Minimal effect of NYC nutrition labels in restaurants

[enbell]

Today NPR's marketplace reviewed the legislation mandating nutrition labels be posted in chain restaurants. Not only has this not affected diner behavior, but some other strategies were suggested.
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/di...

[chowser]

What is the cost to a small chain to figure out the nutritional value of a new menu item? If they're going to add a menu item, the cost of the nutritional information isn't much more. Figuring out nutritional information is as simple as entering the recipe at allrecipes.com. I'm not buying the additional $200,000 for every addition, mentioned above. Available means they have to photocopy a few sheets of paper w/ the new additions if a customer asks.

[soupkitten]

people need to understand that there will be fewer accommodations to dietary needs, fewer substitutions, fewer trend items, fewer specials. gluten free items? nope. vegetarian and vegan items? not worth the extra paperwork. the "kosher subway" phenomenon? may as well forget that.

[rworange]

Based on what data exactly? Do you have proof in the last year ... or however this has been in effect in NYC that one thing changed in terms of restaurants accomodating those things?

If I had to take a wild guess I would say it would go in the opposite direction in favor of egans and vegetarians. Even Burger King is putting out apple fries which are basically just fresh apple sticks sliced like fries. .

[chowser]

If I buy a food item in a store that needs to be made at home, it might have "as directed" or "without additional ingredients" nutritional information but it doesn't include every possibility I might do with it. It's just a jumping off point as with restaurant menus.

[JohnE O]

Another "hidden until passed" effect of the health care bill is the requirement of businesses to issue 1099 tax forms to any individual or corporation from which they buy more than $600 in goods or services in a tax year. Yet another expense for restaurants to pass on to consumers. I'm feeling healthier already.

[Caitlin McGrath]

I'm unsure how that is a change from the existing tax code, which already requires a 1099 for contracted services of more than $600 in a calendar year. I'm no expert on the tax code, mind you, but as someone who is paid on a freelance or contract basis, I know that's an existing requirement.

[tpigeon]

Bill reads both goods and services over $600 to all types of corporate entities. Meaning that if you buy over $600 at apple you have to send them a 1099 now. This is how the law is written, how it will be enforced, who knows. Have fun everyone.

[Emmmily]

It may not affect the choices of most consumers - this isn't the first article I've seen making that point - but it's sure affected me. I used to order the occasional pumpkin bread or cookie at Starbucks, but ever since they started posting the calorie counts - I'll stick to just the tea, thanks.

[mpjmph]

Labels don't work in a vacuum. Individual motivation to change eating habits is a large factor in the imact of labels. If you're already concerened with your diet then labeling is incredibly valuable when making decisions. For those who aren't concerened, then labeling isn't important, and isn't likely to change behavior. Making nutriton information available for restaurant food is one component of a much larger public health effort, and as other public health programs motivate people to change their health behaviors, more people will seek out and use the nutrition information.

[Emmmily]

Agreed. I can't speak to the business owner side of things, but as a consumer - and an eater - I like to know what I'm eating, and if there's a sign in front of the banana bread saying 450 calories, I'm probably not going to eat it. But you're right, that's because I personally care about those things, and I've got bigger & better plans for those 450 calories. Someone else with other priorities/interests may well make a different decision (which they must be doing - NYC Starbucks still sell the baked goods, so enough someones must still be buying them), as may I under different circumstances - there are times when I want that bacon cheeseburger, calories be damned. But for those of us who do care, the labeling is much appreciated.

[MakingSense]

No one has argued that calorie or nutritional labeling isn't a nice thing that some might find useful.
The issue is whether it's worth imposing an additional regulatory burden on small businesses.
Ordinary people know that a muffin or banana bread would have more calories than a banana - or nothing at all. They don't need to be told to skip it or make a better choice if they're watching calories.
We're talking "cost-benefit analysis." Whether there are enough people who care about the labels, care that something has 300 calories as opposed to 350, or will be dissuaded from eating something simply because of a label. Is the cost to business worth the benefits from the marginal impact of the regulation?
This might have minimal effect on a large chain like Starbucks where food is prepared from standardized recipes in large commissaries and labels can be printed by the hundreds of thousands. To small businesses, the impact is enormous.

