This bulletin is brought to you by Misty Chally , the Executive Director of the Coalition of Franchisee Associations (CFA)Please be aware of the following issues affecting franchisees across the country:

Menu Labeling

Earlier this week, the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) announced that it is going to abandon its original plan to issue “draft guidance” on how the calories are to be displayed on menu boards (and expect compliance by the industry) and then wait until the end of the year to do a final rulemaking. Instead, it will skip its plan to issue “draft guidance” and instead issue an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (“ANPR”) in the next several weeks – no later than March 23d. The FDA’s original plan would have required restaurants to have to put up new menu boards twice – once based on the draft guidance and again after the final rule (assuming the likely chance that there are differences between the guidance and the final rule).

In other good news, the FDA has also agreed to call regulators in New York City, Montgomery City (MD), California, Vermont and other areas where legislators are advancing their own menu labeling laws to ask them to “stand down” on enforcing their own laws until the FDA finalizes their rule. If those the states and municipalities continue to enforce their local laws, the FDA will not intervene further; only citizens of those states/municipalities can sue, claiming the local law has been preempted by federal law. As a result, it is likely that compliance will still be required in those localities pending the final rule.

After the ANPR is issued, the public will be given a 60-day comment period to provide comments. The final rule will be issued by end of 2011 and the compliance date for the final rule will be at least 6 months later.

Health Care

Since the passage of the Patient Protections and Affordable Care Act in 2010, those that have realized the potential negative effects of this health care law have adamantly fought for its repeal. On January 19th, and as a symbolic gesture of a new regime, the U.S. House of Representatives voted in favor of repealing the entire bill by a 245-189 vote. Three Democrats – Representatives Boren (OK), McIntyre (NC) and Ross (AR) – voted for full repeal.  Thank you to those who responded to the Action appeal.

The bill now moves to the Senate where Majority Leader Reid has publicly stated that he will not schedule the bill to move forward. President Obama has also stated that if the bill were to cross his desk (which his very unlikely), he would veto it. Opponents of the law will now attempt to repeal specific provisions on an individual basis. 

1099 Reporting

A number of bills have been introduced to repeal the 1099 reporting requirements included in the health care law. On Tuesday, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) issued a statement saying they have introduced a bill for full repeal. Concurrently, Senators Mike Johanns (R-NE) and Joe Manchin (D-WA) introduced a bill which authorizes the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) to identify unobligated federal funds to cover the cost of repeal. A third bill, which revokes the section in its entirety, has been introduced by Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) is identical to an earlier bill introduced last year by Rep. Daniel Lundgren, (D-CA) which has attracted 233 Republican co-sponsors.

As you may recall, Section 9006 of the new Health Care law created new 1099 reporting requirements for business transactions exceeding $600. According to the new law, businesses must now file an IRS Form 1099 for all payments of more than $600 a year paid to providers—including corporations—that supply tangible property and services. In response to these requirements, pro-business members of congress have been working to repeal these requirements before they come into effect on January 1, 2012.

Congressional Republicans, Democrats and the White House have all called the reporting provision “burdensome.” Although a repeal of the provision has bipartisan support, lawmakers couldn’t reach an agreement as to how to repeal it prior to the end of 2010. 

Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) Regulations

On July 26th, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) issued its Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“ANPR”) regarding proposed changes to the ADA. These changes focused on increased website accessibility and access to equipment and furniture.

Regarding websites, the proposal applies to entities already covered by Title III of the ADA (defined as private entities that own, operate or lease areas of public accommodation). Providing “website accessibility” includes adding descriptive text, visual notification for sound video, tags for forms, static copies and other options (i.e. larger text, phone options) on your website.

Regarding equipment and furniture, the ANPR is proposed extending ADA requirements to all equipment and furniture (including non-fixed and portable items), as opposed to the current law which applies to “fixed” elements. This includes POS devices and drive-thru equipment.
When asked whether the final rule would be released soon, experts said that while this is a priority for the Obama administration, they do not foresee any rule finalized earlier within the next 2 years.

