The Locavore's Dilemma

Certain current food fads (all organic- though I realize there can be legitimate health reasons in some few cases- and locavorism) are among my biggest pet peeves. In fact, I have to be careful whom I talk to about them.  I get frustrated because people who should know better seem to think these are the best ideas ever thought of, and they don't think of the bigger picture problems that could result.  

Ever since I watched Food, Inc. I have been hoping someone would write more to refute it.  Even internet searches for articles with sound economics arguing against these dangerous ideas didn't yield much.  If I could have I would have written more myself, but all I could manage were a couple blog posts.

But recently I came across The Locavore's Dilemma.  I haven't read it yet (I placed a library hold immediately), but based on this review I'm hopeful it includes some good, sound economics on why current fads in food thought are unsound and even dangerous, and the real path to success in truly free markets.

Locavorism

The local food movement has long been one of my pet peeves. This is a great article from Freakonomics that discusses some of the economic principles (division of labor, specialization, economies of scale...) that the push towards small, local farms seeks to ignore. It also applies these issues to climate change.

"From roughly 1940 to 1990, the world’s farmers doubled their output to accommodate a doubling of the world population. And they did it on a shrinking base of cropland. Agricultural productivity can continue to grow, but not by turning back the clock. Local foods may have a place in the market. But they should stand on their own, and local food consumers should understand that they aren’t necessarily buying something that helps the planet, and it may hurt the poor."

Food Safety Modernization Act

I had intended to write about this piece of legislation in a more timely fashion (shortly after it came up for vote in the Senate Thanksgiving week) but other things came up. Now I see that S. 510, the so-called Food Safety Modernization Act, has passed the House and is heading to the President's desk. This occured in spite of consitutionality questions; since this legislation is considered revenue-generating it should have originated in the House, not in the Senate. The Complete Patient (also see previous posts) has written several posts with great analysis.

The bill is intended to bring food safety into the present after outbreaks of foodborn illness. In fact it greatly increases FDA oversight of farming and the food industry, and increases extremely burdensome regulations on food production. Senator Tom Coburn, who outspokenly opposed the bill, believes that the increased regulation would not actually make food safer. He said: "The problem with food safety is the agencies don't do what they're supposed to be doing now. They don't need more regulations. They need less." Sen. Coburn also objected to the cost of the new legislation, which the Congressional Budget Office estimates as a "negligible" $1.4 million over four years.

Originally there was a great deal of outcry (from the few who knew this bill existed) because the new regulations would apply to all food production regardless of size. Sen. John Tester proposed an amendment as a solution to this problem, exempting small farms and those who sell at farmer's markets. Though this appeared to be a solution for small farms, instead of simply exempting them it apparantly places the burden on the farmer to prove that he is exempt. It looks like the FDA could inspect any time it chose. It also appears that the legislation would resurrect the failed National Animal Identification System, which required farmers to register every animal owned. Farming is not a neat and tidy business that can be laid out on paper and expected to remain somewhat constant (is any business, really?). To require extensive records from any business is a huge imposition and only impedes that business' activity and progress. The farmer, depending on his operation, must either hire someone to do the additonal paperwork or do it himself. Either way this greatly reduces the efficiency of his resources and prevents his business from performing to the full extent of his capability. Greater oversight makes the system more cumbersome and will do nothing to keep the people safe.

Thoughts on Food, Inc.

I had the chance recently to watch the documentary Food, Inc. The film-makers traced what they see as a change in the way we eat and the way our food is grown. They described the increasing distance between consumer and consumed, noting that the traditional farm is a thing of the past. The film outlines the rise of fast food. According to the film it arose partly as a result of corn subsidies that led to increased and inexpensive corn supply and made corn a primary feed for beef and other meat animals, in turn making meat production much less expensive than it would otherwise have been. The corn lobby influences legislation and also led to the discovery of innumerable ways to use corn products, which can be found in many processed foods (such as high fructose corn syrup). The film also discusses the growth and centralization of the meat industry and how “big business” now runs most large farms instead of farmers. It discusses poor feedlot and chicken house conditions for both animals and workers and it blames those conditions and even a high proportion of corn in animals’ diets for the rise of a dangerous strain of E. coli virus and other contaminants. The contributors describe how fast food diets have led to poor nutrition and diseases such as type 2 diabetes. They trace the rise of organic production in response to the mainstream industry’s problems. The film discusses genetically modified seeds and abuses by the companies that own the patents, in addition to the connections between these companies and regulatory agencies and political administrations. The film closes with a list of actions viewers can take, including buying organic or locally grown produce and meat from those who respect both animals and workers.

