End of Doom

Ronald Bailey has an excellent piece in the October print edition of Reason Magazine entitled, "The End of Doom" and a recently released book with the same title.  It's a nice counterweight to the oft-heard refrain that the world is going to hell.  

Here are a a few quotes I found particularly interesting.  In critiquing Rachel Carson's Silent Spring:

“At its heart is this belief: Nature is beneficent, stable, and even a source of moral good; humanity is arrogant, heedless, and often the source of moral evil. Carson, more than any other person, is responsible for the politicization of science that afflicts our contemporary public policy debates.”

In discussing our out-sized fears of cancers from synthetic chemicals and of biotechnology:

“It should always be borne in mind that environmentalist organizations raise money to support themselves by scaring people. More generally, Bonny observes, “For some people, especially many activists, biotechnology also symbolizes the negative aspects of globalization and economic liberalism.” She adds, “Since the collapse of the communist ideal has made direct opposition to capitalism more difficult today, it seems to have found new forms of expression including, in particular, criticism of globalization, certain aspects of consumption, technical developments, etc.””

He ends with some choice words about the precautionary principle.  

“Why does it matter if the population at large believes these dire predictions about humanity’s future? The primary danger is they may fuel a kind of pathological conservatism that could actually become a self-fulfilling prophecy.”

and

“The precautionary principle is the opposite of the scientific process of trial and error that is the modern engine of knowledge and prosperity. The precautionary principle impossibly demands trials without errors, successes without failures.

...

”An indirect implication of trial without error is that if trying new things is made more costly, there will be fewer departures from past practice; this very lack of change may itself be dangerous in forgoing chances to reduce existing hazards.” ”

GMO animals

In the past couple weeks, I've seen several articles on GMO animals.  They are often created using cisgenic techniques or gene editing (i.e., moving genes within a species or "turning off" expression of existing genes), so they may (or may not) be more acceptable to consumers than transgenic GMOs.  That said, the research suggests consumers are much more averse to genetic engineering in animals as compared to plants (for example, here's one recent study we conducted).  

Here's a sampling of the stories and applications mentioned:

Tamar Haspel in National Geographic - mentions bird-flu resistant chicken (well, they're not actually resistant but they don't spread the disease).

David Cyranoski in Nature News - mentions "double muscled" pigs.

Hannah Devlin in the Guardian - mentions pigs resistant to African swine fever (includes a nice graphic).

Kat McGowan in Mother Jones - mentioned polled (or hornless) Holstein cows (bet you didn't know almost all dairy cows currently have to be dehorned), also mentions more heat tolerant cows.

This is an old one but don't forget the larger, faster growing transgenic salmon.

It will be interesting to see how this field develops and how consumers respond.  Reducing proensity for disease and need for dehorning are clear animal welfare improvements, and of course more efficient animals mean less environmental impacts and lower prices.  Will that assuage consumer concerns?  Only time will tell.

Addendum:  Ellen Goddard reminded me of this story on transgenic cows that have higher Omega 3s

Wheat Yields and Temperature Change

I'm quite sure I've never seen an article in the Proceedings of the National Academies of Science written by a former teacher, a former student, and  a friend at a former employer.  Well, that changed yesterday.   Three top notch agricultural economists, Jesse Tack, Andy Barkley, and Lanier Nalley, just released a paper published in PNAS about the effect of hot and cold temperatures on wheat yields.   

The abstract:

“Climate change is expected to increase future temperatures, potentially resulting in reduced crop production in many key production regions. Research quantifying the complex relationship between weather variables and wheat yields is rapidly growing, and recent advances have used a variety of model specifications that differ in how temperature data are included in the statistical yield equation. A unique data set that combines Kansas wheat variety field trial outcomes for 1985–2013 with location-specific weather data is used to analyze the effect of weather on wheat yield using regression analysis. Our results indicate that the effect of temperature exposure varies across the September−May growing season. The largest drivers of yield loss are freezing temperatures in the Fall and extreme heat events in the Spring. We also find that the overall effect of warming on yields is negative, even after accounting for the benefits of reduced exposure to freezing temperatures. Our analysis indicates that there exists a tradeoff between average (mean) yield and ability to resist extreme heat across varieties. More-recently released varieties are less able to resist heat than older lines. Our results also indicate that warming effects would be partially offset by increased rainfall in the Spring. Finally, we find that the method used to construct measures of temperature exposure matters for both the predictive performance of the regression model and the forecasted warming impacts on yields”

There's more discussion about the study in this piece in the Washington Post.

Consumer sovereignty vs. scientific integrity

This post by Olga Khazan at Atlantic.com highlights some recent food company decisions to remove ingredients of concern to certain consumers.  Yet, the best science we have available suggests these same ingredients are perfectly safe.

Examples mentioned in the story include announcements that Diet Pepsi is removing aspartame, Ben and Jerry's and Chipotle are removing GMOs (the former company's decision is a bit ironic given that they're essentially selling frozen fat with sugar; the later is duplicitous since  they're still selling sodas and cheese that will contain GMOs), Pepsi dropping high fructose corn syrup in some of their drinks, and Clif's Luna Bars going gluten-free.  To that we could add a long list of others such as Cheerios dropping GMOs, many milk brands years ago dropping rBST, etc.  

