New York City’s Calorie-Labeling Law: An Analysis of Formulation and Implementation

8/14/2019 New York Citys Calorie-Labeling Law: An Analysis of Formulation and Implementation

1/21

Mark Nickolas

Prof. Andrew White

The Mayor, the Media & the Politics of Policy in New York City

May 12, 2011

New York Citys Calorie-Labeling Law:

An Analysis of Formulation and Implementation

I. Introduction & Overview

On April 30, 2008, after more than 18 months of lawsuits, public hearings, court orders, and

regulatory revisions, New York Citys ground-breaking calorie-labeling law (formally Section 81.50

of the New York City Health Code) went into full effect. The regulation, enacted directly by the

Department of Health and Mental Hygiene through its regulatory powers thus circumventing the

New York City Council, requires the posting of calorie counts on menus and menu boards by all

restaurants in New York City that are part of a chain of 15 or more outlets nationally that serve

standardized portions.

The calorie-labeling law was one in a series of aggressive and controversial, though popular,

initiatives undertaken by Mayor Michael Bloomberg and his pioneering Health Commissioner

Thomas R. Frieden1 to address preventable chronic diseases, especially those related to for New York

Citys obesity epidemic (Frieden, Public Health 972). Other measures included a smoking ban in

virtually all indoor workplaces and bars and restaurants in 2002, and a ban on trans fats in

restaurants enacted in 2006 (introduced concurrently with the calorie-labeling proposal) (972).

The original calorie-labeling proposal, unveiled on September 26, 2006, targeted only those

chain restaurants that had already made calorie information voluntarily available to consumers.

Establishments which chose not to disclosure information would not be forced to do so. Following a


2/21

Nickolas 2

period for public comment and a hearing, the regulation was approved by the Health Board two

months later on December 5, 2006 (DOHMH-2). Just as the regulation was set to go into effect, the

New York State Restaurant Association (NYSRA) filed a lawsuit on June 14, 2007 in federal court

in Manhattan challenging its legality on grounds that existing federal labeling law preempted any

such local regulation, and that the mandate was a violation of commercial free speech under the First

Amendment (Complaint).

On September 11, 2007, U.S. District Court Judge Richard Holwell struck down the calorie-

labeling law on the grounds that by limiting its mandate to only those businesses that were already

voluntarily disclosing calorie information, it conflicted with the federal law and was therefore

preempted. However, Holwell also reaffirmed the authority of local governments to mandate calorie-

labeling, thus opening the door to a much more expansive application of the regulation that could

force all chain restaurants to display calorie counts (Memorandum Opinion, 2007).

The Bloomberg administration chose not to appeal the Courts ruling, opting instead for a

quick redrafting of the original amendment. Barely a month later, on October 24, 2007, the Health

Department reintroduced the calorie-labeling rule. Following a period for public comment and

hearing, the Health Board approved the revised rule on January 22, 2008, mandating thatallchain

restaurants with at least 15 stores would be required to post calorie counts on its menus and menu

boards. **(CITE)**

In February 2008, the NYSRA again filed suit in federal court, repeating its federal

preemption and First Amendment claims. This time, Judge Holwell sided with the city on both

counts, going so far as to call out the NYSRA for its seeming hypocrisy in arguing against some of the

very theories it raised in its original lawsuit. The final rule took effect on April 30, 2008. Later, the

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second District would deny NYSRAs appeal, and despite its repeated


3/21

Nickolas 3

efforts to delay implementation and enforcement of the rule, NYSRA opted against taking the matter

to the U.S. Supreme Court. **(CITE)**

New York Citys first-in-the-nation calorie-labeling rule would become law, delivering a big

political victory for the Bloomberg administration in its ongoing war on obesity.

II. Objectives

This paper will analyze the genesis, rationale, deliberation, legal challenges, implementation,

and subsequent effects of Section 81.50 of the New York City Health Code with a particular

emphasis on how the original proposal evolved over time into its stricter and much more expansive

final form, largely a result of backfiring tactical decisions by the NYSRA.

