should restaurants label for calories?

I wrote an article recently on compulsory calorie labelling in the US, and asked some chefs and others in the food area in Ireland if the same should happen here. I have to say I wasn't expecting the chefs to be overly supportive of the idea, but I was suprised at the sheer range of disagreement. Compulsory calorie labelling in Ireland might take some time...

Imagine walking into a restaurant and seeing the calorie count of the meal you are about to have on an overhead display or on the menu? Would you think twice about that big juicy option? This is currently the situation in New York, where there has been an inordinate amount of twoing and frowing between representatives of the restaurant industry and fast food chains on the one hand, and food advocacy groups, pubic health officials and Major Bloomberg�s administration on the other.

During the summer, calorie labelling became compulsory for standard portions in all manner of standardised eateries, from sandwich bars to fast food chains in New York. Restaurants with more variable dishes, menus and portion sizes were exempt. The legislation required that the calorie count be prominently displayed on menus in the same font, and be the same size as the price.

However, after much pressure from the New York Restaurant Association and others, a federal court last September found against the initiative. However, the situation has since further developed, with the reintroduction of an amended version of the ruling. As and from October 24^th last, it has been compulsory for chain restaurants to display calorie information on menus.

According to Professor Marion Nestle of New York University, the average US citizen consumes around 3,900 calories per day � twice what they need. The New York City Department of Health (NYCDH) claims that that people eat more when they eat out: they claim that adults eat one third more calories while children consume twice as many calories when eating out as compared to eating a home coked meal.

According to research conducted by the NYCDH, only 3% of customers saw or accessed calorie information in a selection of chains, whereas 31% of customers did so in Subway, where calorie labelling was on menus beside the cash registers. These customers also consumed about 634 calories, 50 less than those in the other chains, according to the research.

All across the US, similar initiatives have been undertaken, where obesity rates are soaring. 20 states have brought in some type of similar legislation, with the Californian effort being the most high profile: there, unlike Bloomberg in New York, Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed SB120, California�s restaurant nutrition labelling law. According to the California Center for Public Health Advocacy, 84% of Californians supported calorie labelling on menus.

There is little doubt that in almost all other areas of food, there is an abundance of information easily accessible. It is also the case that eating out can no longer simply be seen as a treat; the jumbo breakfast role is eaten outside of the home, after all.

So could or should the same thing happen on this side of the Atlantic? Perhaps unsuprizingly, those in the industry have a plethora of problems with any such move. I canvassed responses from across the food system.

Delphi restaurant in Connemara got straight to it: �Ludicrous. Impractical, inaccurate, misleading and thus meaningless�.

Jacques Barry, from Jacques in Cork were equally against the idea: �We here in Jacques would hate that idea as we feel the sourcing of food is way better than the calorific value of food. If one eats a proper balanced diet of freshfruit, vegetables, meat, fish and cheese that is enough. Analyising the calorific content takes away from the joy and pleasure of food. All the food we cook in Jacques comes from Cork County as we have such wonderful produce and the biggest coastline in Ireland�.

Brid Torrades, of Osta wine bar, the Atrium caf� and the newly opened Tobergal lane, all in Sligo, was equally dismissive of the idea. �If something like that comes in, I think it�d be time to hang up the apron� she tells me. �Chefs would be doing sums rather than cooking. Already the paperwork and the records that have to be kept are burdensome .This would take the whole spontaneity away from cooking.�

She goes on: �If you are making a sauce, or a la carte cooking, where you have to adjust things, they�ll never be accurate.�

Ross Lewis of Chapter One in Dublin is also unconvinced; �This approach would be barking up the wrong tree. I don�t see how they could calculate that. We take in 2-300 products per week, to make the dishes we have. And we rotate very sensitively with the seasons, and that has its own merits. The food is more nutritious, better, and tastier.�

Ross and Brid disagree however, on whether the big boys should have to do display calorie count. In the Californian proposals, there was a limit of 14 outlets before the legislation was to be applicable. There are also restrictions in New York, where only 10% of eateries, those with 15 or more outlets, are affected. Importantly however, these provide over 30% of the food eaten outside the home.

