French sterotypes busted

This new paper in the American Journal of Agricultural Economics (coauthored by French and American agricultural economists)  is likely to bust a few sterotypes many Americans have about French eating patterns.  The abstract starts by tackling the first sterotype: that if we Americans would all just eat like the French, we'd be thin and healthy.

“Limited access to healthy food is commonly regarded as a contributing factor to poor dietary choices. The objective of this article is to test this hypothesis in a French context given France’s increasing obesity rates and incidence of poor dietary habits.”

Poor dietary habits among the French? Surely not!  Joking aside, i tis true that French obesity rates are below that in the US, but the trends are similar.  Actually, in the US, the upward trend has leveled off.  But the fact remains, there isn't that much difference between what French and American consumers like to eat.

Secondly, the French must be better eaters because of their frequent trips to all those quaint shops and farmers markets - right?  The paper:   

“our results, which indicate that fewer but larger retail outlets increase the odds of consuming the recommended level of fruit and vegetables.”

So, it seems that that Frechmen and Frenchwomen who eat recommended levels of fruits and vegetables are more likely to do so by getting them in large retail outlets like supermarkets.  

All in all, I think many Americans conflate the images they see on vacations to touristy spots in Paris or Nice for what is typical of everyday living in France.  But, even when I vacation within the US, I tend to eat and shop much differently than I do when living "regularly" back home.  That's why its important to augment our anecdote experiences with data.  

Obesity policy

“This commentary argues that lack of knowledge in both the scientific community and popular press regarding possible solutions carries over to public health advocates engaged in proposing government policies attempting to lower population weight. Market-based solutions are argued to be imperfect, but continued experimentation and scrutiny from paying customers interested in weight loss ensures progress toward developing effective solutions.”

That's from Michael Marlow in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons

TSE Economist weighs in on nutrient taxes

In the most recent issue of the Toulouse School of Economics (TSE) Magazine (pg 8) features some work by Vincent Requillart and Celine Bonnet on ability of nutrient taxes (like soda taxes) to fight obesity. 

Soda and sugar taxes don't always have the anticipated effect:

“The fact that we take into account the way the industry and retailers react via their pricing decisions. Most research assumes that the tax is passed on to the consumer. There’s no reason that should be the case! Firms are not passive, they develop strategies. They can raise prices more than is strictly necessary to cover the tax or, on the contrary, reduce their profit margins so as to maintain their sales.”

The point out that the effects of a sugared-soda tax are small, and that the actual policy passed in France (taxing all sweetened drinks - even those with artificial sweeteners) would not be expected to reduce weight.

“Taxing all drinks, be they sugar-sweetened or light, is counter to health recommendations. In practical terms, the tax implemented does not reach its goal of reducing sugar consumption. It acts primarily as an instrument to increase the State’s budget revenue.”

They seem to favor voluntary arrangements between food companies and the government to reduce sugar and salt content.  Even still, in places like the UK, where such an approach has been taken, the effect appears to be virtually nil.

“Having said that, despite all the measures implemented, obesity has not been eliminated. ”

One of the challenges is the complexity of it all

“ In the case of food, defining what is good and what is bad when dealing with a large number of nutrients, is complex.What’s more, eating habits change very slowly.”

For a more in depth and academic treatment of the topic, you might check out some of the published work by these authors.

New Dietary Guidelines

The federal committee that makes dietary guidelines and recommendations has just released their newest report.  As expected, they've incorporated "sustainability" objectives and have recommended a move away from meat eating.  I've previously commented on the the problem with a single committee making both nutritional and sustainability recommendations, and I had a piece in the Wall Street Journal on environmental impacts of meat production.   Now we can take a look at what's actually been proposed.

Here's one tidbit from a Washington Post summary on the issue.

““We’re not saying that people need to become vegans,” said Miriam Nelson, a professor at Tufts University and one of the committee’s members. “But we are saying that people need to eat less meat.”

The panel’s findings, which were released to the public in the form on a 572 page report this afternoon, specifically recommend that Americans be kinder to the environment by eating more plant-based foods and fewer animal-based foods. The panel is confident that the country can align both health goals and environmental aims, but warns that the U.S. diet, as currently constructed, could improve.”

Other conservative news sources point to some pretty heavy handed portions of the report.  The Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC):  

“called for diet and weight management interventions by “trained interventionists” in healthcare settings, community locations, and worksites.”

"Interventionists" is the right word here, but rarely are interventionists so forthcoming in their intentions.They also want to tax foods, limit speech, and monitor TV use.   

“DGAC also called for policy interventions to “reduce unhealthy options,” limit access to high calorie foods in public buildings, “limit the exposure” of advertisements for junk food, a soda tax, and taxing high sugar and salt items and dessert.

“Align nutritional and agricultural policies with Dietary Guidelines recommendations and make broad policy changes to transform the food system so as to promote population health, including the use of economic and taxing policies to encourage the production and consumption of healthy foods and to reduce unhealthy foods,” its report read.

“For example, earmark tax revenues from sugar-sweetened beverages, snack foods and desserts high in calories, added sugars, or sodium, and other less healthy foods for nutrition education initiatives and obesity prevention programs.”

The amount of sedentary time Americans spend in front of computers and TV sets is also a concern to the federal panel.”

If you think this is a one-off isolated example, you haven't been paying attention.

Change in the way we talk about obesity

On Saturday night, NBC aired a re-run of an old episode of Saturday Night Live.  It is one of my favorites that I vividly remembering watching as a teenager when it originally aired back in 1990.  

There is one scene where Chris Farley and Patrick Swayze compete for a spot as a Chippendales dancer.  Watching it now, 25 years later, I was struck at how frank some of the discussion surrounding Farley's weight was at the end, and how, today, it would almost certainly cause offense among some. 

Here's some of the back and forth:

“Barney, we all agreed that your dancing was great and your presentation was very sexy. I guess in the end, we all thought Adrian’s body was just much, much better than yours . . . You see it’s just at at Chippendales our dancers have traditionally had that lean, muscular physique, where yours is fat and flabby
...
Adrian: If you’re really serious about going with me, it can only be because his body is so bad.
...
Barney, we considered the possibility that our heavieir females might consider a heavy, heavier man that they could identify with”

It's comedy, and it's funny.  But, now a quarter century later, I suspect many would see it as inappropriate.  It is now routine to see academic articles on stigma and shame associated with obesity.  On the one hand, it seems that it is  a topic that has been the news a lot over the past 25 years, and perhaps that has changed perceptions of the issue.  I'm also reminded of the controversy surrounding Jonathan Chait's piece in New York Magazine on the rise of politically correct speech.  Or, maybe I'm just getting old and  now pick up on greater sensitivities than I did when I was 15.

We've all probably read of the rising toll of obesity, but while it often seems the discussion about the issue has ramped up, maybe some of that is just availability or confirmation bias.  For example, drawing on a couple CDC data sources, we can see that the mean weight of men aged 40-49 has increased by about 13 lbs since 1990.  For women aged 40-49, it's about 16 lbs.  So, yes we're somewhat heavier on average.

I was interested to see that according to google's ngram viewer (which shows the relative prevalence of a word in books over time), there's only been a slight uptick in writing that uses the word "obesity" over time.

That data set ends in 2008.  What about searchers of the word "obesity".  Here's googletrends on that one since 2004 (the earliest start date it will allow).

We seem to have changed how much we're talking about obesity.  I wonder if the nature of the conversation has changed too?