Foodonomica

Great Sustainability and Biotechnology Discussion- Join In!

noreply@blogger.com (Janie Appleseed) — Sun, 07 Nov 2010 20:43:00 +0000

The economist has started a discussion of biotechnology and sustainable farming that no one should miss. Check it out!

Whole Food's Seafood Sustainability Labels: Is this the right path?

noreply@blogger.com (Janie Appleseed) — Tue, 21 Sep 2010 16:36:00 +0000

Robert Seistema, in a recent Village Voice Blog, pointed out that some Whole Foods branches have started labeling the fish they sell according the Blue Ocean Institutes Sustainability rating. The kicker is, Whole Foods continues to sell the "red label," or unsustainable, species. We're left to wrestle a question- if they know that the fish is unsustainably harvested, do they have the responsibility to stop selling it?

Well, let's start with a little bit more background. Before instituting this program, Whole Foods would label wild caught fish designated as sustainable by the Marine Stewardship Council, but leave all others unlabeled. So there's no denying an improvement. At least now people aren't left guessing about the sustainability of anything not MSC certified, and Whole Foods has a plan in place to phase out all "red label" fish by Earth Day 2013.

But this all dodges the main question- do suppliers have the responsibility to stop selling unsustainable fish? Honestly, its almost seems ridiculous. Sure, for a grocery chain like Whole Foods that thrives on a sustainable image, it might make sense. However, for most grocery stores, that is like asking them to redirect customers to another store upon arrival. On the other hand, adding sustainability labels will likely reduce the consumption of unsustainable seafood and won't drive customers away, but it certainly doesn't solve the problem. Like most free rider problems, there needs to be some sort of system in place to keep individuals from over indulging and damaging public welfare. That is, we have to keep working at this as an international community. We have to increase our fish conservation efforts through programs like protected waters. If species begin to revive, then we might be able to rely on consumers (and thus grocers) choosing responsibly. Asking them to cut it out entirely probably won't create much success. In short, while it makes sense to label all seafood according to its sustainability, expecting more responsibility from grocers is unlikely to save a species.

Read the full Whole Foods Phase-Out Plan.
Related News: Island of Kribiti Closes more than 150,000 Miles to Fishing

Why We Should Move On From Organic

noreply@blogger.com (Janie Appleseed) — Mon, 20 Sep 2010 15:07:00 +0000

When Organic first became a term for describing agriculture, it was used similarly to what we now mean by "sustainable." It wasn't strictly defined, but meant to represent farming with particular care for our land, animals and future. As soon as we started to certify organics, we placed a strict definition on the term. Animals must have a certain amount of freedom to roam. No synthetic fertilizers. Minimize all pesticide use. No growth hormones. No genetic engineering. Setting this definition nationally in 1990 eventually led to huge changes in our agricultural system. Today, organic produce, meat and even processed foods can be found in nearly every super market in the country. This popularity of the organic label has set a precedent, and a measure of restriction, on every new food label we'll see in the future.

The first thing to note about the term organic, is that it is really an umbrella term. Because it has so many meanings, it reduces the relevance of many other labels. You still may see labels indicating things such as No Growth Hormones or Non-GMO, but you probably won't see it side-by-side with an organic label. Allowing multiple layers of labeling like this, can easily lead to consumer confusion and misdirection. Asking consumers to keep track of what organic means for animal products, processed products and produce, leads to a lot of guessing in the grocery aisles. Would we be better off with a list of certifications like Non-GMO and Cage-Free? Probably. The thing that organic certification does well- forcing farmers to adopt a wide range of socially conscious practices- is also its greatest fault. There's not much flexibility to an organic label. Rather than farmers making rational decisions about how to make the most difference at a minimal cost, he's stuck with a national standard. Such inefficiencies undoubtedly drive the cost of organic produce higher.

But let's not overlook the impact that the organic label has had on society. Labels that meant something to a spectrum of consumers (like organic) has a lot more appeal to large producers, and the more a label is in stores, the more people will be willing to learn about it. We shouldn't have regrets about creating the organic label- it sparked a great step forward, but it is time to move on. Why not a short list on the side of a label, marking off the sustainable claims of product. Shouldn't consumers decide if grain fed or hormone free is more important to them? Or if they want both? Labeling item by item, rather than with umbrella terms, creates a clarity and flexibility for both consumers and producers. In short, it's efficient.

