Blog

Food Demand Survey (FooDS) - March 2015

The March 2015 edition of the Food Demand Survey (FooDS) is now out.

The release of the federal dietary guidelines did not seem to have a measurable effect on meat demand as consumer willingness-to-pay (WTP) for all meat products (except steak) increased from February to March.  WTP for pork chop increased by almost 12% and chicken breast by 8%. WTP for all meat products are higher relative to this time last year.  Food spending at home was up this month, but spending away from home was down from a record high last month. 

Three new ad hoc questions were added this month, two of which are discussed here.  

The first question was motivated by a research seminar that Marc Bellemare from University of Minnesota presented here at OSU last month.  His research suggested that an increase in the number of farmers markets in a particular location was associated with an increase in foodborne illnesses in that location.  I was curious whether consumers thought farmers market food was more or less safe than grocery store food (it was also a question Marc was keen to ask).  So, respondents were asked,  “Compared to food from a supermarket, do you believe food from a farmers’ market is more likely or less likely to cause food borne illnesses resulting from bacterial or viral contamination?”


There was no clear consensus. About 28% or respondents thought food from a farmers’ market was more likely to cause illness than from a supermarket, about 45% thought “food from a farmers’ market is neither more or less likely to cause food borne illnesses than food from a supermarket” and 27% thought farmers’ market food was more safe than supermarket food. 

The second question stated: “The Federal Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee recently released preliminary dietary guidelines for Americans. Which of the following do you think is true?” Eleven items were presented, and respondents indicated true, false, or I don’ t know. Approximately 41% of participants believe that the committee’s dietary advice is not trustworthy and 65% thought the advice would change in 10 years. About half the respondents thought the guidelines should consider effects on the environment, 21% disagreed, and 32% unsure. About half the respondents correctly knew the committee recommended less meat consumption. Almost two thirds thought the committee cautioned against dietary cholesterol.

A third question was also asked that I'll discuss in a separate post.  

Are more efficient farms also better for the environment?

The answer appears to be "yes" according to this paper in the journal Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy.

Their motivation:

“The productive efficiency literature has paid very little attention to environmental performance issues. Growing social and political concerns for the environmental impacts of agriculture make it necessary to study environmental and technical performance using robust methodologies that enable scientists to derive reliable indicators. ”

They found . . .

“Empirical findings suggest that our sample farms, on average, reach technical efficiency scores of 93%, and thus that they can reduce input use by 7% while leaving output levels unaltered. Environmental efficiency scores differ depending on the methodology used and indicate ample scope for improving environmental performance and reducing pesticide use and pollution.”

The punchline:

“environmentally efficient farms tend to be more allocative and technically efficient. Better agri-environmental performance is associated with good agricultural practices, supporting the notion that an efficient use of chemical inputs improves both environmental and technical performance. As opposed to previous studies that found an adverse effect of environmental regulations on productivity (Färe et al. 2001), the high correlation between TE and EE for our sample farms implies complementarity between economic and environmental sustainability.”

What advice would you give your younger self?

My 92 year old grandmother (Wanda Jordan) made the Lubbock, TX news yesterday as a part of a story on International Woman's Day, where ladies were asked what advice they'd give their younger self.

My grandmother recalls a tough upbringing on the farm with 12 siblings, and advises to "do the best you can with what you have."  From a lady that's often had very little, she's done exactly that.  Thanks Mama Jack!


Local Foods Advocates Fight Back

Pierre Desrochers (co-author of the excellent book The Locavore's Dilemma: In praise of the 10,000 mile diet) alerted me to this paper just published in the journal Agriculture and Human Values by Helen Scharber and Anita Dancs.  The authors asks, "Do locavores have a dilemma?"  The authors take issue with the sorts of arguments made by folks like me, Pierre, and a host of economists and other writers.  They write:

“Local food critics have recently argued that locavores, unaware of economic laws and principles, are ironically promoting a future characterized by less food security and more environmental destruction. In this paper, we critically examine the ways in which mainstream economics discourse is employed in arguments to undermine the proclaimed benefits of local food. ”

The article provides an excellent literature review of the case against local foods (even if they did miss my article on the topic with Bailey Norwood in Library of Economics and Liberty).   But, ultimately, I find their case against the case for local foods unsatisfying.  

In the end, they seem to conclude that the typical economic critique ignores power dynamics, externalities, and choice.  In other words, "big food" is warped by capitalism that generates market power and externalities, and local food is a solution to these evils of capitalism.  

They argue that local foods are not an either/or and they should exist alongside other markets in a way that increases availability and choice.  I agree!  As I've said many times: I'm not against local foods, I'm against bad arguments for local foods.  And, I'm against government policies that subsidize local food activities.  Why?  Precisely for the reason opposite of that argued in this paper: I see no compelling evidence that local foods meaningfully internalize any of the important adverse externalities associated  with food production.  Moreover, I don't see the local food movement as one that is anti-capitalistic: precisely the opposite! Lots of competition, innovation, competition and entrepreneurship is at the heart of the movement. Sellers who don't offer high quality, affordable products won't be at the farmers market for long, and those that do will grow bigger. Finally, what is it about local foods that meaningfully changes the power dynamic that so worries these authors?  Let's be frank, the local food movement has largely gained steam because it is desired by relatively rich, largely white Americans.  As Charles Mann put it in a New York Times interview:       

“if your concern is to produce the maximum amount of food possible for the lowest cost, which is a serious concern around the world for people who aren’t middle-class foodies like me, [local food] seems like a crazy luxury. It doesn’t make sense for my aesthetic preference to be elevated to a moral imperative”

I'll wrap up by pointing to this new paper I just came across published in the journal Appetite. The authors, "conducted a detailed cross-sectional assessment of all [farmers markets] in Bronx County, NY, and of the nearest store(s) selling produce within a half-mile walking distance (up to two stores per [farmers markets]). The study included 26 [farmers markets] and 44 stores." Here are the author's highlights and findings:

“•Farmers’ markets (FMs) may offer a means to get fresh produce into needy communities.
•But FMs operate overwhelming fewer months, days, and hours than nearby stores.
•FMs carry less-varied, less-common, more-expensive produce than nearby stores.
•FMs offer many items not optimal for good health (e.g., jams, pies, juice drinks).
•FMs might provide little net benefit to food environments in urban communities.”