Nutrition Planning; E. C. Pasour, Jr.

To forge an effective food policy we will need to ... determine what people's nutritional needs are and what levels and types of production are necessary to meet those needs. This will require an ability to trans late nutritional needs into produc tion terms . ... A new food policy must reassess which areas ofagricul ture are supported and promoted. In the future, the basis of such deci sions must be to meet nutrition and trade needs. This will necessari~y involve a reorientation of production patterns. (From a speech by Carol Tucker Foreman, Assistant Secre tary of Agriculture). These statements were made at the opening session of the 1977 USDA Food and Agricultural Out look Conference. The implications of this proposed bold new food policy are far reaching and have received Dr. Pasour is Professor of Economics at North Carolina State University at Raleigh. E. C. Pasour, Jr. NUTRITION PLANNING little attention in the press and even less by policy analysts. It should be stressed that Foreman's comments do not represent an aberration of Administration policy but appear to be fully subscribed to by Secretary of Agriculture Bergland: We intend through our research to build a constructive nutrition program from the facts ... We want to know how much animal fat, how much sugar, how many eggs it's wise for a person to eat.

Then we're going to build a new farm policy based on these truths. The full implications of the policy approach visualized is apparently not recognized even by the propo nents. The idea that the USDA or any other agency can determine our dietary needs and then reorient pro duction to assure that these dietary requirements are met represents misplaced hubris in a country where consumer sovereignty holds sway. The proposed policy faces three crit337 338 THE FREEMAN June ical shortcomings-information problems, restrictions on individual choice, and the planner's illusion. Information Problems The first step in the proposed pol icy is to determine the components of a proper diet, i.e., determine ~~peo pIe's nutritional needs." Even this first step, however, is fraught with difficulties. There is a great deal of controversy among nutrition ex perts both about the state of current diets and about the effects of various proposals to alter these diets.

Concern about current diets was manifested in the widely publicized report of the Senate Select Commit tee on Nutrition and Human Needs. Gilbert Leveille, Chairman of the Department of Food Science and Nutrition at Michigan State Uni versity disagrees with the thrust of this. report and other allegations about the quality of the U.S. diet. The American diet today is better than ever before and .is one of the best, if not the best in the world today .... We have virtually eliminated morbidity and mor tality from acute nutritional deficiencies (Leveille cites pellagra, rickets, and goi ter as examples) .... We have seen a remarkable increase in the life expec tancy of the American population. We have seen many improvements in the quality of our food supply as measured by its safety, wholesomeness and vari ety, it is unparalleled in the world today. (Speech presented at USDA Outlook Conference, November, 1977) Dietary Goals The lack of consensus by nutrition experts on the effects of dietary mod ification is illustrated by the set of dietary goals proposed in 1977, by the Senate Select Committee. A re duction in overall fat ~~from approx imately 40 percent to about 30 per cent of energy intake" was among the dietary goals proposed. Leveille contends that the case against ani mal fats as a cause of heart disease is unproven and that the goal of substituting polyunsaturated fatty acids for saturated fat consumption represents ~~a risk which has yet to be fully evaluated." Leveille also disagrees with the committee's goal concerning reductions in salt and sugar intake as well as the proposed goal involving a shift from foods of animal origin to those of plant ori gin. These examples illustrate the disagreement among nutritionists as to the potential impact of specific dietary changes.

Another problem in determining proper diets is that tolerances and requirements for specific nutrients and foods vary widely between indi viduals. The Senate Select Commit tee, for example, recommended a re duction in salt use as a means of reducing the incidence of hyperten sion. However, there is no consensus among nutritionists as to the pro portion of the population whose blood pressure would be influenced by salt intake. As Leveille states: 1979 NUTRITION PLANNING 339 It should also be recognized that not all hypertensions will respond to a reo duction in salt intake. Further, virtually all professionals examining the dietary goals of the Select Committee are in agreement that the recommended level of salt intake of three grams per day is excessively low and represents a level which is not achievable. The goals developed by the Senate Select Committee imply that nutri tion goals have not been important in the U.S. because we have had no Hnutrition plan." However, there have long been diet guidelines in the form of Recommended Dietary Al lowances (RDA's) initially estab lished by the National Research Council in 1941 (and periodically revised). These RDA's represent an ·attempt to meet the dietary re quirements of ((virtually the entire population" and are subject to the problem tha.t tolerances and re quirements vary widely between in dividuals. Assuming the RDA's are known, these data along with in formation on nutrients and prices of various fruits, vegetables, and meats enable individual consumers to meet the RDA's in a variety of ways depending upon individual tastes and current prices. The fol lowing discussion demonstrates that the best diet for an individual con sumer cannot be determined solely on the basis of RDA's.

