What will it take to reduce obesity rates?

We've witnessed a lot of positive change in the past 30 to 40 years.  More convenient transportation, more air conditioning, less strenuous jobs, less smoking, less expensive food, etc., etc.  All of those changes are cause for celebration.  They are, however, also all factors that likely contributed to rising rates of obesity we've witnessed over the past several decades.

Here's what I had to say about it in the Food Police

“We can’t disentangle all the bad stuff we don’t like about obesity with all the other good things we enjoy like driving, eating snacks, cooking more quickly, and having less strenuous jobs. Yes, we can have less obesity but at the cost of other things we enjoy.

When you hear we need a fundamental change to get our waistlines back down to where they were three decades ago, beware that it might take a world that looks like it did three decades ago. I for one am not willing to give up power steering, microwaves, and inexpensive take-out even if my pants now fit a little more snugly.”

Now comes this paper from Åsa Ljungvall at Lund University in Sweden providing some further empirical evidence for this phenomenon:

“The empirical analysis is based on a panel of 31 high-income countries and data for the period 1983 to 2008. It finds a positive and statistically significant relationship between the level of economic freedom and both the level of, and five-year change in, BMI. Decomposing the freedom index into sub-indices measuring economic freedom in five sub-areas (government, legal structure, sound money, trade, and regulations) shows that freedom in the regulations dimension is the most consistent contributor to this result.”

It's tough to know whether this is causation or just correlation, but I do think it represents the tough trade-offs we face in life.  We could all be a bit thinner if we lived in North Korea.  I doubt many of us would be willing to trade our freedom just to drop a few pounds.  

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.””

Critique of modern agriculture in song

One of our gradudate students sent me a link to this music video performed by a band, Wookiefoot, he recently saw in concert.

If you couldn't follow along, here's a sample of some of the lyrics

Then McDonalds got a farm GM GM GMO
And on that farm he had a chicken and a cow
But they do now you really don’t wanna know
Why must we label it organic
When that’s the way we’ve been growing it for ten thousand years

I don't suppose it would do any good to mention what organic really means or to show what agriculture really looked like 10,000 years ago?  

Organic vs Conventional Crop Yields

The other day, I was asked whether I thought the price of organic foods would fall as the market share for organic increased.  The answer is: it depends.  If increases in consumer demand outpace supply, prices will rise.  By contrast, if supply increases at a faster rate than consumers' willingness-to-pay for organic, prices will fall.  I suspect that as Wal-Mart and other large retailers become bigger players in the organic market, it will bring about some cost efficiencies that are likely to lead to a reduction in organic price.

That said, organic will never be as inexpensive as non-organic (generally speaking, as I'm sure it might be possible for a particular crop in a particular location in a particular year to experience a price inversion).

Statements such as this normally invoke a debate about whether organic yields and costs are higher/lower than conventional yields and costs.  For example, the following was written after a Twitter conversation on the subject

Again, the available data offers conflicting results: there’s evidence that organic yields can match conventional yields over the long-term, especially in less-than-ideal conditions. Other studies point to lower organic yields, especially in crops with high fertility requirements. The primary challenge in extrapolating these results to a “feeding the world” scenario is the issue of context.

Invariably, the evidence given in support of the argument that organic yields can surpass conventional yields is taken from organizations like the Leopold Institute (the paper referenced in the above quote was a proceedings paper, not one that went through the typical submission process) or the Rodale Institute that advocate on behalf of organic.  That's why it is instructive to turn to larger scale literature reviews, like this one in the journal Agricultural Systems summarizing 362 studies, which shows that organic yields are 80% of conventional on average.  Or turn to the top science journals, like Nature, where a recent paper showed that organic yields are typically 25% lower than non-organic.  (note: these review studies show a lot of variability in the organic-conventional yield gap; sometimes the gap is large and sometimes is is almost non-existent).

The quality and quantity of the evidence quite clearly points to the fact that organic yields tend to be lower than non-organic.  Yet, it seems, this never actually convinces anyone who believes the opposite.  Thus, rather than a show-me-your-study-and-I'll-show-you-mine discussion, sometimes it is useful to make a conceptual argument.

The reason I would never expect organic yields to typically surpass non-organic is summarized in the following figure.   

Here is the basic point conveyed in the picture above: a non-organic farmer is free to use any of the practices available to an organic farmer (e.g., no-till or low-till farming, cover crops, etc) but an organic farmer can only use some of the practices that are available to a non-organic farmer.  Thus, the range of possible production practices, costs, and outcomes for organic must be a sub-set of that of non-organic.  

Being an organic farmer implies following a set of rules defined by the USDA.  These rules restrict the practices available to an organic farmer relative to a non-organic farmer.  Organic farmers cannot use "synthetic" fertilizer, Roundup, biotechnology, atrazine, certain tillage practices, etc., etc.  It is a basic fact of mathematical programming that adding constraints never leads to a higher optimum.

I suspect I know what an organic advocate will next argue: well in the long-run organic soils will build up nutrients and organic matter and will eventually achieve higher yields than non-organic.  That may be (or may not be) true, but that does nothing to nullify my point.  If it turns out that, say, 10 years down the road, organic farmers begin routinely experiencing higher yields, then non-organic farmers can copy those practices (assuming they're not higher cost) and again match organic yields, and eventually surpass them - because - yet again- they will have options available to them that organic farmers don't.  Like biotech.  Like ammonium nitrate. 

Now, maybe organic better reduces environmental or human health externalities.  I'm not particularly persuaded by the evidence on that front, but that is a reasonable debate worth having.  But, arguing that organic yields can (generally) exceed non-organic yields is not supported by the best empirical evidence or by logic.       

Organics, misinformation, and fear-based marketing

I ran across this paper discussing some of the research on consumer preferences for organic, and it delves into the tactics used my marketers of organic products.

The authors conclude:

This review of published research, documented organic and natural produce industry practices and advocacy collaborations shows widespread, collaborative and pervasive industry marketing activities, both transparent and covert, disparaging competing conventional foods and agriculture practices. Further, these activities have contributed to false and misleading consumer health and safety perceptions influencing food purchase decisions. These findings suggest a widespread organic and natural products industry pattern of research-informed and intentionally-deceptive marketing and advocacy related practices that have generated hundreds of billions in revenues.

I agree that much of the marketing (and writing) on organic has led to false beliefs among many consumers.  I've written a lot about that, and I've tried to provide research evidence on the scientific basis (or lack thereof) of such claims.  Thus, I share the author's sentiments.  

But, I personally am much less bothered by marketers.  Isn't this what marketers do?  Why does Nike show LeBron James or Michael Jordan flying through the air wearing their shoes?  What message is Nike trying to send?  It probably has next to nothing to do with how high I'm able to jump or even how well a Nike will fit me should I buy them.  Their commercials are trying to install false beliefs.  

So, I sort of expect those things from marketers and companies trying to sell products (although overt lies and falsehoods expose companies and marketers to legal liability, and for good reason).   What bothers me more is when supposed "objective" journalists or academics spread the same sort of mis-information that flies in the face of scientific evidence.  Moreover, we certainly don't want tax dollars subsidizing false beliefs.  

That's why I found this passage a bit more disconcerting:

As a result, the American taxpayer funded national organic program is playing an ongoing role in misleading consumers into spending billions of dollars in organic purchasing decisions based on false and misleading health, safety and quality claims. Further, U.S. government agencies, including the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Federal Trade Commission and U.S. Department of Agriculture, which entrusted with the authority to enforce truthful, non-misleading consumer protections against such abuses have either ignored or become complicit in these marketing abuses.