Lunch, Interrupted.

I’ll start off by saying that we don’t eat out much. We’re kind of picky about where we go, and we really look forward to those outings. That said, the last time we went out, we had a big surprise. Now, we’re fully aware that (most) restaurant food isn’t the best for you. We don’t partake very often, but when we do, we enjoy it with the full knowledge that it is an indulgence. But now, with a new law on the books, must I get this special indulgence with a side order of caloric guilt? C’mon …

What’s Going On?

On March 23, 2010, the Affordable Care Act was signed into law in the United States. Section 4205 is the part relevant to my “side order of caloric guilt”, as it sets requirements for food sold from certain venues. Among other things, it requires that restaurants with 20 or more locations (with substantially similar menus) list calorie information on their menus. You must also be able to get non-calorie nutrition information on request.

To be clear, I’m not saying this is a bad idea … or a good idea. But in this instance, I didn’t enjoy not having the choice of NOT seeing the information. Here we are, trying to enjoy ourselves as we order, but you can’t help but notice that the entree you LOVE (albeit infrequently) has 1,100 calories. I asked up front for a menu without calorie information, but they don’t have that. So, I soldier on, ordering my favorite meal but looking forward to eating it just a little bit less.

What’s the Point?

You may be asking yourself, why the fuss? Sure, it’s useful to know what the calorie information is, but why not make it available ONLY if you’re concerned about it? This approach puts it front and center for everybody. But this isn’t an article just about my run-in with caloric transparency. The experience made me think about the effects of doing this on a large scale, with a public that’s quite acclimated to dining on the run.

So, the first question: does this work? Several studies have been done, with conflicting results (see New York Times links below). Suggesting that it does work, a 2008 study of 12,000 people at 275 chain restaurant locations in New York City found that one in six people used the calorie-count information. They bought items with 106 fewer calories compared with those who didn’t see or use the information.

Similarly, a Stanford University study of New York City Starbucks patrons found that respondents presented with calorie information reduced purchases by 6 percent as a measure of calories. They studied millions of transactions, and discovered that customers cut more calories in higher-income locations, and locations with more college graduates. They also found that when given a lower-calorie alternative and the ability to discern it, consumers will choose a lower-calorie alternative.

Conversely, behavioral economics research shows that the approach of posting calorie information may backfire. According to the article in Psychology Today, people will eat less healthy food when they’re aware of the calorie information. For more on this phenomenon, read the entire article: it’s fascinating. Whether it’s convenience, price, or because the food tastes so darn good, sometimes information is not enough.

Any Conclusions?

As with many things, this raises more questions for us than answers. Do people understand calorie information when it’s presented? Does everyone welcome that information when it’s mandatory? How do demographics factor into the equation? Are there other, more palatable (pardon the pun) solutions, such as making it an option to get calorie information, or putting calories in terms of the percentage of your daily recommended caloric intake? Or the impossible-to-implement solution: give me a menu that shows me only the options within a certain calorie range that I specify (coming to a chain near you: iPads with dynamic menus!)

Spurring Change?

When I asked about the massive calories in some of the dishes at our most recent restaurant visit, the waitress replied, “They’re intended to be shared.” Well, the menu doesn’t say that, and it wouldn’t occur to most people, I’d think. Much of the problem we have with obesity can be tied back to the cheap availability of unhealthy processed foods. Restaurants have no problem serving this fare, either, and in larger portions than one should eat. Will transparency force them to change the way they’re thinking about portions, prices and nutrition? I certainly hope so, but in the short term, this consumer is going to be eating out a whole lot less (and it wasn’t much to begin with). Will others join me, resulting in aggregate adverse economic effects on the restaurant industry? Or will we continue to blindly consume what’s on the menu, without regard for calories or how they’re affecting our health?

Voice Your Choice

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has a way to solicit comments as they work on the proposed regulations. You can add comments before September 5, 2010, so head over to regulations.gov to tell them what you think. You can also see what others have said about it!

Related Reading

• FDA Seeks Public Comment on New Federal Menu Labeling Requirements
• Regulations.gov: Your Voice in Federal Decision Making
• FDA Law Blog: FDA Seeking Public Comment on Federal Menu Labeling Requirements
• Wall Street Journal: Coming to the Menu: Calorie Counts
• New York Times: Calorie Data to Be Posted at Most Chains
• New York Times: Calorie Postings Don’t Change Habits, Study Finds
• New York Times: Economics Behaving Badly
• Psychology Today: Using your mind (and brain) to make healthier choices
• The Daily Beast: Deadly Kids Meals (oh my…)

Tags: calories, restaurants

More about Amy and Scott Dawson, creators of Lunchtaker.com: One of our core focuses is on nutrition and fitness. Our children both attended a parent cooperative pre-school where the morning snack was as healthy as possible, and our family liked the opportunities for new foods that arose in pre-school. As our children go through grade school, we are focusing on continuing the trend of ensuring we feed ourselves a variety of foods, all good for our bodies... read more...

---

Posted Thursday, July 29th, 2010 at 6:00 pm and filed under Dietary Guidelines, Nutrition. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Tweet