A Symbol of Government Over-Reach

The Huffington Post just published an editorial​ by yours truly about the ban on large sodas in New York City.  Here are the concluding paragraphs:

I doubt Bloomberg really expects his large-sized-soda ban to have much impact. Rather, it serves as a symbol. But a symbol of what? Perhaps, it symbolizes his passion about the health of New Yorkers. Yet, it is also a symbol of government over-reach; of a government that knows no bounds in reaching into the minutia of our daily lives for the sole purpose of creating a symbol.

Bloomberg is right to presume people know best whom to marry and whether to indulge in a little cannabis. All I'm asking is that he give the same leeway at the soda fountain.

In the article, I point out the hypocrisy of Bloomberg's liberal stance on everything from gay marriage to abortion to pot smoking.  These things he wants to legalize;  selling large sodas, however, is a criminal offence.  This cartoon by Mike Luckovich​ says it all:

Food Police Alert

In an opinion piece in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Thomas Farley praises New York City policies and calls for ramped up regulation to fight obesity:​

New York City supported a 1-cent-per-ounce excise tax on sugary drinks to lessen the industry's financial incentive to market large portion sizes and to encourage consumers to choose smaller portions and switch to low-calorie beverages. The city also supported a change in policy on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program that would have prohibited the use of program benefits to purchase sugary drinks, arguing that government should not subsidize the purchase of a product known to be particularly unhealthful. In addition, the city's health department proposed a cap on the portion size of sugary drinks served at restaurants.

​He doesn't justify the regulations by showing that they worked or by demonstrating that the benefits are greater than the costs.  Rather, his key argument is that the government already regulates many areas of your life:

. . .  tens of thousands of restaurant inspections are conducted each year, enforcing rules such as those mandating the temperature at which food can be stored, all to prevent foodborne infectious diseases. The federal government mandates safety features, such as seat belts, in automobiles. Governments at all levels prohibit the use of lead in paint.

​The reason you should acquiesce to new government rules is apparently that you've already acquiesced to other government rules.   

In the end, the argument amounts to little more than paternalism.  People aren't presumed to know what is best for them so let the "experts" decide.  It is telling that in the piece, Farley writes:​

The sale of huge portions is driven by the food industry, not by consumer demand.

 ​I don't recall the food industry ever forcing me to  supersize my Big Mac.

Do Consumers Really Want GMO Labeling?

Mark Bittman on his NYT blog claims:​

IT’S not an exaggeration to say that almost everyone wants to see the labeling of genetically engineered materials contained in their food products.

and​

Nationally, on the broader issue of labeling, in answer to the question of whether the Food and Drug Administration should require that “foods which have been genetically engineered or containing genetically engineered ingredients be labeled to indicate that,” a whopping 91 percent of voters say yes and 5 percent say no.  

I agree that's what people will tell you in surveys.​  But, as Bryan Caplan has recently put it:

When lies sound better than truth, people tend to lie.

I don't think most people purposefully lie on surveys.  Rather, they often don't think about the consequences of the things they're saying.  In these cases, the "socially acceptable" answer is the easy one to give.  I've literally written dozens of journal articles showing that people will say one thing in a survey and do something entirely different when shopping.

When we look at what people actually buy in the grocery store, the data reveals that they don't buy a lot of organic or non-GMO products.  Why?  Because they're a lot more expensive.  ​

So, the question isn't whether surveyed people tell you that they are in favor of labeling GMOs.  They real question is what they are willing to pay to get it when they have to put their money where their mouth is.

Addendum: Tyler Cowen's response to Bittman's post is right on the money.​

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.