Inequalities of Fat Taxes and Thin Subsidies

I was excited to see The Economist ran an article on my paper with Laurent Muller, Anne Lacroix, and Bernard Ruffieux, which appeared in the Economic Journal.  In typical Economist fashion, they didn't mention us by name, but here's their summary of our findings:

“The study found that the taxes and subsidies actually widened health and fiscal inequalities. Fat taxes meant the women on lower incomes paid disproportionately more for food—their habits changed less. They preferred to buy food they liked rather than what made nutritional sense. Taxing the food they eat most made the poor poorer.

Subsidies encouraged all income groups to buy more fruit and vegetables. But those on higher incomes proved more responsive and so benefited most. Interestingly, richer folk were also more likely to buy the subsidised healthy food and then spend the savings they had accrued on yet more healthy food. But poorer women, if they responded to lower prices, often used the money saved to buy unhealthy items or something else entirely. Once the nutritional price policies were applied, the average share of budget spent on healthy food actually increased for the better-off. ”

Paarlberg on Farm Policy

Yesterday, I posted on a paper I wrote critiquing some of the proposals of the food movement.  As such, its probably only fair that I share a paper sent to me by a reader.  It was written by Don Paarlberg in 1987 and takes issue with farm policy from the Depression up to that date.  I found the history fascinating; the paper is short and well worth a read.  By the way, Don was a Professor of Agricultural Economics at Purdue and was a former Assistant Secretary of Agriculture.  

Here's an excerpt that shows some of the challenges with trying to manage agricultural prices and supplies.

“Some of the antics of the commodity programs are so ludicrous as to be almost unbelievable. Dairy programs are perhaps the most fantastic. The government supported the prices of dairy products with the intention of increasing dairy farm incomes. But, as every student who has taken a beginner’s course in economics knows, the result was to stimulate production, reduce consumption, and accumulate a surplus. The surplus of butter, cheese, and dried milk was then donated to those on the welfare rolls. This proved to be an inadequate outlet so then these products were donated overseas. The surplus was still growing so the government bought and slaughtered whole herds of dairy cattle. Thereupon the beef cattle producers, who are self-reliant and are not shielded by price supports or production controls, complained of this subsidized competition with their product and the government responded by purchasing beef for donation to the school lunch program. This did not adequately alleviate the complaints of the beef producers so the government exported beef from the slaughtered dairy herds, a strange action indeed since we suffer from beef shortages and import substantial amounts. Our forced exports of dairy beef disturbed other beef exporters, making an additional problem for the GATT multinational trade negotiations in Geneva. All of these questionable strategies were undertaken because the government was unwilling to follow the most simple and effective expedient: lowering the official price.

Meanwhile, those dairymen who stayed in business currently anticipate a reduced supply of milk and a better market. They are increasing their herds and laying the basis for a larger supply of milk. Like the sorcerer’s apprentice, they have heard the signal for delivering more water (in this case, milk) and have heard no credible signal for stopping. The commodity programs create surplus. They make a burden of what should be a blessing—our capability to produce food.”

Labeling Food Processes: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

That's the title of an interesting new article in the journal Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy by Kent Messer, Marco Costanigro, and Harry Kaiser.  Here's the abstract:

“Consumers are increasingly exposed to labels communicating specific processing aspects of food production, and recent state and federal legislation in the United States has called for making some of these labels mandatory. This article reviews the literature in this area and identifies the positive and negative aspects of labeling food processes. The good parts are that, under appropriate third-party or governmental oversight, process labels can effectively bridge the informational gap between producers and consumers, satisfy consumer demand for broader and more stringent quality assurance criteria, and ultimately create value for both consumers and producers. Despite the appeal of the “Consumer Right to Know” slogan, process labeling also can have serious unintentional consequences. The bad parts are that consumers can misinterpret these labels and thus misalign their personal preferences and their actual food purchases. The ugly parts are that these labels can stigmatize food produced with conventional processes even when there is no scientific evidence that they cause harm, or even that it is compositionally any different. Based on this review of the literature, we provide three policy recommendations: (i) mandatory labeling of food processes should occur only in situations in which the product has been scientifically demonstrated to harm human health; (ii) governments should not impose bans on process labels because this approach goes against the general desire of consumers to know about and have control over the food they are eating, and it can undermine consumer trust of the agricultural sector; and (iii) a prudent policy approach is to encourage voluntary process labeling, perhaps using smart phone technology similar to that proposed in 2016 federal legislation related to foods containing ingredients that were genetically engineered.”

