Blog

Don Boudreaux on GMO Labeling

I am sometimes surprised at the stances some libertarian-leaning folk take on food issues, particularly GMO labeling.  But, over at Cafe Hayek, Don Boudreaux responds to a question on the issue precisely as I'd anticipate. 

No.  I believe that there is no justification for such a requirement [mandatory labeling of GMOs].  An important reason why I oppose such a requirement is that there are no non-arbitrary criteria to guide even the best-intentioned government in determining which sorts of information-disclosure to mandate and which not to mandate.  The best practical rule is to allow competition among firms to determine which bits of information to disclose and how to disclose it.

Suppose (not unreasonably) that there are some consumers who would prefer not to buy foods harvested by ‘undocumented’ workers.  Should government then require suppliers of fruits and vegetables to disclose whether or not they take steps to ensure that all of their workers have official U.S. Government permission to work as farm laborers in America?  Suppose (not unreasonably) that some other consumers care about ‘gender equity’ in the workplace?  Should government then require that each supplier of fruits or vegetables disclose information about what proportion of its workforce is women?

Suppose (not unreasonably) that yet some other consumers care about ‘sexual-preference equity’ in the workplace?  Should government then require that each supplier of fruits or vegetables disclose information about what proportion of its workforce is gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered?  Suppose (not unreasonably) that some consumers care about the employment prospects of U.S. military veterans.  Should government then require that each supplier of fruits or vegetables disclose information about what proportion of its workforce is made up of people who once served in the U.S. military?  Suppose (not unreasonably) that some other consumers care deeply about ‘made in America.’  Should government then require that each supplier of fruits or vegetables disclose information about what proportion of its inputs were bought from American, as opposed to non-American, suppliers?

 

My Visit to BPI

I had the opportunity today to visit Beef Products Incorporated (BPI) in South Dakota.  If you’re unfamiliar with BPI, they are the manufacturers of lean fine textured beef (LFTB) (more popularly and derogatorily known as “pink slime”).  I learned a lot and came away from the tour both impressed and depressed.

I’ve been in a lot of food plants, but BPI’s was one of the most technologically advanced, food-safety focused plant I’ve seen.  There is a deep irony in the fact that a company that proactively invested millions in preventative measures to prevent food safety problems found themselves in the limelight for faux safety reasons.  It wasn’t an actual sickness or recall or outbreak, it was a sensational news story that tarnished their reputation.  That’s what I find depressing.  Here is a family-owned business started by an entrepreneur trying do things right.  Prevent waste, make more affordable food, make safer food.  And they’re made out to be a villain.  For what?

 Here are some things I learned:

 1)      LFTB is beef.  That’s all. I suppose that’s why the meat-industry created a website called beefisbeef.com. But seeing it made a huge impact on me. There is no bone that goes into the process.  You could quite plainly see big tasty-looking strips of beef and roasts going into the process; it simply isn’t worth the packer’s time to carve away all the fat which is why BPI gets it.  So, big beef hunks go in one end and out the other end come three products: tallow, cartilage (which is the only waste), and LFTB.

2)      Much has been made of BPI’s use of ammonium hydroxide to kill pathogens.  But, I didn’t realize that BPI also makes LFTB without ammonium hydroxide, depending on their customer’s wishes.  I also found the graphic on their web site interesting, which compares the amount of ammonia in a beef patty with LFTB to the other parts of the burger.

3)      At no point in the process did I see anything that remotely resembled the pictures one sees on the internet.  LFTB is a little pink but that’s because it is completely frozen.  When it is thawed, it looked almost identical to package of ground beef you see on the grocery store shelf.

4)      BPI and others have done numerous taste tests with LFTB.  In blind taste tests, people almost always prefer ground beef that incorporates up to about 25% LFTB.  Burgers with LFTB taste better.  Who knew?    

5)      Cargill made a lot of news a couple weeks ago with their announcement to label their version of LFTB.  I was surprised to hear that BPI has been doing it for over a year!  But, here’s the thing.  BPI doesn’t sell directly to retail, so it isn’t as simple as telling BPI they should label because – number 1 the USDA controls what they can put on their label – and number 2, they can’t control what the retailer puts on their label. 

6)      The removal of LFTB from the market caused a spike in the price of lean ground beef and an increase in supply of fattier 73% lean ground beef.  Beyond the adverse price impacts on consumers, what are the health impacts of increased saturated fat consumption? 

7)      For all the talk about the need for more transparency in the food system, I was surprised to learn how untransparent were some food activists in misrepresenting their purposes and intentions when seeking information from BPI.

 I don’t necessarily mean to cheerlead for BPI.  I’m sure they have their faults.  But seeing the people up close and personal who were affected by all the media hype was, quite frankly, tragic. 

 Surely there is a good journalist who could find a story in that.    

 

Food Conspiracies

This past weekend, I was a guest on a radio show that is broadcast through a network to about 100 stations across the US.  I was talking about my book, The Food Police.  Having done dozens of these kinds of shows over the past six or seven months since the book release, I figured that I've heard just about every question there was to ask.  I was wrong.  

After some standard back-and-forth questions with the host, the line was opened to callers.  Here are a few of the claims I heard - each from a different caller: 

  • Adding fluoride to water doesn't prevent cavities and causes joint pain, teeth browning, cancer, and Alzheimers   
  • Canola oil is an "unnatural" newly created synthetic product that causes cardiac problems and high blood pressure
  • Organic farmers are small farmers; small farmers treat their soil better than large farmers
  • With GMOs the genes they inject into DNA.  They are unnatural and become free floating in the soil; 70% of babies have the Bt toxin in their blood as a result of GMOs; the implication is that GMOs are very dangerous
  • A new wave of cancer patients are successful fighting cancer by moving to a diet of organic produce 

Some of these are more grounded in reality than others but overall I think I lost a little bit of faith in my fellow man.  I don't mean that in a belittling way.  But it makes me wonder what it is in human nature or what incentives exist in media/internet that would take a little grain of truth and turn it into some of these beliefs that are so at odds with the evidence.