[tpigeon]

I have a better idea. It seems from reading the article on why detailed nutritional content is not effective is apparently people are not educated enough to know what the detailed nutritional content means. Therefore, mandatory detailed nutritional information is not the optimal strategy.

My friends, we are all discriminating against the poor nutritionally uneducated people by putting detailed health information on food items, giving those with that education and who can read english an unfair advantage*.

This cannot be tolerated in today's society as it is not the Politically Correct thing to do. The concept of nutritional information on food items is the manifestation of evil social darwinisim at work which actively promotes killing off those that are not educated as well as those who cannot read english.

I propose a much more simple, effective solution that is fair to everyone. Put a skull and crossbones by any menu item that can possibly be considered unhealthy in any way.

This will absolutely and efficiently communicate to everyone, no matter how educated they are about nutrition or what language they can read, what to stay away from.

The skull and crossbones has been an international symbol for poison for over 100 years. We are all conditioned to avoid the skull and crossbones symbol like the plague.

This will also save small businesses money because all they need to do to is to put a skull and crossbones by every menu item. No needless calculations necessary. No worries about compliance costs or lawsuits/fines/insurance over menu innacuracies, and most importantly, people will avoid unhealthy items as they have been conditioned to avoid poisons for over 100 years and we will all eat better, for a better and safer world.

Just think about it. You may be craving that delicious cookie at levain bakery right now -- nothing like a skull and x-bones to cure you of that.

This also allows us great flexibility. We can even give the option for food service companies to comply creatively by incorporating the skull and crossbones design into their plating as an option (e.g. skull and crossbones frosting in cupcakes).

Problem solved. You can thank me later for saving eveyones lives and making universal healthcare more affordable for everyone.

*Unless we post nutritional information in every language

[MakingSense]

LOL. Great idea!

Of course a variation on the Skull and Crossbones idea has already been tried by Dangerously Delicious Pies of Baltimore and Washington DC when they designed their logo. http://www.dangerouspies.com/
Hasn't stopped anybody from lining up at the Pie Shop. Including me!
if this is "poison," what a way to go!!

[Shrinkrap]

Agreed! Have you seen the numbers at Jamba Juice? My poor kids know ALL about it!

[MakingSense]

What relevance would such a niche product have to the larger market? Those who consume Jamba Juice are not the targets of this type of legislation.
The nannies think that labeling will dissuade others from eating foods they don't approve of.

[JohnE O]

It's not just a NYC law, it's part of the new health care bill. The problem with this law is the unintended consequences on small chains. The law applies to any operation with 20 or more locations. I've read about places like Davanni's (22 locations) where complying with the new law will be an initial outlay of $200,000. Any time they want to introduce a new menu item will mean additional expenses to have it analyzed for nutritional content which will lead to fewer new items being introduced. Big chains can eat the cost but it's going to be a big hit to smaller outfits. Dewey's Pizza based in Cincy has been expanding over the past years and now has 18 locations. The new law will likely cap their franchises at 19. This law is just more Nanny State nonsense that's all cost, no benefit.

[small h]

<Any time they want to introduce a new menu item will mean additional expenses to have it analyzed for nutritional content...>

Good. I prefer more information to less, and if that costs money, "small chains" are welcome to pass that cost along to me, the consumer, just as they pass along all their other costs. The examples you give are both pizza places. How hard is it to figure out the nutritional content of a plain pizza and then provide information for each addition to it?

I would define Nanny State as telling me what I can and cannot eat. This particular rule does nothing of the kind.

[JohnE O]

It's nice to see you're affluent enough where the rising cost of food prices don't affect you. Many people are not so lucky.

