Jayson Lusk has a very good summary of probably one of the best pieces I have read about the politics of food policy in a long long time. Very well written.
Read more:
The Politics of Food Reform Has Disappeared From the Democratic Agenda - by James McWilliams (Pacific Standard)
Link
Also in the article we find:
"If there is to be any hope of bringing agriculture back to the plate of
national politics, we need to move beyond the dichotomies that frame our
current debates. We need a new set of organizing principles. A starting
point might be to shift our thinking away from how food is produced to
something more fundamental: What is it that we’re even producing? The
United States grows a handful of staple crops — mostly corn and soy — to
feed a handful of animal species — mostly chickens and cows. What if we
could re-claim those resources to pursue a diversity of food
production — mostly plants — in a way that focused on nutritional rather
than caloric density? "
The author does use the word *might* but there are a lot of trade-offs that go unrecognized with this line of argument....like the fact that grain is a complement in a much more complex food production process turning inedible plants into high quality protein that we other wise would not have were it not for raising the grains....i.e. feeding them to livestock. Sure we could have some form of grass finished food production but the environmental costs would be much higher leading to less sustainable sources of protein.
See also:
Telegram: Beef, It's What's for Dinner
The environmental impact of dairy production: 1944 compared with 2007. Journal of Animal Science,Capper, J. L., Cady, R. A., Bauman, D. E. 2009; 87 (6): 2160 DOI: 10.2527/jas.2009-1781
Tuesday, August 16, 2016
Saturday, August 6, 2016
Summer Roundup....CRISPR, Ford Trucks, and Cliff Bars
ICYMI some recent posts from AgEconSense from this summer:
Are Farm Subsidies Making Us Fat? How the Left and Right View Food Subsidies
CRISPR Applications in Agriculture vs The End of GMOs?
Freedom is the miles I’m rollin’ on….not if you can’t meet emissions standards
Chipotle, Cliff Bar and Snake Oil Marketing Tactics
Left vs Right Differences in Preferences for Regulation and Food Labels
Are Farm Subsidies Making Us Fat? How the Left and Right View Food Subsidies
CRISPR Applications in Agriculture vs The End of GMOs?
Freedom is the miles I’m rollin’ on….not if you can’t meet emissions standards
Chipotle, Cliff Bar and Snake Oil Marketing Tactics
Left vs Right Differences in Preferences for Regulation and Food Labels
Friday, July 29, 2016
Are Farm Subsidies Making us Fat....
There is a big difference between when those on the left criticize farm subsidies vs those on the right. Coming from the left, its not the subsidies they dislike, so much as subsidies for politically incorrect agriculture. In fact, many times in the same argument they will turn around and advocate for more subsidies for politically correct agriculture (local, organic, etc.) For the left, a criticism of farm subsidies is more often an underlying criticism of modern agriculture. From the right arguments are more about efficiency and distortions. The irritating thing is sometimes some on the right might get a little lazy and sloppy in their thinking about subsidies and take up some of the same specious arguments made by the left...helping the cause for more regulation, higher prices, and fewer choices for consumers.
Any way, along these lines there was almost what I would call a hit piece in the NYT recently drumming up a connection between farm subsidies and obesity. Its more like sci-fi than anything science based. They are basically extrapolating some meaningless correlations until they turn into a giant industrial ag monster. Worse, its like a bad sequel, because we see this spurious connection creeping up time to time in the popular media. Following the typical script its not the subsidies in general that they don't like....in fact some of the authors interviewed advocate for subsidies for 'politically correct' foods. Its the connection to politically incorrect industrial agriculture that is the emphasis here. This isn't really a critique of subsidies so much as a critique of modern agriculture itself.
From the NYT: How the Government Supports Your Junk Food Habit
"While the study does not prove cause and effect, its authors say that this strong association is consistent with other research showing that diets that are higher in subsidized foods tend to be poorer quality and more harmful to health."
“This tells us that the factors that influence the prices of our foods are an additional factor,” said Ed Gregg, chief of the epidemiology and statistics branch in the C.D.C.’s Division of Diabetes Translation. “We’re hoping that this information reaches policy makers and the people who influence how subsidies work.”
