I take issue with a couple sentences in the post
"I am evangelically of the opinion that in order to eat right, we need to take the morality out of food. It's not sinful, it's not wicked, and it's not bad. Food is a pleasure and we need to treat it as such - not as an enemy."
While in context it's a condemnation of 'fat shaming' and obsessive calorie counting, I am evangelically opposed to taking the morality out of food.
Agriculture weighs heavily on the planet. A large chunk (I'll try to find some numbers later) of carbon emissions come from the food industry. Beyond climate change, a host of ethical and environmental quandaries arise from the food industry. Should we rear cattle on feedlots? Why are some nations starving when grain rots in silos? What to eat is a consumer choice we make every day. Morality, or at least ethics, should absolutely enter into it.
OK, college was a long time ago, but if I remember correctly, my friends and I ate pretty reasonably in the cafeteria - salad here, chicken sandwich there, the occasional fro-yo for dessert - and I am no nutritionist, but I am pretty sure that the "freshman fifteen" (or, in my case "late-onset puberty") isn't so much caused by cafeteria food, as it is by drinking lots of cheap beer three nights a week, and then ordering pizza at 2:00 AM when you're wasted. Like I said, I am no expert, but I would be willing to bet that the average college student's highest calorie consumption happens when they are too drunk/high to care about calories. but maybe things have changed since those olden times...
My school didn't display calorie counts in the food courts and restaurants, and that's fine by me.
In the last five years, I've noticed that the people around me are so fixated on calories and food as a guilty pleasure. So many people I know, including my own sister, are frequently dieting or trying to diet.
I won't diet or worry about the things that I eat. I've found that stress and worry are bigger factors in my weight fluctuations than what I actually put in my mouth.
The calorie counts are up in restaurants to make restaurants accountable for the low cost high fat high sodium poor nutrients ingredients they're selling. We're the richest country in the world and we're getting fat while we are all malnourished. It's not all about fat people, it's about hypertension, heart attack, diabetes, and srsly, why the hell does McDonalds salads have as much sugar as a coke?
College dining halls are just as guilty of using too much crap cheap ingredients and bulking up a meal that couldbe heatlhy until it's a 40 grams of fat, 900 grams of sodium, 1000 calorie nightmare. The calorie counts are for visibility. If you don't like feeling guilty about it, develop a coping skill like everyone else in the world has to with their issues. No one gets over their mental problem by coddling it. (I have a mental disorder. Several.)
My cafeteria still can't reliably tell me what's vegan and what's filled with chunks of beef, so I'm generally open to any improvement in food labeling.
However, in response to Sadie's suggestion, you may pry the Coke from my cold, dead hands.
The problem with taking away calorie counts is that you also lose people who legitimately want to know that information for good reasons. My cafeteria was pretty horrible, and would often be downright sneaky about what they presented as a "healthy" option but what in reality was pretty terrible.
Take, for example, their glazed carrots. Not the healthiest, but it's a vegetable, right? Surely some OJ poured on top can't be all that bad, I thought while standing in line before I glanced at the little menu with calorie counts printed in tiny font below. For a HALF CUP serving of carrots, it boasted FIVE HUNDRED calories. Five. Hundred. Calories. For a half cup. I am not sure what exactly happened to those carrots, but I have utmost sympathy for them.
While something should be done about the eating disorder epidemic, I hope some way can be found to still give people like me that valuable information. I have PCOS, I'm already overweight, and I try to stick to essentially a diabetic diet; I don't need my carrots to have more sugar than my dessert. It's unhealthy. And before you think those carrots were an isolated incident, consider that I gained over 50 pounds since my Freshman year doggedly eating their "healthy way" pre-determined plate of food.
Yes, it may be a contributing factor, but how else am I going to get that information so readily? The website to look up calorie counts (for Sodexho, anyway) is clunky, inefficient, and often wildly out of date, not listing the choices I was actually given to eat, while the cafeteria itself knows what it's serving and can present me with a more accurate calorie count.
So before you say "death to the calorie labels" completely, consider that some cafeterias may be running shenanigans like those 500-calorie carrots.
