Published papers

In a testament to the slowness of academic publishing in economics, I noticed two co-authored papers were just released that we've been working and waiting on quite literally for years.  

1) The Economic Journal finally released a paper I wrote with Laurent Muller, Anne Lacroix, and  Bernard Ruffieux.  I blogged on this paper about a year and a half ago when it was first accepted. In short, we find that "fat taxes" and "thin subsidies" are a double whammy on the poor because the price policies lead to i): the poor paying higher taxes owing to the fact they tend to eat more unhealthy foods than the rich, and ii) the poor receiving fewer subsidies owing to the fact they tend to eat fewer healthy foods than the rich.  These effects were exacerbated by the finding in that the poor tended to be more habit prone than the rich, sticking more to their now relatively more expensive diets. These findings have direct implications for the food movement policy proposals I discussed last week.   

2)  In early 2010, I was working with a bright young Master's student named Rock Andre.  Rock happened to be from Haiti, and when the earthquake hit his homeland, he decided to shift his research focus.  He returned home in the aftermath of the earthquake and surveyed over 1,000 people.  Development Policy Review just published that research.  Here's part of the abstract:   

“The results indicate that almost two thirds of Haitians lost a friend to the earthquake, and nearly half lost a family member. People reported spending more on food in the aftermath of the earthquake, and the level of food aid received does not appear to have any impact on food expenditures. Among different types of aid, Haitians stated being most in need of a job—something difficult for international aid agencies to supply over the long run. They also indicated that quality of life would be most improved by education. The lessons learned in Haiti may prove useful in addressing future natural disasters.”

National Academies Town Hall

Last week I gave a short talk at a Town Hall held at the National Academy of Science Building in Washington, D.C. in relation to the Science Breakthroughs 2030 project aimed at identifying strategies for food and agricultural research.  

You can see all the presentations here.  Or, if you just want to see my comments and provocations entitled "Importance of Understanding Behavioral Responses to Food and Health Policies", the video is embedded below.

Food Waste Research

Back in 2013, I wrote this post decrying the lack of good research on the economics of food waste.  It wasn't that no research was being done on the issue, only that a lot of the research that had been published at that time is what I'd call food waste accounting, which didn't didn't rely much on the economic way of thinking.

I'm pleased to now see a nice stream of economic research on the subject.  I've blogged on several of these papers before, but now many are starting to appear in print at peer reviewed journals.  Here'a a hopefully handy list of references.

• "On the Measurement of Food Waste" by Marc Bellemare,  Metin Çakir,  Hikaru Peterson, Lindsey Novak, and Jeta Rudi, forthcoming the American  Journal of Agricultural Economics (This is an important - and likely to be influential - paper that is critical of previous attempts to measure the economic costs of waste and suggests better ways forward).
• "A Note on Modelling Household Food Waste Behavior"  by Brenna Ellison and me, published in Applied Economics Letters in 2017 (This is a short note showing what is probably obvious to every economist but perhaps not to others: that the optimal amount of waste isn't zero and it depends on various economic variables like food prices and income).
• "Food waste: The role of date labels, package size, and product category" by Norbert Wilson, Brad Rickard, Rachel Saputob,  and Shuay-Tsyr Hob, published in Food Quality and Preference in 2017 (The authors crafted a clever experimental approach to measure waste in a lab setting and looked at how how measured wasted varied with across date labels, among other factors).
• "Social-Optimal Household Food Waste: Taxes and Government Incentives" by Bhagyashree Katare,  Dmytro Serebrennikov,  Holly Wang,  and Michael Wetzstein published in the American Journal of Agricultural Economics in 2017 (This paper presents a more developed model than in the Ellison and Lusk paper mentioned above including factors like externalities; they  likewise situate food waste in the context of optimal consumer decision making, considering the effects of various policies on the social well-being).
• "Examining Household Food Waste Decisions: A Vignette Approach", a working paper by Brenna Ellison and me (This paper uses vignettes to study how food waste behaviors vary with various economic variables and consumer demographics).
• "Foodservice Composting Crowds out Consumer Food Waste Reduction Behavior in a Dining Experiment", a working paper by Danyi Qi and Brian Roe (This paper also constructs an economic model of food waste behavior and studies how consumers' waste behaviors respond to information about whether waste is composed).
• "Food loss and waste in Sub-Saharan Africa: A critical review", by Megan Sheahana and Chris Barrett published in Food Policy in 2017 (This is a helpful review paper that discusses the economics of food waste in a developing-country context; the focus is much broader than just considering household food waste, which is the focus of many of the above papers). 

There are no doubt other papers out there on the subject.  Let me know what I've missed.

When Consumers Don't Want to Know

Since I first started working on the topic of animal welfare, I've had the sense that some (perhaps many?) consumers don't want to know how farm animals are raised.  While that observation probably rings intuitively true for many readers, for an economist it sounds strange.  Whether we're talking about GMO labeling, nutritional labels, country of origin labels on meat, or labels on cage free eggs, economists typically assume more information can't make a person worse off.  Either the consumer uses the information to make a better choice or they ignore it all together.    

