Farmer's Market Malfeasance

There is a lot of romanticism associated with local food, and farmers markets are often promoted as a may to promote trust in the food system.  I cautioned against some of these sentiments in chapter 9 of the Food Police:

As far as the environment goes, it is important to also recognize that “buy local” is a cause not a certifiable production practice. Some local producers use organic and low-tillage production methods, but many do not. At least with organic, there is a certifying body that requires adherence to certain standards to attain the label. There is no standardization with local. Some locavores think that’s a good thing. But, one consequence is that you can never really be sure (even if you ask) whether a local tomato was grown with more or less pesticides or in a way that causes more or less soil erosion than the one traveling cross-country.

 Now comes this story from a Southern California NBC affiliate.  

There are now more than 300 farmers markets in the LA area, with more opening every month. But an NBCLA undercover investigation has revealed that some farmers at these markets are making false claims and flat-out lies about the produce they're selling.

and

We found farms full of weeds, or dry dirt, instead of rows of the vegetables that were being sold at the markets. In fact, farmers markets are closely regulated by state law. Farmers who sell at these markets are supposed to sell produce they've grown themselves, and they can't make false claims about their produce.

We did find plenty of vendors doing just that, like Underwood Farms, which sells produce at 14 markets, all grown on a family farm in Moorpark.

But our investigation also uncovered vendors who are selling stuff they didn't grow, like Frutos Farms, which sells at seven different farmers markets in LA and Orange counties.

And as for trustworthiness:  

And during our investigation, NBCLA examined another big claim made at farmers markets -- that their produce is "pesticide-free."

NBCLA bought one container of strawberries, from five different vendors, at five farmers markets, including a vendor called "The Berry Best," at the Torrance farmers market.

NBCLA's undercover shopper questioned the Berry Best's owner about the strawberries:

"These are pesticide-free?"

Owner Mary Ellen Martinez responded, "Yes, they are."

To see if that's true, we took our five samples to a state-certified lab, and had them tested for pesticides.

Results showed three out of five samples we tested sold berries that did contain pesticides, including the sample from the Berry Best

Just because someone is selling something at the farmer's market doesn't mean they're telling you the truth.

FARE Talk

Last week, I recorded a podcast with Brady Deaton, who is a professor of food, agricultural, and resource economics (FARE) at the University of Guelph in Canada. For the past couple years, Brady has been putting out a series of interesting FARE talks on farm policy and other food and agricultural issues.  You can find he full list of interesting podcasts on his website at Guelph.

You can listen to my talk with Brady at the link above or download the podcast at this link.

Is Farming the Future?

A story from CNBC has been making the rounds indicating that students should "Skip the MBA, get an agricultural degree."  As a professor of agricultural economics I'm predisposed to like this argument.  And, personally, I think most ag econ departments offer solid skills that students just don't get in an MBA. 

That being said, I think there are good reasons to take pause.  This argument is being made by Jim Rogers, an investor and hedge fund owner.  For years, he has been saying things like: 

There’s going to be a huge shift in American society, American culture, in the places where one is going to get rich. The stock brokers are going to be driving taxis. The smart ones will learn to drive tractors so they can work for the smart farmers. The farmers are going to be driving Lamborghinis. I’m telling you. You should start Forbes Farming. 

With a growing world population, and the struggle to continue increases in agricultural productivity, he may be right.  He (probably) has millions betting on this proposition.  But, he may also be wrong, and if history is any guide, he may be very wrong.  

If you think ag is going to be really profitable in the future, buy stock in Monsanto, Bayer, John Deere, Tyson, McDonalds, Brinker, and other food and agribusiness companies.  But my reading of the research suggests that by and large, gains in stocks of agribusiness companies have lagged other industries.  For example, here is a graph of relative returns from an Ag Index developed in this research by agricultural economists, and reported on in this paper (the time period runs from 1970 to 2008) relative to S&P 500.

Investing in ag might be good a diversification strategy, but as strategy to maximize returns, the graph above show it would have been a spectacularly bad bet since the 1970s.  

Here is a different perspective in a paper in the Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics by Zapata, Detre, and Hanabuchi, which shows the price ratio of stocks to commodities from 1871 to 2010.  Again, there are periods where commodities would have provided some diversification benefits, but clearly stocks have generally outperformed commodities over this 100 year time period, as the upward trend indicates.  

