Learn more about our policy experts.

Media Contacts

Angela Bradbery, Director of Communications
w. (202) 588-7741
c. (202) 503-6768
abradbery@citizen.org, Twitter

Don Owens, Deputy Director of Communications
w. (202) 588-7767

Karilyn Gower, Press Officer
w. (202) 588-7779

David Rosen, Press Officer, Regulatory Affairs
w. (202) 588-7742

Nicholas Florko, Communications Officer, Global Trade Watch
w. (202) 454-5108

Other Important Links

Press Release Database
Citizen Vox blog
Texas Vox blog
Consumer Law and Policy blog
Energy Vox blog
Eyes on Trade blog

Follow us on Twitter


Sept. 11, 2007

States, Cities May Require Nutritional Labeling at Restaurants, Judge Finds

Ruling Means New York City May Redraft Its Regulation to Avoid Pre-emption by Federal Law

WASHINGTON, D.C.—A federal judge has ruled that cities and states are free to require restaurants to provide calorie counts and other nutrition information, but that in one idiosyncratic way, New York City’s regulation is pre-empted, or trumped, by federal law. The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) and Public Citizen say that the city may avoid such pre-emption by making menu labeling mandatory for all chain restaurants with 10 or more outlets, such as McDonald’s, and by not making it contingent on whether a restaurant already makes some nutrition information available voluntarily.

In December, the New York City Board of Health passed a regulation requiring restaurants to list calories on menus and menu boards. But only restaurants that already made calories available voluntarily on brochures, Web sites, or elsewhere were covered by the measure. To avoid complying, some chains, notably Wendy’s and Chipotle, took down nutrition information from their Web sites or stopped making it available in New York City.

“The judge provides a road map for cities and states to draft menu labeling regulations so that they don’t   conflict with federal law,” said CSPI Litigation Director Steve Gardner. “Though it blocks the city from enforcing the regulation that the board passed, this decision gives cities and states a green light to make nutrition information mandatory at restaurants.”

“The court’s narrow finding is very good news for jurisdictions like King County, Wash., which enacted a menu labeling regulation in July that would not be pre-empted,” said Deepak Gupta, a lawyer at Public Citizen who wrote a brief in the case. “And the statewide bill that just passed in both houses of the California Legislature would also be safe pre-emption under this ruling.”

In July, Public Citizen and CSPI filed a brief in support of the city’s menu labeling regulation, signed by Representative Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), former Food and Drug Administration commissioner David Kessler, the American Medical Association, the American Diabetes Associationand other prominent public health organizations and nutrition experts.

“The majority of state or local regulations — those that simply require restaurants to provide nutrition information — therefore are not pre-empted,” wrote United States District Judge Richard J. Holwell.   “Such regulations impose a blanket mandatory duty on all restaurants meeting a standard definition such as operating 10 or more restaurants under the same name.”

LEARN MORE about the lawsuit.


Copyright © 2016 Public Citizen. Some rights reserved. Non-commercial use of text and images in which Public Citizen holds the copyright is permitted, with attribution, under the terms and conditions of a Creative Commons License. This Web site is shared by Public Citizen Inc. and Public Citizen Foundation. Learn More about the distinction between these two components of Public Citizen.

Public Citizen, Inc. and Public Citizen Foundation


Together, two separate corporate entities called Public Citizen, Inc. and Public Citizen Foundation, Inc., form Public Citizen. Both entities are part of the same overall organization, and this Web site refers to the two organizations collectively as Public Citizen.

Although the work of the two components overlaps, some activities are done by one component and not the other. The primary distinction is with respect to lobbying activity. Public Citizen, Inc., an IRS § 501(c)(4) entity, lobbies Congress to advance Public Citizen’s mission of protecting public health and safety, advancing government transparency, and urging corporate accountability. Public Citizen Foundation, however, is an IRS § 501(c)(3) organization. Accordingly, its ability to engage in lobbying is limited by federal law, but it may receive donations that are tax-deductible by the contributor. Public Citizen Inc. does most of the lobbying activity discussed on the Public Citizen Web site. Public Citizen Foundation performs most of the litigation and education activities discussed on the Web site.

You may make a contribution to Public Citizen, Inc., Public Citizen Foundation, or both. Contributions to both organizations are used to support our public interest work. However, each Public Citizen component will use only the funds contributed directly to it to carry out the activities it conducts as part of Public Citizen’s mission. Only gifts to the Foundation are tax-deductible. Individuals who want to join Public Citizen should make a contribution to Public Citizen, Inc., which will not be tax deductible.


To become a member of Public Citizen, click here.
To become a member and make an additional tax-deductible donation to Public Citizen Foundation, click here.