Who Buys Local Foods?

Two of my colleagues at Oklahoma State, Brian Whitacre and Trey Malone, ​just released a report on local foods.  Here is their conclusion: 

The marketing of local food has been promoted and state-supported as an economic boon to rural places. But thus far, it appears that urban customers and economies are reaping most of the benefits.

Later they say:​

Overall, the maps suggest that support for local food systems is a strongly urban phenomenon. 

Local foods may have some positive attributes, but as I've argued here and in my forthcoming book, The Food Police, (see also The Locavore's Dilemma: In Praise of the 10,000-mile Diet by Desrochers and Shimizu) promoting local foods is unlikely to be a good rural development strategy.

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.