Blog

Woman A Leading Authority On What Shouldn’t Be In Poor People’s Grocery Carts

Yes, it's from the Onion.  But, as most stories from the Onion, they're funny because they hold a glimmer of truth.

“NORTHAMPTON, MA—With her remarkable ability to determine exactly how others should be allocating their limited resources for food, local woman Carol Gaither is considered to be one of the foremost authorities on what poor people should and should not have in their grocery carts, sources said Thursday.

As verified by multiple eyewitness reports from supermarkets across the Northampton area, the real estate agent and mother of three is capable of scanning the contents of any low-income person’s basket and rapidly identifying those items which people like that don’t need to be buying, based on the products’ nutrition and cost. Additionally, Gaither, 48, is widely regarded as a leading expert in determining which groceries they would purchase instead if they had any common sense or restraint.”

Do farm subsidies prop up rural communities?

A new paper in the journal Applied Economic Perspectives & Policy by Jeremy Weber, Conor Wall, Jason Brown, and Tom Hertz asks whether farm subsidies boost the rural economy.  The abstract:

“Policy makers in the United States often justify agricultural subsidies by stressing that agriculture is the engine of the rural economy. We use the increase in crop prices in the late 2000s to estimate the marginal effect of increased agricultural revenues on local economies in the U.S. Heartland. We find that $1 more in crop revenue generated 64¢ in personal income, with most going to farm proprietors and workers (59%) or nonfarmers who own farm assets (36%). The evidence suggests a weak link between revenues and nonfarm income or employment, or on population. Cuts to agricultural subsidies are therefore likely to have little effect on the broader rural economy in regions like the Heartland.”

Assorted Links

Food Demand Survey (FooDS) - December 2014

The December 2014 edition of the Food Demand Survey (FooDS) is now out.

Results suggest steady to slightly increasing demand for most meat products this month compared to last, particularly for steak.  Awareness of various controversial issues in the media was similar to last month, but was, across the board, compared to this time last year.  

Three new ad hoc questions were added to the survey this month.  

The first question asked: “Scientists are currently working to develop food products that might become available in the future.  If it were possible, would you be willing to eat or drink the following foods?” Respondents were asked to select “Yes, I would eat/drink this”, “No, I would not eat/drink this”, or “I don’t know” for each item. 

64.81% of respondents stated they would be willing to eat rice with a higher level of vitamin A.  Just under half the respondents stated they would eat an apple that does not turn brown after peeling and they would drink milk in a carton that changes color according to freshness.  Only about 20% of respondents said they’d eat a hamburger from meat grown in a lab, eat a pizza from a 3D food printer, or eat a protein bar made with insect flour.

The results are similar to those from a Pew Foundation poll conducted earlier this year, which posed the following, "Here are some things that people might be able to do in the next 50 years. For each, tell me if this were possible, would YOU PERSONALLY do this... ".  For the item "Eat meat that was grown in a lab" 20% said they would, 78% said they wouldn't, and 2% said "don't know" (in their phone survey, "don't know" wasn't mentioned as an explicit option, it has to be volunteered by the respondent". 

Secondly, participants were asked “Thinking about the future, which of the following food and agriculture challenges are you most concerned about?” Participants were shown nine items (randomly ordered across respondents) and were asked to rank these items from most to least concerned.  The rankings were used in a statistical model to estimate scores for each issue that sum up to 100%.  The issue of largest concern was “Having affordable food for me and my family,” with a concern score of 23.3%.  By contrast, the issue of least concern was “Inequitable distribution of food throughout the world.”  Affordable food was 23.3/8.1= 2.87 times more important than inequitable distribution.  The second and third most concerning issues were “Changing the type and quantity of food eaten to address obesity, diabetes, and heart disease” and “Producing enough food to meet the demands of a growing world population.”

Immediately following the previous question, participants were asked “Several challenges facing the food and agricultural sector were mentioned in the previous question.  Which of the two following option do you believe would be most effective in addressing the challenges you thought were most concerning?”  76.23% of respondents chose the option that stated “adopting a more ‘natural’ agricultural production system – more local, organic unprocessed crops and food” would be most effective in addressing these challenges.  Only 23.77% chose the other option which read: “adopt a more ‘technological’ agricultural system – more innovation, science, and research in crops and food”.  I must say I'm a bit depressed by this last finding.

