Flat Earth Certified Travel

From the New Yorker: Looking for Life on a Flat Earth

These people and the Non-GMO project folks really need to get together. Together they could spin a theory that global warming is impossible on a flat earth. Or have ‘Flat Earth Certified’ cruise ships that verify their course won’t go dropping off the edge of the planet. Even though there might be a scientific consensus that the earth is round, there are no independent scientific studies on what happens when actual cruise ships travel near the ‘ends’ of the earth. The precautionary principle would require cruise ships to stay closer to the shore until more studies are done. But the cruise companies probably would not be cooperative and conceal any findings or bias studies with funding. Consumers have a ‘right to know.’

StonyField faces backlash for bad optics on fear based marketing exploiting young girls

Too bad....really really used to like that brown cow whole milk yogurt...it's like melted ice cream. Could you imagine the oil companies making a video of young girls saying climate change is a scam? Well that is essentially what StonyField has done with their add promoting their products. Then trying to back track with bad science in statements citing IARCs opinion on glyphosate. They followed that by taking harsh tones and actions in social media against the efforts of those in the agricultural and scientific communities to discuss these issues. This has created a backlash from the scientific community and a PR nightmare for StonyField.

See Stonyfield Organic Gets Taken to Task for Anti-GMO Propaganda Video

See also:

Consumers Wising up to Misleading Food Labels
Food with Integrity is Catching On

Consumers are wising up to misleading food labels

Nice piece in the Washington Post: Savvier shoppers see through misleading food labels. Here’s how. 

"Companies advertise what’s “not” in their foods to exploit the knowledge gap that consumers have. It’s natural for a shopper to assume if a food “does not contain” something, that’s a good thing (even if they have no idea what it means). Marketers prey on consumer vulnerabilities, then charge a premium for products that never contained that “evil” ingredient in the first place."

See also: Food with Integrity is Catching On

Food with Integrity is Catching On

There is a quote often attributed to Abraham Lincoln:

"You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time."

Recently Mann Packing has taken that lesson to heart and received good publicity in relation to its decision to not label some of its products as GMO free:

"The company is removing the non-GMO verified check from its single-cut lettuce products in its next print run, which could take place next month, said Gina Nucci, Mann’s director of corporate marketing. Mann did an about face after presenting its product packaging in Canada, where the Non-GMO Project Verified label is only allowed on products that have a GMO alternative."

"There is no GMO lettuce," said Nucci. "It made us go: Why are we doing this? We are perpetuating a fear that something is wrong with GMOs. We didn’t feel right doing that, so we chose to take that label off."

Read more at https://www.prweek.com/article/1446394/why-mann-packing-removing-non-gmo-labels-major-brands-add#B4Z8DsOqXMiBbVCu.99 

This is impressive transparency in an age of free-from labeling. 

Contrast this with companies like Chipotle taking the exact opposite stance engaging in nuanced and deceptive marketing practices to sell their products.  Lately trying to play to both sides of the GMO debate, they have been engaged in a lawsuit (against them) in relation to some of its free-from GMO advertising because the supply chain for softdrinks and animal feed contain GMOs. 

So they are agitating both the informed consumers that understand biotechnology is actually a good thing, as well as some of their customer base that is at least informed enough to understand the supply chain and ingredients.  To Chipotle's detriment. (even though they may have won this one in court). Hopefully with groups like Peel Back the Label we will see more consumers becoming more informed as they catch on to what food with integrity really means.

Maybe we will even see lawsuits against companies using the kinds of misleading 'free-from' labels (like with lettuce) that Mann Packing abandoned on grounds of misleading advertising! 

