tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-185059752024-03-13T05:45:00.815-07:00Economic SenseBiotechnology, Food, and Applied EconomicsMatt Bogardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10510725993509264716noreply@blogger.comBlogger434125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18505975.post-19077008905496938842023-03-25T08:51:00.010-07:002023-05-03T17:37:41.652-07:00Picture This: Putting Beef and Climate Into Perspective<p>Beef has gotten a very bad rap when it comes to climate, and in the popular media and among activists gets presented as if reducing beef consumption is a number one priority and one of the most important things we can do to reduce our impact on climate.</p><p>However, in their research about influencing consumer choices to reduce climate impact McFadden, et al. (2022) make a very important point. We have to consider more than just the potential impact we have on climate change when it comes to decisions about food, shelter and transportation. We have to look at the big picture, the costs, benefits and 'plasticity' - how impactable are people when it comes to changing behavior? What has the greatest realistic expected impact on climate? </p><p>When thinking about the problem this way, one question that comes to mind is - how many other seemingly arbitrary choices (other than reducing beef consumption) could we make in our daily lives that would have a similar climate benefit? </p><p><b>Let Me Count the Ways (other arbitrary ways to reduce your carbon footprint)</b></p><p>Another article by Obringer, et al. (2021) provides some interesting insights about the carbon footprint associated with various ways we use the internet:</p><p></p><ul><li>Globally, the Internet use has a carbon footprint ranging from 28 to 63 g CO2 equivalent per gigabyte (GB)</li><li>The world median is 32.3 g CO2 per GB</li><li>The U.S. median is 9% higher</li><li>Common streaming services require 7 GB per hour of streaming using ultra HD quality video and have a carbon footprint of 441 g CO2e/hr</li><li>Streaming 4 hrs/day with HD quality video produces about 53 kg CO2e/month</li><li>Streaming at a lower quality SD video would reduce CO2e/month to about 2.5 kg</li><li>Standard video conference services use ~ 2.5 GB/hr associated with 157 g CO2e/hr</li><li>15 one hour meetings a week equate to a monthly carbon footprint of 9.4 kg</li><li>By turning off the video camera at an individual level, monthly CO2e emissions could be reduced from 9.4 kg to 377 g CO2e. This is equivalent to enough emissions savings to offset charging a smart phone each night for over 3 years (1151 days). </li></ul><p></p><p>Separate research reported in MIT Technology review indicates that training common AI models that underpin a number of the technologies and apps we leverage every day and will continue to use in the future can produce as much as 5 times the lifetime CO2 emissions of a single car (Strubell et al., 2019 & Haoarchive, 2019) </p><p><b>Framing Up the Discussion</b></p><p>Obringer, et al. (2021) certainly motivates us to think of a number of arbitrary ways we can reduce our carbon footprint other than making dietary changes when we think of all the various ways we use internet services in the age of Zoom meetings, Netflix, Amazon Prime, and smart phones. But let's take another look at beef consumption. </p><p></p><ul><li>In the U.S. the average consumer consumes about 60 pounds of beef/year</li><li>On a monthly basis that equates to 5 lbs or about 2.26 kg/beef/person</li><li>According to Rotz (2019) 1 kg of U.S. beef produces 22 kg of CO2 equivalent emissions</li></ul><p></p><p>So if an individual consumer gives up U.S. beef for a month that equates to a reduction of about 50 kg CO2e emissions. It looks like the emissions related to <b>beef consumption may be very similar to streaming HD video on a monthly basis given the assumptions above. </b></p><p>On the other hand, it looks like giving up beef for a month would have a much bigger impact on climate than giving up your Zoom camera for a month! More than 2x the impact. </p><p>But that is not even the full picture. We also have to consider how livestock emissions differ from emissions related to many other arbitrary things we do on a daily basis. Sure CO2 is CO2 but there's more to the story and that requires consideration of the biogenic carbon cycle pictured below:</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgIQgr1qxSaFfmiWLYEhdfneMaS-7hKzJSSoDVZYo-A-h3fMI-0Gat6b1zOH5N__M8uHBoX2jmrlzk_v5D4HXbsCKexByCSAxk3Orh6f36nHaKwhHdXBHA8uQgf5k0PVtdqtiUG2LWBX8D7IATCOMe_DW5_-LxkvPzG-sgwj-XsXhDYODZBWxbTAxlp/s4032/Beef%20CO2.HEIC" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="4032" data-original-width="3024" height="404" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgIQgr1qxSaFfmiWLYEhdfneMaS-7hKzJSSoDVZYo-A-h3fMI-0Gat6b1zOH5N__M8uHBoX2jmrlzk_v5D4HXbsCKexByCSAxk3Orh6f36nHaKwhHdXBHA8uQgf5k0PVtdqtiUG2LWBX8D7IATCOMe_DW5_-LxkvPzG-sgwj-XsXhDYODZBWxbTAxlp/w434-h404/Beef%20CO2.HEIC" width="434" /></a></div><br /><p>That little cloud in the sketch represents the carbon footprint of beef - and if we are considering U.S. beef it represents less than 1/2 of 1% (i.e. < .5%) of global greenhouse gas emissions. If all U.S. consumers give up U.S. beef, then that little cloud completely goes away. On the other hand, if you decide to consume the same average amount of beef you have consumed for decades, that decision is not adding any new net GHG emissions to the atmosphere. We just keep recycling that same little cloud over and over. And as production technologies and management practices improve, we can eat the same amount of beef or more and make the cloud even smaller. But it doesn't get any bigger and on the net beef consumption doesn't have any new net impact on the climate. We also have to consider tradeoffs related to nutrient density to really grasp all the implications related to food choices and climate see <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(23)00006-2/fulltext" target="_blank">here </a>and <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2924839/" target="_blank">here</a>.</p><p>But, as pictured below, the story changes when we shift our attention to many other arbitrary choices we make on any given day: </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhXUvoVCvX8-4Jr3RN55MwtWNJoxOu2qKVVqJ7aNSWYxhvrB6RlcJJl3qJtQSBoh3YRcc0N4MDAzuKUSHsDOwntsYKOo_8UrUIAeZkdBUflZxx7LdCCaRvAdCwEz1xqXozbKUT8PhOhwwySsd3V-QXKVKsl1bQPZPP-aGgUlfrgnTdmlZgVuwt8oIi_/s4032/Household%20CO2.HEIC" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="4032" data-original-width="3024" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhXUvoVCvX8-4Jr3RN55MwtWNJoxOu2qKVVqJ7aNSWYxhvrB6RlcJJl3qJtQSBoh3YRcc0N4MDAzuKUSHsDOwntsYKOo_8UrUIAeZkdBUflZxx7LdCCaRvAdCwEz1xqXozbKUT8PhOhwwySsd3V-QXKVKsl1bQPZPP-aGgUlfrgnTdmlZgVuwt8oIi_/w465-h320/Household%20CO2.HEIC" width="465" /></a></div><br /><p>Almost every thing else we do that creates CO2 emissions bypasses the biogenic carbon cycle and adds new and long lasting greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere. If we give up U.S. beef, that little cloud goes away (and as stated before has a minimal impact on a global scale). But for example, every time you turn on your web cam or stream HD, you are contributing to adding new and permanent long lasting GHG emissions to the atmosphere. So maybe according to the facts above, the little cloud you are <i>recycling</i> from monthly beef consumption is 2X larger than the cloud you are <i>producing</i> from your Zoom meeting. However, every time you zoom you are making another little cloud. And those little clouds can add up to be much bigger and never go away even if you eventually stop 'zooming.' On the other hand - every month you are streaming video you are producing a <i>new cloud </i>just as big as the one that's just being recycled if you consume beef, and its having a permanent and lasting impact on climate. </p><p>There are many other little things we do just as arbitrary as the decision to consume U.S. beef that also have important if not more consequential implications for climate change.</p><p>What should we do? What is the most important thing you can do to have an impact on climate? If we are really concerned about this we have to ask ourselves when it comes to combating climate change, which behaviors and barriers should we be targeting to have the greatest impact? </p><p>As a personal choice some might say why not give up beef and also do other things to fight climate change - we should be doing everything we can. Many might agree that is a good idea - but being good isn't enough for an idea to scale effectively and always have the impact we desire. Trying to scale one idea based on beef consumption can risk drawing attention and resources away from more effective strategies. It could lead to odd and distracted behaviors like having a salad delivered by Uber Eats instead of a steak and thinking every order like this is doing your little part to save the planet as pictured below:</p><p><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiBE3qR5gxeGtzLy4kvPksf565kgpkUP0iG0fOZhZsa7S-HYKuCtgVPMDPYPQw-HS6RWWO0xDLTHmO-c7O08LPRN2NJ02oAWzn28JJgJNRI40tMwGg8t7BKD8gwsCZ-dFIjuNar3-PPaMeqM9KZGcZ-tmxAO7ManovGZIi0wl0HZDX-B4S3M9k24Djh/s2984/Beef%20flow%20vs%20stock.heic" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1797" data-original-width="2984" height="291" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiBE3qR5gxeGtzLy4kvPksf565kgpkUP0iG0fOZhZsa7S-HYKuCtgVPMDPYPQw-HS6RWWO0xDLTHmO-c7O08LPRN2NJ02oAWzn28JJgJNRI40tMwGg8t7BKD8gwsCZ-dFIjuNar3-PPaMeqM9KZGcZ-tmxAO7ManovGZIi0wl0HZDX-B4S3M9k24Djh/w483-h291/Beef%20flow%20vs%20stock.heic" width="483" /></a></div><br /><br /><p></p><p>A broader perspective asks, how should we prioritize our time, attention and resources TODAY to have the greatest impact tomorrow? Do we start with that little cloud from beef while we continue to livestream HD quality from Netflix and have our salad delivered by Uber eats?</p><p>Turning off the video essentially has an easy button and cuts off the unending flow of climate emissions. But changing culture and food systems requires a lot more effort with a much lower expected payoff. We'd be shooting for 1/2 of 1% of global GHG emissions max and that's not even a realistic goal. </p><p><b>Related Readings:</b></p><p>Behavioral Economics, Beef, and Climate: <a href="https://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2023/02/behavioral-economics-beef-and-climate.html " target="_blank">https://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2023/02/behavioral-economics-beef-and-climate.html </a></p><p>Training a single AI model can emit as much carbon as five cars in their lifetimes: Deep learning has a terrible carbon footprint. By Karen Haoarchive. June 6, 2019 <a href="https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/06/06/239031/training-a-single-ai-model-can-emit-as-much-carbon-as-five-cars-in-their-lifetimes/" target="_blank">https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/06/06/239031/training-a-single-ai-model-can-emit-as-much-carbon-as-five-cars-in-their-lifetimes/ </a></p><p><b><br /></b></p><p><b>References:</b></p><p>Estimated micronutrient shortfalls of the EAT–Lancet planetary health diet.Beal, Ty et al.The Lancet Planetary Health, Volume 7, Issue 3, e233 - e237</p><p>McFadden BR, Ferraro PJ, Messer KD (2022) Private costs of carbon emissions abatement by limiting beef consumption and vehicle use in the United States. PLOS ONE 17(1): e0261372. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261372</p><p>Obringer, R., Rachunok, B., Maia-Silva, D., Arbabzadeh, M., Nateghi, R., & Madani, K. (2021). The overlooked environmental footprint of increasing Internet use. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 167, [105389]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105389</p><p>C. Alan Rotz, Senorpe Asem-Hiablie, Sara Place, Greg Thoma, Environmental footprints of beef cattle production in the United States, Agricultural Systems, Volume 169, 2019, Pages 1-13, ISSN 0308-521X, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2018.11.005.</p><p>Smedman A, Lindmark-Månsson H, Drewnowski A, Edman AK. Nutrient density of beverages in relation to climate impact. Food Nutr Res. 2010 Aug 23;54. doi: 10.3402/fnr.v54i0.5170. PMID: 20806074; PMCID: PMC2924839.</p><p>Strubell, Emma & Ganesh, Ananya & Mccallum, Andrew. (2019). Energy and Policy Considerations for Deep Learning in NLP. 3645-3650. 10.18653/v1/P19-1355.</p>Matt Bogardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10510725993509264716noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18505975.post-43548025853679946002023-02-12T15:02:00.010-08:002023-04-08T08:21:05.871-07:00Behavioral Economics, Beef, and Climate<p>Recently I've written a number of posts related to the behavioral economics of food choices, beef consumption and climate impacts.</p><p><br /></p><p><a href="https://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2023/03/putting-beef-and-climate-into.html" target="_blank">Picture This: Putting Beef and Climate into Perspective.</a> This post summarizes some of the the arguments found below and illustrates the tradeoffs and numerous arbitrary choices we make on a daily basis and their climate impact. </p><p><a href="https://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2023/02/nudging-back-turning-off-your-camera.html" target="_blank">Nudging Back: Turning Off Your Camera May Be Good for the Climate. </a> Beef seems to get a bad rap regarding climate impact and there is a lot of attention being paid to reducing beef consumption. In this post I discuss how many other arbitrary behaviors (based on recent research related to internet usage) we could change that may even be more impactful than dietary changes. This may be especially true when you consider how hard it is to change behavior and the relevant costs and tradeoffs involved. </p><p><a href="https://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2022/10/the-ethics-of-dietary-nudges-and.html" target="_blank">The Ethics of Dietary Nudges and Behavior Change Focused on Climate and Sustainability.</a> In this post I discuss some recent research related to nudges used to impact food choices favoring vegetarian vs. meat based options. It is important when designing for behavior change that choice architectures reflect the science and honestly represent tradeoffs that are relevant to the context and particulars of circumstances and place and the importance of ethics when it comes to scaling what works.</p><p><a href="https://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2022/12/canceling-science-and-monetizing-outrage.html" target="_blank">Canceling Science and Monetizing Outrage.</a> In this post I discuss a recent NYT article's treatment of scientist Frank Mitloehner whose research focuses on the impact of beef related GHG emissions and how changing business models brought on by digital media can bias public perceptions and amplify misinformation. </p><p>The discussion in the posts linked above actually get much broader than beef. For more related posts see all posts with the <a href="https://ageconomist.blogspot.com/search/label/behavioral%20economics" target="_blank">behavioral economics</a> tag.</p>Matt Bogardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10510725993509264716noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18505975.post-91995052843167800882023-02-12T09:46:00.010-08:002023-05-03T17:41:09.610-07:00Nudging Back: Turning Off Your Camera May Be Good for the Climate<p>How many of us have been nudged during a zoom meeting to turn on your camera? In recent research (Obringer, et al. 2021) published in the journal <i>Resources, Conservation and Recycling,</i> they have attempted to quantify the carbon footprint of using your camera during a virtual meeting. Can this new research be used to nudge back and keep your camera off in the name of improving your company's ESG reporting? Should we be putting more energy in nudging this direction vs. focusing on more difficult dietary behavior changes? </p><p><b>Background</b></p><p>In a <a href="https://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2022/10/the-ethics-of-dietary-nudges-and.html" target="_blank">recent post </a>I wrote about the ethics of dietary nudges focused on meat consumption. Particularly I discussed Blondin et al. (2022). In that article they investigated the use of descriptive messages as a means to nudge consumers to choose plant based foods over meat. Below is one of the messages using s<i>mall change-big impact </i>framing (which they found to be the most impactful in their research) to nudge consumers to choose a vegetarian dish over meat:</p><p><i>"Each of us can make a positive difference for the planet. Swapping just one meat dish for a plant-based one saves greenhouse gas emissions that are equivalent to the energy used to charge your phone for two years. Your small change can make a big difference."</i></p><p>Over the years I have thought a lot about the focus on meat, and particularly beef consumption, as a way to reduce our carbon foot print. The nudge above gives the impression that you could make a big difference in relation to the climate by<a href="https://www.marketwatch.com/story/dining-out-dessert-and-booze-may-be-worse-for-climate-change-than-meat-2019-12-26" target="_blank"> choosing a salad over steak</a>. Similarly I've been intrigued by other popular movements with similar goals like Meatless Mondays. </p><p>There is a clear ceiling on the impact we can have when it comes to beef consumption. Even if we eliminated from our diets all beef produced and consumed in the U.S. it would reduce global GHG emissions by less than 1/2 of 1%. (EPA GHG Emissions Inventory, Rotz et al, 2018). </p><p>Are these movements and the language used above giving people the impression they are making a bigger difference with regard to climate change than they really are? Could they be distractions from more impactful behaviors? </p><p><b>Nudging for Impact</b></p><p>McFadden, et al. (2022) discusses important considerations related to the potential impact of nudges given consumer plasticity (willingness and ability to change) and realistic assessments of climate impact. (<a href="https://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2021/12/facts-figures-or-fiction-unfair.html" target="_blank">Realistic assessments</a> of impact and ethics were the primary focus of my <a href="https://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2022/10/the-ethics-of-dietary-nudges-and.html" target="_blank">previous post.</a>) </p><p>McFadden, et al. discuss how challenging and costly dietary changes can be given strong consumer preferences. They find:</p><p><i>"our estimates imply that it would cost at least $642 per tCO2e to reduce GHG emissions by inducing 50% of our study sample to eliminate beef consumption...currently the price to offset a tCO2e (based on existing markets for carbon offsets) is between $10 to $13." </i></p><p>When thinking about the problem this way, one question that comes to mind is - <i>how many other seemingly arbitrary choices (other than reducing beef consumption) could we make in our daily lives that would have a similar climate benefit? </i> </p><div><b>Let Me Count the Ways (other arbitrary ways to reduce your carbon footprint)</b></div><div><br /></div><div>The article mentioned above by Obringer, et al. (2021) provides some interesting insights about the carbon footprint associated with various ways we use the internet:</div><div><br /></div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Globally, the Internet use has a carbon footprint ranging from 28 to 63 g CO2 equivalent per gigabyte (GB)</li><li>The world median is 32.3 g CO2 per GB</li><li>The U.S. median is 9% higher</li><li>Common streaming services require 7 GB per hour of streaming using ultra HD quality video and have a carbon footprint of 441 g CO2e/hr</li><li>Streaming 4 hrs/day with HD quality video produces about 53 kg CO2e/month</li><li>Streaming at a lower quality SD video would reduce CO2e/month to about 2.5 kg</li><li>Standard video conference services use ~ 2.5 GB/hr associated with 157 g CO2e/hr</li><li>15 one hour meetings a week equate to a monthly carbon footprint of 9.4 kg</li><li>By turning off the video camera at an individual level, monthly CO2e emissions could be reduced from 9.4 kg to 377 g CO2e. This is equivalent to enough emissions savings to offset charging a smart phone each night for over 3 years (1151 days). </li></ul></div><div>Separate research reported in MIT Technology review indicates that training common AI models that underpin a number of the technologies and apps we leverage every day and will continue to use in the future can produce as much as 5 times the lifetime CO2 emissions of a single car (Strubell et al., 2019 & Haoarchive, 2019) </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b>Framing Up the Discussion</b></div><p>Obringer, et al. (2021) certainly motivates us to think of a number of arbitrary ways we can reduce our carbon footprint other than making dietary changes when we think of all the various ways we use internet services in the age of Zoom meetings, Netflix, Amazon Prime, and smart phones. But let's take another look at beef consumption. </p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>In the U.S. the average consumer consumes about 60 pounds of beef/year</li><li>On a monthly basis that equates to 5 lbs or about 2.26 kg/beef/person</li><li>According to Rotz (2019) 1 kg of U.S. beef produces 22 kg of CO2 equivalent emissions</li><li>So if an individual consumer gives up U.S. beef for a month that equates to a reduction of about 50 kg CO2e emissions </li></ul><p></p><p>It looks like the emissions related to beef consumption may be very similar to streaming HD video on a monthly basis given the assumption above. </p><p>Just based on the <i>facts </i>above- it looks like giving up beef for a month would have a much bigger impact on climate than giving up your Zoom camera for a month! More than 2x the impact. </p><p>On the other hand - giving up our Netflix binge could have the same climate impact as completely giving up beef! </p><p>It's not quite so simple. </p><p>While it seems like we are making apples to apples CO2e comparisons we have to consider other differences in the way GHG emissions behave especially as this relates to methane and how it is factored into CO2e calculations. See below:</p><p> <iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/UOPrF8oyDYw" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe> </p><p>Methane emissions associated with routine meat consumption do not represent a new net lasting contribution to GHG emissions, but instead are a recycling of already existing methane emissions. However, turning on your zoom camera or streaming HD video is a new behavior that leads to the release of new sources of methane and CO2 with long term permanent warming effects on the climate. The decision to continue with routine beef consumption has different implications for the climate than the decision to pump new methane emissions into the atmosphere by turning on your camera or binging with HD video quality. </p><p>We also have to ask ourselves - which behavior is the most impactable? Going back to McFadden, et al. (2022) when it comes to combating climate change, which behaviors and barriers should we be targeting to have the greatest impact? People are already very inclined to turn off their cameras during a meeting - and there is literally and <i>easy button </i>to do that! Reducing how much we stream video is relatively easy change to make. But changing diets is extremely difficult. There is no easy button. When we consider the tradeoffs involved (more discussion below) and fully incorporate the ramifications of the biogenic carbon cycle, in addition to consumer plasticity, reducing beef consumption may not be the top priority. </p><p>We could think of it this way. On a given day, if you decide to consume the same average amount of beef you have consumed for decades, that decision is not adding any new net GHG emissions to the atmosphere. But every time you turn on your web cam or stream HD, you are contributing to adding new and permanent long lasting GHG emissions to the atmosphere. </p><p>It is certainly true that if you chose NOT to have the beef there is a climate benefit - and the numbers shared above approximately reflect that. If everyone in the U.S. made the same decision 365 days/year there is a minimal upper limit on that impact, but there would certainly be a reduction in GHG emissions. If we stop eating beef, the emissions from the last decade go away with it due to the biogenic carbon cycle. Even if it takes decades to change the behavior this is true (based on beef consumption trends and <a href="https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/18505975/9199505284316780088#" target="_blank">technological advances</a> and remember with constant levels of beef consumption over time new emissions aren't added and don't accumulate b/c they are simply being recycled)</p><p>But if we wait a decade to start turning off our web cams or downgrading to SD all those past emissions stay where they are and continue to warm the planet. From a behavior change perspective the urgency to turn of the camera and downgrade our streaming seems much greater. </p><p>Some might agree that it makes sense to do both, but it would seem remiss to focus on beef consumption only while ignoring all the many other arbitrary behaviors we could target that may be more urgent and more impactable from a behavior change perspective.</p><p><b>A Path Toward Better Framing and Nudging</b></p><p>In a <a href="https://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2022/10/the-ethics-of-dietary-nudges-and.html" target="_blank">previous post</a>, I already covered some of the implications of how we frame food choices and the impact on climate. But perhaps the framing of beef vs. salad is completely wrong to begin with. When framing food choices, are we making a mistake when we discuss what is healthy vs. unhealthy in the context of food groups (meat vs. vegetables) or macro nutrients (fat vs. protein vs. carbs)? When we add climate, ethics, and politics to the recipe do we risk taking this to orthorexic extremes that end up causing as much harm as good?</p><p>These kind of broad categorizations can limit our thinking and fail to capture the nuance in the tradeoffs involved. When it comes to balancing these tradeoffs a framing that considers specific context (knowledge of the circumstances of time and place), individual consumer preferences (plasticity), nutrient density (see <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(23)00006-2/fulltext" target="_blank">here </a>and <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2924839/" target="_blank">here</a>), climate impact (accurately reflecting the behavior of carbon and methane), and technological change is essential.</p><p><b>Related Posts</b></p><p>The Ethics of Dietary Nudges and Behavior Change Focused on Climate and Sustainability. <a href="https://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2022/10/the-ethics-of-dietary-nudges-and.html">https://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2022/10/the-ethics-of-dietary-nudges-and.html</a></p><p>Innovation, Disruption, and Low(er) Carbon Beef <a href="https://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2022/01/innovation-disruption-and-lower-carbon.html " target="_blank">https://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2022/01/innovation-disruption-and-lower-carbon.html </a></p><p>Facts, Figures, or Fiction: Unwarranted Criticisms of the Biden Administration's Failure to Target Methane Emissions from Livestock. <a href="https://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2021/12/facts-figures-or-fiction-unfair.html " target="_blank">https://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2021/12/facts-figures-or-fiction-unfair.html </a></p><p>Can Capitalism Be A Force For Good When it Comes to Food? <a href="https://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2021/07/can-capitalism-be-force-for-good-when.html">https://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2021/07/can-capitalism-be-force-for-good-when.html</a></p><p><b>References:</b> </p><p>Blondin, Stacy & Attwood, Sophie & Vennard, Daniel & Mayneris, Vanessa. (2022). Environmental Messages Promote Plant-Based Food Choices: An Online Restaurant Menu Study. World Resources Institute. 10.46830/wriwp.20.00137. </p><p>McFadden BR, Ferraro PJ, Messer KD (2022) Private costs of carbon emissions abatement by limiting beef consumption and vehicle use in the United States. PLOS ONE 17(1): e0261372. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261372</p><p>Training a single AI model can emit as much carbon as five cars in their lifetimes: Deep learning has a terrible carbon footprint. By Karen Haoarchive. June 6, 2019 <a href="https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/06/06/239031/training-a-single-ai-model-can-emit-as-much-carbon-as-five-cars-in-their-lifetimes/" target="_blank">https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/06/06/239031/training-a-single-ai-model-can-emit-as-much-carbon-as-five-cars-in-their-lifetimes/ </a></p><p>Obringer, R., Rachunok, B., Maia-Silva, D., Arbabzadeh, M., Nateghi, R., & Madani, K. (2021). The overlooked environmental footprint of increasing Internet use. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 167, [105389]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105389</p><p>C. Alan Rotz, Senorpe Asem-Hiablie, Sara Place, Greg Thoma, Environmental footprints of beef cattle production in the United States, Agricultural Systems, Volume 169, 2019, Pages 1-13, ISSN 0308-521X, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2018.11.005.</p><p>Strubell, Emma & Ganesh, Ananya & Mccallum, Andrew. (2019). Energy and Policy Considerations for Deep Learning in NLP. 3645-3650. 10.18653/v1/P19-1355.</p><p><b>Notes: </b></p><p>The methodology used by Obringer may be subject to criticism and may not consider long term emission reductions due to efficiencies produced by technological change over time (not unlike beef production). I'm using their results as motivation for a discussion about considering the tradeoffs and nuances often left out of discussions associated with food choices. We can also recognize that zoom and other technologies may have had a significant role to play in reducing travel and related transportation and other emissions related to in person meetings. However, at the margin, these technologies still lead to ongoing permanent emissions and warming effects compared to beef consumption.</p>Matt Bogardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10510725993509264716noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18505975.post-35392426593807802972022-12-05T16:03:00.018-08:002023-02-12T14:10:41.829-08:00Canceling Science and Monetizing Outrage<p>If we maintain the fantasy of a puritan separation of science and business then innovation will dry up and die. There will be no one left to block and tackle for science or help us navigate the valley of death that lies between a scientific discovery and a cure, product, or better policy. The negative epistemic valence being cast by digital and mainstream media is polluting the commons of scientific communication, hindering the public's ability to distinguish fact from fiction. The implications for health, climate, democracy, and human welfare are tremendous.</p><p><br /><b>Background</b></p><p>In a recent article in the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/31/climate/frank-mitloehner-uc-davis.html" target="_blank">New York Times</a> the intersection between business and science are at the center of debate regarding ongoing climate research by Dr. Frank Mitloehner at UC Davis. This parallels a prior article from some years ago about Dr. Kevin Folta and his work as it relates to agricultural biotechnology and science communication and outreach.</p><p>In the article, it seems to assert that Mitloehner's industry connections and collaboration are compromising his integrity and research as it relates to the relationship between livestock and GHG emissions.</p><p>Below are some of the most critical comments from the article:</p><p><i>“Industry funding does not necessarily compromise research, but it does inevitably have a slant on the directions with which you ask questions and the tendency to interpret those results in a way that may favor industry,” said Matthew Hayek, an assistant professor in environmental studies at New York University.</i></p><p><i>“Almost everything that I’ve seen from Dr. Mitloehner’s communications has downplayed every impact of livestock,” he said. “His communications are discordant from the scientific consensus, and the evidence that he has brought to bear against that consensus has not been, in my eyes, sufficient to challenge it.”</i></p><p><b>Communicating the Science</b></p><p>Assertions are made, but no evidence is offered in relation to how Mitloehner's research is compromised or in what ways his work contrasts with any scientific consensus. But it certainly puts his communications about his research on the chopping block. This is a big risk of doing science communication and outreach, as I have discussed before <a href="http://econometricsense.blogspot.com/2021/06/science-communication-for-business-and.html" target="_blank">here. </a> In attempting to simplify complex scientific ideas for a broader audience, communicators are at risk for getting called out for any particular nuance they failed to include. It also creates enough space for any critic to write an entire thesis about why you are wrong. As I stated previously:</p><p><i>"Usually this is about how they didn't capture every particular nuance of the theory, failed to include a statement about certain critical assumptions, or over simplified the complex thing they were trying to explain in simple terms to begin with. This kind of negative social harassment seems to be par for the course when attempting to communicate on social media ... A culture that is toxic toward effective science communication becomes an impediment to science itself and leaves a void waiting be filled by science deniers, activists, policy makers, decision makers, and special interests."