Am I Pro- or Anti-Garden?

Partially in response to the opening lines of my piece in Townhall magazine related to the Obama's White House garden, one of my colleagues (Francis Epplin) said he didn't understand my objection to gardens, and he pointed out that they are bi-partisan (apparently our Republican-led Dept of Ag in Oklahoma has a garden too).    

My response was that I didn't mean to come across as "anti garden." Up until a couple years ago, my 91 year old grandmother grew tomatoes, okra, and other goodies in her backyard.  That said, I do find it strange when public officials (whether Obama or Governor Fallin) grow "symbolic" gardens.  In these cases, I think it is fair to ask what is being symbolized and ask whether the arguments used to promote gardens hold up to the scientific evidence.  Of course not all gardens are symbols of something bigger, and it seems perfectly reasonable for someone to say they grow a garden because "they like to."  There are certainly worse things one can do with their time.   

In any event, Epplin advanced an interesting hypothesis, which he consented to me sharing here:  

My hypothesis would be that families that grow, or try to grow gardens, would have a better understanding of the weed and pest challenges encountered by farmers.  I would also hypothesize that they would be more sympathetic toward herbicides and pesticides.

This is a testable hypothesis and would make a great research project.  A part of me thinks Francis is right.  However, tending a garden is also different than managing a 1000 acre farm, and I'm not sure it translates.  Indeed, I think it is possible that just the opposite opinion will be formed.

This reminds me a bit of the conversation that came up in the Food Dialogues Event I participated in a couple months ago.  The former deputy secretary of agriculture, Kathleen Merrigan, talked about farmers selling at farmer's markets as being agricultural ambassadors and representing farmers more generally.  The implication was that such farmers would help the average consumer better understand production agriculture.  However, someone in the audience made a good point when he argued that the farmer at the farmers market was not the same kind of farmer he was.  The implication is that the guy at the farmers market was just as apt to say something bad about his farm than be an ambassador.  

Will gardens or farmers markets make people more or less accepting of modern production agriculture?   

I don't know.  

Most overpriced items in the grocery store

Yesterday I received a phone call from a producer for a major cable news station asking if I'd be willing to come on a show and talk about this story that appeared in Business Insider entitled: "5 Of The Most Overpriced Items In The Grocery Store".

After reading the story, I gave the following response to the producer (slightly edited here for the blog).  Although it would have been nice to have a little air time, I'm happy to report that they decided not to run with the story, at least as it was originally premised.

The story equates “overpriced” with the “percent markup”, which is pretty shaky.  There are a lot of good reasons why the percent mark-up may vary across products that has little to do with being “overpriced”.  For example, differences in demand for convenience and other characteristics, differences in costs of packaging, storage, transportation, etc. will cause differences in the percent markup.  

Nonetheless, let’s play along.

1) Bottled water.  On the surface, it does seem crazy that there is a 4000% mark-up for bottled water.  But, part of the reason for the high percent is that the price of water is REALLY cheap to begin with (so the percent will look very high though the actual dollar mark-up in absolute terms is small).  More importantly, how valuable is convenience to you?  A lot of people are willing to pay an extra buck to have more convenient water and not have to fiddle with refilling and refrigerating a re-usable water bottle.  Who am I to say that an extra $0.50 or $1 isn’t worth it to the person whose paying for it?  If it were really the case that bottle water sellers were ripping us off, why doesn’t some entrepreneur enter the market and start selling cheaper bottled water and corner the market?  The fact is that most of the cost is in the packaging, transportation, etc.  When you buy bottled water, you’re paying for packaging and convenience.

The same arguments apply even more forcefully for pre-cut produce.  Who cares if pre-cut carrots and onions are marked up 40%?  I’m not having to do the work!  That’s an extra $1-$2 I’m definitely willing to pay.  And if someone else can figure out a way to do it for less than 40%, you can bet they’d have my business.  Competition – in the long run- will eventually drive down prices to their approximate costs. 

2)   In general, I would characterize something as “overpriced” if people have mis-perceptions; if they believe they’re getting something from a product that they’re not actually receiving.  Two of the examples in the story potentially fit that criteria: name-brand spices and brand-name cereal.  One way to know whether you’re being fooled by marketing is to do a blind taste test.  It is often the case that our brain is more powerful in influencing how we think something tastes than our tongues.  So, with a neutral friend, try it out: can you REALLY taste the difference?  If not, you may be over-paying.

3)  In this light, there are a number of products that many people have “incorrect” beliefs relative to what scientific studies say – thus, they may be paying a premium for characteristics that they’re not actually recieving.  One example is food with a "natural" claim. A “natural” label is pretty vacuous, and I've previously touched on those issues here and here.  Another example is organic food.  People believe a lot of things about organic foods that just aren't true: that they’re pesticide free, that they support small farms, that they are more nutritious, etc.  I’m not saying there are NO benefits to organic, only fewer benefits than most believe.  A lot of the same arguments apply to local foods.  Chapters 5 and 9 in The Food Police have all the details and citations.

Urban Chickens

A USDA report on urban chickens (from a survey conducted in four US cities): 

Overall, 0.8 percent of all households (0.6 percent of all households excluding single-family homes on 1 acre or more) owned chickens. Chickens were ownedon 4.3 percent of single-family homes on 1 acre or more. Excluding single-family homes on 1 acre or more, the percentage of households with chickens ranged from 0.1 percent in New York City to 1.3 percent in Miami.

While less than 1 percent of households had chickens, nearly 4 percent of households without chickens planned to have chickens within the next 5 years, illustrating the growing acceptance of urban farming (range: 2.0 percent of households in New York City to 7.4 percent in Denver).

Overall, about 4 of 10 respondents were in favor of allowing chickens in their communities and would not mind if their neighbors owned chickens (44.4 and 39.3 percent, respectively). These percentages were inversely related to the age of the respondent. Denver had the highest percentage of respondents in favor of allowing chickens in the community (62.5 percent).

Although over half of respondents (55.6 percent) believed that chickens in urban areas will lead to more illnesses in humans, about two-thirds of respondents in Los Angeles, Miami, and New York City and three-fourths of respondents in Denver believed that eggs from home-raised chickens are better for you than eggs purchased at a grocery store. Denver respondents were the least likely to believe that chickens in urban areas will lead to more illnesses in humans.

What do farmer's market chickens, motorcycles, and unpasteurized milk have in common?

A friend sent me a link to a new study in the journal in the Journal of Food Safety. The study shows that 90% of the chicken sold at a farmer's tested positive for Salmonella.  By contrast, only 52% of non-organic grocery store chickens and 28% of organic grocery store chickens tested positive for Salmonella.  In addition, the study found that for another illness-causing bacteria, Campylobacter, 28% of farmer's market chickens were positive but only 8% of non-organic grocery store chickens and 20% of organic grocery store chicken.  So regardless of whether you buy conventional or organic chicken at the grocery store, it is likely safer than that bought at the farmers market (at least the farmers analyzed in this study).   For one bacteria (Salmonella), organic is safer, for another (Campylobacter), conventional is safer. 

Why is this result interesting?  Because the findings are likely to be strongly at odds with most people's beliefs.  I suspect (but do not know for sure) that if asked, most people would say they think foods from farmers markets are safer than from grocery stores.  They would also likely assert organic is safer than conventional.  Yet this evidence (and other studies like it) is at odds with people's beliefs.  

I don't have a problem with people eating at farmer's markets.  Go for it!  But, ideally one should act knowledgeably, knowing full well the risks they're undertaking.  And I fear all the hype often causes people to mis-perceive the true benefits and risks of conventional, organic, and local foods.  

A similar problem exists with unpasteurized milk (or raw milk).  Although it is illegal in many states, many people want to buy unpasteurized milk.  Again, I say go for it (as long as they are two consenting adults; kids may be a different story at least if they're not your own).  But, let's not be glib about the safety risks.  Sure, it might be possible that pasteurization kills some healthy bacteria but it is certainly true, and scientific studies clearly show, that pasteurization kills illness-causing bacteria.  

So, why do we have government regulations that ban unpasteurized milk but promote farmer's markets?  Maybe the risks are larger or are more well known in one case (raw milk) than the other (farmers market meat).  One of the proper roles of government, I believe, is to provide objective-science based information.  What people do with that information is up to them.  But, it does bother me a bit when certain foods attain a moral status that causes people to under-estimate risks and over-estimate benefits.  Kahneman talked about this problem in his book Thinking Fast and Slow: something that seems good is therefore perceived unrisky and vice versa.  It also troubled me that many calls for food policies by food activists seem to be based on inaccurate perceptions of risks and benefits.  

What does this have to do with motorcycles?  Regulations in many states don't allow people to ride without helmets (helmet-less riding is banned) .  Clearly, riding a motorcycle without a helmet is risky.  How much riskier is it than eating farmers market chickens or drinking unpastuerized milk?  I don't know.  Strangely, in Oklahoma, we allow motor cycle riding without a helmet.  But, sales of raw milk in grocery stores is banned (my understanding is that it can be bought direct from the farm in OK).  So, people are presumed smart enough to weigh the risks of riding a motorcycle without a hat but not smart enough to buy raw milk from a grocery store?  Seems like a consistent paternalist would outlaw both.  Or a consistent libertarian would make both fully legal.  Either way, shouldn't we all want the best information to make choices?  

Beware the High Priests of Local Food

That's the title of the article I wrote with Henry Miller of the Hoover Institute at Stanford University, and just published in the Institute's journal, Defining Ideas. ​

Here is the last little bit:​

The underlying principle is—or should be—this: Your local farmer is probably better at growing some things than ours is, and vice versa.

We favor eating delicious and nutritious foods, but if we are to live by the locavore’s mantra, and only consume what can be made locally, we had better resign ourselves to an expensive, narrow and boring diet—especially if we live in climates with harsh winters and short growing seasons.

No one should be opposed to patronizing nearby farmers’ markets for fresh products in season—or, for that matter, to individuals opting to adopt fad diets or home remedies. But it is abusive for governments to subsidize the locavore movement, in which the state has scant economic interest and for which legislators should have little appetite.