The Science of Sugar

Three years ago, this YouTube video of a talk by Dr. Robert Lustig, a Professor of Pediatric Endocrinology at UC San Francisco, when viral (to date, the video has 2.7 million downloads).  His argument there, and subsequently in prestigious journals like Nature, is that sugar is toxic.   

I’m going to be honest, I haven’t invested the time to adequately evaluate the claims made about the biology, endocrinology, and metabology of sugar, but I suspect there is some truth to the argument that some foods are metabolized differently than others – in other words, it is more complicated than just “calories in, calories out” (although this adage is also almost certainly true on some level). 

What I do know is that the science of sugar is not nearly as certain as Lustig purports, a fact mentioned by Gary Taubes who is overall sympathetic to his claim (see also the citations in second paragraph of Lustig’s Wikipedia page).

Lustig is an accomplished and well-published scientist.  But, what bothers me is the all too common stance of many folks in the medical and public health communities failing to appreciate how little they know when they move to realms beyond their particular academic expertise.

The viral YouTube talk included a beginning slide with the words “Letting Science be the Guide” and Lustig personally began a speech in 2011 by asserting that “Ultimately science should drive policy.” Yet, I find it a bit ironic that neither of these talks seriously discusses the economic science behind the many sugar-recuing policies he supports. 

Economic study after study after study after study shows sugar policies (such as sweetened beverage taxes or bans on school vending machines) will only have very small effects on intake and weight.  When sodas are taxed (or banned), people can substitute toward other caloric drinks such as fruit juice or alcohol. Moreover, food taxes are regressive - meaning the burden is disproportionately borne by the poor.  It is also worth pointing to the economic research on farm policy and sugar production reveals a much more complicated situation than many pundits presume, with the authors showing that the “link between US sweetener consumption and farm policy is weak.” 

So the next time you hear someone pronounce that the “government has to get off its ass” because of sugar consumption, I suggest asking what economic science actually says about what will happen when the government moves it’s preverbal backside. 

Addendum:  One of my colleagues pointed out that the arguments used to claim sugar is addictive (primarily that our body becomes accustomed to a level of intake and requires more and more to achieve a given level of satisfaction) sounds remarkably like the psychologist’s notion of the hedonic treadmill – a phenomenon that is posited to hold for almost all aspects of life.

The Cost of Mandatory GMO Labeling

Not five minutes after posting on the potential effects of mandatory labeling genetically modified foods in California, I came across this release summarizing the recent work of Dan Sumner and Julian Alston, both agricultural economists at UC Davis. 

The bottom line: they estimate that Prop 37, if passed, would cost Californian farmers and food processors $1.2 billion. 

Although I understand the appeal of the “right to know” argument to the average consumer, what is less clear to me is why labeling of genetically modified food should, on economic grounds, be mandatory.  If the information is valuable to consumers, firms and farmers can profit by providing it.  And they have! 

There are already many voluntary labeling programs consumers can use if they wish to avoid biotechnology including organic and certified non-GMO labels.  Of course, these products are more expensive than conventional products – but that’s because they are more costly to produce.  But, it simply isn’t true that Californians do not have a choice to buy GMO or non-GMO foods.

Unintended Consequences of Mandatory Labeling of Genetically Modified Food

​This November when Californians go to the polls to vote for Romney or Obama, they will also vote on Prop 37.  If passed, the proposition will require mandatory labeling of genetically modified food.

Proponents of Prop 37 argue that Californians have a right to know what’s in their food, that it would be essentially costless for agribusinesses and food retailers to simply add a label, and that it would send a message to multinational agribusiness firms.  I’ll address the first two issues in future posts, but for now I’ll simply say that the presumption that labeling will somehow help small farmers and food processors is probably mistaken.  Increased regulation often increases the power of large incumbent firms (who can employ teams of lawyers and strategists) - much to the surprise and dismay of regulation supporters.

Here is what Dan Murphy at Drovers recently had to say about the issue:

If GMO labeling becomes a hot-button problem, the executives decided, it will hit heavier on smaller companies—just like nutritional labeling and HACCP and every other regulatory initiative put in place over the last several decades. All that does is thin out the competition for shelf space, since the added costs are more easily passed along to the end user by the category leaders, as opposed to manufacturers struggling to hold onto market share.

