Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-mwx4w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-20T03:03:25.063Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Calories on menus in Ireland – who's counting?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 September 2015

G.D. Ussher
Affiliation:
Public Health Nutrition, Food Safety Authority of Ireland, Dublin 1, Republic of Ireland
S.E. Kielthy
Affiliation:
Public Health Nutrition, Food Safety Authority of Ireland, Dublin 1, Republic of Ireland
K.A. Emerson
Affiliation:
Public Health Nutrition, Food Safety Authority of Ireland, Dublin 1, Republic of Ireland
F.E. Douglas
Affiliation:
Public Health Nutrition, Food Safety Authority of Ireland, Dublin 1, Republic of Ireland
O.C. Lyons
Affiliation:
Public Health Nutrition, Food Safety Authority of Ireland, Dublin 1, Republic of Ireland Northern Ireland Centre for Food and Health, University of Ulster, Coleraine BT52 1SA, UK
M.A.T. Flynn
Affiliation:
Public Health Nutrition, Food Safety Authority of Ireland, Dublin 1, Republic of Ireland Northern Ireland Centre for Food and Health, University of Ulster, Coleraine BT52 1SA, UK
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Type
Abstract
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2015 

Calorie menu labelling (CML) can encourage people to purchase fewer calories( Reference Bollinger, Leslie and Sorenson 1 ). More males than females are affected by overweight and obesity in Ireland( 2 ) but males tend to regard calorie information as being ‘just for women’( Reference Ray, Clegg and Davidson 3 ). This study describes the calorie content of foods purchased by males and females in a hospital staff/ visitor canteen serving breakfast and lunch, before and after the implementation of CML.

Calories per portion of food served for breakfast (fixed daily menu) and lunch (variable daily menu, three week menu cycle), were calculated using MenuCal® ( 4 ). Consumer food choices were recorded for both meals on five days (Monday-Friday) of the same menu cycle, pre-, and six weeks post-, CML implementation. The variation in calories purchased pre- and post- CML was analysed according to gender, meal, day, service counter (hot [kcals tended to be higher] vs. cold) and food group as defined in Ireland's healthy eating guidelines( Reference Flynn, O'Brien and Ross 5 ).

Data was collected for 999 customers pre-, and 1005 customers post-, CML. Immediately following implementation of CML, and before impact was evaluated, the portion of baked potato on offer was reduced by a third due to customer demand. Evaluation of customer purchasing behaviour showed a significant decrease in median calories purchased after CML was implemented (599kcal vs. 530kcal, p < 0·05). As shown in the table this decrease was more evident in males.

Calorie Menu Labelling

Median values were statistically different (Mann-Whitney U) *p < 0·05, **p = 0·001, ***p < 0·001

At lunch following CML, females purchased significantly fewer median calories on Monday (719 kcal vs. 449kcal, p < 0·001) but more on Friday (511kcal vs. 706kcal, p < 0·05). Over both meals significantly fewer males chose hot counter options after CML (74 % vs. 68 %, p < 0·01). At lunch, significantly fewer customers chose hot counter options (74 % vs. 57 %, p < 0·001) while more chose from the cold counter when calories were displayed (25 % vs. 35 %, p < 0·001). Following CML significantly fewer customers chose foods from the ‘other’ food group i.e. high fat/ high sugar foods (31 % vs. 23 %, p < 0·001), with a specific reduction in the proportion of customers choosing chips (39 % to 26 %, p < 0·001). More consumers chose foods from the ‘fruit and vegetable’ food group (44 % vs. 57 %, p < 0·001) after CML.

In conclusion following CML customers made healthier choices and fewer calories were purchased, particularly by males. A ‘Friday feeling’ effect was observed for females.

References

1. Bollinger, B, Leslie, P, Sorenson, A (2011) Amer Econ J 3, 91128 Google Scholar
2. National Adult Nutrition Survey. (2011). Available from: http://www.iuna.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/National-Adult-Nutrition-Survey-Summary-Report-March-2011.pdf (Accessed March 2015)Google Scholar
3. Ray, K, Clegg, S, Davidson, R et al. (2013) Evaluation of Caloriewise. Available from: http://www.food.gov.uk/northern-ireland/researchni/fs307001. (Accessed March 2015).Google Scholar
4. MenuCal® . Available from: www.menucal.ie (Accessed Oct 2014).Google Scholar
5. Flynn, MAT, O'Brien, CM, Ross, V et al. (2012) Public Health Nutr 15, 527–37.Google Scholar
Figure 0