Todd's recent post is great, and has motivated me to put down some of my own thoughts that had had been languishing in "Edit" limbo for the past couple weeks.
There are parts of me that generally agree with good, old-fashioned, libertarian free-market principles. I believe that, all things being equal, government should only intervene in markets where those markets fail, or seriously risk doing so, in order to provide what private industry cannot or will not offer. And I agree with some of the criticism of the idea that society 'makes' us unhealthy, and believe that yes, in many cases, we can usually choose to be healthy.
But where I differ with the "Atlas Shrugged"-toting crowd is the degree to which I think markets tend to fail, and the degree to which choices made in one market impact choices available in others.
First, it's important to remember that we live in a world of CONSTRAINED choices--constrained particularly by the marketplace, i.e., others' choices and preferences (demand) for specific kinds of goods, as well as by our own ability to access those goods at a reasonable price. Here is DC, there's a great little farmer's market 1/4 mile from my house on Sundays, and another that's even closer to my work on Wednesdays. But again, that's here in "progressive" DC--I'm originally a corn-fed Midwestern guy, and grew up where such markets were far scarcer and, well, just FAR. And I've got the disposable income to drop on high-quality food; others, even in my neighborhood, are not so lucky, and have to settle for choosing from a more limited range of more highly processed food. For them, the choice to eat healthy is a much more costly one.
There are parts of me that generally agree with good, old-fashioned, libertarian free-market principles. I believe that, all things being equal, government should only intervene in markets where those markets fail, or seriously risk doing so, in order to provide what private industry cannot or will not offer. And I agree with some of the criticism of the idea that society 'makes' us unhealthy, and believe that yes, in many cases, we can usually choose to be healthy.
But where I differ with the "Atlas Shrugged"-toting crowd is the degree to which I think markets tend to fail, and the degree to which choices made in one market impact choices available in others.
First, it's important to remember that we live in a world of CONSTRAINED choices--constrained particularly by the marketplace, i.e., others' choices and preferences (demand) for specific kinds of goods, as well as by our own ability to access those goods at a reasonable price. Here is DC, there's a great little farmer's market 1/4 mile from my house on Sundays, and another that's even closer to my work on Wednesdays. But again, that's here in "progressive" DC--I'm originally a corn-fed Midwestern guy, and grew up where such markets were far scarcer and, well, just FAR. And I've got the disposable income to drop on high-quality food; others, even in my neighborhood, are not so lucky, and have to settle for choosing from a more limited range of more highly processed food. For them, the choice to eat healthy is a much more costly one.
Also, markets only function well when buyers and sellers (or producers and consumers) have near-perfect information. In reality, especially when it comes to food, we're light-years from this ideal. (Michael Pollan has already covered this territory well).
Lastly, markets only tend to function efficiently when the individual players behave RATIONALLY. But many of us are literally ADDICTED to sugar and salt; we have no experience of what it feels like to be truly healthy. Even when we "know" what the trade-offs are in terms of ill-being and shortened life span, we make the economically irrational choice and slurp down another Venti Frappachino with whip. When it comes to food choices, too many of us are more like crack addicts than car buyers. Rather than "kicking the wheels" and reading the label (or, better yet, eating something UNlabeled), we heedlessly gulp down whatever sugary concoction will give us our "fix."
Food product marketers themselves prey on our weaknesses. I have yet to begin to research this in any depth, but my hunch is that one of the reasons that food production companies chafe at voluntarily cutting back their sugar, salt, & corn syrup is that it may leave them vulnerable to competitors who DON'T cut back. (To Todd's point, one solution certainly is a broad-based regulatory intervention, or even a tax, that hits ALL producers/consumers evenly.) Since most consumers buy on that initial taste rush, any such cut back could translate into a loss of short-term competitive advantage. And though one could argue that consumer tastes appear to be gradually shifting in the healthier direction, many companies are merely paying lip-service to this trend; they still want to avoid losing their health-ignorant base just to please that smaller, health conscious segment. Starbucks, for example, is only going so far to improve their products; notice that they'll happily and publicly dial back every nasty ingredient--EXCEPT the two worst, the sugar and refined flour:
The housing market collapsed in 2007, bringing down our economy--and nearly bringing down our society--because individual suppliers relied on lack of knowledge and self-control on the part of consumers to pull them into shouldering unmanageable levels of debt, without realizing the cumulative impacts of their actions. In so doing, they burdened themselves, and everyone who ended up bearing or owning that debt, with unmanageable levels of financial risk, for which we are all now collectively covering the bill.