</i></p><p>One example called out in the NYT article was the production of a video called Rethinking Methane:</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/UOPrF8oyDYw" width="320" youtube-src-id="UOPrF8oyDYw"></iframe></div><br /><p><br /></p><p>The article states: </p><p><i>“The message of the five-minute video is that, because methane is a relatively short-lived greenhouse gas (once it’s in the atmosphere, it becomes less potent as the years go by), cattle would not cause additional warming as long as their numbers did not grow.”</i></p><p><i>“The argument leans on a method developed by scientists that aims to better account for the global-warming effects of short-lived greenhouse gases like methane. However, the use of that method by an industry “as a way of justifying high current emissions is very inappropriate” </i></p><p>When considering sources of GHG emissions, understanding the way methane behaves is fundamental to understanding climate change, and personal and policy decisions related to mitigating future warming. Understanding this can help direct attention to those areas where we can make the biggest difference in terms impacting climate change. As discussed in Allen et al. (2018):</p><p><i>"While shorter-term goals for emission rates of individual gases and broader metrics encompassing emissions’ co-impacts remain potentially useful in defining how cumulative contributions will be achieved, <b>summarising commitments using a metric that accurately reflects their contributions to future warming would provide greater transparency in the implications of global climate agreements as well as enabling fairer and more effective design of domestic policies and measures."</b></i></p><p>But instead of diving into the meat (pun intended) of the science, the second statement about this video makes an assertion about using this science to justify high current emissions. </p><p>Is that what Dr. Mitloehner is doing in his many communications, or is it actually the case that when we estimate the impact of climate change he thinks we should be <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-018-0026-8#Sec1" target="_blank">using metrics that do a better job capturing the dynamics of different GHGs? </a> If his science really led him to dismiss the 'current high emissions' related to methane then why would he be spending time and energy researching and communicating about ways to reduce GHG emissions related to methane via feed additives and other management practices? </p><p>And when we talk about current high emissions related to livestock what do we mean - compared to what? The article states:</p><p><i>"scientific research has long shown that agriculture is also a major source of planet-warming emissions, ranking below the leading causes — the burning of coal, gas and oil — but still producing almost 15 percent of global emissions, the United Nations estimates."</i></p><p>That is a nice factoid, but it conflates all global emissions from agriculture with livestock emissions. It also makes kind of an ecological fallacy if we attribute that global number to the specific GHG emissions related to livestock of a specific country, particularly when the audience here is U.S. consumers who mostly eat beef produced in the U.S. (where in fact the the <b>contribution to total global GHG emissions is less than 1/2 of 1%.)</b></p><p>The fact about global numbers is relevant to Mitloehner's work only in the sense that his research could have much greater impact in developing countries where GHG emissions may be 10X greater (EPA GHG Emissions Inventory, Rotz et al, 2018). As stated in a <a href="https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/11/11/cop27-climate-change-agriculture-livestock-cows-methane-emissions-africa/" target="_blank">recent article </a>in Foreign Policy: </p><p><i>"Generalizations about animal agriculture hide great regional differences and often lead to diet guidelines promoting shifts away from animal products that are not feasible for the world’s poor....A nuanced approach to livestock was endorsed in the latest mitigation report of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).....there is great room for improvement in the efficiency of livestock production systems across developing countries" </i></p><p>But these nuances are lost in the NYT article along with recognition that there are multiple margins to consider when thinking about the tradeoffs related to food production and consumption. <a href="https://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2021/12/facts-figures-or-fiction-unfair.html" target="_blank">Policy should consider the numerous choices consumers and producers make in a modern and global economy in relation to nutrition, energy, and climate. </a></p><p><b>Parallels with the Past</b></p><p>When reflecting on this NYT article and the prior article focused on Dr. Kevin Folta I see at least three parallels:</p><p>1) An appeal to the nirvana fallacy of a perfect separation between science and business. While this is not explicitly stated, both stories paint a picture of malfeasance and industry influence connected with the work of these scientists, without providing evidence that that their research or findings are biased or conflict with any major consensus. They simply imply that any industry connection is questionable, Guilt by association alone.</p><p>2) Establishing some theatre of doubt around the integrity and character of these scientists in the mind of readers, the next step involves a kind of ad hominem reasoning suggesting that because of these industry connections and questionable integrity of the researchers, anything they claim must be false or misleading or contradictory to the mainstream scientific consensus.</p><p>Having established the first two parallels, the public is then set up to make a third mistake in reasoning:</p><p>3) Argument by intimidation. The implication here is that anyone that references or leans on the work of these scientists must also have questionable integrity or character. This can be invoked as a way to bypass debate and avoid discussing the actual science or evidence supporting the claims one may be making. I'm not saying that the NYT article does this explicitly, but this article pollutes the science communication environment in a way that makes this more likely to happen..</p><p>This leads me to ask - why would mainstream media follow this kind of recipe when producing stories?</p><p><b>Changing Business Models for Modern Media</b></p><p>In Jonathan Rauch's book, <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/book/the-constitution-of-knowledge/" target="_blank">the Constitution of Knowledge</a>, he discusses how in the old days of print media economies of scale supported the production of real news or reality based content. But new business models have been built on information, not knowledge and are geared toward monetizing eyeballs and clicks. This new business model favors <i>"professionals in the arts of manipulative outrage: the kinds of actors who were more skilled at capturing attention not persuasion and who were more interested in dissemination than communication."</i></p><p>Rauch observes: <i>"By the early 2020s high quality news was struggling to stay in business, while opinion, outrage, derivative boilerplate, and digital exhaust (personal data generated by internet users) enjoyed a thriving commercial market."</i></p><p>Quoting one digital media pundit: <i>"you can't sell news for what it costs to make."</i></p><p>As mainstream media has adopted social and digital media strategies it may not be surprising to see patterns like those above emerge.</p><p> In 2020 former President Barak Obama said in <i><a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/11/why-obama-fears-for-our-democracy/617087/" target="_blank">The Atlantic:</a></i> </p><p><i>"if we do not have the capacity to distinguish what's true from what's false, then by definition the marketplace of ideas doesn't work. And by definition our democracy doesn't work. We are entering into an epistemological crisis." </i></p><p>Communicating science is challenging enough. The battle with misinformation and disinformation did not begin or end with the COVID pandemic. It doesn't help when major media outlets would rather cash in on eyeballs and outrage, rather than communicate science.</p><p><b>Related Readings and Resources</b></p><p><b></b></p><p>Allen, M.R., Shine, K.P., Fuglestvedt, J.S. et al. A solution to the misrepresentations of CO2-equivalent emissions of short-lived climate pollutants under ambitious mitigation. npj Clim Atmos Sci 1, 16 (2018) doi:10.1038/s41612-018-0026-8</p><div><div>C. Alan Rotz et al. Environmental footprints of beef cattle production in the United States, Agricultural Systems (2018). DOI: 10.1016/j.agsy.2018.11.005 </div></div><div><br /></div><div>Facts, Figures, or Fiction: Unwarranted Criticisms of the Biden Administration's Failure to Target Methane Emissions from Livestock. <a href="https://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2021/12/facts-figures-or-fiction-unfair.html " target="_blank">https://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2021/12/facts-figures-or-fiction-unfair.html </a></div><p>The Ethics of Dietary Nudges and Behavior Change Focused on Climate and Sustainability. <a href="https://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2022/10/the-ethics-of-dietary-nudges-and.html">https://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2022/10/the-ethics-of-dietary-nudges-and.html</a></p><p>Will Eating Less U.S. Beef Save the Rainforests? <a href="http://realclearagriculture.blogspot.com/2020/01/will-eating-less-us-beef-save.html">http://realclearagriculture.blogspot.com/2020/01/will-eating-less-us-beef-save.html</a></p><p><br /></p>Matt Bogardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10510725993509264716noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18505975.post-18522105097234388212022-11-11T08:02:00.004-08:002022-11-11T08:19:08.382-08:00Nominal GDP (NGDP) Targeting and the Supply Chain Knowledge Problem<p><b>Background: The Supply Chain Knowledge Problem</b></p><p>Last year a wrote a post titled <a href="http://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2021/10/recognizing-microfoundations-of-our.html" target="_blank">The Supply Chain Knowledge Problem</a> addressing what I believed to be some of the core and fundamental drivers of the increase in prices over the last couple years. Describing the knowledge problem as the fundamental problem of economics (and society), 'know how' and 'know what' are spread across many minds and the knowledge required to make anything isn't possessed by any one person, company, or policy maker. And, especially can't be resolved by any central banker. </p><p>In reference to COVID and our economy I used an analogy of an environmental disaster like a forest fire and the recovery of our economy being analogous to an ecosystem. </p><p><i>"Just as restoring an ecosystem after an environmental disaster requires an understanding of ecology, we must understand the ecology of our markets and supply chains in order to restore our economy and avoid an even worse ecological disaster. We must recognize that the knowledge problem post COVID is more challenging than pre COVID made evident by recent price spikes and shortages that some people could be confusing for monetary inflation."</i></p><p><i>"COVID and our response to it unfortunately destroyed the ‘know what’ and ‘know how’ that was spread across millions of minds and across decades of building our supply chains. There is no simple blunt monetary or fiscal policy that can substitute for the ‘know how’ and ‘know what’ it’s going to take to rebuild them. It’s going to take time. Prices have to search and signal for the ‘know how’ and ‘know what’ to rediscover and rebuild what was lost."</i></p><p>I have been dreadfully concerned that if we get out of the way and just let 'P' do its job searching and signaling that there would be political pressure to paper over the damage with an excessive increase in interest rates by the Fed, or even worse politicians passing bills in the name of inflation reduction that might make matters worse. And even more dreaded, we'd experience complete economic amnesia manifested by calls for price controls. </p><p>At the same time, a person would be blind not to consider the impact of the expansive monetary policy of the Federal Reserve prior to, during, and after the pandemic, not to mention the aggressive but necessary fiscal response. This made the knowledge problem above seem even more intractable. How much of the current inflation is truly 'inflation' in the monetary sense, and how much is P just doing its job? How can we tolerate temporary price fluctuations and spikes so that P can do its job, and at the same time mitigate what constitutes actual monetary inflation at the same time? </p><p>To this point no economist or commentator has really come close to answering this call of concern. Too few were talking about the fundamental micro foundations of the knowledge problem, and too many had appeared to abandon it completely in pursuit of sky high interest rates. </p><p><b>Nominal GDP (NGDP) Targeting </b></p><p>Recently in the essay <a href="https://www.discoursemagazine.com/economics/2022/10/31/the-causes-and-cure-of-the-2021-2022-inflation-surge/" target="_blank">The Causes and Cure of the 2021-2022 Inflation Surge,</a> David Beckworth provides the synthesis that I was looking for as both a student and consumer of economics. As I read it, NGDP targeting allows us to both address the challenges of monetary inflation while at the same time letting P do its job.</p><p>What is <a href="https://www.mercatus.org/bridge/commentary/facts-about-nominal-gdp-level-targeting" target="_blank">NGDP targeting</a>? Beckworth explains:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;"><i>"NGDP measures total current-price spending on final goods and services in the economy—it is the economy we see in the real world. Put differently, NGDP growth has both real GDP growth and inflation embedded in it. Using this measure creates a monetary policy framework that is called NGDP targeting."</i></p></blockquote><p>Dr. Beckworth has been carrying the torch for NGDP targeting for quite a while so it's not totally new to me. But I never quite understood the power of it until he put it in the context of our current economic challenges and became the first economist to offer in my mind a satisfactory explanation and policy direction. (As I said above, and full disclosure, I am a consumer and student of economics, not an academic producer of economics, especially not macro, and heavily influenced by the mainline economic thinking of the Austrian, Public Choice, and New Institutional schools). </p><p>In the excerpts below Dr. Beckworth takes the knowledge problem discussed above head on with NGDP targeting:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p><i>The distinction, then, between rising inflation caused by supply shocks and inflation caused by excess aggregate demand growth is essential for successful central banking. But therein lies the rub: It is impossible to know this distinction in real time.</i></p><p><i>So what are central bankers to do? How can they overcome this knowledge problem? </i></p><p><i>Instead of trying to divine what part of inflation is due to aggregate demand shocks and should be managed, we should look directly at aggregate demand itself. This approach cuts out the middleman of inflation and goes straight to the underlying source of inflation movements that is amenable to monetary policy.</i></p><p><i>The amazing thing about this approach is that it provides a clever workaround to the central banker’s knowledge problem. That is, by forcing monetary authorities to focus on stable aggregate demand growth, it keeps trend inflation anchored but allows for temporary inflation caused by supply shocks. </i></p><i>NGDP targeting allows for price fluctuations caused by supply shocks while still aiming for a stable trend inflation rate.....NGDP targeting, in other words, is a two-for-one deal that gives central banks the inflation cure they are seeking.</i></blockquote><p>He goes on to explain how this approach would have allowed the Fed to get ahead of the curve and act quicker last year regarding monetary inflation and how NGDP targeting can plot a course going forward. This sounds a lot better to me than the rather blunt approaches we have seen to this point with the <a href="https://www.discoursemagazine.com/economics/2022/08/05/the-inflation-reduction-act-is-all-smoke-and-mirrors/" target="_blank">Inflation Reduction Act </a>and no end in sight interest rate increases that risk papering and plastering over the supply chain problems only to find them again later when we're remodeling our economy after the recession that's projected as a result. Without NGDP targeting, how many remodels can our economy take?</p>Matt Bogardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10510725993509264716noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18505975.post-63138878815867866652022-10-24T10:51:00.022-07:002023-05-03T17:41:53.682-07:00The Ethics of Dietary Nudges and Behavior Change Focused on Climate and Sustainability<p>As discussed in McFadden, et al., 2022, when focusing on policies and behaviors related to climate change and sustainability we should consider actual abatement potential and plasticity. </p><p><i> "Policy interventions are likely to provide the best return on investment when they target choices and behaviors for which abatement potential and plasticity are high enough to lead to meaningful reductions in GHG emissions"</i></p><p>A lot of important work needs to be done to understand which solutions are technically correct but also the most impactful at scale from a behavior change perspective. And importantly - ethical and honest. It is important when designing for behavior change that choice architectures reflect the science and honestly represent tradeoffs that are relevant to the context and particulars of circumstances and place. Often behavioral designers are challenged by the fact that nudges are sensitive to context, so may be less impactful when context changes in different environments. Good science and good business practices and good ethics mandate testing in different contexts to understand the impact. We must also recognize, as I discuss below, that the science and tradeoffs that can be implicitly baked into choice architecture also depend on context and must be considered. When we design choice architectures it should reflect this in ways that are honest and transparent, and not let politics and personal biases get mixed into the batter. If nudges are successful, we want to make sure we are not doing more harm than good at scale. We don't want to unintentionally embed misinformation into product design, and certainly don't want to do this willfully (see <a href="https://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2018/02/a-nash-equilibrium-strategy-for-free.html" target="_blank">here </a>and <a href="https://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2016/08/gmos-is-just-any-label-enough.html" target="_blank">here</a> for posts discussing misinformation getting been baked into 'GMO' labeling). </p><p><b>Recent Work Related to Dietary Nudges Focused on Climate and Sustainability</b></p><p>Blondin et al. (2022) investigate adding descriptive messages to nudge consumers to choose plant based food choices. They find that the most impactful framing was related to a 'small changes big impact' frame: </p><div><i>"Each of us can make a positive difference for the planet. Swapping just one meat dish for a plant-based one saves greenhouse gas emissions that are equivalent to the energy used to charge your phone for two years. Your small change can make a big difference."</i></div><div><div><br /></div><div>This nudge more than doubled vegetarian selections compared to the control group (25.4 percent versus 12.4 percent). They conclude that these types of descriptive messages represent a low cost and scalable intervention that could be adapted and tailored to a variety of retail contexts. But as I will discuss below - context matters. </div><div><br /></div><div>De-loyde et al. (2022) investigated the impacts of eco-labelling and social nudging on sustainable food choices using randomized online experiments. These learnings are important because of the relative cost and difficulty of leveraging eco-labeling vs. more easily scalable social nudges. The costs of eco-labeling are related to the cost of information involved in creating eco-labels that are accurate and transparent (something I will discuss further) as well as the logistical costs of having to provide that information via menus or other media. Understanding the impact on consumer choice relative to cost is important for informing business decisions concerning the use of these nudges. </div><div><br /></div><div>Social nudges applied a simple indication on the menu (a star) annotated as 'most popular.' Eco nudges were more elaborate:</div><div><br /></div><div><div><i>"The three burrito types were displayed alongside a traffic light system, with a scale of 1–5, which was circled at the appropriate sustainability level for that burrito: beef burrito – unsustainable, chicken burrito – neither sustainable nor unsustainable and vegetarian burrito – sustainable (Figure 1). This is consistent with research measuring the CO2 emissions (Espinoza-Orias & Azapagic, 2012), water usage (Mekonnen & Hoekstra, 2010) and impact on biodiversity from the different burrito ingredients (Crenna Sinkko & Sala, 2019)."</i></div></div><div><br /></div><div>Authors conclude:</div><div><br /></div><div><div><i>"This study suggests that future policy could include eco-labelling and/or a social nudge to reduce meat consumption and meet global climate change targets."</i></div></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b>Challenges Related to Dietary Nudges Focused on Climate and Sustainability</b></div></div><p><b>Metrics Matter</b></p><p>When it comes to measuring climate impact the important human, sustainability, and nutrition tradeoffs related to the metrics we use matter. In Blondin et al. (2022) it was not clear to me how they defined the relationship between food choices and greenhouse gas emissions. In the article above De-loyde et al. (2022) they cite Espinoza-Orias & Azapagic (2012) in relation to greenhouse gas emissions. While that analysis was super detailed and rigorous, I'm not sure it represents to most accurate or transparent information when it comes to making these choices as it relates to CO2 equivalents. </p><p>When considering beef and dairy specifically, understanding the differences in the way CO2 vs. methane behaves is fundamental to understanding their respective roles impacting climate change, and personal and policy decisions related to mitigating future warming. Understanding this can help direct attention to those areas where we can make the biggest difference in terms impacting climate change over the long term. As discussed in Allen et al. (2018):</p><p><i>"While shorter-term goals for emission rates of individual gases and broader metrics encompassing emissions’ co-impacts remain potentially useful in defining how cumulative contributions will be achieved, <b>summarising commitments using a metric that accurately reflects their contributions to future warming would provide greater transparency in the implications of global climate agreements as well as enabling fairer and more effective design of domestic policies and measures.</b>"</i></p><p>It's not clear that the work cited from 2012 cited in De-loyde et al. (2022) or the work in Blondin (2022) <a href="https://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2021/12/facts-figures-or-fiction-unfair.html" target="_blank">appropriately accounts for the biogenic carbon cycle</a> and the role of methane as a flow vs. stock gas in their estimates of GHG emissions and warming potential.</p><p>Are consumers scanning QR codes on their smartphones (pumping new permanent sources of GHG into the atmosphere) to read a menu nudging them away from beef being distracted from focusing on other seemingly arbitrary choices they could be making to positively impact the climate in more meaningful ways? (This <a href="https://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2023/02/nudging-back-turning-off-your-camera.html" target="_blank">post</a> compares GHG emissions and warming potential of internet use vs. beef consumption)</p><div>Additionally, even an accurate measure of GHG emissions and warming potential isn't enough to transparently relate all of the tradeoffs involved. </div><p>In a 2010 Food and Nutrition Research article, authors introduce the Nutrient Density to Climate Impact (NDCI) index. Metrics like this could add some perspective. According to their work:</p><p><i>"the NDCI index was 0 for carbonated water, soft drink, and beer and below 0.1 for red wine and oat drink. The NDCI index was similar for orange juice (0.28) and soy drink (0.25). Due to a very high-nutrient density, the NDCI index for milk was substantially higher (0.54) than for the other beverages. Future discussion on how changes in food consumption patterns might help avert climate change need to take both GHG emission and nutrient density of foods and beverages into account."</i></p><p>Authors Drewnowski, Adam et al. apply this more nuanced approach to 34 different food categories including meat and dairy:</p><p><i>"Efforts to decrease global GHGEs while maintaining nutritionally adequate, affordable, and acceptable diets need to be guided by considerations of the ND [nutrient density] and environmental impact of different foods and food groups. In a series of recent studies, the principal sustainability measure was carbon cost expressed in terms of GHGEs (8, 14, 15). Testing the relation between nutrient profile of foods and their carbon footprint can help identify those food groups that provide both calories and optimal nutrition at a low carbon cost."</i></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhUMIxa58_RDh9B3YZUT7Q2ejQhIpKyxrpFHBYlHeGnyQa-moZuvws1JvC1rr73yVjptJnI0yI7mLPpgNHEkAKTxqx8AwJYoCae4S3g3TPS-bmBT1UPHufJs-CpOHpzcsPiikO-kPFaqN4vMiRt43YX-VEWVzGSYaFj2xBnmg0eb3nWnayhaA/s1018/ND15byFood.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="588" data-original-width="1018" height="370" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhUMIxa58_RDh9B3YZUT7Q2ejQhIpKyxrpFHBYlHeGnyQa-moZuvws1JvC1rr73yVjptJnI0yI7mLPpgNHEkAKTxqx8AwJYoCae4S3g3TPS-bmBT1UPHufJs-CpOHpzcsPiikO-kPFaqN4vMiRt43YX-VEWVzGSYaFj2xBnmg0eb3nWnayhaA/w640-h370/ND15byFood.png" width="640" /></a></div><p><br /></p>While it does not impact the major findings related to how to influence consumer choices about food and sustainability, it is not clear to me that Blondin et al. (2022) or De-loyde et al. (2022) sufficiently consider these tradeoffs in the choice architectures that they proposed for nudging consumers to make decisions about food consumption. <div><br /></div><div>If appropriately accounted for in their specific contexts, it does not necessarily imply that these tradeoffs would be appropriately accounted for in different contexts which is what I turn to next.<p></p><p><b>Context Matters</b></p><p>When it comes to behavior change, <a href="https://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2022/06/the-limits-of-nudges-and-role-of.html" target="_blank">context and environment matter immensely.</a></p><p>As discussed in Kanemoto et al. (2019)</p><p><i>"most global-scale models have an important shortcoming; they do not consider subnational variations in food production and consumption. This lack of subnational detail is significant because subnational detail could be more important than global coverage and may show the opportunity to promote and use different subnational policy"</i></p><p>Using combined microdata on 60,000 households collecting information about diet, income, and demographics and a subnational input-output model for production and trade across 47 prefectures in Japan they find: </p><p><i>"higher-CF [carbon footprint] households are not distinguished by excessive meat consumption relative to other households but rather have higher household CF intensity because of elevated consumption in other areas including restaurants, confectionery, and alcohol."</i></p><p>De-loyde et al. (2022) start off their article with a global framing of the impact of livestock on GHG emissions: </p><p><i>"Livestock production contributes an estimated 14.5% of human-induced global greenhouse-gas emissions."</i></p><p>Despite some of the questions above about the metrics used to relate food to climate impact and the nutritional tradeoffs involved when presenting consumers with options, maybe this global framing is appropriate for consumers in the U.K. but is this the most honest framing to use if we try to transport these results to other consumers like U.S. consumers? Are the tradeoffs the same? </p><p>Kanemoto (2019) was based on Japanese consumers who consume relatively low amounts of beef compared to U.S. consumers. When considering U.S. consumers, there are important differences we should consider when attempting to adopt choice architectures used in other contexts designed to influence consumer choice.</p><p>Ignoring change in context ignores important differences between technological capabilities and production practices but also differences in incomes, tastes, and preferences. As stated in a recent article in <a href="https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/11/11/cop27-climate-change-agriculture-livestock-cows-methane-emissions-africa/" target="_blank">Foreign Policy: </a></p><p><i>"Generalizations about animal agriculture hide great regional differences and often lead to diet guidelines promoting shifts away from animal products that are not feasible for the world’s poor....A nuanced approach to livestock was endorsed in the latest mitigation report of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)." </i></p><p>When we are designing choice architectures to influence dietary choices related to climate and sustainability, a nuanced approach is also necessary. </p><p>A lot of the criticism of U.S. beef misappropriates or conflates the environmental footprint of beef produced and consumed in the U.S. with beef from other parts of the world. These criticisms may not be appropriate when applied to U.S. consumers. When we drill into agriculture and focus on beef in the U.S. we find that it accounts for about 4% of total emissions. But on a global scale, which matters most to climate change, overall, total GHG emissions related to U.S. beef consumption are 10X lower in the U.S. than beef produced in other places in the world and accounts for less than 1/2 of 1% (i.e. .5%) of global GHG emissions. (EPA GHG Emissions Inventory, Rotz et al, 2018). See also Allen, M.R., Shine, K.P., Fuglestvedt, J.S. et al., 2018. </p><p>Similar to Kanemoto et al. (2019) and McFadden, et al., 2022 when it comes to U.S. consumers it may be the case that the real meat on the bone so to speak (what has the most potential impact given consumer plasticity and realistic assessments of climate impact) as it relates to climate may have more to do with where the food is consumed than what is consumed. It may be the case that once you are already in the restaurant reading the menu that having a salad vs. steak sourced in the U.S. is inconsequential when looking at the global impact. It could even be the opposite case, considering nutritional density and climate tradeoffs, when appropriately quantified, the salad in the restaurant may not be the best choice. </p><p><b>Scaling and Ethics</b></p><p>In their paper <i>Monetizing disinformation in the attention economy: The case of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) </i>Ryan, Schaul, Butner and Swarthout provide an in depth background on the attention economy, disinformation, the role of the media and marketing as well as socioeconomic impacts. They articulate how how rent seekers and special interests are able to use disinformation in a way to create and economize on misleading but coherent stories with externalities impacting business, public policy, technology adoption, and health. These costs, when quantified can be substantial and should not be ignored:</p><p><i>"Less visible costs are diminished confidence in science, and the loss of important innovations and foregone innovation capacities"</i></p><p>One of the big challenges presented by misinformation and disinformation is its clever use of our fast thinking system 1, its use of social proof and confirmation bias, magnified by technology and social media that focuses on capturing attention and dissemination vs. communication and persuasion. To say the least it can be dangerous at scale. In today's information age and polarized political climate we need to be careful about the things we do at scale. Low cost scalable interventions can be dangerous.</p><p>If lots of businesses used nudges and choice architectures that did not accurately reflect the tradeoffs for a given context, or government became involved as an enforcer, or it became a common strategy for corporations to juice up their ESG reporting, these issues could have negative impacts at scale. The harm would be greatest if this becomes a distraction and diverts attention and resources away from more impactful behavior change or reduces investment in greener food technologies. </p><p>We can look at what has happened to the use of rBST in milk production for instance. According to Perkowski (2013) <i>"more than two-thirds of dairy farmers who have ever treated their cows with rBST have stopped using it"</i> despite the fact that rbST in dairy (just one technology) has the equivalent impact of removing 300,000 cars from the road annually (see Capper, 2008). Would consumers favor milk produced from cows supplemented by rBST (leading to an economic premium to encourage its adoption by producers) if they were made more aware of these tradeoffs? Are current labels related to rBST doing consumers justice by providing them better information or are they reinforcing false negative perceptions? </p><p>We could ask similar questions regarding other technological advances in food production and manufacturing like finely textured beef which was so maligned by social media that its developer Beef Products Incorporated (BPI) forced a settlement with NBC for spreading misinformation characterizing it as unsafe pink slime (Mclaughlin, 2017). </p><p><a href="https://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2016/08/gmos-is-just-any-label-enough.html" target="_blank">Do current GMO labeling regulatory requirements and food packaging accurately reflect the tradeoffs involved?