females between 19 and 30. But, for women and men between 31 and 50, calories would be 1800 and 2200, respectively, and for 51-plus, 1600 and 2000 calories, respectively. Age participants in the study ranged from 16 through 61+, and many were given incorrect information about their calorie needs.
There was also no information given as to what intake of calories beyond 2000 and 2400 would mean to participants. There was no mention of weight gain, high blood pressure, obesity, coronary heart disease, diabetes, increases likelihood of stroke, or any of the other effects of over intake of calories. No health organization or municipality trying to affect change by posting calories is doing so in a vacuum. Public education campaigns accompany calorie posting laws in every jurisdiction that has enacted menu board laws.
Also, although the study was just published, the data collected was from October 2005 and April of 2006, a time before a single jurisdiction in the country passed a calorie posting law.
The study should have considered the methodologies used by Mary Bassett, MD, MPH and others, and collected its data from actual register receipts from purchasers at fast food restaurants, as reported in the peer reviewed American Journal Of Public Health, August 2008. Having participants order fast food from conference rooms in suburban hotels or church basements does not reveal real-time live food choices.
The study should have chosen participants from a jurisdiction that has already passed a calorie posting law, so there would at least be some likelihood that participants received some education as to the dangers of excessive calorie intake.
The study included the results as between males and females; between those that reported the importance of nutrition in fast food purchases; and, between those that reported the importance of price in fast food purchases -- three distinct groups. The authors gathered demographic information on body mass index (BMI), but did not report differences in behavior among those with normal BMIs, those considered overweight, and those considered obese.
The data does shows that significantly lower calorie intake among those reporting that nutrition was important when buying fast food. This would indicate that those persons educated as to the effects of nutrition availed themselves of the calorie information to make meaningful choices.
Also, the study has a methodological weakness. Participants were exposed to the calorie information on only one occasion, a critical shortcoming especially if repeated exposure to calorie information is required before awareness or behavior change can be expected.
Lack of context of the calorie information was perhaps its greatest fault. Participants were only told that they need less than a certain number of calories per day, but were not told what they need them for. Also the wording of the calorie information was awkward. A second group of participants should have been told that eating more than a specified number of calories could have a detrimental health affect.
The research was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK). The study abstract can be found here, and a PDF file of the actual study can be found here. This flawed study will likely become a darling of the restaurant industry.
A recent study published in the International Journal of Behavioral, Nutrition and Physical Activity concludes that additional research is needed to better evaluate the effects of calorie labeling and value size pricing on fast food meal choices.
It reaches this conclusion based on its published results which finds no significant differences between the average energy content (calories) of meals ordered from a menu that included calorie information (without value-size pricing) as compared to those meals ordered from a menu that did not include calorie information (but had value-size pricing). In other words, it found no meaningful difference in food choices when calories were posted on the menu. The study reports similar results across age, race and education levels.
This is a deeply flawed study.
The study should not have tried to tackle both calorie information and value-size pricing, particularly where it acknowledges that most participants did not understand the value-size pricing component. It only served to confuse the results.
There was no context given to participants regarding the calorie information. The study says, “[T]o put the calorie information in context the average daily calorie needs of adult men and women were provided in a ‘Calories Count’ information box in the right hand bottom corner of the menu.” Women were told that “most need less than 2000 calories in a day.” Men were told that “most need less than 2400 calories in a day.” The mypyramid.gov web site posts those calorie amounts for males and females between 19 and 30. But, for women and men between 31 and 50, calories would be 1800 and 2200, respectively, and for 51-plus, 1600 and 2000 calories, respectively. Age participants in the study ranged from 16 through 61+, and many were given incorrect information about their calorie needs.
There was also no information given as to what intake of calories beyond 2000 and 2400 would mean to participants. There was no mention of weight gain, high blood pressure, obesity, coronary heart disease, diabetes, increases likelihood of stroke, or any of the other effects of over intake of calories. No health organization or municipality trying to affect change by posting calories is doing so in a vacuum. Public education campaigns accompany calorie posting laws in every jurisdiction that has enacted menu board laws.
Also, although the study was just published, the data collected was from October 2005 and April of 2006, a time before a single jurisdiction in the country passed a calorie posting law.
The study should have considered the methodologies used by Mary Bassett, MD, MPH and others, and collected its data from actual register receipts from purchasers at fast food restaurants, as reported in the peer reviewed American Journal Of Public Health, August 2008. Having participants order fast food from conference rooms in suburban hotels or church basements does not reveal real-time live food choices.
The study should have chosen participants from a jurisdiction that has already passed a calorie posting law, so there would at least be some likelihood that participants received some education as to the dangers of excessive calorie intake.
The study included the results as between males and females; between those that reported the importance of nutrition in fast food purchases; and, between those that reported the importance of price in fast food purchases -- three distinct groups. The authors gathered demographic information on body mass index (BMI), but did not report differences in behavior among those with normal BMIs, those considered overweight, and those considered obese.
The data does shows that significantly lower calorie intake among those reporting that nutrition was important when buying fast food. This would indicate that those persons educated as to the effects of nutrition availed themselves of the calorie information to make meaningful choices.
Also, the study has a methodological weakness. Participants were exposed to the calorie information on only one occasion, a critical shortcoming especially if repeated exposure to calorie information is required before awareness or behavior change can be expected.
Lack of context of the calorie information was perhaps its greatest fault. Participants were only told that they need less than a certain number of calories per day, but were not told what they need them for. Also the wording of the calorie information was awkward. A second group of participants should have been told that eating more than a specified number of calories could have a detrimental health affect.
