This article was downloaded by: [Florida International University]

On: 03 January 2015, At: 12:52

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Quality Assurance in

Hospitality & Tourism
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wqah20

Nutrition Labeling for Restaurant Menu

Items: College Students’ Preferences for
Nutrition Information and Its Influence
on Purchase Intention
a a a
Kelly Mayfield , Liang (Rebecca) Tang & Robert Bosselman
a
Department of Apparel, Events, & Hospitality Management,
College of Human Sciences, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, USA
Published online: 28 Jul 2014.

Click for updates

To cite this article: Kelly Mayfield, Liang (Rebecca) Tang & Robert Bosselman (2014) Nutrition
Labeling for Restaurant Menu Items: College Students’ Preferences for Nutrition Information and Its
Influence on Purchase Intention, Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism, 15:3, 310-325,
DOI: 10.1080/1528008X.2014.921775

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1528008X.2014.921775

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
 Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 12:52 03 January 2015
 Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism, 15:310–325, 2014
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1528-008X print/1528-0098 online
DOI: 10.1080/1528008X.2014.921775

RESEARCH NOTE

Nutrition Labeling for Restaurant Menu Items:

College Students’ Preferences for Nutrition
Information and Its Influence on Purchase
Intention
Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 12:52 03 January 2015

KELLY MAYFIELD, LIANG (REBECCA) TANG,

and ROBERT BOSSELMAN
Department of Apparel, Events, & Hospitality Management, College of Human Sciences, Iowa
State University, Ames, Iowa, USA

During the college years, young adults develop eating habits and
concerns that follow them throughout their lives. Understanding
college students’ menu selections in dining-out situations can pro-
vide insight into their eating habits. This study aimed to investigate
college students’ preferences for types of nutrition information
(such as macronutrients and total calories, specific nutrients, and
health claims) on restaurant menus, and the impact of nutri-
tion information on purchase intention. The presence of caloric
and macronutrient information on restaurant menus was found
to significantly affect purchase intention. The findings provide a
foundation for future hospitality studies investigating dining-out
menus as a persuasive tool for better health, and suggest strategies
for industry professionals.

KEYWORDS college students, health claim, macronutrient and

total calories, purchase intention, specific nutrients

Address correspondence to Liang (Rebecca) Tang, Department of Apparel, Events, &

Hospitality Management, College of Human Sciences, Iowa State University, 12 MacKay Hall,
Ames, IA 50011. E-mail: rebeccat@iastate.edu

310
 Nutrition Labeling for Restaurant Menu Items 311

INTRODUCTION

Obesity is a growing epidemic in the United States; nearly two-thirds of

American adults are overweight (Food and Drug Administration [FDA], 2006;
Thompson, 2004). In response to this epidemic, the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC) outlined recommendations for Americans to
follow in order to decrease obesity (CDC, 2009). The recommendations
included the promotion of healthy eating habits for Americans. The Nutrition
Labeling and Education Act (NLEA) of 1990 played an important role in edu-
cating Americans about the nutrition content of foods and was effective in
improving overall dietary quality in the 70 to 85% of the population that uses
it (Savage & Johnson, 2006), but the act covers only packaged foods.
Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 12:52 03 January 2015

Prior to the NLEA, there was a void in legislation mandating nutrition

information in the retail foodservice sector, and nutrition fact panels, nutrition
claims, and nutrition reference amounts were not mandatory on all food
service menus or point-of-sale materials (Shields, 1996). Since the passage of
the NLEA in the 1990s, consumption of food outside the home has increased
substantially such that Americans were found to spend almost half of their
food budgets on dining out in 2004 (National Restaurant Association, 2004).
McCrory and colleagues (1999) revealed that consuming restaurant food is
positively correlated with overweight and obesity.
As an amendment of the NLEA, the Labeling Education and Nutrition Act
(LEAN) was introduced in 2008 and set a new national standard for restau-
rant menu labeling. The National Restaurant Association (2009) advocated for
federally mandated legislation to establish a national standard for the pro-
vision of nutrition information in chain restaurants. In February 2009 the
LEAN was introduced as part of the health care reform bill. It requires
point-of-sale materials for standardized menu items offered at chain restau-
rants with greater than 20 units (Labeling Education and Nutrition Act,
2009).
As legislatures have begun to recognize, there are several poten-
tial health benefits of the provision of nutrition information on restaurant
menus. For example, consumers are more likely to recognize healthy
options and thus be drawn to such menu items. In addition, consumers
are generally willing to pay more for items with accompanying nutrition
information. Finally, nutrition information can act as an influencer of atti-
tudes and menu selections (Burton, Creyer, Kees, & Huggins, 2006; Hwang
& Lorenzen, 2008). In summary, the provision of nutrition information
on restaurant menus empowers consumers to make well-informed dietary
decisions.
Nutrition knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes established during one’s
college years may carry over into adulthood and have an impact on future
health status (Dinger & Waigandt, 1997). However, most college students’
 312 K. Mayfield et al.

