Compliance in 2017 With Federal Calorie Labeling in 90 Chain Restaurants and 10 Retail Food Outlets Prior to Required Implementation

Cleveland, Lauren P.; Simon, Denise; Block, Jason P.

doi:10.2105/ajph.2018.304513

Cited by 23 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We included restaurant-level covariates: restaurant saturation across the U.S. (whether the restaurant chain was located in all 9 Census divisions vs. not) and restaurant type (fast food, full service, fast casual). Given that many large chain restaurants voluntarily implemented menu labeling in advance of the federal rule and during the study period, [17] we additionally included an indicator for the year the restaurant began labeling their menus with calories. More information about these covariates can be found in S1 File, S1 Table, and S2 Table. Information about calories and nutrients (saturated fat, trans fat, unsaturated fat, sugar, non-sugar carbohydrates, protein, and sodium) were available for most items from 2012-2018 (see S3 Table for missingness by nutrient type).…”

Section: Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Calorie and nutrient trends in large U.S. chain restaurants, 2012-2018

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionLarge chain restaurants reduced calories in their newly-introduced menu items from 2012 to 2015. The objective of this study was to provide updated calorie trends through 2018 and examine trends in the macronutrient composition of menu items across this time period. OPEN ACCESS Citation: Bleich SN, Soto MJ, Dunn CG, Moran AJ, Block JP (2020) Calorie and nutrient trends in large U.S. chain restaurants, 2012-2018. PLoS ONE 15 (2): e0228891. https://doi.

show abstract

Section: Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Calorie and nutrient trends in large U.S. chain restaurants, 2012-2018

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A commonly used intervention approach involves providing the general public with nutritional information about food in order to motivate healthier food choices ('information provision interventions'). An example of information provision is energy labelling on restaurant menus; a public health policy now implemented federally in the USA [15] and regionally in Ontario, Canada [16] and in New South Wales, Australia [17]. Although energy labelling may have a positive impact on diet through a variety of channels (e.g., reformulation of menus), encouraging customers to choose healthier meals is one of its central purposes [18].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Socioeconomic position and the impact of increasing availability of lower energy meals vs. menu energy labelling on food choice: two randomized controlled trials in a virtual fast-food restaurant

Marty

Jones

Robinson

2020

Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Food consumed outside of the home is often high in energy and population level interventions that reduce energy intake of people from both lower and higher socioeconomic position (SEP) are needed. There is a lack of evidence on the effectiveness and SEP equity of structural-based (e.g. increasing availability of lower energy options) and information provision (e.g. menu energy labelling) interventions on food choice. Methods: Across two online experiments, participants of lower and higher SEP made meal choices in a novel virtual fast-food restaurant. To be eligible to take part, participants were required to be UK residents, aged 18 or above, fluent in English, have access to a computer with an internet connection and have no dietary restrictions. Participants were randomized to one of four conditions in a 2 × 2 between-subjects design: menu energy labelling present vs. absent and increased availability of lower energy options (75% of menu options lower energy) vs. baseline availability (25% of menu options lower energy). Participants also completed measures of executive function and food choice motives. Results: The analysis of pooled data from both studies (n = 1743) showed that increasing the availability of lower energy options resulted in participants ordering meals with significantly less energy on average (− 71 kcal, p < 0.001, partial η 2 = 0.024) and this effect was observed irrespective of participant SEP. Menu labelling had no significant effect on energy ordered (− 18 kcal, p = 0.116, partial η 2 = 0.001) in participants from both higher and lower SEP. Furthermore, we found no evidence that executive function or food choice motives moderated the effect of increasing lower energy menu options or energy labelling on total energy ordered. Conclusions: In a virtual fast-food environment, energy labelling was ineffective in reducing total energy ordered for both higher and lower SEP participants. Increasing the availability of lower energy options had an equitable effect, reducing total energy ordered in participants from higher and lower SEP. Trial registration: Study protocols and analysis plans were pre-registered on the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/ajcr6/).

show abstract

“…From April to December 2017, prior to the full implementation of the law, calorie labelling compliance was assessed among 90 of the largest US chain establishments . Information was obtained from corporate headquarters, phone calls to individual restaurants, and targeted site visits.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Federal calorie labelling compliance at US chain restaurants

Cleveland

Simon

Block

2020

Obesity Science & Practice

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The 2010 Affordable Care Act included a provision requiring chain food establishments to post calories on menus. In 2017, prior to the final implementation of the law, 59 of 90 top-selling chains had fully implemented labelling. This study extends the documentation of compliance to the 200 top-selling chains after the nationwide requirement went into effect in May 2018. Methods: To determine if restaurants were compliant with the federal menu labelling law, objective information was collected from all 197 of the 200 highest grossing restaurant chains in the United States. The study team obtained information via site visits and internet searches for a convenience sample of restaurants within each of these chains. Results: 94% had implemented menu calorie labelling after the May 2018 deadline. Of the 11 chains not complying, six were full-service restaurants. Conclusion: Most chain restaurants have complied with the federal calorie labelling law, suggesting that compliance is attainable for all chains. Given this finding, the Food and Drug Administration should initiate enforcement of labelling for noncompliant chains.

show abstract

Compliance in 2017 With Federal Calorie Labeling in 90 Chain Restaurants and 10 Retail Food Outlets Prior to Required Implementation

Cited by 23 publications

References 7 publications

Calorie and nutrient trends in large U.S. chain restaurants, 2012-2018

Calorie and nutrient trends in large U.S. chain restaurants, 2012-2018

Socioeconomic position and the impact of increasing availability of lower energy meals vs. menu energy labelling on food choice: two randomized controlled trials in a virtual fast-food restaurant

Federal calorie labelling compliance at US chain restaurants

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About