Next Article in Journal
A Mix of Natural Bioactive Compounds Reduces Fat Accumulation and Modulates Gene Expression in the Adipose Tissue of Obese Rats Fed a Cafeteria Diet
Next Article in Special Issue
Micronutrient Adequacy in the Diet of Reproductive-Aged Adolescent Girls and Adult Women in Rural Bangladesh
Previous Article in Journal
Bilberry Anthocyanins Ameliorate NAFLD by Improving Dyslipidemia and Gut Microbiome Dysbiosis
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Nutrients
Volume 12
Issue 11
10.3390/nu12113253
nutrients-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Orders of Healthier Adult Menu Items in a Full-Service Restaurant Chain with a Healthier Children’s Menu

by
Megan P. Mueller
1,*,
Eleanor T. Shonkoff
2,
Sara C. Folta
3,
Stephanie Anzman-Frasca
4,5 and
Christina D. Economos
3,6
1
Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition and Colorado School of Public Health, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA
2
School of Health Sciences, Merrimack College, North Andover, MA 01845, USA
3
Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy, Tufts University, Boston, MA 02111, USA
4
Department of Pediatrics, Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY 14214, USA
5
Center for Ingestive Behavior Research, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY 14260, USA
6
ChildObesity180, Tufts University, Boston, MA 02111, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Nutrients 2020, 12(11), 3253; https://doi.org/10.3390/nu12113253
Submission received: 30 September 2020 / Revised: 15 October 2020 / Accepted: 21 October 2020 / Published: 23 October 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Diet Quality, Food Environment and Diet Diversity)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study evaluated orders of adult menu items designated as healthier at the Silver Diner, a regional full-service restaurant chain serving over 4 million customers annually. This restaurant implemented a healthier children’s menu in April 2012. Orders of adult menu items were abstracted from before (September 2011–March 2012; PRE; n = 1,801,647) and after (September 2012–March 2013; POST; n = 1,793,582) the healthier children’s menu was introduced. Entrées, appetizers, and sides listed as healthier options on the menu were coded as healthier. PRE to POST changes in the percentage of orders of healthier items, soda, and dessert were evaluated using McNemar tests of paired proportions. Orders of healthier entrées, appetizers, and sides on the adult menu increased PRE to POST (8.9% to 10.4%, 25.5% to 27.5%, and 7.3% to 9.3%, respectively), and soda and dessert orders decreased (23.2% to 21.7% and 29.0% to 28.3%, respectively). All shifts were statistically significant (p < 0.0001). Our findings demonstrate improvements in orders of healthier adult menu options during the same time frame as a healthy children’s menu change. Future research can help elucidate mechanisms to inform future health promotion efforts in restaurants in ways that have the potential to impact both adults and children.

1. Introduction

Restaurants continue to be an increasing source of food in the American diet and are a significant source of excess calories, saturated fat, sugar, and sodium [1,2,3]. Restaurants stand to make a significant impact on public health by encouraging the consumption of healthy foods.
In April 2012, the Silver Diner, a restaurant chain serving over 4 million people annually in the Mid-Atlantic region of the United States, introduced a healthier children’s menu. This new menu included more entrées that met Kids LiveWell (Washington, DC, USA) nutrition criteria [4], all meals automatically bundled with fruit and non-fried vegetable sides, and the removal of French Fries and fountain beverages (referred to herein as soda). Previously, we examined children’s menu orders before (September 2011–March 2012; PRE) to after (September 2012–March 2013; POST) these healthy children’s menu changes. This study revealed significant, lasting increases in the healthfulness of children’s menu orders after the healthy children’s menu changes which persisted at 2 year follow up [5,6,7]. More specifically, orders of nutrient-poor items such as French fries and soda decreased (from 57.0 to 22.0% and from 34.7 to 29.7%, respectively); orders of fruit and vegetable sides, milk, and 100% fruit juices increased (from 29.1 to 63.0%, from 5.5 to 6.9%, from 37.0 to 39.5%, and from 28.3 to 30.8%, respectively) [5].
Healthy menu change interventions in other full service and fast food restaurants have also been associated with healthier orders for children [8,9,10]. The evidence for interventions targeting the adult menu has been mixed [11]; and only menu interventions that used both point of purchase information (i.e., heart healthy symbols or calorie labeling) and increases in the availability of healthier options were consistently associated with increases in orders of healthier items [11]. To our knowledge, there is no evidence evaluating whether orders of adult menu items are healthier when the healthy menu intervention is targeted to the children’s menu. Yet adults can serve as role models for healthier choices in restaurants [12], can help establish norms around healthy dietary practices [13,14,15,16], and engage in other food-related parenting practices that can promote healthier choices in restaurants for children [16,17]. Restaurant meals are also associated with poorer overall dietary quality and chronic disease risk in adults [2,18,19,20]. As such, it is important to understand what adults are ordering in restaurants.
In this secondary analysis, we examined whether changes in orders of standard menu items (referred to herein as the adult menu) also emerged in the context of a healthier children’s menu. We posit that any changes observed in adult orders would not be the result of the adult menu, as there were few changes to the adult menu and no campaigns promoting healthier adult menu options. Moreover, there was a consistent subset of adult menu items designated as healthier selections both before and after the introduction of the healthier children’s menu. We consider potential mechanisms explaining our findings including a temporal shift in the types of customers patronizing the restaurant chain, shifts in cultural norms about healthier restaurant orders, or a spillover effect from the healthier children’s menu that was in place at the restaurant during this same time period. We discuss the implications of this hypothesis-generating work for future research.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design

