Sorry, all outta gift links, but I know some still have a few to spare 
3 Likes
I am 1000% in favor of this.
10 Likes
Same, and muchas 
I think the NY Times article is distorting the data from the report to spin this in a way that will appeal to their base (i.e., largely upper-middle class and higher income East coasters).
For instance, the NY Times states: âMore than 75 percent of customers say they want smaller portions for less money, according to the 2024 National Restaurant Association report on the industry.â
But if you actually look at the report (or at least the linked press release summary - the full report is costly if youâre not an association member), hereâs what it says:
âIf consumers are somewhat split on technology, they can agree on the value of a special deal or discount, with 7 in 10 adults saying they often look for a daily special or discount. Customers (85 percent) are more flexible about when they dine if it comes with a deal and 84 percent said theyâd take advantage of deals offered for dining at off-peak times. Further, 75 percent of adults would opt for smaller-sized portions for a lower priceâa trend that can help restaurants curb food waste and improve profits.â
âWould opt forâ and âwantâ are not the same thing. Also, note the emphasis on value in the preceding sentences. Itâs easy to say in a survey that you would opt for a smaller portion at a lower price, but much harder to actually opt for a smaller portion at a lower price when you find out that means half as much food for 80% as much money. Restaurants cannot lower the cost of meals commensurately with their size - they have too many fixed costs outside of food. Also, smaller price tags mean tipped waitstaff is getting paid less for the same amount of work (thanks dumb American tipping system).
The article also ignores the vast differences in expectations among restaurants at various price points and in various locales. People from NYC and LA are going to be shocked at how large portions are when they visit the midwest, and people from the midwest are going to be shocked at how âlittleâ they get for their money when they visit coastal cities. You canât blame restaurateurs for erring on the side of caution and providing more food than some people expect when it costs them very little to do so and makes a significant portion of their customers feel theyâre getting a great value.
Anyway, all that to say that I tend to agree with the CEO of Chiliâs and Maggianoâs quoted near the end of the article: "There is a truth about American consumers: People want what they want,â he said. âItâs our job to meet guests where they are and not where we think they should be.â Given the realities of American life that go into the economics of restaurants (tipping, health care costs, etc.) as well as our deeply-entrenched âbigger is betterâ culture, I donât see major changes to portion sizes (in most restaurants) happening anytime soon.
5 Likes
Restaurant portions are already too small for me.
I routinely order multiple apps and entrees. Sometimes I go home and eat a second meal, or just hit up McDonaldâs for a Filet-O-Fish as a chaser.
If they get smaller, Iâll just have to order more-er.
And if people would train themselves to eat more slowly, their brain would register that their stomach is full (the âit takes 20 minutes for your brain to start registering stomach fullnessâ). I sometimes see coworkers finish their lunch (which is usually more than adequate in portion size) in about 10 minutes, and THEN get something else to eat out of their carry-in bag. One of them is admittedly a âquantity over qualityâ type of eater.
3 Likes
the size vs cost thing is a total joke/BS.
the difference in cost for an 8 ounce steak to a 6 ounce steak . . . no.
per the old rules of thumb, 2/3 of the resto cost is labor and overhead.
1/3 is ingredients.
taxes/fees/energy are up.
labor is up.
reducing the size of the portion cannot remotely make any dent on the other 2/3.
besides, places above âgreasy spoonâ eateries, portions are not known to be ultra-uber-sized.
1 Like
AmericaâŠgo big or go home. Hence you got ginormous SUVs and trucks, advocated by a French anthropologist who consulted with the auto industry and made millions off the consulting and became an American citizen.
Agree that it might be a hard sell but the logic is thereâŠ.and I mentioned the French anthropologist because culture is a very hard thing to change, even if thereâs many reasons like waste, environment, health, costs. Culture in fact has many people going against self interest and logic. Thatâs why some political factions focus on culture war in the US, because itâs a proven way to prevent change, and is very difficult to counter. Culture is almost a reflex reaction over time, not a choice.
To change culture, usually some big, massive and historic event has to happenâŠlike a Great Depression, which is one reason why Americans wants more, HUGE and hordes in the first place. Look at how Depression era children shaped post-war America and corporations. Value in America is a big deal after the Depression and after WII industrialists and corporate types went after the issue of not enough while making as much $$$ as possible. On many levels this made senseâŠfix the problem. How they fixed problem of volume might have caused other problemsâŠlike unintended health issues from industrial food. Oops.
