It's no wonder the restaurants do not post the calorie content on the menu or in plain sight. Many patrons will not eat out anymore simply because the food is high in salt and calories. The big restaurant chains want to keep this information quiet and it should be a law to reveal this info.This would then make the big chains be more conscious of trying to reduce salt application and reduce calorie content in foods. A great idea but maybe it would cost them too much!! Posted by: GAIL MASON | Nov 7, 07 08:00 PM

I would like to know who is telling the Restaurant Assocition spokesman that the information being given is sufficient. I still do not understand why McDonalds etc must add salt to fries...surely I can decide myself whether to add salt. Children should not be having any salt added to their food Posted by: a.westby | Nov 7, 07 08:18 PM

No surprises. Restaurants exist for only one reason: profit. They'll do anything they can to make it, including putting anything they can get away with putting in their food. It isn't just fat and sodium. They use MSG and many other so-called flavour enhancers. When restaurants whined they'd lose business if we made them go smoke-free, I decided to double the frequency with which I visit them. Over the years, though, I've cut back because the food is generally simply not very good. I've been pretty careful but will now be moreso. Congratulations for having been able to put up with the baseless propaganda the restaurant association representative tried to spew. I'd have been tempted to throw a plate of his own food back at him. No doubt he'd have taken his silk suit to the dry cleaner to get the fat out. No point trying to get silly-twit MPs to bring in a law on this: I'll simply vote with my feet and cook for myself, thanks very much! Posted by: D. Dougherty | Nov 7, 07 08:22 PM

Some of us must make a living doing a tremendous amount of traveling and consequently have to eat out more than we may like. Watching your show tonight showed that even though we think we are making a good healthy choice, we just have no idea of the calorie and salt content in the food we are eating. Hopefully the gentleman at the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association will go away and think about his negative approach to your suggested menu, which would include the calorie and salt content. Posted by: Maurice and Heather | Nov 7, 07 08:42 PM

It's no wonder we have an obesity epidemic. More and more we are eating out and trying to choose healthy choices. Any wonder why they can't lose weight? We the consumers must be the ones demanding this information and not relying on others. If they can't provide the information and a low calorie, healthier alternative, leave, and tell them why. Posted by: D. J. Charters | Nov 7, 07 09:03 PM

After listening to the excuses of why salt and caloric information is not on the menu I am boycotting establishments that refuse to provide this information. I think all Canadians should do this as well. If the bottom line is all companies care about then we should react in kind and hurt them in their pocket books. Posted by: Brett | Nov 7, 07 11:02 PM

The programme didn't mention the fact that so many people are just simply shoving too much food into their mouths. That's half the problem - the size of the portions served at those restaurants. While it's certainly true that many restaurants can do more to cut down on fat, sodium and calories, the ultimate decision on what goes into our bodies is made by the individual. I'm sure most of us are aware of how highly processed the food is in those restaurants. It's only common sense that we shouldn't be eating this type of prepared food too often. Sure; it may be a good idea to list the calorie, sodium and fat data on the menu, but I can't help but think we are dumbing ourselves down - expecting that government legislation will somehow magically cure the obesity problem in North America. Posted by: Ross Snowden | Nov 8, 07 12:09 AM

I've been dying to know the information on Canada's big food chains. I've definitely had the artichoke dip, and I won't ever again! Going to these chains is a waste of money, a super sacrifice on your health, and pretty embarrassing, I find. The man in charge of the restaurant association is such a fool to suggest there are "better" ways of communicating healthy alternatives to us.. Perhaps he can give us an example? I don't remember the last time I went out for a meal, perhaps subconsciously my brain isn't letting me, as I know they are all out to get our money. Water over Coke, any day. Posted by: Trevor B | Nov 8, 07 01:06 AM

First here, I work with food industry. I also know for a fact, people add more salt to things even when food are already salty. People demand extra cheeses, extra dressing, extra sauces and extra anything that will add to calories. Even if the restaurants or fast food places put information about nutritional values, people like their food flavorful. When I dine out, as for salads, dressings on the side, for fries, hold the salt, for pasta, sauces on the side, and eat only what you really can. Pay extra when you can to make your waiter's life easier to accommodate your needs. Nowadays, a number of restaurants do accommodate special diets. Jjust ask. Posted by: pol | Nov 8, 07 10:47 PM

