I'd appreciate having the information. While I realize that movie-theatre popcorn isn't going to be the greatest thing to eat, it would be really nice to have the information at hand.

What's wrong with this? I'm not really clear on why anyone would think this was a bad thing? Personally, I think it's a great idea.

I've nothing against them labeling it, I didn't actually even speak to that idea. Simply to the idea that movie theatre food being bad might be a big surprise to people. I don't think it'd hurt 'em to add a label.

PJ

With the understanding that I will quickly be accused of claiming "slippery slope"...

What good will a nutrition label do on theater popcorn really?
* People who are health conscious will have a tremor of terror as they walk past the pumps and see the monstrous calorie count. They weren't buying it anyway.
* People who are mildly health conscious will see the count and order a diet soda. They will then proceed to misjudge how much they pump, because the label will invariably be in some silly quantity like teaspoons.
* People who are not health conscious will do nothing.

God help them if the theater uses the electronic topping dispensers, if the stoned teenagers behind the counter are the ones who put on the butter, or both.

While it has the intention of helping people, it may just end up hurting them. A calorie-counting dieter will see "150 calories per teaspoon", pump 5 teaspoons but assume it was 2, and end up over her calorie count by 450 (numbers removed from ~$$). Woops.

I'm not saying they shouldn't do it, just that these kind of things need to be taken into account. These labels are only useful when the amounts can be measured - packages of BBQ sauce, for instance. What great idea is the government going to think up when this label does no good? Will they start requiring movie theaters to serve standardized servings of popcorn butter?

I don't know, the labels I see show 'x' calories per serving, and 'x' servings in a container. If someone doesn't care.... so be it. For those of us who do it's a big difference.

As to the rest..... okay. Whatever.

I personally don't see the big deal in labelling. Eating at the cinema is not a new thing that came with the "grazing is good" mentality. I never do it because there are few things that are even reasonably low carb (not to mention they don't butter the popcorn here--bleh), but if I were on a fat or calorie restrictive diet, it would help me make reasonable choices on my own. If and when cinemas start selling low carb snacks, I would want to know exactly how low carb and wouldn't rely on their word for it.

I hate that restaurants here are not required (at least some aren't) to post their nutritional information. It makes it very difficult for people watching their carb intake to have anything close to a normal life. How can we say that it's okay to allow popcorn to go unlabelled because it's "a bad food" and everyone should know that and expect to know the carbs in a supposedly healthy McDonalds salad? It all should be labelled.

If you can go your whole life without ever having to eat a meal out or without trying to find a snack which fits your plan that you didn't prepare with your own hands, good on you. We mere mortals would like to be able to know the macronutrient and calorie content of our foods.

While governments might not be all that great at advising people on what to eat, ensuring we have all the information we want to make the decisions ourselves isn't really the same thing.

Which is great for regular food. It would be good, for instance, on a hot dog. 1 hot dog = X calories. Static unit.

But on more traditional concessions stand fare, there's not way to tell what a "serving" is. Any "serving" in this case is nothing more than an arbitrary unit with no connection to the physical world.


Yes, it will, but it can't be helpful, as you have no way of knowing how many arbitrary units you're consuming.

As I already said, I don't think it should stop them from doing it, but it will not have the desired effect.


"Whatever"...? You couldn't just skip the rest, you had to be condescending.

Well, in all honesty that was the intended effect. The rest was kinda silly.

I ate this popcorn once when I was a young girl, maybe 8 years old. I did have a tub of popcorn (can't remember the size). By the time I got home, vomit galore! Haven't touched it since. Any idea what that stuff is like coming back up?

Let's just say its not pretty.

I can't imagine anyone would think anything they offer at the theater is healthy?

I'm curious. I thought McDonalds used to use tallow, ie beef fat, which was credited with giving their fries a distinctive flavor. I know I loved them in the l970s -- especially with plenty of salt.

