Pop go the obesity theories--and the corks

I wish I had the Champagne concession for Rick Berman’s office, at least for these 24 hours.

In case you missed the news, the folks who believe restaurant chains can fix America’s weight problem were made to look like conspiracy nuts by two research studies released today.

One refuted the rationale behind menu labeling, noting that consumers in New York City tended to order more-fattening meals and snacks after the city mandated calorie disclosures by chains last year. Almost every respondent said they noticed the calorie counts posted on menus and menu boards, and a large percentage reported that the information influenced their decisions. But when researchers examined the participants' receipts to see what had actually been purchased, they discovered that customers had said one thing but done another. Knowing how many calories were in a product didn’t stop the typical low-income minority New Yorker from eating it.

The other study flatly refuted the contention of the lawmakers who ram-rodded through a measure last year to suspend development of fast-food places in economically distressed South Los Angeles. The restrictions “are unlikely to improve the diet of residents or reduce obesity,” Rand Corp. noted in announcing its findings.

Berman, a restaurant-chain lobbyist who once said he comes at adversaries with a knife clenched between his teeth, couldn’t have hoped for better data if he’d cooked the numbers. But before Berman comes at me with a bite-marked Bowie, let me underscore the researchers’ own assurances to the contrary. Rand noted that its projected was funded by the National Institute of Health, not restaurant chains. The New York study was based on surveys by NYU and Yale University professors of more than 1,156 Big Apple residents. This wasn’t Mickey Mouse stuff.

Rick’s industry-affiliated advocacy groups have yipped for years about do-gooders misdirecting their obesity fixes at restaurants. It was hardly a surprise, then, that his Center for Consumer Freedom was quick to trumpet the studies. Its daily e-letter hailed the findings as “myth-shattering,” with a headline reading, “Obesity Science Catches Up With the Sound Bite.” The coverage was delivered in a section bannered, “Big Fat Lies.” Clearly the CCF was claiming vindication for its argument that foodservice wouldn’t work as a goad for healthier living.

“Yes, indeed, victory is sweet,” noted the e-letter. “The two studies go a long way toward bursting the activist fantasy that getting between Americans and the foods they enjoy is the road to better health.”

But, as it acknowledged without expressly saying so, the victory is qualified.

In an ironic twist, Rand concluded from its data that a nutrition-disclosure mandate might do more than a fast-food ban to change unhealthy eating habits.

California has already passed a law that requires menu labeling by chain restaurants, though the requirement does not go into full effect until 2011. But a number of states, counties and municipalities elsewhere are still considering such measures.

Similarly, an author of the New York study told The New York Times that perhaps a calorie-disclosure requirement isn’t a strong enough measure to change consumer behavior. NYU’s Brian Elbel didn’t elaborate on what type of further action he envisioned, or whether he was thinking of additional obligations for restaurants.

Casual restaurant chains may also be a bit disturbed by one of the asides from the Rand study. The report noted the public tends to view sit-down restaurants as offering healthier fare than fast-food joints, a definite “misconception.”

“When we looked at some common offerings, an average lunch sandwich in a sit-down restaurant had more than the combined calories of three Big Mac hamburgers; many dinner choices have over 2,000 calories and cover the energy needs for a full day,” Rand observed. “And that does not even include possible appetizers or desserts."

One of the few perceived advantages that casual places currently enjoy over quick-serve restaurants was squarely refuted.

Then again, a lot of perceptions were apparently skewered today. Along with a few adversaries.

Why restaurants need real reviewers

Restaurant reviewers have been known to wear disguises for the sake of going unnoticed. You couldn’t blame them these days for trying to stay incognito while a publisher is within pink-slip range.

It’s obvious that America’s newspapers are going through the sort of dislocation the stagecoach business tried to survive when the railroad came to town. The break-glass emergency response has been to sacrifice senior editorial staffers—typically the most loyal and experienced, and hence the highest paid—in lieu of myrrh, goats or virgins. Most definitely not virgins. The young innocents are the ones who’ve been left in the newsroom because they’re green, cheap and far more obliging than the ink-stained curmudgeons who caught the blade.

Given that situation, reviewers might suspect some cold heart has taped an “Axe Me” sign to their backs. To do the job, they have to wield a certain level of experience and knowledge in constant need of being refreshed. Translation: Senior staffer, paid accordingly, with a decent expense account, compensated for the indulgence of dining out. Any publisher reading that is probably reflexively reaching for an axe right now.

Meanwhile, anyone who’s watched The Food Network figures they could be a reviewer, and many would do it for free. Indeed, many do. It’s routine at small papers for local residents—perhaps one-time reporters on their high school papers—to review local eateries for nothing more than compensation for the meals. They do it for the prestige and meals. Literally, they work for food.

Other sports diners indulge their inner Gael Greene by turning to Yelp, Boorah, personal blogs, Eater, Zagat, message boards, restaurant blog sites, social media, or just about any other post-it-yourself channel for those who fancy themselves citizen-journalists.

You know publishers are looking at those currents and wondering, Do I really need a reviewer? Couldn’t I just somehow tap that stream of commentary for free? Especially since Twitter and those other new media are providing a way for restaurants to market themselves instead of advertising with us? Hell, who needs a review, anyways? Are readers going to buy a subscription for something they could find anywhere for zilch? Where’s that machete…

Then comes a piece of citizen hackery like the posting a week ago on the Los Angeles branch of Eater, one of the top-tier blog sites for scene-conscious restaurant fans. A contributor named Kat Odell heaved considerable raked mud at an L.A. hotspot called The Must, revealing among other things that it was “not adhering to simple food saftey [sic] standards, such as soap, sanitizing and throwing out chicken salad that’s 2 weeks old.”

Citing an unidentified "tipster," she also reported the restaurant was using low-cost distributor-brand cheese but billing it as artisan, and generally ripping off customers by using ingredients inferior to what were cited on the menu.

The problem, as you may have guessed, is that the assertions were never validated or substantiated at all by Odell. Eater initially stuck by her when the bar-restaurant objected, then acknowledged the place had refuted the assertions.

“We ran this tip without contacting the owners of the restaurant, who have since refuted the tip in its entirety,” Eater said in an “update” to Odell’s posting, which is still posted on the site in its entirety. “We apologize to the owners of the restaurant, and our readers, for not investigating our source's claims before airing them.”

Maybe it’ll take some time, but the dining-out public is going to realize it needs professional reviewers who adhere to the professional standards set by a newspaper, magazine or journalistically based website. If you doubt it, check out some of the responses that Eater’s readers posted to Odell’s blog entry.

And publishers are going to learn that consumers value thedependability. It won’t be easy to leverage the appreciation into subscriptions, but media have to get into a mindset of selling information services, not print by the inch. It comes down to authority, quality and dependability, which carries a price.

It’s a lesson that restaurants should encourage the professional media to learn quickly. Because it’s the industry that would really be walloped if the pros are supplanted by an all-volunteer horde.

If you doubt it, consider what the owners of The Must had to say about the experience. And note that the response is provided by the Los Angeles Times.

Extra points--and added impetus for restaurateurs--for perusing what the Times readers had to say about Eater's blunder.