Health Education: menu labeling.

Labeling Rules ~ The FDA has us all in limbo

Any day now, or more likely, sometime in 2014, the FDA will release the final rule for the national nutrition/menu labeling law officially meant to apply to restaurants (sit down and counter chains), vending companies, and similar retail establishments. As of today, the consumer (you and I),  health advocates (myself,  CSPI, the RUDD Center,  many others), the National Restaurant Association, the National Grocers Association, the Association for Convenience and Fuel Retailing, pizza restaurants and other food selling/entertainment venues (e.g., bowling alleys, cinemas) remain unawares and unprepared for what will be required. Of those listed above, the consumer interest groups (and thus a majority of the general public), public health folks and the National Restaurant Association supported the menu labeling law, but the others did not nor did they expect to get caught up in it.  My personal belief is that anyone selling ready to eat, unpackaged food has an obligation to share with the buyer of that food, pertinent nutrition information.  I would include food sold from steam tables in grocery stores, hot dogs and the like sold in convenience stores and items sold from concession stands at bowling alleys, sports arenas and movie theaters. I do think that pizza joints should get some leeway in how they present the information due to the individual, made to order nature of pizza. Once the FDA makes its announcement, retailers will have 6 mos to 1 year to comply.  Then the next battle begins.  Updating the nutrition facts panels on packaged foods. In this case, the concern  (of food companies) is whether the update is going to mandate  labels that imply a foods goodness, e.g., star ratings or multiple traffic lights.

Labeling Rules ~ The FDA has us all in limbo

Any day now, or more likely, sometime in 2014, the FDA will release the final rule for the national nutrition/menu labeling law officially m...

7:49 PM

M&Ms: Labels, Calorie Estimates, and Calories Eaten

This month, researchers Ebneter et al published the results of a study that explored 4 outcomes related to labeling and calorie disclosure.  I am only going to tell you about 2 of the outcomes. One is the amount of calories consumed and the other is the amount of calories the people 'guessed' were in a serving size.  Outcomes 3 and 4 are not a research interest of mine.  For your information, they were 'taste perception' and 'perception of healthiness.'<div>   The study was an experiment that took place outside of a natural setting.  The people involved in the study were all undergraduate female college students attending a Hawaiian university.  I tell you this so you can consider how much you are like the people who were in the study.</div><div>   For the experiment, the researchers placed the women in one of 4 rooms.  Each room had a bowl of uniquely colored M&Ms.  The women were told that they were taking part in a taste test.  A card was set next to each bowl of M&Ms. One card said Low Fat M&Ms and nothing more.  One card said Low Fat M&Ms and one serving (~55 pieces) has 240 calories.  A third card said Regular M&Ms and nothing more and the last card said Regular M&Ms and gave the same calorie information.  (There was no actual difference in the M&Ms).</div><div>   The researchers weighed the bowl before and after each of the 175 women went into a room (one woman at a time per room). They gave the women 15 minutes to do the taste test and then removed the items. When the items were gone, the researchers asked the women to estimate the number of calories in a serving of the M&Ms they had tasted. </div><div>   Here is what they learned. (NOTE: the differences might have been by chance alone, i.e., there was not a statistically significant difference between the numbers).</div><div>   People with a low fat label ate more calories than those in the regular label group. People without a calorie label in the low fat condition guessed the calories per serving lower than 240.  People without a calorie label in the regular label condition guessed the calories too high (more than 240).<div>   I will let you think about that.  My concern is the focus on high and low fat when the problem (in general) is consuming too many calories.  I am especially concerned that people mistakenly think low fat is low calorie AND that people do not know how many calories is low or high.  I believe that this study doesn't support the use of low fat labels as much as it supports the use of a traffic light label.  With a traffic light label we can put a big red circle around the fat grams and the calories.</div><div>    Here is a nutrition facts panel for a bag of M&Ms - I don't think they make 'low fat' ones.  M&Ms are high in fat - but have 3 times as much sugar as fat!</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div>   There are several labels out there, but according to Mars, the maker of M&Ms, a package this size has 240 calories, 10 grams of fat and 30 grams of sugar.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhOM-wDtbCwGbZoKnnq5M6xS2Op9OMRFweUgVLTHlCyuIl29Aoi5v1FuWmocZyF3l_XBilXW7sGR6S22zIh4nczPoppkYCa-vvA3dykPzZPqAwIiUzSD7b6yXYT-Vl8wqkhYdq0hrsTnssX/s1600/M&Ms.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhOM-wDtbCwGbZoKnnq5M6xS2Op9OMRFweUgVLTHlCyuIl29Aoi5v1FuWmocZyF3l_XBilXW7sGR6S22zIh4nczPoppkYCa-vvA3dykPzZPqAwIiUzSD7b6yXYT-Vl8wqkhYdq0hrsTnssX/s1600/M&Ms.JPG" /></a></div><div> </div><div>Here is the study citation.</div><div> <div>Ebneter, D. S., Latner, J. D., & Nigg, C. R. (2013). Is less always more? The effects of low-fat labeling and caloric information on food intake, calorie estimates, taste preference, and health attributions. Appetite, 68(0), 92-97. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2013.04.023</div></div></div>

