Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Politics

Study: Food Choice Always an Illusion, Except When it's Not

Baylen Linnekin | 12.2.2011 12:31 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

A recent study by Cornell University researcher David Levitsky claims that modern man's ability to choose to regulate our food intake is a myth*. "Food choice is an illusion," writes Levitsky, a nutrition science professor.

[Levitsky and a graduate student] found that a complex combination of factors influenced our food choices, including portion size, variety of foods offered, fat content of the diet, the number of people eating, location, and exposure to food advertisting…

In combination these factors are so powerful that, unless we are restrained by surgery of structured eating plans, or by a dedication to prevent future weight gain (restrained eating), we become vulnerable to all stimuli presented, mostly by commercial interests who have learned to effectively use these techniques to encourage us to eat a little more," they wrote.

"If we add our personal responsibility to resist food cuse to the collective responsibility of government to control the many food signals in our environment… we may amass the power, and the will, to curb the epidemic of obesity."

I'm willing to buy the conclusions the researchers reach in the first paragraph above. It's almost tautology to claim that what we eat is influenced by the food choices available around us, our environment, etc.

But how Levitsky et al. go from arguing lots of factors influence what we eat to the passive voice of food victimization--unless we are restrained rather than unless I restrain myself--and government control is a mystery. Especially when concepts like restrained choice and dedication are so rooted in… choice.

Note: I attempted to read but have not read the study, so maybe the research is clearer than the linked story implies. (The linked site, in addition to providing a dead link to the Levitsky study, also boasts a super-annoying widget that makes text on the page immune from simple copy-and-paste--which forced me to type out the damn text above, which makes me cranky as all get out.)

*Added "is a myth" after realizing belatedly that I'd forgotten to do so in the first place.

Baylen Linnekin is the director of Keep Food Legal, a nonprofit dedicated to preserving and increasing "culinary freedom," the right of all Americans to grow, sell, prepare and eat foods of their own choosing. To join or learn more about the group's activities, go here. To follow Keep Food Legal on Twitter, go here; to follow Linnekin, go here.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: TSA Screeners Play Fashion Police, Force Woman to Miss Flight Over Aesthetically Displeasing Purse

Reason Foundation Senior Fellow Baylen Linnekin is a food lawyer, scholar, and adjunct law professor, as well as the author of Biting the Hands That Feed Us: How Fewer, Smarter Laws Would Make Our Food System More Sustainable (Island Press 2016).

PoliticsNanny StateFood Freedom
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (79)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. WTF   14 years ago

    ...the collective responsibility of government to control the many food signals in our environment

    Go fuck yourself with a pineapple, you fucking authoritarian shitstain.

    1. Gojira   14 years ago

      That was the first sentence that jumped out at me, also. I wasn't aware such a responsibility existed.

    2. wareagle   14 years ago

      the fact is that a good chunk of society actually believes govt does have such a role or should. They're the same folks who see obesity as an epidemic rather than largely the result of bad choices.

      1. Jack the Reaper   14 years ago

        "a good chunk of society"

        I see what you did there...

  2. Bee Tagger   14 years ago

    The advertisement I'm seeing on the right is for Dietz & Watson deli meat.

    Ready to have your mind blown? I'm eating a sandwich right now.

    Ready for your mind to be put back together only to be blown again? I started eating the sandwich before coming to Reason.

    1. EDG reppin' LBC   14 years ago

      My ad is for a Filipina dating service.

      Ready to have your mind blown? I'm eating a...

    2. chris   14 years ago

      Mine has the Progressive car insurance girl. She is actually attractive in person, and it takes a few hours of make up to make her look like that.

    3. Aresen   14 years ago

      Mine is for weight loss.

    4. R C Dean   14 years ago

      I've got Reason hoody girl.

  3. free2booze   14 years ago

    Finally, someone with some sense. This explains why I am powerless to avoid the McDonalds drive through window, and can't avoid walking out of the gas station with a bag of Cheetos, and a Snickers bar.

    No doubt, the same factors that force me to purchase shitty foods, also force me to spend hours at the nudey bar each week, and why I sit outside of my local high school each afternoon to watch the girls lacrosse team practice.

    I am a victim.

    1. Playamanhattan   14 years ago

      Do you not have girls volleyball or something?

  4. Episiarch   14 years ago

    found that a complex combination of factors influenced our food choices, including portion size, variety of foods offered, fat content of the diet, the number of people eating, location, and exposure to food advertisting [sic]

    O Rly? Thanks for stating the completely obvious, you abject morons.

    1. Post-Coital Rat   14 years ago

      the number of people eating
      We obviously need strict limits on the number of people at any gathering where food is present.