Gluten Free Bread via CRISPR

CRISPR technology might make gluten free wheat a reality:  

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2148596-genetically-modified-wheat-used-to-make-coeliac-friendly-bread/ 


For people with Coeliac or severe gluten intolerance this could be very exciting. However, there are a number of people choosing a gluten free diet for sociopolitical reasons that probably will continue to look for the 'gluten free' label bundled with non-GMO certification (which would most likely rule out CRISPR based advances like this). We have seen food companies abandon promising technologies (i.e. rBST in milk, finely textured beef) because of issues related to consumer acceptance/perceptions. Will they be willing to invest in commercialization of CRISPR based gluten free food given this history and the trend toward 'free-from' labeling?  Will there be enough demand from current gluten free consumers that are otherwise agnostic to these fads and trends? Can we learn anything from other new consumer enhanced products like non-browing apples, the Simplot Innate potato or the Impossible Burger?

What Happened at Cargill?

A couple years ago I wrote a piece about an EconTalk podcast with Cargill's former Greg Page:

Here is a quote from the interview:

"I think if our water is precious, if our topsoil is precious, if we really care about the hydrocarbon footprint that we have in terms of the amount of cultivation that we need to carry out, that we should think very carefully about eliminating or demonizing genetic engineering."

But this past week I ran across an unfortunate tweet via  @VanceCrowe that caught a lot of attention. This relates to a collaboration with the Non-GMO Project. Many people have pointed out that the Non-GMO project is involved in more than just verification of the sourcing of ingredients. There is an underlying agenda that is inherently anti-GMO and anti-agriculture across a number of dimensions.
 
How did this happen? There is surely a garden of forking paths we could go down if we give Cargill the benefit of the doubt or try to offer criticisms about how this should have been handled (assuming they were hell bent on making this deal to start with). Maybe I understand how there is definitely money to be made with a niche market carved out by snake oil fear based marketing by shady food companies that has helped drive demand for non-GMO products. But surely someone that knows the industry like Cargill knew that if they were going to sign a deal with the devil (surely they knew that is how it would be viewed industry wide) that they should have a well thought out PR strategy first to keep it as low key as possible and 2nd an immediate response at hand in case things got out of control. I'm not advocating they be sneaky and shady but definitely should have had a well calibrated communication strategy ready for this kind of deal. Right?

So assuming this is understood from the top down that means not every tweet that goes out is super-scrutinized because if it were I doubt anyone at Cargill would have thought tweeting about this was a good idea. So maybe some of the people in social media have the leeway to tweet about new deals and ventures and collaborations as if it is something to be proud of. Maybe not everyone in a large organization like this has the solid 360 degree view of the industry you would expect. But that is OK to have different talent with different backgrounds and ideas across a large organization. If this is what happened I think they need to look internally at onboarding and education about the industry as a whole.

But if this is not what happened, if leadership was full force in favor of making this deal in your face public via social media outlets in this way what were they thinking? Surely someone in the company knew better and warned against it but they went forward anyway?

Maybe its just easy for me to be a monday morning quarterback or back seat driver on this but this whole thing is surprising given the lessons learned already from companies like Yellow Tail and Chipotle.
  

With more thought what alarms me is perhaps the public ignorance and level of anti-science fear mongering has crossed a critical threshold and emboldened a great company like Cargill to take the calculated risk in this kind of partnership...even to the point of tweeting about it.

Science Literacy and GMO Perceptions (Study)

This certainly provides some evidence that an learning path associated with QR codes might be ideal for informing consumers without scaring them away.

 

From the Abstract:

 

"A survey experiment was designed to measure the effect of science and genetics literacy on consumer perception and acceptance of GMOs and GMF. A sample population of college students answered a questionnaire either before or after a 50-minute lecture about science and genetics concepts relevant to GMO development and cultivation....Comparison of pre-lecture and post-lecture responses revealed that science and genetics literacy had—at least—a short-term effect on student perception of GMOs, which led to increased desirability of GMF, including food containing transgenic and first-generation GMOs."

