Research articleMandatory Menu Labeling in One Fast-Food Chain in King County, Washington
Introduction
The growing prevalence of obesity during the past several decades is now well documented.1 Also documented are increases in caloric intake, especially for obesity-promoting energy-dense foods.2 One reason for this increase is a trend toward consumption of food-away-from-home (FAFH). Since 1972, the proportion of total food expenditures spent on FAFH increased from 34% to roughly 50%.3 FAFH meals are generally higher in calories, salt, and fats than home-cooked meals,4, 5, 6 and there is evidence that increased consumption of restaurant foods, and primarily fast foods, is partly responsible for rising obesity.4, 7, 8, 9, 10
As part of more comprehensive efforts to stem the rise in obesity prevalence, several state and local governments, including New York City (NYC), San Francisco, and King County WA, have enacted or proposed mandatory menu labeling. Adoption of these regulations was in part justified by evidence from experimental studies11, 12 that demonstrated that the provision of nutrition information positively influenced the choice of menu items. Because these laws are relatively new, to date only three published studies have attempted to quantify the effect of menu labeling in restaurants.
The first was a 2007 study by the NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene13 that examined food purchases at Subway restaurants, a chain that voluntarily posted calorie information prior to enactment of the city's menu-labeling law. The study found that customers who looked at nutritional information before ordering purchased meals with fewer overall calories. Although this suggests that mandatory postings may be effective, because Subway is known to offer entrées seen as healthier, and many consumers may choose to eat there for this reason, the extent to which results from Subway would generalize to other chains is unknown. Elbel et al.14 studied the effect of the NYC menu-labeling law at 14 fast-food restaurants in low-income, minority neighborhoods in NYC. They found no significant effects of the legislation on caloric intake.
A recent pilot study15 quantified the impact of voluntary menu labeling in Pierce County WA. The study showed that the average calories purchased in 6 full-service restaurants fell by about 15 calories per entrée. However, this study was based on only 1 month of data postlabeling, so it is unclear whether these results would be sustained. Moreover, the analyses looked solely at entrees. If a customer orders a healthier entrée, it is possible that he compensates with a caloric beverage or dessert. As a result, net calories could increase even if entrée calories decline. In order to test the net effect of the legislation on calories purchased, all foods and drinks should be included in the analysis. Based on the studies to date, it remains uncertain whether or not mandatory menu labeling will lead to significant reductions in caloric intake from restaurants.
The present study complements prior studies by providing evidence of the impact of mandatory menu labeling in King County WA on one fast-food chain of Mexican restaurants. King County includes Seattle and several outlying cities. King County's menu-labeling law went into effect on August 1, 2008, and became mandatory (fines imposed) on January 1, 2009. The legislation states that restaurants that are part of chains with 15 or more outlets nationwide and have annual gross sales of at least $1 million must provide nutrition labels (calories, saturated fat, carbohydrates, and sodium) for all standard food and beverage items at the point of purchase. Quick-service restaurants are required to display calories on menu boards or on signs adjacent to menu boards and must make information on carbohydrate, sodium, saturated fat, and daily recommended caloric intake readily available in pamphlets, brochures, or posters. Additionally, restaurants were required to post calories on drive-through menu boards beginning in August 1, 2009. This latter requirement is significant given that drive-through orders represent more than 70% of revenue for many fast-food outlets.16
The King County regulation thus provides a unique opportunity to evaluate the effect of in-store and drive-through menu posting on consumer behavior. Pre–post data from one regional Mexican fast-food chain, Taco Time Northwest, with locations within and beyond King County, were used to test the impact of mandatory menu labeling on transactions and calories purchased from these locations. It is hypothesized here that as a result of the legislation:
- •
Total transactions at locations within King County will decrease after the legislation goes into effect compared with locations outside King County. This hypothesis is based on the assumption that some consumers of high-calorie entrees, on disclosure of the calorie information, will opt to dine at other establishments.
- •
Average calories per transaction will also decrease relative to non–King County locations as some consumers switch to lower-calorie food and drink options in efforts to reduce their caloric intake.
- •
The effects of the policy will be greater after August 1, 2009, when calorie information appears on drive-through menu boards.
