Should you only eat food your great grandmother would recognize?

I've been reading the book White Bread: A Social History of the Store-Bought Loaf by Aaron Bobrow-Strain.  I'm only about a quarter of the way in, but so far it has been an informative take on some of the modern food debates seen through the history of white bread.  At times it falls into the big-is-bad or anything-for-profit-is-bad trap and often fails to fully appreciate the benefits of lower prices to the poor, but otherwise its an interesting read.  

I particularly liked the following passage:

“At the start of the twenty-first century, a wave of neo-traditional food writers urged Americans to eschew anything “your great-grandmother wouldn’t recognize as food.” If your great-grandmother wouldn’t have eaten it, they argued, it wasn’t real food. This rule of thumb raised a few complications: I’m pretty sure my great-grandmother wouldn’t have recognized Ethiopian doro wat or Oaxacan huitlacochtle as anything a human would eat, and yet they’re two of my favorite foods. Neo-traditionalist’s dreams of “real” food have racial and nationalistic undertones, it seems. More importantly, they ignore the complexities and ambiguities of early twentieth-century American’s relation to food: which version of my great-grandmother’s bread am I supposed to reassure/ the laborious homemade one her husband demanded, or the factor-baked one she eventually came to love? Food writers selling a particular dream of “great-grandmother’s kitchen” rarely concern themselves with real people. What I want to know is how and why my great-grandmother’s generation came to desire the store-bought staff of life.”

Which biotech foods are most acceptable to the public?

That's the title of a paper I just published in the Biotechnology Journal with Brandon McFadden and Brad Rickard.  

Based on a survey of over 1,000 US consumers, we sought to determine which types of foods or biotechnology applications might be most acceptable.  

Respondents were asked, on a 7-point scale, to indicate how desirable (i.e., 1 = very undesirable to 7 = very desirable) it would be to eat six foods strategically selected to vary by product type (i.e., apple, corn, and beef) and degree of processing (i.e., fresh and processed): apples, apple juice, corn on the cob, corn chips, beef steak, and beef hotdog. The question was then repeated except each food was identified as being GE: genetically engineered apple, apple juice made from genetically engineered apples, etc. Of interest is the change in the desirability of each food product as it moves from a GE to a non-GE form, and whether the change in desirability systematically relates to product type and degree or processing. 

Here's what we found.

We write:

“ when foods were not GE, fresh was preferred over processed and beef products were preferred over corn and apple products. . . . [W]hen products were GE, respondents continued to prefer fresh to processed (although not nearly as much as when non-GE), but now respondents prefer corn and apples to beef, indicating a preference reversal. . . . The results indicate that adding “GE” causes a larger drop in desirability for fresh than processed food and also caused a larger drop in the desirability of meat relative to corn and apples. Thus, not only does GE change the overall desirability . . . , it changes the relative ranking of products, with larger penalties associated with being GE assigned to fresh food and meat.”

We also asked consumers how desirable or undesirable different reasons for genetic modification were.  All the reasons had a mean score above 4 (on a scale of 1 to 7), meaning they were more desirable than not.  Here the results for each issue.

When is Mayonnaise Mayonnaise?

A lot has been written recently about the lawsuit Unilever has filed against a new upstart Just Mayo made by the company Hampton Creek.

At issue is the fact that the FDA defines mayonnaise as containing egg yolk, and Just Mayo is a vegan alternative that uses yellow pea instead of egg. Unilever claims that Hampton Creek is falsely advertising their product as mayonnaise (even though it only uses the term "mayo"), as the word is defined by the FDA. By the way, you now have a hint as to why Miracle Whip isn't labeled as mayonnaise.

Most of what I've read on the web has been harshly critical of Unilever. This piece in Mother Jones is one example, framing the issue as a David vs. Goliath (or "Big Mayo"), and an NPR piece is titled "Bit Mayo vs. Little Mayo".

I've been interviewed by a couple reporters about the suit (e.g., see this CBC story), and I have to admit to having mixed feelings about the case. I have found it a bit surprising that many of the folks I normally think about as being in favor of consumer protection have been sided with Hampton Creek, I suspect because it is more appealing to take the position against any food giant.

What are the issues?

Going back to some of the concerns over 100 years ago that led to the passage of the Pure Food Act, there have been attempts to regulate the usage of certain terms and labels. The idea is that if you see a food labeled "mayonnaise", for example, that you can be sure it hasn't been adulterated - that food processors haven't watered down the product or used sawdust or some such nefarious substance to reduce cost. These sorts of rules exist for all kinds of food products (here, for example, is a list of approved labeling terms for meat from the USDA).

From Unilever's perspective, they're just following the FDA labeling rules that have ostensibly been created to protect the consumer against fraudulent labeling. Thus, I can see their point of view that Just Mayo is "unfairly" competing by implying they're making a product that does not conform with the FDA guidelines. While this may seem like a silly case, the implications could be much wider; when should a firm be able to use labels with the term "organic" or "free range" or "milk" or "bread"? Should certain standards be met to use these terms so that consumers aren't mislead?

