|
||||||||||||||
|
Myth vs. Reality: Nutrition Labeling at Fast-Food and Other Chain Restaurants
Related: Eating Out is Associated with Obesity Myth: Restaurant nutrition labeling will force mom and pop restaurants out of business.
Myth: Special orders are common, and it would be impossible for a menu to list nutrition information for all possible different food preparation options and combinations.
Myth: People already have access to nutrition labeling at restaurants.
Reality: The approximately one-half of restaurants that do provide nutrition information usually do so on websites, which have to be accessed before leaving for the restaurant, or on hard-to-find and difficult-to-read posters or brochures in their stores. Placing the nutrition information on the menu or menu board would be right at the point of decision making, more convenient, and easier to use.
Myth: Customers prefer to not have calorie information on menu boards, but, rather, available through other means, e.g., on the web or on packaging.
Myth: Consumers will not understand the calorie information provided.
Reality: Confusion about food labels is often attributable to the serving size listed on packaged products. Since many packaged products that appear to be single servings actually contain multiple servings, calorie and other nutrient information must be multiplied by the number of servings consumed to obtain accurate intake amounts. Calorie labeling as proposed here avoids this potential confusion because the calorie information to be provided is for individual menu items.
Myth: Posting calories is ineffective because most consumers are unaware of the recommended daily calorie levels.
Reality: The calorie section on the Nutrition Facts panel of foods purchased in supermarkets is reviewed by most consumers, suggesting that calories are a familiar concept to many. Even if consumers are unaware of their daily recommended calorie intake, they can, by comparing calorie levels of different menu items, make more informed decisions.
Myth: Menu labeling is cost prohibitive in the following ways -- replacing menus and menu boards, analytic testing expenses, compliance costs and costs from loss of sales if consumers take their business elsewhere as a result of calorie labeling.
Reality: Half of the largest chain restaurants already provide nutrition information on their websites and would not incur any new costs for analyzing their products. The cost to have a product analyzed is about $230 per menu item. A restaurant chain with 80 menu items would incur a one-time cost of approximately $18,000 to have all its menu items tested – less than ten dollars for each Denny’s outlet. There would be a one-time cost for redesigning some menu boards and menus, this cost, however, is modest. Many chain restaurants centralize menu development and printing and restaurant headquarters incur the costs. If restaurants observe a decline in sales following implementation of the new regulation, their extensive knowledge of consumer preferences and needs could be channeled into adapting and developing new products that better meet the demands of informed consumers.
Myth: This bill would subject food service establishments to lawsuits for providing inaccurate information.
Reality: Restaurants that make nutrition information publicly available regularly include disclaimers that actual calorie values may vary slightly from those listed due to individual preparations. Restaurants would be no more liable for the calorie information on menus and menu boards than they are for the nutrition information provided on websites, posters, tray liners or food wrappers.
Myth: Nutrition labeling at restaurants is a radical idea advocated by the “food police” trying to tell us what we can and can not eat.
Reality: Nutrition labeling would not limit choices at restaurants. It simply would provide information regarding those choices. Supporters of better nutrition information at restaurants include:
Myth: Physical inactivity is primarily responsible for obesity – unhealthy eating habits play only a minor role.
Reality: The high levels of obesity in the U.S. are attributable to both unhealthy eating and physical inactivity, and both must be addressed to help reduce obesity, heart disease, cancer and other diseases. Most Americans are not getting the recommended amount of physical activity. However, existing data and societal trends suggest that activity levels were already low by 1980, when obesity rates started to increase. Many major societal trends leading to decreased physical activity occurred before 1980 – the move to the suburbs, shift to an information economy and more desk jobs, reliance on the car, and wide availability of labor-saving devices. It is not clear whether further declines in physical activity have occurred since then.
In contrast, the data and societal trends are clear regarding the importance of increased caloric intake in driving the rising obesity rates. National surveys and food-supply data show that adults and children are consuming more calories (about 168 more calories per day for men and 335 more calories per day for women between 1971 and 2000). In addition, since 1980, there have been increases in portion sizes, eating out, and soft drink intake.
It would require a great deal of physical activity to burn off the calories in many popular restaurant foods and meals.
|
|
|||||||||||||