As for figuring out nutritional content, I believe (but I'm not positive) that the information has to be provided through independent analysis which costs money no matter how simple the menu item. Small chains aren't awash in cash and passing the cost onto consumers is going to be fatal to continued operations especially in a down economy.

The law will have a net effect of limiting menu options due to the imposed additional costs of changing the menu or opening additional locations.

[small h]

I'm not affluent at all. That's why I spend the bulk of my food dollars on groceries to prepare at home, rather than chain restaurant pizza, 'cause I get more bang for the buck that way.

If the only net effect of the law is limiting menu options, I'll suffer the consequences of being able to choose from 15 rather than 30 pizza toppings. I think I can handle it.

[amyzan]

Aren't most of these franchise operations using bought ingredients for their dishes? Why wouldn't the nutritional data from the manufacturer suffice to figure compiled data on a given dish with said ingredients? That's a simple software data entry problem, no independent analysis necessary. (I haven't seen anything in news coverage of the bill that indicates such analysis is required, either.) It's not like they're all making their own sausage or sauce, etc.

The example you give, Davanni's, freezes their pizzas and sells them to groceries, for instance So, don't they already have this data since it's required on that packaging? Daily specials and limited time menu items are exempt, btw. I just don't think the law is all that big a deal for well run businesses. Fast food used to lobby against such legislation vehemently, but not this time. Even they see the writing on the wall.

[MakingSense]

The nanny state does tell you what you "can and cannot eat" if policies and regulations limit options.
If small chains are prevented from adding items or changing items on their menus due to arbitrary rules, and the cost of complying with those rules, consumers have fewer choices.
If small chains can't keep up with consumer demands, they'll fail in the marketplace and be forced out of business, costing jobs and less tax revenue to local, state, and federal governments.
Chain, chain, chain - chain of fools.

[small h]

<The nanny state does tell you what you "can and cannot eat" if policies and regulations limit options.>

Oh, please. Are you suggesting that options be completely unlimited? So that restaurants need not submit to health inspections? Nor pay their workers minimum wage? Both those things make it more expensive to run a business. Shall we abolish those policies and regulations?

[MakingSense]

I didn't say anything of the sort. We were discussing limitations on items on the menu, not health, safety, or labor issues.
There is a place for reasonable regulation. When regulations become needlessly burdensome, the expense of complying with those mandates makes it impossible for businesses to operate profitably. They close.

[small h]

It is one thing to mandate nutrition labels (which is the topic here) and quite another to limit menu items (which is not). I'm in favor of the former and against the latter. Nothing "prevents" restaurants from adding new items except the cost of calculating the nutritional information for the new items. If you think that's an unfair burden to place on restaurants, fine. I don't. I've seen the method employed by Chipotle - they give the base numbers and then have a sort of a la carte system: cheese adds this much, guacamole adds this much, etc. I see no reason that a small chain couldn't do something similar. It's not like the pizza places JohnE O mentions, above, are going to start serving chow mein all of a sudden.

[JohnE O]

You're obfuscating the issue when you constantly refer to "pizza places". I used those 2 as an example, but I can provide you with the names of other restaurant chains that serve more complicated menu items if you need it.

Chipotle is a bad example. They're owned by McDonald's. Large chains have the resources to afford the cost of providing nutritional info. They do it voluntarily because of consumer demand. It's not just the cost of the research, but also the print costs to redo the menu.

Let me ask you a serious question. Let's use the pizza example. If there were 2 restaurants that had identical quality pizza where one store sold a pizza for $12 and provided no nutritional info and the other sold it for $15 and did, which would you frequent? I say the former. If you say the latter, fine. And that's my whole point. It should be up to the free market to decide. It should not be legislated. Sooner or later you're going to get some grandstanding idiot like that NYC legislator who wanted to ban salt.

[roro1831]

Chipotle is no longer owned by McD's, but they are still a large chain.