Article: Can Science and Genetics Literacy Affect Student Perception of Genetically Modified Organisms? Gerardo H. Nunez, Alisson P. Kovaleski, Bruno Casamali, and Rebecca L. Darnell

University of Florida

 

See also:  

 

An Econometric and Game Theoretic Analysis of Producer and Consumer Preferences Toward Agricultural Biotechnology

 

Perceptions of GMO Foods: An Hypothetical Application of SEM

Will new GMO labeling law stir a revolution....or an opportunity for fact driven revelation?

A recent NYT piece is titled: G.M.O. Labeling Law Could Stir a Revolution

The main thesis I think is driven by this question:

Has the argument that food production processes are as important as ingredients begun to make sense to policy makers?

Maybe it has. This is exactly why we need to be careful about the learning path that these QR codes provide consumers. Because the truth is the author might have a point here, and snake oil food marketers (i.e. Cliff Bar and Chipotle) will exploit this if they can.

On another note I can't help but comment on the following commentary in the article:

Another problem is that by simplifying the growing of almost unimaginably large tracts of crops, especially corn and soybeans, G.M.O.s have become an indispensable crutch for the fertilizer- and pesticide-dependent monoculture that is wrecking our land and water and generating the execrable excess of corn- and soy-based junk food that is sickening our population and decreasing our life spans.

I'd direct interested readers here. 

One thing these QR codes have the ability to do is clear up misconceptions and hyperbole like this that tend to keep creeping up.

See also: Big Data + Genomics not = Your Grandparent's Monoculture

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:Carol M. Highsmith - This image is available from the United States Library of Congress's Prints and Photographs division under the digital ID highsm.28650.)


See also: Consumers have a right to know!

Do Preferences for Regulation or Labeling of Biotech Foods Differ Across Political Spectrums?

Jayson Lusk has an interesting post on his blog related to an article in the Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics finding an interesting relationship between left leaning voters and their willingness to support GMO labeling initiatives:

“One distinction, which I think is missing, is the greater willingness of those on the left to regulate on economic issues, such as GMOs, than those on the right. Stated differently, there are questions of science: what are the risks of climate change or eating GMOs. And then there are more normative questions: given said risk, what should we do about it? Even if the left and the right agreed on the level of risk, I don’t think we should expect agreement on political action.”

In other words there might be different thresholds for the level of risk required to support a given policy interventions across the political spectrum. I go into some deeper dives about states of knowledge and risk perceptions in relation to this at economic sense - see Left vs Right Science vs Risk vs Propensity to Regulate.

Consumers have a right to know!

Advocates of GMO labels like to stand behind the claim that consumers have a right to know what is in their food. But I ask, if we are going to put a label on foods with biotech/GMO ingredients, then what kind of label are we going to put on conventional and non-GMO foods?

Most research indicates that non-biotech foods pose nearly identical if not other more certain risks. In fact biotech ('GMO' if you must) crops actually reduce some of these risks. What about exposure to chemical weed killers? Roundup Ready biotech crops have lead to a substitution away from much more toxic and environmentally persistent chemistries toward much safer options. Biotech corn with the Bt trait actually reduces the ear mold toxin fumonisin which is known to be carcinogenic and related to throat cancer. The Bt trait in general has greatly reduced or eliminated the use of many very toxic chemical pesticides.

Researchers in the journal of Ecological Economics have found that "Bt cotton has reduced pesticide applications by 50%, with the largest reductions of 70% occurring in the most toxic types of chemicals." And that " Bt cotton now helps to avoid several million cases of pesticide poisoning in India every year."

In the journal Nature Biotechnology, Henry Miller and Gregory Conko go so far as to say that companies that purposefully exclude biotech ingredients could be liable for increasing consumers exposure to these types of risks.

This is a case where government interventions that require labeling could actually do more harm than good. Labels help consumers concerned about fat and sodium make healthy choices, however sensational 'GMO' labels could be misguiding and lead consumers  to actually make choices that are either worse for them, the health of producers, or the environment.