</a> Would consumers view GMOs differently if they were presented with knowledge that their adoption currently has offset the emissions equivalent to 15 million cars annually. That is more than the total new cars typically sold in the U.S. every year, and about 20% of all new cars sold globally. Or 3X the number of EVs currently being sold in the U.S. annually. </p><p>Whether intentionally designed or not we are always nudging. Are we nudging consumers in the wrong direction (in terms of environmental impact) with labels claiming 'no rBST' on milk cartons and non-GMO labels on other food products? </p><div>Damage can be done when attention and perceptions are manipulated and consumer sentiment leads us to abandon promising technologies that could really make a difference when it comes to climate. </div><p>Misinformation and disinformation have played a major role driving vaccine hesitancy and may have even been accelerated during the COVID19 pandemic. See Johnson et al. (2020) & Vaidyanathan (2020). Both misinformation and disinformation play large roles in other areas like climate denialism and GMO hesitancy and act as bottlenecks to adopting better technologies and policies. Behavioral designers often strive to identify nudges that are both as effective and scalable. In the research above, De-loyde et al. (2022) and Blondin et al. (2022), social nudges seem to fit the bill here. But misinformation and disinformation unfortunately represent some of most effective and scalable social nudges you will find. Even with the best of intentions, we need to be careful in the design and deployment of social nudges. </p><p>When it comes to developing nudges and choice architectures related to food choices, we want to be careful that what we do is based on sound science and transparently reflects tradeoffs vs. simply manipulates consumers to act according to our own biases and preferences that may not necessarily represent the optimal choice in every context.</p><p><b>A Guide for Ethical Nudging</b></p><p><a href="https://oecd-opsi.org/" target="_blank">The Observatory of Public Innovation</a> has recently published a document titled <a href="https://oecd-opsi.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/BI-Ethics-GPPs.pdf" target="_blank">Good Practice Principles For Ethical Behavioural Science In Public Policy</a> that includes checklists and questions that may speak to many of the issues above. </p><p>They provide a checklist and prompting questions focused on four areas: Scope, Design, Research and Evaluation, and Policy Implementation. Below are some relevant prompting questions based on the discussion above: </p><p><i> - Did you establish clear criteria for why the behavioural change has a positive outcome for the affected population? Are these criteria monitored and evaluated regularly? </i>(related to Scope)</p><p><i>-Set up protocols to identify and mitigate ethical risks (such as unintended negative side-effects, both in general and to particular groups</i> (related to Design)</p><p><i>- Have you considered new ethical concerns resulting from scaling and adapting in new contexts?</i></p><p>The criteria for the nudges mentioned above seem to be based on measures of CO2e. But we know that those metrics don't necessarily reflect the latest science and don't necessarily encompass all the relevant tradeoffs implied in the choice architectures being presented to consumers. As a consequence, if these nudges were scaled, we might nudge people to make choices that may not be as optimal as advertised when the goal is climate impact, especially for certain groups in given contexts. These are important side effects to consider. </p><p>Perhaps in the research and design phase when there is debate in the literature or the metrics are complex (as they are in climate science and nutrition and health) it is hard to claim that any of the papers discussed above represent a marked violation of ethics. No standard of ethics should require human infallibility or perfect knowledge - especially when the goals are learning. I don't think this guide is necessarily meant to catch all of the nuances discussed in this post. But when it comes to adoption and scaling of interventions or policies, the ethics involved probably merit greater attention. I think the checklist and prompting questions as they are may be quite useful and can be refined to better reflect certain domains. </p><p><b>Conclusion</b></p><p>Learnings from studies like Blondin et al. (2022) and De-loyde et al. (2022) are very important for understanding how choice architecture and nudges can be used to influence behaviors that may represent impactful solutions for important societal problems like climate change. <a href="https://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2022/06/the-limits-of-nudges-and-role-of.html" target="_blank">We should take these learnings and test them in other contexts to confirm they work in different environments before scaling.</a> We also want to make sure that as we learn about nudging and behavior change to improve choices related to food and sustainability in non-coercive ways, that we do not inadvertently do more harm than good on a grander scale in terms of loss of trust in the science, institutions, and innovations that can have the greatest impact. We need to make sure that we are using choice architecture responsibly, and the ingredients are based on sound science and transparent in the tradeoffs they represent and sensitive to the context in which choices are being made. </p><p><b>Additional and Related Reading</b></p><p>More recent related posts and updates: </p><p>Nudging Back: Turning off your Zoom Camera May Be Good for the Climate. <a href="https://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2023/02/nudging-back-turning-off-your-camera.html" target="_blank">https://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2023/02/nudging-back-turning-off-your-camera.html </a></p><p>Picture This: Putting Beef and Climate into Perspective. <a href="https://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2023/03/putting-beef-and-climate-into.html">https://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2023/03/putting-beef-and-climate-into.html</a></p><p>Rational Irrationality and Behavioral Economic Frameworks for Combating Vaccine Hesitancy <a href="https://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2021/08/rational-irrationality-near.html">https://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2021/08/rational-irrationality-near.html</a></p><p>Facts, Figures, or Fiction: Unwarranted Criticisms of the Biden Administration's Failure to Target Methane Emissions from Livestock. <a href="https://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2021/12/facts-figures-or-fiction-unfair.html" target="_blank">https://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2021/12/facts-figures-or-fiction-unfair.html </a></p><p>The Limits of Nudges and the Role of Experiments in Applied Behavioral Economics. <a href="https://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2022/06/the-limits-of-nudges-and-role-of.html " target="_blank">https://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2022/06/the-limits-of-nudges-and-role-of.html </a></p><p><b></b></p><p>Will Eating Less U.S. Beef Save the Rainforests? <a href="http://realclearagriculture.blogspot.com/2020/01/will-eating-less-us-beef-save.html">http://realclearagriculture.blogspot.com/2020/01/will-eating-less-us-beef-save.html</a></p><div>Can Capitalism Be A Force For Good When it Comes to Food? <a href="https://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2021/07/can-capitalism-be-force-for-good-when.html">https://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2021/07/can-capitalism-be-force-for-good-when.html</a></div><div><br /></div><div>GMOs and QR Codes: Consumers need more than a label they need a learning path <a href="https://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2016/08/gmos-is-just-any-label-enough.html">https://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2016/08/gmos-is-just-any-label-enough.html</a></div><p>Modern Sustainable Agriculture Annotated Bibliography (updated) <a href="http://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2011/02/modern-sustainable-agriculture.html">http://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2011/02/modern-sustainable-agriculture.html</a></p><div><b>References</b></div><p>Allen, M.R., Shine, K.P., Fuglestvedt, J.S. et al. A solution to the misrepresentations of CO2-equivalent emissions of short-lived climate pollutants under ambitious mitigation. npj Clim Atmos Sci 1, 16 (2018) doi:10.1038/s41612-018-0026-8</p><p>Blondin, Stacy & Attwood, Sophie & Vennard, Daniel & Mayneris, Vanessa. (2022). Environmental Messages Promote Plant-Based Food Choices: An Online Restaurant Menu Study. World Resources Institute. 10.46830/wriwp.20.00137. </p><p>Graham Brookes & Peter Barfoot (2020) Environmental impacts of genetically modified (GM) crop use 1996–2018: impacts on pesticide use and carbon emissions, GM Crops & Food, 11:4, 215-241, DOI: 10.1080/21645698.2020.1773198</p><div>The environmental impact of recombinant bovine somatotropin (rbST) use in dairy production Judith L. Capper,* Euridice Castañeda-Gutiérrez,*† Roger A. Cady,‡ and Dale E. Bauman* Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 July 15; 105(28): 9668–9673</div><p>De-loyde, K., Pilling, M., Thornton, A., Spencer, G., & Maynard, O. (2022). Promoting sustainable diets using eco-labelling and social nudges: A randomised online experiment. Behavioural Public Policy, 1-17. doi:10.1017/bpp.2022.27</p><p>Drewnowski, Adam et al. “Energy and nutrient density of foods in relation to their carbon footprint.” The American journal of clinical nutrition 101 1 (2015): 184-91 .</p><p>Johnson, N.F., Velásquez, N., Restrepo, N.J. et al. The online competition between pro- and anti-vaccination views. Nature 582, 230–233 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2281-1</p><p>Keiichiro Kanemoto, Daniel Moran, Yosuke Shigetomi, Christian Reynolds, Yasushi Kondo,Meat Consumption Does Not Explain Differences in Household Food Carbon Footprints in Japan, One Earth, Volume 1, Issue 4, 2019,Pages 464-471, ISSN 2590-3322, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2019.12.004.</p><p>Private costs of carbon emissions abatement by limiting beef consumption and vehicle use in the United States. McFadden BR, Ferraro PJ, Messer KD (2022) Private costs of carbon emissions abatement by limiting beef consumption and vehicle use in the United States. PLOS ONE 17(1): e0261372. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261372</p><p>ABC TV settles with beef product maker in 'pink slime' defamation case. By Timothy Mclaughlin https://www.reuters.com/article/us-abc-pinkslime/abc-tv-settles-with-beef-product-maker-in-pink-slime-defamation-case-idUSKBN19J1W9 </p><p>Dairymen reject rBST largely on economic grounds. Mateusz Perkowski Dec 10, 2013 Updated Dec 13, 2018 .https://www.capitalpress.com/dairymen-reject-rbst-largely-on-economic-grounds/article_335ce36b-ec75-5734-9aad-80f11cae1d43.html</p><p>Camille D. Ryan, Andrew J. Schaul, Ryan Butner, John T. Swarthout, Monetizing disinformation in the attention economy: The case of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), European Management Journal, Volume 38, Issue 1, 2020, Pages 7-18, ISSN 0263-2373</p><p>C. Alan Rotz et al. Environmental footprints of beef cattle production in the United States, Agricultural Systems (2018). DOI: 10.1016/j.agsy.2018.11.005 </p><div>News Feature: Finding a vaccine for misinformation. Gayathri Vaidyanathan. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Aug 2020, 117 (32) 18902-18905; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2013249117 https://www.pnas.org/content/117/32/18902</div></div>Matt Bogardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10510725993509264716noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18505975.post-69551076856407473502022-06-28T17:05:00.005-07:002023-02-19T07:44:42.677-08:00The Role of Identify Protective Cognition in the Formation of Consumer Beliefs and Preferences<p><b>Background</b></p><p>People pick and choose their science, and often they do it in ways that seem rationally inconsistent. One lens through which we can view this is <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZcSC07E0ME" target="_blank">Bryan Caplan's idea of rational irrationality </a>along with a Borland and Pulsinelli's concept of social harassment costs. </p><p>According to Caplan:</p><p><i> "...people have preferences over beliefs. Letting emotions or ideology corrupt our thinking is an easy way to satisfy such preferences...Worldviews are more a mental security blanket than a serious effort to understand the world."</i></p><p>This means that:</p><p><i>"Beliefs that are irrational from the standpoint of truth-seeking are rational from the standpoint of utility maximization."</i></p><p>In a <a href="https://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2020/10/the-influence-of-social-networks-on.html" target="_blank">previous post,</a> I visualized social harassment costs that vary depending on one's peer group. If these costs exceed a certain threshold (k), consumers might express preferences that otherwise might seem irrational from a scientific standpoint. For example, based on peer group, a consumer might embrace scientific evidence related to climate change, but due to strong levels of social harassment, reject the views of the broader medical and scientific community related to the safety of genetically engineered foods. </p><p><br /></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgag2Qwuy0qDcgxw0fMc_gnJ5qnABvxDknJ9qVZcnrZXnLjsH6QzudHLZTw0eJI9ENcb7WoSBmI4mtvnxOuDR_RLjcglioMNK1Z5RgkKC2ZoHkzV2DDueLdyN65InafdRzMZ5o9JLS-XUCqyZJZMfVMpb6xyDjNzFkIIxp6v9Tmh7h5CUoZjw" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img data-original-height="184" data-original-width="457" height="258" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgag2Qwuy0qDcgxw0fMc_gnJ5qnABvxDknJ9qVZcnrZXnLjsH6QzudHLZTw0eJI9ENcb7WoSBmI4mtvnxOuDR_RLjcglioMNK1Z5RgkKC2ZoHkzV2DDueLdyN65InafdRzMZ5o9JLS-XUCqyZJZMfVMpb6xyDjNzFkIIxp6v9Tmh7h5CUoZjw=w640-h258" width="640" /></a></div><br />See <a href="https://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2020/07/consumer-perceptions-of-biotechnology.html" target="_blank">here</a>, and <a href="https://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2020/10/the-influence-of-social-networks-on.html" target="_blank">here.</a><p></p><p><b>Identity Protective Cognition</b></p><p>In <i>Misconceptions, Misinformation, and the Logic of Identity-Protective Cognition</i> (Kahan, 2017) the concept of identity protective cognition adds more to the picture. Below are three aspects of identify protective cognition:</p><p></p><ol style="text-align: left;"><li>What people accept as factual information is shaped primarily by their values and identity</li><li>Identity is a function of group membership, i.e. it's tribal in nature</li><li>If people choose to hold beliefs that are different from what the 'tribe' believes, then they risk being ostracized (i.e. they face social harassment costs)</li><li>As a result, individual thinking and thought patterns evolve to express group membership and what is held to be factual information is really an expression of 'loyalty to a particular identity-defining affinity group.</li></ol><div>Additionally Kahan discusses some important implications of this sort of epistemic tribalism. Additional education and more accurate information aren't necessarily effective tactics for addressing the problems of misinformation and disinformation. In fact, what Kahan's and others research have shown is that it can actually make the problem worse. </div><div><br /></div><div><i>'those highest in science comprehension use their superior scientific-reasoning proficiencies to conform policy-relevant evidence to the position that predominates in their cultural group....persons using this mode of reasoning are not trying to form an accurate understanding of the facts in support of a decision...with the benefit of the best available evidence....Instead they are using their reasoning to cultivate an affective stance that expresses their identity and their solidarity with others who share their commitments.' </i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div>In this way, identity protective cognition creates a sort of spurious relationship between what may be perceived as facts and the beliefs we adopt or choices we make. It gives us the impression that our beliefs are being driven by facts when the primary driver may actually be cultural identity. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEg6TFQv9OvAVOnHm5hFHkI85kV63YqoWFJrh9gIqdmvYrFOqrDFfzhC9v2UkWoJpmSVctD4Dyg9u5gSz2UJSAazZpt2WhwvCcR9-X1akvD5yfcVpnIv1_DswEnaaJMgZXNk7YSL8o0907nr5jjdkfgbA6k8S572IldrnEpulDOTJ3pQq0rcYQ" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="148" data-original-width="356" height="133" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEg6TFQv9OvAVOnHm5hFHkI85kV63YqoWFJrh9gIqdmvYrFOqrDFfzhC9v2UkWoJpmSVctD4Dyg9u5gSz2UJSAazZpt2WhwvCcR9-X1akvD5yfcVpnIv1_DswEnaaJMgZXNk7YSL8o0907nr5jjdkfgbA6k8S572IldrnEpulDOTJ3pQq0rcYQ" width="320" /></a></div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>This sort of tribalism can result in a sort of <i>tragedy of the science communication commons </i>- similar to the <a href="https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/TragedyoftheCommons.html" target="_blank">tragedy of the commons in economics</a> where what seems rational from an individual standpoint (adopting the beliefs of the group to avoid punishment) is irrational from the standpoint of accuracy of beliefs and has negative consequences for society at large. As a result:</div><div><br /></div><div><i>'citizens of a pluralistic democratic society are less likely to converge on the best possible evidence on threats to their collective welfare.'</i></div><div><br /></div><div>Of course this has consequences for elections, the regulatory environment, and decisions by businesses and entrepreneurs in terms of what products to market and where to invest capital and resources. Ultimately this impacts quality of life and our ability to thrive in a world with a changing climate and bitter partisanship and social unrest. </div><div><br /></div><div><b>The Problem and the Solution</b></div><div><br /></div><div>As discussed above, this sort of tribal epistemology is not easily corrected by providing correct information or education. In fact it drives one to seek out misinformation in support of one's identity while ignoring what is factually correct. The authors speak broadly about the role that 'pollutants' or 'toxins' in the science communication environment play in promoting this tribal mentality. One form of social harassment cost that may be driving this is cancel culture or call out culture. Cancel culture works like an immune system that scans the network of believers and seeks out non-conforming views, and tags it to be attacked by others in the group. This drives even the brightest to seek out misinformation instead of avoiding it. </div><div><br /></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEi--8KqrB5HboLqgrCpMWAphIZY1wW4f6eqLKyMuuOfJ4z4bjSTkIKS5POkvVi_Ni4K9jIOVBEgYBLGBs4z0RGjOKN5my3qgbeeL8kpGJe_rO3psrJabNxYWQimqO8hBGHrSamdA_olkZ8HQfonyKZ_zQw24pPohhNQV6nDGZ5M5_14w1jcrA" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img data-original-height="205" data-original-width="484" height="170" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEi--8KqrB5HboLqgrCpMWAphIZY1wW4f6eqLKyMuuOfJ4z4bjSTkIKS5POkvVi_Ni4K9jIOVBEgYBLGBs4z0RGjOKN5my3qgbeeL8kpGJe_rO3psrJabNxYWQimqO8hBGHrSamdA_olkZ8HQfonyKZ_zQw24pPohhNQV6nDGZ5M5_14w1jcrA=w400-h170" width="400" /></a></div><br /><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>Another pollutant to the science communication environment is troll epistemology and related efforts to produce a 'firehose of falsehood' (see Paul and Matthews, 2016). Whether intentional or not, modern media technology provides the infrastructure to produce an effect similar to modern propaganda techniques pioneered in Russia. This emphasizes flooding the science communication environment via high-volume and multichannel, rapid, continuous, and repetitive false or unsubstantiated claims with no commitment to objective reality or logical consistency. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>Authors conclude:</div><div><br /></div><div><i>'the most effective manner to combat the effect of misconceptions about science and outright misinformation is to protect the science communication environment from this distinctive toxin.'</i></div><div><br /></div><div><b>Related Posts and References</b></div><p>Borland,Melvin V. and Robert W. Pulsinelli. Household Commodity Production and Social Harassment Costs.Southern Economic Journal. Vol. 56, No. 2 (Oct., 1989), pp. 291-301</p><p>Frimer, J. A., Skitka, L. J., & Motyl, M. (2017). Liberals and conservatives are similarly motivated to avoid exposure to one another's opinions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 72, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.04.003</p><p>Kahan, Dan M., Misconceptions, Misinformation, and the Logic of Identity-Protective Cognition (May 24, 2017). Cultural Cognition Project Working Paper Series No. 164, Yale Law School, Public Law Research Paper No. 605, Yale Law & Economics Research Paper No. 575, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2973067 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2973067</p><p>Paul, Christopher and Miriam Matthews, The Russian "Firehose of Falsehood" Propaganda Model: Why It Might Work and Options to Counter It. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2016. https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE198.html.</p>Matt Bogardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10510725993509264716noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18505975.post-69443623126026679602022-06-17T12:16:00.001-07:002023-02-12T14:11:21.189-08:00The Limits of Nudges and the Role of Experiments in Applied Behavioral Economics<div class="p-rich_text_section" style="background-color: #f8f8f8; box-sizing: inherit; color: #1d1c1d; counter-reset: list-0 0 list-1 0 list-2 0 list-3 0 list-4 0 list-5 0 list-6 0 list-7 0 list-8 0 list-9 0; font-family: Slack-Lato, Slack-Fractions, appleLogo, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; font-variant-ligatures: common-ligatures;">In a recent article in Nature, <a href="https://doc-0o-4g-apps-viewer.googleusercontent.com/viewer/secure/pdf/u9q6krq5bvia9vlcuul6b5iopdrea902/eaiasiuimt39a8sdb9ht883n0k12ors3/1654904175000/gmail/10275374867852030146/ACFrOgBYPdXBZ5Vy1761IHfuhFx51k1Aeo1_IMGnW35xKQtNNa7T5Ew_FZk1FLqmjqz1ucvkzOkyppHlllhi7kZ5cTOf5CCphhFf3YL9ZVu00OcpWZ1KZDgUug19coM=?print=true" target="_blank">Evidence from a statewide vaccination RCT</a>, authors found that eight different nudges previously shown to be effective for encouraging flu and COVID vaccination failed to show impact when tested on more reluctant populations. I think a knee jerk reaction is that maybe nudges aren't effective ways to increase vaccination after all. But that completely misses a very important aspect of nudges. Nudges work in most cases because humans can be sensitive to context. And applied behavioral design processes work to understand this context and test the impact of interventions to know if they are effective in a given context. At the highest level I think this paper is less about the ineffectiveness of nudges per say and more about the important role of changing context on behavior. </div><div class="p-rich_text_section" style="background-color: #f8f8f8; box-sizing: inherit; color: #1d1c1d; counter-reset: list-0 0 list-1 0 list-2 0 list-3 0 list-4 0 list-5 0 list-6 0 list-7 0 list-8 0 list-9 0; font-family: Slack-Lato, Slack-Fractions, appleLogo, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; font-variant-ligatures: common-ligatures;"><br /></div><div class="p-rich_text_section" style="background-color: #f8f8f8; box-sizing: inherit; color: #1d1c1d; counter-reset: list-0 0 list-1 0 list-2 0 list-3 0 list-4 0 list-5 0 list-6 0 list-7 0 list-8 0 list-9 0; font-family: Slack-Lato, Slack-Fractions, appleLogo, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; font-variant-ligatures: common-ligatures;">I'd like to try to unpack more by focusing on the following: </div><div class="p-rich_text_section" style="background-color: #f8f8f8; box-sizing: inherit; color: #1d1c1d; counter-reset: list-0 0 list-1 0 list-2 0 list-3 0 list-4 0 list-5 0 list-6 0 list-7 0 list-8 0 list-9 0; font-family: Slack-Lato, Slack-Fractions, appleLogo, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; font-variant-ligatures: common-ligatures;"><br /></div><ul class="p-rich_text_list p-rich_text_list__bullet" data-border="0" data-indent="0" data-stringify-type="unordered-list" style="background-color: #f8f8f8; box-sizing: inherit; color: #1d1c1d; font-family: Slack-Lato, Slack-Fractions, appleLogo, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; font-variant-ligatures: common-ligatures; list-style-type: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><li data-stringify-border="0" data-stringify-indent="0" style="box-sizing: inherit; list-style-type: none; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 28px;"><b data-stringify-type="bold" style="box-sizing: inherit;">The importance of testing. </b>You can’t blindly chuck nudges over the fence at your customers and simply assume they will be effective just because they worked in prior published studies or in other businesses. In this paper they tested 8 different nudges. If they had just scaled any or all of these without testing we would not have learned anything about effectiveness or the other lessons that follow relating to why they may not have worked. And vice versa - just because something failed to replicate in one context doesn't invalidate prior work or imply it won't work in yours. We just know findings are not generalizable across all contexts. The only way to really know about your context is to test. That is part of the value of <a href="https://econometricsense.blogspot.com/2020/04/the-value-of-business-experiments-and.html" target="_blank">business experiments.</a></li></ul><div class="p-rich_text_section" style="background-color: #f8f8f8; box-sizing: inherit; color: #1d1c1d; counter-reset: list-0 0 list-1 0 list-2 0 list-3 0 list-4 0 list-5 0 list-6 0 list-7 0 list-8 0 list-9 0; font-family: Slack-Lato, Slack-Fractions, appleLogo, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; font-variant-ligatures: common-ligatures;"><span class="c-mrkdwn__br" data-stringify-type="paragraph-break" style="box-sizing: inherit; display: block; height: 8px;"></span></div><ul class="p-rich_text_list p-rich_text_list__bullet" data-border="0" data-indent="0" data-stringify-type="unordered-list" style="background-color: #f8f8f8; box-sizing: inherit; color: #1d1c1d; font-family: Slack-Lato, Slack-Fractions, appleLogo, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; font-variant-ligatures: common-ligatures; list-style-type: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><li data-stringify-border="0" data-stringify-indent="0" style="box-sizing: inherit; list-style-type: none; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 28px;"><b data-stringify-type="bold" style="box-sizing: inherit;">Context matters.</b> In the paper they discussed important differences in context between late stage COVID vaccination and vaccination earlier in the pandemic, as well as differences between flu and COVID.</li></ul><div class="p-rich_text_section" style="background-color: #f8f8f8; box-sizing: inherit; color: #1d1c1d; counter-reset: list-0 0 list-1 0 list-2 0 list-3 0 list-4 0 list-5 0 list-6 0 list-7 0 list-8 0 list-9 0; font-family: Slack-Lato, Slack-Fractions, appleLogo, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; font-variant-ligatures: common-ligatures;"><span class="c-mrkdwn__br" data-stringify-type="paragraph-break" style="box-sizing: inherit; display: block; height: 8px;"></span></div><ul class="p-rich_text_list p-rich_text_list__bullet" data-border="0" data-indent="0" data-stringify-type="unordered-list" style="background-color: #f8f8f8; box-sizing: inherit; color: #1d1c1d; font-family: Slack-Lato, Slack-Fractions, appleLogo, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; font-variant-ligatures: common-ligatures; list-style-type: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><li data-stringify-border="0" data-stringify-indent="0" style="box-sizing: inherit; list-style-type: none; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 28px;"><b>T</b><b data-stringify-type="bold" style="box-sizing: inherit;">he utility of behavioral personas and behavioral mapping to guide our thinking about why a given nudge may work or not.</b> To take context a bit further, authors discussed differences in populations (age) and different challenges to flu vs COVID vaccinations and the differential impact related to how both logistical and psychological barriers may have been addressed in different populations and different contexts with different designs. All of these are things that we can point to or think about in the framework of behavioral mapping. Other issues related to 1) different kinds of hesitancy and changing norms over time, 2) whether some participants may have already been vaccinated (and not mentioned perhaps how prior infection may have changed the sense of effectiveness or urgency). These things may relate more to the kinds of personas that any given nudge may speak to. Although the paper doesn't discuss <a href="https://advanced-hindsight.com/blog/introducing-the-behavioral-mapping-case-study-cheat-sheet/" target="_blank">behavioral mapping</a> or developing personas their utility here seems palpable.</li></ul><div class="p-rich_text_section" style="background-color: #f8f8f8; box-sizing: inherit; color: #1d1c1d; counter-reset: list-0 0 list-1 0 list-2 0 list-3 0 list-4 0 list-5 0 list-6 0 list-7 0 list-8 0 list-9 0; font-family: Slack-Lato, Slack-Fractions, appleLogo, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; font-variant-ligatures: common-ligatures;"><span class="c-mrkdwn__br" data-stringify-type="paragraph-break" style="box-sizing: inherit; display: block; height: 8px;"></span></div><ul class="p-rich_text_list p-rich_text_list__bullet" data-border="0" data-indent="0" data-stringify-type="unordered-list" style="background-color: #f8f8f8; box-sizing: inherit; color: #1d1c1d; font-family: Slack-Lato, Slack-Fractions, appleLogo, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; font-variant-ligatures: common-ligatures; list-style-type: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><li data-stringify-border="0" data-stringify-indent="0" style="box-sizing: inherit; list-style-type: none; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 28px;"><b data-stringify-type="bold" style="box-sizing: inherit;">Behavioral design frameworks.</b> Additionally, authors discussed the impact of things like message saturation and novelty effects in addition to timing. These are things that I tend to think about in the context of <a class="c-link" data-remove-tab-index="true" data-sk="tooltip_parent" data-stringify-link="https://www.amazon.com/Designing-Behavior-Change-Psychology-Behavioral/dp/1492056030" delay="150" href="https://www.amazon.com/Designing-Behavior-Change-Psychology-Behavioral/dp/1492056030" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="box-sizing: inherit; text-decoration-line: none;" tabindex="-1" target="_blank">Stephen Wendel’s CREATE action funnel</a> as a design framework that speaks to issues like the importance of Cue and Timing. (Actually every aspect of CREATE speaks to almost all of the aspects of this messaging in some way).</li></ul><div class="p-rich_text_section" style="background-color: #f8f8f8; box-sizing: inherit; color: #1d1c1d; counter-reset: list-0 0 list-1 0 list-2 0 list-3 0 list-4 0 list-5 0 list-6 0 list-7 0 list-8 0 list-9 0; font-family: Slack-Lato, Slack-Fractions, appleLogo, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; font-variant-ligatures: common-ligatures;"><span class="c-mrkdwn__br" data-stringify-type="paragraph-break" style="box-sizing: inherit; display: block; height: 8px;"></span></div><ul class="p-rich_text_list p-rich_text_list__bullet" data-border="0" data-indent="0" data-stringify-type="unordered-list" style="background-color: #f8f8f8; box-sizing: inherit; color: #1d1c1d; font-family: Slack-Lato, Slack-Fractions, appleLogo, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; font-variant-ligatures: common-ligatures; list-style-type: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><li data-stringify-border="0" data-stringify-indent="0" style="box-sizing: inherit; list-style-type: none; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 28px;"><b data-stringify-type="bold" style="box-sizing: inherit;">The importance of operationalizing applied behavioral science through repeatable iterative cycles of learning.</b> Even if one constructed behavioral maps and personas in the design of these nudges, the findings in this paper (and in many instances where we leverage experiments to test impact) dictate that we go back and revise our maps and personas based on learnings like these.