How should food policy issues be decided?

Not only is it the case that people are likely to differ in their opinions about the desirability of mandatory GMO labeling or soda taxes, but they are also likely to differ in how they think such issues should be decided.  

A while back, I ran across this paper by Gaskell and colleagues published in Science.  They sought to categorized citizens in terms of their attitudes about how technology should be governed by asking two questions relating to whether decisions about technology should be made by 1) experts vs. average Americans and 2) moral and ethical issues vs. scientific evidence on benefits/costs.  

In the latest edition of the Food Demand Survey (FooDS), I applied these questions to five food policy issues.  Unlike Gaskell's work I also allowed respondents to have different answers for different issues.  

The first question asked: “Decisions about food policy should be based mainly on the views and advice of experts OR decisions about food policy should be based mainly on the views of the average American.”  The second question asked: “Decisions about food policy should be based mainly on the moral and ethical issues involved OR decisions about food policy should be based mainly on the scientific evidence of risk and benefit.”  Then five food policy issues were listed in random order: labeling of genetically modified food, use of growth hormones, legality of selling raw, unpasteurized milk, use of the term "natural" on packaging, and the tax charged on sugar sodas.

Here's what we found.

More than 70% of respondents wanted policy decisions related to GMO labeling and use of growth hormones to be based on expert advice rather than the views of the average American. I find that result rather striking in light of the fact that opinion polls show large numbers of people saying they want GMO labeling.  Here, we see that a large majority thinks this sort of issue should NOT be decided by the views of the average American.  That would seem to imply that folks do not think GMO labeling should be settled by ballot initiative.  

In stark contrast to the other food policy issues, almost 70% wanted decisions about soda taxes to be based on the views of the average American rather than the "elites".  

Recall that we also asked about whether decisions should be based on morals and ethics or based on scientific evidence on risk and benefit.

For three issues, milk pasteurization, hormones, and GMO labeling, the majority thought decisions should be based on science.  There was a split on natural labeling.  For soda taxes, the majority thought moral issues should be the deciding factor.

As with the prior research, we used the answers to categorized people into one of four categories for each of the five food policy issues.  “Scientific elitists” wanted policy decisions made by experts on the basis of scientific evidence, “moral elitists” wanted policy decisions based made by experts on the basis of moral issues, “scientific populists” wanted the average American to make decisions on the basis of scientific evidence, and “moral populists” wanted the average American to make decisions on the basis of moral issues.

A plurality of respondents were "scientific elitists" for GMO labeling, use of growth hormones, and legality of selling raw milk.  The same was true for use of the term "natural" on labeling, but there was a larger share of "moral elitists" in regard to this issue than for others.  Finally, for soda taxes, "moral populists" described the largest share of respondents.

A natural question is whether these categories explain people's attitudes about the food policies.  Gaskell et al. showed that "scientific elitists" in regard to general technology were the majority citizen type in their surveys and this type had more favorable attitudes toward biotechnology and nanotechnology than other consumer types - particularly moral populists.

I find something similar here as well.  Take for example, the 4-category breakdown on GMO labeling.  I find that "scientific elitists" on GMO labeling express the lowest level of concern about eating GMOs (an average score of 3.06 on a 1 to 5 scale of concern), whereas "moral elitists" and "scientific populists" had scores of 3.41 and 3.43.  Moral populists averaged 3.34.  There also seems to be a political dimension to people's views about how these food policy issues should be decided.  For example, scientific elitists and scientific populists were slightly more conservative (about 3.05 on a 1 to 5 scale of liberal to conservative) than were those who focus more on moral/ethical issues (score of about 2.9 on the scale).  Those identifying with the Democratic party were more heavily represented in the "moral elitist" category than they were in other categories.  

Even the Amish grow GMOs

Last week, I was in the grocery store looking for popcorn.  I ran across a brand I'd never seen before that advertised "Amish popcorn."  I gave it a try and it tasted just as good as the heathen brands.

While munching on the tasty treat, a question came to mind: do the Amish use GMO crops?  As far as I know, there are no genetically engineered popcorn seeds on the market, but all those reality shows I see advertised on A&E, Discovery, and the like show hardy field corn and tobacco plants growing alongside the homes of the Amish.

Sure enough, a quick internet search turned up story after story after story revealing that many Amish farmers indeed plant genetically engineered corn or tobacco.  

It seems the Amish have turned the tables on conventional wisdom.  Most consumers are very pro-technology and innovation when it comes to things like cell phones, TVs, and cars, but are often technology-averse when it comes to agriculture. It seems that at least some of the Amish hold exactly the opposite position.  

There is a deep irony in the fact that the Amish farm is something many people idealize - small, family-run operations - that uses a technology that frightens many consumers.  In part it reveals the disconnect between romanticized images of farm life and the reality of the choices made by the flesh-and-blood people who work there.