The research was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK). The study abstract can be found here, and a PDF file of the actual study can be found here. This flawed study will likely become a darling of the restaurant industry.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Knox County, TN Considering Calorie Counts on Menu Boards; List of Speakers from Nashville Meeting On Menu Boards
Knox County, TN is considering a law to put calorie counts next to prices on fast food and chain restaurant menus.
Over 60 percent of Knox County residents are overweight or obese. "It costs Knox County alone $200 million a year in extra medical costs for overweight and obesity," says Knox County Health Department Director Mark Jones.
Knox County officials have been looking at the proposal for a while, even traveling with Nashville (which has drafted its own version of the law) officials to cities that have already taken the plunge.
Here is a list of speakers (and the establishments they represented) at the public meeting held in Nashville, TN last month on its pending proposal:
Dr. Paul – MPHD - For
Robert DeYoung – White Castle System, Inc. - Against
Charlie Pastors – B.F. Nashville, Inc. – Wendy’s - Against (Wendy's Official Position at link)
Jarron Springer – Tennessee Grocers and Convenience Store Association - Against
Todd Saxey – The Old Spaghetti Factory, District Manager - Against
Kelly Napier – Rafferty’s Restaurants - Against
Anshika Sharma – MPHD Youth Advisory Board - For
Catherine Floyd – Citizen - For
Dr. Roger Cone – Vanderbilt University - For
Dr. Joan Randall – Vanderbilt University - For
Genie Moore – Middle Tennessee Chapter of the American Diabetes Association - For
Walt Baker – Tennessee Restaurant Association, TN Hotel & Lodging Assn.- Against
Leslie Cherry – O’Charley’s - Against
Nick Taras – Robert-Orr/Sysco - Against
Patrick Sheeny – CBRL Group, Inc. - Against
Dr. David Schlundt – Vanderbilt University - For
Stephen Anderson – Logan’s Roadhouse - Against
Dr. Tom Cook – Vanderbilt University - For
Dan Haskell - Tennessee Restaurant Association, TN Hotel & Lodging Assn., Gaylord Entertainment, Tennessee Retail Assn., Nashville Chamber of Commerce - Against
Rob DelMoro, Regal Entertainment Group - Against
Mark Balsinger, Carmike Cinemas - Against
Tony Thompson – National Association of Theatre Owners of Tennessee - Against
Tamara Lister – Famous Dave’s - Against
Nathan Ridley - Boult Cummings Law Firm - Against
Chelsea Williams – Citizen - For
Henson Moore – Schlotzsky’s Deli, Bojangles - Against
Claire McKeever –Food Security Partners of Middle TN - Against
Dr. Alisa Haushalter – MPHD - For
You can see for yourself where industry falls out on the proposal. The Board will consider the measure again at its February 9, 2009 meeting, where hopefully, the proposal will be voted on.
Over 60 percent of Knox County residents are overweight or obese. "It costs Knox County alone $200 million a year in extra medical costs for overweight and obesity," says Knox County Health Department Director Mark Jones.
Knox County officials have been looking at the proposal for a while, even traveling with Nashville (which has drafted its own version of the law) officials to cities that have already taken the plunge.
Here is a list of speakers (and the establishments they represented) at the public meeting held in Nashville, TN last month on its pending proposal:
Dr. Paul – MPHD - For
Robert DeYoung – White Castle System, Inc. - Against
Charlie Pastors – B.F. Nashville, Inc. – Wendy’s - Against (Wendy's Official Position at link)
Jarron Springer – Tennessee Grocers and Convenience Store Association - Against
Todd Saxey – The Old Spaghetti Factory, District Manager - Against
Kelly Napier – Rafferty’s Restaurants - Against
Anshika Sharma – MPHD Youth Advisory Board - For
Catherine Floyd – Citizen - For
Dr. Roger Cone – Vanderbilt University - For
Dr. Joan Randall – Vanderbilt University - For
Genie Moore – Middle Tennessee Chapter of the American Diabetes Association - For
Walt Baker – Tennessee Restaurant Association, TN Hotel & Lodging Assn.- Against
Leslie Cherry – O’Charley’s - Against
Nick Taras – Robert-Orr/Sysco - Against
Patrick Sheeny – CBRL Group, Inc. - Against
Dr. David Schlundt – Vanderbilt University - For
Stephen Anderson – Logan’s Roadhouse - Against
Dr. Tom Cook – Vanderbilt University - For
Dan Haskell - Tennessee Restaurant Association, TN Hotel & Lodging Assn., Gaylord Entertainment, Tennessee Retail Assn., Nashville Chamber of Commerce - Against
Rob DelMoro, Regal Entertainment Group - Against
Mark Balsinger, Carmike Cinemas - Against
Tony Thompson – National Association of Theatre Owners of Tennessee - Against
Tamara Lister – Famous Dave’s - Against
Nathan Ridley - Boult Cummings Law Firm - Against
Chelsea Williams – Citizen - For
Henson Moore – Schlotzsky’s Deli, Bojangles - Against
Claire McKeever –Food Security Partners of Middle TN - Against
Dr. Alisa Haushalter – MPHD - For
You can see for yourself where industry falls out on the proposal. The Board will consider the measure again at its February 9, 2009 meeting, where hopefully, the proposal will be voted on.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Rockland County, NY Tables Its Calorie Disclosure Law
Rockland County Legislator Joseph Meyers (D- Airmont) withdrew his proposed "Rockland County National Food Service Establishments Calorie Posting Law." The action was taken at last evening's Multi-Services Committee Meeting. Reasons for the withdrawal have not been provided. Meyers' legislative assistant was unable to provide more information.