</li></ul><p>There has also been some <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/a23e808b-e293-4cc0-b077-9168cff135e4 " target="_blank">recent discussion</a> about the failure of nudges because they focus too much on individual behavioral (i-frame) vs. larger systemic issues (s-frame). It seems to me that best practices in the 'diagnosis' phase of behavioral design process would be helpful in both of these areas if the behavioral lens is widened to include deeper thinking about the broader system (s-frame). As discussed in <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/book/the-constitution-of-knowledge/" target="_blank">The Consitution of Knowledge: A Defence of Truth</a> Jonathan Rouch discusses the challenges of changing behavior when beliefs and identity become tightly braided together. Sometimes people first have to be moved to a <i>'persuadable place emotionally'</i> and their <i>'personal opinions, political identities, and peer group norms'</i> have to be '<i>nudged and cajoled simultaneously, which is a long slow process.' </i>To quote Jim Manzi, you can't test your way out of a bad strategy. It does not mean that we should give up on leveraging applied behavioral science to make a positive change in society, but it does make understanding of the larger ecosystem in the implementation of nudges all the more critical. </p><p>As discussed in a <a href="https://behavioralscientist.org/six-prescriptions-for-applied-behavioral-science-as-it-comes-of-age/" target="_blank">recent article in The Behavioral Scientist:</a></p><p><i>"Our efforts at this stage will determine whether the field matures in a systematic and stable manner, or grows wildly and erratically. Unless we take stock of the science, the practice, and the mechanisms that we can put into place to align the two, we will run the danger of the promise of behavioral science being an illusion for many—not because the science itself was faulty, but because we did not successfully develop a science for using the science." </i></p><p>The authors follow with 6 guidelines echoing some of the above sentiments above that are well worth reading. </p><p><b>Reference: </b></p><p>Rabb, N., Swindal, M., Glick, D. et al. Evidence from a statewide vaccination RCT shows the limits of nudges. Nature 604, E1–E7 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-04526-2</p><p>Chater, Nick and Loewenstein, George F., The i-Frame and the s-Frame: How Focusing on Individual-Level Solutions Has Led Behavioral Public Policy Astray (March 1, 2022). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4046264 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4046264</p><p><br /></p>Matt Bogardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10510725993509264716noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18505975.post-13490815508806166252022-06-13T06:17:00.017-07:002022-11-09T16:18:53.791-08:00Agricultural Economics in the Healthcare Space<p>During the pandemic, it wasn't too uncommon to hear the criticism that economists should stay in their lane when it comes to issues related to health. So I thought I would write a short piece discussing what role I have had as an applied (agricultural) economist working in the healthcare space for almost a decade now. </p><p>Economics is the study of people's choices and how they are made compatible. At a high level, agricultural economics focuses on choices related to food, fiber, natural resources, and energy production and consumption. This makes the intersection of food, health, and the environment an interesting space in agricultural economics. </p><p>How do choices in this space impact health? What factors lead individuals to make healthy choices? In graduate school I specifically focused on why people seem to pick and choose their science and the role of evidence in food choices and attitudes toward food technology. What is the role of information and disinformation in the formation of consumer preferences and the choices they make? How can we design better policies, products, services, interventions, or choice architectures for better outcomes? How can we communicate science and risk more effectively? And, what are the best approaches in experimental design and causal inference to measure the impact in these areas? How do we bring this all together to make better decisions as individuals, business leaders, and as a society? At an applied level, which is where I work, this is not so much about making a novel contribution to the literature or advancing the field as much as it is about implementation - applying the principals of economics to develop solutions or provide frameworks to solve or better understand questions and problems in this space.</p><p>This line of reasoning has value not just in the context of food choices but for a myriad of behaviors related to healthcare at <a href="https://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2021/02/the-convergence-of-big-data-and.html" target="_blank">both the patient and provider level.</a> From a business perspective, this is about <a href="https://econometricsense.blogspot.com/2022/10/the-business-value-of-experimentation.html" target="_blank">how to identify opportunities to move resources from a lower to a higher valued use</a>, and how we monetize behavior change. Of course applying this economic lens also requires bringing an ethical perspective to the table as well, which is important when we consider all of the tradeoffs involved in human decision making. </p><p>When we are faced with <a href="https://econometricsense.blogspot.com/2019/09/wicked-problems-and-role-of-expertise.html" target="_blank">wicked problems</a> that may have alternative solutions, we can't just jump directly form the science to a cure, better policy, or product or service. <a href="https://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2021/04/consumer-perceptions-misinformation-and.html" target="_blank">We learned from the pandemic the difference between having a vaccine and having people get vaccinated.</a> At the end of the day there are no solutions really, only tradeoffs, and we need a framework for understanding those tradeoffs so we can make better decisions about food and health. That is squarely in the lane of theoretical and applied economists.</p><p><b>Related Posts and Readings</b></p><p><a href="http://econometricsense.blogspot.com/2010/09/why-study-applied-economics.html " target="_blank">Why Study Economics / Applied Economics </a></p><p><a href="https://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2021/02/the-convergence-of-big-data-and.html" target="_blank">The Convergence of AI, Life Sciences, and Healthcare</a></p><p><a href="http://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2021/04/the-economics-of-innovation-in-biopharma.html" target="_blank">The Economics of Innovation in Biopharma</a></p><p><a href="http://econometricsense.blogspot.com/2021/06/science-communication-for-business-and.html" target="_blank">Science Communication for Business and Non-technical Audiences </a></p><p><a href="https://econometricsense.blogspot.com/2022/10/the-business-value-of-experimentation.html" target="_blank">The Value of Business Experiments</a></p><p><a href="https://econometricsense.blogspot.com/2020/04/statistics-is-way-of-thinking-not-just.html " target="_blank">Statistics is a way of thinking not a toolbox</a></p><p><a href="http://econometricsense.blogspot.com/2021/11/causal-decision-making-with-non-causal.html" target="_blank">Causal Decision Making with Non-Causal Models</a></p><p><a href="https://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2021/08/rational-irrationality-near.html" target="_blank">Rational Irrationality and Behavioral Economic Frameworks for Combating Vaccine Hesitancy </a></p><p><a href="https://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2021/04/consumer-perceptions-misinformation-and.html " target="_blank">Consumer Perceptions, Misinformation, and Vaccine Hesitancy</a></p><p><a href="https://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2020/10/the-influence-of-social-networks-on.html" target="_blank">Using Social Network Analysis to Understand the Influence of Social Harassment Costs and Preferences Toward Biotechnology</a></p><p><a href="http://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2015/01/fat-tails-precautionary-principle-and.html" target="_blank">Fat Tails, The Precautionary Principle, and GMOs</a></p><p><a href="https://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2022/01/innovation-disruption-and-lower-carbon.html" target="_blank">Innovation, Disruption and Low(er) Carbon Beef</a></p><p><b>Examining Changes in Healthy Days After Health Coaching. </b>Cole, S., Zbikowski, S. M., Renda, A., Wallace, A., Dobbins, J. M., & Bogard, M. American Journal of Health Promotion. (2018)</p><p><b>Intrapersonal Variation in Goal Setting and Achievement in Health Coaching: Cross-Sectional Retrospective Analysis. </b>Wallace A.M., Bogard M.T., Zbikowski S.M. J Med Internet Res 2018;20(1):e32</p>Matt Bogardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10510725993509264716noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18505975.post-20194364662592214102022-01-24T17:59:00.008-08:002022-01-27T15:42:21.396-08:00Innovation, Disruption, and Low(er) Carbon Beef<p>Is There Really Such a Thing as Low-Carbon Beef? That is the title of <a href="https://www.wired.com/story/low-carbon-beef/" target="_blank">a recent article in Wired</a>. The article was referring to a new USDA program that will allow <a href="https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/Official%20Listing%20of%20Approved%20Process%20Verified%20Programs%20for%20Sevice%20Providers.pdf" target="_blank">beef to be labeled and marketed as having a lower carbon </a>footprint based on a lifecycle assessment and audit of production practices. To be lower carbon it must be 10% lower. Here is a bit more detail:</p><p><i>"Verification of reduced greenhouse gas emissions in a group of cattle using a comprehensive life-cycle assessment model that incorporates impacts associated with management practices and cattle performance throughout the life of the animals.A qualified group of cattle must have life-cycle greenhouse emissions at least 10% lower than industry baseline based on the Low Carbon Beef Scoring Tables." </i></p><p>Before getting into this further I will first answer the question posed by the title. Yes - on a relative global basis, beef produced and consumed in the U.S. is low carbon. Beef in the U.S. accounts for about 4% of total GHG emissions. But on a global scale, which matters most to climate change, overall, total GHG emissions related to U.S. beef consumption accounts for less than 1/2 of 1% (i.e. .5%) of GHG emissions (EPA GHG Emissions Inventory, Rotz et al, 2018). Additionally when compared to beef produced and consumed in other parts of the world, the carbon footprint of beef produced and consumed in the U.S. is 10 times or more lower (Herrero et al., 2013). There is no arguing against the fact that when we look at the big picture, U.S. beef is low carbon beef. Of course it is fair to ask, within the U.S. can we improve our carbon footprint? Our history tells us yes we can and as I will discuss below, the new USDA labeling program cited in Wired may be one way to incentivize getting there. </p><p><b>Will this new labeling and certification initiative be misleading as the article says? </b>I am one of the first people to speak out against misleading food labels. Just see related posts below. There is currently a lot of confusion about the sustainability of our food choices, and consumers are having to use a lot of proxies that are less than ideal to attempt to understand their carbon footprint. Examples include local, organic, 'hormone free', or non-GMO products (see my post about issue related to <a href="https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/18505975/2019436466259221410#" target="_blank">free-from food labeling)</a>. All of these options can in fact have higher carbon footprints, lead to more intense resource use, and have negative social and environmental consequences despite how popular some fads may be or what food marketers may imply about their product. By having a verified measure of carbon footprint associated with beef, the new USDA initiative should actually provide clarity to a confused and often misled consumer. Precisely the opposite of the concern raised in Wired.</p><p><b>Misleading or Realistic Recommendations?</b></p><p>The article in Wired quotes the following recommendation: <i>"low-carbon certifications won’t fix the problems caused by beef consumption. “We need to substantially readjust our diets'</i></p><div><div>Another common suggestion to go along with this is to consume more plant based or cultured alternative meat sources. These suggestions suffer from two major drawbacks. From a behavioral science perspective, they are challenging behaviors to target. </div></div><div><br /></div><div><a href="https://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2021/12/facts-figures-or-fiction-unfair.html" target="_blank">In a previous post,</a> I discussed how we need to think about the problem we are trying to solve or outcome we are trying to achieve (climate change mitigation) and consider the behavioral map that relates all of the target actions we could take to achieve this outcome. Which solutions are technically correct but also the most impactful at scale from a behavior change perspective? Is a reduction in modern U.S. beef production or consumption the target behavior we should be trying to change compared to other options?</div><div><br /></div><div>Paul Ferraro, Brandon McFadden, and Kent Messer take this head on using an auction experiment to measure 'plasticity' or the willingness of non-adopters to change behavior (Ferraro, et al., 2022).They find that targeting beef consumption might not be the most socially cost effective approach to mitigating climate change compared to other strategies for abatement (like carbon offsets or policies that encourage more technical innovations). They state:</div><div><br /></div><div> <i>"Policy interventions are likely to provide the best return on investment when they target choices and behaviors for which abatement potential and plasticity are high enough to lead to meaningful reductions in GHG emissions....our estimates imply that it would cost at least $642 per tCO2e to reduce GHG emissions by inducing 50% of our study sample to eliminate beef consumption...currently the price to offset a tCO2e (based on existing markets for carbon offsets) is between $10 to $13." </i></div><div><br /></div><div>These costs are not only higher than market based estimates of the cost of carbon but also most estimates of the social cost of carbon as well even at the lower plasticity levels. They state: <i>"in the U.S., a median estimate of the SCC is $48 per tCO2e."</i></div><div><br /></div><div><b>The Fallacy of Disruption</b></div><div><br /></div><div>The recommendations from Wired (and similar recommendations promoting cultured or alternative meats) may also suffer from what I am calling the fallacy of disruption. In his book <i>Experimentation Works: The Surprising Power of Business Experiments, </i>Steffan Thomke discusses what drives many important innovations as high velocity incrementalism. Not huge disruptive leaps:</div><div><br /></div><div><i>"Even though the business world glorifies disruptive ideas, most progress is achieved by implementing hundreds of thousands of minor improvements that can have a big cumulative effect."</i></div><div><br /></div><div><div>When looking at total economic growth, economists have estimated that 77% of economic growth is driven by existing products not via creative destruction associated with new products (Garcia‐Macia et al., 2019). While creative destruction is a well recognized and essential process in our economy, it is important to recognize there is a lot of progress to be made through high velocity incrementalism. </div></div><div><br /></div><div>The suggestion from the article that alludes to making huge technological disruptive leaps (like cell cultured meat alternatives) or behavior changes (making significant dietary changes) just isn't consistent with what we know about behavioral economics and the economics of innovation. As the work from Ferraro et al. has recently shown, even small changes in beef reduction aren't as practical as we might think. </div><div><br /></div><div><b>Internalizing Climate Externalities via Technological Change and Innovation</b></div><div><br /></div><div>Climate change problems are what economists refer to as externalities, which at a high level are unpriced negative consequences of our behavior that fall on third parties or future generations. One way externalities are internalized are through technological innovations, which as discussed above, can result from incremental changes to the way we produce and consume goods and services. We have witnessed this in the beef industry over the last few decades. Thanks to advances in economic development, technological change, innovations in management, marketing, and pricing value in the beef industry (for just a few examples see<a href="https://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2014/12/stacking-technology-in-stockers-adds-up.html" target="_blank"> here,</a> <a href="http://realclearagriculture.blogspot.com/2019/08/environmental-and-water-use-economies.html" target="_blank">here, </a><a href="https://www.beefmagazine.com/breeding/beef-embryos-could-be-new-breeding-tool-dairies" target="_blank">here, </a><a href="https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/05/160505223115.htm" target="_blank">here,</a> and <a href="https://www.drovers.com/news/beef-production/case-amas" target="_blank">here</a>), we've seen gains in beef production and quality. Additionally, in 2007 compared to 1977 we were able to produce the same amount of beef using roughly 30% fewer cattle and 30% less land. This represents a huge impact on global warming potential when we consider the implications of this in the context of methane emissions and the biogenic carbon cycle. As <a href="http://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2021/12/facts-figures-or-fiction-unfair.html?m=0" target="_blank">previously discussed, </a>:</div><div><br /></div><div><i>"when you get in your car to go to your favorite restaurant, the associated methane and CO2 emissions that result represents new and long lasting emissions. For the most part the steak or burger on your plate doesn't directly add any new warming potential to the atmosphere that didn't already exist, nor has any steak or burger you may have eaten in the last 30 years based on this data."</i></div><div><br /></div><div>Feed and and water usage were also down between 15-20% with a 16% lower carbon footprint (Capper, 2007). All of these factors have culminated in a healthier, more nutritious, higher quality product with a lower carbon footprint. As noted above, compared to other places in the world, the impact of technological innovation is many fold.</div><div><br /></div><div>It is important to note that these innovations were market driven. They entailed voluntary behavior changes by both producers and consumers that led to higher quality, more nutritious, and more environmentally friendly beef. In addition to helping provide more clarity to consumers compared to existing labeling schemes, the new USDA labels will only help incentivize this innovative process by effectively putting a price on carbon, in absence of any new regulatory frameworks, subsidies, permits, or carbon taxes. </div><div><br /></div><div>The history of food innovation in the beef industry tells us this trend of voluntary and market driven advancement will continue. While in the life sciences, the 'high velocity' part of high velocity incrementalism is more challenging than designing a search engine or smartphone app, with the convergence of big data, AI, and genomics, innovations are happening faster. Current trends in ESG reporting and concerns about scope 3 emissions, along with advances in block chain and other source verification technologies will only further catalyze future advances. We just don't have this kind of momentum behind drastic dietary fads related to huge reductions in beef consumption, going vegan, or alternative proteins. </div><div><div><br /></div><div><b>Related Reading</b></div><div><br /></div><div>Rational Irrationality and Satter's Hierarchy of Food Needs <a href="http://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2018/10/rational-irrationality-and-satters.html">http://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2018/10/rational-irrationality-and-satters.html</a> </div><div><br /></div><div>The 'free-from' Nash equilibrium </div><div><a href="http://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2018/02/a-nash-equilibrium-strategy-for-free.html " target="_blank">http://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2018/02/a-nash-equilibrium-strategy-for-free.html </a></div><div><br /></div><div>The Challenging Tradeoff of Weighing Biased Consumer Preferences Against Marketing Food with Integrity. <a href="http://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2017/12/allenge-tradeoff-of-weighing-biased.html " target="_blank">http://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2017/12/allenge-tradeoff-of-weighing-biased.html </a></div><div><br /></div><div>GMOs and QR Codes: Consumers need more than a label they need a learning path. </div></div><div><a href="https://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2016/08/gmos-is-just-any-label-enough.html " target="_blank">https://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2016/08/gmos-is-just-any-label-enough.html </a></div><div><br /></div><div><div>Food Miles: <a href="https://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2011/12/usda-research-food-miles-local-beef.html " target="_blank">https://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2011/12/usda-research-food-miles-local-beef.html </a></div><div><br /></div><div>Food Desert Mirage <a href="https://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2020/01/dollar-stores-and-food-desertification.html " target="_blank">https://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2020/01/dollar-stores-and-food-desertification.html </a></div></div><div><br /></div><div><b>References</b></div><div><br /></div><div><div>HJ. L. Capper, The environmental impact of beef production in the United States: 1977 compared with 2007, Journal of Animal Science, Volume 89, Issue 12, December 2011, Pages 4249–4261, https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2010-3784</div><div><br /></div><div>Private costs of carbon emissions abatement by limiting beef consumption and vehicle use in the United States. McFadden BR, Ferraro PJ, Messer KD (2022) Private costs of carbon emissions abatement by limiting beef consumption and vehicle use in the United States. PLOS ONE 17(1): e0261372. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261372</div><div><br /></div><div>Daniel Garcia‐Macia & Chang‐Tai Hsieh & Peter J. Klenow, 2019. "How Destructive Is Innovation?," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 87(5), pages 1507-1541, September.</div><div><br /></div><div>Herrero, M., P. Havlík, H. Valin, A. Notenbaert, M.C. Rufino, P. K. Thornton, M. Blümmel, F. Weiss, D. Grace, and M. Obersteiner. 2013. Biomass use, production, feed efficiencies, and greenhouse gas emissions from global livestock systems. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 110: 20888-20893</div></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>Matt Bogardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10510725993509264716noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18505975.post-44828778548672435262021-12-30T13:15:00.026-08:002022-01-01T10:15:56.961-08:00Facts, Figures, or Fiction: Unwarranted Criticisms of the Biden Administration's Failure to Target Methane Emissions from Livestock<p><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="caret-color: rgb(51, 51, 51); color: #333333; font-size: 14.850000381469727px;"><b>Background</b></span></p><p><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="caret-color: rgb(51, 51, 51); color: #333333; font-size: 14.850000381469727px;">Methane has gotten a lot of attention recently in relation to</span><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="caret-color: rgb(51, 51, 51); color: #333333; font-size: 14.850000381469727px;"> </span><a href="https://www.npr.org/2021/11/02/1051302469/biden-proposes-new-rules-to-cut-climate-warming-methane-emissions" target="_blank">fighting climate change<span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="caret-color: rgb(51, 51, 51); color: #333333; font-size: 14.850000381469727px;">:</span></a></p><p style="caret-color: rgb(51, 51, 51); color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.850000381469727px;"><i>"The oil, gas and coal industries are the largest source of human-caused methane emissions. An Environmental Defense Fund study found that cutting methane emissions now could slow the near-term rate of global warming by as much as 30%."</i></p><p style="caret-color: rgb(51, 51, 51); color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.850000381469727px;">While these facts may be true, it takes theory to explain facts, and unfortunately bad theory leads to bad decisions even if we get the facts right. <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/agenda/2021/11/16/methane-emissions-cows-agriculture-climate-change-522550" target="_blank">A recent article in Politico provides an example</a> in it's criticism of the Biden administration's failure to target methane emissions from livestock to combat climate change:</p><p style="caret-color: rgb(51, 51, 51); color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.850000381469727px;"><i>"This creative accounting and the administration’s policies belittle the livestock industry’s role in the methane emergency. While Biden and other U.S. officials are preaching the importance of slashing methane emissions to prevent catastrophic warming and imposing tough new methane regulations on fossil fuel companies, they are allowing super-polluting meat and dairy corporations to continue to emit massive amounts of the same greenhouse gas with impunity."</i></p><p style="caret-color: rgb(51, 51, 51); color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.850000381469727px;"><b>Are all methane sources equal?</b></p><p style="caret-color: rgb(51, 51, 51); color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.850000381469727px;">Accounting for methane is key, but there is a lot of nuance to understand about methane in order to account for it appropriately so that we take the right course of action when it comes to policy and food choices.</p><p>Let's start with a bigger picture looking at total GHG emissions by source:</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEg3lxLCh4hNxLMpTH1JR8Gl_o9al07idEcc5f2VdB8ajy6f4gcUwK2PW9kE1ZfIV2OHYWoNeAgMO4HrZ2-jyUIffJoF7Pm4FFqzc2cY5k4Yy-X3iwlbSVrFJ5Ukk-xYzwMuvujfIKKP-iPSNkQsJexEi_FhO2Sz0K-kqWlF6fY4cHq8r_TCSg=s512" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="512" data-original-width="508" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEg3lxLCh4hNxLMpTH1JR8Gl_o9al07idEcc5f2VdB8ajy6f4gcUwK2PW9kE1ZfIV2OHYWoNeAgMO4HrZ2-jyUIffJoF7Pm4FFqzc2cY5k4Yy-X3iwlbSVrFJ5Ukk-xYzwMuvujfIKKP-iPSNkQsJexEi_FhO2Sz0K-kqWlF6fY4cHq8r_TCSg=s320" width="318" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b style="text-align: left;">Source:</b><span style="text-align: left;"> https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks </span></span></div><p>When we drill into agriculture and focus on beef in the U.S. we find that it accounts for about 4% of total emissions. But on a global scale, which matters most to climate change, overall, total GHG emissions related to U.S. beef consumption accounts for less than 1/2 of 1% (i.e. .5%) of global GHG emissions (EPA GHG Emissions Inventory, Rotz et al, 2018). When we talk about methane emissions associated with eating U.S. sourced beef in the U.S., we are talking about a very thin slice of total global warming potential. </p><p>When we zoom in on this slice of potential and focus on methane this is what we see according to the current administration's Methane Emissions Reduction Action Plan:</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiATOBu4Z_Kdfu2_NrmxYwEXVVzBIeZ-CYxDS5mlN0S-lkMXgZedNcxON9wCOJzSRYFElCR_vdUTdxKDTIKb_iLtAdT6PhZ5NvHbKPref8_vQbRPwAcoDp2NkM0PRQ-yZtLaO1ypkJVIK4nA7wCUQgVYtuq4LA_FKjBealUODDjvlX99nKI2w=s906" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="906" data-original-width="830" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiATOBu4Z_Kdfu2_NrmxYwEXVVzBIeZ-CYxDS5mlN0S-lkMXgZedNcxON9wCOJzSRYFElCR_vdUTdxKDTIKb_iLtAdT6PhZ5NvHbKPref8_vQbRPwAcoDp2NkM0PRQ-yZtLaO1ypkJVIK4nA7wCUQgVYtuq4LA_FKjBealUODDjvlX99nKI2w=s320" width="293" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small; text-align: left;"><b>Source: </b>https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/US-Methane-Emissions-Reduction-Action-Plan-1.pdf</span><span style="text-align: left;"> </span></div><p>Enteric emissions account for all ruminant livestock emissions in the U.S. which would include both beef and dairy but that gives us a pretty good picture. Again, we have facts that are all true, but *how* should we interpret this? A naive interpretation would be to simply compare the pieces of the pie assuming that we can make apples to apples comparisons between each piece and choose a course of action based on the 'facts.' But this would be misleading without understanding the underlying biology and data generating mechanisms giving rise to this data.</p><p>The crude infographic that I put together below sheds some light on this (See <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOJdz_LgDBE&t=2s" target="_blank">this video </a>for a better illustration or Dr. Frank Mitloehner's more detailed explanation of the biogenic carbon cycle <a href="https://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2021/12/facts-figures-or-fiction-unfair.html" target="_blank">here</a>; see also Allen, M.R., Shine, K.P., Fuglestvedt, J.S. et al., 2018). At the highest level, methane emissions produced by beef cattle are constantly recycled. The ultimate source of methane starts in plants and is consumed by livestock and later removed from the atmosphere in the form of CO2 by plants again to repeat. This can be visualized by a tank with water going in and eventually draining out. In this context methane is a 'flow' gas.</p><p>Methane sourced from natural gas and petroleum behaves differently. When we extract, refine, and burn fossil fuels the methane associated with this is released into the atmosphere, but absent any sort of mitigation it ultimately converts to CO2 where it remains to have a long lasting warming effect. This can be visualized by a tank with water going in but never draining out. </p><p><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEg9DgeHzDYur38Ws02SnCmIiMFcBpoznTYpJ7e3KtJepKfshceXK2ruuIFkwQ8ZE5-Fvpdb9HifJklk1wai2eFBiBVpP-9ymOySUwKuhwLJ55JS-XW1Qmeqeyvi9jSNuAd3oFp6eV80NdxylG7WS2GnsTmZp4EdiA2xAsHcM411abvAEkiWRw=s512" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="389" data-original-width="512" height="304" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEg9DgeHzDYur38Ws02SnCmIiMFcBpoznTYpJ7e3KtJepKfshceXK2ruuIFkwQ8ZE5-Fvpdb9HifJklk1wai2eFBiBVpP-9ymOySUwKuhwLJ55JS-XW1Qmeqeyvi9jSNuAd3oFp6eV80NdxylG7WS2GnsTmZp4EdiA2xAsHcM411abvAEkiWRw=w400-h304" width="400" /></a></div><p>In relation to the first tank representing enteric emissions from livestock, there are additional nuances. When we look at U.S. cattle inventories over the last 30 years what we see is that the rate of flow from the faucet has mostly been decreasing. We have not only been recycling the same methane in the atmosphere over and over the last few decades, but less of it. Thanks to advances in economic development, technological change, innovations in management, marketing, and pricing value in the beef industry (for just a few examples see <a href="https://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2014/12/stacking-technology-in-stockers-adds-up.html" target="_blank">here</a>, <a href="http://realclearagriculture.blogspot.com/2019/08/environmental-and-water-use-economies.html" target="_blank">here,</a> <a href="https://www.beefmagazine.com/breeding/beef-embryos-could-be-new-breeding-tool-dairies" target="_blank">here</a>, <a href="https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/05/160505223115.htm" target="_blank">here,</a> and <a href="https://www.drovers.com/news/beef-production/case-amas" target="_blank">here</a>), we've seen gains in beef production and quality. Additionally, in 2007 compared to 1977 we were able to produce the same amount of beef using roughly 30% fewer cattle and 30% less land. Feed and and water usage were down between 15-20% with a 16% lower carbon footprint (Capper, 2007). All of these factors have culminated in a healthier, more nutritious, higher quality product with a lower carbon footprint. We can't say the same about methane associated with fossil fuels and transportation which continues to flow at greater rates and doesn't get recycled. </p><p><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhHwzYNG66gZ9j_mVQKNSmGqpWzdMi7MfzwSaXiPpCFibRx5AqcM3f_Y7Uz1r5EyxbAnU5i0If0Wx18ZVI4ioaxwDT2AqefRjrKPrV2HDORwEr_b_cG5JuBdTTRRJ_inUAnq_AQiM023oNX-oxS0ij8aHXEg6yYVKAYAk6B9scxlWv7D5HuBQ=s512" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="301" data-original-width="512" height="235" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhHwzYNG66gZ9j_mVQKNSmGqpWzdMi7MfzwSaXiPpCFibRx5AqcM3f_Y7Uz1r5EyxbAnU5i0If0Wx18ZVI4ioaxwDT2AqefRjrKPrV2HDORwEr_b_cG5JuBdTTRRJ_inUAnq_AQiM023oNX-oxS0ij8aHXEg6yYVKAYAk6B9scxlWv7D5HuBQ=w400-h235" width="400" /></a></div><p><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>Source: </b>https://www.nass.usda.gov/Newsroom/2021/01-29-2021.php </span></p><p>So when you get in your car to go to your favorite restaurant, the associated methane and CO2 emissions that result represents new and long lasting emissions. For the most part the steak or burger on your plate doesn't directly add any new warming potential to the atmosphere that didn't already exist, nor has any steak or burger you may have eaten in the last 30 years based on this data! </p><p><b>Are all sources of beef equal?</b></p><p>Why focus on U.S. beef production and consumption in this discussion? Because in the Politico article and in many conversations like this, the context is often subtly switched between consumers of U.S. beef and consumption of beef sourced in other parts of the world as if they are substitutes. This change in context ignores important differences between technological capabilities and production practices but also differences in incomes, tastes, and preferences. A lot of the criticism of U.S. beef may actually be true in relation to beef produced and consumed in other parts of the world. <a href="http://realclearagriculture.blogspot.com/2020/01/will-eating-less-us-beef-save.html" target="_blank">We are not burning down rain forests in the U.S. in order to produce and consume beef, and the indirect connection between U.S. beef production and consumption and deforestation in other parts of the world is very weak due to the way global beef markets function.