Passage of Menu Labeling in California

A Case Study
June 2009

Underwritten by Participant Media

 Let’s get junk food out of schools!

INTRODUCTION

7/13/2009 2
 Introduction
In 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
nutrition
t iti experts
t know
k about
b t the
th association
i ti between
b t the
th obesity
b it epidemic
id i and d significant
i ifi t growth
th
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
organizing, powerful messaging
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
 Let’s get junk food out of schools!

“THE RIGHT TO KNOW”

7/13/2009 4
 “The
The right to know
know”
Nearly 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
choices. In the case of obesity
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
The right to know
know”
The 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
control
t l th
their
i diets,
di t Congress
C passedd the
th Nutrition
N t iti Labeling
L b li and d Education
Ed ti Act
A t (NLEA),
(NLEA) which
hi h
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 gaingain, 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
The right to know
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 g movement nationally.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
Advocacyy (CCPHA),
( ), which led the menu labeling g effort in California. People
p ggreatly
y
underestimate 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
knowledgeg of California voters about the fat,, calorie,, and salt content of restaurant foods.
Two out of three respondents got all four multiple-choice questions wrong. Not one
participant answered all questions correctly.

7/13/2009 7
 Let’s get junk food out of schools!

DAVID VS
VS. GOLIATH

7/13/2009 8
 David vs. Goliath
In 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
made
d nutrition
t iti information
i f ti available
il bl iin b
brochures
h or on W
Web b sites,
it a ffactt th
thatt the
th New
N York
Y k State
St t
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 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. Goliath
CCPHA 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
way we could
ld never hhave. B
Butt h
health
lth advocates
d t have
h a diff
differentt kind
ki d off power -- power that
th t 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 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
p on their side. At the same time,, theyy knew this David-versus-Goliath battle would require
q a
sophisticated strategy that used everything they had ever learned from previous advocacy efforts.

7/13/2009 10
 Let’s get junk food out of schools!

COALITION BUILDING

7/13/2009 11
 Coalition building
First, 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.

Padilla
P dill kknew a menu-labeling
l b li bill wouldld b
be controversial,
t i l bbutt h
he saw it as a way tto make
k a llarge,
tangible impact without such “radical” measures as taxation or food or ingredient bans, said Bill
Mabie, Padilla’s Chief of Staff.

As initially introduced
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 building
The 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 along
l th
the way, th
they sought
ht positive
iti press. Th
They released
l d a new study
t d ddescribing
ibi th
the lilink
k
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
McDonald s has more calories than two Big Macs Macs, or
that steak and eggs at Denny’s has fewer calories than a ham and cheese omelet?

7/13/2009 13
 Coalition building
The 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’
problems
bl made
d our meetings
ti more effective
ff ti b because we kknew exactlytl what
h t th
their
i concerns were
when we walked in the door,” Mabie said.

7/13/2009 14
 Let’s get junk food out of schools!

OPPOSITION’S ARGUMENTS

7/13/2009 15
 Opposition’s
Opposition s arguments
From 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.)

To demonstrate
T d t t the
th impracticality
i ti lit off a menu-labeling
l b li ordinance,
di att an early
l hhearing,an
i iindustry
d t
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
Opposition s arguments
Before 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 there
there.

7/13/2009 17
 Let’s get junk food out of schools!

2008: A CHANGED
2008
LANDSCAPE

7/13/2009 18
 2008: A changed landscape
Four 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
done littl
little, if anything,
thi tto change
h th
their
i policies
li i or tto ttake
k action
ti tto iimprove th
the ffood
d environment.
i t
Padilla exposed their lack of commitment at a committee hearing, embarrassing the governor, and
earning media coverage.

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

7/13/2009 19
 2008: A changed landscape
Padilla 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.

The political
Th liti l llandscape
d also
l changed
h d iin 2008 ffor severall reasons: h
health
lth reform
f was off
ff th
the ttable,
bl
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 labeling.
labeling

7/13/2009 20
 2008: A changed landscape
In 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
many business-friendly
b i f i dl DDemocrats t iin th
the llegislature,
i l t Bl
Bloom said.
id

“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 landscape
Marketing 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
Fayetteville’s
tt ill ’ SSam MM. W
Walton
lt CCollege
ll off B
Business.
i “If you wantt people
l tto use iinformation,
f ti 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
fumblingg with brochures to tryy to find the calorie content of menu items. The $
$1,000
, video ((click
here) received more than 5,000 hits, demonstrating the power of new, inexpensive media to
influence the policy making process.

