Last time we investigated some possible causes of obesity, but, unfortunately, did not come close to finding a definitive answer. To sum up the last post: Agriculture subsidies are inversely correlated, economic freedom and hours worked annually have no discernable relationship with obesity.
So where does this leave us? Back to the questions: Are we just making poor choices at the super market? Why do we make these poor decisions?
First we will consider the body of research that is highlighting people’s addiction to food, followed by our non-physiological incentives to immediately grab white bread and sugary cereal.
As far back as 1949, neurologists began to see obesity as an addiction. Research has shown that reactions in the brain due to food cues, such as sight and smell, trigger the same chemical reaction that drugs induce (Dagher 2009, 30). These food cues “do more than inform the individual about available rewards (reward meaning curing the displeasure of hunger); they energize the individual by creating an incentive state, motivating them to approach and consume food or other rewards with great vigor, a phenomenon that seems to be mediated in large part by dopamine” (Dagher 2009, 31). When we walk by a restaurant or street vendor we have to battle a craving that most of us would associate with a drug addict.
But why do food cues that bombard us daily, whether we are walking down the street or watching TV, usually lead to consumption of unhealthy foods? Shouldn’t we crave healthy food just as much as junk since both will equally satisfy hunger?
This is where the first antagonist of the obesity epidemic rears its head: sodium.
Yalcin Tekol (2006) defines a drug as “any substance that affects living systems” and lists criteria that drugs typically fit:
1. The substance is taken to relieve or avoid withdrawal symptoms.
2. The substance is often taken in larger amounts or over a longer period than was intended
3. There is a persistent desire or unsuccessful efforts to cut down or control substance use.
4. A great deal of time is spent in activities necessary to obtain the substance, use of the substance, or recover from its effects.
5. Important social, occupational, or recreational activities are given up or reduced because of substance use.
6. The substance use is continued despite knowledge of having a persistent or recurrent physical or psychological problem that is likely to have been caused or exacerbated by the substance.
It is shocking how perfectly sodium conforms to these criteria. There are times when I crave junk food, in particular fast food, sort of like withdrawal (1). I eat more salt every day than I know is healthy for me (2 and 6). While I’ve known the health risks associated with too much sodium intake and desire to reduce consumption, I have not acted on this rival impulse (3). And, I think anyone who has inhaled multiple items off of a dollar menu knows about recovering from its effects (4 and 5). Now swap out sodium for sugar or fat and you can see a real problem in the types of foods that we have access to.
The second and equally as influential, in my opinion, puppeteer of the obesity epidemic is poverty.
To steer the poor away from unhealthy foods many people argue for better food stamps and subsidies for healthy foods like fruits and veggies because it is largely assumed that healthy foods are more expensive than unhealthy ones.
I decided to consider this assumption by visiting my local Giant grocery store, where I was greeted by thousands of different foods of varying healthiness to choose from. Whether or not the gross amount of choice available is a bad thing is covered in Barry Schwartz’s book The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less. But, personally I like choice. I find myself to be a maximizer; I stress over many purchases I make, considering all the possible alternatives. When looking to buy a TV or computer this is difficult, but at the grocery store it’s easy, I buy what’s the cheapest because I am a destitute intern and currently a member of the no-income strata of society.
I don’t mind monotony. I eat three different meals for breakfast, lunch and dinner, and eat them every day during the week. I think these meals are relatively healthy and cheap. I eat two eggs and a bowl of whole wheat cereal with skim milk for breakfast, a turkey sandwich and banana for lunch, and some kind of whole wheat pasta dish with ground turkey or chicken and green beans for dinner (think hamburger helper without the hamburger). Boring, yes.
But let’s see if my dull diet meets U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) dietary guidelines, and if not, how much it would cost me to within recommended limits.
Below is a chart showing what the USDA MyPyramid.gov website informs me I need to consume to maintain my current weight (the site also politely mentions that I am over the healthy weight for my gender, age and height) and the costs of my previously stated, brutally uninteresting, diet per day, altered to meet the guidelines. Unit prices from Giant were used, and the USDA nutrient data laboratory is a necessary tool to change ounces into cups for unpackaged goods like apples and bananas to prevent a severe headache caused by slicing or mashing fruits and putting (or jamming?) them into a measuring cup.
Food Type | Recommended Daily Amount |
Grains | 10 ounces |
Vegetables | 4 cups |
Fruits | 2.5 cups |
Milk | 3 cups |
Meat and Beans | 7 ounces |
Meal | Cups/ounces | Cost |
Breakfast | ||
Eggs (2 large) | 3.5 | 0.39 |
Skim milk | 1 | 0.25 |
Guaranteed Value whole wheat flakes | 2 | 0.25 |
Lunch | ||
Giant whole wheat bread (2 slices) | 2 | 0.25 |
Giant sliced turkey (2 slices) | 1.5 | 0.5 |
Banana (1 extra large) | 1 | 0.2 |
Apple | 1.5 | 0.68 |
Dinner (ew what's that?) | ||
Nature's Promise whole wheat pasta elbows | 8 | 0.9 |
Giant canned tomatoes (high in sodium) | 1 | 0.43 |
Perdue ground turkey | 2 | 0.34 |
Giant frozen green beans | 3 | 1.24 |
Glass(es) of skim milk | 2 | 0.5 |
Total | 5.93 |
Changing my diet to meet USDA recommendations transformed a diet that I thought was close to meeting healthy daily intakes of the different food groups, into a regimen that I found unpleasant.
My consumption of meat and beans has always been way over the limit. I put more turkey on my sandwich than I should and I like to add beans to the dinner concoction to make it into chili(?).