  5. Fluffy   14 years ago

    If Levitsky's claim were true, we'd all be fat. There would be no thin people anywhere.

    And as usual by using smarmy and deceptive terms like "stimuli" and "influence" he tries to cover up that what is being talked about here is basic human communication. Communication that is either true or false. When Burger King says, "Come eat our Whopper sandwich, it's delicious!" they are telling me the truth. So when he talks about having the government "save" us from Burger King, what he really means is that Burger King must be punished for figuring out how to make cheap food that tastes good, and must be prevented from telling anyone about their cheap food that tastes good. Because punishing people for success and for truth-telling is par for the course with these assholes.

  6. Shirley Knott   14 years ago

    The second paragraph quoted is the real killer -- it boils down to "unless you decide the way we want you to you must be constrained to decide the way we want you to".
    Intercourse with a pineapple seems far too mild a punishment for these slavers.

    no hugs for thugs,
    Shirley Knott

  7. Warty   14 years ago

    Equinox|12.1.11 @ 12:44PM|#|show direct|ignore
    Social sciences are just as rigorous as any other science it just that some people don't like what the science says so they choose to ignore it.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    1. CoyoteBlue   14 years ago

      Social Science is Super! Scienceee!

  8. Sparky   14 years ago

    which makes me cranky as all get out.

    And explains the spelling errors.

    A recent study by Cornell University researcher David Levitsky claims that modern man's ability to choose to regulate our food intake.

    And what happened there?

    Seriously though, I'd like to find every one of these assholes and gouge their eyes out with a plastic spoon.

    1. Metazoan   14 years ago

      Thank you, I was hoping someone would inquire as to the unfortunate happenings in the first sentence.

  9. ?   14 years ago

    I attempted to read but have not read the study

    The individual will is entarten. We have to amass collective power and click the link all at once, super-hard.

    (Also, "cuse." You typed that.)

    1. Spartacus   14 years ago

      I just read it, and no, there is nothing of substance that you missed. Here are a couple of excerpts:

      Our weight monitoring studies demonstrate that it is
      possible resist
      [sic] food primes by providing people with a
      means to detect small changes in their weight.

      (Yes, they do claim to have editors)
      And in the next paragraph...

      ...only when we separate ourselves
      from this environment either by physically restricting
      the capacity of our stomach to consume large amounts of
      food or restricting our eating to portion-controlled meals,
      or by providing ourselves daily reminders of changes in
      our body weight, is it possible to control our weight.

      You're welcome.

      Here's a link but I think there might be a paywall (I got to it thru our library).

  10. Gojira   14 years ago

    ...our personal responsibility to resist food cuse...

    I do consider it my personal responsibility to combat my food using swear-words at the dinner table.

  11. Sevo   14 years ago

    I guess those eleventy-seven different soups just gather dust on the shelves.

    1. John Tagliaferro   14 years ago

      They are all strategically placed there to confuse you into buying the one with the greatest profit margin and least nutrition. Some crackpot scientist on BookTV went through the progression using Cheerios as his example. He said that people really need raw oats and would prefer them, but "corporations" process all of the nutrition out of them and make more money off of the processed product. I really need to find that video, it is classic.

  12. mdb   14 years ago

    right click view page source, copy the text. You have to search the HTML but you can copy.

    1. Rob McMillin   14 years ago

      Was gonna say. Also, Firefox 8.0 with AdBlock Plus (all hail!) does not have this problem, by which I assume there is some asshole third party that is wrecking things with Javascript.

      1. Nephilium   14 years ago

        Don't forget NoScript... one of the best little add-ons ever.

        1.   14 years ago

          >Firefox
          >ad block
          >no script
          God-tier internet experience.

    2. anomdebus   14 years ago

      In Chrome Options(Under the hood/Content settings), I added the domain to javascript exceptions to block javascript just for that domain.

  13. John Tagliaferro   14 years ago

    Levitsky gives away the game in the first paragraph. All Stalinists (let's not mix belief systems here, Marxism has been dead since Stalin showed the hard Left the light) believe that a primary reason that anything is sold in the free market is because of advertising.

    I guess the days of Congress hauling in CEOs of food companies to "explain" why they advertise, and why there is so much "confusing" consumer choice in packaging are over. National Socialism has been streamlined.

    1. Clich? Bandit   14 years ago

      I really want to see a Howard Huges moment again...but with vulgar profanity.

      I mean it...If I ever get uber rich and own a company that pisses off congress and I get hauled in front of them (i believe the supoena is compulsory but not answering any questions) I would rail like there is not tomorrow.

    2. Aresen   14 years ago

      It has been a constant theme since Vance Packard wrote The Hidden Persuaders in the 1950s.

