You might be the food police if . . .

It has now been over a year since my book, the Food Police, came out.  Despite the bad luck of it coming out on the day the Boston bombing happened (resulting in a slew of cancelled TV/radio appearances), it has been a fun ride.

I've had a lot of feedback.  Some positive, some negative.  As if to prove a point about the slowness of the academic publishing world, I've noticed two recent reviews of the book in academically-related publications: one in Agriculture and Human Values and one in Choices magazine.  The tone of these reviews are a more negative than many of the others' I've seen, I suspect in part because this book wasn't geared for an academic audience per se and because the book takes issue with a lot of the presumptions that academics have about our ability to know what policies and choices will make people better off.

In any event, these reviews remind me of a common question I get from people that tend to be more critical of the book's message: who are the food police?  

I thought the answer was rather obvious (the dedication page says: to those who wish to eat without a backseat driver).  

But, in case it wasn't clear (and apparently it wasn't), perhaps I can have a little fun with the question.  I'll pay tribute to Jeff Foxworthy's "you might be a redneck if . . ." jokes, by offering my own version.  

You might be a member of the food police if . . .

you've ever advocated for a food policy without even considering the costs (much less conducting a serious cost-benefit analysis)

you think "natural" is good and "synthetic" is bad

you've said local foods are good for the environment or the economy

you've claimed organic crop yields are generally higher than non-organic

you thought Bloomberg's ban on large sodas was a "good first step"

you've claimed currently approved GMOs are unsafe to eat

you think added salt is natural but added sodium chloride is not

you think the world would be a better place if people just ate (and farmed) the way you wanted them to

your first response to the mention of a new food problem is a new regulation, tax, ban, or prohibition

you think food and agriculture were, on the whole, better in 1954 than 2014

you think sodas or fast food restaurants or gluten should be banned

you've offered taxpayers a free-lunch (the policy kind, not the food kind)

you believe "corporate greed' is the root cause of every food, health, and environmental problem

you've ever asked "who are the food police?"

O.k., O.k., not as funny as Foxworthy, but I think the point has been made . . .

Big Food = Big Tobacco?

From Politico:

Lawyers are pitching state attorneys general in 16 states with a radical idea: make the food industry pay for soaring obesity-related health care costs.

It’s a move straight from the playbook of the Big Tobacco takedown of the 1990s, which ended in a $246 billion settlement with 46 states, a ban on cigarette marketing to young people and the Food and Drug Administration stepping in to regulate.

Who is behind the action?

McDonald’s [not be be confused with the food company by the same name] law firm has allied with a number of well-known obesity and diabetes researchers, including Barry Popkin at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, Robert Lustig at the University of California San Francisco and economist Frank Chaloupka at the University of Illinois at Chicago, to help hash out the strategy. . . . “We need policy to change,” said Lustig, who recently got a law degree and launched a nonprofit to continue his advocacy. “I think we’re going to have to battle [the food industry] like we battled tobacco.”

Some are skeptical:

James Tierney, director of the National State Attorneys General Program at Columbia Law School and former attorney general of Maine, laughed when asked about the proposal.

“It’s just not going to happen,” said Tierney, who noted that tobacco companies lied about the health effects of their products for decades. “The food industry doesn’t deny that eating lots of food causes obesity.”

Others are cynical:

The proposal drew ire, in part, because it would rely on a contingency fee agreement, which allows a private firm to do legal work for attorneys general offices in exchange for a cut of the settlement. It’s an increasingly common practice because it allows cash-strapped AG offices to tackle expensive litigation without taking as much risk.

“Pay-to-play relationships between [plaintiff’s attorneys and attorneys general] that exchange campaign contributions for lucrative government lawsuit contracts mean the food industry has a big target on its back,” said Lisa Rickard, president of the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform

Is GMO Aversion a Left-Wing Phenomenon?

Amy Harmon recently had another excellent story on GMOs in the New York Times - focusing particularly on Papayas in Hawaii.

The story had the following passage:

Scientists, who have come to rely on liberals in political battles over stem-cell research, climate change and the teaching of evolution, have been dismayed to find themselves at odds with their traditional allies on this issue. Some compare the hostility to G.M.O.s to the rejection of climate-change science, except with liberal opponents instead of conservative ones.

From time to time, I've received some push back on some of the claims in my book, The Food Police, that food technology aversion, and willingness to regulate and restrict food technologies, has roots in the progressive left.  This is, of course, a generalization, and it doesn't not hold in every instance or for every person.  In this particular instance, it appears Harmon supports my claim.

