SlideShare une entreprise Scribd logo
1  sur  69
Télécharger pour lire hors ligne
Obesity, Calorie Labeling and
    Behavioral Economics

           Brian Elbel, PhD, MPH
Assistant Professor of Medicine and Health Policy

            NYU School of Medicine
        NYU Wagner School of Public Service

               University of Pennsylvania
                   January 28th, 2011
Outline of Presentation
• Overview of my work/approach

• Influence of calorie labeling: NYC


• Behavioral economics and obesity: Field experiment

• Conclusion/Next steps
My Work/Approach
• Broadly: How individuals make choices that
  influence health and health care
  – Consumers/patients choice
  – Physician choice
• Behavioral Economics: Econ with psych
• Role and influence of pubic policy
• As well as broader influences on choice
My Work/Approach
• Methods
  –   Econometric analysis of secondary data
  –   Primary data collection, natural experiments
  –   Field Experiments
  –   Randomized trials
  –   “Lab-based” experiments
• Choice in three areas:
  – Clinical
  – Policy
  – Obesity
Research Areas
• Clinical/Choice:
  – Changing default for physician prescribing of
    medication for high cholesterol (NIH/NIA/RC4)
• Policy/Choice
  – Low-income use of quality information, behavioral
    economics to improve use (RWJF)
  – Influence of number of options and Medicare
    supplemental choice (AHRQ/NSF)
  – Role of cognitive ability in Medicare choices
Research Areas
• Obesity/Choice
  – NYU Nutrition and Obesity Policy Research and
    Evaluation Network (CDC)
  – Evaluation of NYC initiative to bring supermarkets
    to “food deserts” via tax credits (RWJF; Aetna
    Foundation)
  – “Bellevue Bodega”: Behavioral economics in a
    “store” set up in a public hospital (CTSI)
  – Influence of calorie labeling (NIH/NHLBI/R01,
    RWJF)
  – Behavioral economics and fast food choice
LDI Research Seminar 1_28_11- Brian Elbel, PhD, MPH
Obesity Trends* Among U.S. Adults
              BRFSS, 1990, 1998, 2008
           (*BMI 30, or about 30 lbs. overweight for 5’4” person)

                 1990                                         1998




                                     2008




No Data   <10%     10–14%   15–19%   20–24%   25–29%   ≥30%
Attempts to Address Obesity
• Formerly, largely “education-based”
• Recent: attention to the Food Environment
• Environment considered by many to be “toxic”
  –   Little fresh food available
  –   Fast food ubiquitous
  –   Marketing of unhealthy foods – children
  –   Pricing of healthy versus unhealthy foods
• Altering the environment where consumers
  make choices: public policy
• Consumer not always “rational” in food choice
Calorie Labeling
• First large-scale public policy to address obesity,
  focusing on the food environment

• Combines information/education and
  environmental-based approaches

    Basic premise: Tell consumers before they
  order the number of calories in each food item
Logic Behind Calorie Labeling
• Many people eat at fast food restaurants often:
  Average 2x week
• Fast food eating associated with obesity, heart
  disease
  – Correlation data
  – Some more rigorous studies
• Individuals currently poorly judge the caloric
  content of food **
• Simply a “right” to the information
• Non-demand effect: restaurants changing menus
However…
• Food choice is incredibly multifaceted
• Nutrition is but one factor in consideration

• Everyone wants to start a diet or eat
  “better”…starting tomorrow: time preferences
• Self control

• Labeling has a hard climb
Calorie Labeling in NYC
• First locality to institute calorie labeling
• Restaurants w/ more than 15 locations
  nationally must:
   – Post the caloric content of all “regular” menu items
   – Post using the same font/format as the price
• Covers 10% of all restaurants in NYC
• 2,400 establishments
• Labeling began in July 2008
Pictures




Source: CSPI
LDI Research Seminar 1_28_11- Brian Elbel, PhD, MPH
LDI Research Seminar 1_28_11- Brian Elbel, PhD, MPH
LDI Research Seminar 1_28_11- Brian Elbel, PhD, MPH
LDI Research Seminar 1_28_11- Brian Elbel, PhD, MPH
LDI Research Seminar 1_28_11- Brian Elbel, PhD, MPH
Menu Labeling Goes National
• Labeling was included in the federal health
  reform bill
• FDA must propose national regulation by
  March 2011.
• Includes all restaurants with 20 or more
  locations nationally
• Federal law will preempt state and local laws
Our Study
• How does labeling influence the fast food
  choices of individuals in low-income areas?



• Difference-in-Difference Design
  – Natural experiment
  – Examine calories purchased before and after labeling
     • NYC
     • Comparison city: Newark, NJ
Where we collected data
• Low-income areas of NYC matched w/ Newark
• NYC: Harlem, South Bronx, Central Brooklyn

• Why Newark?
  – Matched our target communities in NYC
  – Similar “urban” feel


• 2 restaurants in NYC for 1 in Newark
• Wendy’s, McDonald, Burger King, Kentucky Fried
  Chicken
Timing of data collection
• 2-week period before labeling, July 2008
• Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday
• Lunch (12:30 – 3) and dinner hours (4:30 – 7)

• Post-data collected 1-month after labeling
   – Same restaurant, time, day of week
   – Enough time for individuals to have exposure to labels
   – Not enough time where:
      •   Seasons change
      •   Kids back in school
      •   Become desensitized to labels
      •   Other things could influence obesity
How data were collected
• RAs outside of fast food restaurants
• Ask subjects to bring back receipt, answer
  survey in exchange for $2
• RAs confirmed what the subject ate on the
  receipt, performed a short survey
• From receipt and survey calculated number of
  calories purchased by each person
• Estimate a 50-60% response rate
Influence of Labeling on Adults
• Published in Health Affairs, October 2009
Sample
                       Full Sample          New York City                   Newark
                                     Pre-Labeling Post-Labeling    Pre-Labeling Post-Labeling
                        %      N      %       N     %      N        %      N      %      N
Male                   38%    426    38%     131   36%    161      40%     68    41%    66
Race/Ethnicity
 Black                 66%    760    58%     213    64%     286    74%    130    81%    131
 Latino/a              20%    230    25%      91    22%      97    15%     26    10%     16
 White/Other           14%    166    17%     64     15%      67    11%     20    9%      15

                       Mean S.D.     Mean   S.D.   Mean     S.D.   Mean   S.D.   Mean   S.D.
Age                    38.2 14.1     38.3   14.7   37.9     14.7   39.7   12.6   37.4   12.6

Education
 High School of Less                                47%     205                  48%     72
                                        Not                           Not
 Some College or AA                                 20%     86                   16%     24
                                      Collected                     Collected
 BA or Above                                        33%     142                  36%     54
28% of those who saw labels
          indicated the labels
        influenced their choice




   No change in calories purchased
825 before labeling v. 846 after labeling
No differences between those who noticed/indicated
     responded to labels, demographic groups
Results from Children / Adolescents
• Focus on NYC Data (n=266)
• Adolescents 13-17 without caregiver were asked
  the same questions as adults
• Parents were asked questions about what they
  ordered for their children