The causal chain of events they are suggesting just completely breaks down. The factors that influence prices…i.e. farm policies…have way too small of an effect on the retail prices consumers pay. And consumers just aren’t sensitive enough to these prices to respond by consuming more. That’s at least what the science tells us…and I hope that information reaches policy makers.
Economist Jayson Lusk knocks it out the the park. He addresses the science behind these specious connections (and links to a number of related research articles) and includes some of his work in the area:
"There are actual lots of people who know how much farm subsidies contribute to food consumption, and they're called agricultural economists (in fact, McMillian goes on to then cite two prominent food and agricultural economists on the issue: Parke Wilde and David Just)…..In the model I used for the forthcoming paper I wrote on the distributional impacts of crop insurance subsidies, I find that the complete removal of crop insurance subsidies to farmers would only increase the price of cereal and bakery products by 0.09% and increase the price of meat by 0.5%, and would also increase the price of fruits ad vegetables by 0.7%. So, while these policies may be inefficient, regressive, and promote regulatory over-reach, their effects on food prices are tiny, and depending on which policy we're talking about, could push prices and consumption up or down. "
Here are 3 more big questions that might serve as trailers for future sci-fi NYT ag hit pieces:
1) Do farm subsidies encourage farmers to plant biotech or GMO seeds?
2) If subsidies drive the production of commodities and most of these are GMO, aren’t we indirectly subsidizing GMOs?
3) Do farm subsidies largely prop up wealthy farmers vs. helping small farmers thrive in a volatile, competitive global and corporate dominated marketplace?
For answers to these questions (and a big spoiler alert to anti-ag activists) see: http://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2015/04/whats-big-deal-about-farm-subsidies.html
Any way, along these lines there was almost what I would call a hit piece in the NYT recently drumming up a connection between farm subsidies and obesity. Its more like sci-fi than anything science based. They are basically extrapolating some meaningless correlations until they turn into a giant industrial ag monster. Worse, its like a bad sequel, because we see this spurious connection creeping up time to time in the popular media. Following the typical script its not the subsidies in general that they don't like....in fact some of the authors interviewed advocate for subsidies for 'politically correct' foods. Its the connection to politically incorrect industrial agriculture that is the emphasis here. This isn't really a critique of subsidies so much as a critique of modern agriculture itself.
From the NYT: How the Government Supports Your Junk Food Habit
"While the study does not prove cause and effect, its authors say that this strong association is consistent with other research showing that diets that are higher in subsidized foods tend to be poorer quality and more harmful to health."
“This tells us that the factors that influence the prices of our foods are an additional factor,” said Ed Gregg, chief of the epidemiology and statistics branch in the C.D.C.’s Division of Diabetes Translation. “We’re hoping that this information reaches policy makers and the people who influence how subsidies work.”
The causal chain of events they are suggesting just completely breaks down. The factors that influence prices…i.e. farm policies…have way too small of an effect on the retail prices consumers pay. And consumers just aren’t sensitive enough to these prices to respond by consuming more. That’s at least what the science tells us…and I hope that information reaches policy makers.
Economist Jayson Lusk knocks it out the the park. He addresses the science behind these specious connections (and links to a number of related research articles) and includes some of his work in the area:
"There are actual lots of people who know how much farm subsidies contribute to food consumption, and they're called agricultural economists (in fact, McMillian goes on to then cite two prominent food and agricultural economists on the issue: Parke Wilde and David Just)…..In the model I used for the forthcoming paper I wrote on the distributional impacts of crop insurance subsidies, I find that the complete removal of crop insurance subsidies to farmers would only increase the price of cereal and bakery products by 0.09% and increase the price of meat by 0.5%, and would also increase the price of fruits ad vegetables by 0.7%. So, while these policies may be inefficient, regressive, and promote regulatory over-reach, their effects on food prices are tiny, and depending on which policy we're talking about, could push prices and consumption up or down. "
Here are 3 more big questions that might serve as trailers for future sci-fi NYT ag hit pieces:
1) Do farm subsidies encourage farmers to plant biotech or GMO seeds?
2) If subsidies drive the production of commodities and most of these are GMO, aren’t we indirectly subsidizing GMOs?
3) Do farm subsidies largely prop up wealthy farmers vs. helping small farmers thrive in a volatile, competitive global and corporate dominated marketplace?
