Talk about sticker shock! When I walked into my local Dunkin Donuts, staring me in the face, in huge type, were the obscene calorie counts for all my favorites--including 340 calories for a chocolate-glaze donut, and 660 for a chocolate chip muffin! Thanks to New York Mayor Felix Unger (I mean, Michael Bloomberg), all fast-food eateries must now prominently warn its customers just what they are getting into when they stuff their faces with junk food. I suppose this is good risk management...Or is it merely obnoxious?
I don't quite know what to make of this Bloomberg initiative. On the one hand, in both insurance and risk management, information is power. If you can quantify a risk to determine the odds or cost of something going wrong, the exposure is a lot easier to manage. Having hard numbers handy also helps sell senior management on the importance of loss control and safety.
As risk managers of our own lives, having food content broken down on labels helps us make informed decisions about what to eat, and to be more aware of the potential consequences. Bloomberg's crusade to label all calorie counts (he is trying to extend his fast food awareness program to regular restaurants) speaks to that.
On the other hand, sometimes I would rather just be left in the dark. I know a donut is not good for my waistline, and probably is not the smartest food choice, but I like one now and then. Yet after being confronted with that calorie count, I don't know if I can ever wolf down a chocolate glaze again guilt-free.
That's no doubt Bloomberg's goal--to get people to stop and think about what they are eating, and to make better choices. It's for our own good, as our parents used to say.
Yet I am no longer a child, and don't want to be treated like one. That's the darker side of this initiative--Bloomberg as Big Daddy, scolding us about our lifestyle choices. Is this really any of his business?
I can still have my donuts, of course. Unlike when Bloomberg arranged to have trans-fat removed from all food preparation, donuts have not been banned. But his kill-joy warnings have spoiled the whole donut experience for me.
The worst was last week, when I attended Opening Night of my beloved Brooklyn Cyclones. To my horror, the concession stands at Keyspan Park had calorie counts listed for all the staples--hot dogs, french fries, pizza, pretzels, etc. (I won't reveal the numbers so as not to spoil your next ballpark culinary experience.)
Who wants to worry about such things at a baseball game?!? (Keyspan, in keeping with the spirit of Bloomberg's healthy eating campaign, now offers three types of low-fat salads. Somehow, singing "Take Me Out To The Ballgame" ain't the same with a salad sitting in your lap!)
Risk management is wonderful, but sometimes one can have too much of a good thing, whether that be donuts, hot dogs or risk management!
What do you folks think???
Comments (5)
If I have to pay somebody else's medical bills through some kind of compulsory cost-shifting plan (like Medicare or medical bills padded to cover the costs of the free riders), then I have an interest in their health, and feel like I have a right to tell them what and how much they should eat.
But if their medical bills are their own problem, they should feel free to bulk up on gunk or whatever they want, as far as I'm concerned. it's cocialism vs. freedom.
My personal preference leans toward the latter, and apparently yours may be starting to lean that way, too.
Congratulations!
SAM RESPONDS:
Was that "lean" remark at the end a reference to my waistline! LOL!
Posted by Mikk | June 24, 2008 11:22 AM
Posted on June 24, 2008 11:22
I think you've gone over the edge! Obviously the Cyclones lost....Why should your dedicated readers suffer!
Ignorance is not bliss and THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS TOO MUCH RISK MANAGEMENT!!!!
Have a good day Sam.
SAM RESPONDS:
Actually, the Cyclones won that night! And much like those engaging in "carbon credits" to ease their guilt over global warming, I had a salad the next night at home to make up for my overindulgence at the park that night.
Posted by Wayne Salen | June 24, 2008 11:39 AM
Posted on June 24, 2008 11:39
The short answer is “yes.” The key to risk management is management. In that respect, anyone can be guilty of micro-management, which is often inefficient and ineffectual.
However, I’d like to take exception to one of your throw-away remarks.
You say, “in both insurance and risk management, information is power.” This is only a half truth.
You’ve given a great example with your trip to Dunkin Donuts. Sure, a chocolate glazed donut is 340 calories. But what does that mean from a risk perspective?
You need a certain amount of daily calories to survive (probably around six donuts worth). If the Farmers Market listed calorie counts, you’d probably see a similar 340 calorie label on a bunch of carrots.
The 340 calorie data point is not sufficient for making risk management decisions for your health. You also need to know the portion size and the nutritional content of the foods.
Which brings me to my second point: Too much raw information without some sort of filter is useless and can often lead to analysis paralysis.
If you wanted to compile a day’s menu based on the information available on the nutritional labels on every item in the supermarket, it would be past suppertime before you could even begin making breakfast.
More to the point, the information on the label may not be relevant to your individual needs. For example, the coffee cup may tell us that “the contents are hot,” but not whether the barrista washed his or her hands before serving it to us.
Posted by Craig | June 24, 2008 1:18 PM
Posted on June 24, 2008 13:18
In this week's Newsweek, George Will did a column about this political phenomenon, which apparently goes by the names "Choice Architecture," and "Libertarian Paternalism."
In either case, it means rather than mandate that people do things that are "good for them," or ban "bad" stuff to keep people from doing things that are "bad for them," you set up a situation where the choice remains with the individual, but the context is such that most people will instinctively make the "right" choice.
You may read his complete take on this at:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/142638
Posted by Sam Friedman | June 25, 2008 8:59 AM
Posted on June 25, 2008 08:59
Why don't they mandate restaurants reduce their portions so people don't feel compelled to clean their plate? (Yes, I was brought up in the era where my parents played the "starving child" card, so eat everything on your plate whether you're full or not), and reduce their prices so more people can afford to go out for a little treat once in awhile instead of having to throw their food away--or drag it home to sit in their refrigerator for a week before they throw it out.
Mandated calorie counts can only go so far. Give people a choice of half portions for half price and I'm sure they'll jump on the band wagon.
As for pushing it in my face when I go somewhere, forgetaboutit. We're supposed to be adults. (After all, what teenager really cares that a donut has 16 grams of fat?) I can pretty much disginguish whether eating a vat of French fries is worse than a head of lettuce.
Give me the choice of how much I eat instead of what I eat any time, and stay out of my business.
Posted by Carin | June 30, 2008 12:20 PM
Posted on June 30, 2008 12:20