</a> However, there are opportunities to make beef greener in other parts of the world that should not be ignored and should be researched further (see Mrode et al., 2019; Silva et al., 2018; Gates, 2017).</p><p>Should we just ignore the very potent warming potential represented by methane emissions associated with U.S. beef consumption just because it represents a thin slice of the global pie that is relevant to climate change? No, but we should put it in the proper perspective, and think of the overall global portfolio of choices we make in our diets and daily lives and not get anchored on facts divorced from the proper context so we can actually make impactful decisions. </p><p><b>Consumer fads and a climate friendly behavior change strategy</b></p><p>As discussed above, even if all U.S. consumers gave up beef tomorrow cold turkey, there is an upper limit on the impact we can have globally. Modest changes either reducing beef consumption or switching to alternative proteins would be even less impactful. However, we should still recognize that lots of small changes could add up to have a meaningful effect in the aggregate. Given the behavioral and nutritional challenges that make any meaningful reduction in beef consumption mostly impractical at a population level (and ignoring the elephant in the room that is transportation) it is an empirical question as to what other seemingly arbitrary lifestyle changes we could suggest to decrease our impact on climate - maybe that once a week trip to the grocer to buy in bulk instead of having the fleet of Amazon, UPS, and FedEx trucks down your street multiple times a week is one example. Other consumerist trends we've seen that could also be adding to our carbon footprint could involve the fads and infatuation with local, natural, and organic food consumption, and the notorious <a href="https://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2018/02/a-nash-equilibrium-strategy-for-free.html" target="_blank">'free-from' food marketing campaigns </a>that tend to demonize climate saving technologies (see <a href="https://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2011/12/usda-research-food-miles-local-beef.html" target="_blank">here,</a> <a href="https://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2012/06/environmental-impact-of-rbst-in-dairy.html" target="_blank">here,</a> <a href="https://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2017/06/sustainably-feeding-world-organic-food.html" target="_blank">here</a>, <a href="http://jaysonlusk.com/blog/2017/2/6/why-large-scale-organic-requires-large-scale-non-organic" target="_blank">here,</a> <a href="https://realclearagriculture.blogspot.com/2017/04/ag.html" target="_blank">here,</a> and <a href="https://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2018/02/a-nash-equilibrium-strategy-for-free.html" target="_blank">here</a> for related info). </p><p>Putting the lens of behavioral science on this, we need to think about the problem we are trying to solve or outcome we are trying to achieve (climate change mitigation) and consider the behavioral map that relates all of the target actions we could take to achieve this outcome. What role does science literacy and misinformation and disinformation play in the trends and food fads noted above that could lead to hesitancy to adopt climate saving technologies? Which solutions are technically correct but also the most impactful at scale from a behavior change perspective? Is a reduction in modern U.S. beef production or consumption the target behavior we should be trying to change compared to other options? Maybe for some people but I'm not convinced it is a global solution. </p><p><b>Getting the most nutritional bang for our climate buck</b></p><p>How do we know we are getting the most nutritional bang for our climate buck when thinking through this? In a 2010 Food and Nutrition Research article, authors introduce the Nutrient Density to Climate Impact (NDCI) index. Metrics like this could add some perspective. According to their work:</p><p><i>"the NDCI index was 0 for carbonated water, soft drink, and beer and below 0.1 for red wine and oat drink. The NDCI index was similar for orange juice (0.28) and soy drink (0.25). Due to a very high-nutrient density, the NDCI index for milk was substantially higher (0.54) than for the other beverages. Future discussion on how changes in food consumption patterns might help avert climate change need to take both GHG emission and nutrient density of foods and beverages into account."</i></p><p>Authors Drewnowski, Adam et al. apply this more nuanced approach to 34 different food categories including meat and dairy:</p><p><i>"Efforts to decrease global GHGEs while maintaining nutritionally adequate, affordable, and acceptable diets need to be guided by considerations of the ND and environmental impact of different foods and food groups. In a series of recent studies, the principal sustainability measure was carbon cost expressed in terms of GHGEs (8, 14, 15). Testing the relation between nutrient profile of foods and their carbon footprint can help identify those food groups that provide both calories and optimal nutrition at a low carbon cost."</i></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhsVzFOIfb0HlPT7SGZ4p-OGHyn61G4KUmYgeYektgwNoTr3usCL88OQO7WeK6O5fSq47W__A9z_BjRJgl9_3xbs4jh1m5OHaLV7uZBlHbZK_rs1zmwrpwVhp1J0W68TCKQdvcGXyuYwcvLZZTXRwhFljZRyYQO3YH7oLlLYOqH1eoxFgUfHA=s1018" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="588" data-original-width="1018" height="231" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhsVzFOIfb0HlPT7SGZ4p-OGHyn61G4KUmYgeYektgwNoTr3usCL88OQO7WeK6O5fSq47W__A9z_BjRJgl9_3xbs4jh1m5OHaLV7uZBlHbZK_rs1zmwrpwVhp1J0W68TCKQdvcGXyuYwcvLZZTXRwhFljZRyYQO3YH7oLlLYOqH1eoxFgUfHA=w400-h231" width="400" /></a></div><br /><p>Just as combining trips and carpooling might be effective ways to reduce your carbon footprint getting the most out of every mile driven and gallon of gas used, to be truly impactful regarding climate change, we should be trying to get the most out of every bite we take and ounce we drink. </p><p><b>Weighing efficiency and values</b></p><p>The previous discussion starts to sound a lot like a position related to optimization and efficiency which ultimately requires making value judgements that science and economics can't make.</p><p>As discussed in Heyne, Boettke, and Prychitco's text <i>The Economic Way of Thinking</i>:</p><p><i>"efficiency is essentially an evaluative term. It always has to do with the ratio fo the value of output to the value of input...in effect it depends on what people want done and how they value what they want done. It follows that the efficiency of any process can change with changes in valuations."</i></p><p>What I am getting at is that maybe people prefer to have sustenance from beef vs rice or other alternatives and we have to give weight to that in a policy framework. Physical and technical facts alone can never fully determine efficiency. That's what makes economics so powerful. Its the study of people's choices and how they are made compatible. It is way more than just the study of the technical allocation of resources because it forces us to consider each individual's preferences based on the knowledge of their specific circumstances of time and place.</p><p>Science and economics can't make value judgements for us, but we should strive get the facts right, and the stories we tell with the facts need to be true to the science behind them. </p><p><b>Additional and Related References:</b></p><p>HJ. L. Capper, The environmental impact of beef production in the United States: 1977 compared with 2007, Journal of Animal Science, Volume 89, Issue 12, December 2011, Pages 4249–4261, https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2010-3784</p><p>Rafael De Oliveira Silva, Luis Gustavo Barioni, Giampaolo Queiroz Pellegrino, Dominic Moran, The role of agricultural intensification in Brazil's Nationally Determined Contribution on emissions mitigation, Agricultural Systems, Volume 161, 2018, Pages 102-112, ISSN 0308-521X, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2018.01.003.</p><p>Mrode, R., Ojango, J., Okeyo, A. M., & Mwacharo, J. M. (2019). Genomic Selection and Use of Molecular Tools in Breeding Programs for Indigenous and Crossbred Cattle in Developing Countries: Current Status and Future Prospects. Frontiers in genetics, 9, 694. https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2018.00694</p><p>C. Alan Rotz et al. Environmental footprints of beef cattle production in the United States, Agricultural Systems (2018). DOI: 10.1016/j.agsy.2018.11.005 </p><p>https://phys.org/news/2019-03-beef-resource-greenhouse-gas-emissions.html</p><p>What cowboys can teach us about feeding the world. Could a cattle ranch in Australia improve food security in Africa? Bill Gates. Gates Notes. July 18, 2017. https://www.gatesnotes.com/Development/What-Cowboys-Can-Teach-Us-About-Feeding-the-World?WT.mc_id=07_18_2017_10_AustralianCattle_BG-LI_&WT.tsrc=BGLI</p><p>Scarborough, P., & Rayner, M. (2010). Nutrient Density to Climate Impact index is an inappropriate system for ranking beverages in order of climate impact per nutritional value. Food & nutrition research, 54, 10.3402/fnr.v54i0.5681. https://doi.org/10.3402/fnr.v54i0.5681</p><p>Drewnowski, Adam et al. “Energy and nutrient density of foods in relation to their carbon footprint.” The American journal of clinical nutrition 101 1 (2015): 184-91 .</p><p>Allen, M.R., Shine, K.P., Fuglestvedt, J.S. et al. A solution to the misrepresentations of CO2-equivalent emissions of short-lived climate pollutants under ambitious mitigation. npj Clim Atmos Sci 1, 16 (2018) doi:10.1038/s41612-018-0026-8</p>Matt Bogardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10510725993509264716noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18505975.post-90574226624319202442021-10-21T07:50:00.017-07:002021-11-06T19:41:45.434-07:00The Supply Chain Knowledge Problem<p><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">Our current supply chain struggles can largely be understood through the lens of the fundamental problem of economics, the knowledge problem. The knowledge problem was originally characterized by Hayek:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="background-color: white;"><i>"The economic problem of society is not merely a problem of how to allocate given resources....it is a problem of utilization of knowledge which is not given to anyone in its totality."</i></span></span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">This can be understood by recognizing that 'know how' and 'know what' are spread across many minds to paraphrase some of the work by economist </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; white-space: pre-wrap;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Boulding%27s_evolutionary_perspective" target="_blank">Kenneth E. Boulding</a> and as discussed in Peter Boettke's <i>Living Economics.</i> </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">The knowledge problem is also exemplified in the words of Leonard E. Read's pencil in his essay <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I,_Pencil" target="_blank">I, Pencil,</a> <i>"Not a single person on the face of this earth knows how to make me."</i></span></p><span id="docs-internal-guid-fa52ea61-7fff-779f-e8c3-bf3b0be3166f"><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial;"><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 14.6667px; white-space: pre-wrap;">This excellent YouTube video update of Read's essay provides a modern illustration:</span></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><br /></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/V1Ze_wpS_o0" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe>
<i>"if I didn't already exist you might think that such a flowering of free cooperation, competition, and creation was either impossible or magical and yet here I am!"</i></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">How does this apply to our supply chain issues? Well because 'know how' and 'know what' are spread across so many minds, not a single person on the face of the earth knows how to make anything. As a result, no one has the knowledge to fix our supply chains. Our supply chains are the result of human action but not human design. Of course this is a feature and not a bug. As a result most consumers and policy makers usually remain comfortably blind to the knowledge problem and the role of the price mechanism that solves it. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Our economy is not analogous to an engine that will automatically restart after shutting down like the engine of a car at a traffic light. Instead of thinking of our economy and the supply chains that sustain it as a mechanical system that can be engineered by technicians, a better analogy is an evolving ecosystem. Each product we consume and its components have evolved to fit into very specific niches. We could think of our supply chains as habitats that have been threatened by COVID and our response to it.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Just as restoring an ecosystem after an environmental disaster requires an understanding of ecology, we must understand the ecology of our markets and supply chains in order to restore our economy and avoid an even worse ecological disaster. We must recognize that the knowledge problem post COVID is more challenging than pre covid made evident by recent price spikes and shortages that some people could be confusing for monetary inflation. We have to understand that our supply chains evolved over a number of years, even decades, and ‘regrowth’ will take time and things may not grow back to look like they did before.This could mean higher prices now and well into the near future for a number of goods, with some items reaching new higher equilibrium levels as tastes, preferences, and production practices may have changed post COVID. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial; font-size: 14.6667px; white-space: pre-wrap;">COVID and our response to it unfortunately destroyed the ‘know what’ and ‘know how’ that was spread across millions of minds and across decades of building our supply chains. There is no simple blunt monetary or fiscal policy that can substitute for the ‘know how’ and ‘know what’ it’s going to take to rebuild them. It’s going to take time. Prices have to search and signal for the ‘know how’ and ‘know what’ to rediscover and rebuild what was lost.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial; font-size: 14.6667px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">Our supply chains co-evolved over time with a number of prohibitions and frictions. We learned during the pandemic the potential of relaxing some prohibitions such as those in healthcare, which allowed supply to creatively meet demand using telemedicine. What other opportunities exist to help rebuild our supply chains?</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Policy makers must think carefully about how to respond going forward</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; white-space: pre-wrap;"> and must be willing to allow new species to emerge as different sustainable patterns of specialization and trade evolve post COIVD. Because, they don't possess the </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial; font-size: 14.6667px; white-space: pre-wrap;">‘know how’ and ‘know what’ to fix it. </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">If anything, COVID has reminded us all of the words of Frederick Hayek:</span><i style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."</i></p><br /><br /><b>Notes and References:</b></span><div><span><br /></span></div><div><span>Friedrich Hayek (September 1945). "The Use of Knowledge in Society" (PDF). The American Economic Review. 35 (4): 519–530</span></div><div><br /></div><div><div>Living EconomicsYesterday, Today, and Tomorrow. Peter J. Boettke. 2012.</div></div><div><span><br /></span></div><div><span><br /></span></div>Matt Bogardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10510725993509264716noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18505975.post-22668288483994208212021-08-08T13:23:00.007-07:002023-02-12T14:11:39.458-08:00Battling Vaccine Hesitancy: Asking and Not Telling?<p>We often hear that science and evidence rarely will change minds when it comes to biotechnology or climate change, (or vaccine hesitancy). But some think maybe there is a strategy to get out in front of misinformation. In a <a href="http://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2021/04/consumer-perceptions-misinformation-and.html" target="_blank">previous post </a>I discussed an article 'Finding a Vaccine for Misinformation.' The authors discuss 'inoculating' consumers through gamification so that they are less susceptible to misinformation. </p><p><i>"Introne believes that he can use this approach to target the weakest links in false narratives and bring people closer to changing their minds. He says that if he can deliver information that doesn’t conflict with a person’s belief state but still brings them around to a more accurate point of view, “then I’ve got a pretty powerful thing.”</i></p><p>Thinking more about this I was reminded of an article in the Journal of the Federation for American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB) where Jayson Lusk and Brandon McFadden observed the following:</p><p>1) consumers, as a group, are unknowledgeable about GMOs, genetics, and plant breeding and, perhaps more interestingly</p><p>2) simply asking these objective knowledge questions served to lower subjective, self-assessed knowledge of GMOs (i.e., people realize they didn't know as much as they thought they did) and increase the belief that it is safe to eat GM food. </p><p>So essentially, just asking skeptics the right questions appeared to mitigate the Dunning Kruger effect and decreased resistance to evidence based views on the safety of genetically engineered foods. Asking, rather than telling in this scenario seems consistent with the strategy of innculating consumers against misinformation and disinformation. </p><p><b>References: </b></p><p>News Feature: Finding a vaccine for misinformation.Gayathri Vaidyanathan. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Aug 2020, 117 (32) 18902-18905; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2013249117 https://www.pnas.org/content/117/32/18902</p><p>McFadden, B.R. and Lusk, J.L. (2016), What consumers don't know about genetically modified food, and how that affects beliefs. Faseb, 30: 3091-3096. https://doi.org/10.1096/fj.201600598</p>Matt Bogardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10510725993509264716noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18505975.post-35728717641736603762021-08-05T15:02:00.028-07:002023-02-12T14:11:50.275-08:00Rational Irrationality and Behavioral Economic Frameworks for Combating Vaccine Hesitancy<span id="docs-internal-guid-88d66cf5-7fff-fe14-4efb-ed8884801990"><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><b>Background and Introduction</b></span></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; white-space: pre-wrap;">Some previous work on vaccine hesitancy related to childhood vaccinations inspired by Caplan's notion of rational irrationality indicates parents willing to bear costs as high as $8,000 in order to avoid vaccinating their children. What is the associated willingness to pay (WTP) in order to avoid COVID vaccination? What kinds of intervention strategies are supported by various behavioral economic frameworks for combating vaccine hesitancy in the case of COVID19?</span></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><b><br /></b></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><b>Social Harassment Costs and Imperviousness to Evidence</b></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">In a <a href="https://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2020/07/consumer-perceptions-of-biotechnology.html" target="_blank">previous post</a>, I discussed the role of social harassment as it relates to one’s worldview and the disutility associated with changing one’s mind or updating one’s prior about that worldview as a result. </span></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><br /></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"> </p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="border: none; display: inline-block; height: 184px; overflow: hidden; width: 457px;"><img height="184" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/j7KiYeLhF8w1fRCz3DHjMnYzCSaZaeSHzmMhi9FHimusYr_MplO3rz3e9FCNIzDo1aeQ7TnShGfy2pYZCT4UyxhrORlOtCZXcuIrAcXm-aPit4Xr6h8CEgAVNhCIIQmgX8ITRq8Q" style="margin-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px;" width="457" /></span></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"> </p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">(Figure 1)</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"> </p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">Depending on one's peer group, and the level of social harassment, consumers might express preferences that otherwise might seem irrational from a scientific standpoint. For example, based on peer group, a consumer might embrace scientific evidence related to climate change, but due to strong levels of social harassment, reject the <a href="https://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2017/07/gmo-safety.html" target="_blank">views of the broader medical and scientific community related to the safety of genetically engineered foods. </a></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><br /></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 14.6667px; font-weight: 700; white-space: pre-wrap;">Near Neoclassical Demand Curve and Rational Irrationality</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><br /></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">Bryan Caplan's notion of rational irrationality might also explain these kinds of preferences:</p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><br /></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><i>"...people have preferences over beliefs. Letting emotions or ideology corrupt our thinking is an easy way to satisfy such preferences...Worldviews are more a mental security blanket than a serious effort to understand the world."</i></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><br /></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">This means that:</p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><br /></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><i>"Beliefs that are irrational from the standpoint of truth-seeking are rational from the standpoint of utility maximization."</i></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><br /></p></span><div><span><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">This can be modeled in the form of a kinked ‘near’ Neoclassical demand curve as depicted below. Caplan hypothesized that in many cases, the cost of holding irrational beliefs can be low or near zero and people make tradeoffs with regard to the level of rationality they consume.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="border: none; display: inline-block; height: 382px; overflow: hidden; width: 488px;"><img height="382" src="https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/Dd9qrTFKTXZY-8yhk12LxjmQhWXRghX7ygfvLTBzZdYdhsxZGhBAWS4lDZO0xLMTRe76Oz9MlGZ-vMrr3Yra1FiQ5-YTm34ql0imxB69xjuenNRNfy7mNsXCO3Fpr6OJR1flGLj_" style="margin-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px;" width="488" /></span></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">(Figure 2)</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Below Pa, people are willing to make tradeoffs between price and the ‘amount’ of irrationality they consume. It might then follow that if members of society are opposed to genetically engineered foods, they may be willing to pay up to Pa to avoid foods with GMO ingredients. </span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial; font-size: 14.6667px; font-weight: 700; white-space: pre-wrap;">Implications for Combating Vaccine Hesitancy</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">So if the cost of holding antivax views (we can think of costs in terms of perceived risk of serious illness, loss of work, risk of quarantine, and other opportunity costs associated with not getting vaccinated) is below some level Pa, then one may be willing to make tradeoffs with regard to the level of irrationality they want to consume (we can think of the level of consumption as level of vaccine hesitancy or probability of getting vaccinated). This is represented by the portion Pa - Qa of Caplan’s near neoclassical demand curve representing rational irrationality.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">Murphy (2016) extends Caplan’s model of rational irrationality to include applications where demand for irrationality occurs at prices greater than zero. In his paper he applies this theory to things like willingness to pay for ‘fair trade goods’ and vaccine hesitancy. </span></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 14.6667px; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span> </p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">For example, he calculates the willingness to pay (WTP) to avoid childhood vaccinations from the parent’s perspective as follows:</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"> </p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-family: Arial; font-size: 9pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: 700; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">WTP = WTP to avoid 1 yr sickness × premium for child × increase in probability of 1yr of sickness</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"> </p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">He looks at vaccines for pertussis, invasive pneumococcal disease, and varicella and based on certain assumptions calculates the WTP. </span></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"> </p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">“<span style="background-color: #fcff01;"><b>Using the median assumption that parents value the statistical life of their children 50% more than they value their own lives, the cost implicit in not vaccinating for these three diseases is US$8,420.</b><b> As pointed out earlier, as many as ten percent of families exhibit this willingness-to-pay</b></span>—and they do so repeatedly should they have more than one child. Under the influence of retracted evidence, thousands of parents retreat to the naturalistic fallacy, rejecting modern medicine they deem to be artificial.”</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"> </p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">How might we apply this to combating vaccine hesitancy related to COVID? For instance, if these parents were offered more than their WTP to avoid vaccination then they may be willing to get their children vaccinated for the three conditions mentioned above. But what is the WTP to avoid COVID vaccination? $8000 is really high on an individual basis, and given the resistance and hesitancy we have seen to this point I would not expect a very low price point among the most staunch resistors. This may explain why some have concluded that offering lottery tickets to induce vaccinations <a href="https://www.bu.edu/sph/news/articles/2021/lottery-based-incentives-do-not-increase-covid-19-vaccination-rates/" target="_blank">may not have been as impactful</a> as hoped:</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><br /></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">“Our results suggest that state-based lotteries are of limited value in increasing vaccine uptake. Therefore, the resources devoted to vaccine lotteries may be more successfully invested in programs that target underlying reasons for vaccine hesitancy and low vaccine uptake”</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"> </p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The hope of the lottery was based on the idea that people tend to either overestimate or completely ignore low probability events. From a behavioral economic perspective we were hoping that those that were ignoring the risk of COVID might overestimate their chances of winning the lottery and be induced to get vaccinated. Apparently the expected values of the lottery did not exceed WTP in the case of COVID vaccination. There has been some recent interest in offering direct payments to people to get vaccinated. For instance the idea of <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/04/upshot/vaccine-incentive-experiment.htm" target="_blank">paying up to $100 </a>or <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/shaharziv/2020/12/01/proposal-pay-americans-1000-to-get-covid-vaccine/?sh=5da9aa7264bf" target="_blank">even $1000 </a>has been floated in the last year. </span></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><br /></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Some have <a href="https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2775005 " target="_blank">pushed back </a>on this. </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">Recently the Biden administration has apparently </span><a href="https://www.theverge.com/2021/7/29/22600571/biden-vaccine-payment-incentive" style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; white-space: pre-wrap;" target="_blank">endorsed $100 payments.</a></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"> </p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Depending on an individual's relative WTP, paying folks to be vaccinated may or may not be promising. </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">If social harassment costs (based on my framework) are an important factor, then this could also impact the optimal WTP to target with such an outreach.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"> </p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">We also have to recognize the role of externalities. While there are negative externalities associated with not getting vaccinated, the positive externalities are great. For instance, if we were doing a WTP calculation to encourage vaccination, we should add some premium to that payment to account for positive externalities associated with getting vaccinated to justify the costs and increase the effectiveness of the incentive. It is an important question if the WTP for the vaccine hesitant on average is so large that this becomes prohibitively expensive.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"> </p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Alternatively, targeting WTP does not have to be shouldered by government. Private employers can also offer similar incentives to get vaccinated either in the form of direct payments or penalties.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">But it is hard to say if these sorts of WTP calculations would be useful for targeting 'the right' payment to incentivize vaccination if that is even something we should be doing, or if it is cost effective especially given the heterogeneity of preferences and attitudes toward risk in the population. We would need to know more. But the concept itself is probably most useful as a way to think about and quantify the level of resistance and think of what kinds of communication strategies and nudges would work best to increase vaccinations. What things could we do to reduce WTP or increase the opportunity costs of refusing the vaccine. More below.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"> </p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: 700; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Other Approaches</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"> </p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">In 'Finding a vaccine for misinformation' (Vaidyanathan, 2020) authors address the challenges of misinformation as it relates to vaccine hesitancy and leverage some of the same behavioral economic frameworks.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"> </p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">They go on to explain that our worldview (pre-existing internal stories based on our our mental tapestry of culture, knowledge, beliefs, and life experiences) determines which gist is stored and resonates (and impacts our resistance to updating our priors with new evidence).</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"> </p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Part of their strategy for dealing with this is 'inoculating' consumers through gamification so that they are less susceptible to misinformation. </span></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"> </p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">"Introne believes that he can use this approach to target the weakest links in false narratives and bring people closer to changing their minds. He says that if he can deliver information that doesn’t conflict with a person’s belief state but still brings them around to a more accurate point of view, “then I’ve got a pretty powerful thing.”