Is the Pink Slime Issue Just A Matter of Consumer Preferences?

Previously I made a post entitled ‘Pink Slime: What is Seen and Unseen.’ Having made its way through some social media channels, it has received some interesting comments. A couple common arguments that seem to stand out, not only in my posts, but also in other articles could be generalized as follows:

"This is how the free market works. Supply chains will adjust. This isn't a unique situation that requires any further analysis. It doesn't stand out among the millions of other choices consumers make on a regular basis between numerous other products."

"Why even mention it. So what if consumers are uninformed. Education and evidence are really irrelevant to this issue (or any issue for that matter) because people are irrational. "

These comments really help to clarify the real issue here. The supply chain is really at the heart of the issue for many of those slamming pink slime. Its not pink slime in and of itself that is their only problem. They don't like modern food supply chains (think ADM, Monsanto, Wal-Mart), and if they get their way, our food supply chains would more closely resemble the balkanized gasoline market, with all of the restrictions and the required bottlenecking boutique of gasoline blends etc. and of course the high prices.

If I thought this were simply about food preferences, food choices, and consumers making decisions based on those preferences, and the markets  responding, then of course this would all be a moot discussion. Those that simply choose to avoid finely textured lean beef, are not necessarily the problem. The goal of the purveyors of the pink slime propaganda isn't simply to persuade consumers to choose alternative products, but to build the sentiment that will support coercive government intervention in the market place. (as has happened in other states with laws regarding 'child labor', ‘dust’ regulation, 'CDL  requirements for operating farm machinery', 'battery cages' in egg  production, 'gestation crates' in pork production, fat taxes, sugar taxes, salt  taxes, hormones, antibiotics, biotechnology...pick your technology,  ingredient, and regulation).

From fiction to reality, biotechnology, 'pink slime', pharmaceuticals, modern  food supply chains and processing, (name your villain) are all contemporary  analogs to 'Rearden Metal' from the book Atlas Shrugged. When Dagney had to go out on her own and  start the 'John Galt Line' it was in fact largely in part a response to the loss in demand as a result of the dynamics of public opinion regarding Rearden Metal, penalized for being virtue. Given the negative public perception and the heavy burden of the regulatory environment for the railroads, Taggert Transcontinental stock was plummeting.

Recognizing this dynamic between public opinion, market forces, and the regulatory apparatus and making it known is essential to the  perpetuation of a free society. As Don Boudreaux of George Mason  University states so well:

"What matters mostly – overwhelmingly – is the climate of opinion. And so affecting the climate of opinion for the better seems to me to be, by far, the only long-term means of ensuring the stability of a free society."

But, can we really affect public opinion for the better? Are people obstinate and irrational in their views?  Is evidence irrelevant?

 "Reason, my dear fellow is the most naive of all superstitions...logic is a primitive vulgarity" -Dr. Pritchett, Atlas Shrugged.

 Is evidence always and everywhere irrelevant, or is it just minimized by propaganda and undervalued in general?  Does the assumption of perfectly rational behavior have to hold to make these arguments, or to approach these issues utilizing the analytical way of thinking that economics teaches?  Should we just assume that all behavior is mindless and throw in the towel?  That would certainly relieve many of us a lot of stress and of course, that's what the interventionists like Dr. Pritchett in Atlas Shrugged wanted people to think. They desire a public that has grown disdainful of facts and evidence, looking to intellectuals and politicians to make things right.

But, as Steve Horowitz points out in his textbook 'Lessons for the Young Economist':

“When we look at the world and try to make some sense of it, one of the most basic and crucial distinctions we all make—usually without even realizing it—is the difference between purposeful action versus mindless behavior...The lessons in this book apply to purposeful actions performed by

conscious people who have goals in mind.”

As Dr. Horowitz goes on to explain, even if people often 'miscalculate' or aren't "perfectly rational people" the logic of economic thinking holds. As Economist Peter Boettke states:

"The great free market economic thinkers from Adam Smith to F. A. Hayek never argued that individuals were hyper-rational actors possessed with full and complete information, operating in perfectly competitive markets.... Efficient markets are an outcome of a process of discovery, learning, and adjustment, not an assumption going into the analysis."

And in fact, blogs, even 'micro bloggers' with just a few thousand imprints or less, all have a role to play in adding to this pool of knowledge. Even if they are preaching to the choir (i.e. read mostly by like minded individuals) they provide an arsenal of ideas that help everyone to better structure their thoughts, and share them with others, and occasionally someone that may actually change their mind.  Not everyone is a general like Bodreaux and Roberts at Cafe Hayek,  but given this war of ideas and the role they play in a free society, every soldier counts. Post by post, line by line. While its origins are disputed, the quote often attributed to Thomas Jefferson is no less true:

"The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt."

PINK SLIME: WHAT IS SEEN AND WHAT IS UNSEEN

"But you don't want to have public opinion against you. Public opinion, you know, it can mean a lot."
"...I saw the whole industrial establishment of the world...all of it was run, not by bankers and boards of directors...all of it was run by any unshaved humanitarian in any basement beer joint, by any face pudgy with malice, who preached that virtue must be penalized for being virtue." - Atlas Shrugged.
"Cargill cuts 'pink slime' output, sees hamburger price rise' (Reuters)

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/28/us-food-slime-idUSBRE82R1LP20120328
 
Consumers say they want healthy sustainable food. They want it to be safe. They want it to be affordable. The market delivered with finely textured lean beef. Now in a classic illustration of group think, lead by celebrities, anti-farm activists, and advocates of big government, these same producers are being punished for catering to the expressed desires of their harshest critics. Some extremists are even peddling petitions and calling for government bans and regulations to 'label' or remove this product from stores and schools. Companies are shutting down operations and laying people off. Beef prices are taking a hit.

