Obesity and economics: BMI influences family income for women

A new working paper on the National Bureau of Economic Research site reports that higher BMI seems to contribute to lower family income for women, but not for men. The study was covered by Reuters and picked up by the Diet Blog. This research appears to corroborate a pattern reported by John Cawley in an article in the Journal of Human Resources, which we covered here. As Cawley explains well, it is difficult but perhaps possible to distinguish two leading explanations for the negative association between weight and income: (1) the labor market may discriminate against or otherwise penalize people who are heavier, or (2) people with lower wages may have more trouble affording the exercise club memberships and cool foods that keep the wealthy slim.

What do Supreme Court justices know about nutrition?

A lot, it turns out. As background, recall from Monday that the majority opinion (.pdf), authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, accepted the federal government's argument that the Beef Board's advertising is "government speech," so it is okay to tax beef farmers even if they disagree with the message.

A concurring opinion by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg raised the same significant nutrition issues that she raised in oral arguments in December with such eloquent effect that the bumbling government attorney arguing the case was rendered nearly incoherent. In the concurring opinion, Ginsburg quoted the federal government's Dietary Guidelines, which advise lower consumption of saturated fats and trans fats. Ginsburg is right to hone in on saturated fats, because foods promoted by the checkoff advertising programs, including beef, pork, cheese, and butter, are leading sources of saturated fat. Ginsburg is weaker in her emphasis on trans fats, which do occur in meats, but which predominantly come from hydrogenated vegetable oils, baked goods, and fried foods. But, she is entirely correct to ask whether the checkoff advertising and the Dietary Guidelines can both officially be "government speech." In the end, Ginsburg believes Scalia and the majority reached an adequate decision for the wrong reason.

Justice David Souter's dissenting opinion sharply argues that the Beef Board advertising can't be government speech if both the government and the industry pretend to the public that these commodity boards are producer self-help associations:

The Court accepts the [government's] defense unwisely. The error is not that government speech can never justify compelling a subsidy, but that a compelled subsidy should not be justifiable by speech unless the government must put that speech forward as its own.... I take the view that if government relies on the government-speech doctrine to compel specific groups to fund speech with targeted taxes, it must make itself politically accountable by indicating that the content actually is a government message, not just the statement of one self-interested group the government is currently willing to invest with power.

Souter's point seems especially timely in light of recent controversies over propaganda, in which the government hired journalists to favor government policies without revealing the government role. Then, Souter starts in on the interesting nutrition issues:

No one hearing a commercial for Pepsi or Levi’s thinks Uncle Sam is the man talking behind the curtain. Why would a person reading a beef ad think Uncle Sam was trying to make him eat more steak?

This gets him thinking in a footnote about whether the advertisements are consistent with a chapter of the the Dietary Guidelines, entitled "fats":

The message of that chapter is that most Americans need to reduce their consumption of fats, and should get most of the fats they do eat from sources other than beef, namely fish, nuts, and vegetable oils. See id., at 29–31. That the report, which the Secretaries of Agriculture and of Health and Human Services say "is intended to be a primary source of dietary health information," id., at i, does not encourage the consumption of beef (as the beef ads do) is clear from the fact that a different chapter, which discusses fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and fat-free dairy products, is entitled "Food Groups to Encourage."

Scalia, in the majority opinion, couldn't leave these nutrition arguments without a rebuttal, in a tart and witty footnote:

The principal dissent suggests that if this is so, then the Government has adopted at best a mixed message, because it also promulgates dietary guidelines that, if followed, would discourage excessive consumption of beef. Post, at 8, n. 5 (opinion of SOUTER, J.); see also post,at 1 (GINSBURG, J., concurring in judgment). Even if we agreed that the protection of the government-speech doctrine must be forfeited whenever there is inconsistency in the message, we would nonetheless accord the protection here. The beef promotions are perfectly compatible with the guidelines’ message of moderate consumption—the ads do not insist that beef is also What’s for Breakfast, Lunch, and Midnight Snack.

This is more than just bullying humor by the victor. Scalia really does have a sharp eye for a weakness in the nutrition argument made by Souter and Ginsburg. Saturated fats are an important nutrition issue, and beef is a leading source of these fats, but it is still just one source of many. Within a diet whose total calories are moderate, why can't beef promotion be consistent with the Dietary Guidelines?

