In the United States, they now reckon that over one third of calories eaten are consumed in restaurants (compared to less than a quarter a generation ago).

We all know that what happens in the US usually happens here, and the cosy assumption that restaurants are for treats, and that treats don’t really have much influence on overall diet, looks as it if needs reassessing. (Especially when – a recent Harvard study suggests – obesity in the US is now set to overtake smoking as the number one cause of cancer deaths.)

One obvious solution, at least in chain restaurants, is calorie-labelling. Some would write this off as bureaucratic meddling. But a recent article in a US trade magazine R&I provides much ammunition to the contrary. Anyone opposed to the idea should bear in mind the fact that they find themselves in the company of an outfit with the remarkably spooky acronym NRA. Nothing to do with Rifles, though, it's the National Restaurant Association.

What sort of facts would the NRA prefer you were not told about? Well, at the Romano's Macaroni Grill chain, for example, an order of Double Macaroni and Cheese has 1200 calories (about half an adult male’s daily requirement) and as much saturated fat as you would find in 40 strips of bacon.

And the really scary fact? It’s on the kids’ menu.

The extremes to which consumption is pushed are not yet the same on both sides of the Pond, but the logic of labelling for calories is. The customers, we think, should be told.

And, once established, where would labelling end? Many meals sold in the smartest restaurants would set off a panoply of red lights – not just for calories, but also for salt, sugar and saturated fat – if they were sold ready-boxed in a supermarket…