Behavioral Economics, Food Assistance, and Obesity

Agricultural and Resource Economics Review,  Oct 2006  by Just, David R

• E-mail
• Print
• Link

Secondly, vouchers could be given that are good only for smaller packaged items. Currently, many programs (e.g., in California) provide vouchers for several large boxes of cereal. The stockpiling effect can be compounded when manufacturers run two-for-one bill-back trade promotions. These common promotions allow all consumers to reduce the average price of consumption if they buy two boxes. During these promotions, participants would be encouraged to purchase two boxes of cereal for each allowed by the voucher. Stockpiling large quantities of cereal increases consumption considerably. Such interactions between food marketers and food assistance are not well understood, and deserve further examination.

Finally, Just et al. (2006) suggest that WIC may be able to influence consumption monitoring by giving participants glasses, cups, or plates that are designed to exaggerate the size of the portion placed on them. Wansink (2004) describes how tall glasses (rather than short and wide glasses) can reduce consumption volume. Individuals tend to focus on the height rather than width when judging volume. This creates the possibility of offering the individual greater control of the food environment, with possible positive health effects.

Conclusions and Directions for Research

While the potential to use food psychology in food assistance policy exists, several challenges must first be overcome. Very little is known about how eating behaviors interact with prices and other traditional mechanisms. Thus, while initial evidence suggests the usefulness of behavioral policies, their true effectiveness is a mystery. More work must be done to measure the effects of behavioral mechanisms on the functioning of food assistance programs. The goals of this research should be to calibrate the effects of offering behavior-targeted options, determine the cost-effectiveness of such options, and evaluate the tradeoffs in costs, benefits, health, social stigma, and membership for traditional policies offering similar behavioral changes.

It is difficult to argue the importance of policies targeting willpower, underestimation of quantities, or decisions made in haste. There are, however, some precedents for the banning of certain money-making schemes (such as pyramid marketing or certain investment vehicles) or the regulation of walk-away periods for many contracts. More research into the relationship between behavioral-based marketing and the consequences it may have on unsuspecting consumers may highlight the need for such policies in the food industry. Clearly, food assistance must strike a delicate balance between the nutritional minimums of the participants, participant behavior, and the motivations of the food marketers, which may be perverse. I argue that, currently, the mechanisms are not in place to strike this balance. Rather, traditional mechanisms used for food assistance may increase the ability of food marketers to leverage behavioral anomalies.

For consumers in general, current policy on food marketing concerns primarily the truthfulness of the health claims made on packaging. Ironically, truthful claims may often mislead consumers into thinking that items that have "less fat" are necessarily better than their normal-fat counterparts-even if sugar or other items have been added to compensate. Despite the evidence that smaller packages can lead to healthier portion sizes, marketers are currently forbidden from advertising such a fact.