October 26, 2005
MCDONALD'S, MCSUBWAY, WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE?
In an apparent effort to lure health-conscious consumers into the company's 30,000 restaurants, McDonald's today unveiled a new packaging format that includes a nutritional information chart on the packaging of most of its fast food products. Graphics for calories, fat, protein, carbohydrates, and sodium will appear on packaging for McDonald's food products along with a value and the daily-recommended allowances based on governmental nutritional guidelines starting in March of 2006. Here in the U.S., the labels will appear in English and Spanish, while in Canada labels will be in English and French.
Reaction from one of McDonald's sharpest critics has been swift and to the point:
-- A far better step would be to provide calorie counts right on the menu board, so consumers would have that one critical piece of information before they placed their order. Considering Americaís obesity epidemic, that calorie information would do more than just about any other measure to help people protect their waistlines. We hope that McDonaldís will upgrade its menu boards voluntarily or at least not oppose legislation in New York, Washington, D.C., and other locales that would require it. ~Michael Jacobson, Executive Director, Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI)
Along with some state legislators,
CSPI advocates putting calorie counts directly on menu boards, a move fast food companies say will clutter menus and slow service. Some states have already voted the measure down, while others, including New York, are still pursuing bills that would require fast food chains to include calorie counts on their menu boards.
While I feel McDonald's is making a step in the right direction, I agree wholeheartedly with Jacobson and CSPI. Putting nutritional information onto packagingópackaging that isnít even seen by the consumer until after theyíve ordered, paid for, and taken delivery of their foodóis not going nearly far enough. Menu boards, along with traditional restaurant menus themselves, must present calorie values up front in order for consumers to know what theyíre really eating.
McDonald's also needs to go a step further by distinguishing between saturated and trans fat from total fatóan important distinction. As it stands right now, McDonaldís fried foods are high in saturated and trans fat, with their potatoes, chicken, and fish all being fried in partially hydrogenated oil.
Finally, I think it's quite timely to note the following: in a study released just last week (called the McSubway Project), researchers interviewed 300 people as they finished their lunches at a McDonald's or Subway restaurant, asking each what they ate and how many calories they thought they had consumed. Researchers then calculated the number of calories actually consumed by adding up the calories in the foods and subtracting the calories in their leftovers. Among the findings presented last week at the annual meeting of Maryland-based NAASO, also known as the Obesity Society, an organization of weight-loss professionals:
ï McDonald's consumers consumed around 710 calories, while estimating that they had eaten about 670 calories.
ï Those who ate at Subway consumed around 560 calories while estimating that they only consumed 335.
The study clearly shows that McDonald's customers know that theyíre consuming a lot of calories, while those who eat at Subway experience whatís being called a 'halo effect,' allowing them to think they were eating better than they actually are. McDonaldís recent announcement that theyíll add nutritional information to its packaging may have the same impact, especially if consumers have no idea of how many calories equals one pound.
By the wayÖ 3,500 calories equals one pound!
Posted by Mikal at October 26, 2005 9:08 AM
| TrackBack
I usually eat at Subway, when I have fast food mainly because I know that there is less fat in the subs that I order (turkey) than hamburgers from McDonaldís or any of the other burger joints. Also, I order a half sub and only eat half of that, saving the other half for the next day, which is hard to do with a hamburger.
Another factor to consider is that when you order at a burger joint you usually get a combo meal which includes French fries, while at Subway you can get baked potato chips.
As much as I agree with your general point here, I think that it's dangerous to pass legislation that requires food establishments to post their nutritional information. Are NY and WDC also going to require Applebees and the like to post their nutritional info on the menu? What about independent mom and pop restaurants? Where do you draw the line? Do the mom and pop stores have resources to get their food ana-lyzed or are the governments going to subsidize it? [I had to hyphenate ana-lyzed b/c your filter wouldn't let it go by (take the first four letters by themselves).]
To a certain extent here, I think "let the buyer beware" is worth following here. So long as McDonald's is not making their food physically addictive, we all have to take general responsibility for making good choices. Perhaps asking the restaurants to have nutritional information handouts available is a better option. I used them all the time while on Weight Watchers.
Another solution is to teach nutrition and healthy cooking/eating classes in elementary school, having food fairs and healthy options available at lunch, etc.
