It seems that the deeper I get into my paper, the one I am writing for no real reason except that I think that it will help me accomplish some of my goals - oh that is a good reason, isn't it? Well, I am nearing the end, but realize that I need to become more familiar with one of the reports that has been released regarding front of pack labeling in this country.
I did want to tell you these two things so that you know where "we" are with regard to menu/vending labeling and package front signposting, or FOP labeling.
I may have said this already, but in regards to menu and vending machine calorie content disclosure mandated by the Affordable Care Act, the FDA will continue to take comments and expects to have a final rule for the establishments/operators by the end of this year. Once they have the final rule(guidance) in place, the restaurants will have six months to comply. The vending machine companies will have one year. The rule will say, among other things, what has to be on the signs; just calories, or other nutrient info as well.
The front of pack initiative is being driven by a congressional directive as well. At this time, the Institute of Medicine is completing Phase II of their two phase task. The report from Phase I has been published. That is the report I need to spend more time reviewing as it does come with a number of "conclusions." Those conclusions regard whether it makes sense to have a FOP standard, what should be included in the symbol, who the label should be for, and such. In Phase II the different types of sign posts and the working criteria the IOM has in place will be tested with consumers. Part of the initiative involves consumer ease of use, preference and comprehension of the new labeling . In fact, the letter that the director of Office of Nutrition, Labeling and Dietary Supplements sent to food providers is available here.
I called the IOM this week and they assured me that NO one was going to be privy to early results or leanings on which symbol they'd recommend (i.e. the multiple traffic light), but that the report on this research and recommendations to go forward should come out this fall.
Today I had a very productive meeting with the university vending machine contract director (head honcho) and we are a go for some type of machine initiative on campus that is related to informed eating. I am very jazzed about this :)
Showing posts with label labeling laws. Show all posts
Showing posts with label labeling laws. Show all posts
Thursday, June 2, 2011
Monday, May 30, 2011
Estimating Calories
Burton, S., Creyer, E. H., Kees, J., & Huggins, K. (2006). Attacking the obesity epidemic: the potential health benefits of providing nutrition information in restaurants. American Journal of Public Health, 96(9), 1669-1675.
This post refers to one of the studies I read in preparing my project ideas for a labeling initiative both on and off campus. I like this article because the researchers asked a large group of people to estimate the amount of calories and fats in certain restaurant meals for which the scientists had the actual real values. (the people who participated were at least high school educated (97%) and 60% female, with half above age 39 and half below.
The participants were given a description of the item and the serving size, as if they were reading a menu. The researchers had two studies going on, but in this first one, there were 193 people. There were ten food items for them to assess and five of them were considered less healthy than the other four, with a sixth being extremely unhealthy (re: amount of fat and cals). The hypothesis (or assumption) was that the persons would guess closer to the truth with the healthier items. That was in large part true, but the group overwhelmingly (90%) underestimated all the items' calories and fat grams. The average amount of calories by which they erred was 642 and they were off by 44 grams on the fat content. The average healthy meal had 543 calories and the subjects guessed 500. The five less healthy items had an average of 1336 cals and 76 grams of fat (OH MY) and the group incorrectly guessed that those meals had 694 calories and 32 fat grams. The worst item - cheese fries with ranch dressing - had an actual calorie count of 3010 - yes three thousand calories and 217 grams of fat. Thus - it is important to provide calorie information at the point of purchase. It may indeed change a customer's mind - leading to a possible decrease in average caloric intake for Americans. At the same time, people providing those meals may very well shudder at having to put a little food tag next to a dish that says it has over 100g of fat and SO, they will revise the recipe!
The second part of the study was to compare purchasing intent, perceptions of weight gain and risk of heart disease based on the information provided. So three groups were involved. One group only got the description of the food, another received the description and calorie info while the third received calorie and fat and salt info. The researchers looked at the perception of weight gain for instance if a person was just given a description of a burger, compared to someone who also learned that the burger had 600 calories, compared to someone who knew it had 600 calories and 45 g of fat. Same scenario with heart disease, and similarly with intent to purchase. Does the information change anything?
Want to know what happened? You can view the abstract and the figure showing the change associated with the information here. Succinctly, calorie information alone is sufficient to change behavior - and this is all that the new law requires.
This post refers to one of the studies I read in preparing my project ideas for a labeling initiative both on and off campus. I like this article because the researchers asked a large group of people to estimate the amount of calories and fats in certain restaurant meals for which the scientists had the actual real values. (the people who participated were at least high school educated (97%) and 60% female, with half above age 39 and half below.
The participants were given a description of the item and the serving size, as if they were reading a menu. The researchers had two studies going on, but in this first one, there were 193 people. There were ten food items for them to assess and five of them were considered less healthy than the other four, with a sixth being extremely unhealthy (re: amount of fat and cals). The hypothesis (or assumption) was that the persons would guess closer to the truth with the healthier items. That was in large part true, but the group overwhelmingly (90%) underestimated all the items' calories and fat grams. The average amount of calories by which they erred was 642 and they were off by 44 grams on the fat content. The average healthy meal had 543 calories and the subjects guessed 500. The five less healthy items had an average of 1336 cals and 76 grams of fat (OH MY) and the group incorrectly guessed that those meals had 694 calories and 32 fat grams. The worst item - cheese fries with ranch dressing - had an actual calorie count of 3010 - yes three thousand calories and 217 grams of fat. Thus - it is important to provide calorie information at the point of purchase. It may indeed change a customer's mind - leading to a possible decrease in average caloric intake for Americans. At the same time, people providing those meals may very well shudder at having to put a little food tag next to a dish that says it has over 100g of fat and SO, they will revise the recipe!
The second part of the study was to compare purchasing intent, perceptions of weight gain and risk of heart disease based on the information provided. So three groups were involved. One group only got the description of the food, another received the description and calorie info while the third received calorie and fat and salt info. The researchers looked at the perception of weight gain for instance if a person was just given a description of a burger, compared to someone who also learned that the burger had 600 calories, compared to someone who knew it had 600 calories and 45 g of fat. Same scenario with heart disease, and similarly with intent to purchase. Does the information change anything?
Want to know what happened? You can view the abstract and the figure showing the change associated with the information here. Succinctly, calorie information alone is sufficient to change behavior - and this is all that the new law requires.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)