Blog

August FooDS - Livestock Antibiotics and Plant vs. Animal GMOs

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

This month, there was a significant rise in willingness-to-pay (WTP) for all food products.  In fact, WTP for all meat products are at their highest levels since we began the survey over two years ago in May 2013.  It is unclear what is behind the price rise, but it was also matched by a rise in reported food expenditures at home and away from home.

Three new ad hoc questions were added this month.  The first was designed to test knowledge of different meat cuts, and it was suggested by David Ortega at Michigan State University.  Respondents had to match pictures of different meat cuts with the animal it came from.  By and large, consumers were able to correctly match up the cuts.  The biggest error was that 6% of people matched ham to cow.

The second question was designed to explore preferences for animal antibiotic policies being pursued by different retailers.  In particular, we asked, “A restaurant is considering different antibiotic policies related to the sourcing of their animal products. Which of the following policies would you support or oppose the restaurant implementing for the farmers who supply their animal products?”

Six statements were provided and participants to responded with "support" or "oppose." Approximately 77% of participants opposed the statement “The farmer can use antibiotics for growth promotion.” About 75% of respondents also opposed the statement ‘The farmer can use antibiotics for any purpose they deem reasonable.”

In contrast, a majority of participants supported the statements “The farmer can use antibiotics for disease prevention” and over 80% supported a policy in which “The farmer can use antibiotics to treat sick animals”.  This latter result is interesting in light of the move by many retailers' "never ever" policies regarding animal antibiotics.  

The last set of questions were designed to measured consumers support or opposition to different breeding techniques used in crop and animal agriculture.  The sample was split in two and half the respondents saw questions about crops and the other half saw questions about animals.  The following figure summarizes the results (the figure shows the wording for the crop question but the animal question was similarly worded).

In general, consumers tended to oppose all the methods mentioned.  This included traditional breeding methods.  For all issues, livestock breeding practices were less supported than crop breeding practices.  The least supported practice for both crops and livestock was transgenics - transferring genes from one species to another.  Gene editing and cysgenic technologies were only slightly more supported.  It should be noted that other research we've conducted has shown much higher levels of support if a reason (any reason) is given for why the crop breeding or genetic modification is performed.  Moreover, it may be possible that opposition to even traditional breeding methods  in this survey is a result of the wording of the question which mentioned gene movement across varieties (or breeds) and a general lack of understanding of genetic reproduction.         

Ag Gag Law Struck Down

Compared to other similarly sized sectors of the economy, it seems agriculture often has more political power.  Farmer groups tend to be relatively well organized, and the sector is often mentioned as a textbook case of political action based on "concentrated benefits and diffuse costs."

Sometimes that power is used to increase the size of the pie (e.g., by arguing for freer trade or for more productivity enhancing research) but sometimes the reverse is true (e.g., by arguing for various protectionist or subsidy policies).  Particularly at the state level, agricultural groups can often make some headway in getting what they want because there are often more rural legislators than urban ones.  Because of this, sometimes I wonder whether sometimes they might ask for things that produce a short term benefit they later regret in the longer term?

Case in point.  A number of states have been successful in passing so-called ag-gag laws that essentially prohibit the making or showing of undercover videos on farms.  From the farmer's perspective, it isn't hard to see understand the motivation for such laws.  But, what kind of PR does such a law create for the agricultural sector?  Well, as it turns out, a federal judge's decision to strike down an ag-gag law in Idaho prompted this piece by the New York Times editors.  They write:

“While most Americans enjoy eating meat, it is hard to stomach the often sadistic treatment of factory-farmed cows, pigs and chickens.

Farm operators know this, and they go to great lengths to hide these gruesome images from the public. ”

So, in trying to protect themselves from undercover activists, proponents of the law now created bad publicity for the entire industry (even for producers who weren't video taped and who did no wrong) in one of the largest newspapers in the country.  It is not as if there is no legal recourse for activists who break the law.  As the NYT editors write:

“As for the state’s interest in protecting private property and business, the judge pointed to existing laws against trespass, fraud and defamation, which do not trample free speech.”

In an era where consumers demand greater transparency, the industry probably isn't doing itself any favors by engaging in public actions that make it appear as if there is something to hide.  

Regardless of how one feels about ag-gag laws, it might be useful to consider the consistency of one's stance on such issues.  For example, if you support ag gag laws, do you think it should also be illegal to film planned parenthood employees talking about the sale of aborted fetuses?  Should undercover videos of ACORN employees giving illegal advice be banned?  What about undercover reporting of activities of animal activist groups like PETA?

Do People Really Want to Express an Opinion on GMO Labeling?

With Gwyneth Paltrow making her way to Washington to make the case for mandatory GMO labeling, and with competing bills circulating through the US Congress (one of which was passed by the House), I'm hearing a lot about GMO labeling these days.  

I wanted to draw your attention to an aspect of this debate that you probably don't hear a lot about.  Let's start with this quote from an interview in the Verge with William Hallman of Rutgers who has done lots of polling on GMOs over the years: 

“A number of surveys show that consumers overwhelmingly support GMO labeling, but Hallman says there’s an important caveat to keep in mind. Most polls don’t give the option of saying “I don’t know” when asked about support for labeling, and few consumers will say they don’t want more information. In fact, Hallman’s own survey shows most Americans aren’t even part of the conversation”

I largely agree with Hallman's statement.  Yes, if you ask people whether they want GMO labeling, a large majority will say "yes."  But that sentiment is not very deep (I've found similar levels of support for absurd policies like DNA labeling; moreover, the policy has failed to garner majority support now in 5 state ballot initiatives where people actually had to vote).  

More broadly, asking people whether they want mandatory GMO labeling misses a larger question: how seriously do consumers take their own views?  Do they even want to have to express an opinion on the issue?  

Back in May, I polled a representative sample of over 1,000 US consumers.  I asked them:  “How should the issue of mandatory labeling of genetically engineered food be decided?”  They could choose from one of six options.  

The majority, 61%, of the respondents stated “by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)”.  Just over 10% of respondents stated “I don’t know” and only 5% of respondents stated “by ballot initiatives in each state”.

So, despite the fact that ~80% of people will say they want mandatory GMO labeling in a poll, the above results suggest that they also don't want themselves or fellow citizens to directly decide that policy (9.1% want a nationwide ballot initiative and 5.3% want a statewide vote).  Interestingly, only 8.8% want Congress to decide.

My interpretation of this result is that, if forced to state an opinion, most consumers will express positive support for labels (absent any information on costs or consequences).  But, consumers also realize that they are not terribly knowledgeable on the issue and would defer to "experts" like those at FDA.  

In fact, back in July of 2014, I directly asked over 1,000 US consumers whether they thought decisions about labeling of GMOs should be based on views of experts or views of average Americans.  Over 70% said decisions should be based on views of experts.  

Maybe that seems a bit elitist.  But, I'm not sure that's the right word.  These aren't experts saying experts should decide.  These are normal, everyday people saying they want experts to decide.  This is an entirely reasonable position.  Many of us could do our own taxes or make our own retirement planning decisions, but instead we farm these decisions out to experts because it simply isn't worth our time to become experts in everything.