The Roots of the Organic Food Movement

 In the September issue of Townhall magazine, I discuss the roots of the organic food movement and the misconceptions people often have about organic.  Here's how I started the piece off:

What do Michelle Obama and Chuck Norris have in common?

There is probably an answer that would make a superb addition to the hilarious list of Chuck Norris jokes. The less humorous, bipartisan response is they both support the organic food movement. Norris recently wrote that we should “eat local and organic, period,” and, of course, Obama planted an organic garden at the White House.

At the risk of finding myself on the receiving end of one of Norris’ roundhouse kicks, I suggest prudence before rushing out to join Walker, Texas Ranger at Whole Foods.

I don’t have a problem with people eating organic food. My family often does so. What troubles me are bad arguments for buying organic.

The article goes on to ask the question: 

If these folks are right, then exactly what political positions are endorsed when the grocery basket is piled high with organics?

Then, I get into some of the particular beliefs people have about organic that often don't match up with the facts.  Here's one tidbit:

The best science suggests the vast majority of us have nothing to fear from food pesticides.  But even if you remain fearful, I suggest focusing your angst (and your budget) on those foods where pesticide exposure is most acute: strawberries, apples, and the like.  Paying a premium for organic gummy bears or organic corn flakes is surely one of the most foolish ways to try to cut cancer risks.

Most overpriced items in the grocery store

Yesterday I received a phone call from a producer for a major cable news station asking if I'd be willing to come on a show and talk about this story that appeared in Business Insider entitled: "5 Of The Most Overpriced Items In The Grocery Store".

After reading the story, I gave the following response to the producer (slightly edited here for the blog).  Although it would have been nice to have a little air time, I'm happy to report that they decided not to run with the story, at least as it was originally premised.

The story equates “overpriced” with the “percent markup”, which is pretty shaky.  There are a lot of good reasons why the percent mark-up may vary across products that has little to do with being “overpriced”.  For example, differences in demand for convenience and other characteristics, differences in costs of packaging, storage, transportation, etc. will cause differences in the percent markup.  

Nonetheless, let’s play along.

1) Bottled water.  On the surface, it does seem crazy that there is a 4000% mark-up for bottled water.  But, part of the reason for the high percent is that the price of water is REALLY cheap to begin with (so the percent will look very high though the actual dollar mark-up in absolute terms is small).  More importantly, how valuable is convenience to you?  A lot of people are willing to pay an extra buck to have more convenient water and not have to fiddle with refilling and refrigerating a re-usable water bottle.  Who am I to say that an extra $0.50 or $1 isn’t worth it to the person whose paying for it?  If it were really the case that bottle water sellers were ripping us off, why doesn’t some entrepreneur enter the market and start selling cheaper bottled water and corner the market?  The fact is that most of the cost is in the packaging, transportation, etc.  When you buy bottled water, you’re paying for packaging and convenience.

The same arguments apply even more forcefully for pre-cut produce.  Who cares if pre-cut carrots and onions are marked up 40%?  I’m not having to do the work!  That’s an extra $1-$2 I’m definitely willing to pay.  And if someone else can figure out a way to do it for less than 40%, you can bet they’d have my business.  Competition – in the long run- will eventually drive down prices to their approximate costs. 

2)   In general, I would characterize something as “overpriced” if people have mis-perceptions; if they believe they’re getting something from a product that they’re not actually receiving.  Two of the examples in the story potentially fit that criteria: name-brand spices and brand-name cereal.  One way to know whether you’re being fooled by marketing is to do a blind taste test.  It is often the case that our brain is more powerful in influencing how we think something tastes than our tongues.  So, with a neutral friend, try it out: can you REALLY taste the difference?  If not, you may be over-paying.

3)  In this light, there are a number of products that many people have “incorrect” beliefs relative to what scientific studies say – thus, they may be paying a premium for characteristics that they’re not actually recieving.  One example is food with a "natural" claim. A “natural” label is pretty vacuous, and I've previously touched on those issues here and here.  Another example is organic food.  People believe a lot of things about organic foods that just aren't true: that they’re pesticide free, that they support small farms, that they are more nutritious, etc.  I’m not saying there are NO benefits to organic, only fewer benefits than most believe.  A lot of the same arguments apply to local foods.  Chapters 5 and 9 in The Food Police have all the details and citations.

