The Science of Taste

This article by David Owen in National Geographic is chock full of interesting tidbits on the science of taste and flavor.  

For example, why many kids hate broccoli?

“The aversion to bitter foods is inborn too, she said, and it also has survival value: It helps us avoid ingesting toxins that plants evolved to keep from being eaten—including by us.”

The idea that many of us were taught as kids - that there are taste buds on different parts of the tongue that signal different flavors - is flat wrong:

“It’s true that in some people the receptors for particular tastes may be more concentrated in certain areas on the tongue, but all of them are found all over, and a Q-tip dipped in lemon juice will seem sour no matter where you dab it. (The receptors sit on the surface of taste cells, which are bundled together in taste buds.)”

and

“Although the tongue map doesn’t exist, there may be a taste map in the brain . . .”

That is, taste is about more than what hits our tongue.  

“Taste receptors alone don’t produce tastes; they have to be connected to taste centers in the brain. In recent decades scientists have discovered receptors identical to some of those on the tongue in other parts of the body, including the pancreas, intestines, lungs, and testes. We don’t “taste” anything with them, but if, for example, we inhale certain undesirable substances, the bitter receptors in our lungs send a signal to our brains, and we cough.”

Interestingly, most chefs are taught very little about the science of taste and flavor.

“Stuckey teaches a course at the San Francisco Cooking School called “The Fundamentals of Taste.” “Most culinary schools don’t teach students how to taste before they start to cook,” she said. “They jump right in with, like, knife skills. But how can you possibly start an education around food without the building blocks of flavor?” She and her students do an exercise in which they make barbecue sauce. Most of the ingredients she provides are ones you would guess: tomato sauce, tomato paste, sugar, honey, liquid smoke, paprika. But there’s also a tray of ingredients whose predominant taste is bitter: coffee, cocoa, tea, bitters. “It’s not really intuitive, because you don’t think of barbecue sauce as bitter, but if you taste it before and after you add a bitter ingredient, you realize that bitter changes the whole gestalt”

All these complex interactions make it tough when we decide to vilify an ingredient - say sugar or fat - because ingredients have complex interactions in term of smell, taste, mouth feel, etc.  In fact,, we can trick our brain into thinking something is sweeter than it actual is:

“Bartoshuk told me that increasing the concentration of sweetness-enhancing volatiles in certain foods may make it possible to reduce their sugar content without making them taste less sweet. But she worries about unintended consequences. “As soon as we can produce a sweet experience that has no calories, isn’t toxic, and has no nasty characteristics—what will that mean for the brain?””

The whole thing is interesting.  

(HT Bailey Norwood)

Economists weight in on sugar tax

Tamar Haspel has another sensible article in the Washington Post, this time on the potential effects of a soda tax.

She interviewed a slew of top food and agricultural economists, and by and large, I agree with most of what they had to say.  There were three points I would have added.

First, Haspel discusses the potential of sugar (rather than soda) taxes without mentioning the fact that sugar is ALREADY taxed (indirectly via various government programs).  Here's what I wrote in a short piece for the Congressional Quarterly on the issue:

“Should the government tax sugared soda? It already does. Farm policies make U.S. sugar prices two to three times higher than elsewhere. Moreover, ethanol policies have led to a more than doubling of the price of high fructose corn syrup since 2005. It’s no wonder that per capita sugar consumption has fallen precipitously over the last decade.”

Second, while Haspel mentions a quote from the industry that the taxes are "unfair", she doesn't mention that they're regressive -meaning  the costs being born relatively more by those who can least afford to pay them.  Yes, we need to raise government revenue some way, but as I've noted before, even some good economists seem to miss the fact that we should choose taxes in a way to minimize dead weight loss, not how taxes feel or appeal to a particular cause.

Finally, despite acknowledging that soda taxes are likely to have very little benefits, Haspel concludes,

“If the choice is to do this or do nothing, I choose this. ”

I'm sorry, but if my choice is between nothing and a policy that is paternalistic, regressive, will create economic distortions and deadweight loss, and is unlikely to have any significant effects on public health, I choose nothing.   

Who are the Soda Tax Baptists and Bootleggers?

That is a question asked by Adam Smith and Bruce Yandle in an article over at Reason.com.  They write of the traditional Baptist and Bootlegger scenario where one group with the moral high ground gives cover to another group with entirely different motives:

“Why “bootleggers and Baptists”? Recall that both historically supported laws that shut down liquor stores on Sunday, but for entirely different reasons. Taking the moral high ground, the Baptists fervently hoped to see a decline in alcohol consumption. Just as fervently, the bootleggers longed to eliminate competition at least for one day a week. Together, they formed a powerful duo.”

They then go on to discuss the various calls for soda taxes.  But, they apparently only see Baptists and no bootleggers.

“The “Baptist” part of the story is clear cut. Long-time support for such excise taxes comes from the American Heart Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the NAACP. These and other organizations see sweet drinks as a major detriment to American health and well-being that feeds our skyrocketing obesity and diabetes rates.

