BACKGROUND: As part of a comprehensive effort to stem the rise in obesity, King County, Washington, enforced a mandatory menu-labeling regulation requiring all restaurant chains with 15 or more locations to disclose calorie information at the point of purchase beginning in January 2009. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to quantify the impact of the King County regulation on transactions and purchasing behavior at one Mexican fast-food chain with locations within and adjacent to King County. METHODS: To examine the effect of the King County regulation, a difference-in-difference approach was used to compare total transactions and average calories per transaction between seven King County restaurants and seven control locations focusing on two time periods: one period immediately following the law until the posting of drive-through menu boards (January 2009 to July 2009) and a second period following the drive-through postings (August 2009 through January 2010). Analyses were conducted in 2010. RESULTS: No impact of the regulation on purchasing behavior was found. Trends in transactions and calories per transaction did not vary between control and intervention locations after the law was enacted. CONCLUSIONS: In this setting, mandatory menu labeling did not promote healthier food-purchasing behavior. Copyright Â
BACKGROUND: As part of a comprehensive effort to stem the rise in obesity, King County, Washington, enforced a mandatory menu-labeling regulation requiring all restaurant chains with 15 or more locations to disclose calorie information at the point of purchase beginning in January 2009. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to quantify the impact of the King County regulation on transactions and purchasing behavior at one Mexican fast-food chain with locations within and adjacent to King County. METHODS: To examine the effect of the King County regulation, a difference-in-difference approach was used to compare total transactions and average calories per transaction between seven King County restaurants and seven control locations focusing on two time periods: one period immediately following the law until the posting of drive-through menu boards (January 2009 to July 2009) and a second period following the drive-through postings (August 2009 through January 2010). Analyses were conducted in 2010. RESULTS: No impact of the regulation on purchasing behavior was found. Trends in transactions and calories per transaction did not vary between control and intervention locations after the law was enacted. CONCLUSIONS: In this setting, mandatory menu labeling did not promote healthier food-purchasing behavior. Copyright Â
Authors: Elizabeth Gross Cohn; Elaine L Larson; Christina Araujo; Vanessa Sawyer; Olajide Williams Journal: J Urban Health Date: 2012-08 Impact factor: 3.671
Authors: Leonard H Epstein; Noelle Jankowiak; Chantal Nederkoorn; Hollie A Raynor; Simone A French; Eric Finkelstein Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2012-02-29 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Roxana Chen; Michael Smyser; Nadine Chan; Myduc Ta; Brian E Saelens; James Krieger Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2015-01-20 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Michael W Long; Deirdre K Tobias; Angie L Cradock; Holly Batchelder; Steven L Gortmaker Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2015-03-19 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Katherine W Bauer; Mary O Hearst; Alicia A Earnest; Simone A French; J Michael Oakes; Lisa J Harnack Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2012-11 Impact factor: 5.043