Good news. The Oxford Handbook of the Economics of Food Consumption and Policy, which I co-edited, is now out in electronic version, and each chapter can be individually downloaded.
This is a text designed for graduate-students and faculty interested in learning the "state of the art" in the methods and analysis of the food consumer.
Click here to access the electronic version.
From the Huffington Post:
On Wednesday, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) introduced bills to the Senate and House of Representatives that would require food manufacturers to clearly label any product containing genetically engineered ingredients -- or risk having that product classified "misbranded" by the FDA.
Boxer and DeFazio have both previously sponsored bills that would have mandated GMO labeling -- Boxer in 2000 and DeFazio on numerous occasions in concert with former Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio). But the new "Genetically Engineered Food Right-To-Know Act" is the first genetically modified organism (GMO) labeling bill to be introduced with both bicameral and bipartisan support. Its nine co-sponsors in the Senate include Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski, while Rep. Don Young, also a Republican from Alaska, is among its 22 cosponsors in the House.
I've written on this topic a good deal in the past (see here or Wall Street Journal,
Forbes.com, Foxnews.com, and the Huffington Post).
I'm sure I'll have more to say if this heats up.
I'm not a big follower of developments in beauty products. But my wife is (not that she needs it!). In any event, she passed along this interesting exchange on a cosmetic web site. I wonder if the hair expert will receive the same kind of attacks as my recent Huffington Post article that challenged some of the conventional wisdom of organic food.
Dear Paula,
I have an itchy scalp. I also have color-treated hair, so my hair can feel dry. I used Aveda Brilliant Shampoo for many years. I loved the way it gave fullness to my hair but then I learned it was not wholly organic so stopped using it. . . . I like organic stuff and have tried olive oil, rosemary oil, and vinegar for itchy scalp, but am frustrated and just don't know what to look for anymore. Help!
Jan
Dear Jan,
First, you need to let go of the idea that natural and organic products are better for your hair and scalp. Although I understand the pull organic products have, the truth is such products typically contain ingredients that are likely what caused some of the problems you’re dealing with now, especially the itchy scalp.
A great shampoo should be a blend of synthetic and natural ingredients, but even then the natural ingredients often do little other than look good on the label. Natural ingredients cannot do a very good job of cleansing the scalp or removing styling product buildup from hair—one reason shampoos with mostly natural ingredients tend to leave hair feeling worse, not better. . .
The Center for Science in the Public Interest put out a report today detailing the "riskiest meats." It is interesting framing. Why didn't they write the article, reverse the order, and title it the "safest meats?" Probably because saying sausage and ham is relatively safe isn't as head-line grabbing as saying ground beef and chicken are relatively risky.
In any event, what I want to point out here is that the the study authors should really perform the ranking on a per pound of meat eaten (or per dollar spent) basis, as we argued should be done in this piece a month or so back in Food Safety Magazine.
Chicken is the most widely consumed meat. Thus, it shouldn't be at all surprising to find that it causes the most illnesses. There's just a lot of it. Similarly, ground beef is (I believe but could be wrong) the most widely consumed beef product. What you want to do to judge relative risk is put things on an equivalent basis - like pound-per-pound or dollar-per-dollar. In a sense, all the CSPI authors have done is ranked meats in terms of their volume of consumption.
Finally, to put things in perspective, it is important to ask whether meat, overall, is getting safer or riskier. I don't know about meat specifically, but for food generally, the CDC tracks these numbers. When you look at major, problematic pathogens like E. Coli, CDC data reveal, that laboratory confirmed cases are down today relative to a decade and a half ago. The only pathogen to experience a major rise over this time is Vibrio, which represents a small number of cases to begin with.
Glynn Tonsor at Kansas State University has created a great resource for the readers of Feedstuff magazine. Glynn writes a periodic column where he takes recent research from the academic literature and boils it down to a layman's perspective. I was pleased to see he featured some work by Kate Brooks at the University of Nebraska and myself in his most recent column. Here were the implications Glynn took from our research:
Implications: This study highlights the potential pitfalls of inferring public preferences from private choices. In this particular study private choices suggested stronger preferences than were reflected in public preferences for a ban restricting production practice options. Conversely, in other settings the opposite behavioral differences are observed. One of the clearest examples is the approximate 5% market share held by cage-free eggs (revealing that the majority of egg consumers are not willing to pay cage-free market premiums) and majority of residents expressing support in ballot settings for bans on laying hen cages. There are several reasons researchers may find the same individual to behave differently when making decisions as a food purchasing consumer than when making decisions as a voting resident. Identification of these reasons and the economic implications of these behavioral patterns are an area in need of additional research as there is a growing list of parallel examples that present complex dilemmas for livestock producers.