• Separate results by:
   – Adolescents 13+, by themselves (30%)
   – Children with their caregiver (70%)
16% of adolescents who saw
   labels indicated they
  influenced their choice
Children/Adolescents:
         Calories Purchased
                                   NYC
     Sample                       (n=266)

                           Calories Purchased
                               Mean (sd)

                    n       Pre             Post
With Caretaker      183   610 (327)    595 (319)


Without Caregiver   83    730 (341)    755 (327)
Knowledge of Recommended
         Calorie Allowance
• Clearly, labeling less effective if consumers don’t
  know how many calories they “should” eat
• Federal law: requires that restaurants post a
  statement on recommended allowance—FDA
  now considering what this should look like

• We asked consumers how many calories they
  thought adults should eat to maintain a healthy
  weight
Knowledge of Recommended
           Calorie Allowance
                Full         New York City                  Newark
                       Pre-Labeling Post-Labeling Pre-Labeling Post-Labeling
                 %         %             %             %             %
Don't Know/
Didn't Answer   11%        6%           13%           15%            14%

Less than 500   27%       33%           21%           28%            26%
500 - 999        6%        8%            6%            5%             5%
1,000 - 1,499   16%       14%           18%           16%            15%
1,500 - 1,999    9%        8%           9%            10%            8%
2,000           21%       20%           22%           20%            21%
2,001 - 2,499    2%        2%            3%            0%             0%
2,500-2,999      4%        4%           3%             3%            6%
3,000+           4%        4%            4%            2%             6%
Change in Estimates of
   Number of Calories Purchased?
• Prior work focused on hypothetical scenarios
• We asked for estimate of food and drink calories
• 23% indicated they didn’t know
                       NYC     Newark
                     Pre Post Pre Post
         Actual      810 842 829 843
         Estimate    619 723 615 667
         Difference  191 118 214 117
         % Different 31% 16% 26% 21%

• Diff-in-Diff not statistically significant
Change in Estimates of
    Number of Calories Purchased?
• Assume “correct” if estimates are within 100 calories of
  actual
            Food and Drink            Pre   Post
            % Overestimating          24%   25%
            Correct Estimate          15%   24%    p<.01
            % Underestimating         61%   51%

            Food Only
            % Overestimating          21%   23%
            Correct Estimate          16%   21%    ns
            % Underestimating         63%   55%

            Drink Only
            % Overestimating          20%   23%
            Correct Estimate          37%   45%    p<.01
            % Underestimating         43%   32%

            Only those who know RDA
            % Overestimating          34%   32%
            Correct Estimate          23%   28%    p<.05
            % Underestimating         43%   40%
Who Noticed and
           Responded to Labels?
• Just over half of individuals see labels, consistent
  over time
• Of those who see, only about a quarter use the
  information
• Who are these people?
   – People who need it the most?
   – People who are already ‘nutrition-inclined’?
Who Noticed and
                   Responded to Labels?
                                                                  Of Those Who Saw:
                                    %       % Who Saw Labels     % Who Were Influenced
Sex
 Female                            64%             55%                   31%
 Male                              36%             53%                   19% *

Race/Ethnicity
 White/Other                       16%             61%                   45%
 Black                             63%             53%                   24% **
 Hispanic/Latino                   21%             53%                   22% **




                   NYC, Post-Labeling Sample, n=448; *p<.10; **p<.05
O f Tho se W ho Saw :
                                       %      % W ho Saw Labels   % W ho Were Influenced
Which is More Im portant
 N utritio n                          17%           58%                    54%
 T aste                               51%           51%                    19% **
 B oth                                32%           59%                    23% **

Lim it Food to Maintain W eight?
 N ever                               29%           51%                    8%
 Seldom/Sometimes                     36%           54%                    20% *
 O ften                               13%           61%                    39% **
 A lw ays                             22%           53%                    54% **

Education
 HS or less                           47%           47%                    22%
 Some College                         20%           64%                    34%
 B A or h igher                       33%           59% **                 27%

Tim es/W eek Eat Fast Food
 0-2                                  30%           57%                    32%
 3-5                                  25%           66%                    23% *
 6-8                                  17%           49%                    29%
 9 or mo re                           28%           45% **                 21%

Know RD A: b/w 1,500 and 2,500
 No                                   58%           53%                    25%
 Yes                                  42%           61% *                  31%

Adjusted M odels; ** < .05; * < .10   n=448        n=448                  n=242
Limitations
• Non-random sample
• Limited geographic regions/sample
• Can’t observe:
  – Amount of food eaten
  – Food eaten later in the day
  – Whether consumers are avoiding fast food
    altogether
     • Substituting to healthier foods?
     • Substituting to less healthy/equally unhealthy foods?
• Single time period, one month post-labeling
• Not examining changes in menus
Consistent With Other Findings
• “Starbucks Study”: Bollinger et al.
• “Taco Time Study”: Finkelstein et al.
Next Steps: This Data
• Prices paid, change in prices paid
• Geographic/Community characteristics: location
  of restaurant, location of residence
• Change in “type” of orders

• Racial/Ethnic Differences
Next Steps: Additional Collection
• Expansion to examine calorie labeling in two
  cities, two comparison cities (R01, NHLBI)
• Recently collected data in Philadelphia,
  Baltimore
• Receipt collection, larger cross-section of the
  population
• Telephone Survey: capture substitution
  behaviors, change in sit down restaurants,
  greater data on food choice, can labeling be
  made “better”
Conclusions
• Marked increase in noticing/responding to
  calorie information in response to labeling

• Did not generally translate into decreases in
  calories purchased for our study population in
  our study period
Conclusions
• Those most likely to be influenced by labels:
  potentially more ‘nutrition’ inclined; more
  obese?
• Estimates of calories purchased improved; still
  not perfect
• Many don’t know recommended calories; more
  info better?
Other methods to influence food
choice at the “point of purchase”?


The Relative Influence of Behavioral Economic
   Nudges and Calorie Labels in Altering Fast
                  Food Choice

Coauthors: Janet Schwartz (Duke), Jason Riis
      (Harvard) and Dan Ariely (Duke)
Our Study
• Will customers “downsize” fast food meals?
• Self-control: Consumers will often not stop eating when
  full
• Can we prime or initiate self-control at the beginning of
  the meal, using a simple “nudge” or reminder


• Field Experiment, actual fast food restaurant
   – Asian-Style chain restaurant
   – College campus, near medical center
• All aspects of experiment performed by restaurant staff
Framework
• Study 1: Do customers downsize their order
  with nudge, with or without financial incentive?