That is true enough as far as it goes, but it leaves me with a dreadful ominous sense of an important public policy debate that is about to go terribly awry. It would be one thing if it were beef alone. But increased consumption of beef, pork, cheese, butter, and many other products promoted by the checkoff programs cannot possibly be coherent government speech. Now that the Beef Board has had its victory, each of the commodity checkoffs will go before the courts in turn (appeals courts, not the Supreme Court again) to claim their prizes. And nobody will get the chance to raise the real nutrition argument that should have condemned the Beef Board's case this week.

Further reading: See Andrew Martin's coverage in the Chicago Tribune, an interesting debate on SCOTUSblog, Nathan Newman, A Stitch in Haste, and Say Uncle.

Behind the Apron: The Current State of School Nutrition Programs in America

Childhood obesity was the number one issue of concern in a large survey of school nutrition professionals nationwide, ranking even ahead of funding concerns. According to the School Nutrition Association, which released the report (.pdf):

Respondents selected childhood obesity as the most pressing issue facing school foodservice directors nationwide. Funding, the development of a local school wellness policy and the cost of food/food preparation were the next most pressing issues.

As seen in the 2003 survey, fat-free (skim) or low-fat milk is the most popular food option offered daily at elementary, middle and high schools. It is offered daily in elementary schools by 92.3% of the districts, in middle schools by 85.5%, and in high schools by 87.9%. Fresh fruits/vegetables and three or more milk flavors are the only other food options offered by a majority of the districts daily in all levels.

Lunch, breakfast and catering continue to be offered by a majority of the districts. After school snack and summer foodservice programs are offered by at least one-quarter or more of the districts overall.

A strong majority of districts have involved students in taste testing new items — 11.4% of the districts have students taste test all new items, 23.2% have them test most new items and 54.5% have them test some new items. This represents a consistent increase in the number of districts that have students test all new items.

Meal charges show consistent rates of increase over time. The average charge for full-paid lunch reaches $1.54 for elementary schools, $1.72 for middle schools and $1.77 for high schools. About 30% of the districts report that they increased their meal charges in the past year.

There has not been a significant change since 1993 in the number of districts with an open-campus lunch, with about 30% reporting such a policy for at least one school in their district. As in the past, high schools are the most popular venues by a wide margin for such a policy.

Supreme Court rules in favor of beef commodity checkoff advertising

The Supreme Court ruled today in favor of the beef commodity checkoff advertising program. Now, things should get interesting. The basis for the ruling is that the Beef Board's advertising (and by extension, generic advertising for pork, cheese, and so forth) is "government speech." If a beef farmer doesn't want to pay for this advertising, it's his or her tough luck -- the federal government will now continue to enforce collection of the tax.

From the Reuters report this morning:

By a 6-3 vote, the high court handed a victory to the government. It said the generic advertising at issue is the government's own speech and therefore exempt from the First Amendment free-speech challenge that had been brought.... The high court set aside a U.S. appeals court ruling that the beef checkoff program violated ranchers' free-speech speech rights and should be ended. Justice Antonin Scalia said the message is effectively controlled by the federal government. He said the agriculture secretary has final approval authority over every word in every promotional campaign.

Other coverage comes from the Associated Press. In the past year, I have been researching the consistency between the "government speech" in the checkoff board advertising and the government speech in the federal government's Dietary Guidelines and new Pyramid. The findings are in an article last fall in Choices magazine, which has received an honorable mention from the American Agricultural Economics Association, and in a recent working paper. To give a flavor of the issues, consider whether the federal government's speech through the beef board represents the public interest or private special interests:


Somebody will have to ask Eric Hentges, the director of USDA's Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, which oversees the Dietary Guidelines and the new Pyramid, whether his office has sufficient courage and independence from industry influence to press the USDA to speak with one voice about diet and health, as he has stated to Congress. What would 'one voice' mean? Will the generic advertising campaigns designed to increase consumption of beef, pork, cheese, and butter all be brought in line with the Dietary Guidelines and the new Pyramid?

