Hello Ruby Tuesday's

OK, the Uncle Moe's Family Feedbag market segment is not exciting cuisine. But you've got to give credit -- if you're not a food Nazi that is -- for making the effort to provide nutritional information upfront.

And admit it, that Colossal Burger looks damn good until the 114 grams of fat whomps you between the eyes.

Comments

[Evan Williams]

That's funny - just a couple years ago, the people who WANTED restaurants to provide nutritional info WERE the "Food Nazis."

Joe,

First of all, if they're civilly petitioning businesses to voluntarily offer more information about their offerings, then they aren't called "food nazis"...they're called "concerned consumers who don't rely on the government to do their work for them". But as soon as one of those concerned consumers petitions the government to start restricting freedoms in order to forcefully achieve their ends, then they can be called "food nazis". As long as the people you're talking about, the "food nazis of a couple years ago", were not trying to get the government to take away freedoms, then anyone who called them food nazis was incorrect.

The food nazis of today, Kelly Brownell, Michael Jacobsen, John Banzhaf, etc., actively and openly petition the government to force businesses to do what they want, at the point of a gun. Thus, the label, "food nazis".

If Ruby Tuesdays and other businesses want to voluntarily offer up more nutritional information, more power to them. But it only matters if they are still free to refrain from doing so. CSPI and its ilk would like to see every restaurant in the country be forced to do this, which, in addition to raping our freedoms, would be almost impossible, and would lead to the downfall of smaller operations, since they have custom-made meals. In order to obtain the nutritional facts for a meal, it needs to be sent off to a lab and have tests run on it. Imagine a tiny upscale restaurant whose specials change daily, and whose portion sizes cary, due to human imperfection. First, even if they were able to determine the nutritional facts, there would be too much room for error, due to varying portion sizes, which would leave them open to false advertising suits. Second, it would be impossible to do this, timewise, for each day of the week, so they would be forced to abandon daily specials, and homogenize their menus. Third, the smaller the business, the more of a strain it would be financially.

So, in the end, it would actually kill the smaller businesses that often serve relatively healthier fare than Chili's and Outback, and then, what would it all have been for?

[Evan Williams]

That's funny - just a couple years ago, the people who WANTED restaurants to provide nutritional info WERE the "Food Nazis."

Joe,

First of all, if they're civilly petitioning businesses to voluntarily offer more information about their offerings, then they aren't called "food nazis"...they're called "concerned consumers who don't rely on the government to do their work for them". But as soon as one of those concerned consumers petitions the government to start restricting freedoms in order to forcefully achieve their ends, then they can be called "food nazis". As long as the people you're talking about, the "food nazis of a couple years ago", were not trying to get the government to take away freedoms, then anyone who called them food nazis was incorrect.

The food nazis of today, Kelly Brownell, Michael Jacobsen, John Banzhaf, etc., actively and openly petition the government to force businesses to do what they want, at the point of a gun. Thus, the label, "food nazis".

If Ruby Tuesdays and other businesses want to voluntarily offer up more nutritional information, more power to them. But it only matters if they are still free to refrain from doing so. CSPI and its ilk would like to see every restaurant in the country be forced to do this, which, in addition to raping our freedoms, would be almost impossible, and would lead to the downfall of smaller operations, since they have custom-made meals. In order to obtain the nutritional facts for a meal, it needs to be sent off to a lab and have tests run on it. Imagine a tiny upscale restaurant whose specials change daily, and whose portion sizes cary, due to human imperfection. First, even if they were able to determine the nutritional facts, there would be too much room for error, due to varying portion sizes, which would leave them open to false advertising suits. Second, it would be impossible to do this, timewise, for each day of the week, so they would be forced to abandon daily specials, and homogenize their menus. Third, the smaller the business, the more of a strain it would be financially.

So, in the end, it would actually kill the smaller businesses that often serve relatively healthier fare than Chili's and Outback, and then, what would it all have been for?

[Evan Williams]

That's funny - just a couple years ago, the people who WANTED restaurants to provide nutritional info WERE the "Food Nazis."

Joe,

First of all, if they're civilly petitioning businesses to voluntarily offer more information about their offerings, then they aren't called "food nazis"...they're called "concerned consumers who don't rely on the government to do their work for them". But as soon as one of those concerned consumers petitions the government to start restricting freedoms in order to forcefully achieve their ends, then they can be called "food nazis". As long as the people you're talking about, the "food nazis of a couple years ago", were not trying to get the government to take away freedoms, then anyone who called them food nazis was incorrect.

The food nazis of today, Kelly Brownell, Michael Jacobsen, John Banzhaf, etc., actively and openly petition the government to force businesses to do what they want, at the point of a gun. Thus, the label, "food nazis".