For answers to these questions (and a big spoiler alert to anti-ag activists) see: http://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2015/04/whats-big-deal-about-farm-subsidies.html
Wednesday, July 6, 2016
CRISPR Technology and Agriculture
https://www.dtnpf.com/agriculture/web/ag/news/article/2016/06/17/gene-editing-comes-agriculture
The article gives a nice description of how CRISPR works as a gene editing technique, and the current and prospective regulatory environment surrounding it.
This is really interesting given the recent Vermont GMO labeling requirements, and the national ramifications. How will consumers perceive this newer technology? It has always been the case that recombinant DNA or transgenic approaches were much more precise than random wide genetic crosses, but this technology is much more like a very controlled within genome manipulation. Organic and conventional methods may use radiation or mutagenic chemical agents to create desirable within genome changes, but this technology is much more specific and targeted. We know exactly what we are wanting to achieve or what pathways or genes we want to target vs. blasting a genome with radiation or chemicals hoping for the best. Foodies, activists, and snake oil marketers will be hard pressed to criticize and demonize this technology in the face of what is going on in the natrural, conventional and organic space.I have heard John Phipps mention several times on the AgriTalk Friday free-for-all discussions that this technology will make the GMO labeling dilemma irrelevant and it might.
It probably won't happen, but given the merger mania currently going on in agriculure, what if some company decided to acquire Monsanto and declare it was ending all GMO R&D in the pipeline? Wouldn't they appear to be saving the day to some activists? When really, they are just restructuring with a focus on CRISPR mediated products. A direction we could be going anyway. I have my doubts about this simply because it would seem that CRISPR could also make transgenic manipulations easier as well and there is certainly a lot of value to be gleaned from this.
Regardless, whether we are talking about finely textured beef, growth promotants, biotechnology etc. no matter how much safer, sustainable, profitable, or healthy, activists and rent seeking niche marketers will find some issue to drum up consumer ignorance and fear to promote sales of their products or policies.
Tuesday, June 21, 2016
Freedom is the miles I'm rollin' on.....not if you can't meet GHG standards
People think about the importance of certain freedoms, like freedom of
speech or the right to bear arms. But one freedom we might think less
about is the freedom to travel...to move from place to place at will..to
work...to enjoy life. Its in many ways the essence of the pursuit of
happiness. Unfortunately overzealous regulations are indirectly taxing
this important freedom, and it is showing up in the price of new trucks
and SUVs.
From:
http://www.agweb.com/mobile/article/ford-f-150-has-big-problem-after-overhaul--blmg/
"Ford Motor Co. executives spared no expense in overhauling the crown jewel of their empire, the F-150. They gave the truck a new aluminum body, smaller turbocharged engines and a lighter and stronger steel frame -- all with an eye to appease U.S. regulators demanding cleaner vehicles. The initiative took six years and cost Ford more than $1 billion."
“Not meeting the standards is not really an option, especially on your most profitable product,’’ said Gopal Duleep, president of H-D Systems, a Washington research company. “On fuel economy, the regulators allow you to pay a fine if you fall short. But on greenhouse gas, they don’t. You either meet the standard or they shut you down.’’
"The new technologies save fuel but add thousands in consumer costs…Between 2011 and May 2016, the average price of full-size pickups jumped 24 percent -- almost triple the pace for all new vehicles -- to $41,606, according to J.D. Power & Associates."
These costs are outrageous. How are middle and working class Americans supposed to afford these kinds of increases? Even if you buy used, more people turning to less expensive older vehicles likely will translate in to increased demand and higher prices in those markets as well.
Adding insult to injury, these regulations are NOT science based. At best they are political feathers in bureaucratic hats, at worst they are based on pseudo-scientific quasi-religious claims about the impacts of emissions on climate change. These regulations and costs are way out of proportion to any scientific consensus on climate change. It is way too weak to offer much guidance on actions, or very precise estimates of actual risks/benefits. ( see here, here, and here).
There are too many margins and too many market based and technological possibilities to use such a blunt and REGRESSIVE regulatory apparatus to address climate change.
