One ought not to look too far in calling yesterday’s Court of Appeal ruling on the UNC’s election petitions a “victory” since three different judges had three different points of view on the...
You are here
Nutrition not improving at fast food restaurants
Fast food has become ubiquitous in the American diet, with over 25 per cent of Americans eating fast food two or more times a week. So it’s especially concerning that a 14-year study published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine shows menus haven’t made much improvement in their nutritional quality.
Investigators examined food trends and nutrition profiles of menus from the following eight popular fast food chains between the years 1997 and 2010:
•Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC)
•Jack in the Box
Researchers evaluated the nutritional quality of the restaurants’ offerings using the US Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Healthy Eating Index (HEI) 100-point scale. Disappointingly, the results showed the nutritional quality of fast food improved only by three points from 45 to 48 over the study period.
Compared to prior years, scores remained unchanged for fruit, vegetables, grains and oils, but improved for calories from solid fats and added sugars as well as meat and saturated fat levels. Scores were worse for dairy and sodium.
An overall score of 48 is discouraging given that it’s lower than the average American’s diet score of 55, which the USDA says is far from ideal.
“The (three-point increase) is disappointing, and a bit surprising, given the many pronouncements by companies that they have added healthier menu options, switched to healthier cooking fats, are reducing sodium, and are touting other changes in company press releases and advertising,” said Margo Wootan, the director of nutrition policy at the Center for Science in the Public Interest in Washington, DC in an accompanying editorial.
A handful of the restaurants, including Kentucky Fried Chicken and Jack in the Box, did improve their individual scores by offering more proteins and grain options and lowering sugar and saturated fat levels.
However, other restaurants like Burger King headed in the other direction by boosting sodium and saturated fats. Some changes that could improve the nutritional rating for fast-food joints include lowering portion sizes and offering more fruit and vegetable options.
Wootan notes in her editorial that current portion offerings are two to three times larger than food labels list as a single serving. When offered bigger portions, she observes, people tend to eat more.
Large restaurant chains have started displaying calories counts on their menu boards, and Wootan says smaller chains should follow suit. “The full impact of menu labeling will not be clear until menu labeling is implemented nationally and consumers become accustomed to seeing calorie counts on menus,” says Wootan in her commentary.
With Americans consuming about one-third of their calories outside the home, fast food is playing a greater role in how families feed themselves. But public health advocates remain hopeful that restaurants will start to take greater responsibility for offering healthier foods, since their current offerings may be contributing to health problems related to diet, like diabetes and obesity. (Time.com)
US Department of Agriculture’s Healthy Eating Index measures the intake of ten dietary components to provide a single score out of a possible 100 points. A diet with a score greater than 80 is considered “good,” one with a score of 51-80 is considered “fair” and one with a score of less than 51 is considered “poor.” Each component contributes equally to the overall score.
Components one to five assess how well an individual's diet complies with the Food Guide Pyramid serving recommendations for the Grain, Vegetable, Fruit, Milk, and Meat Groups. Components six to nine assess total fat, saturated fat, cholesterol and sodium (salt) intake and component ten assesses variety in the diet. (diet.com)
User comments posted on this website are the sole views and opinions of the comment writer and are not representative of Guardian Media Limited or its staff.
Guardian Media Limited accepts no liability and will not be held accountable for user comments.
Guardian Media Limited reserves the right to remove, to edit or to censor any comments.
Any content which is considered unsuitable, unlawful or offensive, includes personal details, advertises or promotes products, services or websites or repeats previous comments will be removed.