Gestation Crates, Selective Breeding, and the Danger of Anthropomorphic Reasoning

​A friend forwarded me a link to this page, which allows you to virtually experience life as a sow living in a gestation crate.  I encourage you to check it out.

​It is a powerful tool for those attempting to phase out gestation crates.  In fact, if I were trying to convince someone of the inhumanity of gestation crates, I'd be hard pressed to think of a more effective message.

That being said, the experience provided at the link can be misleading.  You are not a pig.  And, how we project ourselves feeling in those cages may or may not correspond to the way pigs feel who have been selected to live in those environments.  

I was reminded of this when reading Haidt's most recent book when he wrote:

In the 1980s the geneticist William Muir used group selection to get around this problem.  He worked with cages containing twelve hens each, and he simply picked the cages that produced the most eggs in each generation.  Then he bred all of the hens in those cages to produce the next generation.  Within just three generations, aggression levels plummeted.  By the sixth generation, the death rate fell from the horrific baseline of 67 percent to a mere 8 percent.  Total eggs produced per hen jumped from 91 to 237, mostly because the hens started living longer, but also because they laid more eggs per day.  The group-selected hens were more productive than were those subjected to individual-level selection.  They also actually looked like the pictures of chickens you see in children’s books – plump and well-feathered, in contrast to the battered, beaten-up, and partially defeathered hens that resulted from individual-level selection.

​Haidt was making a point about how genetic selection works not only at the individual level but also at the group level in humans and animals .  But, he also mentions another important point.  The animals we have on farms today are specifically selected for the environments in which they live.

I wrote a paragraph exactly on this point for our recent book on animal welfare that ultimately wound up on the cutting room floor.  Here it is resurrected:​

Seeing a picture of a pig living out its life in a small cage can invoke strong emotions, but we must recall that the pig was genetically selected, in part, because it was relatively unbothered by such living conditions. Some people do not mind spending all day lounging on the couch. Others of us cannot sit still. Animals exhibit similar diversity in their need and desire for movement and exercise. An animal that is constantly fidgeting and stressed about living in confined quarters is an animal that will not rapidly gain weight. Because farmers want just the opposite, they have purposefully selected and bred animals that are not terribly troubled about living in a crate.This does not mean that such animals would not prefer a larger pen or to live outdoors, but it does suggest it can be dangerous for humans to transpose their needs and emotions on farm animals, especially those animals that have been purposefully bred for the environments in which they live.

None of these comments necessarily justify gestation crates, but they do at least suggest caution in making decisions based on anthropomorphic thinking.

Is Bill Maher in His Own Bubble?

It is really hard to know where to begin in discussing Bill Maher's comments on GMOs and Prop 37.

He regularly runs a feature on his show called "In the Bubble" where he derides Republicans for living in a bubble where ideas float around; ideas that are impervious to refutation by fact.  

Although one​ can illegitimately debate the merits (and demerits) of Prop 37 and biotechnology, there is virtually nothing in this discussion that transcends beyond mere "bubble talk" among anti-biotech advocates. 
​

Political comedian Bill Maher discusses GMOs & Prop 37 with Just Label It Chair Gary Hirshberg on the October 19 2012 episode of Real Time with Bill Maher, (guests were Goldie Taylor, John Fund, Boris Epshteyn & Matt Taibbi). Vote YES on Prop 37 in California! http://www.sunfood.com/prop37

Here are a few thoughts that occurred to me as I watched this:

• The interview is with Gary Hirshberg, chairman and co-founder of Stonyfield Farm.  I like Stonyfield products.  But, Hirshberg is far from a dispassionate observer.  Maher is right to point out that Monstanto benefits from sale of chemicals resulting from biotech developments (and from the absence of mandatory labeling).  But, he should also point out that Hirshberg benefits if Prop 37 passes.  The proposition specifically excludes organics, and by implication, Hirshberg's company.  So, by pushing Prop 37, Stonyfield Farm can force their competitors to incur higher costs.  I'm glad there are companies like Stonyfield selling the kinds of products they do but don't forget they have a vested financial stake in the matter.
• I find it ironic that Hirshberg claims that the Grocery Manufacturers of America and ​Monsanto are "stopping your right to know."  I say ironic because Hirshberg has made a great deal of money precisely by telling people what's in their food.  He profits by selling a more expensive product that has been produced without using certain agricultural practices.  The very existence of his successful company proves that no one is being stopped from knowing or buying alternative products.  
• Maher's comments claiming a "link" between allergies, cancer, and GMOs is complete nonsense with no basis in scientific fact.  Maher says "How can we get people to connect the dots here?  This is probably why people have so many more allergies now because there is so many more [of these] chemicals."  Where is the scientific evidence for this claim?  I guess it's good the word "probably" was thrown in.  It is true that increased herbicide use is associated with adoption of GMOs.  But, it is also true that adoption of GMOs​ is associated with reduced insecticide use.  Moreover, the average toxicity of pesticides has been falling over time.  But, even if these facts weren't true, I've never seen any credible evidence linking Round-up to allergies.     
• Hirshberg talks about "chemical inflation" as if pest resistance is somehow new or unique to biotechnology.  Organic methods of dealing with pests can be just as (and in many cases are more) toxic than synthetic methods.  Moreover, weeds and bugs also develop resistance to organic methods of control.  Laying the blame of resistance on biotechnology is a red herring.
• I wonder why they don't mention that GMO adoption is associated with increased conservation practices like no-till?   I suppose this is one of those facts that won't enter Maher's bubble.  

