Denny's is being sued...

[Robyn1007]

Seriously? One doesn't expect a meal with bacon, ham, sausage, cheese and pancakes to have a high level of sodium?

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory?id=8155848

[Canice]

No one has to know anything, learn anything, or take any responsibility for his own choices. It's all someone else's problem.
Reminds me of the English boyfriend I had who used to look around hopefully for someone to sue before he headed back to London (jokingly, of course).

[ChristyMarie]

Good grief. This is why one should have to pay all court costs if you file a suit without grounds? found to be stupid? ...I'm not using the right legal words but hopefully you get what I mean.

[blazedog]

This goes to disclosure of nutrition in menu items.

Studies have shown that some people will order differently when they see the actual figures.

Not everyone is nutritionally sophisticated -- I often realize people aren't aware of exactly how "bad" certain food items are. Even nutritionists when tested have severely underestimated the number of calories in what they are served and some foods do have surprising amounts of sodium.

Now that some cities are requiring chain restaurants to list nutrition on the menu, some of the results are really shocking -- like that 2200 calorie SALAD from California Pizza Kitchen.

[Robyn1007]

Denny's posts their nutrition facts online and I don't believe that restaurants should have to be in the business of educating their customers. It goes to personal responsibility.

[LakeMartinGal]

Originally Posted by Robyn1007

Denny's posts their nutrition facts online and I don't believe that restaurants should have to be in the business of educating their customers. It goes to personal responsibility.

I agree. At some level, people have the responsibility of educating themselves. If you're told to reduce, say, salt in your diet, you're probably given a list of foods that are high in salt by your doctor! It's your responsibility, then, to order accordingly!

Originally Posted by Canice

No one has to know anything, learn anything, or take any responsibility for his own choices. It's all someone else's problem.

It's truly a mixed-up world, isn't it?

[blazedog]

Originally Posted by Robyn1007

Denny's posts their nutrition facts online and I don't believe that restaurants should have to be in the business of educating their customers. It goes to personal responsibility.

Personal responsibility would involve having information and then making a conscious decision.

Having information on-line or otherwise obscured has been shown to have almost no impact on people's information or choices because how many people research their food choices -- as opposed to looking at menu and SEEING exactly how many calories/sodium etc. they would be opting for.

This kind of information is now required to be prominently displayed in New York City and some other places and is only required of chain restaurants which have the information.

The only reason for not having the information available on the menu is because people might opt for other choices and because fat and salt are the cheapest ways to pander to people's tastes.

Centers for Science in the Public Interest doesn't sue companies frivolously. It is a non-profit organization and engages in great educational programs. Some of what it does deliberately is to create publicity - in this case so that some people might become aware of exactly how nutritionally bad the food is. Some of their other more "notorious" studies involved Chinese food and movie popcorn.

[Robyn1007]

And I believe that having it available online should be enough. I could get behind having a pamphlet available by request on site but I don't think a restaurant should be required to reprint everything they have to include nutrition. How do they decide what is important. To me I don't care about sodium (thank my genetics that I have extremely low blood pressure) but would care about calories, fat, sat fat, protein and carb (total, fiber, sugars). I'd also be interested in numbers for calcium and iron.

I just think we need to draw a line as to where we let our government control business practices. I would prefer the money that would be required to enforce such a policy be put toward education of both adults and children. An educated person can not only make the choices in the restaurant but then that information comes home with them for what they are eating at home.

[LakeMartinGal]

Originally Posted by blazedog

The only reason for not having the information available on the menu is because people might opt for other choices and because fat and salt are the cheapest ways to pander to people's tastes.

This is like the suit against McDonald's for the hot coffee. To me, that's a duh thing -- of course the coffee's hot! And, if you go to a restaurant like Denny's, you should expect that anything that taste's that good will be not-that-good for you! I agree with Robyn, that there has to be education, and it shouldn't be at the restaurant level! The information is out there, for anyone who cared to retrieve it. I think that's enough.

[blazedog]

I'm really not understanding why people are opposed to forcing large chains to provide nutritional information.

The chains have this information and it's relatively cheap for them to provide it on their menus.

Studies have shown that when information is available a significant number of people revise their choices.

At least to me this seems to be an elitist point of view -- i.e. if people are too stupid or lazy to realize that the food choices they are making are poor, let them die.

I am pretty sophisticated about nutrition and I am continually shocked when I see exactly what the numbers are for restaurant entrees.

In terms of weighing the good which can be achieved versus the burden/cost, I don't see why there should be opposition. To me it's not different than requiring cigarette manufacturers to post warnings -- people made the same DUH argument that everyone knows --well no they didn't and it was shown that cigarette manufacturers manipulated the tar/nicotine to make them more potent delivery systems of addiction in the same way as fat/salt is used to provide cheap fixes because it's harder and more expensive to make more nutritious foods.

In those municipalities which require labeling, small restaurants don't have to provide that information because it is onerous for them. Chains have the information and don't want to provide it prominently precisely because it might change eating habits.