      The subtext is always "I (and the good people like me) are somehow immune to this and thus should be given the power to dictate to the proles."

  14. Xajow   14 years ago

    "A recent study by Cornell University researcher David Levitsky claims that modern man's ability to choose to regulate our food intake." Eh? Did the rest of that sentence get eaten by the internet?

    1. John Tagliaferro   14 years ago

      What is amazing (not) is the babble that man cannot regulate his own food intake, but other men can do it for him.

      1. Pol Pot   14 years ago

        Worked for me.

      2. Pol Pot   14 years ago

        Worked for me.

        1. John Tagliaferro   14 years ago

          Hey Pol, did you murder more people than Lenin and less than Hitler, or did you edge Hitler out too?

  15. jdd   14 years ago

    I'm confused. Wouldn't the government workers be exposed to advertising and then use that to force us to eat McDonald's?

    Shouldn't the government be regulating stiumli and not choice, then?

    If we can't control what we eat then can we control what we think?

    Is socialism the result of insufficient governmental regulation of stupid ideas?

    1. Mad Scientist   14 years ago

      If the government gets to decide what you eat, McDonald's will stop advertising and start lobbying the Choosing Foods for Healthier Americans Administration.

      1. John Tagliaferro   14 years ago

        Should help their profit margin. Paying off a few bureaucrats is a lot cheaper than an advertising campaign.

        1. Sevo   14 years ago

          Already does; the 10-cent happy toys.

  16. Live Free or Diet   14 years ago

    If we can exert no choice in our eating, how did I lose 125 pounds in eight months?

    I agree that the choice of what we eat can cause powerful urges to eat more of similar things, but that's why at times I cut out sugar, grains, pasta and potatoes entirely. When the cravings have been gone for a couple weeks, I can consider slowly reintroducing them again.

    1. John Tagliaferro   14 years ago

      You were somehow insulated from the corporate culture, or you just got some bad disease from a corporation. Look for a Koch Industries or other presence within 12,000 miles of your home.

    2. Clich? Bandit   14 years ago

      slowly reintroducing them again.

      NOOOOO!

      Don't do it. Those are the things that cuased you to gain in the first place. Not even in moderation. Read the Warty recomended book "Good Calories Bad Calories" and look up Metabolic Syndrome and Glycemic Index. Trust me, you wnat to keep that weight off and stay feeling good avoid ALL easily metaboliozed sugars...ALL!

      By the way, excellent job on losing it in the first place, lost 40 myself.

    3. Warty   14 years ago

      When the cravings have been gone for a couple weeks, I can consider slowly reintroducing them again.

      And then I can consider coming to your house and punching you in the dick.

      Hey, now that you're not a fatty, you should set about becoming awesome.

      1. Clich? Bandit   14 years ago

        I got his other one because of you...Next you know I will be taking stock tips.

    4. EDG reppin' LBC   14 years ago

      I ate two McDouble's yesterday. Total crap nutritionally, but so tasty. No big deal, because I jog every morning. I can eat crap food and drink too much because I exercise. Personal responsibility has to be part of this equation, right? Why solely punish food manufacturers? Why don't they propose some compulsory exercise? Why are some Cornell researchers even concerned about what or why I choose my food? I certainly don't give a fuck what they eat, and would prefer they do the same to me. Jeesh!

  17. Spoonman.   14 years ago

    So I assume Levitsky opposes Cornell's sale of delicious, delicious cheese fries at RPCC then?

    Cornell also produces ice cream that is too fatty to commercially market.

    It's delicious.

    1. Auric Demonocles   14 years ago

      You enjoyed RPCC? You monster. Louis' Lunch all the way.

      1. Spoonman.   14 years ago

        My parents were generous with food points but not with cash, so I went with RPCC.

        1. Auric Demonocles   14 years ago

          Who said anything about parents?

        2. Auric Demonocles   14 years ago

          Thinking about it more, I was wrong. BRB is tops during the day (when it's open).

  18. Samuel Johnson   14 years ago

    All theory is against free will; all experience is for it.

    1. Apatheist   14 years ago

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOSYiT2iG08

  19. R C Dean   14 years ago

    Is it just me, or is the first paragraph ("a complex combination of factors influenced our food choices") pretty much completely negated by the second ("unless we are restrained by . . . a dedication to prevent future weight gain (restrained eating)")?

    Shorter Levitsky: "People eat a lot, unless they decide not to."

    1. JW   14 years ago

      I can't tell if they're projecting their own pathetic lack of restraint onto everyone else, or that their smug sense of superiority is so complete, that they're convinced that the prols need their Olympic guidance in order to put on their pants in the morning.