The paper will utilize archival research and academic publications, as well as interviews

with a number of the key players involved throughout the process, including Thomas Frieden,

former New York City Health Commissioner; Dr. Margo Wootan, Director of Nutrition Policy at the

Center for Science in the Public Interest (the main advocacy group in support of the rule); and

Marion Nestle, professor of food studies and public health at NYU and one of the nations leading

scholars and authors on the role of food marketing in dietary choices. Attempts to contact Charles

Hunt, Executive Vice President for the New York State Restaurant Association, who led the

opposition against the calorie-labeling law, were not returned.

III. Background and Problem

According to the 2004 Community Health Survey conducted by the New York City Health

Department, more than half of city adults were overweight (34.4%) or obese (21.7%) (Frieden,

Declaration 3). The percentage of obese New Yorkers nearly doubled between 1994 and 2004 (from

12% to 22%) and, nationally, the percentage of obese Americans has skyrocketed from 14.5% in 1971-


4/21

Nickolas 4

1974 to 32.2% in 2003-2004 (2). Studies have shown that an unhealthy diet may be second only to

smoking in importance as a determinant of health (Mokdad et al., 1239). Further complicating this

public health crisis is how one epidemic obesity is driving another epidemic of even greater

concern: the rapidly increasing rate of type 2 diabetes among New Yorkers, from 3.7% in 1994 to

9.5% in 2006 (7).

Public health officials and researchers cite two phenomenon that closely parallel the growing

obesity epidemic since the 1970s: a doubling in the percentage of Americans who eat meals away

from home (11) and a dramatic increase in food portion sizes offered by fast food restaurants (Young

and Nestle, 238-239).

Compounding this problem is the fact that fast food options tend to be calorie-packed,

energy-dense, accessible, and inexpensive (Hill et al., 853). For these reasons, low-income people

tend to eat a disproportionately large percentage of their meals in fast food restaurants (Dolnick).

For example, a Big Mac combination meal at McDonalds which includes the Big Mac sandwich,

medium serving of french fries and 21-ounce soft drink cost just $5.99 in New York City in 2008,

but contained 1,130 calories, more than half an average persons daily caloric need (Farley et al.,

1098).

Our recent economic troubles have only exacerbated these trends. One recent study,

published in theJournal of the American Medical Association, argued:

[e]conomic adversity induces consumers to replace nutritious but expensive

produce with less costly, high-calorie, commodity-based products.. . . In times of

economic weakness and/or rising costs, consumers tend to trade down to lower price

points rather than prepare food at home (Ludwig and Pollack, 534).


5/21

Nickolas 5

Michael Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, toldThe

New York Timesin 2009 that [n]utrition is not the top concern of low-income people, who are

probably the least amenable to calorie labeling (Hartocollis).

While federally mandated nutrition labels are contained on food sold in grocery stores to

better inform consumers about their food choices, no such information is required for food eaten in

restaurants (Frieden, Declaration 4). Prior to the calorie-labeling proposal, some chains had

voluntarily provided nutritional information, but a large Health Department survey of 167 randomly

selected New York City fast food chains in 2007 found that, with the exception of Subway

restaurants, fewer than five percent reported seeing calorie information in the location they had just

exited (Farley et al., 1099). This was an important finding since recent research found that the

selection of high calorie, high fat items decreased from 37% to 24% when calorie information was

provided (Burton et al., 1674).

It was this point that the Bloomberg administrations Health Department decided to act.

IV. The Proposal

In an affidavit filed during subsequent litigation, New York City Health Commissioner

Thomas Frieden offered a general explanation as to why his department chose to act on this issue:

The Board took this step because the Board and Department are charged with the

prevention and control not just of communicable diseases, but also of chronic disease

and its risk factors. This charge is addressed by educational and other means that

improve the citys environment in ways that will make it easier for New Yorkers to

make the healthy choices needed to prevent or manage chronic diseases

(Declaration 4).


6/21

Nickolas 6

Specifically, the department has jurisdiction to regulate all matters affecting the health of

New Yorkers and may amend or supplement the New York City Health Code for the security of life

or health with the force and effect of law (Silver, Menu Labeling 3).

In an interview with the writer, Frieden elaborated in greater detail about what motivated

his department to pursue calorie-labeling as aggressively as it did. While outside groups, such as the

Center for Science in the Public Interest, had lobbied his office for some time to consider action,

Frieden made clear that the decision to initiate this effort had come from within his department.

Specifically, Frieden credited his departments large restaurant inspection program as the

main driver for more aggressive action stating that he wanted to ensure that the program not only

prevented food-borne bacterial and toxic illnesses, but that it also promoted health more broadly. He

noted that the calorie proposal was introduced to the Board of Health at the same time the artificial

trans fat restriction was introduced, as both emanated from the Health Promotion and Disease

Prevention division, but were done in close collaboration with the restaurant safety program of the

Environmental Health division. This was predicated on the belief that the calorie content of food is

the single most important piece of information for consumers to have in helping them make sound

and healthy food choices.

In the end, according to Frieden, the calorie-labeling effort was not offered as a result of

pressure from interest groups, nor was it driven by politics coming out from Mayor Bloombergs

office. Instead, this was a deliberate and calculated effort to expand the traditional mission of the

Health Department so that it could aggressively pursue actions to help combat some of the chronic

diseases plaguing New Yorkers.

The original calorie-labeling effort was publicly announced by the Health Department on

September, 26, 2006 and received strong public support.2 The proposed amendment would require


7/21

Nickolas 7

that all restaurants part of a chain of 15 or more outlets nationally that serve standardized portions

and who have voluntarily made calorie information available would be required to prominently

display that information on its menus and menu board.

V. Deliberation and Approval

Despite broad popular support, the measure was eventually met with strong opposition from

fast food chain restaurants and their trade organizations, most notably the New York State

Restaurant Association (NYSRA) and the National Restaurant Association.

The October 30, 2006 public hearing would provide a window into the looming fight facing

the Health Department as it proceeded with the regulation. Among those speaking was Mark

Inzetta, a senior executive with Wendys restaurants. Inzetta largely focused his remarks on what he

termed the discriminatory nature of the regulation since it applied only to the restaurants that had

already made the decision to offer consumers nutritional information, and not all restaurants:

What concerns us here about this proposal is it would not apply to all New York

City restaurants and, in fact, would apply to only a select few. Inexplicably,

companies that refuse to make any nutrition information available would be entirely

exempt from this regulation. Not only do we think this is unfair, but it's counter-

intuitive to what we believe to be the scapegoat of the Department of Health of

increasing consumer education and therefore, creates an incentive for businesses

which do not provide this information to not provide it in the future. In fact, some

restaurants may consider taking out the information if this proposal were to pass. So

if the goal is to empower New Yorkers to make better informed choices when dining

out, this proposal, in fairness, should apply to all food service outlets in the City


8/21

Nickolas 8

instead of arbitrarily applying it to just a small segment of restaurants (Transcript,

107).

Also raising concerns at the hearing were the two main industry witnesses: Charles Hunt,

NYSRA executive vice president, and Sheila Weiss, Director of Nutrition Policy at the National

Restaurant Association. Both raised objections that since many restaurants were already providing

calorie information to consumers in the form they believed was most effective, local government

should not meddle with that effort.

But their testimony stood out for the fact that both overwhelmingly focused on the proposed

trans fat ban regulation, rather than calorie-labeling. A review of the hearing transcript showed that

Ms. Weiss devoted just 20 percent of her 773-word remarks to calorie-labeling, while Mr. Hunt

barely touched on the subject, allocating just 63 of his 1,014 words to it. Considering that the trans

fat amendment would sail to approval and implementation with minor controversy in the

subsequent weeks, while calorie-labeling would get mired in two federal lawsuits and a delay of over

a year, the industrys initial focus is, especially in hindsight, noteworthy.

In fact, most of the media coverage of the Health Department proposals leading up to the

October public hearing focused mainly on the trans fat ban, not calorie-labeling. Though, not all

involved in the debate would allow the medias narrative to drive the story. In her ownNewYork

Timesop-ed prior to the public hearing, Marion Nestle, NYU professor of food studies and public

health and one of the nations leading scholars on the issue noted that the attention being paid to the

trans fat ban was misplaced and overlooking the much more substantive and meaningful proposal on

calorie-label:


9/21

Nickolas 9

Lost in the hoopla over the trans fat decision was a second proposal from the health

department that might have a far greater impact: to require restaurants that offer

foods and drinks made from standard recipes McDonalds and Starbucks, for

example to display calorie contents on menu boards.

