Obesity Stigmatization

A couple weeks, I engaged in a little kerfuffle over the role of personal responsibility in diet and health.

There I wrote:

But, didn't Moss just spend the preceding ~300 pages trying to convince us that our food choices are out of our control - that we are "hooked" - and that we are little match for the teams of scientists and advertisers employed by Big Food?  The implicit implication seems to be that consumers need a more powerful third party - the government - to constrain Big Food - because these are matters beyond our control.  

That's a story of helplessness - of victimization.  And whether they mean it nor not, narratives such as this can be demotivating.

To advocate people take personal responsibility for their food choices - as I have - is a message of empowerment.

Parke is right that some of the "food police" also encourage (and practice) personal responsibility, but I contend that much of their writing and their policy advocacy undermines their own message.

Today, I ran across an article in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology  that provides empirical evidence related to the phenomenon I mentioned.  The abstract:

America's war on obesity has intensified stigmatization of overweight and obese individuals. This experiment tested the prediction that exposure to weight-stigmatizing messages threatens the social identity of individuals who perceive themselves as overweight, depleting executive resources necessary for exercising self-control when presented with high calorie food. Women were randomly assigned to read a news article about stigma faced by overweight individuals in the job market or a control article. Exposure to weight-stigmatizing news articles caused self-perceived overweight women, but not women who did not perceive themselves as overweight, to consume more calories and feel less capable of controlling their eating than exposure to non-stigmatizing articles. Weight-stigmatizing articles also increased concerns about being a target of stigma among both self-perceived overweight and non-overweight women. Findings suggest that social messages targeted at combating obesity may have paradoxical and undesired effects.

Sustainable Kidnapping

Even kidnappers are becoming sustainable

Chemicals in Food

From Infographics (HT Alex Tabarrok at Marginal Revolution)

The comments at the Marginal Revolution site are interesting.  Reminds me a bit of my survey results showing that most people thought added salt was "natural" but added sodium chloride was not.

Fat Taxes

Two recent students on "fat taxes" have emerged in the economics sphere.

Here is the abstract of a paper by Chen Zen and colleagues in the American Journal of Agricultural Economics

A censored Exact Affine Stone Index incomplete demand system is estimated for 23 packaged foods and beverages and a numéraire good. Instrumental variables are used to control for endogenous prices. A half-cent per ounce increase in sugar-sweetened beverage prices is predicted to reduce total calories from the 23 foods and beverages but increase sodium and fat intakes as a result of product substitution. The predicted decline in calories is larger for low-income households than for high-income households, although welfare loss is also higher for low-income households. Neglecting price endogeneity or estimating a conditional demand model significantly overestimates the calorie reduction.

Here is an exerpt of an NBER working paper by Harding and Lovenheim

Our main finding is that nutrient-specific taxes have much larger effects on nutrition than do the product-specific taxes we study. However, they do not cost more in terms of consumer utility. While a 20% soda tax reduces sugar purchases by 10.35%, it only reduces overall caloric intake by 4.84%. Taxing packaged meals actually increases slightly overall caloric intake, even though this product group is the unhealthiest per serving. Taxing snacks/candy also has at most small impacts on the purchased nutritive bundle.

In contrast, taxing nutrients has large impacts on nutrition without producing larger welfare losses than product-specific taxes, largely because of the broad-based nature of these taxes. Among the three nutrient-specific taxes, sugar taxes stand out as particularly effective. A 20% sugar tax reduces sugar consumption by 16.41% while also reducing caloric intake by 18.54% and salt consumption by 9.63%. Consumer indirect utility declines by 2.6% as a result, which is very similar to the utility cost of a soda tax and SSB tax.

Two points.

First, both these studies show certain kinds of taxes can have some effect on intake (although often in less than anticipated ways). However, even the most effective taxes (in both studies) causes consumer welfare to fall - although these are rarely discussed in dollar terms.

Second, we already have something akin to a sugar tax - farm policies that include production allotments, quotas, and trade restrictions which make sugar 2 to 3 times more expensive in the US compared to the rest of the world. Of course, we also subsidize corn, which makes HFCS relatively less expensive. Here is a nice paper by John Beghin and Helen Jensen on some of the economics of sugar policies.

Effects of sub-therapeutic antibiotics on efficiency of hog farms

From a recent article appearing in the American Journal of Agricultural Economics by USDA economists Nigel Key and William McBride:

A substantial share of U.S. hog producers incorporate antimicrobial drugs into their livestock's feed or water at sub-therapeutic levels to promote feed efficiency and weight gain. Recently, in response to concerns that the overuse of antibiotics in livestock could promote the development of antimicrobial drug-resistant bacteria, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration adopted a strategy to phase out the use of antibiotics for production purposes. This study uses a stochastic frontier model and data from the 2009 USDA Agricultural Resource Management Survey of feeder-to-finish hog producers to estimate the potential effects on hog output and output variability resulting from a ban on antibiotics used for growth promotion. We use propensity score nearest neighbor matching to create a balanced sample of sub-therapeutic antibiotic (STA) users and nonusers. We estimate the frontier model for the pooled sample and separately for users and non-users—which allows for a flexible interaction between STA use and the production technology. Point estimates for the matched sample indicate that STA use has a small positive effect on productivity and production risk, increasing output by 1.0–1.3% and reducing the standard deviation of unexplained output by 1.4%. The results indicate that improvements in productivity resulted exclusively from technological improvement rather than from an increase in technical efficiency.

Now, that doesn't mean sub-therapeutic antibiotics should be used in animal agriculture, but this does provide one estimate of the benefits that can be compared against the potential costs that might arise as a result of resistance, etc.