Pollan and Bittman on GMOs

A good passage by Keith Kloor on the subtle shift by some in the "food movement" on GMOs:

As I have said to Lynas, this kind of turnabout owes not so much to discovering science but more to unshackling oneself from a fixed ideological and political mindset. You can’t discover science–or honestly assess it–until you are open to it. The problem for celebrity food writers like Bittman and Michael Pollan, who is also struggling to reconcile the actual science on biotechnology with his worldview, is that their personal brands are closely identified with a food movement that has gone off the rails on GMOs. The labeling campaign is driven by manufactured fear of genetically modified foods, a fear that both Pollan and Bittman and like-minded allies have enabled.

Kloor argues that 

Now that this train has left the station, there is no calling it back, as Bittman seems to be suggesting in his NYT column.

There may be no calling it back but I suppose we should at least celebrate the fact that celebrity foodies aren't actively at the engine anymore.  Now if I can just persuade Bittman and Pollan on the science and economics that conflict with some of their other pet food causes (including some of the nonsense Bittman spread about organics in the same column where he admits the safety of GMOs) . . .

Do USDA Quality Grades Mislead Consumers?

If you've ever seen the words "Choice" or "Prime" advertising a cut of beef, then you've been influenced by the federal beef quality grading system, which is administered by the Agricultural Marketing Service of the USDA.  From "best" to "worst" the grades are Prime, Choice, Select, and Standard.  

In a paper forthcoming the Journal of Animal Science, Eric and Megan Devuyst and I report the results of a study revealing that the USDA beef quality grading system likely sends confusing and misleading signals to final consumers (which is exactly the opposite of the purpose of the grading system).

The key determinant of quality in current grading system is "intramuscular fat" - the amount of fat inside the muscle of the steak.  Steaks with more fat get higher grades, primarily because of the large amount of research showing that consumers prefer the taste of steaks with more intramuscular fat.

But, do consumers know this?  And do they understand the information communicated by the grade names? Based on results of two nationwide surveys (both with over 1,000 people), we believe the answers are clearly: "No".

Most people thought the grade name "Prime" was the leannest, while also expecting it to be juiciest.  When looking just at the pictures (the same ones shown above but without the names), most people thought the picture of the Prime steak would be the cheapest, and they were most likely to associate the picture of the Prime steak with the name "Select."  

Only 14% of respondents correctly ranked the grade names according to leanness, and only 14% correctly matched the pictures with the respective grade names.  That's worse than random guessing (16.67% would be correct just by pure chance given that people had to match three items).   

We conclude the paper with the following:

if the current grading system fails to adequately inform consumers of the relative quality of grades, there remains the likelihood that consumers’ expectations will be unmet. There are three potential methods for addressing this lack of understanding. First, the current quality grading system could be dropped in lieu of private or third-party systems. . . .Second, an educational program could be  developed to promote knowledge of the link between higher marbled beef and taste. . . . The costs of such an effort, however, are likely to be large, and it is unclear what effects they may have particularly when one realizes the existence of many prior educational efforts that have been undertaken in the 70 year existence of the Prime-Choice quality grade nomenclature. . . . Finally, consumers could likely benefit from more descriptive nomenclature. . . . for example, “USDA Prime—Higher Fat, Most Juicy,” “USDA Choice—Juicy,” and “USDA Select—Less Fat, Less Juicy.” 

You can read the whole thing here.

You might be the food police if . . .

It has now been over a year since my book, the Food Police, came out.  Despite the bad luck of it coming out on the day the Boston bombing happened (resulting in a slew of cancelled TV/radio appearances), it has been a fun ride.

I've had a lot of feedback.  Some positive, some negative.  As if to prove a point about the slowness of the academic publishing world, I've noticed two recent reviews of the book in academically-related publications: one in Agriculture and Human Values and one in Choices magazine.  The tone of these reviews are a more negative than many of the others' I've seen, I suspect in part because this book wasn't geared for an academic audience per se and because the book takes issue with a lot of the presumptions that academics have about our ability to know what policies and choices will make people better off.

In any event, these reviews remind me of a common question I get from people that tend to be more critical of the book's message: who are the food police?  

I thought the answer was rather obvious (the dedication page says: to those who wish to eat without a backseat driver).  

But, in case it wasn't clear (and apparently it wasn't), perhaps I can have a little fun with the question.  I'll pay tribute to Jeff Foxworthy's "you might be a redneck if . . ." jokes, by offering my own version.  

You might be a member of the food police if . . .

you've ever advocated for a food policy without even considering the costs (much less conducting a serious cost-benefit analysis)

you think "natural" is good and "synthetic" is bad

you've said local foods are good for the environment or the economy

you've claimed organic crop yields are generally higher than non-organic

you thought Bloomberg's ban on large sodas was a "good first step"

you've claimed currently approved GMOs are unsafe to eat

you think added salt is natural but added sodium chloride is not

you think the world would be a better place if people just ate (and farmed) the way you wanted them to

your first response to the mention of a new food problem is a new regulation, tax, ban, or prohibition

you think food and agriculture were, on the whole, better in 1954 than 2014

you think sodas or fast food restaurants or gluten should be banned

you've offered taxpayers a free-lunch (the policy kind, not the food kind)

you believe "corporate greed' is the root cause of every food, health, and environmental problem

you've ever asked "who are the food police?"

O.k., O.k., not as funny as Foxworthy, but I think the point has been made . . .

If I were president, I would . . .