Expiring Tax Cuts

Just prior to the end of the year, President Obama signed the “Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010” into law. Some of the highlights of the new law include:

• An extension through 2012 of the Bush tax cuts (individual rates, dividends, and capital gains) for all taxpayers
• Reinstatement of the estate tax for 2011 and 2012 at a 35% rate with a $5 million exemption
• A reduction in the social security payroll tax for individuals (not the employer share) from 6.2% to 4.2% in 2011
• A provision allowing businesses to fully expense capital investments in 2011
• An extension of the alternative minimum tax (AMT) “patch” for 2010 and 2011
• An extension through 2011 funding for emergency unemployment benefits
• An extension for 2010 and 2011 of 15-year depreciation for restaurant new construction and building improvements
• An extension through 2011 of energy tax incentives including those for ethanol
• An extension through 2011 of the Work Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC)

Card Check/Labor Issues

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and Department of Labor (DOL) have been busy promoting their “card check” agenda.

First, the NLRB released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), which would require employers subject to the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) to post a notice in the workplace informing employees of their rights under the NLRA or face a number of sanctions. As you may recall, President Obama issued an Executive Order in 2009 that required government contractors display such a poster.

Additionally, the NLRB announced a new enforcement policy against employers accused of unlawful conduct during union organizing campaigns. The announcement instructs regional NLRB attorneys to seek the specific remedies in those situations – including increased union access to employees. The memo also states that in cases where an employers’ conduct had a particularly severe impact, the regional attorney may look to pursue additional remedies, including: “granting a union access to non-work areas during employees’ non-work time; giving a union notice of, and equal time and facilities for the union to respond to, any address made by the company regarding the issue of representation; and affording the union the right to deliver a speech to employees at an appropriate time prior to any Board election.”

Finally, DOL released its semi-annual regulatory agenda which includes a proposal to issue a proposed rule in June 2011 revising reporting requirements for costs related to employer communications to employees during organizing drives. Under current law, employers and consultants are not required to report activities classified as advice. DOL has said it intends to narrow the advice exemption.

First lady Michelle Obama addresses the National Restaurant Association’s board of directors

Paul Frumkin writes in Nation’s Restaurant News that First lady Michelle Obama called on restaurateurs to help put an end to childhood obesity in an address made Monday to the National Restaurant Association’s board of directors at their fall meeting in Washington, D.C.

Thanking those in the foodservice industry who already have made an effort to address the problem, Obama urged restaurateurs to go even further.

“The reality is, it’s just not enough,” she said. “Together we have to do more. We have to go further. And we need your help to lead the effort.”

NRA president and chief executive Dawn Sweeney also addressed the gathering, emphasizing that consumers are demanding more healthful options.

“The restaurant industry is responding to consumer preferences by providing options for their tastes and dietary needs,” Sweeney said. “Offering more menu choices, cooking with healthier ingredients, and providing nutrition information for guests are just a few of the ways restaurants are answering consumers’ interest in more healthful food options.”

Noting that one-third of all meals today are eaten in restaurants, the first lady urged operators to use their creativity to reduce the number of empty calories Americans consume. And while “we are programmed to crave sugary, fatty, salty foods,” she added, “with a little persistence and creativity, we can also turn them on to higher quality, healthier foods.”

Obama also recommended that restaurateurs offer more healthful menu options for children, adding, “most kids’ menus look pretty much the same.” She cited one survey that found that “90 percent of [children’s] menus includes mac and cheese,” while 80 percent includes chicken fingers and 60 percent includes burgers or cheeseburgers.

“Some options weigh in at over 1,000 calories, and that’s close to the recommended amount that a child should have for the entire day,” she said.

“That’s why I want to challenge every restaurant to offer healthy menu options and then provide them up front so that parents don’t have to hunt around and read the small print to find an appropriately sized portion that doesn’t contain high levels of fat, salt and sugar.”

