September 12, 2012 | 12:44 PM |

Are McDonald’s New Calorie Postings More Than Just PR?

FILED UNDER: Personal Health, food, nutrition

(Simon Miller/flickr)

Shortly after McDonald’s announced today that it would begin posting the calorie count of its offerings on menu boards, the anti-Big-Mac forces were out, questioning the global burger chain’s motives.

First came a message from Corporate Accountability International, which describes itself as “a coalition of public policy leaders, elected officials, parents and more than 2,500 health professionals and institutions [that] have been putting pressure on McDonald’s to provide complete, accurate and non-promotional information about the health risks of its food.”

According to the group’s statement:

Sara Deon, Value [the] Meal campaign director at Corporate Accountability International, has this to say about the announcement: “This move is purely PR spin. McDonald’s wants to paint itself as a leader, but in truth, regulations that appear in the Affordable Care Act will soon require McDonald’s to implement these changes. To truly address its health impact, McDonald’s must heed the tens of thousands of people who are calling on the burger giant to make more fundamental, far-reaching changes. The corporation must stop the egregious, targeted marketing of its unhealthy brand to children, and go further to mitigate its impact on our children’s health.”

But it’s unclear whether the new calorie postings and lower-cal offerings like the “Egg White Delight” will actually change consumer behavior. The LA Times reports:

In cities such as New York and Philadelphia where posting calorie information is already required, however, Fields notes that the information has not changed what customers choose to order.

“When it’s all said and done, the menu mix doesn’t change,” she said. “But I do think people feel better knowing this information.”

The Oak Brook, Ill,-based company is also testing healthier options for next year, such as an Egg McMuffin made with egg whites and a whole grain muffin. The sandwich has Canadian bacon and white cheddar cheese and clocks in at 260 calories. It will be called the Egg White Delight.

And here’s the more upbeat response from the folks at the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest:

To its credit, McDonald’s is getting out in front of the other big burger chains and most other restaurants by putting calorie counts on its menu boards and drive-through menus—even before the federal requirement to do so kicks in. It’s a step that’s important for McDonald’s customers’ health, and it’s a sign that calorie counts on chain-restaurant menus are here to stay.

McDonald’s announcement won’t be noticed by folks in New York City, California, and Vermont, for instance, where laws already require calorie labeling in chain restaurants. And companies like Panera Bread and Au Bon Pain are already posting calorie counts. Though not all studies are able to measure an effect of menu labeling, bigger studies show that calorie labeling is helping consumers make lower calorie selections when eating out. And perhaps most importantly, calorie labeling is encouraging companies to reformulate products.

If the biggest restaurant chain on Earth can cheerfully announce that it’ll put calorie counts on menu boards, the Food and Drug Administration should take notice. The Administration should issue final menu labeling rules that include vending machines, restaurant-style foods sold at supermarkets, convenience stores, and movie theaters, and not give in to every special interest that doesn’t want to play by these same rules.

It’s terrific that McDonald’s is testing new healthier menu options. Good nutrition didn’t matter much at restaurants in the past when eating out was an occasional treat. But with Americans now getting about a third of their calories outside the home, people need more options that are healthy, appealing, and competitively priced.

About the author

Blogger, CommonHealth Rachel Zimmerman worked as a staff reporter for The Wall Street Journal for 10 years, most recently covering health and medicine out of the paper’s Boston bureau. Rachel has also written for The New York Times, the (now-defunct) Seattle Post-Intelligencer and the alternative newspaper Willamette Week, in Portland, Ore., among other publications. Rachel co-wrote a book about birth, published by Bantam/Random House, and spent 2008 as a Knight Science Journalism Fellow at MIT. Rachel lives in Cambridge with her husband and two daughters. View all posts by Rachel Zimmerman →

  • Evan Pankey

    The problem is not McDonalds it’s consumer behavior.
    McDonalds will sell any food it can for a decent profit margin.
    Right now, the best margins are found in subsidized food sources (corn based or corn feed). When overconsumed, these foods have an economic “externality” of increasing metabolic syndrome and overal health care cost. For the consumer this problem is a chronic problem manifesting itself months or years after the inciting hehavior and the cost is distributed (mostly via health insurance premiums and federal taxes). There is no strong direct disincentive againt overconsumption of foods that are detrimental to long term health. Until we have individual disincentives against these foods, this will continue to be a societal struggle.

    Is there a solution? Yes.

    Imagine if your health insurance premium went up or down based on markers for the metabolic syndrome eg hemoglobin A1c, fasting insulin, triglycerides, etc.
    If these markers were tracked 2 to 4 times a year and premiums fluctuated accordingly, consumer behavior would quickly change.

    We have the technology and infrastructure to do this. But it still seems to escape us. We demonize businesses instead of addressing the root cause.