August FooDS - Livestock Antibiotics and Plant vs. Animal GMOs

The August 2015 edition of the Food Demand Survey (FooDS) is now out.

This month, there was a significant rise in willingness-to-pay (WTP) for all food products.  In fact, WTP for all meat products are at their highest levels since we began the survey over two years ago in May 2013.  It is unclear what is behind the price rise, but it was also matched by a rise in reported food expenditures at home and away from home.

Three new ad hoc questions were added this month.  The first was designed to test knowledge of different meat cuts, and it was suggested by David Ortega at Michigan State University.  Respondents had to match pictures of different meat cuts with the animal it came from.  By and large, consumers were able to correctly match up the cuts.  The biggest error was that 6% of people matched ham to cow.

The second question was designed to explore preferences for animal antibiotic policies being pursued by different retailers.  In particular, we asked, “A restaurant is considering different antibiotic policies related to the sourcing of their animal products. Which of the following policies would you support or oppose the restaurant implementing for the farmers who supply their animal products?”

Six statements were provided and participants to responded with "support" or "oppose." Approximately 77% of participants opposed the statement “The farmer can use antibiotics for growth promotion.” About 75% of respondents also opposed the statement ‘The farmer can use antibiotics for any purpose they deem reasonable.”

In contrast, a majority of participants supported the statements “The farmer can use antibiotics for disease prevention” and over 80% supported a policy in which “The farmer can use antibiotics to treat sick animals”.  This latter result is interesting in light of the move by many retailers' "never ever" policies regarding animal antibiotics.  

The last set of questions were designed to measured consumers support or opposition to different breeding techniques used in crop and animal agriculture.  The sample was split in two and half the respondents saw questions about crops and the other half saw questions about animals.  The following figure summarizes the results (the figure shows the wording for the crop question but the animal question was similarly worded).

In general, consumers tended to oppose all the methods mentioned.  This included traditional breeding methods.  For all issues, livestock breeding practices were less supported than crop breeding practices.  The least supported practice for both crops and livestock was transgenics - transferring genes from one species to another.  Gene editing and cysgenic technologies were only slightly more supported.  It should be noted that other research we've conducted has shown much higher levels of support if a reason (any reason) is given for why the crop breeding or genetic modification is performed.  Moreover, it may be possible that opposition to even traditional breeding methods  in this survey is a result of the wording of the question which mentioned gene movement across varieties (or breeds) and a general lack of understanding of genetic reproduction.         

Do People Really Want to Express an Opinion on GMO Labeling?

With Gwyneth Paltrow making her way to Washington to make the case for mandatory GMO labeling, and with competing bills circulating through the US Congress (one of which was passed by the House), I'm hearing a lot about GMO labeling these days.  

I wanted to draw your attention to an aspect of this debate that you probably don't hear a lot about.  Let's start with this quote from an interview in the Verge with William Hallman of Rutgers who has done lots of polling on GMOs over the years: 

“A number of surveys show that consumers overwhelmingly support GMO labeling, but Hallman says there’s an important caveat to keep in mind. Most polls don’t give the option of saying “I don’t know” when asked about support for labeling, and few consumers will say they don’t want more information. In fact, Hallman’s own survey shows most Americans aren’t even part of the conversation”

I largely agree with Hallman's statement.  Yes, if you ask people whether they want GMO labeling, a large majority will say "yes."  But that sentiment is not very deep (I've found similar levels of support for absurd policies like DNA labeling; moreover, the policy has failed to garner majority support now in 5 state ballot initiatives where people actually had to vote).  

More broadly, asking people whether they want mandatory GMO labeling misses a larger question: how seriously do consumers take their own views?  Do they even want to have to express an opinion on the issue?  

Back in May, I polled a representative sample of over 1,000 US consumers.  I asked them:  “How should the issue of mandatory labeling of genetically engineered food be decided?”  They could choose from one of six options.  

The majority, 61%, of the respondents stated “by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)”.  Just over 10% of respondents stated “I don’t know” and only 5% of respondents stated “by ballot initiatives in each state”.

So, despite the fact that ~80% of people will say they want mandatory GMO labeling in a poll, the above results suggest that they also don't want themselves or fellow citizens to directly decide that policy (9.1% want a nationwide ballot initiative and 5.3% want a statewide vote).  Interestingly, only 8.8% want Congress to decide.

My interpretation of this result is that, if forced to state an opinion, most consumers will express positive support for labels (absent any information on costs or consequences).  But, consumers also realize that they are not terribly knowledgeable on the issue and would defer to "experts" like those at FDA.  

In fact, back in July of 2014, I directly asked over 1,000 US consumers whether they thought decisions about labeling of GMOs should be based on views of experts or views of average Americans.  Over 70% said decisions should be based on views of experts.  

Maybe that seems a bit elitist.  But, I'm not sure that's the right word.  These aren't experts saying experts should decide.  These are normal, everyday people saying they want experts to decide.  This is an entirely reasonable position.  Many of us could do our own taxes or make our own retirement planning decisions, but instead we farm these decisions out to experts because it simply isn't worth our time to become experts in everything.   

GMO animals

In the past couple weeks, I've seen several articles on GMO animals.  They are often created using cisgenic techniques or gene editing (i.e., moving genes within a species or "turning off" expression of existing genes), so they may (or may not) be more acceptable to consumers than transgenic GMOs.  That said, the research suggests consumers are much more averse to genetic engineering in animals as compared to plants (for example, here's one recent study we conducted).  

Here's a sampling of the stories and applications mentioned:

Tamar Haspel in National Geographic - mentions bird-flu resistant chicken (well, they're not actually resistant but they don't spread the disease).

David Cyranoski in Nature News - mentions "double muscled" pigs.