@Sharon Covington: EXACTLY. The purpose of posting calorie content isn't to tell people that donuts are fattening. No shit. It's to tell people that what they THOUGHT was a healthy choice actually isn't. The carrot example is a perfect one! I had previously thought that chipotle was a healthy-ish choice for lunch. I mean, it's beans, rice, salsa and chicken, right? But after finding out that the burrito has around 800 calories, I definitely don't get it for lunch anymore.
I also kind of take offense to the notion that people (i.e. women) are so fragile that they'll spiral into an eating disorder if they know the calorie content of foods or weigh themselves. I know for some people these are triggering events, but for the majority of people, it's helpful information.
Is a college female anxious about her weight? Then I'd say it has more to do with the magazines she reads, the TV she watches, and the innumerable advertisements for mini skirts, diet secrets, and beauty products, than it does with a discrete card next to a piece of chicken.
If you want to educate people in a way that leads to healthy eating, teach them how to recognize the way the media is manipulating their self-images for the sake of profit.
@LittleDogLaughed: Agree. I'm sick of this reactiveness to every little "triggering" thing and ignoring what the real problems are. If some girls feel bad about the calories and some girls don't, then clearly the cards aren't the problem. The girls who are reacting badly to the cards need to look inside themselves and see why they're having that reaction. Personal history, the culture, asshole friends? We don't need to build a protective bubble around girls with eating disorders at the disservice of the rest of the population, some of whom REALLY NEED that calorie information. It's really not helping the ED girls get better to protect them from the world, either. God knows college is a protected environment as it is...
Part of me wonders if a better solution would be ingredient lists instead of calorie counts, simply because calorie and fat info is available on anything in the grocery store. So you can easily find out, independently of your cafeteria, how many calories and fat are in anything.
So, if you're presented with a dish made with butter and a dish made with olive oil, they both have fats, but the olive oil dish will be "healthier" fats. You're still making informed choices, without encouraging the obsessive angle.
I do understand why having the info is helpful for some people, and I wouldn't suggest banning it. But availability and prominently in your face are two different things.
t's like...when you cook at home, do you carefully map out every calorie of what you're making, or do you make a guess and go from there? I don't think awareness is bad, I think encouraging obsessive and restrictive habits are. And as much as, yes, objectively, this information has no judgment...that's just not how we view food right now.
I also don't think this is catering to the needs of a minority or "diseased" as it is acknowledging that we have an overall issue with the way we look at food. I think a lot more people have disordered food behaviors than we realize. It doesn't have to be a full blown ED to be an issue. And I do think we need to look at why we provide the information. Hopefully it's to inform, but I don't think it's wrong to suggest considering other motives as well.
@tiredfairy: So you'd suggest going to the dining hall, writing down the meal's ingredients, going back to your dorm and googling the calorie counts of everything, estimating how much of each ingredient was used in the preparation of the meal, adding it all up, and THEN making your decision?
Cafeteria menus vary daily, and student meal counts (per meal plans) are often counted by how often you enter the dining hall; your ID is scanned in and your meal is deducted whether or not you eat anything. You really can't expect a school to set up a system that lets kids enter the dining hall twice for one meal.
@voteforme: Not at all, actually. What I'm saying is that if you're a person who already checks food labels, you probably have a good idea that a food made with butter and sugar is going to be higher calories than a food without it. Or that something that's fried will be higher than one that isn't. Grilled chicken is different than fried, etc. Those things are pretty common sense already. So unless someone has never been to a grocery store before or looked at a food label, I think most people know that grilled chicken, or veggies and rice, have lower calories than pizza or burgers and fries.
Also, as the article states, an avocado is high in calories and fat...but they're good for you. We need both to live and to have functioning brains and systems. All fat and calorie counts tell you is how much is in something. Not whether it's a good or bad fat, or a whole grain, or the rest. There's more to a food than just the calories and fat.
Because of how we treat fat and calories, though, I think people end up with a dysfunctional idea about all fat being bad, and end seriously restricting calories and fat based on that.
I'm also wondering how foods will be labeled with all this information. Will it be a full nutritional label, or just the fat and calories? Because, as I said, that's not the entirety of nutrition. I just don't think the proposed labeling is actually all that helpful. I don't, though, have a perfect solution either.
Oh COME ON, posting calories will just lead to people picking the giant bagel and feeling bad about it? If it were me, I might get the bagel with hummus, or eat half now and half later, or go someplace else for lunch. I don't feel bad about being offered a more informed choice.
