Fast-Food Fights: News Coverage of Local Efforts to Improve Food Environments Through Land-Use Regulations, 2000–2013

Nixon, Laura; Mejia, Pamela; Dorfman, Lori; Cheyne, Andrew; Young, Sandra; Friedman, Lissy C.; Gottlieb, Mark; Wooten, Heather

doi:10.2105/ajph.2014.302368

Cited by 25 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our findings are at odds with the rationale behind policy interventions that seek to restrict establishment of fast food restaurants in order to improve the dietary behavior of consumers (Nixon et al, 2015). This rationale posits that restriction of fast food restaurants would reduce intake of unhealthy foods, and understates the importance of underlying taste preferences that drive overall eating behavior.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 62%

Is frequency of fast food and sit-down restaurant eating occasions differentially associated with less healthful eating habits?

Lytle

Viera

2016

Preventive Medicine Reports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Studies have shown that frequency of fast food restaurant eating and sit-down restaurant eating is differentially associated with nutrient intakes and biometric outcomes. The objective of this study was to examine whether frequency of fast food and sit-down restaurant eating occasions was differentially associated with less healthful eating habits, independent of demographic characteristics. Data were collected from participants in 2015 enrolled in a worksite nutrition intervention trial (n = 388) in North Carolina who completed self-administered questionnaires at baseline. We used multiple logistic regressions to estimate associations between frequency of restaurant eating occasions and four less healthful eating habits, controlling for age, sex, race, education, marital status, and worksite. On average, participants in the highest tertile of fast food restaurant eating (vs. lowest tertile) had increased odds of usual intake of processed meat (OR = 3.00, 95% CI = 1.71, 5.28), red meat (OR = 2.30, 95% CI = 1.33, 4.00), refined grain bread (OR = 2.25, 95% CI = 1.23, 4.10), and sweet baked goods and candy (OR = 3.50, 95% CI = 2.00, 6.12). No associations were found between frequency of sit-down restaurant eating and less healthful eating habits. We conclude that greater frequency of fast food restaurant eating is associated with less healthful eating habits. Our findings suggest that taste preferences or other factors, independent of demographic characteristics, might explain the decision to eat at fast food or sit-down restaurants.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 62%

Is frequency of fast food and sit-down restaurant eating occasions differentially associated with less healthful eating habits?

Lytle

Viera

2016

Preventive Medicine Reports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A patient’s environment may change without any migration because of the opening and closing of retail food outlets, which we refer to as neighborhood change. Accessibility within 3 miles may be particularly relevant for food stores, given that multiple studies show that individuals travel between two and four miles from home to shop for groceries (4,6–10). Accessibility within 1 mile may be more relevant for fast food restaurants where individuals often purchase prepared foods or snacks for home consumption.…”

Section: Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Most subsidy programs target supermarkets because they offer the widest selection of healthy foods(4–7). In another direction, some governments are trying to reduce access to unhealthy food using fast food restaurant moratoriums and zoning policies that restrict or ban new fast food restaurants in so-called over-served neighborhoods(8–10). In other places, local zoning laws and ordinances include store size restrictions, design guidelines, and formula business regulations(11,12) restrict the entry of the supercenters and other mass merchandisers that are a primary source of food for American households (i.e., Walmart, Target, and other large stores that sell a large variety of food and non-food merchandise)(13,14).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Geographic Accessibility Of Food Outlets Not Associated With Body Mass Index Change Among Veterans, 2009–14

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years, various levels of government in the U.S. have adopted or discussed subsidies, tax breaks, zoning laws, and other public policy instruments to promote geographic access to healthy food. These policies are supposed to reduce obesity. But there is little evidence from large-scale longitudinal or quasi-experimental research suggesting that geographic access to supermarkets, fast food restaurants, and other food outlets actually affect body mass index (BMI). Using a longitudinal design, we examined whether geographic accessibility of food outlets was associated with BMI change between 2009 and 2014 using clinical data for 1.7 million military veterans living in 382 metropolitan areas. We found no evidence that the absolute or relative accessibility of supermarkets, fast food restaurants, or mass merchandisers were associated with individual BMI change. While they may promote equitable access, our findings suggest that policies that alter food outlet accessibility will do little to combat the obesity epidemic.

show abstract

“…Second, the constant media attention to high-calorie menu items and fast food in particular 19 may spur voluntary reformulation of menu items. For example, a recent article in the New York Times showed that the typical order at Chipotle contains about 1,070 calories—twice as many calories as a Big Mac and “more than half of the calories that most adults are supposed to eat in an entire day.” 20 …”

Section: Policy Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Restaurants With Calories Displayed On Menus Had Lower Calorie Counts Compared To Restaurants Without Such Labels

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Beginning in December 2016, calorie labeling on menus will be mandatory for US chain restaurants and many other establishments that serve food, such as ice cream shops and movie theaters. But before the federal mandate kicks in, several large chain restaurants have begun to voluntarily display information about the calories in the items on their menus. This increased transparency may be associated with lower overall calorie content of offered items. This study used data for the period 2012–14 from the MenuStat project, a data set of menu items at sixty-six of the largest US restaurant chains. We compared differences in calorie counts of food items between restaurants that voluntarily implemented national menu labeling and those that did not. We found that the mean per item calorie content in all years was lower for restaurants that voluntarily posted information about calories (the differences were 139 calories in 2012, 136 in 2013, and 139 in 2014). New menu items introduced in 2013 and 2014 showed a similar pattern. Calorie labeling may have important effects on the food served in restaurants by compelling the introduction of lower-calorie items.

show abstract

Fast-Food Fights: News Coverage of Local Efforts to Improve Food Environments Through Land-Use Regulations, 2000–2013

Cited by 25 publications

References 13 publications

Is frequency of fast food and sit-down restaurant eating occasions differentially associated with less healthful eating habits?

Is frequency of fast food and sit-down restaurant eating occasions differentially associated with less healthful eating habits?

Geographic Accessibility Of Food Outlets Not Associated With Body Mass Index Change Among Veterans, 2009–14

Restaurants With Calories Displayed On Menus Had Lower Calorie Counts Compared To Restaurants Without Such Labels

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About