Nudging Back: Turning Off Your Camera May Be Good for the Climate

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 Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 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? 

Background

In a recent post 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 small change-big impact framing (which they found to be the most impactful in their research) to nudge consumers to choose a vegetarian dish over meat:

"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."

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 choosing a salad over steak. Similarly I've been intrigued by other popular movements with similar goals like Meatless Mondays. 

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). 

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? 

Nudging for Impact

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. (Realistic assessments of impact and ethics were the primary focus of my previous post.) 

McFadden, et al. discuss how challenging and costly dietary changes can be given strong consumer preferences. They find:

"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." 

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?  

Let Me Count the Ways (other arbitrary ways to reduce your carbon footprint)

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:

• Globally, the Internet use has a carbon footprint ranging from 28 to 63 g CO2 equivalent per gigabyte (GB)
• The world median is 32.3 g CO2 per GB
• The U.S. median is 9% higher
• 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
• Streaming 4 hrs/day with HD quality video produces about 53 kg CO2e/month
• Streaming at a lower quality SD video would reduce CO2e/month to about 2.5 kg
• Standard video conference services use ~ 2.5 GB/hr associated with 157 g CO2e/hr
• 15 one hour meetings a week equate to a monthly carbon footprint of 9.4 kg
• 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). 

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) 

Framing Up the Discussion

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. 

• In the U.S. the average consumer consumes about 60 pounds of beef/year
• On a monthly basis that equates to 5 lbs or about 2.26 kg/beef/person
• According to Rotz (2019) 1 kg of U.S. beef produces 22 kg of CO2 equivalent emissions
• 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 beef consumption may be very similar to streaming HD video on a monthly basis given the assumption above. 

Just based on the facts 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. 

On the other hand -  giving up our Netflix binge could have the same climate impact as completely giving up beef! 

It's not quite so simple. 

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:

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. 

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 easy button 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. 

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. 

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 technological advances 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)

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. 

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.

A Path Toward Better Framing and Nudging

In a previous post, 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?

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 here and here), climate impact (accurately reflecting the behavior of carbon and methane), and technological change is essential.

Related Posts

The Ethics of Dietary Nudges and Behavior Change Focused on Climate and Sustainability. https://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2022/10/the-ethics-of-dietary-nudges-and.html

Innovation, Disruption, and Low(er) Carbon Beef https://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2022/01/innovation-disruption-and-lower-carbon.html 

Facts, Figures, or Fiction: Unwarranted Criticisms of the Biden Administration's Failure to Target Methane Emissions from Livestock. https://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2021/12/facts-figures-or-fiction-unfair.html 

Can Capitalism Be A Force For Good When it Comes to Food? https://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2021/07/can-capitalism-be-force-for-good-when.html

References: 

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. 

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

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 https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/06/06/239031/training-a-single-ai-model-can-emit-as-much-carbon-as-five-cars-in-their-lifetimes/ 

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

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.

Strubell, Emma & Ganesh, Ananya & Mccallum, Andrew. (2019). Energy and Policy Considerations for Deep Learning in NLP. 3645-3650. 10.18653/v1/P19-1355.

Notes: 

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.

Can Capitalism Be A Force For Good When it Comes to Food?

Great discussion at the AgTech So What 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. 

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). 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 to name some of the health and environmental benefits as well as social benefits related to gender equity.

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 here, here, here, here, and here), we've seen gains in beef production and quality. For instance, consider Brad Johnson's work at Texas Tech related to increasing marbling and healthy fats without increasing unhealthy backfat while also reducing time on feed. Or like the research in beef genetics and air quality and emissions at U.C. Davis.

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).

While not realized yet, with technological advancements like blockchain and IoT, the potential to exploit innovative ideas like animal welfare units discussed by economist Jayson Lusk could be another unexploited opportunity given the right strategy.

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.

References:

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

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions 

Lusk, J.L. The market for animal welfare. Agric Hum Values 28, 561–575 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-011-9318-x

Environmental impacts of genetically modified (GM) crop use 1996–2015: Impacts on pesticide use and carbon emissions
Graham Brookes & Peter Barfoot
GM Crops & Food Vol. 8 , Iss. 2,2017
Link: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21645698.2017.1309490

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): 9668–967

Texas Tech University. "Increasing marbling in beef without increasing overall fatness." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 5 May 2016. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/05/160505223115.htm>.

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

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.

