USDA report raises issue of food programs and obesity

USDA's Food and Nutrition Service this month published a substantial report about food assistance programs and obesity. At times, the genuine difficulty of this delicate issue seemed to tie the writers into knots. Here is the first main conclusion (bold in the original):

The panel concluded that to be able to determine the relationship between obesity and food assistance program participation, it is necessary to consider the difficulties and complexity of separating the effects of poverty from the potential effects of food assistance on any health or social outcome including obesity. The challenge is in controlling for the effects of poverty, which is highly correlated with program participation. Because of the strength of the existing research on this point, it is imperative that this established association be presented as the first point in their consensus statement.

But at other places, the report seemed to call for serious research to evaluate both the positive and the potential negative effects of food assistance programs. On food stamps, the report concludes, "The published research on Food Stamps indicates there is some association between program participation and overweight/obesity; but there is no evidence of causality." The report does not endorse random assignment research designs (whereas I have favored ethical random assignment designs), but instead recommends strong longitudinal research designs (which I think could be adequate if done well). It offers astute observations on the potential for making use of recent policy variations, such as the institution of food stamp outreach efforts, to better control for selection bias. I hope something comes of it.

Advertising to children

Here is Commercial Alert's summary of a good Washington Post article:

Today's Washington Post has a fine article on the failures and limitations of the Children's Advertsing Review Unit, which is the advertising industry's self-regulatory body regarding advertising to children. The main purpose of CARU is to act as a fig leaf to help the ad industry claim that it treats children responsibly. At the same time, the industry has loosed on our children a flood of ads promoting violence, anti-social behavior, boorishness, and materialism. And it has created in our children an epidemic of marketing-related diseases, such as obesity, type 2 diabetes, alcoholism (and millions will eventually die from the marketing of tobacco.)

Half Changed World notices the same Post article and, in a brief conversation with her 4-year-old, captures the lunacy of pretending that children can skeptically protect themselves from advertising:

Unfortunately, the article was illustrated with big color pictures of several products that have children's tv and movie characters prominently featured on them. So D took one look at the paper, pointed at the box of poptarts with Mr. Incredible on them, and said "I'd like those."

"Do you know what they are?"

"No. What are they?"

"Why do you think you'd like them?"

"I just do."

"If I put a sticker of Mr. Incredible on these" -- point at the bottle of children's vitamins that I've been trying to convince him to eat -- "would you eat them?"

"No."

"So why do you think you'd like those? Just because they have Mr. Incredible on them doesn't mean they're good."

"I would like them."

What's wrong with asking FDA to rule on salt?

The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) this week reopened its 1983 lawsuit asking the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to rule on the safety of salt. Currently, the official status of salt is "Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS)," which is a regulatory category reserved for foods that have been used for many years and which are safe. While it is true that salt has been used for many thousands of years, it is also true that the food additive is generally recognized as unsafe, mainly because of its association with high blood pressure and strokes, which are a leading cause of death. For example, see the Dietary Guidelines or any other authoritative scientific statement.

FDA regulators should tread carefully with salt, because salt is an important food ingredient, and important issues of personal freedom of choice are at stake here. On the other hand, the actual text of the CSPI suit is quite mild -- it "seeks an order directing FDA to publish in the Federal Register a proposed rule either affirming or denying the 'GRAS' ('generally recognized as safe') status of salt and providing an opportunity for comment on that proposal. Without the Court's intervention, FDA will almost certainly continue to delay. Because the millions of Americans at risk of hypertension and cardiovascular disease are paying for FDA's delay with their health, the Court should compel FDA to take prompt action."

What it takes to achieve ethical government

Alex Tabarrok at Marginal Revolution skewers the "stupid mistake" the National Institutes of Health (NIH) made in tightening conflict-of-interest rules for its scientists. But here, respectfully, is the counter-argument. The serious issue is that the food and pharmaceutical industries should not be permitted to provide NIH scientists with valuable stock and consulting fees, which might influence their actions in government. The example of an NIH scientist who was criticized for receiving free parking is a distraction -- don't let it draw your eye away from the serious issue. No NIH rule, old or new, tells scientists they can't own stock. The new rules say they can't own stock in the industries their government decisions could influence.

The Washington Post article cited by Tabarrok sympathizes with the poor mid-level NIH workers -- "secretaries" and "clerks" -- who will lose large sums from selling their industry stock. But wait a minute. Why would mid-level NIH folks be holding large amounts of stock in the industries influenced by NIH decisions? If the NIH public servants have no insider knowledge, they are unharmed by the new rules to hold other stocks instead. On the other hand, if there were a culture at NIH of passing around valuable stock tips, one would expect staff to oppose the new rules vehemently. We shouldn't permit even the appearance of such a thing.

