Back to the directoryFind in the timeline
New York City calorie labeling: Elbel and Dumanovsky studies
Two studies of New York City's 2008 menu calorie rule reached different results. Elbel's receipts study found no change in calories bought. Dumanovsky's surveys found no overall decline but falls at some chains, including McDonald's. Both studied customers, not McDonald's decisions.
- Where it sits
- Academic psychologyResearch published for other researchers and students.
- Evidence level
- ContestedThe evidence conflicts or is disputed, for example after failed replications.
- Organizations
- McDonald’sAn organization is listed where the sources concern it. The text says exactly how.
- Sources inspected
- 3 of 33 with the relevant text, company document or archive item checked, 0 as an abstract or reference article, 0 not verified.
What happened
New York City required chain restaurants to post calories on menus, with the rule in force from July 2008. In 2009 a team led by Brian Elbel reported receipts and surveys from fast-food customers in poor neighbourhoods of New York and in Newark, New Jersey. In 2011 Dumanovsky and colleagues reported customer surveys at 168 locations of the 11 biggest fast-food chains in the city.
The psychological idea
The question is whether calorie information changes what people order. Elbel's team collected receipts two weeks before the rule and one month after, with Newark, which had no such law, as a comparison. Dumanovsky's team surveyed customers in spring 2007, before the rule, and spring 2009, nine months after it, with no comparison city mentioned in the summary read.
In practice
NBC reported that Elbel's customers at McDonald's, Wendy's, Burger King and KFC bought about 825 calories before the rule and 846 after in New York, and about 825 both times in Newark. About half knew the counts were posted, and 28 percent of those who saw them said they affected their decision. Dumanovsky found no decline across the full sample, but by chain McDonald's fell 5.3 percent, KFC 6.4 and Au Bon Pain 14.4, while Subway rose 17.8 percent. About 15 percent of customers said they used the information and bought 106 fewer kilocalories.
Why it mattered
Both studies were early tests of menu calorie labeling using purchases rather than stated intentions. Their results differ: one found no change in calories bought, the other found no overall change but falls at some chains and a rise at another. They do not settle whether labels work.
Limits and qualifications
Only news and release summaries were read, not either paper. The Elbel sample was about 1,100 receipts, reported elsewhere as 1,156 adults paid 2 dollars each, collected soon after the law took effect. The city argued that this was too soon to capture gradual change. Dumanovsky's surveys were observational, so they do not show that labeling caused the chain-level changes. McDonald's was one of several chains, and neither study is evidence of anything McDonald's intended.
Evidence behind the claims
NBC New York reported that the Elbel study covered McDonald's, Wendy's, Burger King and KFC in poor neighbourhoods of New York with Newark as a control, and about 1,100 receipts collected two weeks before the law and one month after; it says the law took effect in July 2008.
NBC reported that New York customers averaged about 825 calories before the law and 846 after, with Newark at about 825 both times, that about half knew the counts were posted, and that 28 percent of those who saw the counts said they affected their decision.
NBC quotes Elbel saying the results show labels are not enough, and reports the city's argument that the study was conducted too soon after the law took effect to capture gradual changes.
A blog summary reports 1,156 adults at four New York fast-food locations who received 2 dollars for a receipt and a survey, 85 percent from minority groups, and that calories were about the same before and after except among people who noticed the information and changed their order.
A news summary of Dumanovsky and colleagues in the BMJ reports surveys of 7,309 customers in spring 2007 and 8,489 in spring 2009, nine months after implementation, at 168 locations of the 11 biggest chains, with no decline in calories purchased across the full sample.
By chain, average energy per purchase fell 5.3 percent at McDonald's, 6.4 percent at KFC and 14.4 percent at Au Bon Pain and rose 17.8 percent at Subway; 15 percent of customers reported using the calorie information and bought 106 fewer kilocalories than those who did not.
People involved
- Brian Elbel. Lead author of the 2009 receipts study, as named by NBC New York
- T. Dumanovsky. Lead author of the 2011 BMJ survey study
In the Psy101 course
- OpenStax Psychology 2e, section 2.3: Analyzing FindingsChapter 2, Psychological Research. Method. The section discusses this topic.Covers correlation versus causation and experimental logic; relevant to a before-and-after survey design versus a comparison city.
This is course relevance only. It is not evidence for the historical or corporate claims on this page.See the full course map.
Sources and inspection
3 of 3 sources were opened and read at the level shown. A source marked as not verified supports no claim on this page by itself.
- [1]This Is Why You're Fat: Posting Calories Doesn't Make Consumers CareNBC New York. NBC New York, 2009. News report. Secondary account.Relevant text checkedRead the news article as returned by the fetch tool: chains, neighbourhoods, receipts, timing, calorie figures, awareness, quotation and city response. Funding of the study is not stated there.
- [2]For the poor in NYC, costs count more than caloriesWeighty Matters blog. Weighty Matters, 2009. News report. Secondary account.Relevant text checkedRead a blog summary as returned by the fetch tool. It is an opinionated secondary source, used only for the sample size, payment and minority share; its date for the law was not used.
- [3]One in six fast-food customers cut calories after US food labeling system introductionScienceDaily (materials provided by BMJ). ScienceDaily, 2011. News report. Secondary account.Relevant text checkedRead the BMJ-provided news summary as returned by the fetch tool: design, sample, chain-level results, journal reference (BMJ 2011; 343: d4464) and authors. Funding is not stated there. Neither original paper was opened.
Access note: Neither original paper could be opened. Figures come from news and release summaries, and the Elbel figures from NBC New York and a blog.
Independent source review: Claude review agent, independent of the research agent, 2026-10-21. Verdict: pass-with-edits.