first look: calories on fast-food menus don't change choices (link)
10.07.09 - washington post - by jennifer larue huget

...so back in july of last year, as one of mayor bloomberg's many "we're going to stick our nose into your business" initiatives, nyc passed legislation requiring restaurants to post calorie counts on their menus. the thinking behind it was that once people were able to see how many calories they were consuming when they ate, they'd cut down on fast food & start eating healthier. thinking that this would be the result takes a bit of specious reasoning, as for many low-income citizens, being able to afford to eat usually takes precedence over being able to eat healthy. value meal!

as the washington post reports, the results of the first study measuring the effects of the legislation have come in & they're the complete opposite of what was expected. health affairs, a peer-reviewed medical journal "looked at fast-food purchases made in low-income areas of new york city...and, as a control, in nearby newark, new jersey, where no such requirement exists." they compared receipts & interviewed customers & found little difference between consumers' actions before & after the law went into effect. in nyc, the number of calories consumed actually went up. the post captures it best in the article's opening line, which is no more than the word "oops."

what went wrong? the study offers a few possible reasons. "the timing was wrong." "the sample size (was) too small." "maybe...there should have been a sign telling people that 2,000 calories is the most they should consume in a day." the post suggests that "maybe people just don't care--or would prefer to ignore--the number of calories they're consuming when they eat fast food." the study, the post & the mayor don't seem to be considering that other factor i mentioned. if you're a low-income mother looking to feed a family of five after getting home from a ten-hour shift & KFC offers you a deal on a twenty-piece bucket of chicken, you're going to take it, calorie count be damned. i guess when you're a medical journal, a 200+ year-old paper or a billionaire mayor, that scenario doesn't cross your mind.