Caloric effect of a 16-ounce (473-mL) portion-size cap on sugar-sweetened beverages served in restaurants

23Citations
Citations of this article
122Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: New York City recently proposed a restriction to cap the portion size of all sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) sold in food-service establishments at 16 oz (473 mL). One critical question is whether such a policy may disproportionally affect lowincome or overweight individuals. Objective: The objective was to determine the demographic characteristics of US individuals potentially affected by a 16-oz portionsize cap on SSBs and the potential effect on caloric intake. Design: We analyzed dietary records from the NHANES 2007- 2010. We estimated the proportion of individuals who consumed at least one SSB >16 fluid oz (473 mL) in restaurants by age, household income, and weight status. Results: Of all SSBs >16 oz (473 mL) purchased from foodservice establishments, 64.7% were purchased from fast food restaurants, 28.2% from other restaurants, and 4.6% from sports, recreation, and entertainment facilities. On a given day, the policy would affect 7.2% of children and 7.6% of adults. Overweight individuals are more likely to consume these beverages, whereas there was no significant difference between income groups. If 80% of affected consumers choose a 16-oz (473-mL) beverage, the policy would result in a change of 257.6 kcal in each affected consumer aged 2-19 y (95% CI: 265.0, 250.1) and 262.6 kcal in those aged ≥20 y (95%CI: 267.9, 257.4). Conclusion: A policy to cap portion size is likely to result in a modest reduction in excess calories from SSBs, especially among young adults and children who are overweight. © 2013 American Society for Nutrition.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Wang, Y. C., & Vine, S. M. (2013). Caloric effect of a 16-ounce (473-mL) portion-size cap on sugar-sweetened beverages served in restaurants. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 98(2), 430–435. https://doi.org/10.3945/ajcn.112.054833

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free