Interview on Economics of GMOs

I was recently interviewed by the website The Daily Meal on GMOs.  Here is what I had to say:

“The world is facing many challenges,” says Lusk. “(They include) a growing world population, climate change, and droughts in many areas of the U.S., just to name a few.  Biotechnology and genetic engineering do not hold all the answers, but all tools should be on the table to sustainably address these societal challenges."

On a domestic level, proponents of GM products see the opportunity to develop strain-resistant crops that cost less to manufacture. These lower food costs would benefit the farmers, and in turn would reduce the cost of foods for the retail consumer.

"In the U.S., about 90% of all corn and soybean acres are planted with GE varieties,” says Lusk. “These were decisions made by real-life, flesh and blood farmers. No one was (or is) holding a gun to their head. The fact that farmers willingly adopted GE varieties at such a fast clip (even while paying a premium price for them) reveals their belief that it is in their best interest to do so.  The scientific evidence shows that adopters of GE corn, soy, and cotton have enjoyed slightly higher levels of profitability.”

The support from that last claim, incidentally, comes from numerous peer-reviewed studies.  For a summary of the early research on the topic, see this USDA report, which shows that profitability tends to be either similar or higher among GMO adopters.  Even in cases where measured profitability is similar for GMO adopters, these simple measures often do not take into consideration the value of risk reduction or value of time saved by the farm operator.  We ultimately have to look at the decisions farmers made, and it seems quite clear corn and soybean farmers believe themselves better off adoption GE varieties.

The article goes on to interview Jeffrey Smith, a long time anti-biotechnology crusader.  The article seems to give the impression that we couldn't profitably produce corn or soy without government subsidies.  I am aware of no good research that would support that assertion.  

Then, Smith is quoted as saying the following:

“Independent research confirms that average farmer profit does not increase with GMOs,” Smith writes.  “And numerous examples of closed markets and suppressed prices have followed the introduction of genetically modified crops worldwide. In Hawaii; for example, GM papaya was blocked by Japan. Prices dropped from $1.29 per kilo to about $.80, and in spite of increased papaya consumption in United States, papaya production in Hawaii dropped by 40 percent.”

I wonder which "independent research" he is referring to?  As I indicated above, you can find some studies indicating no profit gains from biotech adoption.  But, what does the cumulative evidence in the peer reviewed journals suggest?  Not what Smith claims.  And, why are 90% of corn/soy farmers so dumb as to adopt a more expensive technology that isn't making them better off?

Also, to suggest that adoption of GM papaya in Hawaii hurt that industry because the Japanese blocked imports is just silly.  Hawaiian producers adopted a genetically engineered papaya that is resistant to a virus that was devastating that industry.  Yes, Hawaiian papaya growers would have been more profitable had Japan not reacted the way they purportedly did.  But, how profitable to you think Hawaiian growers would be if they had no papayas to sell at all?

What Message is General Mills Sending with Cheerios?

Julie Gunlock had an interesting editorial in the USA Today on General Mills decision to go "GMO free" with Cheerios.  She points out the tough pickle food companies are finding themselves in:

It is understandable that food companies are desperate to find a way to please their critics and reach détente with the powerful anti-GM movement. Yet, it appears these companies have settled on a strategy combining meek contrition (we're sorry we use perfectly safe GM ingredients) and appeasement (we'll get rid of perfectly safe GM ingredients in some…but not all…products). This squishy and schizophrenic policy will accomplish one thing: it will make the problem much worse.

For starters, while General Mills publicly states on its website that the company agrees with the wide consensus among scientists that GM ingredients are safe, the change to Cheerios sends a very different message to consumers: We've made the product safer. Do they mean to suggest Cheerios was previously unsafe.

From a business standpoint, by suggesting Cheerios has been made safer, the company puts its other products — those that still contain GM ingredients — in a bad light. The company might be spinning this as providing consumers more choices, but organic cereals (which cannot contain GM ingredients) have been available for years. Cheerios is hardly breaking ground.

I'm not sure I'd expect food companies to make a principled stand for scientific evidence when they could make money doing otherwise.  However, as Julie points out, it isn't even all that clear that this move is in the long-term best economic interest of the company even if it does cause a quick, short term bump in market share. 

Links on the Economics of GMOs

Since my piece with Henry Miller on biotech wheat appeared in the New York Times, I've had several requests for good sources on the economics of agricultural biotechnology.  Here are a few.

1) Agricultural biotechnology: the Promise and Prospects of Genetically Modified Crops in the Journal of Economic Perspectives in 2014 by Barrows, Sexton, and Zilberman

2) The Economics of Genetically Modified Crops in 2009 in the Annual Review of Resource Economics by Matin Qaim 

3) The USDA Economic Research Service has several good papers.

In particular, see The First Decade of Genetically Engineered Crops in the United States

4) A book chapter on Consumer Acceptance of Genetically Modified Food by yours truly in 2011

Is GMO Aversion a Left-Wing Phenomenon?

Amy Harmon recently had another excellent story on GMOs in the New York Times - focusing particularly on Papayas in Hawaii.

The story had the following passage:

Scientists, who have come to rely on liberals in political battles over stem-cell research, climate change and the teaching of evolution, have been dismayed to find themselves at odds with their traditional allies on this issue. Some compare the hostility to G.M.O.s to the rejection of climate-change science, except with liberal opponents instead of conservative ones.

From time to time, I've received some push back on some of the claims in my book, The Food Police, that food technology aversion, and willingness to regulate and restrict food technologies, has roots in the progressive left.  This is, of course, a generalization, and it doesn't not hold in every instance or for every person.  In this particular instance, it appears Harmon supports my claim.