Yes, McD's did use tallow and had the BEST fries, until the CSPI shamed them into changing from tallow to partially hydrogenated (soybean and or corn and or cottonseed etc) oil.
I believe there was a test market (back in the 90's???) where they tried switching back but the vegetarians all complained.

I vote with my wallet. My fries come from a burger joint that fries them in duck fat (Fridays only, thankfully) and the only theater we go to (once or twice a year) serves their popcorn with real butter. These are the only times I ever eat that stuff, but my rationale is that those types of fat makes the carbs a little less evil...

Now for the shameless plug. If you'd like to vote with your wallet as well, check out the Cinemark Century Theater in Kildeer Illinois. Are there other Cinemark theaters that also serve real butter? I don't know, and no I don't work for them. But if I ask for extra butter, the people behind the counter give me a surprised look and happily load the tub up with lots of real butter. I think those kids are happy to serve real butter.

Why don't you elaborate on why it's silly instead of making blanket statements?

Information is only useful if it's actionable. If I hand you a bag and only say, "This food has 2 carbs per serving," what's the logical first question?

Here's the issue as I see it: the PTD don't want labeling to give people info. They have an outcome they want. If people see coke has 140 calories per 12 ounces, and order a large coke, they'll lowball it. It's 20 ounces [233 calories], not 32 ounces [373 calories]. The person overshoots by 150 calories a day, and gains 15 pounds in a year! So, the PTB want labels that provide accurate amounts so people will make "smart" choices. Someone who wants a 20 ounce drink will order a medium instead.

But you can't do that with unmeasured concessions. It's not silly to point that out. Since this action has a desired outcome, enforcing it in all situations without taking into account variables is an exercise in failure.

how is popcorn an unmeasured consession? In the Uk they are served in cardboard boxes, which have a certain volume, (much as a carton of fries does) having worked in chain fast food restaurants I would bet my last penny that the proprieters know exactly how much those cartons contain and the possible variation to 3 sig figs and that the carton and the dispenser are designed in no small part to minimise that variation. portion control = cash (no matter what the margins, which are apparently huge).

I can't see the problem in forcing the info to be provided on the ingrediant list and nutritional breakdown - it's a mass-produced uniform product (unless popcorn is something entirely different in the US) , we're not talking cooked-to-order fine dining made of artisan-products which would require each menu item testingon a weekly basis to keep up to date?

It is true though that what constitutes a "serving" is sometimes sort of ridiculous. Like how the food manufacturers will sort of try to gloss over the amount of something in a serving (for instance, chips that proclaim "zero trans fats) by making the serving size really small. I'm not sure how many people look at the "servings per container/package."

I remember when my uncle first started with low-carb, sometimes he'd say (about a particular product), "It's only one carb..." but then not notice that this was for a super-small serving.

The "serving" argument is absurd. Nobody looks at servings on large bags of potato chips, or bag candy, or roast, or practically anything for that matter. But it's easy enough to look at how many calories are in the entire thing and realize it's more than you want to eat -- so you don't eat it all. For years, I had no idea how many calories were in a bucket of popcorn, despite my best efforts at, first, finding out, and then, when that failed, estimating. And as a result of this, I ate way, way more movie popcorn than I would have had I known.

You can't demand that people practice "self responsibility" and all the rest of the feel-good-about-yourself-while-looking-down-on-others platitudes without giving those people enough information to make reasoned decisions. One of the tricks the food industry plays is to say their garbage "Can be a fun part of a responsible diet." There's actually some truth to this, but it only works if people have some idea of how much of that crap they can eat while still being "responsible." As many of the people in this thread have stated, nobody knew just how many calories were in movie popcorn.

How many times do you see someone eating microwave popcorn? How many times did you, pre low-carb, think, "That's a good snack"? Why should anyone expect movie popcorn be that much worse? I didn't. But it is. And few people know it. If the moviehouse industry has its way, things will stay that way.

Geeze just sneek your own lc treats into the movies then ya dont have to worry about it. If ya get caught with em, claim its a dietary/allergy issue and they usually just leave you alone. lol worked/works for me.