Tim McIntyre, vice president of communications for Domino's, agrees with Blum. He sees the legislation as providing his competitors with an unfair advantage. For if menu labeling and nutritional information is helpful for the consumers of Domino's restaurants, he said, it should be helpful for the consumers of all eateries. And the way the bill is written currently seems a one-size-fits-all solution that actually doesn't fit.
"The primary reason we are opposed to the compromise bill is that it does not provide the flexibility that a chain like ours needs," McIntyre said. "The vast majority of our orders come via the telephone or through our Web site, so retro-fitting our in-store menu boards is a cost burden with little to no benefit for the consumer."
Here he clarified a point about the legislation—in fact, if your store menus are both printed and on some sort of display board, the nutrition facts need to be displayed on both, giving those without menu board less expense to retrofit. Andrew Puzder, chairman and CEO of CKE Restaurants Inc., parent company of quick-service chains Carl's Jr. and Hardee's, said the legislation also puts an unfair burden on limited-service restaurants in general by making their menu boards more confusing. He does support requirements that allow for signage containing nutritional information to be posted near the menu board. Recent studies have failed to prove conclusively that posting nutritional information affects consumer's choices. In a study of poor neighborhoods impacted by New York's requirements, customers actually purchased items with more calories. But a more recent and broader study showed customers at several QSRs chose to order food with a lower caloric content once the information was posted.