Menu Labeling Study

Passage of Menu Labeling in California

A Case StudyA Case StudyJune 2009

Underwritten by Participant Media

INTRODUCTIONLet’s get junk food out of schools!

INTRODUCTION

7/13/2009 2

IntroductionIntroductionIn September 2008, California became the first state in the nation to mandate that fast-food and other chain restaurants post calorie information on their menus and menu boards. The idea is spreading, with more than 20 states and major cities entertaining similar legislation in 2009. New York City has already implemented menu labeling allowing customers to see the calories in a food posted right next to its price.

Making calorie information visible at the point of purchase in chain restaurants consolidates what t iti t k b t th i ti b t th b it id i d i ifi t thnutrition experts know about the association between the obesity epidemic and significant growth

in restaurant dining over the last few decades.

This case study provides a detailed look at how public health advocates pursued menu-labeling legislation in California through strategic organizing powerful messaging and astute politicallegislation in California through strategic organizing, powerful messaging, and astute political maneuvering. In addition, it highlights the contribution of each prior jurisdiction’s success in making a state-level policy possible, and in laying the groundwork for the forthcoming national debate over menu labeling.

7/13/2009 3

“THE RIGHT TO KNOW”Let’s get junk food out of schools!

“THE RIGHT TO KNOW”

7/13/2009 4

“The right to know”The right to knowNearly two out of three American adults are overweight or obese, and the prevalence of obesity in children and teens has tripled over the last 30 years, according to national health statistics.

This trend concerns health officials because obesity is a major contributor to multiple chronic conditions, including diabetes, heart disease, and some forms of cancer. The trend also should concern policy makers because economists estimate that the annual medical costs related to obesity and overweight are more than $90 billion, half of which is financed by the public sector.

Public health experts have a long history of solving such complex problems. One of the most important lessons from past public health campaigns—from sanitation to air pollution and from drunk driving to tobacco use—is that people have more opportunity to be healthy if public policies support their ability to make healthy choices In the case of obesity these experts know that thesupport their ability to make healthy choices. In the case of obesity, these experts know that the solution will not rest solely on asking that people take more personal responsibility by eating less and exercising more. Instead, effective obesity interventions must focus on changing conditions in schools and communities to make it easier for people to make those healthy choices.

7/13/2009 5

“The right to know”The right to knowThe average daily calorie consumption of the typical American increased by an estimated 200 to 300 calories over the last 30 years, with a large portion of those additional calories being consumed at restaurants. Americans now spend about half their food budgets eating out, and three-quarters of teenagers report eating fast food at least once a week. Research shows that people tend to receive larger portions and consume more calories when they eat out.

In 1990, recognizing the need for people to know the nutritional content of their food in order to t l th i di t C d th N t iti L b li d Ed ti A t (NLEA) hi hcontrol their diets, Congress passed the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA), which

requires standardized nutrition labels and ingredient lists on all packaged foods and beverages. Vigorous lobbying by the restaurant industry kept this law from applying to restaurant foods.Given the preponderance of evidence that suggests frequent restaurant dining is linked to excess calorie consumption and weight gain public health advocates believe that making nutritioncalorie consumption and weight gain, public health advocates believe that making nutrition information easily visible at the point of purchase in restaurants could help Americans make better food choices, and also could spur the restaurant industry to offer healthier options.

7/13/2009 6

“The right to know”The right to know“People have the right to know what they’re eating,” said Margo Wootan, nutrition policy director at the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), which has led the menu labeling movement nationally.g y

Too many restaurants provide a “calorie overdose” and too few consumers have any way to know that, said Harold Goldstein, executive director of the California Center for Public Health Advocacy (CCPHA), which led the menu labeling effort in California. People greatly y ( ), g p g yunderestimate calorie content in restaurant food,which tends to be higher in calories, sugar, fat, and sodium—and lower in important nutrients and vitamins—than food cooked at home.To prove this point, CCPHA commissioned a public opinion poll in 2007 to assess the knowledge of California voters about the fat, calorie, and salt content of restaurant foods. g , ,Two out of three respondents got all four multiple-choice questions wrong. Not one participant answered all questions correctly.

