Resize Font Increase Font Size Decrease Font Size Reset Font Size

printable version email to a friend join our e-mail list


California Senator Admits Menu Labeling Walks A Fine Line

California Senator Admits Menu Labeling Walks A Fine Line

Government-mandated menu labeling represents the latest attempt by food cops to dictate our diets. Today’s Wall Street Journal features a report on this trend, outlining the counties and cities that have already passed labeling mandates into law -- and the 21 other proposals that are still pending at the city, state, and federal levels. California State Senator Alex Padilla, author of a California proposal, admits to the Journal that menu-labeling advocates are “walking the fine line of [avoiding] telling people what they can or cannot eat, or telling the restaurants what they can or cannot serve.” But a recent string of civil torts suggests that “telling the restaurants what they can or cannot serve” is exactly what will happen if menu labeling is enacted on a large scale.

Earlier this year, eight Scripps television affiliates investigated the accuracy of nutrition information posted on menus and found that the actual dishes varied from posted menu tallies by as much as three times the listed amounts. (The difference is understandable once you realize the lab included free sides -- like complimentary bread, butter, and cheeses -- in its tests, even though the restaurants rightly list the nutrition facts for those items separately.)

Nevertheless, this opened the floodgates. Last week, a Seattle law firm filed two class-action lawsuits against several major restaurant chains for “misrepresenting nutritional content of menu items.”

Offering a variety of side orders and other options is good for consumer choice. But now restaurants are learning that “made to order” may translate to “willful negligence” when nutrition facts enter into the picture.

These ridiculous legal cases have the potential to establish a dangerous precedentin the form of an unintended menu-labeling consequences. If offering consumers nutritional information exposes restaurants to claims of “engaging in unfair and deceptive business practices,” the recent string of menu-labeling laws highlighted by the Journal will effectively turn our favorite eateries into sitting ducks.

email us comments



printable version email to a friend join our e-mail list
Headlines


David vs. Goliath
Posted On: Tuesday 8/19/2008

Nutty Warning Labels (Literally)
Posted On: Tuesday 8/12/2008

Time To Ban The Bans
Posted On: Monday 8/11/2008

Do The (Obesity) Math
Posted On: Thursday 8/7/2008

Road to Nanny State Paved With Bad Intentions?
Posted On: Thursday 7/31/2008

100 Percent Fat, 100 Percent False
Posted On: Wednesday 7/30/2008

California’s Silliest Law Is About To Get Sillier
Posted On: Monday 7/28/2008

Same Old, Same Old ...
Posted On: Thursday 7/24/2008

Food Cops Closer To Banning Fast Food
Posted On: Wednesday 7/23/2008


Op-Eds

Very Little Truth In Labeling
What's wrong with forcing restaurants to label menus in the same way food companies label a box of cereal? read more here »


About Us | Contact Us | Please Help Us | Site Map
Ad Campaigns | Press Center | Daily News Archive | Email Subscription | Op-Eds | Cartoons | Games | Link To Us
Copyright © 1997-2008 Center for Consumer Freedom. Tel: 202-463-7112.