The Post article describes NIH scientists who were found blameless on further investigation, but it also mentions NIH scientists who seemed to have conflicts of interest: "One scientist allegedly collected hundreds of thousands of dollars in fees and travel reimbursements over five years as a result of largely undisclosed activities."

I am sympathetic to intelligent articulate economists who tend to be suspicious of regulation tightening when it comes to the private market economy. But, when it comes to government officials, the smart economist's case favors strict rules against conflict of interest.

Who wins from country-of-origin labeling?

The new issue of the online magazine Choices focuses on country-of-origin labeling (COOL) for beef, which was passed in the 2002 farm bill, and which is to be implemented in 2006. The new labeling would allow consumers to distinguish American beef from imported beef. Because labeling imposes some costs for the industry, the net benefits for producers hinge largely on whether consumer demand will increase -- for example, whether consumers will be willing to start paying a premium for American beef. Given the current administration's less than vigorous food safety policies, and continuing concerns about mad cow disease, you may find that prospect amusing. Indeed, the eminent agricultural economists writing in Choices are generally skeptical that there will be any demand increase for beef attributable to COOL.

So here's the conclusion:

The poultry industry is the only unequivocal winner of the implementation of COOL. We assumed that the poultry industry's cost structure was unaffected by COOL because poultry is currently excluded from COOL legislation. Consequently, increased COOL marketing costs in the beef and pork sectors that increase retail beef and pork prices encourage consumers to substitute towards poultry products. This demand increase causes subsequent increases in poultry prices, quantities, and producer and consumer surplus in the poultry industry.

For authors from Montana State University (Gary Brester, John Marsh, and Joseph Atwood) and magazine editors from Texas A&M university, the conclusion that "the poultry industry benefits at the beef industry's expense" counts as very faint praise for COOL.

Center on Budget estimates cuts to WIC

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities today released its estimates of the implications for discretionary programs of the Bush budget for FY 2006. Of food assistance programs, the report covers only discretionary programs (like WIC), but not entitlement programs (like food stamps). For WIC, the Bush budget implies cuts of $657 million from 2006-2010, which would lead to the loss of benefits for 660,000 participants by 2010.

GAO: Other countries benefit from consolidating food safety oversight

The General Accounting Office (GAO) is one of the best agencies in government for writing common sense in plain English. For years, in report after report, GAO has explained the advantages of a single food safety agency over the irrational current arrangement in the U.S. federal government. At present, meat pizza is regulated by USDA and cheese pizza by FDA. In a report released this week, GAO explains how other countries gained from consolidating food safety oversight:

Officials in most countries stated their new food safety agencies incurred consolidation startup costs. However, in each country, government officials believe that consolidation costs have been or will likely be exceeded by the benefits. These officials and food industry and consumer stakeholders cited significant qualitative improvements in the effectiveness or efficiency of their food safety systems. These improvements include less overlap in inspections, greater clarity in responsibilities, and more consistent or timely enforcement of food safety laws and regulations. In addition to these qualitative benefits, officials from three countries, Canada, Denmark, and the Netherlands, identified areas where they believe financial savings may be achieved as a result of consolidation.

Greater efficiencies, better safety, and financial savings? They'll never go for that here.

Does WIC increase children's access to food in general?

The WIC program provides food benefits to pregnant women, infants, and young children. The part for pregnant women has been shown to improve subsequent birth outcomes, which is a very important result. The young children component has been somewhat more severely questioned, including in a book by Besharov and Germanis called Rethinking WIC. A new report from USDA's Economic Research Service may not be the last word on the matter, but it is worth bringing to your attention. It argues that WIC increases children's intake of the foods specifically included in the WIC package, but this increase is offset by reduced intake of other foods, so the effect on total food intake (calories) is negligible.

Results from the analysis show that WIC participants consumed significantly more calories (12-14 percent) from WIC-approved foods than each of the three groups of nonparticipants. On the other hand, the participants consumed significantly fewer calories from non-WIC foods than the two groups of eligible nonparticipants. In terms of total calories consumed from all foods and beverages, there was no significant difference between WIC participants and the two groups of eligible nonparticipants. Thus, there is little evidence that participation in WIC contributes to increased caloric intake among those children eligible to participate. However, WIC participants consumed more total calories than children not eligible to participate because their household income was too high.

One can't base policy on one study, and children's nutrition may be much improved by substituting WIC foods for other foods. Still, it seems fair to say the USDA authors are corroborating one particular concern of Besharov and Germanis (not the whole book). It really would be worthwhile to study WIC effects for young children with a strong (ethical!) random-assignment research design.