Sep 12 2007
The Government’s Cheeseburger
The Chicago Tribune reported today that, “Mayors and state legislators nationwide have weighed in on the obesity crisis by targeting fast-food companies and the way they cook and market their burgers and chicken.”
Some of my closest friends have accused me of being an exclusive proteinovore. I get low points in diversity because I am not very tolerant of carbs, or so they say, and I like my meat close to breathing. So I may not be the most objective party when it comes to dieting, however, I also have low tolerance for government intervention in business.
In this particular case the problem is gluttony. Christians talk about IT, movies cash in on IT, and Americans love IT. And when I mean we love it, we really love it.
So at the risk of offending a few people, I’d say we are the problem not the fast-food companies. As Chris Rock says, no drug dealer ever has to worry about how they’ll sell their stash of crack, because crack sells itself. In America food is like crack, it sells itself because we are addicted to having more and more and more of IT. Fast food companies are enablers, but they’re not at fault for our gluttony.
However, not all is lost in America:
A federal judge in New York signaled Tuesday that regardless of how strenuously health advocates plead, it isn’t easy to insinuate the government between a diner and his or her fries. In a closely watched case, U.S. District Judge Richard Holwell struck down a local rule that required fast-food restaurants to post calorie counts on their menus.
New York went ahead with a calorie counting rule, but who’s to say that any of us understand the whole calories counting thing. As I said, I was accused of not following FDA’s recommendations by overdoing it on protein and discriminating against carbs, and I’ll admit I have no clue about calorie counting with the exception of the fact that I know if something has calories it means it can be set on fire.
In fact, that’s how chemists and physicists count calories, because a calorie is nothing else but a method of measuring energy consumption.
The Calorie you see on a food package is actually a kilocalorie, or 1,000 calories … The original method used to determine the number of kcals in a given
food directly measured the energy it produced.The food was placed in a sealed container surrounded by water–an apparatus known as a bomb calorimeter. The food was completely burned and the resulting rise in water temperature was measured. This method is not frequently used today. SciAm.com, May 19, 2003.
The food labels though are dictated by an Act not by a science textbook. Yes, The Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990.
…most of the calorie values in the USDA and industry food tables are based on an indirect calorie estimation made using the so-called Atwater system. In this system, calories are not determined directly by burning the foods. Instead, the total caloric value is calculated by adding up the calories provided by the energy-containing nutrients: protein, carbohydrate, fat and alcohol. Because carbohydrates contain some fiber that is not digested and utilized by the body, the fiber component is usually subtracted from the total carbohydrate before calculating the calories. SciAm.com, May 19, 2003
Did you get that? An indirect calorie estimation.
And who has to gain from this Act? Dietitians. And you thought this Act was favoring those with girth issues?
Over the past year, restaurateurs who wanted to keep nutritional claims on their menus have taken one of two courses of action to meet the requirements of the NLEA. Some have worked with a registered dietitian to create healthy menu items, while others have had their recipes or samples of their food analyzed by a dietitian. National Restaurant Association, April 1998.
According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, employment of nutrition is expected to grow up 10 to 20% by 2010.
So there you have it, no one knows what’s in our food but the FDA and the registered dieticians. If you really want to know how many calories you’re eating, place your food in a sealed container surrounded by water and burn it. Measure the temp of the water and you’ll get your kcals. One kcal is the amount energy (heat) that will raise the temperature of one kilogram of water one degree Celsius. What does that mean to our bodies? Well here’s the trick, it really depends on how the body metabolizes the food, what level of activity one gets etc. “The exact increase in fat tissue also depends on the form of energy intake. For example, food consisting mainly of fat can be converted into fat tissue quite efficiently, whereas carbohydrates cannot. Similarly, the exact conversion efficiency of food energy into physical power also depends on the exact form of energy source (type of food) and on the type of physical energy usage (e.g. which muscles are used, whether the muscle is used aerobically or anaerobically).” (Wikipedia, Food Energy)
So don’t sweat it, no matter what the results are someone who knows nothing about science will argue with you about the calorie content of what you just burned.