Rolling Stone and Agricultural Journalism

By now, I suspect most of you are aware of the Rolling Stone, rape story saga (here's a timeline of the events).  To recap, Rolling Stone ran a story about a gang rape at a University of Virginia fraternity.  The story caused a national outcry, leading to vandalism of the fraternity, protests across the nation, and a suspension of the fraternity system at UVA.  However, after the initial outcry, a number of news sources began to question the veracity of Rolling Stone's account.  Most prominently, the Washington Post ran a number of stories, and eventually showed that the victim's story (at least as initially reported) was fallacious.  Rolling Stone has apologized for running the story.

Reading various accounts of the on goings, it seems that Rolling Stone, and the journalist - Sabrina Erdely - who wrote the story, got at least two things wrong.  First, the journalist went into the story with an agenda. It seems the magazine's editors were predisposed to believe there was a "rape culture" and only needed a good story to back it up.  Sources suggest that Erdely wanted to do a story on campus rape and went from campus to campus to find the "right" one. As one source put it,  

“But Erdely was committed by her own admission to finding a story that would confirm her preconceptions about a campus violent crime wave against women.”

Second, the journalist only told one side of the story.  As Megan McArdle put it:

“Unfortunately, reporting by others suggests that Erdely didn’t do one of the basic things that reporters do to try to keep fabrications or exaggerations out of our stories: Check with the other side.”

A number of people have said that the details of the case are a distraction and it is the bigger issue that one should focus on.  But, as McArdle wrote:

“Nor am I very convinced by the people — including Erdely — who have argued that focusing on Jackie’s story is getting us “sidetracked” from “the real story,” which is about the rape culture at UVA and the slothful institutional reaction to Jackie’s story. The story was headlined “A Rape on Campus.” The first thousand words are devoted to Jackie’s horrifying story, and much of the rest of the story is devoted to Jackie’s descent into depression and her interactions with the deans. If the story is so irrelevant to the real point of the article, then it should have been pulled out when the victim refused to provide details that would have permitted the author to contact the accused for comment.

But of course, if Jackie’s story had been pulled out, the article wouldn’t have received anything like the attention it got”

OK, so what does any of this have to do with the sorts of things I normally discuss on this blog?

I'd argue that something analogous often happens in the reporting of stories related to food and agriculture, particularly animal agriculture.  It is not a perfect analogy, and I am in no way drawing a moral equivalency with rape.  What I am getting at is the way journalists tell stories and how their editors choose whether to run them.

It is not as if Rolling Stone is too removed from food reporting.  They ran their own expose on meat and animal cruelty just last year.  In a story titled In the Belly of the Beast the lede goes as follows:

“A small band of animal rights activists have been infiltrating the factory farms where animals are turned into meat under the most horrific circumstances. Now the agribusiness giants are trying to crush them. ”

I'm not claiming that the stories told in the Rolling Stone piece aren't true (in some cases they likely have videos and pictures to back their claims).  Some of the events are horrific and may well be prosecutable offenses.   But to what extent are they symptomatic of a broader "cruelty culture" and of the industry more generally, as the story seems to suggest?  

Is there a more general pattern to how these stories are told? It is likely that the authors went in to the piece with a story to tell, and lo and behold they found one. It likely fit a preconceived narrative that the publishers believed.  To what extent did the authors reach out to get the "other side of the story?"  There seems to be little attempt to systematically do that (though they do cite an episode from Nighteline where a reporter confronted a dairy owner).  Again, I'm not saying the particular stories they tell are incorrect, but what I am asking is whether the article indicts the entire industry as the story seems to suggest?  After all, the story ends with an indictment of the present agricultural system and a call for an alternative sort of system.

This isn't just about this particular Rolling Stone story on animal cruelty.  Look, for example, at this piece by Jon Entine at Forbes.com, where he shows video footage of Michael Pollan, an ardent critic of today's commercial agricultural system, outright admitting that much of the journalism about food and agriculture doesn't have to tell both sides.  According to Entine, Pollan said in an interview:

“The media has really been on our side for the most part. I know this from writing for the New York Times where I’ve written about a lot of other topics. But when I wrote about food I never had to give equal time to the other side. I could say whatever I thought and offer my own conclusions. Say you should buy grass feed beef and organic is better, and these editors in New York didn’t realize there is anyone who disagrees with that point of view. So I felt like I got a free ride for a long time.”

That was precisely the problem with the Rolling Stone rape story.  The writer got a "free ride" because the story fit a narrative already believed to be true.  

I have no problems with journalists writing true stories of injustice or cruelty in food and agriculture.  And, I am not a fan of the "ag gag" laws.  What I caution is making broad claims about industry-wide behavior without the evidence to support it.