The first lady told operators she was not “asking any of you to make drastic changes to every single one of your recipes or to totally change the way you do business. But what I am asking is that you consider reformulating your menu in pragmatic and incremental ways to create healthier versions of the foods that we all love.”
Read more: Nation’s Restaurant News

The companies, which also include Au Bon Pain and Uno Chicago Grill, are the first to make the voluntary pledge through the National Salt Reduction Initiative, a public-private partnership that New York City launched earlier this year. Eighteen health organizations and 29 cities, states and municipalities are now participating in the program.

“By working together over the past two years, we have been able to accomplish something many said was impossible: setting concrete, achievable goals for salt reduction,” New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg said in a statement. “The National Salt Reduction Initiative has the potential to save tens of thousands of lives that otherwise would be lost to cardiovascular disease in coming years.”

Monday’s announcement comes as the sodium debate heats up on a national scale. Last week, the Institute of Medicine issued a report recommending federal regulation of sodium content in prepared and restaurants foods. The National Restaurant Association, however, maintains that sodium reduction should be done on a voluntary basis. (EARLIER: Talk of sodium regulation boils over)

Other companies that pledged Monday to reduce sodium in their products include Boar’s Head, FreshDirect, Goya, Hain Celestial, Heinz, Kraft, LiDestri, Mars Food, McCain Foods, Red Gold, Unilever, and White Rose.

The companies each made pledges for specific categories. Starbucks, for example, is targeting the sodium content in its sandwiches and cookies, and Uno is working to cut sodium in a variety of menu items, such as pizza, hamburgers and chicken sandwiches. Click here to see a PDF of all the companies’ goals.

Subway, which is looking to reduce sodium in its sandwiches, said it was pleased to join the initiative.

“Reducing sodium in our food is a commitment we have made for our restaurants globally,” said Lanette Kovachi, the chain’s corporate dietitian. “We are proud to partner with the National Salt Reduction Initiative. It will provide an important barometer to help us measure the progress we are making.”

The NSRI currently monitors sodium levels in 62 categories of packaged goods and 25 categories of restaurant foods. The companies participating in the program will reduce sodium in 49 of the packaged food and 15 of the restaurant categories.

“Reducing salt intake has been a public health priority for decades,” said Thomas A. Farley, New York City’s health commissioner. “We can now say we are taking the first steps to achieve it. This was made possible because of agencies and organizations that have joined to make this a truly national initiative, and we especially thank this group of companies that are leading the food industry toward a healthier food supply.

“We look forward to expanding the industry’s participation in this public health effort,” he added.

The recommended daily limit for sodium intake is 1,500 milligrams for most adults and 2,300 milligrams for others. Medical experts contend that increased sodium levels in one’s diet can lead to high blood pressure, hypertension, heart attack and stroke.

 Read more:  Nation’s Restaurant News

This is a turnaround from the position that the industry took when calorie postings came to New York City in 2008. At the time, restaurants fought the ruling, and the New York State Restaurant Association took the city to court, claiming that the regulation impinged upon its members’ right to free speech. The case was eventually struck down and the posting rule went into effect.

Uncomfortable Facts

It’s not hard to see why some restaurants had a problem. After all, calorie postings reveal a few uncomfortable facts about what qualifies as a single serving at many fast-food restaurants.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture recommends an average daily intake of roughly 2,000 calories, which works out to roughly 667 calories per meal. Put another way, 2,000 calories is the equivalent of one and a quarter servings of Chili’s Chocolate Chip Paradise Pie with vanilla ice cream, or slightly more than two Wendy’s 3/4 pound Triple Burgers with Cheese. It is 900 calories less than an order of Steakhouse Aussie Cheese Fries with Ranch Dressing from Outback and 710 calories less than a single Awesome Blossom from Chilis. And even the trusty standby — salad — may not fit into the recommended daily caloric intake: Taco Bell’s Border Grande Taco Salad with Taco Beef has 1,450 calories.

Yet a strange thing happened after New York restaurants started posting calorie counts. While consumption habits shifted, brand popularity remained strong. While customers may have ordered lower-calorie foods, they still bought it from their favorite fast-food restaurants.

Noting that lower-calorie items were more popular, many restaurants voluntarily changed their menus and ingredients, increasing their slate of healthier choices and lowering the calorie impact of many common ingredients.

Steering Shoppers to Profitable Items

And as an increasing number of states began contemplating and passing calorie-count legislation, some restaurants decided to jump ahead of the curve. By the end of 2008, Yum Brands (YUM), the corporate owner of Pizza Hut, KFC and Taco Bell, had announced plans to post calorie counts at all of its restaurants. In fact, when Congress considered the current law, many restaurant chains — and even the National Restaurant Association — supported it.

The lesson seems clear: Instead of spelling the end for the fast-food industry, calorie counts can be a tool for steering consumers toward lower-calorie — but equally high-profit — offerings. Franchise restaurants that can bend with the changes in the industry could find that the new law will actually help them get ahead, without expanding their customers’ behinds.

See full article from DailyFinance: http://srph.it/afOVtB

Ortiz, a Democrat and a longtime proponent of menu labeling, said in his written introduction to the salt ban bill that it would give more control to restaurant customers by allowing them to add salt to their own meals after they have been prepared.

“In this way, consumers have more control over the amount of sodium they intake, and are given the option to exercise healthier diets and healthier lifestyles,” Ortiz said.

Ortiz cited a report by the World Health Organization showing that at least three-quarters of the sodium consumed in the United States comes from prepared or restaurant foods.

“Studies have also proven that lowering the amount of salt people eat, even by small amounts, could reduce cases of heart disease, stroke, and heart attacks as much as reductions in smoking, obesity, and cholesterol levels,” he said.

Ortiz did not return calls for further comment by press time.

Long an advocate of reducing the amount of sodium in the American diet, Michael Jacobson of the Center for Science in the Public Interest did not endorse Ortiz’s proposal.

“Limiting sodium requires more a scalpel than a meat axe,” Jacobson said. “New York City’s proposed targets or strict limits for different categories of food makes more sense. The upcoming report from the Institute of Medicine likely will set the boundaries for debate and provide the Food and Drug Administration with a basis for mounting a national initiative.”

New York City’s health department in January introduced the National Salt Reduction Initiative, a voluntary measure that seeks to cut the levels of sodium in restaurant and packaged foods by 20 percent over the next five years.

The initiative is a partnership between New York City’s Board of Health, 17 national health organizations and 26 cities, including Los Angeles and Seattle.

Melissa Fleischut, vice president of the New York State Restaurant Association in Albany, said Ortiz “doesn’t seem to have all the facts about how salt is used in restaurants and how it is necessary to food preparation.”

“We’ll have to schedule talks with him and try to explain,” she added.

Ortiz’s bill has two sponsors so far: Margaret Markey and N. Nick Perry, both Democrats. There is no companion bill in the Senate currently.

Read more: Nation’s Restaurant News

Panera Bread Menu Signs

Krystina Gustafson reports at CNBC.com that Panera Bread announced Wednesday that it will become the first national restaurant chain to voluntarily post the calorie information for its menu items at all 585 of its company-owned locations.

The decision comes as an increasing number of counties and states across the US are requiring chains with a certain number of locations to post the information, mirroring a 2008 New York City law.

But prominently displaying this information at the soup and salad joint  could be an eye-opening experience for some diners, as it has maintained a healthy halo despite a number of not-so-healthy offerings.

The fast-casual chain’s Chicken Bacon Dijon Panini, for example, has 850 calories, and its Frontega Chicken Panini 860 calories.

Scott Davis, Panera’s chief concept officer, said posting the information at stores operated in areas where it is mandated has had no impact on the company’s sales. Instead, people shifted their orders to healthier picks, with many selecting the company’s You Pick Two option, which offers smaller portion sizes.

These offerings also allow customers to try multiple menu items at once, which Davis said could help drive repeat visits in the future.

“We realized that actually, it was a good thing for our business, not a negative thing,” he said.

But although calorie-posting rules have gained momentum from proponents who argue they will help reduce the nation’s obesity rate, some say they don’t have much of an effect on consumers.