It's difficult to know what to make of these moves.  On the one hand, we ought to champion consumer freedom and sovereignty.   Whatever one might think about the "power" of Big Food, these examples clearly show food companies willing to bend over backwards to meet customer demands.  That, in principle, is a good thing.  

The darker side of the story is that many consumers have beliefs about food ingredients that don't comport with the best scientific information we have available.  As a result, food companies are making a variety of cost-increasing changes that only convey perceived (but not real) health benefits to consumers.  

The longer-run potential problem for food companies is that they may inadvertently be fostering a climate of distrust.  Rather than creatively defending use of ingredient X and taking the opportunity to talk about the science, their moves come across as an admission of some sort of guilt:  Oh, you caught us!  You found out we use X.  Now, we'll now remove it.  All the while, we'll donate millions to causes that promote X or prevent labeling of X, while offering brands that promote the absence of X.  It's little wonder people get confused, lose trust, and question integrity.  

I'm not sure there is an easy answer to this conundrum.  In a competitive environment, I'm not sure I'd expect (or shareholders would expect) one food company to try to make a principled stand for ingredient X while their competitor is stealing market share by advertising "no-X".  On the other hand, I'd like consumers to make more informed decisions, but I'm not all that sure "education" has much impact or that, at least for many middle- to upper-income consumers, that given the price of food they have much economic incentive to adjust their prior beliefs.  

Faced with the conundrum, I suspect some  people would advocate for some sort of policy (i.e., ban ingredient X or prevent claims like "no-X"), but I don't think that's the right answer.  Despite my frustration, I suspect the marketplace will work it out in a messy way.  Some companies will adopt "no-X", will incur higher costs than their consumers are willing to pay, and will go out of business or go back to X. Some companies that are seen as lacking integrity will lose market share. Some consumers will pay more for "no-X" only later to find out it wasn't worth it, and switch back.  Maybe the scientists wind up being wrong and some consumers avoided X for good reason, and all companies drop X.  The feature of the marketplace, dynamism, that is, at times, frustrating is also the key to ultimately solving  some of those same frustrations.  

Farm size and community prosperity

Darby Minnow Smith in an article for Grist writes:

“As the total number of farms goes down, the number of big* farms is going up — and this shift hurts rural America. According to an analysis by Food and Water Watch: “Communities with more medium- and smaller-sized farms have more shared prosperity, including higher incomes, lower unemployment, and lower income inequality, than communities with larger farms tied to often-distant agribusinesses.””

I didn't find a lot in the report by Food and Water Watch that would seriously substantiate a causation between increasing the number of small farms and higher income for a community.  What I did find there was a lot of correlational analysis and, in a few spots, some cherry picking of dates to make the argument more convincing.  

First, the article is correct that there is a long-term trend toward fewer, larger farms.  The cause isn't corporatization or greed or any of these factors, but rather increased technological progress that substitutes capital for labor and increases the returns to size.  The driving force on the other side of the supply chain are we consumers who relentlessly demand lower prices, higher quality, and more consistency.

When discussing the book Meat Racket, I previously listed a bunch of research on effects of vertical integration and concentration in animal agriculture (which is the focus of much of the above report). This review of the research by Michael Wohlgenant, for example, concludes:

“Studies on market power in meatpacking indicate that concentration in procurement of livestock (cattle or hogs) has not adversely affected prices received by producers or prices paid by consumers.”

Indeed, as I showed in this article in Animal Frontiers, the long run trend is much more output (due to technology gains) resulting in lower prices for consumers.  

So, what of the argument that communities with more small farms are financially better off than communities with more large farms?  That statistic may be true (or may not; I'm not sure what a representative look at the data would say).  But, even if so, I doesn't necessarily imply causation: that more small farms would increase the economic prosperity of a community.  Rather, I suspect the causation is the other way around.  

Most of the farms in this country are small farms, and you can be defined as a farm if you have just $1,000 is gross sales.  Most of these small farms/farmers aren't making a living from farming and they account for a very small share of the value of agricultural output.  The USDA classifies some of these as "residential" or "lifestyle" farms.  I suspect the more likely direction of causation is that people living in communities that happen to growing for some other reason  can afford to take on a "hobby farm."  That is, my guess is that economically growing communities spur growth in small farms, not the other way around.  

Moreover, if you look at work by my colleagues Brian Whitacre and Trey Malone, what you'll see in their graphs is that farmers markets and CSAs are largely an urban phenomenon.  They write: 

“Generally, in counties where high percentages of Community Supported Agriculture or direct-to-human consumption exist, residents have higher incomes and population density is also high. In other words, the farms that enjoy high levels of support from their local populations are not typically located in more rural parts of the country.”

This leads me to believe that  urban areas experiencing economic growth for reasons beyond agriculture are one of the key causes of more small farms.   So, again, it's not the small farms causing economic growth and vitality, it's the economic growth and vitality enabling small farming.