How to Make Beef without Killing the Cow

An interesting video on how to make meat in the lab

The perfect American pig?

My wife forwarded me this story, which is interesting for a number of reasons.  It begins:

From California's Silicon Valley to the cornfields of Iowa, former computer engineer and now pig farmer, Carl Blake is reinventing the way that Americans eat their pork. Through his technology-based approach and good ol’ fashioned farming, he says he has bred the perfect tasting American pig.

There are a couple things to like about this guy's approach.  First, it shows that small-scale niche farming doesn't have to imply a rejection of modern technology.  

The quality of the pork also has to do with what the pigs are fed. Blake uses hydroponic technology, which grows fresh food in water. He is able to pay about $100 for seeds that will grow one-ton of food in six days. Compare that to the price tag of conventional feed prices of $500-$600 per ton. Blake said he doesn’t understand why more farms don’t use the same technology but hopes that it will eventually catch on.  

I'm a little skeptical about the claim that feed from hydroponic technology is substantially cheaper than typical hog feed, once one factors in the cost of labor, capital, etc.  But, more power to him if he can make it work.  And, if it is really increases quality and reduces costs, there's a good chance Tyson, Smithfield, and other large hog producers will be following shortly behind.

There are two things about this story that are worth picking on.  First, is something of a clarification.  Blake is right that meat from the so-called "heritage breeds" of pork are often juicier and tastier (and fatter) than what you'll normally find in the grocery store. As Blake put it:

If you wanted white meat, you buy a chicken. Pork is not meant to be a white meat,

But, we need to ask why the large hog producers make pork this way.  One is that it is probably healthier (at least in terms of fat content) and because, for most people, price trumps quality.  It is easy to decry "chicken-like pork" in the grocery store, but I think it is useful to take a step back and ask why this is the pork we have, and it is a result of a grand competitive process of consumers trying to tell hog producers what they want via their wallets at the store.  We all want cheaper pork.  We all want tastier pork.  That's not controversial.  The interesting thing is to see how that trade-off is manifested in the market, and at least have some respect for the outcome that has emerged.  Now, that's not to say there isn't merit in trying to grow a different kind of pork for someone who particularly values quality or has a few more $ to spend.  

Finally, I was intrigued with the farmer's claim that: 

This is an American pig that I developed in America and I developed it here in Iowa.

I think I know what he's getting at, but a little history is useful too.  Did you know hogs are not native to America?  They came over once Europeans started trekking back and forth in a process referred to as the Columbian exchange.  Here's a neat picture (taken from here) of some of the foods that are "new" to America:

Does Being Fat Make You Poor?

It is often asserted that obesity is associated with all kinds of bad outcomes, one of which is lower wages.  There had been several studies (such as this one) finding such a correlation.  I even mentioned the obesity-wage-penalty in The Food Police  when asking whether obesity is a private or a government matter (a wage penalty would suggest yet another personal, private reason why one would worry about their own weight).

However, a new research paper suggests the wage-penalty story may be wrong, or at at least misinterpreted.  Here's the abstract:

Women's wages and employment probabilities do not follow a linear relationship and are highest at a body weight that is far below the clinical threshold of obesity. This indicates that looks, not health, is the driving force behind the adverse labor market outcomes that overweight women are subject to. Further support is lent to this notion by the fact that wage penalties for overweight and obese women are only observable in white-collar occupations. For men, on the other hand, bigger appears to be better.

In short, heavier women in white collar jobs earn less than thin women in white collar jobs, but it is mainly a "beauty premium"  rather than an "obesity discount."  Men, apparently, can eat what they want without fear of reduced wages.

Chipotle's Marketing

By now, I'm sure many of you have seen Chipotle's newest video release, the Scarecrow.  The video, released about a week ago, uses vivid imagery to decry "factory farming." Better still, there is an accompanying video game!

I like to eat at Chipotle, but this video comes across as a bit disingenuous.  The restaurant is now a multinational operation with 1400 stores.  Some of the images are downright misleading (e.g., chickens are not given growth hormones), and others are merely suggestive (e.g., that Chipotle is fundamentally different than other restaurant chains, when in many important respects it is not).  

I had a hard time distilling my thoughts on the matter, but fortunately the blogger (and hog farmer) Diana Prichard did all the hard work f in a series of thoughtful posts on the issue (part 1, part 2, part 3 is forthcoming).  

Her conclusion in part 2 was brilliant.

Why did it matter so much? Because Chipotle has exalted itself as an ethical corporation among the throngs of unethical corporations, but in The Scarecrow Chipotle sits atop a high horse of its own creation mocking the same qualities in others that its own behavior embodies. I don’t know about you, but I call that hypocrisy of the worst kind.

I chose the pictures in this post deliberately because green washing and transparency is a theme The Scarecrow broaches repeatedly. The Scarecrow stares at a factory wall painted to look like a farm, peers behind broken boards of an “all natural” poultry billboard to see a chicken being injected with… something. [Choptle's corporate spokesperson] himself told me that they’re interested in transparency in the food system, and argued they’re “not the ones championing “ag gag” laws that make it illegal to document what happens in our food system.”* Yet at the same time Chipotle is engaging in behavior we could easily coin “ethics washing.”

By elevating itself as an ethical company, but then turning around and only acting ethically when it benefits them Chipotle is ethics washing their own company and products. It would be more ethical to market their stores in such a way that is not blatantly inaccurate slander of farmers, but that won’t sell as many burritos so they have no interest. Not only is Chipotle misleading consumers on issues of agriculture and the food system, they’re misleading consumers on their own company’s principles and standards of conduct. Chipotle’s Scarecrow paints “a world of pure imagination,” indeed — one in which Chipotle is far more morally astute than they really are.

What do consumers think about Zilmax?

In our September food demand survey, FooDS, we added one question to see if people had heard or learned about the cattle feed additive Zilmax.  If you happened to miss the story, a couple of weeks ago, Tyson Foods announced it would stop buying cattle fed Zilmax, a popular feed additive (see here for one of 100s of stories on the issue) due to possible concerns over lameness issues in cattle.

Here is the question we asked over 1,000 US consumers, and the response categories

There have been several stories in the news in the past month about a livestock feed additive called Zilmax.  Which of the following statements about Zilmax is true? (Check all the apply.)

(1) Zilmax is a growth hormone (akin to Estrogen) used to make cattle grow faster.  

(2) Zilmax is an antibiotic (akin to Penicillin) used to ensure cattle are healthy and grow quickly. 

(3) Zilmax is a beta-agonist (akin to adrenaline) used to make cattle grow faster.  

(4) Zilmax is in the news because of food safety concerns. 

(5) Zilmax is in the news because of animal health concerns.

(6) Zilmax is in the news because of its effects on international trade.

(7) Zilmax is in the news because it is a promising new product. 

(8) I have never heard of Zilmax. 

The order of the response categories varied randomly across participants.  Respondents could check more than one option, so long as they did not check "I have never heard of Zilmax." 

Over 80% of participants stated they “have never heard of Zilmax”. Of those who had heard of Zilmax, the majority had mis-perceptions.  Over all respondents, 6.79% said it was a growth hormone and 6.37% said it was in the news due to food safety concerns. 

Only 3.23% correctly identified Zilmax as a Beta-agonist, and only 4.99% correctly identified recent news as relating to animal health.