7/13/2009 7

DAVID VS GOLIATHLet’s get junk food out of schools!

DAVID VS. GOLIATH

7/13/2009 8

David vs. GoliathDavid vs. GoliathIn 2000, Wootan and CSPI began encouraging policy makers and advocates across the country to push for enactment of CSPI’s model menu-labeling policy. Between 2003 and 2006, lawmakers in several states introduced menu-labeling bills. They attracted some headlines, but none of the bills passed.

Then, in December 2006, New York City became the first jurisdiction to require restaurants to post calories on menu boards and menus. Their regulation applied only to restaurants that already

d t iti i f ti il bl i b h W b it f t th t th N Y k St tmade nutrition information available in brochures or on Web sites, a fact that the New York State Restaurant Association used as the basis for a successful lawsuit to block the ordinance from being implemented.

While New York City health officials fought legal battles and reformulated their approach to menuWhile New York City health officials fought legal battles and reformulated their approach to menu labeling, CCPHA and its partners—the California Optometric Association and the regional chapters of the American Cancer Society and the American Heart Association—decided to take up the effort in California.

7/13/2009 9

David vs. GoliathDavid vs. GoliathCCPHA has a successful track record of sponsoring state nutritional legislation, including legislation banning soda and junk food sales on school grounds. Moving beyond the school environment was the logical next step, Goldstein said, but taking on the restaurant industry was not a decision made lightly.

Because of the campaign contributions and presence of small businesses in every community, Goldstein said, “Restaurants—especially restaurant chains—have direct access to legislators in a

ld h B t h lth d t h diff t ki d f th tway we could never have. But health advocates have a different kind of power -- power that comes from our dedication to protecting the public’s health.”

In this case, the public health advocates also were confident they might be able to convince Governor ArnoldSchwarzenegger to support menu labeling because of its relationship to obesityGovernor ArnoldSchwarzenegger to support menu labeling because of its relationship to obesity prevention, an issue the former Mr. Universe had championed since taking office.

Goldstein, Wootan, and CCPHA policy director Amanda Bloom also thought they had public opinion on their side. At the same time, they knew this David-versus-Goliath battle would require a p , y qsophisticated strategy that used everything they had ever learned from previous advocacy efforts.

7/13/2009 10

COALITION BUILDINGLet’s get junk food out of schools!

COALITION BUILDING

7/13/2009 11

Coalition buildingCoalition buildingFirst, they needed to build a strong team and find a champion in the Legislature to introduce the bill. They decided on Senator Alex Padilla. Padilla was in his first term in the legislature, had previously been the youngest person ever elected president of the Los Angeles City Council, and was considered a rising political star. Padilla also had a history of championing public health issues, had sought the chairmanship of the new Select Committee on obesity and diabetes, and was looking to carry high-impact legislation.

P dill k l b li bill ld b t i l b t h it t k lPadilla knew a menu-labeling bill would be controversial, but he saw it as a way to make a large, tangible impact without such “radical” measures as taxation or food or ingredient bans, said Bill Mabie, Padilla’s Chief of Staff.

As initially introduced SB 120 proposed to require chain restaurants with 10 or more CaliforniaAs initially introduced, SB 120 proposed to require chain restaurants with 10 or more California outlets to provide calorie information on menu boards, and calorie, fat, carbohydrate, and sodium counts on menus.

7/13/2009 12

Coalition buildingCoalition buildingThe advocates spent that first year educating lawmakers about the relationship between restaurant food and obesity, and convincing them that their aim was not to put restaurants out of business or to incite lawsuits, but rather to create a spirit of cooperation to improve the public’s health. They worked hard to describe menu labeling both mainstream (not “too radical”) and feasible. They secured letters of support from county and city governments, and organized constituents to call their lawmakers and to testify at public hearings.

