Increasing availability of lower energy meals vs. energy labelling in virtual full-service restaurants: two randomized controlled trials in participants of higher and lower socioeconomic position

Lucile Marty, Sasha M Reed, Andrew J Jones, Eric Robinson, Lucile Marty, Sasha M Reed, Andrew J Jones, Eric Robinson

Abstract

Background: There are a range of interventions designed to promote healthier food choices in full-service restaurants. However, it is unclear how these interventions affect dietary choices in people of lower and higher socioeconomic position (SEP).

Methods: A total of 2091 US participants recruited online completed Study 1 (n = 1001) and Study 2 (n = 1090). Recruitment was stratified by participant highest education level, resulting in higher SEP and lower SEP groups. In a between-subjects design, participants made hypothetical food choices (main dish, plus optional sides and desserts) from six restaurants menus in the absence vs. presence of menu energy labelling and from menus with baseline (10%) vs. increased availability (50%) of lower energy main dishes. Data were collected and analysed in 2019. Two studies were conducted in order to examine replicability and generalisability of findings across different restaurant menu types.

Results: Across both studies, increasing the availability of lower energy main menu options decreased the average energy content of the ordered main dish (- 129 kcal, 95% CI [- 139; - 119]) and total energy ordered (- 117 kcal, 95% CI [- 138; - 95]) in both higher and lower SEP participants. Energy labelling significantly reduced the energy content of ordered main dishes in higher SEP participants (- 41 kcal, 95% CI [- 54; - 29]), but not lower SEP participants (- 5 kcal, 95% CI [- 22; 11]). However, energy labelling reduced total energy ordered (- 83 kcal, 95% CI [- 105; - 60]) irrespective of SEP.

Conclusions: In two virtual experiments, increasing the availability of lower energy restaurant main menu options impacted on main menu dish choice and decreased total energy ordered irrespective of SEP. Energy labelling had a less pronounced effect on total energy ordered and had a larger impact on the energy content of main menu dish choice in higher as opposed to lower SEP participants.

Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04336540 retrospectively registered (7 April, 2020).

Keywords: Availability; Energy labelling; Food choice; Restaurant; Socioeconomic position.

Conflict of interest statement

ER has previously been the recipient of research funding from Unilever and the American Beverage Association for unrelated work. The other authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Study flow charts. a, Study 1. b, Study 2
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Mean energy (+ SD) from the main meal dish ordered (a) and from all dishes orders (b) across the two studies

