Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, February 07, 2018

The House of Representatives passed bipartisan legislation Tuesday giving greater flexibility to restaurants and grocery stores in complying with an Obamacare regulation that mandated every food item be labeled with calorie counts. The Common Sense Nutrition Disclosure Act, sponsored by House Republican Conference Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R., Wash.), passed on a 266 to 157 vote, with 32 Democrats joining Republicans.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

This is a good bill that provides some much needed flexibility to a poorly-conceived (well-intentioned), onerous regulation coming out of ACA.

This probably could have been accomplished via CRA, but my understanding with CRA is it's a yes/no proposition, which would strike down the regulation altogether.

This bill keeps the good parts of the rule and fixes the bad parts of it.

#1 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-07 11:34 AM | Reply

"This is a good bill that provides some much needed flexibility to a poorly-conceived (well-intentioned), onerous regulation coming out of ACA. "

Telling consumers how many calories they are consuming is onerous? That's ridiculous. This was a waste of time appealing to the right wing base that just hates government.

#2 | Posted by danni at 2018-02-07 11:42 AM | Reply

#2

Come on Danni, at least try to read the link:

"This bill isn't about the merits of calorie counts; it's about providing flexibility for businesses to provide that information in a way that makes sense for them and their customers," McMorris Rodgers said. "The one-size-fits-all approach proposed by the FDA is problematic, and by bringing this rule into the 21st Century, customers can trust they are getting the reliable information they need in an easy-to-access, consumer-friendly way."

The Food and Drug Administration issued draft guidance in an attempt to make it easier for chain restaurants and groceries to comply last November.

For instance, the guidance only contained "nonbinding recommendations." The FDA was also unclear in the guidance about whether draft beers must be labeled on menus. The government said, "It depends."

The bill would alleviate these concerns by allowing businesses to post calories online, and would address issues with the Obama administration's 171-word definition of a "menu," which would have applied to coupons and advertisements."

McMorris Rodgers said the legislation would give breathing room for sandwich shops and pizzerias, which offer millions of combinations.

"It's unrealistic, and it's not a good use of the business owners' time," she said of the rule. "Digital and online ordering is customers preferred method for ordering. Nearly 90 percent of orders in some restaurants are placed without an individual ever stepping foot into the restaurant."

"So tell me, how does it make sense for a restaurant to have a physical menu with calorie listings when 90 percent of your customers aren't going to see it," McMorris Rodgers said. "Or how does it make sense to force a customer to navigate millions of combinations to find the nutrition information that matches their order?"

They still have to provide the information, but can do it online for changeable items like pizzas and sandwiches.

#3 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-02-07 12:14 PM | Reply

" "Digital and online ordering is customers preferred method for ordering. Nearly 90 percent of orders in some restaurants are placed without an individual ever stepping foot into the restaurant."

That's not even close to true.

""Or how does it make sense to force a customer to navigate millions of combinations to find the nutrition information that matches their order?"

Utter crap.

Not surpried though, McMorris Rodgers is a nut.

#4 | Posted by danni at 2018-02-07 12:38 PM | Reply

Do you realize how many topping variations exist at a franchise pizza joint?

#5 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-07 12:40 PM | Reply

That's not even close to true?

It's backed by research.

You're response is probably going to be that you always place your order at a carry out restaurant when you walk in the door, therefore that claim is bunk.

#6 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-07 12:43 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

That's not even close to true.

Obviously you have never ordered a Dominos/Little Caesar/Papa Johns/Pizza Hut etc. pizza.

#7 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-02-07 12:45 PM | Reply

"Obviously you have never ordered a Dominos/Little Caesar/Papa Johns/Pizza Hut etc. pizza."

You're right about that, I don't order that garbage. I order Dough Boys, real pizza, great pizza, and never online I can still use a phone. It is just not that complicated.

#8 | Posted by danni at 2018-02-07 07:33 PM | Reply

You're right about that, I don't order that garbage. I order Dough Boys, real pizza, great pizza, and never online I can still use a phone. It is just not that complicated.

#8 | POSTED BY DANNI

Dough Boys faces the same issue as the big chains - multiple toppings results in a myriad combinations that all have to be listed, physically, in the restaurant, visible for everyone to see.

This bill simply provides flexibility without overturning the calorie rule - it just modifies the rule to make compliance far simpler and efficient.

Honestly, I'm surprised you are reacting to this in the manner that you are. You seem pretty pragmatic, this is a bill I guessed you would favor.

#9 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-07 07:55 PM | Reply

#8

If you go to a Dough Boys website (I looked at one in Vancouver) and hit the custom pizza button, there are 23 different toppings that you can put on a pizza, with no limit. If you read the calorie rule strictly, that would require figuring out the calories out for each combination, which would require 2.0880468e+31 listings for each size pizza.

This rule fixes that problem.

#10 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-02-07 08:14 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

"If you read the calorie rule strictly, that would require figuring out the calories out for each combination, which would require 2.0880468e+31 listings for each size pizza."

I draw the line at 2.0e+31, so this is a good law.

#11 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-07 08:15 PM | Reply

"If you read the calorie rule strictly, that would require figuring out the calories out for each combination, which would require 2.0880468e+31 listings for each size pizza."

Or you could just list them and let the customer do the simple math of adding. Pretending this is some monumental problem is just an illogical excuse for not requiring the listing of caloric intake which many people try to control in efforts to control their weight.

#12 | Posted by danni at 2018-02-08 10:32 AM | Reply

Pretending this is some monumental problem is just an illogical excuse for not requiring the listing of caloric intake which many people try to control in efforts to control their weight.

#12 | POSTED BY DANNI

This doesn't change the requirement for listing caloric intake. It just provides flexibility for how caloric intake gets listed.

#13 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-08 11:08 AM | Reply

Or you could just list them and let the customer do the simple math of adding.

That wasn't allowed under the prior rule Danni, if you did that you would get fined. Just because St. Obama promulgated this rule doesn't mean it was perfect.

That is why this amendment was necessary, to allow exactly what you and common sense would dictate.

#14 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-02-08 11:40 AM | Reply

" If you read the calorie rule strictly, that would require figuring out the calories out for each combination, which would require 2.0880468e+31 listings for each size pizza.
This rule fixes that problem."

A problem that no restaurant ever had to attempt to fix because none of them ever did the math for all the different combinations, it's just Republican jibber jabber about regulations. They actually just like the words "cut regulations" it doesn't have to be anything meaninful, it's just fodder for their base.

#15 | Posted by danni at 2018-02-09 08:18 AM | Reply

Not good for our health. #ReleaseTheCalories

#16 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2018-02-09 10:00 AM | Reply

A problem that no restaurant ever had to attempt to fix because none of them ever did the math for all the different combinations, it's just Republican jibber jabber about regulations. They actually just like the words "cut regulations" it doesn't have to be anything meaninful, it's just fodder for their base.

#15 | POSTED BY DANNI

This is a bipartisan bill that makes this regulation more workable. Your reaction comes across as knee-jerk.

#17 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-09 12:44 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort