Why We Shouldn't Ditch Calorie Labeling

More

On Wednesday, Megan McArdle noted the failure of calorie labeling in NYC to reduce calorie intake according to new survey. Nestle from the Atlantic Food Channel has a different take.

So the New York Times ran a story about early research on the impact of New York City's calorie labeling postings by fast food restaurants. The research, done by some of my New York University colleagues, looked at what customers said they were doing and compared what they said to what they actually did. Oops. Customers said the labeling made them choose foods more carefully but they actually bought more calories.

So, should we give up on this idea? No way.


These are preliminary results looking at what happened during the first few weeks of calorie labeling in fast food places in low-income areas of New York City. In such areas, restaurant choices are few, cheap food is a necessity, and people go to fast food places precisely because they can get lots of calories at low cost.

I can think of several excellent reasons for calorie labeling, none of them addressed by this particular study and all of them supported by considerable observational evidence:

• People do not understand calories very well; calorie labeling can begin the education process especially if accompanied by materials explaining that most people require about 2,000 calories a day.

• Some people--not all, of course--will change their behavior and choose lower calorie items when they realize how many calories are in fast food.

• Fast food places will reduce the number of calories in the items they serve.

This last one may be the most important. Just as labeling the amount of trans fat in processed foods caused food manufacturers to eliminate trans fats from their products, so fast food sellers are looking for ways to reduce the calories in their products. This is already happening and is the easiest way I can think of to encourage people to eat less: don't serve as much.

Jump to comments
Presented by

Marion Nestle is a professor in the Department of Nutrition, Food Studies, and Public Health at New York University. She is the author of Food Politics, Safe Food, What to Eat, and Pet Food Politics. More

Nestle also holds appointments as Professor of Sociology at NYU and Visiting Professor of Nutritional Sciences at Cornell. She is the author of three prize-winning books: Food Politics: How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition and Health (revised edition, 2007), Safe Food: The Politics of Food Safety (2003), and What to Eat (2006). Her most recent book is Feed Your Pet Right: The Authoritative Guide to Feeding Your Dog and Cat. She writes the Food Matters column for The San Francisco Chronicle and blogs almost daily at Food Politics.

Get Today's Top Stories in Your Inbox (preview)

Wine Is Healthy—Isn't It? It Is—No?

James Hamblin prepares to impress his date with knowledge about the health benefits of wine.


Elsewhere on the web

Join the Discussion

After you comment, click Post. If you’re not already logged in you will be asked to log in or register. blog comments powered by Disqus

Video

Is Trading Stocks for Suckers?

If you think you’re smarter than the stock market, you’re probably either cheating or wrong

Video

I Spent Half My Life Making a Video Game

How a childhood hobby became a labor of love

Video

The Roughest, Toughest Race in the World

"Sixty hours. No sleep. Constant climbing and descending. You're out there by yourself. All day and night."

Video

The Gem of the Pacific Northwest

A short film explores the relationship between the Oregon coast and the people who call it home.

Video

Single-Tasking Is the New Multitasking

Trying to do too many internet things at once makes it hard to get anything done at all.

 

Video

New Zealand in HD

The country's diverse landscapes, seen in dreamy time-lapse footage

Writers

Up
Down

More in Business

From This Author

Just In