By Katherine Hobson
- McDonald’s and other chains will soon have to post calorie counts on their menus.
The theory behind posting nutritional information on restaurant menus is that consumers will change what they buy when they know their usual choices are high in calories, saturated fat or sodium.
That theory may be wrong, however, according to a new study by researchers from Duke-National University of Singapore Graduate Medical School and the Seattle-area public-health department. The study, published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, tracked what happened at the Taco Time chain in the 13 months after a menu-labeling law went into effect in King County, which includes Seattle.
Researchers compared seven restaurants within King County to seven located outside of the county — and thus not subject to the new law. They found the law had no statistically significant impact on the amount of calories people purchased.
Lead author Eric Finkelstein, an associate professor of health services at Duke-NUS, tells the Health Blog he was surprised to find no effect at all; he’d assumed that like a few previous studies in different areas, he and his colleagues would find “a modest effect [that] would dissipate over time.”
Taco Time already had a “Healthy Highlights” icon to indicate more healthful options. Adding more detailed calorie, fat and sodium data may be superfluous, he says. (Read: Nutrition Rating Systems Should Keep it Simple, Stupid). After all, the nutritional facts label introduced to packaged foods in the mid-1990s didn’t do anything to stem the rising tide of obesity.
This research has larger implications, because the health-care overhaul law specified that menu labeling will soon be the law of the land for chain restaurants with at least 20 locations. The study authors recommend further research “to identify the circumstances under which mandatory menu labeling is likely to be most effective.” (One Pacific Northwest burger chain is taking another tack, printing nutritional data on customer receipts.)
Rather than changing consumer behavior, the menu labeling law may instead be more effective on the supply side, Finkelstein says. Restaurants may be slightly embarrassed by having to call attention to the zillions of calories in their Super Fatty Burger, and might then try to rejigger their menu items to bring down calories, saturated fat or sodium.
“Chains are looking for small changes that improve the health content but don’t change taste,” he says.
Photo: Associated Press
I can tell you that the labeling at fast food restaurants has definitely had an effect. I travel a good amount for work, and sometimes fastfood is the only option. Even outside of work, though I am semi-health conscious, I still enjoy fastfood once in a while. An example of a change for me is at Au Bon Pain, I changed from eating a high calorie prosciutto sandwich to a blackbean burger because they posted calories. I even have switched to mineral water from Diet Coke. I think what you will find is there will be a certain portion of the population heavily affected by the posting of calories, while many still will not. I believe the researchers need to break their data dont into further groups - such a socioeconomic, age, etc. It is making a difference posting the calories.
0 Responses to "Study Finds Menu Labeling Didn't Change Eating Habits - WSJ: I dont agree"
Post a Comment