dietary intakes do not meet daily recommendations for designated food

groups (American College Health Association, 2009). Therefore, college
students were selected as the focus population for the study.
Currently there are limited government regulations for nutrition infor-
mation on retail food service menus aside from chain establishments, and
more information needs to be gathered regarding the pertinence and use of
information included on menus. This research aimed to fill the gap specif-
ically in the college student population. The purpose of the study was to
identify the types of nutrition information that college students majoring in
dietetics and hospitality management believe is important to be included on
restaurant menus. The study investigated college students’ preferences on
the provision of calorie and macronutrient information (calories, fat, protein,
Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 12:52 03 January 2015

carbohydrate); specific nutrient information (e.g., saturated fat, sodium, fiber,

Vitamin A, etc.); and health claims (heart health claims). The study then fur-
ther examined the extent to which each of the nutrient categories influences
consumer purchase intentions. The results of the study yield valuable infor-
mation for both policy makers and industry practitioners. The United States
government can mandate the inclusion of important nutrient information on
menus for promoting healthy eating among college students, and restaurant
owners and college catering operators can target efforts to provide succinct
and effective nutritional information.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Nutrition Labeling
The primary objective of the NLEA of 1990 was to assist consumers in main-
taining healthy dietary practices by providing clear and concise information
for making informed dietary decisions in the realm of packaged foods (FDA,
1993; NLEA, 1990). The Nutrition Facts panel that is prominently displayed
on most manufactured food packaging emerged from this legislation; the law
requires almost all packaged foods to list calorie, fat, saturated fat, choles-
terol, sodium, fiber, sugar, protein, vitamin, and mineral content (Garretson
& Burton, 2000; NLEA, 1990). The NLEA also set parameters by which health
claims can appear on packaged food products. Health claims, by definition,
are statements that imply that a relationship exists between food (or the con-
stitution of a food) and health (Food and Health Organization of the United
Nations/World Health Organization, 2010). The underlying notion behind
the provision of nutrition facts and health claims on food labels is that if
consumers have reliable, easily accessible nutrition available, and if the rela-
tionship between diet and risk of disease is understood, then risk-reducing
food selections may be made (Balasubramanian & Cole, 2002).
 Nutrition Labeling for Restaurant Menu Items 313

Because Americans eat restaurant food so frequently and because of the

association between dining out and overweight/obesity, the nutritional qual-
ity of away-from-home foods has received much attention in the discussion
of improving Americans’ diets (McCrory et. al, 1999). Away-from-home foods
generally have higher calories, fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, and sodium
combined with lower densities of fiber, calcium, and iron than at-home foods
(Guthrie, Lin, & Frazao, 2002). Excessive caloric intake over time can lead to
weight gain; therefore, away-from-home foods are a contributor to the obe-
sity epidemic in America. The potential impact of the provision of nutrition
information on restaurant menus has been recognized by legislatures and
has yielded the introduction of LEAN (2009), which impacts large national
chain restaurants (Labeling Education and Nutrition Act, 2009).
Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 12:52 03 January 2015

