New laws on drones could prohibit beneficial agricultural applications

Last year, legislation was introduced to restrict the use of unmanned aerial vehicles in Oklahoma, a proposal which is likely to reappear in the 2014 legislative session.   

The lawmakers who introduced the ACLU-backed bill are to be lauded for attempting to safeguard citizens’ privacy rights and ensure that unmanned aerial vehicles are not used to enhance the power and surveillance capacities of government. However, in attempting to provide these safeguards, the proposal also imposes restrictions so severe that they effectively prohibit legitimate uses of the technology by entrepreneurs and other citizens.     

The bill has met resistance from James Grimsley, the president of the Unmanned Systems Alliance of Oklahoma, and also from the state’s largest newspaper, The Oklahoman. 

Unmanned aerial vehicles, otherwise known as “drones,” have received something of a bad rap because of their use by the military and police organizations. What isn’t as well-known are the many potential benefits that the technologies could bring to the farmers and citizens of Oklahoma. For example:

• Aiding in search and rescue after tornadoes and other natural disasters.
• Monitoring the location and health of cattle.
• Predicting the yield and water needs of agricultural crops.
• Ensuring the proper functioning of oil and natural gas rigs and pipelines.
• More cheaply delivering packages to remote areas of the state.

At issue are concerns over privacy and weaponization. Those are legitimate concerns. However, as Grimsley notes, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) already regulates the use of unmanned aerial vehicles and prevents the use of weapons on drones. Privacy concerns are a legitimate worry, but the restrictions in the proposed Oklahoma legislation are so onerous as to likely prevent the future use of unmanned aerial vehicles for any beneficial purpose in the state. 

Oklahoma agricultural producers operate in a global, competitive environment. The ability to compete with Mexico, Canada, and other countries – not to mention the challenge of producing enough food for a fast-growing world – will require technological advancement. 

New technologies should not be allowed to trample on citizens’ rights. But regulatory zeal should not override farmers’ and ranchers’ access to promising technologies. 

*This piece was cross-posted at the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs site

Do retailers respond to consumer concerns?

I often run across arguments and stories that seem to suggest that consumers have no choice (or very little choice).  Their "environment" is a function it seems, solely, of what food retailers choose to offer.  Representative of this sort of view is a tweet I noticed yesterday.

Does the food industry influence you and your kids?  Probably, to some extent.  I suspect they wouldn't spend millions on advertising if it didn't have some effect.

But, here is the question I want to ask: Do you influence the food industry?  The answer, is "yes"!  Food companies can't just offer anything they want.  Somebody has to buy it.  

Our choices are shaped by the environment in which we live and by the offerings of food companies. But, we have to realize that our food environment is also shaped by our cumulative choices. To stay in business, food companies must respond to our desires.

Just a few examples from stories I've seen in just the past couple weeks:

• Food companies stopped using dyes and lean-fine-textured beef in response to social media and buying patterns.
• A study shows that food and beverage retailers have voluntarily cut calories sold by more than 6.4 trillion calories  per year since 2007 (a reduction of 78/calorie/person/day) 
• Cheerios say they no longer will use GMO ingredient

Of course, this just scratches the surface.  How many more "gluten free" products do you see today than even one year ago?  How many milk jugs advertise to be "rBST free" today vs. 10 years ago?  

I'm not at all claiming that each of these represent a rational response by consumers to the actual objective level of risk (or, rather the actual lack of risk) present in such products.  

However, anyone who thinks food retailers aren't responding to consumer desires simply isn't paying attention.

Assorted Links

Having spent a sabbatical in Paris, I found this story on the France quite interesting and consistent with our experiences

Scott Irwin responds to the NYT piece about him

Some coverage of my talk from the American Farm Bureau Conference (here, here, here, and here among others)

My radio interview with the John Batchelor show

What is sustainable beef?

From James Marsden at Meatingplace

Last week, McDonald’s Corporation announced that it will begin using “sustainable beef” in its burgers beginning in 2016. The announcement raises questions about how sustainable beef will be defined and who will determine what’s sustainable and what’s not.

FDA Won't Define "Natural" Anytime Soon

Given some of my previous commentary on "natural" food claims and the surrounding litigation, I found this post by  Michael J. O’Flaherty interesting:

FDA once again has “respectfully declined” to define the term “natural” when used in food labeling.  In a January 6, 2014, letter from Leslie Kux, Assistant Commissioner for Policy, to three federal judges handling civil litigation brought against manufacturers over “natural”-type claims made for foods containing bioengineered ingredients, FDA denied their requests essentially to define “natural” formally.  The relevant cases are:

• Cox v. Gruma Corporation (California Northern District Court, Case Number 4:2012cv06502, filed December 21, 2012);
• Barnes v. Campbell Soup Co. (California Northern District Court, Case Number 3:2012cv05185, filed October 5, 2012); and
• In re General Mills, Inc. Kix Cereal Litigation (No. 12-249, administratively terminated by U.S. Dist. Ct., D.N.J., order entered November 1, 2013).

Ms. Kux’s letter offers several explanations for FDA’s reticence:

1. First, FDA believes it would not be appropriate for the agency to define “natural” except through a public process that would allow stakeholders the opportunity to express their views: “[W]e would likely embark on a public process, such as issuing a regulation or formal guidance … we would not do so in the context of litigation between private parties.”
2. FDA says it cannot define “natural” without coordinating with USDA: “[D]efining the term ‘natural’ on food labeling necessarily involves interests of Federal agencies other than FDA, including the United States Department of Agriculture …”
3. Any attempt to define “natural” would have to consider far more than the narrow question posed by the courts (i.e., whether genetically engineered foods are “natural”), and FDA simply does not have the resources for such a major undertaking at this time.  FDA notes that it would need to consider the relevant science, consumer perceptions, the First Amendment, and all of the many other technologies used in food production and processing today.  “At present, priority public health and safety matters are largely occupying the limited resources that FDA has to address food matters.”