These results may provide useful information for the development of the federal menu-labeling law, details of which are still being considered.
Section snippets
Methods
This analysis is based on sales data from Taco Time Northwest restaurants. Of the chain restaurants contacted, Taco Time was the only quick-service chain that agreed to provide transaction data. Taco Time Northwest is a Mexican fast-food restaurant chain with more than 70 locations across the state of Washington. The menu includes a variety of Tex–Mex options like burritos, tacos, salads, and fries. Menu items span a wide range of calories. For example, a beef Roma burrito is 843 calories
Results
Table 1 compares the results from the pre- and post-periods and shows no significant trend in monthly transactions for either King County or non–King County locations. The table reveals that the number of monthly transactions per store is, on average, greater in King County than in non–King County locations both before and after the legislation went into effect. Table 1 also presents results for (1) average monthly calories per transaction; (2) average monthly food calories per transaction; and
Discussion
The results for this chain of Mexican fast-food outlets show no significant impact of mandatory menu labeling on monthly transactions and calories sold per transaction as implemented in King County WA. Neither total monthly transactions nor calories per transaction were affected immediately by the legislation or affected later when calorie information was added to the drive-through menu boards.
Given the pending federal legislation, it is important to consider possible explanations of the lack
Conclusion
These results do not provide evidence that mandatory menu labeling, as implemented in King County, Washington positively influenced food-purchasing behavior at one type of fast-food chain. In lieu of the pending federal legislation, future qualitative and quantitative studies should be undertaken to identify the circumstances under which mandatory menu labeling is likely to be most effective.
References (19)
- et al.
Why eat at fast-food restaurants: reported reasons among frequent consumers
J Am Diet Assoc
(2008) - et al.
Fast food consumption and breakfast skipping: predictors of weight gain from adolescence to adulthood in a nationally representative sample
J Adolesc Health
(2006) - et al.
Fast-food habits, weight gain, and insulin resistance (the CARDIA study): 15-year prospective analysis
Lancet
(2005) - et al.
Consumers may not use or understand calorie labeling in restaurants
J Am Diet Assoc
(2006) - et al.
Prevalence and trends in obesity among U.S. adults, 1999–2008
JAMA
(2010) - et al.
The economics of obesity
Am J Clin Nutr
(2010) - et al.
Away-from-home foods increasingly important to quality of American diet
- et al.
The contribution of expanding portion sizes to the U.S. obesity epidemic
Am J Public Health
(2002) - et al.
Expanding portion sizes in the U.S. marketplace: implications for nutrition counseling
J Am Diet Assoc
(2003)
Cited by (203)
Does more information mean better choices? A study on calorie display and consumer behavior in restaurants
2024, Food Quality and PreferenceVegan burger, no thanks! Juicy American burger, yes please! The effect of restaurant meal names on affective appeal
2024, Food Quality and PreferenceThe impact of the consumer and neighbourhood food environment on dietary intake and obesity-related outcomes: A systematic review of causal impact studies
2022, Social Science and MedicineCitation Excerpt :The low-risk of bias studies were with strong research designs (both experimental and quasi-experimental), good sample sizes (ranging from 56 to 7699), reasonable intervention durations of two to 14 months, and objectively measuring outcome with dietary intake data elicited via plate waste measurements in a laboratory, analysing shoppers’ baskets and BMI data measured by trained data collectors (Anzman-Frasca et al., 2018; Knowles et al., 2019; Milliron et al., 2012; Marty et al., 2020; Hammond et al., 2013; Papies et al., 2014; Gittelsohn et al., 2013). In five of these studies participants were unaware they were part of an experiment (Cantor et al., 2015; Vadiveloo et al., 2011; Petimar et al., 2019a, 2019b; Finkelstein et al., 2011). The effect of increasing healthy food accessibility/availability in-stores (grocery, corner stores, supermarkets) on dietary intake and healthy food purchasing was investigated by nine studies reporting positive results for low-income children and null for low-income adults (Trude et al., 2018; Gittelsohn et al., 2017; Lent et al., 2014; Elbel et al., 2015, 2017; Dubowitz et al., 2015; Jilcott Pitts et al., 2018b; Laska et al., 2019; Cummins et al., 2014).