We're doing it all again, but now with our health. The cumulative actions of suppliers--food product companies, nutritionists, journalists, the fad diet industry, the medical industry--is pushing people to take on unmanageable levels of physical stress and bodily damage. In so doing, they are burdening themselves, and everyone who--literally--consumes their products, with unmanageable levels of physical risk. And once again, at the end of the day, it's everybody else who pays--via higher insurance premiums, higher in-patient medical expenses, higher Medicare and Medicaid taxes, lower worker productivity, and a generally lower quality of life.
Lastly, markets only tend to function efficiently when the individual players behave RATIONALLY. But many of us are literally ADDICTED to sugar and salt; we have no experience of what it feels like to be truly healthy. Even when we "know" what the trade-offs are in terms of ill-being and shortened life span, we make the economically irrational choice and slurp down another Venti Frappachino with whip. When it comes to food choices, too many of us are more like crack addicts than car buyers. Rather than "kicking the wheels" and reading the label (or, better yet, eating something UNlabeled), we heedlessly gulp down whatever sugary concoction will give us our "fix."
Food product marketers themselves prey on our weaknesses. I have yet to begin to research this in any depth, but my hunch is that one of the reasons that food production companies chafe at voluntarily cutting back their sugar, salt, & corn syrup is that it may leave them vulnerable to competitors who DON'T cut back. (To Todd's point, one solution certainly is a broad-based regulatory intervention, or even a tax, that hits ALL producers/consumers evenly.) Since most consumers buy on that initial taste rush, any such cut back could translate into a loss of short-term competitive advantage. And though one could argue that consumer tastes appear to be gradually shifting in the healthier direction, many companies are merely paying lip-service to this trend; they still want to avoid losing their health-ignorant base just to please that smaller, health conscious segment. Starbucks, for example, is only going so far to improve their products; notice that they'll happily and publicly dial back every nasty ingredient--EXCEPT the two worst, the sugar and refined flour:
The housing market collapsed in 2007, bringing down our economy--and nearly bringing down our society--because individual suppliers relied on lack of knowledge and self-control on the part of consumers to pull them into shouldering unmanageable levels of debt, without realizing the cumulative impacts of their actions. In so doing, they burdened themselves, and everyone who ended up bearing or owning that debt, with unmanageable levels of financial risk, for which we are all now collectively covering the bill.
We're doing it all again, but now with our health. The cumulative actions of suppliers--food product companies, nutritionists, journalists, the fad diet industry, the medical industry--is pushing people to take on unmanageable levels of physical stress and bodily damage. In so doing, they are burdening themselves, and everyone who--literally--consumes their products, with unmanageable levels of physical risk. And once again, at the end of the day, it's everybody else who pays--via higher insurance premiums, higher in-patient medical expenses, higher Medicare and Medicaid taxes, lower worker productivity, and a generally lower quality of life.
I think you're right about the constrained choices that most grocery shoppers face living in most parts of America. Even in urban areas, the supermarkets in low-income neighborhoods were where you had the least choice of fresh fruits and veggies at higher prices than in higher-income areas.
ReplyDeleteAs a teacher, it was always really upsetting to see kids whose moods and ability to concentrate was so obviously affected by their poor diet and knowing that school lunches, while at least a secure meal in their day, were not doing all they should to provide actual nutrition for these kids.
Being outside of the US right now, looking in, I'm feeling like this oil spill and the obesity crisis are metaphoric equals: signs that self-regulation of industry means that businesses simply stop all semblance of self-control and that these companies (BP, Kraft, Nabisco) are certainly not looking out for or giving a crap at all about the health of individual people.