Obamacare’s Calorie-Count Requirement Gets Delayed

Diners can gorge themselves in blissful ignorance a little longer as FDA pushes back labeling until year’s end.

National Journal
Clara Ritger
Add to Briefcase
Clara Ritger
Feb. 28, 2014, 7:42 a.m.

The Food and Drug Ad­min­is­tra­tion has missed yet an­oth­er self-im­posed dead­line to get out fi­nal rules on the menu cal­or­ie-la­beling re­quire­ment un­der Obama­care.

The agency had told mem­bers of the food re­tail in­dustry it should ex­pect fi­nal guidelines in Feb­ru­ary, and the top­ic ap­peared to be on the Of­fice of Man­age­ment and Budget’s agenda for this month. But the rules are nowhere close to the fin­ish line, and the FDA is now de­clin­ing in­ter­view re­quests about the cal­or­ie-la­beling rules al­to­geth­er.

“We are cur­rently re­view­ing com­ments sub­mit­ted in re­sponse to the pro­posed rules and hope to is­sue fi­nal reg­u­la­tions by the end of the year,” said FDA spokes­wo­man Theresa Eis­en­man in an email.

The Af­ford­able Care Act, signed in­to law in March 2010, re­quires food es­tab­lish­ments to post cal­or­ies on menus and drive-through signs, in an ef­fort to make con­sumers more aware of the nu­tri­tion in­form­a­tion in the food they eat.

Which food re­tail­ers are sub­ject to the law, however, has be­come a heated de­bate that FDA Com­mis­sion­er Mar­garet Ham­burg has pre­vi­ously called “the most com­plic­ated” part of writ­ing the fi­nal rules.

“There are very, very strong opin­ions and power­ful voices both on the con­sumer and pub­lic health side and on the in­dustry side, and we have worked very hard to sort of fig­ure out what really makes sense and also what is im­ple­ment­able,” Ham­burg said in an in­ter­view with the As­so­ci­ated Press a year ago.

The FDA is­sued pro­posed rules in April 2011. More than 900 com­ments were sub­mit­ted to the agency, which has held meet­ings with key stake­hold­ers about how the re­quire­ment would im­pact food chains, mom-and-pop diners, and even su­per­mar­kets selling pre­pared deli items.

Nearly three years — and mul­tiple, self-im­posed dead­lines — have passed since the FDA is­sued the pro­posed guidelines. The FDA had planned to is­sue fi­nal rules at the end of 2011, with busi­nesses ex­pec­ted to be­gin com­ply­ing in 2012. In March 2013, Ham­burg told the As­so­ci­ated Press the agency was in the fi­nal stages of writ­ing the reg­u­la­tions, with a tent­at­ive plan to is­sue them that spring. Spring came and went with no rules, and they were next ex­pec­ted to be re­leased in Septem­ber 2013. Still without rules, Ham­burg said at an event in Novem­ber that they would be re­leased “soon.”

Some res­taur­ants have star­ted put­ting up cal­or­ies vol­un­tar­ily. Oth­ers are re­quired to by loc­al or­din­ances, such as the one in New York City, where res­taur­ants and cof­fee shops have been post­ing cal­or­ie counts since mid-2008. But un­til the FDA gets its guidelines out the door, con­sumers across the coun­try will con­tin­ue to wait to see nu­tri­tion­al in­form­a­tion pos­ted in all places where they buy and eat meals.

What We're Following See More »
White House Attacks Judge Who Suspended Executive Order
18 minutes ago

U.S. District Judge William Orrick Tuesday blocked the Trump administration from enforcing part of an executive order calling for the end of federal funding to so-called sanctuary cities. The decision was followed by a scathing rebuke from the White House, a precedent-breaking activity which with this White House has had no qualms. A White House statement called the decision an "egregious overreach by a single, unelected district judge." The statement was followed by an inaccurate Wednesday morning tweetstorm from Trump, which railed against the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. While Judge Orrick district falls within the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit, Orrick himself does not serve on the Ninth Circuit.

House GOP Circulates Amendment on Preexisting Conditions
1 hours ago

"House Republicans are circulating the text of an amendment to their ObamaCare replacement bill that they believe could bring many conservatives on board. According to legislative text of the amendment," drafted by Rep. Tom MacArthur (R-NJ), "the measure would allow states to apply for waivers to repeal one of ObamaCare’s core protections for people with pre-existing conditions. Conservatives argue the provision drives up premiums for healthy people, but Democrats—and many more moderate Republicans—warn it would spark a return to the days when insurance companies could charge sick people exorbitantly high premiums."

Trump to Order Review of National Monuments
1 hours ago

President Trump on Wednesday "will order a review of national monuments created over the past 20 years with an aim toward rescinding or resizing some of them—part of a broader push to reopen areas to drilling, mining, and other development." Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke told reporters on Tuesday said he'd be reviewing about 30 monuments.

Dems Proposes Obamacare-for-Defense Deal
17 hours ago

"An emerging government funding deal would see Democrats agree to $15 billion in additional military funding in exchange for the GOP agreeing to fund healthcare subsidies, according to two congressional officials briefed on the talks. Facing a Friday deadline to pass a spending bill and avert a shutdown, Democrats are willing to go halfway to President Trump’s initial request of $30 billion in supplemental military funding."

Michael Flynn Remains A Russian-Sized Problem
17 hours ago

The Michael Flynn story is not going away for the White House as it tries to refocus its attention. The White House has denied requests from the House Oversight Committee for information and documents regarding payments that the former national security adviser received from Russian state television station RT and Russian firms. House Oversight Chairman Jason Chaffetz and ranking member Elijah Cummings also said that Flynn failed to report these payments on his security clearance application. White House legislative director Marc Short argued that the documents requested are either not in the possession of the White House or contain sensitive information he believes is not applicable to the committee's stated investigation.


Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.