In The News: In The Zone

Today's New York Times reports the conclusion of an eight-year-long study of millions of schoolchildren completed by economists at the University of California and Columbia University: "ninth graders whose schools are within a block of a fast-food outlet are more likely to be obese than students whose schools are a quarter of a mile or more away."

This study is particularly significant since it adjusted for variables like income, education, and race, thereby making it easier to accurately pinpoint the effect of fast food restaurant proximity to weight.

More specifically, "obesity rates were 5 percent higher among the ninth graders whose schools were within one-tenth of a mile of a pizza, burger or other popular fast-food outlet, compared with students attending schools farther away from fast-food stores."

In a not-at-all surprising move, the National Restaurant Association is shrugging this off since "it did not take individual diet and exercise into account." The argument falls rather flat when you consider that the location of these fast food restaurants clearly had an effect on students' diets.

I have long been a supporter of zoning laws regarding fast food restaurants and schools, and this only strengthens my belief.

In The News: The City of Brotherly Love Gets Tough

Add another city to the "calories on menu boards" list!

On Thursday afternoon, Philadelphia mayor Michael Nutter "signed a bill that orders chain restaurants [— including coffee shops, ice cream parlors and convenience stores — with a total of 15 or more stores, whether in the city or elsewhere,] to display calorie, saturated fat, trans fat, carbohydrate, and sodium information [for all menu items by January 1, 2010.]

The cherry on top? "Nutter signed the bill at the Center for Obesity Research Education at Temple University," the Associated Press reports.

I am personally looking forward to the day trans fat labeling becomes irrelevant following a national ban on restaurants' use of partially hydrogenated oils (that is no starry-eyed dream -- Denmark paved the way in 2003, and Switzerland followed suit in April of this year.)

Numbers Game: Answer

A 24-ounce limited edition Jack in the Box eggnog shake contains 1,450 calories, 225 percent of the daily saturated fat recommended limit, and 3 grams of trans fat.

(NOTE: Trans fat recommendations are set at 0 grams per day.)

If this "special edition" shake is available after December 31, they should change its name to "The Resolution Breaker."

To put it in perspective, this beverage has more calories than an entire 12-inch Domino's cheese pizza (with regular -- not thin -- crust)!

And if you thought the 3 grams of trans fat were bad, check out some of the other options on Jack in the Box's menu.

A 10-piece order of mini churros delivers a jaw-dropping (and heart-stopping?) SEVEN grams of trans fat!

An order of French Fries from the children's menu may seem innocent with its 220 calories, but it also delivers 3.5 grams of trans fat.

So, dear president-elect Obama, how about igniting heart-healthy change with a national trans fat ban?

No Wonder Potatoes Have A Bad Reputation

Arby's is offering a new side item on their menu -- loaded potato bites (pictured at left).

Uh oh, the term "loaded" is generally code for "artery and waist busting."

This is no exception.

These "yummy pieces of fluffy potato, deep fried and loaded with cheddar cheese and bits of bacon" are accompanied with a ranch sour cream dipping sauce.

A large side order (10 pieces) adds 707 calories, 14 grams of saturated fat (almost three quarters of a day's worth), and 1,600 milligrams of sodium (two thirds of a day's worth) to your tray.

The ranch dip, meanwhile, contributes an additional 158 calories, 4 grams of saturated fat, and 277 milligrams of sodium.

This is calorically equal to two orders of large fries at McDonald's.

In The News: Missing In Action

Ronald McDonald has some 'splaining to do.

His fast-food chain has been "awarded" the most violations for not posting calorie information on various of their New York City stores' menu boards.

In total, 682 violations have been handed out since April.

"About 300 citations were issued during the first six weeks the rules took effect, which was considered a grace period, and did not carry fines. Since then, 388 violations were issued that carry fines between $200 and $2,000 each," reports Crain's New York Business.

McDonald's has acquired 103 violations, Dunkin' Donuts is not far behind with 89, and local fried chicken chain Crown Fried Chicken rounds out the Top 3 with 39 violations to its name.

"Some citations were given for non-compliance and others punished restaurants for not posting information the way the regulations require. For instance, a few restaurants were fined for putting the information in the wrong place or using lettering that was too small."

I notice the linked news article displays a sole comment from someone named "Joe" who claims calorie labeling is "nannying" and "a violation of... life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness."

