It's Gonna Get a Lot Harder to Eat Ethically

NPR ran a story a couple days ago on a move to recognize "plant rights" in addition to "animal rights."  I was a little surprised by some of the claims in the story:

After all, plants can sometimes exhibit humanlike behavior. . . . Some plants respond well to music. Some "smell" other plants. Still others seem to shrink away when touched.. . . . 

Plants display remedial types of memory and possess "anoetic consciousness" — the ability of an organism to sense and to react to stimulation . . . 

Some plants (such as chili peppers) may be able to "hear" other plants (such as sweet fennel). "We know that plants recognize what is growing next to them, . . . Plants can warn other plants of a predator by releasing a chemical, and the warned plants can release chemicals to make themselves unpalatable to the predator.

For those who are concerned about the harms caused by their diet, these sorts of findings aren't good news.  What's left to eat?  Water?

My TEDx Talk

Tomorrow afternoon I'm slated to give a talk at the Oklahoma State University TEDx event.  My understanding is that tickets are sold out.  However, the talks will be streamed live on streamed live on OState.tv.  My talk on the "Future of Food" should be on at about 5pm.  I'll put up a post to the video when it becomes available.

Support for Prop 37 Dips Below 50%

According to the results of the latest poll by the California Business Roundtable and Pepperdine University, support for the GMO mandatory labeling dipped below 50% for the first time.

This graph from their consecutive polls is remarkable:

I'm not sure I've ever seen so dramatic a change in support for an issue in so short a period of time.  

I should note that the high level of support we found in our study conducted in late September is not inconsistent with the above polls once undecideds are factored in.  

My understanding is that a new wave of "YES 37" commercials has hit the airwaves in recent days.  Hard to know what effect they'll have but our research suggested that positive ads were not nearly as effective as negative.    

It will be interesting to see how it turns out on November 6.  I am frankly shocked it is so close.  

Neuroeconomics of Food Choice

The Chronicle of Higher Education ran a piece last week on the need for more neuroeconomic research.  

While I am a bit unsure of where the field is heading (and in some cases it is over-hyped), I do think there are fascinating things to be learned.   That's one of the reasons why I'm involved in a project with researchers at KSU, UMKC, and KU-med, where we are studying how people make choices between foods produced with controversial technologies while observing their brain responses via fMRI.  The ability of plant and food scientists to innovate depends on people's acceptance of technologies, and I'm hopeful that we can provide insight into this matter.

Right now we have 50 observations collected (which is actually quite a large sample size for an fMRI study), and we are in the process of writing up several papers.  So stay tuned for our findings.

In the meantime, I'll leave you with the optimistic closing sentences from the Chronicle article related to whether economist shoulds be spending their time on neuro-imaging: 

The only way to find out, he says, is to do it. And if it works, if a model of a mental process improves an economist's ability to predict what people will do, "then I think neuroeconomics could be very big."

Local Food = Rich People Food

I previously mentioned  some work showing that the local food phenomena was primarily an urban preoccupation.  Now, Feedstuffs reports on the following findings:

An Indiana University study that looked at consumers who buy locally grown and produced foods through farmers markets and community-supported agriculture (CSA) programs found that the venues largely attract a "privileged" class of shoppers.

The study authors interpret their findings to imply:

a need for broadening local food opportunities beyond the privileged, higher-income consumer through alternative payment plans and strategic efforts that make fresh foods accessible to a diversity of people.

I don't quite understand this logic.  If I did a study on the market for automobiles, I'd no doubt find that consumers who buy BMWs and Mercedes represent a "privileged class of shoppers."  But, would this then imply that we need to broad support for buying (i.e., use taxpayer money to subsidize purchases of)  BMWs and Mercedes beyond privileged  higher-income consumers?  

I think it's great that richer people can find opportunities to express their demand for foods with unique characteristics.  But, I don't know why we should expect this to be the norm for everyone.   If your goal is to find inexpensive, healthy food without spending a lot of time shopping and coordinating with others, local foods is unlikely to be an attractive option.  

If you want to expand demand for local food, the answer isn't "alternative payment plans" or "strategic efforts" but rather to make poor people richer so that they want (and can afford) the things local foods provide.  Of course, no one quite knows how to make poor people richer but this is the fundamental issue at stake - not whether we should try to force certain foods on people who have other, more pressing worries in life.