One study by food industry consulting group Technomic, which surveyed 755 people living in the New York City boroughs, found that 82 percent of respondents said the listings impacted what they ordered at restaurants. And recently, a similar study by Stanford University found that New Yorkers lowered their average calorie count when eating at Starbucks , but only by about 6 percent.

Even the Stanford researchers admitted a 6 percent decrease won’t have much of an effect on the country’s waistline. And Technomic executive vice president Darren Tristano said research shows that many consumers simply don’t care about calories.

“Generally Americans are looking for flavor and taste and quality,” he said, adding that it’s more about how many pounds per dollar one can get. “You don’t go out to a restaurant to know what kind of calorie count is in [your food].”

Still, some restaurant chains have decided to voluntarily post their calorie content, believing that consumers want healthier options — they just aren’t out there. Energy Kitchen restaurant, for example, is selling customers on the fact that it offers nothing for more than 500 calories, and its same-store sales responded to this decision by rising 30 percent so far this year.

“If you can provide healthy products that consumers want that taste great, why do you need high-calorie options?” said Energy Kitchen investor Mike Repole. “It makes no sense.”

Since the New York regulation was passed, similar laws have been made effective in seven areas across the US, they’ve been enacted in seven more, and they’ve been introduced or are anticipated in 20 more, according to the National Restaurant Association. National calorie posting laws are also included in the health care reform bill.

 CNBC.com

A sign at the Dunkin' Donuts shop in 30th Street Station now lists calories of menu items. The first phase of Philadelphia's new law covers chains with at least 15 other locations nationwide. APRIL SAUL / Philadelphia Inquirer Staff Photographer

Don Sapatkin of the Philadelphia Inquirer writes at Philly.com that Swati Kapoor, 25, was about to order a double chocolate cake doughnut when she noticed something new on the rack at Dunkin’ Donuts.  A tag said 290 calories.  In an instant, she switched to a chocolate frosted doughnut (230 calories).

“To prevent obesity,” the skinny medical student explained, munching at a table in 30th Street Station.

Philadelphia begins phasing in enforcement of its strictest-in-the-nation menu-labeling law tomorrow. This first part, requiring chain restaurants to list calories on food tags and menu boards, is a relatively simple proposition that research shows can influence ordering habits.

A similar law will take effect in New Jersey next year, and dozens of such bills are pending around the country, including in Harrisburg.

What’s different in Philadelphia will become apparent on April 1, when restaurants with individual menus must list saturated fats, trans fats, carbohydrates, and sodium, in addition to calories, with every item.

No one really knows what will come of this broader experiment in attempted behavioral change.

“The majority of people, I believe, will see this as cumbersome and an overreaction and not necessary,” said George McKerrow Jr., president and chief executive officer of Ted’s Montana Grill, who anticipates having to expand the menu at his South Broad Street location from two pages to six.

Still, just two months after Ted’s added calories alone to its menu here, responding to a New York City requirement, McKerrow has noticed a small but measurable change in Philadelphia: “Some people have chosen to eat the healthier items more often.”

Restaurants initially fought all efforts to mandate labels on menus. As the movement spread, with dozens of variations proposed across the country, the industry switched its goal to uniformity: calories, yes; sodium, no.

It has won that fight everywhere except Philadelphia. City Council approved the measure in 2008, after viewing data that showed the impact of chronic diseases related to diet – diabetes is diagnosed in 13 percent of residents, high blood pressure in 36 percent – broken down by district.

Diabetics must manage their intake of carbohydrates (including sugar); too much sodium can raise blood pressure. Both are listed on the familiar nutrition-facts label on all prepackaged goods.

“But it is really hard for people, if they eat out, to know about the sodium content,” city Health Commissioner Donald Schwarz said.

At Olive Garden, for example, nothing on the dinner menu hints at a difference between linguine alla marinara (900 milligrams of sodium, according to its Web site) and pork Milanese (3,100 mg) – or notes that the Food and Drug Administration recommends less than 2,300 mg a day total, a line that must be added by April 1.

“It would make a difference,” said Nashikai Ianscoli, 57, of Center City, who has had to go on a diet to control her blood pressure. She grew up on a farm in the South where her mother got fresh vegetables by the bushel.

