Blog

Should organics be allowed to use synthetics?

That is the question asked in a Washington Post article by Tamar Haspel.  The article discusses an important debate within the organic community about the role of technology and "naturalness".  

She hits on a big barrier that currently exists that hinders further adoption of organic practices by many farmers:

“A couple of months back, I talked to one of those conventional growers, Richard Wilkins. He rotates his crops (corn, wheat, soy and vegetables), plants cover crops and pays a lot of attention to the health of his soil. When I asked him if he ever considered growing organically, he said, “I’m too much of a believer in the benefits of science and technology to go organic.””

She also points out the overly romanticized concept of "natural".

“Amy Hepworth, an organic farmer in New York’s Hudson Valley, also believes in the importance of soil health and working with nature but says that science and technology, deployed judiciously, can help her with that, sometimes with fewer adverse effects than natural substances. “Natural doesn’t mean safe,” she says.”

and

“Every toxicologist or environmental scientist I’ve ever spoken with says that the idea that natural substances are inherently better for planet or people than synthetic ones is simply false.”

Ultimately, Haspel suggests a "third way", which she acknowledged is already being followed by many "conventional" farmers

“And then there are synthetics, the man-made substances used in conventional farming. “When you say pesticides and chemicals, we’re so indoctrinated that it feels like we’re saying the word poison,” says Hepworth, “but we need confidence in agriculture beyond organic. The most sustainable, responsible system is a hybrid system.” She’s working on crafting just such a system.

A hybrid system. A third way. A best-practices standard. Michael Rozyne, director of regional food distributor Red Tomato, calls it simply “something bigger.” He says that “lumping all non-organic growers into a single category, merely because they use synthetic pesticides, doesn’t do justice to the portion of those growers who are farming using many organic practices, high-level integrated pest management and all sorts of natural controls, who are paying attention to erosion, pollution, and farmworker safety.” ”

and

“It would also help disassemble what Hepworth calls the “two-party system,” in which it’s all too easy to believe that organic is good and conventional is bad. That idea has contributed to the us-and-them mentality that seems to dominate discussions about our agricultural system. “There’s been a lot of judgment of conventional growers,” says Rozyne, “as if they all farmed the same way.””

Medicare and Medicaid as justification for public health interventions

When public health care costs rise due to obesity, diabetes, smoking, and the like, it is often said that an externality exists,justifying public intervention.  The logic is that as costs to Medicare and Medicaid rise, so too must taxes to offset the higher costs.  Thus, my health care costs (if I'm enrolled in Medicare or Medicaid) impose an externality on you the taxpayer.

I've written several times in the past suggesting that this sort of argument is not particularly well founded (e.g., see here or here or here). I ran across another line of reasoning in a post about immigration and the welfare state by Don Boudreaux that suggests how slippery a slope this sort of reasoning can be.

“And, while we’re at it, doesn’t the existence of the welfare state require government also to restrict which majors college students choose? Without a welfare state, students would be more focused on finding gainful employment after they graduate. But with a welfare state, the risk of being unemployed for long periods – or of earning very low pay for most of one’s working life – as a result of majoring in the likes of “race studies” or “dance criticism” will too often be ignored by irresponsible or lazy students, who rely upon welfare-state payments to subsidize their indulgence in majors that promise no decent monetary rewards.

Where does the enhanced scope for government action end once we admit that government buys for itself, by illegitimately exercising power W, an indulgence for the exercise of otherwise illegitimate power R? What sort of distrust of the motives and knowledge of government officials leads many self-described libertarians to oppose government’s exercise of power W but approve of government’s exercise of otherwise-illegitimate power R if government insists on simultaneously exercising illegitimate power W?”

The logic used to assert that existence of public health care benefits justifies restricting (or altering) consumers' choice of foods is no different than the logic Boudreaux uses (in jest) to argue that the existence of welfare programs and public unemployment benefits justifies restricting (or altering) student's choice of college majors.

Food Demand Survey (FooDS) - June 2014

The June 2014 edition of the Food Demand Survey (FooDs) is now out.

Some highlights:

  • Willingness-to-pay for all tracked foods increased in June relative to May (and also increased relative to June 2013).  The largest dollar increase was for beef steak.
  • Consumers continue to expect higher meat prices, and their expectations of higher prices are much more pronounced today than they were a year ago.
  • There were relatively large jumps in awareness of news stories about Salmonella, E. Coli, and Mad Cow in June.
  • Concern for GMOs and antibiotics experienced the largest drops in June,

Three new ad hoc questions were added to the survey in June relating to preferences for unpasteurized or "raw" milk.  The questions were prompted by some discussions with Wendy Rahn, a professor of political science at the University of Minnesota.

Initially, respondents were told the following:

“Milk sold in most grocery stores is pasteurized, meaning it has been briefly heated to a high temperature to kill bacteria before cooling it. Some people want to drink raw or unpasteurized milk, arguing that it tastes better or offers health benefits. Many states do not allow raw milk to be sold in stores because of evidence of higher levels of bacterial contamination and the potential for food borne illness.”

Then three questions were then asked (the order was randomized across participants).

One question asked: “Suppose the next time you went to the grocery store to buy milk there were two options: pasteurized and raw, unpasteurized milk available for sale.  Both are the same price. Which would you buy?”  

The vast majority, 79.14% of participants, replied saying they would choose pasteurized milk over unpasteurized milk when both products were the same price at the grocery store. 

Participants were also asked: “Suppose the next time you went to the farmers market, a vendor offered to sell you unpasteurized, raw milk.  You can buy unpasteurized, raw milk at the farmers market or pasteurized milk at the grocery store.  Assuming both are the same price, which would you buy? Approximately 75% of participants replied they would rather purchase pasteurized milk from the grocery than the 12.51% who said they would purchase unpasteurized milk at the farmers market for the same price. Thus, changing the context of the purchase setting from grocery store to farmers market had only a very slight effect on the desirability of unpasteurized milk (increase from 9.5% o 12.5%).

Finally, we asked a public policy question.  Participants were asked: “Regardless of whether you personally are willing to buy raw, unpasteurized milk, do you believe that it should be legal to sell in grocery stores to adult consumers?”  Respondents were nearly evenly divided across response categories.  34.37% believe that the selling of raw, unpasteurized milk to adults in grocery stores should be legal, 33.68% believe it should be illegal, and 31.94% of respondents replied “I don’t know”. 

It is instructive to look at the break-down of personal preferences for purchasing unpasteurized milk vs. beliefs about whether purchases should be legal for others.  Of the 79% of consumers who said they would prefer pasteurized milk over unpasteurized milk in the grocery store, 38.6% thought unpasteurized milk sales should be illegal, 30.5% thought legal, and 30.9% didn’t know.  Thus, even among those who don’t personally prefer to buy unpasteurized milk, there is some fraction of the population (30.5%) who think it should be legal for others.  

New FDA Nutritional Facts Panel Explained

Adding to their already fantastic farmdocdaily blog, the department of agricultural and consumer economics at the University of Illinois has just launched a new policy blog.  

The most recent post is on proposed changes to the nutrition facts panel by Brenna Ellison, one of my former students at Oklahoma State.  In the link at the bottom her post (which jumps to a brief survey), Brenna created the best visual illustration I've seen to date of the proposed changes.  I've reproduced it here with Brenna's permission. 

I should also note that the results from our Food Demand Survey (FooDS) suggest most people prefer the new label to the old.