Talk:FDA issues proposed rules requiring calorie content on menus

1. Images: Please don't centre the caption; if not taken for the article they're file photos, and enWN convention is to credit the photographer regardless of license.
2. Active voice; some work done to improve this in p1, p2.
3. Needless repetition: substantial amount already removed. Every indication same throughout rest of article.
4. random double of triple spaces - does the contributor have a defective keyboard?

Assuming the sources back this, it is just a matter of further copyediting. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 08:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• ok, I have tried to address your concerns.

1. I have credited Sallicio with the image, a user on the Commons.
2. I have tried to use the active voice.
3. I have tried to remove repetition, although this is tricky when specifying rules/regulations etc. where wording has a specific meaning and rewording using my own words, while avoiding close paraphrasing sources, may change it. But I decided that exact meaning was not so important in an article like this.
4. Regarding random double of triple spaces, this probably comes from the extensive editing and rewriting I do. Since html displays the same way regardless of whether one, two or three spaces are used, I didn't realize this was a value. I tried to fix by removing all spaces and then adding back one space between each word.

Thanks for your suggestions, Mattisse (talk) 13:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Old news

The news being presented is a year old. The proposal was made back in 2010 - what's new is that on Friday the proposal was modified to exempt various businesses. So far as I can see, all the sources are misleading in this regard, requiring you to read quite far in to find that the 'new' proposal isn't new at all. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 14:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Reply

• The general decision to have regulations requiring calorie contents displays was made earlier, but what businesses would be covered, the type of display etc. had not been formally proposed. The proposed regulations were formally issued on Friday. The affected businesses can provide feedback on the specific proposals issued on Friday. Public comment will be considered before the regulations are finalized.

• "The Obama administration Friday issued proposed rules that vendors must follow to inform customers about calorie counts of a range of foods—from a Big Mac to a brownie." Wall Street Journal
• "In the latest attempt to gain ground against the nation's epidemic of obesity, the Food and Drug Administration proposed rules Friday that would require some restaurant and fast-food chains to post the calorie content of standard items on their menus." Los Angeles Times
• "The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) invites Maui County restaurants to comment on two proposed regulations issued yesterday governing calorie labeling on menus and menu boards. The FDA plans to issue final rules before the end of this year." Maui Now.com

Mattisse (talk) 15:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• Or so it at first appears. The Daily Mail: "The calorie counts will apply to an estimated 280,000 establishments required as part of a health overhaul legislation signed into law last year." The Wall Street Journal: "The labeling provision was part of President Barack Obama's 2010 health overhaul law. The new rules differ in certain areas from an earlier draft issued last year... In its updated proposal unveiled late Friday, the agency left out... establishments where the sale of food is not a primary business." The LA Times isn't as clear, but does detail some of the arguments that have been had and concluded to get this far - they didn't happen in 24 hours. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 15:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

  I don't think this is totally old news. The rules were formally proposed today, isn't that newsworthy enough? Although maybe the article could be reworded to make that more clear. I was going to publish this article but then noticed the comments here, so I thought I'd put off a review until things are clearer. Tempodivalse [talk] 15:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

  Oh, the updated proposals are definitely newsworthy! In fact, I was quite interested to read how this has developed. The article just needs to refocus - pretty much all the text here can still be used. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 15:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Reply

• The provisions relating to displaying calorie contents of food contained in "President Barack Obama's 2010 health overhaul law", otherwise known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act do not come into effect until 2014. Meanwhile, the Obama administration is working on finalizing the regulations pertaining to the calorie contents provisions. So far the regulations have not been finalized. There are many provisions that are too vague or unspecified to be enforced. There is no current federal law in effect now mandating the display of calorie contents on menus.
• "The new rules differ in certain areas from an earlier draft issued last year, in which the Food and Drug Administration indicated that the calorie-posting requirement might extend beyond chain restaurants to encompass other businesses where food is sold." The Wall Street Journal
• The FDA's proposals issued Friday are meant to make concrete and enforceable the provisions relating to displaying calorie contents of food contained in "President Barack Obama's 2010 health overhaul law". Taking into account the public comments regarding the proposals issued Friday, the FDA will finalize the proposals into formal regulations that they can begin to enforce in 2014. This is why the FDA proposals issued on Friday are so important to food vendors and to those concerned with public health. Many think food sold in movie theaters should be included, that alcohol should be included, etc. How do you specify the calorie content for menu items where the customer can choose to add condiments? Should vending machine chains be included? etc. Mattisse (talk) 16:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't quite follow where you're going with that. I never said there was no update on Friday. I reiterate that the news being presented here (as specified by the headline and lede) is a brand new idea to mandate calorie count displays. That's false. The idea's been around for some time. The news is that the proposals have been modified to exempt some businesses. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Reply

• Friday was not an "update". Congress passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in 2010 that included requiring the display of calorie contents on menus. Congress does not have the power to regulate. It is up to the Obama administration to draw up guidelines/requirements to put the law into effect. The federal agency that regulates food establishments is the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Therefore, the FDA must establish what the specific requirements for displaying contents on menus are, how to do it, what food vendors are included, etc. So the FDA on Friday issued proposed regulations, not draft regulations. The public will provide feedback and the FDA will finalize the requirements by 2012. Then finalized requirements will begin to be enforced by the FDA in 2014. (Congress does not have enforcing powers.) One of the reasons that alcohol is not covered is that the FDA does not have jurisdiction over alcohol. Alcohol is regulated by another federal agency, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
• I have changed the headline to one that is hopefully ok. If it isn't, perhaps you could propose one? Mattisse (talk) 17:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Please see

• Menu Measure: Health Bill Requires Calorie Disclosure - The Wall Street Journal March 22, 2010. Mattisse (talk) 17:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Review of revision 1207471 [Passed]

Revision 1207471 of this article has been reviewed by Tempodivalse (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 18:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I checked copyright and verifiability before, everything is ok. I think the new title and lead clarify that it's not a totally new proposal. Tempodivalse [talk] 18:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC) The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 1207471 of this article has been reviewed by Tempodivalse (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 18:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I checked copyright and verifiability before, everything is ok. I think the new title and lead clarify that it's not a totally new proposal. Tempodivalse [talk] 18:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC) The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.