...demographic measures. Demographic are similar to those in past studies. Nutrition factors have little impact on table service, but nutrition-orientated consumers tend to have lower fast food consumption.

**********

One of the largest changes in American eating habits in recent decades has been the increasing reliance on food eaten away from home (FAFH). FAFH has increased from 33% of total food expenditures in 1970 to 47% by 2003. (1) Most of this is at table service and fast food restaurants. Much of the growth is attributed to the rising value of household time, especially as induced by more female labor force participation and rising household incomes. The importance of these factors has been shown in numerous studies (Byrne, Capps, and Saha 1998; Kinsey 1983; McCracken and Brandt 1987; Prochaska and Schrimper 1973; Redman 1980; Yen 1993). In addition, studies have consistently found that FAFH declines with household size, reflecting the scale economies associated with household meal preparation, and that women and older individuals of either sex are less likely to dine out. Separate analysis by type of facility has found different effects for some factors. For example, income is generally more important for table service, while convenience and accessibility have relatively greater influence for fast food (Jekanowski, Binkley, and Eales 2001; McCracken and Brandt 1987).

Recently, the growth in FAFH has generated concern about its possible effect on dietary quality. Analysis of food consumption surveys has indicated that meals eaten in restaurants are generally of lower nutritional quality than meals eaten at home, mainly due to higher fat and calorie content (Lin and Frazao 1997). Furthermore, obesity is now one of the nation's leading health problems, and because its growth has paralleled the trend in dining out, FAFH is often suggested as contributing to the energy imbalance that brings it about. Although this has not been scientifically established, the nature of restaurant food has become a policy issue. For example, proposals mandating that chain restaurants provide nutritional information on their menus have been introduced in both houses of Congress (Burton and Creyer 2004). On another front, lawsuits have been filed by diners alleging that their obesity resulted from restaurant meals.

This public scrutiny has caused some restaurant chains to adopt proactive measures. New products geared to the nutrition-orientated consumer have been introduced, particularly by fast food chains. The success of these initiatives ultimately depends on acceptability by consumers. Although initial sales appear promising (Warner 2005), previous introductions of healthy menu options have not been highly successful (Consumer Reports 1996, 2004). One possible reason for this is that individuals concerned with nutrition are less inclined to dine out, perhaps due to the bad publicity--effectively negative advertising--directed at restaurant food.

Because of these considerations, a potentially important question is the extent to which nutrition concerns and attitudes affect the decision to have an FAFH meal. Although there have been several studies of the impact of nutrition factors on the demand for particular foods or nutrients (Brown and Schrader 1990; Chern, Loehman, and Yen 1995; Ippolito and Mathios 1990), most have focused on nutrition information, and none has considered restaurant dining. In this paper, we do so using an econometric model containing not only demographic measures and measures of convenience but also measures of nutrition attitudes, concerns, and knowledge. The issue addressed is the decision to dine out: we do not consider the subsequent issue of what is eaten when dining out occurs.

Separate equations are estimated for fast food and table service restaurants. This is not only because of the differing effects of economic and demographic factors identified in previous work but also to permit differences for nutrition variables. Although FAFH is one of the most frequently cited factors behind the obesity epidemic, it is fast food that receives most of the criticism, especially in the popular media. Recent examples of this are Eric Schlosser's Fast Food Nation (2001) and in the well-received documentary Supersize Me. In a 2004 ABC News-Time Magazine poll, 43% of respondents thought that fast food bears a "great deal" of responsibility for the obesity crisis. The attitude that fast food is particularly bad is also present in the academic literature. Many studies of the dietary impacts of FAFH are confined to fast food (e.g., Bowman et al. 2004; Paeratakul et al. 2003). A likely reason for the different treatment is that most popular fast food items tend to be relatively high in fat and calories. Although the same items are available from table service restaurants, better-nutrition alternatives are also likely to be on the menu. In any case, this emphasis on fast food in the obesity and nutrition debate may have caused some consumers to avoid fast food when making dining choices.

MODEL AND DATA

Most studies involving FAFH are grounded on household production theory, and this study is no exception. As developed by Becker (1965), household production theory views the household as both a consumer and producer of final goods, so that both household time and market-produced goods enter the utility maximization process. This view is clearly relevant for food consumption since meals can either be produced in the household using purchased inputs and household time or be purchased ready-made at a restaurant. In addition, we recognize that health is an important final good to most consumers and that they thus view food and good nutrition as inputs into health. This interdependency between food and health makes food choice dependent not only on prices, income, and household time, but potentially also on measures of nutrition knowledge and concern.

These considerations lead to a model of the following general form:

[Y.sub.i] = f (P,I,T,H,D) (1)

in which [Y.sub.i] is a measure of household or individual food choice, P is a set of relevant prices, I represents household income, T involves measures of time cost, H is measures of nutrition concerns and knowledge, and D represents demographic and other factors. The latter can be viewed as proxies for taste and perhaps factors not captured by the variables in H.

This study uses the individual consumer as the observational unit. The data are from the 1994-1996 Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFII) and the accompanying Diet and Health Knowledge Survey (DHKS) (United States Department of Agriculture 2000). This is a nationally representative sample of noninstutionalized persons living in the United States. The CSFII involves 16,103 individuals, most of whom supplied two nonconsecutive days of detailed dietary intake collected by trained in-person interviewers using 24-hour recalls. The nutrient intake lists the name of each food eaten, a detailed breakdown of its nutritional content, and where it was obtained. The data also includes demographic measures for the individuals surveyed and for their households. The DHKS is a follow-up telephone survey of 5,765 individuals at least 20 years old who participated in the CSFII. Its purpose is to assess their knowledge of and attitudes toward nutrition and health.

The sample was limited to those participating in the DHKS. Beginning with the 5,765 participants, we eliminated those who did not provide intake data for both days. Additional observations were lost because some respondents failed to provide values for all variables. This left a sample of 4,361 individuals, 2,147 of whom had at least one FAFH visit during the sample period. (2)

Given the interest in the decision to dine out, [Y.sub.i] in equation (1) is the...

NOTE: All illustrations and photos have been removed from this article.




Looking for additional articles?
Search our database of over 3 million articles.

Looking for more in-depth information on this industry?
Search our complete database of Industry & Market reports by text, subject, publication name or publication date.

About Goliath
Whether you're looking for sales prospects, competitive information, company analysis or best practices in managing your organization, Goliath can help you meet your business needs.

Our extensive business information databases empower business professionals with both the breadth and depth of credible, authoritative information they need to support their business goals. Whether it be strategic planning, sales prospecting, company research or defining management best practices - Goliath is your leading source for accurate information.