Of course, scraping the organic label would have huge market consequences. On the one hand, it might be easier for new producers to make changes. Depending on what's being certified, farmers might be able to skip the (quite deterring) 3-year wait in a organic certification process. On the other hand, farmers who have already invested in going in organic could face a significant loss. I wouldn't suggest we keep the process difficult, but not allowing current organic farms some sort of recognition could damage the industry and drive a lot of good practicers out of business. Just as the product of a short brainstorm, a couple of ways to ease this transition might be:
- automatic approval for a set of certifications if you are already certified organic
- allowing the organic label to coexist with the new system for a few-year period
- a small note like "organic leader" indicating that they adopted organic practices before the label change

If there are other ways we could ease out the organic label, I'd love to hear them. Making the change feasible is key to making the change happen.

This Week: Thoughts on Food Labels

noreply@blogger.com (Janie Appleseed) — Sun, 19 Sep 2010 21:43:00 +0000

I set out today to write a short entry on food labels, but quickly discovered that these debates are too varied and extensive to capture in a single blog entry. So, all this week, I'll discuss a different aspect of food labels and how they do (or could) affect the way we eat.

In general, the consequence of a new food label on a package is complicated. In addition to impacting consumer behavior, it can mean big changes on the producer side. A 2007 Amber Waves article, Do Food Labels Make a Difference? ... Sometimes, makes the argument that mandatory labeling often has more impact on producer behavior than consumer behavior. For instance, requiring producers to label whole grain content, could mean many producers move to whole grains even though only a small portion of the population reads this label. While mandatory labels are the most likely to create this producer-side change, we've certainly seen voluntary labels have a big impact too- consider that Trix are now made with whole grains. As I wonder through different controversies regarding food labels, I'll be looking at the effects on consumers and producers to see if all the trouble of a label is worth it.

Corn Sugar or HFCS? The implications of changing a label

noreply@blogger.com (Janie Appleseed) — Tue, 14 Sep 2010 22:22:00 +0000

There's no doubt that High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) has faced a surge in public scrutiny over the past few years; domestic sales slipped 11% between 2002 and 2008 while sugar sales increased by 7%. In reaction to increasing public concern, the Corn Refiner's Association has asked that the FDA rename HFCS as "Corn Sugar" on product labels. This suggested change has drawn a lot of attention, including a great NYTimes article. The FDA's response is unpredictable.

On one side, relabeling HFCS as Corn Sugar can completely undue public awareness of the product. While the health effect of HFCs opposed to cane sugar is still debated, HFCS often serves as a litmus test for one rather vague term- processed foods. This precedent of using HFCS as a tool for distinguishing unprocessed from processed foods has both long and short term effects. In the short term, it might help to guide consumers away from nutritionally empty products. In the long run, however, it drives unhealthy foods from using HFCS and even leads to advertising cane sugar like a health product. These long term effects are already at hand- products ranging from Jones Soda to Wheat Thins have made the switch. If you think this trick will never fly, reconsider the public perception of organic products.

And this brings us to the argument for changing the name to Corn Sugar: it reminds people that HFCS' real health consequences come from it being a sugar. No more opting for one (cane) sugary soda just because it doesn't contain HFCS. It will put corn sugar and cane sugar on a level playing field, which may be just what we need. Of course, this assumption hinges on one of the most unpredictable elements in health policy- public perception. Will people see both corn sugar and cane sugar as the good ol' stuff grandma used to cook with, or as something that threatens health and should be moderated? Will people increase total sugar consumption or spread their current consumption across the two products more equally? These are tough questions that have no immediate answer. However, as the FDA reviews this name change it is off-base to expect them to review consumer perception and make their decision based on the good of society. Such a measure sets a bad standard for using names to indicate health. This review should, however, mandate a deeper look into the difference between HFCS and corn sugar. If HFCS is nutritionally different from sugar, it should have a different name than sugar.

Understanding the New School Lunch Act

noreply@blogger.com (Janie Appleseed) — Sun, 12 Sep 2010 19:13:00 +0000

Officially titled the Healthy, Hunger Free Kids Act of 2010, the latest renewal of the school lunch program was recently passed by the Senate and is waiting of full passage from Congress. Like its predecessors, the bill includes a wide variety of programs that address domestic hunger, primarily through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP or "food stamps"), school lunches, and the Women Infants and Children program (WIC). While the breadth of this bill makes discussing all of the programs difficult, its important to highlight a few major changes.