All l th th ht iti Th l d t d d ibi th li kAll along the way, they sought positive press. They released a new study describing the link between obesity and the concentration of fast food restaurants. And they received substantial media coverage of their public opinion “food quiz” that helped convince naysayers that “even intelligent consumers like me” had no idea about the nutritional content of fast food. Who would have guessed that a large chocolate shake at McDonald’s has more calories than two Big Macs orhave guessed that a large chocolate shake at McDonald s has more calories than two Big Macs, or that steak and eggs at Denny’s has fewer calories than a ham and cheese omelet?

7/13/2009 13

Coalition buildingCoalition buildingThe highly publicized quiz also proved a successful strategy for advocates, giving them an opportunity to highlight another finding from the poll: 84 percent of California voters, including 78 percent of Republicans and 89 percent of Democrats, supported menu labeling.

Another way the advocates helped secure votes was by making personal visits with legislators, and then reporting the lawmakers’ concerns back to Senator Padilla to provide him an avenue for changing their minds about menu labeling. “The advocates’ ability to identify the other Senators’

bl d ti ff ti b k tl h t th iproblems made our meetings more effective because we knew exactly what their concerns were when we walked in the door,” Mabie said.

7/13/2009 14

OPPOSITION’S ARGUMENTSLet’s get junk food out of schools!

OPPOSITION’S ARGUMENTS

7/13/2009 15

Opposition’s argumentsOpposition s argumentsFrom the start, the restaurant industry insisted that mandatory nutrition labeling on menu boards was too expensive, too cumbersome, and unnecessary. Their lobbyists argued that the proposed legislation was unfeasible and would cripple “mom and pop” businesses, even though the bill applied only to large chains. At the same time, they insisted that consumers would not want or use the information. (The California Restaurant Association declined repeated interview requests for this case study.)

T d t t th i ti lit f l b li di t l h i i d tTo demonstrate the impracticality of a menu-labeling ordinance, at an early hearing,an industry lobbyist rolled out a giant scroll of laminated paper containing the nutritional information for every conceivable hamburger combination, pretending that passage of menu labeling would require menus to “look like this,” something that was patently untrue.

Though the legislature approved SB 120, in the end the opposition prevailed. Schwarzenegger vetoed the bill, saying in his veto message, “While I support providing people information to help them make healthy choices, this bill is impractical.”

7/13/2009 16

Opposition’s argumentsOpposition s argumentsBefore getting into politics, Schwarzenegger was a restaurant owner. He was sensitive to any additional regulations that might make it more difficult to operate a business, especially in a down economy, said Dan Zingale, the governor’s principal advisor on health care issues at the time.While Schwarzenegger isn’t a typical Republican, he is still a Republican, said Sacramento Bee political columnist Daniel Weintraub. “He has these social activist instincts, but at the same time, on business issues and regulation, he has a libertarian in him and does not generally like the idea of government telling businesses what to do.”

In addition to his reluctance to increase mandates on businesses, observers also point out that in 2007, Schwarzenegger proposed to overhaul the state’s health care system and so needed restaurant owners at the health reform table. Vetoing SB 120 likely was a concession to try and keep them therekeep them there.

7/13/2009 17

2008 A CHANGEDLet’s get junk food out of schools!

2008: A CHANGED LANDSCAPE

7/13/2009 18

2008: A changed landscape2008: A changed landscapeFour months after the veto of SB 120, Padilla reintroduced the menu-labeling bill as SB 1420. His staff knew they needed to tweak their strategy to get the governor’s signature. They decided to find out what progress had been made since Schwarzenegger’s original pledge to combat obesity in 2005, when he set goals to “create an environment that encourages the health and fitness of Californians” and honored exemplary corporations for committing to fight obesity.

By 2008, however, most of the honored corporations, including many fast food restaurants, had d littl if thi t h th i li i t t k ti t i th f d i tdone little, if anything, to change their policies or to take action to improve the food environment. Padilla exposed their lack of commitment at a committee hearing, embarrassing the governor, and earning media coverage.

“The hearing was a game changer ” Mabie said “We put (the governor’s staff) on notice that weThe hearing was a game changer, Mabie said. We put (the governor s staff) on notice that we weren’t going away.”