Nutrition Information on Restaurant Menus

A contributing factor to Americans’ overconsumption of calories and
macronutrients may be the lack of nutrition information available in restau-
rants. Consumers dining out may not realize the amount of calories they
are consuming when no nutrition information is provided. The provision
of such information allows consumers the opportunity to assess the health-
fulness of items based on an objective report of nutrients and thus make
informed dietary decisions that can provide a significant public health bene-
fit (Burton et al., 2006). Consumers are not always aware of the high levels
of undesirable nutrients in various foods; in particular, research has shown
that consumers tend to underestimate calories, fat, and sodium in restaurant
menu items (Burton & Creyer, 2004; Burton et al., 2006; Kozup, Creyer, &
Burton, 2003). Although consumers may not always use nutrition informa-
tion in making menu selections, it is generally viewed as favorable to have
such information available (Crites & Aikman, 2005; Lando & Labiner-Wolfe,
2007; Thomas & Mills, 2006).
Legislatures have recognized the need for mandating the availability of
nutrition information in specific retail food service sectors. The U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and more than a dozen legislatures have
introduced legislation to require chain restaurants to provide nutrition infor-
mation to their customers (Wootan & Osborn, 2006). Most of these bills are
limited to the enforcement of chain restaurants that employ standardized
recipes in standardized menus and portions. In the packaged food sector,
the nutrition facts panel includes a calorie count and macronutrient infor-
mation (fat, carbohydrates, and protein) in addition to specific nutrients if
space allows, including saturated fat, trans fat, cholesterol, sugar, sodium,
dietary fiber, potassium, Vitamin A, Vitamin C, calcium, and iron. Calories,
saturated fat, trans fat, and sodium are the primary nutrients slated to appear
on restaurant menus in pending legislation.
 314 K. Mayfield et al.

In spite of these gains, attention must also be directed to non-chain

restaurants, which are currently not required to provide nutrition infor-
mation at the point of purchase. If it is understood which types of
information have the greatest impact on purchasing behaviors, smaller
restaurant operations can devote their efforts to reporting those nutrition
facts. Therefore, this study sought to investigate the effects of macronutrient
information, specific nutrient information, and health claims on purchase
intentions.

College Students’ Preferences for Nutrition Information

College students’ preferences for the provision of nutrition information
Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 12:52 03 January 2015

have been examined in recent studies. Cranage, Conklin, and Bordi (2003)
found that the provision of nutrition information positively impacted col-
lege students’ purchase intentions and customer satisfaction when discerning
between two formulations of a similar product. The authors suggested that
the provision of nutrition information aids young adults’ informed decision-
making instead of presenting options as ‘healthy,’ which may actually deter
consumption. Conklin, Cranage, and Lambert (2005) investigated whether
first-year college students were aware of nutrition labels and used the infor-
mation to influence their food choices. However, neither of the two studies
examined whether the provision of certain components of nutrition infor-
mation had a significant effect on purchase intention. The current study
examined students whose majors were hospitality management or dietetics
at the time of the study and who were therefore potential future professionals
in nutrition-related fields. It was deemed imperative to examine this particu-
lar population’s beliefs about the importance of specific nutrition information
and its effect on purchase intention.

Health Claims
The NLEA (1990) permits the use of two types of claims (health claims
and nutrition claims) for food products as long as the claims are made
within specified guidelines. By definition, a nutrition claim is a statement that
declares that a food has particular nutritional properties (Food and Health
Organization of the United Nations/World Health Organization, 2010). Claims
such as “high in fiber,” “good source of calcium,” “reduced calorie,” “low
fat,” and “sugar free” are examples of approved nutrition claims under the
NLEA legislation (NLEA, 1990; Williams, 2005). Health claims are used to
emphasize relationships between a nutrient and the risk of a health-related
condition (Garretson & Burton, 2000; NLEA, 1990; Williams, 2005). The FDA
 Nutrition Labeling for Restaurant Menu Items 315

has authorized nine health claims that can be made for foods that meet spe-
cific nutritional requirements (Food and Health Organization of the United
Nations/World Health Organization, 2010; Silverglade, 1996).
In the packaged food sector, Williams (2005) found that health claims
have a positive impact on purchase intention. In some restaurants, health
claims are included on menus (Garretson & Burton, 2000) and it is required
that when health claims are made about restaurant food items, establishments
must have nutrition information available to substantiate the claims. It has
been debated whether this specific type and amount of information is in
alignment with what consumers actually want when seeking nutrition infor-
mation in dining-out settings. This study investigated which specific nutrient
information is important for college student consumers to have available on
Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 12:52 03 January 2015

restaurant menus when making food selections. Specifically, four hypotheses

were proposed for the study as follows:

H1: Three types of nutrition information (total calories and macronutrients,

specific nutrients, and health claims) on restaurant menus have signifi-
cantly different impacts on college student customers’ menu selections.
H2: The presence of total calorie and macronutrient information on restau-
rant menus has a significant impact on college student customers’
intentions to make purchases.
H3: The presence of specific nutrient information on restaurant menus has
a significant impact on college student customers’ intentions to make
purchases.
H4: The presence of health claims on restaurant menus has a significant
impact on college student customers’ intentions to make purchases.