Philadelphia Passes Tough New Labeling Requirements for Chain Restaurant Menus, Rejects LEAN Act Leniency
Beginning January 1, 2010, chain restaurants in Philadelphia will have to disclose calorie counts on menu boards, and calories, saturated and trans fat, sodium and carbohydrates on printed menus. Chain restaurants include convenience stores, delis, bakeries, cookie counters, ice cream shops and coffee shops that have 15 or more establishments doing business under the same trade name.
Philadelphia joins New York City, Portland, Seattle, Westchester County, NY and the state of California in mandating some form of chain restaurants disclosures.
Download the resolution here [PDF].
The Philadelphia resolution is unique in efforts to include more than just fast food outlets and traditional chain restaurants, and in its applicability to delivered food. Chain restaurants making deliveries to homes and offices in Philadelphia will have to provide nutritional information as though the food was purchased in the restaurant.
With similar laws pending in Rockland County, NY, Nashville, TN and other municipalities, there is a growing national movement toward mandated menu disclosure.
Not one single municipality has adopted legislation similar to the LEAN Act, a restaurant-industry written, watered-down version of the law currently pending in Congress. The LEAN Act’s intent is to render local laws null and void, and to permit calorie disclosures in locations where restaurant patrons are unlikely to see them. The LEAN Act is bad law intended to derail consumer protection entities from putting meaningful nutritional information in front of consumers, and to deprive consumers of real and informed choice in their purchase of calorie-laden fast and/or processed foods.
Philadelphia joins New York City, Portland, Seattle, Westchester County, NY and the state of California in mandating some form of chain restaurants disclosures.
Download the resolution here [PDF].
The Philadelphia resolution is unique in efforts to include more than just fast food outlets and traditional chain restaurants, and in its applicability to delivered food. Chain restaurants making deliveries to homes and offices in Philadelphia will have to provide nutritional information as though the food was purchased in the restaurant.
With similar laws pending in Rockland County, NY, Nashville, TN and other municipalities, there is a growing national movement toward mandated menu disclosure.
Not one single municipality has adopted legislation similar to the LEAN Act, a restaurant-industry written, watered-down version of the law currently pending in Congress. The LEAN Act’s intent is to render local laws null and void, and to permit calorie disclosures in locations where restaurant patrons are unlikely to see them. The LEAN Act is bad law intended to derail consumer protection entities from putting meaningful nutritional information in front of consumers, and to deprive consumers of real and informed choice in their purchase of calorie-laden fast and/or processed foods.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Westchester County Passes Menu Board Calorie Disclosure Law
After a year of deliberations between legislators and public health officials, and over the objections of restaurant owners and associations, Westchester County, NY passed a bill requiring chain restaurants and fast food outlets to post calories on their menu boards and menus. Restaurants with 15 or more locations globally (regardless of ownership) will have to comply with the law after a six-month grace period. After that, the County will impose fines for non-compliance. The bill passed 15-1.
Westchester joins NYC, CA, Portland, Seattle and Philadelphia in passing menu boad disclosure laws. Proposals are still pending in DC and Nashville, and new proposals are just being introduced in Rockland County, NY.
This issue is being closely monitored by this blog and others as pending federal legislation, if passed, would make state and local menu board disclosure laws null and void. The LEAN Act, favored by industry both would preempt state and local laws and permit chain restaurants and fast food outlets to post calorie counts in places other than on menus and menu boards. The LEAN Act would allow restaurants to post calorie counts on menu supplements, or on signs other than the actual menu board. This industry-drafted legislation is opposed by most consumer advocacy groups.
The MEAL Act, also pending in Congress would be more akin to NYC's menu board law and require restaurants to post calorie counts directly on menu boards and menus. It also would preserve local laws that are broader than the federal law.
Westchester joins NYC, CA, Portland, Seattle and Philadelphia in passing menu boad disclosure laws. Proposals are still pending in DC and Nashville, and new proposals are just being introduced in Rockland County, NY.
This issue is being closely monitored by this blog and others as pending federal legislation, if passed, would make state and local menu board disclosure laws null and void. The LEAN Act, favored by industry both would preempt state and local laws and permit chain restaurants and fast food outlets to post calorie counts in places other than on menus and menu boards. The LEAN Act would allow restaurants to post calorie counts on menu supplements, or on signs other than the actual menu board. This industry-drafted legislation is opposed by most consumer advocacy groups.
The MEAL Act, also pending in Congress would be more akin to NYC's menu board law and require restaurants to post calorie counts directly on menu boards and menus. It also would preserve local laws that are broader than the federal law.
Friday, November 7, 2008
Restaurants Oppose What Will Likely Be The Nation's Toughest Calorie Disclosure Law
At last night's public meeting, restaurant representatives vocally opposed Nashville’s proposed calorie count disclosure law. Restaurant owners and trade associations have mastered all the talking points of the National Restaurant Association, and whined the following: (1) “They want to post calories, just not on the actual menu board or menu.” (2) “The measure will put restaurants out of business, or deter restaurants from opening in Nashville.” (3) “The costs are more than restaurants can manage in these hard economic times.” and, (4) Restaurants will close and jobs will be lost.”
The proposal is the toughest in the nation, and it would likely apply not just to the 500 or so fast food and chain restaurants in Davidson County, but also to Nashville’s public schools, its chain movie theaters, and supermarkets that serve prepared foods on site. The proposal is written very broadly and defers to state definitions for its applicability to "covered food service establishments."
Restaurant owners and trade associations are hoping for passage of the LEAN Act, pending federal legislation that would preempt all state and local menu board disclosure laws, and enable restaurants to post calorie information in menu supplements or on other signs. Also pending is the federal MEAL Act which mirrors NYC's menu law and would preserve similar and more restrictive local and state laws.
