The Impact of Restaurant Calorie Labels on Food Choice: Results From a Field Experiment

Ellison, Brenna; Lusk, Jayson L.; Davis, David W.

doi:10.1111/ecin.12069

Cited by 72 publications

(69 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Of the 28 studies included in the review, 17 were RCTs: 16 of these were randomised by individual (Cavanagh 2014; Crockett 2014; Ebneter 2013; Ellison 2013; Ellison 2014a; Girz 2012 - study 1; Girz 2012 - study 2; Girz ongoing; Hammond 2013; Harnack 2008a; James 2015; Platkin 2014; Roberto 2010; Roberto 2012; Temple 2010; VanEpps 2016), while one was randomised by cluster, with vending machines being the unit of randomisation (Bergen 2006). In addition, there were five Q-RCTs (Allan 2015; Kral 2002; Vermeer 2011; Wansink 2006 - study 1; Wansink 2006 - study 3), plus six ITS studies (Balasubramanian 2002; Bollinger 2011; Chu 2009; Cioffi 2015; Dubbert 1984; Holmes 2013).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nutritional labelling for healthier food or non-alcoholic drink purchasing and consumption

Crockett

King

Marteau

et al. 2018

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

168

195

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Nutritional labelling is advocated as a means to promote healthier food purchasing and consumption, including lower energy intake. Internationally, many different nutritional labelling schemes have been introduced. There is no consensus on whether such labelling is effective in promoting healthier behaviour. Objectives To assess the impact of nutritional labelling for food and non‐alcoholic drinks on purchasing and consumption of healthier items. Our secondary objective was to explore possible effect moderators of nutritional labelling on purchasing and consumption. Search methods We searched 13 electronic databases including CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase to 26 April 2017. We also handsearched references and citations and sought unpublished studies through websites and trials registries. Selection criteria Eligible studies: were randomised or quasi‐randomised controlled trials (RCTs/Q‐RCTs), controlled before‐and‐after studies, or interrupted time series (ITS) studies; compared a labelled product (with information on nutrients or energy) with the same product without a nutritional label; assessed objectively measured purchasing or consumption of foods or non‐alcoholic drinks in real‐world or laboratory settings. Data collection and analysis Two authors independently selected studies for inclusion and extracted study data. We applied the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool and GRADE to assess the quality of evidence. We pooled studies that evaluated similar interventions and outcomes using a random‐effects meta‐analysis, and we synthesised data from other studies in a narrative summary. Main results We included 28 studies, comprising 17 RCTs, 5 Q‐RCTs and 6 ITS studies. Most (21/28) took place in the USA, and 19 took place in university settings, 14 of which mainly involved university students or staff. Most (20/28) studies assessed the impact of labelling on menus or menu boards, or nutritional labelling placed on, or adjacent to, a range of foods or drinks from which participants could choose. Eight studies provided participants with only one labelled food or drink option (in which labelling was present on a container or packaging, adjacent to the food or on a display board) and measured the amount consumed. The most frequently assessed labelling type was energy (i.e. calorie) information (12/28). Eleven studies assessed the impact of nutritional labelling on purchasing food or drink options in real‐world settings, including purchases from vending machines (one cluster‐RCT), grocery stores (one ITS), or restaurants, cafeterias or coffee shops (three RCTs, one Q‐RCT and five ITS). Findings on vending machines and grocery stores were not interpretable, and were rated as very low quality. A meta‐analysis of the three RCTs, all of which assessed energy labelling on menus in restaurants, demonstrated a statistically signific...

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nutritional labelling for healthier food or non-alcoholic drink purchasing and consumption

Crockett

King

Marteau

et al. 2018

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

168

195

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Second, due to sampling convenience, the focus has largely been on food service provision within the public sector (i.e. school, university and work canteens) which imposes limitations due to a specific nature of the audiences this type of business ventures caters for (Ellison et al 2014;Price et al 2016). Third, not all food qualities have been thoroughly looked into; the carbon intensity of menu items, for instance, has been investigated only sporadically (Pulkkinen et al 2016).…”

Section: 2the Role Of Menu Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

Restaurant menu design and more responsible consumer food choice: An exploratory study of managerial perceptions

Filimonau

Krivcova

2017

Journal of Cleaner Production

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The restaurant sector imposes substantial impacts on the environment and society. A large share of the sector's negative impacts is attributed to irresponsible consumer choice. To enhance sustainability of food service provision, consumer choice ought to be architected to make it more responsible. Restaurant menu can be (re-)designed to inform customers about the environmental and societal implications of their choice and thus 'nudge' selection of more benign food options. This study explores managerial opinions on the role of menu design in shaping more responsible consumer choice. It finds that while restaurateurs acknowledge rising customer awareness about the ramifications of their food choice on personal health and the environment, they are sceptical about the use of menu design as a means to positively affect consumer choice. The lack of internal resources to implement and maintain the required menu changes, inconstant customer demand, organisational and operational complexities represent the key barriers.

show abstract

“…Since the implementation of mandatory CL in the USA (11) numerous observational and experimental studies have been conducted in various settings to assess its impact on food choice and EI, many of which have shown positive effects (39,(52)(53)(54) . However, a recent extensive review of the related literature reported no clear patterns due to a lack of comparability across studies.…”

Section: Menu Labellingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Food and the consumer: could labelling be the answer?

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Extensive research into the impact of nutrition labelling across Europe has shown that many consumers can effectively use a nutrition label to rank a food for healthiness. The present paper considers observational and laboratory evidence which has examined the impact of nutrition labelling (on food packaging and at point of purchase) on dietary behaviour. In addition, the potential counterproductive effects of foods bearing 'healthy' nutrition labels are examined. The observational evidence provides a useful insight into the key characteristics of nutrition label use. Those most likely to engage with nutrition labels are more likely to have a diet related disease and/or be on a weight loss diet and have a good overall diet quality. Experimental evidence, while limited, suggests that serving size information may be overlooked by consumers. In fact, there may be a tendency among consumers to overeat foods that are perceived to be healthier. The findings from the present paper suggest that if nutrition labelling is to be considered a strategy to facilitate consumers in managing their energy intake, it must coincide with salient, consistent and simple serving size information on the front of food packages and at the point of purchase. There is a clear need for more experimental research using robust methodologies, to examine the impact of nutrition information on dietary intake. In the meantime, there should be greater attention given to portion size within national dietary guidance.

show abstract

The Impact of Restaurant Calorie Labels on Food Choice: Results From a Field Experiment

Cited by 72 publications

References 46 publications

Nutritional labelling for healthier food or non-alcoholic drink purchasing and consumption

Nutritional labelling for healthier food or non-alcoholic drink purchasing and consumption

Restaurant menu design and more responsible consumer food choice: An exploratory study of managerial perceptions

Food and the consumer: could labelling be the answer?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About