Blog

Assorted Links

Whole Foods and Trader Joe's sued​ (also don't miss the last paragraph on bacterial contamination of organic vs non-organic)

Evolution of agricultural practices apparently had a long-term effect on views about gender 

Teenagers with high blood pressure appear to have better psychological adjustment and enjoy higher quality of life than those with normal blood pressure (file this under correlations don't equal causation)

A positive externality from obesity?​ (gaining weight leads to more thoughtful decision making?)

Salt, Sugar, Fat

That's the title of Michael Moss's new book which, a few weeks back, was on top of the New York Times best seller list.  ​

I debated Moss last week on the Michael Medved show and the discussion of his book and mine is set to air sometime next week (I will post a link when it is available).​

In the meantime, you can read some of my thoughts about his book in my newest piece over at Townhall.com.​  Here are some excerpts:

Moss reveals a shocking secret: food manufacturers diligently and deliberately try to make foods we like to eat; foods that are alluring and tempting. If food companies aren’t doing that I’m not sure why they exist. Martha Stewart, Mark Bittman, and Paula Dean don’t explicitly refer to the science of bliss points in their kitchens but you can bet they intuitively know how much sugar is too little and how much is too much. Their published recipes almost certainly reflect hundreds of attempts to find the ingredient combinations that taste best.

and

Despite their supposed prowess in food science and advertising, Moss barely alludes to the fact that food companies normally fail. Yet, his own statistics, offered in passing, reveals that two-thirds of all new food products fail to survive on the market after the first few months. But, this isn’t a side-line fact. It is key evidence against his argument that food companies are foisting anything they want on gullible consumers.

​in conclusion:

 There is, however, one sentiment of Moss’s that I can whole heartedly endorse, and it is his last: “They may have salt, sugar, and fat on their side, but we, ultimately, have the power to make choices. After all, we decide what to buy. We decide how much to eat.”
If you want the Food Giants to sell healthier food, then buy their salads, wraps, and low-fat alternatives. Pointing the finger at Food Giants may sell books but it doesn’t absolve us of the responsibility to choose wisely for ourselves.

​Read the whole thing here.

The New Food Police Are Out of Touch

That's the title of my piece that ran today at TIME.com.  ​

Here are a few excerpts:​

We can be thankful that these folks have reminded us of the joys of cooking, of fresh food, and the long term health of our families and the environment. The resurgence of farmers’ markets and the availability of heirloom tomatoes, free-range eggs, and organics owe at least some of their success to the food movement they’ve backed.
But somewhere along the way, the values of convenience and thrift took a backseat.

Here is the conclusion:

If one is looking for good advice on how to eat and cook well, the food elite have a lot to offer. The trouble comes when their pronouncements take the form of dictates and regulation that we all must heed regardless of our tastes, incomes, or time constraints, and when they deviate telling good stories and divining tasty recipes to projecting the medical and economic consequences of federal food policy that impacts us all.


Why I'm an Economist and Not a Psychologist

​This quote from Michael Moss's book Salt, Sugar, Fat accurately sums up one of the main reasons I see economic analysis as preferable to psychological explanations (and it is one of the main reasons I often prefer non-hypothetical economic experiments to hypothetical surveys).

Pg. 150: “There is not a lot to be gained from asking people why they like something because they don’t bloody know.”  - Fancis McGlone, former Unilever scientist