Considering the amount of people I have heard voice a similar statement, Joe is joking.

For the life of me, though, I have no clue what civil liberties are violated by asking restaurants to post calorie content information.

I also fail to see how such a request can be considered "nannying."

Nobody is being forbidden from buying an 1,100 calorie milkshake. It isn't taxed more heavily than a less caloric option. There isn't a limit on how many times you can order it, or at what time of day.

So where, exactly, is the "you can't tell me what to eat!" defensiveness coming from?

In The News: October Surprise

Some very surprising -- and encouraging -- news to share today.

"Yum Brands, parent company to Taco Bell, KFC, Pizza Hut, [A&W, and Long John Silver's, has] announced plans to begin posting product calorie information on the indoor menu boards nationwide at company-owned restaurants."

Wow!

You read correctly -- these chains are doing so completely unprompted. This is not the fast-food industry sighing, rolling its eyes, and begrudgingly "doing what it's told".

The end result of this ground-breaking announcement is that 20,000 of these chain restaurants throughout the United States will post calorie information on their menus by January of 2011.

Meanwhile, McDonald's, Wendy's, and Burger King have announced they have no intention of posting calorie information where they are not legally required to do so.

Numbers Game: Answer

Next time you're at Chipotle, keep in mind that you can save 230 calories and 65 percent of a day's worth of saturated fat by passing on the cheese and sour cream.

The main factor behind these high numbers is that what should really be a "dollop" of sour cream turns out being about 6 to 8 tablespoons' worth, depending on how scoop-happy your particular server is feeling that day.

Although Chipotle's mix and match system makes it quite easy to end up with calorie and sodium-laden meals (a burrito with chicken, rice, beans, sour cream, cheese, corn salsa, and tomato salsa adds up to 1,130 calories and 125% of the daily recommended sodium limit,) it is also possible to enjoy a nutritious meal that doesn't go quite as overboard.

For instance: substitute the above for three crispy tacos with black beans, onions and peppers, tomato salsa, cheese, and guacamole and you end up with 680 calories and 80% of a day's worth of sodium.

Alhough quite high on the sodium scale, it is 40% lower than the first option!

The best news? That meal alone delivers a whooping 25 grams of fiber -- 50% more than the first burrito option I presented.

That high fiber content, along with 24 grams of protein, and plentiful fats in the guacamole make for a satisfying and filling meal (I particularly point that out because I occassionally come across some people who equate meatless meals with birdfood that leaves you feeling hungry half an hour after finishing them.)

And whereas the chicken burrito adds up to 83 percent of the saturated fat limit, the crispy vegetarian taco shells lower that figure to 50 percent.

Surprisingly, three crispy taco shells offer 110 less calories and SIX HUNDRED less milligrams of sodium than the soft tortilla used to construct a burrito.

Easiest way to cut back on sodium? Stick to just one salsa.

The mild tomato and corn salsas each offer 500 - 600 milligrams (a quarter of a day's worth) of sodium per scoopful.

Another easy way to cut back on calories is by getting all ingredients in a bowl, rather than a taco or tortilla. At the very least, you'll save an additional 180 calories.

Numbers Game: Skip and Save

Next time you're at Chipotle, keep in mind that you can save ______ calories and ______________ of a day's worth of saturated fat by passing on the cheese and sour cream.

a) 92/19 percent
b) 137/34 percent
c) 194/51 percent
d) 230/65 percent

Leave your guess in the "comments" section and come back on Wednesday for the answer.

Survey Results: Calorie Labeling

The latest Small Bites survey asked visitors if they thought it should be legally required for all chain restaurants to display calorie information on their menus in all 50 states.

90 percent voted "yes," and 10 percent went with "no."

I say: "Absolutely!"

Opponents of calorie labeling tend to fall into two camps.

First we have the "thats' policing! Who are you to tell me what to eat?" camp, which is completely nonsensical.

No one is calling for foods to be banned or shrunk to less caloric versions.

All that's being asked is to provide customers with information that will help them make better choices, if that interests them.

Then we have the pessimists, who say, "what good is this going to do? Calorie information is available on packaged food and the obesity rate just keeps on climbing."

Except that calorie information for fast food items is more realistic because it assumes customers are eating the entire dish.

A bag of Doritos available at 7-11, for instance, lists information for just one third of the bag, even though the vast majority of people purchasing such an item finish the contents in one sitting.

