Too Much Information? – Labeling Restaurant Menusby Jennifer Gibson, PharmD | February 23, 2011
Information can be a source of learning; but, when there is too much information, or it is not available in a form that can be easily understood and analyzed by the person for whom it is intended, information can be a burden. Or, too much information can simply be ignored in an over-stimulated society. Such seems to be the case when it comes to labeling restaurant menus with nutrition information.
In the last few years, many cities, counties and states have enacted, or considered enacting, legislation requiring that nutrition information be disclosed to consumers at the point of purchase in restaurants. The legislation is aimed at reducing obesity, and decreasing its related public health burden, by providing more information to consumers. But, recent studies evaluating the early effects of these mandates are reporting less than satisfying results.
Most recently, an analysis of mandatory fast-food menu-labeling in King County, Washington reported no change in consumer behavior or food purchasing, compared to pre-labeling legislation. Overall, the number of transactions and calories per transaction did not vary between control and intervention locations before or after the legislation was enacted.
Similarly, in New York City, food selection was analyzed before and after enforcement of fast-food menu labeling began. In this case, 64% of restaurant-goers reported seeing the nutrition information. Among people who saw the information, only 27% reported using the information to make a different food choice. However, this did result in a 2-fold increase in the number of patrons making nutrition-informed choices.
Also in Washington state, full service restaurants in Pierce County added nutrition information to their menus. In this case, a small impact was seen in food purchases: overall, each post-labeling entrée contained 15 fewer calories, 1.5 fewer fat grams, and 45 fewer milligrams of sodium on average than pre-labeling entrees. In total, 71% of restaurant-goers noticed the information on the menu; but only 20% used this information to choose a lower-calorie option, while 16% chose a lower-fat option. Among a small subset of restaurant patrons, nutrition information may impact food choices, but the requirements are, so far, lacking the robust outcomes for which supporters of the legislation hoped.
In New York City alone, more than 1 million people see nutrition information every day in restaurants now. Once menu-labeling is more widespread, or has been in place for a while, will people continue to notice it? Or, will it fade into the background with the rest of the information-overload today? Many consumers report that nutrition information is important, and support restaurants providing it, but few people are actually willing to use the information for their own food choices. People who want a salad still order a salad, and those who want a hamburger still order a hamburger. If only a small subset of people use the nutrition information to alter behavior, is the intervention worthwhile?
There is no doubt or argument that obesity is a public health crisis demanding education and attention. But, obesity is also profitable, since consumers demand lower-cost, convenient food choices, which are usually less nutritious, along with drugs, devices and quick-fix diets that manage the health consequences of such consumption. Only time will tell if the results of menu-labeling legislation should be savored, or if this is one more failed attempt to curb America’s appetite for labor-saving, affordable food.
Dumanovsky T, Huang CY, Bassett MT, & Silver LD (2010). Consumer awareness of fast-food calorie information in New York City after implementation of a menu labeling regulation. American journal of public health, 100 (12), 2520-5 PMID: 20966367
Finkelstein EA, & Strombotne KL (2010). The economics of obesity. The American journal of clinical nutrition, 91 (5) PMID: 20237140
Finkelstein EA, Strombotne KL, Chan NL, & Krieger J (2011). Mandatory menu labeling in one fast-food chain in King County, Washington. American journal of preventive medicine, 40 (2), 122-7 PMID: 21238859
Lando AM, & Labiner-Wolfe J (2007). Helping consumers make more healthful food choices: consumer views on modifying food labels and providing point-of-purchase nutrition information at quick-service restaurants. Journal of nutrition education and behavior, 39 (3), 157-63 PMID: 17493566
Piron J, Smith LV, Simon P, Cummings PL, & Kuo T (2010). Knowledge, attitudes and potential response to menu labelling in an urban public health clinic population. Public health nutrition, 13 (4), 550-5 PMID: 19706217
Pulos E, & Leng K (2010). Evaluation of a voluntary menu-labeling program in full-service restaurants. American journal of public health, 100 (6), 1035-9 PMID: 20395577
Wills JM, Schmidt DB, Pillo-Blocka F, & Cairns G (2009). Exploring global consumer attitudes toward nutrition information on food labels. Nutrition reviews, 67 Suppl 1 PMID: 19453661
Antifeminism – An Online Trend
Poor Social Judgment – An Aspect of Schizophrenia
Brain Trickery – Seeing in Slow Motion
Swear Your Pain Away
Memory Manipulation – Promises and Perils
The Phantom Sound Of Tinnitus
Thinking Slow About Thinking Fast – Part IV – The Framing Effect
Treating Children and Teens Diagnosed with Schizophrenia
Welcome to the new Brain Blogger! We just completed a complete redesign of our desktop and mobile Brain Blogger sites. Powered by the web-design expertise... READ MORE →
Do not miss out ever again. Subscribe and get latest Brain Blogger articles straight to your inbox.
Like what you read? Give to Brain Blogger sponsored by GNIF with a tax-deductible donation.Make A Donation