[small h]

This "free market" of which you speak is a myth. Regulations exist. In addition to the health inspections and minimum wage requirements I already mentioned, restaurants have to devote some of their valuable real estate to rest rooms and handicapped parking spaces. They aren't allowed to serve endangered species. They can't hire 10-year-olds, even though I bet 10-year-olds would work really cheap. And I'm willing to bet that when each of these regulations was introduced, there were folks like you squawking that it would mean the end of everything. It hasn't. It won't this time, either.

[MakingSense]

The "reason that a small chain couldn't do something similar" to what Chipotle does is based on economy of scale. If you're doing something to cover 20 units, your cost per unit is substantially higher than if you're doing it for 20,000 units. Just like you get price breaks for buying in bulk.
The base cost of the nutritional analysis may actually be higher for the small guy because he does not have the resources on staff or retainer, like the big company does. He has to contract with consultants on a one-shot basis.
The small guy's printing costs for new menus are higher because the runs are smaller, and they're usually not done in-house.
Regulatory burdens are a higher percentage of costs for smaller businesses across the board. The market will bear only so great an increase in prices before they lose business.

Consequently, a small business will necessarily have to limit changes to its menu because of the cost of doing so. So this effectively "limits menu items." It can't respond to consumer demands or changes in the marketplace. The business will fall behind its competitors and lose customers.
Catch-22. Either way, the little guy loses. People lose their jobs. The city/state/feds lose the tax revenue that had been generated by the business. So we all lose.

[tpigeon]

well said -- small h likes rules that benefit big companies.

[small h]

small h generally likes rules that benefit consumers. If big companies happen to also benefit, small h is not all that upset. small h realizes that this sets her apart from people who think all big business is bad and all small business is good. small h can live with that.

[small h]

When every small chain the world over has crumbled into dust because of the devastating burden of this unprecedented government intrusion into the freedom - freedom, I tell you! - of the marketplace, I will say: you were right, MakingSense, you were right.

But until then, I stand by my opinion that this legislation simply will not make a whole hell of a lot of difference.

[tpigeon]

Apparently the point of the article is that it does not make a whole hell of a lot of difference to consumers. If it has a cost to implement and no positive effect, why do it?

[small h]

It isn't the case that it has "no positive effect." Look, positive effect, right here:

http://chowhound.chow.com/topics/7064...

[MakingSense]

Small_h, you've already admitted that you have no personal investment in this issue because you cook at home and prefer not to eat at chain restaurants.
As far as I can tell, your opinion that regulation such as this "simply will not make a...difference" is not based on experience as a small business owner or a cost accountant.
You're making suppositions not based on reality.

It's not a question of "freedom" as much as it is an economic driver. If you want less of something, you tax and regulate it into submission. The difference is who gets to pick the winners and losers.
You seem to think that your dislike of certain types of food and businesses justifies the regulators imposing burdens, even though that might deprive others of their livelihoods or their choices in dining options.

The result of these types of regulations is more chains, and fewer independent businesses. That means less creativity, and fewer people with new ideas entering the marketplace. The capital investment required for a start-up becomes prohibitive. Welcome to boring.

[small h]

Whew! It is you. Neither one of us is making suppositions based on reality. We're both making predictions. You foresee disaster. I don't. The legislation does not affect independent restaurants, only chains. So why all the frothing about "fewer independent businesses"?

[MakingSense]

Perhaps because I have owned small businesses over several decades, including bricks-and-mortar ones, with employees, and been subject to the types of regulations that I am referring to directly.
Perhaps because some of my current clients now own multiple locations and might like to expand. These regulations among others could present substantial impediments. That means fewer options for diners, fewer new jobs, and less revenue to local, state, and federal governments.
I'm not predicting the end of the world, only the narrowing of it.
I personally know many entrepreneurs who are reluctant to open new businesses or expand their current ones because of the growing burdens on business.
Why do you think we have a 9.9% unemployment rate, and close to an 18% real unemployment rate? Why is it even higher for those who need "starter jobs" that restaurants and other small businesses traditionally provide?
You don't need a PhD in economics from Harvard to understand this. You simply have to have run a successful hot dog cart.

[small h]

<Why do you think we have a 9.9% unemployment rate, and close to an 18% real unemployment rate? >

Obviously, it's because chain restaurants will, at some point in the future, have to supply nutritional information for the food they serve. I mean, what other explanation could there possibly be? I think we can also blame these onerous regulations for the eruption of the Eyjafjallajokull volcano, the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, and the fact that it was so windy yesterday that one of my tomato plants fell over. This extrapolation thing is loads of fun. Thanks for getting the ball rolling.

[MakingSense]

One regulation rarely causes the house of cards to fall, although it can conceivably be the straw that breaks the camel's back.
The economy is global and interrelated.

Regulations don't cause natural disasters or most accidents, but disasters can cause economic ones that sound the death knell for businesses that have been rendered fragile by regulatory and tax burdens.
The volcano caused massive interruptions in supply chains of perishable goods that caused huge financial losses that led to the failures of some producers, shippers, and vendors of seasonal crops.
The oil spill could affect wetlands and fisheries for several years over a large swath of the Gulf that provides about 40% of America's seafood.
An imprudent political response to it could create an increase in energy prices that would unnecessarily cause food and other prices to rise sharply.
If high winds, hurricanes, floods, late or early frosts, etc, kill commercial crops (beyond your tomato plant,) the entire food supply is affected. Not just domestically, but for our export trade, the balance of payments, the value of the US dollar, etc.
All of these lead to declines in GDP, a greater percentage of our GDP going to debt service, and additional job loss as the economy contracts.

Once the "ball gets rolling," it's hard to stop. Unless you pile more economy-killing regulation on top.

[small h]

Promise me you'll never change, MS! I {heart} you. I really do.

[mpjmph]

The HC reform legislation allows restaurants to use nutrient databases as the basis for calorie counts on menus, so restaurants will not have to spend large sums of money on lab analysis. A small chain could easily hire a temp to spend a few days/weeks looking up nutrition values online and doing the math by hand (or in excel). There are also dozens of recipe software programs that let you build a recipe and calculate nutrition values quickly/easily at relatively low cost. Once the initial calculations are done it should not take much time to figure the nutrition values for the occasional new menu item.

[MakingSense]

Even if restaurants find a way under some complicated exclusion in a huge federal law that has nothing to do with restaurant economics, they would be subject to inspections if someone questioned it and might be cited for violations.
They would also have to pay the cost of reprinting menus and other materials each time they added or changed any item, however insignificant. It could be as minor as a change in vendor. All food products are not created equal.

[tpigeon]

Agreed. What about the costs of insurance/lawsuits that will pop up because of mistakes that were made in these calculations? Compliance/enforcement costs are often vastly underestimated. What about the effect on the environment? Aren't we trying to cut down on carbon footprints?

[mpjmph]

It isn't a complicated exclusion. The labeling regulations are in section 2562 of the bill, though the section is easy to find by bringing up a full text version of the bill online and searching for "label." The acceptable sources of nutrition data are listed in fairly plain language:

"(iv) REASONABLE BASIS- For the purposes of this clause, a restaurant or similar retail food establishment shall have a reasonable basis for its nutrient content disclosures, including nutrient databases, cookbooks, laboratory analyses, and other reasonable means"

As I said before, there are many computer programs available that will calculate nutrition information for recipes. In general, they use nutrition data provided by the FDA. FDA nutrition data is also widely available for free online.

[MakingSense]

For the purposes of what "clause?" And why would a restaurant owner even think of "bringing up the full text version" of a 2100 page bill plus add-ons that is supposed to be about insuring the uninsured and bringing down costs? Hahaha

This is what we mean by "regulatory burdens" enacted by people who have never run businesses. Instead of tending to the operations of the business, owners are required to cope and comply with dozens (sometimes more) of regulations and filing requirements from dozens of agencies and boards. If they can't find the time to do it themselves, they have to pay someone else to do it. If they miss a filing or mess up, God help them. There are penalties and fines, often for simple errors.
Small businesses are drowning in paperwork and regulations.
Why do you think that chains are taking over? The unintended consequence of the nanny state.

[mpjmph]

I would hope that a restaurant owner who hears about a component of the healthcare bill that impacts restaurants has enough sense to want to read the bill. It's 2100 pages, but electronic media makes it remarkably easy to find the right section. Right now we're years away from implementation of this regulation. Which ever agency is ultimately tasked with enforcing this component of the bill will produce a simplified document outlining what is required of restaurants, Until then, yes, I fully expect anyone who is concerned or curious to google, search, and read.

[MakingSense]

You're correct that sooner or later some bureaucrat will dictate to small businesses what they're going to have to do do comply with yet another regulatory burden.
Most of them are well aware of what the ever-increasing volume of these burdens are doing to their ability to function. They simply wait for the details.
That's why their trade associations who are paid to track legislation have consistently opposed them. The US Chamber, National Association of Small Businesses, and various national restaurant groups all oppose these measures, not only their inclusion in the HC bill, but in local, state, and federal legislation. They actively (horror!) lobby against these onerous economic burdens which do little other than harm the economy.
There is no cost-benefit analysis that justifies them.

[tpigeon]

sure, small business owerns don't have enough work to do as is. Lets give them more uneccessary costs and burdens even though it will not change anyones habits one iota.

[JohnE O]

Thanks for the clarification MP. I was going by a report that it would cost a small chain $200,000 to comply. I'm not sure if that includes printing/publication costs. Still, I'm of the opinion that it's better to let the market decide rather than have the burden imposed upon these businesses.

[Caroline1]

I didn't read the whole article, enbell. I jumped in when it was already underway and landed on an "I don't know," and other errr/uhhh remarks so I figured I wasn't up to wading. But I will say this; I think legislation requiring nutrition labels in fast food restaurants is akin to legislating wall paper. My guess is that fewer people will read that information in a fast food restaurant than people who read labels in grocery stores.

On the other hand, it might be very interesting to require it of elite restaurants. LOL! Can you imagine reading the fat content of foie fras, or a rundown on the vitamins, minerals, cholesterol and salt content of a tasting menu? I'd steal that menu for my collection in a heart beat!

[Ruth Lafler]

The difference being that a lot of people eat fast food every day, while almost no one eats a tasting menu as much as once a month.

[rworange]

My thoughts exactly.

Lots of people read labels at the grocery store. I know I certainly do and it has influenced my decision.

Having nutritional info posted for fast food chains is a good idea as well. As comments here and in the actual article mention lots of people use them for health reasons.

Food awareness is a slow process. I didn't start reading all labels all the time. However, I do so more and more and make my choices based on being knowledgable about what I am consuming.

If I have a craving for Burger King, seeing that info may not send me out of the restuarant, but I might get the junior Whooper as opposed to the whatever Whopperlooza promotion they have going. And if I MUST have the Whopperlooza, as other mentioned, I adjust the calories for the rest of the day accordingly.

I am always annoyed when I see ... "for nutrional information call ... or write ... or www. "
Businesses are smart enough to know most people won't do that. Many make the information on their websites so difficult to get to that you give up after a while

I think putting that info front and center not only makes the consumer more aware but puts pressure on the business to have healthier options available.

I'd say it took me about 10 years to catch on and really pay attention to labeling.

It is like putting warning labels on tobacco. It took decades for consumer awareness to take hold ... and a lot more legislation such as first having smoking sections and then banning smoking one place at a time, restaurants, airplanes, offices, etc. etc. Banning advertising on tv and elsewhere helped too.

One year after cigarette labeling, I'm sure a similar type of careless study would not have shown any results.

Food awareness will take similar time, education and legislation.

To draw the conclusion the researcher did from such a narrow study was beyond flawed. It was foolish and irresponsible.