I don't want to see the calories on my menu.  If it's only chain restaurants that have to do it, that would drive me to non-chain establishments.  If it was everywhere, I'd determine what I have a taste for, and ask what the options are--no looking at the menu at all.  (such as, what kind of chicken sandwiches do you have?)

I exercise 4-6 times a week, I watch what I eat, and my figure is very important to me.  But when I finally convince my husband to leave the house and actually go out for a dinner?  I don't want to know what's in it.  It's a treat.  Just like I don't want to know how much my birthday presents cost.   If someone wants to know, they can have the menu with the calories on it. 

I see the logic behind it, but I don't need it forced on me.  Those who do it isn't going to help anyway.

Ahahaha! Eating is my competitive sport. Want to get into a Chipotle burrito-eating race? I'm your girl. (And I do know how many calories are in those burritos, not to mention the tortillas alone )

In my aforementioned fantasy restaurant (that I start after winning lotto - lol!)  there is a way for people with celiacs, or whom are vegan, raw -- kosher, or other special diets to know exactly what is in everything.   As a vegetarian I always feel like I'm shooting dice with restaurants.

I guess I don't intellectually understand the emotions around NOT knowing what's in food is my problem.  Not *knowing* things in general is very foreign/uncomfy to me.  I mean, - I flip food over and read the ingredients. I don't necessarily stop eating it... I've gone, "hmmm... what's in Fresca? ... let's see.... esther of wood rosin?  I think I'll have another." 
--otherwise it's like the,  "open your mouth and close your eyes and I'm going to give you a big surprise" game of childhood.   Not knowing doesn't take the calories away or anything.

I like that Krystal said it's like knowing what a birthday present costs -- it's like a treat that would be spoiled.    I guess that helps me understand that kind of healthy person view point except that if I knew that my birthday present cost 200 (like a camera or something) I don't think that would make me feel bad about having it.  A treat, after all, is a treat!     

Seconded! As a vegan reading labels is second nature for me everywhere I go. Not knowing what's in food is scary.

When you win the lotto and open a restaurant, I'll be first in line.

I don't see it any more "big brotherish" than the warning labels on cigarettes and alcohol.  You'd *think* people would know, but that's not true across the board.  If it gets them to reconsider stuffing a muffin and mochafrappafatachino down their cake-holes (LOVE that WS!) for breakfast every single morning, that's fan-freakin-tastic. 

There are ALWAYS going to be groups of people who it may not help (say those recovering from eating disorders).  But this entire country is NOT suffering from eating disorders.  We've gotten collectively fatter because our sense of portion sizes is distorted, fast food itself has become so widely disseminated, and our lives are much busier with both parents working (or a single parent family) and children are often involved in many after school activities so processed/pre-packaged "food" is what we eat because it's convenient. 

Countries that turn from traditional diets to Western diets also see rising rates of obesity. It's not rocket science.  Really. 

i actually think it's more "big brotherish" not to have that info available and it should be...along with allergen info.  if you don't want to know then don't look or maybe that splurge really isn't that important to you and if most people will continue eating as they have before then what is lost?  if it helps me make an informed choice about food then it's all good.  i wish it were law down here, but it's not, so i look online for nutritional info and plan accordingly. 

I think that they have had to have it available in the facility too.  I know if you ask at McDonalds or such they do have little sheets with the info on it. 

I agree with you.  If people wanted the info and wanted to use it, it is very easily found.

I don't know if anyone else is familiar with Showtime's Penn & Teller Bull$#!&, but they did an episode debunking the obesity "epidemic."  To paraphrase Penn (since this is a PG forum and to quote him would get me in big trouble with the mods ) humans are harwired to eat and reproduce.  Basically, every generation prior to the industrial revolution faced times of famine.  Having the "willpower" to not feast when food was available would have doomed the human race.

Science has moved faster than our own evolution.  Humans are still hardwired to feast when the food is available and since Americans are never going to face a time of famine due to the abundance of food available, of course people are going to be overweight.  To paraphrase Penn yet again....If you have the willpower to overcome millions of years of evolution, great, more for the rest of us...and if you can stop "reproducing" too...great, more for the rest of us.

There is a difference between having instincts and acting on them - we don't reproduce at every opportunity available. We can overcome basic desires in order to each greater goals than just "see food - must store fat for winter!"

Yes, eating is human nature. Overeating to the point where you count outrun a predator would go against evolutionary goals. Strongest and fittest - not horniest and fattest.

As for reproduction, science has found a way to let humans "mate" to their hearts content without ending up with 20 kids, but science hasn't found a way to indulge our other instinct without repercussions.

Our human ancestors wouldn't have been fat because they didn't have an endless supply of tasty fat filled foods every where they turned.  That's my point.  Prior to the industrial revolution, most humans (as in not royalty or nobility) faced equal times of feast and famine, and procuring food wasn't as easy as walking to the corner store to buy tasty calorie laden treats.  Humans evolved in a world where calories were hard to come by, so when they were available, humans didn't say, no I'll have the "willpower" to not take that extra slice of mammoth roast, they ate themselves silly when the opportunity presented itself.  And this whole idea that humans should have the willpower to overcome their natural instincts?  How many truly abstinent people do you know?  How many people do you know that never eat more than the bare minimum to survive when presented with abundance?

I'm not saying that we should all just go out and eat thousands of calories without considering the repercussions...I'm saying that this idea of "willpower" is simply to simplistic.  It takes a great deal of work and discipline to not overeat, because you are overcoming millions of years of evolution.  It makes sense that a majority of people would become overweight because weight maintenance science hasn't kept pace with food production science.  If it were as simple as having willpower, then we wouldn't have a billion dollar weight loss industry.

Absolutely it does.  But my knuckle dragging ancestors didn't have McDonald's or Doritos or ice cream.  I do.  I measure out my servings, and despite WANTING to eat the whole bag of taco goodness, I don't.  I don't WANT to get on the treadmill or do kickboxing all the time, but I do it.  I park at the end of the grocery store lot and walk to the store to get extra steps in during the day, rather than circling the lot like a vulture hoping