Will Trader Joe's finally do right by farmworkers? 
Why do we do better while the earth does worse? 
Arcade Fire: 'The Suburbs' and bright green urbanism 
An interesting new study was just published in Psychological Science, about a lab experiment at SUNY Buffalo that suggests junk-food taxes increase the overall nutritional quality of a shopping trip, while subsidies on healthy foods actually decrease the nutritional quality (via Science Daily).
[Study author and clinical psychologist Dr. Leonard] Epstein and colleagues simulated a grocery store, "stocked" with images of everything from bananas and whole wheat bread to Dr. Pepper and nachos. A group of volunteers -- all mothers -- were given laboratory "money" to shop for a week's groceries for the family. Each food item was priced the same as groceries at a real grocery nearby, and each food came with basic nutritional information.
The mother-volunteers went shopping several times in the simulated grocery. First they shopped with the regular prices, but afterward the researchers imposed either taxes or subsidies on the foods. That is, they either raised the prices of unhealthy foods by 12.5 percent, and then by 25 percent; or they discounted the price of healthy foods comparably. Then they watched what the mothers purchased.
The study authors separated food into two categories, "high calorie for nutrient" food and "low calorie for nutrient" food -- i.e. junk food and healthy food. They did this so that they could specifically measure the effect pricing changes had on the nutritional content of a participant's shopping basket. As you might expect, taxing junk food reduced junk food purchases, and subsidizing healthy food increased healthy food purchases. But the story does not end there. The researchers discovered that taxing the bad stuff was far more effective from a nutritional standpoint than subsidizing the good stuff -- and not just because prices affected sales.
The junk food taxes caused a real shift in nutritional quality because the money saved on junk food was spent on healthy food, which has more nutrients per calories. However, when the researchers subsidized healthy food in their test, many participants spent the savings on -- wait for it -- junk food. A subsidy for health foods actually increased the amount of fat, protein, and carbohydrates from that simulated shopping trip by about 10 percent each.
There were some other important elements to the study. A subject of some debate in academic circles involves whether obese people will react the same way as normal-weight people when presented with increased prices for junk food or reduced prices for healthy food. In this case, 40 percent of the study participants were obese, defined as a Body Mass Index over 30. They reacted to the changed prices in more or less the same way as normal-weight participants.
This SUNY Buffalo study does present some challenges for advocates of taxes and subsidies. On the one hand, I've argued, and continue to believe, that both taxes and subsidies are necessary components of addressing obesity. But there is clearly some risk that pairing the two policies might not give quite the bang for the buck some might hope, since consumers might use the subsidy savings to pay for more junk.
And while the ideal solution involves a general junk-food tax, the study does suggest that a soda tax on its own might still have a significant positive effect on the nutritional content of a shopping basket. A chart accompanying the study lists the "calorie for nutrient" ratings of all the foods used. Healthy foods had CFNs below 30 (bananas are 20, chicken is 11, tomatoes are 4), while junk food ratings were 30 and up. But if you look at individual foods, you realize that soda is off the charts in terms of caloric impact of a grocery trip. Cheetos, for example, have a CFN rating of 48. Pop-Tarts are 50. Starburst and M&Ms are 70 and 83, respectively. Pepsi, however, has a CFN of 443. Even mayonnaise, not exactly a stand-alone food, has a CFN of only 197. The point here is that anything that deflects purchases from soda will improve the nutritional quality of a shopping trip. And a soda tax on its own will do just that.
The challenge now is to figure out a way to bring down the cost of fruits and veggies in such as way as not to increase purchases of junk food. Here's one idea: subsidize farmers markets and green grocers, i.e. places that tend not to sell lots of cheap, calorically dense foods. Any other suggestions?
![Image for Posters from the past that can guide us in the future [SLIDESHOW]](/phpThumb/phpThumb.php?src=http://www.grist.org/i/assets/2/recycling-buzzard_hennepin_county_library_in_minneapolis.jpg&w=180&h=150&zc=C&q=100)
![Image for War-era food posters: Wacky, well-meaning, and still relevant [SLIDESHOW]](/phpThumb/phpThumb.php?src=http://www.grist.org/i/assets/2/warpost_potatodisplay_180x150.jpg&w=50&h=50&zc=C&q=100)
Comments
Post a Comment +
I'm glad you're "nipping this in the bud!" You're not alone in so many ways. Kids today aren't moving like they used to because of video games and computers. It's very unhealthy. Just sitting is what leads to heart trouble.
http://www.articlesbase.com/health-articles/ultimate-acai-max-review-risk-free-trial-1904682.html
FLAME WAR
This doesn't surprise me, but I think it can be attributed to more than people spending savings on junk food. I know after filling my basket with fruits, vegetables, and whole grains, I am much more likely to throw in a chocolate bar (organic and fair trade, of course). I wonder if they considered this in their findings?
A couple other ways of thinking about obesity are worth considering.
First, weight--and health generally--reflect the interaction between an individual's genetics and preferences, preferences that may differ from some supposedly objective ideal. Most people would prefer to be trim, all else being equal, but (and this is the point) all else is not equal. Trimming up requires changing food and lifestyle habits, and change always imposes costs of one sort or another. The question is how different individuals balance the subjective costs and benefits of food choices, activity levels, health expenditures, and social norms related to attractiveness, among others.
Second, the choices of some clearly impose costs on others, especially because third-party payment (other taxpayers via government, coworkers via employers, or policyholders via insurance companies) insulates us from the costs of services. Whatever your views on health care provision, health insurance, and health policy, it's difficult to deny that placing responsibility for routine (as distinct from catastrophic) health care costs on individuals and families would promote the development of a culture where people are more careful about their health status.
Let's tax bad stuff - junk food and drink, pollution, tobacco more and more and use the bucks to pay down our debt. Let's Move!
My suggestion: A CFN-scaled tax, like a CAFE standard for our own fuel. That way, we aren't targeting specific industries, and we are offering the opportunity for companies to bring down their CFN's.
That's a catchy policy platform: imposing a "CAFE standard for our own fuel." But I would use caution before tossing all our weight behind the CFN index. Wouldn't that mean that the sodas and other junk foods that have engineered their products to "zero calorie" rise to the top of the ratings? The CFN scale may work to illustrate a trend in consumer habits, but the caloric-centric ratio should not be used to set nutritional economic policy.
Instead, we need to target those products that do the most damage: sodas, in any form, whether diet, sugar-free, zero calorie or "classic." We target tobacco and alcohol directly for health and safety concerns. So let's be just as direct with junk foods.
If you're going to compare the costs of junk food and healthy food, you need to include the time cost. A banana doesn't take a lot more time than a bag of Cheetos, but those dried beans and brown rice, while inexpensive in money, are quite expensive in time.
Smart Lipo
First of all define what is junk food and healthy food? People think if any kinda food have high calories and fat that mean it's a junk food. But that is not mean some junk food are really good for health.
Can anybody tell me which category created for banana juice or apple juice ??
Neither taxes nor subsidies will ever provide a solution to our growing obesity problem. Our government seems only capable of making the mess bigger. Food should't have any taxes and the only subsidies that have any merit help keep U.S. farms competitive in a global economy wherein lots of nations hand out lots of subsidies to protect domestic agriculture.
What we choose to eat is a purely personal choice. All we can do is educate people about why eating nutrient-dense foods is healthier. Taxes and subsidies aren't and never have been solutions.
@almostafarmer
I agree. The most important thing we can do is educate. If any taxes were to be employed I would suggest on food-like and outright non-food ingredients.
On the subject of the global economy:
http://vimeo.com/8812686