Article

The impact of menu labeling on fast-food purchases for children and parents.

Center for Child Health, Behavior and Development, Seattle Children's Research Institute, University of Washington, USA.
American journal of preventive medicine (Impact Factor: 4.24). 10/2011; 41(4):434-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.amepre.2011.06.033
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Nutrition labeling of menus has been promoted as a means for helping consumers make healthier food choices at restaurants. As part of national health reform, chain restaurants will be required to post nutrition information at point-of-purchase, but more evidence regarding the impact of these regulations, particularly in children, is needed.
To determine whether nutrition labeling on restaurant menus results in a lower number of calories purchased by children and their parents.
A prospective cohort study compared restaurant receipts of those aged 6-11 years and their parents before and after a menu-labeling regulation in Seattle/King County (S/KC) (n=75), with those from a comparison sample in nonregulated San Diego County (SDC) (n=58). Data were collected in 2008 and 2009 and analyzed in 2010.
In S/KC, there was a significant increase from pre- to post-regulation (44% vs 87%) in parents seeing nutrition information, with no change in SDC (40% vs 34%). Average calories purchased for children did not change in either county (823 vs 822 in S/KC, 984 vs 949 in SDC). There was an approximately 100-calorie decrease for the parents postregulation in both counties (823 vs 720 in S/KC, 895 vs 789 in SDC), but no difference between counties.
A restaurant menu-labeling regulation increased parents' nutrition information awareness but did not decrease calories purchased for either children or parents.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
207 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In recent years, obesity and related medical conditions have become leading public health concerns worldwide. Policy measures to combat or prevent obesity have been instated in a number of countries, with varying degrees of success. To stress the importance of obesity as a health issue, many professional health organizations, including the American Medical Association, have defined obesity itself as a disease. While this may be somewhat controversial, the high risk of comorbid conditions in obese individuals, the significant changes from healthy physiology that are present in the obese state, and the need for further public policies to address the public health threat and economic impact of obesity in the population are strong supporting arguments to label obesity as a disease.
    Current Obesity Reports. 09/2014; 3(3).
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Recent menu labeling initiatives in North America involve posting the calorie content of standard menu items, sometimes with other nutrients of public health concern, with or without contextual information (such as the recommended daily caloric intake for an average adult) or interpretive information (such as traffic light symbols). It is not clear whether this is an effective method to convey nutrition information to consumers wanting to make more-informed food choices. Of particular concern are those consumers who may be limited in their food and health literacy skills to make informed food choices to meet their dietary needs or goals. The purpose of this systematic review was to determine whether the provision of menu-based nutrition information affects the selection and consumption of calories in restaurants and other foodservice establishments. A secondary objective was to determine whether the format of the nutrition information (informative vs contextual or interpretive) influences calorie selection or consumption. Several bibliographic databases were searched for experimental or quasiexperimental studies that tested the effect of providing nutrition information in a restaurant or other foodservice setting on calories selected or consumed. Studies that recruited generally healthy, noninstitutionalized adolescents or adults were included. When two or more studies reported similar outcomes and sufficient data were available, meta-analysis was performed. Menu labeling with calories alone did not have the intended effect of decreasing calories selected or consumed (–31 kcal [P=0.35] and –13 kcal [P=0.61], respectively). The addition of contextual or interpretive nutrition information on menus appeared to assist consumers in the selection and consumption of fewer calories (–67 kcal [P=0.008] and –81 kcal [P=0.007], respectively). Sex influenced the effect of menu labeling on selection and consumption of calories, with women using the information to select and consume fewer calories. The findings of this review support the inclusion of contextual or interpretive nutrition information with calories on restaurant menus to help consumers select and consume fewer calories when eating outside the home. Further exploration is needed to determine the optimal approach for providing this menu-based nutrition information, particularly for those consumers who may be limited in their food and health literacy skills.
    Journal of the American Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics 09/2014; · 2.44 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Studies rarely find fewer calories purchased following calorie labeling implementation. However, few studies consider whether estimates of the number of calories purchased improved following calorie labeling legislation.FindingsResearchers surveyed customers and collected purchase receipts at fast food restaurants in the United States cities of Philadelphia (which implemented calorie labeling policies) and Baltimore (a matched comparison city) in December 2009 (pre-implementation) and June 2010 (post-implementation). A difference-in-difference design was used to examine the difference between estimated and actual calories purchased, and the odds of underestimating calories.Participants in both cities, both pre- and post-calorie labeling, tended to underestimate calories purchased, by an average 216¿409 calories. Adjusted difference-in-differences in estimated-actual calories were significant for individuals who ordered small meals and those with some college education (accuracy in Philadelphia improved by 78 and 231 calories, respectively, relative to Baltimore, p¿=¿0.03-0.04). However, categorical accuracy was similar; the adjusted odds ratio [AOR] for underestimation by >100 calories was 0.90 (p¿=¿0.48) in difference-in-difference models. Accuracy was most improved for subjects with a BA or higher education (AOR¿=¿0.25, p¿<¿0.001) and for individuals ordering small meals (AOR¿=¿0.54, p¿=¿0.001). Accuracy worsened for females (AOR¿=¿1.38, p¿<¿0.001) and for individuals ordering large meals (AOR¿=¿1.27, p¿=¿0.028).Conclusions We concluded that the odds of underestimating calories varied by subgroup, suggesting that at some level, consumers may incorporate labeling information.
    International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 07/2014; 11(1):91. · 3.68 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Download
463 Downloads
Available from
May 22, 2014