Comments (14)

• Jonathan Finegold Catalán

  The majority of people don't know what a calorie is, or how many calories they should intake. They know that "too many calories" is bad, but don't know how many is too many. For example, if I did not keep an excel spreadsheet of what I ate everyday, it would be difficult for me to keep my calorie count low (I would have to hope that the law of averages applies, where some days I would eat less than others).

  Generally speaking, Americans eat too much. One of the reasons that Americans do not have the mentality to count calories, or really learn their daily metabolic rate, is because all the money the government gives them because of their supposed "disability" (I am talking about obese, not overweight, persons).

  In any case, calorie postings mean little if the person doesn't have the faintest clue on how many calories he or she should consumer per day (the average daily metabolic rate is ~2,000 cal.). What should be done is cut welfare and help to these people, so that they will learn from experience how to eat healthy. Ultimately, it's pretty easy: stop eating fast food and stop drinking soda, and do a little bit of exercise per day (even if it's walking for thirty minutes). For those who may have "fat genes"... well, they're just going to have to eat less (and drink more water when they think they're "hungry").

  Unfortunately, the majority of people prefer to steal from others in order to make up for their own irresponsibility. It's the sad order of affairs which guarantees that there will be a State for as long as people do not pick up on their own responsibilities.

  Published: October 6, 2009 9:52 AM

• BrentR

  The guy who said that "labels are not enough", a Mr Elbel, scares me, since obviously something more draconian is necessary. Peace-loving food eaters should consider hitting this gentleman on the back of the head.

  Published: October 6, 2009 10:30 AM

• Daniel Coleman

  Even though a measure like this is most often introduced under the "what's the harm?" ethos, it's inevitable failure typically serves for further intervention.

  "We tried prevention through education, but that is clearly not enough. We need to intervene responsibly to make sure these restaurants are not hurting the citizenry. Sorry, you had your chance." etc.

  I remember stories like these, and their usual progression from warnings to regulations to tight controls, when I'm discussing ideas with those "paternal libertarians" of the "Nudge" variety.

  Published: October 6, 2009 11:17 AM

• Slim934

  Just to chime in because I have been reading on this topic recently.

  Counting calories is not an effective mechanism for weight regulation because it inherently assumes that all consumed calories are the same. This is bullpockey.

  Calories consumed from carbohydrates have been found to actually suppress the use of fatty acids in any adipose fat tissue that one may have on one's body. This is done through a hormone regulation mechanism which is a bit too much for a single blog post.

  Short answer: Carbohydrate intake heavily influences levels of insulin in the bloodstream-> Insulin levels influence blood glucose usage-> blood glucose usage (assuming a normal human being) has an immense impact on utilization of fats as fuels.

  A much more thorough treatment of this process and also an absurdly thorough treatment of the medical literature that over the decades led to different hypotheses for fat accumulation and utilization can be found in "Good Calories, Bad Calories" by investigative reporter Gary Taubes.

  Published: October 6, 2009 12:02 PM

• weightcontroller

  "A much more thorough treatment of this process and also an absurdly thorough treatment of the medical literature that over the decades led to different hypotheses for fat accumulation and utilization can be found in "Good Calories, Bad Calories" by investigative reporter Gary Taubes."

  That is utter nonsense!

  The only thing that matters regarding weight control is energy input and output balance. There is no such thing as "good or bad" calorie!

  Only people who want to profit from offering (information on) such diet spread that "my diet is better" nonsense!

  Published: October 6, 2009 1:32 PM

• Economists Do It With Models

  While I don't disagree with the evidence that the calorie posting didn't achieve the goal that Mayor Bloomberg and others were aiming for, I take issue with the general premise that calorie posting doesn't "work" overall. One of the preconditions for free markets to function efficiently is that consumers need to have full information about the products that they are considering consuming. Therefore, making it so this information is easily accessible should be a win regardless of what consumers choose to do with the information. In my view, it's more manipulative to not require the calorie counts to be obvious and yet at the same time profess how bad fast food is for people, since this strategy is essentially designed to scare people without giving them all the information they need in order to make good (read, thoughtful) decisions.

  The fact that fast food consumption went up would indicate to a degree that these scare tactics worked to manipulate consumption- I, for one, would have guessed that a lot of the fast food is worse for me than it actually is. I very much appreciate having the calorie information, since I was definitely making consumption "mistakes" due to incorrectly guessing calorie counts in both directions.

  Published: October 6, 2009 2:11 PM

• Jeffrey Tucker

  all of which begs the question: why not let producers and consumers work out for themselves how much information should be posted? Bureaucrats surely do not know the answer.

  Published: October 6, 2009 2:17 PM

• Jack

  How is posting a calorie count and nutritional information unlibertarian? Whatever its problems, it provides a way for information to be provided to the consumer thus lessening the chances of a producer intentionally or unintentionally committing fraud by misrepresenting their product.

  Published: October 6, 2009 2:17 PM

• Michael A. Clem

  Personally, I agree with Slim934 that all calories are not the same. Your body doesn't process proteins, fat, and carbohydrates in the same way, as each has a different purpose in the body, although as a survival mechanism, overlap can occur.
  
  But that's tangential to the article. What worries me most is the government's willingness to step in and legislate when an issue is, quite frankly, not that well understood. The nutritional experts still have a long way to go before I'm convinced that they really have more than a basic understanding of nutrition and health. For government to try and protect people from themselves is bad enough--for them to do it based upon limited evidence is even worse.
  

  Published: October 6, 2009 2:20 PM

• Michael A. Clem

  How is posting a calorie count and nutritional information unlibertarian?
  Simple--the government mandates it, and they mandate the form. Providing that information is not cost-free, and has certain difficulties. For example, fast food places try to provide standardized portions for each item every day and across all their stores, but some variation is inevitable--the stats are necessarily some kind of average.
  
  And if the government mandates the inclusion of worthless or meaningless information, how does that help anybody? Naturally, if consumers demand the information, and restaurants willingly provide it. that would not be unlibertarian. But how many people actually are demanding this kind of info?

  Published: October 6, 2009 2:37 PM

• FarSide

  BrentR and Coleman beat me to it - the quote “I think it does show us that labels are not enough” jumped out at me as something to be scared of, not happy that a program failed. What, I wonder, will he recommend as the next step?

  I do enjoy seeing things like this fail - however I know those responsible won't look and say "Oh, guess we were wrong. I guess we can repeal the law!" Failure in anything the govt has a hand in is invariably blamed as "not enough" - not enough money, not enough regulation, not enough control...

  
  OT:
  @weightcontroller - combating what seems to me to be a science-backed argument about chemical reactions in the body with "this is nonsense" doesn't work for me. Metabolic functions in the body are incredibly complex. Is it not possible that certain foods might impact the 'calories out' side of the equation?

  Published: October 6, 2009 2:58 PM

• energy balance

  "Is it not possible that certain foods might impact the 'calories out' side of the equation?"

  No, it is not, because empiric studies prove otherwise:

  http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/360/9/859

  What kind of food is healthy (fat, carbon hydrates and so on) and how much of them you need is another question.

  The only thing that matters (if all other factors are controlled - therefore only sound experimental studies count) is the difference between the amount of energy you consume and the amount of energy you need.

  Sorry if my english is not that good.
  

  Published: October 6, 2009 3:08 PM

• FarSide

  Thanks - I was not aware of that study. It certainly is better than 'this is nonsense' with no supporting data.

  Published: October 6, 2009 4:22 PM

• Shay

  Jack asked, "How is posting a calorie count and nutritional information unlibertarian?"

  Posting that information isn't, since the restuarant owner can do what he likes with his own property, including posting nutritional information. But requiring that he post this information is unlibertarian, because it threatens the use of force if an he doesn't post the information. Forcing the owner to do things even though he's not using force against anyone is unlibertarian. If posting such information really is of value to customers, then a smart owner will post it without coercion, since it will improve business more than it costs to post.
  

  Published: October 6, 2009 5:07 PM