This repeated cross-sectional study follows previous research evaluating child meal orders after the implementation of a healthier children’s menu [5,6,7]. We conducted a secondary analysis of adult menu order data from 13 outlets of the Silver Diner, a full-service restaurant chain located in the mid-Atlantic region of the US that serves >4 million customers annually. The restaurant introduced the new, healthier children’s menu in April 2012. Additional information about the restaurant and the children’s menu changes have been published elsewhere [5,6,7]. Briefly, this new menu included more entrées that met Kids LiveWell nutrition criteria [1], all meals automatically bundled with fruit and non-fried vegetable sides, and the removal of French Fries and soda. Children’s menus were generally only brought to the table if the dining group included a child or by request.
Aggregated data on orders of adult menu items, which included all items ordered that were not listed on the children’s menu, were abstracted from the restaurant’s central database before (September 2011–March 2012; PRE) and after (September 2012–March 2013; POST) the implementation of the new healthier children’s menu. The time periods corresponded to the same time periods evaluated in previously published work focused on orders of children’s menu items [5,6,7]. A total of 3,595,229 adult entrées were ordered representing 18.8% of all items sold. Other items sold in the restaurant included children’s entrées (1.8% of all items sold), children’s sides (1.0% of all items sold), children’s beverages (1.2% of all items sold), appetizers (0.8% of all items sold), adult menu beverages (14.3% of all items sold), adult sides (23.0% of all items sold), and adult desserts (5.4% of all items sold). Order data were coded in Excel as described below.
We were specifically interested in consumer responses to items designated healthier options on the menu, since previous experimental evidence suggests that consumers tend to view these items as being healthier than items without such distinctions [21]. Healthier adult menu items (entrees, sides, and appetizers—no desserts) were identified based on being (a) listed under the “Healthier Options for Today’s Lifestyles” menu section and denoted with a heart symbol; (b) denoted with a heart symbol in other menu sections to indicate the item is “lower in fat and cholesterol” and/or a “healthier item”; (c) listed as a “healthier choice” side item substitution (i.e., strawberries and egg whites, cholesterol-free egg replacement); and/or (d) seasonal or off-menu selections identified by the restaurant partner as “healthier” using the same heart symbol or as a meal under 600 calories. We collectively refer to these items as healthier options herein. The majority of entrées listed as healthier options (>80%) met cut points for calorie, total fat, cholesterol, and saturated fat needs/limits for a single meal using one-third of the average daily needs/limits for sedentary adults ages 18 and over (Table 1) [22].
The adult menus at PRE and POST had no differences in the percentage of entrées, sides, and appetizers listed as healthier options (Table 2).
In addition to evaluating food items, we examined healthier beverage orders by coding beverages as soda or non-soda, given that soda intake is associated with weight gain, metabolic syndrome, dental caries, and type II diabetes in children and adults [23,24,25]. Soda orders included fountain beverages, fruit drinks, and lemonade, which was consistent with how these orders were coded in previously published research [5,6,7,26]. We also evaluated the most popular beverages ordered overall and indicated which of these beverages were non-soda beverages (Table 3). Only non-alcoholic beverages were included in these analyses to facilitate comparisons with previously published work [5,6,7]. Alcoholic beverages made up only ~5% of beverage orders at both time points.

2.2. Analysis

Analyses were conducted in STATA v14 (StataCorp LLC, College Station, TX, USA) and Excel. Descriptive statistics and McNemar tests of paired proportions were used to examine adult menu orders before versus after the healthier children’s menu change. To identify the change in the relative number of orders that included healthier options, we calculated the percentages of items designated as healthier options using the total number of orders that included healthier options divided by the total number of orders overall for each item category (entrées, sides, and appetizers) and at each time point. We then evaluated differences in the percentage of entrée, side, and appetizer orders that included items designated as healthier options from PRE to POST. To be consistent with our previously published work, we also evaluated differences in the percentage of beverage orders that included sodas and the percentage of dessert orders relative to entrée orders during that same time frame. To further inform our discussion of overall trends, we compared differences in the most popular items ordered overall and the most popular items ordered that were designated as healthier options at PRE and POST.