Hi, I really liked your show but wished you had asked that Ron Reaman to accompany you to the restaurants you visited so he could see for himself that the restaurants do not have the information he says they have. Posted by: Jack Small | Nov 9, 07 01:46 PM

what can I do to have my voice heard by the people that matter? I like the idea of the proposed bill that was shut down, but it's obvious that nothing will happen unless more people are actually informed, and want to take some action towards results. Are there lobby groups that can counter the group that defeated the bill? Posted by: Brad wotherspoon | Nov 9, 07 08:21 PM

With obesity being such a problem today, especially with children, I believe strongly this bill should be re-presented and passed. Mr. Reaman obviously has a closed mind and is acting in the best interests of the restaurants who are interested only in money! Posted by: Eileen Booth | Nov 10, 07 08:03 PM

The person representing the food services is a complete fool if he thinks the information is out there for the taking. Posted by: Jessie Hopkins | Nov 10, 07 08:04 PM

Consumers need to be better informed of what they are eating. Since some restaurants already have nutritional information on their websites, there is absolutely no reason this information should not be on their menus. As you have shown, it can be done quite easily, and I'm sure with not much added cost. Obviously these chains do not want to readily let people know how many calories, etc. are in their food because the amounts are, for the most part, shocking. This may discourage some customers from eating out. Is this such a bad thing for our increasingly obese society? Maybe this is an indication restaurants should opt for healthier, lower calorie, fat and sodium choices. This would show people they are actually concerned about the average customer watching their health, and the betterment of society, not the almighty dollar. And for the record, nutritional information is not available in any form at many of the restaurants I have visited. Posted by: Tracy K | Nov 10, 07 08:22 PM

This topic - in view of our spiraling health care costs due to obesity, diabetes and heart problems - is vitally important to help educate "joe public" regarding caloric and sodium content in restaurant foods. Making this information easily available on a menu is every bit as important as the price! Politicians should be concerned that the public have available to them this kind of information and should strongly encourage the Restaurant Association to provide it! We should NOT have to ask for it - it should be THERE - ON THE MENU! Posted by: EILEEN KINSMAN | Nov 10, 07 09:16 PM

Okay, I've read over all these comments...and the bottom line is, it comes down to people's health. There was a comment that people shove too much food in their faces & another that stated people add salt because they want food to be more flavourful. These are labels that have been put on every individual. There are people out there who simply want to make healthy choices. I am a nurse. I am of a healthy weight & I can honestly say i never add additional salt to my meals. After seeing how one's diet affects one's life, I am shocked at some of the comments that were stated on the broadcast. The gentleman from the CRFA completely dismissed those Canadians who are trying to improve their health and want to make healthier lifestyle choices. It is true, the reason health information such as caloric & fat content is not publicly distributed is because it would cause people to actually focus on their health management. Personally, I had to stop eating out on a regular basis because of a gallbladder problem, and now that I have, my health has improved. But what about those people who travel on business and do not have the luxury of preparing their own food? They deserve the option to make informed decisions. Posted by: Rachel | Nov 11, 07 01:49 PM

I agree that foodservice establishments in general should be treated equitably with respect to providing product information. In my opinion, your show presented unreasonable expectations for the industry. The validity and bias of your “research” greatly limited the credibility of your arguments. Although your program is meant to combine some humour with practical information, this program left me siding with the CRFA (I am not a foodservice operator or regular patron). In your segment, it was clear that calorie transparency of menus was not a market-driven factor. Most of your interviewees expressed a “nice to know” attitude, but few actually seemed to be ready to change their meal preferences…even if they were better informed. Investment in consumer awareness regarding voluntary purchases is only justified if that awareness leads to significant change in consumer behaviour. Your debate with the CRFA representative made no progress during the show. However, there is a more realistic and cost-effective compromise for the industry and consumers: mandatory and complete disclosure of calorie information using company Websites. This solution would be much easier to monitor and enforce than on-site delivery. I do see an entrepreneurial opportunity for calorie-wise foodservice providers to differentiate with smaller serving sizes – in the name of consumer health (not to mention higher profits with lower food costs). A minority of consumers might actually demand this. Posted by: Cory Baron | Nov 11, 07 02:21 PM

