Gothamist: Another Big Fat Delay for NYC Calorie Rules

randomdilemma

Thu, 24 Apr 2008 15:29:16 -0500

I have to agree with EastRiver. This should apply to all restaurants. The notion that this is more of burden to small restaurants is bull. I can tell you the caloric content of the sandwich I just made myself for lunch with about one minute of research on the internet. When people continue to eat at these restaurants (and they will, because they do now when they already know it's bad for them), what's next? A signed affidavit stating that you realize the food you are about to be served is bad for you?

EastRiver

Thu, 24 Apr 2008 13:00:59 -0500

I haven't read the law but I wonder how easy it would be for an operation like Nobu to make minor changes at each location so that it doesn't qualify as a "chain". If you've ever been a Nobu or just walked by one they are all pretty much the same: menu, decor, name. They have one blanket website so it would be hard to say they aren't the same business. Well if they can BS their ownership structure so could McDonald's. The franchisees should just break up their ownership so that each corporate entity only owned 14 or fewer stores. Or they could just make the law apply to every restaurant which would actually fair. This is like that ridiculous health care law in Maryland that somehow miraculously only applied to Wal-mart.

Politburo

Thu, 24 Apr 2008 12:27:25 -0500

I haven't read the law but I wonder how easy it would be for an operation like Nobu to make minor changes at each location so that it doesn't qualify as a "chain".

EastRiver

Thu, 24 Apr 2008 12:01:25 -0500

Joeb, the nutrition information is required on all packaged food. The restaurant bill here applies to chains with 15 stores or more nationwide. I don't know about a First Amendment case but it seems pretty ridiculous to exclude individual restaurants that may be serving pretty much the same food. FYI, there 12 Nobu restaurants in the United States. I would give anything for them to expand a little more and then fall under this law.

Alex

Thu, 24 Apr 2008 11:52:45 -0500

As others have said, this 1st amendment claim is bullshit. My Harlem ihop has already had the calorie count for a few weeks. I'm trying to bulk up, so knowing my meal was 1500 calories was very helpful.

joeb

Thu, 24 Apr 2008 10:47:24 -0500

There's a lot of precedent for this. Look at the back of any packaged food and you'll the easy-to-read Nutrition Facts section. First amendment? In the grand scheme of government regulation of commerce, this is nothing.

Reality Czech

Thu, 24 Apr 2008 10:34:28 -0500

If displaying the caloric information is going to detract and decrease in business profits in anyway, it will be deemed illegal and unconstitutional. The business of America is business.

Politburo

Thu, 24 Apr 2008 10:27:54 -0500

In a perfect world, they would be laughed out of court.. there simply is no first amendment prohibition against requiring disclosure of information in a commercial transaction. I only did a quick reading of the FDCA (as amended by NCLA), and while there is federal preemption, it appears to allow State and local jurisdictions to require nutritional labeling of restaurant food (403A, 403(q)5).

matty

Thu, 24 Apr 2008 10:24:29 -0500

Subway does it voluntarily. When I eat there I actually use it.