Blog
Two good links on GMO labeling
Wise words from Tyler Cowen and Jonathan Adler
Mark Bittman and economics
In this recent piece in New York Times Magazine, Mark Bittman concludes:
But beyond the profit motive, there is little public support or encouragement for them or their ideas and no way for consumers or even officials to know whom to support. As a result, our land use and, to a considerable extent, our diet are dependent on the hunches and whims of landowners. If we want a system of farming that’s sustainable on all levels, we have to think about a national food and farming policy.
If landowners' "hunches and whims" aren't what dictates how they choose to use their land, whose "hunches and whims" do we follow? Apparently those of a cookbook writer in NYC living over 2,000 miles away.
Apparently, Bittman is no fan Hayek. Farming is not the only use of land. And, it is by no means obvious it is the best use of land. Market prices are what inform us as to the relative value of land (and other assets) that can be put to alternative uses. And it is exactly those "hunches and whims" of the owners of assets who, by responding to prevailing prices, guide resources to their most valued use. The people who are willing to fork over the money to buy the assets and the people who'd receive the money to give up what they own are the ones suited to truly judge the value (not people who have no skin in the game - e.g., cookbook writers).
If you think California land should be used in a way different than it is being put to use by current land owners, it's time to put your money where your mouth is and put in an offer. Until then, I have some good reading to recommend.
Assorted Links
1. Fat Fido Epidemic? Is it time for pet food sin taxes? Or bans on large bones?
2. According to one poll, support for Prop 37 Plummets from 67% to 48% in two weeks?
3. Why "Big Food" has incentives to offer healthy offerings if people really want them
4. Tyson Foods implements new animal welfare audits. Is their move a response to this?
5. Are GMO opponents the climate change skeptics of the Left?
Want to Know What's In Your Food?
The Huffington Post just published a piece by Brandon McFadden and me, discussing some of the results of our recent survey of Californians on how they intend to vote on Prop 37.
Our survey revealed most voters supported Prop 37 because they said they have the right to know what is in their food. Yet:
If consumers really want to know what's in their food, a bit of web searching would tell them. Yet, our survey revealed that Californians knew next to nothing about biotechnology in food. In fact, 43 percent didn't even know the subject-matter covered by Prop 37. Survey respondents thought about 47 percent of corn and soybean acres are planted with GE seed (as indicated, the reality is actually around 90 percent) and they thought 45 percent of wheat acres were planted with GE seed (the reality is close to zero percent). More than 69 percent didn't know whether any Coke products contained GE (they likely do), and more than 59 percent didn't know whether any Kellogg's products contain GE (they likely do). Maybe that's the point of mandatory GE labels -- to tell consumers things they don't already know. But, we're doing it now. Voluntarily. For free.
After fully disclosing which crops in the US are genetically modified, we argue that:
It seems many people confuse the "right to know" with the "right to buy." Many people want to avoid foods made with GE, and fortunately there are ways for them currently to do so. Simply look at the back of the package to see if the word corn, soy, sugar beet, canola, or papaya is in the ingredient list. Even without Prop 37, consumers already have access to non-GE foods, which are currently labeled if they choose to buy organic. Sure, organic or non-GE food is more expensive, but the reality is that organic or non-GE food is more expensive to produce. Requiring labels through Prop 37 is not going to change that fact.