Blog

Lusk vs Moss

On May 15, the Michael Medved Show​ aired a "debate" between myself and the Food Police book and Michael Moss and his book Salt, Sugar, Fat (one of these two books was on top of the NYT best seller list and if you're wondering it wasn't mine!).

You can download the podcast (gated) of the discussion (titled "food debate" at the link), which went on about an hour.  I found it enjoyable and was pleased to have the opportunity to engage with someone having such an influence on the national food debate.  If you want to get a sense of some of my critiques of Moss's work, you can see my previous column in Townhall.com.

Sunstein on GMO labeling

At Bloomberg.com, Cass Sunstein sensibly weighed in on the ongoing state and federal proposals to mandate labeling of GMO foods.  He argues that mandatory labels are a bad idea.  His reasoning is that ​the science shows biotechnology to be safe with few unique environmental concerns; however, requiring a label would "signal" that something is unsafe.  

Here is Sunstein:​

GM labels may well mislead and alarm consumers, especially (though not only) if the government requires them. Any such requirement would inevitably lead many consumers to suspect that public officials, including scientists, believe that something is wrong with GM foods -- and perhaps that they pose a health risk.

His arguments are virtually identical to those I published in a paper with Anne Rozan in the Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics back in 2008 entitled "Public Policy and Endogenous Beliefs: The Case of Genetically Modified Food."  We wrote then:

Our argument is that policy can serve as a signal about the safety of GM food

and, conceptually:

Believing the government imposes a mandatory labeling policy on GM food could be consistent with a belief that GM food is perhaps not as safe as traditional food, but it is not so unsafe that GM food should be completely banned. Depending on a consumer's prior beliefs about the safety of GM food, the imposition of mandatory labeling could be taken to imply GM food is safer than previously thought (in the case where one's prior was that GM food is so unsafe it should be banned) or might be taken to imply GM food is riskier than previously thought (in the case where one's prior is that GM food is safe enough to warrant no labeling at all).

​Empirically, we found:

that individuals who believed the government imposed a mandatory labeling policy for GM food believed GM food was less safe and were less willing to eat and buy GM food than consumers who either believed no policy was in place or were uncertain on the matter

As we discussed in that paper, and as I've discussed elsewhere, such findings make cost benefit analysis really complicated.  How much would consumers "benefit" from a mandatory GMO label?  That depends on how much they are willing to pay for non-GMO food.  But, if our arguments are right, willingness-to-pay for non-GMO food depends on which policy is in place.  Thus, the benefits (and costs) of the policy are not independent of whether the policy is in place.  The act of passing (or failing to pass) the policy changes the benefits and benefits.  Thus, there are no "objective" or "true" benefits and costs.

Although I agree with Sunstein on this point, I find it a little ironic coming from him.  He has advocated using government "nudges", for example to change defaults or opt-in/opt-out options, to get people to make "better" choices that presumably the citizens themselves would prefer.  But if his theory on GMO labeling is right, a "nudge" might very well serve as a signal about what is the appropriate behavior.  Thus, a "nudge" isn't simply changing the default.  It is changing people's preferences, and presumably toward that desired by the regulator/nudger.  Thus, nudges aren't just getting people to make choices that presumably better match their "preference" - it might be very well changing their preference.  I find that problematic both from a philosophical standpoint but also from a public choice perspective.  You can get a sense of why in chapter 4 on behavioral economics in The Food Police.  

​

Do I Work for Monsanto?

In the comments section of a number of editorials I've published (particularly in the Huffington Post - see here or here) there is a common retort that I apparently work for Monsanto or am paid by them to write.  Typical is a comment to a WSJ article I wrote: "Professor Lusk is a Monsanto Stooge" or this one in Huffington Post, "Who was the underwriter of this blog, Monsanto." (I wonder why they never claim that I work for Dow or Bayer or DuPont or BASF or Syngenta?).  I can also see from the web statistics on my blog that a common search item from would-be sleuths is "Jayson Lusk and Monsanto."  Similar innuendos have been launched by commenters in reference to soda companies or "Big Food" or "Big Ag" in a host of other things I've written (feel free to click through the editorials I've written here if you care to see for yourself).  But, as my wife likes to say, our bank account seems to be missing a few zeros if I'm doing this much selling out!