So many surveys have demonstrated that people vastly underestimate the calories in restaurant meals. I like seeing calorie counts on chain restaurant menus. Some of them are quite surprising.
And if it's not a college's responsibility to provide junk because junk can be had elsewhere, they are likewise under no obligation to provide avocados. Healthy food can be purchased elsewhere, too.
Having worked in food service and catering, I understand that dining halls need to serve food fast, around the clock, appealing to the largest group of people, and at a very low cost. Preparing healthy food well takes more skilled workers, more time, and less students being able to afford the meal plan. Mesclun greens don't keep, but chicken nuggets do. I understand that some schools are serving healthy food, and good on them, but it's no small thing to ask that more do the same, and it's nonsensical to suggest it as the alternative to posting calories.
@Hana Maru: I absolutely agree. I am significantly overweight and in the process of educating myself on calorie and fat content of restaurant eating options and being surprised and horrified, I have definitely started making healthier choices, which begets not only weight loss, but a healthier self-image and healthier body. Weight Watchers has played a big part in this, as have companies posting nutritional info on the web, but to extend this to restaurants, in the moment where you are making the decision, would be awesome. It doesn't take the joy out of eating; it ensures you didn't just spend 1200 calories on an unsatisfying platter of mediocre nachos. It makes you stop and think "Is this worth it?" Maybe numbers aren't everything, but they aren't completely meaningless. I'd definitely want to see fiber included too, because this an important factor in determining a food's nutritional value.
I think it would be fantastic if the cafeterias didn't provide this crap, but if they are going to (which they are, for the reasons Hana Muru mentioned), taking this measure is better than nothing. If this prevents anyone from thinking twice about putting the aforementioned crap into their body, I'm for it.
From my experience, I'd say the anorexia argument is largely neither here nor there: I don't know a single anorexic (and living in Southern California, in an area rife with the beautiful and rich, I know a lot of them) that doesn't extensively research and obsess over the calorie content of everything. The disease is more powerful than a visual reminder in the cafeteria they probably don't eat in anyway; I don't believe it is going to deter this disordered eating (or non-eating, as the case may be), nor is it going to encourage it in the disordered over eaters.
Hopefully I won't be chewed out by the manners brigade, but it needs to be said that anorexia/bulimia/etc. are eating DISORDERS. They are illnesses. You do not use sufferers of illnesses as litmus tests for how healthy people might react or behave. Are we going to demand that schools restructure themselves to meet the needs of autistic children? Are we going to let blind people drive cars as a matter of fairness? There's a thin line between minority disempowerment and simply not passing muster. At some point you have to just deal with what's out there. Calorie charts exist in the world. Banning them from universities does not have an effect on the adult world. This coddling needs to stop. Part of the nature of EDs is that sufferers are allowed to nurture and romanticize them. If you can't deal with a calorie chart, you're already not an ideal candidate for independent living. And I don't mean that as a judgment. Get the medical care you need and then go to college. Sensitivity and understanding are important, but come the fuck on.
@voteforme: Well, I don't really know what you mean by coddling, though. The world does not currently avoid making people with ED's uncomfortable. Nutritional information is on all grocery foods, posted online, and available all over the place. Magazine covers tout diet foods, diets, and weight loss. Our society is obsessed with diets and weight. People with ED's didn't create that.
And I'm really not sure what "part of the nature of ED"s is that sufferers are allowed to nurture and romanticize them" is referring to. Do you mean some sufferers may do that? Possibly. I think it's more of a coping mechanism, really, not romanticism. And anyway, posting this information is not actually necessary for anyone to be able to make food choices, ED's or not. If you're a "normal" eater then you're clearly able to make food choices with or without it posted everywhere. So I don't see how having it, or not having it, would effect people without it one way or another.
Also, this article clearly discusses how often ED' occur -during- college, because of the change in environment and independence, food, depression, hormone changes, etc. Not necessarily before.
Having a "trigger" does not make you unfit to attend to college, live independently, nor is it something people can control. It's an automatic response most people don't know they have until they get treatment. They wouldn't even know it is a trigger until the problem is diagnosed.
