Blog

Stossel on Food

I'm writing this post for two reasons.  The first is to note that John Stossel has been running some interesting pieces on food and he raises a number of interesting points that are often forgotten.

For example, here he is in a piece at Reason.com on impacts of reputation:

Tyson Foods, Perdue and McDonald's have brands to maintain—and customers to lose. Ask Jack in the Box. It lost millions after a food-poisoning scandal. 
Fear of getting a bad reputation makes food producers even more careful than government requires. Since the Eisenhower administration, our stodgy government has paid an army of union inspectors to eyeball chickens in every single processing plant. But bacteria are invisible! 
Fortunately, food producers run much more sophisticated tests on their own. One employs 2,000 more safety inspectors than government requires: "To kill pathogens, beef carcasses are treated with rinses and a 185-degree steam vacuum," an executive told me. She also asked that I not reveal the name of her company—it fears retaliation from regulators. 

The other reason for the post is shameless self promotion.  I filmed a bit yesterday in New York with Stossel on fat taxes, ingredient bans, and the government’s role in food.  The bit is slated to air on a special on Fox News in February.

How Important is Food Freedom?

Last night 60 Minutes aired an interview between Anderson Cooper and a gentleman named  Shin Dong-hyuk. Shin was born in captivity in North Korea and had never experienced life outside the prison compound much less North Korea.  Shin eventually came into contact with a prisoner who had lived on the outside and it opened his eyes to new possibilities.  I found this exchange between Cooper and Shin remarkable:

Shin: The most important thought was that a prisoner like me could eat chicken and pork if I were able to escape the barbed wires. 
Cooper: I've heard people define freedom in many ways. I've never heard anyone define it as broiled chicken. 
Shin: I still think of freedom in that way.
Cooper: Really?! That's what freedom means to you?
Shin: People can eat what they want. It could be the greatest gift from God. 
Cooper.: You were ready to die just to get a good meal?
Shin: Yes.

One might have thought it was the regular beatings or the forced witness to murder that would have motivated Shin to escape.  But the biggest driver seemed to be his desire to freely eat.  

The News and Our Misperceptions of Risk

As news reports continue to circulate on the safety of pork and now on animal welfare and fracking, it is useful to step back and consider how we humans perceive and respond to risk.    

I happened to have recently picked back up Kahneman's book Thinking Fast and Slow, and he summarizes some interesting research on these topics.  First on page 138 after showing results from Slovic's research that people were really bad a judging the relative risks of dying from different cases, Kahneman concludes:

The lesson is clear: estimates of causes of death are warped by media coverage.  The coverage is itself biased toward novelty and poignancy.  The media do not just shape what the public is interested in but are also shaped by it . . . Unusual events (such as botulism) attract disproportionate attention and are consequently perceived as less unusual than they really are.  The world in our heads is not a precise replica of reality; our expectations about the frequency of events are distorted by the prevalence and emotional intensity of the messages to which we are exposed.

That last sentence is revealing: the key to creating a public panic is to 1) make the issue emotional and 2) repeat the message so that it is readily available in people's memory.   A few pages later (p. 142), he develops this idea further when discussing Sunstein's research:  

An availability cascade is a self-sustaining chain of events, which may start from media reports of a relatively minor event and lead up to public panic and large-scale government action.  On some occasions, a media story about a risk catches the attention of a segment of the public,k which becomes aroused and worried.  This emotional reaction becomes a story in itself, prompting additional coverage . . . The cycle is sometimes sped along deliberately by 'availability entrepreneurs,' individuals or organizations who work to ensure a continuous flow of worrying news.  The danger is increasingly exaggerated as the media compete for attention-grabbing headlines.  Scientists and others who try to dampen the increasing fear and revulsion attract little attention, most of it hostile: anyone who claims that the danger is overstated is suspected of association with a 'heinous cover-up.'  The issue becomes politically important because it is on everyone's mind, and the response of the political system is guided by the intensity of public sentiment.  The availability cascade has now reset priorities.  Other risks, and other ways that resources could be applied for the public good, all have faded into the background.

Beware of the availability entrepreneur.  

Constitutionality of Food Labels

Henry Miller from Stanford University's Hoover Institution weights in with a letter to the editor in the WSJ in reference to my most recent op-ed.

Here is a spinet:

Jayson Lusk is correct that radical activists will likely continue their efforts to lobby state governments to require labeling of certain "genetically engineered" foods ("The Food Police Are Routed at the Ballot Box," op-ed, Nov. 20). However, whatever such requirements state legislatures or electorates attempt to impose, those efforts are destined to fail in the courts.
Federal law pre-empts state labeling rules that conflict with FDA policy, which requires labeling only if a food raises questions related to nutrition or safe use. Just last year, a federal court in Los Angeles ruled that a California requirement to label genetically engineered foods "would impose a requirement that is not identical to federal law" and would therefore be pre-empted.

He's probably right with respect to food labels.  I'm not so sure about the fat taxes which I also mentioned in my piece.