Today's Wall Street Journal tucked away some news that ought to leave every aspiring gastronome aghast. A piece about how Brad Blum, the new CEO of the Macaroni Grill restaurant chain, plans to beef up the eatery's image, discussed the slimming down of its cuisine, in response to ribbing in magazines and on TV talk shows. It tells how he re-formulated recipes to skim the fat, and created less-dense options, dumping its dessert ravioli, dubbed by Men's Health magazine "the worst dessert in America," and re-constituting the chicken-artichoke sandwich The Today Show proclaimed "the calorie equivalent of 16 Fudgsicles."
The shocking news, however, was this: "A federal bill currently before Congress and similar to a California law that takes effect in 2011, will require restaurants with at least 20 outlets to detail calorie counts on its menus." It's one thing to voluntarily pare down the butter so lovingly lauded by Julia Child, and brought as an offering in the hit film "Julie and Julia." Heaven knows that Americans are fodder in the ongoing battle between advertisers' pressures toward the high life, and obesity. But the way to ruin restaurants' business across this country, and spoil the sensual pleasures of dining out is to place the number of calories in each dish next to its description on the menu.
Here is an entry from the Antipasti section of an actual menu of Macaroni Grill:Shrimp & Artichoke Dip
Shrimp, artichokes and spinach baked together and bubbling with Parmesan and mozzarella cheeses. Served with Parmesan bread crisps. $8.49
Chef's Recommended Wine: Pinot Grigio - Lumina (Italy)
or, under Insalata, how about Parmesan-Crusted Chicken
Parmesan-breaded chicken breast, bacon, feta cheese, Roma tomatoes and mixed greens with Parmesan peppercorn ranch dressing. $9.99
Chef's Recommended Wine: Pinot Noir - La Crema (CA)
Sound good? (OK, not if you're kosher...) But imagine reading those offerings, lusting after the flavors, craving the acidity of the wine against their smoothness...and then reading that each dish is 859 calories per serving. (I made that up, but it's not out of the ball park). Puts a damper on your enthusiasm, doesn't it?
Let's say you ignore the calorie count. You don't go out to eat all that often, do you? But as you're about to dig into those fragrant bubbling cheeses, your dinner partner mumbles, "I was thinking of getting that, but it goes straight to my hips." Suddenly each of those 859 calories tastes like a grain of sand in your mouth.
If you see the calories of your appetizer, entree and drink, you'll be tempted to use that handy calculator in your cell phone to find the total is...a football player's allotment for a week. So, you'll skip the appetizer and drink, and certainly the dessert, slicing your eat-out experience. Barely worth the gas to get there.
Indeed, listing dishes' nutritional content does retard restaurant purchases, the article suggests. Ruby Tuesday printed healthy entries' stats on the menus of its 901 outlets and suffered "a dramatic drop in same-store sales." The info was soon removed.
But not for long, under the law now before Congress. Talk about federal meddling. But then again, with Obama's health insurance plan, perhaps there is a taxpayer stake (steak?) in keeping everyone fit. Once calories are posted, it won't be long until an upper limit-per-serving is imposed on restauranteurs. And of course a "fat tax" makes sense for those whose meals consist of, say, 1,200 calories or more, since we all pay for obesity's effects. Another possibility is to weigh each taxpayer, charging a progressive tax that increases with BMI. After all, government knows best, and due to our individual decadence and incompetence, must step in where consumers only waddle. Capitalism be damned, lest our arteries be dammed. As 2011 approaches, we'll soon see the reactions of Californians to the sight of "nutrition facts" cluttering menus. I daresay even the Nanny State can't get us to eat our brussels sprouts.