Consumers certainly have a right to know about what's in their food. They also have a right to not be misguided by the improper application of food labels. Our farmers and educators are in the best position to inform consumers about the very specific and complicated processes and technologies involved in food production as opposed to some blunt uninformative term on a label that could easily be manipulated for political ends or sensationalized by media.

References:

Comparison of Fumonisin Concentrations in Kernels of Transgenic Bt Maize Hybrids and Nontransgenic Hybrids. Munkvold, G.P. et al . Plant Disease 83, 130-138 1999.

Indirect Reduction of Ear Molds and Associated Mycotoxins in Bacillus thuringiensis Corn Under Controlled and Open Field Conditions: Utility and Limitations. Dowd, J. Economic Entomology. 93 1669-1679 2000.

"Why Spurning Biotech Food Has Become a Liability.'' Miller, Henry I, Conko, Gregory, & Drew L. Kershe. Nature Biotechnology Volume 24 Number 9 September 2006.

Genetically Engineered Crops: Has Adoption Reduced Pesticide Use? Agricultural Outlook ERS/USDA Aug 2000

Note: this article is a modified version of an original article I published in 2013:

http://www.agweb.com/mobile/theagricultureletter/home/blog/economic_sense_190/consumers_have_a_right_to_know/?BloggerId=189

GMO Labels and Information Transparency

Recently there was a tweet by @mem_somerville with a snapshot from a letter from Senator Elizabeth Warren regarding GMO labeling legislation:

@Smj4334 Here's what I got from @SenWarren. Sent something months ago, you can imagine it didn't align with this.


This particular quote got me: "Markets work best when they are transparent, and I believe that consumers will be best served by a national, mandatory labeling standard."

I agree certain issues related to state by state labeling initiatives might well be addressed by a national standard, but transparency isn't one of them. I had written some time ago about how these labels are political by nature, and their purpose is not to inform, but actually capitalize on information asymmetry. This was in regard to initiatives that failed in California, but the issue is still the same:

"If informing consumers were the primary goal, then there are much more effectivet ways to do so, (vs labeling)....If it alarms otherwise apathetic consumers, are they really going to invest the time researching the safety of biotech foods  to close the information gap or are they going to turn to the unqualified opinions of celebrities and activists?  I would bet that the special interests are counting on consumers weighing heavily the opinions of celebrities and conspiracy theorists, and therefore letting the information asymmetries associated with biotech direct them to their own products.  In this way, Prop 37 is specially designed by special interests to take advantage of information asymmetries and exploit the fears of the public in an effort to drive market share or punish companies that they have philosophical or political issues with."

Do consumers have a 'right to know' about Intacta soybeans?

The title says it all: Sales Surge for Monsanto's Intacta Soybeans.

"Monsanto Co.’s new Intacta soybeans are not only killing bugs on Brazilian farms. They’re crushing demand for insecticides made by competitors DuPont Co. and FMC Corp......Soybean growers in northern Brazil who normally make six to 10 insecticide applications a season require only one or two sprays with Intacta crops.

I see two take aways from this, and I am not sure which one is bigger.

First, beyond AgWeb where's the press? If any other company had introduced a technology like this you would think the media would be all over it. The same people marching against Monsanto would be jumping for joy that a new green technology was putting the hurt on chemical companies.

The other story is that this is proof in point that biotechnology can reduce the use of toxic pesticides, hence its designation as a green technology (by me at least). So that means if the forced political speech laws of Vermont become law of the land, and they scare people away from GMO foods, or companies defensively substitute away, we're increasing our carbon footprint and supporting use of more toxic chemistries all in one fell swoop. I guess that's OK for some. (of course pesticide residues probably are not a big deal regardless but its the cost savings, reduced exposure, and reduced emissions on the farmscape that are impacted most).

Of course, given the scant media coverage, consumers won't know the difference. WOW so much for RIGHT TO KNOW as a justification for GMO labels.

See also: California Proposition 37: Capitalizing on Information Asymmetry and Government Regulation to Corner the Market on Sustainable Food