For doing something about obesity, its the calories not the trans fats that

count. Labeling restaurant calories is a good idea because nobody, not even a trained

nutritionist, can compute the number of calories in a meal without knowing the type

and weight of every ingredient that goes into it.

Commissioner Frieden disagreed with this suggestion during the writers interview of him.

Instead, he argued:

Ive always thought that they realized that they couldnt fight transfat because they

knew that fighting to preserve their right to put an artificial product no one had

heard of and was killing people into food wasnt a winner in the publics eye.

Plus, it was clear that we had full authority to do it in the health code. They were

always going to challenge the calorie law, there was no question about that. Both

public hearings and comments had overwhelming public support. Regarding trans

fat, some industries and companies argued, with reason, that they needed time to

transition, and we worked with them on that (Frieden Interview).

During her interview, Dr. Nestle made clear her strong belief that the restaurant associations

were never interested in finding a solution to the obesity issues nor were they ever prepared to

meaningfully address the issue by way of disclosure beyond the voluntary efforts of some of its

members. She framed the entire debate as a classic example of industry versus consumer interests


10/21

Nickolas 10

and that the NYSRA is notoriously uninterested in the health of consumers and this was a typical

example of tactics. This time, they backfired. (Nestle, Interview).

Meanwhile, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), a national public interest

organization based in Washington, D.C., was the leading advocacy group pushing for calorie-

labeling in New York City. According to their website, they describe their mission as follows:

The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) is a consumer advocacy

organization whose twin missions are to conduct innovative research and advocacy

programs in health and nutrition, and to provide consumers with current, useful

information about their health and well-being.

In a brief interview with CSPIs Dr. Margo Wootan, Director of Nutrition Policy, she

explained that her organization began working on nutritional labeling for more than 20 years,

beginning with its successful efforts for a government mandate on labels on packaged food. In 2003,

CSPI began an aggressive push for nutrition labeling at chain restaurants and since New York Citys

effort was nations first, they played a very prominent and public role.

According to Wootan, her group met several times with Commissioner Frieden and his staff

and urged them to target calorie-labeling. The media routinely cited Wootan and CSPI in its

reporting on the labeling proposal and they were very active during the public hearing as were key

players in anamici curiaebrief (often termed a friend of the court brief) filed with U.S. District

Court Judge Richard Holwell in support of the New York City Health Department during the

litigation of the case(**CITE BRIEF**). Along with CSPI, the parties to the brief included U.S.

Rep. Henry Waxman, who was the chief sponsor of the federal labeling act cited by NYSRA), Dr.

David Kessler, former FDA commissioner at the time the federal law was enacted, and a variety of

medical, academic, and advocacy groups and individuals, including Dr. Marion Nestle. The support


11/21

Nickolas 11

provided by this group was a central piece to the litigation and eventual ruling by Judge Holwell

that opened the door to stricter and more expansive final regulation.

INSERT MARGO WOOTAN INTERVIEW COMMENTS + HER AFFIDVAIT IN HAWAII

During the period for public comment on the proposed regulation, the Health Department

received 2,222 written comments, including an additional 45 people who spoke at the October

public hearing. Of those 2,267 comments, 2,245 were in support and just 22 in opposition, a ratio of

100-to-1 (Silver, 1). Moreover, polling across the country consistently showed overwhelming public

support for restaurant calorie-labeling (Friedman, 5).

On December 5, 2006, the Board of Health unanimously approved the measure requiring all

restaurants in New York City that are part of a chain of 15 or more outlets nationally and which

serve standardized portions to make calorie information publicly available beginning March 1, 2007.

A 3-month grace period would be provided so that enforcement would begin on July 1, 2007. The one

major modification from the original proposal that the Health Board agreed to and one it would

revisit the following year was to allow businesses the chance to propose alternative ways to

display calorie information rather than the manner designated by the city.