7/13/2009 19

2008: A changed landscape2008: A changed landscapePadilla continued to hold press conferences throughout the year, including one to announce the resultsof a study conducted by the Center for Science in the Public Interest that found the vast majority of fast food kids’ meals contained more than the recommended 430 calories. When he was a child, Padilla said, eating out was a rare treat for his family. In contrast, today’s rushed parents on a budget turn to fast food restaurants as a quick, inexpensive way to feed their families. Finding healthy options is difficult if not impossible, he said.

Th liti l l d l h d i 2008 f l h lth f ff th t blThe political landscape also changed in 2008 for several reasons: health reform was off the table, several local jurisdictions passed their own menu-labeling ordinances, New York City’s ordinance took effect, and the Restaurant Association borrowed a well-known strategy from the tobacco industry—it sponsored its own watered-down menu labeling bill in California, Assembly Bill 2572, as a proactive strategy to try to stop the growing momentum for real menu labelingas a proactive strategy to try to stop the growing momentum for real menu labeling.

7/13/2009 20

2008: A changed landscape2008: A changed landscapeIn sponsoring its own mock “menu labeling” bill, the California Restaurant Association took the offensive, launching a vigorous campaign inside the capital. No longer claiming that consumers do not want nutritional information, the association was now promoting a consumers’ right to know what is in their food. The information, however, was to be provided on menus and menu boards OR in any other place and any other way the restaurant preferred, including brochures, wall posters, table tents, or tray liners. The industry portrayed itself as the one willing to compromise, and the public health advocates as strident and inflexible. The strategy proved persuasive with

b i f i dl D t i th l i l t Bl idmany business-friendly Democrats in the legislature, Bloom said.

“Their tactic was to provide consumers with information -- but only in ways that people wouldn’t see it,” Wootan said.

The public health advocates knew that many restaurants already provided nutritional brochures, and that research showed that consumers don’t use the information in that form. They now had to convince lawmakers, however, that codifying the status quo was not good public policy.

7/13/2009 21

2008: A changed landscape2008: A changed landscapeMarketing experts use the term “search costs” to describe the effort required by consumers to find and understand product information. A study of customers at McDonald’s, Burger King, Starbucks and Au Bon Pain restaurants in New York and Connecticut confirmed that people don’t use nutrition information available in pamphlets or on computer kiosks. Only six people, or one-tenth of one percent of the 4,311 patrons observed, use nutrition brochures before ordering.

Those findings didn’t surprise Scot Burton, Chair of Marketing at the University of Arkansas, F tt ill ’ S M W lt C ll f B i “If t l t i f tiFayetteville’s Sam M. Walton College of Business. “If you want people to use information, you better make it very, very easily available for them,” Burton said. “The place in which nutrition information is most easily available to consumers—where search costs are minimized—will be directly on the menus and menu boards that people are most likely to look at when they place orders ”orders.

That message became key for public health advocates. To illustrate the difficulty in using brochures to look up nutrition information, CCPHA created a YouTube video showing restaurant-goers fumbling with brochures to try to find the calorie content of menu items. The $1,000 video (click g y $ , (here) received more than 5,000 hits, demonstrating the power of new, inexpensive media to influence the policy making process.

7/13/2009 22

TURNING POINTLet’s get junk food out of schools!

TURNING POINT

7/13/2009 23

Turning pointTurning pointNew York City fought and won the legal battles necessary to establish precedent for future menu-labeling legislation. The city’s reformulated ordinance took effect in April 2008, and it undermined the industry’s argument that putting calories on menu boards was unfeasible. With calories visible to restaurant patrons in the Big Apple, advocates could now show lawmakers real-life pictures of what they were talking about, and highlight the fact that, despite their dire predictions, restaurants in New York City were not going out of business as a result of the new requirement.

“Th t t i th ’t d it i C lif i d i it l d i N Y k Cit ”“The same restaurants saying they can’t do it in California are doing it already in New York City,” Padilla said at a press conference.

As New Yorkers suffered from “calorie sticker shock” while eating out, and with support from CCPHA and others San Francisco Santa Clara and San Mateo counties adopted local menu-CCPHA and others, San Francisco, Santa Clara, and San Mateo counties adopted local menu-labeling ordinances. Now, the restaurant industry was being bruised in the media all across the state almost daily and faced a patchwork of rules in different counties.