�It�d be fine for contract, or industrial type catering. But for spontaneous cooking it would not work� according to Bird. However Ross is against compulsory labelling for calories, even for those producing the more standardised meals: �I�m against it in general. You can preach all you like, but people should get up off their arses and do their own homework as well. Look, no one thinks that you can go to McDonalds 4 times a week and remain underweight. They are only fooling themselves if they think they can. People need to develop a broader more holistic view of food. It�s up to people to find out�.

But just how easy is it to estimate? In Surrey, a unit from the local council tested 36 meals from restaurants and found some surprising results; Shepherd�s pie and mixed veg had just over half the calories of a Thai green curry with egg fried rice. The UKs� Food Commission underscored the difficulty consumers have; according to them, a McDonald�s Hot Fudge Sundae had 330 calories, whereas a shake can have up to 1160.

It is also the case that the healthy option can have secret, hidden sodium and fat: a winter root vegetable soup might, along with those seasonal, local vegetables also have more than a pinch of salt and a hearthy dollop of butter and cream. Who�s to know?

McDonalds� themselves gave me this response to the issue: �Mcdonalds has calorie labelling on its core products i.e. Big Mac, McChicken sandwich, filet of fish etc for the last 18 months. This info is available on tray liners in restaurants and on the Mcdonalds website�.

It is much the same for fast food chains in the US and UK, where this and other nutritional information is available on the trays and on websites. The problem is that this information is not accessible just before purchase, when many feel it would be most useful.

I asked McDonalds for their opinion on prominent display of compulsory calorie labelling before purchase, but received no response at time of going to press.

One Irish healthy food advocacy group I put the idea to expressed a mixed opinion. Dave Burns of Red Branch are an advocacy group that promotes healthy lifestyle options for children, with a particular focus on food. �I think something like that wouldn�t go amiss. But we in Red Branch don�t believe you should be telling people what to do, we think you should empower people to make up their own minds. You�ve got to give people the information they need to make an informed choice.�

However, Dave isn�t too optimistic: �But for what it�s worth, in our experience, and we�ve worked with parents and school children all over Ireland, we don�t think it would work. You might be better off with something like the traffic light labelling system�

This UK system uses the red, amber and green light sequence of traffic lights to grade three things: fat, saturates and salt in foods. �It�s clear and easy to use. If a product has a red light, red doesn�t mean that you stay away from something all the time. It�s not poison, it doesn�t mean avoid it altogether, but we all know about the deep fried Mars bars in Scotland � that would be a red light product. And what that�s telling you is; better not have too many of those�.

Guess what? The Shepherd�s Pie and mixed veg got three green lights in the Surrey survey above, and the thai green curry three reds. But with so much opposition, we may be a long way from seeing either the calorie count or traffic lights on menus here.

food labelling : what can the marketeers get away with?

Another non-organic article folks, though one surely of interest to organic types. Below is the full text of an article I had in the Examiner recently on food labelling.

Food labels and food labelling: the experts agree that it�s a minefield. Take E numbers. Legislation requires that they are listed on food labels.

According to the organisation that represents nutritionists and dieticians in Ireland, INDI, �contrary to popular belief, E numbers are additives that have passed EU safety tests. You should be more concerned if you see numbers without an E before them�.

However, a recent study has muddied the waters somewhat. Up until now, in the vast majority of cases, E numbers were tested individually, found to be safe and then labelled as such. But when a range of colouring additives and a particular common preservative were tested together for their combined effect, the results have proved to be worrying.

A recent University of Southampton study examined the effect of benzoate preservatives and the following artificial food colours: Tartrazine (E102) Ponceau 4R (E124) Sunset Yellow (E110) Carmoisine (E122) Quinoline Yellow (E104) Allura Red (E129).