Board members voted to extend the deadline to Dec. 6 for public comment. The board will vote on the measure at its February meeting.
The proposal is the toughest in the nation, and it would likely apply not just to the 500 or so fast food and chain restaurants in Davidson County, but also to Nashville’s public schools, its chain movie theaters, and supermarkets that serve prepared foods on site. The proposal is written very broadly and defers to state definitions for its applicability to "covered food service establishments."
Restaurant owners and trade associations are hoping for passage of the LEAN Act, pending federal legislation that would preempt all state and local menu board disclosure laws, and enable restaurants to post calorie information in menu supplements or on other signs. Also pending is the federal MEAL Act which mirrors NYC's menu law and would preserve similar and more restrictive local and state laws.
Board members voted to extend the deadline to Dec. 6 for public comment. The board will vote on the measure at its February meeting.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Nashville Revises its Proposed Menu Board Law, Rockland County's Law Similar to NYC's Menu Board Law
In Nashville, where over half of adults are overwieght or obese, the health department has revised its original proposal from its first information session. While restaurants would still be required to print the calorie counts of menu items—health department officials made the following modifications to the proposed rules:
1. Restaurants with 15 or more stores must print calorie counts on their menus. This number was raised from 10 in the earlier draft.
2. Regulations would extend to retail grocery establishments with in-house dining, such as Whole Foods.
3. Restaurants would have until the end of 2009 to comply with the regulations.
4. The following language was added in an attempt to allay fears of potential lawsuits: “This regulation is not intended to provide or be used to support a private cause of action by any individual, other than an individual, entity, or agency authorized to enforce this regulation, against a covered food service establishment for compliance or non-compliance with this regulation. This regulation does not prohibit a covered food service establishment from including a statement on a menu or menu board that there may be variations in calorie content values across actual servings based on slight variations in serving size, quantity of ingredients, or special ordering."
The Metro Board of Health will consider the regulations, which are intended to help fight the rising trend of obesity, at the Dec. 4 meeting. Written comments will be accepted until Nov. 13.
At issue is still whether Nashville's law would apply to public schools. If so, it would be the toughest law in the country. Also, Nashville's legal disclaimer may be a mechanism to smooth approval by industry groups (though industry opposes any requirement that calorie counts be posted on menu boards, and prefers the option to hide information in menu supplements or other signage). Read more about Nashville.
The Journal-News reports today (on its front page - Rockland Edition) that Rockland is entering the national dialog about posting calories on fast food restaurant menu boards and chain restaurant menus. A new local law would mandate calorie disclosures a la NYC. Voices from business weigh in on the financial burdens and the so-called "nanny state" -- these are industry's talking points. There is no schedule set yet for public comment.
Recognizing that one in four British adults is overweight or obeste, the Minister of Department of Health and the Food Standards Agency has called for calorie content on all chain restaurant menus. Read more.
It is time in America for consumer protection laws to be written by consumer protection groups, not by the industries that cause the problems in the first place. Foxes should not guard henhouses. Those following my earlier posts know that an industry coalition has been formed to pass the LEAN Act, a federal statute that would trump all state and local laws and permit fast food joints and chain restaurants to hide calorie information in menu supplements or on signage near menu boards.
Consumer protection friendly legislation called the MEAL Act is also pending in Congress that would permit state and local laws to retain their status, and that would mandate that calorie information appear where consumers are most likely to see it - on the menu board by the prices, and on menus by the item description and price.
Until federal laws are passed, support state and local initiatives require calories be posted where they will be seen. Stand up to local, state and national industry associations and lobbies, and tell your Congressman or Senator that you support the MEAL Act. Ask them to co-sponsor the law and reject industry efforts to water it down.
Speak truth to power!
1. Restaurants with 15 or more stores must print calorie counts on their menus. This number was raised from 10 in the earlier draft.
2. Regulations would extend to retail grocery establishments with in-house dining, such as Whole Foods.
3. Restaurants would have until the end of 2009 to comply with the regulations.
4. The following language was added in an attempt to allay fears of potential lawsuits: “This regulation is not intended to provide or be used to support a private cause of action by any individual, other than an individual, entity, or agency authorized to enforce this regulation, against a covered food service establishment for compliance or non-compliance with this regulation. This regulation does not prohibit a covered food service establishment from including a statement on a menu or menu board that there may be variations in calorie content values across actual servings based on slight variations in serving size, quantity of ingredients, or special ordering."
The Metro Board of Health will consider the regulations, which are intended to help fight the rising trend of obesity, at the Dec. 4 meeting. Written comments will be accepted until Nov. 13.
At issue is still whether Nashville's law would apply to public schools. If so, it would be the toughest law in the country. Also, Nashville's legal disclaimer may be a mechanism to smooth approval by industry groups (though industry opposes any requirement that calorie counts be posted on menu boards, and prefers the option to hide information in menu supplements or other signage). Read more about Nashville.
The Journal-News reports today (on its front page - Rockland Edition) that Rockland is entering the national dialog about posting calories on fast food restaurant menu boards and chain restaurant menus. A new local law would mandate calorie disclosures a la NYC. Voices from business weigh in on the financial burdens and the so-called "nanny state" -- these are industry's talking points. There is no schedule set yet for public comment.
Recognizing that one in four British adults is overweight or obeste, the Minister of Department of Health and the Food Standards Agency has called for calorie content on all chain restaurant menus. Read more.
