BackgroundRecent legislation has required calorie labels on restaurant menus as a means of improving Americans’ health. Despite the growing research in this area, no consensus has been reached on the effectiveness of menu labels. This suggests the possibility of heterogeneity in responses to caloric labels across people with different attitudes and demographics. The purpose of this study was to explore the potential relationships between caloric intake and diners’ socio-economic characteristics and attitudes in a restaurant field experiment that systematically varied the caloric information printed on the menus.MethodsWe conducted a field experiment in a full service restaurant where patrons were randomly assigned to one of three menu treatments which varied the amount of caloric information printed on the menus (none, numeric, or symbolic calorie label). At the conclusion of their meals, diners were asked to complete a brief survey regarding their socio-economic characteristics, attitudes, and meal selections. Using regression analysis, we estimated the number of entrée and extra calories ordered by diners as a function of demographic and attitudinal variables. Additionally, irrespective of the menu treatment to which a subject was assigned, our study identified which types of people are likely to be low-, medium-, and high-calorie diners.ResultsResults showed that calorie labels have the greatest impact on those who are least health conscious. Additionally, using a symbolic calorie label can further reduce the caloric intake of even the most health conscious patrons. Finally, calorie labels were more likely to influence the selection of the main entrée as opposed to supplemental items such as drinks and desserts.ConclusionsIf numeric calorie labels are implemented (as currently proposed), they are most likely to influence consumers who are less health conscious – probably one of the key targets of this legislation. Unfortunately, numeric labels did little for those consumers who were already more knowledgeable about health and nutrition. To reach a broader group of diners, a symbolic calorie label may be preferred as it reduced caloric intake across all levels of health consciousness.

No abstract

Glutathione S-transferase (GST), glutathione peroxidase (GPX), and glutathione reductase (GR) are enzymes that utilize glutathione to play an important role in plant defense mechanisms. In leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula L.), transcript and activity profiles for these enzymes are differentially influenced in tissue exposed to xenobiotic (diclofop-methyl) and environmental stress (cold and drought). Five different EeGST cDNA (including phi, tau, theta, and zeta class GSTs), one EeGPX cDNA, and one EeGR cDNA showed differential expression patterns in leafy spurge plants exposed to diclofop-methyl-, cold- and drought-stress. Tissue treated with diclofop-methyl also had increased GST, GPX and GR activities that were preceded or paralleled by increased gene expression. Transcript profiles resulting from drought-stressed plants were similar to transcript profiles from diclofop-methyl-treated plants but not cold-stressed plants. GPX activity in leafy spurge protein extracts was not bound to either S-hexylglutathione- or glutathione-agarose columns but instead co-migrated with fractions of GST activity that also were not bound by affinity chromatography. Fractions of GST proteins that were bound to S-hexylglutathione revealed that increased GST activity in diclofop-methyl-treated tissue could be identified as phi- and tau-type GSTs.

Using field experiment data, we compare the effectiveness of calorie labels to a “fat tax” at reducing calories ordered. Results from a structural model of consumer demand show that numeric labels did not influence food choice, but symbolic traffic light labels caused restaurant patrons to select lower‐calorie menu items; thus, adding a traffic light symbol could enhance the effectiveness of the numeric calorie label (as currently proposed by the Food and Drug Administration). Additionally, our model projects that labels can both reduce intake more than a 10% tax on high‐calorie items and a 10% subsidy on low‐calorie items. (JEL Q18, I18)

Field studies were done in 1995-1996 to assess the efficacy of three sweet corn hybrids that express the Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) toxin, CrylAb, against two lepidopteran pests, Ostrinia nubilalis (Hubner) and Helicoverpa zea (Boddie). The Bt hybrids tested were developed by Novartis Seeds, using the event BT-11, which expresses Bt toxin in green tissue as well as reproductive tissues including the tassel, silk, and kernel. Bt hybrids were compared with a standard non-Bt control or the non-Bt isoline for each hybrid; none of the hybrids were treated with insecticides during the study. Hybrid efficacy was based on larval control of each pest, as well as plant or ear damage associated with each pest. In both years, control of O. nubilalis larvae in primary ears of all Bt hybrids was 99-100% compared with the appropriate non-Bt check. Plant damage was also significantly reduced in all Bt hybrids. In 1996, control of H. zea in Bt hybrids ranged from 85 to 88% when compared with the appropriate non-Bt control. In 1996, a University of Minnesota experimental non-Bt hybrid (MN2 x MN3) performed as well as the Bt hybrids for control of O. nubilalis. Also, in 1996, two additional University of Minnesota experimental non-Bt hybrids (A684su X MN94 and MN2 X MN3) performed as well as Bt hybrids for percent marketable ears (ears with no damage or larvae). In addition, compared with the non-Bt hybrids, percent marketable ears were significantly higher for all Bt hybrids and in most cases ranged from 98 to 100%. By comparison, percent marketable ears for the non-Bt hybrids averaged 45.5 and 37.4% in 1995 and 1996, respectively. Results from the 2-yr study strongly suggest that Bt sweet corn hybrids will provide high levels of larval control for growers in both fresh and processing markets. Specifically, Bt sweet corn hybrids, in the absence of conventional insecticide use, provided excellent control of O. nubilalis, and very good control of H. zea. However, depending on location of specific production regions, and the associated insect pests of sweet corn in each area, some insecticide applications may still be necessary.