Do You Want Fries with That? An Exploration of Serving Size, Social Welfare, and Our Waistlines

I. INTRODUCTION "Do you want fries with that?" is the mantra of the fast food burger joint. It is also the direct descendant of the "Anything else?" at the baker's, the "May I interest you in these lovely pork chops, madam?" at the butcher's, or "Wouldn't you like a nice bunch of grapes?" at the green grocer's. Although those were looked on as polite questions made to elicit preferences or to bring the order to a close only when the customer was ready, the question of fries has been imbued with evil intent. Big food, not unlike big tobacco, has conspired to make us eat more by offering us fries or the option to super-size our orders (May 2003). And we don't have to look any farther than the bulging waistlines of the adult American population to establish their success. Or do we? Open any newspaper or magazine or turn on the television or radio and you are immediately confronted with articles and op-ed pieces on the increasing trend in childhood and adult obesity and the ostensible culprit--the purveyors of fast and snack foods (Economist 2003). Fast food companies, such as McDonald's and Burger King, have been sued. Although the Pelman v. McDonald's case was thrown out of court, the judge, Robert Sweet, suggested a way to pursue the claim that would be more likely to advance through the court system. John F. Banzhaf III, professor at George Washington University Law School has refocused his energies away from big tobacco, where he was one of the most successful antitobacco litigants, and onto big food. His Web page (http://banzhaf. net/obesitylinks) is dedicated to this campaign. Marion Nestle, professor of nutrition at NYU, argues in her much-quoted book, Food Politics (2002), that advertising by big food is both to promote their products and to induce consumers to eat more. Clearly, if implicitly, the firms that make up "big food," not we, are to blame. This being the case, fat taxes have been suggested both in jest, that is, taxing people based on their weight (Rauch 2002), and as a serious proposal to alter an individual's eating habits via the price mechanism, for example, by taxing fatty foods at a higher rate (Nestle 2002; BBC 2000; Jones 2003). Also, states and school districts are restricting the sales of sodas (Los Angeles Times 2003), offering instead milk, juice, or water; and recently California has further banned the sale of so-called junk food in schools (Griffith 2005). Though the idea that no publicity is bad publicity may be apt in some circumstances, big food has taken notice of the onslaught and has responded. Kraft Foods is reducing the serving size of its prepackaged one-serving meals and snacks; Hershey's is offering sugar-free chocolates; McDonald's, Wendy's, and their ilk are offering salads and other lower fat meals in addition to their usual fare, and/or opening more health-conscious fast food restaurant alternatives. Similarly, a recent KFC advertising campaign sings the praises of how few carbohydrates and how much protein their fried chicken contains, in a nod to the Atkins (2002) diet, and McDonald's has stopped offering super-sized meals (Carpenter 2004). These responses to the market struck some as panic (Ayers 2002), suggesting guilt rather than hard-nosed competitive responses. But market research has found that when consumers are offered lower calorie options and reduced portion meals, they do opt for them, and then replace the saved calories in appetizers or desserts (Fonda 2003; May 2003). II. THE ECONOMICS PROFESSION WEIGHS IN The positive trend in weight began in the mid-1800s and is not, as usually depicted, an entirely recent phenomenon (Cole 2003; Costa 1993). What is incontrovertible, however, is that since the late 1970s portion sizes have increased. Thus, on average, the portion size and energy intake has increased by 93 kcal for salty snacks, by 49 kcal for soft drinks, by 68 kcal for French fries, and by 97 kcal for hamburgers (Nielsen and Popkin 2003). …