This summer, many of these same people will go to their Farmer's Market and feel good about themselves for doing their part to support local farmers, their community, and perhaps even bettering the environment. Certainly a laudable gesture. Others will just go to the nearest big box retailer and feel more comfortable that this product may have been taken off of the shelf or out of their school.  That is what is seen.

What remains unseen is the negative impact that this self-righteous orthorexic food fetish condeming so called pink slime will have on the rest of us. Particularly what is unseen is the loss of value that thousands of family farmers and local producers will have to absorb, while continiung to strive to feed the rest of us in a manner that modern agriculture makes efficient and sustainable.

ScienceDirect - Ecological Economics : Impact of Bt cotton on pesticide poisoning in

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800911002400

A case of the internalization of negative externalities via technological change and market forces w/o taxes or  new regulations. 

Abstract

While substantial research on the productivity and profit effects of Bt cotton has been carried out recently, the economic evaluation of positive and negative externalities has received much less attention. Here, we focus on farmer health impacts resulting from Bt-related changes in chemical pesticide use. Previous studies have documented that Bt cotton has reduced the problem of pesticide poisoning in developing countries, but they have failed to account for unobserved heterogeneity between technology adopters and non-adopters. We use unique panel survey data from India to estimate unbiased effects and their developments over time. Bt cotton has reduced pesticide applications by 50%, with the largest reductions of 70% occurring in the most toxic types of chemicals. Results of fixed-effects Poisson models confirm that Bt has notably reduced the incidence of acute pesticide poisoning among cotton growers. These effects have become more pronounced with increasing technology adoption rates. Bt cotton now helps to avoid several million cases of pesticide poisoning in India every year, which also entails sizeable health cost savings.

Biotech Alfalfa: Who May Harm Who

From Drovers/Cattle Network "Using Property Rights Is A Trick Against Biotech Crops"

"Some politicians wrap themselves in the flag to justify their positions, and then there is Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack appealing to farmers and ranchers' belief in "private property rights" to justify limiting biotech crop production"

Great article with a lot of great points. For the sake of this discussion, lets view biotech contamination of organic crops as 'pollution.' (despite the evidence that the risks are slight)

Traditionally when it comes to environmental pollution, the general philosophy was that 'the polluter pays'. A factory polluting the air or water should pay for the damages that are caused. In a much simpler case, if you build a house next to me and you don't like the smell of livestock waste coming from my property, the traditional philosophy would hold that you could have the government stop my operation. (or in this case, the biotech alfalfa grower pays for genetic contamination of organic alfalfa)

The economist Ronald Coase brought additional insight to this issue. 

1) yes it is true that my operation is harming you via air pollution. (odor)
2) however, in stopping me via government or legal intervention ( or taxing my waste production) you are harming me.

Coase says that the issue is that nonone owns the air that surrounds my livestock operation and your home. There then follows a dispute over how the air should be used- to absorb livestock odor, or to provide a scent free atmosphere in your back yard. Whenever the cost of one's behavior is not factored into a price at which a choice can be valued, I can harm you without compensating you for it. ( i.e. an externality exists)

However, if I own rights to the air, then I can choose to pollute the air. If you own rights to the air, then you can prevent me from polluting it. If noone owns the air, then it is first come first served or winner takes all.

That is not the end of the story though. What Coase emphasizes is that if I own the rights to pollute, you can pay me to limit my pollution i.e. buy those rights from me. I can then use the proceeds to alter my livestock nutrition, genetics, and management to reduce the odor my operation is causing. On the other hand, if you own the rights to pollute I can purchase those rights from you, or invest in technology that will allow me to continue my operation without violating your rights. I will do which ever is most optimal. This can be accomplished without major government regulation, or the arbitrary imposition of a tax.

The assignment of property rights and the potential for bargaining results in behavior that is changed or altered to account for the negative impact our choices have on others. This is the essence of what is known as the 'Coase Theorem"

However, if transaction costs are high, then bargaining may not take place. In that case, Coase emphasizes that any assignmnet of property rights should be based on which party can bear the externality at the lowest cost. Transaction costs can change based on changes in technology, which can also change how we define property rights. (for example, the technology that allows us to monitor CO2 emissions is what makes the concept of cap and trade possible).

How might this apply in the context of biotech alfalfa?  According to the Coase Theorem, it shouldn't matter who is assigned the rights in this case (giving the biotech producer the right to pollute, or giving the organic producer the right to stop neighbors from planting biotech). Both parties could bargain ahead of time to determine the optimal mix of biotech/organic production. Transaction costs should not be any higher than any normal land rental agreement.  Alternatively, one producer or the other could purchase insurance that would pay an indemnity in the event of contamination. (who would have to pay the premiums would depend on who has the right to pollute etc.) However, monitoring and enforcement costs could be high in terms of determining genetic contamination.

Another option would be a regulatory approach, limiting planting options for biotech producers.  This is what the Drovers article is critical of Tom Vilsack for. You could say it is enforcing property rights, but  only in a very arbitrary way, and unnecessary.

The agriculture industry offers some of the greatest examples of how technological advances and market forces lead to self correcting or internalization of externalities.  The adoption of biotechnology has led to reduced groundwater pollution, increased biodiversity, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions. All of which has occured in absence of taxes or government regulations. In the case of biotech alfalfa, a technological advancement that would trump legal or regulatory remedies would be use of 'terminator' gene technology.  Of course, that takes the power and prestige away from regulators, and empowers  property owners and market forces. In any case, what the Coase Theorem tells us is that there is no case for arbitrarily giving organic growers a trump card over those that want to use biotech alfalfa. The principle of polluter pays is not always optimal.