Calorie labels on restaurant menus are often framed as a simple tool to encourage healthier choices. But new research suggests their impact is far more complicated, especially for people with eating disorders.
In a study of more than 1,000 people in England with a history of disordered eating, researchers found that calorie labels can have very different effects depending on the individual. While about half of participants said labels made their symptoms worse, roughly one in four reported neutral effects, and another quarter said the labels were helpful.
The differences were not random. People who reported regular binge eating were more likely to view calorie labels positively, often describing them as reassuring or helpful in reducing anxiety around eating. Some participants said having calorie information made it easier to eat in social settings, offering a sense of control over their choices.
“For the first time since developing my eating disorder, I am able to go out and eat at restaurants without fear and anxiety,” one participant said.
In contrast, people with restrictive eating disorders, such as anorexia nervosa, were more likely to report negative effects. For some, calorie labels increased distress or led them to avoid certain restaurants altogether.
The study, published in BMJ Public Health, comes as calorie labeling policies have expanded in several countries. In England, large restaurants have been required to display calorie information since 2022 as part of efforts to address obesity.
Researchers say the findings highlight a central tension in public health nutrition: the same information designed to help people make informed choices may also have unintended consequences for vulnerable groups.
“The bottom line is that people with eating disorders have a variety of views about calorie labels, but people with binge eating are more likely to find them helpful,” said Nora Trompeter, the study’s first author.
The research also explored alternatives to current policies. When asked to rank different approaches, participants favored options that allowed more flexibility, such as making calorie information optional or accessible through QR codes rather than displayed prominently on menus. Approaches that highlighted broader nutritional information, rather than focusing only on calories, were also viewed more favorably.
“Public health policies need to consider not only the needs of people with current eating disorders, but also those with past histories, to reduce risk of relapse and aid recovery,” said Tom Jewell.
The study has important limitations. It relies on self-reported experiences rather than clinical outcomes and does not measure whether calorie labels directly improve or worsen eating disorder symptoms over time. The findings are also based on a U.K. policy context, which may differ from other countries.
Still, the results reinforce a broader idea that shows up across nutrition research: there is no one-size-fits-all approach to eating. Tools that help some people feel informed and in control may have the opposite effect for others.
This study was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research Policy Research Programme. Additional support was provided through U.K. research initiatives focused on eating disorders and adolescent mental health.