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. 

An Interview with Meatingplace

The latest issue of Meatingplace magazine features a cover with yours truly.  ​The inside (gated; but free to those who register) contains an interview I had with the editor and it mainly focuses on my book The Food Police, which comes out April 15.  

Here are a few excerpts from the interview:​

Meatingplace: Why did you decide to write "The Food Police" and whom are you hoping to reach?

LUSK: This book is for anyone who watches the Food Network, anyone who has read (Michael Pollan's) "The Omnivore's Dilemma" or watched "Food Inc." I wrote this book because I feel the state of food and agriculture is being distorted and there needs to be a voice out there countering a lot of what was being presented. I describe a lot of what's good about agriculture, and I describe a lot of the unintended consequences and sometimes outright craziness of policies that have been proposed.

and

Meatingplace: What is your view on the local food movement?

LUSK: I have a bit of a nuanced view. I fully support farmers markets and supporting local farmers. What I take issue with is this idea that somehow this activity in and of itself is virtuous and that it should be subsidized by farm-to-school programs. There are people like Michael Pollan who say we should have rules that schools and hospitals that receive public funding have to source a certain percentage of their food from a certain radius. I take issue with this sort of regulation of localism.

and

Meatingplace: What is your take on the politics of food regulations?

LUSK: We have a culture in which the consumer's first thought when there's a problem is to turn to the government rather than the people selling them the product. That's a problem.

A lot of politicians and a lot of the people we call the "food police" have good intentions. It's just that they don't think about the consequences or at least appreciate some of the unintended consequences. And they don't have the knowledge of the industry to know how these things are going to work out.

We all want safe food. We all want high-quality food. And I think part of what I'm trying to do by writing a book and other things is to try to help them understand that the market helps provide those things. 

There's quite a bit more in the magazine.​

Myths, Lies and Complete Supidity

That was the title of John Stossel's special on Fox News that first aired on Sunday.​  His first segment was on food, any yours truly appears at about the 2:40 mark.

Bloomberg's soda ban fizzles

That was the title of the editorial I just published at the New York Daily News. The editor added the subtitle "The mayor's paternalism knows no bounds."

Here are a few excerpts:​

Tuesday was set to be the last day to legally buy a large sugary soda in the Big Apple. Fortunately, a state judge stepped in late Monday to halt the ban — but not before the mayor’s attitude toward his fellow New Yorkers was exposed.

The leaders of a vibrant city that is home to some of the most diverse and creative people on Earth no longer have faith in the decision-making abilities of their fellow citizens. At least, that is, when it comes to food.

and

This schizophrenic paternalism results from an awkward attempt to walk a fine line between a liberal agenda that yields to, even celebrates, freedom of choice and expression when it comes to abortion, sex, speech and drugs — but stops far short when those same freedoms might benefit evil corporations.

It is an odd position that posits us so weak as to fall for anything offered by Ronald McDonald or Tony the Tiger yet so strong to know when to keep a baby alive or which truths to speak to power.

I even worked in a little economics:

And exactly how is it that New York City's leaders envision a large sugary soda ban actually benefitting the people who buy Pepsi and Coca-Cola? By removing an alternative some people previously preferred, the ban is simply making people pick a lesser desirable (and thus less satisfying) alternative. Moreover, those alternatives, whether it be fruit juice or beer, may not be any less calorie-dense.

What about soda taxes that may be coming down the pike? Most economists will tell you that making people pay higher prices is akin to reducing their income. Last I checked, no one — particularly not the lower-income people about whom most politicians profess to be concerned — is better off with less money.

In conclusion:

Better drink 'em while you still got 'em

The whole thing is online here.