Calorie Labeling In Restaurants Case Analysis

Katie Holmes

Section 001

Response Paper #1

1.

Actual Calories Respondent #1 Respondent #2 Respondent #3 Respondent #4 Respondent #5

Olive Garden’s Classic Calamari 680 980 400 560 350 870

Outback Steakhouse’s Aussie Cheesefries w/ ranch 2147 1125 600 1090 700 970

Panera’s Classic Grilled Cheese 580 720 500 900 150 750

McDonald’s M&M McFlurry 650 100 400 800 300 600

McDonald’s Quarterpounder Meal Hamburger, “medium” fries, and medium Diet Coke (21 oz.) 900 2500 700 1500 530 1300

Respondent #1 Respondent #2 Respondent #3 Respondent #4 Respondent #5

How accurately do you think you can predict the calorie content of a restaurant item? Somewhat accurately Would have no idea Somewhat accurately Somewhat accurately Somewhat accurately

Would you be influenced by calorie labeling in restaurants?

Why/why not? Yes, because I need to lose 30 pounds. Yes, because I do not want to gain weight. No, because if it looks good and sounds good, then I will eat it no matter what. No, it depends on what I am eating. No, because I like food and if I’m buying it, then I should enjoy it.

Have you changed your mind about the effect of restaurant labeling on your decision about what to order after seeing the actual calorie content?

Why/why not? No, I have not changed my mind because I still need to lose weight. No, because I already monitor my caloric intake. No, because I was fairly accurate with my guesses and I enjoy

food.

No, because if I balance my eating and working out then it will not affect m as much. No, because I want to enjoy a good meal.

2a. The Drexel Study
Researchers from Drexel, the Philadelphia Department of Public Health, and the University of Pennsylvania were interested in studying whether the presence of menu labeling would influence food purchases from seven different outlets of a particular chain restaurant. Two of those outlets had menu labeling, while the other five did not. The researchers collected 648 customer surveys and receipts from these outlets and noted differences in calorie and nutrient intake between customers who purchased food from the outlets with menu labeling and customers who purchased food from the outlets without menu labeling. Furthermore, the researchers analyzed the consumers reported use of nutritional information when ordering.
From this study, the researchers found that these customers purchased an average of 1600-1800 calories for a single meal. Additionally, the meals purchased by these customers had an average of 3200 milligrams of sodium content and 35 grams of saturated fat. In contrast, the daily recommended caloric intake for an entire day is 2000 calories and the daily limits for sodium content and saturated fat are 2300 milligrams and 20 grams respectively. The researchers also discovered that customers who purchased meals at one of the two restaurant outlets with menu labeling consumed food with 151-155 fewer calories, 224 milligrams less sodium, and 3.7 less grams of saturated fat in comparison with customers who purchased meals from one of the five restaurant outlets that did not have menu labeling. Lastly, approximately 80% of customers at the two outlets with menu labeling reported seeing menu labeling and 26% of those customers reported taking advantage of it. Those who reported utilizing menu labeling consumed 400 fewer calories, 370 milligrams less sodium, and 10 grams less saturated fat than the average customer.
The researchers concluded that present-day efforts are not sufficient enough to promote healthy eating and portion control among customers. The researchers also noted that this particular study suggests that displaying nutritional information on menus may be beneficial in chain restaurants. In short the researchers feel that implementing menu labeling at restaurants will further educate consumers and increase the impact on making healthy dietary choices.

The ERS Study
Researchers C. Gregory, I. Rahkovsky, and T. Anekwe from the Economic Research Service (ERS) were interested in determining the demographic and diet-related characteristics of those already using nutrition information when they eat out in comparison with those who state that they would use nutrition information upon availability and investigating whether or not providing information for food prepared away from home (FAFH) would encourage consumers to make healthier choices. Data was collected by analyzing participant responses from the 2007-2008 and 2009-2010 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). Consumers were asked about their food shopping and spending habits, self-perceived diet quality, familiarity with the US Department of Agriculture dietary guidelines, and use of nutrition information. A follow-up survey was then conducted by phone to investigate the participants’ attitudes towards nutrition information in FAFH settings.
From the study, the researchers found a strong positive correlation between certain dietary habits, diet quality, and demographic characteristics and the use of nutrition information at full-service restaurants. For example, the researchers discovered that consumers who eat out more often are less likely to use nutrition information at full-service restaurants than those who eat out occasionally. A strong correlation was also found between consumers who say they would use nutrition information at fast-food and full-service restaurant establishments if it were available. Moreover, the researchers found that those who already practice healthy diets will be more likely to use the nutrition information in restaurants and will benefit more from implementing menu labeling across all types of eating establishments.
The researchers suggest that those who do not already follow healthy diets may not benefit from exposure to menu labeling because it might not be enough motivation for them to build nutritious eating habits. From their follow-up survey, the researchers also noted attitudes in regards to nutrition information both inside and outside of the home varied. Lastly, the researchers assume that consumers will use the nutrition information provided by FAFH establishments, which will in turn encourage them to make healthier choices when purchasing food.

The OSU Study
B. Ellison, from the University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign, and her colleages from Oklahoma State University were interested in researching customers’ eating habits across different diner settings. Patrons at a restaurant on OSU’s campus were randomly assigned to one of three groups. Patrons in the first group were given a menu without calorie information to order from, patrons in the second group were given a menu with calorie information, and patrons from the third group were given a menu that color-coded the calorie information next to each item using traffic light symbols. For example, a green light was placed beside items with fewer than 400 calories, a yellow light was placed next to items that had more than 401 calories but less than 800 calories, and a red light was placed next to items that had over 800 calories.
On average, the patrons that ordered from the menu that did not supply calorie information ate 817 calories, in comparison with the patrons that ordered off the menu with calorie information who averaged 766 calories, and patrons that ordered off the traffic light menu, who averaged 696 calories. From their study, the researchers observed that those who are not the most health conscious individuals appeared to cut the most calories from the experimental menus. Additionally, the researchers found that health conscious individuals might not pay as close attention to the calorie information because they are already well-informed about their eating habits. Lastly, the researchers concluded that the traffic light menu seemed to have the greatest influence in regards to cutting calories from meals.