The Convergence of AI, Life Sciences, and Healthcare

Several years ago I was writing about the convergence of AI and genomics in agriculture:

"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)

We have also seen a similar convergence in healthcare:

"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."  (2)

This excellent segment on WBUR just a few years later picks up on the same themes:

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.

“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.” (3)

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.

Outcomes and Value Based Pricing

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. 

In healthcare:

"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. " (4)

"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." (5)

(See below or  https://healthinformatics.uic.edu/blog/shift-from-volume-based-care-to-value-based-care/ for an excellent infographic explaining this promising shift in healthcare)

In food and agriculture we are seeing risk sharing and outcomes based pricing contracts as well:

"...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." (6)

Precision Medicine and Precision Agriculture

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 precision agricultural applications (remote sensing, IoT, automated steering, GPS/GIS) makes one size fits all obsolete. 

As I quoted previously: 

"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." (1)

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 "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" (7)

"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." (2)

Venture Capital and Digital Platforms and Solutions

Monsanto's (now Bayer Crop Science) acquisition of The Climate Corporation 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. Farmer's Business Network (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 AAD (Advanced Animal Diagnostics) and Connecterra are building tools and services analogous to a Fitbit for cows. Body Surface Translations (BST) is a company whose image processing technology has targeted both problems in animal and human health.  Tim Hammerich (the Future of Agriculture) and Sarah Nolet (AgTech So What?, AgThentic, Tenacious Ventures) 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. Where Food Comes From 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.  IN10T is a digitally powered data driven company helping bridge the gaps between innovations and real world application of these technologies. Venture capital firm Foresite Capital even leverages data science to drive their investment strategy in therapeutics, diagnostics, and devices. This includes digital health apps like mindstrong which is leveraging AI for better diagnosis, monitoring, and treatment of behavioral health conditions and everlywell focused on actionable healthcare diagnostics and health engagement. Evidation 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.

Addressing Society's Bigger Problems

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. 

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. Better food and a healthier environment and planet  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:

"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." (9)

As I stated several years ago:

"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." 

As a result of the convergence of AI and life sciences, it's not your grandparent's healthcare either. 

References and Related Readings:

(1) Monoculture vs. the Convergence of Big Data and Genomics. Matt Bogard. October 13, 2017. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/monoculture-vs-convergence-big-data-genomics-matt-bogard/ (previously published as: Big Data + Genomics != Your Grandparent's Monoculture. Economic Sense. December 22, 2014. http://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2014/12/big-data-genomics-your-grandparents.html

(2) Big Data Gets Personal as Healthcare and Life Sciences Converge. By Bob Evans, Senior Vice President, Oracle.  https://www.oracle.com/industries/oracle-voice/big-data-gets-personal.html

(3) Next Chapter For Biotech? Many Say 'Convergence' With Data Science. WBUR. NPR. Bioboom June 8, 2018. https://wbur.fm/2MaaMkA

(4) Healthcare Big Data and the Promise of Value-Based Car. NEJM Catalyst. Brief Article. Jan 1, 2018

(5) What Is Value-Based Healthcare?. NEJM Catalyst. Brief Article. Jan 1, 2017

(6) Q&A With Bayer on Outcome-Based Pricing. By Emily Unglesbee. DTN Progressive Farmer. 10/2/2019 

(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. 

(8) Why Foresite Capital is Betting Big on the Convergence of AI and Biotech. August 23, 2018. https://soundcloud.com/levine-media-group/why-foresite-capital-is-betting-big-on-the-convergence-of-ai-and-biotech   Check out their current portfolio of investments: https://www.foresitecapital.com/portfolio/ 

(9) Beyond the Boundaries of Health Care: Addressing Social Issues https://www.ahip.org/beyond-the-boundaries-of-health-care-addressing-social-issues/ 

Related: 

What does the farmer say...about seed choices? (Channeling Hayek) http://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2013/12/what-does-farmer-say-about-seed-choices.html 

Big Data: Causality and Local Expertise Are Key in Agronomic Applications. http://econometricsense.blogspot.com/2014/05/big-data-think-global-act-local-when-it.html

Modern Sustainable Agriculture Annotated Bibliography. http://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2011/02/modern-sustainable-agriculture.html

University of Illinois at Chicago

Are Fruits and Vegetables Becoming Less Nutritious?

Here are some highlights from research on this topic:

--> Mineral nutrient composition of vegetables, fruits and grains is not declining.

--> Allegations of decline due to agricultural soil mineral depletion are unfounded.

--> Some high-yield varieties show a dilution effect of lower mineral concentrations.