One challenge is that many popular food books (by folks like Pollan, Moss, Warner, etc.) often refrain from specifically mentioning much about policy in the book.  But, then when your see these authors out on the interview circuit, they often talk a lot about policy and advocate all kinds of things.  This has the consequence of their writing appearing more centrist and “ideologically neutral” than is actually the case, and it also lets the authors off the hook by rarely putting them in a position of having to seriously defend their policy proposals.  

Indeed, I did an interview with Minnesota NPR on the Food Police, and I told the host that I didn’t so much disagree with Pollan’s eating advice as his policy advice regarding local foods.  The host (who had previously interviewed Pollan) told me something to the effect that Pollan doesn’t have policy proposals with regard to local food.  Well, that’s just false.  Yes, the Omnivore’s Dilemma or Cooked don’t specifically make policy suggestions, but all you have to do is listen to Pollan’s speeches or watch him on Bill Maher or Bill Moyers, and he has all kinds of policy suggestions (or just read some of his other writings, which plainly offer policy advice).  

It is a mistake to narrowly evaluate Pollan, Moss, et al. strictly based on what they write in their books without also viewing their writing in the larger context of the polices they advocate outside their books.  One also has to pay attention to what they choose to write about and what they choose to omit, and I would argue much of their writing errs by omission.   

I should note that several commentators on the web have chimed in on Harmon's claims of a link between left-leaning politics and aversion to GMO science.

Isaac Chotiner in the New Republic writes:

This story, a news piece which is also pleasingly one-sided (as the evidence demands), is appearing in the most important liberal publication in the country. The liberals who rant about genetically modified food may be pushing a point of view that is objectively as crazy as believing carbon emissions are not causing global warming; but liberals are still more likely (and willing) to get their news from places that tell them the truth. For conservatives who like to claim that Fox News is just a conservative version of The New York Times, ask yourselves this: Could you imagine Fox News running a big, one-sided piece that overwhelmingly discredited global warming deniers? Of course not. (The Times ran another excellent genetically modified food piece last year, also written by Amy Harmon.)

This probably goes some way in explaining why the modern Republican Party and conservative movement frequently seem so much crazier than mainstream liberalism. It's not that people are simply and inherently crazy; they also operate from within crazy bubbles, which is arguably just as dangerous. For this reason, my guess is that over time liberal opposition to genetic engineering will fade away. 

He makes a good point about this piece appearing in the NYT.  One distinction, which I think is missing, is the greater willingness of those on the left to regulate on economic issues, such as GMOs, than those on the right.  Stated differently, there are questions of science: what are the risks of climate change or eating GMOs.  And then there are more normative questions: given said risk, what should we do about it?  Even if the left and the right agreed on the level of risk, I don't think we should expect agreement on political action.  Some (but certainly not all) of the aversion to climate change policies on the right aren't a result of "global warming denialism" but rather skepticism about the government being able to efficiently solve the problem.  My studies on the issue don't reveal huge left-right differences in acceptance of GMOs per se, but rather the difference come in when one gets to the willingness to regulate GMOs.  

In a defense of GMOs from the European left, Leigh Phillips, makes some interesting observations about the politics of the situation:

In the end, what is going on here with opposition to genetic modification is the import into left-wing thinking of the logical fallacy of an ‘appeal to nature’ – the idea that what is found in nature is good and what is synthetic is bad. The origins of this scepticism of science, industry and progress can be found in romanticist counterrevolutionary thought that emerged in the 18th Century in opposition to republican movements. It is a cuckoo’s egg in the nest of the Left.

Transferred to human ecology, the inherent conservatism of this should quickly be revealed: Everything, or everyone – peasant, lord and king – has his place within the ‘natural order’. It is a defence of the status quo against the ‘unintended consequences’ of social programmes by interventionist governments. How alike are the arguments against genetic engineering and ‘social engineering’!

What's the Problem with Personal Responsibility?

Over at the food policy blog, Parke Wilde takes issue with my answer to a question from Dan Koontz at the Casual Kitchen blog.  Or perhaps the issue is that Dan asked the question?  Or, perhaps that I didn't mention Michelle Obama in my answer?  

Parke makes a good point that many folks, including the first lady, advocate personal responsibility.  Indeed, the Let's Move! campaign seems as clear a sign as any that Mrs. Obama is encouraging folks to get off their duffs.