...

But where are the bootleggers? If we probe a wee bit deeper, we may discover why there is no bootlegger/Baptist success story for taxing away sugary drink consumption. Bootleggers are generally associated with producing substitutes for the highly-taxed or regulated item. For example, U.S. producers of natural gas love it when the Environmental Protection Agency places heavy restrictions on coal-burning power plants.”

Because Coca-Cola and other soda manufacturers also sell diet drinks, juices, water, and other non-taxed alternatives, they apparently don't have an incentive to be "bootleggers", and thus Smith and Yandle conclude there are none, which is why they argue that soda taxes haven't gotten far politically.

In part they're right.  But, I think they're missing an all together different sort of "bootlegger" in the story.  Some baptists are bootleggers: they're one and the same.   

Yes, non-profits, public health advocates, academics, and bureaucrats often make appeals that seem virtuous and Baptist-like.  But, often their motives are less than altruistic.  

Consider the fact that almost every call for soda or fat taxes also suggests that the tax receipts should be spent on activities that would directly or indirectly benefit said groups.  Here for example, is Mark Bittman in the New York Times

“The resulting income should be earmarked for a program that encourages a sound diet for Americans by making healthy food more affordable and widely available.”

A New York Assemblyman, arguing for a statewide fat tax said the proposal should go foward

“as long as the revenue is directly targeted and used to address a healthy lifestyle, and not to fill a budget gap”

Yes, these programs might benefit people's health.  But, look at who else the earmarks also help.  Who will be paid to do the education, promotion, monitoring, etc.?  Moreover, the federal government already spends millions of dollars every year on dietary and obesity research, and surely many academics would benefit from increased budgets for research and education grants on obesity, nutrition, and health care.

I'm not necessarily saying this sort of research or education shouldn't be done, but what I am saying is that many of the Baptists in this case also have (perhaps not even self conscious) bootlegger-type motives.  As a result, its often hard to have thoughtful discussions about the economic justifications (or lack thereof) of fat taxes.  I think it was Upton Sinclair who said

“It’s difficult to get a man to understand something if his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”

GMO and Soda Votes

I have been keeping an eye on several ballot initiatives in yesterday's election.  Not all results are finalized, but here's what we know so far:

In Colorado, mandatory GMO labeling was defeated by a wide margin, 66% to 34%, with 93% of precincts reporting.

In Oregon, mandatory GMO labeling is very close and still up in the air.  With 88% of the votes counted, the "No's" are ahead by about 26,000 votes (659,404 to 633,132), giving the "No's" a current 51% to 49% margin. 

A vote in Maui, HI to ban cultivation of GMOs is too close to call

Berkeley, CA passed a soda tax (75% in favor vs. 25% opposed)

The majority of voters in San Francisco, CA favored a soda tax (55% in favor), but the initiative required a 2/3 majority to pass. Thus, the soda tax failed in San Francisco.  

Should the government regulate unhealthy foods?

That was the question asked in a long piece by the Congressional Quarterly Researcher a few days ago.  I had several nice conversations with Robert Kiener, the author of the piece, and was pleased he included a few of my thoughts.  

The article had a page (pg. 833) with alternative viewpoints responding to the question: "should the government tax sugary soda?"  Writing in favor was Michael Jacobson with the Center for Science in the Public Interest.  Writing in opposition was yours truly.  Jacobson repeatedly refers to "big soda's" talking points, but my views are my own and I have no financial ties to the soda or sugar industries.  I began by writing:

“Should the government tax sugared soda? It already does. Farm policies make U.S. sugar prices two to three times higher than elsewhere. Moreover, ethanol policies have led to a more than doubling of the price of high fructose corn syrup since 2005. Its no wonder that per capita sugar consumption has fallen precipitously over the last decade.”

You can read the rest for my other thoughts.  

On the sugar policy issue, I'll note this paper just released by Beghin and Elobeid in the journal Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy on the effects of sugar policy.  They write on the effects of the removal of US sugar policy.  They estimate the removal of the sugar program would lead to a roughly 30% reduction in the US price of refined sugar.  They write: 

“The removal of the sugar program would increase U.S. consumers’ welfare by $2.9 to $3.5 billion each year and generate a modest job creation of 17,000 to 20,000 new jobs in food manufacturing and related industries. Imports of sugar containing products would fall dramatically, especially confectioneries substituting for domestic inputs under the sugar program. Sugar imports would rise substantially to 5–6 million short tons raw sugar equivalent. World sugar price increases would be minor, equivalent to about 1 cent per pound.”

The interesting dichotomy (dare I say, irony) is that the ~$3 billion in consumer benefits estimated from the above study come about because of lower sugar prices that would arise if US sugar policy were eliminated. But, it seems sugar price advocates think just the opposite: rising sugar prices will somehow benefit consumers.  We can't have it both ways.  Either falling sugar prices help or hurt consumers.  I don't know about you, but I prefer paying lower prices.