Some Good Sense on GMO Labeling

This from Balylen Linnekin at Reason.com:

So I’d like to see Prop 37 fail. But I’d also like to see Prop 37 opponents support serious reform at the federal level by urging the FDA to reconsider its opposition to voluntary labeling that would permit non-GMO producers and sellers to openly tout their products as such. From a First Amendment perspective, the right to speak is, after all, on par with the right not to speak—which is largely what Monsanto and other Prop 37 opponents are fighting for here.

I’d also like to see more non-GMO food producers opt out of the USDA’s largely meaningless "organic" labeling certification regime and instead consider private certification, an increasingly attractive alternative to FDA labeling policy in general and (potentially) California law.

By respecting the rights of those with whom they disagree, both opponents and supporters of GMOs can find common ground and protect their own rights to eat what and how they please.​

Food Police Alert

New York City's Board of Health approved Bloomberg's ban on large sodas.  Here is Scott Shackford at Reason: 

The number of exceptions to the ban makes the whole practice an absurd spectacle of pointless progressive authoritarian paternalism. Fruit juices and milkshakes are not affected by the ban even though both can have sugar content right up there with your Cokes and your Mountain Dews. The ban affects restaurants and movie theaters but not convenience stores, so New Yorkers won’t be able to get a 20-ounce soda at McDonald’s, but theywill be able to get a 50-ounce Double Gulp from 7-Eleven. Furthermore, the ban shouldn’t affect diet or sugar-free drinks, but as The New York Timesreports, establishments with self-service fountains will not be able to stock cups that hold more than 16 ounces. So essentially, thirsty people will want to avoid the targeted businesses altogether even if they’re drinking healthy.

One annoying outcome of this half-assed Nanny Statism is how it’s easy it’s going to be to spin an argument for an expansion of the ban regardless of the outcome. If the city’s obesity numbers drop, it will be an argument that the ban worked and it should be expanded. If the obesity numbers don’t drop, it means the ban obviously didn’t go far enough and should be expanded. The drug war’s arguments are on their way to the soda dispenser.

Assorted Links

​1.  Beef Products Inc sues ABC for $1.2 billion for defamation over "pink slim" reporting

2. One reason why having a bunch of backyard chickens is a bad idea​

3.  ​Prop 2 in California withstands a legal challenge

4.  Bayesian thinking suggests that when we encounter evidence that conflicts with our prior beliefs, we should update our thinking even if just by a little.  Here's proof folks aren't Bayesians  when it comes to food.

Is Beef Becoming More or Less Environmentally Friendly?

Another report has surfaced, this time from a study in the British Medical Journal.  The study authors call for reduced meat consumption because, among other things, it would be “climate friendly.”  While reduced beef consumption might lead to lower greenhouse gas emissions, it is important to take a broader look at historical production trends.  There seems to be a bit of a romantic notion floating around that if we just turned back the clock 30 or 40 years, we would have more “sustainable” agriculture. 

Because much of the greenhouse gas emissions occur at the cow-level, it is useful to look at what has been happening to the number of cows in the US over time.  What you find when you look at the data is that this year, “U.S. cattle inventories fell to the lowest in 60 years.”  Fewer cows means fewer greenhouse gas emissions.  Why do we so rarely hear that in the news?

Another glossed-over fact of beef production in the US is the incredible gains in efficiency that have occurred in recent decades.  Below is a graph I complied using USDA data on the total US cow and calf inventory, total beef production, and US population.

Back in 1975, there were 0.61 cows per person in the US.  Today, that number is only 0.29.  That's more than a 100% reduction!  That reduction, which has the benefit of reduced greenhouse emissions, has been accomplished all while producing more beef.  Back in 1975 only about 179 lbs of beef were produced per cow in America.  Today, the figure is 288 lbs.  We’re getting 109 lbs more from each cow than we did back in the 1970s. 

Just something to think about when you hear about the environmental problems with beef production and our “sustainable” past.

How Likely is a Food Armageddon? Not Very.

​Everywhere I turn these days, I hear folks saying that our modern food production system is leading to some kind of environmental, health, or social Armageddon.  Just to give one example, Mark Bittman, food writer for the New York Times, began a 2007 TED talk showing a picture of a cow followed by a picture of an atomic bomb exploding.  The implication?  If we keep eating meat the way we are, we'll experience Hiroshima-like consequences.  

The answer to the problem?  We need to adopt ever-so-vague "sustainable" production systems.​  I'm all for sustaining our standard of living but I'm not so sure the typical set of prescriptions are going to do it.

The next time you hear such pronouncements of agricultural Armageddon, I encourage you to take a look at the article by Matt Ridley in Wired a few weeks ago​.  Here is an excerpt:

Predictions of global famine and the end of oil in the 1970s proved just as wrong as end-of-the-world forecasts from millennialist priests. Yet there is no sign that experts are becoming more cautious about apocalyptic promises. If anything, the rhetoric has ramped up in recent years.

and this:​

So far all of these specters have turned out to be exaggerated. True, we have encountered obstacles, public-health emergencies, and even mass tragedies. But the promised Armageddons—the thresholds that cannot be uncrossed, the tipping points that cannot be untipped, the existential threats to Life as We Know It—have consistently failed to materialize. To see the full depth of our apocaholism, and to understand why we keep getting it so wrong, we need to consult the past 50 years of history.

He concludes:

All these predictions failed to come true. Oil and gas production have continued to rise during the past 50 years. Gas reserves took an enormous leap upward after 2007, as engineers learned how to exploit abundant shale gas. In 2011 the International Energy Agency estimated that global gas resources would last 250 years. Although it seems likely that cheap sources of oil may indeed start to peter out in coming decades, gigantic quantities of shale oil and oil sands will remain available, at least at a price. Once again, obstacles have materialized, but the apocalypse has not. Ever since Thomas Robert Malthus, doomsayers have tended to underestimate the power of innovation. In reality, driven by price increases, people simply developed new technologies . . .