Menu Labeling: a scrumptious piece of legislation

I live near the intersection of 24th and Mission streets, a part of San Francisco that’s “colorful”, in the parlance of my soon-to-be-in-laws. The corner boasts a plethora of visual and auditory stimulants that some of us prefer to battle with noise-canceling headphones and sunglasses. But, to your average out-of-towner who steps off the BART train and struggles to look straight ahead, there is one beacon of comfort and familiarity. Lodged between the skulking gangbangers and the raving preachers sits our local McDonald’s, open 24 hours, selling Big Macs at a noticeably brisk pace. I’m always a little surprised to see people coming and going so steadily from the Golden Arches. After all, within just one block there are $3 tacos, $4 falafel, $1 tamales, and who knows what other local gems of San Francisco’s low-end culinary orgy that is the Mission district. But, inevitably, I’m barraged by the whiff of Egg McMuffins as I pass it in the morning and fries and burgers as I make my way home at night. I’ll admit that sometimes I’m tempted to pop in for some McNuggets but I’ve yet to succumb to the idea. I mean, fast food’s bad for you, right? Right?

Have you ever actually seen a description of the contents of fast food? I’ve looked at a poster once on the wall of a fast food restaurant, but I couldn’t tell you what it said. Alas, I’d forgotten my magnifying glass. The size of the font turned out to require one. Tom Ammiano, San Francisco Supervisor for District 9 (full disclosure: I currently intern for Ammiano) has recently managed to push through some important legislation that will allow anyone who walks into a chain restaurant to immediately know exactly what goes into her McMeal.

Supervisor Ammiano hit a legislative home run on this one. While it may have a dull title, San Francisco Ordinance number 40-08 “Menu Labeling at Chain Restaurants” represents a major victory for public health and nutrition advocates. This law will require all restaurants with over 20 locations in California to post extensive nutritional information about each menu item on the menu and overhead displays, in a font as large and prominent as that of the price. Diners will be able to see the number of calories, and the number of grams of saturated fat, carbohydrates, and sodium, plainly on the menu, in “a clear and conspicuous manner.”

There are at least a few ways that this information can have a beneficial effect on health outcomes. 1) Comparing the health stats of heftier menu options to the smaller, more basic items will result in healthier ordering. For example, a hamburger from McDonald's has 13 grams of fat and 520 mg of sodium, while a Double Quarter Pounder with cheese weighs in with 65 grams of fat and 1380 mg of sodium. Supervisor Ammiano hopes numbers like these will give diners pause before ordering. 2) Because of clearer labeling, chain restaurants could face increased pressure to introduce more healthy options and to resist “up selling” questions like “Would you like to supersize that?” 3) Eating out is generally less healthy than cooking at home. Restaurant meals are higher in fat and calories and lower in nutrients than at-home food. This kind of labeling could help highlight this fact and result in more at-home meals.

Now for some of the criticisms of Ammiano’s approach, and why I think they’re wrongheaded.

Criticism #1: As my teenage cousin would say: “OMG, TMI!” (Oh My God, Too Much Information. BTW, if you had to read between these parentheses, just pretend you didn’t.) When I said above that diners “will be able to see” this information, my phrasing connoted a desire to actually see this information. I should be so naïve. Who really wants to stare down their food, gram for pound, and size up your order in terms of its effect on your love handles? From a policy point of view, unfortunately the answer to that question is irrelevant. The economic, medical, and social burden of obesity and heart disease is too fearsome an animal to leave me with much sympathy. If the information is so offensive to the sensibilities of the fast food diner, perhaps she should reconsider her order.

Criticism #2: This legislation is passive. It simply puts the information out there and diners do with it what they see fit. What’s so great about that? As I explained above, there are several potential ways information could affect decision-making about food consumption. On the other hand, the diner is welcome to ignore the data and order at will. There’s no mandate for behavior here, only the availability of good information.

Criticism #3: In some cases fast food is the only thing people can afford. There are clearly socioeconomic and cultural factors that get people through the door of a fast food restaurant in the first place, and this legislation doesn’t address these issues. I can personally identify with this quandary. As a teenager, I remember ordering from Taco Bell because it was cheap, even though I would have preferred something healthier. But remember, the idea isn’t necessarily to reject fast food out of hand. Part of the plan is that people will order smaller, healthier items. Teens can still go to Taco Bell if they’ve only got a few bucks, but maybe they’ll skip the large Coke to go with their 7-layer.

But c’mon, enough with the back and forth already! San Francisco has moved on, and menu labeling will soon be a reality. Mayor Newsom signed the Ordinance into law on March 24, 2008 and the rules will take effect in June. So, next time you’re craving a Whopper, check out the new menus. If you’re in San Francisco, health conscious data should be up on the menu in a clear and conspicuous manner. You can leave your magnifying glass at home, but you may want to bring along your blinders.