Maybe...but we certainly know which sells better. Have to agree, a good pie is great medicine.
Obamacare pizza surcharge
- Thread starter LDB
- Start date
Maybe...but we certainly know which sells better. Have to agree, a good pie is great medicine.
Which requirements? The proposal requires calorie counts be posted on "in store menus", meaning delivery orders are exempt. And if the burger places can do it, with all the different options available, pizza places can too. And the claim that it will cost them business is not credible - the price of the baked potato at Wendy's has gone from 99 cents to $1.49 [a 50% jump!] in just a few years, and we still buy them...
Calories matter to many people, and people have the right to be informed as to the content of what the restaurant is offering. Whether they choose to make good use of it is up to the individual, but they can't use it if they don't know what it is. Contrary to one assertion, the information is NOT already known, and a great many people DO care. I care: given a choice between items I like about equally, I generally choose the lower calorie [or fat] item. How can I, if I don't know the difference?
I notice they want the penalties for 'mistakes' to be modified, lol - are they anticipating many 'mistakes', you think?
The stadium parking lot in Louisville is the closest I ever get to Papa John's, and that's way closer than I ever get to Domino's, lol. I like pizza - just not theirs.
Actually they're not exempt. The regulations require the calorie counts to appear wherever there is a worded menu for customers, whether it's dine-in, carry-out or delivery.
And every time the menu changes, new menus must be created. There are a few cities like NYC, Seattle, San Francisco, Philadelphia, Portland, that already have similar laws in place, and it's what inspired them to be put into Obamacare. The result is, menus in those cities don't change very often, there are few "limited time only" offerings, forces restaurants to be slow to adapt to customer's wants, reduces new restaurant openings, and has reduced jobs in those restaurants. I'm a long-time subscriber to the top restaurant industry publication, Nation's Restaurant News, where they have had dozens of articles dealing with the problems individual restaurants and chains have had with these laws in the cities where they exist. The big burger joints and other large chain restaurants have had fewer difficulties, except for non-fast food places like Olive Garden, Macaroni Grill and other sit-down restaurants like who have had considerable problems, but for the pizza places it's been a disaster.
The National Restaurant Association fought these regulations in the cities that have them, but found it a loosing battle. So it's ironic that they (led by the largest fast food places like Wendy's and McDonalds) were the one who helped get these regulations into Obamacare. They were not at all happy with the different regulations between cities, because it created too much of a difference between national locations. So, they wanted one national standard to go by. They now regret their part in getting these regulations included in Obamacare.
You'd think that, but no. At least not without great cost and difficulty.
Actually the claim is very credible. The numbers in the cities where these regulations are in effect prove that it costs them business, due to scaled back menus and menus that are more resistant to change in response to what customers want. Customers simply go elsewhere. Restaurants who are able to more quickly change their menus are losing fewer customers because of this, but the cost of changing the menus is greater than the customer retention. The numbers don't lie, and they're pretty brutal in many cases, especially with pizza places, Mexican and Italian restaurants.
Weeeellll, "many" is a relative term. Saying calories matter to many people, without really knowing how many is many, is more of a feel-good statement coming from something that sounds like it's a good thing. Industry numbers and research shows that calories don't matter to very many people at all. No matter how much calorie information is on the menu list, people still choose the food they like, not what's supposed to be healthier.
Carnegie Mellon University completed a rather exhaustive study (one study over 2 years and 30 separate studies over the same time period) that despite the good intentions of regulations requiring restaurants to post calorie counts of each menu item, such mandates do very little to actually change people’s behavior.
Ah, that's the question, the answer to which shouldn't be assumed. They had the information, and chose not to use it. But was it enough information? In addition to the above studies, because of the results, Carnegie Mellon did 28 additional studies to answer the big question, "If people were given a little more information to help put those calorie counts in context, would they choose a lower-calorie item?"
The studies were done in different cities (NYC, Philadelphia, Seattle and San Francisco), using McDonalds and six other fast food chains as subjects, during breakfast, twice at lunch, and at dinner time for each. In one example, for example, researchers staked out two New York City McDonald’s restaurants at lunchtime, one in Manhattan, and one in Brooklyn, and found 1,121 adults, ages 18 to 89, to participate that day. At both restaurants, calorie counts were prominently displayed as is mandated in New York City. Prior to ordering, one group received a sheet of paper with the recommended calories for a single meal (650 calories for women and 800 calories for men), a second group received information about recommended calories for a day (2000 calories for women and 2400 for men), and a third group received no instructions (same as the other studies).
What they found was: The presence of additional information about recommendations for meal or daily eating had no impact on food choice. A majority of men and women ate more than the recommended intake for a meal, and neither type of information had an impact on the number of calories consumed, compared to the group with no information. About one-third of the study participants ate more than 1,000 calories in the meal, which is the typical meal choice for an average lunch at McDonalds. The food items ordered did not deviate at all from a normal lunch period at McDonalds, nor did they deviate between groups with and without information. The results of this example on that day at McDonalds exactly mirrored that of the other days at the other restaurants.
So now, without even knowing how many "many" is, we've taken it up a notch to "a great many."
Of those in the study on that particular day in Manhattan and in Brooklyn, three people (out of 1,121) indicated they intentionally altered their food choice because of the information they received prior to ordering. Three. That's .0027 percent. So no, "many" people really don't care. That's not "a great many." It's not even a "many." It's statistically "zero."
I don't doubt you at all, but the studies (of Carnegie Mellon as well as plenty of others) show that even when people exactly the caloric count of their choices, they'll go for whatever they want to eat without regard to calories. The exception of course are those who are intentionally counting calories, but they aren't choosing between two equally likable foods, they are choosing primarily on caloric count, not taste or what they really want.
The study found no difference between overweight and healthy-weight participants in their food choice behaviors, the obese group did not choose higher calories than the healthy weight group. And both groups (informed and uninformed) underestimated the calories consumed in a meal, a finding supporting the earlier research.
The data from the research absolutely supports the idea that the overwhelming majority of consumers choose taste, value, and convenience over nutrient density and controlled calories. Of course, since these studies were done at fast-food restaurants, the results might not apply to other types of restaurants, like the sit-down restaurants where convenience, and sometimes value, aren't the primary factors involved in food choice.
The conclusions of the study was not that restaurants should do away with displaying calorie counts and calorie recommendations at all, though. As they state in the research, one of the study's limitations is that the research specifically failed to examine those who routinely used the calorie counts and did eat less. Because for some people, although a small minority, it’s a helpful tool. But those people tended to be people who already used calorie counts as a major factor in food choice. These are not the people who walk into a McDonalds and see a Big Mac at 500 calories and a Fillet-O-Fish at 230 calories and just go with the fish - they already knew what the calorie counts were, at least roughly, when they walked in.
Yes, they are anticipating many mistakes, because NYC, Philly, Seattle, San Francisco, et al, have shown them that many mistakes happen, and they happen often, even when the restaurants are tying their best to not let mistakes happen.
Myth: Eat Fewer Calories If You Want to Lose Weight | Modern Health Monk Fat is bad, bad, bad, and counting calories is the best way to eat healthy and lose weight, right?
Why are SO many people begging for the government to intrude into their lives? Is it not better for people to live their lives as they wish too WITHOUT government involved in it? 