Biotechnology is not a panacea.  It is likely the case that that Round-up resistant crops have increased the speed at which Round-up resistant weeds developed.  But, if it is true (as Maher and Hirshberg discuss) that Monsanto is really in the seed business to sell chemicals, then who do you think has the BIG interest in preventing the development of resistance to Round-up?  That's one of the reasons Monsanto worked to make sure that resistance to Bt didn't develop as quickly as it otherwise would by initially requiring the planting of refuges and now by putting some non-biotech seed in with the bio-tech seed.  

​So, yes, let's talk about the costs and benefits of biotechnology.  But, let's do it outside the bubble.

When Common Sense Does Not Make Sense

An editorial  by Dr Dhurandhar discusses two papers just published in the Nature journal: International Journal of Obesity​  that seem to contradict common sense.  The studies, in fact, fall right in line with the arguments I make in my forthcoming book: The Food Police.  

The first study reports results of an experiment that questions the argument that obesity is caused by food addition.  The second study questions the wisdom of mandatory calorie labels (such as the ones mandated in Obama's health care bill).

Here is Dhurandhar (footnotes omitted):​

These two studies do not settle respective issues and additional and larger studies are needed. Yet, they are important because they challenge conventional thinking and commonsense. One study questions the validity of the obese stereotype, and the other suggests that well-intentioned, commonsense solutions may be too simplistic to counter the obesity epidemic. Such studies call for an assessment of the field of obesity research. Perhaps, some other conventional approaches, although well-intentioned, intuitive and deeply entrenched, provide nothing more than a false sense of accomplishment, and thus impede the need to develop better strategies.

and​

Unfortunately, it appears intuitive to consider an obesogenic lifestyle as the root cause of obesity, and deceptively easy to modify. However, over 5 decades of manipulation of diet and activity, including composition, quantity and duration, has repeatedly failed to modify behavior in a biologically significant manner for the majority of people over an extended period of time. Albert Einstein is credited for the quote that ‘insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result’.

Can Calorie Labels Actually Increase Soda Consumption?

​This paper which just appeared in the journal Preventative Medicine studied the effects of fat taxes, and several types of "messaging" at reducing sweetened soda consumption.  The results reveal exactly why we should be skeptical about the obesity-reducing effects of these policies.  One should also keep in mind that this study was conducted in several Hospitals - places that employ and house people who one would think might be especially susceptible to attempts to encourage healthier eating.

​Here are some key exerpts from the abstract:

This prospective interrupted time-series quasi-experiment included three sites in Philadelphia, PA, Evanston, IL, and Detroit, MI. Each site received five interventions: (1) a 10% price discount on zero-calorie beverages; (2) the 10% discount plus discount messaging; (3) messaging comparing calorie information of sugared beverages with zero-calorie beverages; (4) messaging comparing exercise equivalent information; and (5) messaging comparing both calorie and exercise equivalent information.

and​

The overall analysis failed to demonstrate a consistent effect across all interventions  Two treatments had statistically significant effects: the discount plus discount messaging, with an increase in purchases of zero calorie beverages; and the calorie messaging intervention, with an increase in purchases of sugar-sweetened beverages. Individual site analysis results were similar.

Conclusions

The effects of price discounts and calorie messaging in different forms on beverage purchases were inconsistent and frequently small.

​Incidentally, the messaging+discount intervention that "worked" was the following: 

 a 10% price discount on all zero-calorie bottled beverages plus messaging that explained the reason for the discount. Messaging consisted of colorful marketing posters, flyers, and signs displayed prominently in the cafeteria These promoted the 10% price discount with the message, “Lighten up for less – 10% off all zero-calorie bottled beverages and wate

​I fully agree with the study's conclusions:

This research augments previous work finding weak, null or even contradictory effects of calorie labeling and price discounts. Our results point to the need for further studies examining the effectiveness of these interventions and their potential moderators. The reality of varying effects in different settings and different populations need be analyzed carefully before contemplating policy interventions such as calorie labeling or sugar taxation in order to avoid ineffective interventions and unintended consequences.

Artificial Meat

​I was interviewed recently for this piece on artificial meat that appeared a couple days ago in a major online French publication.  I'm not fluent enough in French to competently comment on the content of the article, but I found one line of questioning by the journalist, Yannick Demoustier,  quite perceptive.  

He noted the demand for meat substitutes and artificial meat was motivated by many factors including animal welfare and environmental concerns.  Many (though not all) of the folks trying to reduce meat consumption are also motivated by a "return to nature" phenomena - seeking to avoid "artificial" food. ​  

The journalists asked how these folks will react to meat made in a lab with the latest scientific technologies.  The choice pits desires for "naturalness" against desires for "sustainability" and highlights the fact that these two are not the same.  I don't think we know much about this trade-off and it is a great question for future research.