It is time in America for consumer protection laws to be written by consumer protection groups, not by the industries that cause the problems in the first place. Foxes should not guard henhouses. Those following my earlier posts know that an industry coalition has been formed to pass the LEAN Act, a federal statute that would trump all state and local laws and permit fast food joints and chain restaurants to hide calorie information in menu supplements or on signage near menu boards.
Consumer protection friendly legislation called the MEAL Act is also pending in Congress that would permit state and local laws to retain their status, and that would mandate that calorie information appear where consumers are most likely to see it - on the menu board by the prices, and on menus by the item description and price.
Until federal laws are passed, support state and local initiatives require calories be posted where they will be seen. Stand up to local, state and national industry associations and lobbies, and tell your Congressman or Senator that you support the MEAL Act. Ask them to co-sponsor the law and reject industry efforts to water it down.
Speak truth to power!
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Beware Industry Coalition (CRNI) Claiming to Support Nutrition Information On Menu Boards
A new coalition of state restaurant associations, state retail associations, chain restaurants and industry groups have formed to support the LEAN Act, legislation introduced by Senator Tom Carper, Senator Lisa Murkowski, and Congressman Jim Matheson. The legislation will permit fast food and chain restaurants to provide calorie and nutritional information in places other than on the menu board or the menu. It permits the use of menu supplements or sign on walls. The legislation also preempts more stringent state and local laws that mandate calorie counts be next to prices and food descriptions on menu boards. If passed, New York's successful menu board law would become void. So would California's. The watered-down federal standard offered by industry would prevail.
The Coalition for Responsible Nutrition Information’s (CRNI) web site is (www.nationalnutritionstandards.com).
Coalition members include Auntie Anne's Pretzels, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Florida, Brinker International, Burger King, Carlson Restaurants Worldwide, Darden Restaurants, Domino's Pizza, Dunkin' Brands, Grocery Manufacturers Association, International Dairy Queen, International Foodservice Distributors Association, International Franchise Association, McDonald's, National Chicken Council, National Council of Chain Restaurants, National Fisheries Institute, National Franchisee Association, National Restaurant Association, National Turkey Foundation, OSI Restaurants LLC., Sonic, and White Castle.
Some coalition members have donated substantial sums to the legislation’s sponsors.
CRNI’s press releases have been pciked up by Meat & Poultry News, Food Product Design, Drinks Media Wire, Food Equipment News, Fresh Talk, Pizza Marketplace, Nation’s Restaurant Association, Let’s Talk Franchising, and Chain Leader magazine.
It seems the coalition’s unstated goal is to prevent a mandate requiring calorie counts directly on menu boards and menus. It never mentions the MEAL Act ( a competing proposal supported by actual health organizations that would specifically require calories on menus and menu boards and that would permit enforcement of more stringent state and local laws.) The coalition wants to prevent state and local jurisdictions from mandating that calories be disclosed where people will actually read them.
Mandatory menu board disclosure as proposed in the MEAL Act is supported by Public Citizen, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, the American College of Preventitive Medicine, the American Diabetes Association, the American Medical Association, the American Public Health Association, the California Center for Public Health Advocacy, the Medical Society of the State of New York, the Trust for America’s Health and many, many others.
The CRNI lacks a single member without a financial interest in its advocacy.
The Coalition for Responsible Nutrition Information’s (CRNI) web site is (www.nationalnutritionstandards.com).
Coalition members include Auntie Anne's Pretzels, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Florida, Brinker International, Burger King, Carlson Restaurants Worldwide, Darden Restaurants, Domino's Pizza, Dunkin' Brands, Grocery Manufacturers Association, International Dairy Queen, International Foodservice Distributors Association, International Franchise Association, McDonald's, National Chicken Council, National Council of Chain Restaurants, National Fisheries Institute, National Franchisee Association, National Restaurant Association, National Turkey Foundation, OSI Restaurants LLC., Sonic, and White Castle.
Some coalition members have donated substantial sums to the legislation’s sponsors.
CRNI’s press releases have been pciked up by Meat & Poultry News, Food Product Design, Drinks Media Wire, Food Equipment News, Fresh Talk, Pizza Marketplace, Nation’s Restaurant Association, Let’s Talk Franchising, and Chain Leader magazine.
It seems the coalition’s unstated goal is to prevent a mandate requiring calorie counts directly on menu boards and menus. It never mentions the MEAL Act ( a competing proposal supported by actual health organizations that would specifically require calories on menus and menu boards and that would permit enforcement of more stringent state and local laws.) The coalition wants to prevent state and local jurisdictions from mandating that calories be disclosed where people will actually read them.
Mandatory menu board disclosure as proposed in the MEAL Act is supported by Public Citizen, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, the American College of Preventitive Medicine, the American Diabetes Association, the American Medical Association, the American Public Health Association, the California Center for Public Health Advocacy, the Medical Society of the State of New York, the Trust for America’s Health and many, many others.
The CRNI lacks a single member without a financial interest in its advocacy.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Rockland County, NY Set to Join Menu Board Wars
Rockland County, NY seeks to join those communities requiring fast food and chain restaurants to post calorie counts on menu boards. According to the Journal News, County Legislator Joseph Meyers, (D-Airmont) proposed the “Rockland County National Food Service Establishments Calorie Posting Law” which requires an eatery that is part of a chain that has 15 or more restaurants to post the calorie counts of their standard food items on their menus, including menu boards. The law would exempt menu items listed for sale for less than 30-days in a calendar year.
If the law passes, Rockland will join New York City in mandating calorie disclosure on menus and menu boards. Westchester County, NY is set to vote on a similar law in November. New York City's menu law has already survived a court challenge from the New York State Restaurant Association in federal district court in Manhattan.
