Electronic copy available at : https ://ssrn.com /abstract ... · Electronic copy available at : https ://ssrn.com /abstract = 3023703 CHAPTER !/ Limits Andrea Freeman The U.S. ~~'''ML~uu

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3023703

CHAPTER !/

Limits

Andrea Freeman

The U.S. ~~'''ML~uu classified as a Yq~<:;LaUJLC

crisis. In the following bill, pro-

hibited the federal gO'\lernnlerlt from the amount of salt in school lunches

and created to whole for and tortillas

extensive research prOlblems. These two ielIilsia1tive '''/,;,H'''''-'UU." 1 UHf"_U. .... u progress toward solv-

health issue.

Faced with these of lillliLOLLlU'l1;:',

Center for Behavioral Economics in Child Nutrition. The center's mandate is to con-

sponsor, and disseminate research on food with the of in-

corporating behavioral economics into the federal food programs, includ-

the National School Lunch and School Breakfast the

Nutrition Assistance

which contribute sig;niJl1ccmtly rPfWPoPI1to only one tool among many available to the gov-

health outcomes. For the USDA uses

lU<::l~HlfJ" with fast food '-Ul.lifJdH'C;;:',

to increase

meat, and soy \,,"""."''''0<

from the ,.r~l1tp'rtl1rp which is a form of libertarian

that focuses on the environments in which make choices.

124

011<yaF·~t~ that financial concerns,

goodwill, compel the use of

ence consumer behavior. Health concerns, in contrast, tend to

proven to influ

less

The Cornell Center's studies indicate that UYU!".UL,;,

'-HeH1i,,>H'/", costs, has the to influence food selection. These studies do not,

h"'''<''",'r demonstrate a link between and

health outcomes. even wh~n experiments show that behavioral economics

can positively alter food the USDA has not to

school lunchrooms or other federal food programs a.'-'-UH~Hl;,,>ly. "U'l1<O'LH<Ol<O;:''',

continues to invest in behavioral economics research and favor

ism to boost health nutrition. This the three different forms

in the food policy the behavioral economics

studies of the Cornell Center. It then discusses the of U~~6'''"6 stratE~gHoS to

reduce ;rnnr<~"p health outcomes within a number of constraints. It inter

rli"nrnnnrj'jn1n"j'p harm these constraints inflict on

communities and concludes

tic framework.

Paternalism in Food

prc)pa,slTIlg a shift in food to a harder

The a broad range of tactics to meet its llULU,.lVl1<U,

Most of them some form

the desire to influence or alter behavior in their own self-interest. Other

stratE~gH~S reflect a mandate to create or sustain a market for subsidized commodi-

ties or to the demands of the food Some measures seek

to alter the method of and others strive to

affect the choice itself Paternalistic J.U.'V--V'." With hard

makes the choice for the consumer, or creates

HUU""!". a different choice. Soft

Behavioral Economics and Food 125


n:;"Jl:YI,pnt method innovations. Both forms of soft

Gentle Soft

strive

while

f.lll!ll"lUY of nutrition labeling re-L"'UellHI! and Education Act and

and research into choice archi-tecture, of the Cornell Center. The Cornell Center the effects on student food selection of a of llWU\!JLH\!

11l'-lUUH1)!. pay-ment foods" (foods that influence selection by their presence, even though are not themselves se-

branding, and food naming Center for Behavioral Economics in Child Nutrition 2014). This research relies on a

number of behavioral economics that may affect food selection.

The of the Center's are as from a desire for immediate cr,.o,tih,,'~_

is an obstacle to healthy food ~eleC;l_lUJ:l; because they value what

items (3) them to use up an amount u,-"")',ua,,c:u

into another "ac:c011nt."; able costs;

items with fixed costs over ones with vari-

on emotional such as stress '-V~"H11'"Ye pn)ce:ssing; and (6) environmental

influence food choice Mancino, and Wansink conditions that affect food selection are reactance, an aversion to choices that others appear to force on us and selt-aittn.bU1tlOlCl, the associated with

and Wansink

UHUC:1LlY1LHV pnnc:tp1(;S and the Cornell Center's research-

ers students and other food program partH:ipanlts overcome their biases. One of these is the of food. Pre-selection counters with self-control and UllVU1M v

make instead of errlOtiortal, Wansink 2013). Another is the creation of a default fries in school LUL"'-ULV,"'1l1~ (Just and Wansink For food