Hannah Devlin in the Guardian - mentions pigs resistant to African swine fever (includes a nice graphic).

Kat McGowan in Mother Jones - mentioned polled (or hornless) Holstein cows (bet you didn't know almost all dairy cows currently have to be dehorned), also mentions more heat tolerant cows.

This is an old one but don't forget the larger, faster growing transgenic salmon.

It will be interesting to see how this field develops and how consumers respond.  Reducing proensity for disease and need for dehorning are clear animal welfare improvements, and of course more efficient animals mean less environmental impacts and lower prices.  Will that assuage consumer concerns?  Only time will tell.

Addendum:  Ellen Goddard reminded me of this story on transgenic cows that have higher Omega 3s

Pushback against Nudges

A couple items recently came across my desk that were somewhat critical (at least in parts) of the use of behavioral economics in public policy making - in particular the idea that government can use insights from behavioral economists to nudge us into making the "right" decisions.

The first item is this new paper by Viscusi and Gayer for the Brookings Institute.  They reasonably ask why behavioral economists haven't spent nearly as much time studying the irrationality of bureaucrats, politicians, and policy makers as they have studying the irrationality of consumers.  Here's an extended quote (footnotes omitted) from their discussion on the propensity of government officials to suffer from a phenomenon called ambiguity aversion:

“Ambiguity aversion is a form of irrational behavior and should not be confused with risk aversion in which people are averse to the risk of incurring a large loss . . .

Government policies frequently reflect this ambiguity aversion with novel risks. For example, court rulings tend to demonstrate a bias against innovation and the attendant uncertainties
of novel drug products. In situations where there are adverse health effects from new drugs, the courts are more likely to levy sanctions against the producer. This bias on behalf of the public is also reflected in product liability case experiments using a sample of judges participating in a legal education program. The judges considered hypothetical cases involving novel drugs and their associated liability risks. When given a choice between a new drug posing an uncertain risk or another drug with a higher known risk, most of the judges recommend that the company market the latter drug.

Another instance of ambiguity aversion involves genetically modified organisms (GMOs) . . . GMOs have come under fire and are increasingly subject to potential regulation throughout the world. . . Critics have characterized GMO foods as being very risky products of biotechnology, labeling them “Frankenfoods.” The policy trade-off involved is that GMOs may pose uncertain risks that currently are believed to be low in magnitude, but they reduce the cost of producing agricultural products, which in turn lowers food prices and promotes better nutrition. ”

They go on to hint at the idea (though never come right out and say it) that the precautionary principle is a behavioral bias.  

The other item was an article in the The Guardian that asks whether all the cutesy messages by companies and governments encouraging us to "do the right thing" are really all that helpful or more effective than traditional policies.  The conclusion: 

“And another lesson, not mentioned by the team, but by other economists , is that it is very important to question whether the choices of the behaviourists, whether in government or in ad agencies where nudging opens up a yet more glorious prospect, are invariably wise and good. What, for instance, made the Highways Agency think that a made-up kiddie quote indebted to the Pret school of copywriting condescension (“a little girl asked us why we didn’t make gingerbread men”) might be preferable to speed cameras that build up points for offending drivers, as opposed to irritation in the law-abiding? Or preferable, indeed, to nothing? Maybe a little girl was involved.”

Food Demand Survey (FooDS) - July 2015

The July 2015 edition of the Food Demand Survey (FooDS) is now out.  

Overall, there seemed to be a slight reduction in demand for most meat products this month compared to June as indicated by a reduction in WTP, a reduction in expectation of price increases, and a reduction in planned purchases.  Some of this might have to do with the fact that there was an uptick in planned expenditures away from home, perhaps due to vacations.

Awareness of and concern for bird flu fell this month compared to last.  In July, there was an increase in awareness and concern among those issues that tend to fall at the bottom of the scale of concern.

Several ad-hoc questions were added this month.  

Overall, respondents were generally satisfied with their lives.  They were asked:  “All things considered, how satisfied are you with your life as a whole these days? Using the scale below, where 1 means you are “completely dissatisfied’ and 10 means you are “completely satisfied”, where would you put your satisfaction with your life as a whole?”

Similar to last month, the most popular response was an 8. 

Despite that, there seemed to be some pessimism with regard to the future in general and food and agriculture in specific.  

We asked,  “If you could be born at any time when would it be?” Participants stating they would choose to be born “in the past, 50 years ago” ranked the highest of the groups
at 31.21%. This may correspond to the category which most closely matched the lag in time from which participants were actually born (i.e., they preferred to be born when they were actually born).  Only 18.1% of participants stated they would choose to be born now.  Less than 20% said they would want to be born in the future.

Participants were also asked: “Overall, when you think about the state of food and agriculture in this country, do you think . . .” About 32% of respondents stated that “things are getting a little worse” for food and agriculture in this country, while only 19% of respondents agreed that “things are getting a little better”. About 27% of respondents stated that “things are about the same as they have been”.

Finally, Brandon McFadden from the University of Florida suggested a question that is a riff off a popular internet infographic showing the number of genes affected by different plant breeding techniques.  

Participants were asked: “For each of the following plant breeding techniques, how many genes are typically altered in the process?” Consistent with the comments in my recent Washington Post interview, the vast majority most consumers do not know how many genes are affected by any plant breeding techniques. Among those who stated an opinion,” selection” ranked the highest, at 7.65%, for not having any genes altered. For selection, having 1 to 4 genes altered ranked highest amongst participants at 11.8%. Hybridization was ranked highest by 11.8% of participants for having 5 to 9 genes altered. About 9% of participants stated that 10 to 19 genes were altered using genetic modification. Genetic modification was the highest of the group of 20 more genes affected at 7.14%.