Blog

Stossel on Food

I'm writing this post for two reasons.  The first is to note that John Stossel has been running some interesting pieces on food and he raises a number of interesting points that are often forgotten.

For example, here he is in a piece at Reason.com on impacts of reputation:

Tyson Foods, Perdue and McDonald's have brands to maintain—and customers to lose. Ask Jack in the Box. It lost millions after a food-poisoning scandal. 
Fear of getting a bad reputation makes food producers even more careful than government requires. Since the Eisenhower administration, our stodgy government has paid an army of union inspectors to eyeball chickens in every single processing plant. But bacteria are invisible! 
Fortunately, food producers run much more sophisticated tests on their own. One employs 2,000 more safety inspectors than government requires: "To kill pathogens, beef carcasses are treated with rinses and a 185-degree steam vacuum," an executive told me. She also asked that I not reveal the name of her company—it fears retaliation from regulators. 

The other reason for the post is shameless self promotion.  I filmed a bit yesterday in New York with Stossel on fat taxes, ingredient bans, and the government’s role in food.  The bit is slated to air on a special on Fox News in February.

Some Obesity Math

When I was in graduate school, we had an old book laying around titled something like How to Lie with Statistics.  I don't remember ever actually reading the book but the title says it all: one can tell two entirely different stories depending on how one chooses to report the numbers.

I fear that much of the rhetoric surrounding obesity has fallen into this trap.  According to CDC data, the average weight of men aged 40-49 has increased roughly 15 lbs in the past 10 to 15 years (compare data in this publication to this one showing the average weight going from about 187 lbs in 1988-1994 to about 202 lbs in 2003-2006; I should also note that more recent data shows these weight gains leveling off).  

Fifteen pounds doesn't seem like a huge number to me (I've personally lost and gained much more than this amount in my adult life).  So, how is it that this small to medium sized increase in average weight gets translated into a message that there is an epidemic?  Part of the answer is that when scientists translate averages into prevalence rates, the numbers look a lot scarier.   

Stick with me while I illustrate with an example.  

Let’s take a hypothetical population of men whose average weight is 180 lbs.  Suppose, men’s weights vary in the population according to a normal distribution with a standard deviation of 30 lbs.  This means roughly 68% of the men will have weights between 150 lbs and 210 lbs.  Suppose also, for convenience sake, that all the men are the same height: 5 ft 10 inches. 

Obesity is defined as BMI greater than 30 (BMI is weight in kg divided by height in meters squared).  In our hypothetical example, where everyone is the same height, a man will be obese if he weighs more than 209 lbs.  Moreover, given our assumptions about the normal distribution, we can readily project that 16.6% of men in this population will be obese (1 minus the cdf of a normal distribution with mean 180 and standard deviation of 30 evaluated at the point 209 is 0.166).

What if all men gain a paltry 5 lbs?  The average weight goes from 180 up to 185 lbs.  Yet, (again given the assumption of the normal distribution), obesity prevalence will go up from 16.6% to 21.1%.

Thus, we have what most of us would consider a rather trivial gain in weight (an increase in 5 lbs or a 2.8% increase in weight); however, we have what appears to be a rather dramatic increase in obesity prevalence (prevalence goes up 4.48% or a 27% increase in prevalence of obesity!).

If we run through the same example again assuming men gain an average of 10 lbs, we can find that obesity prevalence goes up almost 58% even though weight only increased 5.5%!

Both statistics are "true" but they tell very different stories.  

How Important is Food Freedom?

Last night 60 Minutes aired an interview between Anderson Cooper and a gentleman named  Shin Dong-hyuk. Shin was born in captivity in North Korea and had never experienced life outside the prison compound much less North Korea.  Shin eventually came into contact with a prisoner who had lived on the outside and it opened his eyes to new possibilities.  I found this exchange between Cooper and Shin remarkable:

Shin: The most important thought was that a prisoner like me could eat chicken and pork if I were able to escape the barbed wires. 
Cooper: I've heard people define freedom in many ways. I've never heard anyone define it as broiled chicken. 
Shin: I still think of freedom in that way.
Cooper: Really?! That's what freedom means to you?
Shin: People can eat what they want. It could be the greatest gift from God. 
Cooper.: You were ready to die just to get a good meal?
Shin: Yes.

One might have thought it was the regular beatings or the forced witness to murder that would have motivated Shin to escape.  But the biggest driver seemed to be his desire to freely eat.  

My TEDx talk is up

If you care to watch my TEDx talk from a couple weeks back, it is now up.  I'm not sure why the organizers gave it the title they did, but the talk is really about food innovation, food prices, and the poor.

Oklahoma State University Professor Jayson Lusk researches many aspects of the economics of food health, safety and quality. Lusk points out in his TEDxOStateU talk that an ideology that blanket-rejects "unnatural" food is one that will ultimately doom us to poverty.