Only a masochist could enjoy eating three cups of green beans. I also believe it’s physically impossible, except for maybe Joey Chesnut, but probably not since they aren’t as delicious as hot dogs. Has there ever been a competitive eating contest of something healthy?
Spreading veggie intake throughout the day is my biggest challenge. I could add a salad or different veggie, but for me that is too time consuming. Already tired after work, to come home, prepare a healthy dinner and exercise, well, we all know it’s exhausting. Add feeding and taking care of kids and you have a recipe for TV dinners and take out.
Around $6 a day may not seem terribly expensive but adds up for low-income earners and especially no-income earners like me. According to 2005 census data, 27% of the U.S. population made $25,000 a year or below. Let’s say that you make $25,000. According to the data the mean size of households at this income level was 2.14, so we will say there are two people in this hypothetical household. This family would spend $4,380 to feed themselves a sort of healthy diet like mine or 17.5% of their income.
This is a huge proportion of their income. I spend $1920 a year on using the metro alone. With rent, gas and car insurance, just to name a few types of monthly payments, I see why people begin to cut corners when it comes to their diet.
So where can we cut corners? Unhealthy foods are cheaper. While it would just be a bad decision to buy a bag of French fries over frozen veggies, buying white bread would save me a whole dollar. The whole wheat pasta would also go, followed by apples next. Fresh veggies are almost double the cost of their frozen counterparts and forget about anything organic or reduced fat. Tim Hartford reveals in The Undercover Economist why organic apples aren’t placed next to their non-organic alternatives: the price shock would be too much. The most expensive ground beef is always the leanest 97/3 cut.
Not only are we addicted to unhealthy foods packed with sodium, sugar and fat, they are the only thing we can afford. Imagine what would happen to a heroin addict who could afford an infinite supply of the vice. Well, that person would probably overdose, which is quite literally what we are doing with junk food.
What can be done?
Perhaps another addictive habit with high health risks is the most appropriate to consider: smoking.
The health risks associated with smoking took many years to self-actualize. This is not unlike health risks associated with certain types of food, however, opinion against junk food, which all evidence shows will kill you, has yet to reach critical mass.
While comparing smoking to eating has its obvious inconsistencies, the impact of regulation is the most important aspect to examine and has been considered by many economists.
One response to discourage smoking by state governments has been to increase taxes on cigarettes. Michael Marlow (2010) shows that government expenditure on tobacco control programs has had no impact on overall smoking prevalence. This is discouraging, but Lieu Feng (2010) finds that while higher prices don’t discourage our youth to take up smoking or quit, it does encourage older people to quit and quit for good, preventing a relapse.
By applying these findings to fat taxes, we can speculate that fat taxes won’t contribute to prevention or childhood obesity, but may act as a catalyst to get older people back into shape.
Besides taxes, another interesting aspect of the history of the cigarette to examine is advertising regulation. Time has a brief article chronicling this history. The now ubiquitous warning labels on cigarette packages came after the surgeon general published a 7,000 page report in 1965 on cigarette’s impact on public health. This also led to legislation banning TV and radio advertisements. Since the report’s publication smoking rates have halved from over 40% to around 20%.
However, it now appears that the prevalence rate is leveling off at 20%, shown in an article in The Washington Post. The Post speculates that the reason behind this is decreased spending on tobacco awareness programs and an advertising blitz by the tobacco industry, including Camel’s No. 9 cigarette, which blatantly targets women.
I used to believe that people who called for a ban on the inclusion of toys in Happy Meals were extreme. Put into perspective, a toy in a happy meal now seems similar to including a Joe Camel toy in every pack of cigarettes. Or picture a store that sells cigarettes that allows, after you purchase a pack, your child to jump around with other kids in a giant ball pit. This store would probably become the center of weekend family outings.
I’ve gone off track giving fast food restaurants a hard time when they are far from the only culprit. Back to the point at hand: Could a ban on junk food advertising lead to a decrease in the obesity rate? Did the advertising ban decrease cigarette smoking?
Like taxes, the impact of the advert ban on the smoking rate is a difficult question to answer. I’m not even sure if television stations could remain profitable if a comprehensive ban on unhealthy foods was legislated. Without Coca-Cola, McDonalds, and Doritos, who would pay for commercial air? The ramifications of such legislation would without a doubt be widespread across a multitude of industries. But this was also the argument of the tobacco lobby.
To solve the problem the government can intervene in two ways. The first is on the demand side. Here policy would attempt to shift our preferences through education programs or food stamps that can be redeemed for only healthy foods. The Food and Drug Administration could intervene on the supply side by compelling food providers to limit the amount of sodium, sugar and fat in foods where it isn’t necessary or by requiring a warning label on fast food.
Unfortunately, the more I read about this epidemic, the more pessimistic I become. I’m afraid drastic supply and demand side intervention will be needed if our feeding habits are to change; there is no simple fix. From farm subsidies to our economic freedom, hours worked to our addictiveness to sugar, salt and fat and prices, all of these variables have an impact on the seemingly simple question that Michael Pollan begins his book The Omnivore’s Dilemma with: What should I have for dinner? I wish this wasn’t such a confusing question, but it is, and answering it will become one of our generation’s greatest challenges.
References
Feng, Lieu. 2010. “Cutting through the smoke: separating the effect of price on smoking initiation, relapse and cessation.” Applied Economics 42: 23, 2921-2939.
Dagher, A. 2009. “The neurobiology of appetite: hunger as an addiction.” International Journal of Obesity 33:30-33.
Marlow, Michael. 2010. “Do expenditures on tobacco control decrease smoking prevalence?” Applied Economics 42: 11, 1311-1343.
Tekol, Yalcin. 2006. “Salt addiction: A different kind of drug addiction.” Medical Hypotheses 67:1233-1234
No comments:
Post a Comment