There is a stream of literature in economics and psychology that is beginning challenge the idea that "more information is better."  One simple explanation for the phenomenon could be that consumers, if they know for sure they will continue to consume the same amount of a good, could be better off ignoring information because the information could only lower their satisfaction (perhaps because they'll feel guilty) for doing something they've already committed to doing.  In this paper by Linda Thunstrom and co-authors, 58% of consumers making a meal choice chose to ignore free information on caloric content, a finding that Thunstrom calls "strategic self ignorance" arising from guilt avoidance. 

Another possible explanation that I've previously published on is that, when people have limited attention, more information on topic A might distract people from a topic B, even though topic B ultimately has a larger impact on the consumers well-being.  

It may also be the case that people want to believe certain things.  They derive satisfaction from holding onto certain beliefs and will avoid information that challenges them.  These ideas and more are discussed by Russell Golman, David Hagmann and George Loewenstein in a nice review paper on what they call "information avoidance" for the Journal of Economic Literature.

A graduate student in our department, Eryn Bell, has been working with Bailey Norwood to apply some of these concepts to the topic of animal welfare.  They conducted a survey of 1,000 Oklahomans and asked them one of the two simple questions shown below.  Depending on how the question was asked, from 24% to 44% of respondents self declared that they would rather NOT know how hogs are raised.  The primary reasons given for this response were that farmers were trusted (a belief consumers may prefer to hold), that there are more important issues to worry about (limited attention), and guilt aversion. 

In the same survey, Bell and Norwood also included a set of questions based on some ideas I suggested.  The question gave respondents the option to see a picture of how sows are raised or to simply see a blank screen for a certain period of time.  People were divided into three groups that varied how long they had to see the blank screen.  The idea was that we could use the waiting time as a "cost", which would allow us to ask: how long are people willing to wait to NOT receive free information?  As it turns out, people weren't very sensitive to the waiting time.  Nonetheless, regardless of the waiting time, about a third of respondents preferred to see an uninformative blank screen as opposed to a more informative screenshot of sow housing.  These findings suggest at least some people, at least some of the time, would prefer not to know.  

Food Demand Survey (FooDS) - March 2017

The March 2017 edition of the Food Demand Survey (FooDS) is now out.

Some items from the regular tracking portion of the survey:

• Willingness-to-pay (WTP) decreased for steak, pork chops, and especially deli ham. WTP increased for chicken breast, hamburger, and chicken wings. WTPs for all meat products are lower than one year ago, except for hamburger.
• Consumers expect higher beef, chicken, and pork prices compared to one month ago. Consumers plan to buy slightly less chicken and beef compared to last month.
• The largest percentage increase in concern was for bird flu and the largest decrease in concern was for farm animal welfare.

Several new ad hoc questions were added to this month’s survey that mainly dealt with knowledge of farm production practices.

Participants were first asked: “Have you ever worked on a farm or ranch?”. About 17% of participants answered “yes.” Participants who answered “yes” were then asked “which of the following best describes the kind of farm you worked on?” Respondents were provided with six options and they could check all that applied.

Of the 17% who said they had worked on a farm, 43% checked “A farm that produces commodity crops (e.g. corn, wheat, soybeans, cotton, or rice)” followed by 40% who checked “A farm that produces commercial livestock (e.g. cattle, swine, or poultry).” “A garden in your backyard” was picked by 38% and “A chicken coop in your backyard” was picked by 23%. 20% checked “other” (and provided responses such as working on a dairy farm or a horse farm or on school farms such as FFA), and 12% checked “A community garden”.

Secondly, participants were asked: "Which of the following animal production industries use added growth hormones?” Over half of participants stated that believed beef, pork, poultry and dairy industries use added growth hormones. Over 75% of participants indicated that they thought that the beef cattle industry uses added growth hormones. Over half of the respondents stated they believe the swine and poultry industries to uses added growth hormones. In reality, the swine and poultry industries do not use any added growth hormones. About 57% of participants stated they believed added growth hormones are used in the dairy industry.

Third, participants were asked: “What percentage of dairy cattle in the U.S. are treated with rBGH?” Overall participants perceive a much greater use of rBGH in dairy cattle than what is actually used. About 20% of participants believe that 50-59% of dairy cattle are treated with rBGH. 5.7% believe that 90- 100% of dairy cattle are treated with rBGH. Only, 10.9% of participants stated that less than 10% of dairy cattle are treated with rBGH. In reality, less than ten percent of all dairy cattle in the U.S. are treated with rBGH.

Lastly, participants were asked: “To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements?” Individuals responded on a 5-point scale: 1=strongly disagree, 2=somewhat disagree, 3=neither agree nor disagree, 4=somewhat agree, 5=strongly agree.

The most common answer for each item was “neither agree nor disagree”, except for the statement all milk contains natural hormones where the most common answer was “somewhat agree”. The statement “all cow’s milk contains natural hormones” was agreed upon most, whereas the statement “hormones are never given to dairy cattle” was agreed upon least.
About 38% of participants answered “somewhat agree” or “strongly agree” that it is healthier to consume milk labeled rBGH free. Approximately 30% of participants answered “somewhat agree or “strongly agree” that conventionally produced milk contains unsafe levels of hormones. Only 5.6% of participants selected “strongly disagree” that milk containing rBGH tastes different.