Am I Pro- or Anti-Garden?

Partially in response to the opening lines of my piece in Townhall magazine related to the Obama's White House garden, one of my colleagues (Francis Epplin) said he didn't understand my objection to gardens, and he pointed out that they are bi-partisan (apparently our Republican-led Dept of Ag in Oklahoma has a garden too).    

My response was that I didn't mean to come across as "anti garden." Up until a couple years ago, my 91 year old grandmother grew tomatoes, okra, and other goodies in her backyard.  That said, I do find it strange when public officials (whether Obama or Governor Fallin) grow "symbolic" gardens.  In these cases, I think it is fair to ask what is being symbolized and ask whether the arguments used to promote gardens hold up to the scientific evidence.  Of course not all gardens are symbols of something bigger, and it seems perfectly reasonable for someone to say they grow a garden because "they like to."  There are certainly worse things one can do with their time.   

In any event, Epplin advanced an interesting hypothesis, which he consented to me sharing here:  

My hypothesis would be that families that grow, or try to grow gardens, would have a better understanding of the weed and pest challenges encountered by farmers.  I would also hypothesize that they would be more sympathetic toward herbicides and pesticides.

This is a testable hypothesis and would make a great research project.  A part of me thinks Francis is right.  However, tending a garden is also different than managing a 1000 acre farm, and I'm not sure it translates.  Indeed, I think it is possible that just the opposite opinion will be formed.

This reminds me a bit of the conversation that came up in the Food Dialogues Event I participated in a couple months ago.  The former deputy secretary of agriculture, Kathleen Merrigan, talked about farmers selling at farmer's markets as being agricultural ambassadors and representing farmers more generally.  The implication was that such farmers would help the average consumer better understand production agriculture.  However, someone in the audience made a good point when he argued that the farmer at the farmers market was not the same kind of farmer he was.  The implication is that the guy at the farmers market was just as apt to say something bad about his farm than be an ambassador.  

Will gardens or farmers markets make people more or less accepting of modern production agriculture?   

I don't know.  

What Explains the Difference in the Way Americans and French (and Brits) Eat?

I ran across this fascinating paper entitled "Do Prices and Attributes Explain International Differences in Food Purchases" by Pierre Dubois, Rachel Griffith, and Aviv Nevo that is forthcoming in the American Economic Review (an earlier version of the paper is here; a gated forthcoming version can be found by searching here).

According to the paper, French consumers eat about 1777 calories every day.  Americans, by contrast, eat 2103 calories (UK falls in the middle at 1929).  The differences don't end there.  49% of our calories come from carbs; but for the French its only 38%.  A much larger share of French calories comes from fat than those of us in the US (46% vs. 37%).  When one digs a little deeper - it becomes clear why: The French eat more dairy and oils than Americans.

Now, here is the key question which Dubois and colleagues ask.  Why do people in the US, UK, and France eat so differently?   

The authors consider three possible explanations: 

1. differences in prices across countries,
2. differences in the food options available (and nutrient content of foods) across countries, or 
3. differences in what people like to eat across countries (i.e., differences in preferences).

Their data reveals a number of interesting findings.  For example, even though Americans eat more calories than the French, we spend less money doing so ($426/quarter vs. $466/quarter).  Part of the explanation is that food prices are generally higher in the France than the US, but interestingly, it isn't across the board in the ways one might expect.  Fruit and Veggie prices are similar in the US and France.  But, the prices for dairy, meats, oils, and prepared foods are 31%, 76%,  16%, and 18% lower in the US than France.  Interestingly, sweeteners and drinks are priced 39% and 43% higher in the US than in France.  So, one thing becomes apparent: the French are eating more dairy and oils than we are in spite spite of the higher prices.  They must either really like to eat those foods or there must be more of those kinds of foods in France to choose from (they also eat about the same amount of meat as we do - as a share of calories - despite meats being 76% more expensive it France).   

Ultimately,  Dubois and colleagues find that all the above factors matter.  The author's models predict that Americans consume an average of 2212 calories each day (slightly more than the "raw mean").  Then, the authors make some interesting projections.  They calculate that Americans would:

• eat 2158 calories if we were exposed to the same food options (or product attributes) as the French
• eat 1890 calories if we faced the same food prices as the French
• eat 1841 calories if we faced the same food options and prices as the French

The authors conclude:

The estimates allow us to simulate counterfactual quantities purchased by households with preferences from one country but facing prices and product attributes from another country. We use the simulations to learn about the relative importance of preferences versus the economic environment. We find that, the average US household when faced with French prices and product attributes, will purchase substantially fewer calories, bringing the level close to that of the average French household when faced with the same environment. However, the composition of these calories would differ. The simulated change is mostly due to price differences. In contrast, when we simulate the average US household’s food basket with UK product attributes this has a substantial impact on reducing calories, whereas changing relative prices in fact increases calories. From these findings we conclude that the economic environment makes a substantial difference on the consumption basket. However, in general, it is the interaction of preference, prices and attributes that explains the cross country differences.