VI. The Lawsuit

On June 14, 2007, the NYSRA filed a lawsuit against the New York City Board of Health in

U.S. District in Manhattan seeking relief to prevent enforcement of the calorie-count regulation. The

lawsuit asserted two claims: that the federal Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990

preempted any local regulations when it came to food labeling, particularly as a result of the citys

decision to only target businesses who had voluntarily provided calorie information; and that the

regulation infringed on its members First Amendment rights by forcing them:


12/21

Nickolas 12

to convey a message with which they do not agree; namely that the nutritional value

of a given menu item can be represented by a bare declaration of its caloric content

(Complaint, 11).

During his interview, Commissioner Frieden noted that the NYSRA lawsuit was one of the

most interesting experiences during his seven years leading the Health Department because it

provided him a valuable insight into how the fast food industry communicated with its customers

and how determined it was to prevent any interference from the outside, especially mandates by

government. Specifically, Frieden highlighted comments in affidavits filed by officials from several

fast food chains, including from Hector Munoz, Senior Director of Retail Image and Engagement at

Burger King Corp., who offered the following insight as to why they opposed any meddling with its

menu board:

the menu board is the single most valued piece of real estate in a Burger King

restaurant. It is the most important way we communicate with our customers in the

store about the products we offer and their price. It is what the customers look at,

and it is what stimulate their decision to buy (Silver and Nonas, 15).

This assertion, which other fast food chains largely mimicked in their own affidavits,

suggests this as the reason for the ferocious response by the industry once, the Health Board

approved the calorie-labeling regulation. The menu boards were perceived as inviolable sacred

ground and the companies were not going to ceded control over them without a fierce fight.

On September 11, 2007, U.S. District Court Judge Richard Holwell struck down the calorie-

labeling law on the grounds that by limiting its mandate to only those businesses that were already

voluntarily disclosing calorie information, it conflicted with the federal Nutrition Labeling and

Education Act of 1990 and was therefore preempted. However, even more significantly, Judge


13/21

Nickolas 13

Holwell specifically reaffirmed the authority of local governments to mandate calorie-labeling, thus

opening the door to a much more expansive application of the regulation that could force all chain

restaurants to display calorie counts, regardless of whether or not they had offered such information

to the public in the first place:

[T]he Court concludes that the City has the power to mandate nutritional labeling

by restaurants, but that it has done so in a manner that offends the federal statutory

scheme for voluntary nutritional claims. Therefore, the Citys regulation, as enacted,

is preempted by federal law. The Court does not reach the plaintiffs First

Amendment claims (Memorandum Opinion, 2007 2).

VII. Repeal and Redrafting

Instead of appealing Judge Holwells ruling, the Bloomberg administration opted to quickly

redraft the original proposal, not only to remedy the language per the courts opinion, but also to

broaden its mandate to force all chains to comply with the labeling requirement, as was clearly

suggested by Holwell.

As a matter of tactics, the decision by the NYSRA to appeal the regulation had backfired

badly. Even though it had technically won the case, that designation was helpful only for the positive

news stories it received in the subsequent days. In fact, Holwells ruling would turn out to be much

worse for the NYSRA and fast food chains than if they had simply lost the case. Now, with a small

amount of redrafting, the Health Department would be able to mandate calorie-labeling on all

chains, not merely a subset who were already disclosing information publicly. Commissioner

Frieden acknowledged during his interview that, ironically, his department had believed the limited

original regulation was going to be more defensible in court. This turned out to be the opposite of

the case.


14/21

Nickolas 14

Moreover, the redrafting allowed the Health Department to scrap its previous willingness to

allow chains to propose and potentially receive approval for alternate designs for displaying calorie

information. Frieden would later say that while the original accommodation was well intentioned, it

eventually led to unproductive discussions with restaurants (Farley, 1107). Now, given the green

light by the courts to redraft a stricter and more expansive regulation, it simply dropped the

alternate design option and instead instructed restaurants on how to display calorie information on

its sacred menu boards, highlighting yet another consequence for NYSRAs decision to file its

original lawsuit.

Barely a month later after Judge Holwells ruling, the Health Department reintroduced the

calorie-labeling rule on October 24, 2007. Following a period for public comment and hearing, the

Health Board approved the revised rule on January 22, 2008, mandating that all chain restaurants

with at least 15 stores would be required to post calorie counts on its menus and menu boards.