126 Andrea Freeman

center proposes ue"1~11dllLll~ take of the mental

to

"V>'~U',LUV, and Wan sink 2007). In lUIJlcrll.UUJlll~. \JeIIHlllUl~ n''''rY,,,nt

items nr,,,,..,,nh,c

foods and accessi-

(Just and Wansink 2009). Smaller tables

and amount of food consumed

more to a desire to choose better and De Castro

The Cornell Center also tests the effects of some choices al-

One removed chocolate milk from eleven school cafeterias in

and Wansink 2014). As a result, students in those schools drank 10%

more milk. Their of both sugar

and calories decreased. the concludes that chocolate milk should

remain in school cafeterias. It further recommends the position of white milk

to the front of the cafeteria and that one-third to one-half of the milk on dis-

is white.

In another study, researchers sent an email '-V,CLCU.UU,"'I'. a nutritional card to

the students from to twelfth in an

Just, and Patterson The

how many fruits, and a la carte items their children

selected from the cafeteria every day for six weeks. The compares the food

choices of students whose received emailswith a control group. Children

whose received the of fruits and

bles while chocolate chip cookie 56% The study

concludes that to influence their children's choices is easy, inexpen-

and effective.

Other studies demonstrate that convenience and affect food selection.

For slices instead of whole increases sales

sink et al. 2013). Children select more when a character icon appears with the

(Wansink, Also, adults may be more willing to

foods that have names, such as "Satin Chocolate in-

Cookies"

and "Grandma's Zucchini Cookies" instead of "Zucchini

Itt(~rSl1m, and Painter 2005). The Cornell Center views in-elements of food selection. This na,-cnortiua

nutritional information's in food Under the

with more than twenty outlets

definition of "restaurant" includes

stores 79, no. 230 2014). These

closer in line with food l1WLllULa"

Facts"

YUJ,UIJ,ldl.HY post

other nutritional content.



Choice architecture and nutrition are tactics

111JU11111CU, if any, costs on consumers, 1U",U.UL.lU1.l", and corpora-

the individual's to make his or her own

Soft Paternalism

AI2:Qn~ssive soft also maintains choice but creates

centives for individuals to make food selections '''' ""l''' and it seeks to influence consumers strat-

CHHJi',JVC:U to sell subsidized which involve substantial eXjJeIlldi-t"V'n~'''A'' dollars. soft fJdl.t:n.ldlJl~Hl

on consumers and as to simply an emotional or behavioral one. These methods therefore tend to be more effective than the intellec

tual and soft The of subsidized com

paternalistic because it advances the n .. ,.,yy>,.,.T;'H., certain agricultural industries instead of the individual's self-

interest in good health. to the extent that individuals' interests are

with their these tactics are that ad-vance the common good also benefit the UllHVIU~ld.l.

Several scholars advocate for the imposition food taxes" on either consum-

ers or manufacturers to make food more affordable in LU.!U.Jdll~C'H and to correct for the low cost of fast food subsidies, other countries, most

control harmful food the United States of

measure 2016). In the City of

municipality to impose a soda tax (Goetz 2014). Studies of this tax will indicate its

IJU"CLlUcU efficacy in soda Research to date demonstrates that

increases deter some Americans from but minor

do not affect consumer behavior (Golan, Mancino, and Unnevehr

may be more LC<'IJU'll",V

another form of ag~(re:;sh'e

\..V1111-',"111e", which argue that First Amendment commercial .... u;."-"'"<:;c: freedom in

and France restrict food adverdirected at children (World Cancer Research Fund International

gress has failed to pass similar bills modeled on World Health

lines and American fiC;dUeUl} of Pediatrics recommendations. So

reTJre:serltlrlg food and agencies that oppose these bills have lobbied intervention. An excep

the advertisement of

128 Andrea Freeman

ucts in school lunchrooms would rather than foreclose CU!ll1~JdlJllC~ ~rl,,,,w+;C;y;

for ads for Diet but not Coca-Cola. The USDA's to dairy cOllSUmrJticlll

form of agl~ressble soft ~dl'C1.11d'.l~lJl1, To reduce the

from the federal Guidelines' advice to consume low-fat

farmers' check-off program to establish a

Department of DMI created the

hiU'pntv-vp:~r "Got Milk?"