I find these results interesting because there are many Americans who seems to subscribe to a view that the French have some kind of moral superiority when it comes to food and weight.  I read these results to say that the French are, in large part, just responding to the economic incentives they face.  And while they consume fewer calories than we do, it isn't all that clear they're better off given that they must pay more for many of the foods they desire than do Americans. 

I'm in Italy for the next two weeks. I wonder what I'll eat differently due to differences in food prices and availability?

The Roots of the Organic Food Movement

 In the September issue of Townhall magazine, I discuss the roots of the organic food movement and the misconceptions people often have about organic.  Here's how I started the piece off:

What do Michelle Obama and Chuck Norris have in common?

There is probably an answer that would make a superb addition to the hilarious list of Chuck Norris jokes. The less humorous, bipartisan response is they both support the organic food movement. Norris recently wrote that we should “eat local and organic, period,” and, of course, Obama planted an organic garden at the White House.

At the risk of finding myself on the receiving end of one of Norris’ roundhouse kicks, I suggest prudence before rushing out to join Walker, Texas Ranger at Whole Foods.

I don’t have a problem with people eating organic food. My family often does so. What troubles me are bad arguments for buying organic.

The article goes on to ask the question: 

If these folks are right, then exactly what political positions are endorsed when the grocery basket is piled high with organics?

Then, I get into some of the particular beliefs people have about organic that often don't match up with the facts.  Here's one tidbit:

The best science suggests the vast majority of us have nothing to fear from food pesticides.  But even if you remain fearful, I suggest focusing your angst (and your budget) on those foods where pesticide exposure is most acute: strawberries, apples, and the like.  Paying a premium for organic gummy bears or organic corn flakes is surely one of the most foolish ways to try to cut cancer risks.

Let Them Eat Ramen

Over at NPR, Eliza Barclay wrote an interesting story on Ramen noodles.  I shudder to think how much of my nutritional intake in college and grad school came from Ramen noodles.  Little did I know they might have such global importance.

Underpinning Barclay's story is the provocative question: Can Ramen noodles solve the problem of global hunger?

When I was recently on Fox and Friends talking about the cheapest-most nutritious food in human history, it appears the a better candidate might have been Ramen noodles rather than the McDouble.  Here is the NPR piece:

it's the multinational noodle companies' conquest of countries like Papua New Guinea, Nigeria, Brazil and Mexico that really interests the anthropologists: Frederick Errington of Trinity College, Tatsuro Fujikura of Kyoto University and Deborah Gewertz of Amherst College. And it's here that they make one of their most intriguing arguments: Instant noodles do good by alleviating the hunger of millions of people around the world. These supercheap, superpalatable noodles, they write, help the low-wage workers in rich and poor countries alike hang on when the going gets tough.

I also found this passage interesting:

The authors say that "real food" advocates like journalist Michael Pollan, who wring their hands over rising consumption of industrial food like ramen, raise important questions about its perils. But the authors also call ramen a "virtually unstoppable" phenomenon. And they foresee a world of 9 billion people "in which the affluent will be presented with too many food choices and [will be] called upon to use their survival skills to choose wisely, and in which the poor will have to use their survival skills to get by on cheap food" like ramen.

"I'd love to take Michael Pollan to a squatter settlement and have him deal with poor, hungry people in such circumstances, who have no choice of going back home to grow subsistence crops or be part of a regional food system," says Gewertz. "Subsistence agriculture is hard, dirty and hot work. People want out of it. It's not to be over romanticized."

Did I say after a decade-long hiatus from Ramen, they're back in our house - my kids love it!

Steinbeck and Farm Policy

Over at Econlog, David Henderson has been blogging recently about the life of the economist John Kenneth Galbraith.  Henderson pointed out that Galbraith (who was often in favor of price controls and help implement them during WWII) knew that FDR's farm policies designed to increase prices consisted of destroying said crops - an act that was certain to hurt those who were starving at the time.  

I was absolutely astounded at John Steinbeck's description of the effects of those farm policies.  Here is what Henderson had to say: 

But if Galbraith's friend, John Steinbeck, was aware of FDR's policies, he never said so. Instead, he attributed the crop destruction policies to farmers rather than the feds.

In The Grapes of Wrath, after describing a scene in which orange growers spray oranges with kerosene to make them inedible, Steinbeck writes:

There is a crime here that goes beyond denunciation. There is a sorrow here that weeping cannot symbolize. There is a failure here that topples all our success. The fertile earth, the straight tree rows, the sturdy trunks, and the ripe fruit. And children dying of pellagra must die because a profit cannot be taken from an orange. And coroners must fill in the certificates--died of malnutrition--because the food must rot, must be forced to rot. The people come with nets to fish for potatoes in the river, and the guards hold them back; they come in rattling cars to get the dumped oranges, but the kerosene is sprayed. And they stand still and watch the potatoes float by, listen to the screaming pigs being killed in a ditch and covered with quicklime, watch the mountains of oranges slop down to a putrefying ooze; and in the eyes of the people there is a failure; and in the eyes of the hungry there is a growing wrath. In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage.

Galbraith and Steinbeck were friends. I wonder if Galbraith ever told Steinbeck the truth: the criminal here was Franklin D. Roosevelt. He's the man against whom Steinbeck should have directed his wrath.