</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"> </p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">In the rational irrationality and social harassment frameworks above, by circumventing or inoculating against misinformation and getting out in front of it you can combat hesitancy or dampen the the extent to which adopting worldview v* lowers utility. Similarly, if we can deliver information in a way to get people to adopt v* without lowering utility, that would be a very impactful communication strategy. </span></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"> </p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><a href="https://beworks.com/" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #1155cc; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">BE works</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> has applied behavioral economics to understanding and responding to vaccine hesitancy. They identified four cognitive factors driving hesitancy including one factor related to valuing personal beliefs over evidence (which sounds a lot like the rational irrationality framework we have been discussing here). (See “COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy: A Behavioral Lens on a Critical Problem” ) They followed up with a report and recommendations on combating hesitancy based on these findings (BEACON: A Strategic Framework for Overcoming Vaccine Hesitancy). These reports and more are available from the BE Works website (</span><a href="https://beworks.com/covid-19/" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #1155cc; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">https://beworks.com/covid-19/</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> )</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"> </p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">One of the strategies highlighted in this work consistent with the rational irrationality and social harassment frameworks laid out above includes leveraging social capital:</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"> </p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">"Communications aimed at sharing relevant vaccination-positive stories of people within the recipients’ peer groups, or other groups to whom an individual feels a strong social connection, could foster a positive view of vaccination and help them see it as a routine and valued step within their identified community...."</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"> </p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Communications from key people in a social network (i.e. figure 1 above) may accomplish this. So an outreach targeted at these people or enlisting their efforts could be an impactful way to get members to accept vaccinations without increasing related social harassment costs and lowering utility. These people might also be a way to </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">deliver information that doesn’t conflict with a person’s belief state </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">as discussed above (having the same impact on social harassment and utility).</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"> </p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: 700; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Conclusion</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"> </p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">While we may not be able to guess everyone's WTP to get vaccinated, we should diversify our approach to targeting it or equivalently raising the opportunity costs of not getting vaccinated such that P > Pa in the context of near neoclassical demand curve above. The most effective approach may be private sector initiatives such as vaccine requirements or bonus payments for getting vaccinated. There are also ways we might leverage behavioral economics and behavioral design frameworks to magnify our impact. Most of our learnings from combating misinformation and disinformation indicate that this takes more than communicating accurate information, it requires communicating with intent and influence. But in the case of vaccinations, even small wins can result in great improvements as Murphy points out in his article.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"> </p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"> <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; white-space: pre-wrap;">“Economic education may struggle to sway the median voter; it may only move those with roughly correct priors regarding economic questions towards a more consistent, factual worldview. On the other hand, for each and every person convinced to vaccinate their children, the world is made better off. Some may dismiss these prescriptions, but they may have far more practical effect. Convince 300 individuals that free trade is good, the chance this changes trade policy is vanishingly small. Convince 300 individuals to vaccinate their children, and society tangibly improves. When it comes to persuasion on private markets, unlike politics, every- one is the marginal decision-maker for the irrationality present in their own lives.”</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"> </p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Similar to the swiss cheese model of non-pharmacological interventions in absence of a vaccine, a layered approach based on several behavioral economics frameworks seems most pragmatic for dealing with vaccine hesitancy.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"> </p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><b>See also:</b></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><br /></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><a href="https://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2020/07/consumer-perceptions-of-biotechnology.html" target="_blank">Consumer Perceptions of Biotechnology: The Role of Information and Social Harassment Costs</a></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><br /></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><a href="https://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2020/10/the-influence-of-social-networks-on.html" target="_blank">Using Social Network Analysis to Understand the Influence of Social Harassment Costs and Preferences Toward Biotechnology</a></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><br /></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><a href="https://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2021/04/consumer-perceptions-misinformation-and.html" target="_blank">Consumer Perceptions, Misinformation, and Vaccine Hesitancy</a></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><br /></p><div><div><a href="http://econometricsense.blogspot.com/2014/04/perceptions-of-gmo-foods-hypothetical.html">Perceptions of GMO Foods: A Hypothetical Application of SEM</a></div><div><br /></div><div><div><div><a href="http://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2015/01/fat-tails-precautionary-principle-and.html">Fat Tails, The Precautionary Principle, and GMOs</a></div><div><br /></div><div><a href="http://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2017/07/gmo-safety.html">Defining Consensus Regarding the Safety of Genetically Modified Foods</a></div></div><div><br /></div><div><a href="http://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2018/10/rational-irrationality-and-satters.html" target="_blank">Rational Irrationality and Satter's Hierarchy of Food Needs</a></div></div></div><div><br /></div><div><a href="http://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2018/02/a-nash-equilibrium-strategy-for-free.html">The 'Free From' Nash Equilibrium</a></div><div><br /></div><div><a href="http://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2017/12/allenge-tradeoff-of-weighing-biased.html">The Challenging Tradeoff of Weighing Biased Consumer Preferences Against Marketing Food with Integrity</a></div><div><br /></div><div><div><a href="https://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2017/11/polarization-of-controversial-science.html">Polarization of Controversial Science and Limitations of Science Literacy</a></div><div><br /></div><div><div><a href="http://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2017/09/voter-irrationality-and-systemic-bias.html">Voter Irrationality and Systematic Bias: Applications in Food and Biotechnology</a></div><div><br /></div><div><a href="http://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2016/06/left-vs-right-science-vs-risk-vs.html">Left vs Right Science vs Risk vs Propensity to Regulate</a></div></div></div><div><br /></div><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><br /></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: 700; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">References:</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"> </p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Borland,Melvin V. and Robert W. Pulsinelli. Household Commodity Production and Social Harassment Costs.Southern Economic Journal. Vol. 56, No. 2 (Oct., 1989), pp. 291-301</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"> </p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies. Bryan Caplan. Princeton University Press. 2007</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="font-size: 14.85px; white-space: normal;">Johnson, N.F., Velásquez, N., Restrepo, N.J. et al. The online competition between pro- and anti-vaccination views. Nature 582, 230–233 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2281-1</span></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"> </p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Murphy RH. The willingness-to-pay for Caplanian irrationality. Rationality and Society. 2016;28(1):52-82. doi:10.1177/1043463115605478</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><br /></p><p dir="ltr" style="background-color: white; line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"> <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #333333; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">News Feature: Finding a vaccine for misinformation.Gayathri Vaidyanathan. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Aug 2020, 117 (32) 18902-18905; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2013249117 https://www.pnas.org/content/117/32/18902</span></p></span></div>Matt Bogardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10510725993509264716noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18505975.post-69421209531058960052021-07-10T17:30:00.013-07:002023-04-17T18:23:09.058-07:00Can Capitalism Be A Force For Good When it Comes to Food? <p>Great <a href="https://www.agtechsowhat.com/agtechsowhatepisodes/2021/7/7/capitalism-for-good" target="_blank">discussion at the AgTech So What</a> podcast about capitalism and food innovation. Probably an innovation that gets the most headlines these days, and discussed in the headlines is related to plant based proteins and companies like Impossible Foods. But to answer the question more broadly, can capitalism be a force for good in the food and agricultural sector, we can look at previous ag tech innovations to get some kind of answer. </p><p>For example, positive benefits associated with the development of biotech crops include non-trivial decreases in greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to the removal of nearly 12 million cars from America's roads on an annual basis (this is roughly 50% of the number of new cars purchased annually). <a href="http://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2011/02/modern-sustainable-agriculture.html" target="_blank">Additionally, we see benefits in terms of improved health and safety related to decreased levels of mycotoxins, reduced pesticide exposure, reduced groundwater pollution, and improved biodiversity </a>to name some of the health and environmental benefits as well as social benefits related to <a href="https://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2020/01/addressing-gender-inequality-in.html" target="_blank">gender equity.</a></p><p>In the livestock sector we've also seen incredible improvements in the health and environmental benefits related to beef. Thanks to advances in economic development, technological change, innovations in management, marketing, and pricing (for just a few examples see<a href="https://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2014/12/stacking-technology-in-stockers-adds-up.html" target="_blank"> here,</a> <a href="http://realclearagriculture.blogspot.com/2019/08/environmental-and-water-use-economies.html" target="_blank">here, </a><a href="https://www.beefmagazine.com/breeding/beef-embryos-could-be-new-breeding-tool-dairies" target="_blank">here, </a><a href="https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/05/160505223115.htm" target="_blank">here,</a> and <a href="https://www.drovers.com/news/beef-production/case-amas" target="_blank">here</a>), we've seen gains in beef production and quality. For instance, consider Brad Johnson's work at Texas Tech related to <a href="https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/05/160505223115.htm" target="_blank">increasing marbling</a> and healthy fats without increasing unhealthy backfat while also reducing time on feed. Or like the research in <a href="https://ebeef.ucdavis.edu/" target="_blank">beef genetics </a>and <a href="https://animalscience.ucdavis.edu/people/faculty/frank-mitloehner" target="_blank">air quality and emissions </a>at U.C. Davis.</p><p>In 2007 compared to 1977 we were able to produce the same amount of beef using roughly 30% fewer cattle and 30% less land. Feed and and water usage were down between 15-20% with a 16% lower carbon footprint (Capper, 2007). All in all, based on full lifecycle analysis, U.S. beef consumption accounts for less than .5% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Additionally when compared to beef produced and consumed in other parts of the world, the carbon footprint of beef produced and consumed in the U.S. is 10 times or more lower (Herrero et al., 2013).</p><p>While not realized yet, with technological advancements like blockchain and IoT, the potential to exploit innovative ideas like <a href="http://jaysonlusk.com/blog/2013/2/14/the-market-for-animal-welfare" target="_blank">animal welfare units</a> discussed by economist Jayson Lusk could be another unexploited opportunity given the right strategy.</p><p>And these technologies don't require scaling up 100 fold or doubling every year for the next 16 years the way some analysts project for cell cultured meat. Nor do they require drastic dietary or lifestyle changes. These positive benefits are driven by capital investment and consumer and producer driven choices in the marketplace without the requirement of coercive mitigating policies or significant behavior change. That's not to say more can't be done or that the last mile won't be difficult, but it is a testament to the role markets and technological innovation have played in the last few decades that is often overlooked or even shunned in many contemporary conversations.</p><p><b>References:</b></p><p><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px;">C. Alan Rotz et al. Environmental footprints of beef cattle production in the United States, Agricultural Systems (2018). DOI: 10.1016/j.agsy.2018.11.005</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px;" /></p><p><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px;">https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions </span></p><p><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px;">Lusk, J.L. The market for animal welfare. Agric Hum Values 28, 561–575 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-011-9318-x</span></p><p><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px;">Environmental impacts of genetically modified (GM) crop use 1996–2015: Impacts on pesticide use and carbon emissions</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px;" /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px;">Graham Brookes & Peter Barfoot</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px;" /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px;">GM Crops & Food Vol. 8 , Iss. 2,2017</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px;" /><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px;">Link: </span><a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21645698.2017.1309490" style="background-color: white; color: #992211; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21645698.2017.1309490</a><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px;"></span><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px;" /></p><p><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px;">The environmental impact of recombinant bovine somatotropin (rbST) use in dairy production Judith L. Capper,* Euridice Castañeda-Gutiérrez,*† Roger A. Cady,‡ and Dale E. Bauman* Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 July 15; 105(28): </span><a href="tel:9668%E2%80%939673" style="background-color: white; color: #11cc44; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 14.85px; text-decoration-line: none;">9668–967</a></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px;">Texas Tech University. "Increasing marbling in beef without increasing overall fatness." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 5 May 2016. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/05/160505223115.htm>.</span></p><p><span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px;">J. L. Capper, The environmental impact of beef production in the United States: 1977 compared with 2007, Journal of Animal Science, Volume 89, Issue 12, December 2011, Pages 4249–4261, https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2010-3784</span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-size: 14.85px;">Herrero M, Havlík P, Valin H, Notenbaert A, Rufino MC, Thornton PK, Blümmel M, Weiss F, Grace D, Obersteiner M. Biomass use, production, feed efficiencies, and greenhouse gas emissions from global livestock systems. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013 Dec 24;110(52):20888-93. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1308149110. PMID: 24344273; PMCID: PMC3876224.</span></p>Matt Bogardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10510725993509264716noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18505975.post-37513241181078933312021-04-24T10:11:00.006-07:002021-04-24T10:16:24.108-07:00The Economics of Innovation in Biopharma<iframe frameborder="no" height="200px" scrolling="no" seamless="" src="https://player.simplecast.com/700b9cc5-b488-4d72-961f-ec193ccb1c37?dark=false" width="100%"></iframe>
<p><span color="rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.9)" face="-apple-system, system-ui, system-ui, "Segoe UI", Roboto, "Helvetica Neue", "Fira Sans", Ubuntu, Oxygen, "Oxygen Sans", Cantarell, "Droid Sans", "Apple Color Emoji", "Segoe UI Emoji", "Segoe UI Symbol", "Lucida Grande", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; font-size: 14px;"><br /></span></p><p><span color="rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.9)" face="-apple-system, system-ui, system-ui, "Segoe UI", Roboto, "Helvetica Neue", "Fira Sans", Ubuntu, Oxygen, "Oxygen Sans", Cantarell, "Droid Sans", "Apple Color Emoji", "Segoe UI Emoji", "Segoe UI Symbol", "Lucida Grande", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; font-size: 14px;">This podcast touches on the lack of innovation in pharma and criticism about outsourcing innovation. Do these criticisms ignore recent technological advances in biotech (<a href="https://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2021/02/the-convergence-of-big-data-and.html" target="_blank">and the convergence of AI and genomics</a>) that have reduced the minimum efficient scale in drug discovery creating new opportunities for startups, small firms, and scientist entrepreneurs? When we think of therapeutics as dispensing knowledge packed into a capsule or syringe, knowledge that has properties of both a private and public good (i.e. non-rival and partially excludable) scientist entrepreneurs are better incentivized and able to capture greater value from their discoveries in a venture capital funded startup environment than a larger institution like pharmaceutical companies or universities (even with Bayh-Dole Act). Drug discovery is risky, but by combining option value and discovery of new information with staged investment VC firms can discover positive NPV projects that would otherwise be rejected under conventional financing models. The combination of technological change, the economics of knowledge, and venture capital seems to reduce the comparative advantage of innovating 'in-house.'</span><span color="rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.9)" face="-apple-system, system-ui, system-ui, "Segoe UI", Roboto, "Helvetica Neue", "Fira Sans", Ubuntu, Oxygen, "Oxygen Sans", Cantarell, "Droid Sans", "Apple Color Emoji", "Segoe UI Emoji", "Segoe UI Symbol", "Lucida Grande", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; font-size: 14px;"> Maybe it is the case that large pharmaceutical firms have more of a comparative advantage navigating the valley of death that lies between a discovery and a cure by focusing on the regulatory approvals and marketing efforts necessary to deliver those products than they have in drug discovery?</span></p>Matt Bogardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10510725993509264716noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18505975.post-3436272324880554022021-04-03T10:40:00.009-07:002023-02-12T14:12:02.329-08:00Consumer Perceptions, Misinformation, and Vaccine Hesitancy<p>In graduate school I focused on how consumer consumption patterns signal social viewpoints, and the role of information and misinformation in the process. Particularly interesting was the observation that some consumers had strongly held science based views related to some issues while simultaneously holding other views that were inconsistent with views of the larger scientific community. What could explain this? <a href="https://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2020/07/consumer-perceptions-of-biotechnology.html" target="_blank">I hypothesized a utility maximizing model that involved world views and social harassment costs consistent with the idea that viewpoints that may be irrational based on an objective related to scientific truths and evidence can be rational from the standpoint of personal utility maximization.</a> This isn't so different from the idea of coherence, from Kahneman's Thinking Fast and Slow, where they argue that the coherence of the story matters more than the quality of the evidence. </p><p>In '<a href="https://www.pnas.org/content/117/32/18902" target="_blank">Finding a vaccine for misinformation</a>' authors address the challenges of misinformation as it relates to vaccine hesitancy and leverage some of the same behavioral economic frameworks. They explain:</p><p><i>"A coherent story works because our minds don't just encode facts and events into memory...we also store bottom line meaning or 'gist' and it is the stored gist, not the facts, that typically guides our beliefs and behaviors"</i></p><p>They go on to explain that our worldview (pre-existing internal stories based on our our mental tapestry of culture, knowledge, beliefs, and life experiences) determines which gist which is stored and resonates.</p><p>Part of their strategy for dealing with this is 'inoculating' consumers through gamification so that they are less susceptible to misinformation. I'm not sure gamification is the answer, but at the least what can be learned from this research definitely could lead to progress on this front:</p><p><i>"Introne believes that he can use this approach to target the weakest links in false narratives and bring people closer to changing their minds. He says that if he can deliver information that doesn’t conflict with a person’s belief state but still brings them around to a more accurate point of view, “then I’ve got a pretty powerful thing.”</i></p><p>This reflects a lot of what we have learned over the years. Simply presenting facts and evidence, telling people they are wrong on the internet so to speak, isn't going to change minds or behavior. Our communication has to be much more strategic with laser like intent. </p><p><b>References:</b></p><p>News Feature: Finding a vaccine for misinformation.Gayathri Vaidyanathan. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Aug 2020, 117 (32) 18902-18905; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2013249117 https://www.pnas.org/content/117/32/18902</p><p><b>Related References:</b></p><p>Information Avoidance and Image Concerns. Exley, Christine L and Kessler, Judd B. National Bureau of Economic Research. Working Paper No. 8376 January 2021. doi. 10.3386/w28376. http://www.nber.org/papers/w28376</p>
<div>
<b>Related Reading:</b></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div><a href="https://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2020/10/the-influence-of-social-networks-on.html" target="_blank">Using Social Network Analysis to Understand the Influence of Social Harassment Costs and Preferences Toward Biotechnology</a></div>
<div>
<b><br /></b></div>
<div>
<div>
<a href="http://econometricsense.blogspot.com/2014/04/perceptions-of-gmo-foods-hypothetical.html">Perceptions of GMO Foods: A Hypothetical Application of SEM</a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<a href="http://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2015/01/fat-tails-precautionary-principle-and.html">Fat Tails, The Precautionary Principle, and GMOs</a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<a href="http://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2017/07/gmo-safety.html">Defining Consensus Regarding the Safety of Genetically Modified Foods</a></div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<a href="http://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2018/10/rational-irrationality-and-satters.html" target="_blank">Rational Irrationality and Satter's Hierarchy of Food Needs</a></div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<a href="http://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2018/02/a-nash-equilibrium-strategy-for-free.html">The 'Free From' Nash Equilibrium</a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<a href="http://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2017/12/allenge-tradeoff-of-weighing-biased.html">The Challenging Tradeoff of Weighing Biased Consumer Preferences Against Marketing Food with Integrity</a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<div>
<a href="https://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2017/11/polarization-of-controversial-science.html">Polarization of Controversial Science and Limitations of Science Literacy</a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<div>
<a href="http://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2017/09/voter-irrationality-and-systemic-bias.html">Voter Irrationality and Systematic Bias: Applications in Food and Biotechnology</a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<div>
<a href="http://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2016/06/left-vs-right-science-vs-risk-vs.html">Left vs Right Science vs Risk vs Propensity to Regulate</a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
<div></div></div></div>Matt Bogardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10510725993509264716noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18505975.post-1372534222102675782021-02-06T08:56:00.020-08:002021-02-10T06:18:50.454-08:00The Convergence of AI, Life Sciences, and Healthcare<p>Several years ago I was writing about the convergence of AI and genomics in agriculture:</p><p><i>"The disruptions of new technology, big data and genomics (applications like FieldScripts, ACRES, MyJohnDeere or the new concept Kinze planters that switch hybrids on the go etc.) will require the market to continue to offer a range of choices in seeds and genetics to tailor to each producer's circumstances of time and place." (1)</i></p><p>We have also seen a similar convergence in healthcare:</p><p><i>"A series of breakthroughs in medical science and information technology are triggering a convergence between the healthcare industry and the life sciences industry, a convergence that will quickly lead to more intimate—and interactive—relationships among people, their doctors, and biopharmaceutical companies." </i> (2)</p><p>This excellent segment on WBUR just a few years later picks up on the same themes:</p><p><i>Nobel Laureate and MIT Institute professor Phil Sharp has an even broader vision of this convergence: It’s not just computer science and biology that are converging, but engineering, physics, material science and agriculture too, he says.</i></p><p><i>“Life science is part of all of those processes and bringing physicists and engineering and information technology together to integrate life science with the translation to solving those problems is what convergence is about,” Sharp says. “It'll be decades of exciting science and exciting technology.” </i>(3)</p><div>There are a number of parallels I want to discuss below including outcomes and value based pricing, precision medicine and precision agriculture, venture capital and digital solutions, and how these trends are leading to products and solutions that can address some of society's biggest problems like healthcare quality and cost, social determinants of health, and climate change.</div><p><b>Outcomes and Value Based Pricing</b></p><p>Due to this convergence, better data and technology are creating new opportunities. Health insurance companies, healthcare providers, and seed companies are entering into value based contracts where payments are based on outcomes and quality. </p><p>In healthcare:</p><p><i>"By leveraging appropriate software tools, big data is informing the movement toward value-based healthcare and is opening the door to remarkable advancements, even while reducing costs. " </i>(4)</p><p><i>"Value-based healthcare is a healthcare delivery model in which providers, including hospitals and physicians, are paid based on patient health outcomes. Under value-based care agreements, providers are rewarded for helping patients improve their health, reduce the effects and incidence of chronic disease, and live healthier lives in an evidence-based way." </i>(5)</p><p>(See below or <a href="https://healthinformatics.uic.edu/blog/shift-from-volume-based-care-to-value-based-care/">https://healthinformatics.uic.edu/blog/shift-from-volume-based-care-to-value-based-care/</a> for an excellent infographic explaining this promising shift in healthcare)</p><p>In food and agriculture we are seeing risk sharing and outcomes based pricing contracts as well:</p><p><i>"...executives are touting their new pricing model, outcome-based pricing, as the potential pricing paradigm of the future. The model involves Bayer setting an expected yield outcome for a product or seed, based on a farm's data and history stored on the company's digital ag platform, FieldView, as well as the company's own research on their products. If a farmer's final yield falls below that expected value, the company will rebate a certain portion of the original price of the product. If the yield instead surpasses the initial set value, the farmer shares a pre-agreed portion of that additional income with the company."</i> (6)</p><p><b>Precision Medicine and Precision Agriculture</b></p><p>Instead of one size fits all best practices for seed, pest management, tillage, and nutrient management recommendations driven by research from university and industry trials, growers can get individually customized prescriptions, not just at the farm or field level, but within field and moving closer and closer to the row foot level for some decisions. The combination of advanced genomics with big data generated from <a href="https://agfundernews.com/what-is-precision-agriculture.html">precision agricultural applications </a>(remote sensing, IoT, automated steering, GPS/GIS) makes one size fits all obsolete. </p><p>As I quoted previously: </p><p><i>"That's also why the market has driven companies to treat hybrid selection like a 'big data' problem and they are developing multivariate recommender systems as tools to assist in this (like ACRES and FieldScripts). The market's response to each individual producer's unique circumstances of time and place also ensures continued diversity of crop genetics planted. There are numerous margins that growers look at when optimizing their seed choices and it will require a number of firms and seed choices to meet these needs as the industry's focus moves from the farm and field level to the data gathered by the row foot with each pass over the field."</i> (1)</p><p>Similarly, in healthcare, the golden age of medicine driven by the 'omics' revolution and big data will allow us to move away from one size fits all generalizations of research and medicine allowing us to <i>"tailor medical treatment to the specific characteristics of each patient involving the ability to classify individuals into subpopulations that are uniquely susceptible to a specific treatment, sparing expense and side effects and is derived from doubts on the results of subgroup analyses and on non responders in clinical trials" </i>(7)</p><p><i>"Health systems will have to go rapidly from a one-size-fits-all model of treatment to a more customized model, which still uses mass-manufactured but where treatments are selected for patients based on specific biomarkers," Joshi said. "But we can now see the next advance in personalized medicine potentially going even further, something much more personalized, like a tailor-made suit...."Big data and advances in our understanding of genomics are providing us with the footholds into establishing and understanding, for the first time ever, the causal genetic factors that help us manage that golden triangle of treatment: the right target, the right chemistry, and the right patient." </i>(2)</p><p><b>Venture Capital and Digital Platforms and Solutions</b></p><p>Monsanto's (now <a href="https://www.cropscience.bayer.com/" target="_blank">Bayer Crop Science</a>) acquisition of <a href="https://climate.com/" target="_blank">The Climate Corporation </a>occurred about the same time I was penning my first post on this convergence, and was the first major move in industry that solidified these potential synergies in my mind at least. This convergence has drawn the interest and has been fueled by a number of startups and venture capital firms. <a href="https://www.fbn.com/direct/seeds/home" target="_blank">Farmer's Business Network </a>(FBN) seems to be positioning itself as a disruptor, like the Amazon of agribusiness providing a platform that includes everything from purchasing inputs, crop analytics, finance and marketing, and more direct access to genetics. In the livestock space, companies like <a href="https://www.qscoutlab.com" target="_blank">AAD</a> (Advanced Animal Diagnostics) and <a href="https://www.connecterra.io" target="_blank">Connecterra</a> are building tools and services analogous to a Fitbit for cows. <a href="https://www.bodysurfacetranslations.com/about" target="_blank">Body Surface Translations </a>(BST) is a company whose image processing technology has targeted both problems in animal and human health. Tim Hammerich (<a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/future-of-agriculture/id1137767458" target="_blank">the Future of Agriculture</a>) and Sarah Nolet (<a href="https://www.agtechsowhat.com/" target="_blank">AgTech So What?