References

    1. Lachat C, Nago E, Verstraeten R, Roberfroid D, Van Camp J, Kolsteren P. Eating out of home and its association with dietary intake: a systematic review of the evidence. Obes Rev. 2012;13(4):329–346. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-789X.2011.00953.x.
    1. Nago ES, Lachat CK, Dossa RAM, Kolsteren PW. Association of out-of-Home Eating with anthropometric changes: a systematic review of prospective studies. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2014;54(9):1103–1116. doi: 10.1080/10408398.2011.627095.
    1. Hearst MO, Harnack LJ, Bauer KW, Earnest AA, French SA, Michael OJ. Nutritional quality at eight U.S. fast-food chains: 14-year trends. Am J Prev Med. 2013;44(6):589–594. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2013.01.028.
    1. Robinson E, Jones A, Whitelock V, Mead BR, Haynes A. (over) eating out at major UK restaurant chains: observational study of energy content of main meals. BMJ. 2018;363:1–8. doi: 10.1136/BMJ.K4982.
    1. Muc M, Jones A, Roberts C, Sheen F, Haynes A, Robinson E. A bit or a lot on the side? Observational study of the energy content of starters, sides and desserts in major UK restaurant chains. BMJ Open. 2019;9(10):1–7. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029679.
    1. Roberts SB, Das SK, Suen VMM, Pihlajamäki J, Kuriyan R, Steiner-Asiedu M, Taetzsch A, Anderson AK, Silver RE, Barger K, Krauss A, Karhunen L, Zhang X, Hambly C, Schwab U, Triffoni-Melo AT, Fassini PG, Taylor SF, Economos C, Kurpad AV, Speakman JR. Measured energy content of frequently purchased restaurant meals: multi-country cross sectional study. BMJ. 2018;363:1–10. doi: 10.1136/bmj.k4864.
    1. Wu HW, Sturm R. What’s on the menu a review of the energy and nutritional content of US chain restaurant menus. Public Health Nutr. 2014;16(1):87–96. doi: 10.1017/S136898001200122X.
    1. Kraak VI, Englund T, Misyak S, Serrano EL. A novel marketing mix and choice architecture framework to nudge restaurant customers toward healthy food environments to reduce obesity in the United States. Obes Rev. 2017;18(8):852–868. doi: 10.1111/obr.12553.
    1. Hillier-Brown FC, Summerbell CD, Moore HJ, Routen A, Lake AA, Adams J, White M, Araujo-Soares V, Abraham C, Adamson AJ, Brown TJ. The impact of interventions to promote healthier ready-to-eat meals (to eat in, to take away or to be delivered) sold by specific food outlets open to the general public: a systematic review. Obes Rev. 2017;18(2):227–246. doi: 10.1111/obr.12479.
    1. Cleveland LP, Simon D, Block JP. Compliance in 2017 with federal calorie labeling in 90 chain restaurants and 10 retail food outlets prior to required implementation. Am J Public Health. 2018;108(8):1099–1102. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2018.304513.
    1. Government of Ontario. Healthy Menu Choices Act.; 2015:S.O. 2015, Chapter 7, SCHEDULE 1. . Accessed 27 Apr 2021.
    1. NSW Government - Food Authority. kJ labelling nutrition information. Published 2017. Accessed December 17, 2019.
    1. Robinson E, Burton S, Gough T, Jones A, Haynes A. Point of choice kilocalorie labelling in the UK eating out of home sector: a descriptive study of major chains. BMC Public Health. 2019;19(649):1–6.
    1. Long MW, Tobias DK, Cradock AL, Batchelder H, Gortmaker SL. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of restaurant menu calorie labeling. Am J Public Health. 2015;105(5):e11–e24. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2015.302570.
    1. Cantu-Jungles TM, McCormack LA, Slaven JE, Slebodnik M, Eicher-Miller HA. A meta-analysis to determine the impact of restaurant menu labeling on calories and nutrients (ordered or consumed) in U.S. adults. Nutrients. 2017;9(10):20–22. doi: 10.3390/nu9101088.
    1. Marty L, Jones A, Robinson E. Socioeconomic position and the impact of increasing availability of lower energy meals vs menu energy labelling on food choice: Two randomized controlled trials in a virtual fast-food restaurant. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2020;17(1):10. doi: 10.1186/s12966-020-0922-2.
    1. Sarink D, Peeters A, Freak-Poli R, Beauchamp A, Woods J, Ball K, Backholer K. The impact of menu energy labelling across socioeconomic groups: a systematic review. Appetite. 2016;99:59–75. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2015.12.022.
    1. VanEpps EM, Roberto CA, Park S, Economos CD, Bleich SN. Restaurant menu labeling policy: review of evidence and controversies. Curr Obes Rep. 2016;5(1):72–80. doi: 10.1007/s13679-016-0193-z.
    1. Konttinen H, Sarlio-Lähteenkorva S, Silventoinen K, Männistö S, Haukkala A. Socio-economic disparities in the consumption of vegetables, fruit and energy-dense foods: the role of motive priorities. Public Health Nutr. 2012;16(5):873–882. doi: 10.1017/S1368980012003540.
    1. Pechey R, Monsivais P, Ng YL, Marteau TM. Why don’t poor men eat fruit? Socioeconomic differences in motivations for fruit consumption. Appetite. 2015;84:271–279. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2014.10.022.
    1. Haushofer J, Fehr E. On the psychology of poverty. Science. 2014;344(6186):862–867. doi: 10.1126/science.1232491.
    1. Hollands GJ, Carter P, Anwer S, et al. Altering the availability or proximity of food, alcohol, and tobacco products to change their selection and consumption. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019, 2019;(8). 10.1002/14651858.CD012573.pub2.
    1. Pechey R, Marteau TM. Availability of healthier vs. less healthy food and food choice: an online experiment. BMC Public Health. 2018;18(1):1296. doi: 10.1186/s12889-018-6112-3.
