[lethargus]

I believe this will just keep the moderately health conscious people being health conscious but will leave the ignorant unchanged and continue to make poor food choices. Take McDonald's packaging for example. They have been putting nutrition information on their packages for some time now but do you think that deters Joe Blow from ordering his super duper extra large king size Coke and fries?

Do you really need nutritional information hitting you in the face to realize that deep fried chicken that you're going to eat is bad for you?

It's not as if they use this information to decide between a hoagie and a salad. They use it to decide if they should get the huge hoagie or the one a couple of inches smaller.

[thehigherlife]

Having it on the package is a little different though since you don't find out about the calories until after you order. When the counts are before you make the decision it may have a more profound effect.

[lethargus]

Yes I know, seeing it on the package after you order it couldn't possibly stop you from repeating the same mistake and avoid ordering it the next 100 times.

[jerhinesmith]

I think you're giving too much credit to memory. Even though I've looked at the nutritional information on my fish sandwich the last three or four times I ordered it, I honestly cannot give you even a rough estimation of the calorie count -- nor would I be able to have an informed opinion the next time I'm in line and trying to decide between the fish and a big mac.

On the other hand, having that information displayed prior to ordering not only makes it readily apparent, but it also removes the burden of forcing the consumer to be constantly carrying around past nutritional information in their head.

[lethargus]

Do you really think that either are a healthy choice? You're comparing two poor choices with each other and both will likely have the same outcome if eaten regularly. No nutritional label is going to change that.

Also, you're making the assumption that people can make a proper choice after reading a nutritional label. I could show someone that is less informed the nutritional data for various pieces of fish (that hasn't been breaded or deep fried) and they would think the fat and cholesterol content means that it's horrible for you when in fact fish has been shown to be beneficial.

[jerhinesmith]

Do you really think that either are a healthy choice?

No, not necessarily.

You're comparing two poor choices ...

Of which one is most certainly less poor. Granted, neither might be optimal, but if you've reached the point that you're reading the nutrition information, chances are you've already chosen where you're going to eat. Are you saying that making the slightly healthier choice would somehow be sub-optimal given the situation?

Also, you're making the assumption that people can make a proper choice after reading a nutritional label.

Yes, and that might be the wrong assumption when given the choice between apples and oranges; however, when contemplating a large fry vs. a medium fry (or a large anything vs. a smaller version of the same thing), the proper choice should most definitely be clear.

[sounddust]

Even if it only makes moderately health-conscious people more healthy, it will still be a net benefit to the overall health and productivity of Americans. And if it reduces healthcare costs of the average American by even a minuscule amount, it will easily compensate for the effort required to put up the calorie coutns (which is honestly not very hard nor expensive)

[lethargus]

The moderately health-conscious person is not the average American. The average American is ignorant and overweight and has led a life of poor eating choices. Not because of lack of information, but because of lack of caring and lack of habit. No nutritional label is going to change that.

Unfortunately the government is in the business of creating illusions. As long as we slap a label on something we create the illusion that we are making progress.

This is along the same lines that the government thinks they are making school lunches healthier by adding a fruit cup with their food but pay no attention to that fruit cup being loaded with sugar because of the heavy syrup in the container.

It just creates the illusion that we are doing something healthy, but not actually fixing the problem.

I do not believe that there is much we can do about the majority of adult Americans, but we could start shaping the future for the children and foster proper eating habits from the beginning.

[sounddust]

When I said the "average" American, I meant the mathematical mean. That is to say, if the health-conscious people get slightly healthier and the rest stay the same, that pulls the average up slightly, which means less medical bills on average (again, mathematical mean) and greater average productivity.

I don't disagree with most of your points, but at the same time I don't see why there's any reason this law should not exist; it's easy to implement and does help some people. This law is not the health care solution; it's one tiny part of it.

I think that the article is arguing that since this law will not have a major impact on Americans' health, it should not be implemented. I'm arguing that it's a good law because it makes sense to provide basic information on food, and it's not an unreasonable hassle to do so.

[lethargus]

The burden placed on the healthcare system are not by health conscious people but rather the people making poor lifestyle/food choices.

First, do you think that a health conscious person really needs that label to make a choice? Chances are they are conscious enough to make the proper choice to begin with. They are also probably making choices between items that are healthier than what an average person eats from a typical fast food joint.

Second, if they are already health conscious, I would go so far as to say they, on average, use the healthcare system the least in terms of ailments caused by poor food choices. So if you take a slightly healthy person and possibly make them marginally healthier, are they really using the healthcare system less, as a whole, to make a difference?