I eat out--often. My Mastercard bill can attest to that fact. I don't choose restaurants out of necessity, but because I enjoy them. Calling the Bay Area my home, I've have some enviable eating spots to choose from, hitting a peak in the food capital of the country, San Francisco. My dining experience was dialed up when I spent 4 months in New York and dialed way down my year in Dallas, except maybe for the killer fried chicken on waffles topped with maple syrup, which I think was on the brunch menus specifically for the hungover.

Although I had heard about posting calories on menus, I had miraculously missed them, until my recent visit to Foster Freeze for my beloved (small) Root Beer Freeze. Plain as day, posted right on the menu board were the calories of every item. What the hell? Why would anyone want to know the calorie count of their Chili Cheeze Dog, Waffle Fries and medium Cookie Dough Twister? There they were again during my recent trip to San Diego where those pesky numbers stared at me from the menus at Mimi's, Chili's and Islands restaurants.

I was fascinated by the calories listed with each menu item. At Islands, who knew you could easily consume the Kaanapali Kobb Salad and a lemonade and exceed 1800 calories. Or, at Chili's the Chicken Club Tacos will set you back 1140 calories. I would have said that I am pretty good at guessing calories, but I found I was waaay off. I was obsessively all-consumed by checking out the calories of all the items on the menus. It definitely affected my choices.  Instead of the 2 fish tacos, which I might have ordered (1020 calories), I ordered the veggie tacos, still at a high 600 calories.  

The Mayo Clinic's site suggested that a 40 year old woman, 5' 5" woman with a moderate activity level should only consume 1750 calories. At Chili's, a Classic Club Sandwich with fries and a coke for lunch is only going to leave you room for a stick of gum and a Tab for the rest of your day.  The calories have always been there, but now you know! It's like sensing that your partner's been cheating on you, but now when they come home, they've got it tattooed on their forehead.   

But seriously, is all this labeling making a difference? The law requiring calorie counts on restaurant menus took effect in California this year.  Under the law, restaurant chains with 20 or more outlets must include calorie counts for each food item on all menus, and on menu boards above the front counter.  As compared to can labeling, consumers may be more likely to pay attention to restaurant labeling because it provides the calorie content for an entire dish versus the individual ingredients for a home-prepared meal(1) . However, some studies suggest that diners may pay less attention to nutritional information when eating out than when shopping for the week's meals.

Here's where I think it gets interesting. Restaurants may change their recipes to provide better numbers. We already see some "heart healthy" or "guiltless" offerings giving the choice of steamed broccoli over fries. The question is, will customers buy the lower calorie entrees and side dishes?  Some observers are dubious, since past attempts to offer healthier menu items have not always been successful, especially when reformulating ingredients that influence taste perceptions. Eaters often find "low-fat foods less tasty than their high-fat cousin. A study by the the British Institute of Food Research in a restaurant setting, fewer patrons chose the dishes labeled as "low fat."  

Rather than become fanatical about my calorie counts, I think I'll stay out of the chain restaurants. This is a slam dunk in a major foodie city, but not so easy in Buttonwillow on your way to LA.   All in all, it was a good wake-up call to rethink what I consume calorically. Hum, I wonder how many calories are in My Friend Joe's medium sweet and spicy chai latte and a french cruller?

(1) http://www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/March11/F

eatures/CalorieLabeling.htm "The NYU researchers found that 27.7 percent of New York City customers who saw the calorie labeling indicated that the information influenced their choices, and about 88 percent of these customers said they purchased fewer calories in response to the labeling. Their receipts showed otherwise, however. Survey participants in New York City purchased about the same number of calories both before and after the labeling law took effect-and about the same amount as the Newark participants."

*Recycled from last year.