If Ruby Tuesdays and other businesses want to voluntarily offer up more nutritional information, more power to them. But it only matters if they are still free to refrain from doing so. CSPI and its ilk would like to see every restaurant in the country be forced to do this, which, in addition to raping our freedoms, would be almost impossible, and would lead to the downfall of smaller operations, since they have custom-made meals. In order to obtain the nutritional facts for a meal, it needs to be sent off to a lab and have tests run on it. Imagine a tiny upscale restaurant whose specials change daily, and whose portion sizes cary, due to human imperfection. First, even if they were able to determine the nutritional facts, there would be too much room for error, due to varying portion sizes, which would leave them open to false advertising suits. Second, it would be impossible to do this, timewise, for each day of the week, so they would be forced to abandon daily specials, and homogenize their menus. Third, the smaller the business, the more of a strain it would be financially.

So, in the end, it would actually kill the smaller businesses that often serve relatively healthier fare than Chili's and Outback, and then, what would it all have been for?

[Evan Williams]

That's funny - just a couple years ago, the people who WANTED restaurants to provide nutritional info WERE the "Food Nazis."

Joe,

First of all, if they're civilly petitioning businesses to voluntarily offer more information about their offerings, then they aren't called "food nazis"...they're called "concerned consumers who don't rely on the government to do their work for them". But as soon as one of those concerned consumers petitions the government to start restricting freedoms in order to forcefully achieve their ends, then they can be called "food nazis". As long as the people you're talking about, the "food nazis of a couple years ago", were not trying to get the government to take away freedoms, then anyone who called them food nazis was incorrect.

The food nazis of today, Kelly Brownell, Michael Jacobsen, John Banzhaf, etc., actively and openly petition the government to force businesses to do what they want, at the point of a gun. Thus, the label, "food nazis".

If Ruby Tuesdays and other businesses want to voluntarily offer up more nutritional information, more power to them. But it only matters if they are still free to refrain from doing so. CSPI and its ilk would like to see every restaurant in the country be forced to do this, which, in addition to raping our freedoms, would be almost impossible, and would lead to the downfall of smaller operations, since they have custom-made meals. In order to obtain the nutritional facts for a meal, it needs to be sent off to a lab and have tests run on it. Imagine a tiny upscale restaurant whose specials change daily, and whose portion sizes cary, due to human imperfection. First, even if they were able to determine the nutritional facts, there would be too much room for error, due to varying portion sizes, which would leave them open to false advertising suits. Second, it would be impossible to do this, timewise, for each day of the week, so they would be forced to abandon daily specials, and homogenize their menus. Third, the smaller the business, the more of a strain it would be financially.

So, in the end, it would actually kill the smaller businesses that often serve relatively healthier fare than Chili's and Outback, and then, what would it all have been for?

[Evan Williams]

Ok, HIT & RUN WEBMASTER, I have an important quest for you to embark upon: fix your goddamned blog comment submittal software! Sometimes, I can hit "submit" once, and it instantly posts. Other times, I can hit it 10 times, and posts one entry. Other times, I can hit it 10 times, and it posts no entry. And other times, like it just did, I hit it 10 times, and it posts 3 entries.

need a good example of reliable submittal software, go to http://www.theagitator.com

And to everyone else, I apologize for posting that big ass long post 3 times. It was NOT on purpose.

[mattcid]

My wife and I eat a Ruby Tuesday's on a regular basis. The info is often quite entertaining as their food is NOT, on the whole, healthy. A health-concious consumer might find the truth off-putting.
We like the info solely for its comic value. Only 700 calories? How can they want $12.95 for only 700 calories?

[The Lonewacko Blog]

Here's a simple way to solve this problem once and for all. McDonald's and other fast food restaurants should require users to pay using Indivos. By placing their thumbprint on the scanner, they also digitally sign a waiver stating that they've read the nutritional information for what they're ordering, and they take full responsibility.

[Evan Williams]

Lonewacko,

I likes your idea! If the litigation freaks are going to force every single transaction to be embroiled in contractual legalese, then so be it. This would free up the courts from these frivolous lawsuits, without congress having to engage in the controversial activity of tort reform.

[joe]

1. I got it the first time.

b. Cries of "food nazi" started as soon as orgs like CSPI began doing media blitzes about the nutritional contents of food.

And, "...raping our freedoms?" Take a few deep breaths.

Fourth, labelling laws can be written to take into account smaller restaurants, and the problems you raise.

