Helpful guidelines or nanny-stateism?

Last Saturday night, I stopped at McDonald’s to try the new Angus Texan Burger. According to McDonald’s online nutrition calculator, the burger contains 760 calories and 1,370 mg of sodium. I’m no nutrition expert, but that doesn’t sound healthy at all.

Indeed, Health Canada recommends adults consume between 2,300 and 2,900 calories, and approximately 1,500 mg of sodium per day — meaning that I got a good chunk of my recommended daily intake from a single sandwich (I didn’t even order the fries). Sure I could have ordered a salad that contains 1/3 the calories and half the salt, but why go to McDonald’s to get a pile of vegetables?

Recently, the Toronto Board of Health proposed pushing for a new law that would require “calories and sodium values to be listed on the menu and/or menu boards” of all chain restaurants. That means that instead of pulling out our smart phones or asking the server for nutritional information, the government will force restaurants to try to shame us into making better decisions.

The board will consider pushing the Ontario government to pass such a law, or writing a bylaw to achieve the same ends, at the end of the month. However, the utility of menu-labelling laws rests on two assumptions that don’t hold up to scrutiny: First, that reducing the amount salt and calories in our diets is definitely a good thing; and second, that such a law would change people’s behaviour.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg led the charge to force fast-food restaurants to put health information on their menus and reduce their salt usage. It is the epitome of nanny-statism: The huddled masses aren’t competent enough to make their own decisions, so the fatcat mayor needs to show them the way.

It is not at all clear, however, that reducing our salt intake will make us healthier. Humans, after all, need salt in order to survive. Japanese diets are extremely high in salt, yet the country also has the longest lifespans.

The amount of salt one should eat is highly dependent on the individual. People of certain ethnicities and those with hypertension disorders are at risk of high blood pressure if they consume too much sodium. Many older people, on the other hand, need to work to ensure they are getting enough salt in their diet, as eating too little salt is associated with numerous diseases.

Even if everyone knew the magic amount of sodium and calories their bodies needed to stay healthy, there’s still the This isn’t a new idea. It’s the nanny state pursuing a ‘solution’ we know won’t work

question of whether forcing information on consumers will actually cause them to make different choices. Since many jurisdictions in the U.S., and elsewhere, have adopted measures similar to the one being considered in Toronto, that information is readily available.

A 2009 study published in the journal Health Af

fairs found that New Yorkers in poor and minority communities were consuming the same number of calories as their neighbours in Newark, N.J., despite mandatory labelling on restaurant menus. Another study published in the American

Economic Review found the city’s bylaw had virtually no effect on calorie intake.

Researchers at the DUKENUS Graduate Medical School and the Seattle health department compared what customers ordered at Taco Time locations with nutritional information on the menus and those without. They found that menu labelling had no effect on consumer behaviour.

A 2011 study conducted by researchers at Ghent University in Belgium likewise found that menu labelling in university cafeterias had no effect on what meals the students chose to order.

It is hard to argue against giving consumers more information, which is why governments like the idea of forcing labelling requirements on businesses. But many restaurants — especially the large ones — already provide that information to anyone who wants it.

Forcing McDonald’s to change all their menus, or Domino’s to display the calorie count of all the 34 million possible permutations of pizza orders, will only drive up prices, hurting the very consumers the policy is designed to help. If government is going to force private companies to change the way they do business, the policy should have a reasonable chance of success.

In this case, the evidence suggests that menu labels don’t cause consumers to change their behaviour. Like most people who occasionally order fast food, I know it’s not healthy. Even so, I’ ll still choose the cheeseburger over the salad the next time I’m looking for a greasy late-night snack — regardless of how much effort the government puts into shaming me into doing otherwise.