But, Parke also seems to insinuate that somehow this discussion of personal responsibility is aiming at a straw man or lining up and knocking down carnival dolls as Parke puts it.  As if there aren't people out there who use the "lack of personal responsibility" premise as motivation for public policy.  Thus, it might be useful to share a segment from a paper I co-authored in the journal Appetite:

Consumer activist groups and many public health professionals, on the other hand, have repeatedly argued that individuals are powerless to stop the rising tide of obesity; that forces outside their control (in other words, environmental factors) are to blame and are in need of constraint. The following quotations are illustrative of this viewpoint:

•“The obesity crisis would not be solved by treating it as a personal failing on the part of those who weigh too much… We must realize that our predicament cannot be solved through individual action alone.” David Satcher, 16th Surgeon General of the United States (Levi, Segal, & St. Laurent, 2011).

•“Obesity is not merely a matter of individual responsibility. Such suggestions are naive and simplistic.” Bruce Silverglade, Center for Science in the Public Interest (Silverglade, 2004).

•“We’ve got to move beyond personal responsibility.” Margo Wootan, Center for Science in the Public Interest (Balko, 2004).

•“If only it were that simple. The harsh reality is that millions of Americans can’t be trusted to look after their own well-being.” David Lazarus, consumer columnist, Los Angeles Times (Lazarus, 2012).

•“Everyone talks about personal responsibility, and that won’t work here... These are things that have to be done at a governmental level, and government has to get off its ass.” Robert Lustig, pediatric endocrinologist, University of California at San Francisco (Allday, 2012).

These are hardly straw men or women.  

By the way, the title of that paper in Appetite is "Who is to blame for the rise in obesity", and our nationwide consumer survey revealed the following: 

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.

Now, back to Parke's point.

Do some food companies use a "personal responsibility" mantra to try to avoid regulation.  You bet.  But, do some food activists do the reverse to advocate for regulation?  

Which is worse?  

I think there is a problem with the message of many in the food movement on this issue.  It is contradictory and undermines people's volition.  For example, In Michael Moss's book Salt, Sugar, Fat he concludes by saying:

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.

So, there we have it.  Moss apparently advocates personal responsibility.  

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.

Transfat Ban

No doubt most of you have heard by now of the FDA's plans to ban transfats .  I've had a few reporters ask about my thoughts on the issue, so I thought it would be useful to pass them along here.

First, from my reading of the research (and I will admit to being no expert on the issue), it does seem that consumption of "synthetic" transfats have deleterious health effects.  Interestingly, however, a few studies show that "natural" transfats from animal sources may not be as unhealthy, despite having similar chemical compositions as the "synthetic" transfats.  

The question before us isn't whether certain transfats are unhealthy - they are - but rather: what is the government's role in regulating transfats?  The move in recent years to educate the public on the scientific evidence, and even to require labeling of transfats on nutritional facts panels, is reasonable in my opinion given the established safety risks.  And indeed, almost every story I've read on the issue shows that these efforts alone caused a significant voluntary drop in use and consumption of transfats.  The trouble comes when some third party - the FDA in this case - moves from informing public about risks to making the decision for us.  The government has moved from the role of impartial referee conveying the rules of the game to a player in the game picking sides.

Many of the news stories point to the number of "lives saved" if a ban on transfats were implemented.  But, this is misleading when discussed without context.  We could save many more lives each year if the government banned driving.  Many lives could also be saved if we banned alcohol and went back to prohibition.  Skydiving is risky - why not ban that too?  The reasons is that many risk activities convey benefits to the public that must also be considered.  

What are the benefits from the use of tranfats in food?  Taste.  Mouthfeel.  Cost.  Improved shelf life.  What would be the costs of removing transfats?  Higher food prices.  Manufacturers may have to add more sugar or salt or more saturated fat to compensate for the loss of transfats.  The point is that any discussion of the benefits of a ban on transfats must be considered in the context of the costs of the ban.

Even if a ban passed a narrow cost-beneft test, I think we'd also want to ask whether the infringement on freedom of choice can be justified on logical grounds.  Stated differently, where is the market failure? Normally, economists identify market failures if there are price-altering market powers, externalities, public goods, or information asymmetries.  Only the later of these, in my opinion, has any credibility, but with the existence of labels, even that is no justification.  That leaves only one primary motive for the ban: the dim view that the public is unable to properly weight the risks themselves and are in need of paternalistic intervention.  Of course, government officials won't come right out and tell us that their motivation is our perceived ineptitude  because we'd rightly rebel against such a condescending attitude.       

One last point: it seems pretty clear that the provision of information via labels, and resulting consumer demands, induced innovation by food companies to come up with ways to do without transfats.  But, is it possible that a ban could hinder innovation?  As I've already mentioned, all transfats are not created equal.  Is it possible for scientists to develop new fats that convey some of the same beneficial properties as existing "synthetic" transfats without the health risks?  I don't know.  And we may never know if we institute a blanket ban.