Tim Worstall is irate because the Government appears to be suggesting that chocolate is sold in smaller sizes to tackle the obesity ‘crisis’.
He said that surveys and food production statistics suggested that total calorie intakes had not increased.
So, err, if calorie intake has not increased, it isn’t increased calorie intake causing the problem. It’s reduced exercise causing it. So the solution is not reduced size choccie bars, it’s more exercise
You can’t determine cause and effect so simply here. Calorie intake has not increased in absolute terms, but relative to the amount of exercise we do, then surely it has. So calorie management, for a given (reduced) level of exercise could indeed be the problem. But Tim is right to stress exercise too.
Anyway, what I actually wanted to say that the Government’s suggestion is one that rational manufactuers should take up anyway (but obviously shouldn’t be forced too).
It’s well know that people have self-control problems but it’s less well appreciated that individuals sometimes manage the problem not by cutting out the product altogether, but by consuming it in smaller quantities at a higher price. Economically, this shifts their budget set it, restricting their future ability to buy said ’sin’ good. Psychologically, the higher price, smaller and more appealing packaging makes the purchase appear as a gift, increasing utlity.
An opportunity for competitive paternalism, I think
no comments