[JD]

A comment on "food nazis" and who deserves the term: in the midst of all this jaw about Americans being fat and not eating right and all, the BATF (ATF, BATFE, whatever) essentially forbids beer companies to put nutritional labels on their products: see http://www.atf.gov/alcohol/info/faq/alf.htm#alf3 They have just started to allow some calorie/carbohydrate labelling (http://www.winespectator.com/Wine/Daily/News/0,1145,2411,00.html), but that seems to be about it so far. Apparently they are worried that if they permitted nutritional information, Americans might think that meant beer was good for them.

[B.P.]

So, after pointing out that helpful, friendly organizations like CSPI got a lot of misguided grief for going about their core mission of simply informing the public of nutritional content, Joe turns around and suggests that the "labelling laws" that these organizations aren't supporting can be crafted in a more subtle manner. That's reassuring.

And yeah, take a few deep breaths you worrywarts. It's only food. By the time the water is at a roiling boil, you won't even notice there's been a temperature change.

[Evan Williams]

Joe,

1) The multi-posting wasn't my fault. Hit & Run's submittal software is glitchy as hell

2) I covered what the term "food nazi" means. CSPI's "Nutrition Action Newsletter" is A-OK, as long as it presents straight facts, and not propeganda about how the government should take away our freedoms. If all CSPI did was provide us with facts, then I would have no problem. But Jacobsen and his cronies are full-bore in the "legislate and tax away our problems" mindset. Thus, they are correctly labeled as "Food Nazis". I can't speak for what other people said 2 years ago, but as I said before, if they called someone a food nazi for civilly petitioning restaurants to voluntarily provide nutritional info, then they were wrong.

3) Okay, I took a deep breath. Hm, funny, even after that deep breath, I still think that government laws that force restaurants to do as certain lobbyists wish, is "raping our freedoms". I still think that taxing so-called "unhealthy" foods is "raping our freedoms".

4) Any unjust law can be adjusted to be slightly more logistically plausible. That doesn't make it more just. We could write laws so that it's logistically plausible to require people to do mandatory daily calisthenics, a la Mao. Does that make it right? Of course not. The problems I raised were an aside to the bigger problem, simply that the law is unjust. You are taking part in a VOLUNTARY TRANSACTION, and government aggression is unnecessary. If you don't like the fact that Cracker Barrel doesn't list their nutritional information, then you're free to go somewhere that does, like Ruby Tuesday's. If enough MARKET DEMAND is created for nutritional information, then more restaurants will begin to voluntarily do so. But the consumer knows best. And that MARKET DEMAND for nutritional information is obviously not big enough to make the vast majority of restaurants do so. The consumers have all the power, and if nutritional info was actually that important to people, then they'd boycott the restuarants who didn't offer it. It's just that simple. CSPI and the government thinks they know what people want better than people themselves. The reality is, in the marketplace, individuals are the ultimate arbiters of value, and if nutritional facts in restaurants become valuable enough to consumers, then you will see it more and more. But bringing the government into the mix will only foster negative, costly results. Why is it that you, CSPI and the government think that you know what people want/need better than the very people you're trying to protect? The fact is, you don't...and if nutritional facts were really that important to people, then more restuarants would be voluntarily offering them, in an effort to cater to the people who pay their salaries. Remember the old saying, you vote with your wallet? A man with a dollar wields more power than he realizes.

[joe]

A. I know, I was just busting your chops.

2. OK, just pointing out that the immodulation of anti-anti-junk food activists' messages doesn't help your credibility when there really is a wolf.

III. Shine on you crazy diamond.

In closing, there are two issues, the logistical and the philosophical. Logistically, you admit that the destruction of mom and pop restaurants you earlier predicted isn't necessary. Good. Philosophically, you're wrong. You're just wrong, I don't agree with you, and...well, that's about it. I'm willing to sacrifice some cramping of business owners' style in order to achieve a better informed public/consumer, and the market-based goods that result from consumers being better able to make educated choices. You are not. We have different values and priorities, and there's not really a whole lot more to say, is there?

[Ironchef]

Joe, the slang "Nazi" applies to anyone who wrongfully imposes their will upon someone else.

Petitioning, mutual contracts, do not fall into this.

[Evan Williams]

We have different values and priorities, and there's not really a whole lot more to say, is there?

Sheesh, you don't get off THAT easy. You're an authoritarian, and I'm a libertarian. You believe in government intrusions and aggressions in the name of some sort of subjective "public good", I believe in liberty and personal freedom. You believe that people's "problems" are best solved by some sort of nanny state, I believe that people can solve their own problems. You believe that the tenets of our constitutional republic can be sacrificed to achieve the subjective goals of a certain portion of society, I believe that mob rule is tyrannical.

And best of all, you think you can weasel out of a debate by saying "Philosophically, you're wrong. You're just wrong, I don't agree with you, and...well, that's about it."

I believe that you can't dismiss liberty that easily.

[joe]

Glory Glory Hallelujia!
Glooooory Glory Hallelujia!
Gloooory Glory Halle...