In February 2008, the NYSRA again filed suit in federal court, repeating its federal

preemption and First Amendment claims. This time, Judge Holwell sided with the City on both

counts, going so far as to call out the NYSRA for its seeming hypocrisy in arguing against some of the

very theories it raised in its original lawsuit (Memorandum Opinion, 2008 5). The final rule took

effect on April 30, 2008. Later, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second District would deny

NYSRAs appeal, and despite its repeated efforts to delay implementation and enforcement of the

rule, NYSRA opted against taking the matter to the U.S. Supreme Court.

VIII. Implementation

IX. Analysis, Lessons & Criticism


15/21

Nickolas 15

ADDRESS NANNY STATE

Also, it can be argued that the industrys lack of traction on repelling what they viewed as

an assault on their most vital communication link to their customers was the result of being caught

seemingly flat-footed in the first few weeks of the debate and that rendered them unable to mount

an effective pushback in subsequent months. As is the case in political fights, the failure to launch an

assertive response at the beginning of engagement is often fatal especially when initial popular

support is likely not to be on your side. Beyond allowing your opponent to start galvanizing public

opinion, a delay can cause the media to downgrade any such fights as unworthy of front page

attention. In fact, it is not unusual for a group to launch a pre-emptive strike even before a proposal

is formally announced in hopes of gaining an upper hand once the debate formally begins.

In this case, the fast food industry initially chased the wrong the target, were divided

between those restaurants who were not opposed to labeling, but wanted control over how to

display it (such as Wendys), versus those which were simply not interested in voluntarily

participating in the first place.

X. Conclusion

New York Citys successful development and implementation of its calorie-labeling law is an

example of how local government can execute strong policy goals that can achieve public health

benefits. In this case, a number of factors can be cited for the proposals success: the clear objectives

set from the outset by Commissioner Frieden and the Health Department; setting realistic and

attainable requirements for the restaurants affected; conducting considerable research on the

proposal well before publicly discussing them; strong political backing throughout the process by

from Mayor Bloomberg; a willingness to circumvent potential political gridlock by utilizing existing


16/21

Nickolas 16

regulatory authority rather than seeking city council approval; and maintaining the momentum to

finalize the amendment, even while navigating legal hurdles that required redrafting the rule.

Additionally, as Commissioner Frieden has since noted, given the political clout of the fast

food industry, it is not surprising that an appointed body (the Health Department), rather than

elected one (the City Council), was the first in the nation to mandate calorie-posting. Despite the

efforts by some council members to assert jurisdiction and offer a business friendly compromise, the

Bloomberg administrations political deftness quashed the effort before it could build any

momentum.

Also, there is no doubt that the decision by the NYSRA to challenge the original proposal in

the court was a key factor in the Bloomberg administration emerging from the process with a

stricter, more expansive, and fairer rule that placed a mandate on all chains, rather than a portion of

them. Without the courts intervention, it is possible that a large number of restaurants would have

exempted themselves from the posting mandate (by no longer offering voluntary nutritional

information) and rendered the final regulation relatively toothless and ineffective, leaving many of us

to wonder how the Health Department managed to fumble away its chance to add another tool to

combating the obesity epidemic. Instead, New York Citys success proved to be a model for other

states and localities, and eventually a similar provision to mandate calorie-labeling nationally found

its way into the landmark federal health care bill that President Obama signed into law in 2010,

which the FDA is currently finalizing.

As one would fully expect of any controversial public policy proposal, the original calorie-

labeling amendment did change as it weaved its way through the approval process. It encountered

obstacles, entrenched moneyed interests, lawsuits, as well as pressure from advocacy groups which

pushed for the strictest possible regulation. However, in each instance of modification, the original


17/21

Nickolas 17

proposal became stronger, tighter, and stricter. It morphed from being voluntarily applied to

becoming a mandate on all chain restaurants. Also, while the first iteration allowed restaurants to

propose an alternative mechanism for display of calorie information, the final regulation removed

that option and simply mandated how it was to be done.