Based on H2-H4, a conceptual model was established (Figure 1).

Total calories and

macronutrients

Specific nutrients Purchase Intention

Health claims

FIGURE 1 Conceptual Model.

 316 K. Mayfield et al.

METHODOLOGY
Survey Development
A quantitative survey approach was utilized to assess college students’ pref-
erences for the types of nutrition information made available on restaurant
menus. The survey instrument consisted of three primary sections: col-
lege students’ food-related lifestyles and demographic information; nutrition
information; and the impact of nutrition information on purchase inten-
tion. The first section of the survey instrument aimed to gather information
regarding body mass index (BMI), how frequently respondents’ dined in
restaurants, attitudes toward eating in restaurants, and types of establish-
ments frequented, as well as demographic information (e.g., age, gender,
Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 12:52 03 January 2015

and ethnicity).
The second section of the instrument was designed to measure the
importance of each nutrient in three categories with regard to influence on
menu selections. The measurement items of the three nutrient categories
(macronutrient and total calorie information; specific nutrient informa-
tion; and health claims) were adopted from Josiam and Foster (2009).
Macronutrient and total calorie information was clustered with total calories,
fat, protein, and carbohydrates. Specific nutrient information was composed
of 11 items, including saturated fat, trans fat, cholesterol, sugar, sodium,
dietary fiber, potassium, Vitamin A, Vitamin C, calcium, and iron. ‘Health
claims’ only refers to heart health claims. All of the items in Section 2 were
measured with a 7-point Likert-type scale where 1 = ‘extremely important’
and 7 = ‘not important at all.’
The third section of the instrument investigated the impact of nutrition
information on purchase intention. Respondents were asked, “If nutrition
information is presented on a restaurant menu, will the amount of the fol-
lowing nutrient influence your decision to purchase the food item?” The
aforementioned list of nutrients used in the previous series of questions was
inquired about, in the same order. The answer options included ‘yes,’ ‘no,’
and ‘I don’t know.’

Data Collection
A pilot study was conducted with 15 graduate students in the departments of
hospitality management in major universities in the Midwestern United States
in order to assess content and face validity. Items were subsequently elimi-
nated or altered to ensure that participants understood the questions as the
researchers intended. Traditional college students, defined as those between
the ages of 18 and 24 years, majoring in either hospitality management or
dietetics at one of three land-grant universities located in the Midwest and
Northwest regions of the United States were recruited to participate in the
 Nutrition Labeling for Restaurant Menu Items 317

internet survey. A total of 745 students were invited to participate into the
survey. A list of students’ names, e-mail addresses, and majors was obtained
from the registrar’s office for each participating university, and students in
the sample were contacted via e-mail. A second invitation was sent one
week later to members of the sample who did not respond to the initial
request for participants. Following the two-week data collection period, a
total of 123 surveys were returned. After deleting 10 incomplete responses,
113 responses were used for the further analysis.

Data Analysis
Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 12:52 03 January 2015

SPSS was utilized for statistical analysis. Descriptive statistics were calculated
for all of the statements in the survey. R2 was employed to assess how
well the model explains the effect of the provision of nutrition informa-
tion on purchase intention. Simple linear regression was utilized to explain
the relationship between each nutrition construct and purchase intention,
respectively. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was employed to assess differ-
ences between each construct. Responses to the height and weight items
of the survey were used to calculate each respondent’s BMI based on the
following formula:

Weight in lbs × 703

BMI =
(Height in inches)2

BMI values were then used to assign each participant to a weight

class according to the Center for Disease Control Prevention guidelines
(2010) shown in Table 1.

RESULTS

As shown in Table 2, the majority of the respondents were 21 years of

age or younger (74%) and female (81.3%) among the 113 usable responses.
The high proportion of females in the study population is reflective of the

TABLE 1 The Guideline for Weight Classes of BMI Values

BMI Weight Status

Below 18.5 Underweight

18.5 – 24.9 Normal
25 – 29.9 Overweight
30 & Above Obese
 318 K. Mayfield et al.