I don't know...I get that you think this is "coddling", to suggest that it's not actually necessary to post information that's easily accessible elsewhere, but I don't think it is. I think it's looking at an environment that seems to have an increased risk of something and questioning what the best solution is.
@tiredfairy: It's not helpful to assume that the food in the dining halls is prepared the same way and contains the same ingredients as anything else. Would you rather have an estimate based on someone else's product or know exactly what you're eating? My point is that you shouldn't treat the entire student body as if they have a disease they simply do not have. Suggesting that healthy people go out of their way to seek out websites or do mental math so as not to hurt the fragile ED girls puts everyone in the bizarre situation of treating ED sufferers as if they aren't actually sick. This isn't sexist or racism or any other -ism. It's people with a mental illness wanting the world to change just to suit them. Being triggered by something so commonplace actually does call your ability to survive on your own into question.
You know, I can see how posting nutritional content of food can be a challenge for people with eating disorders or disordered eating. However, as someone with neither of those issues who is also quite health conscious, one of my favorite things about my recent trip to Los Angeles was being able to check the nutritional content of the food I ordered at restaurants. A lot of that stuff is seriously deceptive, and not just in terms of calories but also in terms of bad fats and sodium. We aren't good at gauging those kind of things on our own.
I'm not an obsessed calorie-counter, but I have realized that now that I am heading into middle age, the days when I can eat whatever and not have it impact my health are long gone. And if I want to be good at my chosen sport, I have to be careful about what I eat. This doesn't mean I'm some joyless harridan who eats nothing but flax on iceberg lettuce. I love food, but I also love to be healthy.
I guess I get what you are saying, but I really disagree. I wish more places would post nutritional information about the food they serve. It might make us more aware of exactly what it is we are putting in our bodies.
@whynotshesaid: I complete agree with your post; especially the first paragraph.
Dieticians and other health professionals have for years been advocating consumer education and empowerment through the reading of nutrition labels. When you eat out and those aren't available, this is the next best thing.
At the grocery store the other day I picked up a seemingly ultra-healthy ready-made organic vegetarian frozen meal. It was only once already at home that I discovered that this one tiny stupid package contained over 500 calories and almost half of my daily recommended sodium intake.
Though I understand the point trying to be made here, comparing an avocado to a can of Coke is a ridiculous straw-man argument. Healthful food choices are certainly not always obvious.
My undergrad provided a website where caloric and nutritional content could be looked up for all of the food available on campus. I really liked this solution because the information was very easily accessible, but it wasn't completely in your face.
I wonder if that isn't a better solution than removing junk food. I don't feel comfortable advocating a paternalistic food services policy. Sometimes, a gal or guy really just wants a bag of Fritos.
I can't tell you how much I disagree with your take on this story. Giving people more information about the food they eat is not going to cause eating disorders. We all need more information about what is in our food and calorie information is vital to making better, and healthier, decisions.
@missSpoken: Truth. The sodium levels alone in most dishes at chain restaurants can cause haigh blood pressure.
There's a lawsuit going on right now with Denny's because of the nutrition information was hidden in their website and the sodium in every dish was well over the daily recommendation.
@Vidya108: That is not even remotely true and I don't think we should go that far in the other direction. Everything related to the food you eat is related to health, whether too low for your body or too high. As Sadie said in her article, the key is finding the correct combination of nutrients, calories, etc for your personal self, but pretending that certain aspects just don't matter unless you're engaging in "anorexic behavior" is as unhelpful as schools continuing to serve awful junk food but letting people know just how awful it is.
As a guy who really loves to read Jezebel and has learned alot from it, I had to laugh at my "Men Are From Mars" moment when I realized that the "ED" in the title referred to Eating Disorders and not Erectile Dysfunction.
09/17/09
"I am evangelically of the opinion that in order to eat right, we need to take the morality out of food. It's not sinful, it's not wicked, and it's not bad. Food is a pleasure and we need to treat it as such - not as an enemy."
While in context it's a condemnation of 'fat shaming' and obsessive calorie counting, I am evangelically opposed to taking the morality out of food.
Agriculture weighs heavily on the planet. A large chunk (I'll try to find some numbers later) of carbon emissions come from the food industry. Beyond climate change, a host of ethical and environmental quandaries arise from the food industry. Should we rear cattle on feedlots? Why are some nations starving when grain rots in silos? What to eat is a consumer choice we make every day. Morality, or at least ethics, should absolutely enter into it.
