Why should you care about California's Prop 37?

That's the title of my my latest article on foxnews.com.  Some of the key paragraphs:

Proposition 37, if passed on November 6th, will require mandatory labeling of certain foods containing genetically engineered ingredients.  Because California is such a large consumer of agricultural products grown in the rest of the US and because food manufacturers work across state lines, the implications (and costs) of Proposition 37 could expand far beyond the Golden State.  

and

Everyone wants to know what’s in their food.  That issue is not at stake.  The real question is how much consumers are willing to pay to know what’s in their food, and whether it makes sense to force companies to provide information.  If consumers really value information about the biotech content of their food, there are plenty of opportunities for enterprising farmers and food manufacturers to provide the feedstuffs consumers want.  And, indeed they have.  

and

Yet, every major scientific authority on the subject – from the American Medical Association to the National Academies of Science to the American Dietetic Association to the World Health Organization – has confirmed the safety of eating currently approved foods made with biotechnology.  

Consumers in a free society have the right to disagree.  But, the rest of us shouldn’t be asked to pay the costs of their skepticism.    

The only thing I'd add is that American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the publisher of the most prestigious academic journal, Science, yesterday released a statement in support of genetically modified food.

Prop 37 Appears to Be Losing Support

A new poll reported in the LA Times suggests support for Prop 37 has fallen substantially since the poll we conducted about a month ago.  Our study showed weakness in support - with people reacting much more to negative than positive ads, but I am surprised support has fallen this far.  We also found acceptance was sensitive to the anticipated costs of the mandatory label.  

Here is the summary from the LA Times:

After a barrage of negative television advertisements financed by a $41-million opposition war chest, a USC Dornsife / Los Angeles Times poll released Thursday showed 44% of surveyed voters backing the initiative and 42% opposing it. A substantial slice of the electorate, 14%, remains undecided or unwilling to take a position.

The critical drumbeat of television advertising is having a big effect, voters said. The anti-Proposition 37 spots "made me start looking more into" the issue of genetically engineered plants, said Josie Prendez, 63, a retired school employee in Fresno. She said she concluded that farmers should not be hit with more regulations.

​and

The opposition advertising is paying off, said Dan Schnur, director of the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics at USC and former Republican political strategist. "The challenge for the opposition is to convince voters there are economic consequences involved here. It appears they are in the process of doing that."

GMOs Are Back

​You might have noticed that I've been posting quite a bit on biotechnology and GMOs recently.  Part of this is in response to the developments associated with Prop 37, but it's also because it's been in the news a lot lately.  

Apparently it isn't just me.  Here is a graph from google trends​ showing trends in searches for the word "GMO":

The trend largely confirms my own interest in the issue (maybe I'm just a trend follower).  I did a lot of work on consumer acceptance of biotechnology in the early 2000s.  Then, it seemed the literature was saturated with academic papers on the topic.  I even wrote a Meta analysis (a summary of previous studies) on consumer acceptance of GMOs because I was getting so many papers to review on the subject.  For a while I lost interest in the topic because it seemed all had been said that was to be said.  But, the topic is back with a vengeance.  It will be interesting to see what new research will be motivated by current events. ​

​On that note, here are two interesting links (here and here) on recent developments in France regarding the rat study claiming to link GMOs with tumor development.  Apparently, other French scientists were none too impressed by the study.  And, the French government is no longer challenging Monsanto's license to sell GM corn in the EU.

Is Bill Maher in His Own Bubble?

It is really hard to know where to begin in discussing Bill Maher's comments on GMOs and Prop 37.

He regularly runs a feature on his show called "In the Bubble" where he derides Republicans for living in a bubble where ideas float around; ideas that are impervious to refutation by fact.  

