A waste of time and money, and an erosion of government/expert trustworthiness

Interesting how juxtaposition brings emphasis and salience. I was aware of all three of these studies when they came out. And of course, you have to wait for replication and confirmation. But the conclusion seems so compelling when you lock them together in a tweet.

Interesting recent studies on health inequality:

1) Neighborhood availability of fast food outlets not associated with obesity.

2) Lottery wealth not associated with later health.

3) "We reject that neighborhood environments contribute meaningfully to nutritional inequality." pic.twitter.com/CWgb98zfu2

— Inquisitive Bird (@Scientific_Bird) May 28, 2020

Those three conclusions have been borne out by other research I have seen. I am not dismissing them. Just pointing out the step-change in argument effectiveness when conjoined. The conclusions are:

1) Neighborhood availability of fast food outlets not associated with obesity.

2) Lottery wealth not associated with later health.

3) "We reject that neighborhood environments contribute meaningfully to nutritional inequality."

All three have been popular and expensive interventions at different places and different times. All the interventions yielding no improvement in outcomes.

People's behaviors and personal choices drive health outcomes. Not fast food. Not wealth. Not food deserts.

The three studies are:

Fast food outlets, physical activity facilities, and obesity among adults: a nationwide longitudinal study from Sweden.From the Abstract:

Availability of fast-food outlets and lack of physical activity facilities appear unlikely to cause obesity in Swedish adults. Other potentially modifiable environmental factors within specific social and cultural settings that may influence obesity risk should be examined in future studies.

Association Between Lottery Prize Size and Self-reported Health Habits in Swedish Lottery Players. From the Abstract:

In this study of Swedish lottery players, unearned wealth from random lottery prize winnings was not associated with subsequent healthy lifestyle factors or overall health. The findings suggest that large, random transfers of unearned wealth are unlikely to be associated with large, long-term changes in health habits or overall health.

Food Deserts and the Causes of Nutritional Inequality. From the Abstract"

We study the causes of “nutritional inequality”: why the wealthy eat more healthfully than the poor in the United States. Exploiting supermarket entry and household moves to healthier neighborhoods, we reject that neighborhood environments contribute meaningfully to nutritional inequality. We then estimate a structural model of grocery demand, using a new instrument exploiting the combination of grocery retail chains’ differing presence across geographic markets with their differing comparative advantages across product groups. Counterfactual simulations show that exposing low-income households to the same products and prices available to high-income households reduces nutritional inequality by only about 10%, while the remaining 90% is driven by differences in demand. These findings counter the argument that policies to increase the supply of healthy groceries could play an important role in reducing nutritional inequality.

One could hope that such findings would curb the inclination to conduct statist interventions to change people as if they were programmable automatons. It is a waste of time, money, and it is counter to the Constitutional design. We can hope, but should not anticipate that that is what happens.