Blog

Were Statistics on Food-borne Illnesses Manipulated for Political Reasons?

That seems to be the implication of a couple blog posts by Richard Raymond in his meatingplace.com blog.  Raymond isn't just some lackey - he is the former USDA undersecretary of agriculture for food safety. ​

In his first post, Raymond pointed out that:​

. . . it seems the CDC is reluctant to come right out and say that [our food is safer today than fiver years ago]. In fact, they have qualifiers advising people not to make that assumption.

Could the reason be that there needed to be data to support the new FSMA?  

Before the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) was passed, the CDC, politicians and food safety advocates all quoted the CDC report that claimed 72 million Americans fell sick to a foodborne illness every year.
Within a week after the FSMA was signed into law, CDC had adjusted that number to 48 million, but said to draw no conclusions as to an increasingly safe food supply because they used different “multipliers”, etc.
Now it is down to 9.4 million foodborne illnesses caused by “known pathogens.”

​In his second post, Raymond went further:

Is data manipulated? Remember all those Iraqi weapons of mass destruction we saw pictures of and form you own conclusion.
Is data manipulated? How did we suddenly go from an estimated 72 million Americans suffering a foodborne illness per year to just 48 million within one week of signing the Food Safety Modernization Act into law.

and

Are there hidden agendas in DC? Most are pretty open if you read between the lines, and the agendas have been heavily discussed and debated during election campaigns, etc.
I personally think the bigger hidden agendas sometimes involve persons and/or groups wanting to reduce or do away with the consumption of meat under the disguise of promoting animal welfare and food safety.  . . .
Can we trust the government to always report the truth? Sometimes I wonder.

​

​

​

Solving Obesity Externalities

​It doesn't matter whether you listen to Bill Maher on the left or Sean Hannity on the right,  you'll hear guests on their show arguing that something should be done about obesity because one's weight imposes a cost on others.  Obesity, they argue, is an externality, and therefore requires government regulation to make private costs equal social costs. 

Many of these argument surround the health care expenses incurred by Medicare and Medicaid.  I don't think that is a particularly good argument, but I don't want to get into that in this post.  Rather, I want to remind readers of what the Nobel prize winner, Ronald Coase, taught us regarding externalities.  ​In particular, if your behavior is harming me, I now have an incentive to negotiate with you to lessen the harm done.  

​It appears that at least one airline, has taken this lesson to heart.  According to the CNN story:

The head of Samoa Air has defended its policy of charging passengers by their weight, arguing such a system is not only fair but the future for other airlines.

and:​

What makes airplanes work is weight. We are not selling seats, we are selling weight.

and:

According to the airline's website, "your weight plus your baggage items is what you pay for. Simple."
​

I suspect there will be quite a few folks who don't like this policy.  Yet, we already have to pay airlines if we want to check bags or sit in the seats with more leg room.  You're free to bring several bags or stretch out your legs, but the airline is going to make you pay for that privilege rather than charging it to all passengers.  

But, surely this isn't fair because (some) people can't affect their weight.  Yes, but I also can't affect my gender, my height, my age, or my race - all of which have been shown in various studies to affect wages, employment outcomes, and so on.  Men pay more for life insurance than women because we're riskier.  It is hard for me to see that it would be "fair" to force women to pay more for life insurance (to partially pick up men's cost) simply because men are likely to die sooner for some reasons under their control and some that aren't.       

It is almost certainly true that heavier passengers cost the airline more money (and thus raise the prices of airline tickets for everyone else).  ​Ultimately, the airline isn't discriminating against over-weight people, they're simply applying equality to every pound that enters their plane.  To do otherwise is to ask the thin to pay more than their "fair share."  

How is it that I can support an airline trying to solve an obesity-externality problem when I'm skeptical of the government ​doing the same?  Competition.  If you don't like Samoa Air's policy, don't fly their airline.  Moreover, if their policy turns out to be one that people (thick and think alike) don't like, there will ultimately be another airline that enters the marketplace to offer passengers a more desirable deal.  Samoa Air may ultimately find that trying to regulate their obesity externalities simply isn't worth the effort, and if that is indeed the case, I suspect you'll see a rapid reversal of policy after a few poor quarterly earnings reports.

​

Is Organic Sustainable?

I ​ran across this really interesting blog (via Tyler Cowen's blog) post on nitrogen use in agriculture by Adam Merberg, who says he is a "reformed food reformer."  

Merberg's main point is that, aside from a small handful of crops, nitrogen is a key limiting ingredient in growing more food.  ​Much of the nitrogen used in modern commercial agriculture comes from the air!  Well, it's taken out of the air by a "synthetic" process that prohibits its use in organic agriculture.

Organic agriculture, like all agriculture, requires nitrogen.  Soil (regardless of how you farm) looses fertility after a while and requires replenishment to continue productivity.  Organic seeks nitrogen in cover crops (like clover and soy) but mainly through use animal manure.  Merberg asks a reasonable question: where does the manure get it's nitrogen.  The answer is that it largely comes through conventional agriculture and the "synthetic" process invented by Haber.  The manure spread on many organic farms comes from cows/hogs/chickens that ate grains grown using "synthetic" fertilizer.  

When we read that organic can "feed the world" we need to ask where all the nitrogen will come from to make it happen.  ​

Here are a few snippets from Merber's article (the back-and-forth in the comments was interesting too):​

By identifying manure as a source of nitrogen, Vasilikiotis dodges the issue of nitrogen fixation entirely. However much nitrogen exists in manure today, much of it has been fixed industrially before being taken up by corn plants and laundered through the guts of conventionally-farmed animals. Vasilikiotis does not explain how that manure might come to be in an organic world. To do so would require demonstrating the potential for sufficient biological nitrogen fixation

​and

Natural processes, like atmospheric nitrogen deposition, can help replenish some nutrients, but the fact remains that the nutrient cycle remains open. Maintaining modern yields generally requires inputs of some kind to replace nutrients removed in crops. For instance, Joel Salatin’s Polyface Farm–which Pollan’s The Omnivore’s Dilemma identifies as a model for sustainable agriculture and describes as “completely self-sufficient in nitrogen”–actually brings in nitrogen in conventionally-grown grain, which is fed to chickens whose manure fertilizes the pasture.

and, interestingly . . .​

In recent years, the US government has begun allowing the recycling of human waste by authorizing the use of treated sewage sludge, called biosolids, as fertilizers. However, in 1998 organic advocates successfully protested proposed guidelines which would have allowed application of biosolids in organic agriculture. Whatever the merits of their objections, it is ironic that the movement for a more “natural” agriculture now opposes ending the waste of nutrients that Liebig once decried as “a sinful violation of the divine laws of Nature.”
​

For the record, I'm not against organics.  But, I am against the mis-truths that are often spread in their defense.  ​

​