Who could have a problem with this?

[Anonymous No.10549290]

Based calorie counters

[Anonymous No.10549305]

>calorie counts
>no sugar amount
>no carb amount
>no (saturated) fat amount

[Anonymous No.10549326]

>>10549290
>calorie counters
fucking dumbasses, it's not the amount of calories that count, it's what you're getting from them

[Anonymous No.10549331]

>>10549305
To be honest, if you’re just combatting obesity, all you need to worry about is calories in and calories out. You can start worrying about macros if you want to get fit, and micros if you’re real serious

[Anonymous No.10549355]

>>10549290
It's a misleading half truth. not the whole story.

People think low calorie equates to healthy. Now you can sell smaller portions for the same price and tell people "Only 150 calories!"

if you're fat; society shouldn't hold your fucking hand. Help people that can help themselves

[Anonymous No.10549363]

And most people will disregard them like what already happens at restaurants giving calorie counts.

[Anonymous No.10549368]

>>10549331
>and micros if you’re real serious

why would you care about those at all unless you have some sort of a health issue or something

[Anonymous No.10549372]

>>10549368
Human optimization

[Anonymous No.10549380]

Calorie counts aren’t going to stop fatties from being fatties

[Anonymous No.10549381]

Didn't we just have this thread?

[Anonymous No.10549392]

>>10549372
how did this <90IQ-let get a talk show?

[Anonymous No.10549396]

fuck that, that is unamerican as fuck. why should i have to potentially lose out on sales just because some cunts don't understand moderation?

[Anonymous No.10549412]

>>10549392
He's probably like 105iq

[Anonymous No.10549413]

>>10549396
most packaged goods have the calorie and nutrients count on the packaging

you think that impacts sales at all? lol no

[Anonymous No.10549428]

>>10549392
He lets the guests talk. He says relativity little. But when he does its usually dumb.

[Anonymous No.10549435]

>>10549428
dude weed and elk lmao

yoga jiu jitsu

...in a really weird way

coyote william randolph herste

hemp paper

stoned ape theory

...just got jacked by

...jaime could you pull this up

[Anonymous No.10549440]

>>10549435
It's just primal. You tap into part of your brain in a really weird way. It's medicine. Woah.

[Anonymous No.10549459]

>>10549413
i'm quite certain it does, the only reason they do it is because it's the law.

there are restaurant dishes out there which will more than exceed a typical person's guideline daily amount of calories, salt, fat or whatever. that will undoubtedly affect the amount of people who order it.

[Anonymous No.10549468]

>>10549392
I don't know about IQ, but I think Jack could make better eggs than him.

[Anonymous No.10549474]

>>10549468

[Anonymous No.10549473]

>>10549412
>working out for aesthetics instead of health
disgusting

[Anonymous No.10549475]

>>10549290
Calories are mandatory to be listed on store bought goods, I don't see why food joints should be exempt from this rule. This isn't some tax on sugar that affects everyone. More informed customers is always a good thing.

[Anonymous No.10549479]

>>10549413
It's not as in your face as a calorie count on a price tag or menu.

[Anonymous No.10549481]

>>10549473

[Anonymous No.10549498]

Is there any evidence that this information has an impact on people's eating habits?

[Anonymous No.10549506]

>>10549475
because they're much smaller businesses
>More informed customers is always a good thing.
no it is not, that's a platitude

[Anonymous No.10549511]

>>10549355
>Now you can sell smaller portions for the same price and tell people "Only 150 calories!"
They could always do that, dumbass.

[Anonymous No.10549512]

Are there any real downsides to this?

[Anonymous No.10549519]

>>10549290
I'm okay with this. Those calorie numbers are rarely very accurate, but I am a firm believer in consumers having as much information available to them as possible, and even having a rough idea of how many calories you're taking in can be helpful if you're also mindful in other aspects of your life and diet. And if you're not, who the fuck cares? It's kind of on you.

[Anonymous No.10549524]

>>10549396
You don't have a right to our money you goddamn commie.

[Anonymous No.10549531]

>>10549524
why does your right to information trump my right to maximise profits

[Anonymous No.10549534]

>>10549290
>counting calories
Take this shit back to /fit/. Nobody on /ck/ gives a damn about your calorie intake or how healthy you are.
I swear healthfags are ruining food for everyone.