I will readily admit that I did not expect to find much of value, but I had heard various things about the film and decided to watch it myself. In some ways my fears were confirmed, but I felt some of the material was good. I expected that it would be a biased portrayal of a controversial issue. I expected the scary music and footage. I also expected that I would have to research afterwards to determine the whole truth. I will continue to research some ideas and may write further in future, but here are some thoughts.

First of all, viewers should realize that the film has an agenda. By all means watch it, but realize that you will be unable to take the information at face value. If it makes you think and research to find the answers, your viewing time will not have been wasted. One of the aspects I disliked was the lack of documentation for the numerous assertions made. I would have appreciated seeing both sides of the story and deciding for myself, but I don’t believe this was the way the film-makers handled it. If the film-makers want to promote their agenda they should at least give the studies, the research, and the reasoning that led them to these conclusions.

I am still researching various issues discussed in the film. I saw a significant bias against big business, and even against capitalism (one of the individuals featured was clearly anti-capitalist). The discussion of E. coli contamination implied that organic produce was safer, when in fact the FDA has questioned this and has recalled organic produce in the past due to contaminants.

Subsidies
I did appreciate a very significant topic covered in the film, the issue of subsidies in agriculture. The film focused on corn subsidies and their effects on meat production. I wholeheartedly agree that subsidies to agriculture are a significant problem and one that is commonly overlooked by those who are otherwise politically conservative. I believe the film did well in describing how they have affected the industry overall. It described how the subsidies have resulted in a great amount of corn being produced very cheaply, which led to its becoming a primary meat animal feed and enabling the cost of meat production to fall as well. It has led to an industry that looks for ways to use corn in processed foods (HCFS, and many others). The film also discussed how US corn subsidies forced Mexican corn farmers out of business and forced some to illegally emigrate and work for US corn producers. The film attributed the rise of the fast food industry to corn subsidies, which enabled beef to be inexpensive enough for chains to sell it at a very low price.

The film did not follow through with this valuable store line, however. In the closing thoughts the writers made no mention of subsidies and how change in this area of agriculture might improve the system. One of the instructions was to contact the USDA. I think the implied meaning was that viewers should ask for more oversight and regulation of the industry. In fact less government involvement and removing subsidies to agriculture would benefit the market and consumer even more by removing unfair advantage (subsidy created artificial prices) and making the industry more responsible to the consumer.

Factory Farms
The film was very critical of factory farming. While I agree that subsidies have artificially affected prices and in the process have affected industry growth, much of the rest of the discussion was counter to good economic reasoning. The division of labor and the standardization that results increases efficiency in any area. The problem with factory farming is not that these operations follow the factory system, but that the subsidies have led to growth that would not have been sustained in a regular market. Use of the division of labor and factories has made innumerable products affordable when otherwise their cost of production would have made them prohibitive for many people (for example assembly lines used to produce Ford cars). Without division of labor our society would not be nearly as economically advanced as it is today.

There is nothing inherently wrong with organic farming or the idea of a self-sufficient farm, and you may choose to buy from such an operation. Realize, however, that you will be paying higher prices due to the higher cost of production. By nature that farm cannot produce as much food as efficiently as a more specialized farm. Location is another aspect of specialization, as some areas are more conducive to certain kinds of agricultural production than others. A small farm that grows all kinds of products may be able to do it, but it will be less efficient. The film profiled a family whose budget and time constraints forced them to eat mainly fast food and avoid fresh produce. They were already seeing ill health as a result. Unfortunately I doubt that the grass-fed beef, free-range chickens and eggs produced by Polyface Farms (featured in the film) are a viable solution for this family. The farmer himself mentioned that his products cost more than the mainstream. One would expect this and it is fine for consumers who are willing and able to pay, but this family is not in that category.

If it were not for the large, specialized factory farms, food would be much more expensive and there would be much less of it. Those who believe that only organic production is moral should seriously think about the repercussions such a belief would have if put into practice. Small, self-sufficient and organic farms are not a practical way to feed the world. Specialization and standardization allows products to be much more plentiful and affordable. Given the number of people struggling economically and the many who cannot afford to eat, whether in the US or elsewhere, I believe that any increased efficiency in this area is wholly positive. This does not mean that there should be no change in the factory farming system (halting agricultural subsidies would be a good start), but the system as a whole is not the problem.

Conclusion
I do not intend this to be a full discussion. I mainly want to provoke more careful thought about these issues and encourage viewers to research before making judgments based on this film. I encourage you to read the following excellent article “The Omnivore’s Delusion: Against the Agri-Intellectuals,” by Blake Hurst. In evaluating Michael Pollen’s (a Food, Inc. contributor) book The Omnivore’s Delusion, Hurst discusses many of Food, Inc.’s claims from a farmer’s perspective. He also outlines some of the reasons for the supposed cruel conditions like those described in Food, Inc.