7 responses so far
I agree that there is some degree of individual responsibility that has to take place. And I also think that a McDonald’s Double Quarter Pounder w/ cheeese tastes significantly better than it naturally should. Nothing I’ve seen the government do has changed his fact. So McD is selling more food than ever with the added benefit of appearing to be a good citizen through abiding by government regulation. I feel much safer eating my Double QP w/cheese. All is well.
Personally I think these guys (Corporations and Government) are all in collusion to take my money, and they’re doing a damn good job of it as evidenced by the fact that I keep giving it to them. I wonder what the kcal of my bank account is?
Hey Mel, yeah nothing really can stop us from eating what we want, no label or government (short of making food illegal and then I’ll be the first to start my own underground commerce and get filthy rich). I know quite a few people who see nutritionists on a regular basis (as in every week). They swear by it, and I think it’s great that they’re working at improving their diets. I also think it’s sad that we need to resort to having someone not only re-teach us how to eat but also continually observe our eating (otherwise I can’t explain the weekly visits). But I can see how it is necessary especially for those who have health issues from over-eating.
A factor in our American gluttony is that food here is very cheap. And fast-food is the cheapest. As having had worked with the homeless in Chicago I know that their primary source of affordable meals (outside meal programs at shelters and day programs) are fast food places. You get the food warm, quick and they always have the $1 deals.
It’s expected that starting this fall food prices will rise around the globe. Wheat futures were at their highest in 11 years both in the US and Europe. Others also blame the past year’s weather and ethanol for the rising prices.
So short of setting our bank accounts in flames to see their kcal count, we’ll see if Americans are able to see a change in their food budgets and adjust accordingly.
I have two responses:
(1) Calories are very useful in accounting for our food consumption, even if they are not precisely measured. So I really think your point about “indirect estimation” is besides the point.
(2) I see no reason why our government cannot intervene into the fast food industry. Forcing companies to post their food’s calorie content is a minor imposition, and one could argue important for responsible consumerism, instead of a “buyer beware” attitude.
Further, in our democratic government, if the will of the people is represented by their legislators in imposing certain regulations on business, there is nothing wrong with that. To think otherwise places business outside the realm of democratic constraint, and is thus a form of right wing totalitarianism.
Hi Johnny,
I’m clearly not making my point clearly. We can’t place blame for our nutrition problems on companies, and we can’t expect the government to save our bodies for us. It’s a bit of an entitlement symptom to turn to the government to solve personal problems. If you’ve seen the European “smoking kills” labels on cigarette packs (they’re larger than life), you might think a better approach is to just place huge labels on hamburgers that say “eating this kills.” Short of that, food labels will give us an estimate of what’s in the food, and then we have to use our heads to decide if we want to eat that or not. People still smoke so even if we did start using “eating this kills” we’d still eat it.
I didn’t deny that calories, or rather kcals are useful in tracking food energy content, however the science is thin when it comes to FDA labels.
Point #2, you don’t see a reason why a democratic government cannot intervene and I don’t see a reason why the government should. Give me three good reasons why government should and I will consider changing my position.
And are you stating in the last comment that it’s the will of the people to force food labels on restaurants?
Mana,
And are you stating in the last comment that it’s the will of the people to force food labels on restaurants?
My statement was merely a hypothetical. If the will of the people was to enforce these restrictions, then it would be justified.
We can’t place blame for our nutrition problems on companies, and we can’t expect the government to save our bodies for us. I can meet you half way here, although I do think that companies bear some responsibility, a great amount of it rests on people’s choices. Are you saying that these companies bear no responsibility?
you don’t see a reason why a democratic government cannot intervene and I don’t see a reason why the government should. Give me three good reasons why government should and I will consider changing my position.
I was hoping you’d take the bait of my inflamatory rhetoric. I am not necessarily saying that the government should intervene in this case. What I am saying is that it is legitimate for a democratic society to constrain economic practices. I think your position is that it is always, and in every case, illigitimate for a government to intervene in the financial sphere. I’ll show you my reasons, if you show me yours.
aiight Johnny, good points and good conversation. I’ll noddle on the “I’ll show you my reasons, if you show me yours.” Man, that almost sounds intellectually dirty!
I disagree with you. Indeed, I?m not giving a ringing disagreement, but just sayin? what I think. I have my opinion, you have yours.