GMO animals

In the past couple weeks, I've seen several articles on GMO animals.  They are often created using cisgenic techniques or gene editing (i.e., moving genes within a species or "turning off" expression of existing genes), so they may (or may not) be more acceptable to consumers than transgenic GMOs.  That said, the research suggests consumers are much more averse to genetic engineering in animals as compared to plants (for example, here's one recent study we conducted).  

Here's a sampling of the stories and applications mentioned:

Tamar Haspel in National Geographic - mentions bird-flu resistant chicken (well, they're not actually resistant but they don't spread the disease).

David Cyranoski in Nature News - mentions "double muscled" pigs.

Hannah Devlin in the Guardian - mentions pigs resistant to African swine fever (includes a nice graphic).

Kat McGowan in Mother Jones - mentioned polled (or hornless) Holstein cows (bet you didn't know almost all dairy cows currently have to be dehorned), also mentions more heat tolerant cows.

This is an old one but don't forget the larger, faster growing transgenic salmon.

It will be interesting to see how this field develops and how consumers respond.  Reducing proensity for disease and need for dehorning are clear animal welfare improvements, and of course more efficient animals mean less environmental impacts and lower prices.  Will that assuage consumer concerns?  Only time will tell.

Addendum:  Ellen Goddard reminded me of this story on transgenic cows that have higher Omega 3s

Pushback against Nudges

A couple items recently came across my desk that were somewhat critical (at least in parts) of the use of behavioral economics in public policy making - in particular the idea that government can use insights from behavioral economists to nudge us into making the "right" decisions.

The first item is this new paper by Viscusi and Gayer for the Brookings Institute.  They reasonably ask why behavioral economists haven't spent nearly as much time studying the irrationality of bureaucrats, politicians, and policy makers as they have studying the irrationality of consumers.  Here's an extended quote (footnotes omitted) from their discussion on the propensity of government officials to suffer from a phenomenon called ambiguity aversion:

“Ambiguity aversion is a form of irrational behavior and should not be confused with risk aversion in which people are averse to the risk of incurring a large loss . . .

Government policies frequently reflect this ambiguity aversion with novel risks. For example, court rulings tend to demonstrate a bias against innovation and the attendant uncertainties
of novel drug products. In situations where there are adverse health effects from new drugs, the courts are more likely to levy sanctions against the producer. This bias on behalf of the public is also reflected in product liability case experiments using a sample of judges participating in a legal education program. The judges considered hypothetical cases involving novel drugs and their associated liability risks. When given a choice between a new drug posing an uncertain risk or another drug with a higher known risk, most of the judges recommend that the company market the latter drug.

Another instance of ambiguity aversion involves genetically modified organisms (GMOs) . . . GMOs have come under fire and are increasingly subject to potential regulation throughout the world. . . Critics have characterized GMO foods as being very risky products of biotechnology, labeling them “Frankenfoods.” The policy trade-off involved is that GMOs may pose uncertain risks that currently are believed to be low in magnitude, but they reduce the cost of producing agricultural products, which in turn lowers food prices and promotes better nutrition. ”

They go on to hint at the idea (though never come right out and say it) that the precautionary principle is a behavioral bias.  

The other item was an article in the The Guardian that asks whether all the cutesy messages by companies and governments encouraging us to "do the right thing" are really all that helpful or more effective than traditional policies.  The conclusion: 

“And another lesson, not mentioned by the team, but by other economists , is that it is very important to question whether the choices of the behaviourists, whether in government or in ad agencies where nudging opens up a yet more glorious prospect, are invariably wise and good. What, for instance, made the Highways Agency think that a made-up kiddie quote indebted to the Pret school of copywriting condescension (“a little girl asked us why we didn’t make gingerbread men”) might be preferable to speed cameras that build up points for offending drivers, as opposed to irritation in the law-abiding? Or preferable, indeed, to nothing? Maybe a little girl was involved.”

Unnaturally Delicious

As I've previously mentioned, I've got a new book coming out in the Spring of 2016 on entrepreneurs and scientists working on food and agricultural innovations to help address issues such as malnutrition, obesity, soil runoff, food waste, animal welfare, and much more.  Thought I'd share a draft of the book cover the publishers (St. Martins) just sent.

Food Shortages, Climate Change, and GMOs

I filmed a spot on Fox Business Network this morning in response to this story about possible food shortages due to climate change.

I was glad one of the hosts asked me about GMOs - it wasn't a topic I had anticipated coming up.

By the way, if you want to see some good recent work on the effects of climate change on agriculture within the U.S., see this comment and reply in the American Economic Review by Fisher, Hanemann, and Roberts and by Deschênes and Greenstone.  Both sets of authors wind up at the conclusion that climate change is likely to have a negative effect on agricultural profits in the U.S., but the two sets of authors differ in their subjective views about whether the effects are "large".  Neither study considers the mitigating effects of trade on consumers (i.e., we could import food from other countries who benefit from warmer weather), neither considers the mitigating effects of technological development and adaptation (they assume we wake up tomorrow with 2100 temperatures and must live with today's technology), and neither considers the great deal of uncertainty in the predictions arising from climate change modeling.  These are good studies, but I'm saying there's still a lot we don't know, and probably a lot we can't know until it happens.  

Unintended Effects of the Precautionary Principle

This post by David Zaruk at the Risk-Monger blog gives a number of examples illustrating that precaution isn't always the best strategy.  Sometimes the precautionary principle is invoked as a reason to avoid taking an action.  In other instances it is invoked as a reason to take an action.  "We've got to do something" in the face of some problem, and "trying something" in the face of uncertainty is the taken as more cautious than doing nothing.   David writes:

“During the Great Plague of London (1665-66), the authorities were convinced that the outbreak of bubonic plague was being spread by cats. As cats had then been looked upon by religious leaders as symbols of evil and witchcraft, the crisis created the perfect opportunity for zealots to purge London of this feline scourge. The local authorities had no evidence that the cats were spreading the plague, but via the virtue of precaution, they could be seen to be acting in a time of panic. Resisting public pressure from vocal zealots was not politically expedient, and in any case, who would really care if a few thousand cats were tossed in the Thames. Well the rats thought this was just fine, and as the rat population exploded, so too, obviously, did the plague (spread via rat fleas).”

He goes on to point out the unintended effects of modern day precautionary actions.  These typically come about because of a failure to think on the margin and to consider behavioral response.  If pesticide X is banned, that doesn't mean farmers use no pesticide.  They switch to pesticide Y.  Thus, the better question is how X compares to Y.  Another questions rarely asked: if X is banned, then what new mix crops will farmers grow instead, and what environmental, health, or fiscal effects will that have?  

David concludes:

“Precaution is the perfect tool – it worked for the zealots in medieval times and it still works today.

Note that I am not equating the use of the precautionary principle with medieval mind-sets. Precaution is a basic human reaction (no one willingly wants to hurt themselves). But the use of precaution as a regulatory tool by eco-religious zealots to spread fear in order to promote some medieval-inspired conception of agriculture and a communal-based economy regardless of evidence or the negative consequences is not only irrational, but also morally indefensible.”

(Note: I don't necessarily agree with all the hyperbole in the piece, particularly the last sentence)