The shape of things

A new study was recently published that found that children who were given food (food from fries to carrots) that were in a McDonald's wrapper thought it tasted better than food not wrapped in the golden arches. Interesting. Or is it? The researchers blame marketing. They say that McDonald's unfairly targets children - who are vulnerable - and could be another reason for the increase in childhood obesity.

McDonald's spokesman says that's not the case. In fact, he points out the recent efforts of the huge Shrek promotion that encouraged kids to eat more vegetables and fruits. He also says that the only advertising McDonalds does to children is for the Happy Meal - which he says is well rounded and only 375 calories total. (Good point).

As a kid, there was something about McDonalds that was just so alluring. Maybe it was all the fatty foods or maybe the cuddly characters (remember the hamburglar?) It's been almost 20 years since those days, and I'm pretty sure that McDonalds retired those lovable characters a long time ago - if not they have in their tv advertising.

Recently I was in the gym locker room changing for my workout and the TV was tuned in to Nickelodeon. I wasn't really paying attention until the commercials came on and every kid in the room seemed to be glued to the TV. I sighed, thinking "what's going to happen with this generation when they become adults"... and then something incredible happened. Every single commercial played during that break was about either being active, exercising, eating healthy, and getting enough fruits and vegetables. I was floored!

So maybe despite this study that found that McFood is better than normal food, marketing to children has improved since I was a kid. Yes, corporations still want kids to plead and beg their parents for the products they sell, but by being socially concious and ethical in their advertising they've cut back on the endless stream of sugary treats and cereals that I remember.

Of course that commercial break on Nickelodeon I saw could have been a fluke, just a one time healthy break, but if not, that's great news.

I read this article today about how fast food chains in NYC are going to give the mayor the finger... well, pretty much, ok - metaphorically. Anyway, they are refusing to post their calorie counts on their menu boards, saying that doing so would require them to make "times square size" menu boards and reading the menu board would be like "a bad trip to the eye doctor"

Man, they have a witty spokesman.

I posted on this about a week ago, and my opinions are still the same. The new New York City regulations are not only unfair (they only apply to certain restaurants and fast food joints) but they are also very idealistic and impractical. I mean, Mr. Bloomberg, think about it. You go into McDonalds and the menu board is so huge it wraps around two walls. Talk about overwhelming. And seriously, most people know what they are going to order when they walk in (like an All American Meal with Diet Coke), so they don't even need to look at the board.

This whole regulation affected me personally a few days ago (and I'm not in NYC, I live in stinkin' Baton Rouge, LA). A colleague and I were talking about Cold Stone Creamery and I went to their Website to get the nutritional information just in case we made the (bad) decision to get some cold stone. I've been to their site before, and I knew that they offered a very comprehensive breakdown of all of their menu items... so imagine my surprise (and disgust) when I read this:

"We regret that Cold Stone Creamery can no longer publicly post nutritional information on our website. This development is a result of the New York City Department of Health's decision to pass a regulation requiring restaurants that already publicly provide caloric information, to post product calories on their menu boards - using the same type size as the product listing.

We fully support the intent of this regulation; however, since most of our products are made-to-order, there simply isn't enough room on our existing menu boards to comply with the regulation. As a result, we will no longer be able to provide nutritional information on our website or to residents and customers of our New York City stores. We regret this inconvenience." Check it out

Thanks a lot New York City. Of course, I immediately went to calorieking.com where they did have the information still, but seriously, this is causing all the wrong repercussions. What's next? NYC will spoon feed their residents to curb obesity? Is this still a free society? My goodness.

What are your thoughts?

MSN put together this very interesting feature that tells you the calorie and fat information for popular chain restaurant meals and then gives you two options on how to slash both the calories and fat. (Don't worry, the options aren't just "eat half").

Since we know that chefs don't count calories and that eating out can be very dangerous (health and diet-wise) we could all benefit from these tips. 

Here's an example of one of their menu items: PF Chang's Sriracha Shrimp Salad

If you order this as is, you'll get a whopping 1,130 calories and 46 g fat. Eek. For a salad?? 

If you want it better, MSN suggests you ask for the salad without the candied papaya, which contain a whopping half-cup of sugar. The new count: Better: 600 cal, 42 g fat

And if you're feeling angelic, order the salad without the papaya and without the pine nuts and you'll only have to deal with 420 cal, 23 g fat, which means you save 710 cal, 23 g fat! Good for you. 

The article has menu items from Chilis, Arbys, Ruby Tuesdays, Pizza Hut, On the Border and a few more. 

The idea is great - do you have any calorie and fat saving strategies for your favorite menu items?  

A restaurant trade group sued New York City over what they feel is an unconstitutional law that would require some restaurants to list calories counts on their menu boards next to items.

The group feels that the law is unfair since it only applies only to a small group of restaurants - which targets big national fast food chains - most of them already have made efforts to tell the public about the nutrition of their menu items.

As much as I'm for being open and honest about nutritional value of restaurant food - I agree with the trade group. If there's going to be a law about posting nutritional facts, it needs to apply to all restaurants.

I also don't think it is necessary to post the content smack-dab on the menu board or on the menu. Instead, I believe, the information should be in the form of a pamphlet that interested diners can glance over.

But I want to know what you think? Do you agree with the group suing the city? Do you think calorie counts should be screaming at you from the menu?

Need to read more... check out the article