The ever-earnest Paul Krugman reminds us that while science changes snobbery does not.
His theme is a variation of money in politics, with an emphasis on the politicization of nutrition:
Pepperoni Turns Partisan
...
Why should pizza, of all things, be a divisive issue? The immediate answer is that it has been caught up in the nutrition wars. America’s body politic has gotten a lot heavier over the past half-century, and, while there is dispute about the causes, an unhealthy diet — fast food in particular — is surely a prime suspect. As Bloomberg notes, some parts of the food industry have responded to pressure from government agencies and food activists by trying to offer healthier options, but the pizza sector has chosen instead to take a stand for the right to add extra cheese.
Krugman has questions about whether the concept of consumer sovereignty works well with food choices:
The rhetoric of this fight is familiar. The pizza lobby portrays itself as the defender of personal choice and personal responsibility. It’s up to the consumer, so the argument goes, to decide what he or she wants to eat, and we don’t need a nanny state telling us what to do.
...
Beyond that, anyone who has struggled with weight issues — which means, surely, the majority of American adults — knows that this is a domain where the easy rhetoric of “free to choose” rings hollow. Even if you know very well that you will soon regret that extra slice, it’s extremely hard to act on that knowledge. Nutrition, where increased choice can be a bad thing, because it all too often leads to bad choices despite the best of intentions, is one of those areas — like smoking — where there’s a lot to be said for a nanny state.
Oh, and diet isn’t purely a personal choice, either; obesity imposes large costs on the economy as a whole.
I can't push back there, since I have aired similar thoughts myself. However, Krugman eventually veers off into comic sociology that doubles as red meat (or anyway, arugula salad) to his progressive base:
And beyond all that, it turns out that nutritional partisanship taps into deeper cultural issues.
At one level, there is a clear correlation between lifestyles and partisan orientation: heavier states tend to vote Republican, and the G.O.P. lean is especially pronounced in what the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention call the “diabetes belt” of counties, mostly in the South, that suffer most from that particular health problem. Not coincidentally, officials from that region have led the pushback against efforts to make school lunches healthier.
At a still deeper level, health experts may say that we need to change how we eat, pointing to scientific evidence, but the Republican base doesn’t much like experts, science, or evidence. Debates about nutrition policy bring out a kind of venomous anger — much of it now directed at Michelle Obama, who has been championing school lunch reforms — that is all too familiar if you’ve been following the debate over climate change.
Science first, and is he kidding? Prof. Krugman may be the only person in America who has failed to notice that the "science" on nutritional advice has varied wildly over the years. And why is he singling out pepperoni and cheese?
As the Earnest Prof may have forgotten, it was Senator McGovern and his commission on nutrition that decided in 1977 that the science was settled against dietary fat, especially saturated fat:
The dietary goals set forth a plan that would increase the intake of starches (whole grains, legumes, and root vegetables), green and yellow non-starchy vegetables, and fruits. Saturated fats (meat, milk, butter, and cheese), salt, and simple sugars would be reduced in the American diet.
Well, how did that work out? Gary Taubes, Dr. Robert Lustig, and others, have argued for years that the problem is sugar and processed carbohydrates, not saturated fat. And now (hold the front page!) mainstream science seems to be catching up. From the Times:
Nutrition Panel Calls for Less Sugar and Eases Cholesterol and Fat Restrictions
Wait, cholesterol (and eggs?!?) are back? Yet the science was settled...
Since they were first issued in 1980, the guidelines have largely encouraged people to follow a low-fat diet, which prompted an explosion of processed foods stripped of fat and loaded with sugar. Studies show that replacing fat with refined carbohydrates like bread, rice and sugar can actually worsen cardiovascular health, so the guidelines encourage Americans to focus not on the amount of fat they are eating but on the type.
Oh, never mind. Here is a Times guest piece on the grinding of the gears:
The Government’s Bad Diet Advice
FOR two generations, Americans ate fewer eggs and other animal products because policy makers told them that fat and cholesterol were bad for their health. Now both dogmas have been debunked in quick succession.
But here is a more upbeat take:
Behind New Dietary Guidelines, Better Science
Oh, well, now they are using the good science! As to the past, well...
I understand people’s frustration at the continuing shifts in nutrition recommendations. For decades, they’ve been told what to eat because “science says so.” Unfortunately, that doesn’t appear to be true. That’s disappointing not only because it reduces people’s faith in science as a whole, but also because it may have cost some people better health, or potentially even their lives.
Hmm. Out of meanness, let's reprise a snippet of Krugman's column:
At a still deeper level, health experts may say that we need to change how we eat, pointing to scientific evidence, but the Republican base doesn’t much like experts, science, or evidence.
Apparently the experts don't think so much of the experts either. The McGovern Report was the beginning of a dietary debacle and Big Government fail from which it will take decades to recover. Does Krugman really see a clear analogy to the global warming debate vis a vis science denialism? Yike.
I also take umbrage at this, from Krugman:
...there is a clear correlation between lifestyles and partisan orientation: heavier states tend to vote Republican...
Hmm. Krugman amplifies that theme with a blog post noting that even adjusting for race, the heavier states tend to be Redder:
The pattern is still there. If anything, breaking out the ethnic groups strengthens the case for an association between politics and body mass.
Politics? Interestingly, the CDC found a different correlation:
African-Americans, Hispanics, and adults with a high school education or less had significantly higher rates of diagnosed diabetes compared to non-Hispanic white adults and those who had more than a high school education.
Let's not argue about whether African-Americans and Hispanics lean Republican. So what about whites?
Well, per this CDC chart (fig. 3, p. 9) (which does not control for race), college grads tend to be concentrated about where one might expect - the Northeast, California, Chi-town, and, hmm, Colorado. So when Krugman sees fat, stupid white Republicans in the Red States, maybe he is seeing high school grads who no longer back the party of labor. Interesting.
And for comparison, here is the White Obesity/Red States map that caught Krugman's eye:
Since you ask, here is the Democratic base, as reported by the CDC:
Are we really looking at the result of political culture, or is this some comment about obesity being associated with lower income and educational attainment?
For Princeton Progressives the answer is obvious and the opportunity for snobbery irresistible. For the rest of us, the problem may be more nuanced.
Recent Comments