Bloomberg's soda ban fizzles

That was the title of the editorial I just published at the New York Daily News. The editor added the subtitle "The mayor's paternalism knows no bounds."

Here are a few excerpts:​

Tuesday was set to be the last day to legally buy a large sugary soda in the Big Apple. Fortunately, a state judge stepped in late Monday to halt the ban — but not before the mayor’s attitude toward his fellow New Yorkers was exposed.

The leaders of a vibrant city that is home to some of the most diverse and creative people on Earth no longer have faith in the decision-making abilities of their fellow citizens. At least, that is, when it comes to food.

and

This schizophrenic paternalism results from an awkward attempt to walk a fine line between a liberal agenda that yields to, even celebrates, freedom of choice and expression when it comes to abortion, sex, speech and drugs — but stops far short when those same freedoms might benefit evil corporations.

It is an odd position that posits us so weak as to fall for anything offered by Ronald McDonald or Tony the Tiger yet so strong to know when to keep a baby alive or which truths to speak to power.

I even worked in a little economics:

And exactly how is it that New York City's leaders envision a large sugary soda ban actually benefitting the people who buy Pepsi and Coca-Cola? By removing an alternative some people previously preferred, the ban is simply making people pick a lesser desirable (and thus less satisfying) alternative. Moreover, those alternatives, whether it be fruit juice or beer, may not be any less calorie-dense.

What about soda taxes that may be coming down the pike? Most economists will tell you that making people pay higher prices is akin to reducing their income. Last I checked, no one — particularly not the lower-income people about whom most politicians profess to be concerned — is better off with less money.

In conclusion:

Better drink 'em while you still got 'em

The whole thing is online here.

Whole Foods Will Require GMO Labels

​According to a number of sources (such as this one), Whole Foods will, beginning in 2018, require labels on foods in their stores that contain GMOs.  

I wrote several several editorials arguing against the mandatory labeling initiative (Prop 37) in California in places like the Wall Street Journal, Forbes.com, Foxnews.com, and the Huffington Post.  As such, you might expect me to to come out against Whole Foods new policy.  You'd be wrong (well, at least not entirely right).     ​

What's the difference between the Whole Foods policy and Prop 37?  Whole Foods is a private company.  They can shelve whatever products they want and require their suppliers to meet whatever specifications they set.  You and I don't have to shop there.  Moreover, Frito-Lay doesn't have to supply Whole Foods if they so choose.  By contrast, Prop 37 was a mandate that required adherence from everyone no matter where you shopped, who you supplied, or whether it created 1 cent or $1 billion in extra cost.  

I personally couldn't give a rip whether the foods I eat contain GMOs.  I also think it is a tad misleading to add claims or labels that imply safety risks when there are virtually none.  But, if we are going live in a free society, I suppose GoDaddy.com using Danica Patrick to sell domain names is little different than Whole Foods pursing their own marketing strategy using somewhat tangential claims.  And, if Whole Foods wants to add labels to apples that say things like "Does not cause Tuberculosis" or "Contains H2O", that's their prerogative even though I personally think it would be stupid.     

Whole Foods has probably made the calculation that requiring GMO labels will help them pick up some additional market share at a cost that they and (by implication) their customers are willing to pay.  They may lose a few suppliers, and it is possible that they may add a bunch of extra costs to inform consumers of a technology that many ultimately find innocuousness.  They may tarnish their image by appearing "anti-science."   ​

I'm sure that they have thought about these issues and much more, and they're betting that the label requirement will ultimately add more to their bottom line. (If you agree, you can buy their stock - WFM - though I'll note that it was down 1.2% on Friday when the news was released; they also had a 10% drop back in mid February amid lower than expected sales).  That's their bet to make.  If it pays off, they'll make millions.  If they're wrong, I can still shop at Wal Mart or Safeway or Albertsons or any number of other places.  Oh yes, and Whole Foods can always change their mind if things don't work out.

So what it is that makes Whole Food's decision different than Prop 37?  Competition.  Reversibility.  And, the undeniable bottom-line that no political agenda can long ignore. ​

Assorted Links

Cargill has a new web site on ground beef (i was especially interested in the parts on sourcing/tracing and on lean-fine-textured beef - aka pink slime)​

The patent on the first generation of GMO ​soybeans is set to expire

Calls for GMO labeling hit the east coast

​The students were assigned to do this (lobby for soft drink bans) might want to also read this (its tough actually implementing these things)

Here is one creative way to solve a water shortage problem​

​The comments section is unusually good in this NPR blog post asking whether it is humane to eat meat

New Country of Origin Rules

Today the USDA Ag Marketing Service announced new proposed rules for mandatory country of origin labeling.​  According to a couple sources:

Under the proposed rule, origin designations for animals slaughtered in the United States would be required to specify the production steps of birth, raising, and slaughter of the animal. In addition, this proposed rule would eliminate the allowance for any commingling of muscle cut covered commodities of different origins. These changes will provide consumers with more specific information about muscle cut covered commodities.

​Yes, consumers will have more specific information but isn't this going to be very costly?  It is certainly more costly than current mandatory labeling rules.  If consumers want this information and are willing to pay for it, why isn't there some enterprising meat packer already providing it?  

Don't get me wrong, consumers do value origin information.  That's not the issue.  The question is what it costs to provide it and whether there are any market failures that would prohibit origin labels to organically emerge were they to be sufficiently valued.

John Stossel's Fox News Special

Set your recorders to the Fox News Channel at 8pm (eastern time I think) this Sunday March 10.  I'm appearing in a John Stossel special entitled "Myths, Lies and Complete Stupidity" in a segment about the Food Police.  

We filmed the interview in NYC back in December, and I'm glad to hear that it is finally set to air!