Throughout this process, the Health Department, and the Bloomberg administration, was

unbowed by the tumult and methodically plodded ahead, seemingly to remain a step or two ahead of

its opponents at all times, who often appeared flat-footed against the bulldog efforts of

Commissioner Frieden and his team. They launched the original proposal with a punch (and kept

punching throughout), kept elected officials who might try to tinker with the proposal (or took

campaign money from the fast food industry) at bay, did not dither after the initial setback in the

courtroom, and they made sure to incorporate public opinion into their broadside efforts against the

opposition (CITE FRIEDEN COMMENT RE ASHAMED OF THEIR FOOD PRESS RELEASE).

The steadfast backing at all stages by Mayor Bloomberg cannot be underemphasized. As the CEO of

the City of New York, any hesitation by Bloomberg during some of these crucial phases might have

provided critically needed oxygen for opponents looking for a way back into the game. They never

got it.

Substantively, there is good reason to believe that the effectiveness of the calorie-labeling

law in the long term will prove to be less about the food choices that consumers make, than about

the fast food industrys decisions to provide healthier options and more reasonable portion sizes in

the face of sticker shock from consumers who had no idea that a typical combination meal itself

contains more than half the calories required for an entire day. The evidence is undisputable that

such changes are being made. The question is whether this trend continues.

Works Cited


18/21

Nickolas 18

2,000 Is Really Enough.The New York Times.20 Oct 2008. Web. 29 Apr 2011

.

Barron, James. 5 Restaurants in Manhattan Get Citations Over Calories.The New York Times.6 May

2008. Web. 29 Apr 2011 .

Board of Health Votes to Require Calorie Labeling in Some New York City Restaurants. New York

City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DOHMH). 5 Dec 2006. Web. 29 Apr 2011

.

Burton, Scot et al. Attacking the Obesity Epidemic: The Potential Health Benefits of Providing

Nutrition Information in Restaurants.AmericanJournal of Public Health96.9 (2006) : 1669-

1675. Web. 8 May 2011.

"Comparison of Menu Labeling Policies." Center for Science and the Public Interest. Undated. Web.29 Apr 2011 .

Complaint. New York State Restaurant Associationv. New York City Board of Health, et al. 2007 Civ. 5710

(SDNY). 14 Jun 2007. Web. 29 Apr. 2011

.

Declaration of Thomas R. Frieden. New York State Restaurant Association v. New York City Board of Health, et

al. 2007 Civ. 5710 (SDNY). 5 Jul 2007. Web. 29 Apr 2011

.

Dolnick, Sam. The Obesity-Hunger Paradox.The New York Times.12 Mar 2010. Web. 29 Apr 2011

.

Farley, Thomas A. et al. New York Citys Fight Over Calorie Labeling. Health Affairs(2009) : n. pag.

Web. 7 May 2011.

Frieden, Thomas. Personal interview. 6 May 2011.

Frieden, Thomas R. et al. Public Health in New York City, 2002-2007: Confronting Epidemics of

the Modern Era.International Journalof Epidemiology37.5 (2008) : 966-977. Web. 7 May 2011.

Friedman, R. Menu Labeling in Chain Restaurants. Opportunities for Public Policy. Rudd Report.

New Haven: Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity, Yale University. Retrieved from:

http://www.yaleruddcenter.org/resources/upload/docs/what/reports/RuddMenuLabelingRe

port2008.pdf.


19/21

Nickolas 19

Hartocollis, Anemona. Calorie Postings Dont Change Habits, Study Finds. The New York Times.6

Oct 2009. Web. 29 Apr 2011

.

Health Department Launches Calorie Education Campaign. New York City Department of Health

and Mental Hygiene. 6 Oct 2008. Web. 29 Apr 2011

.

Health Department Proposes Two Changes to Citys Health Code For Public Comment: First, to

Phase Out Artificial Trans Fat in All Restaurants; Second, to Require Calorie Labeling in

Some Restaurants. New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. 26 Sep 2006.

Web. 29 Apr. 2011 .

Hill, James O. et al. Obesity and the Environment: Where Do We Go from Here? Science (New York,

N.Y.) 299.5608 (2003) : 853-855. Web. 7 May 2011.

