No one said changing the world would be easy.
Certainly one of the strategies put forth to change our nutritional environment is the subsidization of healthy foods.
The theory is pretty straight forward - make healthier foods cheaper and people will buy more of them.
The practice may be slightly different than the theory.
A paper published ahead of print in the journal Psychological Science studied the effects of healthy food subsidizies on the purchasing behaviour of 42 mothers. Half were from low-income families and half high. All moms had at least one child between the ages of 6 and 18 at home and all moms were their family's primary grocery shopper.
Researchers set up a make believe grocery store and divided food into high-calorie for nutrient foods (bad foods) and low-calorie for nutrient foods (good foods) based off of Drewnowski's scoring system.
Participants were given $22.50 in make believe dollars and told to imagine that she had no food in the house and she was to purchase groceries for her family for the week. Prices of foods were based off grocery prices and different scenarios were played out.
Two of the scenarios involved lowering the prices of the good for you foods.
The results?
When good for you foods were subsidized moms did in fact buy more of them. But they also bought more bad for you food - in fact they bought more extra bad for you food than extra good for you food. When the price of the good for you foods was lowered by 10%, moms bought 10.3% more bad for you food but only 6.8% more good for you food.
The authors' conclusions?
If we're looking to use pricing to motivate healthier dietary choices sticks (taxes) may well work better than carrots (subsidies).
Epstein, L., Dearing, K., Roba, L., & Finkelstein, E. (2010). The Influence of Taxes and Subsidies on Energy Purchased in an Experimental Purchasing Study Psychological Science, 21 (3), 406-414 DOI: 10.1177/0956797610361446
Posts
I think no one strategy works in isolation, but as part of an overall, longer-term intervention, a reduction in food prices can help. I think that there's a stage that many people go through of eating "both healthy and not healthy foods" to reassure themselves that their favorite foods are still available to them, and then once comfortable with the healthier foods, they are able to shift some of the less healthy, more calorie dense foods out of their diet.
ReplyDeleteHunger as a force is underestimated by most (not you, Doctor) -- when shifting to less calorie dense foods, you need to eat more often, and for harried people, this can be a challenge. Some people aren't able to eat on the job -- they may get hungrier earlier after breakfast or lunch if their meal is not high in calories, even if it has a good amount of protein and healthy fats.
Changing diet takes time. Just because people bought both healthier and unhealthier foods doesn't mean this strategy can't work. I think lowering the relative cost of healthier foods AND raising the relative cost of unhealthier foods (through changes in subsidies or in taxes) is another way to go. People need time to see that they can eat in a way that doesn't leave them hungry or lacking energy -- and have some guidance along the way to notice how changing their diet changes how they feel. By pinning everything on obesity, we overlook what might be the intrinsic motivations for eating differently -- less stomach upset (i.e. constipation), more sustained energy, supporting local farmers, eating in a pattern that is consistent with their native culture (even if they have to go back three or more generations), etc. It is truly hard, though not impossible, to be a single working parent or part of a two-full-time-working-parent household and prepare most of your food. Of what you can buy that is already prepared -- healthier stuff doesn't taste as great or fill you up for as long.
A little compassion and understanding would be helpful in interpreting these findings.
Hi Wellrounded,
ReplyDeleteI'm confused a bit by your comment because this study doesn't really have anything to do with obesity.
The study was looking at foods that were scored on the basis of Drewnowski's nutrient rich scores which while they do take into account energy, certainly aren't only about energy.
There are plenty of folks who aren't obese who could stand to improve their nutrition just as their are plenty of obese folks who eat terrifically healthy foods.
As far as interpretation of the study goes - I certainly didn't speculate as to the reasons why the outcomes were as they were so I'm not sure where you're coming from with regards to the comment regarding compassion.
My point simply is that the road to improving our environment is almost certainly going to be paved with some unintended consequences.
Ok, this is off topic, but you used the word "mom's" twice in the above article where you clearly meant "moms". I enjoy reading your blog but misused apostrophes make me twitch. For your enjoyment: http://www.angryflower.com/aposter.html
ReplyDeleteThanks Angela for the heads up.
ReplyDeleteLate night blogging will do that to an apostrophe!
If I were given $22.50 and told I had no food in the house, I'd buy for breakfast: milk, oatmeal, trail mix for porridge; for suppers: potatoes, rice, frozen vegetables, a chicken breast, a small package of hamburg for thick soups and stews for supper and then I'd need extra for bread, peanut butter and apples for lunches.
ReplyDeleteIt is really hard to get enough calories into healthy, active kids who play and work outside in a Canadian winter.
I'd agree with taxing food rather than reducing prices. It takes time for peoples shopping habits to change. Plus all the advertising junk food spends on advertising.
ReplyDeleteI think even if the healthy things like blueberries were cheaper because of subsidization, just being told that there's NO FOOD in the house and I have a kid to feed would more likely to send me down the cereal/pasta aisle than the produce one. Not because the subsidies aren't a good idea, just that gram for gram, you get more calorie from carb-densed food than fresh fruits/vegetables.
ReplyDeleteBut I don't think taxes is a good idea. I have bought grapes twice in five years because they cost nearly $3 per pound.
I'm sorry if I sounded super-strident there -- probably needed another hour of sleep before posting.
ReplyDeleteMy point about compassion is similar to Anon. above: If people feel they don't have food in the house (be they poor or wealthy) -- they are more likely to buy foods that bring them some satisfaction, a sense of being "filled up" -- and for most people, fruits and vegetables don't provide that feeling.
I think it's possible to come up with a combination of "carrots and sticks" -- or to set up a choice when it comes to food benefits -- I wonder if anyone has experimented with offering an optional "food stamp" benefit that restricts certain things (soda, high fat or high sugar foods) but provides more money for fresh or frozen vegetables, unprocessed meats, whole grains and legumes. This could be offered alongside a traditional benefit. This would be something that low-income households containing someone at home who can do the cooking -- a grandparent, stay-at-home mom, or unemployed person -- could benefit from.
I think what I was responding to that came across as harsh was the idea that people don't act in their own best interest -- which this study didn't really show.
Perhaps Dr. Drenowski would consider doing a study where at the outset, the participants had a choice of $22.50 for whatever they wanted, or $30.00 for a more limited food selection containing only "healthy foods."
No worries Wellrounded, I think we all read posts primed to a particular interpretation.
ReplyDeleteYour thoughts and others regarding carrots and sticks is indeed a thoughtful path and I have come across proposals similar to yours regarding food stamps where the stamps go much further when purchasing healthier foods.
One thing's for certain, no solution will be ideal and all attempts will have some surprising consequences. Let's just hope that truth doesn't prevent some trial and error.
I actually just read about an offering of an extra $2 in food coupons for every $5 in food coupons spent at a Farmer's Market. Only good at the produce stands, I would think. Because my local Farmer's Markets sell amazing pastries, too.
ReplyDelete