milk moustaches. It also entered into covert

celebrities with .. ty,proh1lnO with fast food compa-

nies to devise new

CU·'\..11.""",'" American ~~,"'~"~u with chains to set up :>dJ:UI-"Ul.lg orlodluc1ts across the

succeed at consumer be-

havior. That is opposes their when threat-

ened with reduced sales, and the ~VVC;'.Ulll<:;J"" seeks to hide its use of these tactics when

run consumer interest.

Bans and restrictions reTJreSeIlt the hardest form in food

gress, state and bodies have

or limit food in~!redi(,nts, based on their harmfulness to health or other reasons, such

as ...... V.")<.A.""" ho'vve,rer. is generally reluctant to harmful foods. the U.S. Food and Drug Administration remov-

trans fats from its as safe" This proposal came

more than fifteen years after medical research revealed that trans fats cause 7,000

deaths and 20,000 heart attacks in the United States every year Food and Administration Instead of to these discoveries with a ban, as other

the FDA took the less of imposing 1d.velU'!':

LU1.lldlU1Hl'; trans fats over a Food and

tration The last time the FDA declared a food additive unsafe was in

the artificial sweetener LY'"l<lUl<W:: due to its links to birth

when it banned

bladder cancer,

and liver There are many food imrre;iients

banned in other countries, and in common usage in the United their links to serious health issues such as brain cancer, nerve

cell and birth defects. These



Calton are in a range of from M&Ms to milk to

macaroni and cheese.

State and local IlII'lt::"l~, on the other have

restrictions. states ban the sale of unpasteurized milk and Far-

quhar California and New York City banned trans fats from restaurants

lic Health Law Center New York Michael Bloomberg to ban

the sale oflarge but a York

Statewide Coalition of has a law pro-r"TW"C""~ hard

for Missis:sippi

govel:nrne:nt can place restrictions on

location, amount, or consumer. For the FDA some limits on the amounts of sugar, and sodium in sold in school H",·n.-'l;;nn

such as sodas and sports in 2015

J/VVUj. These follow on the heels of states,

and New that restrict the amount of fat

and sugar in that school lunchrooms sell to students (CA S.B. 12 Rock A San Francisco law conditioned the inclusion of toys in McDonalds'

Meals, marketed to on the meals' certain nutritional stan-

dards (Park These restrictions constitute hard paternalism because limit

consumers' control over their food choices.

Government subsidies also function as a of hard because finan-

cial support for certain foods creates high supply levels. Subsidization lowers costs for

farmers and which allows them to harvest and more. Wider avail-

of the food item combined with lower costs leads to lower

which induce consumers to more. The corn, soy, and wheat industries

receive substantial from the USDA, to their presence in a num-

ber of available in grocery stores, restaurants, and federal food programs.

and Paulson Collins 2014; Kick The USDA also distributes

\..VJl~.a.!l1JlH14 either or soy, free UH.UUJ,!H its nutrition program for Women,

UUUUL.", and Children (Freeman

the corn they f.'H"-"U .. <o UlIVdldldUllt:

fore sell this corn to other

which use drinks. This interde-

which may

account for the reluctance to ban them from schools.

130 Andrea Freeman

Limits on the Effectiveness of Centle Soft Paternalistic Food

in soft Ildl<::l1.ldH~lU, SP(~cijlcaJl

tion faces obstacles to the effective reform of

broader goal of improving health outcomes The Cornell Center identifies income, and information as the three major elements of food selection

Mancino, and Wansink 2007). Convenience and taste are also Re-search that for unhealthy food are "sticky," re-

sistant to behavioral and for a number of

reasons. One is that food devote the

ideal combination of sugar, and fat that will make food

The and comfort induced the

to individuals who on

Be-

havioral economics in addition to social

conditions and also reduce the to im-

prove food selection and health through methods. Information about the nutritional content of delivered on menu boards and

may affect food selection but does not appear to health out-

comes. One study adults and notice calorie counts in

restaurants, they do not alter their choices because of them (Harnack et al. 2008). Behavioral economics two for this. First, information

simply may not have the power to increase self-control. Individuals tend

toward in food and environmental factors at the point of pur-posltlOIllng of often exert influ-

have a limited

do not have room for it in their to process new

heads at the moment that confront it.