While it might do well if more people understood more about production agriculture, it seems I could have known a bit more about the Amish before writing this paragraph at the end of a chapter on biotechnology in the Food Police:

“Perhaps we Americans can afford to give up a few comforts and pay more for more “naturally” grown food. But, this return to nature is pure fantasy. Human interactions with nature have altered animals and vegetation in a way that our ancient ancestors could scarcely imagine. The food elite’s vision of the world would return production agriculture to its state a hundred years ago; to a time when food was far less plentiful and in which those who did the back-breaking work of farming lived a meager existence. We might like to visit the Amish but few are clamoring to convert.”

It seems that the at least some of the Amish are more technologically progressive than I gave them credit for.  In fact, in this one dimension, they are more technologically progressive than many Americans.

Geneticists on GMO wheat

I previously noted some skepticism about GMO wheat by a prominent wheat geneticist.  Thus, I was interested to see this piece in The Scientist that included several interesting observations from other wheat geneticists.  

One of the the things that the story makes clear is that many traits of interest (in this particular story, the trait happens to be resistance to stem rust - a disease that can result in significant yield loss) can often be eventually achieved through traditional breeding or through newer "non GMO" molecular techniques including cloning and cisgenic technology (like transgenic technologies but involves moving genes within a species). The main problem with developing rust-resistant varieties using traditional breeding techniques is lost time:

But using traditional breeding strategies to pyramid resistance genes is time-consuming. In a typical wheat-breeding program, “from the first cross to the release of a variety, it’s about eight to nine years,” says James Anderson, the head of the wheat-breeding program at the University of Minnesota. And that’s just to develop a strain that carries one gene of interest. To stack three, four, or even five rust-resistance genes can add several more years to that time line. At CIMMYT, Singh and his colleagues have been working for nearly a decade to breed varieties that have multiple adult resistance genes. 

So, why not use biotechnology?  The main barrier to the use of technologies that happen to fall under the "GMO" umbrella isn't necessarily technological know-how but potential public opposition and regulatory costs - something I mentioned in my previous post:

One of the huge costs is that related to regulatory burden associated with creating and commercializing seeds made with GM technologies relative to other breeding technologies.  That sounds to me like good motivation to work on attempts to bring down the regulatory costs associated with genetic engineering.  It also suggests a need to work on public opposition with scientific communication on the health and environmental aspects of genetic engineering.  It also makes me wonder if activist pressures might eventually bring molecular breeding techniques under a similar regulatory umbrella that now drives up the cost of commercializing GM.

Here are a couple choice quotes from the article that highlight the regulatory costs

One way to hasten the development of a long-lasting stem rust–resistant wheat variety is to engineer plants’ DNA to carry resistance genes, creating what are known as genetically modified (GM) crops. But at many of the facilities that develop wheat varieties—primarily led by academic breeding groups, in contrast to the commercial domination of corn and soybean development—such transgenic approaches are taboo, as public opposition, regulatory expenses, and genetic complexity have kept wheat transgenics off the market. “We could do millions of things [with transgenics],” says Jorge Dubcovsky, a wheat geneticist and breeder at the University of California, Davis, “but we have our hands tied.”

and

But the prospect of GM wheat faces additional hurdles. Because the crop is regionally idiosyncratic—farmers in South Dakota use different varieties than those in Washington or Kansas, for instance—it is not possible to develop a single blockbuster variety that can be sold across the country. As a result, unlike corn and soybeans, which are primarily sold by agribusiness corporations, new wheat varieties for local farmers have primarily come from academic breeders, and universities can rarely afford the expense of regulatory review by the multiple government agencies that approve GM crops. “In the public sector, we cannot release transgenics because we cannot afford the regulatory costs,” says Dubcovsky.

The last quote highlights two important issues.  One is the interesting political economy created by the localized nature wheat breeding.  Many new wheat varieties have historically been released by public Land-Grant Universities, and producers in the respective states have, in some cases, come to expect such new varieties to be free (or at least inexpensive) based on the premise that they were developed using taxpayer dollars.  Wheat producers in many states, presumably, don't want to have to buy seed from large agro-chemical companies, and that can create barriers to Universities partnering with such companies to commercialize traits.  That leads to the second issue highlighted in the quote, which is the fact that many universities don't have the resources or the regulatory know-how to attain approval and commercialize a new variety.  Almost paradoxically, those who have been calling for increased regulatory burden for GMOs have handed large agro-chemical companies a ticket to increased market power.  

Here's what I had to say about that in the Food Police

 But, who benefits from stricter regulations that make it harder to enter the market for biotech seeds?  It certainly isn’t the small start-up firms [or universities] trying to break down entry barriers to get their new invention on the market.  Rather, it’s the establish behemoths who have teams of lawyers and lobbyists who can absorb the regulatory costs that keep out their smaller competitors. Adding regulatory hurdles hasn’t dampened Monsanto’s market power, it has enhanced it. 