09/16/09
09/16/09
In the last five years, I've noticed that the people around me are so fixated on calories and food as a guilty pleasure. So many people I know, including my own sister, are frequently dieting or trying to diet.
I won't diet or worry about the things that I eat. I've found that stress and worry are bigger factors in my weight fluctuations than what I actually put in my mouth.
09/16/09
College dining halls are just as guilty of using too much crap cheap ingredients and bulking up a meal that couldbe heatlhy until it's a 40 grams of fat, 900 grams of sodium, 1000 calorie nightmare. The calorie counts are for visibility. If you don't like feeling guilty about it, develop a coping skill like everyone else in the world has to with their issues. No one gets over their mental problem by coddling it. (I have a mental disorder. Several.)
09/16/09
However, in response to Sadie's suggestion, you may pry the Coke from my cold, dead hands.
09/16/09
Take, for example, their glazed carrots. Not the healthiest, but it's a vegetable, right? Surely some OJ poured on top can't be all that bad, I thought while standing in line before I glanced at the little menu with calorie counts printed in tiny font below. For a HALF CUP serving of carrots, it boasted FIVE HUNDRED calories. Five. Hundred. Calories. For a half cup. I am not sure what exactly happened to those carrots, but I have utmost sympathy for them.
While something should be done about the eating disorder epidemic, I hope some way can be found to still give people like me that valuable information. I have PCOS, I'm already overweight, and I try to stick to essentially a diabetic diet; I don't need my carrots to have more sugar than my dessert. It's unhealthy. And before you think those carrots were an isolated incident, consider that I gained over 50 pounds since my Freshman year doggedly eating their "healthy way" pre-determined plate of food.
Yes, it may be a contributing factor, but how else am I going to get that information so readily? The website to look up calorie counts (for Sodexho, anyway) is clunky, inefficient, and often wildly out of date, not listing the choices I was actually given to eat, while the cafeteria itself knows what it's serving and can present me with a more accurate calorie count.
So before you say "death to the calorie labels" completely, consider that some cafeterias may be running shenanigans like those 500-calorie carrots.
09/16/09
I also kind of take offense to the notion that people (i.e. women) are so fragile that they'll spiral into an eating disorder if they know the calorie content of foods or weigh themselves. I know for some people these are triggering events, but for the majority of people, it's helpful information.
09/16/09
If you want to educate people in a way that leads to healthy eating, teach them how to recognize the way the media is manipulating their self-images for the sake of profit.
09/16/09
09/16/09
09/16/09
09/16/09
So, if you're presented with a dish made with butter and a dish made with olive oil, they both have fats, but the olive oil dish will be "healthier" fats. You're still making informed choices, without encouraging the obsessive angle.
I do understand why having the info is helpful for some people, and I wouldn't suggest banning it. But availability and prominently in your face are two different things.
t's like...when you cook at home, do you carefully map out every calorie of what you're making, or do you make a guess and go from there? I don't think awareness is bad, I think encouraging obsessive and restrictive habits are. And as much as, yes, objectively, this information has no judgment...that's just not how we view food right now.
I also don't think this is catering to the needs of a minority or "diseased" as it is acknowledging that we have an overall issue with the way we look at food. I think a lot more people have disordered food behaviors than we realize. It doesn't have to be a full blown ED to be an issue. And I do think we need to look at why we provide the information. Hopefully it's to inform, but I don't think it's wrong to suggest considering other motives as well.
09/16/09
Cafeteria menus vary daily, and student meal counts (per meal plans) are often counted by how often you enter the dining hall; your ID is scanned in and your meal is deducted whether or not you eat anything. You really can't expect a school to set up a system that lets kids enter the dining hall twice for one meal.
09/16/09
Also, as the article states, an avocado is high in calories and fat...but they're good for you. We need both to live and to have functioning brains and systems. All fat and calorie counts tell you is how much is in something. Not whether it's a good or bad fat, or a whole grain, or the rest. There's more to a food than just the calories and fat.
Because of how we treat fat and calories, though, I think people end up with a dysfunctional idea about all fat being bad, and end seriously restricting calories and fat based on that.