[blazedog]

Originally Posted by LakeMartinGal

This is like the suit against McDonald's for the hot coffee. To me, that's a duh thing -- of course the coffee's hot! And, if you go to a restaurant like Denny's, you should expect that anything that taste's that good will be not-that-good for you! I agree with Robyn, that there has to be education, and it shouldn't be at the restaurant level! The information is out there, for anyone who cared to retrieve it. I think that's enough.

It's not as the McDonald's suit was a personal claim for damages. It was an odd decision but had nothing to do with company providing information which is NOT obvious to many.

Again, I am not understanding why providing information which the chains have to enable consumers to make more informed decisions is something that any rational person would be opposed to.

[LakeMartinGal]

Originally Posted by blazedog

It's not as the McDonald's suit was a personal claim for damages. It was an odd decision but had nothing to do with company providing information which is NOT obvious to many.

Again, I am not understanding why providing information which the chains have to enable consumers to make more informed decisions is something that any rational person would be opposed to.

I'm opposed to posting it on the menu. It would make the menus very cumbersome, for one thing. Having the info available in a brochure seems like enough for me. Maybe the compromise could be having the brochure at the table?

The tobacco warning is different because all tobacco is harmful, but not all food is. And I'm against the least-common-denominator type of legislation. Government 'protection' can so easily turn into government control. I'm conservative, so I think that the people can/should make their own decisions on some things, without interference, and bear the consequences.

[vbak]

Did anyone watch the video on that site to see what fat does to your arteries after just one day of binging? Very enlightening and pretty scary.

I rarely eat fast food, but when I do, I look at the at the nutritional info on the wall. And yes, I try to pick something healthier[ha, in a FF restaurant] or at least lower in f,sf, and sodium. A lawsuit? Come on, think for yourself.

Vicky

[blazedog]

Originally Posted by LakeMartinGal

I'm opposed to posting it on the menu. It would make the menus very cumbersome, for one thing. Having the info available in a brochure seems like enough for me. Maybe the compromise could be having the brochure at the table?

The tobacco warning is different because all tobacco is harmful, but not all food is. And I'm against the least-common-denominator type of legislation. Government 'protection' can so easily turn into government control. I'm conservative, so I think that the people can/should make their own decisions on some things, without interference, and bear the consequences.

The suit requires "disclosure" -- it doesn't state that it has to be on the menu. Of course, it should be someplace prominent so that people actually see it because studies show that when the nutritional information is prominently "disclosed", it does impact choices.

It is working in New York City where the chains are now disclosing after much kicking and screaming. And it has caused many chains who did not disclose ANYWHERE to post the information -- even if only on-line.

So I don't think we are in disagreement actually since nothing in the suit requires that it be on a menu -- pamphlets at the table would probably work as well.

I don't know where people think most people are getting advanced nutritional information. It's not taught in schools routinely. Most doctors don't have the time to really teach people about nutrition -- the most they do is a handout if a person has a condition like high blood pressure or diabetes 2 which can be helped by a change in a diet.

And I don't know what population you are dealing with -- a lot of fairly bright older people might have a vague idea of salt content when something tastes salty like a pickle - but they really don't know about hidden salt in biscuits or bread -- or how much salt is ADDED to food when cooked.

I remember a friend who is super conscious of calories being SHOCKED when she found out that a Starbucks muffin was close to 600 calories. She knew it as fattening but had no idea it was THAT fattening because she was basing her assumption on other muffins. Or many people assume that a Noah's bagel is a bagel rather than being close to six portions of bread.

Consumer protection is always a balance -- what level of knowledge do you assume versus the onerousness of the burden. One tries to leave out the self righteous assumption that people SHOULD get the information on their own because it is available somewhere when weighed against the benefit to the general population versus the detriment to the business -- here small burden versus potential great good.

[Robyn1007]

Originally Posted by blazedog

I'm really not understanding why people are opposed to forcing large chains to provide nutritional information.

The chains have this information and it's relatively cheap for them to provide it on their menus.

Studies have shown that when information is available a significant number of people revise their choices.

At least to me this seems to be an elitist point of view -- i.e. if people are too stupid or lazy to realize that the food choices they are making are poor, let them die.

I am pretty sophisticated about nutrition and I am continually shocked when I see exactly what the numbers are for restaurant entrees.

In terms of weighing the good which can be achieved versus the burden/cost, I don't see why there should be opposition. To me it's not different than requiring cigarette manufacturers to post warnings -- people made the same DUH argument that everyone knows --well no they didn't and it was shown that cigarette manufacturers manipulated the tar/nicotine to make them more potent delivery systems of addiction in the same way as fat/salt is used to provide cheap fixes because it's harder and more expensive to make more nutritious foods.

In those municipalities which require labeling, small restaurants don't have to provide that information because it is onerous for them. Chains have the information and don't want to provide it prominently precisely because it might change eating habits.

I'm not opposed to the information being provided, it already is! I'm opposed to groups which spend money on suits instead of education to get it posted in a different place. It's a matter of personal responsibility as to whether you're going to go look at it.

