Can Calorie Labels Actually Increase Soda Consumption?

​This paper which just appeared in the journal Preventative Medicine studied the effects of fat taxes, and several types of "messaging" at reducing sweetened soda consumption.  The results reveal exactly why we should be skeptical about the obesity-reducing effects of these policies.  One should also keep in mind that this study was conducted in several Hospitals - places that employ and house people who one would think might be especially susceptible to attempts to encourage healthier eating.

​Here are some key exerpts from the abstract:

This prospective interrupted time-series quasi-experiment included three sites in Philadelphia, PA, Evanston, IL, and Detroit, MI. Each site received five interventions: (1) a 10% price discount on zero-calorie beverages; (2) the 10% discount plus discount messaging; (3) messaging comparing calorie information of sugared beverages with zero-calorie beverages; (4) messaging comparing exercise equivalent information; and (5) messaging comparing both calorie and exercise equivalent information.

and​

The overall analysis failed to demonstrate a consistent effect across all interventions  Two treatments had statistically significant effects: the discount plus discount messaging, with an increase in purchases of zero calorie beverages; and the calorie messaging intervention, with an increase in purchases of sugar-sweetened beverages. Individual site analysis results were similar.

Conclusions

The effects of price discounts and calorie messaging in different forms on beverage purchases were inconsistent and frequently small.

​Incidentally, the messaging+discount intervention that "worked" was the following: 

 a 10% price discount on all zero-calorie bottled beverages plus messaging that explained the reason for the discount. Messaging consisted of colorful marketing posters, flyers, and signs displayed prominently in the cafeteria These promoted the 10% price discount with the message, “Lighten up for less – 10% off all zero-calorie bottled beverages and wate

​I fully agree with the study's conclusions:

This research augments previous work finding weak, null or even contradictory effects of calorie labeling and price discounts. Our results point to the need for further studies examining the effectiveness of these interventions and their potential moderators. The reality of varying effects in different settings and different populations need be analyzed carefully before contemplating policy interventions such as calorie labeling or sugar taxation in order to avoid ineffective interventions and unintended consequences.

Artificial Meat

​I was interviewed recently for this piece on artificial meat that appeared a couple days ago in a major online French publication.  I'm not fluent enough in French to competently comment on the content of the article, but I found one line of questioning by the journalist, Yannick Demoustier,  quite perceptive.  

He noted the demand for meat substitutes and artificial meat was motivated by many factors including animal welfare and environmental concerns.  Many (though not all) of the folks trying to reduce meat consumption are also motivated by a "return to nature" phenomena - seeking to avoid "artificial" food. ​  

The journalists asked how these folks will react to meat made in a lab with the latest scientific technologies.  The choice pits desires for "naturalness" against desires for "sustainability" and highlights the fact that these two are not the same.  I don't think we know much about this trade-off and it is a great question for future research.

Can Labeling Actually Harm Consumers?

That was the question asked in a recent study Stephan Marette and I just published in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Industrial Organization.  ​The answer is "maybe."  

Traditional economic models assume that more information (as long as it is accurate) can only help consumers (so long as the cost of providing the information isn't higher than the benefit).  After all, if a consumer doesn't find the information useful, it can simply be ignored.  ​

But, this model assumes consumers are perfectly informed about all controversial issues they confront and that they can fully pay attention to all these competing issues.​

What we show in our paper is that when consumers' attentions are limited (as they almost certainly are), that providing information (even if it is accurate) can - in some cases - actually make the consumer worse off.  How?  Because more information about one topic (like whether foods are made with genetically engineered ingredients) might distract consumers from paying attention from other important topics (like the number of carbs in the food) which has a bigger impact on long-term health.  ​

Here is the paper abstract:​

Information and labeling are popular food policy instruments because of their presumed positive influence on consumer welfare. In a one-good case with unlimited attention, we show consumer welfare is always improved with the provision of accurate information. However, in a two-good case with limited attention, we show that consumer welfare is not always improved with the provision of accurate information. When attention is constrained, welfare may fall with information provision policies irrespective of their costs. The results suggest information and labeling polices may sometimes be counterproductive when attention is limited.

Effects of Biotechnology on Corn Yields

In relative terms, this suggests that the presence of GM technology may have led to corn yield gains 1.4–1.5 times higher than would have been achieved with traditional crop breeding techniques alone.

​That's from the article The Contribution of Genetic Modification to Changes in Corn Yield in the United States by Elizabeth Nolan and Paulo Santos in the most recent issue of the American Journal of Agricultural Economics.

Uninteded Consequences of Mandatory Labeling

In light of the impending vote on Prop 37, which would require mandatory labeling of GE food in California, I found this post from David Henderson ​back in July about a previous mandatory labeling initiative in California to be quite telling:

I went on line a few days ago to order some vitamins. One of the items I ordered was Green Tea Complex. When I tried to place the order, I got a message in red saying that I couldn't order Green Tea Complex. So I deleted that item and the order went through. Today I went to the local GNC to buy the item I had bought many times before. It was on the shelf and so I picked up two. I told the salesman that I hadn't been able to order it on line. He explained that there is one Green Tea Complex for California and one for the other 49 states. I asked why. He said it was because the ones sold in the California have the Proposition 65 warning that the item contains ingredients that may cause cancer. (If I recall correctly, this Proposition, passed in 1986, was the first one I ever got to vote against, after I had become a U.S. citizen earlier that year.)

"Do you think the ingredients are any different?" I asked him. He answered that he didn't think so and that the only difference was probably the absence of the warning on the non-California bottle.