The Nutrition Labeling Distraction

Menu labeling might not change the way we eat, but that's only part of the problem.

Pretty soon, we're going to start seeing nutrition labels on restaurant menus. And when T.G.I. Friday's and Applebee's menus start look a little more like their packaged food counterparts, will everyone start making better decisions about their apple pies and sugary margaritas? Maybe.

No single dietary intervention will make a huge difference for all consumers. Take the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act, for instance, which set back-of-the-package labeling in motion in 1990. In a recent review [PDF], Alexander Chernev and Pierre Chandon found that while one study suggested that labels increased comprehension of nutrition information, another study found no effect on search, recall, or choice.

There's no scientific consensus on the effects of menu labeling. But many researchers on the subject take stock in a single paper from 2010. In it, Stanford economists examined transactions made by 2.7 million anonymous Starbucks customers. Those buying food in New York City, where a mandatory calorie counts were on display, ate six percent fewer calories per transaction than their counterparts in Boston and Philadelphia, where calorie information was not posted on the menu. (Both groups had relatively the same amount to drink.)

Could this modest "Starbucks effect" be an indicator of how restaurant labeling will reduce everyone's caloric intake? Probably not. More likely, the study shows how labeling will affect nutritionally motivated customers—the kind of people who go to a New York City Starbucks in the first place. As Kevin Bates told me last week, if you're headed to Whole Foods Market or Subway expecting "healthy food," you might be in for a big surprise when the new menus reveal just how many calories a "healthy" salad has.

Either way, it's curious that our labeling "policy has moved way beyond the science," as behavioral economist George Loewenstein told The Washington Post's Mike Rosenwald last week. Earlier this year, Loewenstein was even more blunt about the pitfalls of labeling:

Calorie labeling, in effect, puts the onus of weight reduction on consumers, but consumers have not grown fat because they have stopped paying attention to what they eat; they have grown fat because processed food has become cheaper (both in terms of money and time), whereas fresh food has become more expensive. The most serious risk associated with calorie labeling, therefore, is not its effect on consumers themselves, which is likely to be minimal; the real danger is that it will substitute for, or delay, more substantive policies that get at the root cause of the problem.


Clearly, any food label is bound to be a mixed bag. Perhaps a redesign of the Nutrition Facts label can help convert caloric knowledge into real behavioral changes. Either way, it's worth examining why we consent to food makers slapping useless (but relatively harmless) information on all our food, especially if it's distracting us from paying attention to the intrinsic imbalance that really matters.

Photo (cc) by Flickr user {Guerrilla Futures | Jason Tester}

AFP News Agency / Twitter

A study out of Belgium found that smart people are much less likely to be bigoted. The same study also found that people who are bigoted are more likely to overestimate their own intelligence.

A horrifying story out of Germany is a perfect example of this truth on full display: an anti-Semite was so dumb the was unable to open a door at the temple he tried to attack.

On Wednesday, October 9, congregants gathered at a synagogue in Humboldtstrasse, Germany for a Yom Kippur service, and an anti-Semite armed with explosives and carrying a rifle attempted to barge in through the door.

Keep Reading Show less
via Andi-Graf / Pixabay

The old saying goes something like, "Possessions don't make you happy." A more dire version is, "What you own, ends up owning you."

Are these old adages true or just the empty words of ancient party-poopers challenging you not to buy an iPhone 11? According to a new study of 968 young adults by the University of Arizona, being materialistic only brings us misery.

The study examined how engaging in pro-environmental behaviors affects the well-being of millenials. The study found two ways in which they modify their behaviors to help the environment: they either reduce what they consume or purchase green items.

Keep Reading Show less

One of the biggest obstacles to getting assault weapons banned in the United States is the amount of money they generate.

There were around 10 million guns manufactured in the U.S. in 2016 of which around 2 million were semiautomatic, assault-style weapons. According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the firearms industry's trade association, the U.S. industry's total economic impact in 2016 alone was $51 billion.

In 2016, the NRA gave over $50 million to buy support from lawmakers. When one considers the tens of millions of dollars spent on commerce and corruption, it's no wonder gun control advocates have an uphill battle.

That, of course, assumes that money can control just about anyone in the equation. However, there are a few brave souls who actually value human life over profit.

Keep Reading Show less
via Reddit and NASA / Wikimedia Commons

Trees give us a unique glimpse into our past. An examination of tree rings can show us what the climate was like in a given year. Was it a wet winter? Were there hurricanes in the summer? Did a forest fire ravage the area?

An ancient tree in New Zealand is the first to provide evidence of the near reversal of the Earth's magnetic field over 41,000 years ago.

Over the past 83 million years there have been 183 magnetic pole reversals, a process that takes about 7,000 years to complete.

Keep Reading Show less
The Planet
via Pixabay

The final episode of "The Sopranos" made a lot of people angry because it ends with mob boss Tony Soprano and his family eating at an ice cream parlor while "Don't Stop Believin'" by Journey plays in the background … and then, suddenly, the screen turns black.

Some thought the ending was a dirty trick, while others saw it as a stroke of brilliance. A popular theory is that Tony gets shot, but doesn't know it because, as his brother-in-law Bobby Baccala said, "You probably don't even hear it when it happens, right?"

So the show gives us all an idea of what it's like to die. We're here and then we're not.

Keep Reading Show less