Innovation in Gene Editing and Plant Breeding

Yesterday I had the privilege of moderating a panel discussion focused on gene editing hosted by the Farm Foundation. The main speakers included:

• Allen Van Deynze, Ph. D., Director, Seed Biotechnology Center and Associate Director, Plant Breeding Center, University of California, Davis

• Richard Lawrence, Ph.D., Head of Genome Editing, Yield, Disease, and Quality Research, Bayer Crop Science

• Fan-Li Chou, Ph. D., Senior Vice President, Scientific Affairs and Policy, American Seed Trade Association

• Alison Van Eenennaam, Ph.D., Professor of Cooperative Extension in Animal Biotechnology and Genomics, University of California, Davis

You can watch the presentations and discussion here or at the video link below.

Plant-Based versus Conventional Meat: Substitution, Complementarity, and Market Impacts

That’s the title of a new paper co-authored with Vincenzina Caputo and Dan Blaustein-Rejto. Here’s the abstract:

“Evidence regarding whether consumers view plant-based meat alternatives (PBMAs) as substitutes or complements to animal-based meat is limited; however, the ultimate effect of increased demand for plant-based meats on poultry and livestock production depends on this relationship. While the research on consumer demand for meat alternatives is growing, most current elasticity estimates are based on stated preferences discrete choice models, which assume consumers choose only one option and that all options are substitutes. This study employs a basket-based choice experiment (BBCE) to estimate own- and cross-price elasticities at both disaggregate and aggregate product levels. We utilized a between-sample approach and designed two BBCEs to reflect both at-home and away-from-home consumption settings. We then used the results from the BBCE to inform an equilibrium displacement model. Our findings indicate that: 1) consumers are more price-sensitive when dining out than when eating at home, 2) own price elasticity for PBMAs lie between premium meat options (salmon and ribeye steak) and more affordable choices (burgers and chicken breast), 3) PBMAs complement conventional meat in at-home consumption but show a mix of complementarity and substitution dynamics in dining out; and 4) lowering prices of plant-based beef and chicken alternatives is unlikely to significantly impact conventional poultry and livestock production. ”

Read the whole thing here.

Research Reports on Soy-based Food Demand

With the Center for Food Demand Analysis and Sustainability (CFDAS) at Purdue, we’ve been working on a project funded by the United Soybean Board and the Foundation for Food and Agricultural Research to explore the impacts of various investment alternatives on soy farmer profitability. To undertake the economic modeling, we need to understand consumer demand for a variety of soy-based foods, and the extent to which consumers are willing to substitute between soy-based foods and other products.

We’ve now released three short research reports on consumer demand for:

• dairy, almond, oat, and soy-based “milks” (with Miyeon Son)

• soy, corn, olive, and canola cooking oils (with Miyeon Son)

• meat and meat-alternatives (by Glynn Tonsor and Justin Bina)

There is a lot of interesting material in each report. For example, here are a couple graphs showing trends in the milk and milk-alternative markets. The big story here is the rise of oat milk, which has cut into sales of other milk-alternatives.

Another interesting finding from the meat and meat-alternatives paper that is consistent with prior research is the low degree of substitutability between conventional meats and the new meat alternatives. In fact, the estimates suggest chicken is a weak complement with (rather than a substitute to) meat alternatives.

Dine in and Dash - Spending on Food Away from Home

A couple months ago, I mentioned the new data dashboards we’ve created in the Center for Food Demand Analysis and Sustainability (CFDAS) showing spending on different restaurants over time and across location.

We are continuing to update that data and now have an associated series of infographics at our main site. Below are a few screenshots.

Embed Block

Add an embed URL or code. Learn more

There is a lot more at the CFDAS website, including a cool animation showing trends in food delivery sales.

Can a sustainability facts label reduce the halo surrounding organic labels?

A couple years ago I wrote a post about a hypothetical sustainability facts label that is analogous to exiting the nutrition facts panels. In that post, I conjectured that a sustainability facts panel might help alleviate some of the misperceptions some consumers have with regard to various labeling claims. Turns out Sofia Villas-Boas at Berkeley and Zack Neuhofer, a PhD student working with me at Purdue, were simultaneously having similar ideas. As such, we teamed up to test some of these conjectures.

The result is a new paper forthcoming in Applied Economics Perspectives and Policy. Here’s the abstract.

“Consumers often form beliefs about credence attributes unsupported by the best available evidence. In particular, prior research has revealed many consumers have overly-optimistic beliefs about the environmental and nutritional impacts of organic food. We propose and study the effects of a sustainability facts label (SFL), which displays quantitative environmental information related to global warming potential, land use, and energy use per serving size of the product. The SFL is akin to a nutrition facts label (NFL), which we also study. We surveyed a nationally representative sample of milk consumers in the United States (USA) to measure their choices and beliefs about organic vs. conventional milk under one of three different label information treatments; the NFL only, the SFL only, and both labels relative to a control without any nutrition or sustainability information. Unexpectedly, our results show that the SFL increased the likelihood of organic purchases. Facts panels altered beliefs; The participants exposed to the SFL increased their perception that organic performs better on environmental metrics, despite the fact the information contained in the label provided a nuanced picture with organic better in some dimensions and worse in others. Consistent with the information provided, consumers exposed to the NFL decreased their perception that organic had fewer calories and more protein than conventional milk. Prior beliefs about organic were found to be important determinants of choice and information acquisition.”

Kudos to Zack who did the heavy lifting on this project. As it turns out, we didn’t find much support for the original conjecture but instead found a more complex and nuanced set of reactions to “objective” sustainability labels.