An initial study of the effects of mandated calorie counts in New York City chain restaurants finds that the law isn’t delivering on its promise to reduce consumption:
It found that about half the customers noticed the calorie counts, which were prominently posted on menu boards. About 28 percent of those who noticed them said the information had influenced their ordering, and 9 out of 10 of those said they had made healthier choices as a result.
But when the researchers checked receipts afterward, they found that people had, in fact, ordered slightly more calories than the typical customer had before the labeling law went into effect, in July 2008.
And, ominously:
“I think it does show us that labels are not enough,” Brian Elbel, an assistant professor at the New York University School of Medicine and the lead author of the study, said in an interview.
The results are preliminary of course, and in my view the law is unmerited even it does turn out to cause some reduction. But still, if this is a typical result the case for spreading similar laws elsewhere or even federally is weaker than ever.
[Via Baylen.]
Previously:
Calorie counts for all, like it or not
Jacob Grier is a freelance writer, barista, mixologist, and magician in Portland, OR. He writes, eats, and drinks a lot. His articles have appeared in The Washington Post, Reason Online, The Oregonian, and other publications.
Follow me on Twitter
The benefit is not that people eat fewer calories. I don’t care much about that. The benefit is the same benefit that we obtain from mandatory nutrition labels on food products sold in the supermarket: the ability for the consumer to easily understand the product and to make more informed decisions.
More information creates a more transparent, and more efficient, market. This is good for everyone.
@RD: We’ve been over this before. Fewer people would object to requiring that chains make the info available in some form, it’s mandating that calorie counts go directly on menus and menu boards that gets people upset. These new laws are equivalent to saying that rather than putting nutrition labels on retail goods producers must put the info in bold type on the front of the package.
Also, it’s not enough to simply say that more information makes for a more efficient market. There’s an essentially infinite amount of information you could provide people with: detailed nutrient breakdowns, trade practices, carbon footprints, water footprints, country of origin, GMO or not, organic, etc. We can’t have it all, and we especially can’t have it all posted on a fast food menu board. If you’re going to mandate that something be posted you want to know that the information is actually affecting consumer behavior. If it isn’t, maybe you shouldn’t mandate it.