</a>, <a href="https://agthentic.com/" target="_blank">AgThentic,</a> <a href="https://tenacious.ventures/" target="_blank">Tenacious Ventures</a>) have weekly discussions with innovators pioneering new solutions in this space covering a range of topics including automated irrigations systems, blockchain, regenerative agriculture, carbon sequestration and a range of companies from startups to larger players including Wal-Mart and Coca-Cola. <a href="http://wherefoodcomesfrom.com/" target="_blank">Where Food Comes From</a> is leveraging QR codes and mobile technology paired with their source verification processes to connect consumers to information about the people and processes behind the food they consume. <a href="https://in10t.ag/" target="_blank">IN10T </a>is a digitally powered data driven company helping bridge the gaps between innovations and real world application of these technologies. Venture capital firm <a href="https://www.foresitecapital.com/strategy/" target="_blank">Foresite Capital </a>even leverages data science to drive their investment strategy in therapeutics, diagnostics, and devices. This includes digital health apps like <a href="https://www.foresitecapital.com/portfolio/mindstrong/" target="_blank">mindstrong</a> which is leveraging AI for better diagnosis, monitoring, and treatment of behavioral health conditions and <a href="https://www.foresitecapital.com/portfolio/everlywell/" target="_blank">everlywell</a> focused on actionable healthcare diagnostics and health engagement. <a href="https://evidation.com/" target="_blank">Evidation </a>is a company that leverages data from digital devices and sensors capturing, quantifying, and analyzing behavior, or mapping the 'behaviorome' in the context of human health (8). This is just a tiny survey of companies and products that I have encountered in just the last few years.</p><p><b>Addressing Society's Bigger Problems</b></p><p>This convergence is allowing us to address problems in healthcare like quality, cost, access and health equity. When it comes to the food we eat, AI, technology, and genomics is providing us the tools to combat issues like climate change, water quality, nutrition, safety, equity, and access. </p><p>It's obvious when you look at the big picture, this convergence is leading to progress that is both complimentary and synergistic across a range of industries related to food and healthcare. <a href="http://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2011/02/modern-sustainable-agriculture.html" target="_blank">Better food and a healthier environment and planet </a> led to better health outcomes. Healthcare payers and providers are realizing the importance of these issues in healthcare. Each is separately addressing key social determinants of health in ways that were not possible before:</p><p><i>"During the past several decades, it has become increasingly apparent that a person’s “health” is influenced by many more factors than health care alone. These other determinants are defined by the conditions and environment in which people are born, grow, live, work, and age, reaching beyond just what the delivery of acute care services can influence. These “social determinants of health” result in billions of dollars of additional costs annually. By working to mitigate the negative impacts of these factors, significant benefits can be achieved that improve both access and outcomes for individuals and lower overall costs." </i>(9)</p><p>As I stated several years ago:</p><p><i>"as big data drives more diversity into every seed planted in every acre across every field, we may possibly begin to mitigate some of the risks and concerns traditionally associated with monoculture. So it is true, when you look across row after row and see only corn, you might technically call it 'monoculture' but it's not your grandparent's monoculture." </i></p><p>As a result of the convergence of AI and life sciences, it's not your grandparent's healthcare either. </p><p><b>References and Related Readings:</b></p><p>(1) Monoculture vs. the Convergence of Big Data and Genomics. Matt Bogard. October 13, 2017. <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/monoculture-vs-convergence-big-data-genomics-matt-bogard/ " target="_blank">https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/monoculture-vs-convergence-big-data-genomics-matt-bogard/ </a>(previously published as: Big Data + Genomics != Your Grandparent's Monoculture. Economic Sense. December 22, 2014. <a href="http://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2014/12/big-data-genomics-your-grandparents.html">http://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2014/12/big-data-genomics-your-grandparents.html</a></p><p>(2) Big Data Gets Personal as Healthcare and Life Sciences Converge. By Bob Evans, Senior Vice President, Oracle. <a href="https://www.oracle.com/industries/oracle-voice/big-data-gets-personal.html">https://www.oracle.com/industries/oracle-voice/big-data-gets-personal.html</a></p><p>(3) Next Chapter For Biotech? Many Say 'Convergence' With Data Science. WBUR. NPR. Bioboom June 8, 2018. https://wbur.fm/2MaaMkA</p><p>(4) Healthcare Big Data and the Promise of Value-Based Car. NEJM Catalyst. Brief Article. Jan 1, 2018</p><p>(5) What Is Value-Based Healthcare?. NEJM Catalyst. Brief Article. Jan 1, 2017</p><div>(6) Q&A With Bayer on Outcome-Based Pricing. By Emily Unglesbee. DTN Progressive Farmer. 10/2/2019 </div><p>(7) Capurso L. Evidence-based medicine vs medicina personalizzata [Evidence-based medicine vs personalized medicine.]. Recenti Prog Med. 2018 Jan;109(1):10-14. Italian. doi: 10.1701/2848.28748. PMID: 29451516. </p><p>(8) Why Foresite Capital is Betting Big on the Convergence of AI and Biotech. August 23, 2018. <a href="https://soundcloud.com/levine-media-group/why-foresite-capital-is-betting-big-on-the-convergence-of-ai-and-biotech ">https://soundcloud.com/levine-media-group/why-foresite-capital-is-betting-big-on-the-convergence-of-ai-and-biotech </a> Check out their current portfolio of investments: <a href="https://www.foresitecapital.com/portfolio/ ">https://www.foresitecapital.com/portfolio/ </a></p><p>(9) Beyond the Boundaries of Health Care: Addressing Social Issues <a href="Beyond the Boundaries of Health Care: Addressing Social Issues https://www.ahip.org/beyond-the-boundaries-of-health-care-addressing-social-issues/" target="_blank">https://www.ahip.org/beyond-the-boundaries-of-health-care-addressing-social-issues/ </a></p><p><b>Related: </b></p><p>What does the farmer say...about seed choices? (Channeling Hayek) <a href="http://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2013/12/what-does-farmer-say-about-seed-choices.html " target="_blank">http://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2013/12/what-does-farmer-say-about-seed-choices.html </a></p><p>Big Data: Causality and Local Expertise Are Key in Agronomic Applications. <a href="http://econometricsense.blogspot.com/2014/05/big-data-think-global-act-local-when-it.html">http://econometricsense.blogspot.com/2014/05/big-data-think-global-act-local-when-it.html</a></p><p>Modern Sustainable Agriculture Annotated Bibliography. <a href="http://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2011/02/modern-sustainable-agriculture.html">http://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2011/02/modern-sustainable-agriculture.html</a></p>
<p style="clear: both; margin-bottom: 20px;"><a href="https://healthinformatics.uic.edu/blog/shift-from-volume-based-care-to-value-based-care/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"><img alt="Infograph on shift from volume-based care to value-based care" src="https://s3.amazonaws.com/utep-uploads/wp-content/uploads/UIC/2017/02/13114534/Value-Based-Care-R1-e1539272816301.png" style="max-width: 100%;" /></a></p><p style="clear: both; margin-bottom: 20px;"><a href="https://healthinformatics.uic.edu" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">University of Illinois at Chicago </a></p>Matt Bogardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10510725993509264716noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18505975.post-56682668565948132312020-10-04T09:30:00.019-07:002023-02-12T14:12:12.102-08:00Using Social Network Analysis to Understand the Influence of Social Harassment Costs and Preferences Toward Biotechnology<p>In a <a href="http://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2020/07/consumer-perceptions-of-biotechnology.html">previous discussion </a>I described how social harassment costs (Borland and Pulsinelli, 1989) might explain why some consumers could hold seemingly contradictory views about science (i.e. accepting certain scientific views related to global warming but rejecting other scientific views related to genetically modified foods). </p><p>In my graduate school research I hypothesized that consumers adopt a worldview <i>v</i> (regarding climate change, food preferences, religious beliefs, public policy, etc.) that gives them the greatest level of utility seemingly invariant to evidence supporting some alternative worldview <i>v'</i>.</p><p>U(<i>v</i>) > U(<i>v'</i>) (1)</p><p>One way to to explain this would be to model utility as a function of social harassment 'c'. </p><p>U(<i>v</i>, c) > U(<i>v'</i>, c) (2)</p><p>for c > k</p><p>U(<i>v</i>, c) < U(<i>v',</i> c) (3)</p><p>for c < k</p><p>In this formulation social harassment provides disutility, and would enter the utility function as a negative term. If social harassment is great enough to exceed some threshold 'k', consumers with preferences like those above may choose to ignore scientific evidence that lowers utility by conflicting with their vision or the vision of their peers. The level of 'k' may vary depending on the consumers sensitivity to social pressure.</p><p>Some of the implications of this model were that consumers might increase utility and reduce social harassment by avoiding information that conflicts with their world views, they might also seek information that supports utility maximizing views regardless of weight of evidence. </p><p>This also seemed to align with a number of ideas supported by findings from behavioral and public choice economics (Caplan, 2007; Kahneman, 2011). For example the idea that <i>beliefs that are irrational from the standpoint of truth-seeking are rational from the standpoint of utility maximization</i> (Caplan, 2007).</p><p>In graduate school I attempted to investigate this empirically by developing a survey instrument to measure preferences toward genetically modified foods as well as attitudes toward abortion, climate change, embryonic stem cell research, animal welfare as well as political ideology, education levels, and science knowledge. I found that respondents with a positive view of embryonic stem cell research and those that were more concerned about the impacts of climate change were less likely to accept the safety of genetically modified foods. This is in spite of evidence of the safety of biotechnology or its potential for mitigating the impacts of climate change. However, the sample size was very small and <a href="http://econometricsense.blogspot.com/2014/04/perceptions-of-gmo-foods-hypothetical.html">as noted elsewhere a better instrument and structural equation modeling approach</a> might offer a much richer and more rigorous understanding of the latent factors shaping consumer perceptions.</p><p>Additionally, the behavioral theoretical utility model above is very general. While this model's predictions could be loosely supported by the empirical work, many untested assumptions remain. For instance, the level of social harassment 'c' and the threshold 'k'. These are abstract latent factors hard to estimate and validate empirically. </p><p>However, if we think of social harassment being a function of our exposure to media, social media, and peers, we can begin to frame up an analytical strategy for better understanding these phenomena in the context of social network analysis (SNA). For example, assume two actors, 'A' and 'B' who have preferences similar to (2) and (3) above. And assume a simple network of connections with peers as depicted below:</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-7PhUN3eJSrs/X3nmEcSHpUI/AAAAAAAAEqA/s258RJamzzUJgKbaLzXCzHoFYJn4j2okACLcBGAsYHQ/s457/SNA%2BSocial%2BHarassment.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="184" data-original-width="457" height="161" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-7PhUN3eJSrs/X3nmEcSHpUI/AAAAAAAAEqA/s258RJamzzUJgKbaLzXCzHoFYJn4j2okACLcBGAsYHQ/w400-h161/SNA%2BSocial%2BHarassment.png" width="400" /></a></div><br /><p>Each node (depicted as black, white or grey dots above) represents a peer's sentiment toward genetically modified foods. For subject A, strongly influenced by peers with negative sentiments, we might hypothesize that the social harassment costs associated with believing in the safety of biotech crops could be high even in the face of strong scientific evidence (which they may not be aware of, discount highly, or avoid in order to maximize utility). For subject B, social harassment costs in relation to these beliefs might be much lower and likely be imposed rarely by a few peripheral connections. This is just a toy example, but this framework helps motivate a number of questions:</p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>How exactly should these networks be defined and constructed to properly frame the question/hypothesis I have? Who/what entities should each node represent (people, media outlets, websites, celebrities, scientists, etc.)?</li><li>Connections between nodes are referred to as edges and represent pathways through which information and social harassment costs might flow - should different edges be given different weights as a function of the entity represented by each node? Are there interactions between the type of node and the type of information flowing from it? </li><li>Is there any correlation between network metrics (i.e. degree centrality, <a href="http://econometricsense.blogspot.com/2012/11/an-intuitive-approach-to-eigenvector.html">eigenvector centrality</a>) and influence on preferences/perceptions? </li><li>What can we learn from previous research in SNA in the area of viral marketing? Are there key nodes that can be influenced? </li><li>What role does network architecture play in information diffusion, influence, and ultimately the level of social harassment costs of a given node (ultimately this is what I would want to quantify to empirically support the theoretical model above)?</li><li>Are there causal inferential approaches with the necessary identification properties allowing us to interpret these effects causally? (see perhaps Tchetgen et al., 2020)</li></ul><div>Applications could extend beyond perceptions of genetically modified foods to include climate change, food preferences, religious beliefs, or vaccines. Johnson et al.(2020) has made a lot of progress using a similar framework to study the spread of disinformation across social networks as it relates to attitudes toward vaccination:</div><div><br /></div><div><i>"Here we provide a map of the contention surrounding vaccines that has emerged from the global pool of around three billion Facebook users. Its core reveals a multi-sided landscape of unprecedented intricacy that involves nearly 100 million individuals partitioned into highly dynamic, interconnected clusters across cities, countries, continents and languages. Although smaller in overall size, anti-vaccination clusters manage to become highly entangled with undecided clusters in the main online network, whereas pro-vaccination clusters are more peripheral. Our theoretical framework reproduces the recent explosive growth in anti-vaccination views, and predicts that these views will dominate in a decade. Insights provided by this framework can inform new policies and approaches to interrupt this shift to negative views. Our results challenge the conventional thinking about undecided individuals in issues of contention surrounding health, shed light on other issues of contention such as climate change and highlight the key role of network cluster dynamics in multi-species ecologies."</i></div><div><br /></div><div>A recent discussion of this paper can be found via the Data Skeptic podcast: <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/sg/podcast/the-spread-of-misinformation-online/id890348705?i=1000491199543">https://podcasts.apple.com/sg/podcast/the-spread-of-misinformation-online/id890348705?i=1000491199543 </a></div><div><br /></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div><b>References:</b></div><p></p><p>Borland,Melvin V. and Robert W. Pulsinelli. Household Commodity Production and Social Harassment Costs.Southern Economic Journal. Vol. 56, No. 2 (Oct., 1989), pp. 291-301</p><p>The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies. Bryan Caplan. Princeton University Press. 2007</p><p>Johnson, N.F., Velásquez, N., Restrepo, N.J. et al. The online competition between pro- and anti-vaccination views. Nature 582, 230–233 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2281-1</p><p>Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.</p><p>Eric J. Tchetgen Tchetgen, Isabel R. Fulcher & Ilya Shpitser (2020) Auto-G-Computation of Causal Effects on a Network, Journal of the American Statistical Association, DOI: 10.1080/01621459.2020.1811098</p><p><b>SNA and Related Posts at EconometricSense:</b></p><p><a href="http://econometricsense.blogspot.com/2014/04/perceptions-of-gmo-foods-hypothetical.html">Perceptions of GMO Foods: A Hypothetical Application of SEM</a></p><p><a href="http://econometricsense.blogspot.com/2012/04/introduction-to-social-network-analysis.html ">An Introduction to Social Network Analysis with R and NetDraw</a></p><p><a href="http://econometricsense.blogspot.com/2013/09/gmm-endogeneity-sna-viral-marketing-and.html">GMM, Endogeneity, SNA, Viral Marketing, and Causal Inference</a></p><p><a href="http://econometricsense.blogspot.com/2013/04/sna-learning-communities.html" target="_blank">SNA & Learning Communities</a></p><p><a href="http://econometricsense.blogspot.com/2012/04/using-sna-in-predictive-modeling.html ">Using SNA in Predictive Modeling</a></p><p><a href="http://econometricsense.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-robustness-of-sna-metrics.html">The Robustness of SNA Metrics</a></p><p><a href="http://econometricsense.blogspot.com/search/label/Social%20Network%20Analysis">All SNA Posts at EconometricSense</a></p><p><b>Related Posts and Background at EconomicSense</b></p><p><span style="color: #0000ee;"><a href="http://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2020/07/consumer-perceptions-of-biotechnology.htm" target="_blank">Consumer Perceptions of Biotechnology: The Role of Information and Social Harassment Costs</a></span></p><p><a href="http://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2015/01/fat-tails-precautionary-principle-and.html" target="_blank">Fat Tails, the Precautionary Principle, and GMOs</a></p><p><a href="http://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2017/07/gmo-safety.html" target="_blank">Defining Consensus Regarding the Safety of Genetically Modified Foods </a></p><p><a href="http://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2017/02/comments-on-rules-for-gene-editing.html" target="_blank">Comments of Rule for Rules on Gene Editing Technology</a></p><div><a href="http://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2018/10/rational-irrationality-and-satters.html" target="_blank">Rational Irrationality and Satter's Hierarchy of Food Needs</a></div><div><br /></div><div><a href="http://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2018/02/a-nash-equilibrium-strategy-for-free.html">The 'Free From' Nash Equilibrium</a></div><div><br /></div><div><a href="http://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2017/12/allenge-tradeoff-of-weighing-biased.html">The Challenging Tradeoff of Weighing Biased Consumer Preferences Against Marketing Food with Integrity</a></div><div><br /></div><div><div><a href="https://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2017/11/polarization-of-controversial-science.html">Polarization of Controversial Science and Limitations of Science Literacy</a></div><div><br /></div><div><div><a href="http://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2017/09/voter-irrationality-and-systemic-bias.html">Voter Irrationality and Systematic Bias: Applications in Food and Biotechnology</a></div><div><br /></div><div><a href="http://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2016/06/left-vs-right-science-vs-risk-vs.html">Left vs Right Science vs Risk vs Propensity to Regulate</a></div></div></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>Matt Bogardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10510725993509264716noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18505975.post-35725284456518416152020-07-08T16:11:00.017-07:002023-02-12T14:12:21.394-08:00Consumer Perceptions of Biotechnology: The Role of Information and Social Harassment Costs <div>
Agricultural biotechnology offers tremendous benefits to farmers and to society as it provides tools for mitigation of a number of environmental externalities related to water quality and food safety (USDA, 2000; Munkvold, 1999). However, perceptions of the safety of recombinant DNA technology (a.k.a. genetically engineered foods) on the part of consumers can shape the policy environment in ways that may inhibit expanded use of biotech traits in agriculture.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In graduate school I was interested in consumer preferences toward biotechnology. Particularly interesting was the observation that some consumers had strongly held science based views related to climate change, but might at the same time have views related to the safety of genetically modified foods that were<a href="https://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2017/07/gmo-safety.html" target="_blank"> at the time inconsistent with the larger scientific community.</a> What could explain this?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In my work I hypothesized that consumers adopt a worldview v (regarding climate change, food preferences, religious beliefs, public policy, etc.) that gives them the greatest level of utility.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
U(v) > U(v') (1)</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
One way to to explain this would be to model utility as a function of social harassment 'c'. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
U(v,c) > U(v',c) (2)</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
for c > k</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
U(v,c) < U(v',c) (3)</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
for c < k</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In this formulation social harassment provides disutility, and would enter the utility function as a negative term (I later found out you could alternatively model this similarly introducing a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bliss_point_(economics)" target="_blank">'bliss' point</a> in a utility model such that consumers might obtain utility from holding a certain viewpoint up to some level of saturation beyond which disutility sets in).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
If social harassment is great enough to exceed some threshold 'k', consumers with preferences like those above may choose to ignore scientific evidence that lowers utility by conflicting with their vision or the vision of their peers. The level of 'k' may vary depending on the consumers sensitivity to social pressure.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Those that are sensitive to social pressure and whose preferences are impacted strongly by the veracity of a particular vision may be resistant to conflicting evidence. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
If they were to accept the alternative (perhaps scientifically supported) viewpoint v*, and peers find these views distasteful, social harassment would lower utility. This could give the appearance of holding conflicting views related to scientific issues. An example would be accepting scientific consensus in some areas like evolution (where social harassment may be lower) but rejecting it in other areas like the safety or benefits of genetically engineered (GE) foods (where social harassment may be higher in many circles). </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
What do I mean by 'social harassment' and how might this relate to preferences toward genetically engineered foods? We might view them as a form of peer pressure, political correctness, or social norming. Consumers may choose a certain worldview (or express it through consumption patterns signaling their social viewpoints) based on their desire to be accepted by others. As a result they may discard any conflicting information or evidence and maximize utility by holding onto their world view 'v.'</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
U(v,c) > U(v',c) (2)</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
for c > k</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I attempted to explore this theory empirically leveraging a data set containing demographics and survey responses related to political and religious views, food consumption preferences (organic/natural etc.), attitudes toward animal welfare, views on other scientific advances like stem cell research, scientific literacy, and attitudes toward genetically engineered foods. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I found that respondents with a positive view of embryonic stem cell research and those that were more concerned about the impacts of climate change were less likely to accept the safety of genetically modified foods. This is in spite of evidence of the safety of biotechnology or its potential for mitigating the impacts of climate change. My theory of social harassment would be consistent with those empirical findings. (much more advanced work has been done in the last 15 years - see links and references below)</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
While I was aware at the time of previous work empirically estimating consumer attitudes toward genetically engineered foods (see references below) I was not aware of other related work in behavioral and public choice economics.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In retrospect, this not so different from the concept of 'rational irrationality' discussed in Bryan Caplan's 'The Myth of the Rational Voter':</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<i>"...people have preferences over beliefs. Letting emotions or ideology corrupt our thinking is an easy way to satisfy such preferences...Worldviews are more a mental security blanket than a serious effort to understand the world."</i></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
This means that:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<i>"Beliefs that are irrational from the standpoint of truth-seeking are rational from the standpoint of utility maximization."</i></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
And in application:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<i>"Support for counterproductive policies and mistaken beliefs about how the world works normally come as a package. Rational irrationality emphasizes this link."</i></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
From Kahneman's Thinking Fast and Slow:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<i>"emotional attitude drives beliefs about benefits and risks and dominates conclusions over arguments."</i></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>Borland and Pulsinelli's Social Harassment Costs and Abatement</b></div>
<div>
<br />
My idea of social harassment was inspired by Borland and Pulsinelli's work, although their formulation was in the context of household production (inspired by Gary Becker, 1965) with social harassment built into a budget constraint and utility maximization framework. Their discussion of social harassment costs as 'guilt trips' for driving gas guzzlers in the face of shortages and price controls was the motivating example for my thinking. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
A key idea from their theory is the concept of purchasing social abatement. Society will permit individuals to purchase goods or services that it finds distasteful if they also purchase abatement for that good.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
While their paper predates contemporary notions of carbon offsets, the idea of hollywood stars or politicians buying carbon offsets to avoid social harassment from peers because of their jet setting lifestyles could be one application of social abatement. It follows from their logic that there is a market for goods that can be purchased for the purpose of social abatement. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Perhaps some goods are 'bundled' with social abatement. For instance, a consumer that believes that beef consumption contributes excessively to climate change might be willing to buy beef if it has socially abating attributes like being grass fed, organic, or hormone free. <a href="https://ghgguru.faculty.ucdavis.edu/2019/09/26/no-four-pounds-of-beef-doesnt-equal-the-emissions-of-a-transatlantic-flight/">Never mind that the carbon footprint of U.S. beef represents less that .5% of global greenhouse emissions and 3% of total U.S. GHG emissions</a>, or the fact that these products may not actually lower beef's carbon footprint (and could possibly increase it - see also Rotz et al 2018). Another example, parents might be OK with a sugary cereal or drink if it is at least made with non-GMO ingredients (where the social points gained from being 'non-GMO' outweighs or abates social points lost from being a bad parent giving their kids sugary foods)</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Social harassment can be explicit, in terms of negative comments from friends or colleagues, or they can simply be internal perceptions. But either way the purchase of socially abating goods or goods with socially abating characteristics could be explained this way. And food marketers are capitalizing on that in various ways in the form of <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/free-from-nash-equilibrium-food-labeling-strategy-matt-bogard/">free-from food labeling </a>among other things.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Both my formulation and Borland and Pulsinelli's concept of social harassment costs would fit these trends in food preferences. My perspective differs in that social harassment impacts the views we adopt and the role of information in changing or shaping those views. These views either translate directly to consumption choices or indirectly as a means of signaling our views on food systems etc. In this formulation, consumer views are invariant to new information if it conflicts with their adopted view, because if others found out they had strayed in thought or conviction, they would incur social harassment disutility. So we might adopt a worldview that is unsupported by the wealth of scientific evidence. Purchases that signal socially desirable preferences help guarantee the higher level of utility and lower levels of social harassment. For those with the most strongly held views, they may evangelize others to adopt them (imposing additional social harassment on others). This signals that not only do I conform to the socially acceptable worldview, but I'm practicing my religion at the highest level.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>Additional Implications</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Social harassment may also be interacting with social media by making us aware of socially acceptable and unacceptable behaviors. This plays a role in influencing our worldviews as well as providing a platform for signaling our world views. This might explain the proliferation of increased attention paid to food in the last decade. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
While consumers might increase utility and reduce social harassment by avoiding information that conflicts with their world views, they might also seek information that supports utility maximizing views regardless of weight of evidence. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<div>
In their paper <i>"Monetizing disinformation in the attention economy: The case of genetically modified organisms (GMOs)"</i> Ryan, Schaul, Butner and Swarthout provide an in depth background on the attention economy, disinformation, the role of the media and marketing as well as socioeconomic impacts. They articulate how how rent seekers and special interests are able to use disinformation in a way to create and economize on misleading but coherent stories with externalities impacting business, public policy, technology adoption, and health. These costs, when quantified can be substantial and should not be ignored:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<i>"Less visible costs are diminished confidence in science, and the loss of important innovations and foregone innovation capacities"</i></div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Merchants of misinformation and disinformation can exploit consumers (and voters) with preferences sensitive to social harassment. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>Conclusion</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The idea that facts alone often fail to change consumers minds is not novel. And the concept I leveraged related to social harassment and social harassment costs might not be so different from ideas related to social norming or <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_proof" target="_blank">social proof.</a> However, I think it is a useful exercise to think through the implications of different formulations of these concepts because they can help us better understand the role of science and evidence in consumer perceptions and decision making. Better understanding may improve science communication. This could have implications for climate change, food sustainability, as well as vaccines and other impacts on public health.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>Related Reading:</b></div>