Much has changed since she was a child.

“Back in the 1970s, eating out was a special occasion. What people ate didn’t matter as much,” said Margo G. Wootan, nutrition-policy director at the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

Americans now get an estimated one-third of their calories from meals outside the home. And though FDA serving sizes haven’t changed, restaurant portions, especially fast food, have doubled or tripled. Skyrocketing obesity rates – one-third of Americans are obese, about the same as in Philadelphia – defied every big fix attempted.

In 2003, an influential study examined long-term trends and calculated that a difference of 100 calories a day, either ingested or spent, could tip the balance from national weight gain to weight loss. This, the researchers concluded in the journal Science, could be accomplished through small changes that the public would be more likely to embrace.

Wootan’s Washington center, meanwhile, had been pondering how to get people to eat better. At a conference, she recalled, dietitians were presented with hamburgers, onion rings, and other fare from sit-down restaurants and asked to estimate caloric content. Even with nutrition degrees, they were off by hundreds of calories, always on the low side.

Wootan developed a model menu-labeling law and started calling dozens of policymakers around the country: Maine (the first to introduce a bill), New York City (the first to pass it), Philadelphia (the fourth to implement it).

Read more at:  Philly.com

Passed by a 15-5 vote, the measure, SB 81, would require chain restaurants with 20 or more locations nationwide to list the number of calories on menus and menu boards. The information must be provided adjacent to each item in a size and typeface similar to the price and other information.

Additional nutrition information also would have to be available “in writing, to customers upon request,” the measure states.

According to the bill, chain restaurants would not have to provide nutrition data for specials or LTOs that appear on the menu for less than 30 days each year; condiments and other items placed on the table for general use; and food items sold in a manufacturer’s original sealed packages that already contain nutrition information required by federal law.

Restaurateurs who violate any provision of the measure would face a fine of $225 for a first violation and up to $500 for each violation after that.

Many restaurateurs and state association executives have said they oppose mandates at the state and local level, and favor bipartisan federal legislation that instead would establish a uniform standard, block frivolous lawsuits and pre-empt existing state and local laws.

Carrie Leishman, president of the Delaware Restaurant Association, also said she supports uniform menu labeling legislation.

“A local bill can be very detrimental to business,” she said. “An individual franchise owner might have to spend money make certain changes, and then spend more money a year later [if Congress passes a federal measure.]”

Both the current federal House and Senate health care bills have menu-labeling provisions attached that, if enacted, would address those concerns. The model for those provisions — the Labeling Education and Nutrition, or LEAN, Act — was introduced by Delaware’s Sen. Thomas Carper in 2008.

Delaware is the latest state to move seriously to enact menu labeling. Outgoing New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine signed statewide menu-labeling bill earlier this week. The New Jersey bill also impacts restaurant chains with 20 or more outlets and requires them to post calories on menus and menu boards. The Garden State law shields any noncomplying restaurants from legal action from a member of the public, and also provides for pre-emption at the federal level.

Other states and jurisdictions that already have passed menu labeling laws include California; Maine; Massachusetts; Oregon; New York City; Philadelphia; Nashville, Tenn.; Maryland’s Montgomery County; and New York’s Albany, Westchester, Suffolk and Ulster counties.

Read more: Nation’s Restaurant News

Muffin dragon_fang/iStockphoto

Anemona Hartocollis of the New York Times writes that a Stanford University study has found that customers at New York City Starbucks restaurants bought items with 6 percent fewer calories after the city began requiring chain fast food restaurants to post calorie counts in April 2008.

The study, released Wednesday, also found that people who habitually bought high-calorie foods at Starbucks changed their habits more than the average Starbucks customer, lowering their calories per transaction by 26 percent. Yet, the researchers said, there was no impact on Starbucks’s average profits.

Most of the reduction in calories was related to food purchases, rather than drinks.

The study is among the first to find a direct correlation between people’s food choices and the posting of calorie counts on menu boards, and it could provide encouragement to Congressional efforts to require calorie-posting as a matter of national policy.