How Many Calories in that Fried Triple Whopper with Cheese?" The New York Times. 17 Oct 2008

Web. 29 Apr 2011 .

In Tug of War on Calories, Mayor Pushes for Amended Rule." [] The New York Times. 12 Sep 2007.

Web. 29 Apr 2011 .

Ludwig, David S., and Harold A. Pollack. Obesity and the Economy. JAMA: The Journal of theAmerican

Medical Association301.5 (2009) : 533 -535. Web. 8 May 2011.

Memorandum Opinion and Order.New York State Restaurant Association v. New York City Board of Health,

etal. 2007 Civ. 5710 (SDNY). 11 Sep 2007. Web. 29 Apr 2011

.

Memorandum Opinion and Order.New York State Restaurant Association v. New York City Board of Health,

etal.2008 Civ. 1000 (SDNY). 16 Apr 2008. Web. 29 Apr 2011

.

Mokdad, A.H. et al., Actual Causes of Death in the United States, 2000,JAMA: The Journal of theAmerican Medical Association291.10 (2004) : 12381245. Web. 3 May 2011

.

Nestle, Marion. Personal interview. 6 May 2011.

Nestle, Marion. Trans Fat Nation.The New York Times.1 Oct 2006. Web. 8 May 2011

.


20/21

Nickolas 20

"Product Reformation: A Beneficial Outcome of Menu Labeling." Center for Science in the Public

Interest. Undated. Web. 29 Apr 2011

.

Rivera, Ray. City Council May Change Menu Rule on Calories.The New York Times26 Feb 2007.

Web. 29 Apr 2011. .

Saul, Stephanie. Conflict on the Menu. The New York Times 16 Feb 2008. Web. 29 Apr 2011

.

---. Menu Fight Over Calories Leads Doctor to Reject Post. The New York Times4 Mar 2008. Web. 29

Apr 2011 .

Silver, Lynn D. Summary and Response to Public Hearing and Comments Received Regarding

Amendment of Article 81 of the New York City Health Code Adding a New Section 81.50 to

Require Calorie Labeling on Menus and Menu Boards. New York City Department of

Health and Public Hygiene. 27 Nov 2006. Web. 29 Apr 2011

.

Silver, Lynn and Nonas, Cathy. 81.50 Calorie Posting: Response to Comments. New York City

Department of Health and Public Hygiene. 22 Jan 2008. Web. 29 Apr 2011

.

Silver L, Nonas C, Merrill T. Menu Labeling in New York City New York City Department of

Health and Public Hygiene. 12 May 2009. Web. 29 Apr 2011

.

Statement From the New York City Health Department Regarding Court Case on Calorie Posting

Regulation. New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DOHMH). 27 Mar

2008. Web. 29 Apr 2011 .

Sullivan, John. "In Fair Calorie Counts, Who Screams for Ice Cream?" The New York Times. 27 Nov

2007. Web. 29 Apr 2011 .

Tan, Andy S L. A Case Study of the New York City Trans-fat Story for International Application.

Journal of Public Health Policy30.1 (2009) : 3-16. Web. 8 May 2011.

Transcript. New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene Public Hearing on Trans Fat

and Calorie Labeling Proposals: Health Codes 81.08 and 81.50. 30 Oct 2006. Web. 29 Apr

2011 .


21/21

Nickolas 21

Wootan, Margo. Personal interview. 6 May 2011.

Young, Lisa R, and Marion Nestle. Portion Sizes and Obesity: Responses of Fast-food Companies.

Journal of Public Health Policy28.2 (2007) : 238-248. Web. 7 May 2011.

1 Dr. Thomas Frieden served as Commissioner of New York Citys Department of Health and Mental Hygiene formore than seven years beginning with his appointment by Mayor Michael Bloomberg in January 2002. On May 15,2009, President Barack Obama named Frieden the 16th director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention(CDC).

2 The Dept. of Health simultaneously announced the calorie-labeling proposal along with another amendment tothe health code which would phase-out the use of trans fats in New York City restaurants. Unlike calorie-labeling,the trans fat ban garnered considerably less opposition and was enacted and implemented several months later.

Documents

New York City’s Calorie-Labeling Law: An Analysis of Formulation and Implementation