According to professor of Psychology Jim Stevenson, who led the research; �We have now shown that for a large group of children in the general population, consumption of certain mixtures of artificial food colours and benzoate preservative can influence their hyperactive behaviour�.

In light of this research, the Food Safety Authority of Ireland (FSAI) have come out and stated that children who display symptoms of hyperactivity or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) should limit their consumption of these additives.

Whether all children or just those with these particular symptoms should avoid these additives is proving to be controversial. RedBranch is a not-for-profit organisation that promotes healthy lifestyle choices in Irish children and young people, primarily through schools. They suggest that the FSAI position doesn�t go far enough:

�The study found adverse effects in the general population, not just in children with ADHD, and this is not the first scientific study questioning the wisdom of adding cocktails of chemicals to children's food. We advise all parents to avoid these unnecessary additives�.

So even if it�s on the label, it may present a risk. So how exactly are food labels and labelling policed?

According to the authorities, labelling should not be false or misleading. The FSAI point to 11 key areas, some compulsory, some dependant upon other factors: Name of product, list of ingredients, quantity of certain ingredients, net quantity, date of minimum durability, special storage conditions, name and address, origin, instructions for use, alcoholic beverages and nutrition labelling.

Many of these areas are common sense. For example, the list of ingredients is in descending order of weight. However, there are provisos. Take origin. Origin only has to be labelled if it is considered that its absence might mislead the consumer. I asked Dr. Jeff Moon of the Consumer Protection Unit in the FSAI about this. Specifically, I asked Jeff about the Irish chicken:

�In simple terms, if you say something comes from somewhere it has to be from there. But where there is a lot of processing going on here then you would be able to say it�s a product of Ireland. Take for example Chicken Kiev. Chicken can be imported into here, and processed. A sauce can be put into it, breadcrumbs put onto it, it can be cooked and presented in a way that�s ready to eat; that can then be considered an Irish product. If there is an indication that the actual chicken was Irish, and it wasn�t, that would be misleading. Basically it�s to do with how much processing and transformation the product goes through�.

INDI�s factsheet, while claiming that food labelling shouldn�t be misleading, points out just how difficult to understand labels can be. They point out that sodium is often labelled rather than salt. To calculate the accurate salt level, the sodium figure needs to be multiplied by 2.5. �Salt should be salt� according to Margot Brennan of INDI: �if you are in a shopping centre, and suddenly you come across sodium, and you are trying to multiply it by two and a half, it�s hugely confusing for people�.

INDI�s factsheet also states that if a product is making an endorsed health claim, there are criteria. For example, a product must have less than 5% fat to be labelled low fat: so �90% fat-free� means 10% fat and thus high fat.

Marketers really do test the limits: According to Dave Burns from RedBranch: �If you look at breakfast cereals, they often advertise themselves as high in calcium. The calcium often comes from chalk�The manufacturer is then able to make a claim, by adding a very cheap ingredient to a highly processed food�.

But wait, there�s more: �some fruit drinks have only 10% fruit, but have fruit in the name, and pictures of fruit all over the packet. You�d have to drink 50 200ml bottles for one litre of actual fruit juice�.

As so often is the case, there is legislation on the way to try to catch up with these sorts of claims. But when, as Margot Brennan suggests, �the marketers will push it as far as they can� these very marketers seem to be leading the dynamic.

note: for more, see the new FSAI publication : The labelling of Food in Ireland 2007

Spot the hidden sugar:

Sports drinks and energy drinks are extremely well marketed. Sugar in the form of glucose and water are often the main ingredients. Glucose is one way sugar hides. Here are some others, all of which will raise your blood sugar levels:

Sucrose, fructose, glucose syrup, golden syrup, maple syrup, treacle, fruit juices, invert sugar, honey, dextrose, maltose.