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