I bumped into discussion elsewhere saying that people already know if they want to eat the healthy option (or the diet option), in which case they'll eat from that section of the menu (and drink diet drinks), so adding detailed information doesn't really tell people much.
I'm sure _something_ was billed as healthy. Or maybe "lighter". I think it might even have been written in green. I thought it was a reasonably nice idea, even though I basically glossed over it.
Yeah, that makes sense. I think it was optimistic to think that anyone would change their mind immediately (although that might just be hindsight), I assumed the point was more that people might get a better general idea about what tradeoffs are worthwhile (like "this restaurant is actually healthier" or "ordering a smaller main course is at least as important as choosing a different drink"). Although I admit that's the sort of thing that will be hard to test objectively.
I don't know if the idea will be practical, but it at least seems mildly helpful and not horribly discriminatory, which puts it miles ahead of lots of pro-health initiatives.
I think there's probably some sample bias in giving food information to people who have already chosen to eat at Taco Time in the first place. I mean, when I go for MacDonalds, I've _already_ made a decision that this is an 'unhealthy food treat', so giving me further calorie information doesn't really shift my mind. Whereas if I was in a work canteen I might pay more attention to the information.
Indeed. It's possible that one of the macdonalds meals is very different to the others, but I doubt it's very much so, so comparative ratings won't make much difference.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
I don't know if the idea will be practical, but it at least seems mildly helpful and not horribly discriminatory, which puts it miles ahead of lots of pro-health initiatives.
no subject
no subject