A while back, I visited my 3rd grade son's classroom.  At my kids' school, the teachers often hang examples of the childrens' most recent projects or homeworks on the wall of the hallway.  

Apparently, they had recently covered some lessons in civics or government because there were about twenty answers by 8-9 year-olds to the statement "If I were president, I would . . ."

I was struck my the large majority of responses that wanted to ban something or outlaw something, with a belief that there are no tough trade-offs, and anything the president wants, he could simply get.  I enjoyed reading the responses, but it is a bit unsettling to see that many people's political views don't progress much from 3rd grade.  

For your enjoyment, here are a few examples (I've corrected all the typos and grammatical issues, of which there were many, and made a few educated guesses about words in places)

• End global warming.  I would end bullying.  I would give a speech to do it.
• I would make everything FREE from diapers to bottles.  I would make new tanks for the army.
• I would make police nice.
• I would make everything a dime.  
• I would make people get paid more for their jobs.
• I would stop animal cruelty.
• I would make everything free.  So when you need something you could get it because it would be free.  So if you needed a car to get somewhere it would be free so you could get it and go.  
• I would make it illegal to slaughter animals and make it make it to where you can bring animals in the store.  They just have to be on a leash.  And you could have a zebra.
• Make it illegal for children to have soda.
• Instruct architects to build houses for the poor, make school tests easier, and let people in college have more time with their family.
• I would end all crime.
• People can have pet tigers for free.  Lots of people can own mansions.  Taxes will not be  high.  There will be no war and everybody can be happy.
• Ban war.  I would make sure no war is happening in America.  The army will be able to take a break.  I would also ban drugs because they are dangerous.

And, the award for the child most likely to succeed in politics goes to this response:

• I would have the teachers get paid more.

In case you're curious, here is my son's response:

• It would only be $1 for everything.  Ice cream would be $0 and so would candy.  It would be great.

I wonder if he'll get to debate the little fellow who wants to ban soda? As you'll see from the picture below, his spelling skills are about like his dad's (thanks be to spell-checkers and copy-editors!).

Organic vs Conventional Crop Yields

The other day, I was asked whether I thought the price of organic foods would fall as the market share for organic increased.  The answer is: it depends.  If increases in consumer demand outpace supply, prices will rise.  By contrast, if supply increases at a faster rate than consumers' willingness-to-pay for organic, prices will fall.  I suspect that as Wal-Mart and other large retailers become bigger players in the organic market, it will bring about some cost efficiencies that are likely to lead to a reduction in organic price.

That said, organic will never be as inexpensive as non-organic (generally speaking, as I'm sure it might be possible for a particular crop in a particular location in a particular year to experience a price inversion).

Statements such as this normally invoke a debate about whether organic yields and costs are higher/lower than conventional yields and costs.  For example, the following was written after a Twitter conversation on the subject

Again, the available data offers conflicting results: there’s evidence that organic yields can match conventional yields over the long-term, especially in less-than-ideal conditions. Other studies point to lower organic yields, especially in crops with high fertility requirements. The primary challenge in extrapolating these results to a “feeding the world” scenario is the issue of context.

Invariably, the evidence given in support of the argument that organic yields can surpass conventional yields is taken from organizations like the Leopold Institute (the paper referenced in the above quote was a proceedings paper, not one that went through the typical submission process) or the Rodale Institute that advocate on behalf of organic.  That's why it is instructive to turn to larger scale literature reviews, like this one in the journal Agricultural Systems summarizing 362 studies, which shows that organic yields are 80% of conventional on average.  Or turn to the top science journals, like Nature, where a recent paper showed that organic yields are typically 25% lower than non-organic.  (note: these review studies show a lot of variability in the organic-conventional yield gap; sometimes the gap is large and sometimes is is almost non-existent).

The quality and quantity of the evidence quite clearly points to the fact that organic yields tend to be lower than non-organic.  Yet, it seems, this never actually convinces anyone who believes the opposite.  Thus, rather than a show-me-your-study-and-I'll-show-you-mine discussion, sometimes it is useful to make a conceptual argument.

The reason I would never expect organic yields to typically surpass non-organic is summarized in the following figure.   

Here is the basic point conveyed in the picture above: a non-organic farmer is free to use any of the practices available to an organic farmer (e.g., no-till or low-till farming, cover crops, etc) but an organic farmer can only use some of the practices that are available to a non-organic farmer.  Thus, the range of possible production practices, costs, and outcomes for organic must be a sub-set of that of non-organic.  

Being an organic farmer implies following a set of rules defined by the USDA.  These rules restrict the practices available to an organic farmer relative to a non-organic farmer.  Organic farmers cannot use "synthetic" fertilizer, Roundup, biotechnology, atrazine, certain tillage practices, etc., etc.  It is a basic fact of mathematical programming that adding constraints never leads to a higher optimum.

I suspect I know what an organic advocate will next argue: well in the long-run organic soils will build up nutrients and organic matter and will eventually achieve higher yields than non-organic.  That may be (or may not be) true, but that does nothing to nullify my point.  If it turns out that, say, 10 years down the road, organic farmers begin routinely experiencing higher yields, then non-organic farmers can copy those practices (assuming they're not higher cost) and again match organic yields, and eventually surpass them - because - yet again- they will have options available to them that organic farmers don't.  Like biotech.  Like ammonium nitrate. 

Now, maybe organic better reduces environmental or human health externalities.  I'm not particularly persuaded by the evidence on that front, but that is a reasonable debate worth having.  But, arguing that organic yields can (generally) exceed non-organic yields is not supported by the best empirical evidence or by logic.