Or, take pasta.

Most people throw their idea of a "portion" into a boiling pot, but don't really know if they are eating one, two, three, or four servings.

Same thing with breakfast cereals. Many of them list nutrition information for half a cup, and the average person fails to realize that they start their day with one and a half cup's worth (meaning they need to multiply that caloric value by three!)

It's too easy for "calories per serving" to be misconstrued or misunderstood.

If anything, some great developments are emerging from all of this. Dunkin' Donuts, for instance, has started offering sandwiches that clock in at less than 300 calories (up until now, their offerings started at the 400-calorie mark.)

In The News: France's Fast Food Tax

Over in France (where “two thirds of French men and half of all women aged 35 to 74 are thought to be overweight, while one fifth of all adults are obese,”) a controversial new law is being mulled over which would “increase tax on extra-fatty, salty or sugary products to 19.6 percent (from 5.5 per cent now.)”

I don’t see the point – or understand the logic.

First of all, I would hate for products high in healthy fats (i.e.: roasted peanuts, avocadoes, almond butters) to be lumped together with deep fried onion rings, particularly since this bill is going beyond burgers and fries and targeting sandwiches.

Additionally, a healthy and refreshing fruit smoothie -- made solely with actual fruit and, say, skim milk -- is high in sugars, but offers a different nutritional profile than a can of Sprite.

The main problem I have with this initiative is that it perpetuates this idea of “good foods” and “bad foods.”

Of course some foods are much healthier than others, but it’s not so much the foods themselves that are behind the increasing obesity rate, but how much of them people are eating.

A small side of potato chips (roughly 100 calories) with a sandwich is not a recipe for flab. It’s the ridiculously large, 500-calorie portions that take the blame.

Similarly, a small 80 calorie croissant is a great way to indulge in a tasty treat without going overboard. There's no reason why it should be highly taxed.

My suggestion? If they're hell-bent on implementing a tax, it should only apply to large portions.

It would at least prevent the now-familiar "for an additional 25 cents you can get three times as much food!" offers.

This is definitely a story to keep our eyes on – “the plans are expected to be put before legislators in September, who will vote on whether they should be implemented."

Off-the-Road Minefields

I was down in Maryland this past weekend, meaning I took full advantage of the road trip to examine some highway food offerings!

Let's start with Wawa, a convenience store not unlike 7-11 with slightly over 500 branches spread throughout New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland and Virginia.

Although healthy fare (i.e.: fresh fruit cups, fruit and cheese trays, soy crisps, as well as raw veggies and hummus trays) is available, the items on the "best avoided" list mean business.

A Wawa coffee cake muffin, for instance, clocks in at 711 calories and 51 grams (12.75 teaspoons) of added sugar.

Interested in the large (6 oz) side order of meatballs in a cup? You're talkng 548 calories, two days' worth of saturated fat (41 grams!), and almost a day's worth of sodium (1,788 mg!).

Cinnabon is another "standout. A classic individual bun adds up to 710 calories and a day's worth of saturated fat.

If you're in a daring mood, why not opt for a 900 calorie Caramel Pecanbon (a standard Cinnabon "topped with pecans and smothered with rich caramel")?

Or, you could always be reasonable and -- if the cinnamon aroma has you in a trance -- order a 300 calorie "Minibon" (bonus points for sharing half with someone else!).

Over at Sbarro's, portions are HUGE -- and so are the calorie numbers.

A Philly cheesesteak stuffed pizza (WHO comes up with these items?) delivers an 830 calorie punch along with 2,000 milligrams of sodium (you only need an additional 10% to reach your recommended daily limit,) while a single slice of deep dish spinach, broccoli, and tomato pizza provides 710 calories and two thirds of the daily sodium limit.

Your best bet here as far as a pizza meal goes is a slice of the thin crust cheese variety (although it provides 1,050 milligrams of sodium, it contains less than 500 calories) accompanied with a lightly dressed garden salad.

Skip the 560 calorie cheesecake and reach for a 130 calorie fruit salad instead.

So are we in agreement that being a truck driver may just be the least healthy profession in this country?

In The News: LA Lays Down The Law

Controversy is cooking in California, where a new law was passed that "prevents fast-food chains from opening new restaurants in a 32-square-mile area [of South Los Angeles] for one year, with the possibility of two six-month extensions."