M&Ms: Labels, Calorie Estimates, and Calories Eaten

This month, researchers Ebneter et al published the results of a study that explored 4 outcomes related to labeling and calorie disclosur...

7:32 PM

Is the veggie burger a better choice?

The answer is "it depends on your goal."    If you are at a quick service restaurant, like Burger King, and you want to eat healthier, you might consider ordering a veggie burger.  Burger King is now offering a Morning Star Farms Veggie Burger as indicated in the coupon book I received in the mail today.    I eat vegetarian burgers on a regular basis, so I knew that not all  burgers are the same. It was time to investigate.    Using the Burger King full nutritional menu - which you can see <a href="http://www.bk.com/cms/en/us/cms_out/digital_assets/files/pages/MenuNutritionInformation_April2013_1.pdf" target="_blank">here</a>, I learned that the Veggie Burger is not always the best choice.  I specifically focused on calories, saturated fat, and sodium.  Out of curiosity, I checked the protein amount.  It is generally accepted that Americans do not lack protein, and that they get too much of the other three things. Goal One: To go meatless.  100% achieved with the Veggie Burger. Goal Two: To get lower saturated fat.  Most of the time. Goal Three: To get the least sodium/salt.  About 1/2 the time. Goal Four:  To get the least calories.  Not a guarantee! I compared the Veggie Burger to the Whopper Jr, the Double Cheeseburger, and the Tender-grill Chicken Sandwich. (SFA stands for saturated fatty acids or saturated fat) WhJR                   340 cals    5g    SFA     510mg sod    14g protein DblCH                  370 cals    9g    SFA     720mg sod    22g protein Chick(no mayo)   400 cals    2g    SFA    1260mg sod   31g protein Veggie                  410 cals    2.5g SFA      960mg sod   21g protein    In this case, the whopper jr looks the best for red meat eaters.  The chicken has the least grams of saturated fat but look at the sodium content!  Notice that I listed the chicken without mayo.  The calories go up significantly when you add mayo.  In fact, the nutrition menu lists a couple of sandwiches with and without the mayo and the differences are quite shocking. The Whopper goes from 630 calories down to 470 if you hold the mayo, the Double Whopper goes from 830 down to 670 and even the Veggie Burger drops 90 calories down to 320 if you hold the mayo.  I would STRONGLY consider how much that mayo matters.  You could eat a whole apple instead of that dollop of mayo! Another thing, most of the salads on the menu have at least 500 calories and as many as 7 to 10 grams of saturated fat. I learned all this from the online menu.  The National Menu Labeling Law will not require this level of detail inside the store. Though the information I provided today comes from Burger King, the offerings at similar quick service restaurants might be equally as complex.

Is the veggie burger a better choice?

The answer is "it depends on your goal." If you are at a quick service restaurant, like Burger King, and you want to eat health...

7:38 PM

Health Education

Labeling Rules ~ The FDA has us all in limbo

M&Ms: Labels, Calorie Estimates, and Calories Eaten

Is the veggie burger a better choice?

Popular Posts

Blog Archive