They key isn't to try to keep large agribusinesses out of the seed and biotech market, but rather to make sure that the barriers to entry are low enough that anybody can compete with them.

Last Week

Last week I failed to offer up any new blog posts, but the following picture should provide ample explanation.

My family and I had the pleasure of visiting Kauai and I found it a bit ironic that just a few miles down from the large facilities of Dow Agrosciences and of Dupont-Pioneer, many local cars possessed bumper stickers like the following:

Skepticism over potential benefits of GMO wheat

My colleague (and chief wheat breeder) at Oklahoma State University was recently interviewed by Ag Journal, and he expressed reservations about GMO wheat.  

A few snippets:

“Among consumers, there are a lot of myths and fallacies being spread, but I think they are also being spread on the science side,” said Brett Carver, chief wheat breeder at Oklahoma State University. “There’ve been some promises made about GM wheat that I don’t think are true or are being overstated.”

His main complaint is the way wheat has been portrayed as lagging behind other crops with the blame often placed on a lack of genetic modification. Carver is currently helping to edit a technical book that follows advancements in 16 major field crops and says studies show wheat is more than holding its own.

Carver contends changing climate trends in the last 25 years have benefited corn and beans more than GM seed development has. Most of the yield gains breeders have achieved are the result of taking advantage of a longer growing season and the ability to plant earlier in the spring, he said

The wheat "lagging behind" argument is one that appeared in my co-authored New York Times editorial on the subject.  To be sure this is a complicated issue and there are many factors at play including climate, government policies (particularly ethanol policies), drought, falling cattle inventory, interest rates, and technological advancement (including biotechnology), just to name a few.  Carver is right that the trend is not due solely (or perhaps even mainly) to biotechnology.  But, might it be one small part of the picture?

One should probably be careful about comparing yield of apples and oranges (or wheat and corn).  So, let's move away from discussions about yield, and look at farmer planting decisions. What do farmers decide to do with their land. The data are pretty clear that acreage allocations have moved against wheat over the past decade.  Here, for example, is USDA-NASS data on the number of acres planted to wheat since the mid 1990s (when GE corn and soy came on the market).

To look at it a bit differently, here is the % of planted acres in Oklahoma allocated to wheat over the past 10 years (this is the wheat % out of other major crops that include canola, corn, sorghum, soybeans, and wheat).

Some of this change is due to government policies.  Some may be due to climate change.  Some may be due to changes relative prices.  Some may be do falling cattle numbers (a lot of the wheat in OK is planted to feed stocker cattle).  But, some may also be due to differences in seed technologies available and benefits they provide beyond yield.  As the story indicates:

the most common application of GM technology so far — herbicide resistance — “protects rather than increases” yields, Carver noted

I agree, it is more than just about yield.  Convenience, risk reduction, and time saved also factor into planting decisions, and I suspect producers are willing to pay something for yield protection.   

Ultimately, I don't think "competitive disadvantage" of wheat (to the extent one exists) is the key reason to think about GMO wheat.  After all, if a farmer doesn't allocate their ground to wheat, they're likely to allocate it to a different crop (in recent years in Oklahoma that has been Canola - GMO and non-GMO).  What we care about are not crops but farmers and consumers.

Carver discusses a lot of interesting developments in wheat breeding and genetics that are worth pursing (do see the whole article).   Many of these are likely to bring about farmer and consumer benefits.  

Carver's chief complaint with biotechnology (aside from over-sold benefits) seems to be the following:

it represents “the most expensive tool in the toolbox.”

“I do want to be able to use the technology, but I want to use it responsibly,” Carver said. “What that means is, if I use it, I’m going to use it as a last resort. Why? Because of cost and because of public opposition.”

One of the huge costs is that related to regulatory burden associated with creating and commercializing seeds made with GM technologies relative to other breeding technologies.  That sounds to me like good motivation to work on attempts to bring down the regulatory costs associated with genetic engineering.  It also suggests a need to work on public opposition with scientific communication on the health and environmental aspects of genetic engineering.  It also makes me wonder if activist pressures might eventually bring molecular breeding techniques under a similar regulatory umbrella that now drives up the cost of commercializing GM.

Ultimately, Carver may be right.  New molecular breeding technologies and other advancements may circumvent the need for "GMOs" - at least as they're currently defined by the public and by regulators - and these advancements may indeed be less costly and invite less public scorn.  I'm certainly proud to work at a University with scientists like Carver working on those issues. 

In the end, however, I find it hard to see why we would want to block farmers' access to biotechnology.  If a company (or University) can create and commercialize a GMO wheat (and I suspect that day isn't far off, as there are many in development), farmers will have the choice to decide for themselves whether the promise has been oversold.  Clearly, the vast majority of corn, soybean, and cotton farmers believe enough in the merits of GMOs to pay a premium for them.  Maybe wheat farmers will have a different experience, and GMO wheat will fail the market test.  We'll never know until one is introduced.