Mindful of "mindless eating"
Brian Wansink, a professor at Cornell University, conducts fascinating research on the ways that eating behavior is influenced by environmental cues. For example, some of Wansink’s studies have found that we eat more if our food is presented on larger plates or if the lights in a restaurant are dim rather than bright.
This research is extremely interesting but what is perhaps even more interesting is that we all think that we’re immune to these kinds of effects.
An article published yesterday in the New York Times put it best: “When it comes to the slippery issues of snacking and portion control, no one thinks he or she is the schmo who digs deep into the snack bowl without thinking, or orders dessert just because a restaurant plays a certain kind of music.”
We also think that we’re immune to the effects of advertising—whether it’s for food or jeans or beer. I suppose we think this for a whole host of reasons. 1. We like to think of ourselves as having 100% free will and being in control of our decisions. If really simple, small things, such as music playing in a restaurant or a highway billboard influences something as important as how much we eat (and therefore weigh), then this suggests that much of our behavior is automatic and nonconscious. 2. We like to think positively about ourselves and admitting that we’re vulnerable to food cues or advertising makes this difficult. As the New York Times article pointed out, nobody wants to be the stooge who does whatever advertisers tell them to do.
But whatever the reasons for this, I worry that this tendency makes us unmotivated (and perhaps unwilling) to make changes in our food environment or to stand up to companies that are marketing unhealthy foods. What do you think?
Anyone who thinks s/he doesn't have natural responses to environmental cues - food/eating related or otherwise - is kidding him/herself. Instinctive and automatic reactions are ingrained in every living organisms. As humans, however, we DO have the conscious ability to decide what to do with those urges. So I disagree that a single factor like the right music or lighting is going to make me overeat, have dessert, etc. If I had a stressful day, my blood sugar is low, my dog just died, my father never loved me AND the lights were dim. . .then yes, I would overeat AND have a dessert or two. And some days I may just want to have dessert, even if the lights are brightly shining in my face and van halen is blaring all around me. My point is that everyone has fallen victim to the mindless advertising game, but I don't think that alone is a terrible threat to the overall health of our society. If I knew that a restaurant I frequented employed these calculated techniques, I wouldn't avoid going there. Unless my football team just lost and I got stood up. . .
Posted by: lkd | October 12, 2006 at 02:55 PM
"For example, some of Wansink’s studies have found that we eat more if our food is presented on larger plates or if the lights in a restaurant are dim rather than bright."
But most fast food restaurants have huge sun windows and no plates.
How can one present less food on a bigger plate? I don't think it happens. This plate-size research is relevant only to all-you-can-eat restaurants, which, as far as I know, only exist in obese America.
Please educate me. Are there all-you-can-eat buffets in East Asia?
I think this is just the kind of frivolous research that a committed anti-obesity politician should be ridiculing in order that he might pass effective legislation.
I actually am immune to the effects of advertising, but that is because I'm autistic. I (literally) don't understand why people behave so irrationally.
I have read studies. I know they do it. I've seen them do it. I understand (intellectually) that it has something to do with the way they think. I just can't empathize on any level.
People are messed up.
Posted by: Miguel Rodriguez | October 13, 2006 at 12:22 AM
What kind of "effective legislation" do you think an anti-obesity politician should promote? What ideas do you have? And how would using Dr. Wansink's research help a politician to pass this legislation?
Posted by: Anna | October 13, 2006 at 08:34 AM
"What kind of 'effective legislation' do you think an anti-obesity politician should promote?"
1. Minimum fitness requirements for federal employment and benefits.
2. Build public parks or "adult playgrounds" in every city and town, modelled after the Communist Chinese policy.
3. Create a mandatory national youth program operated by the Department of Homeland Security in conjuction with the Department of Defense, aimed at training the body and instilling the values of martial combat. This would include weekly weigh-ins and fitness tests for all children. It would be like a karate club that the student could not quit.
4. Co-opt the national broadcast system to air exercise drills at specific times each day. All students and federal employees will follow along with the music and announcer at these specific times, much like the Arabs bow and pray to Allah at certain times throughout the day.
5. End food subsidies. All of them. But particularly corn and dairy.
6. Ban trans fats in restaurants (frying oil), commercial junk food (Oreos), and homes (shortening).
7. Build fitness into the curriculum for grade levels K-12. Require minimum fitness standards for a student to be promoted to the next grade or to graduate. Also require fitness standards for enrollment in state colleges.
8. Restrict food stamp usage to exclude junk food, just as food stamps cannot currently be used to purchase cigarettes or alcohol.
9. Ban junk food in schools.
10. Add time to all criminals' sentences if they fail to meet minimum fitness standards. No obese inmate should ever leave the prison system.
11. Draft carefully-worded legislation designed to prevent big business from marketing an obesity-promoting lifestyle. Obviously, the odd ice cream truck or fairgrounds snack cart should be allowed to operate. We need to draw a distinction between individual and institutional actors. Something along the lines of a food and health standards RICO Act might be in order.
12. Enforce a prohibitive junk food tax, the purpose of which would be to decrease demand for junk food. I refer here to an increase of 25-100%. Not mere pennies. And the proceeds of the tax will not be earmarked for any specific programs. The sole purpose of this tax is to decrease demand for junk food by making it prohibitively expensive (and therefore decrease supply).
For an example of how this might work, consider imported Mexican Coca-Cola containing pure cane sugar. I can only find it locally in 16 oz. bottles, which cost $1.30 each. By volume, that's eight times the price of my usual diet soda, which I purchase in large lots. It would be prohibitively expensive to purchase 24 or 12-packs of Mexican Coca-Cola. However, for the occassional treat, I do stop by the Mexican grocery and purchase a Coke.
Imagine how big an impact it would make if everyone in the country just stopped by for the occassional Coke, as opposed to buying it by the Big Gulp.
13. Here's an idea taken from sexual predator and drug dealer legislation. Make it illegal to sell junk food within one mile of a school!
"And how would using Dr. Wansink's research help a politician to pass this legislation?"
It wouldn't. That's why I don't support his research.
Posted by: Miguel Rodriguez | October 13, 2006 at 06:36 PM