3. Results

Offerings designated as healthier options were not prominent features of the adult menu and were consistently offered across time (Table 2). The percentage of orders that included healthier entrée, side, and appetizer options increased from PRE to POST from 8.9%(0.02) to 10.4%(0.02), 7.3%(0.02) to 9.3%(0.02), and 25.5%(0.15) to 27.5%(0.17), respectively (Figure 1). Orders of soda and dessert decreased during that same time from 23.2% (0.04) to 21.7% (0.04) and 29.0% (0.03) to 28.3% (0.03), respectively (Figure 1). All PRE to POST changes were statistically significant (p < 0.0001; Figure 1).
The majority of meal orders at both time points included breakfast items, which could be ordered all day (Table 3). Overall, the same top five entrée, side, appetizer, and beverage items were the most popular across both time points (Table 3). However, the percentage of orders that included the most popular of the healthier entrée, appetizer, and side and non-soda beverage items increased significantly between PRE and POST (Table 3; p < 0.0001).

4. Discussion

Our findings demonstrate small but significant increases in the orders of healthier adult menu options during the same time period as the healthy children’s menu change. The percentage of healthier adult menu orders increased after the implementation of the healthier children’s menu and with few changes to what was offered on the adult menu. Over the same time frame, previous research demonstrated larger significant increases in children’s orders of healthy items [5]. We offer several possible explanations for these parallel results and consider their implications in the context of frequent consumption of food from restaurants and evidence of associations with poorer dietary quality and chronic disease risk in adults [2,18,19,20].
First, given the repeated cross-sectional study design, it is possible that we observed improvements in the healthfulness of adult menu orders due to temporal shifts in (a) preferences for healthier options or (b) shifts towards a more health-focused clientele. Existing research suggests that the majority of individuals consider taste rather than health when choosing food away from home [16,27]. Moreover, the nutrition quality of meals eaten at full-service restaurants did not change during this same time frame [28]. Yet there has also been a rise in consumers who identify as health-conscious and new menu offerings often cater to those customers [29,30,31,32,33]. At the top selling restaurant, chains new items have included less calories and saturated fat on average over the study period [32]. At the same time, energy intake from soda and other sugar-sweetened beverages has decreased in recent years [34,35]. Future evaluations of menu change interventions should examine whether there are changes in the consumers’ motivations to patronize the restaurant, whether more consumers cite health as a priority for their choice in where to eat out, and whether parents, in particular, seek out restaurants that have both healthier options for themselves and their children [36,37].
It is also possible that the improvements in the healthfulness of adult menu orders is the result of a spillover effect from the healthier children’s menu on adults dining with children. Spillover may occur as a result of priming from the children’s menu [38] or their desire to serve as a positive role model in the restaurant setting [12]. Spillover effects can serve as a positive feedback loop where children’s orders are improving as a result of the healthier menu, and parents are further serving as a positive influence for their children [13,14,15,16,17,39]. However, the majority of orders placed here were likely by adults not dining with children (adult entrées comprised 18.1% vs. 1.8% of orders for children’s entrées). Furthermore, it is unclear how salient the children’s menu would be for adults dining with or without children. Future research evaluating healthy menu change interventions should asses changes in parents’ motivations for choosing their own meals when dining out and feedback between parents and children in the restaurant setting. Multi-armed experimental studies with parents that test whether parents’ choices change when being exposed to healthier versus less healthy children’s menus could help uncover priming effects from the children’s menu.
While we observed increases in orders of healthier items, the most popular items (such as burgers and pancakes) remained popular at both time points. The consistency in popular items observed here may reflect the habitual patterns of ordering behavior seen in other research in the restaurant setting [16,27,40,41,42]. Habit was cited as one of the most salient factors for ordering decisions at carryout restaurants among low-income African Americans in Baltimore [43] and as a barrier to using calorie labels on menus [44], suggesting that ordering behaviors are difficult to change [45]. As such, the extant literature and present results support strategies that make healthy choices easy and automatic, such as: further promoting already popular healthier menu items and increasing the extent to which healthier items are served by default [5,6,28,46,47,48]. Previous literature suggests that promoting healthier options and offering healthier options by default are effective at increasing orders of healthier items in both children and adults by increasing the automaticity of ordering these healthier items [9,10,46,48,49,50,51,52,53]. Increasing the availability of healthier options on menus also makes these items more normative for both children and parents [53,54].
There were several notable limitations to this study. While these order data from PRE and POST time periods in a single restaurant chain allow exploration of changes in orders of healthier adult menu items, there are several research questions that cannot be addressed. Because these data were aggregated in the point of sale system, we are also unable to determine the nutrition quality of combinations of items ordered by individuals (e.g., entrée, side, and beverage). For example, individuals may have selected a healthier side dish but compensated by ordering a dessert or less healthy entrée. Individual receipt level data were not available for adult orders during this timeframe. It is also possible that individuals rewarded themselves for making healthier choices in the restaurant by eating unhealthy options during other parts of the day. We were unable to detect compensatory behaviors within individuals here. Moreover, we do not know whether the adult orders included in the sales data were from adults dining with children. Future research should evaluate co-occurring responses to healthy menu changes in both parents and children, accounting for potential confounders; the impacts of healthy menu changes on actual consumption (data on the amount of the items ordered that were consumed were not available here); and the potential mechanisms underlying responses to healthy menu changes. Future work employing mixed methods would be especially useful to uncover motivations for adult menu responses and feedbacks between parents and children in the restaurant setting. Given the small changes in adult orders observed here, research uncovering potential mechanisms would also allow for the incorporation of those factors into a multi-pronged intervention that combines successful menu change strategies (i.e., healthy defaults) and targets underlying motivations for healthier orders.

