The NY Times editorialized on the NYC program to post the calorie count of items at certain fast-food restaurants. An excerpt:
Health officials in New York City call it fast-food sticker shock. Since last May, chain restaurants in the city have been required to list the number of calories for every item on their menus. According to a recent survey, more than 80 percent of those who saw the calorie count were “surprised,” even shocked, that an innocent-looking bran muffin could contain 470 calories and a full-fledged Big Mac attack (with soda and fries, of course) more than 1,200.
Health officials around the country are pushing to adopt New York’s “Read ’Em Before You Eat ’Em” postings as another way to attack obesity.
[…]
Despite New York City’s image as a place where gaunt is glamorous, over half its adults are overweight or obese. City officials have started a good campaign in the subways reminding people that for most adults 2,000 calories a day is enough.
This is a super-sized example of do-as-we-say, not-as we do. Has the Times ever published the calorie count in their “Dining & Wine” section? Of course not. Why? Because it would be onerous and expensive to do so. Even when they publish a “Recipe for Health,” the calorie count is absent.
One other idea for the Times. . .
Earlier this year, we posted on the crackdown at the Times on reporter expense accounts. My suggestion is that the Times implement a new expense policy that pays employees on a per-calorie basis. Since the editors, in all their eminent wisdom, have determined that 2,000 calories a day is sufficient, why not limit their employees to reimbursement for 2,000 calories a day while they’re on the road? All they have to do is figure out the average cost of a calorie in different cities across America, multiply by 2,000 (or less, adjusted for sex, height, BMI, etc.) and that’s all the employee is entitled to for expenses.