TABLE 2 Demographics of Sample (N=113)

Characteristic N %∗

Age
18 5 4.1
19 25 20.3
20 33 26.8
21 28 22.8
22 17 13.8
23 2 1.6
24 2 1.6
Gender
Male 13 10.6
Female 100 81.3
Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 12:52 03 January 2015

Ethnicity
African American 0 0.0
American Indian/Alaskan 3 2.4
Native
Asian 9 7.3
White 98 79.7
Multiracial 3 2.4
Weight Status
Underweight 7 5.7
Normal weight 83 67.5
Overweight 16 13.0
Obese 3 2.4
∗
Percentages may not total 100% due to non-response or multiple responses to the questions.

gender disproportion among dietetic students and professionals. Many stud-

ies related to dietetic students have yielded samples comprised of over
90% females (Kirk, Cade, & Greenhalgh, 2002; Puhl, Wharton & Heuer,
2009). The majority of the respondents were white (79.7%) with 12.1%
that identified as minorities that included American Indian/Alaskan Native,
Asian, and Multiracial. African Americans were not represented in the study
sample. According to the calculated BMIs, 67.5% of the respondents were
within the normal weight range and 15.4% were classified as overweight or
obese.
Food-related lifestyle responses (Table 3) indicated that most of the
respondents (63.7%) lived off campus and had access to a kitchen. Regardless
of on-campus living status, however, 84.8% of respondents reported that
they had access to a kitchen. Students reported dining out frequently;
43.1% reported eating out at least once weekly, while 31.7% indicated eat-
ing out three or more times weekly. The results showed that quick-service
restaurants (59.3%) and chain restaurants (60.2%) were the most frequently
patronized types of establishments. A total of 38.2% of respondents reported
patronizing on-campus dining facilities or cafeterias.
The authors evaluated the importance of the three nutrient categories
on college student customers’ menu selections (Table 4). The results of
 Nutrition Labeling for Restaurant Menu Items 319

TABLE 3 Summary of College Students’ Food Related Lifestyles

Characteristic N %∗

Campus living
Live on campus with kitchen 26 21.1
Live on campus without a kitchen 21 17.1
Live off campus 66 63.7
Influencers for eating out
Eat healthy at home 60 48.8
Eat in restaurants as indulgence 49 39.8
Eat in restaurants as necessity 10 8.1
Frequency for dining out
At least once a day 9 7.3
Several times a week 30 24.4
Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 12:52 03 January 2015

Once a week 53 43.1

Once a month 25 20.3
Less than once a month 3 2.4
Types of establishments patronized
Quick service restaurants 73 59.3
Chain restaurants 74 60.2
Fine dining 10 8.1
Bar and grill 52 42.3
Grocery deli 16 13.0
Entertainment restaurants 6 4.9
Cafeteria 47 38.2
Other 10 8.1
∗
Percentages may not total 100% due to non-response or multiple responses to the
questions.

ANOVA testing showed a significant difference among macronutrients and

total calories (M = 5.40, F = 12.37); health claims (M = 5.09, F = 8.54);
and specific nutrients (M = 4.87, F = 4.77), which supported Hypothesis 1.
That is, the three types of nutrition information on restaurant menus were
shown to have different impacts on college student customers’ menu selec-
tions. Among the four items under macronutrients and total calories, total
calories had the overall highest mean rating, 5.97 (SD = 1.52); followed by
trans fat, 5.59 (SD = 1.69); saturated fat, 5.51 (SD = 1.67); and fat, 5.47
(SD = 1.51).
As shown in Table 5, the R2 test results indicated that 20.4% of the
total variance in purchase intention for restaurant items can be explained
by the provision of nutrition information and health claims on restaurant
menus. The result of the F test for regression analysis was 7.837 (p < .01).
The presence of total calorie and macronutrient information on restaurant
menus significantly affected purchase intention (p = .02; H2 was accepted).
However, the presence of specific nutrient information did not significantly
affect purchase intention (p = .38; H3 was rejected). Finally, no significant
relationship was found between the provision of health claims and purchase
intention (p = .49; H4 was rejected).
 320 K. Mayfield et al.

TABLE 4 Internal Consistency Reliability Estimates, F-Statistic for Homogeneity, Mean Ratings
and Standard Deviations for Nutrition Information on Restaurant Menus (N = 113)

Construct A F Mean SD
∗∗
Macronutrients and Total Calories .88 12.37 5.40 0.43
Total Calories 5.97 1.52
Carbohydrate 4.97 1.50
Fat 5.47 1.51
Protein 5.18 1.48
Specific Nutrients .95 8.54∗∗ 4.87 0.47
Saturated Fat 5.51 1.67
Sugar 4.88 1.56
Trans Fat 5.59 1.69
Cholesterol 4.95 1.57
Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 12:52 03 January 2015

Sodium 5.38 1.52

Fiber 5.09 1.50
Potassium 4.26 1.38
Vitamin A 4.34 1.45
Vitamin C 4.46 1.44
Calcium 4.57 1.60
Iron 4.59 1.49
Health Claim
Heart Healthy Claim 4.77∗∗ 5.09 1.49
∗∗
p < .01.

