Calorie labels on menus have no effect on dietary habits because people “don’t understand what the numbers really mean,” a study suggests.
In April 2022, the government introduced a policy in England mandating the use of calorie labels in all food establishments with more than 250 employees.
It was hoped that by providing the number of calories next to each dish, consumers would think twice about what they eat when visiting takeaways, cafes and restaurants to help combat rising obesity rates.
But the policy has had no significant effect on the number of calories people buy or consume, one study suggests, and it could be because people still don’t understand exactly what the numbers mean.
Researchers at the University of Liverpool conducted two surveys before and after the law was implemented to see if it led to any behavioral changes.
They collected data from more than 6,500 people of all ages who had purchased food from more than 300 outlets, including pubs, restaurants, cafes, fast food outlets and entertainment venues.
The analysis revealed that after the law was implemented, people were more likely to notice and use the calorie labeling system.
They were also more likely to accurately estimate the calorie content of their meals.
The researchers found that awareness of food calories was higher in women and those who were better off financially.
However, there was no significant difference in the number of calories purchased or consumed.
On average, people consumed about 18 fewer calories after the policy was implemented—the energy equivalent of about nine grapes.
Lead researcher Dr Megan Polden said: “The introduction of mandatory calorie labeling alone was not associated with significant dietary changes in out-of-home food settings.”
The findings, published in the journal Nature Human Behavior, revealed that knowledge and use of the calorie labeling system was higher among women, older adults and those who were better off.
People were also more likely to notice calorie labels when ordering in pubs, possibly because they spent more time reviewing the menu.
The reasons for their findings could be that many places still don’t implement calorie labels on menus and people still don’t understand how calories work, the team suggested.
“We know that many companies have not provided calorie labels as recommended and some companies have not provided calorie labels at all, which of course may explain our results,” said Professor Eric Robinson, who also worked on the study.
“Our results may also indicate that a combination of strategies… such as public education about calorie intake and clearer labeling, may be necessary to support healthier choices for consumers.”
The study states that a possible barrier to the use of calorie labeling “may be a lack of public understanding of the kcal information presented.”
Commenting on the findings, Professor Amanda Daley, director of the Center for Lifestyle and Behavioral Medicine at Loughborough University, said: “One problem with calorie labeling is that it simply provides numbers on a page, without any context. so the public understands what the numbers are. they really mean when they make decisions about food.’
He added that the study relied on self-reported data rather than actual transactions or information about food consumed, so it is “important to keep this in mind when interpreting the results.”
Tom Sanders, emeritus professor of nutrition and dietetics at King’s College London, said: “The conclusion of this study is that mandatory calorie labeling alone is an ineffective public health measure to prevent obesity.”
“This would support the view that calorie labeling alone does not motivate people to change their eating habits.
«However, calorie labeling is useful for motivated people.
‘Mandatory nutrition labeling has also helped computer programs and applications provide accurate and up-to-date estimates of nutrient intake using product barcodes, which is useful for nutritionists, dieticians and motivated individuals.
“Therefore, removing mandatory calorie labeling in the out-of-home food sector would be a step backwards.”