I'm also wondering how foods will be labeled with all this information. Will it be a full nutritional label, or just the fat and calories? Because, as I said, that's not the entirety of nutrition. I just don't think the proposed labeling is actually all that helpful. I don't, though, have a perfect solution either.
09/16/09
So many surveys have demonstrated that people vastly underestimate the calories in restaurant meals. I like seeing calorie counts on chain restaurant menus. Some of them are quite surprising.
And if it's not a college's responsibility to provide junk because junk can be had elsewhere, they are likewise under no obligation to provide avocados. Healthy food can be purchased elsewhere, too.
Having worked in food service and catering, I understand that dining halls need to serve food fast, around the clock, appealing to the largest group of people, and at a very low cost. Preparing healthy food well takes more skilled workers, more time, and less students being able to afford the meal plan. Mesclun greens don't keep, but chicken nuggets do. I understand that some schools are serving healthy food, and good on them, but it's no small thing to ask that more do the same, and it's nonsensical to suggest it as the alternative to posting calories.
09/16/09
I think it would be fantastic if the cafeterias didn't provide this crap, but if they are going to (which they are, for the reasons Hana Muru mentioned), taking this measure is better than nothing. If this prevents anyone from thinking twice about putting the aforementioned crap into their body, I'm for it.
From my experience, I'd say the anorexia argument is largely neither here nor there: I don't know a single anorexic (and living in Southern California, in an area rife with the beautiful and rich, I know a lot of them) that doesn't extensively research and obsess over the calorie content of everything. The disease is more powerful than a visual reminder in the cafeteria they probably don't eat in anyway; I don't believe it is going to deter this disordered eating (or non-eating, as the case may be), nor is it going to encourage it in the disordered over eaters.
09/16/09
09/16/09
And I'm really not sure what "part of the nature of ED"s is that sufferers are allowed to nurture and romanticize them" is referring to. Do you mean some sufferers may do that? Possibly. I think it's more of a coping mechanism, really, not romanticism. And anyway, posting this information is not actually necessary for anyone to be able to make food choices, ED's or not. If you're a "normal" eater then you're clearly able to make food choices with or without it posted everywhere. So I don't see how having it, or not having it, would effect people without it one way or another.
Also, this article clearly discusses how often ED' occur -during- college, because of the change in environment and independence, food, depression, hormone changes, etc. Not necessarily before.
Having a "trigger" does not make you unfit to attend to college, live independently, nor is it something people can control. It's an automatic response most people don't know they have until they get treatment. They wouldn't even know it is a trigger until the problem is diagnosed.
I don't know...I get that you think this is "coddling", to suggest that it's not actually necessary to post information that's easily accessible elsewhere, but I don't think it is. I think it's looking at an environment that seems to have an increased risk of something and questioning what the best solution is.
09/17/09
09/16/09
I'm not an obsessed calorie-counter, but I have realized that now that I am heading into middle age, the days when I can eat whatever and not have it impact my health are long gone. And if I want to be good at my chosen sport, I have to be careful about what I eat. This doesn't mean I'm some joyless harridan who eats nothing but flax on iceberg lettuce. I love food, but I also love to be healthy.
I guess I get what you are saying, but I really disagree. I wish more places would post nutritional information about the food they serve. It might make us more aware of exactly what it is we are putting in our bodies.
09/16/09
Dieticians and other health professionals have for years been advocating consumer education and empowerment through the reading of nutrition labels. When you eat out and those aren't available, this is the next best thing.
At the grocery store the other day I picked up a seemingly ultra-healthy ready-made organic vegetarian frozen meal. It was only once already at home that I discovered that this one tiny stupid package contained over 500 calories and almost half of my daily recommended sodium intake.
Though I understand the point trying to be made here, comparing an avocado to a can of Coke is a ridiculous straw-man argument. Healthful food choices are certainly not always obvious.
09/16/09
I wonder if that isn't a better solution than removing junk food. I don't feel comfortable advocating a paternalistic food services policy. Sometimes, a gal or guy really just wants a bag of Fritos.
09/16/09
09/16/09
There's a lawsuit going on right now with Denny's because of the nutrition information was hidden in their website and the sodium in every dish was well over the daily recommendation.
09/16/09
09/16/09
09/16/09