In any case, I have a pretty basic solution to the issue, at least in fast food and fast casual - have a standard size and a decent value but DO NOT give a discount for volume, or supersizing. Make the smaller standard size a better deal. Oh right, large corporations and MBAs who bank on margins wonât buy it. Oh wellâŠwait for a historic event that shifts perspectiveâŠor another phenomenon.
Well thatâs not unusual
4 Likes
Brilliant analysis. Bravo.
Thanks!
Weâve been known to split an entree that we know would feed a small country although it will cost us an extra $5 or so. Cutting out the waste is important to us.
3 Likes
Many upscale restaurants in San Francisco, Boston and San Diego have way too large portion. It is not something just at âgreasy spoonâ shops, itâs a general phenomena in the US. I would love to see a much more European approach in the US with significant smaller portion sizes (I think it would also have a positive impact on the overall health in the US)
This East Coaster was concomitantly pleased and disgusted to see this pork schnitzel sandwich in Iowa:
3 Likes
Most people in the US eat most of their meals at home and at fast or casual food outlets.
Reducing portion size at upscale restaurants that arenât fast or casual isnât going to affect health in the US much at all.
The US culture of fast food and junk food and carb loading with ingredients known to have negative health effects is more of a problem. Huge consumption soft drinks of all with enormous sodium and sugar levels, including juices that purport to be âfruitâ that are mostly sugar, is another big factor.
In many areas, consumption of fresh vegetables and whole fruits is not part of the culture, and many cities have healthy food âdesertsâ where those items arenât readily available while sodas and junk food and pizza loaded with fatty cheap meats and cheeses are within a few blocks.
We, like many people, donât frequent upscale restaurants because we are conserving financial resources. So I canât speak to portions in upscale restaurants in Boston. People who can afford to frequent upscale restaurants, meaning people of high income and educational levels, seem to have better health outcomes in general.
Obesity is a very complex multi-factorial problem. The US food consumption and food production culture needs many changes, as does the lack of physical exercise.
4 Likes
Just to be clear when I talk about upscale restaurants I am not talking about high-end restaurants (French Laundry or Menton and No 9 in Boston) but restaurants in Boston like Sarma, Dali, Guilia, Moona, Catalyst, Commonwealth, Puritan, Row34 or Sycamore etc etc - so I am not sure if I agree that many people donât frequent them. Those are very popular restaurants (and there are many, many more) in GBA) and a lot of people get their dinner/lunch from them and so I think changing the portion size across restaurants in the US would have significant effect on the health of many people. (If it is realistic to change such the mindset around food in the US over the next 20-30 years is a complete different issue (and IMO not very likely). And I agree that portion size is just one issue of many wrt health but it is also important to not focus on one issue nut tackle many of them in parallel to have a chance to have an overall measurable impact
First of all, Iâd like to thank you for expanding my vocabulary with the word â concomitantlyâ. That was a new one on me. Second, Iâve never been to Iowa or had The famous pork sandwich, but Iâve seen them featured many times. on travel/cooking shows. Itâs really just a Very Thinly pounded piece of pork loin, breaded and deep fried. And itâs my understanding that you would have to pry this state wide delicacy out of a dead/cold Iowanâs hands. They probably wouldnât appreciate the word disgusted either.
1 Like
I didnât just say disgusted 
Of course, itâs a big pork producer. China knows that!
1 Like
Yes, those are popular restaurants for those who can afford them.
1 Like
Well, Dali is one restaurant Iâve frequented over the past 30+ years. Ordering tapas is a way (for me) to not eat quite so much (vs full entree with sides). Plus you order them over a longer period of time, so it ties in with my comment above with eating more slowly.
Yeah, itâs definitely not cheap (especially when you add sangria and after dinner Licor 43). But going there 4-6 times a year now (vs the almost biweekly appearances I made at the bar back in the 2000s 
) is a splurge Iâm willing to pay and, gratefully, CAN pay.
But I agree, itâs a âspecial night outâ place as it relates to cost.
3 Likes
