"That's how much is in a Big Mac?? Well forget that! I'm going to Fat Mo's from now on!"

Out of sight, out of mind and that's just dangerous - I'm for it. We as a country eat too much garbage and if we have the information right in front of us, the companies can see what the people aren't buying as often and try to make it healthier.

I've seen Wendy's and such put nutritional info on a board in their restaurants. I really doubt anyone has ever looked at it.

But aside from that, it's 2008. If you don't realize whatever you're ordering at a fast food place is really bad for you by now, you probably aren't smart enough to function in society. I mean, I admit I can't resist the Baconator now and then, but I don't need to be told how awful it is for me, I already know.

This, to me, just sounds like someone trying to act like they're doing something by enacting an idea that really won't have an impact. People aren't going to stop ordering the double quarter pounder with cheese because there's a sign (although they do order them with a diet coke...hilarious).


I DO think it might have an impact on 'real' restaurants where this info would be on menus that patrons spend several minutes reading and analyzing....however, I don't think this would in any way affect our consumption of fast food, which is what (I presume) this is mainly targeted at.

It's no big deal. I moved from Nashville to NYC last year, where calorie counts are required to be posted. Noticed them the first few times I went out, but now I regularly overlook them.

As with most such things I set the split at corporate vs privately owned. With the privileges of incorporation come the responsibilities of regulation. That pretty well automatically exempts "small businesses", without setting some arbitrary ever-changing definition, and it's not "unfair" to expect more of the companies who have been granted charters.

The part of me that wishes healthy food was more a part of our fast-paced lifestyle likes this as a feel-good gesture. But I have a really hard time believing that people are only going to fast food chains simply because they don't have adequate nutritional information (that they may or may not even know how to fully translate and apply). It's not the lower cost? It's not the convenience? It's not the laziness or the habit? Small-font nutritional info on a sign or menu may help a few honest seekers, but it's nonsensical for a government-mandated order that striving to be anything resembling effective.

I saw this in New York, and I say the more information the better. For people on (responsible) weight-loss programs, it can only help them more easily keep track of what they're consuming -- and for everyone else, what does it hurt?

Absolutely not. People have the intelligence to know that a Big Mac is going to be unhealthy or a banana split will have an obscene number of calories. We don't need the government to force any kind of business, especially small, struggling independent restaurants to publish health facts that the average customer should be able to estimate for him/herself.
More government regulation = more problems.

The proposal only concerns restaurant chains of 10 or more locations, so do those count as small, struggling independent restaurants (I suspect the answer could be both yes and no depending on which privately owned chain we examine).

Do you think there is an alternative way to fix the growing obesity rate? 60% of Nashvillians are overweight or obese! I'm genuinely curious (not being sarcastic, would love your opinion), because I don't think requiring nutrition info on menus will change the root behavior and therefore I don't think it's a very effective way to address an overweight Nashville. I don't really have much of a problem with the regulation aspect, but I just don't think it's "the answer." But then again, what is?

I don't think it's a magic bullet, but that doesn't mean it won't help. Even if all it does it make one think twice before supersizing.

Then there's the pressure it puts on the companies to make their numbers more attractive, looking for ways to make the default options healthier.

All or none (all for small business, but that would be an unfair advantage), but they should do it. Too easy for businesses to use semantics to make food sound or look healthy. We don't need big regulation, but can't have none, just a small amount of regulation that actually works to keep people informed. Is that too much to ask now a days?

Seems to be the common opinion, all or nothing. Sounds fair to me, but I'd love to hear from a restaurant owner on the other side of the table. I'm sure they have a good argument.

I don't know if it will even prevent people from eating that crap.

Nutritional information = don't eat fast food everyday you are disgusting.

I don't think they should be regulating anything or if they're going to - make everyone do it. If consumers actually cared, they would ask for or look up the information themselves. People know full well what they're getting themselves into when they eat at fast food joints... I think that would be overstepping the boundaries for Metro Health.

Well, for one thing, I think certain parts of the public are more informed than others. Or even for the informed parts--I may stop and pick up an order of fries from McDonalds from time to time even knowing they're unhealthy, but I'm probably not going to go look up the calorie information. If it's staring me in the face when I go to place my order, though, I'd probably be grossed out enough to resist.

It needs to be all restaurants or none. Drawing the line at "fast food" would be too hard to apply fairly.

With that in mind, it will really kill the vibe when going to a nice steak place (like Ruth's Chris or Morton's) and having the calories listed along side their very simple menus. I think it should just be required to be posted where a person can see it before ordering. On the wall in where seating is available (which most already do) plus listed on a sign next to the any drive-thru menus.

Yeah, I definitely have to wonder who makes the distinction between what's fast food and what's not, and how that goes over with the parts of the industry that aren't favored by the kind of legislation, you know?

while nutritional guides staring me in the face would probably prevent me from eating that crap, I have to wonder if it's a bit too overreaching for government. If they do follow through, it should be across the board for all restaurants.

Totally cool with it, but then you probably would have guessed that... :)

I think it's a wonderful idea!

I'm cool with it. I don't eat that rubbish anyway!
Makes me wanna finally go vegan

Daggumit that picture is making me hungry... and mad at myself for letting it make me hungry...

I'm completely cool with this. I think it's awesome. Most people underestimate how many calories they consume on a daily basis anyway. Bravo Metro Health!

Those calories I used in the headline are very real - a large fry and a 32 oz triple chocolate shake at McD's. I would have never realized that until I looked it up. Scary!