TABLE 5 Model Summary

R R Square Standard Error of

R Square Adjusted Estimate

0.451 0.204 0.178 0.287

Variable B SE B β t Sig.

Total calories and macronutrients 0.06 0.02 0.27 2.49 0.02∗

Specific nutrients 0.04 0.05 0.15 0.88 0.38
Health claims 0.03 0.04 0.11 0.69 0.49
∗
Relationship found significant at p = .05.

CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS

The results indicated that the consumers surveyed are particularly concerned
with macronutrient information (namely caloric and fat statistics) on menus
but show less concern for the inclusion of specific nutrient information and
health claims on restaurant menus. Thus, the inclusion of all specific nutrients
and health claims on restaurant menus may not be as effective as the use of
limited nutrition information on menus.
The inclusion of caloric and macronutrient information was found to
significantly affect purchase intention. Nestle and Jacobson (2000) suggested
that the restaurant industry plays a role in the overconsumption of calories
 Nutrition Labeling for Restaurant Menu Items 321

when eating restaurant foods because restaurant menu items are denser in
both calories and fat content when compared to foods prepared at home.
Furthermore, consumers often underestimate calories and fat in restaurant
menu items (Burton & Creyer, 2004; Burton et al., 2006; Kozup et al., 2003).
By providing these types of nutrition information on restaurant menus, con-
sumers are enabled to make more accurate, informed dietary decisions.
The principle component of weight management is caloric balance (FDA,
2009); the inclusion of caloric content on restaurant menus enables con-
sumers to take control of caloric intake when dining in restaurants, which
contributes to the nutrition component of weight management. As indi-
cated in this study, calorie and macronutrient information may have an
effect on patrons’ willingness to purchase an item, and the implications may
Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 12:52 03 January 2015

extend beyond a single purchase decision. If menu items are revealed to

have macronutrient or caloric contents inconsistent with the expectation of
consumers, this may have an effect on item sales. The long- term effect
may lead to more healthful menu options because of the transparency of
information.
The authors suggest that food service providers should seek to improve
college students’ awareness of healthy dining-out habits and educate them
to be able to accurately evaluate individual daily macronutrient needs.
By communicating with students about healthy diets, restaurants can estab-
lish themselves as socially responsible businesses, which is beneficial for
their long-term development. Restaurants are also advised to adopt diverse
promotional approaches in order to connect with college students. For exam-
ple, many college students show high levels of interest in social media
and spend considerable time daily on Facebook and Twitter. Restaurants
should consider developing healthy dining-out information programs in
online communities, and professional dieticians employed by the restau-
rants can provide personalized nutrition advice to individual members who
provide basic personal health information and desired outcomes (e.g., lose
weight, keep fit, etc.). Members also could participate in healthy dining-out
quizzes in online communities in order to get free meals or coupons from
restaurants. Moreover, food service establishments are advised to sponsor
campus-wide events or festivals (e.g., celebration of new semesters, job fairs,
and other events) where they can provide free food samples and distribute
healthy dining-out fact sheets.
Statistical analysis indicated a non-significant relationship between spe-
cific nutrient information and purchase intention. Micronutrient, mineral, and
other specific nutrient information may be useful to individuals with specific
health issues that require diet modifications; however, the survey sample
for this study did not rate these items to have great importance with the
exception of saturated fat and trans fat. This is consistent with the finding of
Mills and Thomas (2008), who noted that consumers perceive saturated fat,
 322 K. Mayfield et al.

trans fat, and total fat information as extremely important in menu descrip-
tions. Consumers place greater importance on these items than on other
nutrients (Garretson & Burton, 2000). Though specific nutrients were not
found to significantly affect purchase intention, saturated fat and trans fat
measured outside of this scale may have a more marked effect.
The results of this study provide valuable insight into the types of
nutrition information that are most important for this specific demographic
and enrich the understanding of nutrition labeling for dining-out behavior.
As dietetic and hospitality students graduate and go on to work in their
fields, their nutrition and foodservice expertise will be valuable. As such,
understanding their behaviors and beliefs in regard to nutrition informa-
Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 12:52 03 January 2015

tion can be valuable to help understand the future direction of practice and
legislation.