One challenge is that many popular food books (by folks like Pollan, Moss, Warner, etc.) often refrain from specifically mentioning much about policy in the book.  But, then when your see these authors out on the interview circuit, they often talk a lot about policy and advocate all kinds of things.  This has the consequence of their writing appearing more centrist and “ideologically neutral” than is actually the case, and it also lets the authors off the hook by rarely putting them in a position of having to seriously defend their policy proposals.  

Indeed, I did an interview with Minnesota NPR on the Food Police, and I told the host that I didn’t so much disagree with Pollan’s eating advice as his policy advice regarding local foods.  The host (who had previously interviewed Pollan) told me something to the effect that Pollan doesn’t have policy proposals with regard to local food.  Well, that’s just false.  Yes, the Omnivore’s Dilemma or Cooked don’t specifically make policy suggestions, but all you have to do is listen to Pollan’s speeches or watch him on Bill Maher or Bill Moyers, and he has all kinds of policy suggestions (or just read some of his other writings, which plainly offer policy advice).  

It is a mistake to narrowly evaluate Pollan, Moss, et al. strictly based on what they write in their books without also viewing their writing in the larger context of the polices they advocate outside their books.  One also has to pay attention to what they choose to write about and what they choose to omit, and I would argue much of their writing errs by omission.   

I should note that several commentators on the web have chimed in on Harmon's claims of a link between left-leaning politics and aversion to GMO science.

Isaac Chotiner in the New Republic writes:

This story, a news piece which is also pleasingly one-sided (as the evidence demands), is appearing in the most important liberal publication in the country. The liberals who rant about genetically modified food may be pushing a point of view that is objectively as crazy as believing carbon emissions are not causing global warming; but liberals are still more likely (and willing) to get their news from places that tell them the truth. For conservatives who like to claim that Fox News is just a conservative version of The New York Times, ask yourselves this: Could you imagine Fox News running a big, one-sided piece that overwhelmingly discredited global warming deniers? Of course not. (The Times ran another excellent genetically modified food piece last year, also written by Amy Harmon.)

This probably goes some way in explaining why the modern Republican Party and conservative movement frequently seem so much crazier than mainstream liberalism. It's not that people are simply and inherently crazy; they also operate from within crazy bubbles, which is arguably just as dangerous. For this reason, my guess is that over time liberal opposition to genetic engineering will fade away. 

He makes a good point about this piece appearing in the NYT.  One distinction, which I think is missing, is the greater willingness of those on the left to regulate on economic issues, such as GMOs, than those on the right.  Stated differently, there are questions of science: what are the risks of climate change or eating GMOs.  And then there are more normative questions: given said risk, what should we do about it?  Even if the left and the right agreed on the level of risk, I don't think we should expect agreement on political action.  Some (but certainly not all) of the aversion to climate change policies on the right aren't a result of "global warming denialism" but rather skepticism about the government being able to efficiently solve the problem.  My studies on the issue don't reveal huge left-right differences in acceptance of GMOs per se, but rather the difference come in when one gets to the willingness to regulate GMOs.  

In a defense of GMOs from the European left, Leigh Phillips, makes some interesting observations about the politics of the situation:

In the end, what is going on here with opposition to genetic modification is the import into left-wing thinking of the logical fallacy of an ‘appeal to nature’ – the idea that what is found in nature is good and what is synthetic is bad. The origins of this scepticism of science, industry and progress can be found in romanticist counterrevolutionary thought that emerged in the 18th Century in opposition to republican movements. It is a cuckoo’s egg in the nest of the Left.

Transferred to human ecology, the inherent conservatism of this should quickly be revealed: Everything, or everyone – peasant, lord and king – has his place within the ‘natural order’. It is a defence of the status quo against the ‘unintended consequences’ of social programmes by interventionist governments. How alike are the arguments against genetic engineering and ‘social engineering’!

Poor Reporting on GMOs

As if to prove that aversion to food technologies is bipartisan, a segment of the Carol Alt show on the Fox News Channel ran one of the most biased, one-sided stories on biotechnology that I've seen on a major media outlet in some time.  On the show, which aired yesterday (this was apparently re-aired from the initial showing a couple months ago), the host unquestioningly accepted every assertion thrown out from her guest Max Goldberg.  The host never reveals that Goldberg is a major organic food advocate, a major supporter of GMO labeling, and a vocal critic of GMOs (e.g., see here, here, or here).

I think one can reasonably disagree over the topic of mandatory labeling of GMOs, but to present such a one-sided view of the science surrounding the topic is irresponsible journalism and a disservice to the audience.  

A few points that should have been raised:

• Most of the studies showing aversive effects of GMOs in animal studies have been roundly criticized by reputable scientists (here is one blogger's criticism of a previously Fox News story which also failed to mention this).  Here is my own critique of one such study.
• Numerous high-quality studies based on animal feeding trials show NO effect of feeding GMOs. 
• Mentioning that countries around the world have GMO labeling policies is a red herring unless one also discusses how those countries enforce those policies while also mentioning that most, including the EU, has actually approved many GMO varieties for cultivation.
• Where are the mentions of all the major scientific organizations positions on safety of GMOs or their positions on GMO labeling?  Say, the National Academy of Science? Or the American Medical Association?  Or the World Health Organization?
• It is totally irresponsible to say that 90% of people want GMO labeling when less than half the voters in California and now Washington failed to vote in favor of GMO labeling.
• Biotechnology does NOT just mean pesticide resistance as Goldberg asserts.  How about golden rice?  Or high-oleic soybeans? Or bio-fortified cassava? Or non-browning apples? 

Clearly, this story was anything but "fair and balanced."  

John Stossel had a guest on his show on the Fox Business Network that aired some similar views as Goldgerg, but at least Stossel had me on to provide some perspective.