The idea of a ((national diet" as sumes away problems associated with individual differences. Even if nutrition experts were able to agree on the components of a well bal anced diet, different nutrient re quirements can be satisfied in a vari ety of ways. Protein, for example, can be obtained from various meats as well as from peas and other veg etables. Similarly, virtually all nu tritional requirements can be met from a range of foods. Thus, mere knowledge of nutritional require ments reveals little information about which specific foods will be chosen by individuals to consume to meet these requirements since food consumption by individuals is heavily influenced by individual taste as well as by nutrient availa bility. The most reliable information we have about people's food prefer ences is revealed through their market choices. Restrictions on Individual Choice In a free society, welfare is defined in terms of the welfare of individ uals. This individualistic approach assumes that the individual con sumer is the best judge of his own welfare. The individualistic ethic implies free choice of diet.

Free consumer choice presents an insurmountable obstacle for any pol icy which attempts to base agricul tural production policy on individ ual diets. Dietary requirements, as suggested above, can be met in a variety of ways. That is, RDA's of 340 THE FREEMAN June various nutrients can be obtained from a wide variety of fruits, vege tables, and meats consumed in many different combinations. Indi viduals, based on their tastes and preferences and market prices, will choose widely different combina tions of goods to satisfy specific nutritional goals. This poses several problems for planners attempting to base agricultural policy on nutrition facts. First, there is no way for the nutrition planner to determine how much of which foods everyone in the country should eat. Second, when allowances are made for differences in individual tastes, and the wide range of ways in which various foods are eaten, ~~nutrition facts"

provide little guidance concerning which foods to promote through public policy. Third, the proposed approach ignores political realities which will inevitably arise when congressional action is taken to re duce beef, tobacco or peanut con sumption. The idea of basing levels and types of agricultural production on nutritional needs C~translating nu tritional needs into production terms") can only be successful if there is a way of insuring that the nutrition plan is implemented. Thus, to successfully translate nu tritional needs into production terms, the Foreman-Bergland plan must determine which foods constitute the ~~national diet," the amounts required of those foods, and then en sure that those foods are produced and consumed-it must dictate in dividual diets. The Planner's Illusion Secretary Bergland has stated that the ~~USDA does not intend to dictate diets for the people." How ever, the USDA has been noticeably silent as to how nutritional needs will be translated into production terms so as to meet ~~nutrition and trade needs."

Nutrition planning faces the same limitations as other forms of central planning. The idea that a central planner can determine a nutrition policy based on nutritional require ments and then develop a food policy .based on these requirements is an example of what Professor Hayek calls ~~scientism"-the extension of scientific techniques and methods applicable in natural sciences be yond their proper boundaries to in clude all human acti vity. In the present co~text, there is a basic dif ference between nutrition planning for livestock and for people. The concept of nutrition planning is being successfully applied in feeding livestock. Mathematical programming techniques are used to formulate least cost diets for cattle, broilers, hogs, and so on. The animal scientist can provide information on nutrient requirements for various classes of Iivestock and feed 1979 NUTRITION PLANNING 341 specialists have information on nu trients provided from various feed sources including corn, oats, wheat, protein supplements, and the like.

Given data on nutrient require ments, nutrient availability fronn. various feed sources, and market prices of the product and various feeds, the least cost diet is reduced by a mathematical problem which can be rapidly solved by electronic computer. The analogy between formulating least-cost livestock rations and planning human diets, however, quickly breaks down. Most people would insist that palatability con siderations are much more impor tant in the diets of people. Further more, allowances for individual variation in tastes and preferences in human diets are crucially impor tant in all but the most totalitarian of human societies. If consumer choice is deemed to be important, there is no way for the nutrition planner to determine op timal diets for individuals. If the planner were given data on con sumer tastes, prices, and nutrient requirements, nutrition planning is reduced to a mathematical problena and nutrition planning is possible.

These data are, of course, not given to the planner. Furthermore, no al ternative to the price system has been discovered as a way of coor dinating and transmitting informa tion concerning individual tastes and preferences from consumers to producers (or planners as Hayek demonstrated 40 years ago). Ra tional nutrition planning of the type visualized is impossible in the same sense that central economic plan ning is impossible-it is not consis tent with the aim which it is intended to serve. There is no way to successfully Htranslate nutritional needs into production terms" while maintaining individual freedom of choice. The Variability of Needs Despite the seemingly obvious problems of nutrition planning, the illusion that central planners can plan production for consumers more efficiently than the market dies hard. Unless individual freedom and choice are ignored, human action cannot be planned and predicted in the same way as phenomena in the natural sciences. The idea that the planner can obtain enough informa tion on nutritional requirements, individual tastes, production re quirements, trade flows, and the like, in such a way as to determine ~~what levels and types of production are necessary to meet those needs"