7/13/2009 24

Turning pointTurning pointMedia coverage reached a crescendo when two members of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors held a highly publicized press conference to announce that they would begin considering the possibility of establishing a countywide ordinance. Within days, the restaurateurs were ready to negotiate, and the governor’s staff approached Padilla in search of a compromise.

Working through Mabie and Padilla, the public health advocates had to decide on which issues they were willing to compromise. Defining a chain restaurant, drive thru menu boards, the i l t ti ti li d ti b i t f j ti tiimplementation timeline, and pre-emption became points of major negotiation.

To get the governor’s signature, Padilla and the advocates had to agree not to require calorie posting on drive thru boards and to postpone full implementation until 2011. A pre-emption clause prohibiting localities from passing stricter rules however raised the most concern The publicprohibiting localities from passing stricter rules, however, raised the most concern. The public health community generally opposes setting a regulatory ceiling, a hard-learned lesson from the anti-tobacco movement, where the tobacco industry would try to undermine strong local ordinances by supporting weaker statewide laws that usurp local control. In the end, the American Heart Association withdrew its support for the bill when Senator Padilla and the governor agreed to pp g ginclude pre-emption in the bill.

7/13/2009 25

Turning pointTurning point“We didn’t get everything we wanted,” Goldstein said. “That’s pretty common in the democratic process. It was the preemption issue, though, that was the most difficult part of the negotiation.” He and the other advocates knew that San Francisco and other communities had already established stronger policies, and that some other jurisdictions might do the same.

They also knew how important the establishment of local policies was in building support for SB 1420 and did not want to squelch future local innovation. In the end, however, the advocates

d t ti b th k SB 1420 ld k i ifi t t ib ti t b itagreed to preemption because they knew SB 1420 would make a significant contribution to obesity prevention by putting calorie information on menus and menu boards in chain restaurants throughout the state. Even more, they knew that enactment of menu labeling in California would build momentum for passage of a strong national menu labeling law rather than the mock menu labeling bill that the national restaurant industry would soon be introducinglabeling bill that the national restaurant industry would soon be introducing.

Without pre-emption and winning the restaurant industry’s neutrality on the bill, albeit grudgingly, Weintraub doubts the governor would have signed it into law. “The most important factor in the difference between the veto and the signing,” he said, “was the changing position of the restaurant g g, , g g passociation.”

7/13/2009 26

Turning pointTurning pointNot sacrificing the good for the perfect was crucial to the advocates’ success, Zingale said. “They struck the right balance between fighting relentlessly for the essential elements of the legislation without being purists when it came to less critical preferences.”

Schwarzenegger signed the menu-labeling legislation in September 2008. The final bill required chain restaurants with 20 or more locations across the state to put calorie information on menu boards and menus by 2011. By July 2009, restaurants were to make the information available in b h Th l li t t id d d t ll l liti t t i t lbrochures. The law applies statewide and does not allow localities to pass stricter rules.

7/13/2009 27

THE NATIONAL STAGELet’s get junk food out of schools!

THE NATIONAL STAGE

7/13/2009 28

The national stageThe national stageA national debate over menu labeling is expected to heat up later in 2009. Like the debate that occurred in California, the major difference will be over whether the calories must be provided on menus and menu boards or whether restaurants should continue to hide nutritional information on brochures and posters.

Congress has two menu-labeling bills to consider: the public health bill known as the MEAL Act, requiring nutritional information on menus and menu boards, and the restaurant industry’s

t d d bill th LEAN A t hi h ld ll t t t id t iti l i f ti iwatered-down bill, the LEAN Act, which would allow restaurants to provide nutritional information in places where consumers will not easily see it. The one that prevails could set a national standard.

