In this Weekly Wrap, we’re looking at new labeling mandates in New York, the November jobs report Chipotle leaning into the protein craze, and more.
Sodium Legislation in NYC
The Headline: “New York’s Menu-Labeling Mandates Will Make Dining Out More Expensive”
The Source: City Journal
What You Need to Know:
A recently introduced city council bill seeks to impose new sodium and sugar labeling mandates on all New York City restaurants. The mandates will increase costs for businesses and raise prices for consumers—without having an appreciable effect on New Yorkers’ health.
This proposed bill builds on earlier labeling mandates. In 2015, New York became the first American city to mandate that chain restaurants with 15 or more outlets include a high-salt warning next to any menu items with sodium that exceeded the recommended daily maximum for adults. Earlier this month, the state’s 2023 Sweet Truth Act went into effect, requiring chains with 15-plus outlets to include menu labels for items with 200 calories or more of added sugar.
One of the main defenses of nutritional labeling mandates like New York’s is that they have, so far, applied only to large chain restaurants and corporate establishments—presumably those best equipped to absorb the added costs.
But the proposed new bill shows that the end game is universal compliance. Under the new law, all Gotham restaurants—including independent eateries and small businesses—would have to place warning symbols next to high-salt and high-sugar items on both online and print menus.
…
The problem with these mandates is that they make food more expensive. At the federal level, trade associations estimated the total compliance costs of the FDA’s 2018 nutritional labeling requirements for calorie counts at $1 billion just for U.S. grocery stores alone. The FDA estimated the per-item cost for nutritional analysis of a menu item at a restaurant to be between $280 and $1,030, with extra costs for updating menu boards ranging anywhere from $591 to $1,773. That doesn’t include ongoing costs for new food offerings or updated menus.
Even more modest estimates of compliance costs would have a major effect on New York City’s smallest restaurants. These businesses are notoriously low-margin operations, so added costs will likely get passed along to consumers in higher food prices.
…
Even in the few studies that have found some effect from menu-labeling rules, the impact has been so modest as to be negligible. The most on-point study, which looked at New York City’s sodium-labeling menu rules for chain restaurants, found no evidence of a reduction in sodium intake among New Yorkers after the 2015 mandate.
Our Take:
While this article was written almost two months ago, an addition to this proposal popped up this week, making it worth revisiting.
I think transparency, to an extent, is important. But there comes a point where it simply is not manageable. I get it. Some things are salty with high calorie counts and people have a right to know. By the same token, the ability for all restaurants to comply will be nearly impossible. The big guys and the chains won’t have an issue. The small operators will.
Let’s be brutally honest. Most restaurateurs don’t truly know how much sodium is in each dish. I know quite a few owners, especially single-unit operators, who still have handwritten recipes. There are times where “salt to taste” is written in the section where an actual measurement should be. Turning that into precise nutritional data would be an enormous undertaking for already understaffed kitchens.
As the article states, it’s also an expensive endeavor. Nutritional analysis costs in the mid hundreds per item. Imagine being a restaurant with 50 menu items. It sucks.
Compliance will be a nightmare. I would guess a large portion of operators will simply not comply and wait for an inspector to issue a warning or a fine. On the flip side, I could also see operators flat out lying and producing a sheet full of made-up numbers. Is the city going to confiscate food and test for sodium levels? That alone would cost the city boatloads of money just to confirm compliance.
To top it off, all current data shows the effect on sodium consumption won’t meaningfully change. People will keep ordering the salty items. It just doesn’t make sense.
Fingers crossed this doesn’t go through. It will create a massive headache for operators and have minimal, if any, impact on the overall health of New Yorkers.
The Headline: “Olive Garden Adds Lighter Portions of These Fan-Favorite Dishes to the Menu amid Increasing GLP-1 Usage Across the U.S.”
The Source: People
What You Need to Know:
A new section called "Lighter Portions" is quickly being rolled out at Olive Gardens across the U.S., with the goal of being featured at all locations by the end of January 2026. This change comes at a time when inflation is significantly racking up menu prices — an issue that Darden Restaurants, the company that owns Olive Garden, is looking to combat.
The New York Post shared that during a Darden Restaurants earnings call on Thursday, Dec. 18, chief executive Rick Cardenas explained dishes in the "Lighter Portions" section have led to "a double-digit increase in affordability perceptions" for Olive Garden. Which has, in turn, led to "higher frequency among lighter portion guests."
…
Apart from affordability, the "Lighter Portions" menu section simultaneously appeals to Olive Garden customers who are watching their diet. Stemming from the section's name, the dishes are not only cheaper, but smaller in size — a move that comes in tandem with increasing GLP-1 usage across the U.S.
Smaller portions “just so happens to benefit the consumers that might want smaller portions that are on GLP-1 medications,” Cardenas said on the earnings call.
…
Given that the Italian-American restaurant chain has seen such success with the soft-launch of "Lighter Portions," no marketing campaign is in the works.
“Currently, we’re not expecting, or we’re not thinking about marketing it to our guests,” the Darden Restaurants CEO said. “Because it’s doing pretty well on the menu the way it is.”
Our Take:
We’ve been talking about portion size options for the past few months, but this is the first time it’s really been discussed with Darden’s shareholders, and there were definitely two interesting takeaways.
Olive Garden is openly talking about the GLP-1s, and while most of the initial coverage focused on value, there was clearly a dual motive. The big companies are taking note of the Ozempic trend and adjusting their menus accordingly. Olive Garden hasn’t completely cut out its larger portions, it has simply given guests the option for smaller, cheaper portions. In doing this, it remains true to its core clientele while attracting a different demographic.
The other very fascinating tidbit is that there isn’t a big marketing push. They simply don’t need one. It shows that consumers are actively seeking value options and that the simple act of changing the menu in this fashion can drive traffic without an expensive marketing campaign.
Ultimately, operators need to take note. Consumers are looking for value and there is a large contingent of GLP-1 users who are tailoring their dining habits to places with options geared toward them. While I don’t think the entire menu should be geared toward these guests, having options that appeal to the demographic is wise.
November Jobs Report
The Headline: “Restaurants add nominal jobs ahead of busy holiday season”
The Source: Nation’s Restaurant News
What You Need to Know:
Eating and drinking places specifically added a net 5,600 jobs in November on a seasonally-adjusted basis, according to preliminary data from the BLS. While that was well below the strong gain of 46,000 jobs in October, it represented the fifth consecutive monthly increase in restaurant jobs.
According to the National Restaurant Association, eating and drinking places have added more than 120,000 jobs throughout the past five months, compared to the first half of 2025, when the industry lost a net 4,200 jobs.
As of November 2025, eating and drinking place employment was more than 196,000 jobs (or 1.6%) above its February 2020 level.
…
The industry’s recent gains have been driven largely by the full-service segment, which added a net 88,400 jobs between February and October. According to the association, this more than doubled the 42,100 jobs added at snack and non-alcoholic beverage concepts, which is the next closest segment. Still, the full-service segment remains about 3% below pre-pandemic employment levels.
Our Take:
It’s good to know this data. It’s good to know where hiring and unemployment stand. But let’s not mince words, right now none of it truly matters.
Given the constant uncertainty around economic and social policy, it’s hard to take much from these numbers, other than the fact that at least they aren’t contracting. Any given day can bring a new challenge for restaurateurs, along with a new pricing issue or a new legal or policy hurdle.
It’s good that some jobs are being created, but I wouldn’t read this as any type of indicator for the health of the industry, good or bad.
Protein Craze
The Headline: “Need a protein snack? How about a cup of Chipotle's chicken?”
The Source: Restaurant Business Online
What You Need to Know:
The fast-casual chain on Thursday jumped on the protein-craze train—a nutrition movement the brand arguably helped instigate—with the scheduled debut next week of a new lineup of protein-centric menu items.
…
The cup is positioned as an add-on to the already protein-rich entrees at Chipotle. Guests have long been able to order just a bowl of chicken without all that troublesome rice and beans and other things, which has been touted on social media as a menu hack.
And, of course, guests could also order double meat, which is in part why Chipotle has long been the favored brand of gym bros and other protein seekers.
The price of the cup is about the same as the added cost of a double-chicken order, the company said. But consumers will get it in a separate cup—as a snack or side.
Chipotle said the high-protein diet has been the most popular nutrition trend for the past three years in the U.S., with 70% of Americans saying they are prioritizing protein, and more than one-third increasing their protein intake over the past year.
…
Other chains, like Sweetgreen and Panda Express, have introduced protein-rich options on their menu to appeal to those consumers.
Sweetgreen’s recently launched Power Max Protein Bowl has 106 grams of protein, for example, with about four servings of chicken.
Our Take:
Give the people what they want. I know there are times when I just want a plate or cup full of meat and it’s not on the menu, but then again, I am a bit of a caveman.
I really think this is just listening to the consumer. I think it’s smart for them. I don’t think this is an “everyone jump on the bandwagon” moment. This makes sense for their clientele, but it doesn’t make sense for most businesses.
I don’t see the Keto diet fad going away for at least a few more years. Tailoring a menu toward this trend only makes sense in certain circumstances, mainly fast-casual establishments where it’s an easy transition. Chipotle and Panda Express aren’t changing their operations and, truth be told, aren’t even changing recipes. They’re simply excluding other items and selling the protein. It’s simple and cost effective.
Unless there’s an easy way to incorporate this into an existing menu, I don’t suggest any establishment put this into their game plan.