5. Conclusions

It is important to consider strategies to improve the healthfulness of adult orders in the restaurant setting, especially given the role of parents in shaping healthy dietary behaviors in children. Our findings demonstrate small increases in the healthfulness of adult menu orders in a restaurant that had implemented healthy changes on its children’s menu. Future research can help elucidate mechanisms underlying improvements to the healthfulness of meal orders and uncover potential dyadic effects between adults and children that impact the overall composition of restaurant meals.

Author Contributions

M.P.M. and C.D.E. conceptualization; M.P.M. formal analysis; E.T.S., S.C.F. and S.A.-F. methodology; M.P.M., E.T.S., and S.A.-F. writing—original draft; S.C.F. and C.D.E. writing—review & editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by funds from the JPB foundation and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The JPB Foundation and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation had no role in the design, analysis, or writing of this article.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Robert Giaimo, Ype Von Hengst, Matilde Ottt and all of the other personnel at the Silver Diner who made this study possible, as well as Theo Fitoupulos for his help with data quality checks and coding.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. An, R. Fast-food and full-service restaurant consumption and daily energy and nutrient intakes in US adults. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 2016, 70, 97–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Nguyen, B.T.; Powell, L.M. The impact of restaurant consumption among US adults: Effects on energy and nutrient intakes. Public Health Nutr. 2014, 17, 2445–2452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Stewart, H.; Blisard, N.; Bhuyan, S.; Nayga, R.M. The Demand for Food Away from Home: Full-Service or Fast Food? Technical Report No. 829; Economic Research Service: Wasington, DC, USA, 2004; pp. 1–20.
  4. National Restaurant Association. Kids Live Well Program. n.d. Available online: http://www.restaurant.org/Industry-Impact/Food-Healthy-Living/Kids-LiveWell (accessed on 18 January 2015).
  5. Anzman-Frasca, S.; Mueller, M.P.; Sliwa, S.; Dolan, P.R.; Harelick, L.; Roberts, S.B.; Washburn, K.; Economos, C.D. Changes in children’s meal orders following healthy menu modifications at a regional US restaurant chain. Obesity 2015, 23, 1055–1062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Mueller, M.; Anzman-Frasca, S.; Blakeley, C.E.; Folta, S.C.; Wilde, P.; Economos, C.D. Ordering patterns following the implementation of a healthier children’s restaurant menu: A latent class analysis. Obesity 2016, 25, 192–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Anzman-Frasca, S.; Mueller, M.; Lynskey, V.M.; Harelick, L.; Economos, C.D. Orders of healthier children’s items remain high more than two years after menu changes at a regional restaurant chain. Health Aff. 2015, 34, 1885–1892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Ayala, G.X.; Castro, I.A.; Pickrel, J.L.; Lin, S.-F.; Williams, C.B.; Madanat, H.; Jun, H.-J.; Zive, M. A cluster randomized trial to promote healthy menu items for children: The kids’ choice restaurant program. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 1494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Peters, J.; Beck, J.; Lande, J.; Pan, Z.; Cardel, M.; Ayoob, K.; Hill, J.O. Using healthy defaults in walt disney world restaurants to improve nutritional choices. J. Assoc. Consum. Res. 2016, 1, 92–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Wansink, B.; Hanks, A.S. Calorie reductions and within-meal calorie compensation in children’s meal combos. Obesity 2013, 22, 630–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Espino, J.N.V.; Guerrero, N.; Rhoads, N.; Simon, N.-J.; Escaron, A.L.; Meinen, A.; Nieto, F.J.; Martinez-Donate, A. Community-based restaurant interventions to promote healthy eating: A systematic review. Prev. Chronic Dis. 2015, 12, E78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Fulkerson, J.A.; Neumark-Sztainer, D.; Story, M. Adolescent and parent views of family meals. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 2006, 106, 526–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. McIntosh, A.; Kubena, K.S.; Tolle, G.; Dean, W.; Kim, M.-J.; Jan, J.-S.; Anding, J. Determinants of children’s use of and time spent in fast-food and full-service restaurants. J. Nutr. Educ. Behav. 2011, 43, 142–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Lopez, N.V.; Ayala, G.X.; Corder, K.; Eisenberg, C.M.; Zive, M.M.; Wood, C.; Elder, J.P. Parent support and parent-mediated behaviors are associated with children’s sugary beverage consumption. J. Acad. Nutr. Diet. 2012, 112, 541–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  15. Erinosho, T.O.; Dixon, L.B.; Young, C.; Brotman, L.M.; Hayman, L.L. Caregiver food behaviours are associated with dietary intakes of children outside the child-care setting. Public Health Nutr. 2012, 16, 1263–1272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Castro, I.A.; Williams, C.B.; Madanat, H.; Pickrel, J.L.; Jun, H.-J.; Zive, M.; Gahagan, S.; Ayala, G.X. Food ordering for children in restaurants: Multiple sources of influence on decision making. Public Health Nutr. 2016, 19, 2404–2409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Sleddens, E.F.C.; Kremers, S.P.J.; Stafleu, A.; Dagnelie, P.C.; De Vries, N.K.; Thijs, C. Food parenting practices and child dietary behavior. Prospective relations and the moderating role of general parenting. Appetite 2014, 79, 42–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Pereira, M.A.; I Kartashov, A.; Ebbeling, C.B.; Van Horn, L.; Slattery, M.L.; Jacobs, D.R.; Ludwig, D.S. Fast-food habits, weight gain, and insulin resistance (the CARDIA study): 15-year prospective analysis. Lancet 2005, 365, 36–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Wilcox, S.; Sharpe, P.A.; Turner-McGrievy, G.M.; Granner, M.; Baruth, M. Frequency of consumption at fast-food restaurants is associated with dietary intake in overweight and obese women recruited from financially disadvantaged neighborhoods. Nutr. Res. 2013, 33, 636–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Paeratakul, S.; Ferdinand, D.P.; Champagne, C.M.; Ryan, D.H.; Bray, G.A. Fast-food consumption among US adults and children: Dietary and nutrient intake profile. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 2003, 103, 1332–1338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Chandon, P.; Wansink, B. The biasing health halos of fast-food restaurant health claims: Lower calorie estimates and higher side-dish consumption intentions. J. Consum. Res. 2007, 34, 301–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. United States Department of Agriculture, Department of Health and Human Services. Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 7th ed.; U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, DC, USA, 2010.
  23. Bernabé, E.; Vehkalahti, M.M.; Sheiham, A.; Aromaa, A.; Suominen, A.L. Sugar-sweetened beverages and dental caries in adults: A 4-year prospective study. J. Dent. 2014, 42, 952–958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Malik, V.S.; Pan, A.; Willett, W.C.; Hu, F.B. Sugar-sweetened beverages and weight gain in children and adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2013, 98, 1084–1102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  25. Malik, V.S.; Popkin, B.M.; Bray, G.A.; Després, J.-P.; Willett, W.C.; Hu, F.B. Sugar-sweetened beverages and risk of metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes: A meta-analysis. Diabetes Care 2010, 33, 2477–2483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  26. Poti, J.M.; Slining, M.M.; Popkin, B.M. Where are kids getting their empty calories? Stores, schools, and fast-food restaurants each played an important role in empty calorie intake among us children during 2009–2010. J. Acad. Nutr. Diet. 2014, 114, 908–917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  27. Anzman-Frasca, S.; Folta, S.C.; Glenn, M.E.; Jones-Mueller, A.; Lynskey, V.M.; Patel, A.A.; Tse, L.L.; Lopez, N.V. Healthier children’s meals in restaurants: An exploratory study to inform approaches that are acceptable across stakeholders. J. Nutr. Educ. Behav. 2017, 49, 285–295.e1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Liu, J.; Rehm, C.D.; Micha, R.; Mozaffarian, D. Quality of meals consumed by US adults at full-service and fast-food restaurants, 2003–2016: Persistent low quality and widening disparities. J. Nutr. 2020, 15, 873–883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Kelso, A. Fad Diets Come and Go, But Restaurants Are Finding Plenty of Success Catering to Health-Conscious Consumers. Forbes Magazine. Available online: https://www.forbes.com/sites/aliciakelso/2019/06/04/restaurants-are-having-some-luck-chasing-health-conscious-consumers/#488f4332132b (accessed on 10 March 2020).
  30. Ganev, D. Fast Food in the Media-The Rise of the Health-Conscious Consumer. Available online: https://commetric.com/2019/01/04/fast-food-in-the-media-the-rise-of-the-health-conscious-consumer/ (accessed on 10 March 2020).
