Leave the menus alone, Legislature

Given the $4 billion problem on their plate, we’re surprised Oregon lawmakers had time to grab restaurant menus from our hands and point out the dishes we ought to avoid.

With unemployment close to 12 percent we’d have figured the Legislature would worry more about its constituents getting enough to eat than whether their meals are nutritionally beyond reproach.

Oregon’s new law, which takes effect in January 2011, applies to chains that have more than 15 restaurants nationwide.

Proponents of the menu labeling law, including state Sen. Alan Bates, a doctor from Ashland, contend the prominently posted calorie counts will convince some customers to choose more healthful fare.

Bates told The Associated Press: “If you ask the average person how many calories are in that milk shake, hamburger and French fries, you’d be stunned by how many people have no idea.”

That’s probably true.

But it’s not the point.

People might not know how many calories in their restaurant meals, but they surely know that the number is higher than they probably need to stay healthy.

Yet they order the shake anyway, because, well, it’s tasty. Besides, few people eat the majority of their meals in restaurants, and a large part of the enjoyment of eating out is splurging.

People who gorge themselves on burgers and fries have not deluded themselves into believing that frequently indulging in fat- and calorie-laden meals will have no effect on their waistlines or their cholesterol levels.

We all know the stuff, if eaten too often, is bad for us, even if we can’t put a number on it.

But we also enjoy living in a free country where we can wallow occasionally in the deep-fried section of the menu without worrying that the government is looking over our shoulder with a chagrined look on its face.

Obesity is, of course, a growing problem in the United States. And we don’t fault lawmakers for fretting about it.

But Oregon’s new law seems to us a clearcut case of legislators letting their hearts, which we have no doubt are in the right place, get the better of their brains.

Despite more pressing matters — again, the budget comes to mind — lawmakers have concluded that their responsibility to protect people from forces which are beyond their control ought to also extend to ones which are not — the decision to choose the No. 4 value meal instead of the No. 3, for instance.

Besides the problems we’ve already cited, Oregon’s new labeling law seems to us a subtle ploy to shame restaurants into cutting calories so they can post smaller numbers on their menus.

Legislators apparently don’t care if such changes also drive away customers from some outlets.

Restaurants might be able to afford to cut calories, but in this economy the state shouldn’t force them to give up dollars, too.

Legislators would better serve their constituents by striving to post smaller numbers on the expense side of the state budget, and letting us make decisions about calorie counts.