See also: Hybrid Corn vs Hybrid Cars
From:
http://www.agweb.com/mobile/article/ford-f-150-has-big-problem-after-overhaul--blmg/
"Ford Motor Co. executives spared no expense in overhauling the crown jewel of their empire, the F-150. They gave the truck a new aluminum body, smaller turbocharged engines and a lighter and stronger steel frame -- all with an eye to appease U.S. regulators demanding cleaner vehicles. The initiative took six years and cost Ford more than $1 billion."
“Not meeting the standards is not really an option, especially on your most profitable product,’’ said Gopal Duleep, president of H-D Systems, a Washington research company. “On fuel economy, the regulators allow you to pay a fine if you fall short. But on greenhouse gas, they don’t. You either meet the standard or they shut you down.’’
"The new technologies save fuel but add thousands in consumer costs…Between 2011 and May 2016, the average price of full-size pickups jumped 24 percent -- almost triple the pace for all new vehicles -- to $41,606, according to J.D. Power & Associates."
These costs are outrageous. How are middle and working class Americans supposed to afford these kinds of increases? Even if you buy used, more people turning to less expensive older vehicles likely will translate in to increased demand and higher prices in those markets as well.
Adding insult to injury, these regulations are NOT science based. At best they are political feathers in bureaucratic hats, at worst they are based on pseudo-scientific quasi-religious claims about the impacts of emissions on climate change. These regulations and costs are way out of proportion to any scientific consensus on climate change. It is way too weak to offer much guidance on actions, or very precise estimates of actual risks/benefits. ( see here, here, and here).
There are too many margins and too many market based and technological possibilities to use such a blunt and REGRESSIVE regulatory apparatus to address climate change.
See also: Hybrid Corn vs Hybrid Cars
Sunday, June 12, 2016
Snake Oil Sustainability-Marketing Agenda Driving People Away from Sustainable Farming Practices
In the old west, 'snake oil' salesmen would sell these elixars claiming that they universally will 'cure what ails you.' In today's world of modern science and medicine, for the most part, these tactics no longer work. Except maybe in the world of sustainable food. Its becoming more and more common for food companies to slap some label on their food like 'natural', 'organic', 'GMO-free', 'no antibiotics', 'hormone free' etc. and claim either explicitly or implicitly that these foods universally will cure what's ailing the planet or are healthier and safer with little or no scientific evidence to support the claims. Because, just like the snake oil salesmen of the old west, its about perception and fear and emotion vs. science and truth. You would think that truth in advertising laws and such would squelch this kind of unethical marketing practice, but in fact Vermont's recent GMO food labeling initiative is helping to almost institutionalize and catalyze this even more, making it more confusing for consumers and difficult to really know and understand what is in their food and the technology and production practices that are behind it.
Chipotle has its own history of these 'sustainability snake oil' marketing tactics with their past video releases. Now apparently Cliff Bar is playing the same game.
From: http://www.agweb.com/article/krotz-foul-mouthed-mr-seed-sells-with-scares-naa-agweb-guest-editor/
“Food companies are using junk science driving people away from sustainable practices like GMOs to manipulate consumers for the sole purpose of market gain.”
I think the above is a telling statement, and broadly reflects a number of marketing and legislative campaigns many of us are familiar with....think Chipotle and Vermont's GMO labeling laws. I watched the video mentioned in the AgWeb story above (produced or funded by Clif Bar Family Foundation), and even if it weren't junk sci-fi, its pretty vulgar and offensive in its own right.
It is a shame, similar to the Chipotle burritos, at $5+ per box even, Cliff Bars are really good. And actually healthy. What I can't understand, when you have a really good product like this, why resort to such unethical and misleading marketing practices?
In a sense, when it comes to marketing tactics, this makes Chipotle and Cliff Bar among others truly the snake oil salesmen of the sustainable food movement. And tragically unnecessarily so. Even more tragically, like in the old west, instead of having consumers seek out science based solutions and treatments to their ailments, they buy the fake product. Similarly, these snake oil sustainable food marketing practices are driving consumers away from modern science based green technologies that truly offer remedies to the many environmental challenges we face in feeding a future growing population.
(image:
See also: Consumers have a right to know!
Chipotle has its own history of these 'sustainability snake oil' marketing tactics with their past video releases. Now apparently Cliff Bar is playing the same game.