    1. Adams J, Mytton O, White M, Monsivais P. Why are some population interventions for diet and obesity more equitable and effective than others? The role of individual agency. PLoS Med. 2016;13(4):1–7. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001990.
    1. Beauchamp A, Backholer K, Magliano D, Peeters A. The effect of obesity prevention interventions according to socioeconomic position: a systematic review. Obes Rev. 2014;15(7):541–554. doi: 10.1111/obr.12161.
    1. Marty L, Jones A, Robinson E. Socioeconomic position and the impact of increasing availability of lower energy meals vs. menu energy labelling on food choice: two randomized control trials in a virtual fast-food restaurant. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2020;17:10. 10.1186/s12966-020-0922-2.
    1. Lallukka T, Laaksonen M, Rahkonen O, Roos E, Lahelma E. Multiple socio-economic circumstances and healthy food habits. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2007;61(6):701–710. doi: 10.1038/sj.ejcn.1602583.
    1. Si Hassen W, Castetbon K, Cardon P, et al. Socioeconomic indicators are independently associated with nutrient intake in French adults: A DEDIPAC study. Nutrients. 2016;8(3). 10.3390/nu8030158.
    1. Cohen AK, Rai M, Rehkopf DH, Abrams B. Educational attainment and obesity: a systematic review. Obes Rev. 2013;14(12):989–1005. doi: 10.1111/obr.12062.
    1. Giskes K, Avendaňo M, Brug J, Kunst AE. A systematic review of studies on socioeconomic inequalities in dietary intakes associated with weight gain and overweight/obesity conducted among European adults. Obes Rev. 2010;11(6):413–429. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-789X.2009.00658.x.
    1. Petimar J, Zhang F, Cleveland LP, Simon D, Gortmaker SL, Polacsek M, Bleich SN, Rimm EB, Roberto CA, Block JP. Estimating the effect of calorie menu labeling on calories purchased in a large restaurant franchise in the southern United States: quasi-experimental study. BMJ. 2019;367:l5837. doi: 10.1136/bmj.l5837.
    1. Crockett RA, King SE, Marteau TM, Prevost AT, Bignardi G, Roberts NW, Stubbs B, Hollands GJ, Jebb SA, Cochrane Public Health Group Nutritional labelling for healthier food or non-alcoholic drink purchasing and consumption. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;2:CD009315. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009315.pub2.
    1. Bleich SN, Economos CD, Spiker ML, Vercammen KA, VanEpps EM, Block JP, Elbel B, Story M, Roberto CA. A systematic review of calorie labeling and modified calorie labeling interventions: impact on consumer and restaurant behavior. Obesity. 2017;25(12):2018–2044. doi: 10.1002/oby.21940.
    1. Peer E, Brandimarte L, Samat S, Acquisti A. Beyond the Turk: alternative platforms for crowdsourcing behavioral research. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2017;70:153–163. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2017.01.006.
    1. Litman L, Robinson J, Abberbock T. : a versatile crowdsourcing data acquisition platform for the behavioral sciences. Behav Res Methods. 2017;49(2):433–442. doi: 10.3758/s13428-016-0727-z.
    1. Ryan CL, Bauman K. Educational attainment in the United States: 2015. US Census Bur. Published online 2016:20–578. doi: P20–578.
    1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2015–2020 Dietary guidelines for Americans. 8th edition. Published online 2015:1–46. . Accessed 27 Apr 2021.
    1. Onwezen MC, Reinders MJ, Verain MCD, Snoek HM. The development of a single-item food choice questionnaire. Food Qual Prefer. 2019;71(August 2017):34–45. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2018.05.005.
    1. Steptoe A, Pollard TM, Wardle J. Development of a Measure of the Motives Underlying the Selection of Food: the “Food Choice Questionnaire”. Appetite. 1995;25(3):267–284. doi: 10.1006/appe.1995.0061.
    1. Dickson-Spillmann M, Siegrist M, Keller C. Development and validation of a short, consumer-oriented nutrition knowledge questionnaire. Appetite. 2011;56(3):617–620. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2011.01.034.
    1. Patton JH, Stanford MS, Barratt ES. Factor structure of the barratt impulsiveness scale. J Clin Psychol. 1995;51(6):768–774. doi: 10.1002/1097-4679(199511)51:6<768::AID-JCLP2270510607>;2-1.
    1. Koffarnus MN, Bickel WK. A 5-trial adjusting delay discounting task: accurate discount rates in less than 60 seconds. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2014;22(3):222–228. doi: 10.1037/a0035973.A.
    1. Yoon JH, Higgins ST. Turning k on its head: comments on use of an ED50 in delay discounting research. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2008;95(1–2):169–172. doi: 10.1038/jid.2014.371.
    1. Hayes AF. PROCESS: a versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional Process modeling [White paper]. Published 2012. Accessed July 15, 2020.
    1. Pechey R, Cartwright E, Pilling M, Hollands GJ, Vasiljevic M, Jebb SA, Marteau TM. Impact of increasing the proportion of healthier foods available on energy purchased in worksite cafeterias: a stepped wedge randomized controlled pilot trial. Appetite. 2019;133:286–296. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2018.11.013.
    1. Van Kleef E, Otten K, Van Trijp HCM. Healthy snacks at the checkout counter: a lab and field study on the impact of shelf arrangement and assortment structure on consumer choices. BMC Public Health. 2012;12(1):1–10. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-12-1072.
    1. Laxy M, Teuner C, Holle R, Kurz C. The association between BMI and health-related quality of life in the US population: sex, age and ethnicity matters. Int J Obes. 2018;42(3):318–326. doi: 10.1038/ijo.2017.252.

Source: PubMed

Sponsor e collaboratori

Condizioni mediche

Interventi farmacologici

3
Sottoscrivi