As of May 2009, at least 30 jurisdictions have passed menu labeling laws or ordinances. Each success at the city county and state level has contributed to building the momentum that makessuccess at the city, county, and state level has contributed to building the momentum that makes Wootan of CSPI confident a national bill favoring public health principles could pass within a year. Congress will have a much more difficult time passing a watered-down bill that requires nutrition information only in brochures, she said, now that the largest state in the nation requires calories to be posted on menus and menu boards. * Examples: California; New York City; Multnomah County p p ; y; y(Portland); King County (Seattle); Philadelphia; Montgomery County, MD; Davidson County, TN; Westchester County, NY; Ulster County, NY; Albany County, NY; Suffolk County, NJ

7/13/2009 29

LESSONS LEARNEDLet’s get junk food out of schools!

LESSONS LEARNED

7/13/2009 30

Lessons learnedLessons learnedThis case study offers several public health advocacy lessons.

TimingAfter analyzing the political situation in Sacramento, California advocates were correct in their assessment that menu labeling could be enacted in California so long as the right strategy was used. Choosing when to introduce an issue is crucial to its success, Zingale said. “If you choose the wrong issue at the wrong time,” he said, “you can have the most sophisticated strategy on

th d it’ t i t h ”earth and it’s not going to happen.”

ChampionsMost successful advocacy campaigns have at least one champion who becomes the public face of an issue and maneuvers tirelessly behind the scenes to advance a cause This case hadan issue and maneuvers tirelessly behind the scenes to advance a cause. This case had champions at all levels. Padilla became the most public champion, making eloquent speeches about the need for interventions to curb rising rates of obesity. But he also wielded political muscle inside Sacramento to get SB 1420 to the governor’s desk.Wootanhas championed the effort at the national level for nearly a decade. Goldstein assumed the advocacy leadership position at the y y p pstate level. Local jurisdictions had champions of their own who pushed menu-labeling ordinances.

7/13/2009 31

Lessons learnedLessons learnedFraming the debatePublic health advocates involved in menu-labeling efforts in California, Seattle, and New York City all emphasize the importance of having a sophisticated messaging and media strategy that incorporates local data and research. “It’s critical to show that locally this issue matters to people,” said Donna Oberg, who coordinated King County, Washington, in their successful nutrition labeling ordinance that took effect in January 2009. Goldstein said advocates must develop a clear, consistent message to use throughout the campaign, and he recommends working with public

l ti t t h l d id h t f th i i d t d l ifi drelations experts to help decide how to frame their issues and to develop specific messages and talking points. In addition to traditional media, advocates in this campaign benefited from using new, inexpensive media venues.

Know your bottom lineKnow your bottom lineDesign your introductory legislation so you have room to negotiate, and discuss with your partners early on where you’re willing to go in those negotiations, Bloom said. Inevitably, your legislation will undergo multiple amendments, so all partners should be clear about what they are comfortable changing. “Have those conversations early on,” Bloom said, “because it’s not a matter of if but g g y , ,when you’ll have to make those decisions.

7/13/2009 32

Advocacy TipsAdvocacy Tips Timing is everything – assess the political and social context to determine the viability of you issue.

Find a champion to lead the effort and create a strong, broad-based coalition.

Develop a grassroots network of people to call their elected officials and testify at hearings.

D l l i h h h i Develop a clear, consistent message to use throughout the campaign.

Generate local research and data that underscore your message to use when talking with media and politicians.

Get professional assistance in developing your message and stay on point.

A picture is worth a thousand words. In the case of menu labeling, show pictures of NYC menu boards to convince lawmakers this can be done. Post inexpensive videos to YouTube if it they canboards to convince lawmakers this can be done. Post inexpensive videos to YouTube if it they can help tell your story.

Draft legislation knowing that you will have to give something up, and discuss with partners in advance where you’re willing to negotiate.

7/13/2009 33

Online ResourcesOnline ResourcesCalifornia Center for Public Health Advocacy http://www.publichealthadvocacy.org/

Center for Science in the Public Interest Men Labeling Resource Center http://www.cspinet.org/menulabeling/

R dd C t f F d P li d Ob it htt // l dd t /Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity http://www.yaleruddcenter.org/

Nutrition Labeling in King County http://www kingcounty gov/healthservices/health/nutrition/healthyeating/menu aspxhttp://www.kingcounty.gov/healthservices/health/nutrition/healthyeating/menu.aspx

New York City Department of Health http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/cdp/cdp_pan-calorie.shtml

7/13/2009 34

Fast FactsFast Facts Nearly two out of three American adults are overweight or obese.