Another calories can lead to healthier but that

item, such as fries or a

and Loewenstein reveal no decrease in intake of saturated

research indicates that nutrition information is most valuable to consumers

who are to no overall societal benefit Wis-

Downs, and Loewenstein 2010). This outcome is to metric et al. 2003), because the information affects those

who appear to be full at all on those

experiencing bounded LU'J"~.LUl". might, have a effect on consumer behavior if its mes-

sages were clearer. The former head of the David a radical

Behavioral Economics and Food Policy 131


UH'''-''CU" that would list the three "u,.c;u,.~, the number of and the amount of additional inc'~",rli"wl-c

of each 2014). This '-VJ,HIJLtlltlJL1HL'" of the nutrition label and lead to

from 98% to 89%.

labels coded with

~lg.lHJllL'Ull structural constraints on the

Price and income are two ael:ennlfle food

hood, access to

"",,_,yua,1". childcare. The IJV"""UaJ

The J."',aLHJll~lHJJ hpjc"">"n

IJULLJ.l"",t on a

of grocery items in a U<;;'.l<UUUl

if fast food is the

on trans-and have time to cook will eat it. In these and other ways, a ~"~or,~'<

sO(:ioeC<)llClmic status and race, both correlated to and from

Social and economic constraints render the nutritional content of government-

food Food assistance is essential for the 50 million

2014), the 31 million

forces environment outside "Cl.'U()lS.

rural areas, the government has the power to act

nutritious food in the sites where it exercises control.

the market operates

to un,aertUJld~~d

132 Andrea Freeman

and receive access to classrooms and cafeterias in return (Freeman

H::'dllUll~WIIJ with the

door" between Food compa-

nies' resulting influence manifests in many areas of food including the

rlf'veJopm~mt of standards for school lunches and the recommendations by

Guidelines 2007).

Do,rtlil)nl!te Racial and Socioeconomic

The harms arising from control over food policy are have a na<~~ti"" impact on certain communities. For "A"H"f.W~'

subsidized commodities to consumers jJ"H"UU fast

and sweetened harms lU'Y-lJ,n-lHH'<O,

ban communities of color. Individuals have diets high in fast

food and foods due to structural factors that include lack of access to

foods in their neighborhoods These groups also rely on food

assistance programs such as school lunches and food banks America 2010).

Health data reveal racial in food-related illnesses and

Latinos, Native and other racialized groups "'''ILL<eIIH'""

serious food-related conditions such as cancer, heart

blood pressure et al. 2010; Center for Medicare Arlvo,r;Jc:v

for Health Care Research and Quality The

on socially and iJUJllU'~<U'y individuals of food policy is a

stitutioIlal. ~votpnni('. food-related action or policy that

debilitates a subordinated group Food the-

ory attributes racial and socioeconomic health to

appear neutral harm vulnerable individuals.

about by

Blacks and Latinos as

embodied in such as the "welfare queen" and the

the that health to individual attributes.

focus on behavioral economics embraces the of health

IJ"Jl~UH'U choice. Behavioral economics research's role in food policy

is to use resources to discover how to alter individual in

one's own interest. Annnlachir12 food from this veils the structural

factors that create and enforce the of food them to UlS::lULI"i;il



from view as health Racial ~t"'r"r'+"n;~ tural reform would be both irrelevant and

ioral economics appear more apPTCmr'iate. has some potential to

economics

it will not be the choices of

I economics without enact-aws and to the health of who

food programs therefore represents a form of food

social welfare calls for a . . response we should give It senous 2013 P d' d . . ' oor let an exercIse overtook smok-

as the leadmg cause of premature deaths in the United States in 2014 Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion The ber and deaths associated with poor

situated nations et al 'th' . WI racIal

to the need for direct interventions in the form of hard pa-ternalistic measures. The USDA should alter b 'd' fl

A~ U.LCU «" SU SI les to re ect

the aU.tueJ"'-t:

'-V,l1UICl.Ul~ roles It should be free

lobbying and door positions.