I think some of the concerns are blown a little out of proportion. Sure, the sodium levels are very high, and I don't agree with that, but a meal at 600 calories is not that much out of line, if you have a reasonable breakfast and lunch. The way I combat all this calorie-rich foods at restaurants is to eat slowly, and only eat HALF of my meal (take the other half home for the next day). These meals are often large enough for two meals anyway. Posted by: L Gabel | Nov 11, 07 02:25 PM

Is the bill going to be reintroduced at a later date? I am appalled that the food industry is able to with hold this critical information. Posted by: judy ashdown | Nov 11, 07 11:31 PM

People have the ability to eat what they want to eat. Sounds crazy I know but if something is high in sodium or fat don't eat it. Maybe get some exercise and then you can eat what you want. The popular restaurant chains in Canada do have healthy meals. They just don't sound or taste as good as the ones that you love. Posted by: lh | Nov 12, 07 06:13 PM

Posted by: L Gabel | Nov 11, 07 02:25 PM I think some of the concerns are blown a little out of proportion. Sure, the sodium levels are very high, and I don't agree with that, but a meal at 600 calories is not that much out of line, if you have a reasonable breakfast and lunch. ------ Sure, 600 cal in a dinner is pretty healthy. I wonder how many people actually know how little food that is! I had that last night - a small bowl of Tim Hortons Beef Noodle soup, a regular chicken salad sandwich (lowest cal from all TH sandwiches) and a cup tea with sugar. This was about 600 cal. Wonder how many would consider it a proper dinner. Posted by: Olena | Nov 13, 07 10:15 AM

The responses of the restaurant association border on gross negligence. It promotes a view that simply increases our weight and costs taxpayers billions in extra health care costs. Of course the industry that wants no change since to do so would reduce the billions the companies make. If anything is to be done, it has to be done by regulation. We did it for tobacco when we realized that it harmed us. What about trans fat, sodium and, as the representative of the industry refused to acknowledge, calories? Posted by: G. | Nov 13, 07 09:03 PM

Once again we are moving away from personal responsibility. If you are overweight it can't be your fault, it must be the restaurant's responsibility. Common sense should tell you the cream sauce on the pasta you are ordering at Red Lobster isn't going to be healthy. People need to think and realize the effects of the food they are eating. Oh my goodness, wings aren't healthy? That's a shocker! Posted by: Patrick | Nov 14, 07 03:48 PM

The Canadian Restaurant Association responses to questions asked by Marketplace had a certain familiarity, then I remembered, they sound like the cigarette industry and are probably doing as much damage to peoples lives and our health care system. I guess they think we are stupid and I guess we are for putting up with them and the politicians who are not looking out for us. Posted by: Terry H | Nov 14, 07 03:57 PM

It is appalling to me to see how much clout the corporate lobbyists have in controlling our laws and lives. I think we are missing the mark worrying about senators and put or focus on lobbyists and corporate responsibilities. With respect to the comments that people have a choice to eat what they want, I agree with that, but also would like to know what it is that I am making a choice over. Different restaurants can make the same dish with drastically different caloric, salt and fat content. I would never have guessed that Fajitas would be so high in calories. With that knowledge I will either avoid it or make choices to limit the calories for rest of the day and possibly next. I need to know that it will take two hours of hard running to burn off this particular meal choice. Posted by: Terry | Dec 1, 07 11:04 PM

I am 74 years old, a retired nurse/educator, who has recently become diligent about recording nutritional values of the intake of food. O, my God! What I have I been thinking of all these years? It is vital that we educate everyone of the calories, Sodium, and fat content in food. Our health costs are soring and we wonder why? Time to awaken.... Posted by: Simonne F | Dec 23, 07 01:22 PM

I was not surprised that the Restaurants do not want to show the calories on their menus. Their highest calorie dishes are their best sellers. I am sure the menus you prepared would not cost them that much extra. I would also like to see a warning on the menus about allergens. I am on a gluten free diet and have to question the waitress about dishes that do not contain wheat or wheat products. These people do not seem to understand and look at me so funny. That man who helped defeat the bill about calories obviously was concerned about the money and not his customers. He kept repeating himself about how successful his program was however I agree with you that it is not successful at all. I am glad you mentioned Swiss Chalet in your story. I was able to go on their website to find allergen content. I now know what I can eat at Swiss Chalet. Posted by: Linda Herkimer | Dec 23, 07 10:26 PM