There’s nothing ‘regular’ about how we label our food options.
Like many visitors to the United States, your Back Page scribbler never fails to be staggered by the food portion sizes routinely presented as “regular” servings at dining establishments.
Being one of the generation of kids who was consistently required to “finish what’s on your plate” while “thinking of the starving children in Africa”, the idea of shying away from a consumption challenge is still difficult to process. But seriously, who really needs to eat 10 super-sized pancakes with all the trimmings for breakfast?
And while we all know correlation does not equate to causation, nobody either is actually surprised that the US tops the OECD’s list of the developed world’s most obese populations.
As ever, there is a wealth of nuance when it comes to the thorny issue of food consumption and consequence, and the good folks at South Australia’s Flinders University have this week thrown some intriguing new research into the mix.
The scientists there decided to look at how size descriptors might influence portion size selections in the online food-ordering space.
A sample of more than 200 female Flinders University students were asked to select a side dish, drink, and dessert from one of three online menus with varying portion size options. The options were: small, regular, and large; regular, large, and extra-large; and small, regular, large, and extra-large.
The participants were also self-categorised into two groupings: those who following a diet regime (restrained) and those who were not (unrestrained).
The key takeout for study was that unrestrained eaters were more likely to choose “large” and “extra-large” sized portions when they were offered, but restrained eaters were more likely to select the other options.
Professor Eva Kemps, from the College of Education, Psychology and Social Work at Flinders University, told media this suggested that when an XL-size option was made available, people adjusted their ordering choices.
“In contrast to our prediction, incorporating a larger portion size option (XL) did not significantly increase large (L) size choices, but, and conversely, including a small size option (S) did not significantly decrease large (L) size preferences,” Professor Kemps said.
“One possible explanation for this discrepancy is that when consumers have access to a labelling system that provides a normal-sounding size option as a reference – such as a ‘regular’ serve – their aversion to extreme size options has a much lesser effect.”
Ummm, what does that actually mean? Well, it could be that people’s choices come down to what they think is a “normal-sized” portion based on the labelling used.
“These findings suggest that people may perceive a ‘normal’ portion size based on the reference point option (calling it ‘regular’) rather than the middle available size option and thus select accordingly,” Professor Kemp said.
The findings, the researcher say, lend support for regulatory policies which encourage a return to normal-sounding portion sizes and reducing the size of regular serving portions to reflect an amount closer to current health guidelines.
Which, face it, is never going to happen.
Which is why your correspondent quickly realised that, when in the US, choosing just an entrée instead of a main course was not only easier on the hip pocket, he was more able to leave the table with a clean plate and a clear conscience.
If you see something that needs expanding on, feed it to penny@medicalrepublic.com.au.