[lindrusso]

Actually, the scariest part of this whole article for me is the fact that this group tried to get Denny's to change its menu - lower the sodium - and when those efforts failed, they are now suing.

In addition: "The lawsuit filed against Denny's is CSPI's first sodium-related lawsuit against a food company. Separately, CSPI has petitioned the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to regulate salt as a food additive and to restrict sodium levels in various categories of food."

Allowing the consumer group to win this suit would give them way too much power. Help educate the consumer, encourage people not to go to Denny's, encourage them to eat out less often, work with doctors to make sure patients are getting the information they need, whatever. But to allow groups to start bullying businesses into changing their menus - that's the wrong way to go about it.

And in the end, it's STILL up to the consumer to educate themselves. Even having the nutritional content in front of you isn't enough because you still need to know something about how much sodium is OK - the numbers will be meaningless unless you have a some background information. You still need to make the effort to educate yourself. It's not the restaurant's responsibility to keep you healthy - it's your responsibility.

And frankly I don't believe the man cited in the lawsuit who has high blood pressure and claims that he was trying to live a healthier lifestyle. By going to Denny's? If he's really THAT concerned about his health, he could take 10 minutes to read up on it at the library or 5 minutes to call his doctor and ask. Even without knowing the exact sodium content, he would at least know that 3/4 of the stuff he was eating at Denny's (luncheon-style meat, ham, cheese, etc.) is notoriously high in sodium and should be avoided.

[blazedog]

Originally Posted by Robyn1007

I'm not opposed to the information being provided, it already is! I'm opposed to groups which spend money on suits instead of education to get it posted in a different place. It's a matter of personal responsibility as to whether you're going to go look at it.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest is a non-profit foundation which DOES spend money on education.

They attempted to educate but one of their tools is the lawsuit which provides publicity so that people talk about it and things change.

There is a long history of lawsuits that were launched for the common good and provided long lasting results -- tobacco springs to mind as well as lawsuits against the car industry. I don't know how many recall the lawsuit against the Pinto which was an extremely unsafe car because of the placement of the fuel tank which essentially exploded even in a relatively low speed collision. There was the infamous internal Ford memo in which the engineering department's request to change the tanks PRIOR to the lawsuit was vetoed because the cost of changing the tank (pretty cheap) was weighed against the cost of the lawsuits that might ensure by calculating the number of deaths.

But back on point, there can't be personal responsibility unless people are provided with the information. I know very few people who aren't of the educated sophisticated consumer class who go on-line to check out nutritional information for restaurants.

I am failing to see why anyone is against forcing chains to provide this information AT THE POINT OF SALE PROMINENTLY so that people can indeed make an informed RESPONSIBLE choice -- or not. To me that is the essence of how a healthy free market should operate.

[TKay]

I have no problem with the restaurant being asked to make the information available. What does bother me is the lack of personal responsibility people in our society take. It is mind-boggling and infuriating to me. And I don't think the issue is the same thing. I don't believe that people will suddenly stop eating those meals because of the sodium content. I think they'll just ignore the nutritional information and eat what they want anyway, then be outraged that nobody told them not to eat it. That's what they're doing now anyway. You can figure out on your own that bacon, sausage and whatever else is on the plate are high-sodium foods. It's not like that's news.

Oh, don't get me started on this victim mentality.

[lindrusso]

Originally Posted by blazedog

I don't know where people think most people are getting advanced nutritional information. It's not taught in schools routinely. Most doctors don't have the time to really teach people about nutrition -- the most they do is a handout if a person has a condition like high blood pressure or diabetes 2 which can be helped by a change in a diet.

And I don't know what population you are dealing with -- a lot of fairly bright older people might have a vague idea of salt content when something tastes salty like a pickle - but they really don't know about hidden salt in biscuits or bread -- or how much salt is ADDED to food when cooked.

The issue of forcing restaurants to provide nutritional information aside, do you really think having this information is going to help the population you find to be so helpless and clueless? Aren't the numbers essentially going to be completely meaningless unless the consumer has some idea of what is a healthy amount of fat or calories or sodium?

Many menus I have seen list the nutritional content, but there's no other information about context. If people are so unable to find this information, then how will they know whether 1200 calories for one meal is a lot or not?

Even if the restaurants provided RDA information it's not going to help much because it's a one-size-fits all tool. I certainly don't need as many calories per day as a much larger male. So I could eat within the RDA guidelines and still get fat and then do I blame the restaurant for not telling me that I shouldn't be eating 2,000 calories a day like the RDA states?

Similarly, someone on a low-sodium diet is going to have a very different appropriate level of sodium intake than someone like me who has low blood pressure and doesn't particularly need to watch sodium intake. Is the restaurant responsible for making sure they know how much sodium each individual should be getting in accordance to their doctor's recommendations?

Bottom line - consumers still need to educate themselves even if the restaurants DO provide nutritional information. In the end, providing nutritional information is really only going to help those of us who have taken the time to educate ourselves in the first place and this is NOT the population these mandates are trying to reach.

Restaurants are not in the health business nor should they be unless they CHOOSE to be.