  31. Jin, N.; Line, N.D.; Lee, S.-M. The health-conscious restaurant consumer. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2017, 29, 2103–2120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Bleich, S.N.; Soto, M.J.; Dunn, C.G.; Moran, A.J.; Block, J.P. Calorie and nutrient trends in large U.S. chain restaurants, 2012–2018. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0228891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Bleich, S.N.; Wolfson, J.A.; Jarlenski, M.P. Calorie changes in chain restaurant menu items. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2015, 48, 70–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Bleich, S.N.; Vercammen, K.A.; Koma, J.W.; Li, Z. Trends in beverage consumption among children and adults, 2003–2014. Obesity 2017, 26, 432–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Marriott, B.P.; Hunt, K.J.; Malek, A.M.; Newman, J.C. Trends in intake of energy and total sugar from sugar-sweetened beverages in the US among children and adults, NHANES 2003–2016. Nutrients 2019, 11, 2004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Rydell, S.A.; Harnack, L.J.; Oakes, J.M.; Story, M.; Jeffery, R.W.; French, S.A. Why eat at fast-food restaurants: Reported reasons among frequent consumers. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 2008, 108, 2066–2070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Sobal, J.; Bisogni, C.A. Constructing food choice decisions. Ann. Behav. Med. 2009, 38, 37–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Cohen, D.A.; Babey, S. Contextual influences on eating behaviours: Heuristic processing and dietary choices. Obes. Rev. 2012, 13, 766–779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Cohen, J.F.; Rimm, E.B.; Davison, K.K.; Cash, S.B.; McInnis, K.; Economos, C.D. The role of parents and children in meal selection and consumption in quick service restaurants. Nutrients 2020, 12, 735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Cohen, J.F.W.; Roberts, S.B.; Anzman-Frasca, S.; Gamache, M.M.G.; Lynskey, V.M.; Matthews, E.; Mueller, M.P.; Sharma, S.; Economos, C.D. A pilot and feasibility study to assess children’s consumption in quick-service restaurants using plate waste methodology. BMC Public Health 2017, 17, 259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Shonkoff, E.T.; Anzman-Frasca, S.; Lynskey, V.M.; Chan, G.; Glenn, M.E.; Economos, C.D. Child and parent perspectives on healthier side dishes and beverages in restaurant kids’ meals: Results from a national survey in the US. BMC Public Health 2017, 18, 56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Anzman-Frasca, S.; Braun, A.; Ehrenberg, S.; Epstein, L.H.; Gampp, A.; Leone, L.A.; Singh, A.; Tauriello, S. Effects of a randomized intervention promoting healthy children’s meals on children’s ordering and dietary intake in a quick-service restaurant. Physiol. Behav. 2018, 192, 109–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Noormohamed, A.; Lee, S.H.; Batorsky, B.; Jackson, A.; Newman, S.; Gittelsohn, J. Factors influencing ordering practices at Baltimore city carryouts: Qualitative research to inform an obesity prevention intervention. Ecol. Food Nutr. 2012, 51, 481–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Schindler-Ruwisch, J.; Kiszko, K.; Abrams, C.; Islam, N.S.; Elbel, B. Environmental and individual factors affecting menu labeling utilization: A qualitative research study. J. Acad. Nutr. Diet. 2013, 113, 667–672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Van’t Riet, J.; Sijtsema, S.J.; Dagevos, H.; De Bruijn, G.J. The importance of habits in eating behaviour. An overview and recommendations for future research. Appetite 2011, 57, 585–596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Loeb, K.L.; Radnitz, C.; Keller, K.; Schwartz, M.B.; Marcus, S.; Pierson, R.N.; Shannon, M.; DeLaurentis, D. The application of defaults to optimize parents’ health-based choices for children. Appetite 2017, 113, 368–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. McCluskey, J.J.; Mittelhammer, R.C.; Asiseh, F. From default to choice: Adding healthy options to kids’ menus. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2011, 94, 338–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Schwartz, M.B.; Radnitz, C.; Loeb, K.L.; DiMatteo, J.; Keller, K.L.; Zucker, N. Optimal defaults in the prevention of pediatric obesity: From platform to practice. J. Food Nutr. Disord. 2013, 2, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Mueller, M.; Wilde, P.; Folta, S.C.; Anzman-Frasca, S.; Economos, C.D. Availability of healthier children’s menu items in the top selling quick service restaurant chains (2004–2015). Am. J. Public Health 2019, 109, 267–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Ferrante, M.J.; Johnson, S.; Miller, J.; Moding, K.J.; Bellows, L.L. Does a vegetable-first, optimal default strategy improve children’s vegetable intake? A restaurant-based study. Food Qual. Prefer. 