• Study 2: Relative influence calorie labeling v.
  nudge

• Study 3: Are customers actually eating less?
Ordering a meal at
                  the fast food restaurant
Step 1
Order meal size


Step 2                  Step 3                            Step 4
Order side dish         Order entrée(s)                   Pay

  Fried
   rice
             Steamed
               rice
                        Chicken
                         dish 1
                                    Beef
                                    dish 1
                                             Pork
                                             dish 1   …
                                                          $
  Chow        Mixed      Veggie      Etc.    Etc.
  mein        veggies    dish 1                       …




                                                                   48
How the nudge worked
Step 1
Order meal size


Step 2                        Step 3                                        Step 4
Order side dish               Order entrée(s)                               Pay

  Fried
   rice
              Steamed
                rice
                              Chicken
                               dish 1
                                          Beef
                                          dish 1
                                                    Pork
                                                    dish 1    …
                                                                            $
  Chow         Mixed           Veggie      Etc.      Etc.
  mein         veggies         dish 1                         …

          “Would you like to cut more than 200 calories from your meal by
          taking a half portion of your side dish?”
                                                                                     49
Study 1: Summer 2009
• N = 283
  – Data gathered from receipt
     • Side dish, entrée(s), downsize

  – Gender (estimated by RA)
     • 75% male

  – Median age (estimated by RA)
     • 26
  – Summer, largely non-student population
Study 1
Sun       Mon        Tue        Wed             Thu        Fri   Sat

       BASELINE   BASELINE   DOWNSIZE       DOWNSIZE
                             no discount    no discount

                1%                    35%
       BASELINE   BASELINE   DOWNSIZE       DOWNSIZE
                             25¢ discount   25¢ discount

                4%                    32%

              •No difference in discount v not
      •Taking “Nudge” resulted in 200+ calorie saving
Calories per Customer (N=283)
1200
                      Baseline    Downsize
                                         1010
1000                                            912*   * p<.05

 800

 600                  530   516
         480
               396*
 400

 200

  0
         Side Dish     Entrée            Total Cals
Summary
• Study 1
   – People do not spontaneously ask for less food
   – Customers will downsize meals if prompted (~90
     calories averaging across all in condition)
      • With and without a discount
   – No compensation with higher calorie entrees

• Study 2
   – Is downsizing more or less effective than calorie
     labeling at reducing consumption? How do they
     interact?
Study 2
• Fall 2009
• College students back in town
• N = 994
  – Receipts
     • Side dish, entrée, downsize
  – Gender (estimated)
     • 74% male
  – Median age (estimated)
     • 20
Study 2 Design
Sun   Mon    Tue   Wed   Thu   Fri   Sat




                                           55
Study 2 Design
Sun      Mon        Tue       Wed      Thu   Fri   Sat




      CALORIE LABELS GO UP (AND STAY UP)




                                                         56
Study 2 Design
Sun        Mon        Tue        Wed     Thu    Fri   Sat

       baseline   baseline   baseline

       NUDGE      NUDGE      NUDGE      NUDGE

       baseline   baseline   baseline


      CALORIE LABELS GO UP (AND STAY UP)

       baseline   baseline   baseline

       NUDGE      NUDGE      NUDGE      NUDGE

       baseline   baseline   baseline


                                                            57
Study 2 Results
Sun        Mon          Tue           Wed          Thu         % Accepting
                                                               Fri      Sat

       baseline     baseline      baseline                           0%

       NUDGE        NUDGE         NUDGE         NUDGE                21%

       baseline     baseline      baseline                           1%

      CALORIE LABELS GO UP (AND STAY UP)

       baseline     baseline      baseline                           0%

       NUDGE        NUDGE         NUDGE         NUDGE                14%

       baseline     baseline      baseline                           0%

 Still accepting nudge, uptake of nudge is LOWER when labels are present
                                                                              58
Calories per Customer (n=994)
1200
          Baseline      Downsize
                                   1020                                  1033 1016
1000                                      945*
                                                                                      * p<.05

 800


 600                  536                                    555 560
        484                 508
                                                 478 456*
              437*
 400
      •Calorie labeling did not appear to alter food choice for this population
• 200 dish calories and total calories decreased with nudge in pre-labeling period
  Side
       •Still influence of nudge for side dish when labels are present, smaller

   0
       Side Dish      Entrée      Total Cals Side Dish        Entrée     Total Cals
                     Pre-label                              Post-label
Study 3
• Calorie labels still up
• Same procedure (baseline v. nudge)
  – All customers were asked to take part in a survey for
    $10, asked to bring any leftovers
  – Leftovers were weighed

• Those in the baseline condition started with more
  food….
• But, both conditions left the same amount of food
  on the plate—almost nothing
• Not just ordering less, but eating less
Strengths / Weaknesses
• Strength:
  – Field experiment
  – Objective measure of purchasing
  – Relative influence of two interventions
• Weaknesses:
  – External validity
  – Selected sample
  – Mechanism
Conclusions
• Nudging did have an influence on food choice
  and consumption; calorie labeling did not
• Labeling did not improve the influence of
  “nudge”, potentially made it worse
• Policy: Greater attention to policy approaches
  aside from simply information
  – Defaults
  – Other Nudges?
• Non-policy: model for employers, restaurants?
Overall Conclusions
• Labeling may be justified/helpful for other
  reasons, but likely won’t alter food choice in a
  large scale way by itself
• Behavioral economic approaches potentially
  effective; public policy?
• Working with employers, others to implement
  changes
• Multiple approaches, done at same time/place,
  potentially more effective in influencing
  obesity/food choice: labeling AND nudge?
Thanks
         Collaborators                 Funders
•   Rogan Kersh             • NIH/NHLBI: R01HL095935
•   Beth Dixon
                            • RWJF Healthy Eating
•   Tori Brescoll
                              Research
•   Tod Mijanovich
                            • Yale Rudd Center
•   Gbenga Ogedegbe
•   Beth Weitzman
                                        Staff
•   Dan Ariely
                            • Courtney Abrams
•   Janet Schwartz
                            • Joyce Gyamfi
•   Jason Riis
LDI Research Seminar 1_28_11- Brian Elbel, PhD, MPH
LDI Research Seminar 1_28_11- Brian Elbel, PhD, MPH
Noticed / Responded to Calorie Information
        New York City post – labeling sample

            Noticed Calorie Information?
                      N=450

                      YES                   No
                N=242 (54%)             N=208 (46%)



           Info Influenced Choice?

