Our Research on Menu Labeling

For the past couple years, I've been working with one of my former graduate students, Brenna Ellison at the University of Illinois, on some papers related to effects of calorie labels on menus (for those who may not be aware, "Obamacare" mandated that chain restaurants include such menu labels but the FDA has yet to release the final rules and implementation date).  

The first part of that research was finally published last week in the International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, where we report on a smaller sample from the larger study which includes the group of people Brenna interviewed after they ordered.  The results have been picked up by a couple news outlets, including this one from Reuters: 

Showing diners how many calories are in restaurant food items may influence how much they eat - especially among the least health-conscious people, a new study suggests.

That's true - but only partially true.  We find that the numeric labels mandated by "Obamacare" do not have a statistically significant effect on the number of calories people order.  The labels that we find to be (somewhat) effective are stop-light labels, in which we put a red dot next to the high calorie foods, a yellow dot next to the medium calorie foods, and a green dot next to the low-calorie foods.  As the story suggests, the labels are less influential among people who we rate (based on their survey answers) as health conscious.  The result isn't terribly surprising - people who are health conscious are probably already familiar with the caloric content of the foods they eat, and as such, adding labels are unlikely to provide new information.  Still, we'd want to know something about the cost of the label to know whether the policy was a net-plus (this is an issue we take up in our other papers still in the works).    

The result I found most interesting from the whole study was only discussed in the conclusions (and was missed all together in the news story) is the following:

Interestingly, despite the calorie+traffic light label’s effectiveness at reducing calories ordered, it was not the labeling format of choice. When asked which of the three labeling formats was preferred, only 27.5% of respondents said they wanted to see the calorie+traffic light label on their menus. Surprisingly, 42% preferred the calorie-only label which had virtually no influence on ordering behavior. These responses imply diners may want more information on their menus (the number of calories), yet diners do not want to be told what they should or should not consume (i.e., green = good, red = bad).

Summer School on Experimental Auctions

Pardon the public service announcement, but I wanted to let readers know that applications are now being accepted for a summer school I've co-taught on Experimental Auctions for the past 2 years in Italy.  Experimental auctions are a technique used to measure consumer willingness-to-pay for new food products, which in turn is used to project demand, market share, and benefits/costs of public policies.  We've had a fantastic time the past two years and I'm looking forward to the third, which was just approved for credit hours by the University of Bologna.  The content is mainly targeted toward graduate students or early career professionals (or marketing researchers interested in learning about a new technique).  You can find out more here and register here.

For a little enticement, here are some pictures of the previous years' classes.

The danger of making public policy based on epidemiological studies

Scientific American recently ran an interesting story on antioxidants.  For a while, it seems, experts promoted antioxidants based on epidemiological studies that seemed to suggest they increased longevity.  It is a good thing these experts didn't convince policy makers to subsidize or mandated more vitamins and antioxidants in food years ago (although we do have mandated vitamin D milk and iodine in salt), only to discover this:

Vitamins Kill Epidemiological studies show that people who eat lots of fruits and vegetables, which are rich in vitamins and other antioxidants, tend to live longer and are less likely to develop cancer compared with those who do not.  So it seemed obvious that supplementing diet with antioxidants should lead to better health.  But the results of the most rigorously designed studies do not support that assumption.  Indeed, the evidence shows that some people who take certain supplements are actually more likely to develop life-threatening illnesses, such as lung cancer and heart disease.

There are many epidemiological studies showing correlations across people in the intake of one food (e.g., meat, chocolate, blueberries, wine) and some undesirable or desirable health outcome (e.g., cancer, heart disease, longevity, etc.).  But, it cannot be repeated enough: correlation is not causation.    

Do People Want More Food Regulation? Or Less?

Over at Reason.com, Baylen Linnekin reports on the results of a recent poll by the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.  According to Linnekin, the poll shows little public support for food taxes and bans.  Balyen contrasts the recent survey with some previous survey work I’d done which seems to show the opposite.

A vast literature on polling and survey research shows that subtle changes in wording and response categories can result in large shifts in behavior.  Thus, it is useful to compare the two questions side-by-side. In the end, I think you’ll find much more similarity in the two studies than perhaps first meets the eye.

Here is the exact AP-NORC poll question and response categories (it was a telephone poll and you can find the script here):

Do you favor, oppose, or neither favor nor oppose the following government policies?FOR EACH FAVOR OR OPPOSE: Is that strongly (favor/oppose) or somewhat (favor/oppose)?

Requiring more physical activity in schools (84%, 89%)

Providing nutritional guidelines and information to people about how to make healthy choices about diet and exercise (83%, 90%)

Funding farmers markets, bike paths and other healthy alternatives (74%, 81%)

Providing incentives to the food industry to produce healthier foods (73%, 80%)

Requiring restaurants to post calorie information on menus (70%, 78%)

Banning advertisements for unhealthy foods aimed at children (44%, 53%)

Placing a tax on the sale of unhealthy foods and drinks (31%, 40%)

Limiting the types or amounts of foods and drinks people can buy (15%, 25%)

As shown above, there were eight issues listed (in random order across respondents).  I’ve listed them in order of support.  I’ve also listed the % favoring in parentheses beside each issue, then a comma and the % favoring plus not opposed (to which I’ve added in the “neither opposed nor unopposed” to the total).

