Nutrition Assessment information, tips and advice

Current nutrition labeling law exempts much of the food-away-from-home sector from mandatory labeling regulations. Because consumers are less likely to be aware of the ingredients and nutrient content of away-from-home food than of foods prepared at home, public health advocates have called for mandatory nutrition labeling for major sources of these foods, such as fast-food and chain restaurants.

One source of benefits from a mandatory food-away-from-home labeling policy is a change in consumer behavior following the disclosure of nutritional attributes. On the other hand, says ERS, recent studies suggest that the dietary effect of nutritional information in away-from-home settings may be small or negligible.

As with other food-labeling initiatives, the financial cost of food-away-from-home nutrition labeling would have many components. First, a regulatory agency would expend funds to decide what information to disclose, to design a standardized label, and to monitor compliance. A second cost component, borne by the firms, would include expenses for printing labels on wrappings and menu boards.

A third and much larger cost component would be expenses borne by firms, especially independent establishments, to standardize menus and alter food procurement and preparation practices to meet labeling requirements. "This cost, plus the cost of analyzing recipes for nutrient content, would be recurring as firms introduce new food items or change recipes," says ERS. High costs may deter firms, especially independent establishments, from changing recipes and introducing new menu items.

If a specific food-away-from-home labeling policy is devised, the financial cost of implementation can be assessed reasonably well. The aggregate cost will depend chiefly on the extent of the away-from-home food sector that is subject to the mandatory disclosure requirement. "The benefits of the labeling policy, on the other hand, would be harder to assess," the report says. This uncertainty, plus the uncertainty of attributing any change in health outcomes to a specific labeling policy change, makes the calculation of benefits difficult.

On the consumer side, ERS sees some uncertainty as to who specifically will benefit from the nutrition information provided by the labels. "Such a labeling policy could therefore be most beneficial to heavy users of that information: usually the more educated, who also tend to have better diets and healthier weights to begin with," according to the report. "In this case, although a labeling policy may realize a significant benefit, little of that benefit may be accruing to the less educated and low-income segments of the population." says ERS