           YES                   No
        N= 67 (28%)           N=175 (72%)

    Reported purchasing
       fewer calories?
      YES N=59 (88%)
Calorie Labeling in NYC
• The History
  – First passed in 2006
  – Restaurant industry sued
  – Judge ruled against NYC DOHMH on “technical”
    grounds
  – Re-wrote the law in 2008, sued again
  – Ruling went all the way to 2nd Circuit Court
  – Ruled in favor of NYC DOHMH
What do we currently know about
     labeling and its effectiveness
• When labels are not on the menu board:
   – Only 0.1% to 10% of people “see” calorie information
• NYC DOHMH Study, AJPH:
   – Looked at voluntary labeling at Subway
   – Those who saw labels ate 50 fewer calories
• Experimental Work: Harnack et al., 2009
   – Hotel Ballroom, mimicked fast food restaurant
   – No reduction in calories ordered
   – Males: increased calories ordered when labels present
• Experimental Work: Roberto, Brownell et al. 2010
   – Randomized to: no labels, labels, labels w/ “2000” prompt
   – Labeling decreased intake, with prompt

Contenu connexe

Similaire à LDI Research Seminar 1_28_11- Brian Elbel, PhD, MPH

Dr. hasselback's presentation gneyp research event
Dr. hasselback's presentation   gneyp research eventDr. hasselback's presentation   gneyp research event
Dr. hasselback's presentation gneyp research eventnanaimoearlyyears
 
Integrating the CHNA into the Strategy
Integrating the CHNA into the StrategyIntegrating the CHNA into the Strategy
Integrating the CHNA into the StrategyStratasan
 
Final Presentation-FINAL
Final Presentation-FINALFinal Presentation-FINAL
Final Presentation-FINALKatie Lee
 
How to weight online data
How to weight online dataHow to weight online data
How to weight online dataRay Poynter
 
Food Insecurity as a Catalyst for Medical Mistrust in Appalachia
Food Insecurity as a Catalyst for Medical Mistrust in AppalachiaFood Insecurity as a Catalyst for Medical Mistrust in Appalachia
Food Insecurity as a Catalyst for Medical Mistrust in AppalachiaMeghanStump1
 
The Overweight And Obesity Prevalence Among Poles Final
The Overweight And Obesity Prevalence Among Poles FinalThe Overweight And Obesity Prevalence Among Poles Final
The Overweight And Obesity Prevalence Among Poles FinalMargaret Czart
 
County Needs Assessement Final Draft
County Needs Assessement Final DraftCounty Needs Assessement Final Draft
County Needs Assessement Final DraftLeslie Parsons
 
Snapshot of Consumer Behaviors of Apr. 2022 EOLiSurvey (EN)
Snapshot of Consumer Behaviors of Apr. 2022 EOLiSurvey (EN)Snapshot of Consumer Behaviors of Apr. 2022 EOLiSurvey (EN)
Snapshot of Consumer Behaviors of Apr. 2022 EOLiSurvey (EN)Eastern Online-iSURVEY
 
Health Scorecard Implementation: HealthLead Employer Case Study with DTE
Health Scorecard Implementation: HealthLead Employer Case Study with DTEHealth Scorecard Implementation: HealthLead Employer Case Study with DTE
Health Scorecard Implementation: HealthLead Employer Case Study with DTEHPCareer.Net / State of Wellness Inc.
 
Meet the Millennials:
Meet the Millennials: Meet the Millennials:
Meet the Millennials: Food Insight
 
Screening for diabetes in Indigenous communities in Alberta, Canada: reframin...
Screening for diabetes in Indigenous communities in Alberta, Canada: reframin...Screening for diabetes in Indigenous communities in Alberta, Canada: reframin...
Screening for diabetes in Indigenous communities in Alberta, Canada: reframin...Kelli Buckreus
 
PASBO presentation
PASBO presentationPASBO presentation
PASBO presentationAdam Reese
 
How to Get a Zero Health Care Cost Trend
How to Get a Zero Health Care Cost TrendHow to Get a Zero Health Care Cost Trend
How to Get a Zero Health Care Cost TrendDr. Steven Aldana
 
Going Beyond the Kitchen: Dining with Diabetes
Going Beyond the Kitchen: Dining with DiabetesGoing Beyond the Kitchen: Dining with Diabetes
Going Beyond the Kitchen: Dining with Diabetesspires53
 
Pursuant Project_0503_FINAL DRAFT
Pursuant Project_0503_FINAL DRAFTPursuant Project_0503_FINAL DRAFT
Pursuant Project_0503_FINAL DRAFTNikita Kanal
 
Where Health Care and Digital Revolution Intersect
Where Health Care and Digital Revolution IntersectWhere Health Care and Digital Revolution Intersect
Where Health Care and Digital Revolution IntersectJames G. Boram Kim
 

Similaire à LDI Research Seminar 1_28_11- Brian Elbel, PhD, MPH (20)

Dr. hasselback's presentation gneyp research event
Dr. hasselback's presentation   gneyp research eventDr. hasselback's presentation   gneyp research event
Dr. hasselback's presentation gneyp research event
 
Integrating the CHNA into the Strategy
Integrating the CHNA into the StrategyIntegrating the CHNA into the Strategy
Integrating the CHNA into the Strategy
 
Final Presentation-FINAL
Final Presentation-FINALFinal Presentation-FINAL
Final Presentation-FINAL
 
How to weight online data
How to weight online dataHow to weight online data
How to weight online data
 
How Healthy Chicago is Addressing Disparities in Chicago
How Healthy Chicago is Addressing Disparities in Chicago How Healthy Chicago is Addressing Disparities in Chicago
How Healthy Chicago is Addressing Disparities in Chicago
 
Hbh draft presentation
Hbh draft presentationHbh draft presentation
Hbh draft presentation
 
Food Insecurity as a Catalyst for Medical Mistrust in Appalachia
Food Insecurity as a Catalyst for Medical Mistrust in AppalachiaFood Insecurity as a Catalyst for Medical Mistrust in Appalachia
Food Insecurity as a Catalyst for Medical Mistrust in Appalachia
 
The Overweight And Obesity Prevalence Among Poles Final
The Overweight And Obesity Prevalence Among Poles FinalThe Overweight And Obesity Prevalence Among Poles Final
The Overweight And Obesity Prevalence Among Poles Final
 
County Needs Assessement Final Draft
County Needs Assessement Final DraftCounty Needs Assessement Final Draft
County Needs Assessement Final Draft
 
Snapshot of Consumer Behaviors of Apr. 2022 EOLiSurvey (EN)
Snapshot of Consumer Behaviors of Apr. 2022 EOLiSurvey (EN)Snapshot of Consumer Behaviors of Apr. 2022 EOLiSurvey (EN)
Snapshot of Consumer Behaviors of Apr. 2022 EOLiSurvey (EN)
 
Health Scorecard Implementation: HealthLead Employer Case Study with DTE
Health Scorecard Implementation: HealthLead Employer Case Study with DTEHealth Scorecard Implementation: HealthLead Employer Case Study with DTE
Health Scorecard Implementation: HealthLead Employer Case Study with DTE
 
Meet the Millennials:
Meet the Millennials: Meet the Millennials:
Meet the Millennials:
 
Screening for diabetes in Indigenous communities in Alberta, Canada: reframin...
Screening for diabetes in Indigenous communities in Alberta, Canada: reframin...Screening for diabetes in Indigenous communities in Alberta, Canada: reframin...
Screening for diabetes in Indigenous communities in Alberta, Canada: reframin...
 