7/13/2009 22
 Let’s get junk food out of schools!

TURNING POINT

7/13/2009 23
 Turning point
New 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.

“The same restaurants

“Th t t saying
i they
th can’t’t do
d it in
i California
C lif i are doing
d i it already
l d in i N
New Y
York
k Cit
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
others, San Francisco
Francisco, Santa Clara
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 point
Media 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
implementation
t ti titimeline,
li and
d pre-emption
ti b became points
i t off major
j negotiation.
ti ti

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
rules, however
however, raised the most concern
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
pp for the bill when Senator Padilla and the g governor agreed
g to
include pre-emption in the bill.

7/13/2009 25
 Turning 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
agreedd tto preemption
ti because
b they
th knew
k SB 1420 wouldld make
k a significant
i ifi t contribution
t ib ti tto obesity
b it
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 introducing
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,”
g g, he said,, “was the changing
g gp position of the restaurant
association.”

7/13/2009 26
 Turning point
Not 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
brochures. Th
The llaw applies
li statewide
t t id and dd
does nott allow
ll llocalities
liti tto pass stricter
t i t rules.
l

7/13/2009 27
 Let’s get junk food out of schools!

THE NATIONAL STAGE

7/13/2009 28
 The national stage
A 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
watered-down
t dd bill
bill, th
the LEAN A
Act,
t which
hi h would
ld allow
ll restaurants
t t tto provide
id nutritional
t iti l iinformation
f ti iin
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
city, county
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 pposted on menus and menu boards. * Examples: p California;; New York City;
y; Multnomah Countyy
(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
 Let’s get junk food out of schools!

LESSONS LEARNED

7/13/2009 30
 Lessons learned
This case study offers several public health advocacy lessons.

Timing
After 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
earth
th and
d it’
it’s nott going
i tto h
happen.””

Champions
Most 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 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 [Link] championed the effort at the
national level for nearlyy a decade. Goldstein assumed the advocacy y leadership
ppposition at the
state level. Local jurisdictions had champions of their own who pushed menu-labeling ordinances.

7/13/2009 31
 Lessons learned
Framing the debate
Public 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
relations
l ti expertst to
t help
h l ddecide
id hhow tto fframe th
their
i iissues and
d tto d
develop
l specific
ifi messages andd
talking points. In addition to traditional media, advocates in this campaign benefited from using
new, inexpensive media venues.

Know your bottom line

Design 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.
g g “Have those conversations early y on,”
, Bloom said,, “because it’s not a matter of if but
when you’ll have to make those decisions.

7/13/2009 32
 Advocacy 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.

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

 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 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 Resources
California Center for Public Health Advocacy [Link]

Center for Science in the Public Interest Men Labeling Resource Center
[Link]

R dd C
Rudd Center
t ffor F
Food
dPPolicy
li and
d Ob
Obesity
it htt
[Link]
// l dd t /

Nutrition Labeling in King County

[Link] kingcounty gov/healthservices/health/nutrition/healthyeating/menu aspx
[Link]

New York City Department of Health [Link]

7/13/2009 34
 Fast 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.

 Onlyy 6 people—one-tenth
p p of one p
percent of 4,311
, p
patrons observed in New York City
y
restaurants—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
Menu labeling timeline
2000
Center for Science in the Public Interest writes draft nutrition menu-labeling legislation and
begins promoting it to state and city governments.

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

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

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

7/13/2009 39
 Menu-labeling
Menu labeling timeline
Jan. 2007
Menu-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 2007
King County (Seattle), Washington amended regulations to require menu labeling at chain
restaurants and elimination of trans fat from restaurant food.

Oct. 2007
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoes SB 120.

7/13/2009 40
 Menu-labeling
Menu labeling timeline
Jan. 2008
New York City Board of Health approves a revised menu-labeling ordinance and wins a second
lawsuit filed by NYSRA.

Feb. 2008
Sen. 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 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
Menu labeling timeline
April 2008 New York City’s ordinance takes effect and chain restaurants begin posting calories
on menu boards
b d and d menus.

June –Aug. 2008

Santa 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.
p 2008
Legislature 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
Menu labeling timeline
Oct. 2008
Yum! 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
p ee p sstate
aeaandd local
oca legislation.
eg s a o

7/13/2009 43
 Food, Inc.
Public Service Announcements

7/13/2009 44
7/13/2009 45