Fast Food Sales Not Affected By Calorie Labels

Online, March 8, 2011 (Newswire.com) - According to an article in USA today people in low income neighborhoods are not too concerned with the caloric content of fast food.

A new study actually shows that calorie labels do not affect the food choices by people in a certain demographic. It would seem that although the information makes people more aware what foods actually contain it's not stopping them eating fast food.

It could be because eating healthy is not cheap. The best quality food is not easily accessible in certain areas and fast food restaurants are everywhere making them the easy choice. Even the threat of obesity does not affect the popularity of these restaurants.

Here are a few snippets from the actual article:

Calorie labeling in fast-food restaurants has no effect on the food purchases of parents or teens in low-income neighborhoods, according to a new study published in the International Journal of Obesity.

The study, led by Brian Elbel, assistant professor of medicine and health policy at New York University School of Medicine, shows that although calorie labels do increase awareness of calories, they do not necessarily influence food choices or the number of calories consumed.

The study surveyed customers and collected their purchase receipts at four major fast-food chains (Wendy's, Burger King, McDonald's and Kentucky Fried Chicken) in July 2008, before New York City's implementation of a new calorie labeling regulation, and again at the same locations one month after labeling began.

Both sets of samples were taken from low-income areas of the city, including East Harlem, South Bronx and Central Brooklyn; a control group sample was taken from Newark, an area with similar demographics and an urban setting.

Elbel says he assessed low-income neighborhoods because they tend to be of more fragile health and at higher risk for obesity, and they tend to be surrounded by higher concentrations of fast-food restaurants without other, more healthful food options.

"You'd like to see the effects of labeling on these at-risk groups, but it also makes it harder to see an impact on these groups because they're also choosing based on availability and price of food," not necessarily nutritional value, he says.

The 349 participants were children and adolescents ages 17 and under who visited the restaurants with their parents (69%) or alone (31%). About three-fourths of participants were from New York City, and 90% were from racial or ethnic minority groups. Adolescents who visited with parents tended to be younger and were not surveyed; instead, the parents completed the interviews.

The study shows that just over half of adolescents and adults noticed the calorie counts after labeling began in New York, but only 9% of adolescents and 16% of adults who saw the information said it mattered to them.

"Both populations are seeing it, but it's not translating into a change," Elbel says.

People purchased the same amount of calories before labeling began and after, the study shows; for adolescents, it was about 725 calories, and for adults, about 600 calories. Elbel says adolescents who were alone tended to buy more food than parents bought for their children.

In the choice of food for teens, habit, access, price and location matter some, but "taste is the most important factor," Elbel says. He also looked at how parents worked with their children to make fast-food choices.

In deciding what the children would eat, 57% of parents chose for their children, 31% let the child choose, and 6% said they chose together. Elbel says parents who chose for their children did not choose fewer calories than when the children were allowed to choose.

Read more: usatoday.com

Recently there was a bill in Los Angeles that aimed at regulating how many fast food restaurants were allowed in low income neighborhoods. Although on the face this seems like a good idea it does not solve the problem of providing healthy alternatives in the inner city.

If you're going to prevent a certain kind of establishment then their should be provisions to attract the alternatives, and this did not exist in this bill. It's one thing to advise people that they need to make healthy choices but if there's nothing to choose from what are people to do?

Share your thoughts on facebook.