<div>
<b><br /></b></div>
<div>
<div>
<a href="http://econometricsense.blogspot.com/2014/04/perceptions-of-gmo-foods-hypothetical.html">Perceptions of GMO Foods: A Hypothetical Application of SEM</a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<a href="http://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2015/01/fat-tails-precautionary-principle-and.html">Fat Tails, The Precautionary Principle, and GMOs</a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<a href="http://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2017/07/gmo-safety.html">Defining Consensus Regarding the Safety of Genetically Modified Foods</a></div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<a href="http://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2018/10/rational-irrationality-and-satters.html" target="_blank">Rational Irrationality and Satter's Hierarchy of Food Needs</a></div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<a href="http://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2018/02/a-nash-equilibrium-strategy-for-free.html">The 'Free From' Nash Equilibrium</a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<a href="http://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2017/12/allenge-tradeoff-of-weighing-biased.html">The Challenging Tradeoff of Weighing Biased Consumer Preferences Against Marketing Food with Integrity</a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<div>
<a href="https://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2017/11/polarization-of-controversial-science.html">Polarization of Controversial Science and Limitations of Science Literacy</a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<div>
<a href="http://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2017/09/voter-irrationality-and-systemic-bias.html">Voter Irrationality and Systematic Bias: Applications in Food and Biotechnology</a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<div>
<a href="http://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2016/06/left-vs-right-science-vs-risk-vs.html">Left vs Right Science vs Risk vs Propensity to Regulate</a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<b>Additional References:</b></div>
<div>
<span face=""arial" , sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<div>
<span style="font-size: 14.6667px;">Abdulkadri, Abdullahi O, Simmone Pinnock, and Paula Tennant. " Public Perception of Genetic Engineering and the Choice to Purchase Genetically Modified Food." Paper presented at the American Agricultural EconomicsAssociation Annual Meeting. 2004</span></div>
<div style="font-size: 11pt;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-size: 11pt;">Adulaja, Adesoji, et al. "Nutritional Benefits and Consumer Willingness to Buy Genetically Modified Foods." Journal of Food Distribution Research . Volume 34, Number 1. 2003 p. 24-29.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-size: 11pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.08in;">
<span style="font-size: 11pt;">Baker, Gregory A. "Consumer Response to Genetically Modified Foods: Market Segment Analysis and Implications for Producers and Policy Makers." Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics" Vol 26, No. 2. 2001. p.387-403.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.08in;">
<span style="font-size: 14.6667px;">Becker, G.S. (1965). ‘A theory of the allocation of time’, ECONOMIC JOURNAL, vol. 75(299), pp. 493–517</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.08in;">
<span style="font-size: 11pt;"><b>*Borland,Melvin V. and Robert W. Pulsinelli. Household Commodity Production and Social Harassment Costs.Southern Economic Journal. Vol. 56, No. 2 (Oct., 1989), pp. 291-301</b></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.08in;">
<span style="font-size: 14.6667px;">Camille D. Ryan, Andrew J. Schaul, Ryan Butner, John T. Swarthout, </span><span style="font-size: 14.6667px;">Monetizing disinformation in the attention economy: The case of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), </span><span style="font-size: 14.6667px;">European Management Journal, </span><span style="font-size: 14.6667px;">Volume 38, Issue 1, </span><span style="font-size: 14.6667px;">2020, </span><span style="font-size: 14.6667px;">Pages 7-18, </span><span style="font-size: 14.6667px;">ISSN 0263-2373</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.08in;">
<span style="font-size: 14.6667px;">The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies. Bryan Caplan. Princeton University Press. 2007</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.08in;">
<span style="font-size: 14.6667px;">Chiappori, P.‐A. and Lewbel, A. (2015), Gary Becker's A Theory of the Allocation of Time. Econ J, 125: 410-442. doi:10.1111/ecoj.12157</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.08in;">
<span style="font-size: 14.6667px;">Russell Golman, David Hagmann, George Loewenstein. Information Avoidance. Journal of Economic Literature, 2017; 55 (1): 96 DOI: 10.1257/jel.20151245</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.08in;">
<span style="font-size: 11pt;">Hine, Susan and Maria Loureiro. "Understanding Consumers' Perceptions Toward Biotechnology and Labeling."Paper presented at the American Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting . 2002.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.08in;">
<span style="font-size: 11pt;">Jones, Gerald M., Anya McGuirk and Warren Preston. "Introducing Foods Using Biotechnology: The Case of Bovine Somatotropin." Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics. Vol 24, No. 1 1992. p 209-223</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.08in;">
<span style="font-size: 11pt;">Lacey Wilson, Jayson L. Lusk,</span><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Consumer willingness to pay for redundant food labels,</span><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Food Policy, </span><span style="font-size: 11pt;">2020,</span><span style="font-size: 11pt;">101938, </span><span style="font-size: 11pt;">ISSN 0306-9192,</span><span style="font-size: 11pt;"></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.08in;">
<span style="font-size: 11pt;">Jayson L. Lusk, Brandon R. McFadden, Norbert Wilson, </span><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Do consumers care how a genetically engineered food was created or who created it?,</span><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Food Policy,</span><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Volume 78,</span><span style="font-size: 11pt;">2018,</span><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Pages 81-90,</span><span style="font-size: 11pt;">ISSN 0306-9192</span><br />
<div style="font-size: 11pt; margin-bottom: 0.08in;">
<span style="font-size: 11pt;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: 11pt;">Nicholas Kalaitzandonakes, Jayson Lusk, Alexandre Magnier, </span><span style="font-size: 11pt;">The price of non-genetically modified (non-GM) food,</span><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Food Policy,</span><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Volume 78,</span><span style="font-size: 11pt;">2018,</span><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Pages 38-50,</span><span style="font-size: 11pt;">ISSN 0306-9192</span><span style="font-size: 11pt;"></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 11pt;"><br /></span>
<div style="font-size: 11pt; margin-bottom: 0.08in;">
<span style="font-size: 11pt;">B. R. McFadden, J. L. Lusk. What consumers dont know about genetically modified food, and how that affects beliefs. The FASEB Journal, 2016; DOI: 10.1096/fj.201600598</span></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.08in;">
<span style="font-size: 14.6667px;">National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/23395.</span></div>
<div style="font-size: 11pt; margin-bottom: 0.08in;">
C. Alan Rotz et al. Environmental footprints of beef cattle production in the United States, Agricultural Systems (2018). DOI: 10.1016/j.agsy.2018.11.005</div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.08in;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.08in;">
The New Food Fights: U.S. Public Divides Over Food Science. Differing views on benefits and risks of organic foods, GMOs as Americans report higher priority for healthy eating DECEMBER 1, 2016 https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2016/12/01/the-new-food-fights/</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
Matt Bogardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10510725993509264716noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18505975.post-75797624391857843232020-04-09T13:10:00.001-07:002020-04-11T14:42:41.621-07:00Steak-umm Tweet Storm Tackles Coronavirus and Science Literacy Have you ever heard of the company <a href="https://steakumm.com/">Steak-umm </a>or their thin sliced frozen steak products (think Philly cheesesteak) found in a number of grocery stores across the country? If you have a twitter account you may have come across a seemingly random tweet or retweet by folks a bit perplexed by why this company was sharing tips about misinformation related to the coronavirus epidemic sweeping the country.<br />
<br />
I've been historically a bit of a critic of a number of companies and brands for their often deceptive approaches to food marketing. <a href="http://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2019/09/thinking-fast-and-slow-about-consumer.html">In Thinking Fast and Slow About Consumer Perceptions of Technology and Sustainability in Agriculture</a> and <a href="https://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2018/02/a-nash-equilibrium-strategy-for-free.html">The 'free from' Nash Equilibrium Food Labeling Strategy</a> I discuss how food marketing efforts leverage consumer behavioral biases to promote their products at the expense of science literacy and possibly in direct contradiction to consumer preferences related to healthy and sustainable food systems.<br />
<br />
There are big costs to these marketing tactics (which borderline misinformation and disinformation campaigns). In their research <i>"Monetizing disinformation in the attention economy: The case of genetically modified organisms (GMOs)"</i> Ryan, Schaul, Butner and Swarthout provide an in depth background on the attention economy, disinformation, the role of the media and marketing as well as socioeconomic impacts. They articulate how how <a href="http://economicsprinciplesandapplications.blogspot.com/2011/05/rent-seeking.html">rent seekers and special interests</a> are able to use disinformation in a way to create and economize on misleading but coherent stories with externalities impacting business, public policy, technology adoption, and health. These costs, when quantified can be substantial and should not be ignored:<br />
<br />
<i>"Less visible costs are diminished confidence in science, and the loss of important innovations and foregone innovation capacities"</i><br />
<br />
See additional links that follow for more background and context around behavioral economics and food marketing tactics. But in a world where deceptive advertising has often often been the norm and even praised (Chipotle comes to mind see <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/what-does-the-scarecrow-tell-us-about-chipotle">here </a>and <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/what-does-the-scarecrow-tell-us-about-chipotle">here)</a>, out of nowhere comes this viral storm of tweets from Steak-umm pushing back against misinformation related to coronavirus:<br />
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
<div dir="ltr" lang="en">
friendly reminder in times of uncertainty and misinformation: anecdotes are not data. (good) data is carefully measured and collected information based on a range of subject-dependent factors, including, but not limited to, controlled variables, meta-analysis, and randomization</div>
— Steak-umm (@steak_umm) <a href="https://twitter.com/steak_umm/status/1247343900475490304?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 7, 2020</a></blockquote>
<br />
In explaining 'why' they think their messaging was so effective they state:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
<div dir="ltr" lang="en">
people think it's bizarre, ironic, and funny when a frozen meat company points out the importance of critical thinking, but chances are the same message would never "go viral" if it was from a person. our society values entertainment over truth and that's a huge problem</div>
— Steak-umm (@steak_umm) <a href="https://twitter.com/steak_umm/status/1247909156427837443?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 8, 2020</a></blockquote>
They clearly get that evidence doesn't necessarily move the needle when it comes to science communication and persuasion. As discussed in a number of the posts below <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/rational-irrationality-satters-hierarchy-food-needs-matt-bogard/">consumers tend to believe the things that maximize utility</a>, not necessarily their science or policy literacy. How <a href="http://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2019/09/thinking-fast-and-slow-about-consumer.html">emotional attitude (system 1) drives beliefs about benefits and risks and overrides careful thinking about the strength of actual evidence.</a><br />
<br />
The heroes of the day, @steak_umm have clearly figured this out and demonstrate that in addition to the coherence of the story, entertainment value goes a long way getting folks to pay attention.<br />
<br />
<b>Related Links</b><br />
<br />
<a href="http://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2019/09/thinking-fast-and-slow-about-consumer.html">Thinking Fast and Slow About Consumer Perceptions of Technology and Sustainability </a><br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/rational-irrationality-satters-hierarchy-food-needs-matt-bogard/">Rational Irrationality and Satter's Hierarchy of Food Needs </a><br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/free-from-nash-equilibrium-food-labeling-strategy-matt-bogard/">The 'free from' Nash Equilibrium Food Labeling Strategy</a><br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/polarized-beliefs-controversial-science-topics-matt-bogard/">Polarized Beliefs on Controversial Science Topics</a><br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/voter-preferences-median-theorem-systematic-policy-bias-matt-bogard/">Voter Preferences, The Median Voter Theorem, and Systematic Policy Bias</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>
Matt Bogardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10510725993509264716noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18505975.post-35794567567625668162020-01-23T16:40:00.000-08:002020-04-25T07:13:01.379-07:00The Food Desert MirageIf you build a new supermarket in a food desert, will low income households go there to buy healthier food? Are Dollar Stores cornering the market in poor neighborhoods reducing options for healthy food choices?<br />
<br />
There is a misconception, a mirage if you will, related to the relationship between proximity of super markets that sell healthy foods and actual consumption and health effects. As discussed in this New Food Economy article <a href="https://thecounter.org/is-it-time-to-retire-the-term-food-desert-grocery-snap/">'Is it time to retire the term food desert':</a><br />
<br />
<i>"The idea that supermarkets enter into food deserts and all of a sudden provide access to healthy food is a little bit of a misconception"</i><br />
<br />
Public Health literature provides evidence that households in lower income neighborhoods tend to eat less healthy food. These neighborhoods are often characterized as being food deserts due to the lack of access to healthy groceries for a given geography. Policy and discussion involving food deserts is often colored by an implicit or assumed causal relationship between food deserts (lack of supply of healthy food options) and nutrition and health outcomes. Failure to better understand this causal relationship can lead to potentially bad policy decisions. According to this <a href="https://www.city-journal.org/banning-dollar-stores">City Journal article 'Unjust Deserts' </a> some communities have essentially banned or greatly restricted Dollar General from operating their stores which provide a variety of low priced products. However, some research questions a relationship between food choices and the presence or absence of a Dollar General store.<br />
<br />
In a Health Economics Review article (Drichoutis, 2015), using a combination of <a href="https://www.mailman.columbia.edu/research/population-health-methods/difference-difference-estimation">difference-in-difference</a> and <a href="http://econometricsense.blogspot.com/2013/09/propensity-score-matching.html">propensity score matched </a>analysis authors looked at the relationship between BMI in children and the proximity of Dollar General Stores and failed to find a relationship.<br />
<br />
The authors conclude:<br />
<br />
<i>"Combatting the ill effects of a bad diet involves educating people to change their eating habits. That’s a more complicated project than banning dollar stores. Subsidizing the purchase of fresh fruits and vegetables through the federal food-stamp program and working harder to encourage kids to eat better—as Michelle Obama tried to do with her Let’s Move! campaign—are among the economists’ suggestions for improving the nation’s diet. That’s not the kind of thing that generates sensational headlines. But it makes a lot more sense than banning dollar stores."</i><br />
<br />
A paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research this past year took a very exhaustive look at the relationship between food deserts, poverty, and nutrition. "THE GEOGRAPHY OF POVERTY AND NUTRITION: FOOD DESERTS AND FOOD CHOICES ACROSS THE UNITED STATES." Working Paper 24094 (http://www.nber.org/papers/w24094).<br />
<br />
This paper helps provide a very rigorous empirical understanding of these relationships that can be leveraged for more effective policy and interventions to improve nutrition and health.<br />
<br />
They used a very rich dataset consisting of:<br />
<br />
1) Nielsen Homescan data - 60,000-household panel survey of grocery store purchases<br />
<br />
2) Nielsen’s Retail Measurement Services (RMS) data - 35,000-store panel of UPC-level sales data (this covers 40% of all U.S. grocery store purchases)<br />
<br />
3) Nielsen panelist survey data on nutrition knowledge<br />
<br />
4) Entry and location data for 1,914 new supermarkets by zip code<br />
<br />
Among the many findings uncovered in this data source was the following:<br />
<br />
<i>"over the full 2004-2015 sample, households with income above $70,000 purchase approximately one additional gram of fiber and 3.5 fewer grams of sugar per 1000 calories relative to households with income below $25,000."</i><br />
<br />
Their data reflects what has been found in the public health literature in relation to low income households and nutritional health. In addition, household food purchase data was transformed using a modified version of the USDA's Healthy Eating Index (HEI) based on dietary recommendations. These various sources were brought together to give a very rich picture of household choice sets, retail environment, consumption patterns, and nutritional quality.<br />
<br />
Using a regression based event study analysis and a structural demand model they examine the impact of supermarket entry on the nutritional quality of changes in food purchases. They also are able to separate the main drivers explaining the differences in the measured nutritional quality index (HEI) of food purchases between low and high income groups.<br />
<br />
They model household and income group preferences using both constant elasticity of subsitution (CES) and Cobb-Douglass utility specifications. They apply this model to the rich data sources mentioned above using a Generalized Method of Moments (GMM) framework and use the model estimates to simulate policies that allow households of different incomes to be exposed to similar prices and product availability. (i.e. to make apples to apples comparisons and determine what's driving healthy vs. unhealthy food choices among low income households in food deserts vs. wealthier households).<br />
<br />
Key Findings:<br />
<br />
1) When new supermarkets open in what was formally a food desert, they find most of the changes in consumption are related to shifting purchases from more distant super markets to the new local super market. The change in the healthy eating index or substitutions away from unhealthy purchases from convenience and drug stores to more healthy food was minimal. This is because even in food deserts among low income households, willingness to travel was quite substantial and mitigated the lack of access to local healthy food.<br />
<br />
<i>" households in food deserts spend only slightly less in supermarkets. Households with income below $25,000 spend about 87 percent of their grocery dollars at supermarkets, while households with incomes above $70,000 spend 91 percent. For households in our “food deserts,” the supermarket expenditure share is only a fraction of a percentage point lower"</i><br />
<br />
<i>"one supermarket entry increases Health Index by no more than 0.036 standard deviations for low-income household"</i><br />
<br />
They conclude that access to supply of healthy food or lack thereof explains only about 5% of the difference in the healthy eating index between low and high income households. Access does not appear to be driving the nutrition-income relationship.<br />
<br />
2) Most of the differences in healthy vs unhealthy food choices by income group are driven by demand factors...i.e. preferences. When faced with the same choices and same prices, lower income households simply made purchases with a lower HEI.<br />
<br />
<i>"The lowest-income group is willing to pay $0.62 per day to consume the healthy bundle instead of the unhealthy bundle, while the highest-income group is willing to pay $1.18 per day."</i><br />
<br />
They find that wealthier households value fruit three times the rate of lower income households and twice the rate for vegetables compared to lower income households.<br />
<br />
Policy Implications<br />
<br />
The authors reference studies by Montonen et al (2003) and Yang et al (2014):<br />
<br />
<i>"consuming one additional gram of fiber per 1000 calories is conditionally associated with a 9.4 percent decrease in type-2 diabetes" and consuming "3.5 fewer grams of sugar per 1000 calories is conditionally associated with a ten percent decrease in death rates from cardiovascular disease."</i><br />
<br />
Improvements of the HEI definitely could be a driver for better health. However focusing on access may not be the greatest way to lever change. Certainly the correlations between income, food deserts, and healthy eating hold in this study and can be great flags to predict or identify which populations may need intervention. However, as this study points out the intervention should be based on theoretical and causal relationships that go beyond the supply of healthy foods and focus on aspects related to food preferences and demand. The authors conclude:<br />
<br />
<i>"For a policymaker who wants to help low-income families to eat more healthfully, the analyses in this paper suggest an opportunity for future research to explore the demand-side benefits of improving health education—if possible through elective interventions—rather than changing local supply."</i><br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<b>References:</b><br />
<br />
Drichoutis, A.C., Nayga, R.M., Rouse, H.L. et al. Food environment and childhood obesity: the effect of dollar stores. Health Econ Rev 5, 37 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13561-015-0074-2<br />
<br />
NBER. "THE GEOGRAPHY OF POVERTY AND NUTRITION: FOOD DESERTS AND FOOD CHOICES ACROSS THE UNITED STATES." Working Paper 24094 (<a href="http://www.nber.org/papers/w24094">http://www.nber.org/papers/w24094</a>)Matt Bogardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10510725993509264716noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18505975.post-34712445738261291132020-01-21T09:58:00.000-08:002020-01-27T18:11:07.175-08:00Are Fruits and Vegetables Becoming Less Nutritious?Here are some highlights from research on this topic:<br />
<br />
--> Mineral nutrient composition of vegetables, fruits and grains is not declining.<br />
<br />
--> Allegations of decline due to agricultural soil mineral depletion are unfounded.<br />
<br />
--> Some high-yield varieties show a dilution effect of lower mineral concentrations.<br />
<br />
--> Changes are within natural variation ranges and are not nutritionally significant.<br />
<br />
--> Eating the recommended daily servings provides adequate nutrition.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Reference:</b><br />
<br />
Robin J. Marles, Mineral nutrient composition of vegetables, fruits and grains: The context of reports of apparent historical declines, Journal of Food Composition and Analysis, Volume 56, 2017,<br />
Pages 93-103, ISSN 0889-1575, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfca.2016.11.012.<br />
(<a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0889157516302113">http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0889157516302113</a>)<br />
<br />
HT: James Wong <a href="https://twitter.com/Botanygeek">https://twitter.com/Botanygeek</a>Matt Bogardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10510725993509264716noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18505975.post-32632986249266905192020-01-18T08:36:00.001-08:002021-01-09T17:52:06.388-08:00Addressing Gender Inequality in Developing Countries Through Crop ImprovementA lot of production related benefits of biotechnology have been discussed in the literature, for instance decreased greenhouse gas emissions (Brookes and Barfoot, 2017), reduction in exposure to toxic chemicals (Kouser & Qaim, 2011), and food safety(Munkvold et. al, 1999). However additional research indicates that there may also be social benefits related to gender equality as discussed in<br />
Social and Economic Effects of Genetically Engineered Crops (National Academies of Science, 2016).<br />
<br />
Below are some highlights from this research:<br />
<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>Women comprise a significant proportion of agricultural related labor in developing countries (~43%)</li>
<li>Women in developing countries face significant challenges related to access to education, information, credit, inputs, assets, extension services, and land </li>
</ul>
<br />
The adoption of biotechnology in developing countries has had some mitigating effects:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>In India biotechnology adoption (Bt cotton) resulted in increased work hours and income for women (Subramanian and Qaim, 2010)</li><li>Reduced exposure and freeing women from spraying toxic chemicals and related labor (Bennett et al., 2003; Zambrano et al., 2013; Zambrano et al., 2012; Smale et al., 2012)</li><li>Increased importance of women in decision making within households (Yorobe and Smale, 2012; Zambrano et al., 2013; Rickson et al., 2006</li></ul>
<br />
<br /><b>
References:</b><br />
<br />
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Division on Earth and Life Studies; Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources; Committee on Genetically Engineered Crops: Past Experience and Future Prospects. Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2016 May 17. 6, Social and Economic Effects of Genetically Engineered Crops. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK424536/<br />
<br />
Graham Brookes & Peter Barfoot (2017) Environmental impacts of genetically modified (GM) crop use 1996–2015: Impacts on pesticide use and carbon emissions, GM Crops & Food, 8:2, 117-147, DOI: 10.1080/21645698.2017.1309490<div><br /></div><div><span style="background-color: white; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 15.9991px;">Bennett R, Buthelezi TJ, Ismael Y, Morse S. Bt cotton, pesticides, labour and health: A case study of smallholder farmers in the Makhathini Flats, Republic of South Africa. </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 15.9991px;"><span class="ref-journal">Outlook on Agriculture. </span>2003;<span class="ref-vol">32</span>:123–128.</span><br />
<br />
Kouser, S., Qaim, M., Impact of Bt cotton on pesticide poisoning in smallholder agriculture: A panel data analysis,Ecol. Econ. (2011), doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.06.008<br />
<br />
Comparison of Fumonisin Concentrations in Kernels of Transgenic Bt Maize Hybrids and Nontransgenic Hybrids. Munkvold, G.P. et al . Plant Disease 83, 130-138 1999.</div><div><br /></div><div>Rickson ST, Rickson RE, Burch D. Women and sustainable agriculture. In: Bock BB, Shortall S, editors. Rural Gender Relations: Issues and Case Studies. Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing; 2006. pp. 119–135.</div><div><br /></div><div><span style="background-color: white; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 15.9991px;">Smale M, Zambrano P, Paz-Ybarnegaray R, Fernández-Montaño W. A case of resistance: Herbicide-tolerant soybeans in Bolivia. </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 15.9991px;"><span class="ref-journal">AgBioForum. </span>2012;<span class="ref-vol">15</span>:191–205.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 15.9991px;">Subramanian A, Qaim M. The impact of Bt cotton on poor households in rural India. </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 15.9991px;"><span class="ref-journal">Journal of Development Studies. </span>2010;<span class="ref-vol">46</span>:295–311</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times new roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: 15.9991px;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span style="background-color: white; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 15.9991px;">Yorobe JM Jr, Smale M. Impacts of Bt maize on smallholder income in the Phillipines. </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 15.9991px;"><span class="ref-journal">AgBioForum. </span>2012;<span class="ref-vol">15</span>:152–162</span></div><div><span style="font-size: 15.9991px;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><div><span style="font-size: 15.9991px;">Zambrano P, Smale M, Maldonado JH, Mendoza SL. Unweaving the threads: The experiences of female farmers with biotech cotton in Colombia. AgBioForum. 2012;15:125–137.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: 15.9991px;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: 15.9991px;">Zambrano P, Lobnibe I, Cabanilla DB, Maldonado JH, Falck-Zepeda J. Hiding in the plain sight: Women and GM crop adoption. Paper presented at the 17th ICABR Conference: Innovation and Policy for the Bioeconomy, June 18–21. Ravello, Italy: 2013.</span></div></span>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="pub-meta" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<br />
<br /></div>Matt Bogardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10510725993509264716noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18505975.post-54354492474766874112020-01-18T07:53:00.003-08:002022-12-04T09:24:31.160-08:00GWP* Better Captures the Impact of Methane's Warming PotentialUnderstanding the differences in the way CO2 vs methane behaves is fundamental to understanding their respective roles impacting climate change, and personal and policy decisions related to mitigating future warming. A practical example, properly accounting for these differences, the global impact of U.S. beef consumption (or other ruminant food sources) over time in terms of carbon footprint (related to enteric emissions) could be even less than previously understood. Understanding this can help direct attention to those areas where we can make the biggest difference in terms impacting climate change.<br />
<br />
From:<br />
<br />
Allen, M.R., Shine, K.P., Fuglestvedt, J.S. et al. A solution to the misrepresentations of CO2-equivalent emissions of short-lived climate pollutants under ambitious mitigation. npj Clim Atmos Sci 1, 16 (2018) doi:10.1038/s41612-018-0026-8<br />
<br />
<br />
<i>"While shorter-term goals for emission rates of individual gases and broader metrics encompassing emissions’ co-impacts2,6,31 remain potentially useful in defining how cumulative contributions will be achieved, summarising commitments using a metric that accurately reflects their contributions to future warming would provide greater transparency in the implications of global climate agreements as well as enabling fairer and more effective design of domestic policies and measures."</i><br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-018-0026-8#Sec1"><i></i>https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-018-0026-8#Sec1</a><br />
<br />
See also:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2019/02/a-green-new-deal-for-agriculture.html">A Green New Deal for Agriculture?</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2015/01/religiosity-beef-and-environment.html">Religiousity, Beef, and the Environment</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2015/09/econtalk-matt-ridley-martin-weitzman.html">EconTalk: Matt Ridley, Martin Weitzman, Climate Change and Fat Tails</a><br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<a href="http://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2012/05/hybrid-corn-vs-hybrid-cars.html">Hybrid Corn vs. Hybrid Cars</a><br />
<br />
<a href="https://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2019/09/welfare-analysis-just-do-it.html">Welfare Analysis: Just Do It!</a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
Matt Bogardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10510725993509264716noreply@blogger.com0