The Effects of Farm and Food Policy on Obesity in the United States

That's the title of a new book by Julian Alston and Abigail Okrent.  Right now it's only available as an ebook, but the hard copy should be out soon.  Here's the publisher's description.

“This book uses an economic framework to examine the consequences of U.S. farm and food policies for obesity, its social costs, and the implications for government policy. Drawing on evidence from economics, public health, nutrition, and medicine, the authors evaluate past and potential future roles of policies such as farm subsidies, public agricultural R&D, food assistance programs, taxes on particular foods (such as sodas) or nutrients (such as fat), food labeling laws, and advertising controls. The findings are mostly negative—it is generally not economic to use farm and food policies as obesity policy—but some food policies that combine incentives and information have potential to make a worthwhile impact. This book is accessible to advanced undergraduate and graduate students across the sciences and social sciences, as well as to decision-makers in the public, private, and not-for-profit sectors. ”

I had the pleasure of seeing a pre-release copy of the book and provided the following blurb:

“That obesity is a serious challenge in America is undeniable. Yet, appropriate policy responses are far less clear. The Effects of Farm and Food Policy and Obesity is a tour de force. Alston and Okrent provide a solid economic framework for thinking about obesity policies, bust myths about the causes of the problem, and offer nuanced solutions. The book is a must read for anyone seriously interested in role of food and agricultural policy in addressing obesity.”

How Animal Welfare Laws Affect Egg Prices and Production

Like  California,  at least five  other  states (Massachusetts, Michigan, Ohio, Oregon, and Washington) have passed laws that will eventually limit the use of so-called battery cages in egg production, and retailers like Walmart and McDonald's have made pledges to do the same.  Because this move started earlier in California, and due to the size of that state and the volume of egg production there, California represent a good case to analyze the effects of these laws.  

While I've written on this topic a number of times here on the blog (e.g., here), Conner Mullally and I have finally pulled together a revision of our earlier work that is much more comprehensive and hopefully informative.

One question that I haven't seen much addressed is: what happened to egg production in California as result of their animal welfare laws (these laws include passage of Proposition 2 by voters in 2008 which banned the production of eggs from battery cages and the subsequent passage of state law AB 1437 which banned the sale of eggs from battery cages - both were  ultimately enforced on January 1, 2015 via California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) rules)?   

Before all of this went down, Dan Sumner and other researchers at UC Davis warned that passage of Prop 2 could lead to an exodus of California egg producers and lead California retailers to increase imports of eggs from other states (that's one reason state law AB 1437 came into being - to try to prevent this outcome).  The chart below shows our analysis of the number of egg laying hens in California, which generally confirms the UC Davis researcher's conjecture made back in 2008.  

We estimate that:

“by July 2016 both egg production and the number of egg-laying hens were about 35% lower than they would have been as a result of the new regulations. Out-of-state eggs were able to compensate for falling California production until around the time of implementation of the new rules, at which point imports of eggs into California fell. ”

Here is a graph of egg imports into the state, which Conner obtained via a FOIA request from CDFA, along with egg production in the state.

In addition to these production impacts, we were also interested in the impacts on prices paid by food consumers.  To address this issue, we obtained retail scanner data from Nielsen.  

“We find that the average price paid per dozen eggs was about 22% higher from December 2014 through September 2016 than it would have been in the absence of the hen housing restrictions. The price impact fell over time, from an initial impact of about 33% per dozen to about 9% over the last six months of the observed time horizon. These price increases correspond to welfare losses of at least $117 million for the three California markets [in LA, San Diego, and San Francisco from December 2014 to September 2016]. Our results suggest annual average welfare losses of at least $2 per California household in future years.”

Here is a graph of the actual (or observed) price of eggs in California compared to our prediction of what egg prices would have been had the new animal welfare laws not gone into place.