As Ezra Klein writes, we're very good at under-estimating the number of calories in our meals and we're paying the price. He cites a Health Impact Assessment (pdf) that concludes that if 20% of all large-chain patrons cut their meals by 75 calories, we could slash 58% of the "6.75 million pound average annual weight gain in the county population aged 5 years and older."
The argument against menu-labeling goes something like this. Calorie-counting is expensive, it stifles kitchen-innovation because chefs feel enslaved by menu that went to the lab, it hurts local growers because their produce has more caloric diversity, and it won't make much of a difference anyway.
I don't agree. I have trouble believing that this law will impose an undue burden on restaurants in, say, Washington, DC, if they've already printed all the nutrition facts in New York City. These are large-scale chains, after all. Why can't other Americans have access to the nutrition numbers that New Yorkers are now accustomed to?
And if there's any innovation in the kitchen, I hope it's in the direction of less lardy. I like a deep-fried Bloomin' Onion as much as the next guy. But I also like my heart, and if I'm going to deep-fry my arteries, I would at least like the privilege of looking my enemy right between the numbers.
This article available online at:
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2009/05/in-praise-of-calorie-counting/17749/