PASBO presentation
PASBO presentationPASBO presentation
PASBO presentation
 
How to Get a Zero Health Care Cost Trend
How to Get a Zero Health Care Cost TrendHow to Get a Zero Health Care Cost Trend
How to Get a Zero Health Care Cost Trend
 
Going Beyond the Kitchen: Dining with Diabetes
Going Beyond the Kitchen: Dining with DiabetesGoing Beyond the Kitchen: Dining with Diabetes
Going Beyond the Kitchen: Dining with Diabetes
 
Pursuant Project_0503_FINAL DRAFT
Pursuant Project_0503_FINAL DRAFTPursuant Project_0503_FINAL DRAFT
Pursuant Project_0503_FINAL DRAFT
 
13. diet
13. diet13. diet
13. diet
 
Banning Soda Under The Snap Program
Banning Soda Under The Snap ProgramBanning Soda Under The Snap Program
Banning Soda Under The Snap Program
 
Where Health Care and Digital Revolution Intersect
Where Health Care and Digital Revolution IntersectWhere Health Care and Digital Revolution Intersect
Where Health Care and Digital Revolution Intersect
 

Plus de Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics

The Effects of Federal Parity on Substance Use Disorder Treatment_Andrew Epst...
The Effects of Federal Parity on Substance Use Disorder Treatment_Andrew Epst...The Effects of Federal Parity on Substance Use Disorder Treatment_Andrew Epst...
The Effects of Federal Parity on Substance Use Disorder Treatment_Andrew Epst...Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics
 
Does a Wireless Incentive Structure Improve Retention, Subject Satisfaction a...
Does a Wireless Incentive Structure Improve Retention, Subject Satisfaction a...Does a Wireless Incentive Structure Improve Retention, Subject Satisfaction a...
Does a Wireless Incentive Structure Improve Retention, Subject Satisfaction a...Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics
 
A Qualitative Study of Adverse Childhood Experiences of Low-Income Youth in P...
A Qualitative Study of Adverse Childhood Experiences of Low-Income Youth in P...A Qualitative Study of Adverse Childhood Experiences of Low-Income Youth in P...
A Qualitative Study of Adverse Childhood Experiences of Low-Income Youth in P...Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics
 
The Intersection of Attitudes and Organizational Factors by Provider Type in ...
The Intersection of Attitudes and Organizational Factors by Provider Type in ...The Intersection of Attitudes and Organizational Factors by Provider Type in ...
The Intersection of Attitudes and Organizational Factors by Provider Type in ...Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics
 
Doulas to fill the gap: a proposed model of doula delivery of cognitive-behav...
Doulas to fill the gap: a proposed model of doula delivery of cognitive-behav...Doulas to fill the gap: a proposed model of doula delivery of cognitive-behav...
Doulas to fill the gap: a proposed model of doula delivery of cognitive-behav...Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics
 
A Glorious Mess: Implementing Evidence-Based Social Skills Interventions in P...
A Glorious Mess: Implementing Evidence-Based Social Skills Interventions in P...A Glorious Mess: Implementing Evidence-Based Social Skills Interventions in P...
A Glorious Mess: Implementing Evidence-Based Social Skills Interventions in P...Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics
 
Healthcare System Supports for Internists Caring for Young Adult Patients wit...
Healthcare System Supports for Internists Caring for Young Adult Patients wit...Healthcare System Supports for Internists Caring for Young Adult Patients wit...
Healthcare System Supports for Internists Caring for Young Adult Patients wit...Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics
 
Elderly Adults with Dementia and Young Adults with Developmental Disabilities...
Elderly Adults with Dementia and Young Adults with Developmental Disabilities...Elderly Adults with Dementia and Young Adults with Developmental Disabilities...
Elderly Adults with Dementia and Young Adults with Developmental Disabilities...Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics
 
Is the quality of case management in a medical home associated with patient s...
Is the quality of case management in a medical home associated with patient s...Is the quality of case management in a medical home associated with patient s...
Is the quality of case management in a medical home associated with patient s...Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics
 
CMHPSR/LDI Research Seminar_New Models for Childrens Mental Health Services D...
CMHPSR/LDI Research Seminar_New Models for Childrens Mental Health Services D...CMHPSR/LDI Research Seminar_New Models for Childrens Mental Health Services D...
CMHPSR/LDI Research Seminar_New Models for Childrens Mental Health Services D...Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics
 
LDI Research Seminar 9_7_12 Eff ects of Federal Policy to Insure Young Adults...
LDI Research Seminar 9_7_12 Effects of Federal Policy to Insure Young Adults...LDI Research Seminar 9_7_12 Effects of Federal Policy to Insure Young Adults...
LDI Research Seminar 9_7_12 Eff ects of Federal Policy to Insure Young Adults...Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics
 

Plus de Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics (20)

The Effects of Federal Parity on Substance Use Disorder Treatment_Andrew Epst...
The Effects of Federal Parity on Substance Use Disorder Treatment_Andrew Epst...The Effects of Federal Parity on Substance Use Disorder Treatment_Andrew Epst...
The Effects of Federal Parity on Substance Use Disorder Treatment_Andrew Epst...
 
Epstein,andy ispor poster_2013
Epstein,andy ispor poster_2013Epstein,andy ispor poster_2013
Epstein,andy ispor poster_2013
 
Does a Wireless Incentive Structure Improve Retention, Subject Satisfaction a...
Does a Wireless Incentive Structure Improve Retention, Subject Satisfaction a...Does a Wireless Incentive Structure Improve Retention, Subject Satisfaction a...
Does a Wireless Incentive Structure Improve Retention, Subject Satisfaction a...
 
Characterizing Emergency Department Utilization By A Population-based Cohort...
Characterizing Emergency Department Utilization  By A Population-based Cohort...Characterizing Emergency Department Utilization  By A Population-based Cohort...
Characterizing Emergency Department Utilization By A Population-based Cohort...
 
Non-Medically Indicated Delivery Prior to 39 Weeks Gestation in United State...
Non-Medically Indicated Delivery Prior to 39 Weeks Gestation  in United State...Non-Medically Indicated Delivery Prior to 39 Weeks Gestation  in United State...
Non-Medically Indicated Delivery Prior to 39 Weeks Gestation in United State...
 
A Qualitative Study of Adverse Childhood Experiences of Low-Income Youth in P...
A Qualitative Study of Adverse Childhood Experiences of Low-Income Youth in P...A Qualitative Study of Adverse Childhood Experiences of Low-Income Youth in P...
A Qualitative Study of Adverse Childhood Experiences of Low-Income Youth in P...
 
The Intersection of Attitudes and Organizational Factors by Provider Type in ...
The Intersection of Attitudes and Organizational Factors by Provider Type in ...The Intersection of Attitudes and Organizational Factors by Provider Type in ...
The Intersection of Attitudes and Organizational Factors by Provider Type in ...
 
Doulas to fill the gap: a proposed model of doula delivery of cognitive-behav...
Doulas to fill the gap: a proposed model of doula delivery of cognitive-behav...Doulas to fill the gap: a proposed model of doula delivery of cognitive-behav...
Doulas to fill the gap: a proposed model of doula delivery of cognitive-behav...
 
A Glorious Mess: Implementing Evidence-Based Social Skills Interventions in P...
A Glorious Mess: Implementing Evidence-Based Social Skills Interventions in P...A Glorious Mess: Implementing Evidence-Based Social Skills Interventions in P...
A Glorious Mess: Implementing Evidence-Based Social Skills Interventions in P...
 
