Table 2.
Studies of the impact of Na menu labelling on Na content of menu items offered by restaurants or purchased by consumers
| Author, year | Study design | Setting | Sample size | Intervention description | Study period | Na outcome | Summary of results | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intervention | Control | |||||||
| Evaluations of local menu labelling laws on restaurant offerings | ||||||||
| Bruemmer, 2012 | Observational study, single-group post-only | Full-service and fast-food restaurants subject to menu labelling regulations in King County, WA | Thirty-seven restaurants and 1771 entrées | N/A | King County, WA, menu labelling, requiring chain restaurants to display calorie, saturated fat, carbohydrate and Na content information on menus or at the point of ordering | May to July 2009 (6 months post-implementation) and May to July 2010 (18 months post-implementation) | Na content of entrées offered. | Across all fast-food and full-service restaurants, menu labelling was associated with a statistically significant decrease in entrée’s Na content at 6- and 18-month post-implementation. |
| Evaluations of local menu labelling laws on consumer purchases | ||||||||
| Auchincloss, 2013 | Observational study, post-only, with comparison group | Full-service restaurants in PA, DE, MD, NJ | Two restaurants and 327 purchases | Five restaurants and 321 purchases | Philadelphia menu labelling, requiring restaurant chains to post calorie information on menu boards and to list calories, Na, saturated fat, trans-fats and carbohydrates for each item on all printed menus. | August 2011 | Na content of menu items purchased. | There was no statistically significant difference in the Na content of foods purchased in Philadelphia, where menu labelling was required, relative to foods purchased in comparison states. |
| Evaluations of voluntary Na menu labelling interventions implemented by restaurants on consumer purchases | ||||||||
| Ge, Behnke & Almanza, 2014 | Observational study, single-group pre/post | Full-service restaurant at Purdue University, Indiana. | 567 lunch entrée purchases. | N/A | Three menu labelling options: 1) Calorie Information; 2) A Healthy Symbol: calorie information + green leaf icon was posted next to menu items that met healthy criteria; 3) A Nutrient List: the nutritional content (calories, nutritional content of fat, calories derived from fat (%), saturated fat, cholesterol, Na, fibre) was listed | January to February 2013 | Na content of entrées sold. | There were no statistically significant changes in Na of entrées sold between baseline and each labelling period in 2013. |
| Schmitz & Fielding, 1986 | Observational study, single-group pre/post | Corporate cafeteria in California | 832 trays | N/A | Comparison cards stating ‘HEP [health enhancement program] suggests you compare the difference’ for two items, in milligrams. Na and a pie chart of maximum recommended intake. | March (6 d); October (6 d). Year of data collection not included in the publication. | Na content of food purchased. | Statistically significantly less Na (413 mg) per person was purchased 6 months post-labelling compared to 6 d pre-labelling. |
| Pulos and Leng, 2010 | Observational study, single-group pre/post | Full-service restaurants in Pierce County, WA | Six local restaurants; about 16 000 entrées purchased* | N/A | SmartMenu labelling includes labelling food menu items with calories, fat (g), Na (mg) and carbohydrates (g) | Fall of 2008, Winter of 2009 | Mean Na per entrée sold. | There were no statistically significant changes in mean entrée’s Na content purchased pre-/post-menu labelling. |
*
Exact number(s) not published.