Aaron Yelowitz discussed his Cato Institute policy analysis of restaurant calorie-labeling mandates and their measured relationship with body mass index and obesity.
Participants
- Steve Gruber: Host
- Aaron Yelowitz: Associate Professor of Economics, University of Kentucky; adjunct scholar, Cato Institute
Related research
Transcript
00:00:00 — Steve Gruber: Our next guest, Dr. Aaron Yelowitz, is an associate professor in the Department of Economics at the University of Kentucky. He is also a joint faculty member in the Martin School of Public Policy and Administration at Kentucky and an adjunct scholar with the Cato Institute. Doctor, welcome back to the program.
00:00:15 — Aaron Yelowitz: Thank you very much. Good to be here.
00:00:17 — Steve Gruber: Glad to have you here. Listen, give me an idea here. We hear a lot of talk these days about diets and this and that. Of course, Michelle Obama and different things get said—and whether one should eat fat or sugar. There is a lot of confusion because there are a lot of mixed or contradictory messages out there. Could you help us out a little bit, please?
00:00:34 — Aaron Yelowitz: In a way, I think the answer is that I can’t, and neither can these menu mandates. Basically, the Affordable Care Act—Obamacare—wants to put in mandatory calorie disclosures on restaurant menus, and the logic behind it seems exceedingly simple. It seems like it could be a quick fix for America’s obesity problem. Basically, people might make smarter choices by choosing lower-calorie options when they’re at McDonald’s, Subway, or Wendy’s.
What my research shows is that’s not the case. A number of cities, such as New York and Seattle and a handful of other places, implemented such mandates. You know what happened to obesity?
00:01:19 — Steve Gruber: Nothing. We’re still way too big—is what you’re saying. But in fairness, I will tell you this, and I don’t know about yourself: if you ever go into many fast-food restaurants—I do on occasion when I travel—I look up at the menu, review the number of calories, and sometimes make a decision based solely on that. “Well, that sounds good, but I’m going to go with this item over here because it’s 200 calories less.” I do that. I have to believe that other people do. I can’t be the only guy, can I?
00:01:46 — Aaron Yelowitz: You’re not. In fact, you’re speaking to one. I dropped probably 30 pounds by making substitutions like that. But the real question isn’t whether, for example, you look up at the menu, grab your smartphone and use an app, or buy a book such as Eat This, Not That, which not only talks about calories but also other things that would make you more satisfied when you eat the meal.
The real question is: does the government have any business telling a restaurant whether or not to do that? You do it and I do it because we’re motivated to do so, and that’s why, for example, you might stay at the weight you are. If someone isn’t motivated to do it, all it’s going to do is shame them into feeling bad about what they were already going to eat. We don’t need the government to be in the business of shaming people into eating a salad rather than a cheeseburger.
00:02:40 — Steve Gruber: Some would say that, depending on how you eat that salad, it might not do you any good anyway, depending on what you put on top of it. So there is that, and I agree with you. It’s not the government’s place to tell me how to use my fork, any more than it’s the government’s place to tell me what I can wear—as far as what’s on my shirt and so forth. But is it the government’s place to try to help people be healthier and live better lives? Is there any role for the government in this conversation?
00:03:06 — Aaron Yelowitz: That’s an interesting question. The answer is perhaps, if this kind of mandate actually did improve health. That would be a good conversation to have. My research looks at a well-known, longstanding health-surveillance system. I look at 300,000 people. I look at a bunch of cities, some of which implemented these sorts of regulations and others that did not, and I found absolutely no effect.
Had I found that it did reduce weight and obesity, then that would be a terrific question to ask: whether the government can improve health through mandatory disclosure. On the other hand, since it has no effect, it basically seems like a waste.
00:03:54 — Steve Gruber: Let me ask you this. Again, it’s ever-changing as to what the government tells you that you should eat. Cholesterol is bad; cholesterol doesn’t matter. Salt is bad; salt doesn’t matter. Things change. Don’t eat fat; fat doesn’t really hurt you. Don’t eat sugar. Now, sugar is something we could agree, in large quantities, is not good. It creates internal fat, creates fat in your internal organs, and creates a surge in your serum cholesterol when you eat too much sugar. [Unclear phrase.] Is there a place for the government to say, “Listen, we should reduce the amount of, say, high-fructose corn syrup in the foods that are being produced”? Is there a role for government somewhere in that conversation?
00:04:30 — Aaron Yelowitz: The answer might be. In principle, it seems like it would improve health. What we always need to do is ask: at the end of the day, is health markedly different? Remember, Michelle Obama’s crusade in public schools started eight years ago. Are kids really that much healthier in public schools than they used to be? My own kids basically want lunch from home rather than eating the school lunch because of those kinds of regulations.
The natural question is: the logic behind it is unassailable. We have some sense that certain things are worse than others, but whether people want to change their lifestyle because of the information or regulations is a separate question. If we make food taste bad, they’ll just eat other food.
00:05:17 — Steve Gruber: There is that. It’s kind of a tough struggle that you put out here. Dr. Aaron Yelowitz is here from the University of Kentucky and also works with the Cato Institute. How do we get healthier, then? We’ve got about a minute left here. If the government really doesn’t help and it’s not necessarily its role, what can we do?
00:05:37 — Aaron Yelowitz: Well, the real answer is that it’s not easy. But if one wanted to try to improve health, these ticky-tack little regulations simply remind you that when you eat that cheeseburger, you feel bad about it—but you’re still going to eat it rather than the salad option.
The real way that an economist would argue is that you make people internalize the cost of their actions. If you go and buy health insurance on HealthCare.gov, you pay zero difference in premium if you’re overweight versus not overweight. Last time we spoke, we actually spoke about smoking.
Steve Gruber: Right, right.
Aaron Yelowitz: Basically, what economists would say is that heavier people probably cost more for the health-care system. Why in the world would we price them the same as people who are not overweight?
00:06:30 — Steve Gruber: [Unclear phrase concerning pricing.]
00:06:31 — Aaron Yelowitz: By making people realize the full cost of their actions, we probably can get them to take somewhat different actions.
00:06:37 — Steve Gruber: Dr. Aaron Yelowitz, great conversation. You can find out more at the Cato Institute. Thank you, sir.
Aaron Yelowitz: Thank you very much.