As one who is now counting carbs and calories with some diligence, I appreciate Joanne Kenen’s article on how the health care reform legislation requires chain restaurants to post nutrition info. Excerpt:
“Early data from New York and King County in Seattle, the first two communities that have put menu labeling laws into effect, show that giving diners more dish on their diet has a modest but detectable impact — more than some earlier voluntary initiatives where customers had to seek out the information on brochures or computer kiosks. With accurate and readily accessible information right on the menu or the menu board, more restaurant customers do opt for that 400-calorie Chicken A, not the 1,200-calorie Chicken B. And public health experts predict the behavior shift will be more discernable over time.”
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
I miss @HealthNewsRevu popping up in my feed. Loved seeing this one today.
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/06/zombie-health-care-news/
#healthcare #journalism #ethics #conflictofinterest
Puleeeeease... this 'game changer' weight loss drug causes more nausea and vomiting than a placebo. Some game, some change. My friend Gary would spank you for using the eighth word medical reporters should never, ever use. @garyschwitzer @thackerpd
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/just-journalists-writing-tips-case-studies/7-words-and-more-you-shouldnt-use-in-medical-news/ https://twitter.com/OttawaCitizen/status/1361426796126830597
A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.
It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Kell Brigan
May 30, 2010 at 12:36 amBut, if someone is eating normally (using the Satter definition — on demand, from a wide variety of different kinds of food, without ritualized programs or adherence to questionable food groups myths http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2009/08/26/what-is-normal-eating/) then any temporary “reduction” in calorie intake would be make up within 48 hours as the persons eats sanely/normally in response to appetite. Remember, NO ONE has ever proven, or even come close to proving, that heavier/fatter people eat more or differently than anyone else. The only people who might be semi-permanently (i.e. for about two years, the maximum amount of time 99% of people sustain any weight change) impacted by such labelling would be those people with eating disorders — “dieters,” and other people who are eating abnormally due to obsessions, mental illness, or a mistaken belief that body weight (beyond the ~20 setpoint gray area) can be changed by changing food intake. Safe, sane and permanent weight loss simply doesn’t exist. Even if labelling made any permanent change in intake numbers (not proven by anyone looking at this info because they’re looking at one isolated meal choice), it still wouldn’t change body weights outside of setpoint limits, i.e. more than about ten pounds.
Mrs. Right
June 1, 2010 at 9:35 amAs a calorie-counter, I absolutely appreciate restaurants posting their nutrition information with their offerings. However, I do not believe it should be the place of the Federal or even local governments to issue laws demanding the posting of such information. We need less government interference, not more.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like