Support for GMO Labeling a Left-Wing Phenomenon?

Much has been written about whether aversion to biotechnology and GMOs has ideological dimensions rooted in the left.  I've written about this before, as have many others (this paper in Food Policy extends the discussion to a whole host of food regulations beyond biotechnology).  Most of the studies I've seen (including my own data) suggest only small differences in the left and the right in terms of beliefs about safety of eating GMOs.  However, as I previously argued:

“One distinction, which I think is missing, is the greater willingness of those on the left to regulate on economic issues, such as GMOs, than those on the right. Stated differently, there are questions of science: what are the risks of climate change or eating GMOs. And then there are more normative questions: given said risk, what should we do about it? Even if the left and the right agreed on the level of risk, I don’t think we should expect agreement on political action.”

Perhaps the clearest demonstration of this difference in willingness to regulate comes from a new paper by John Bovay and Julian Alston in the Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics. They look at precinct-level voting data on the Prop 37 mandatory labeling initiative in California in 2012. One of the best predictors of support for Prop 37?  The share of people in the precinct voting for Obama. Here's a telling graph from their paper.   It's an almost perfect positive, linear relationship. 

The authors went on to use these results to predict what would have happened in other states if they'd had an opportunity to vote on Prop 37 (I should note we did something very similar in a paper on for votes on California's Prop 2 related to animal welfare in 2008).  Bovay and Alston found the following:

“Projections using our estimated model imply that a majority of voters in only three of fifty states (Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Vermont) plus the District of Columbia would have passed Proposition 37 had it been on their ballots in 2012”

Food Company Voluntarily Adds GMO Labels

This is a potential game changer (from the NYT):

“Breaking from its industry rivals, Campbell Soup will become the first major food company to begin disclosing the presence of genetically engineered ingredients like corn, soy and sugar beets in its products.”

A while back when writing about the duplicity of a many food companies on the issue of GMO labeling, I wrote

“For now, food companies are not required to add labels indicating the presence of genetically engineered ingredients. But, it might ultimately be in their best interest to do it voluntarily, and in a way that avoids the negative connotations implied by the labels that would have been mandated in state ballot initiatives.

Some day in the near future, after concerted efforts to educate the public and create consumer-oriented biotechnologies, we may see food companies clamoring to voluntarily add a label that proclaims: proudly made with biotechnology.”

Campbell's isn't going that far (and in fact they're supporting nationwide mandatory labels on foods with genetically engineered ingredients).  Nonetheless, this is an interesting move, and it will be fascinating to see how it plays out.

Impact of Process Labeling

The Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST) just released a new paper on the impact of process food labeling.  The paper was written by a number of top-notch ag economists including Kent Messer, Marco Costanigro,  and Harry Kaiser.  It's a nice summary of the issues involved in the labeling of food processes (like organic or non-GMO or rbST free) as opposed to labeling food outcomes (like calories).

The summarize five points after reviewing the literature:

“1. Consumers want to have a sense of control over the foods their families eat.
2. Food markets are characterized by asymmetric information. Producers know more about the quality of the products than consumers. Many important quality traits are unknown until after consumption, or they are never revealed.
3. Consumers are not well informed about the various technologies used in the agricultural and food sector of the United States; however, they have greatly benefited from the tremendous technological progress that has occurred over the past century.
4. Consumers use process labels as cues to infer quality traits that are important to them, such as taste, food safety, and the environmental and societal impacts.
5. There is strong evidence that consumers consider process labels, frequently adjust their behavior in response to them, and, when these labels imply a negative aspect of a food, can shun that product. ”

They also present a number of challenges presented by these sorts of labels, such as

“Process labels can be used by marketers to stigmatize rival conventionally produced products, even when there is no scientific evidence that food produced in this manner
causes harm.”

The authors end with some policy recommendations.  Here's the first one:

“Mandatory labeling should only occur in situations in which the product has been scientifically demonstrated to harm human health.”