Organic fear mongering

The following video from MSN contains some of the worst kind of fear mongering in relation to non-organic foods.  Eat non-organic celery?  It will lower your kids IQ.  Eat non-organic apples?  Your kids will get ADHD.  

The  sources for all the claims in the video (see the bottom right hand part of the screen) are to places like wired.com, organicauthority.com, cnn.com, thedailygreen.com, and CBSnews.com.  Of course, non of the actual links are provided, so one can only guess at what "evidence" supports the claims.  I would bet good money the claims arise from associative studies that cannot support cause-effect claims.

If you want real facts on organic (along with citations to real science journals), I suggest chapter 5 of The Food Police. A twitter follower also pointed me to this older paper on the history of "black marketing" associated with some (but not all) wings of the organic food movement.

What is Natural Food Anyway?

At little over a month ago, I discussed some of the ongoing legal challenges that are swirling around "natural" claims on foods.  One of the big challenges is that the word "natural" is nebulous and is vaguely defined by regulators.   

I thought I'd try to shed a little light on the subject by making use of the survey project I just started and asking consumers what they think the word means.  In June, I added two questions to the survey.  The first question listed 10 statements and individuals had to place them in a box that said "I believe foods containing this ingredient are natural" or one that said "I DO NOT believe foods containing this ingredient are natural."  The order of items was randomized across respondents (sample size is 1,004, demographically weighted to match the US population, sampling error is about +/- 3%).  

The results indicate that most people think added cane sugar, salt, at beet sugar are "natural" but HFCS, sodium chloride, and biotechnology are not.  Interestingly, salt and Sodium Chloride are the same thing!  Yet, using the technical/scientific name reduces the % perceiving salt as natural from 65.6% to 32%!

Processed foods are seen as least natural.  "Processed food" is also a vague term.  Is cheese a processed food?   

The second question I asked was the following, "Which of the following best fits your definition of 'natural food'?"  I gave four options, and here is the % of respondents choosing each option.

The majority of respondents thought that the best definition (at least among the four I included) was, "fresh foods with no added ingredients and no processing."  

I suspect many of the foods sitting on a grocery store shelf that use the word "natural" do not meet this definition consumers found most descriptive.  

Environmental Working Group on Organic Impacts

The Environmental Working Group (EWG)​ lists on their web site a ranking of the relative environmental impact (measured in terms of greenhouse gas emissions) of different foods.  The table is based on life-cycle analysis (LCA) conducted by a company called Clean Metrics.

I'm not ​an expert on LCA and I haven't dug into the detail on how Clean Metrics conducted the analysis.  Thus, I won't comment for now on the relative ranking of the different foods and commodities.  

However, I find the labeling on the EWG's prominent graph highly misleading.  The reason is that the chart repeatedly says things like:​

choose organic; ​buy organic; avoid growth hormones

Here is the problem. The research doesn't actually support the claim that these urgings would actually lower greenhouse gas emissions.  In fact, by their own admission, the EWG reveals that:

The lifecycle assessments are based on conventional rather than pasture-based or organic systems of food production. . . we were unable to identify definitive studies and widely accepted methodologies assessing greenhouse gas emissions from pasture-raised, organic or other meat production systems. 

So, the analysis didn't actually study the greenhouse gas emissions of organics or pasture-raised!​

​Moreover, when we look at the words of the company (Clean Metrics) that conducted the study that forms the basis of the EWG chart, we see things like:

There is not a strong correlation between organic food production methods and lower carbon footprints.

and

On balance, grass-fed animal products from ruminants are likely to have higher carbon footprints compared to products from conventionally housed/fed animals.

​Also, when we look at the research on growth hormones, like in this Journal of Animal Science article, we find

Manure output increased by 1,799 × 10^3 t as a result of [growth -enhancing technologies - primarily growth hormones] withdrawal, with an increase in carbon emissions of 714,515 t/454 × 10^6 kg beef

and this article in the Proceedings of the National Academies of Science shows that the use of the growth hormone rBST in milk could reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Now, the EWG may have other reasons for advising against consuming foods with growth hormones or advising to eat organic over conventional, but I find it misleading to make these claims in a prominent graph ranking foods by greenhouse gas emissions.