2b. Notably, the Drexel, ERS, and OSU studies were similar in that the researchers felt that implementing a mandatory menu labeling policy at restaurant establishments would further enhance consumer education and awareness, which in turn would encourage consumers to make healthier choices when purchasing food items. Furthermore, these studies were similar in that they analyzed differences in caloric intake of customers exposed to menu labeling at selected restaurant establishments. From their data, the researchers from each study noted that those who were exposed and utilized the nutrition information presented to them consumed fewer calories than those who were not exposed to menu labeling. Lastly, the researchers from the Drexel, ERS, and OSU studies agree that health conscious individuals are more likely to benefit from restaurant establishments that implemented menu labeling than those who are not as health conscious.
In contrast, these studies differed in the methods they used to conduct each study. The Drexel study analyzed customer responses from surveys in addition to examining transaction receipts. The ERS study analyzed responses from the Flexible Consumer Behavior Survey of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey to determine the relationship between demographics and dietary characteristics of those who already use nutrition information and those that do not. However, the OSU study examined differences in the caloric intake of consumers who ordered off of different menus. The three studies also differed in their interpretations. For instance, researchers from the Drexel study concluded that present-day efforts are not sufficient enough to promote healthy eating and portion control among consumers. However, the researchers noted that providing nutrition information on menus may enhance customer education in regards to making healthier dietary choices. Researchers from the ERS study concluded that those who already practice healthy diets will be more likely to use the nutrition information presented in restaurants. Consequently, researchers from the OSU study concluded that those who already practice healthy diets are less likely to pay attention to nutrition information on menus because they are already aware of nutritional information ad well as their eating habits.

3. While some may oppose menu labeling and others may be indifferent to it, it is an incontrovertible fact that menu labeling should be required as part of the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. It is evident from the results of my own study that my peers need to be more conscious of the nutritional content in the food that they are consuming. Generally, the participants in my study were fairly accurate in guessing the calorie count of the food items presented. Additionally, the participants in my study said that they would not be significantly influenced by menu labeling because “if the food looks and sounds good, then [they] will eat it no matter what.” Moreover, some of the participants felt that “if they’re paying for it [food], then they should enjoy it.” However, the minority of respondents stated that they would be influenced by menu labeling because “they wanted to lose weight” or they “did not want to gain weight.”
Notably, the findings of my study were consistent with the conclusions and assumptions made by the researchers of the Drexel, ERS, and OSU studies. In both the ERS and OSU studies, the researchers stated that individuals who are health conscious are more likely to benefit from exposure to nutrition information at restaurant establishments. This was consistent with my own study because participants who stated that they would be influenced by calorie counting “already monitor [their] caloric intake.” Consequently, the researchers from the Drexel study posited that modern-day efforts are not sufficient enough to provide motivation to those that are not as health conscious. This was similar to my own findings because a few of the participants, even after learning the actual calorie count of the food items given, stated that they still would not be influenced by menu labeling because of the satisfaction they receive from eating at these restaurant establishments. While these participants may enjoy they food they are consuming, it is apparent that they lack proper knowledge and exposure to the nutritional information in the food they are consuming. Furthermore, researchers from the ERS study were able to conclude from the data collected during their follow-up phone survey that there is variation in people’s attitudes regarding their opinion towards acceptance of menu labeling in restaurant establishments. Similarly, there was variation in my own study in regards to the attitudes my peers expressed towards menu labeling as some stated that they would be influenced by it and others claimed that they would not. It is imperative to mandate the implementation of menu labeling in restaurant establishments so that those who eat simply for the “satisfaction” or “pleasure” of eating can receive more exposure to the nutritional content in the types of food that they are eating so that they at least have the option to make healthier decisions.
Not only will implementation of menu labeling enhance the average consumer’s education of nutritional information, it may also reduce the risk of obesity. Recent studies conducted by ERS researchers have shown a drastic increase in the amount of food eaten in settings away from the home (FAFH). This is not surprising as modern-day families are busy bustling children around to afterschool activities and more woman have become employed outside the home, therefore eating at FAFH establishments has become easier than preparing home-cooked meals. These recent studies conducted by the ERS have also revealed a positive correlation between obesity and eating at FAFH establishments. Since it has become more common to eat out, it is necessary that menu labeling become a requirement across all food establishments so that families can become more conscious about the food that they buy at places away from home. This is significant because it is important that these customers receive the same amount of nutritional benefits when eating at FAFH establishments as they would when eating a home-cooked meal. Furthermore, the nutritional quality of FAFH is significantly lower than that of a home-cooked meal. Although the restaurant industry may oppose the implementation of menu labeling, out of fear of losing business, it may be beneficial for them in the long run as well. Not only would customers become aware of the nutritional value of their food, it could also force restaurants to start serving healthier options and portion sizes to be successful and competitive in the industry. In short, menu labeling should be implemented as part of the Affordable Care Act because it will enhance the education among consumers as well as within the restaurant industry itself to nutrition information and will expose the poor nutritional quality of food prepared in FAFH establishments, which could result in restaurants creating a variety of healthier food options to remain competitive in the market.

References
http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-choices-health/food-consumption-demand/food-away-from-home.aspx#.U9ufCEjldOE
http://ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2013-february/americans-food-choices-at-home-and-away.aspx#.U9qfkKjldOE
http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/LabelingNutrition/ucm223408.htm