Healthcare System Supports for Internists Caring for Young Adult Patients wit...
Healthcare System Supports for Internists Caring for Young Adult Patients wit...Healthcare System Supports for Internists Caring for Young Adult Patients wit...
Healthcare System Supports for Internists Caring for Young Adult Patients wit...
 
Elderly Adults with Dementia and Young Adults with Developmental Disabilities...
Elderly Adults with Dementia and Young Adults with Developmental Disabilities...Elderly Adults with Dementia and Young Adults with Developmental Disabilities...
Elderly Adults with Dementia and Young Adults with Developmental Disabilities...
 
Is the quality of case management in a medical home associated with patient s...
Is the quality of case management in a medical home associated with patient s...Is the quality of case management in a medical home associated with patient s...
Is the quality of case management in a medical home associated with patient s...
 
Comparison of HIV Testing with other Markers of Chronic Disease Screening 4_...
Comparison of HIV Testing with other  Markers of Chronic Disease Screening 4_...Comparison of HIV Testing with other  Markers of Chronic Disease Screening 4_...
Comparison of HIV Testing with other Markers of Chronic Disease Screening 4_...
 
Comparison of HIV Testing with other Markers of Chronic Disease Screening
Comparison of HIV Testing with other  Markers of Chronic Disease Screening Comparison of HIV Testing with other  Markers of Chronic Disease Screening
Comparison of HIV Testing with other Markers of Chronic Disease Screening
 
High Value Cost Conscious Care: Is it Rationing or Rational Care? 1_11_13
High Value Cost Conscious Care: Is it Rationing or Rational Care? 1_11_13High Value Cost Conscious Care: Is it Rationing or Rational Care? 1_11_13
High Value Cost Conscious Care: Is it Rationing or Rational Care? 1_11_13
 
LDI Research Seminar with Art Kellermann, MD, MPH 11_28_12
LDI Research Seminar with Art Kellermann, MD, MPH 11_28_12LDI Research Seminar with Art Kellermann, MD, MPH 11_28_12
LDI Research Seminar with Art Kellermann, MD, MPH 11_28_12
 
CMHPSR/LDI Research Seminar_New Models for Childrens Mental Health Services D...
CMHPSR/LDI Research Seminar_New Models for Childrens Mental Health Services D...CMHPSR/LDI Research Seminar_New Models for Childrens Mental Health Services D...
CMHPSR/LDI Research Seminar_New Models for Childrens Mental Health Services D...
 
LDI Research Seminar 9_7_12 Eff ects of Federal Policy to Insure Young Adults...
LDI Research Seminar 9_7_12 Effects of Federal Policy to Insure Young Adults...LDI Research Seminar 9_7_12 Effects of Federal Policy to Insure Young Adults...
LDI Research Seminar 9_7_12 Eff ects of Federal Policy to Insure Young Adults...
 
LDI Poster Template
LDI Poster TemplateLDI Poster Template
LDI Poster Template
 
LDI Charles Leighton Memorial Lecture with Mark Chassin, MD 5_4_12
LDI Charles Leighton Memorial Lecture with Mark Chassin, MD  5_4_12LDI Charles Leighton Memorial Lecture with Mark Chassin, MD  5_4_12
LDI Charles Leighton Memorial Lecture with Mark Chassin, MD 5_4_12
 