2019, 74, 112–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Roberto, C.A.; Kawachi, I. Use of psychology and behavioral economics to promote healthy eating. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2014, 47, 832–837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Henry, H.K.; Borzekowski, D.L. Well, that’s what came with it. A qualitative study of U.S. mothers’ perceptions of healthier default options for children’s meals at fast-food restaurants. Appetite 2015, 87, 108–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Schwartz, M.B.; Just, D.R.; Chriqui, J.F.; Ammerman, A.S. Appetite self-regulation: Environmental and policy influences on eating behaviors. Obesity 2017, 25, S26–S38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Ball, K.; Jeffery, R.W.; Abbott, G.; A McNaughton, S.; Crawford, D. Is healthy behavior contagious: Associations of social norms with physical activity and healthy eating. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2010, 7, 86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Nutrients 12 03253 g001 550
Figure 1. Healthier adult menu orders from before (PRE) to after (POST) the new healthier children’s menu. The healthier children’s menu was implemented in April 2012 at standard locations of a regional restaurant chains. The PRE period (before the healthier children’s menu was implemented) was September 2011 to March 2012. The POST period (after the healthier children’s menu was implemented) was September 2012 to March 2013. Items classified as healthier were designated as healthier options on the adult menu. Orders of soda and entrées that included desserts were also evaluated. * denotes that PRE to POST differences in the percentage of orders that included healthier items, soda, or dessert were statistically significant based on McNemar tests of paired proportions; asymptomatic p-values for all tests <0.0001. Standard errors are also shown.
Figure 1. Healthier adult menu orders from before (PRE) to after (POST) the new healthier children’s menu. The healthier children’s menu was implemented in April 2012 at standard locations of a regional restaurant chains. The PRE period (before the healthier children’s menu was implemented) was September 2011 to March 2012. The POST period (after the healthier children’s menu was implemented) was September 2012 to March 2013. Items classified as healthier were designated as healthier options on the adult menu. Orders of soda and entrées that included desserts were also evaluated. * denotes that PRE to POST differences in the percentage of orders that included healthier items, soda, or dessert were statistically significant based on McNemar tests of paired proportions; asymptomatic p-values for all tests <0.0001. Standard errors are also shown.
Nutrients 12 03253 g001
Table
Table 1. Calorie and nutrient content of entrées listed as healthier options on the adult menu at a regional restaurant chain.
Table 1. Calorie and nutrient content of entrées listed as healthier options on the adult menu at a regional restaurant chain.
NutrientMean ± SD% of Entrées Meeting Cut Point
Calories503.60 ± 127.4100
Fat (g)17.9 ± 8.580.0
Cholesterol (mg)50.0 ± 40.292.9
Saturated Fat (g)3.1 ± 2.392.9
Fiber (g)7.5 ± 3.633.3
Notes: These values mean ± standard deviation (SD) were calculated for all entrées listed as healthier options offered at PRE and/or POST. All entrées listed as healthier options were denoted with a heart symbol on the menu. Energy content and nutrition data (as listed on the menus) were used to identify whether entrées listed as healthier options met cut points for calorie, saturated fat, total fat, and fiber needs/limits for a single meal using one-third of the average daily needs/limits for sedentary adults ages 18 and over: 664.3 calories, 7.4 grams of saturated fat, 22.1 grams of fat, and 9.3 grams of fiber, respectively, based on the recommendations in the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans [22].
Table
Table 2. Menu items offered on the adult menu before (PRE) and after (POST) the implementation of a healthier children’s menu by meal component.
Table 2. Menu items offered on the adult menu before (PRE) and after (POST) the implementation of a healthier children’s menu by meal component.
ItemPREPOST
Entrées available on the adult menu
Total entrées offered (n)9189
Entrées offered that were designated as healthier (%)12.112.4
Sides available on the adult menu
Total sides offered (n)3030
Sides offered that were designated as healthier (%)16.716.7
Appetizers available on the adult menu
Total appetizers offered (n)87
Appetizers offered that were designated as healthier (%)25.028.6