      1. R C Dean   14 years ago

        Its both, JW. They both project their inadequacies onto everyone else, and deny those same inadequacies by setting themselves up as the Top. Men. everyone else needs to guide them through life.

  20. Mr. Mark   14 years ago

    This professor's "theory" is straight out of the anti-capitalist, stealth-communism of John Galbraith. This guy is just another commie.

  21. AlmightyJB   14 years ago

    All choice is an illusion. You are all figments of my dreaming imagination, therefore, you do as I imagine and have no choice in the matter. You eat what my subconscious decides that you eat.

  22. JW   14 years ago

    "If we add our personal responsibility to resist food cuse to the collective responsibility of government to control the many food signals in our environment... we may amass the power, and the will, to curb the epidemic of obesity."

    "This message is brought to you by your friends at Adbusters."

    1. cynical   14 years ago

      "we may amass the power"

      Yes, here is the salient point of the article. The rest is just fluff.

  23. GILMORE   14 years ago

    Why am I not fat?

    1. SugarFree   14 years ago

      The societal pressures of the patriarchy have given you an eating disorder.

  24. Sevo   14 years ago

    John Tagliaferro|12.2.11 @ 1:58PM|#
    "They are all strategically placed there to confuse you into buying the one with the greatest profit margin and least nutrition...."

    And it WORKS! Except when it doesn't.

    1. John Tagliaferro   14 years ago

      I swear I need to find the video from that nut on CSPAN-whatever, or wherever the hell he was speaking. His little bookstore audience was eating it up.

  25. Auric Demonocles   14 years ago

    unless we are restrained ... by a dedication to prevent future weight gain (restrained eating),

    So if I don't restrain my eating, I end up eating a lot?

  26. R C Dean   14 years ago

    So, what did you folks have for lunch?

    Me, it was leftover enchiladas. Muy tasty.

    1. Sevo   14 years ago

      Left-over meat loaf, nuked with swiss on top, on toasted rye with (amazingly good, for this time of year) sliced tomatoes.
      Yum.

    2. Clich? Bandit   14 years ago

      KFC, but I get the 4 pc drumstick and thigh all grilled just the chicken, no biscuit, no drink.

      1. Clich? Bandit   14 years ago

        I love that my doctor recomended diet calls for fatty ribeye steak, bacon, eggs, more bacon, sausage, and grilled kfc (I supposed I should eat broccoli and spinich too but that is why I take Lighting Juice)

    3. Spoonman.   14 years ago

      I am moving soon, so I chopped up some leftover ham, and made a burrito of sadness with the ham, some shredded cheese, and some salsa.

      It turns out you can crock-pot cranberries and chicken and it turns out OK.

      1. R C Dean   14 years ago

        a burrito of sadness

        I've done that. At least I usually have some delicious Grandma Dean's Recipe Authentic Olde New Mexico Chili to drown it in.

    4. Jack the Reaper   14 years ago

      Small salad from a local cafe salad bar. Very tasty.

    5. EDG reppin' LBC   14 years ago

      Roast Beef and cheddar on sourdough, dill pickle, and a Sierra Nevada.

    6. Karl   14 years ago

      A yogurt, some smoked/braised pork butt, a Lagunitas Doppel Wiezen and a Sierra Nevada/Oliva Quad. I'm not sure the afternoon will be terribly productive...
      -K

    7. Auric Demonocles   14 years ago

      Olive Garden. Salad, breadsticks, stuffed mushrooms, minestrone, steak and mushroom panini. All on the company's dime. I love recruiting season.

    8. Gorath   14 years ago

      I feasted on the souls of the recently deceased.

    9. PermaLurker   14 years ago

      1/2 cup of almonds, a bowl of cottage cheese with kimchi and a plum.

  27. David Levitsky   14 years ago

    OK, ok, you all got me. Really, we got nothing, and everything I wrote is either self-contradictory or Bleeding Obvious. But we put a lot of time into looking up all these articles, and I'm going up for promotion next year, so we decided to write up some shit anyway and see if anyone would be dumb enough to publish it.

    Score!!

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

Is the Supreme Court Really That Divided? The Facts Say No.

Billy Binion | 6.5.2025 5:21 PM

Milton Friedman Disproved Trump's Argument for Tariffs Decades Ago

Joe Lancaster | 6.5.2025 4:35 PM

If Viewers Love PBS So Much, Let Them Pay for It

Robby Soave | 6.5.2025 3:20 PM

Florida Woman Fined $165,000 for Trivial Code Violations Takes Her Case to the Florida Supreme Court

Autumn Billings | 6.5.2025 3:05 PM

Nathan Fielder's 737 Stunt Involved Elaborate Workaround of Ridiculous 1,500-Hour Rule

Christian Britschgi | 6.5.2025 2:50 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!