Tuesday, July 21, 2020

Binge Food Eating: A Modern competitive sport in the USA

This article is by

Share this article

Article Contributor(s)

Syed Ahmed Uzair

Article Title

Binge Food Eating: A Modern competitive sport in the USA

Publisher

Global Views 360

Publication Date

July 21, 2020

URL

Nathan’s 4th of July International Hot Dog Eating Contest

Nathan’s 4th of July International Hot Dog Eating Contest | Source: Jeff via Flickr

Eating food as a professional sport may seem odd to a lot of people, but many such competitions exist today in the USA. While competitive food eating contests have been around for years, it was only in the late nineties that it got the status of a sport. There is even an organisation named “Major League Eating” headquartered in New York which governs all eating competitions worldwide since its foundation in 1997.

It's not just about the participants. The sport has got its fair share of the audience too, particularly in the US.  Some of the most popular contests include Nathan’s 4th of July International Hot Dog Eating Contest, the Zombie Fest at Long Beach, California, The World Slugburger Eating Championship, in Corinth, Mississippi, The World Famous St. Elmo Shrimp Cocktail Eating Championship, Indianapolis, and many more.

And the insane records that people make at these competitions might just blow your mind away. For instance, Joey Chestnut holds the record for eating 70 hotdogs and buns in 10 mins in 2016 at the Nathan’s Famous Fourth of July International Hot Dog Eating Contest. Matt Stonie holds the record for devouring 43 slug burgers in 10 minutes at The World Slugburger Eating Competition in 2014!  Looks insane? Well, it's just one of those things that make America so great! Or does it?

While competitive eating has truly become a huge affair in the United States, many people are particularly skeptical of the same. Many animal rights groups question the morality of such competitions wherein so many animals are consumed in such a short time. Others have the issue of the sport being offensive to people who cannot afford to have enough food in a day. However, the biggest argument against these eating competitions is how they have become a symbol of freedom. The critics say that freedom from unnecessary regulations makes sense in the context of a free democratic and liberal society, it does not mean that we indulge in a gross display of excessive consumption.

The dangers associated with the sport are not limited to morality and freedom. People who participate in the contests have to go through potentially injurious training to stretch their stomach for the sport. These training regimens include consuming more than a gallon of water, eating 200 chicken wings, and the list goes on.

Despite all the dangers associated, the sport continues to grow and thrive. The raging rivalries between participants like Joey Chestnut and Matt Stonie make then Lionel Messi and Cristiano Ronaldo of the competitive food eating. With the audience base steadily growing over the years, Competitive Eating has truly become a phenomenon in the United States. Riding on the increasing popularity of this sport, Nathan’s saw a monumental increase in their hot dogs’ sales from 250 million to a billion between 2003 and 2014,when the competition was broadcasted on ESPN .

It all boils down to the numbers of the loyal fan following which a sport or sports-person commands. As long as there are people who enjoy watching food being stuffed in insane amounts as a sport, there will always be people ready to make money by contesting and organizing these festivals. After all, that is the beauty of corporate America- whatever sells, will stick around!

Support us to bring the world closer

To keep our content accessible we don't charge anything from our readers and rely on donations to continue working. Your support is critical in keeping Global Views 360 independent and helps us to present a well-rounded world view on different international issues for you. Every contribution, however big or small, is valuable for us to keep on delivering in future as well.

Support Us

Share this article

Read More

February 4, 2021 4:52 PM

Randomised Control Trials and the Alleviation of Poverty in India

Abhijit Banerjee and Esther Duflo won the 2019 Nobel Prize in Economics for their “experimental approach in alleviating global poverty”. Their experimental approach encompassed a variety of novel methods to understand and analyse interventions and Randomised Control Trials (RCTs). Their research has been used by policy makers to make informed policy decisions to best help the marginalised.

What are RCTs?

To understand the effect of a policy, intervention, or medicine, decision makers try to measure the efficacy of the treatment. Do deworming pills given to children improve test scores? Does providing chlorinated water improve the health and economic outcomes of villages? These are some causal (read causal, i.e. caused by, not casual) questions researchers are interested in. The best way to analyse causal effects is to randomise the selection of people in the treatment and the control group (for example: children who are given deworming pills versus children who are not given the pills). This random selection of the two groups removes many statistical biases that might affect the results.

RCTs in India:

Many of the RCTs performed by Banerjee and Duflo were in India. They involved short- and long-term impact assessments of various interventions, policies, models, and treatments. We look at a few RCTs implemented in India:

Teacher absenteeism rates:

Troubled by the low attendance rates (or high absence rates) of public-school teachers in India, Duflo assessed the impact of financial incentives on the absence rates of teachers in Rajasthan. The study monitored teacher attendance by cameras, which was tied to a financial incentive if the attendance was high. From a baseline absence rate of 44%, teacher absenteeism in the treatment group fell by 21%, relative to the control group. High teacher attendance caused child test scores to improve too.

COVID-19 and health-seeking behaviour:

In the context of COVID-19, Banerjee tested the effect of sending messages via SMS that promoted health preserving behaviour. The results were very positive. By sending a short, 2.5-minute clip to 25 million randomly selected individuals in West Bengal, the intervention i) found a two-fold increase in symptom reporting to village health workers, ii) increased hand washing rates by 7%, and iii) increased mask-wearing by 2%. While mask-wearing rates increased only marginally, the spillover effects (wearing a mask stops the virus from infecting more people) were moderately high and positive.

Asset Transfers and the Notion of Poverty:

An RCT by Banerjee in West Bengal involving a productive asset transfer accompanied with training found large and persistent effects on monthly consumption and other variables. The treatment group reported 25% higher consumption levels relative to the control group, who did not receive the asset transfer and training. Implications of such RCTs are huge. The notion that the poor are lazy and unwilling to perform strenuous labour is falsified by this RCT. Often, what the poor lack are opportunities that are hard to come by, given their financial status. A small nudge, like the asset transfer, can cause large and positive effects on their well-being.  

Salt fortification to reduce anaemia:

RCTs also help rule out less cost-effective interventions. Duflo and Banerjee evaluated an RCT which distributed fortified salt in 400 villages of Bihar, to reduce the prevalence of anaemia. However, this intervention found no statistically significant impact on health outcomes like anaemia, hemoglobin, etc.  Thus, while RCTs help introduce novel methods of impacting the lives of the poor, they also help in ruling out in-effective measures. A policy maker might try other alternatives to reduce the prevalence of anaemia.

Are RCTs the gold standard?

Maybe. Extrapolating results from a regional RCT to national policies could present problems. Contextuality matters. A study that indicates positive gains for one region might present different, and rather adverse effects for another region. Nation wide effects might not be as prominent as regional results of a single RCT. The good part is that Banerjee and Duflo have a solution. Just perform more RCTs!

Read More