represents an illusion which has much potential for mischief even though it is incapable of achieve ment. Government policies can surely affect the pattern of agricultural production. However, there can be 342 THE FREEMAN June no assurance that a change in pro duction of particular crops will have the desired effect on diet. For exam ple, corn can be processed and con sumed (among other ways) in the form of canned corn or in the form of sweetened breakfast cereal. Many nutritionists would favor an in crease in consumption of the former and a decrease in consumption of the latter. A policy of subsidizing corn production, however, might be ex pected to reduce the price and in crease consumption of all corn prod ucts. Similarly, the dietary implica tions of increasing production and consumption of potatoes, wheat and many other ,products are ambiguous. It seems obvious that Draconian measures would have to be used to achieve the kinds of dietary changes envisaged by Ms. Foreman. How, for example, would the regulator limit the use of salt? By prohibiting the use of salt on potato chips, french fries, peanuts, and so forth? By limiting the consumption of these products? Or, by selling salt on a prescription basis?

How is the use of sugar to be reduced? By limiting the use of sugar in cereal, candy, cake, and so on? Or, by limiting the consump tion of these products? The amount of regulation involved in ensuring that dietary goals are achieved is staggering to contemplate. Even if there were no other prob lems, political implementation of a nutrition plan would be a formida ble obstacle. Policy is inextricably involved with politics and political considerations will impinge on the decision-making process at all levels. This was clearly demon- . strated during 1978 by the widely divergent attitudes of various gov ernment officials in the Carter Ad ministration toward the tobacco price support program. Conflicts are inevitable given the different con stituencies of HEW, USDA and other government agencies. Thus, ((nutrition planning" as a basis for policy faces formidable political as well as economic barriers.

The Problem Persists In view of these seemingly insur mountable political and economic problems involved in nutrition planning, why have these problems been largely ignored by public offi cials? The illusion of the planner is nothing new and was clearly fore seen by Adam Smith 200 years ago: The man of system ... seems to im agine that he can arrange the different members of a great society with as much ease as the hand arranges the different pieces upon a chess-board; he does not consider that the pieces upon the chess board have no other principle of motion besides that which the hand impresses upon them; but that, in the great chess board of human society, every single piece has a principle of motion of its own, altogether different from that which the legislature might choose to impress upon 1979 NUTRITION PLANNING 343 it. (A. Smith, The Theory of Moral Sen timents). The illusion of central planners today appears remarkably similar to that held by Smith's ((man of sys tem" 200 years ago.

Conclusions The need for diet information is obvious. In developing sound dietary practices, consumers need informa tion on dietary requirements as well as nutrients available from various foods. The question is not one of whether diets will be planned but rather of who will plan individual diets. Nutrition planning is but one example of central planning. Th.~ problems of Htranslating nutritional needs into production terms" are fundamentally the same as those identified in the ((market socialism" debate of the 1930s. Information problems are quite as troublesome in nutrition planning as in other types of central planning. The indi vidualistic ethic means that indi vidual diets must vary according to individual tastes. The nutrition planner has no way of determining a priori how individuals will respond to nutrition information. There is a vast difference between providing dietary information to consumers and ((nutrition planning"

in the sense of attempting to re·· orient agricultural production based on a national dietary plan. If only diet information is provided to indi viduals, there can be no assurance which foods will be chosen to meet various dietary requirements and, consequently, how much of various foods will be consumed. Knowledge of how to ((reorient production pat terns" so as to «meet nutrition and trade needs" requires information on amounts of various foods which will be consumed, sold in the inter national market, and imported. The quantity of a food consumed, produced, imported, or exported hinges to a large extent on price. Thus, ((translating nutritional needs into production terms" means that the planner must be able to control price not only of food produced domestically, but also of food im ports. The amount of information required to implement such a plan staggers the imagination. Even if the planner could obtain the re quired information, changes in sup ply and demand conditions would quickly make the plan obsolete.

Comprehensive nutrition planning is possible in the sense that 'dietary goals can be proposed and produc tion and consumption patterns can be altered by government subsidies. However, short of dictating individ ual diets, nutrition planning is in capable of achieving the stated goal of building a new food policy based on nutrition facts. @ Jess Raley AlDazing Strange ((Now that's amazing strange," the old man said as the king snake not so much slithered as rolled away after killing and swallowing another snake that appeared to be about the same size. We-six or eight boys and three men-were skinny-dipping that long ago day and had watched, off and on, for hours as the king snake killed and swallowed its adversary. Since that time, in my own mind, the superla tive of anything unusual has been ((amazing strange." But it was almost fifty years before I experienced another incident that seemed to qualify completely.