The issue has also risen to national prominence as industry groups such as the National Restaurant Association, the International Franchise Association, and the National Council of Chain Restaurants have put their weight behind the LEAN Act, proposed federal legislation that would water down the mandates of New York City’s law and preempt any state of local statute that goes beyond its provisions. Portland, Seattle and the State of California have all passed versions of calorie disclosure law for fast food and chain restaurants.
Today’s New York Times writes, “Two proposals moving through Congress would make calorie postings uniform nationwide. One, the Labeling Education and Nutrition Act, is backed by the restaurant industry and would give restaurants and grocery stores selling prepared foods a choice of labeling formats, including posters near the cash register or disclosures on the back of the menu. It would preempt tougher laws, like New York’s. A second proposal, the Menu Education and Labeling Act, is supported by public health advocates and more closely mirrors New York’s law. It would not preempt more stringent local laws.”
The MENU Act has stuck in a Senate committee since March of 2008, and its sister legislation has been stuck in committee in the House since October of 2007.
The industry supported LEAN Act was proposed in the Senate last month.
If the law passes, Rockland will join New York City in mandating calorie disclosure on menus and menu boards. Westchester County, NY is set to vote on a similar law in November. New York City's menu law has already survived a court challenge from the New York State Restaurant Association in federal district court in Manhattan.
The issue has also risen to national prominence as industry groups such as the National Restaurant Association, the International Franchise Association, and the National Council of Chain Restaurants have put their weight behind the LEAN Act, proposed federal legislation that would water down the mandates of New York City’s law and preempt any state of local statute that goes beyond its provisions. Portland, Seattle and the State of California have all passed versions of calorie disclosure law for fast food and chain restaurants.
Today’s New York Times writes, “Two proposals moving through Congress would make calorie postings uniform nationwide. One, the Labeling Education and Nutrition Act, is backed by the restaurant industry and would give restaurants and grocery stores selling prepared foods a choice of labeling formats, including posters near the cash register or disclosures on the back of the menu. It would preempt tougher laws, like New York’s. A second proposal, the Menu Education and Labeling Act, is supported by public health advocates and more closely mirrors New York’s law. It would not preempt more stringent local laws.”
The MENU Act has stuck in a Senate committee since March of 2008, and its sister legislation has been stuck in committee in the House since October of 2007.
The industry supported LEAN Act was proposed in the Senate last month.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Industry Groups Support Watered Down Menu Disclosure Law (and its sponsors)
The National Restaurant Association, the International Franchise Association, and the National Council of Chain Restaurants, along with other state and local industry associations have fallen in line behind the Labeling Education and Nutrition Act (the LEAN Act, S.3575), and its sister resolution in the House (H.R. 7187). These groups support the LEAN Acts because under the Acts, calorie and nutrition information need not actually be disclosed at the point of purchase, on menus or on menu boards. Instead, the Act permits disclosure on menu inserts, appendixes or supplements, or on signs near the menu board, or near where patrons wait on line for service. There is no mandate to post information near the prices, where consumers might actually see it.
Also, the LEAN Act would preempt state and local laws that impose different and stricter standards the LEAN Act, effectively nullifying laws like those passed in New York City and California.
These groups likely oppose the MEAL Act (S.2784) also pending in the Senate. The MEAL Act, is similar to the law passed in New York City that mandates disclosure directly on menu boards and menus where consumers are most likely to access the information. In a recent lobbying filing, the National Restaurant Association listed “Mandatory Menu Labeling” and the “MEAL Act” as targets of its lobbying efforts.
The National Restaurant Association represents 52,000 member companies that own more than 254,000 restaurants. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, it has overwhelmingly supported Republican candidates since 1990, giving more than $8,000,000 to federal candidates for office – and 86% of its recipients were Republicans.
The co-sponsor of the LEAN Act, Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) received $10,000 from the National Restaurant Association PAC to assist with her 2004 Senatorial Election Campaign. According to government records, Murkowski has also received $7,000 from the International Franchise Association, and $1,000 from the National Retail Federation (a division of which is the National Council of Chain Restaurants).
The sponsor of the LEAN Act’s sister Resolution in the House, HR 7187, is Representative Jim Matheson (D-UT). Matheson received $10,000 from the National Restaurant Association PAC to assist with his 2006 House Election Campaign. According to government records, Matheson has also received $3,000 from the International Franchise Association and $2,000 from the National Retail Federation.
The other Senate sponsor of the LEAN Act, Tom Carper (D-DE) received $2,540 from the National Retail Federation between 2002 and 2006.
The MEAL Act sponsor is Tom Harkin (D-IA) and its co-sponsors are Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Ted Kennedy (D-MA). The MEAL Act's House version, HR.3895 was sponsored by Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) and has 14 co-sponsors.
Also, the LEAN Act would preempt state and local laws that impose different and stricter standards the LEAN Act, effectively nullifying laws like those passed in New York City and California.
These groups likely oppose the MEAL Act (S.2784) also pending in the Senate. The MEAL Act, is similar to the law passed in New York City that mandates disclosure directly on menu boards and menus where consumers are most likely to access the information. In a recent lobbying filing, the National Restaurant Association listed “Mandatory Menu Labeling” and the “MEAL Act” as targets of its lobbying efforts.
The National Restaurant Association represents 52,000 member companies that own more than 254,000 restaurants. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, it has overwhelmingly supported Republican candidates since 1990, giving more than $8,000,000 to federal candidates for office – and 86% of its recipients were Republicans.
