I agree -- also, you can actually eat there if you are a vegetarian or if you are on a restricted diet of some sort. The Subway near my work always has the longest lunch lines of all of the restaurants.

I wish more restaurants were forthcoming with their nutritionals like that Season 52 place. When I asked at Starbucks for the calories and fat in a tall Chocolate Creme Frappuccino, the barista practically had an armed guard over me when I looked at their gigantic operations binder, like, first of all, it's the Starbucks playbook, not the Dead Sea Scrolls, and second, it shouldn't be such a giant secret. Bitches.

I think increased access to nutrition information would be great. I also really see their point about putting that info on the menu. That's fine for fast food places, but if I'm having dinner at a real resteraunt, I'm there for an escape anyway. I know that just by going out instead of cooking at home, I'm going to be getting more calories. Most places we go, the menu has some sort of astrisk to indicate the lighter fare.

And I know perfectly well that if I order a 1/2 burger and fries instead of wok charred salmon over baby greens that I haven't made the healthiest choice. While it would be nice to be able to ask the waiter how many fat grams that burger is costing me, I don't need a printed guilt trip.

Just got back from a trip to Disney-MGM Studios. Had one of the best eating experiences of my life at a restaurant called "The 50s Prime Time Cafe". The only "bad" thing about it was the portions were so damned BIG. The fried chicken dinner I ordered had a breast, a thigh and a leg, plus mashed potatoes and a vegetable. It was awesomely good, but half the portion would have been plenty. There was a lot of waste and it's a shame. It seems most consumers don't feel they've gotten their money's worth if the portions aren't giant-sized.