From Oregonlive, here’s an update on HB 2726, the bill that would require chain restaurants to disclose calorie and nutrition information to consumers. The bill reportedly passed out of committee. Here’s the interesting thing. It passed out of committee on straight party lines. All the D’s voted in favor, and all R’s voted against.

Next stop, the House floor. I don’t have any idea what the vote count looks like on this one.

I have to go back to my original question on this. How could anyone oppose giving consumers more information so that consumers can make informed food choices? After all, we’re told that people need to take responsibility for their own decisions. I get that. But for every mouth that’s uttered those words, tell me how voting against more information for consumers helps accomplish this?

I’m listening for answers.

David Sugerman

A new proposed law pending in the Oregon Legislature, HB 2726, would require chain restaurants to provide Oregon consumers with calorie and nutrition information on items on the menu. Onward Oregon is pushing the bill. As I’ve noted before, giving consumers calorie and nutrition information is a great idea.

Those who are critical of obesity fast-food lawsuits should be quick to hop on board.  Legislative regulation is a great alternative to regulation by litigation.  After all, if you give a consumers truthful and timely information about the food they are buying, they can’t claim that they were misled by the seller.

Some are critical of this approach. After all, we’re told, some warnings are ridiculous. True, a warning like, “Be careful, don’t hit your finger,” on the side of a hammer is goofy or worse. But when–due to its design–the same hammer can shatter into a thousand pieces and project metal splinters, you better believe that consumers should be informed.

If you’re interested in supporting HB 2726, go here and let your legislator know.

George Orwell would have marvelled at the name, “The Center for Consumer Freedom.” Is that a great name or what? So why are they opposed to food labeling requirements? Why do they claim that the obesity epidemic is a contrivance? And why do they counsel consumers to get written waivers from guests before serving unlabeled Thanksgiving dinners that might have lots of calories and fats?

The “Center for Consumer Freedom” is a front for food processors, manufacturers, and fast food restaurant chains. It was started with seed money from tobacco giant Philip Morris.  According to the Center, it’s the evil trial lawyers that you need to fear at the Thanksgiving table. Full disclosure: While I don’t think of myself as evil, I am, in fact, a trial lawyer.

So here’s a question for the Orwellian people at Center for Consumer Freedom: What are you afraid of? What do you and your funders fear? Is it that informed consumers might make choices that hurt sales and profits? Is it that the calorie dense corn syrup-fueled commodities might lose their sweet and profitable allure once consumers have the ability to make choices? One of the things lost on the deregulation crowd (say, “oink!” all) is that disclosure rules provide the best form of regulation. When consumers have information, they can choose with knowledge. Isn’t that preferable to rules that prohibit things?

At bottom, the food industry makes choices in what it puts in its products. If you want to blame us for “being fat” then surely you can’t oppose giving us the information that allows us to make smart choices. Or can you?

In the end, it’s easy to demonize the trial lawyers. But we didn’t start spiking processed foods with high-fructose corn syrup. But even worse, the disclosure rules opposed by the “Center for Consumer Freedom” would lessen lawsuits.  If consumers know what they’re getting, they have literally no cause to complain. So–to quote one of their fund sources from an old campaign–Where’s the beef?

David Sugerman

Here’s the US Department of Agriculture’s brochure on new rules requiring labeling of the country of orgiin of meats, fish and produce.  At the same time, the State of California is requiring larger restaurant chains to provide calorie and nutrition information to consumers. Both sets of rules provide important information to consumers, though each works on different parts of food issues.

I’m a fan of both, even if they will no doubt draw the ire of those who say that there are too many regulations.

As to country of origin rules, until China puts systems in place to provide safe products, I’m not feeding my kids food from there. Apart from that, country of origin labeling helps with a separate problem. It takes an awful lot of oil to grow and ship kiwis from New Zealand and grapes from Chile to North America. My preference is to buy food that doesn’t consume Middle Eastern oil or add more greenhouse gas to the atmosphere.  So country of origin labeling helps a little on that front.

And as for the food menu calorie rules, we’ve got the whole obesity problem. The theory is that calorie count information will help consumers make wise choices. I’m not sure whether it will work, as I can imagine that more information won’t lead  people to make better food choices at the food court. But even if the new rules don’t lead all consumers to think before they order, providing information gives motivated consumers the ability to make choices.  Put another way, once you know that the Outback’s Bloomin’ Onion appetizer has 2300 calories, you can make informed choices if you’re concerned about weight.

Both sets of rules seem like wise policy to me.

David Sugerman

I hadn’t been following the nutrition information restaurant posting issue too closely. It seems that a divided county commission took the first step to require chain restaurants to post nutrition information yesterday. I was a bit surprised that Lisa Naito voted against, and Maria Rojo de Steffy initially opposed the measure.

Naito’s  opposition surprised me because she had previously led the charge to remove trans fats from the menu of Multnomah County restaurants. As for Rojo de Steffy, she’s been identified as a former board member of the American Heart Association.  Rojo de Steffy eventually joined the majority, but Naito soldiered on.

The Oregonian didn’t mention the Oregon Restaurant Association, but I assumed that their fingerprints were all over the opposition. This note seems to confirm my suspicion.

The Restaurant Association is often something of a sheep in wolf’s clothing. On a national level, the tobacco industry uses the National Restaurant Association as its surrogate on issues like smoke free bars and restaurant rules. The same is apparently true on a local level.  They also get involved in gambling issues.  The point is that I’m not a fan, and it’s nice to see them lose something that obviously matters to them.

As to the substantive issue, I have to wonder why opponents are so torqued about this one.  We hear a lot about personal responsibility, choice, and free markets from those who advocate less regulation. Cool beans. But see, the only thing that is going on here is that consumers are getting more information so that they can make informed choices. I guess I have to wonder what’s wrong with giving consumers more information.

David Sugerman