Blog

Food, farm, and kitchen innovations

 A few links I've come across recently on food, farm, and kitchen innovations:

Assorted Links

“if you’re 35 and not a smoker, you have a 98.5% chance of making it to 45. At 45, you would re-calibrate with those that are still alive and there is a 96% chance of living ten more years, then 93% for the next ten, then 90% for the next. Finally, at age 75, life gets a little risky and the chance that you will live another ten years drops to only 65%. Essentially, the ten year risk of death is almost negligible until we get to our 70s.”

File in the folder "Unintended Consequences".  Researchers find that a ban on bottled water on the University of Vermont campus (presumably to cut down on waste) led to more plastic bottles being shipped to campus and to more soda consumption.

Ways to promote animal welfare without being a vegetarian.  (though not explicitly acknowledged, some of the thoughts flow from my book with Bailey Norwood, Compassion by the Pound)

A great summary article by Phil Pardey and colleagues in the American Journal of Agricultural Economics on funding for research and development in agriculture.  They write:

“We reveal that the U.S. position in the global R&D landscape has changed in substantive ways, especially over the past decade, partly as a result of investment decisions taken by governments and private entities elsewhere in the world, but also as a consequence of changed investment priorities in the United States”

Later they write:

“While the United States is arguably still the predominant source of innovation in global agriculture, the tide appears to be turning”

What happens when Big Food buys Little Food?  File under: organic isn't little anymore . . .

Pity comments on assorted links

“Food has replaced music at the heart of the cultural conversation for so many, and I wonder if it’s because food and dining still offer true scarcity whereas music is so freely available everywhere that it’s become a poor signaling mechanism for status and taste.”

There's been a lot of coverage of Consumer Report's tests for bacteria in conventional and "sustainable" beef.  Take, for example, this Washington Post article.  The article seems to be mixing a bunch of concepts.  There are antibiotic resistant bacteria (aka “super bugs” – though they’re not resistant to all types of antibiotics), which is what they found less of in the “sustainable” beef.  And then there are bacteria that *can* product toxins.  Cooking can kill the bacteria but not the toxin, but the study didn’t actually test for the toxins (only the bacteria-producing toxins).  As best I can tell, there were similar levels of these types of bacteria in both types of beef (actually, they don’t discuss levels at all but only % of samples detected with the presence of the bacteria regardless of amount).  In any event, the toxins typically don’t get produced unless the beef is left out for a while at unsafe temps.

These public health researchers propose a cap-and-trade type system for calories.  The authors are never really very clear about the underlying source of the externality they're attempting address (negative or positive) and why calories get at the heart of it.  Moreover, what of those in the world who get too few calories?

Interesting article in Choices by James McDonald on the extent of contracting in agriculture.  I was surprised to read that use of contracting decreased in recent years for many commodities.  Wu and McDonald subsequently discuss related market power issues in the same outlet.