[Anonymous No.10549539]

>>10549512
Some restaurants might go out of business once people see that most of the crap that really tastes good is 500+ calories

[Anonymous No.10549542]

>>10549539
I seriously doubt most people care if their favorite food is filled with calories.

[Anonymous No.10549543]

>>10549531
You don't have a right to maximize profits. You're supposed to figure out how to do that yourself. It's called competition. Example: some other company finds a way to do what you're doing at a cheaper price? You don't get to shut them down for denying your "right" to people's money.

[Anonymous No.10549545]

>>10549539
THIS!!!
Remember when mcdonalds had to start doing that shit because of that stupid movie?
After that they quit offering some menu items and quit using beef tallow in their fries.

[Anonymous No.10549547]

>>10549542
Profit lines are often very thin. If 10% people stop going, they can mean failure

[Anonymous No.10549553]

>>10549543
Or you can just buy them out. The true American way.

[Anonymous No.10549557]

>>10549534
Yes, how dare you be concerned about your health. Let us discuss how much junk food we shove in our fat face.

[Anonymous No.10549562]

>>10549557
My health is non yo business

[Anonymous No.10549567]

>>10549543
>You don't have a right to maximize profits. You're supposed to figure out how to do that yourself. It's called competition.
regulation interferes with competition. you're being a massive fag. the risk of eating a calorie heavy meal at any individual establishment are not high enough to warrant warning measures - it's the pattern of behaviour on the part of the consumer which is a problem. which means small businesses are being punished for the irresponsible behaviour of individuals.

[Anonymous No.10549568]

>>10549547
Too bad. Fucking evolve to a changing environment like every other business.

[Anonymous No.10549577]

>>10549567
This only applies to chains with more than 20 locations.

[Anonymous No.10549578]

>>10549568
no one is against adapting to a changing environment. the issue is whether it is right for government to force those changes.

[Anonymous No.10549579]

>>10549372
These have to be fake. No one would really eat this slop

[Anonymous No.10549589]

>>10549577
ok. my faith in america is restored.

[Anonymous No.10549603]

>>10549578
>positively impact the health of millions of americans
>negatively impact a few corporations (this change doesn't apply to small businesses)
The way we're routinely fucked by corporations and business interests, it's a no-brainer to implement some protections.

[Anonymous No.10549614]

>>10549506
>I can't sell my crap if people know how bad it is for them
Boo fucking hoo

[Anonymous No.10549639]

>>10549603
the government fucking with your ability to freely set up a business is just as dangerous as corporations fucking you over. jealously guarding your freedom of contract is the single most patriotic thing you can do as an american.

[Anonymous No.10549644]

>>10549614
first they came for the restaurant owners, and did not speak out, for i was not a restaurant owner.

[Anonymous No.10549729]

>>10549644
Quit being a drama queen, no one is coming for you. It isn't like they are saying if you serve a dish with more than 1,000 calories, we will shut you down. This information should have been public from the start. How can a person be expected to make informed decisions when the very information they need to make those decisions is purposely withheld?
>>10549639
>the government fucking with your ability to freely set up a business
Except they aren't. Ruling only applies to business with 20+ locations (so not small business or people just getting started), and this isn't restricting you from doing anything, it just requires you to say what you are doing.

[Anonymous No.10549743]

>>10549326
Not sure if this guy is retarded or just trolling. Probably both

[Anonymous No.10549756]

>>10549729
>Except they aren't. Ruling only applies to business with 20+ locations
That's done so rich people's restaurants are excepted from the gauche calorie tags.

It's not like calculating a calorie count for a menu item is some huge task ... fitting in the calories might involve some expenses, but with say a 5 year transition period that's hardly relevant.

[Anonymous No.10549787]

>>10549290
>actually having to calorie count to not be fat
Even as I entered my 20s and stopped doing sports every day (just working out 1-2 times a week and eating almost whatever I want) I haven't gained a pound. Maybe because I try to eat lots of vegetables a day and don't splurge on sugar too often.

Nutrition really isn't that fucking hard, I swear half the population eventually won't be able to keep breathing without daily reminders

[Anonymous No.10549790]

>>10549756
>That's done so rich people's restaurants are excepted from the gauche calorie tags.
You pulled that out of your ass, feel free to stuff it right back up there.

[Anonymous No.10549799]

>>10549290
If people can’t figure out that what they’re eating is high calorie based on what it is, they aren’t smart enough or don’t care enough to bother counting the calories anyway. It won’t change a damned thing outside of costing restaurants more money and half of them fudging the numbers.