I expect those sort of ad hominem attacks and accept it as coming with the territory when writing an opinion piece.  It's probably just human nature (and certainly it's psychologically more pleasing) to not actually consider a writer's arguments and simply ignore them altogether by assuming bribes and malfeasance.   

But, I was a little surprised yesterday when I got a phone call from a women who had read my piece at TIME.com and started by asking "What connection does the University of Oklahoma have with Monsanto?"  After replying that OU is not the University that employs me, I replied that I'm not aware of what connections or contracts my employer, Oklahoma State University, may or may not have with Monsanto but that I could put her in touch with our office of VP for Research if she wants to know.  I went on to have a civil and friendly talk with my caller (although we agreed to disagree about most issues), but it was a bit surprising how hostile the conversation started with what seemed to ultimately be a reasonable person.  

Ultimately, the arguments I make here on my blog, in my books, or editorials should stand (or fall) on their own merits.  Whether or not I have some "connection" with this company or that is irrelevant to whether the arguments and facts are correct and truthful.  

That said, let me state publicly for the record: ​I have never received funding from Monsanto (or Dow or Bayer or DuPont or BASF or Syngenta) either personally or via grants from the Universities at which I've worked.  They've never asked me to write anything or say anything.  My single contact with Monsanto came during a tour I took of their facilities as a part of a conference I attended in St. Louis in 2004.  That's it.  That's all.  I've never been paid to write an editorial.  I've never been paid to write a book (other than by the publishers).  I write the things I do because I believe they are true.        

Now, I'm not saying I would flatly refuse to accept funding from Monsanto ​et al. no matter the circumstance.  If they had interest in conducting research for which my skills and expertise might provide insight, I'd be happy to listen.  Scientific research requires funding, and so long as the conclusion isn't pre-ordained by the funders, I'm willing to hear them out.

All funders of scientific research have agendas, and even the great NSFs and NIHs of the world have influence in deciding what they choose to fund and reject, who heads review panels, and the strategic areas in which they choose to focus their funds (which is partly politically/strategically motivated to ensure the organization gets more funding the next year).  The "independent" reviewers on grants from government agencies come from academic fields and departments which have particular beliefs and philosophies about what kinds of research are valuable and appropriate.  I'm not trying to demean the process, which I think is overall a good one, but my point is simply that it is naive to paint funding with a completely black or white brush.   

​

Gallup on Obesity Causes

Yesterday the Gallup organization recently released the results of some analysis they conducted using survey data from 139,000 Americans.  ​Here are their key results:

As is easy to see, obesity is correlated with a bunch of bad stuff: not exercising, not eating healthy, not having a dentist, being poor (as reflected in the "food struggles" question), and being depressed.  It's also correlated with at least one positive outcome: not smoking.  

Interesting correlations.  The problem are the inferences Gallup draws from these data.  Here are their recommendations:​

To reduce the costs associated with obesity, employers can start by helping employees improve on the behavior with the strongest link to obesity -- infrequent exercise. Employers can consider opening an office gym or offering gym membership discounts to incentivize frequent exercise and provide a safe place for employees to work out. Gallup research also finds that engaged employees exercise more frequently and also eat healthier than those who are not engaged or are actively disengaged. Therefore, employers who prioritize employee engagement may see a double benefit of healthier and happier workers.
​The problem is that their data support no such claims.  Does lack of exercise cause obesity? Yes, it probably has some role.  But, if you're already obese, chances are you're probably not much interested in exercising (i.e., it is probably the case that obesity is also causing a lack of exercise).  It's the same with many of the other issues in the above table.  Does obesity cause depression.  Or, does depression demotivate people to eat well and exercise, leading to obesity?  

There are a number of randomized-controlled-trial type studies that have been conducted looking at the effects of targeted interventions ​in the workplace.  Some appear to have some promise.  Many appear to have no long term impact.  That's the kind of research one would need to review and draw from to make the kind of recommendations Gallup does.  No matter how big the sample, we shouldn't interpret correlations to imply anything meaningful about the effectiveness of interventions by private companies or governments.     

​