Sorry, Evan, that type of talk gets me all worked up.

OK, I'd just like to point out that support those things you attribute to me only on occasion, depending on the specific circumstances of the situation. Actually, I consider the fact that I need to know the specifics of a case to know my position, unlike you, to be rather a point of pride.

Oh, and I don't believe in sacrificing the tenets of our republic. I just differ with you on what those tenets are, and how they are best applied.

[Lil' Jon]

"I'm willing to sacrifice some cramping of business owners' style"

How nice that you're willing to force someone else to make a sacrifice on your behalf. Philosophically, you're just wrong.

The restaurant biz enjoys such low margins that a significant fraction fail each year. I see no justice in burdening restauranteurs for the convenience of people too lazy or stupid (or both) to learn how to eat sensibly. We've had the USDA food pyramid for what, 25 or 30 years now? That's about as far as I'm willing to let the government go in influencing my food habits. News Flash: Joe Sixpack doesn't care. Label or no label he's going to eat that grease bomb with 115 grams of fat. No amount of legislation short of trucking him off to a labor camp is going to change his eating habits.

Why can't these professional busybodies just live and let live?

[thoreau]

I'm not sure what everybody here is so upset about.

Evan seems like he really wants to make a point about joe.

[garym]

Evan:
On any HTML form, clicking the button which submits your information more than once is a mistake. If it's going to lose it with one click, it will also lose it with ten clicks.

This is even more important to remember this when making online credit card purchases.

Having said that, I think the software for Hit and Run isn't very good. It's often far too slow, which tempts people to click Submit multiple times. I would like to see username registration (but WITHOUT requiring a life history) to let people actually stake a claim to the names they're using, avoiding situations such as the Two Erics, not to mention the possibility of deliberate impersonation.

[Geotech]

I think he made a really good point about joe.

[Sam Grove]

I'm still irritated with CSPI for driving olestra off the market with their fear mongering. When I managed to get olestra potato chips at Subway, I found them just as tasty as those made with digestible fat.

According to the FDA criteria, Arnold Schwarzenegger is fat.

[joe]

I think I agreed with it, Geotech. I DO prioritize values differently than most of you. See, the second half of Evan's sentence, "I believe that people can solve their own problem" is "...and if they can't, they're SOL." I like personal freedom, but I'm less willing to stand idly by in the face of people suffering harm in order to avoid infringement on that freedom.

[karl]

Joe did sayeth: "but I'm less willing to stand idly by in the face of peopler suffering in order to avoid infringement on that freedom." Which is all fine and lovely - unfortunately, you're also less willing to let us stand idly by...
-Karl

[B.P.]

Olestra isn't off the market -- I buy those WOW chips when I get a chance. Unfortunately, they're kind of a bitch to find.

[JDM]

Do people really need to be told that the "Colossal Burger" has a lot of fat? How about Fatburger? Do their hamburgers have a lot of fat? Is Cheez Wizz good for me?

[Evan Williams]

"but I'm less willing to stand idly by in the face of people suffering in order to avoid infringement on that freedom."

One last thing---won't somebody please think of all those poor suffering fat folks out there, with a big mac in one hand and a salad in the other...but they don't have the nutritional facts! Which one should they eat? Who knows?! Well, I'm not going to sit idly by while those poor unwitting fat folks suffer! I refuse to let them go another day confused! It's time to take action and end the suffering! THE SUFFERING!

;->

[Mark S.]

Mmmmmmmm... I can feel my arteries clogging! Can I have some chili cheese fries with that too?

So deadly, yet soooooo good.

[Jeff G]

Thank goodness for the nutritional info listing fat content. Because the 27" stack of hand-compressed meat, cheese slices, and mayonnaise never would've clued me in that I might be ordering up grease-soaked sandwich.

[joe]

That's funny - just a couple years ago, the people who WANTED restaurants to provide nutritional info WERE the "Food Nazis."

[Mark Fox]

Alas, joe, giving people information still left them free to make the "wrong" choice. The Food Nazis are not satisfied until every morsel is under absolute control. For the (portly) children!

[***Dave]

I was actually pleased, when dining at a Ruby Tuesday the other day (at Knoxville's airport) to see the nutritional info. It let me make a relatively intelligent decision as to the impact of a burger (vs. a wrap) on my diet. My body, my choice.

I'd certainly encourage restaurants, esp. chains with fixed menus, to do likewise -- but I'd hate to see anyone *forced* to do so.

[Douglas Fletcher]

The quick and easy guide to posting on Hit & Run:

1. Hit the post button.

2. Wait about 10 seconds.

3. Close the window.

Depending on the size of your post, it will be there when you open the window again. Always works for me.