LDI Research Seminar 1_28_11- Brian Elbel, PhD, MPH

  • 1. Obesity, Calorie Labeling and Behavioral Economics Brian Elbel, PhD, MPH Assistant Professor of Medicine and Health Policy NYU School of Medicine NYU Wagner School of Public Service University of Pennsylvania January 28th, 2011
  • 2. Outline of Presentation • Overview of my work/approach • Influence of calorie labeling: NYC • Behavioral economics and obesity: Field experiment • Conclusion/Next steps
  • 3. My Work/Approach • Broadly: How individuals make choices that influence health and health care – Consumers/patients choice – Physician choice • Behavioral Economics: Econ with psych • Role and influence of pubic policy • As well as broader influences on choice
  • 4. My Work/Approach • Methods – Econometric analysis of secondary data – Primary data collection, natural experiments – Field Experiments – Randomized trials – “Lab-based” experiments • Choice in three areas: – Clinical – Policy – Obesity
  • 5. Research Areas • Clinical/Choice: – Changing default for physician prescribing of medication for high cholesterol (NIH/NIA/RC4) • Policy/Choice – Low-income use of quality information, behavioral economics to improve use (RWJF) – Influence of number of options and Medicare supplemental choice (AHRQ/NSF) – Role of cognitive ability in Medicare choices
  • 6. Research Areas • Obesity/Choice – NYU Nutrition and Obesity Policy Research and Evaluation Network (CDC) – Evaluation of NYC initiative to bring supermarkets to “food deserts” via tax credits (RWJF; Aetna Foundation) – “Bellevue Bodega”: Behavioral economics in a “store” set up in a public hospital (CTSI) – Influence of calorie labeling (NIH/NHLBI/R01, RWJF) – Behavioral economics and fast food choice
  • 8. Obesity Trends* Among U.S. Adults BRFSS, 1990, 1998, 2008 (*BMI 30, or about 30 lbs. overweight for 5’4” person) 1990 1998 2008 No Data <10% 10–14% 15–19% 20–24% 25–29% ≥30%
  • 9. Attempts to Address Obesity • Formerly, largely “education-based” • Recent: attention to the Food Environment • Environment considered by many to be “toxic” – Little fresh food available – Fast food ubiquitous – Marketing of unhealthy foods – children – Pricing of healthy versus unhealthy foods • Altering the environment where consumers make choices: public policy • Consumer not always “rational” in food choice
  • 10. Calorie Labeling • First large-scale public policy to address obesity, focusing on the food environment • Combines information/education and environmental-based approaches Basic premise: Tell consumers before they order the number of calories in each food item
  • 11. Logic Behind Calorie Labeling • Many people eat at fast food restaurants often: Average 2x week • Fast food eating associated with obesity, heart disease – Correlation data – Some more rigorous studies • Individuals currently poorly judge the caloric content of food ** • Simply a “right” to the information • Non-demand effect: restaurants changing menus
  • 12. However… • Food choice is incredibly multifaceted • Nutrition is but one factor in consideration • Everyone wants to start a diet or eat “better”…starting tomorrow: time preferences • Self control • Labeling has a hard climb
  • 13. Calorie Labeling in NYC • First locality to institute calorie labeling • Restaurants w/ more than 15 locations nationally must: – Post the caloric content of all “regular” menu items – Post using the same font/format as the price • Covers 10% of all restaurants in NYC • 2,400 establishments • Labeling began in July 2008
  • 20. Menu Labeling Goes National • Labeling was included in the federal health reform bill • FDA must propose national regulation by March 2011. • Includes all restaurants with 20 or more locations nationally • Federal law will preempt state and local laws
  • 21. Our Study • How does labeling influence the fast food choices of individuals in low-income areas? • Difference-in-Difference Design – Natural experiment – Examine calories purchased before and after labeling • NYC • Comparison city: Newark, NJ
  • 22. Where we collected data • Low-income areas of NYC matched w/ Newark • NYC: Harlem, South Bronx, Central Brooklyn • Why Newark? – Matched our target communities in NYC – Similar “urban” feel • 2 restaurants in NYC for 1 in Newark • Wendy’s, McDonald, Burger King, Kentucky Fried Chicken
  • 23. Timing of data collection • 2-week period before labeling, July 2008 • Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday • Lunch (12:30 – 3) and dinner hours (4:30 – 7) • Post-data collected 1-month after labeling – Same restaurant, time, day of week – Enough time for individuals to have exposure to labels – Not enough time where: • Seasons change • Kids back in school • Become desensitized to labels • Other things could influence obesity
  • 24. How data were collected • RAs outside of fast food restaurants • Ask subjects to bring back receipt, answer survey in exchange for $2 • RAs confirmed what the subject ate on the receipt, performed a short survey • From receipt and survey calculated number of calories purchased by each person • Estimate a 50-60% response rate
  • 25. Influence of Labeling on Adults • Published in Health Affairs, October 2009
  • 26. Sample Full Sample New York City Newark Pre-Labeling Post-Labeling Pre-Labeling Post-Labeling % N % N % N % N % N Male 38% 426 38% 131 36% 161 40% 68 41% 66 Race/Ethnicity Black 66% 760 58% 213 64% 286 74% 130 81% 131 Latino/a 20% 230 25% 91 22% 97 15% 26 10% 16 White/Other 14% 166 17% 64 15% 67 11% 20 9% 15 Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Age 38.2 14.1 38.3 14.7 37.9 14.7 39.7 12.6 37.4 12.6 Education High School of Less 47% 205 48% 72 Not Not Some College or AA 20% 86 16% 24 Collected Collected BA or Above 33% 142 36% 54
  • 27. 28% of those who saw labels indicated the labels influenced their choice No change in calories purchased 825 before labeling v. 846 after labeling
  • 28. No differences between those who noticed/indicated responded to labels, demographic groups
  • 29. Results from Children / Adolescents • Focus on NYC Data (n=266) • Adolescents 13-17 without caregiver were asked the same questions as adults • Parents were asked questions about what they ordered for their children • Separate results by: – Adolescents 13+, by themselves (30%) – Children with their caregiver (70%)
  • 30. 16% of adolescents who saw labels indicated they influenced their choice
  • 31. Children/Adolescents: Calories Purchased NYC Sample (n=266) Calories Purchased Mean (sd) n Pre Post With Caretaker 183 610 (327) 595 (319) Without Caregiver 83 730 (341) 755 (327)
  • 32. Knowledge of Recommended Calorie Allowance • Clearly, labeling less effective if consumers don’t know how many calories they “should” eat • Federal law: requires that restaurants post a statement on recommended allowance—FDA now considering what this should look like • We asked consumers how many calories they thought adults should eat to maintain a healthy weight
  • 33. Knowledge of Recommended Calorie Allowance Full New York City Newark Pre-Labeling Post-Labeling Pre-Labeling Post-Labeling % % % % % Don't Know/ Didn't Answer 11% 6% 13% 15% 14% Less than 500 27% 33% 21% 28% 26% 500 - 999 6% 8% 6% 5% 5% 1,000 - 1,499 16% 14% 18% 16% 15% 1,500 - 1,999 9% 8% 9% 10% 8% 2,000 21% 20% 22% 20% 21% 2,001 - 2,499 2% 2% 3% 0% 0% 2,500-2,999 4% 4% 3% 3% 6% 3,000+ 4% 4% 4% 2% 6%
  • 34. Change in Estimates of Number of Calories Purchased? • Prior work focused on hypothetical scenarios • We asked for estimate of food and drink calories • 23% indicated they didn’t know NYC Newark Pre Post Pre Post Actual 810 842 829 843 Estimate 619 723 615 667 Difference 191 118 214 117 % Different 31% 16% 26% 21% • Diff-in-Diff not statistically significant
  • 35. Change in Estimates of Number of Calories Purchased? • Assume “correct” if estimates are within 100 calories of actual Food and Drink Pre Post % Overestimating 24% 25% Correct Estimate 15% 24% p<.01 % Underestimating 61% 51% Food Only % Overestimating 21% 23% Correct Estimate 16% 21% ns % Underestimating 63% 55% Drink Only % Overestimating 20% 23% Correct Estimate 37% 45% p<.01 % Underestimating 43% 32% Only those who know RDA % Overestimating 34% 32% Correct Estimate 23% 28% p<.05 % Underestimating 43% 40%
  • 36. Who Noticed and Responded to Labels? • Just over half of individuals see labels, consistent over time • Of those who see, only about a quarter use the information • Who are these people? – People who need it the most? – People who are already ‘nutrition-inclined’?
  • 37. Who Noticed and Responded to Labels? Of Those Who Saw: % % Who Saw Labels % Who Were Influenced Sex Female 64% 55% 31% Male 36% 53% 19% * Race/Ethnicity White/Other 16% 61% 45% Black 63% 53% 24% ** Hispanic/Latino 21% 53% 22% ** NYC, Post-Labeling Sample, n=448; *p<.10; **p<.05