Are Fat Taxes a Good Idea? Ask Denmark

Denmark recently implemented a tax on saturated fat.  Most of the economic research on the topic suggests that such taxes are likely to have little effect on weight and health.  It appears the Danish goverment is finding out the hard way.  ​

According to this story, here is the Danish experience​:

Only one year after its implementation, the Danish government is planning to scrap the “fat tax”. The reason why: reports show that it simply doesn't work.

Denmark is now likely to abolish the tax levied on saturated fats, as empirical evidence shows that its negative effects outweigh the benefits for the Danish Treasury. In particular, reports point to job losses in the food processing industry and Danes crossing the German border to buy cheaper products.

Food Insecurity and The Politics of Rising Food Prices

Record high temperatures in the Midwest this summer have been met with near-record high prices for corn, soybeans, wheat, and other commodities.  Thanks to federal disaster payments and crop insurance, many corn and soybean farmers will withstand the drought with finances relatively unscathed.  Many livestock producers won’t be so lucky.  Neither will many food consumers.

Although most analysts anticipate the drought will increase future retail food prices only around four to five percent, the hike comes on the back of a 2.3 percent rise in the food component of the consumer price index over the past year.  Add that to the impacts of the recession and the result is that 14.9 percent of US households (more than 50 million people) are food insecure according to the USDA's latest report.  The prevalence of food insecurity is about 33 percent higher than it was before the recession.     

The rise in food insecurity has occurred even as the rolls of the federal food stamp program have swelled.  A record number of Americans - one in seven of us - were on food stamps last year, causing critics to name Obama the “food stamp president.”  Undaunted by the label, his administration has begun running radio ads encouraging further enrollment.  And, his administration recently announced efforts to reverse the Clinton-era welfare reforms by removing work requirements for some people soliciting welfare money.  

Obama’s election-year strategies to address the issue heighten class divisiveness: expanding social entitlements for the poor while raising taxes on the rich.  Although the strategy might be successful in buying votes from those so downtrodden that a helping hand is needed to put food on the table, the longer-term impacts of this administration’s policies are as much the cause of the food price problems as they are a help. 

Obama rode a tide of hope-and-change into office that captivated a core group of elite foodies who had been preaching messages like “pay more, eat less” for years.  While more Americans have had a harder time finding enough food to eat, the White House planted a back-yard garden and began giving preferential treatment to local-food purchases in federal contracts.  Despite the tastiness of local foods, they certainly aren’t cheaper; and anyone who has been to a parched Midwestern farmers’ market this summer can attest to why consumers need access to non-local fare (one of my colleagues claims to be on pace for growing a two hundred-dollar watermelon this summer).  But, local food policies only scratch the surface.  The Obama administration has sought to keep farmer’s kids from working on the family farm, fine farmers for kicking up too much dust, require beef processors justify quality-adjusted pricing strategies, and require schools to plate more veggies.  Whatever might be said about the benefits of any of these policies, they all serve to increase the prices consumers pay for food.  And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. 

Three months ago, I gave a talk to a planning workshop sponsored by the administration’s Centers for Disease Control and hosted by the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies entitled “Exploring the True Costs of Food.”  The underlying premise is that food in this country is under-priced, and that taxes, subsidies, restrictions, and bans must be engineered to get the prices of food up to the “right” level.  Thus, what the administration giveth in terms of food stamps and unemployment insurance, they taketh away in terms of higher food prices from onerous food regulation.

There is a long term solution to food insecurity that has been pursued for decades.  But, it is no longer politically popular with today’s fashionable foodies who spurn food technology and promote a return to nature.  Yet, we seem to have forgotten that “nature” didn’t give us domesticated livestock, abundant, readily edible seeds, microwavable rice, or pre-washed baby carrots.  The food we enjoy today is a result of man’s triumph over nature’s indifference to us.  The solution to today’s food price problem is what it has been for hundreds of years; the application of human creativity, innovation, and research to food and agriculture.  Previous public spending on agricultural research has more than paid itself, with current estimates indicating the benefits resulting from lower food prices exceeding the costs by a factor of thirty two to one.  Private research has been similarly effective.  Yet, spending on agricultural research has stagnated.  We have adopted a food culture that, by rejecting food biotechnology, nanotechnology, cloning, and pesticides, is on path to prove Malthus right. 

If Obama is really concerned about the economic downtrodden – and not just getting their votes in November – he’ll start thinking less about how to get others to grow their own gardens and more about how to make drought tolerant wheat.