Effects of FoodService Establishments and Information on Obesity

A recent paper by Alessandro Bonanno and Stephan Goetz in the International Food and Agribusiness Management Review looks at the relationship between food store density, nutrition education, and obesity.

Here is the issue:

Understanding the role of the food environment vs. nutrition education in expanding the share of adult population engaging in healthy eating habits has clear policy implications and is relevant for the agribusiness sector as a whole.  Food retailers and food service companies, as well as many food manufacturers, are under scrutiny for their potential roles in shaping diets and in contributing to the obesity epidemic. This study seeks to provide additional evidence on whether policies aimed at regulating the food environment (i.e., the location of food retailers and restaurants) are likely to achieve the intended goals

They find:

no evidence of a negative  causal relationship between the density of food-service establishments and the state-level incidence of adult healthy eating (similar to Collins and Baker, 2009, who find no “Granger causality” on obesity incidence using nationwide data), suggesting that policies aiming to restrict access to these outlets may have little impact on improving healthy diets. 

And:

Our results indicate that expenditures on nutrition education programs can improve eating habits and, indirectly, curb the incidence of adult obesity.  However, increases in nutrition education efforts would have to be substantial. . . . our results indicate that quadrupling average expenditure on nutrition education . . . could reduce adult obesity by 0.8%; the feasibility of such a large spending increase as a policy tool is unlikely

It's Gonna Get a Lot Harder to Eat Ethically

NPR ran a story a couple days ago on a move to recognize "plant rights" in addition to "animal rights."  I was a little surprised by some of the claims in the story:

After all, plants can sometimes exhibit humanlike behavior. . . . Some plants respond well to music. Some "smell" other plants. Still others seem to shrink away when touched.. . . . 

Plants display remedial types of memory and possess "anoetic consciousness" — the ability of an organism to sense and to react to stimulation . . . 

Some plants (such as chili peppers) may be able to "hear" other plants (such as sweet fennel). "We know that plants recognize what is growing next to them, . . . Plants can warn other plants of a predator by releasing a chemical, and the warned plants can release chemicals to make themselves unpalatable to the predator.

For those who are concerned about the harms caused by their diet, these sorts of findings aren't good news.  What's left to eat?  Water?

My TEDx Talk

Tomorrow afternoon I'm slated to give a talk at the Oklahoma State University TEDx event.  My understanding is that tickets are sold out.  However, the talks will be streamed live on streamed live on OState.tv.  My talk on the "Future of Food" should be on at about 5pm.  I'll put up a post to the video when it becomes available.

Support for Prop 37 Dips Below 50%

According to the results of the latest poll by the California Business Roundtable and Pepperdine University, support for the GMO mandatory labeling dipped below 50% for the first time.

This graph from their consecutive polls is remarkable:

I'm not sure I've ever seen so dramatic a change in support for an issue in so short a period of time.  

I should note that the high level of support we found in our study conducted in late September is not inconsistent with the above polls once undecideds are factored in.  

My understanding is that a new wave of "YES 37" commercials has hit the airwaves in recent days.  Hard to know what effect they'll have but our research suggested that positive ads were not nearly as effective as negative.    

It will be interesting to see how it turns out on November 6.  I am frankly shocked it is so close.  

Neuroeconomics of Food Choice

The Chronicle of Higher Education ran a piece last week on the need for more neuroeconomic research.  

While I am a bit unsure of where the field is heading (and in some cases it is over-hyped), I do think there are fascinating things to be learned.   That's one of the reasons why I'm involved in a project with researchers at KSU, UMKC, and KU-med, where we are studying how people make choices between foods produced with controversial technologies while observing their brain responses via fMRI.  The ability of plant and food scientists to innovate depends on people's acceptance of technologies, and I'm hopeful that we can provide insight into this matter.

Right now we have 50 observations collected (which is actually quite a large sample size for an fMRI study), and we are in the process of writing up several papers.  So stay tuned for our findings.

In the meantime, I'll leave you with the optimistic closing sentences from the Chronicle article related to whether economist shoulds be spending their time on neuro-imaging: 

The only way to find out, he says, is to do it. And if it works, if a model of a mental process improves an economist's ability to predict what people will do, "then I think neuroeconomics could be very big."