Local Food Bad News

The New York Post ran a story this weekend on toxic metal content in several community gardens in NYC (HT Jeff Stier).  The article was based on a paper published in Journal of Environmental Pollution.  

“Tainted vegetables — some sold in city markets — were found in five of seven plots tested, according to data obtained from the study by The Post through the Freedom of Information Law.”

and

“A previous soil study by the same researchers found lead levels above federal soil guidelines at 24 of 54 city gardens, or 44 percent of the total, and overall toxic soil at 38 gardens — 70 percent of the total”

The findings led to reactions like the following:

“Shoppers at a farmers market outside East New York Farms in Brooklyn — where a carrot was tested with nearly three times the safe amount of lead — were stunned by the study.
“I thought it would have been more natural getting it from here than anywhere else,” said one 38-year-old grazer.

Donel Lykes, 68, said he noticed something funny about the veggies there.

“Their vegetables, for whatever reason, are not as tasty as the ones you get in the store,” he said.”

This isn't some kind of overall condemnation of local foods, and no doubt such results might be found in non-local food sources.  However, the results do suggest caution in ascribing hype to foods or production practices that aren't firmly based in scientific evidence.

While we we're at it, here's other news on the local food front confirming that we've known for a while (and yet still doesn't seem to be widely acknowledged): fewer food miles do not equate with lower carbon emissions.  

“A Bangor University-led project into the social and environmental benefits of food grown locally and overseas has found that no straightforward relationship between the transport distance and the overall environmental impact of the commercial life-cycle of crops exists.”

and

“The results show that transport or ‘food miles’ was only a very small percentage of the CO2 expenditure related to any crop. “The emerging picture was a highly complex one of inputs and outputs concerning everything from the type of soil on which a crop is grown, to where and how it is stored and packaged for sale to the customer. It’s true to say that the picture is far from complete, with current interest focusing on the CO2 released from different soil types.””

This echos what I've long said: carbon emissions are likely to be lowest when we grow food where it can be most efficiently produced and then shipped to the final consumer.

Regulating your food choices vs. retailers' food choices

Suppose the government made it illegal for you to buy sugared soda.  What would be your reaction?  How would you feel?  

Now, suppose instead that the government made it illegal for grocery stores and other vendors to sell sugared soda.  Is your reaction to the second law less visceral than the first?  

I suspect so.  But, here's the key: both laws impose the same restriction on your freedom - the outcomes are precisely the same.

Writing at Forbes, John Goodman notes this dichotomy in the case of California eggs (HT David Henderson)

“California has a new law that requires all eggs sold in the state to come from chickens that are housed in roomier cages. Specifically, the hens “must be able to lie down, stand up and fully spread their wings.”

So how many Californians have been arrested for eating the wrong kind of egg? Zero. Not even one? Not one. Actually, the law doesn’t take effect until January, but even then egg eaters will have nothing to fear. The reason: the law doesn’t apply to people who eat eggs. It only applies to people who sell eggs.

When you stop to think about it, that’s not unusual. Almost all government restrictions on our freedom are indirect. They are imposed on us by way of some business. In fact, laws that directly restrict the freedom of the individual are rare and almost always controversial.”

After discussing various reasons for the differences in the way we respond to individual vs. business restrictions, Goodman concludes:

“Finally, the idea being proposed here seems consistent with history. Over the past two hundred years, we have had a steady migration of people from agriculture to the cities, where they became employees of firms. Over the same period of time we have had a parallel increase in the intrusiveness of government.

Bottom line: if there were no firms, taxes would be much lower, there would be far fewer regulations and government would be a much less important institution in our lives.”

How effective is education at correcting misperceptions

Whether its GMOs or pesticides or economic effects of various food policies, it seems that the public often holds beliefs that are at odds with what the experts believe.  A natural tendency - especially for someone who is an educator - it to propose that we need more education on these topics.

But, how effective are we at changing people's minds?  This article in Pacific Standard by the psychologist David Dunning might give us pause.  

The research suggests:

“What’s curious is that, in many cases, incompetence does not leave people disoriented, perplexed, or cautious. Instead, the incompetent are often blessed with an inappropriate confidence, buoyed by something that feels to them like knowledge.”

But, before you start feeling too confident in your own abilities, read the following:

“An ignorant mind is precisely not a spotless, empty vessel, but one that’s filled with the clutter of irrelevant or misleading life experiences, theories, facts, intuitions, strategies, algorithms, heuristics, metaphors, and hunches that regrettably have the look and feel of useful and accurate knowledge. This clutter is an unfortunate by-product of one of our greatest strengths as a species. We are unbridled pattern recognizers and profligate theorizers. Often, our theories are good enough to get us through the day, or at least to an age when we can procreate. But our genius for creative storytelling, combined with our inability to detect our own ignorance, can sometimes lead to situations that are embarrassing, unfortunate, or downright dangerous—especially in a technologically advanced, complex democratic society that occasionally invests mistaken popular beliefs with immense destructive power (See: crisis, financial; war, Iraq). As the humorist Josh Billings once put it, “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.” (Ironically, one thing many people “know” about this quote is that it was first uttered by Mark Twain or Will Rogers—which just ain’t so.)”

Several studies seem to suggest that providing people with a little information may not lead to more agreement on an issue, but rather can result in polarizing opinions. The reason is that information makes use feel more informed, and lets us feel more confident in whatever our political or cultural tendencies would lead us to believe in the first place.  That is, people bend information to reinforce their identity and cultural beliefs. 

An Anthropologist Takes on the Paleo Diet

Interesting TEDx talk by the anthropologist Christina Warner on the accuracy of our beliefs that underlie the modern Paleo Diet.  I particularly enjoyed her discussion around the 11 to 12 minute mark about how many of our current fruits and veggies are modern,  human creations that were no where to be found in the Paleo era.

Frankenfood

Buried in the comments section of an article in the Guardian about a UK retailer selling some American brands that contain GMOs was this comment that made me laugh:

“It should be noted that Frankenstein was not even a hybrid, let alone a gmo. He was a grafted individual, much like today’s grapevines in vineyards and apple trees.”