Food by Subscription

I was recently interviewed by the Atlanta Tribune for a story they were running on subscription-based services that deliver meal ingredients to your home.  

It was a bit ironic that this interview request came at this time because my family had recently been trying out one such service: HelloFresh.  Here's what I had to say about why we tried it out:

“My wife spent a large amount of time each week menu planning (i.e., figuring out what to cook for the week), and then even after getting the week planned out sometimes our local grocery store wouldn’t have all the items she needed. So, recently, she signed on to HelloFresh as a way to cut down on time spent searching for recipes and traipsing about town for different ingredients.”

Why is the market growing?

“In general, it’s hard to separate a short-term fad from a trend that has staying power. One thing to look at is the underlying economic forces and see whether there is reason to believe a larger market could exist.
...
Demand for convenience has grown. Demand for quality has grown. The subscriptions boxes offer convenience and quality, all in the comfort of one’s home. Typically one had to choose one or the other (e.g., I could have convenient but that would mean low quality or eating out), but boxes are an innovation that has broken down that traditional constraint. ”

On whether the market will continue to grow

“Hard to say. It will depend on the ability of the box services to continue to offer competitive offerings with grocery stores and restaurants, and it will depend on how these other food service outlets respond in turn. For example, restaurants already offer take out. And, what’s to stop Walmart or Kroger from offering their own boxes ready for pickup?”

Isn't this just a frivolous expense?

“Whether something is a “splurge” depends on one’s budget. . . The box service my family uses winds up costing us about $10 per person per meal. We could easily spend that amount if we went out to eat at a sit-down restaurant, and fast food is only slightly less expensive. Cooking from scratch would be less expensive in terms of food cost, but would require “hidden costs” in more time planning, shopping, and cooking. It’s unlikely that boxes are the best option for every family, but they’ll likely make sense for some families some of the time.”

Impact of Process Labeling

The Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST) just released a new paper on the impact of process food labeling.  The paper was written by a number of top-notch ag economists including Kent Messer, Marco Costanigro,  and Harry Kaiser.  It's a nice summary of the issues involved in the labeling of food processes (like organic or non-GMO or rbST free) as opposed to labeling food outcomes (like calories).

The summarize five points after reviewing the literature:

“1. Consumers want to have a sense of control over the foods their families eat.
2. Food markets are characterized by asymmetric information. Producers know more about the quality of the products than consumers. Many important quality traits are unknown until after consumption, or they are never revealed.
3. Consumers are not well informed about the various technologies used in the agricultural and food sector of the United States; however, they have greatly benefited from the tremendous technological progress that has occurred over the past century.
4. Consumers use process labels as cues to infer quality traits that are important to them, such as taste, food safety, and the environmental and societal impacts.
5. There is strong evidence that consumers consider process labels, frequently adjust their behavior in response to them, and, when these labels imply a negative aspect of a food, can shun that product. ”

They also present a number of challenges presented by these sorts of labels, such as

“Process labels can be used by marketers to stigmatize rival conventionally produced products, even when there is no scientific evidence that food produced in this manner
causes harm.”

The authors end with some policy recommendations.  Here's the first one:

“Mandatory labeling should only occur in situations in which the product has been scientifically demonstrated to harm human health.”

Thinking about hormones and cloning . . .

The American Journal of Agricultural Economics just released a forthcoming paper I co-authored with John Crespi, Brad Cherry, Laura Martin, Brandon McFadden, and Amanda Bruce.  Why so many authors?  Because it takes a lot of brains to try to figure out what's going on in people's brains when making decisions about food.

Here's a description from the paper of what we did: 

“In this paper, participants in a neuroimaging (fMRI) experiment made choices regarding
types of milk produced with or without an unfamiliar technology process (cloning or growth hormone) while recording their choices and the time it took to make those choices. Focusing on nine areas of the brain that have been found to be important in previous research for economic valuation, the experiment and subsequent analyses show which of these areas are correlated with the deliberative process and which are correlated with the final choice. One area of particular interest that revealed correlation for both activities was the ventromedial prefrontal cortex. This region is implicated in experiments of valuation and salience, and it was significantly correlated with deliberation and an increased likelihood of choosing the more familiar milk.”

Here's one of the figures from the paper.  The orangish-yellowish areas indicate brain areas that were more active when the person was choosing between milks with different characteristics vs. when they were just looking at milk with different characteristics.  Choosing really is a different mental process than simply looking.

We find that we can predict choice and decision time based on activation in different brain areas.

Here's how the paper ends:

“When making decisions we recall memories, we feel emotions, we weigh costs and benefits, and while we cannot observe these neural processes directly, we can determine which of the valuation areas of the brain slow the process down and which speed it up. That is, which areas are involved in the internal deliberation that eventually becomes choice? While a large portion of the brain (figure 3 and table 3) ponders the decision, the final choice appears most highly correlated with localized areas in the medial prefrontal cortex, and among those, it is fascinating that correlation is stronger, in our study, when the choice is over growth hormones than cloning technology. Why is this? Food labeling has been a source of research interest for years, and neuroscience technology will make it a fruitful area of study for years to come.”

Behavioral Economics and Public Policy

David Just and Andrew Hanks have a new paper forthcoming in the American Journal of Agricultural Economics entitled: The Hidden Cost of Regulation (I noticed Marc Bellemare beat me to the punch in discussing his views on the paper).  

This is an important paper in many respects.  As I see it, one of the general problems with the behavioral economics literature is that the findings of behavioral biases (e.g., status quo bias, overweighting low probability risks, loss aversion, present, etc.) are almost always put forth as motivation for more government regulation.  Yet, it is easy to imagine many behavioral economic findings suggesting just the opposite - though that is rarely the conclusion drawn by the authors.

Here's an  example I used in the Food Police

“Here is the irony. The behavioral economists have told us for years that humans make mistakes by exaggerating the importance of low-probability risks. Yet, I have not seen a single behavioral economist use this insight to tell the food police to relax and put their fears over growth hormones, genetically modified food, or pesticides into perspective. Instead, we see the behavioral economists partner with the food police to advocate policies they want even if it means ignoring the implications of their own research. ”

Now, enter the paper by Just and Hanks.  They show that if consumers have a positive emotional attachment to a good that a government policy that attempts to restrict consumption of that good may cause a backlash by causing people to want it even more.

 Think of the Bloomberg large soda ban.  The very action of telling people "you can't have large sodas" makes them want large sodas even more, which makes banning large sodas even more costly in terms of foregone consumer welfare.  They argue that the reverse  may also be true: subsidizing something like healthy food that people feel like they should be consuming more of makes  them want it all the more.  

The general story here is that people's preferences (what they want) may not be independent of the policies government officials pursue.  It is an issue I've studied on a couple of occasions (here and here) with regard to the effects of mandatory labels on genetically engineered food. If people see a mandatory label as information about the risks of genetic engineering, the very presence of a label could make them even more averse to genetically engineered food.  

All this makes the normal sort of "welfare economics" we economists normally do a bit tricky.    Normally we look at the choices (and prices) before a policy is in place and the choices (and prices) after a policy is in place to determine whether consumers are better off with the policy or not.  How do we determine better off?  With a mathematical function derived from the choices people make.  Think of it like: happiness = f(prices, # of options).   But, if a policy changes preferences, then it is hard to know whether the consumer is happier or sadder because, in a sense, they're now a different person that has different tastes and wants.  Not only have prices and number of options changed but the function relating happiness to these factors has changed too.

While the Just and Hanks paper is largely a theoretical paper, I'm please to see a framework put forward for people to seriously evaluate public policies in a fully consistent behavioral economics framework rather than the ad hoc way it's normally done.  I also hinted as this sort of thing in a paper with Bailey Norwood and Stephan Marette where we ran some experiments where people could either choose for themselves or where other's made choices for them (we called the choosers the "paternalist" and the recipients of the choices (or children as Stephan calls them) the "paternalee)".  

“One interpretation of these results is that paternalees place an intrinsic value on freedom of choice. This does not necessarily imply that the paternalees’ choices are in any sense “optimal” or that, should paternalees suffer from time-inconsistent preferences, their long-term well-being couldn’t be enhanced by restricting current choices. Nevertheless, if this interpretation is correct, the results suggest that any long-term benefits that might arise from paternalism must be weighed against the loss of freedom of choice.”

Environmental Impacts of Vegetarianism

Given the latest report from the new dietary guidelines committee that recommends less meat eating (see some of my previous discussion on that here), I found this study just published in Ecological Economics by Janina Grabs quite interesting.

Grabs ask an important question that is rarely asked.  If people stop spending money on meat, what will they spend their money on instead?  And, what are the environmental impacts of those other non-meat expenditures?  Using data based on Swedish consumers, she calculates that, at first blush, a vegetarian diet does indeed appear to have slightly smaller energy use and carbon impacts, BUT if you take into consideration what the vegetarians do with the extra money they used to spend on meat, those environmental gains become dramatically smaller.  She calls this the rebound effect.

Here's the abstract:

“Sustainable diets, in particular vegetarianism, are often promoted as effective measures to reduce our environmental footprint. Yet, few conclusions take full-scale behavioral changes into consideration. This can be achieved by calculating the indirect environmental rebound effect related to the re-spending of expenditure saved during the initial behavioral shift. This study aims to quantify the potential energy use and greenhouse gas emission savings, and most likely rebound effects, related to an average Swedish consumer’s shift to vegetarianism. Using household budget survey data, it estimates Engel curves of 117 consumption goods, derives marginal expenditure shares, and links these values to environmental intensity indicators. Results indicate that switching to vegetarianism could save consumers 16% of the energy use and 20% of the greenhouse gas emissions related to their dietary consumption. However, if they re-spend the saved income according to their current preferences, they would forego 96% of potential energy savings and 49% of greenhouse gas emission savings. These rebound effects are even higher for lower-income consumers who tend to re-spend on more environmentally intensive goods. Yet, the adverse effect could be tempered by purchasing organic goods or re-spending the money on services. In order to reduce the environmental impact of consumption, it could thus be recommended to not only focus on dietary shifts, but rather on the full range of consumer expenditure.”

A couple caveats.  First, it is important to notice an important clause to sentence claiming a 16% reduction in energy use and 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions - this is the reduction related only to their diet.  In terms of overall impact, I believe these only translate to 1.8% and 4.15% reductions, quite simply because food only makes up a small part of the consumers overall energy use and carbon impact.  Of course, all this relates to the "first round" impacts and ignores the rebound effect, which is the main point of this study.

Second, the later part of the abstract, which suggests that the, "adverse effect could be tempered by purchasing organic goods" is mainly due (if I'm understanding the study correctly) to an income effect NOT because organics have substantively less energy/carbon impacts.  Because organics cost more, that leaves less money for the consumer to spend on other things that would require energy.  You could create the exact same kind of result by simulating a person who bought and ate less food, and then took all the dollar bills that were saved, and burned them.  This little thought experiment ought to reveal that the goal in life is not to minimize energy use per se, only to reduce it to the extent that you're not taking into account the impacts on others that are not already reflected in the market price.

None of that should distract from the overall important message of this study: that we need to look at all the effects (even unintended ones) when trying to look at policies that encourage people to change dietary habits.