On the other side, these sorts of rules could very well prohibit innovation and competition. I haven't tasted Just Mayo, but supposing it is comparable to "regular" mayonnaise, they've created a process that removes an animal ingredient, which is appealing to a segment of consumers. Moreover, what if a company can create a less expensive, non-egg based mayonnaise that consumers find tasty? Wouldn't the upstart have a hard time entering the marketplace and competing if they are unable to describe their product using word that best fits it? A lot of the labeling rules seem to be just plain bureaucratic overreach, and they seem to do more to line the pockets of lawyers and regulators than protect the consumer.

Ultimately, I have a hard time seeing how these kinds of name or labeling rules make much sense for products like mayonnaise. These are branded products. If a consumer buys Just Mayo and doesn't like the taste as well as conventional mayonnaise, they can go back to their old brand. In econ-speak, these are experienced goods, and firms have reputations that allow consumers to easily search and identify eating satisfaction with different brands. There seems little reason the market couldn't work this out.

Ultimately, I think there are good arguments on both sides of this case, and it isn't obvious what would be the consequences of the unraveling of these sorts of "food purity" laws. Sometimes it's hard to know when consumer protection becomes protectionism.

Farm to Fork: A new course

I'm pleased to announce that staring with the spring semester, my good friend Bailey Norwood is teaching a new online course for Oklahoma State University called Farm to Fork: A Panoramic View of Agriculture.

The course will be full of interesting videos explaining how food is produced and how it gets to our plates.  Anyone is free to enroll in the course regardless of whether they happen to be a current OSU student.  More details on the course, along with information on how to enroll are here.

Here's a little promo to whet your appetite:

Food Demand Survey (FooDS) - November 2014

The latest edition of our Food Demand Survey (FooDS) is now out.

This month, consumer willingness-to-pay (WTP) for all food products (except steak, which was essentially unchanged) was up relative to October.  

Consumers continue to expect higher meat prices in the coming month (but not quite as much as last month).  Planned purchases of chicken were up relative to last month.

Three new ad hoc questions were added to the survey this month. Given the recent WTO ruling on the US mandatory country of origin labeling law (COOL) (see some discussion of the issues here), several questions were added to gauge consumers' knowledge and perceptions of different meat origin labels (thanks to Glynn Tonsor at K-State who provided suggestions on the questions).  

The first question asked: “Which of the following are grocery stores required by law to label for fresh meat products?” Participants were shown seven issues and were asked to select “required”,” not required”, or “I don’t know”, for each issue.  

64% of respondents believe nutritional content information is required to be labeled by law.  Over a third (39%) thought there was mandatory labeling for use of hormones.  For the remaining five issues, the plurality of consumers chose “I don’t know.”  This includes the three issues related to MCOOL.  About 40% of consumers did not know whether grocery stores required to label where an animal was born, raised, or slaughtered.  More consumers than not thought grocery stores were not required to label such origin information.  Only 22% of consumers thought grocery stores were required to label where an animal was born.   

Secondly, (and only after answering the preceding question), participants were asked: “What portion of pork products consumed in the United States is covered by current mandatory country of origin labeling laws?” The plurality, 23.79% of participants, responded saying that 40% to 59% of pork products consumed in the United Sates is covered under mandatory country of origin (COOL) laws.  17% though no pork products were required to be labeled, and about 12% though all pork products were required to be labeled.

he third question pertains to consumer’s willingness-to-pay for a 12oz boneless rib eye beef steak dependent on the country of origin. Respondents were randomly assigned to one of four groups that differed in the label given to the ribeye steak.  On fourth of participants were asked: “ What is the most you would be willing to pay for a 12oz boneless rib eye beef steak that was labelled as: Born, Raised, and Slaughtered in the U.S.?”  Other respondents answered similar questions except the labels were changed to: Born in Canada, Raised and Slaughtered in U.S.; Born and Raised in Canada, Slaughtered in the U.S.; or Product of Canada and the U.S.  Respondents answered by clicking a response category with a range of dollar values such as, $0, $0.01 to $2.99, . . ., $13.00 to $15.99, $16 or more.  Answers were used to estimate the mean WTP for each of the four groups.

Results indicate consumers valued beef that was born or born and raised in Canada $0.89 and $1.05 less, respectively, than beef that was born, raised, and slaughtered in the U.S.  Consumers do not distinguish between beef born in Canada and born and raised in Canada; the difference in WTP for these two labels ($6.11 vs. $5.95) is not statistically different.  Mean WTP for the label “product of Canada and the U.S.”, $6.55,  is higher than the other labels that mentioned Canada and only $0.45 lower than “Born, Raised and Slaughtered in the U.S.”, a difference that is not statistically different.