Influence of placement of a nutrition logo on cafeteria menu items on lunchtime food Choices at Dutch work sites. Reducing portion size reduces food intake and plate waste. Ice cream illusions bowls, spoons, and self-served portion sizes.
This study investigated the effectiveness of labeling foods with the Choices nutrition logo on influencing cafeteria menu selection and the behavioral determinants of menu choices in work site cafeterias in the Netherl and s. A cluster r and omized controlled trial was conducted .  Intervention cafeterias ( n=13 ) , where the Choices logo was used to promote healthier eating for a 3-week period , were compared with control cafeterias ( n=12 ) , which offered the same menu without the logo .  Sales data were collected daily for 9 weeks , from March to May 2009 . In addition , employees from one intervention and one control company completed an online question naire at baseline and after the intervention ( n=368 ) in which the behavioral determinants of food choice ( ie , attitude , self-efficacy , and intention ) and logo use were measured . Generalized estimating equation analyses , χ² tests , t tests and linear regression analyses were performed . No nutritionally meaningful intervention effects were found in the sales of s and wiches , soups , snacks , fruit , and salads . Also , no significant differences in behavioral determinants were found . " Intention to eat healthier " and " paying attention to product information " were positively associated with self-reported consumption of foods with the Choices logo at lunch . The intervention did not have a significant effect on employees ' lunchtime food choices . Labeling healthy choices might be useful for health-conscious employees in the volitional phase of behavior change . Further research should focus on the possible health benefits of menu reformulation in the catering sector As portion size ( PS ) increases , so does food intake . The effect of decreasing PS on food intake in a nonlaboratory setting is unknown . This 5-week study sought to determine whether decreasing PS result ed in decreased intake of the same food , and if so , at what point further PS reductions might lack benefit . It also assessed effects of PS reduction on food production and waste in a university all-you-can-eat dining facility ( DF ) . Subjects were primarily freshmen who regularly ate lunch at the DF , and self-selected French fries ( FF ) presented in individual paper bags , portioned originally at 88 g , and decreased approximately 15 g/week for 3 weeks . Diners were covertly observed choosing one or more bags . Total FF production and plate waste ( PW ) were determined daily . Decreasing PS result ed in significant decreases in consumption per diner ( P < 0.05 ) and PW ( P < 0.05 ) , and nonsignificant decreases in total FF consumption and production . PS was positively correlated with consumption per diner ( r = 0.897 , P = 0.001 ) and PW ( r = 0.852 , P = 0.001 ) , but inversely correlated with number of diners choosing > or=2 bags ( r = -0.809 , P = 0.003 ) . Total FF production was positively correlated with PW ( r = 0.728 , P = 0.011 ) . This study shows that reducing PS of a particular item in an all-you-can-eat environment results in reduced intake of that food for most individuals , and that reducing PS reduces PW and food production BACKGROUND Because people eat most of what they serve themselves , any context ual cues that lead them to over-serve should lead them to over-eat . In building on the size-contrast illusion , this research examines whether the size of a bowl or serving spoon unknowingly biases how much a person serves and eats . METHODS The 2 x 2 between-subjects design involved 85 nutrition experts who were attending an ice cream social to celebrate the success of a colleague in 2002 . They were r and omly given either a smaller ( 17 oz ) or a larger ( 34 oz ) bowl and either a smaller ( 2 oz ) or larger ( 3 oz ) ice cream scoop . After serving themselves , they completed a brief survey as their ice cream was weighed . The analysis was conducted in 2003 . RESULTS Even when nutrition experts were given a larger bowl , they served themselves 31.0 % more ( 6.25 vs 4.77 oz , F(1 , 80 ) = 8.05 , p < 0.01 ) without being aware of it . Their servings increased by 14.5 % when they were given a larger serving spoon ( 5.77 vs 5.04 oz , F(1 , 80)=2.70 , p = 0.10 ) . CONCLUSIONS People could try using the size of their bowls and possibly serving spoons to help them better control how much they consume . Those interested in losing weight should use smaller bowls and spoons , while those needing to gain weight -- such as the undernourished or aged -- could be encouraged to use larger ones . Epidemiologic implication s are discussed
The primary objective of this review was to investigate the current evidence base for the use of choice architecture as a means to change eating behaviour in self-service eating setting s , hence potentially reduce calorie intake .