The USDA should also transform school ACU,''-HlO" by choice

its conclusion healthy food choices. Faced with this hungry students will eat. th USD h e A S ould shift its resources away from

and and toward that would promote the and

food to . d ~WCULJU servIce nutrition assistance programs. As a first

the USDA should recogrlize the limits of and health.

for Healtheare Research and

Racial and Ethnic HUUVJ,llV

NHDR."

Sara N., Julia A. Seanna Vine, and Y. Claire Wang. 2014.

and Caloric Intake among US Adults, Overall and

Health 104:3. UU]J:I/<lJprl.ap'hallUb.!icatiO!ls.o,rg/,doi/

134 Andrea Freeman

consumer over in-

among

and

Boyer, Dave. 2014. "That's Rich: ton Times, 7. hthn.II"',,''''·m~ohi[lgt()iltim'es.(:ona/nLeVli's/'-~m41

Jones, June 23. nttP:/,!W'NVIi'.m'OITIlCfjon,es.(;OnrllcnVlHJlllUC,"UI

-mcdonalds-taco-bell.

Calton, Mira, and

Primal

Loewenstein, Ted and

Matthew Rabin. 2003. "Regulation for Conservatives: Behavioral Economics and the

Case for of Pennsylvania Law Review 151:

1211-54.

lJemo'Crilcy. 2013. "National Corn Growers Association." Source-

_Association. Center for Medicare AnVn('~('v

Action Forum.

Jonathan, and Nick Paulson. 2014. Risk and Price Loss

Luveldve in the 2014 Farm Bill." FarmdocDAILY. Fpl)rl1~rv 20. http://farmdocdaily.illinois

JV~:"UH'. 2014. "Grants &

Fields, Scott. 2004. "The Fat of the Land: Do Subsidies Foster Poor Health?"

/JOY'miN'till,>< 112, no. 14:A820-A823. nHlp:IIWV.'W.llCD!.lll.m.lmn.gov

~m'~uu", Nutrition of Standard Menu Items in Restaurants and Similar Retail

Food Establishments." 2014. Federal Register. December 1.

-restaurants-and-similar-retail-food#h-14.

Freeman, Andrea. 2007. "Fast Food: Poor Nutrition." Law

Review 95:2221.

2015a. "'First Food' Justice: Racial in Infant as Food U!J'/Jlt''''Ul1.

Fordham Law Review 83:3053, 3068. --. 2015b. for Food Consumers: Nutrition LdluellHg and Food OpprE,ssi,on.

American Journal and Medicine 41:315-30.

2013. "The Unbearable Whiteness of Milk: Food U]JIDn~ssjlon and the USDA."

of California at Irvine Law Review 4:1251, 1253.

--. 2015e. "The 2014 Farm Bill: Farm Subsidies and Food Uppn,ssi,on." Seattle University

Law Review 38:1271, 1280.

Behavioral Economics and Food Policy 135


Golan, Elise, Lisa Mancino, and Laurian Unnevehr. 2009. "Food

Sonam. 2014. "The Effects of Pre-Selection and Behavioral

Selection by Middle School Children, Association of Public

News.

Check the List of

on Food Item

and ManageIVl,ul"genHmt. November 7.

Hanks, Andrew, David Just, and Brian Wansink. 2014. "Chocolate Milk COnSE!quen<:es: A Pilot the COJtlseqU€!noes

. 0091022.

--.2013.

IPMC2621234/.

and Administra-

A. McClave. 2010. "The

Just, David R., Lisa Mancino, and Brian Wansink. 2007. "Could Behavioral Economics Diet

Economic Research 43. http://wwvv.elrs.tlSda.g:ov.lm.edia Just, David, and Brian Wansink. 2009. "Smarter Lunchrooms:

Improve Meal Selection." Choices 24:3. http://W'w1.'r.c1lOj,ces:m'lga.zirle.()rg/magilZinPI~rti,rlp

Kessler, David. 2014. "Toward More Com[lre:hellsj've M",1;";,",, 371:193.

1174331.html.

Andrea Freeman

Lambert, Kelly Gurley, Tara Neal, Jill Noyes, Parker, and Pamela Worrel. 1991.