The prevalence of obesity in children and teens has tripled over the last 30 years to reach 17 percent.

The average daily calorie consumption of Americans increased by almost 300 calories over the last 30 years, and a large portion of those additional calories is consumed at restaurants.

Americans spend nearly half their food budgets at restaurants.

Three-quarters of teenagers report eating fast food at least once per week.

Annual medical costs related to obesity and overweight are more than $90 billion, of which half is financed by the public sector.

Only 6 people—one-tenth of one percent of 4,311 patrons observed in New York City y p p p , p yrestaurants—accessed nutrition information in pamphlets or on computer kiosks before ordering.

7/13/2009 35

7/13/2009 36

7/13/2009 37

7/13/2009 38

Menu-labeling timelineMenu labeling timeline2000 Center for Science in the Public Interest writes draft nutrition menu-labeling legislation and begins promoting it to state and city governments.

Jan. 2003First menu-labeling legislation is introduced in Maine and fails to pass.

2003-2006Menu labeling legislation is introduced in several states including California New HampshireMenu-labeling legislation is introduced in several states, including California, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas and Washington DC.

Dec. 2006N Y k Ci b h fi i h l d d i iNew York City becomes the first government to require restaurants that already made nutrition information available in brochures or on Web sites to post it on menu boards and menus.

7/13/2009 39

Menu-labeling timelineMenu labeling timelineJan. 2007Menu-labeling legislation that would apply to chain restaurants in California is introduced as SB 120. It passes the state Senate and Assembly.

June 2007 New York State Restaurant Association (NYSRA) sues New York City on grounds that federal law preempts its new menu-labeling ordinance and that it violated the First Amendment. NYC Board of Health loses.

July 2007King County (Seattle), Washington amended regulations to require menu labeling at chain restaurants and elimination of trans fat from restaurant food.

Oct. 2007Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoes SB 120.

7/13/2009 40

Menu-labeling timelineMenu labeling timelineJan. 2008New York City Board of Health approves a revised menu-labeling ordinance and wins a second lawsuit filed by NYSRA.

Feb. 2008Sen. Alex Padilla, D-San Fernando Valley, re-introduces the menu-labeling act in California as SB 1420, which is sponsored by public health organizations and would require calories to be posted on menu boards and menus at chain restaurants

California Restaurant Association-sponsored AB 2572 to require restaurants to put nutrition information in brochures. The bill dies in committee.

March 2008March 2008 San Francisco adopts a nutrition menu-labeling ordinance applying to chain restaurants with 20 or more locations in California.

7/13/2009 41

Menu-labeling timelineMenu labeling timelineApril 2008 New York City’s ordinance takes effect and chain restaurants begin posting calories

b d don menu boards and menus.

June –Aug. 2008Santa Clara and San Mateo counties adopt menu-labeling ordinance and Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors orders health department to draft the language for a menu-labeling ordinance.

Sept. 2008pLegislature passes SB 1420 and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signs it, making California first to adopt a statewide menu-labeling law.

7/13/2009 42

Menu-labeling timelineMenu labeling timelineOct. 2008Yum! Brands, which owns Kentucky Fried Chicken, Pizza Hut and Taco Bell, announces it will voluntarily post calorie information on menu boards at all national locations.

Menu-labeling legislation is introduced in at least18 states.

The Menu Education and Labeling (MEAL) Act sponsored by public-interest groups would require all chain restaurants to post calorie information at the point of service on menu boards and menus.

National Restaurant Association sponsors the Labeling Education and Nutrition (LEAN) Act that would require that restaurants only provide nutrition information on brochures and would preempt state and local legislation. p ee p s a e a d oca eg s a o

7/13/2009 43

Food, Inc. Public Service Announcements

7/13/2009 44

7/13/2009 45