  • 38. O f Tho se W ho Saw : % % W ho Saw Labels % W ho Were Influenced Which is More Im portant N utritio n 17% 58% 54% T aste 51% 51% 19% ** B oth 32% 59% 23% ** Lim it Food to Maintain W eight? N ever 29% 51% 8% Seldom/Sometimes 36% 54% 20% * O ften 13% 61% 39% ** A lw ays 22% 53% 54% ** Education HS or less 47% 47% 22% Some College 20% 64% 34% B A or h igher 33% 59% ** 27% Tim es/W eek Eat Fast Food 0-2 30% 57% 32% 3-5 25% 66% 23% * 6-8 17% 49% 29% 9 or mo re 28% 45% ** 21% Know RD A: b/w 1,500 and 2,500 No 58% 53% 25% Yes 42% 61% * 31% Adjusted M odels; ** < .05; * < .10 n=448 n=448 n=242
  • 39. Limitations • Non-random sample • Limited geographic regions/sample • Can’t observe: – Amount of food eaten – Food eaten later in the day – Whether consumers are avoiding fast food altogether • Substituting to healthier foods? • Substituting to less healthy/equally unhealthy foods? • Single time period, one month post-labeling • Not examining changes in menus
  • 40. Consistent With Other Findings • “Starbucks Study”: Bollinger et al. • “Taco Time Study”: Finkelstein et al.
  • 41. Next Steps: This Data • Prices paid, change in prices paid • Geographic/Community characteristics: location of restaurant, location of residence • Change in “type” of orders • Racial/Ethnic Differences
  • 42. Next Steps: Additional Collection • Expansion to examine calorie labeling in two cities, two comparison cities (R01, NHLBI) • Recently collected data in Philadelphia, Baltimore • Receipt collection, larger cross-section of the population • Telephone Survey: capture substitution behaviors, change in sit down restaurants, greater data on food choice, can labeling be made “better”
  • 43. Conclusions • Marked increase in noticing/responding to calorie information in response to labeling • Did not generally translate into decreases in calories purchased for our study population in our study period
  • 44. Conclusions • Those most likely to be influenced by labels: potentially more ‘nutrition’ inclined; more obese? • Estimates of calories purchased improved; still not perfect • Many don’t know recommended calories; more info better?
  • 45. Other methods to influence food choice at the “point of purchase”? The Relative Influence of Behavioral Economic Nudges and Calorie Labels in Altering Fast Food Choice Coauthors: Janet Schwartz (Duke), Jason Riis (Harvard) and Dan Ariely (Duke)
  • 46. Our Study • Will customers “downsize” fast food meals? • Self-control: Consumers will often not stop eating when full • Can we prime or initiate self-control at the beginning of the meal, using a simple “nudge” or reminder • Field Experiment, actual fast food restaurant – Asian-Style chain restaurant – College campus, near medical center • All aspects of experiment performed by restaurant staff
  • 47. Framework • Study 1: Do customers downsize their order with nudge, with or without financial incentive? • Study 2: Relative influence calorie labeling v. nudge • Study 3: Are customers actually eating less?
  • 48. Ordering a meal at the fast food restaurant Step 1 Order meal size Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Order side dish Order entrée(s) Pay Fried rice Steamed rice Chicken dish 1 Beef dish 1 Pork dish 1 … $ Chow Mixed Veggie Etc. Etc. mein veggies dish 1 … 48
  • 49. How the nudge worked Step 1 Order meal size Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Order side dish Order entrée(s) Pay Fried rice Steamed rice Chicken dish 1 Beef dish 1 Pork dish 1 … $ Chow Mixed Veggie Etc. Etc. mein veggies dish 1 … “Would you like to cut more than 200 calories from your meal by taking a half portion of your side dish?” 49
  • 50. Study 1: Summer 2009 • N = 283 – Data gathered from receipt • Side dish, entrée(s), downsize – Gender (estimated by RA) • 75% male – Median age (estimated by RA) • 26 – Summer, largely non-student population
  • 51. Study 1 Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat BASELINE BASELINE DOWNSIZE DOWNSIZE no discount no discount 1% 35% BASELINE BASELINE DOWNSIZE DOWNSIZE 25¢ discount 25¢ discount 4% 32% •No difference in discount v not •Taking “Nudge” resulted in 200+ calorie saving
  • 52. Calories per Customer (N=283) 1200 Baseline Downsize 1010 1000 912* * p<.05 800 600 530 516 480 396* 400 200 0 Side Dish Entrée Total Cals
  • 53. Summary • Study 1 – People do not spontaneously ask for less food – Customers will downsize meals if prompted (~90 calories averaging across all in condition) • With and without a discount – No compensation with higher calorie entrees • Study 2 – Is downsizing more or less effective than calorie labeling at reducing consumption? How do they interact?
  • 54. Study 2 • Fall 2009 • College students back in town • N = 994 – Receipts • Side dish, entrée, downsize – Gender (estimated) • 74% male – Median age (estimated) • 20
  • 55. Study 2 Design Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat 55
  • 56. Study 2 Design Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat CALORIE LABELS GO UP (AND STAY UP) 56
  • 57. Study 2 Design Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat baseline baseline baseline NUDGE NUDGE NUDGE NUDGE baseline baseline baseline CALORIE LABELS GO UP (AND STAY UP) baseline baseline baseline NUDGE NUDGE NUDGE NUDGE baseline baseline baseline 57
  • 58. Study 2 Results Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu % Accepting Fri Sat baseline baseline baseline 0% NUDGE NUDGE NUDGE NUDGE 21% baseline baseline baseline 1% CALORIE LABELS GO UP (AND STAY UP) baseline baseline baseline 0% NUDGE NUDGE NUDGE NUDGE 14% baseline baseline baseline 0% Still accepting nudge, uptake of nudge is LOWER when labels are present 58
  • 59. Calories per Customer (n=994) 1200 Baseline Downsize 1020 1033 1016 1000 945* * p<.05 800 600 536 555 560 484 508 478 456* 437* 400 •Calorie labeling did not appear to alter food choice for this population • 200 dish calories and total calories decreased with nudge in pre-labeling period Side •Still influence of nudge for side dish when labels are present, smaller 0 Side Dish Entrée Total Cals Side Dish Entrée Total Cals Pre-label Post-label
  • 60. Study 3 • Calorie labels still up • Same procedure (baseline v. nudge) – All customers were asked to take part in a survey for $10, asked to bring any leftovers – Leftovers were weighed • Those in the baseline condition started with more food…. • But, both conditions left the same amount of food on the plate—almost nothing • Not just ordering less, but eating less
  • 61. Strengths / Weaknesses • Strength: – Field experiment – Objective measure of purchasing – Relative influence of two interventions • Weaknesses: – External validity – Selected sample – Mechanism
  • 62. Conclusions • Nudging did have an influence on food choice and consumption; calorie labeling did not • Labeling did not improve the influence of “nudge”, potentially made it worse • Policy: Greater attention to policy approaches aside from simply information – Defaults – Other Nudges? • Non-policy: model for employers, restaurants?
  • 63. Overall Conclusions • Labeling may be justified/helpful for other reasons, but likely won’t alter food choice in a large scale way by itself • Behavioral economic approaches potentially effective; public policy? • Working with employers, others to implement changes • Multiple approaches, done at same time/place, potentially more effective in influencing obesity/food choice: labeling AND nudge?
  • 64. Thanks Collaborators Funders • Rogan Kersh • NIH/NHLBI: R01HL095935 • Beth Dixon • RWJF Healthy Eating • Tori Brescoll Research • Tod Mijanovich • Yale Rudd Center • Gbenga Ogedegbe • Beth Weitzman Staff • Dan Ariely • Courtney Abrams • Janet Schwartz • Joyce Gyamfi • Jason Riis
  • 67. Noticed / Responded to Calorie Information New York City post – labeling sample Noticed Calorie Information? N=450 YES No N=242 (54%) N=208 (46%) Info Influenced Choice? YES No N= 67 (28%) N=175 (72%) Reported purchasing fewer calories? YES N=59 (88%)
  • 68. Calorie Labeling in NYC • The History – First passed in 2006 – Restaurant industry sued – Judge ruled against NYC DOHMH on “technical” grounds – Re-wrote the law in 2008, sued again – Ruling went all the way to 2nd Circuit Court – Ruled in favor of NYC DOHMH
  • 69. What do we currently know about labeling and its effectiveness • When labels are not on the menu board: – Only 0.1% to 10% of people “see” calorie information • NYC DOHMH Study, AJPH: – Looked at voluntary labeling at Subway – Those who saw labels ate 50 fewer calories • Experimental Work: Harnack et al., 2009 – Hotel Ballroom, mimicked fast food restaurant – No reduction in calories ordered – Males: increased calories ordered when labels present • Experimental Work: Roberto, Brownell et al. 2010 – Randomized to: no labels, labels, labels w/ “2000” prompt – Labeling decreased intake, with prompt