Research on The (lack of) Effectiveness of Bloomberg's Large Soda Ban

April 11, 2013

Much has been written about the merits or demerits of Bloomberg's large soda ban (here was my recent take on it in the New York Daily News).

However, there has been much less actual research conducted to determine whether such restrictions might curb consumption or on how retailers might respond. Well, some researchers from UC San Diego conducted a small scale study on the issue that was just published in the journal PLoS One.

What they showed is that food companies can get around the ban by offering bundles of smaller-sized drinks and that people respond in kind by buying more soda! The study reminds me of what happened when San Francisco tried to ban giving away toys in Happy Meals; McDonalds decided to instead sell them for a very low price ($0.10).

That's the problem with a lot of these regulations - people and companies find a way around them in ways that the regulator couldn't envision and, as this PLos ONE study shows, it might even lead to weight gains. It's like squeezing a balloon - the air doesn't leave it just moves to a different place. Banning large soda or Happy Meal toys doesn't diminish demand for these items, it just causes people to seek out alternative means to get them.

Here is the study abstract:

Objectives

We examined whether a sugary drink limit would still be effective if larger-sized drinks were converted into bundles of smaller-sized drinks.

Methods

In a behavioral simulation, participants were offered varying food and drink menus. One menu offered 16 oz, 24 oz, or 32 oz drinks for sale. A second menu offered 16 oz drinks, a bundle of two 12 oz drinks, or a bundle of two 16 oz drinks. A third menu offered only 16 oz drinks for sale. The method involved repeated elicitation of choices, and the instructions did not mention a limit on drink size.

Results

Participants bought significantly more ounces of soda with bundles than with varying-sized drinks. Total business revenue was also higher when bundles rather than only small-sized drinks were sold.

Conclusions

Our research suggests that businesses have a strong incentive to offer bundles of soda when drink size is limited. Restricting larger-sized drinks may have the unintended consequence of increasing soda consumption rather than decreasing it.

While the study findings are intriguing, it must be said that the study is far from perfect. For example, the study involves a bunch of college students making a number of hypothetical choices. I'd much prefer to see an experiment where people actually had to pay (and eat) what they bought. Moreover, as the study authors readily acknowledge, the study doesn't reveal whether people would actually drink both sodas or just give one to a friend, nor did it differentiate between diet or full calorie soda. Thus, there appears to be fertile ground for additional research.

Who to Blame for Obesity?

April 10, 2013

The journal Appetite just accepted a paper I wrote with Brenna Ellison at the University of Illinois. The paper reports on a survey we conducted with about 800 Americans, whom we asked who they though was primarily, somewhat, or not to blame for obesity.

From the abstract:

Respondents were asked to place each of seven entities (food manufacturers,grocery stores, restaurants, government policies, farmers, individuals, and parents) into three categories: primarily, somewhat, and not to blame for the rise in obesity. Eighty percent said individuals were primarily to blame for the rise in obesity. Parents were the next-most blameworthy group, with 59% ascribing primary blame. Responses fell along three dimensions related to individual responsibility, agribusiness responsibility, and government-farm policy. A number of individual-specific factors were associated with perceptions of blame. For example, individuals with a more statist score on the economic political ideology scale were more likely to blame the government and agribusiness for obesity.

Here are a few quotes from the literature-review section of the paper.

A criticism of the personal-responsibility perspective is that it can potentially lead to the stigmatization of the obese and result in depression and other psychological and physical problems . . .

yet, because research shows that the overweight have some of the most negative opinions about overweightedness . . .

the very people purportedly being stigmatized are also among the same group of people responsible for the alleged stigmatizing.

and

Although individual-blame beliefs can produce adverse consequences related to stigmatization, less widely acknowledged is that viewing obesity as a result of a toxic food environment or other non-individual factors can lead to perceptions of victimization, which can be de-motivating and lead its own set of psychological problems. For example, Wang and Coups (2010) showed that individuals who felt genetics (a non-controllable factor) were a significant cause of obesity were less likely to exercise and eat fruits and vegetables as compared to those who felt individual lifestyle behaviors had “a lot to do” with causing obesity.

Assorted Links

April 9, 2013

The growing world of pseudo-scientific journals

The myth of the Paleo diet

A review of my book (coming out April 16) in the Pittsburgh Tribune Review (skip to the bottom of the article)

The challenge of local meat

Were Statistics on Food-borne Illnesses Manipulated for Political Reasons?

April 8, 2013

That seems to be the implication of a couple blog posts by Richard Raymond in his meatingplace.com blog. Raymond isn't just some lackey - he is the former USDA undersecretary of agriculture for food safety.

In his first post, Raymond pointed out that:

. . . it seems the CDC is reluctant to come right out and say that [our food is safer today than fiver years ago]. In fact, they have qualifiers advising people not to make that assumption.

Could the reason be that there needed to be data to support the new FSMA?

Before the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) was passed, the CDC, politicians and food safety advocates all quoted the CDC report that claimed 72 million Americans fell sick to a foodborne illness every year.

Within a week after the FSMA was signed into law, CDC had adjusted that number to 48 million, but said to draw no conclusions as to an increasingly safe food supply because they used different “multipliers”, etc.

Now it is down to 9.4 million foodborne illnesses caused by “known pathogens.”

In his second post, Raymond went further:

Is data manipulated? Remember all those Iraqi weapons of mass destruction we saw pictures of and form you own conclusion.

Is data manipulated? How did we suddenly go from an estimated 72 million Americans suffering a foodborne illness per year to just 48 million within one week of signing the Food Safety Modernization Act into law.

and

Are there hidden agendas in DC? Most are pretty open if you read between the lines, and the agendas have been heavily discussed and debated during election campaigns, etc.

I personally think the bigger hidden agendas sometimes involve persons and/or groups wanting to reduce or do away with the consumption of meat under the disguise of promoting animal welfare and food safety. . . .