Cadbury Schweppes reaches deal with American Diabetes Association

The news summary and editorial from PR Watch:

"If you are wondering why Americans are losing the wars on cancer, heart disease and diabetes, you might look at the funding sources of the major public health groups," Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman write. "Big corporations dump big money into these groups. And pretty soon, the groups start taking the line of the big corporations. Case in point: the American Diabetes Association(ADA). Earlier this month, the ADA cut a deal with candy and soda pop maker Cadbury Schweppes. Here's the deal - Cadbury Schweppes kicks in a couple million dollars to the ADA. In return, the company gets to use the ADA label on its diet drinks - plus the positive publicity generated by the deal. Cadbury makes Dr. Pepper and such nutritious treats as Cadbury's Cream Egg. You would have to have your head buried deeply in the sand to deny that sugar-filled soda is fueling childhood obesity - which in turn in is fueling type 2 diabetes." In an interview with the Corporate Crime Reporter, ADA's Richard Kahn emphasized that the ADA logo would only appear on "products that are better to eat."

In its coverage, the Adrants weblog wrote, "While we don't pretend to be a medical expert, we've certainly heard sugar has a little something to do with a disease called Diabetes." This comment generated an interesting debate in the Adrants comments section, about the scientific evidence linking sugar intake to diabetes, and about the propriety of the ADA's decision to accept the money in any case. The PR Watch editorial above is actually careful with its scientific claim. It doesn't just argue sugar --> diabetes, it argues sugar --> obesity --> diabetes. The Adrants comments point out that in this perhaps overly cautious formulation, one could equally argue TV --> obesity --> diabetes. And yet, I'm inclined to agree with both Adrants and PR Watch that it seems unnecessarily mercenary for a public health organization concerned with a malfunction of the body's ability to regulate sugar, for which the scientific facts are not yet settled, to take millions from a soda manufacturer in a deal that implies ADA endorsement of its products.

"50 things every foodie should do"

Slate's column on "today's blogs" offers a nice account of reactions to the Observer's list:

Gag me with a spoon: Bloggers are poring over the Observer's list of "The top 50 things every foodie should do" before dying. Readers are advised to: "Dive for sea urchins … Eat fish on the Pampelonne St-Tropez … Make love in a vineyard … Sniff a white truffle … Kill a pig."

On Kaetchen Rides the Short Bus, an ex-caterer scoffs at the high-priced suggestions and at the term "foodie." Her list of alternate suggestions includes, "Eat something you grew. … If nothing else, buy a basil plant, keep it for a week, then eat the basil." 360 Degrees of Sky, the blog of an NGO volunteer in Zambia, suggests, "1. Picking and sorting tea, to fully appreciate exactly what people (yes PEOPLE, human beings) have to do to get you your bloody Earl Grey 2. Living for a week with some villagers who eat one meal of maize porridge a day, to truly appreciate what it's like to be hungry. …" But Megnut's Meg Hourihan, who co-founded the company that created Blogger, exclaims, "Amazingly, I've already done ten of the items they've listed! Is that because I'm a 'bon viveur'?"

Read more about the Observer's to-do list.

The voice in the wilderness...

No wait.... That's not the wilderness. That's the Government Accountability Office (GAO) right there miles inside the Beltway, smack in the center of downtown Washington. Once again, today, the GAO patiently explained to Congress why it is crazy to have food safety authority split willy nilly between USDA and FDA, not to mention several other federal agencies with smaller roles. Here is the Congressional testimony of Robert A. Robinson, managing director of the natural resources and environment division:

In recent years, many proposals from the Congress and others have been made to reform existing laws and consolidate the governmental structure for ensuring the safety of the food supply. As we have reported in the past, the current system is fragmented and causes inefficient use of resources, inconsistent oversight and enforcement, and ineffective coordination. We have recommended that the Congress consider statutory and organizational reforms, and we continue to believe that the benefits of establishing a single national system for the regulation of our food supply outweigh the costs.

To illustrate the point, here is GAO's droll illustration of how USDA inspectors may walk through -- but not inspect -- the very room in a food processing factory that an FDA inspector must later visit to inspect. According to the testimony, "USDA and FDA conduct overlapping, and even duplicative, inspections at more than 1,400 domestic facilities that produce foods such as canned goods and frozen entrees."