TodayÕs Menu:
The Carrot and the Stick
By Krist Novoselic
July 21, 2013
An, October 1, 2010
CQ researcher article by Barbara Mantel looks at how government seeks to remedy
the current obesity epidemic[1].
Instead of attributing the condition to self-indulgence, researchers have
identified the ÒobesogenicÓ environment. The article says Americans are eating
in an atmosphere, which Òpromotes increased portion size, non-healthful foods
and physical inactivityÓ (p. 797). The Obama administration and various state
and local governments are implementing and designing programs for incentives
and regulations to curb the epidemic. Government not only seeks change in the
eating habits of individuals, it has its sights set on transforming the food
system / industry.
With a rather
delicious pun, the state has various carrots and sticks among its policy
proposals regarding influencing eating habits. Deborah Stone, in her book Policy Paradox
tells us this famous metaphor is about positive and negative incentives (p.
277). Regarding positive incentives -the carrot-, the federal government is
offering cash for supermarket chains to open stores in so-called food deserts
(Mantel p. 802). These areas are low-income neighborhoods with only convenience
stores and fast food restaurants serving high caloric, low nutritional food.
The policy goal is for large grocery stores, with their produce sections, to
sell healthful food. This incentive is a metaphorical carrot seeking to produce
the real thing.
Like kids in a
candy store[2],
government handing out positive cash incentives can foster goodwill and
alliances (Stone p. 277). These incentives can create bonds of loyalty, where
the target grocers can feel an obligation to meet the goals of the program. On
the other hand, negative incentives create a climate of conflict – this
means things get political.
The perfectly precise
rule spells out all the circumstances to which it applies (p. 297). Stone
says this is an unattainable ideal. To paraphrase her Plato quote, it is like, ÒA
legislator sitting at oneÕs side prescribing particulars.Ó This may be
impossible as an ideal, however, as a policy, such is considered for
regulations on food ingredients. The ChildrenÕs Food & Beverage Advertising
Initiative (CFBAI) seeks nutritional standards with advertised processed foods
(Mantel p. 806). Experts cited in the CQ article who are critical of the
standards do indeed see the proposed CFBAI standards as impossible; as food
companies would need to come up with new children oriented products to meet the
standards. Noncompliance would result in foodstuffs not being advertised. This
is a negative
incentive – a whack from a big stick. It should be no wonder that
food companies are resisting. If these rules are implemented, marketers will
have to change or risk being displaced by competitors who perfectly and
precisely comply. It comes down to the rational choice of surviving as, Òadvertising
is how products are sold in this countryÓ (p. 807). Stone says rational choice
theory rests on the utilitarian model of human behavior (p. 272). This model
states that humans are adaptable, and if the standards are implemented, change
among producers will likely happen with the policy goal of healthful food /
less obesity closer.
Rational choice
among consumers, is at the center of taxing sugar sweetened beverages. Policy
designers are keen to the distinction between excise and sales taxes. They say the excise tax is
an effective incentive because the price is visible Òon the shelfÓ where the
consumer makes their rational pecuniary choice, instead of at the cash register
where the tax / punishment is paid after the purchasing decision (Mantel p.
803).
Another consumer
oriented incentive tool to fight obesity is menu labeling. According to Mantel,
Americans now consume one-third of their calories on food prepared outside the
home (p. 805). The idea is to have restaurant menus and vending machines post
caloric content so people can think twice about their order. Mantel quotes
experts and studies that show menu labeling having a limited effect (p. 805).
Stone anticipates this with what turns out to be a remarkable metaphor, ÒAny
new incentives stand in line behind a broad array of consequences the target
already facesÓ (p. 277). The reward to an informed individual in line at the
eatery only comes after calculating calories. This is a personal cost (p. 279)
in time and mental energy. In addition, there is a distance of time from the
moment of choice to the weeks and months ahead of reaching a personal weight
goal (p. 275). Overcoming the obesogenic environment therefore requires
maintaining various types of self-awareness.
Policy designers
themselves also need to be attentive. A look at other government programs
reveal incentives at odds with fighting obesity. Mantel points to farm
subsidies that drive down prices on sweetener crops like corn (p. 800). A
healthy food producer, such as a carrot farmer, does not receive this incentive
of economic advantage. Perverse incentives are unwittingly built into a rule to create new
problems (Stone p. 305). Stone then lists such situations in the former USSR.
While corn farmers in the United States are not flagrantly manipulating rules
by filling freight cars with water to meet state imposed shipping weight goals,
the corn subsidy is having the negative effect of making many Americans
heavier!
Birkland points to
scholars March and Simon, who recognize the limits on resources and human
abilities to process information (p. 225). Their notion of bounded rationality says just that; food
consumers will behave as rationally as they are capable. And like Stone says, ÒIn
many cases, new information [such as nutrition labeling] doesnÕt change peopleÕs
behavior (p. 323). Eating habits were likely learned over a lifetime and
altering consumption has its personal costs. Food companies have their own
rational incentives to fight government policy proposals that affect them. As
stated above, nutritional standards (the big regulatory stick) on advertised
processed foods seem best positioned to change diets because; if advertising
didnÕt work, we wouldnÕt be inundated by it. If these standards ever pass
Congress, a resulting healthier food / media environment could decrease
obesity. When and if that happens, letÕs pop the corks on the celebratory
carrot juice.
Works Cited
Mantel, B. (2010) Preventing Obesity: Do
Americans face too many obstacles to healthy living? Congressional Quarterly Researcher, Vol.
20, No. 34 pp. 797-820
Stone, D. (2012) Policy Paradox: The Art of Political
Decision Making, 3rd ed. New York, NY, W.W. Norton & Company
Birkland, T.A. (2011) An Introduction to the Policy Process:
Theories, Concepts and Models of Public Policy Making, 3rd ed. New York,
NY, M.E. Sharpe, Inc.