Flashback - Restaurant Menus

[Last Month I posted a flashback to “Behavior Has Consequences” from September 2011. The following month I used the regulations intended to make restaurant menus more transparent to show problems in each of the behavioral dimensions. Here, from October 2011, is “Restaurant Menus Demonstrate My Point.”]

Last time I reinforced the need for critical thinking by pointing out the dubious value of self-reporting surveys. Whether about politics or personal habits, they tend to be an inaccurate reflection of actual choices and behavior. I wonder why news agencies spend so much time on them. Here is an article from CBS that reinforces the point and gives good examples of conflicts within the other four dimensions as well. It’s about healthier menu choices in restaurants.

The report begins, “while 47 percent of Americans say they'd like restaurants to offer healthier items like salads and baked potatoes, only 23 percent tend to order those foods…” Since the information comes from different surveys, we must be careful, but the general behavior, if not the specific percentages, is confirmed by sales figures presented later in the report. Again there seems to be a significant discrepancy between what people say and how they actually behave.

As we read further, they remind us, “The government has stepped up its oversight — and influence — over the industry that it blames for America's expanding waistline.” This blatant admission that the government does not blame people for eating the wrong foods but blames the restaurant industry, leads the government to seek solutions by regulating restaurants instead of expecting personal responsibility to change behavior. When they find out this requirement of listing calories and offering more healthy choices is not working, what is their next option? How do they escalate when they don’t trust us to do the right thing? Next logical steps might be to increase threats to our personal freedom, perhaps minor at first, but where would it end? As this controlling philosophy remains predominant in the minds of government officials, they will feel justified in regulating many of our other choices.

Later the report cites efforts of a couple of restaurants to conform to the regulations. They don’t mention that in one way or another we are paying for the additional food preparation, research and reprinting of menus; but as we are strong in economic understanding, we are all aware of this. Like any other attempt to solve a behavior problem by attacking symptoms with regulations, it inevitably leads to higher costs for the public – not unlike the additional fees that came on the heels of consumer credit card protection – but it does not solve the problem. Most Americans and the government have yet to learn the main lesson of economic understanding – new regulations create added costs that are not absorbed by the business but are passed along to the customer.

Finally, why don’t people choose the healthy menu items? Examples in the report list as reasons: peer pressure and that “healthier foods also are usually among the most expensive menu items.” Both reasons relate to perspective: overly caring about the opinions of other people and not looking at the effects of today’s decisions on long-term health outcomes. 

All this effort and regulation tries to solve a problem (unhealthy eating) brought on by a behavioral problem (a failure in discipline). 

This single article, read from a behavioral standpoint, reinforces my point that weaknesses in the five key behavioral dimensions are the root cause of most of our contemporary crises, and therein lie the solutions, not in any outside programs or government interventions no matter how well intentioned.