Consumer sovereignty vs. scientific integrity

This post by Olga Khazan at Atlantic.com highlights some recent food company decisions to remove ingredients of concern to certain consumers.  Yet, the best science we have available suggests these same ingredients are perfectly safe.

Examples mentioned in the story include announcements that Diet Pepsi is removing aspartame, Ben and Jerry's and Chipotle are removing GMOs (the former company's decision is a bit ironic given that they're essentially selling frozen fat with sugar; the later is duplicitous since  they're still selling sodas and cheese that will contain GMOs), Pepsi dropping high fructose corn syrup in some of their drinks, and Clif's Luna Bars going gluten-free.  To that we could add a long list of others such as Cheerios dropping GMOs, many milk brands years ago dropping rBST, etc.  

It's difficult to know what to make of these moves.  On the one hand, we ought to champion consumer freedom and sovereignty.   Whatever one might think about the "power" of Big Food, these examples clearly show food companies willing to bend over backwards to meet customer demands.  That, in principle, is a good thing.  

The darker side of the story is that many consumers have beliefs about food ingredients that don't comport with the best scientific information we have available.  As a result, food companies are making a variety of cost-increasing changes that only convey perceived (but not real) health benefits to consumers.  

The longer-run potential problem for food companies is that they may inadvertently be fostering a climate of distrust.  Rather than creatively defending use of ingredient X and taking the opportunity to talk about the science, their moves come across as an admission of some sort of guilt:  Oh, you caught us!  You found out we use X.  Now, we'll now remove it.  All the while, we'll donate millions to causes that promote X or prevent labeling of X, while offering brands that promote the absence of X.  It's little wonder people get confused, lose trust, and question integrity.  

I'm not sure there is an easy answer to this conundrum.  In a competitive environment, I'm not sure I'd expect (or shareholders would expect) one food company to try to make a principled stand for ingredient X while their competitor is stealing market share by advertising "no-X".  On the other hand, I'd like consumers to make more informed decisions, but I'm not all that sure "education" has much impact or that, at least for many middle- to upper-income consumers, that given the price of food they have much economic incentive to adjust their prior beliefs.  

Faced with the conundrum, I suspect some  people would advocate for some sort of policy (i.e., ban ingredient X or prevent claims like "no-X"), but I don't think that's the right answer.  Despite my frustration, I suspect the marketplace will work it out in a messy way.  Some companies will adopt "no-X", will incur higher costs than their consumers are willing to pay, and will go out of business or go back to X. Some companies that are seen as lacking integrity will lose market share. Some consumers will pay more for "no-X" only later to find out it wasn't worth it, and switch back.  Maybe the scientists wind up being wrong and some consumers avoided X for good reason, and all companies drop X.  The feature of the marketplace, dynamism, that is, at times, frustrating is also the key to ultimately solving  some of those same frustrations.  

Impotence or Death?

Last week I was in Italy teaching a short course and speaking at a conference.  At the conference, I attended a session where the author described an an experiment on alcohol warning labels.  He had people choose between different bottles of wine that had different warning labels.

I thought this was a bit of a strange experiment because once you've seen one bottle with a warning label, doesn't it tell you something about all the bottles?  When I voiced this concern, my friend Maurizio Canavari pointed out that in Italy, different cigarette packages have different warning labels (apparently determined at random).

He sent me this picture yesterday, which reminds me of the joke he told me after the session.  A man walks into a tobacco shop and asks for a pack.  On his way out, he notices the warning label on the pack says that smoking may cause problems in the bedroom (e.g., see the above label "Il fumo riduce la fertilita").  He goes back in and hands the pack back to the shop owner and says: I'll take the one that just kills you.

Seriously, I wonder about the effectiveness of spreading information out over multiple packs vs. trying to cram it all on one.  And, I do wonder if people are more/less likely to pick packs with certain labels despite the fact that the labels warn about smoking in general and not about the effects of one particular pack or brand over another.