This particular area of Los Angeles -- formerly, and commonly, known as South-Central Los Angeles -- has the highest obese rates in its county.

In fact, the latest figures place 30% of adults in South Los Angeles as obese, whereas 20.9% of adults in that respective county fall into that same category.

Diabetes figure are also higher in Southern LA (11.7%) than the rest of the county (8.1%).

It's worth nothing that this particular piece of policy defines a fast-food restaurant as "any establishment which dispenses food for consumption on or off the premises, and which has the following characteristics: a limited menu, items prepared in advance or prepared or heated quickly, no table orders and food served in disposable wrapping or containers."

A few points of interest:

Some lawmakers have called into question the "limited menu" aspect of the definition, explaining that many fast food restaurants expand their menus as time goes on.

Additionally, "fast-food casual" restaurants, such as Subway or Pastagina, that do not have heat lamps or drive-through windows and prepare fresh food to order" are exempt.

While I think this is a step in the right direction, I am interested in seeing how effective this will be towards improving the health of residents.

There are still literally hundreds of fast food chains in the area, and, perhaps more disturbingly, "the area has far fewer grocery stores than other parts of town."

This is always a dilemma in the public health and nutrition fields -- how do you encourage people to improve their eating habits when they are so used to -- and dependent on -- a quick fix?

My proposal?

First, strike a deal with these fast-food restaurants that would entail them offering their healthier items at a reduced cost for a week, so as to encourage consumers to try them out.

Then, offer free nutrition workshops at local community centers with an emphasis on healthy, low-cost, quick recipes.

A lot of this dependence on fast food stems from convenience, a lack of nutrition education, affordability, and lack of alternative options.

That is not some armchair theory, it is what I can recall from my own experience.

Upon completing my undergraduate degree a few years ago, I lived in Washington Heights, a New York City neighborhood that has a high percent of low-income residents.

The local supermarkets had terrible produce, and healthier convenience foods were nowhere to be found (i.e.: low-sodium varieties of canned foods, whole wheat crackers, baby carrots, etc.)

The restaurants within a half mile radius of my building? All fast food.

If I was ever not in the mood to cook, my only options were fried chicken, Chinese takeout, or McDonald's.

The situation in South Los Angeles is the same.

Hopefully this community will be given resources -- specifically nutrition education, healthier restaurants, and supermarkets with decent offerings.

Thank you to Sandy R. for bringing this article to my attention.

You Ask, I Answer: Book Recommendations

Is there a current diet/cookbook you can recommend for health and weight loss?

-- Greg (last name withheld)
(City withheld), IA

I don’t like the term “diet book,” so let’s make this a list of cookbooks and "health books", shall we?

Books that teach actual nutrition principles and lifelong healthy eating patterns are more useful than the latest diet fad telling you to clear your cupboards of anything with sugar and spend the first two weeks on “phase/wave” one, where you basically spend 14 days craving all the foods you are now FORBIDDEN to even have a single bite of.

Anyhow, What To Eat by Marion Nestle is a great book for anyone looking to delve deeper into the food industry and how marketing and advertisement play a huge role in what we are eating.

Don't be confused by the title -- this book does not tell you what to eat to lose weight. However, it helps you separate marketing hype from reality, a very useful skill to have when navigating the extensive supermarket aisles.

Lisa Young’s The Portion Teller is a fascinating read. Not only does it highlight the increasing “portion distortion” epidemic that has increased caloric intake over the past few decades, it also communicates a pleasant message. If you’re looking to lose weight, don’t think so much about WHAT you’re eating, but how much of it!

I have mentioned Buff Dad on this website before (click here to read my interview with author Mike Levinson). I appreciate its "no nonsense" approach rooted in nutrition science as well as its particular tailoring to men (too many weight loss books specifically target a female demographic).

Linda Arpino, MA, RD, CDN, released a wonderful book titled Eat Fit, Be Fit: Health and Weight Management Solutions (pictured right.) It explains nutrition concepts simply yet thoroughly, and provides over 250 healthy -- and very tasty -- recipes.

I also think Eat This, Not That by the Men's Health team is a great guide to have handy when it comes to eating fast food. It can help you replace a 1,200 calorie lunch with one containing 500 fewer calories!

Denny's The Menace

Last week Denny's introduced "after dark munchies" -- dishes served exclusively between 10 PM and 5 AM.

Included in that roster? Sweet Ride Nachos and Potachos (pictured at right.)

The Houston Chronicle gives us the, pardon the pun, skinny on these two items.

"Sweet Ride Nachos [are] tortilla chips tossed in cinnamon sugar, then smothered with strawberry topping, raspberry sauce, seasonal fruit, hot fudge, caramel, white chocolate chips and whipped cream."

That plateful of processed goodies adds up to 1,840 calories!

Meanwhile, Potachos (get it, a mixture of potatoes and nachos?) consist of "kettle-cooked potato chips, covered with crumbled sausage, bacon, bell peppers, onions, cheese sauce and grated cheddar cheese."

Might as well have called it the Friday Night Frathouse Special.

Anyhow, if you think heart health is overrated and can afford an extra 2,080 calories, dig right in!

By the way, if these two "all-stars" don't jump out at you, you could always go for the Smokin' Q Four Pack ("four mini burgers topped with sweet & tangy BBQ sauce, crispy onion rings, Cheddar cheese and bacon; served with a double portion of onion rings.")

Is a standard cheeseburger no longer enough to please the late night post-bar crowd?

Props to Papa

Three cheers to Papa John's for being the first pizza chain in the country to offer a 100% whole grain crust.

The new whole wheat variety, available as of May 26, even boasts the Whole Grains Council's "100% whole grain" stamp.

Whereas a regular slice of Papa John's pizza contributes a measly 2 grams of fiber to your day, a slice of a whole wheat crust variety provides a whooping 5 grams -- all from whole grains (no sprinkled soy dust here!).

Keeping in mind that, on average, people have two slices, that adds up to a total of 10 grams of fiber in a meal from the crust alone-- almost half of the daily recommendation.

Of course, it's worth remembering that we are still talking fast food pizza here.

I would certainly not list it as my first -- or second or third -- choice for someone looking to increase their fiber content (after all, two slices of Papa John's whole wheat Italian Meats pizza add up to 660 calories, three quarters of a day's worth of saturated fat and a day's worth of sodium), but I am very happy to see a fast food chain make a real effort to help consumers get their share of whole grains.

Numbers Game: Don't Judge A Dish By Its Name

Recent studies by Brian Wansink of Cornell University's Applied Economics and Management Department and Pierre Chandon of the European Institute for Business Administration found that, on average, people underestimate the caloric content of "healthy sounding" dishes (like a grilled chicken salad, pictured right) at chain restaurants (and most dishes at "healthy sounding" restaurants) by _________ percent.

a) 16
b) 31
c) 7.5
d) 20

Leave your guess in the "comments" section and come back on Saturday for the answer.

PS: Test your own calorie-guessing skills with Wise Geek's 200 calorie challenge.

They selected a wide variety of foods and show you what 200 calories of each one looks like. Be sure to click on each one to see what a 200-calorie serving looks like on a dinner plate.

It's a very well-done project, mainly because all foods are compared on an even playing field (each one is photographed on a universal plate/bowl). Prepare to be surprised!

In The News: The Health Police

Newly elected Chicago Police Department superintendent Jody P. Weis literally wants the force to shape up!

"Mr. Weis, an exercise enthusiast, has shocked more than a few people with talk of mandatory fitness tests and maximum body-fat allowances (only after a year’s physical education and with exceptions, of course)."

There is even talk of installing kitchens in station houses, so as to lower officers' reliance on doughnuts, pizza, hot dogs, and fries.

I think that without proper nutrition education, though, installing a kitchen is virtually useless.

An officer may not frequent fast food restaurants, but could very well still eat just as poorly (think Hungry Man frozen dinners, frozen pizzas, and Ramen noodles).

I support Mr. Weis' intentions, but focusing solely on exercise -- and apparently leaving nutrition out of the equation -- leaves a vital piece out of this puzzle.

My advice? Add on a few free of charge mandatory nutrition 101 sessions for the squad.

Numbers Game: Regular? Don't You Mean Ridiculous?

A regular Quizno's tuna melt sub sandwich adds up to ________ calories, _______ grams of saturated fat, and ________ milligrams of sodium.

(NOTE: Saturated fat consumption should not exceed 20 grams per day, and the maximum daily sodium limit is set at 2,400 milligrams)

a) 987/13/1,098
b) 1,367/11/1,404
c) 1,420/21/1,535
d) 1,250/17/1,902

Leave your guess in the "comments" section and come back on Thursday for the answer (and the numbers you get from the LARGE!)

Numbers Game: Answer

A six-piece chicken strip basket at Dairy Queen packs in 12 grams of trans fat and 2,910 milligrams of sodium.

(NOTE: Trans fat consumption is recommended at zero grams a day; maximum daily sodium intake is set at 2,400 milligrams)

That's what six chicken strips, a handful of fries, two slices of toast, and some gravy sauce add up to (in an entree many people have for lunch on any given day).

Think you can soften the blow by getting just four chicken strips, skimping on the fries, and starting with a bowl of cream of broccoli soup?

Think again!

That bowl sets you back 570 calories, five grams of trans fat and an outrageous 4,770 milligrams of sodium!

Yes, that's four THOUSAND -- not a typo of four hundred.

Hope you get a tall glass of water with that order...

In The News: Caloric Controversy

Back in January I posted about the New York City Board of Health's motion forcing chain restaurants to display caloric information in a conspicuous fashion (i.e.: on the menu, rather than the double cheeseburger wrapper you don't see until AFTER you have paid for your order).

Then, on February 4, I referred you to a link on Marion Nestle's blog where she notified us that the National Restaurant Association was preparing to fire back with litigation claiming such a rule was unnecessary, unfounded, and detrimental to consumers.

Now, The New York Times is providing details on the affidavit submitted to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

And, oh, what interesting details they are!

To begin with, the document is penned by Dr. David B. Allison.

Allison is not a high-profile corporate lawyer.

Oh no. Far from it. He's a professor of nutrition at the University of Alabama -- and the incoming president of the Obesity Society!

That's right. A man at the helm of an organization whose vision is to "be the leader in understanding, preventing and treating obesity and in improving the lives of those affected" is against calorie labeling and representing McDonald's, Burger King, and other fast food restaurants.

His arguments against the Board of Health's motion?

"Dr. Allison argues that the new rules could backfire — whether by adding to the forbidden-fruit allure of high-calorie foods or by sending patrons away hungry enough that they will later gorge themselves even more."

Sending away hungry patrons? Posting caloric information on a board is very different from armed guards threatening people with machine guns if they dare step inside a McDonald's.

The goal is simply to provide consumers with information allowing them to make healthier choices.

I should point out that I have given talks and workshops in the past where I actually show people how they can go to McDonald's for a meal and choose appropriately.

I do not recommend McDonald's be a daily staple, but I recognize that once in a while, whether out of personal preference or other reasons (i.e.: you're on the road, starving, pressed for time, and your only option is fast food), people will be looking up at a fast food menu deciding what to order.

Although it may be "so obvious" to some, many people aren't aware that a Big Mac with large fries and a large Coke is a very different meal from a regular hamburger with small fries and a bottle of water.

In fact, there is roughly a 900 calorie difference between those two options!

In any case, Allison supports his theory that calorie labeling will drive away hungry patrons who will ultimately end up gorging by "citing research showing that birds put on weight when food is scarce."

Too bad food scarcity is completely irrelevant in this discussion.

Consumers are not told to either order a 1,400 calorie meal or go home empty-handed. They can go ahead and order that 1,400 calorie meal, but now they'll KNOW it is a 1,400 calorie meal.

Allison proudly claims that he utilizes scientific evidence in his affidavit to prove his point.

Specifically, he "cites a study that found that dieters who were distracted while eating and presented with information that food was high in calories were more likely to overeat."

I love how people throw around the term "scientific evidence" as if that automatically means what they are about to say is a universal truth.

The study he points at mentions dieters being distracted while eating. How, exactly, would calorie labeling distract people as they eat? The information only comes to play while they are ordering.

A Board of Health representative will not be sitting across from them as they bite into their Big Mac notifying them of how many calories they just paid for.

Luckily, the Obesity Society is not standing behind Allison.

"The obesity group released a statement on Tuesday supporting calorie labeling on menus. “The Obesity Society believes that more information on the caloric content of restaurant servings, not less, is in the interests of consumers,” said the statement by the society, which is based in Silver Spring, Md."

I am surprised the Obesity Society is still permitting Dr. Allison to come in as president.

Isn't his support of the National Restaurant Association akin to the head of the National Rifle Association supporting strict gun control laws?