Just as Malthus under-estimated the potential benefits of agricultural research and technology to keep up with population growth, I think Jim Rogers may be doing the same.

Good news for donut lovers

I've always been a big donut fan.  But, they are obviously not the healthiest of breakfast options.  The good news from this study is that if you're willing exercise a bit, you might be able to tolerate a few of those delicious sugar-fat delicacies:

The objective of the study was to determine if exercise training can prevent the anticipated deleterious effects of a fat-sugar supplemented diet on endothelial function and blood markers of cardiovascular risk in young men. Twenty-one, healthy college-aged males were randomly assigned to either the doughnut + exercise or doughnut only groups. Both groups were fed 2 doughnuts per day, 6 days per week, for three weeks, while maintain their current diet. The exercise group completed 4 exercise training sessions per week consisting of 2 high intensity interval training bouts (up to 95% VO2peak) on a cycle ergometer and two moderate intensity, steady-state bouts (at 75% VO2peak) on a treadmill. Changes in body weight and composition, markers of endothelial function, oxidative stress, serum lipids, and blood glucose were measured in each group. As expected, cardiovascular fitness increased significantly in the doughnut-supplemented + exercise group as compared to the doughnut-supplemented (p=0.005). Significant increases in body weight (p=0.036), fat mass (p=0.013), and body fat percentage (p=0.014) were seen in the doughnut only group as compared to the doughnut + exercise group. The doughnut + exercise group showed significant improvements in fasting serum triglycerides (p=0.036), plasma insulin (p=0.039) and insulin sensitivity (HOMA; p=0.05) as compared to the doughnut only group. The doughnut + exercise group saw a significant improvement in nitric oxide availability whereas the doughnut only group experienced a significant decline (p=0.014). There were no significant changes in other markers. Despite the addition of a fat/sugar supplement of ~11,600 kcal over three weeks, 4 exercise sessions per week were sufficient to prevent a gain in body weight and fat mass, and also improve some measures of cardiometabolic risk. These results suggest that exercise may be necessary to prevent some adverse health outcomes associated with transient periods of excessive energy consumption 

Does China Require Mandatory Labeling of GMO Foods?

Proponents of mandatory labeling of GMOs in the U.S. often make claims to the effect that "Come on!  Even China requires labeling!" (e.g., see here, here, or here for just a few examples).  The implication is that we must not, heaven forbid, fall behind China in our regulatory regime!?!  

How accurate is this characterization?  It is true that China has a labeling law on the books.  But, does that have any implication for what actually happens on the ground? Here is one description of what happens in China, published in the Vermont Journal of Environmental Law:

Almost ten years after the enactment of the MMAGL [Management Measures on Agro-GMOs Labeling], the status of enforcement is far from satisfying. Despite the mandatory GM food labeling requirements, not all GM foods are labeled, and there is a lack of standardization among GM food and GMO-free food labeling in China’s food market. Even when food products have GM food labeling, the labels are not clearly visible. In addition to the enforcement issues, the rulemaking is outdated. The very narrowly defined first batch of products under the MMAGL is insufficient to cover the broad range of GM food in the market.

Food with GM soybeans is one example. In 2007, China imported 37.8 million metric tons of soybeans, and the United States, Brazil and Argentina accounted for thirty-six, thirty-three and twenty-nine percent, respectively. “The United States (85%) and Argentina (98%) produce almost exclusively GM soybeans.” In 2007, sixty-four percent of Brazil’s soybean crop was GM soybeans. Therefore, a large percentage of soybeans in China’s market are imported GM soybeans. A market survey report conducted in Tianjin, China in 2008, however, revealed that none of the soybeans or soybean powder had GM food labeling. The lack of GM food labeling for soybeans or soybean powder in the market reveals insufficient compliance with the MMAGL.

and

Various reasons exist behind the lack of compliance and enforcement of the MMAGL. One of the most important is the enforceability of the legislation itself. There are several issues in terms of the enforceability in the rulemaking. First, the zero percent tolerance without a reasonable adventitious presence threshold is both unrealistic and misleading.

I’d be careful about holding up China as some sort of example of what would happen in the US if mandatory GMO labeling were to pass.