Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Sep 1;182(9):965-973.
doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2022.3065.

Assessment of Calories Purchased After Calorie Labeling of Prepared Foods in a Large Supermarket Chain

Affiliations

Assessment of Calories Purchased After Calorie Labeling of Prepared Foods in a Large Supermarket Chain

Joshua Petimar et al. JAMA Intern Med. .

Abstract

Importance: Calorie labels for prepared (ie, ready-to-eat) foods are required in large chain food establishments in the US. Large evaluations in restaurants suggest small declines in purchases of prepared foods after labeling, but to the authors' knowledge, no studies have examined how this policy influences supermarket purchases.

Objective: To estimate changes in calories purchased from prepared foods and potential packaged substitutes compared with control foods after calorie labeling of prepared foods in supermarkets.

Design, setting, and participants: This controlled interrupted time series compared sales 2 years before labeling implementation (April 2015-April 2017) with sales 7 months after labeling implementation (May 2017-December 2017). Data from 173 supermarkets from a supermarket chain with locations in Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont were analyzed from March 2020 to May 2022.

Intervention: Implementation of calorie labeling of prepared foods in April 2017.

Main outcomes and measures: Purchased items were classified as prepared foods, potential packaged substitutes for prepared foods, or all other (ie, control) foods. The primary outcome was mean weekly calories per transaction purchased from prepared foods, and the secondary outcome was mean weekly calories per transaction purchased from similar packaged items (for substitution analyses). Analyses of prepared and packaged foods were stratified by food category (bakery, entrées and sides, or deli meats and cheeses).

Results: Among the included 173 supermarkets, calorie labeling was associated with a mean 5.1% decrease (95% CI, -5.8% to -4.4%) in calories per transaction purchased from prepared bakery items and an 11.0% decrease (95% CI, -11.9% to -10.1%) from prepared deli items, adjusted for changes in control foods; no changes were observed for prepared entrées and sides (change = 0.3%; 95% CI, -2.5% to 3.0%). Labeling was also associated with decreased calories per transaction purchased from packaged bakery items (change = -3.9%; 95% CI, -4.3% to -3.6%), packaged entrées and sides (change = -1.2%; 95% CI, -1.4% to -0.9%), and packaged deli items (change = -2.1%; 95% CI, -2.4% to -1.7%).

Conclusions and relevance: In this longitudinal study of supermarkets, calorie labeling of prepared foods was associated with small to moderate decreases in calories purchased from prepared bakery and deli items without evidence of substitution to similar packaged foods.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Drs Petimar, Grummon, Zhang, and Block, Prof Roberto, and Ms Simon reported grants from National Institutes of Health during the conduct of the study. Dr Petimar reported grants from Center for Science in the Public Interest outside the submitted work. Prof Gortmaker reported grants from National Institutes of Health (R01HL146625) during the conduct of the study. No other disclosures were reported.

Figures

Figure.
Figure.. Changes in Mean Calories per Transaction From Prepared Food Categories After Calorie Labeling Implementation
The graph shows the mean calories per transaction across all supermarkets (blue dots), the observed trends in calories per transaction (blue line), and the projected trend assuming labeling had not been implemented (ie, counterfactual; orange line). The 2 weeks before and after labeling implementation are indicated by the vertical dashed lines. The control group is not shown due to scale, but the depicted projected trends adjust for pre-post changes in the control group.

Comment in

References

    1. US Food and Drug Administration . Food labeling; nutrition labeling of standard menu items in restaurants and similar retail food establishments; extension of compliance date. Fed Regist. 2017;82(85):20825-20829. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/05/04/2017-09029/food-lab... - PubMed
    1. Petimar J, Ramirez M, Rifas-Shiman SL, et al. Evaluation of the impact of calorie labeling on McDonald’s restaurant menus: a natural experiment. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2019;16(1):99. doi: 10.1186/s12966-019-0865-7 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Petimar J, Moran AJ, Ramirez M, Block JP. A natural experiment to evaluate the nutritional content of restaurant meal purchases after calorie labeling. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2020;120(12):2039-2046. doi: 10.1016/j.jand.2020.06.006 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Finkelstein EA, Strombotne KL, Chan NL, Krieger J. Mandatory menu labeling in one fast-food chain in King County, Washington. Am J Prev Med. 2011;40(2):122-127. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2010.10.019 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Cantor J, Torres A, Abrams C, Elbel B. Five years later: awareness of New York City’s calorie labels declined, with no changes in calories purchased. Health Aff (Millwood). 2015;34(11):1893-1900. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2015.0623 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types