How Silly Do They Get?

Column for week of February 10, 2014

     It is a bit early to be thinking about the "Silly Idea of the
Year" award.   Even in the second month of the new year this
one jumped up and down screaming "Pick me."  I never pick
any idea as the dumbest.  There are far too many worthy
candidates to choose only one.  Besides, if I pick one it will
only be a challenge for someone to beat.  Sill, I'm confident that
come December this idea will remain on the short list.

     The headline for an Associated Press article proclaimed
"Food Companies Cut 6.4 Trillion Calories."  My first though
was "That's a lot of calories."  My second though was "Those
food companies must be losing a whole bunch of weight."  The
rest of this column is about my third thought.

     The article goes on to explain that the food companies
had cut the calories in their products by 6.4 trillion.  Supposedly
that works out to 78 calories per day for the entire U.S.
population.  I'll take their word for it.  I really don't care.

     If everyone consumed 78 fewer calories per day, they
would each lose about a pound every 45 days.  That would be
about 8 pounds per year.  In 30 years or so the entire population
would waste away and vanish.   The overweight problem, and a
whole bunch of other problems, solved.  Among other things,
Obama care would cease to be a problem.  There would be no
one left to run the insurance exchanges or enroll in them,  Well,
no one besides Chris Christie anyway.

     The great calorie reduction was achieved by reducing the
size of packages, making cookies smaller, etc.  In 2010 sixteen
companies took the pledge to cut other people's calories.  We are
already three years into the golden era of weight loss.  Haven't
you noticed the difference?  Haven't you wondered, Where are
all those skinny people coming from?

     I am asking a different question.  Who, besides former
mayor Blomberg actually believes people are going to eat less
merely because food comes in smaller packages?  We might see
the reverse effect.  If an eight-ounce soda doesn't satisfy as well
as a 12-ounce one, Will the thirsty one then drink another eight
ounces?  If cookies are smaller, I eat more of them.  I suspect
that a couple of other people do too.

     Most people eat and drink to satisfy their hunger, thirst
and cravings.  They don't wake up in the morning with a plan to
consume no more than 17 containers of food and beverages
before day's end.

     This plan might work in a prison.  Or, it might not.  If
inmates can smuggle in drugs, Why not food?

     The article does admit the plan might be flawed.  "It is
also unclear how the reduction in calories translates into
consumers' diets.  When the companies made the pledge in 2010,
they said one way they would try and reduce calories would be
to change portion sizes in an attempt to persuade consumers to
eat less.  The companies also said that they would develop new
lower-calorie options and change existing products so they have
fewer calories."

     Will this great plan persuade people to eat less, or only
persuade them to buy food and drinks made by companies that
provide more desirable products?  If the shrunken foods shrink
their makers' sales, How long will those companies keep their
pledges?  Their first tactic would likely be to pressure
government to force every company to sell less desirable food.

     This plan is an excellent example of why all social
engineering plans fail.  People know what they want.  Tricks and
threats don't stop them from pursuing what they want.  Trying to
use smaller packages to fool people is about as silly and futile as
it gets.  I shouldn't have said that.  Individuals somewhere are
already planning to prove me wrong.  I don't doubt that they will
succeed.

aldmccallum@gmail.com
                       * * * * *
                        * * * *
                         * * *
                          * *
                           *
Copyright 2014
Albert D. McCallum