When Common Sense Does Not Make Sense

An editorial  by Dr Dhurandhar discusses two papers just published in the Nature journal: International Journal of Obesity​  that seem to contradict common sense.  The studies, in fact, fall right in line with the arguments I make in my forthcoming book: The Food Police.  

The first study reports results of an experiment that questions the argument that obesity is caused by food addition.  The second study questions the wisdom of mandatory calorie labels (such as the ones mandated in Obama's health care bill).

Here is Dhurandhar (footnotes omitted):​

These two studies do not settle respective issues and additional and larger studies are needed. Yet, they are important because they challenge conventional thinking and commonsense. One study questions the validity of the obese stereotype, and the other suggests that well-intentioned, commonsense solutions may be too simplistic to counter the obesity epidemic. Such studies call for an assessment of the field of obesity research. Perhaps, some other conventional approaches, although well-intentioned, intuitive and deeply entrenched, provide nothing more than a false sense of accomplishment, and thus impede the need to develop better strategies.

and​

Unfortunately, it appears intuitive to consider an obesogenic lifestyle as the root cause of obesity, and deceptively easy to modify. However, over 5 decades of manipulation of diet and activity, including composition, quantity and duration, has repeatedly failed to modify behavior in a biologically significant manner for the majority of people over an extended period of time. Albert Einstein is credited for the quote that ‘insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result’.

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.