Would you like 230 calories worth of fries with that?

1

October 8, 2012 by blistenfelt

Eating out is a luxury for the graduate student, but a regular occurrence for much of the American population. Menu labeling has emerged as a way to make this normal part of life a little healthier for the average person. But what is healthier? And does menu labeling actually influence food decisions?

These are two of the many questions regarding mandatory menu labeling at chain restaurants. Many studies (mostly observational) have attempted to determine the effects of menu labeling. Unfortunately, the studies conducted thus far have been inconclusive with some showing a small decrease in caloric consumption, others show no change, and a few even show that calorie consumption increased after restaurants added nutrition labels to their menus. Clearly, menu labeling still has a ways to go before it will be considered an evidence-based recommendation for decreasing caloric intake of foods eaten away from the home.

By requiring chain restaurants to post nutritional information on the menu, the federal government was hoping to help consumers make a “better” choice at mealtime. There are numerous issues with this ideal, however. Because of my graduate student status, I may not eat out often, but I don’t recall seeing many truly healthy alternatives on most chain or fast-food menus. The healthfulness of a food is based on more than just calorie count, a fact that is seemingly overlooked by this regulation. An order of fries is not a “better” choice than a hamburger because it contains fewer calories. While this may seem like common sense, this logic is not discernible from the menu. Price, taste, and value are also important considerations when choosing both where to eat and what to eat. Decreasing the cost of healthy items, increasing the cost of less healthy items, and improving the menu name, appearance, and taste of healthy items would go a long way to encouraging customers to order the healthier menu options.

Another issue for menu labeling is evaluating what are people really learning from this. Nutrition labels require the consumer to be able to read and interpret the information presented, a skill that is beyond the literacy level of much of our nation. Beyond basic literacy, the consumer must be able to approximate how many calories they should eat in a day as well as the number of calories in the other foods eaten throughout the day. This is not something that people are very good at, hence the whole reason that menu labeling became required. Finally, even for those select individuals who can read and interpret nutrition labels and assess their calorie needs and consumption, this knowledge has less impact on the quality of their food choices and diets away from home.

Do I have any good news about mandatory menu labeling? Possibly. If consumer awareness increases as a result of nutrition labels at chain restaurants, this would be a positive outcome. However, consumer awareness is not enough. Consumers must also change their purchasing habits to truly healthier options in order for mandatory labeling to be considered a public health success. If consumer awareness increases and purchasing habits change, then restaurants should alter their menus to reflect this shift. Consumer advocacy would also be highly beneficial to this outcome.

In many ways, mandatory nutrition labeling on restaurant menus is a step back for nutrition and public health. Once again, the focus is on a single component of nutrition (calories) and the importance of everything else seems trivial. Instead of just talking about calories, the conversation needs to include the importance of vitamins, minerals, water… The foods that are rich in these nutrition components truly are better for the consumer – less processed, more plant-based foods.

Will Calorie Labeling in Restaurants make a difference?
Calorie menu labeling in Quick-Service restaurants
Marion Nestle’s blog on Front-of-Pack labeling

Advertisements

One thought on “Would you like 230 calories worth of fries with that?

  1. lschoenfeld says:

    Thanks for pointing out the narrow-minded approach of calorie count labeling. I too agree that there is way more that determines the healthiness of a food than simply the number of calories. According to the chart that you included in your blog post, a customer may be led to believe that an apple pie is healthier than a grilled chicken sandwich simply because it has 100 less calories.

    Micromanaging calorie counts as a way to improve nutrition is absurd. Our culture has completely lost the innate ability to sense when we have eaten to satiation, and instead relies on nutrition label information to decide whether they’ve had an appropriate amount of food. And that’s for the people who understand how to interpret a calorie count. Most Americans have no concept of what constitutes an appropriate calorie intake for their own personal health and activity levels.

    Furthermore, as you stated, calories are a much oversimplified way of determining the healthiness of a food. There are so many micro- and macronutrients that are essential for overall health, and to choose calories as the indication of a food’s nutritional quality is missing the mark. Though I would argue that we don’t have a firm enough grasp on what is “healthy” and what isn’t to create a functional labeling system that would actually make a difference in people’s weight and health.

    I think McDonald’s is doing more to project a healthy image than to actually affect the health of their patrons using this system.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: