Blog

The Need for Food Innovation

In his recent New York Times column, Tyler Cowen ​echos some of the key themes in my forthcoming book.  Here are a few excerpts:

THE drought-induced run-up in corn prices is a reminder that we’re nowhere near solving the problem of feeding the world.

 and:

For all its importance to human well-being, agriculture seems to be one of the lagging economic sectors of the last two decades. That means the problem of hunger is flaring up again, as the World Bank and several United Nations agencies have recently warned.
and:​

There is no shortage of writing — often from a locavore point of view — in support of more organic methods of farming, for both developed and developing countries. These opinions recognize that current farming methods bring serious environmental problems involving water supplies, fertilizer runoff and energy use. Yet organic farming typically involves smaller yields — 5 to 34 percent lower, as estimated in a recent study in the journal Nature, depending on the crop and the context. For all the virtues of organic approaches, it’s hard to see how global food problems can be solved by starting with a cut in yields. Claims in this area are often based on wishful thinking rather than a hard-nosed sense of what’s practical.
WHAT to do? First, put food problems higher on the agenda. In the United States, there is no general consciousness of the precarious state of global agriculture. Even in the economics profession, the field of agricultural economics is often viewed as secondary in status.

Being an agricultural economist, you probably won't be shocked to hear that I agree with the last sentence.  But, it's nice to hear someone else say it.  And it's nice to see a nod to my fellow agricultural economists who have been studying these types of issues for decades but whose voices often tend to get overlooked or drowned out by those pushing the latest fashionable food fads or development policies.  

​

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.

​

​