Optimal fat tax

In the Washington Post article Catherine Rampell raises an important point with regard to the emerging debate over whether to tax soda.  

“Instead of arbitrarily singling out one category of bad foodstuff for taxation — and the categories of bad foodstuffs will always be somewhat arbitrary — a more effective route to reducing consumption of excessive sugar or calories might be a universal, graduated sugar or calorie tax.

But even that still doesn’t quite seem fair or, for that matter, efficient. After all, a calorie tax would also hit people who consume more calories because they are very active, such as marathoners. Besides being regressive, a tax on calories or sugar would also effectively, if unintentionally, make it more expensive for trim people to exercise.

In other words, a lot of inputs go into determining whether a person is obese. Taxing some of those inputs distorts the relative prices of those inputs, but it doesn’t necessarily change the desired output: obesity rates.

Which raises the question: Why not just target the output, rather than some random subset of inputs? We could tax obesity if we wanted to. Or if we want to seem less punitive, we could award tax credits to obese people who lose weight. A tax directly pegged to reduced obesity would certainly be a much more efficient way to achieve the stated policy goal of reducing obesity.”

Yet, people don't seem to like the idea of a fat-person tax.  Why not?

“Maybe it’s because they’re regressive (but so are soda taxes). Maybe it’s because it sounds like we’re shaming fat people (but arguably so does any policy aimed at reducing obesity). Maybe it just feels unfair to tax people based in any way on their genes, which, like diet and exercise, can also be a determinant of weight.

But if we assume it’s impossible for obese people to lose weight by any combination of inputs they do have control over, it’s hard to simultaneously argue that making one of those inputs more expensive could lead to some nationwide weight-loss miracle. Pop goes the pop-tax rationale.”

Synthetic biology

This is the third installment in my effort to share some photos associated Unnaturally Delicious (by the way, I noticed today that the book was reviewed by Nadia Berenstein for Popular Science).

In the fourth chapter, I talk about synthetic biology.

“If yeast can convert sugar to alcohol, what else can it do? As it turns out, yeast is more than just an alcohol factory. Yeasts can eat up sugars to make flavors, fats, and fuels. And more. Yeast can make whatever its instructions tell it to make. By instructions, I mean the yeast’s genetic code, or DNA.”

When people think about biotechnology and "GMOs" they tend to think about big chemical and pharmaceutical companies, but as I reveal, even teenagers and young adults are getting in on the action.  

“Some of the most exciting developments in food bioengineering aren’t even among the Silicon Valley–like start-ups. They’re being conceived by kids who haven’t even finished high school or college. For more than a decade students around the globe have been assembling for an annual competition once hosted by MIT but now put on by the nonprofit International Genetically Engineered Machine (iGEM) Foundation. iGEM has become the premier competition in synthetic biology for graduate, undergraduate, and high school students”

I talked to a team from the City University of Hong Kong who made a pro-biotic to fight obesity (the modified bacteria "eats" undesirable fat and turns it into more desirable omega 3 fatty acid).  I also talked to the prize winning team from UC Davis who created a bacteria to test for rancid olive oil.  

“According to Ritz, as much as 70 percent of the olive oil imported into the United States is rancid by the time it reaches the consumer. Rancid oil has gone stale. It isn’t necessarily harmful or even bad tasting to the average consumer. In fact, the UC Davis team conducted some blind tastes with consumers and found that many people actually preferred the rancid oil to fresh oil—perhaps because it is what they have become so accustomed to eating. Ritz said that fresh olive oil creates a tingling feeling in the throat—a phenomenon unfamiliar to many American consumers. Being habituated to blander, stale oil has its costs. Rancid oil does not have the same healthy compounds—like antioxidants—that are associated with fresh olive oil.”

Here are some photos of that taste test and the entire UC Davis team.  

Econ Talk

I've long been a fan of the podcast EconTalk, so it was an honor to join the long list of illustrious guests that have been on the program.  You can hear my conversation with Russ Roberts, along with the transcript and other links here.

Coming to a kitchen near you

The 3rd chapter in Unnaturally Delicious is "Hewlett Packard with a Side of Fries", and it illustrates some of the ways food technologies are changing the kitchen - namely 3D food printers and robotic cooks.   

“For about a thousand bucks, it is already possible to buy a kit that can print food, according to Hod Lipson, a robotics and engineering professor at Columbia University; he heads up a project that makes Fab@home, a 3-D printer.2 It isn’t exactly the food replicator used by Captain Kirk, but 3-D food printing and robotic chefs are moving us a few small steps in that direction.”

Here's an image of a commercial model from a company called Natural Machines which sells the so-called Foodini. 

You can find some really cool photos of printed foods from this article at Nature News or check out these awesome candy creations.

Want to hand the cooking duties completely over to someone (or something) else?

“Mark Oleynik and his company, Moley Robotics, unveiled a prototype robot cook at the world’s largest industrial fair in the spring of 2015. The robot turned out perfectly prepared crab bisque. Perfect because the robotic arms were programmed to follow—in every way—the movements of a celebrity chef, Tim Anderson, who had won the British version of the reality television cooking competition Master Chef.”

Here it is in action (for more see here).

Choosing to cook - or not

Salon just published a piece I wrote on how technology has changed our farms and kitchens.

Here are a few excerpts:

“According to a new Netflix series based on Michael Pollan’s book “Cooked,” we should all head back to the kitchen and relish in the joys of home cooking. It’s not necessarily bad advice. There is an inherent dignity in seeing the fruits of one’s labor immediately enjoyed by friends and family. But good advice for one doesn’t always make good advice for all, particularly when it comes to food policy, which Pollan has attempted to change. That cooking, and in a particular manner and philosophy, should be a pressing issue for most households is presumptive at best.

Amid the lofty goals of the leaders of the so-called food movement runs an undercurrent of food philosophy and politics that undermines our food freedoms and prosperity. While recognizing that our modern foodstuffs, from wheat to corn, are unnatural human creations, there is a sense in which our more modern innovations – from microwaves to biotechnology – are nefarious plots of Big Food that are to blame for current problems as diverse as obesity and soil runoff.”

and

“Often missed in the discussion of food futures is an accurate depiction of what’s actually happening today on the farm. Rural entrepreneurship and technological adoption are having profound impacts on farmers’ fields and on our dinner plates. A closer look reveals a fundamentally different view of the future of food based on the idea that innovation and technological advancement are not opposed to sustainability but rather are the key ingredients.”

In conclusion:

“Change is scary. But what’s the alternative? Eating like our grandparents? We can aspire to something more.”