Although one​ can illegitimately debate the merits (and demerits) of Prop 37 and biotechnology, there is virtually nothing in this discussion that transcends beyond mere "bubble talk" among anti-biotech advocates. 
​

Political comedian Bill Maher discusses GMOs & Prop 37 with Just Label It Chair Gary Hirshberg on the October 19 2012 episode of Real Time with Bill Maher, (guests were Goldie Taylor, John Fund, Boris Epshteyn & Matt Taibbi). Vote YES on Prop 37 in California! http://www.sunfood.com/prop37

Here are a few thoughts that occurred to me as I watched this:

• The interview is with Gary Hirshberg, chairman and co-founder of Stonyfield Farm.  I like Stonyfield products.  But, Hirshberg is far from a dispassionate observer.  Maher is right to point out that Monstanto benefits from sale of chemicals resulting from biotech developments (and from the absence of mandatory labeling).  But, he should also point out that Hirshberg benefits if Prop 37 passes.  The proposition specifically excludes organics, and by implication, Hirshberg's company.  So, by pushing Prop 37, Stonyfield Farm can force their competitors to incur higher costs.  I'm glad there are companies like Stonyfield selling the kinds of products they do but don't forget they have a vested financial stake in the matter.
• I find it ironic that Hirshberg claims that the Grocery Manufacturers of America and ​Monsanto are "stopping your right to know."  I say ironic because Hirshberg has made a great deal of money precisely by telling people what's in their food.  He profits by selling a more expensive product that has been produced without using certain agricultural practices.  The very existence of his successful company proves that no one is being stopped from knowing or buying alternative products.  
• Maher's comments claiming a "link" between allergies, cancer, and GMOs is complete nonsense with no basis in scientific fact.  Maher says "How can we get people to connect the dots here?  This is probably why people have so many more allergies now because there is so many more [of these] chemicals."  Where is the scientific evidence for this claim?  I guess it's good the word "probably" was thrown in.  It is true that increased herbicide use is associated with adoption of GMOs.  But, it is also true that adoption of GMOs​ is associated with reduced insecticide use.  Moreover, the average toxicity of pesticides has been falling over time.  But, even if these facts weren't true, I've never seen any credible evidence linking Round-up to allergies.     
• Hirshberg talks about "chemical inflation" as if pest resistance is somehow new or unique to biotechnology.  Organic methods of dealing with pests can be just as (and in many cases are more) toxic than synthetic methods.  Moreover, weeds and bugs also develop resistance to organic methods of control.  Laying the blame of resistance on biotechnology is a red herring.
• I wonder why they don't mention that GMO adoption is associated with increased conservation practices like no-till?   I suppose this is one of those facts that won't enter Maher's bubble.  

Biotechnology is not a panacea.  It is likely the case that that Round-up resistant crops have increased the speed at which Round-up resistant weeds developed.  But, if it is true (as Maher and Hirshberg discuss) that Monsanto is really in the seed business to sell chemicals, then who do you think has the BIG interest in preventing the development of resistance to Round-up?  That's one of the reasons Monsanto worked to make sure that resistance to Bt didn't develop as quickly as it otherwise would by initially requiring the planting of refuges and now by putting some non-biotech seed in with the bio-tech seed.  

​So, yes, let's talk about the costs and benefits of biotechnology.  But, let's do it outside the bubble.

Can Labeling Actually Harm Consumers?

That was the question asked in a recent study Stephan Marette and I just published in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Industrial Organization.  ​The answer is "maybe."  

Traditional economic models assume that more information (as long as it is accurate) can only help consumers (so long as the cost of providing the information isn't higher than the benefit).  After all, if a consumer doesn't find the information useful, it can simply be ignored.  ​

But, this model assumes consumers are perfectly informed about all controversial issues they confront and that they can fully pay attention to all these competing issues.​

What we show in our paper is that when consumers' attentions are limited (as they almost certainly are), that providing information (even if it is accurate) can - in some cases - actually make the consumer worse off.  How?  Because more information about one topic (like whether foods are made with genetically engineered ingredients) might distract consumers from paying attention from other important topics (like the number of carbs in the food) which has a bigger impact on long-term health.  ​

Here is the paper abstract:​

Information and labeling are popular food policy instruments because of their presumed positive influence on consumer welfare. In a one-good case with unlimited attention, we show consumer welfare is always improved with the provision of accurate information. However, in a two-good case with limited attention, we show that consumer welfare is not always improved with the provision of accurate information. When attention is constrained, welfare may fall with information provision policies irrespective of their costs. The results suggest information and labeling polices may sometimes be counterproductive when attention is limited.