Blog

NPR story on GMOs

On the way into work this morning, I heard this story on NPR about GMOs.  While I don't always agree with the slant on every story run by NPR, I generally expect their stories to be fair and  insightful.  But, in this case, I think they missed some critical nuance.  

After a "woman on the street" interview in which a some of typical unsubstantiated claims about GMOs were made, the reporter followed up with the following statement (about the 2:20 mark on the recording): 

“The world’s leading scientists say they [GMOs] are safe to eat. That said, there are concerns about possible carcinogens coming the pesticides used on those crops.”

That's a highly misleading claim for several reasons.  First, there are many GMOs that have nothing to do with pesticides.  Arctic apples, golden rice, low linoleic acid soybeans, and many others have nothing to do with pesticides use or carcinogens.  In fact there is now a GMO potato explicitly designed to reduce carcinogens.  Moreover, some GMOs, like Bt corn and virus resistant papaya reduce the use of insecticides.  

Even if we move to herbicide resistant, Roundup-Ready corn and soy, the question isn't whether Round-up is carcinogenic, but rather: what has been the overall change in toxicity from the move toward Round-up and away from older herbicides that were more toxic?  Several USDA reports suggest that overall toxicity has gone down with the adoption of herbicide resistant crops.

After the above statement, the reporter followed up by making an important point but then following it up with another misleading statement.  She said: 

“non-GMO food may not be as wholesome as you think, they can also be made from plants that were doused with pesticides. It doesn’t mean it’s organic.”

She's right that non-GMO can use just as much pesticide as GMO. In fact, as was pointed out by Andrew Kniss, Chipotle's move to remove non-GMOs from their supply chain may have actually led to adoption of crops (sunflowers) that use pesticides with higher toxicity than was the case for the GMO crops.  However, when I first heard this story on air, I mis-interpreted the reporter as saying GMOs (rather than non-GMOs) were "doused with pesticides."  My reaction was, first, that no farmer "douses" with such expensive products and second that non-GMOs don't mean no-pesticide.  That latter point is, of course, the one that she was making, though I didn't get that in real time.  

The second statement seems to imply organic means no pesticides.  That's patently false.  

 

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?