New Issue: Science’s Impossible Questions. Read Now

Quesadilla Study: Diners Ignore Calorie Counts

Customer ordering patterns were unchanged after a Mexican-style fast food chain posted the calorie counts of its offerings. Karen Hopkin reports

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


We Americans love our fast food. And a new study shows that a little thing like a nutrition label is not gonna stop us when we want a breakfast burrito.

In January 2009 King County, Washington imposed mandatory menu labeling on all restaurant chains in the region, which includes Seattle and its surrounds. Restaurants were asked to disclose nutrition information, including a calorie count, about every item on the menu.

Then, over the next year, researchers in conjunction with local public health officials monitored food purchases at the Taco Time chain of restaurants. And they found that nothing changed. The total number of sales and the average calories per order were the same, regardless of whether the restaurant labeled its menu. The study appears in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine. [Eric Finkelstein et al, Mandatory Menu Labeling in One Fast-Food Chain in King County, Washington]

Now, it could be that Taco Time customers were already wise to the relative nutritiousness of their meals, because the restaurant was highlighting its healthier options with a little logo before the law took effect.

So maybe all we need is a happy, "healthy icon" to keep us from overdoing it. Because pointing out that a large order of cheddar fries has 700 calories was not food for thought.

—Karen Hopkin

[The above text is an exact transcript of this podcast.]

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe