Menu Labeling Update: This Is How They'll Undermine Us

by: JayinPhiladelphia

Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 04:27:42 AM PDT

Yum Brands Inc. said Wednesday that its company-owned Kentucky Fried Chicken, Taco Bell, Pizza Hut, Long John Silver's and A&W All-American Food locations in the United States will begin placing calorie information on menu boards.

Calorie information will be based on individual serving sizes and will be phased onto menu boards beginning this year and completed by Jan. 1, 2011, the Louisville, Ky.-based company (NYSE: YUM) said in a news release.

Remember as a kid...those activity book pictures with some seemingly normal scene, but there were always one or two things we were tasked with picking out that when we looked closer were so obviously wrong and ridiculous?  I remember being assigned many of them in my early years of public school, and I believe they actually contributed to my cynicism as an adult...and I really wonder whether public schools still use those things these days.  (Do they?  Does anybody know?)  After all, it's pretty obvious that developing critical thinking skills in individuals from an early age only makes it that much harder to ultimately create a society of mindless 'consumers'.  

Ah, but anyways...two things instantly struck me as I read those first two (quoted) sentences of the above-linked article, and it also confirmed for me that the fast food "industry" is taking the exact tack I thought they would in eventually co-opting and undermining menu labeling laws.  Many thoughts below the fold...

Only a few words into the first sentence of the article where I first read of this, something sent up red flags -

Yum Brands Inc. said Wednesday that its company-owned Kentucky Fried Chicken, Taco Bell, Pizza Hut, Long John Silver's and A&W All-American Food locations in the United States will begin placing calorie information on menu boards.

I asked myself, what about franchisees?  Later on, the article states that Yum! Brands will simply 'encourage' franchisees to provide the information.  

So then I asked myself...I says, "Self - how many of Yum! Brands restaurants are company-owned as opposed to being owned by franchisees?"  After a 15 minute circular search, I finally found my answer after stumbling upon a search result that led me to Yum! Brands' page on the New York Stock Exchange, which led me back to Yum! Brands' website, where I found (warning - pdf!) their 2007 annual report.  Buried down on Page 81, here are the numbers -

Number of stores at year end (2007)

Company 7,625
Unconsolidated Affiliates 1,314
Franchisees 24,297
Licensees 2,109

That's 22% (with a very generous roundup - it's really only 21.57%), or just slightly over 1 in 5 Yum! Brand restaurants that this company policy will affect.  A fantastic way to buy positive press for KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell and etc. without really doing anything to earn it...

This is genius framing on their part - they're setting themselves up as proactively becoming "leaders" on this issue.  Never mind that they're only doing it because they read the writing on the wall in the form of menu labeling laws that have already passed in Portland, Seattle, San Francisco and New York City...

And of course, the fact remains that the nutrition information necessary for people to make informed food choices goes far beyond simple calorie counts.  I feel that calorie count labeling laws are a decent place to start, but only that...just a starting point.  The obvious danger here is companies and public advocacy groups slapping each other on the backs (bad move there CSPI - you "salute Colonel Sanders"?  Ughh...); and then when we push to increase the amount of necessary nutrition information made available to the public, our side is the one that's going to end up looking 'unreasonable' (after all, Pizza Hut's already been 'praised' and 'saluted' by our side for "taking action"...).

Franchisees will be encouraged to provide the same information, Yum said, adding that it also will lobby for federal legislation to require such information.

And here we go - they're going to head off real reform by pushing for national legislation that will essentially be toothless and meaningless.  And once weak federal menu labeling laws exist, I'm willing to bet it will be infinitely harder for states, counties and cities to pass stricter and more progressive legislation requiring disclosure of nutritional information from these chains...

Individual Serving Sizes

So what's wrong with this sentence -

Calorie information will be based on individual serving sizes

Ah!  Stop right there...

We've been through this before.  Anybody who's ever been in a corner store or a gas station may already know that a 20-oz. bottle of Coca Cola is defined as 2.5 "servings".  But how many people actually drink 40% of one of those bottles, put the rest in the fridge...drink 67% of the remainder the next day, put it back in the fridge and finally finish it up on the third day?  Here in America, I'm willing to state with absolute certainty that that number is zero.

So we know that 8 oz. of soda is a "serving".  I don't eat fast food, but I did once.  And unless things have drastically changed over the past 6 or 7 years, I'm pretty sure that "value meals" do not come with 8 oz. size sodas (I believe they begin at closer to 22 oz. or so).  So there's at least one way in which calorie counts based upon "individual servings" are very misleading.  If they can chip a couple hundred calories off of a "meal" just on the drink alone, what can they do with the french fries / sandwiches / other 'main course'?

And then there's also the fact that above all else, fast "food" and soda will always be empty calories devoid of any nutritional value whatsoever, but that's another issue for another time...

California's SB 1240

Well, it's been signed.  Here's what it will do -

SB 1420, introduced by state Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Pacoima, requires restaurant chains with 20 or more outlets to post calorie information on their menus and indoor menu boards by January 2011. They will also have to post brochures with calorie and other nutritional information, such as saturated fat, carbohydrates and sodium, at registers or drive-throughs by July 2009.

All in all, pretty basic.  And rather weak...as these restaurants love to repeat ad nauseam, brochures containing nutritional information have already been available for years.  Calorie counts right in bold up on the main menu next to each item will clearly have more of an effect on people's choices than informational brochures (available only upon request) that many, if not most, people don't know even exist; but this law doesn't even require that until January 2011.  That's 27 months from now...

And what remains to be seen is what sort of an effect this state legislation will have on municipalities or counties that would try to enact regulations requiring more nutritional information to be prominently displayed.

FWIW, here's what a violation of this law will result in -

(h) Commencing July 1, 2009, a food facility that violates this
section is guilty of an infraction, punishable by a fine of not less
than fifty dollars ($50) or more than five hundred dollars ($500),
which may be assessed by a local enforcement agency. However, a food
facility may not be found to violate this section more than once
during an inspection visit. Notwithstanding Section 113395, a
violation of this section is not a misdemeanor.

How often are these places inspected, btw?  And will a once-every-few-years $50 fine really encourage compliance?

(g) For purposes of this section, a standard menu item does not
include food items that are on the menu for less than six months,
condiments, other items placed on the table or counter for general
use without charge and alcoholic beverages.

I see a gaping hole there - can't restaurants have their signature sandwiches / items on the menu for 5 months and 29 days, take it off the menu for a day...and then put it back on without ever having to display even simple calorie counts?

As a side note - unsurprisingly, angry little man Richard Berman is still angry.  That poor, sorry little man - his 'concern' is almost touching...

Meh.