I’d hardly call this set of responses free market or libertarian.  There is ample support for requirements, subsidies, and mandates.  Given the way the question was asked, I could see a respondent perceiving the question to ask something like “rank these interventions from most favored to least favored.”  It would be interesting to know if there were strong order effects.  For example, if “taxes” came first, were they more/less supported than if they came last.  In any event, there is apparently weaker support (and less than majority support) for “fat taxes” and bans on amounts or types of foods people can buy (although, my gut feel is that if you replaced the vague “types or amounts of foods” with something specific like “transfats” or “GMOs” you might get a very different answer)

My study (published in Food Policy) phrased the questions a different way and used an online format.  I asked about preference for government action related to 10 food issues.  None of them match up perfectly with the list of eight above, but I’ll pull out two that are somewhat similar to the above. 

Each question asked:

Which of the following best describes your view on what the U.S. government should do?

Each question had two options that involved more government action, a status-quo option, and two options that involved less government action. 

Here are the results from one question about healthy food with % of respondents falling into each category:

Which of the following best describes your view on what the U.S. government should do?

Ban the use of transfats, saturated fats, and other unhealthy ingredients in food production (15.1%)

Increase regulations to restrict the use of transfats, saturated fats, and other unhealthy ingredients in food production (38.8%)

Maintain current policies on transfats and saturated fats (e.g., mandatory labeling in the supermarket)       (31.6%)

Reduce regulations on transfats and saturated fats    (2.7%)

Make no law regarding transfats, saturated fats, and other unhealthy food ingredients, leaving people to take responsibility for their own diet          (11.8%)

So, 53.9% wanted more regulation on this topic, 31.5% wanted the status-quo and 14.5% wanted less regulation.

Here are the results from another question I asked:

Which of the following best describes your view on what the U.S. government should do?

Create an agency to plan food production and distribution to improve nutritional intake (15.4%)

Use extensive taxes and subsidies to promote healthier foods           (14.2%)          

Maintain current regulations designed to promote healthier foods which include mandatory nutritional labels on foods and establishing suggested dietary intake (53.1%)     

Decrease efforts to promote healthier foods  (5.3%)

Eliminate all food health regulations; allow citizens to make their own food choices (11.9%)        

So, 29.7% wanted more regulation on this topic, 53.1% wanted the status quo, and 17.2% wanted less regulation.

In total, seven of the questions I asked about garnered majority support for government action and the most favorable related to issues that could be perceived as relating to food safety, food affordability, and animal welfare. Three issues did not garner support for more government action.  So, in my study 70% of the issues raised were such that people wanted more government action compared to the status quo or less government action. 

The AP-NORC poll asked about eight issues, and (depending on how you treat the “undecideds”), either 62.5% or 75% garnered majority support for more government action. 

So, yes, we can find a couple questions were we “free market” folks can take a bit of comfort.  However, the overall response patterns in both surveys are much more statist than I am comfortable with.  That’s one reason I decided to write The Food Police (you can also read more on my interpretation of these results here)  I’m hopeful I can bring more folks over to my way of thinking by presenting a perspective that differs from the one normally offered by many food writers.   

Do Food Consumers Vote Differently Than They Shop?

According to some research I just published in the Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics with a former graduate student, Kate Brooks, who is now an assistant professor at the University of Nebraska, the answer is "yes."  

Our research suggests caution in using people's shopping behavior (as, for example, indicated by grocery story scanner data) to infer which public policies they may or may not support.  In the particular application we studied, people were willing to pay large premiums to avoid milk and meat from cloned cows when asked what they wished to buy when shopping in a grocery store.  One might conjecture from this behavior, then, that the consumers would approve of a government ban on use of clones in meat and milk production.  

According to our research, that conjecture would be wrong.  The majority of consumers did NOT favor a ban on cloning in food animals.  In fact, most people would demand compensation if a ban were enacted (rather than be willing to pay to have the ban).  This finding defies many of the explanations often given for differences in voting and shopping behavior, such as the consumer-vs-citizen hypothesis or the hypothesis that consumers perceive the existence of externalities.  The behavior is more consistent with the notion that people have an option value (they don't want to get rid of a technology that may produce some promising result in the future even if they don't want it now) or that people respect the freedom of others to arrive at their own choices even if they happen to be at odds with one's own preferences.     

The other interesting thing about our finding is that is exactly the opposite of what has been observed in other food issues.  For example, in California, 63.5% of voters voted in favor of Prop 2 in 2008 to effectively ban battery cages in egg production.  Yet, the retail market share of cage free eggs is less than 5%.  In this case, shoppers aren't willing to shell out the extra bucks for cage free eggs in the grocery store, but they enthusiastically voted to ban the product they normally buy in the voting booth.  Why?  Hard to say.  My feeling is that the costs are much more salient in the store than in the voting booth.  Another possibility is that the universe of voters is different than the universe of shoppers (all voters shop but not all shoppers vote).  There are, of course, other possible explanations.  

Gaining a better understanding why people behave differently when shopping and voting is a key area of future research for food economists.  And, the fact that people often behave so differently in the two environments represents a key challenge for food economists who conduct regulatory cost-benefit analysis and advise policy makers.