In defence of calories on menus by Ann Elliott

I am so pleased that calories are now on restaurant and pub menus, but I do seem to be in the minority, I have to say. Some friends think putting calories next to menu prices is an infringement of their freedom to choose and eat what they want. They liken it to Big Brother – someone telling them what to do, how to behave and what to eat. No way. It’s up to them to decide what to put in their mouths and not the role of the government. They are incensed, quite frankly.

?Others think that seeing calories on menus ruins their whole eating out occasion – they don’t want to be reminded of how many calories they may be consuming when they are out to have fun. The moment of reckoning can happen tomorrow, not now, while they are throwing caution to the wind with their menu choices.?

?And a small minority argue that calories on menus are not designed for them but for people who eat badly and aren’t likely to take any notice of them anyway. Calories are a crude, unnecessary, blunt and irrelevant method of controlling obesity, and putting them on menus will not stop it happening.?

?I, on the other hand, seem to have been obsessed with calories for the last 100 years. I have been known to leave one pea on my plate, remove the lemon from a gin and tonic and eat only one peanut – well, not literally, but you get my drift. I have used calorie counters of all sorts, filled in app forms religiously, read hundreds of blogs on the subject, hoarded old Weight Watchers manuals, manically followed Slimming World rules and tried every diet the sanctimonious Michael Mosley has ever produced. I could name the calories in most things, from a slice of tomato to a giant portion of fish and chips, including mushy peas.

?Like everyone else, I know that a salad is better for me than a burger, and that a pepperoni pizza is generally not likely to remove inches from my hips. So, I initially thought there was nothing I could learn or would do differently if their calories were in front of me every time I ate out. How wrong I was.

?Take today. I am sat in the Signal Box in Euston trying to decide what to have for lunch. If I want to snack, then soup at 49 calories is fine, but lamb kofta with tzatziki and toasted flatbread, though it sounds delicious, at +25p and an additional 462 calories, very definitely isn’t. I expected the burger to be more than 1,000 calories, but not the linguine, so I avoid that and go with the fishcakes at 524 calories. My lunch can either be 571 calories (￡21.75) or 1,982 calories (￡22).

Does my choice make much difference to Fullers in terms of spend per head or margin? I expect not. Would my lower calorie choice make much difference to my enjoyment of lunch? No, it won’t. I don't buy the argument that calories spoil my eating out occasions because I am not always eating out for a gastronomic experience. I feel better able to make informed sensible choices because I have the information I need in front of me.

?As a consumer, it doesn't make sense that calories are not available with all menus, in every bar or restaurant. I want the information to hand now every time I eat out. I don’t want to go via a QR code either – that’s just a real cop out, not in line with the regulations that others are following and irritating for customers. It should be the same rules for everyone. End of.

Ann Elliott is a hospitality strategist, connector and adviser