[Anonymous No.10549812]

they already have it where i live
i actually quite like it, it's just nice info to have
usually i have a good idea of around how many calories i'm looking it but once in a while you get a surprise
like a costco poutine is almost 1500(!)

[Anonymous No.10549825]

>>10549473
>not working out for both
The state of this pleb.

[Anonymous No.10549832]

>>10549562
>'My health is non yo business'
>Demands others don't talk about how they care about *theirs*
Took it personally, didja?

[Anonymous No.10549834]

>>10549812
Fried potatoes, cheese curds, and gravy is calorie dense? No way!

[Anonymous No.10549844]

>>10549756
I assumed the 20 location limit was to bypass the huge number of standalone places that seat like a handful of people and are run by the proprietor and their family and maybe one or two employees. They might not have the ability to calculate calories for their menu, even though like you said it isn't hugely difficult.

[Anonymous No.10549866]

>>10549331
>>10549743
It's much harder to maintain your daily CICO if your kcals are coming almost exclusively from simple starches and sugars. Foods made up of simple starches provide almost zero satiation and a high rate of kcal. So
>>10549326
Is mostly right.

[Anonymous No.10549881]

>>10549799
>If people can’t figure out that what they’re eating is high calorie based on what it is,
I agree that usually you can get a pretty good idea, but the sheer amounts are often surprising. Just take a look at this menu, and see if some of these items aren't a bit (or a lot) higher than you'd expect.
>costing restaurants more money
It's a few bucks upfront, to figure out calorie totals for their existing menu, and then a buck or two when they add a new item. The biggest expense likely is having a set of new menus printed. After that the ongoing costs are minimal.

[Anonymous No.10549921]

>>10549639
>freedom of contract
Except for the consumer, of course.

[Anonymous No.10549939]

>>10549881
No, it is more than that. If restaurants are held accountable for this idiocy, fines and forced closings will be incurred because a fryer wasn’t at optimum temp when rush hour occurred and the fries are now oil clogged bullshit and some inspector has a hate hardon for the place already. Are you going to have premeasured cups for every bit of oil put into a fried rice dish? Are you going to insist that all of your cooks follow recipes that read like scientific formulas? Hell, line cooks are line cooks and not bakers for a reason. It is all guess work and making something that tastes good and looks right without measuring a single thing, ever is why cooks and bakers are different breeds.

[Anonymous No.10549943]

>>10549881
>more than 2k calories in one dish
what is happening?

[Anonymous No.10549957]

>>10549939
Also, if you can’t be bothered to look anything up in the first place, having it on the menus will not make one shit bit of a difference. 10 years down the line we will be fatter than ever and stupid fucks will insist that restaurants provide free nutrition courses.

[Anonymous No.10549969]

>>10549844
If it became law I'm sure there would be some enterprising companies who will take a fax/mail of ingredients and preparation methods and who would report back the calorie counts.

The small time accountants they do business with might even add it to their services. Easy money.

It's red tape and comes with a cost, but in the grand scheme of things it doesn't rank up high as far as costly government intrusion is concerned.

[Anonymous No.10549983]

>>10549939
It's not going to go like that and you know it. For the exact same reason that a bag of chips can get a way with saying there are "about" 3 servings inside, when everyone knows damn well 99.999% of people eat the whole fucking thing.
>>10549943
Bistro shrimp pasta is knocking on the 3000 door.

[Anonymous No.10549996]

Wait wasn't this already a thing there? I'm in Ontario and when I went there I remember seeing calorie counts everywhere. It's now mandatory in Ontario and seeing high calorie counts has deterred me from picking certain items a few items.

[Anonymous No.10550001]

>>10549969
I'm sure that would happen if it ever gets pushed down to the mom and pop level. But with a 20 location limit, those places have (or should have) an compliance officer at HQ (who might need to go to a class or two).
>It's red tape and comes with a cost
No doubt.

[Anonymous No.10550007]

>>10549996
>Wait wasn't this already a thing there?
It has been a thing in certain states for a while, and some national chains adopted nationwide it because it was easier to just have all their menus and promotional items printed the same.