It is the first non-inflationary funding increase to the school lunch program since 1973.
While generally seen as a necessary for improvement, this measure has still been a bit controversial. In order for this act to remain deficit neutral, the money for this increase is being taken out of SNAP. Based on current projections, it shouldn't have a significant impact. That is, relying on decreases in unemployment, SNAP's funding needs should decrease as the funds move over to the school lunch programs. We'll see whether this plays out correctly, but being deficit neutral was probably essential to the bill being passed through unanimous consent rather than with a formal vote, difficult to attain in such a busy legislative period.

It allows the Secretary of Agriculture to set national nutritional standards for all school lunch programs.
Setting a national standard for nutrition could mean a huge boost in select areas. While most programs have requirements for some important basics like nutrition content and vegetable servings, they are often lacking in important standards such as caps on sodium and sugar. Since health standards and guidelines are typically set on a national level, the switch makes sense. It removes the possibility nutritional oversights and takes an unnecessary burden off of the states.

It places the control of competitive foods in the hands of the USDA.
Of all the changes this bill makes, this is probably the biggest step forward for child nutrition. Competitive foods is a term meant to categorize everything sold at the school that is not a part of the USDA school meals program. Allowing the USDA to set standards for everything sold on a school campus might make you cringe- no more bake sales? - but it is essential to real improvements in child nutrition. Vending machines and concession stands can make nutritional gains in the cafeteria irrelevant, and if we really want one meal a day to make a difference, the children will have to eat it.

As I mentioned, this bill changes a lot more than the three things listed above, especially when it comes to easing the approval process. There's a great summary written by the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry. And, of course, we'll have to keep an eye out for the what national standards do show up if this bill goes on through the house.

Reducing Agriculture's Greenhouse Gas Emissions- Analysis of a few different approaches

noreply@blogger.com (Janie Appleseed) — Fri, 10 Sep 2010 20:32:00 +0000

If you haven't noticed yet, a recent article from the Economic Research Service is stirring up quite a bit of buzz. The article, The Role of Agriculture in Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions, suggests how agriculture might be incorporated into a national greenhouse gas reduction program. One of the best traits of this article is in its comprehensive list of ways that farmers across products can reduce their emissions, ranging from biogas to alternative tilling. It also offers up a few approaches for encouraging changes, and its seems like a good opportunity to discuss the pros and cons of these options.

The first incentive program mentioned gives carbon credits to farmers who change their practices, which they can then sell to industries participating in a cap and trade program. This program offers a lot of efficiency gains, but not necessarily huge environmental benefits. All incentive programs, if priced correctly, will motivate farmers and general industry to reduce emissions to a socially optimal point. In addition to this sort of efficiency, trade between sectors will make sure the reductions are spread appropriately. That is, society could take on undue costs in reducing greenhouse gases if all of the responsibility relies on one industry. Clearly, this type of program has a lot to offer. However, notice that all the of reduction emissions attained in the agricultural sector are compensated for by increases in emissions within the capped industries. This means that accurate forecasts of farmers responses are necessary, as the goal for reduced emissions in agriculture has to be worked into the initial cap and trade limitations. So this program might require a bit more planning, and doesn't offer environmental gains to programs that already have cap and trade in place, but it comes with a bundle of efficiency gains that make it very appealing.

Another program mentioned, setting national standards for alternative fuel content, is already (partially) in place. We've seen ethanol content being mandated on a state by state basis here, but with not great results. Yes, it guarantees a certain amount of progress that other programs cannot, but its lack of flexibility proves problematic. When international food prices soared, ethanol production couldn't be diverted- worsening the problem of hunger and the rise of gas prices. Further, as the environmental benefits are increasingly questioned, we're still stuck with the mandate of ethanol in particular. While requiring that alternative energy in general be incorporated into our national supply might prove a bit more flexible, it faces similar risks. The amount of alternative energy used cannot respond to market changes. The definitive change that it offers, however, could still sway policy. Which might not be entirely misguided- mandating a level of alternative energy and offering incentives for anything above it might be a good way to jump start change in the system.

The article also addresses an extension of two existing programs that already have some impact on Greenhouse Gas Emissions: the Conservation Reserve Program and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program. The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) pays farmers not to farm highly erodible or otherwise sensitive land. As a carbon sequestration resource, the CRP is probably not very effective. That is, they are currently comparing the difference between farming and raising trees for 10-15 years, but do not compensate for additional land farmed elsewhere to in response to decreased production. This is an extremely complex prediction, but never the less we should take the currently predicted numbers with a grain of salt. The Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) pays farmers for changing their practices to more environmentally friendly measures.The EQIP might offer more potential for reducing emissions, as it can be designed to respond to urgent priorities and easily increased as necessary. However, EQIP requires a serious financial and time commitment from the government while cap and trade programs come at a relatively low cost.

Together, these program comprise a strong toolbox for reducing emissions in the agricultural system. To hazard a guess, we are likely to see all of them incorporated if a comprehensive greenhouse gas emissions law goes through.

Traceability- Can it extend beyond marketing?

noreply@blogger.com (Janie Appleseed) — Thu, 09 Sep 2010 16:54:00 +0000

I recently came across traceablecoffee.org, a program that allows consumers, through a code on the bag, to identify their coffee grower. There are over 100 small growers on the site and for each one there is a brief description of their farm. Here, traceability is all about boosting the farmers' income. If you particularly like your cup of joe in the morning, you can send a tip directly their way.

It seems like a great program, but it raises some big questions about the state of our domestic traceability. If we can trace a bag of coffee from a small farm across continents, why can't I check if the carton of eggs in my fridge has been affected by the recent recall? The truth is, there just isn't much incentive for firms to do it. While thinking about my coffee being handpicked on a small farm in Peru might make it more appealing, nothing damages a brand like a daily contamination check. That's not to say there no benefit to domestic companies. Traceability can mean a lot to supply management, allow for product differentiation and better marketing, but it just doesn't offer a payoff for producers when it comes to food safety.

There are three primary causes for shifts in traceability. The first, as we already discussed, is the individual producer, who is usually motivated by product differentiation. The second common cause are industry groups. When industry groups create mandates for traceability, it is usually motivated by food safety. Contaminations that make the news affect the whole market, but fast identification of a source can reduce consumers' mistrust of a product. Finally, the government can change the traceability standards either through mandates or incentives.

On the surface there's good reason to believe that the consequences of unsafe food, if priced properly, will give firms the motivation to choose a socially optimal level of traceability. This notion, however, overlooks the serious barriers to an individual firm making consumer-side changes. It's bad branding to be the only company the apparently needs a health checker, and thats assuming that consumers even notice that sort of change on a single label. Imagine, instead, that the next time there's a salmonella outbreak among eggs news articles mention where to find the code and check if your carton is safe. Maybe you could even do a quick online check while you're in the store. Not only will this reduce the outbreak of disease, but the product-avoiding hysteria that often accompanies it. We might even see generally safer products as accountability increases. Of course, this all relies on the changes occurring one industry at a time, no small accomplishment.

What remains to be determined, is what we can do to get these changes happening. Increasing the cost of an outbreak to companies might increase each individual firm's incentive, but it doesn't mean much to an industry group. Of course the government can mandate these changes, but likely not as efficiently as an internal industry program. Offering incentives to industry groups raises a whole other set of questions. How do we reach the worst offenders without rewarding bad behavior? Are we creating unfair competition? Can we safely offer some deregulation in exchange? Grants that cut the cost of implementing new traceability standards could offer one of the less complicated solutions. As industry groups would still bear some cost in the process, there's little chance of totally unjustified traceability. Of course, there are hundreds of ways to work with industry groups, but it's time that consumers start to see some of the benefit of a technology that clearly already works.

Welcome to Foodonomica

noreply@blogger.com (Janie Appleseed) — Thu, 09 Sep 2010 04:54:00 +0000

In the last decade, we've seen huge changes in how we look at food and where it comes from. Concerns ranging from animal rights to obesity have lead us to refocus on what we eat, and not without consequence. Farmers markets are surging, subsidies face tough questions and the line between food and fuel has been blurred. What these changes mean for the future of our world food supply is unclear, but there is more information everyday. Follow Foodonomica for an economic perspective on food news, controversy and policy.