"Food-Related Stimuli Increase Desire to Eat in Satiated and Human

McCormick. 2001. "Americans Crave Meats and Sweets." Press release.

Fat: How the Food Giants Hooked Us. Random House. New York .

vvairlillIlll about Fat, U.S. Pushes Cheese Sales." The New York Times,

November 7. sec. AI. httD:l.lw·W1.'T.n'vtJlmeS.comll L,IU1V/

Tobacco Use." Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. httn'/lw'iNW

Idata statistics/fact_sheets/fast_facts/.

Nestle, Marion. 2007. Food Politics: How the Food Nutrition and Health,

Revised and Expanded Edition. of California Press. Oakland.

New York Statewide Coalition v. New York City of Health and Mental

O'Connor, Anahad. 2016. "Mexican Soda Tax Followed

6. ntt]):II'NelI.Ol':Jg~ .. H

Pierson, David, Tiffany Hsu, and Monte Morin. 2013. "FDA Action Would Ettectivelv

Trans Fats." Times, November 7. hl"Tn'//orl"f"IP<

Ibusiness/la-fj-fda-trans-fat-20l31108.

Public Health Law Center. 2009. "Transfat Bans: Policy

Use of Artificial Trans Fats in Restaurants." William Mitchell

Puhl, Rebecca, and Chelsea Heuer. 2012. "The of A Review and

17(5):941. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/lO.l038/oby.2008.636/full.

i:>alTIjJJ.mg Healthier Foods: It May Be Hard Sell to Feed Kids Well." LA

News, 23.httD://WWv~tlleIre€:1l

+FOODS+IT+MAY+BE+HARD+SELL+ TO+FEED+KIDS+WELL.-a0136578439.



Shanker, Deena. 2015. "Milking It: How the US Government McDonald's Climb Out

of its Sales Rut." Quartz, October 29.

Story, Mary, Karen and Simone French. 2006. "The Role of Schools in

Prevention." Childhood Obesity 16:111. Stroebel, Nanette, and John De Castro. 2004. "Effect of Ambience on Food Intake and Food

Choice." Nutrition 20:821-38. Sunstein, Casso 2013. "The Storrs Lectures: Behavioral Economics and Paternalism." Yale Law

fournaI122:1826-85. A. Lauer, and David B. Evans. 2000. "Measur

Performance for 191 Countries." World Health Organization

GPE Discussion No. 30. U.S. of Agriculture. 2010. to on the National Promotion

and Research and the National Fluid Milk Processor Promotion Program 2008

Program Activities." 28:4.

--.2014. "WIC-The

U.S. Food and

Consumer

Administration. 2013. "FDA Targets Trans Fat in Processed Foods."

November 7.

lucm372915.htm.

--. 1994. "Nutritional ~u"~", .. ,,

J"Y''''-,''<U,lUJ,<l'' N. 2008. "Do Nutrition Labels

Economics 17:695-708.

Dietary Outcomes?" Health

Fro,m-I-!omf' Sector, an Economic

Assessment." U.S. Df'na'rtn1f'rlt

Wansink, Brian, David Just, Andrew Hanks, and Laura E. Smith. 2013. Fruits:

Pre-Sliced Fruit in Schools Increases Sales, Selection, and Intake." American Journal of

Preventative Medicine

==2473208.

Archives and Adolescent Medicine

.cfm?abstract_id==2079828.

Federation

1322.1.

Andrea Freeman

,,,,,,,,,,,,,v Healthier Choices through

Education and Behavior Poster Abstracts

Watanabe, Teresa. 2011. "L.A. Schools' Healthful Lunches Panned

Wisdom, Jessica, Julie S. Downs, and Loewenstein. 2010. Information versus Convenience." American Economic Applied Economics

Choices:

January 20.

World Cancer Research Fund International. 2014. "Restrict Food A ""PT'n "lncr and Other Forms

of Commercial Promotion." June 11.

Economics and Food 139

Documents

Electronic copy available at : https ://ssrn.com /abstract ... · Electronic copy available at : https ://ssrn.com /abstract = 3023703 CHAPTER !/ Limits Andrea Freeman The U.S. ~~'''ML~uu