Massachusetts set to unveil fast-food menu rules

[Niels Bohr 72]

Tue May 12, 2009 8:32pm EDT By Jason Szep

BOSTON (Reuters) - Massachusetts is expected to unveil the toughest restaurant menu labeling rules in the United States on Wednesday, requiring fast-food chains to list how many calories are in the food they sell in a bid to combat obesity.

The state's Public Health Council is expected to vote on Wednesday on regulations making fast-food chains list the calorie counts of their food on their menus or menu boards.

The regulations are expected to be more comprehensive than those in California, which in September became the first U.S. state with menu labeling rules for fast-food restaurant chains such as McDonald's Corp and Yum Brands' KFC.

The action comes at a time of rising obesity in the state and in the United States, and the regulations are intended to allow people to make better-informed decisions about the food they eat.

More than half of the adults in Massachusetts are overweight or obese, according to a 2008 state report that also showed adult obesity more than doubling in 20 years. About 33 percent of Americans are overweight, while more than 34 percent are obese, according to U.S. government figures.

A restaurant calorie information rule took effect in New York City last year, and more than a dozen states are considering similar provisions.

Unlike California, the Massachusetts regulations will cover items at restaurant drive-through windows, where about 65 percent of fast food is purchased, said Judy Grant of the healthy food advocacy group ValueTheMeal.org, citing the most recent draft of the rules.

Massachusetts also will not override regulations in municipalities that impose even stricter labeling rules at fast-food restaurants, she added. In California, for example, menu labeling rules passed in San Francisco, Santa Clara and San Mateo counties were nullified by the state law.

The rising obesity rate is "obviously important when you have a state that has created such success around healthcare reform," Massachusetts Department of Public Health spokesman Tom Lyons said.

In 2006, Massachusetts passed a law that requires virtually everyone to have health insurance or face tax penalties. For those earning less than the federal poverty level of $9,800 a year, coverage is free.

Some restaurant companies have objected to additional government regulations. In New York City, for example, some have fought the menu labeling rules with lawsuits.

Some chains instead support proposed legislation in the U.S. Congress known as the "Lean Act" that would require restaurants and grocery stores that serve prepared food to post calories on menus, menu boards or other similar ways.

Critics of that legislation say it would merely tuck calorie information at the back of menus or in a separate brochure. They say consumers need to know the nutritional value of meals because more people than ever are dining out.

"There was some sense that we should model it on the very large restaurant markets of California and New York City," Lyons said. "Many of the companies we will cover as part of the regulation will have already had to comply in those markets."

(Editing by Will Dunham)

[Nagishkaw 510]

How about having fast-food chains labeled as unsafe?

[Niels Bohr 72]

Massachusetts is slowly turning into California, without the $21 billion dollars deficit.

[pedroh 21]

How about having fast-food chains labeled as unsafe?

or maybe not as 'food'

and maybe some obvious advertisement.. like "Hey, yes... eating twice a day here will kill you"

[Nagishkaw 510]

That's even better.

[GaryC 7]

Woman says 'McDonald's diet' took off weight

Sara D. Davis / AP

RALEIGH, N.C. - Inspired by the documentary “Super Size Me,” Merab Morgan decided to give a fast-food-only diet a try. The construction worker and mother of two ate only at McDonald’s for 90 days — and dropped 37 pounds in the process.

It was a vastly different outcome than what happened in the documentary to filmmaker Morgan Spurlock, who put on 30 pounds and saw his health deteriorate after 5,000 calories a day of nothing but McDonald’s food.

Morgan, from Henderson, N.C., thought the documentary had unfairly targeted the world’s largest restaurant company, implying that the obese were victims of a careless corporate giant. People are responsible for what they eat, she said, not restaurants. The problem with a McDonald’s-only diet isn’t what’s on the menu, but the choices made from it, she said.

“I thought it’s two birds with one stone — to lose weight and to prove a point for the little fat people,” Morgan said. “Just because they accidentally put an apple pie in my bag instead of my apple dippers doesn’t mean I’m going to say, 'Oh, I can eat the apple pie.'"

'I had to think about what I was eating'

Spurlock, who turned his surprise-hit movie into a TV show on the FX network, isn’t talking about Morgan or the many other McDieters who have criticized his film and found success losing weight by eating healthy foods off the McDonald’s menu, said his publicist, David Magdael.

One person went so far as to make her own independent film about dieting at McDonald’s. “Me and Mickey D” follows Soso Whaley, of Kensington, N.H., as she spends three 30-day periods on the diet. She dropped from 175 to 139 pounds, eating 2,000 calories-a-day at McDonald’s.

“I had to think about what I was eating,” Whaley said. “I couldn’t just walk in there and say 'I’ll take a cinnamon bun and a Diet Coke.’ ... I know a lot of people are really turned off by the whole thought of monitoring what they are eating, but that’s part of the problem.”

As might be expected, McDonald’s also objected to the impressions left by Spurlock’s film. Walt Riker, the company’s vice president of corporate communications, said Oak Brook, Ill.-based company is pleased — but not surprised — that some customers have lost weight eating only at the fast-food giant.

Spurlock’s film “really spurred a backlash based on common sense,” Riker said.

1,400 calories a day

Morgan used nutritional information downloaded from McDonald’s Web site to create meal plans of no more than 1,400 calories a day. She only ate french fries twice, usually choosing burgers and salads. Those choices are a stark contrast with those made by Spurlock, who ate every menu item at least once.

At the end of the 90 days, she had dropped from 227 to 190 pounds.

“It feels great,” she said. “Because, the truth of the matter is that beauty is power, and if you’re fat, or your overweight, then people don’t really take you seriously.”