[Anonymous No.10550009]

>>10549943
Portion size. Pasta is cheap, very high in kcal, and looks like a lot on a pl8 so consumer thinks it's a "good deal" because Americans eat like their stomach is a whole sale distributor always trying pass the savings on to their colon

[Anonymous No.10550013]

>>10549943
>>10549983
>aside from the beef ribs and bistro shrimp all the highest calorie dishes are chicken
What are they doing? Is every chicken dish drowned in cream and cheese?

[Anonymous No.10550021]

>>10549983
It won’t because no one except for some dumbass managers will try to insist that things are accurate. Hence it won’t make a shot it of difference outside of costing more money. If you can’t see that, you’ve never worked in a restaurant or you’re the most naive person I have ever spoken with.

[Anonymous No.10550023]

>>10549866
>eat 2k kcal from lean protiens
>500 kcal of healthy fats
>500 kcal of carbs
>sit on my ass all day and gain weight
BUT MUH SOURCES OF CALORIES

[Anonymous No.10550058]

>>10550023
Who are you arguing against?

[Anonymous No.10550103]

>>10550058
It doesnt matter where your calories are from you can lose weight eating only oreos.

[Anonymous No.10550143]

>>10550013
>Is every chicken dish drowned in cream
Probably. I'd assume they have really rich sauces, since people like rich things and it is fitting at a cheesecake centered place.

[Anonymous No.10550162]

>>10549290
Literally the only thing I care about is sodium. Recently I realized that everything I enjoy from fast food places has more than 100% of the recommended daily value. FUCK!

[Anonymous No.10550180]

>>10550162
That's how much you need, not the maximum you should have. You need sodium for your nerve cells to work (which your brain is also made out of).

[Anonymous No.10550229]

>>10550103
But you won't stick to an Oreo based diet while maintaining CICO. if your goal is to eat only a certain amount of calories a day for a sustained period of time you have to eat a balanced diet.

[Anonymous No.10550236]

>>10550180
The brain isn't made out of sodium, idiot.

[Anonymous No.10550243]

>>10549381
It got deleted

[Anonymous No.10550246]

>>10550229
Depends entirely on the person. I've counted calories before and I had no problem sticking to a calorie count regardless of if was hungry or not.

[Anonymous No.10550252]

>>10550229
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html
Oh wow you totally can.

[Anonymous No.10550257]

>>10549290
>another garbage regulation

[Anonymous No.10550278]

>>10549355
>if you're fat; society shouldn't hold your fucking hand. Help people that can help themselves
What is the problem with giving them more information?

[Anonymous No.10550281]

>>10549290
I'm really surprised this is happening in America but I think overall it's a good thing. I can't believe how many calories are in a single donut, if no one had told me I would have guessed like 200. So now I know if I pig out on 3 donuts, that's not just breakfast but lunch too.

[Anonymous No.10550426]

>>10550281
The amount of calories in a single Oreo would make you plotz.

You should be thinking about the sugary snacks you consume. Or share it. Or cut it in half and save the other half for another day.

[Anonymous No.10550476]

>>10550426
>The amount of calories in a single Oreo would make you plotz.

It's just 75-80 calories, that's not bad.

[Anonymous No.10550479]

>>10549577
So pretty much only fast food joints.

[Anonymous No.10550505]

>>10550479
Pretty much, and places like Applebees or Olive Garden. Also should apply to places like Starbucks and Dunkin Donuts.

[Anonymous No.10550512]

>>10549412
i'll probably end up looking like that.

[Anonymous No.10550534]

It's just limpdicked liberal browbeating, when people go to get fast food it's because they're hungry and looking for a guilty treat and they pick out the highest calorie to dollar ratio food because they want their money's worth. Everybody loses except for the mythical person on a diet who eats McDonald's regularly

[Anonymous No.10550551]

>>10549866
>Is mostly right.
not in terms of weight

[Anonymous No.10550567]

We already have this in Canada and it doesn't work, when I go to subway for lunch after half a day of hard work on an empty stomach I choose the meatball sub because it has a lot more calories than the steak and cheese that I used to get which is surprisingly one of the lower calorie options

[Anonymous No.10550574]

>>10549519
farily accurate for chain restaurants since they so jewish about everything

[Anonymous No.10550575]

>>10549542
i mean, that's true. I love eggplant parm. I make it sometimes, but every few months I'll get it from this good italian place near me and I'll eat most of the portion. I know it's a lot of calories. But like I said, it's once ever 2 or 3 month thing

[Anonymous No.10550578]

>>10549866
You're arguing a different point than being discussed here, you fucking autistic idiot

[Anonymous No.10550588]

Brainlet here: how do you find out how many calories there are in a dish? What kind of scientific magic is there behind it? Let's say you add up the aggregate caloric count of all the ingredients, yeah, but then how do you find out the calorie count of each ingredient?

