Blog

Ham

I dare anyone to find a funnier video of an animal protein being featured in song and dance

​

Next Week

After a long wait my newest book, The Food Police​, is set for official release this coming Tuesday (April 16).  

In case you're wanting to tune into any of the media coverage surrounding the release, here is a partial list television, radio, and other interviews I'll be giving in the next week or two.  Needless to say, I'll be a bit busy - so blog posts may be less regular than usual.  

TV

4/15/13                FOX News-TV  “Sean Hannity”

4/17/13                MSNBC-TV "Now w/Alex Wagner”

National Radio:

04/16/13                Westwood One Radio Network - Dennis Miller Show

04/16/13                Talk Radio Network "Rusty Humphries Show"

04/16/13                WABC-AM - John Batchelor Show

04/17/13                Dennis Prager Show

04/19/13                WCBQ-AM / WHNC-AM - Alvin Jones Show

04/22/13                WMUZ "Bob Dutko Show"

Regional Radio:

04/16/13                 WNYC-AM & FM - Brian Lehrer Show–NY - New York

04/16/13                 WTIC News Talk 1080–radio interview (CBS) -CT - Hartford

04/18/13                 Wisconsin Public Radio - Conversations w/ Joy Cardin– WI - Wisconsin

04/19/13                 Richmond's Morning News w/Jimmy Barrett"–VA - Richmond

04/19/13                 WRVA-AM "Richmond's Morning News"– VA - Richmond

04/22/13                KPDQ "Georgene Rice Show"–OR - Portland

04/22/13                WINA-AM "The Schilling Show"–VA – Virginia

Other:

04/16/13                WSJ.com/opinion–podcast interview w/Mary Kissel

04/17/13                Newsmax–Video Interview, will post online

04/16/13                Huffington Post–Slide show

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

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?

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.