Search

Background: Calorie labeling is mandated in restaurant chains with ≥20 locations nationwide, but the effect of labeling on the nutritional quality of purchased meals in fast-food settings is unclear, especially for adolescents and children., Objective: To estimate the effect of calorie menu labeling on the nutrient content and composition of fast-food meal purchases in McDonald's restaurants vs control restaurants., Design: From 2010 to 2014, customers were sampled during repeated visits to McDonald's restaurants, which voluntarily labeled menus with calorie information in 2012, and 5 control fast-food restaurant chains that had not labeled their menus over the study period., Participants/setting: Restaurant receipts and questionnaires were collected from 2883 adults, 2131 adolescents, and 433 children in 4 New England cities., Main Outcome Measures: Saturated fat, sugar, sodium, and fiber content of purchased meals, as well as nutrient densities (ie, nutrient content adjusted for total calories), were calculated after linking purchases to nutrition data from restaurant websites., Statistical Analyses: Difference-in-differences analyses and linear mixed models were used to examine whether calorie labeling in McDonald's was associated with changes in nutrient content and nutrient density of purchased meals separately in adults, adolescents, and children., Results: After implementation of calorie labeling at McDonald's, adult meals contained on average 4.0% fewer calories from sugar (95% confidence interval: -7.5 to -0.5), but 1.8% more calories from saturated fat (95% confidence interval: 0.7 to 2.9) compared with control chains. The fiber content of children's purchased meals was lower at McDonald's after calorie labeling (change = -1.4 g, 95% confidence interval: -2.5 to -0.3). Calorie labeling was not associated with changes in nutrient quality of adolescent meals., Conclusions: Calorie labeling at McDonald's was associated with a possibly small positive change in the nutritional quality of meals in adults but not in adolescents or children. Efforts are needed to improve the nutritional quality of restaurant meals., (Copyright © 2020 Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To understand price incentives to upsize combination meals at fast-food restaurants by comparing the calories (i.e. kilocalories; 1 kcal = 4·184 kJ) per dollar of default combination meals (as advertised on the menu) with a higher-calorie version (created using realistic consumer additions and portion-size changes)., Design: Combination meals (lunch/dinner: n 258, breakfast: n 68, children's: n 34) and their prices were identified from online menus; corresponding nutrition information for each menu item was obtained from a restaurant nutrition database (MenuStat). Linear models were used to examine the difference in total calories per dollar between default and higher-calorie combination meals, overall and by restaurant., Setting: Ten large fast-food chain restaurants located in the fifteen most populous US cities in 2017-2018., Participants: None., Results: There were significantly more calories per dollar in higher-calorie v. default combination meals for lunch/dinner (default: 577 kJ (138 kcal)/dollar, higher-calorie: 707 kJ (169 kcal)/dollar, difference: 130 kJ (31 kcal)/dollar, P < 0·001) and breakfast (default: 536 kJ (128 kcal)/dollar, higher-calorie: 607 kJ (145 kcal)/dollar, difference: 71 kJ (17 kcal)/dollar, P = 0·009). Results for children's meals were in the same direction but were not statistically significant (default: 536 kJ (128 kcal)/dollar, higher-calorie: 741 kJ (177 kcal)/dollar, difference: 205 kJ (49 kcal)/dollar, P = 0·053). Across restaurants, the percentage change in calories per dollar for higher-calorie v. default combination meals ranged from 0·1 % (Dunkin' Donuts) to 55·0 % (Subway)., Conclusions: Higher-calorie combination meals in fast-food restaurants offer significantly more calories per dollar compared with default combination meals, suggesting there is a strong financial incentive for consumers to 'upsize' their orders. Future research should test price incentives for lower-calorie options to promote healthier restaurant choices.