[Anonymous No.10550617]

>>10550588
Caloric information for food is calculated by analyzing how much protein, fat, carbs, and alcohol it contains. Then those amounts are scaled by what are called Atwater factors. So named because of the scientist who determined them: 4 cals/gram for carbs and protein, 9 for fat and 7 for alcohol. Those factors are based on empirical research regarding how the human body digests the different things. It's not a perfect system but it's the best one we currently know.

[Anonymous No.10550618]

>>10549290
>foods then needs to be submitted to national fda
>it's obligatory now
>gov' earn more dough
>profit.jpg

[Anonymous No.10550981]

>>10550103
I'm pretty certain you can't live entirely on oreos, long term.

Like, maybe five, six days before you start feeling like death is walking in your shadow. You have enough calories to continue to operate, but you won't want to.

That's anon's point.

[Anonymous No.10551090]

>>10550981
>>10550252

[Anonymous No.10551105]

>>10550617
How are the fat protein and carbs counted?

[Anonymous No.10551130]

[Anonymous No.10551161]

Sounds good for skeletons like me.

[Anonymous No.10551193]

>>10550618
Are you from some illiterate backwater where shop owners can't do simple mathematics to calculate the nutrition based on the ingredients of an unchanged blend?

[Anonymous No.10551201]

>>10549440
Muh chickens...

[Anonymous No.10551207]

>Relinquishing even more rights to mommy government
Yes, good soygoys! It will be fine ehheheh

[Anonymous No.10551916]

>>10549921
The consumer is free not to enter into the contract you dumb cunt

[Anonymous No.10551941]

>>10549729
>This information should have been public from the start.
The information about generally advised dietary restrictions has been available from the start. There is no right on the part of the consumer to know precisely how the sausage is made, but they are free to use their own judgement. Business owners should not be compelled to provide information that will deter business.

I’m not as mad about it now I realise it doesn’t apply to individual businesses, but I still think it’s stupid. If people are health conscious, they can go to a restaurant which caters for them. There is already a strong market selection for nutritional transparency where it is relevant to the consumer. Individual businesses should not bear the responsibility for the obesity epidemic. I’m not fat because I ate a lasagna.

[Anonymous No.10551944]

>>10549355
>Now you can sell smaller portions for the same price and tell people "Only 150 calories!"
this already happens, just look at Christie cookies. they have tons of "low calorie" snacks that are just smaller versions of their normal cookies, like those extra thin oreos

>>10549368
all americans are autistic

[Anonymous No.10551958]

>retards on /ck/ still think DURR CALORIES IN CALORIES OUT is what matters and don't understand that carbs and fat create more calories as you digest them

[Anonymous No.10552042]

>>10551958
>carbs and fat create more calories as you digest them
Kek what

[Anonymous No.10553457]

>>10551958
imagine being so fat your body violates the first law of thermodynamics

[Anonymous No.10553508]

>>10549290
>tfw when you realize most mom and pop places don't have the knowledge to figure the calories per recipe and break it down to per serving
it's not hard to learn but many people would have no clue where to start.
I'm not saying mandatory calorie counts for menus is bad, just that they need to provide resources/information on how to do it for those that don't know

[Anonymous No.10553516]

>>10549290
>turning otherwise well-designed menus in nice restaurants into some tasteless fast-food facsimile

[Anonymous No.10553530]

>>10551941
>There is no right on the part of the consumer to know precisely how the sausage is made
Are you a literal idiot? I have every right to know what you are putting in a sausage that you are trying to sell me. Or do you think a business has the right to use 75% beef and 25% oats and still sell that as a 100% beef sausage with no indication on the label that the sausage contains oats at all?
>Business owners should not be compelled to provide information that will deter business.
That is exactly why they need to be compelled, because otherwise they'd never tell you.
>There is already a strong market selection for nutritional transparency
Yes, and if there were no force to make sure those claims of nutritional value were accurate how would the consumer be able to trust them? If I buy apples at my local wholesaler and then tell you I've made my pies with organic locally sourced free range apples hand picked by virgins how would you as a consumer ever know I was lying?

