Response to Posts Regarding Menu Labeling

by Jennifer Pomeranz

Labeling of menus is one strategy to address the problems of poor nutrition and overweight and obesity in our country. It is based on the premise that consumers who want to know what is in their food have right to that information. Until menu labeling laws were enacted, consumers had no way to make comparisons of the food they purchased for consumption outside the home. The argument against menu labeling that calorie information is not enough to make proper choices, is an argument for MORE information. The U.S. Constitution favors more not less information to enable consumers to make choices better suited for their needs. The argument that calories alone fail to tell the whole story means that restaurants should be forced to provide more information, such as saturated fat, sugar, and sodium.

No one is arguing that menu labeling alone is sufficient to fix the problem. Governments are allowed and must address problems at several different angles in order to make a dent in the problem. All studies on current food labels show that the majority of consumers look at labels when purchasing new products or if they are interested in controlling a certain aspect of their diet (e.g., someone with high blood pressure looks at sodium and someone trying to lose weight looks at calories). There have been studies on restaurant labeling done in laboratories (because until NYC no place enacted menu labeling laws) that show that people do chose the lower calorie option when presented with calorie counts. And a new study in NYC shows positive results from menu labeling:

In September 2008, Technomics completed a survey (Project Number 13109) on the effectiveness of the New York City menu labeling policy.  The results are quite impressive and show:

• high awareness of the NYC menu labeling policy (80%)
• very positive reaction from the public (86% think ML in NYC is a positive move)
• 84% who have gone to a restaurant with ML, have used the nutrition info
• 84% have been surprised by the calorie counts (the calories are higher than expected)
• 75% think the nutrition info on menus has made an impact on their ordering
• 83% expect more government regulation of nutrition in restaurants in the future

One comment stated that researchers are wasting taxpayer money by enacting menu label laws. Taxpayers are not paying for menu labels. Restaurants pay a minor amount to change their menus. The restaurant industry is the one bringing lawsuits against cities, counties and states who enact menu label laws. If anyone is “wasting” taxpayers’ money it is the restaurant industry who argues for self-control and personal responsibility but then sues to prevent consumers from making choices suitable for their needs. How can someone exercise personal responsibility without the information necessary to make those choices? The industry blames the victim and then fights tooth and nail to keep information out of consumers’ hands.

Speaking of the industry, there are a few reasons menu labeling laws target fast food restaurants. The first is that fast food consumption is associated with a higher intake of calories, saturated fat, carbohydrates and added sugars. [1] Consuming fast-food is positively associated with weight gain, insulin resistance and increased risk for obesity and type two diabetes. [2] One study found that most consumers of fast food visited fast food service establishments two times a week. [3] Because a single meal consumed at a fast food establishment can contain “enough calories to satisfy a person’s caloric requirement for an entire day,” [4] it is reasonable to conclude that menu labels on fast food reaches the purchase of a great many excess calories and can therefore contribute to the reduction of excess body weight. Moreover, quick service restaurants have standardized foods so that calorie and other nutrient calculation is possible.

Innumerable federal and state regulatory programs require the disclosure of product and other commercial information for this purpose. Federal law, for example, requires that textile and wool products must be labeled with their fiber content, country of origin, and the identity of the business responsible for marketing or handling the item. See Textile Fiber Products Identification Act (15 U.S.C. § 70, et seq.) and Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 (15 U.S.C. § 68, et seq.). It requires that for personal property leases that exceed 4 months and that are made to consumers for personal, family, or household purposes, a written disclosure of lease costs, taxes, fees and terms be disclosed; and it also requires certain disclosures be made in the lease advertising. SeeConsumer Leasing Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 1667-1667f, as amended ). It requires that cosmetic products display an information panel which lists ingredients. See 21 CFR 701.3. It requires that packaged food and beverages disclose their ingredients, 21 U.S.C. §343(i), the net weight of their contents, 21 U.S.C. §343(e), and their percentage of alcohol by volume, 27 U.S.C. § 205(e)(2). Foods regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) must be labeled with all ingredients that are derived from the eight most common food allergens  (milk ,eggs, fish, crustacean shellfish, tree nuts, peanuts, wheat, soybeans). See Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act of 2004 (Title II of Public Law 108-282) (August 2, 2004).