Introduction: The nutrient profile of combination meals in large chain restaurants is not well understood., Methods: Combination meals from 34 U.S. fast food and fast casual restaurants (lunch/dinner, n=1,113; breakfast, n=366) were identified from online menus in 2017-2018 and corresponding nutrition information for each menu item was obtained from a restaurant nutrition database (MenuStat). Three options for each combination meal were analyzed: (1) default (as advertised on menu), (2) minimum (low-calorie option), and (3) maximum (high-calorie option). In 2018, meal nutrient composition was compared with the Healthier Restaurant Meal Guidelines, and linear models examined to what extent each meal component (entrée, side, beverage) drove differences in nutrients across meal options., Results: There was substantial variation across the default, minimum, and maximum options of lunch/dinner combination meals for calories (default,: 1,193 kilocalories;, minimum,: 767 kilocalories;, maximum,: 1,685 kilocalories), saturated fat (14 g, 11 g, 19 g), sodium (2,110 mg, 1,783 mg, 2,823 mg), and sugar (68 g, 10 g, 117 g). Most default meals exceeded the Healthier Restaurant Meal Guidelines for calories (97%) and sodium (99%); fewer exceeded the standards for saturated fat (50%) and total sugar (6%). Comparing the maximum and default lunch/dinner combination meals, beverages were the largest driver of differences in calories (178 kilocalories, 36% of difference) and sugar (46 g, 93% of difference), and entrées were the largest driver of differences in saturated fat (3 g, 59% of difference) and sodium (371 g, 52% of difference). Results were similar for breakfast meals., Conclusions: Combination meals offered by large U.S. chain restaurants are high in calories, sodium, saturated fat, and sugar, with most default meals exceeding recommended limits for calories and sodium., (Copyright © 2019 American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Ultra-processed foods are industrially formulated products that are convenient, highly-palatable, and contain few whole ingredients. While popular among US households regardless of SES, these foods constitute a relatively large proportion of grocery spending among low-income households participating in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Little is understood about the perceived factors influencing selection and consumption of these foods, particularly among households with children participating in SNAP. We conducted 5 focus groups with 45 parents of children under 18 years of age living in a low-income area of a Northeastern state. We conducted inductive-deductive thematic analysis to identify emergent themes and to identify similarities and differences by self-reported SNAP participation. Six themes related to ultra-processed food decision-making emerged, which were grouped into primarily rational or primarily intuitive processes. Rational decisions included concerns about the product's healthfulness, environmental sustainability, and desirable traits, which were each weighed against product cost when deciding between similar products. Intuitive themes included retailer marketing, household norms, and individual affective biases. The family social and emotional context and parenting practices were identified as important influences on preparation and consumption of ultra-processed foods. Differences between SNAP participants and non-participants emerged. SNAP participants selected ultra-processed foods because of their familiarity and long shelf-life -- attributes that mitigated fear of wasting money on foods that may be rejected by children or spoil quickly. Some SNAP participants purchased ultra-processed foods at the beginning of the monthly benefit cycle and stored them in anticipation of food scarcity at the end of the month. These findings underscore the distinct role of ultra-processed foods in meal planning and budgeting and the importance of rational considerations that particularly affect food choices of households participating in SNAP., (Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Introduction: Consuming too much sodium is associated with increased risk for cardiovascular disease, and restaurant foods are a primary source of sodium. This study assessed recent trends in sodium content of menu items in U.S. chain restaurants., Methods: Data from 21,557 menu items in 66 top-earning chain restaurants available from 2012 to 2016 were obtained from the MenuStat project and analyzed in 2017. Generalized linear models were used to examine changes in calorie-adjusted, per-item sodium content of menu items offered in all years (2012-2016) and items offered in 2012 only compared with items newly introduced in 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016., Results: Overall, calorie-adjusted sodium content in newly introduced menu items declined by 104 mg from 2012 to 2016 (p<0.02). However, the magnitude and direction of these changes varied by menu category and restaurant type; sodium content, particularly for main course items, was high. Sodium declined by 83 mg in fast food restaurants, 19 mg in fast casual restaurants, and 163 mg in full service restaurants. Sodium in appetizer and side items newly introduced in 2016 increased by 266 mg compared with items on the menu in 2012 only (p<0.01). Sodium in main courses newly introduced in 2016 declined by 124 mg compared with items on the menu in 2012 only (p=0.01), with the greatest decline, 207 mg (p=0.03), among salads., Conclusions: Average, adjusted, per-item sodium content was lower in newly introduced items in large chain restaurants. However, sodium content of core and new menu items remain high, and reductions are inconsistent across menu categories and restaurant types., (Copyright © 2018 American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Restaurants are key venues for reducing sodium intake in the U.S. but little is known about consumer perceptions of sodium in restaurant foods. This study quantifies the difference between estimated and actual sodium content of restaurant meals and examines predictors of underestimation in adult and adolescent diners at fast food restaurants. In 2013 and 2014, meal receipts and questionnaires were collected from adults and adolescents dining at six restaurant chains in four New England cities. The sample included 993 adults surveyed during 229 dinnertime visits to 44 restaurants and 794 adolescents surveyed during 298 visits to 49 restaurants after school or at lunchtime. Diners were asked to estimate the amount of sodium (mg) in the meal they had just purchased. Sodium estimates were compared with actual sodium in the meal, calculated by matching all items that the respondent purchased for personal consumption to sodium information on chain restaurant websites. Mean (SD) actual sodium (mg) content of meals was 1292 (970) for adults and 1128 (891) for adolescents. One-quarter of diners (176 (23%) adults, 155 (25%) adolescents) were unable or unwilling to provide estimates of the sodium content of their meals. Of those who provided estimates, 90% of adults and 88% of adolescents underestimated sodium in their meals, with adults underestimating sodium by a mean (SD) of 1013 mg (1,055) and adolescents underestimating by 876 mg (1,021). Respondents underestimated sodium content more for meals with greater sodium content. Education about sodium at point-of-purchase, such as provision of sodium information on restaurant menu boards, may help correct consumer underestimation, particularly for meals of high sodium content., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)