Big Food and Soda Versus Public Health: Industry Litigation Against Local Government Regulations to Promote Healthy Diets

Diets high in fats, sugars, and sodium are contributing to alarming levels of obesity, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and certain cancers throughout the United States. Sugary drinks, which include beverages that contain added caloric sweeteners such as flavored milks, fruit drinks, sports drinks, and sodas, are the largest source of added sugar in the American diet and an important causative factor for obesity and other diet-related diseases. City and county governments have emerged as key innovators to promote healthier diets, adopting menu labeling laws to facilitate informed choices and soda taxes, warnings labels, and a soda portion cap to discourage consumption. These measures raise tension between the public health promotion and the food and beverage industry’s interests in maximizing profits. This article analyzes the food and beverage industry’s efforts to undermine local government nutrition promotion measures, including lobbying, funding scientific research, public messaging, and litigation. It examines four case studies (New York City’s soda portion cap, San Francisco’s soda warnings ordinance, and soda taxes in Philadelphia and Cook County), and distills steps that local governments can take to address industry opposition and help ensure the legal viability and political sustainability of key public health interventions

The effect of menu labeling with calories and exercise equivalents on food selection and consumption

Background Better techniques are needed to help consumers make lower calorie food choices. This pilot study examined the effect of menu labeling with caloric information and exercise equivalents (EE) on food selection. Participants, 62 females, ages 18-34, recruited for this study, ordered a fast food meal with menus that contained the names of the food (Lunch 1 (L1), control meal). One week later (Lunch 2 (L2), experiment meal), participants ordered a meal from one of three menus with the same items as the previous week: no calorie information, calorie information only, or calorie information and EE. Results There were no absolute differences between groups in calories ordered from L1 to L2. However, it is noteworthy that calorie only and calorie plus exercise equivalents ordered about 16% (206 kcal) and 14% (162 kcal) fewer calories from Lunch 1 to Lunch 2, respectively; whereas, the no information group ordered only 2% (25 kcal) fewer. Conclusions Menu labeling alone may be insufficient to reduce calories; however, further research is needed in finding the most effective ways of presenting the menu labels for general public

Think before you eat: Calories and exercise equivalents presented on menus at point-of-choice

Although calorie information at the point-of-purchase at fast food restaurants is proposed as a method to decrease calorie choices and combat obesity, research results have been mixed. Much of the supportive research has weak methodology, and is limited. There is a demonstrated need to develop better techniques to assist consumers to make lower calorie food choices. Eating at fast food restaurants has been positively associated with weight gain. The current study explored the possibility of adding exercise equivalents (EE) (physical activity required to burn off the calories in the food), along with calorie information as a possible way to facilitate lower calorie choice at the point-of-choice in fast food restaurants. This three-group experimental study, in 18-34 year old, overweight and obese women, examines whether presenting caloric information in the form of EE at the point-of-choice at fast food restaurants, will lead to lower calorie food choices compared to presenting simple caloric information or no information at all. Methods. A randomized repeated measures experiment was conducted. Participants ordered a fast food meal from Burger King with menus that contained only the names of the food choices (Lunch 1). One week later (Lunch 2), study participants were given one of three menus that varied: no information, calorie information, or calorie information and EE. Study participants included 62 college aged students. Additionally, the study controlled for dietary restraint by blocking participants, before randomization, to the three groups. Results. A repeated measures analysis of variance was conducted. The study was not sufficiently powered, and while the study was designed to determine large effect sizes, a small effect size of .026, was determined. No significant differences were found in the foods ordered among the various menu conditions. Conclusion. Menu labeling alone might not be enough to reduce calories at the point-of-choice at restaurants. Additional research is necessary to determine if calorie information and EE at the point-of-choice would lead to fewer calories chosen at a meal. Studies should also look at long-term, repeated exposure to determine the effectiveness of calories and or EE at the point-of-choice at fast food restaurants