The co-sponsor of the LEAN Act, Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) received $10,000 from the National Restaurant Association PAC to assist with her 2004 Senatorial Election Campaign. According to government records, Murkowski has also received $7,000 from the International Franchise Association, and $1,000 from the National Retail Federation (a division of which is the National Council of Chain Restaurants).
The sponsor of the LEAN Act’s sister Resolution in the House, HR 7187, is Representative Jim Matheson (D-UT). Matheson received $10,000 from the National Restaurant Association PAC to assist with his 2006 House Election Campaign. According to government records, Matheson has also received $3,000 from the International Franchise Association and $2,000 from the National Retail Federation.
The other Senate sponsor of the LEAN Act, Tom Carper (D-DE) received $2,540 from the National Retail Federation between 2002 and 2006.
The MEAL Act sponsor is Tom Harkin (D-IA) and its co-sponsors are Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Ted Kennedy (D-MA). The MEAL Act's House version, HR.3895 was sponsored by Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) and has 14 co-sponsors.
Friday, October 24, 2008
Summary of Polls on Fast-Food Menu Disclosure Requirements & Passed, Pending and Defeated Legislation
Here is a summary of polls on nutrition labeling in fast-food and chain restaurants.
In a Caravan Opinion Research Corporation 2008 poll of 1,003 adults, 78% of respondents agreed that “fast-food and other chain restaurants should list nutritional information, such as calories, fat, sugar or salt content on menus and menu boards.”
In an ARAMARK Corporation 2005 poll of 5,297 adults, 83% of respondents agreed that “restaurants should make nutrition information available for all menu items.”
In a Technomic Inc. 2007 poll of 2,500 respondents, 74% of respondents agreed that “menu boards should list nutrition information for all items served.”
In a Global Strategy Group, 2003 poll, 67% of respondents agreed that “restaurants should be required to provide nutrition information, including calories, on menus.
In an End Hunger Connecticut 2007 state-wide poll of 501 respondents, 82% supported “requiring fast-food and chain restaurants to display calorie content on menus or menu boards” and 84% supported “requiring fast-food and chain restaurants to post nutrition information on their menus.”
It seems that when the mandate is worded more strongly or more specifically, there is a slight erosion of support. Compare the results in polls that simply say the chains “should list information” with the poll that says they “should be required to list.” Of course that same discrepancy could be explained by the age of the poll. The more recent polls show stronger support for disclosure requirements. Regardless, support is overwhelmingly in favor of menu disclosure.
California, New York City, King County (Seattle) Washington, and Portland, Oregon have all passed menu labeling laws. The Portland law passed in July of 2008 and public hearing are being held on November 6th and 20th regarding implementation of the law.
Similar laws are pending in HI, MA, MI, NJ, NY, PA, VT, IA, KY, TN and the District of Columbia. Westchester County, NY is voting on the issue in the next few weeks. Nashville, TN has a public hearing set for November 6th.
Two statewide initiatives in Washington and Indiana have been defeated.
On the national stage, competing versions of menu labeling laws are pending in Congress – The MEAL Act vs. the LEAN Act. See my earlier posting here:. The MEAL Act is similar to New York City’s court-tested law. The LEAN Act is favored by the National Restaurant Association and other industry groups. It has less stringent standards that permit calorie and nutritional information to be posted in less conspicuous places or in menu addenda, and a provision for federal preemption of state and local menu disclosure laws. Federal preemption could render all local and state laws unenforceable.
In unrelated news, the USDA FSIS posted Sensenig Meats, 6999 Cannery Road, Hanover, PA and Steely Meats, 54 Mt. Pleasant Road, Fayetteville, PA as possible recipients of recalled 60-pound bulk boxes of "BM-95 Boneless Beef."
In a Caravan Opinion Research Corporation 2008 poll of 1,003 adults, 78% of respondents agreed that “fast-food and other chain restaurants should list nutritional information, such as calories, fat, sugar or salt content on menus and menu boards.”
In an ARAMARK Corporation 2005 poll of 5,297 adults, 83% of respondents agreed that “restaurants should make nutrition information available for all menu items.”
In a Technomic Inc. 2007 poll of 2,500 respondents, 74% of respondents agreed that “menu boards should list nutrition information for all items served.”
In a Global Strategy Group, 2003 poll, 67% of respondents agreed that “restaurants should be required to provide nutrition information, including calories, on menus.
In an End Hunger Connecticut 2007 state-wide poll of 501 respondents, 82% supported “requiring fast-food and chain restaurants to display calorie content on menus or menu boards” and 84% supported “requiring fast-food and chain restaurants to post nutrition information on their menus.”
It seems that when the mandate is worded more strongly or more specifically, there is a slight erosion of support. Compare the results in polls that simply say the chains “should list information” with the poll that says they “should be required to list.” Of course that same discrepancy could be explained by the age of the poll. The more recent polls show stronger support for disclosure requirements. Regardless, support is overwhelmingly in favor of menu disclosure.
California, New York City, King County (Seattle) Washington, and Portland, Oregon have all passed menu labeling laws. The Portland law passed in July of 2008 and public hearing are being held on November 6th and 20th regarding implementation of the law.
Similar laws are pending in HI, MA, MI, NJ, NY, PA, VT, IA, KY, TN and the District of Columbia. Westchester County, NY is voting on the issue in the next few weeks. Nashville, TN has a public hearing set for November 6th.
Two statewide initiatives in Washington and Indiana have been defeated.
On the national stage, competing versions of menu labeling laws are pending in Congress – The MEAL Act vs. the LEAN Act. See my earlier posting here:. The MEAL Act is similar to New York City’s court-tested law. The LEAN Act is favored by the National Restaurant Association and other industry groups. It has less stringent standards that permit calorie and nutritional information to be posted in less conspicuous places or in menu addenda, and a provision for federal preemption of state and local menu disclosure laws. Federal preemption could render all local and state laws unenforceable.