Entrées, sides, and appetizers offered that were designated as healthier options (%)14.014.3
Beverages available on the adult menu
Total beverages offered (n)1314
Desserts available on the adult menu
Total adult dessert orders (n)2627
Notes: Items designated as healthier options were identified via a heart symbol on the adult menu. The PRE period (before the healthier children’s menu was implemented) was September 2011 to March 2012. The POST period (after the healthier children’s menu was implemented) was September 2012 to March 2013. The healthier children’s menu was implemented in April 2012 at standard locations of a regional restaurant chain.
Table
Table 3. Adult menu items ordered before (PRE) and after (POST) the implementation of a healthier children’s menu.
Table 3. Adult menu items ordered before (PRE) and after (POST) the implementation of a healthier children’s menu.
ItemPREPOST
Food items sold (children’s and adults)9,515,4469,634,257
Adult entrée orders
Total adult entrée orders1,801,6471,793,582
Total healthier adult entrée orders160,948187,229
Breakfast adult entrée orders (%)50.552.3
Most ordered adult entrée items (overall)
Build your own burger (%)7.06.4
Buttermilk pancake and eggs (%)4.64.9
The American favorite (%)4.54.6
Belgian waffle and eggs (%)3.02.9
Caramel French toast and eggs (%)2.42.5
Most ordered healthier adult entrée items *
California omelet (%) a1.51.3
Power breakfast (%) a-1.3
Baja fish tacos (%) a1.21.2
Low fat vegetarian omelet (%) a1.11.1
600 calorie grilled salmon (%) a1.11.0
600 calorie mango vegetarian stir fry (%) a0.9-
Adult side orders
Total adult side orders2,119,7912,292,409
Total healthier adult side orders154,984213,437
Most ordered adult side items (overall)
Eggs (%)15.519.7
Bacon (%)11.212.1
Toast (%)8.27.5
Sausage (%)6.87.1
Burger (%)5.05.3
French Fries (%)4.66.2
Most ordered healthier adult side items *
Strawberries (%) a1.95.5
Summer citrus salad (%) a0.90.9
Cholesterol egg free substitutes or egg whites (%) a0.21.7
SD veggie chili (%) a0.30.3
Adult appetizer orders
Total adult appetizer orders83,10168,889
Total healthier adult appetizer orders21,22918,934
Most ordered adult appetizer items (overall) *
Buffalo wings (%)16.217.9
Cheese fries (%)16.118.4
Chicken tenders (%)9.611.6
Most ordered healthier adult appetizer items *
Black bean quesadilla (%) a14.815.2
Goat cheese bruschetta (%) a10.712.2
Adult beverage orders
Total adult beverage orders1,394,0211,351,398
Most ordered adult beverage items (overall) *
Coffee (%) b31.933.3
Juice (%) b23.620.3
Soda (%)20.118.5
Tea (%) b19.819.7
Hot chocolate (%) b1.92.1
Adult dessert orders
Total adult dessert orders521,585507,531
Percentage of entrée orders accompanied by a dessert29.028.3
Notes: The top five menu items ordered overall and for healthier options in each category are presented above. For appetizers and beverages, the most popular healthier items were also among the most popular items overall. Soda included fountain beverages such as sprite, coke, and fruit punch. The PRE period (before the healthier children’s menu was implemented) was September 2011 to March 2012. The POST period (after the healthier children’s menu was implemented) was September 2012 to March 2013. a healthier options were identified via a heart symbol for entrées, sides, and appetizers. b denotes the items were non-soda beverages (were not fountain beverages, fruit drinks, and/or lemonade). We did not evaluate alcoholic beverages. * denotes that PRE to POST differences in the combined percentage of the top entrée, side, appetizer, and beverage items designated as healthier options were statistically significant based on McNemar tests of paired proportions; asymptomatic p-values for all tests <0.0001.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Mueller, M.P.; Shonkoff, E.T.; Folta, S.C.; Anzman-Frasca, S.; Economos, C.D. Orders of Healthier Adult Menu Items in a Full-Service Restaurant Chain with a Healthier Children’s Menu. Nutrients 2020, 12, 3253. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu12113253

AMA Style

Mueller MP, Shonkoff ET, Folta SC, Anzman-Frasca S, Economos CD. Orders of Healthier Adult Menu Items in a Full-Service Restaurant Chain with a Healthier Children’s Menu. Nutrients. 2020; 12(11):3253. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu12113253

Chicago/Turabian Style

Mueller, Megan P., Eleanor T. Shonkoff, Sara C. Folta, Stephanie Anzman-Frasca, and Christina D. Economos. 2020. "Orders of Healthier Adult Menu Items in a Full-Service Restaurant Chain with a Healthier Children’s Menu" Nutrients 12, no. 11: 3253. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu12113253

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop