Calorie labels only influence people already trying to lose weight

Calorie labels on menus are pointless unless you’re actively trying to lose weight, a study has found.

Researchers have discovered that being told your beef pie is 1,362 calories or your cheeseburger is 2,133 calories makes no difference to what you order unless you’re watching what you eat.

It casts further doubt on the effectiveness of the government’s policy, introduced in 2022, that ordered the use of calorie labels by all food outlets 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 they visit takeaways, cafes and restaurants to help battle soaring rates of obesity.

But a study involving traditional British meals has revealed most people tend to ignore them.

‘While this was a small study, the results suggest that simply placing calorie labels on menus is not enough to change behaviour for most diners,’ co–author Dr Pablo Pereira Doel, from the University of Surrey, said.

‘Policy makers and consumers should recognize that food choices are driven far more by habit, taste, social context and personal goals than by nutritional information alone.

‘If we want to encourage healthier eating, we need approaches that address those deeper motivations, not just the numbers on the page.’

For their study, the researchers invited 36 diners into a controlled lab setting and asked them to choose what they would order from a traditional pub menu.

In the first session, the menu did not show calorie information. In the second session, the same menu displayed calorie counts.

Starters included salt and pepper squid (604 calories), sauteed wild mushrooms on sourdough (327 calories) and a scotch egg (804 calories).

Mains included chicken Kiev (2,502 calories), seafood risotto (705 calories) and a buttermilk fried chicken burger (1,921 calories).

Options for sides featured loaded chips (1,112 calories) and garlic bread (380 calories) while puddings included a warm apple and plum crumble (597 calories) and a vanilla crème brûlée (396 calories).

Throughout the task, specialist eye–tracking software recorded exactly where participants’ eyes moved and what information they focused on, and they were asked for their reasoning behind each food choice.

Analysis revealed that nearly half of participants did not think they had seen the calorie labels, yet many had briefly looked at the numbers without realising.

Overall, they continued to choose dishes based on enjoyment, familiarity, dietary restrictions such as allergies and the social nature of eating out.

‘People often assume that if they did not notice calorie labels, then the labels played no part at all,’ Dr Doel said.

‘What we found is more subtle. Our eyes register the information, but that does not mean we act on it.

‘When we are eating with others, what feels enjoyable and normal takes priority. Food is emotional. It is social.’

The study found that although there was a small drop in the average calories ordered when labels were present, the reduction was not significant.

Overall, people consumed an average of 2,566 calories when they ordered off the non–calorie menu, and 2,328 calories when they ordered off the menu with labels.

‘Amongst those who had noticed calories…it was rarely a priority except where the participant was actively trying to lose weight,’ the researchers said.

The findings, published in the International Journal of Hospitality Management, suggest that calorie labelling alone may not shift behaviour in restaurants where eating is seen as a treat or an event.

Places where people eat regularly, such as workplace canteens, may show different results, they said.

A separate study, published last year, revealed there was no significant difference in how many calories were purchased or consumed by customers at pubs, restaurants, cafes, fast food outlets and entertainment venues following the implementation of labels.

The research, carried out by a team at the University of Liverpool, found people only ate 18.5 calories less following the policy’s introduction.

Lead researcher Dr Megan Polden said: ‘The introduction of mandatory calorie labelling alone was not associated with significant dietary changes in out–of–home food settings.’

The findings, published in the journal Nature Human Behaviour, revealed that awareness and use of the calorie–labelling system were higher among women, older adults and those who are better–off.

WHAT SHOULD A BALANCED DIET LOOK LIKE?

• Eat at least 5 portions of a variety of fruit and vegetables every day. All fresh, frozen, dried and canned fruit and vegetables count

• Base meals on potatoes, bread, rice, pasta or other starchy carbohydrates, ideally wholegrain

• 30 grams of fibre a day: This is the same as eating all of the following: 5 portions of fruit and vegetables, 2 whole-wheat cereal biscuits, 2 thick slices of wholemeal bread and large baked potato with the skin on

• Have some dairy or dairy alternatives (such as soya drinks) choosing lower fat and lower sugar options

• Eat some beans, pulses, fish, eggs, meat and other proteins (including 2 portions of fish every week, one of which should be oily)

• Choose unsaturated oils and spreads and consuming in small amounts

• Drink 6-8 cups/glasses of water a day

• Adults should have less than 6g of salt and 20g of saturated fat for women or 30g for men a day

Source: NHS Eatwell Guide