In unrelated news, the USDA FSIS posted Sensenig Meats, 6999 Cannery Road, Hanover, PA and Steely Meats, 54 Mt. Pleasant Road, Fayetteville, PA as possible recipients of recalled 60-pound bulk boxes of "BM-95 Boneless Beef."
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Battlelines are Being Drawn in Fast Food Menu Board Disclosure Legislation
Battlelines are being drawn on the fast food menu board laws. Attempts by industry to federalize disclosure laws are intended to weaken those laws and permit calorie/nutrition information to be hidden away from consumer access, in places like in menu inserts and separate handouts.
Nashville could be the first city in the South to require restaurants to post calories on menus. A public hearing is set for November 6th. If adopted, the calorie count requirement would begin Janunary 31, 2009 with a 90-day grace period. The proposed regulations would apply only to restaurants with 10 or more outlets nationwide. Calories would be posted on the menu or on a menu board, in the same size type as the price. The law would also extend to food tags, such as the calories in a tablespoon of ranch dressing on a salad bar.
The California Center for Public Health Advocacy has put this video up on Youtube showing what happens when customers need to consult a brochure.
We are following this story closely and will keep posting information as it becomes available. See our prior post.
Nashville could be the first city in the South to require restaurants to post calories on menus. A public hearing is set for November 6th. If adopted, the calorie count requirement would begin Janunary 31, 2009 with a 90-day grace period. The proposed regulations would apply only to restaurants with 10 or more outlets nationwide. Calories would be posted on the menu or on a menu board, in the same size type as the price. The law would also extend to food tags, such as the calories in a tablespoon of ranch dressing on a salad bar.
The California Center for Public Health Advocacy has put this video up on Youtube showing what happens when customers need to consult a brochure.
We are following this story closely and will keep posting information as it becomes available. See our prior post.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Westchester County To Vote on Menu Board Bill
Westchester County, NY is poised to vote on passage of a calorie/nutrition disclosure bill that would require chain restaurants to post calories counts on menu boards. This bill is similar to laws in New York City and California. The New York Restaurant Association unsuccessfully challenged the New York City law in court last year.
The National Restaurant Association (NRA) favors a federalized approach to menu disclosure laws. A federal statute would likely preempt tougher local and state menu laws. The bill favored by the NRA (called the LEAN Act) would permit fast food restaurants and sit down chains to put calorie and nutritional information in menu supplements or inserts, or on signs separate from the menu board.
A better bill pending in the Senate (called the MEAL Act) would make the New York City disclosure law the national standard. This battle is being fought out all over the country. Now is the time to weigh in for tougher standards.
The National Restaurant Association (NRA) favors a federalized approach to menu disclosure laws. A federal statute would likely preempt tougher local and state menu laws. The bill favored by the NRA (called the LEAN Act) would permit fast food restaurants and sit down chains to put calorie and nutritional information in menu supplements or inserts, or on signs separate from the menu board.
A better bill pending in the Senate (called the MEAL Act) would make the New York City disclosure law the national standard. This battle is being fought out all over the country. Now is the time to weigh in for tougher standards.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Comparison of Fast Food Labeling Bills - MEAL Act preferred to LEAN Act
Senators Carper and Murkowski recently introduced S.3575 to amend the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. The bill, cleverly called the LEAN Act (Labeling Education and Nutrition Act) purports to create a federal mandate of calorie and nutrition labeling for fast food outlets, but permits fast food and other chains to put that information somewhere other than the menu boards. In other words, it enables the chains to provide the information in a place other than where consumers would likely see it. Another goal of the legislation is to preempt state and local legislation like those in New York City and in California that mandate a stricter standard of disclosure.
An earlier bill, introduced by Senator Harkin (S.2784) called the Menu Education and Labeling Act (MEAL Act) would essentially require both fast food and table service restaurants to make disclosures similar to those of the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act. Fast food restaurants would have to make the disclosures on menu boards and table service restaurants on printed menus. The law would be similar to those in New York City and California.
The National Restaurant Association (read its talking points) favors the LEAN act because it imposes a unified federal standard. The LEAN act would permit fast food and other restaurants to hide calorie and nutritional information in places other than where consumers look to make choices, such as in signs near the menu board, in handouts or menu inserts, and elsewhere such as an appendix attached to the back of the menu, or in another menu that supplements the regular menu.
Harkin's MEAL Act is the better bill. It is more direct and more likely to accomplish its goals of disseminating meaningful calorie and nutrition information to consumers. The LEAN act is intended to protect restaurant owners, not consumers.
An earlier bill, introduced by Senator Harkin (S.2784) called the Menu Education and Labeling Act (MEAL Act) would essentially require both fast food and table service restaurants to make disclosures similar to those of the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act. Fast food restaurants would have to make the disclosures on menu boards and table service restaurants on printed menus. The law would be similar to those in New York City and California.
The National Restaurant Association (read its talking points) favors the LEAN act because it imposes a unified federal standard. The LEAN act would permit fast food and other restaurants to hide calorie and nutritional information in places other than where consumers look to make choices, such as in signs near the menu board, in handouts or menu inserts, and elsewhere such as an appendix attached to the back of the menu, or in another menu that supplements the regular menu.
Harkin's MEAL Act is the better bill. It is more direct and more likely to accomplish its goals of disseminating meaningful calorie and nutrition information to consumers. The LEAN act is intended to protect restaurant owners, not consumers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