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, who has been a strong proponent of government-sponsored health campaigns, from banning smoking in bars to banning trans fats in restaurant baked and fried goods and, of course, posting calories, promoted the study Wednesday by sending out a news release hailing it, with a copy of the study attached.

“This study helps confirm what we’ve believed all along,” Mr. Bloomberg said in a written response to the study. “Consumers can make healthier choices when supplied with the right information, and businesses can profit while offering their customers healthier alternatives.”

Starbucks cooperated with the study, giving the researchers information on every transaction in its New York City stores from Jan. 1, 2008, to Feb. 28, 2009. The study also used Starbucks locations in Boston and Philadelphia, where there were no calorie postings, as control groups.

The research supported similar preliminary findings in a study by the New York City health department. But it contradicted a study published in October in the online version of the journal Health Affairs.

That study, conducted by professors at New York University and Yale, tracked customers at McDonald’s, Wendy’s, Burger King and Kentucky Fried Chicken in poor neighborhoods of New York City with high rates of obesity. Using fast food restaurants in Newark, where there is no calorie posting law, as controls, the study found that calorie counts made no difference even for customers who had noticed that the calories were posted.

Unlike the N.Y.U. and Yale study, the Stanford study was not tailored around poor neighborhoods, and it focused on a luxury brand, Starbucks, rather than chains like McDonald’s that put a premium on low prices and whose core business is food. It covered all 222 Starbucks locations in New York City, as well as 94 in Boston and Philadelphia.

At New York Starbucks, the average calories per transaction dropped 6 percent, to 232 calories from 247 calories. The average beverage calories per transaction hardly changed, while average food calories fell by 14 percent, or an average of 14 calories per transaction, the study said. With the cooperation of Starbucks, the researchers were able to look at more than 100 million transactions in the three cities.

Three quarters, or 10 calories, of the drop in calories per transaction came from consumers buying fewer items, and one quarter of the drop, or 4 calories, came from substituting lower calorie items.

Using statistical modeling, the researchers found that calorie reductions in Queens, Brooklyn, Staten Island and the Bronx were comparable to the reduction in Manhattan.

“This confirms our hope that people would use this information in making more healthful decisions and lower calorie choices, and that they’re doing it consistently over time,” Lynn Silver, New York City’s assistant health commissioner for chronic disease control, said.

One of the study’s authors, Phillip Leslie, an associate professor of economics and strategic management at Stanford, said Wednesday that while a 6 percent decrease by itself was unlikely to have an impact on obesity — studies suggest that 25 percent of food is eaten away from home — he believed that calorie posting laws had created an incentive for restaurants to introduce lower-calorie items, which would have a cumulative effect.

“I think the chain restaurants are all over this,” he said. “We’re going to see lots of low calorie items in the future. I think this law actually drives that.”

Professor Leslie said that a breakdown of the study data by ZIP code showed that the effect of calorie posting was greater among more affluent, educated consumers. And he said, people go to Starbucks primarily for coffee, rather than food, which may be the reason that they were willing to be more flexible on their food choices, with a resulting drop in calories.

“Any notion that this is having an identical effect across all chain restaurants is somewhat absurd,” he said.

The study found no significant change to Starbucks’s revenue after the calorie law went into effect, despite complaints from some companies that the law would hurt their bottom line. The study did say that Starbucks stores within 100 meters of a Dunkin’ Donuts had an estimated 3 percent increase in revenue. Professor Leslie interpreted that finding as suggesting that people had been frightened away when they discovered the number of calories in the staple Dunkin’ Donuts products, doughnuts.

The study said that the United States is the most obese country in the world, according to the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development, and that between 1995 and 2008, the proportion of the population that was obese rose to 26.6 percent from 15.9 percent.

The study notes that Starbucks-brewed coffee has only 5 calories, while the highest calorie beverage is the 24-ounce Hazelnut Signature Hot Chocolate with whipped cream, at 860 calories. Foods at Starbucks range from about 100 calories for a small cookie to 500 calories for some muffins, the study said.