Limitations and Future Research

Due to the narrow sample obtained for this research, the results are not gen-
eralizable to the overall college student population. Because of their choice
of major, dietetic and hospitality management students have some back-
ground knowledge in nutrition. Therefore, results from this population may
differ from those from a general college student population. Future research
may include students in majors other than hospitality and dietetics in order
to better reflect a general student population. Because of the high proportion
of female respondents in the sample, gender bias may be problematic in this
study. By broadening the sample beyond dietetic and hospitality majors, it
is expected that gender representation would be more equitable. This study
included students from only three land-grant universities, two of which are in
the Midwestern and one of which is in the Northwestern region of the United
States. Because the student bodies from which participants were recruited
were predominantly white, the sample lacked representation of all minority
groups. Selecting students in various regions and from a wider variety of
majors would be beneficial for future research.
The data collection method for this study used Internet surveys that
yielded a low response rate. As Porter and Umbach (2006) recognized,
response rates among college students are highly varied and are impacted by
a number of factors which may include institutional characteristics such as
the makeup of the student body, gender ratios, students’ academic achieve-
ment, and the urban/rural communities in which the colleges are located.
A mixed method mode of survey administration could be adopted in future
studies to increase the response rate. The results related to the construct
of health claims in the study may be biased since only a single measure-
ment item (heart health claims) was used. Future research is advised to
use more items to measure the construct of health claims on restaurant
menus.
 Nutrition Labeling for Restaurant Menu Items 323

REFERENCES

American College Health Association. (2009). National College Health Assessment

of Spring 2008 Reference Group Data Report (Abridged). Journal of American
College of Health, 57, 477–488.
Balasubramanian, S. K., & Cole, C. (2002). Consumers’ search and use of nutrition
information: The challenge and promise of the Nutrition Labeling and Education
Act. Journal of Marketing, 66, 112–127.
Burton, S., & Creyer, E. H. (2004). What consumers don’t know can hurt them:
Consumer evaluations and disease risk perceptions of restaurant menu items.
The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 38(1), 121–145.
Burton, S., Creyer, E. H., Kees, J., & Huggins, K. (2006). Attacking the obesity
Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 12:52 03 January 2015

epidemic: The potential health benefits of providing nutrition information in

restaurants. American Journal of Public Health, 96, 1669–1675.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2009). Study estimates medical
cost of obesity may be as high as $147 billion annually: New community rec-
ommendations show ways to reduce burden. Retrieved January 3, 2013 from
http://www.cdc.gov/media/pressrel/2009/r090727.htm
Conklin, M. T., Cranage, D. A., & Lambert, C. (2005). College students’ use of point
of selection nutrition information. Topics in Clinical Nutrition, 20(2), 97–108.
Cranage, D. A., Conklin, M. T., & Bordi, P. L. (2003). Can young adults be influ-
enced to eat healthier snacks: The effects of choice and nutritional information
on taste, satisfaction and intent to purchase. Journal of Foodservice Research
International, 14, 125–137.
Crites, S. L., Jr., & Aikman, S. N. (2005). Impact of nutrition knowledge on food
evaluations. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 59, 1191–1200.
Dinger, M. K., & Waigandt, A. (1997). Dieteray intake and physical activity behaviors
of male and female college students. American Journal of Health Promotion,
11, 360–361.
Food and Health Organization of the United Nations/World Health Organization.
(2010). Guidelines for use of nutrition and health claims. Retrieved December
2, 2012 from http://www.codexalimentarius.net/web/more.info.jsp?id_sta=351
Garretson, J. A., & Burton, S. (2000). Effects of nutrition facts panel values, nutrition
claims, and health claims on consumer attitudes, perceptions of disease-related
risks, and trust. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 19, 213–227.
Guthrie, J. F., Lin, B. H., & Frazao, E. (2002). Role of food prepared away from
home in the American diet, 1977-78 versus 1994-96: Changes and consequences.
Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 34, 140–150.
Hwang, J., & Lorenzen, C. L. (2008). Effective nutrition labeling of restaurant menu
and pricing of healthy menu. Journal of Foodservice, 19, 270–276.
Josiam, B., & Foster, C. (2009). Nutritional information on restaurant menus:
Who cares and why restauranteurs should bother. International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, 21, 876–891.
Kirk, S. F. L, Cade, J. E., & Greenhalgh, A. (2002). Dietitians and the internet: Are
dietitians embracing the new technology? Journal of Human Nutrition and
Dietetics, 14, 477–484.
 324 K. Mayfield et al.

Kozup, J. C., Creyer, E. H., & Burton, S. (2003). Making healthful food choices: The
influence of health claims and nutrition information on consumers’ evaluations
of packaged food products and restaurant menu items. Journal of Marketing,
67, 19–34.
Labeling Education and Nutrition Act of 2009, S. 558, 111th Cong. (2009).
Lando, A. M., & Labiner-Wolfe, J. (2007). Helping consumers make more healthful
food choices: Consumer views on modifying food labels and providing point-of-
purchase nutrition information at quick-service restaurants. Journal of Nutrition
Education and Behavior, 39(3), 157–163.
McCrory, M. A., Fuss, P. J., Hays, N. P., Vinken, A. G., Greenberg, A. S., & Roberts,
S. B. (1999) Overeating in America: Association between restaurant food con-
sumption and body fatness in healthy adult men and women ages 19 to 80.
Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 12:52 03 January 2015

Obesity Research, 7, 564–571.

Mills, J. E., & Thomas, L. (2008). Assessing customer expectations of information
provided on restaurant menus: A confirmatory factor analysis approach. Journal
of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 32(1), 62–88.
National Restaurant Association. (2004). Restaurant Spending. National Restaurant
Association. Retrieved January 3, 2013 from http://www.restaurant.org/
research/consumer/spending.cfm
National Restaurant Association. (2009). National Restaurant Association statement
regarding federal court ruling on menu labeling in New York City [Press
release]. Retrieved January 3, 2013 from http://www.restaurant.org/Pressroom/
Press-Releases/National-Restaurant-Association-Statement-Rega-(1)
Nestle, M., & Jacobson, M. F. (2000). Halting the obesity epidemic: A public health
policy approach. Public Health Reports, 115, 12–24.
Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA) (1990). Public Law 101 – 535, 104 Stat.
2355.
Porter, S., & Umbach, P. (2006). Student survey response rates across institutions:
Why do they vary? Research in Higher Education, 47, 229–247.
Puhl, R., Wharton, C., & Heuer, C. (2009). Weight bias among dietetic stu-
dents: Implications for treatment practices. Journal of the American Dietetic
Association, 109, 438–444.
Savage, L. C., & Johnson, R. K. (2006). Labeling in restaurants: Will it make a
difference? British Nutrition Foundation Nutrition Bulletin, 31, 332–338.
Shields, D. (1996). Truth or consequences. Restaurant Hospitality, 56–60.
Silverglade, B. A. (1996). The Nutrition Labeling and Education Act – Progress to
date and challenges for the future. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 15(1),
148–156.
Thomas, L., & Mills, J. E. (2006). Consumer knowledge and expectations of restau-
rant menus and their governing legislation: A qualitative assessment. Journal of
Foodservice, 17, 6–22.
Thompson, E. (2004, September 15). Conquering obesity: The U.S. approach to com-
bating this national health crisis. Hearing before the Subcommittee on Human
Rights and Wellness Committee on Government Reform, 108th Cong. Retrieved
January 3, 2013 from http://www.hhs.gov/asl/tesitfy/t040915.html
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). (1993). Food labeling regulations imple-
menting the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990. Federal Register, 58,
2066–2041.
 Nutrition Labeling for Restaurant Menu Items 325

U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). (2006). FDA receives keystone
forum report on away-from-home foods improving consumers ability to
manage calorie intake key to anti-obesity efforts. Retrieved February 1,
2011 from http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/
2005/ucm108661.htm
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). (2009). New tools to help consumers
use the nutrition facts label for healthy weight management: Make your calo-
ries count program and nutrition facts label brochure, questions and answers.
Retrieved January 3, 2013 from http://www.fda.gov/Food/Labeling/Nutrition/
ConsumerInformation/ucm122080.htm
Williams, P. (2005). Consumer understanding and use of health claims for foods.
Nutrition Reviews, 63(7), 256–264.
Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 12:52 03 January 2015

Wootan, M. G., & Osborn, M. (2006). Availability of nutrition information from chain
restaurants in the United States. American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 30,
266–268.