[Anonymous No.10553535]

>>10553516
Most nice restaurants don't have 19+ other locations.

[Anonymous No.10553540]

How accurate are they supposed to be? The same cooked meal could have 100s of calories difference depending on a verity of factors. This is a dumb regulation that won't have any impact on society. They'll just do what they do on packages and make the meal multiple servings.

[Anonymous No.10553554]

>>10553530
>because otherwise they'd never tell you.
Utter bullshit.
The places which use better ingredients, no fillers, etc, will tell you on their own because it's a selling point.

For example, there is no law regarding mandatory marking of organic produce but all sellers of organic produce will mark their product as such.

Likewise there is no law requiring "grass fed" or "free range" meat products to be so labeled, yet they are anyway.

If you don't see any indications of quality then assume the product is shitty. If the product is not shitty then the producer will tell you.

[Anonymous No.10553568]

What if this has the opposite of the desired effect? Will it take another ten years for the policy to get reversed?

[Anonymous No.10553582]

Personally I like the calorie counts because I'm on a budget and I want to know what gets me MORE calories for my money.

[Anonymous No.10553591]

>>10553540
up or down 20%, always, anywhere.

[Anonymous No.10553595]

>>10550009
Pasta isn't high in calories, but cream, butter, oil, and cheese are.

[Anonymous No.10553597]

>>10553582
If you're on a tight budget then why are you considering restaurants at all? Unless you are scoring freebies somehow nothing is cheaper than cooking from scratch.

[Anonymous No.10553615]

>>10553597
It's for when I get lazy, or run out of time and have to get something quick.

[Anonymous No.10553620]

>>10549729
>How can a person be expected to make informed decisions when the very information they need to make those decisions is purposely withheld?
How fucking retarded do you have to be to not know that the deep fried chicken tendies and fries are worse for you than the seared steak and veggies at a restaurant? Fucking nanny-state enabler

[Anonymous No.10553621]

>>10553595
leaving macros out of this, which number do you consider "high"? 100kcals? 150? Per !00g, where do you draw the line?

[Anonymous No.10553658]

>>10553554
That is nice and all, but we were talking about
>Business owners should not be compelled to provide information that will deter business.
All of your examples are of a business promoting themselves. And no just assuming that everything that is not promoted is crap doesn't fly (even though it is a good rule of thumb).
The point is if there is information that the consumer should or needs to know, like calorie counts (even if they are not 100% accurate) or ingredient lists, but is generally seen as anti-profit then there needs to be something to compel the disclosure of that information. Otherwise there is no reason the business would disclose this info, and no way for the consumer to know what they are getting

[Anonymous No.10553672]

>>10553620
Everyone knows that, but it makes weak-willed fucktards feel better if they can blame their personal problems on "them" or "businesses" instead of having to take personal responsibility for their decisions.

[Anonymous No.10553687]

>>10553620
Which has more calories?
Teriyaki chicken or Spicy cashew chicken?
Go look at >>10549881 for the answer, and see if you guess right.
>Fucking nanny-state enabler
Right because telling the consumer things they need to know (what is in their food) is the same as telling them they can't have pointy knives.

[Anonymous No.10553699]

>>10553658
>just assuming that everything that is not promoted is crap doesn't fly
Why not? Seems like an excellent rule of thumb to me.

If you aren't happy with the disclosure, or lack thereof, from a given brand or restaraunt then just don't eat there, simple as that.

I've got nothing against the idea of disclosure, but forcing the issue legally is a waste of effort from an already seriously bloated and overloaded legal system. The law has far more important things to worry about rather than nannying restaurant menus.

[Anonymous No.10553708]

>>10553530
You have just started arguing for why food companies should not be allowed to *lie* about what goes in their food. That is a negative obligation on the part of the business owner. I was not talking about that. I said restaurants should not be obligated to *tell you* what is in their food. That is a positive obligation. The government should generally not impose positive obligations on individuals. Thanks for playing.

[Anonymous No.10554097]

>>10549881
whats the portion size for this menu? no way ribs are 2300 calories

[Anonymous No.10555035]

>>10554097
why not. basic sauce alone is extremely calorific

[Anonymous No.10555060]

It's a problem for businesses because the calorie count might not be exactly the same every time.

>running a pizza place
>some new kid accidentally puts too much cheese on a pizza
>you get sued because the pizza ended up having way more calories than your sign said