From: http://www.agweb.com/article/krotz-foul-mouthed-mr-seed-sells-with-scares-naa-agweb-guest-editor/
“Food companies are using junk science driving people away from sustainable practices like GMOs to manipulate consumers for the sole purpose of market gain.”
I think the above is a telling statement, and broadly reflects a number of marketing and legislative campaigns many of us are familiar with....think Chipotle and Vermont's GMO labeling laws. I watched the video mentioned in the AgWeb story above (produced or funded by Clif Bar Family Foundation), and even if it weren't junk sci-fi, its pretty vulgar and offensive in its own right.
It is a shame, similar to the Chipotle burritos, at $5+ per box even, Cliff Bars are really good. And actually healthy. What I can't understand, when you have a really good product like this, why resort to such unethical and misleading marketing practices?
In a sense, when it comes to marketing tactics, this makes Chipotle and Cliff Bar among others truly the snake oil salesmen of the sustainable food movement. And tragically unnecessarily so. Even more tragically, like in the old west, instead of having consumers seek out science based solutions and treatments to their ailments, they buy the fake product. Similarly, these snake oil sustainable food marketing practices are driving consumers away from modern science based green technologies that truly offer remedies to the many environmental challenges we face in feeding a future growing population.
(image:
See also: Consumers have a right to know!
Farmers and Ranchers May Sue to Stop Clean Water Regulation of Ordinary Farmland
Its almost folklore, the story about farmers being targeted and sued by Monsanto over trivial cross pollination events. In reality, only the most deliberate and egregious violations have ever been taken to court. However, if we are really concerned about predatory litigation practices, we find the EPA/US Army Corps of Engineers taking legal actions that could lead to imposing fines up to $37,000 per day on farmers found in violation of a tangling web of regulations related to clean water rules. The tide may be turning.
From: http://www.fb.org/newsroom/news_article/441/
United States Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co., Inc.
"A unanimous Supreme Court today ruled landowners may challenge the federal government whenever the Army Corps of Engineers tries improperly to regulate land with regulations designed to protect water....Today's decision removes a huge roadblock that has prevented landowners from obtaining relief from the courts when the Corps illegally claims their land is federally regulated water"
More details of an interesting case where one farmer sued the EPA and won:
http://www.agweb.com/article/how-one-wyoming-rancher-fought-the-epa-and-won-naa-anna-lisa-laca/
About three months later, the Johnsons received an administrative order in the mail threatening a fine of $37,500 per day over the completed project. The agency wanted the Johnsons to rip out the stock pond, hire a consultant to revise a new plan, and submit it within ten days. “I knew the minute that I got the administrative order it was wrong,” Johnson says. “I told my wife we aren’t going to do this. It would have costs us $50,000 to $70,000 to do what they wanted us to do, going through a consultant and all the hoops to rip the pond out.” The Johnsons decided to fight back and in the end, they won.
You can also get more details with an interview with Andy Johnson on Agritalk (May 19):
http://www.agweb.com/agritalk-podcast/
From: http://www.fb.org/newsroom/news_article/441/
United States Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co., Inc.
"A unanimous Supreme Court today ruled landowners may challenge the federal government whenever the Army Corps of Engineers tries improperly to regulate land with regulations designed to protect water....Today's decision removes a huge roadblock that has prevented landowners from obtaining relief from the courts when the Corps illegally claims their land is federally regulated water"
More details of an interesting case where one farmer sued the EPA and won:
http://www.agweb.com/article/how-one-wyoming-rancher-fought-the-epa-and-won-naa-anna-lisa-laca/
About three months later, the Johnsons received an administrative order in the mail threatening a fine of $37,500 per day over the completed project. The agency wanted the Johnsons to rip out the stock pond, hire a consultant to revise a new plan, and submit it within ten days. “I knew the minute that I got the administrative order it was wrong,” Johnson says. “I told my wife we aren’t going to do this. It would have costs us $50,000 to $70,000 to do what they wanted us to do, going through a consultant and all the hoops to rip the pond out.” The Johnsons decided to fight back and in the end, they won.
You can also get more details with an interview with Andy Johnson on Agritalk (May 19):
http://www.agweb.com/agritalk-podcast/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)