Dawn Jackson Blatner, a registered dietitian and spokeswoman for the American Dietetic Association, agreed that a low-calorie, McDonald’s-only diet can help people lose weight but said it may not offer enough long-term variety. Whatever an individual does to lose weight, they need to do for the rest of their life, she said.

Morgan said she hasn’t decided if she will stick with the McDonald’s-only plan to reach her goal of 150 pounds. But she does have one complaint about McDonald’s.

“If I could suggest anything to McDonald’s, I would suggest the McMargarita,” Morgan said. “Dine-in only, of course.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8916080/

[Ban Hammer 13,346]

How about having fast-food chains labeled as unsafe?

just ban then. that's what the libs want anyways.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

NYC already does this. Every time I'm there and in a fast food joint the effect it has on my consumption behavior is to get me to pick the lesser of the evil. It doesn't dissuade me from eating evil though. I'm still not forking over cash for rabbit food. But I'll gladly skip on the bacon.

[Peikko 1,575]

Woman says 'McDonald's diet' took off weight

Sara D. Davis / AP

RALEIGH, N.C. - Inspired by the documentary "Super Size Me," Merab Morgan decided to give a fast-food-only diet a try. The construction worker and mother of two ate only at McDonald's for 90 days — and dropped 37 pounds in the process.

It was a vastly different outcome than what happened in the documentary to filmmaker Morgan Spurlock, who put on 30 pounds and saw his health deteriorate after 5,000 calories a day of nothing but McDonald's food.

Morgan, from Henderson, N.C., thought the documentary had unfairly targeted the world's largest restaurant company, implying that the obese were victims of a careless corporate giant. People are responsible for what they eat, she said, not restaurants. The problem with a McDonald's-only diet isn't what's on the menu, but the choices made from it, she said.

"I thought it's two birds with one stone — to lose weight and to prove a point for the little fat people," Morgan said. "Just because they accidentally put an apple pie in my bag instead of my apple dippers doesn't mean I'm going to say, 'Oh, I can eat the apple pie.'"

'I had to think about what I was eating'

Spurlock, who turned his surprise-hit movie into a TV show on the FX network, isn't talking about Morgan or the many other McDieters who have criticized his film and found success losing weight by eating healthy foods off the McDonald's menu, said his publicist, David Magdael.

One person went so far as to make her own independent film about dieting at McDonald's. "Me and Mickey D" follows Soso Whaley, of Kensington, N.H., as she spends three 30-day periods on the diet. She dropped from 175 to 139 pounds, eating 2,000 calories-a-day at McDonald's.

"I had to think about what I was eating," Whaley said. "I couldn't just walk in there and say 'I'll take a cinnamon bun and a Diet Coke.' ... I know a lot of people are really turned off by the whole thought of monitoring what they are eating, but that's part of the problem."

As might be expected, McDonald's also objected to the impressions left by Spurlock's film. Walt Riker, the company's vice president of corporate communications, said Oak Brook, Ill.-based company is pleased — but not surprised — that some customers have lost weight eating only at the fast-food giant.

Spurlock's film "really spurred a backlash based on common sense," Riker said.

1,400 calories a day

Morgan used nutritional information downloaded from McDonald's Web site to create meal plans of no more than 1,400 calories a day. She only ate french fries twice, usually choosing burgers and salads. Those choices are a stark contrast with those made by Spurlock, who ate every menu item at least once.

At the end of the 90 days, she had dropped from 227 to 190 pounds.

"It feels great," she said. "Because, the truth of the matter is that beauty is power, and if you're fat, or your overweight, then people don't really take you seriously."

Dawn Jackson Blatner, a registered dietitian and spokeswoman for the American Dietetic Association, agreed that a low-calorie, McDonald's-only diet can help people lose weight but said it may not offer enough long-term variety. Whatever an individual does to lose weight, they need to do for the rest of their life, she said.

Morgan said she hasn't decided if she will stick with the McDonald's-only plan to reach her goal of 150 pounds. But she does have one complaint about McDonald's.

"If I could suggest anything to McDonald's, I would suggest the McMargarita," Morgan said. "Dine-in only, of course."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8916080/

If calorie counting was the only aspect of healthy eating, what a no brainer, it wouldn't matter what individually portioned and calorie counted foods you chose to eat. However, it's not that simple, is it? There are many aspects of a 'monoculture' diet that would be worrying, and in the case of fast food, the high doses of sodium would be a extremely troubling, although in the short term of course one probably would not notice.

[Peikko 1,575]

NYC already does this. Every time I'm there and in a fast food joint the effect it has on my consumption behavior is to get me to pick the lesser of the evil. It doesn't dissuade me from eating evil though. I'm still not forking over cash for rabbit food. But I'll gladly skip on the bacon.

It really depends if you actually believe something is bad for you, I mean actually harmful as apposed to thinking it might affect your weight a little...I think mostly because the bad effects are slow, the cause and effect not directly connected it leads to a certain amount of complacency if not downright incredulity.

Edited May 13, 2009 by Madame Cleo

[GaryC 7]

Damn I am hungry now. I could go for a double quarter pounder with cheeze and some french fries right now.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

NYC already does this. Every time I'm there and in a fast food joint the effect it has on my consumption behavior is to get me to pick the lesser of the evil. It doesn't dissuade me from eating evil though. I'm still not forking over cash for rabbit food. But I'll gladly skip on the bacon.

It really depends if you actually believe something is bad for you, I mean actually harmful as apposed to thinking it might affect your weight a little...I think mostly because the bad effects are slow, the cause and effect not directly connected it leads to a certain amount of complacency if not downright incredulity.

que

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Damn I am hungry now. I could go for a double quarter pounder with cheeze and some french fries right now.

Skip to 5:24: