🐱 Experts warn move to calorie-labelled menus is ‘problematic’

CatParty


The labelling of calories on café, restaurant and takeaway menus will be introduced from today (6 April) in England in hopes of tackling health and obesity related-issues and and to encourage the public to make “healthier choices” when eating out.

The mandatory menu-labelling was announced by the government in May 2021 and will apply to larger businesses with 250 or more employees, but has faced mixed reviews with nutritionists and eating disorder charities worried about the potential unhealthy behaviours towards food it could cause.

Tom Quinn, director of external affairs at one of UK’s leading eating disorder charities, Beat, says: “We know from the people we support that including calories on menus can contribute to harmful eating disorder thoughts and behaviours worsening.”

The labelling legislation will mean that calories are to be displayed for customers on physical and online menus, food delivery platforms and food labels. It is being introduced as a part of the government’s wider strategy to tackle obesity in hopes of ensuring people are making more informed choices when eating food out or ordering takeaways.

The government estimates that overweight and obesity-related health conditions cost the NHS around £6.1 billion each year. They add that almost two-thirds (63 per cent) of adults in England are overweight or obese, as are one in three children when they leave primary school.

Former Public Health Minister, MP Jo Churchill, says: “Our aim is to make it as easy as possible for people to make healthier food choices for themselves and their families, both in restaurants and at home. That is why we want to make sure everyone has access to accurate information about the food and drink we order.”

With the COVID-19 pandemic highlighting the impact that obesity can have on people’s health, the government say introducing measures like these will form “building blocks” to “support and encourage people in achieving and maintaining a healthier weight.” But, charities say that not enough research has been done to see if encouraging calorie-counting will make a substantial difference.

Mr Quinn adds that the charity is “extremely disappointed” in the government’s move to make calorie-labelled menus mandatory despite evidence that it can cause anxiety and stress for people with eating disorders.

He continues: “It can increase a fixation on restricting calories for those with anorexia or bulimia, or increase feelings of guilt for those with binge eating disorder. There is also very limited evidence that the legislation will lead to changed eating habits among the general population.”

A study by Oxford and Cambridge universities found that calorie labelling reduced the amount of calories a person consumed by just 12 per cent, and a survey by Vita Mojo and Kam Media found that only 21 per cent of consumers think that the labelling will have a positive effect on the nation’s obesity levels.

Rhiannon Lambert, certified nutritionist for Pho, author and founder of Rhitrition, also worries about the potential impact of introducing mandatory calorie labels.

She says that while it may help people to make more informed decisions about what they are eating, for people who already have an eating disorder or disordered eating, the introduction of calories to menus may only “exacerbate” their situation.

She adds: “It may further encourage negative thoughts and lead to them choose the lowest calorie option, when this may be below what the body requires to function optimally.

“It is important to remember that calories are not everything when it comes to the food we consume. Using calories may be problematic as they are determined using an outdated calculation, which doesn’t consider people’s age, their size, or their physical activity levels, which may greatly influence a person’s daily calorie intake.

“You may wish to use these numbers as a tool but it is important to remember that they are not the ultimate answer to defining a healthy lifestyle.”

Fitness and nutrition expert, Penny Weston, agrees. She says: “The information may be helpful to members of the public to make it clear which are the healthier choices when eating out but equally, I would say the benefits are not clear cut

“Eating healthily is not just about counting calories. While helpful in some ways, people shouldn’t be obsessing about sticking to calorie limits as it really does depend on your own health and diet.

“All calories aren’t equal in terms of how they are treated in the body and the effects on people’s health. For example, calories in protein-rich foods will help you stay full for longer, whereas sugary processed foods may have similar calories but they have little nutritional value.”

It is estimated that 1.25 million people in the UK have an eating disorder with the pandemic exacerbating the country’s mental health crisis. Mr Quinn adds: “Beat has continually asked the Government to consider the impact on people affected by eating disorders and to take an evidence-based approach when creating health policies. This should involve consulting eating disorder clinicians and experts by experience at every stage of the process.”

Ms Lambert says “eating out, and food in general, is often about spending time with friends and family, enjoyment, and pleasure. The option to see the numbers should be available but is not necessary for some people, as it may encourage an unhealthy relationship with food.”
 
  • Like
Reactions: Clotso Coof
If the fatties don’t like their calorie bombs staring them in the face, they should probably not look at them or pick better choices.

It’s annoying to have to search for nutritional facts on menus and it makes people conscious of consuming 2000+ calories in one sitting.
 
Nutritional information "appallingly offensive" to people with allergies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Clovis
Ironically that was mostly fraudulent and the director didn't even disclose that he was drinking heavily at the time, which probably had more to do with his liver numbers than McDonald's.
Wrong. 5 pence on fire! the Director only drunk the daily amount of alcohol that is recommended by the health department of Finnland.
Fact, CHECKED!


If the fatties don’t like their calorie bombs staring them in the face, they should probably not look at them or pick better choices.
the biggest stink comes from Karens, hard to feed your kids green crap if the numbers on the label are big.
 
  • Feels
Reactions: roo farmer
Wrong. 5 pence on fire! the Director only drunk the daily amount of alcohol that is recommended by the health department of Finnland.
Fact, CHECKED!
But isn't that, like, a fifth of vodka or something?
 
  • Feels
Reactions: roo farmer
The great thing is once you learn how many calories are in things you can just go by portions and not worry about it too much. I used to eat as much food as possible when I was younger but now I have a Psychological Barrier and will not Stuff My Belly.
 
Here is a little secret: People who are dieting or who are neck deep in an eating disorder are just going to refer to one of the many calorie counting apps (and the library of entries is huge), so whether or not menus come with calories won't make much of a difference. If anything, not knowing how many calories are in a meal will likely result in an eating disordered person saying "lol fuck it" and not ordering anything at all because they don't know how much they need to "compensate" or if the number of calories fall within their "set limit" for the day. Someone going with the lowest calorie option is better than eating nothing at all.

Maybe the UK could look to other countries where calorie menus are common place and draw conclusions from that? It's thought that those who are predisposed to eating disorders are invariably triggered by dieting and so in the later stages of treatment, patients are told to avoid going on diets without medical supervision because they risk relapse. Ideally, nutritional information should be accessible so that people can make informed decisions about what they consume.
 
They must be paid off by restaurant business lobbyists or something. There's no reason not to put calories on menus unless you're a restaurant serving hideously unhealthy food. It contributes to eating disorders? Really? Choosing not to eat at your restaurant because a bowl of mac and cheese is somehow 3000 calories is a disorder?

Next we need to require calories on all alcohol, because people will gladly drink a six pack which could end up being like 1200+ calories not caring about the health impacts but if you tell them lol fat suddenly they'll care.

I've got beer swilling boomer relatives who don't eat much but can't figure out why they're fat. It's definitely needed.
 
So this is as good a place as any to dump unwanted thoughts on calories.

I don't get the idea behind calories. How much water you can boil off by burning the food? Like yeah, that's a KIND of energy, but what's the direct connection between that and how much chemical energy you get from digesting food? It seems pretty obvious there's a solid correlation between the two, but I don't buy that you can actually tally it up like it's accounting and it mean anything.

And it turns out that the system can be pretty far off, especially because some foods don't tend to digest very well (how often have you seen nut chunks, bean shell, or entire pieces of corn in your poop?) or do digest but just don't add as much fat, or add more fat, than they should.

Of course, I've only seen examples of HEALTHY foods being less fattening than the calories would claim, so reinforcing the nutritional wisdom, but I think there has to be a better system than this. It kind of reminds me of this crap called "planting by the signs" that Appalachian farmers would do, where you use astrology to determine when you should do farm tasks. It was found that farmers who used it often did have better farms, but mostly because the sort of farmer who'd put the work in was more attentive to their tasks in general. Similarly, I think a person who pays much attention to calories is still reducing/eating better even if the basic idea behind the calorie is bullshit.
 
A study by Oxford and Cambridge universities found that calorie labelling reduced the amount of calories a person consumed by just 12 per cent
12% of your daily calorie intake is huge; that's like 240 calories per day. That's like a 26 pounds a year difference.
It is important to remember that calories are not everything when it comes to the food we consume. Using calories may be problematic as they are determined using an outdated calculation, which doesn’t consider people’s age, their size, or their physical activity levels, which may greatly influence a person’s daily calorie intake.
So calories are not the problem, but how many of those calories you eat based on certain physical attributes...but doing calculations based on calories is problematic?
It can increase a fixation on restricting calories for those with anorexia or bulimia, or increase feelings of guilt for those with binge eating disorder.
People with anorexia don't put anything in their mouths without knowing how many calories they have anyway, so whatever. At least now they won't have to google the nutritional info.
All calories aren’t equal in terms of how they are treated in the body and the effects on people’s health. For example, calories in protein-rich foods will help you stay full for longer, whereas sugary processed foods may have similar calories but they have little nutritional value.
The idea that sugar doesn't have "nutritional value" or somehow has less "nutritional value" than protein rich foods is retarded. Will it make you hungrier than if you ate a steak? Of course. Is it a good habit to get addicted to brain rotting sugar? No, of course not. But it's all going to the same cellular machinery that keeps you alive.

Disingenuous journofatties...
 
The only half decent argument I could think up against Calorie signs is that it will encourage dumb fatties to make stupider choices.

"Oi that Burger is 700 calories. I'll just have the 500 Calorie chippies with some Ketchup."

As we all should know not all calories are created equal. A normal sandwich is not bad for you. But then you got fatties who think they can outwit their own stomachs and eat a 200 Calorie donut for breakfast which then sets them up for gorging during during lunch or dinner.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Clovis
The only half decent argument I could think up against Calorie signs is that it will encourage dumb fatties to make stupider choices.

"Oi that Burger is 700 calories. I'll just have the 500 Calorie chippies with some Ketchup."

As we all should know not all calories are created equal. A normal sandwich is not bad for you. But then you got fatties who think they can outwit their own stomachs and eat a 200 Calorie donut for breakfast which then sets them up for gorging during during lunch or dinner.
All calories are the same. Food energy is food energy.

Fitting in the other nutrition you need in a reasonable amount of calories is an entirely separate issue. Conflating the two is just playing into HAES retards' hands.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Clovis
All calories are the same. Food energy is food energy.

Fitting in the other nutrition you need in a reasonable amount of calories is an entirely separate issue. Conflating the two is just playing into HAES retards' hands.
I disagree to an extent. I've known skinny sons of bitches who can just exist drinking cans of Coca Cola and/or candy. They'll maybe have a small dinner and then call it a night. That can cause malnutrition but it doesn't impact weight gain.

And I've seen it myself (hello I'm on Kiwifarms I could lose 20 pounds), I'll tell myself "Oh I'll just have a coke this morning and then eat something light at dinner." Yeah dinner ends up being a Ribeye with a baked potato extra butter.

The best thing fat people can do is gorge but gorge on fucking salads. I mean take a whole supermarket size container of Spinach or Arugula, add two hard boiled eggs add a close to zero calorie dressing (Mustard works wonders for me) and shove that down your gullet whether you like it or not.

The thing about Fat People is that their appetite is not inherently bad, straight up necessity before food became a guarantee. We were just meant gorge on plants and if you were lucky some animal meat.

Nobody got fat eating cabbage and broccoli.
 
  • Feels
Reactions: Clovis
I've got beer swilling boomer relatives who don't eat much but can't figure out why they're fat. It's definitely needed.
I'm sure the alcohol companies will also have a huge fit if legislation comes out mandating calorie counts on alcohol packaging. Some do it already voluntarily, and while it shouldn't be surprising it really is gross how fattening booze is and how easy it is to end up with a huge calorie overload in a session. Some of the high gravity stouts I like come in at 300 plus calories per serving, then you also have to factor in all the shitty food that is commonly consumed in conjunction with drinking. Takes some of the enjoyment away when you become acutely aware that you're just gulping down sugary syrup, but it would probably be a good thing for society in general if people drank a bit less anyway.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: mold
"Eating disorders" will never not be worthy of mockery. What an obnoxious type of person.
 
Back