--> Changes are within natural variation ranges and are not nutritionally significant.

--> Eating the recommended daily servings provides adequate nutrition.


Reference:

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,
Pages 93-103, ISSN 0889-1575, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfca.2016.11.012.
(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0889157516302113)

HT: James Wong https://twitter.com/Botanygeek

The Challenging Tradeoff of Weighing Biased Consumer Preferences Against Marketing Food with Integrity

Recently I was reading an artcile, "The big Washington food fight" in Politico discussing challenges facing bringing diverse interests and perspectives on food issues under one roof through the Grocery Manufacturers association.

There are a couple things influencing my thinking about this.....the idea that voters and consumers may have systemic biases in their knowledge and preferences in general and specifically about food and technology. The other thing is  related to recent research showing a divergence between public perception of science driven by political leaning....a divergence that widens *with* more education and science knowledge (see http://www.pnas.org/content/114/36/9587 ).

This research was not directly related to food except for genetically engineered food . Biotech related effects were not significant in this paper, but as the article noted the data is from 2006 and perhaps biotech was not nearly as politicized or polarized as it would be reflected in more recent data.

So in this context, what does it mean to say 'the customer is always right' and how do you give the customer what they want?

For instance, sustainable food seems to be high on the list of priorities. However, there are plenty of cases where the most sustainable technology is completely rejected by some segments. I'm thinking here of rBST, various aspects of biotechnology, even processing mechanics like finely textured beef. These are all examples where scientifically, you can produce more food using fewer resources and have a lower carbon footprint.

There seem to be two dominant approaches or paradigms by food companies for dealing with this.

One approach is going all in with the 'negative' or 'free from' labeling regardless of science. This paradigm feigns or fakes transparency in the sense it acknowledges consumer preferences related to knowing 'what is in their food' but adds lots of confusion about substantial differences related to food safety and sustainability. This group is more likely to engage in negative advertising (think Chipotle) and lobbying for regulations related to food labeling requirements (think Vermont). The other paradigm takes a 'less is more' approach in terms of honest disclosure about these technologies.

Production agriculture is caught in the middle. Whichever paradigm becomes the most dominant (both in the marketplace and the ballot box) I fear will determine the fate of the kinds of crops farmers grow and technologies they have access too, types of products we see on the shelves, and the potential for healthier and more environmentally sustainable solutions to challenging worldwide problems.

See also: Food with Integrity is Catching On

Sustainably Feeding the World: Organic Food and Vegetables vs Conventional Commodities

Can we feed the world sustainably using organic crop production methods? Several studies have indicated that there is a yield penalty for organic crops

The crop yield gap between organic and conventional agriculture. Agricultural Systems
Volume 108, April 2012, Pages 1-9

The above indicates ~ 20% yield penalties for organic vs conventional production

Comparing the yields of organic and conventional agriculture. Nature 485,229–232.(10 May 2012) doi:10.1038/nature11069 

The above finds a range of differences in yield between organic and conventional agriculture, from 5-35% depending on different crops, practices, and conditions.

Alexandra N. Kravchenko, Sieglinde S. Snapp, and G. Philip Robertson. Field-scale experiments reveal persistent yield gaps in low-input and organic cropping systems
PNAS 2017 114 (5) 926-931; published ahead of print January 17, 2017, doi:10.1073/pnas.1612311114 

The above indicates much of the previous research was based on research plots, and penalties for organic vs conventional yields could actually be worse when scaled up to field size production practices.

To what extent does organic farming rely on nutrient inflows from conventional farming?
Benjamin Nowak1,2, Thomas Nesme1,2, Christophe David3 and Sylvain Pellerin1,2
Published 5 December 2013  2013 IOP Publishing Ltd
Environmental Research Letters, Volume 8, Number 4 

The above research indicates there are significant inflows of N, P, K from conventional sources. For example, many organic production systems may rely on manure from animals raised or fed conventionally. If these positive exteranalities were excluded, the increased energy and land devoted to organic production would reduce its sustainability further.

 Often in addition to some calling for increased organic food production, you will hear additional criticisms of commodity or 'monocrop' agriculture. Themes include criticisms of agricultural policies favoring 'industrial' agriculture at the expense of healthy fruits and vegetables. However, these criticisms ignore the importance of calorie density and consumption at a global level. According to the FAO rice, corn, and wheat provide 60% of the world's energy intake. Costs of production and economies of scale favor large scale production of these staples over specialty crops like broccoli and tomatoes when it terms of providing affordable calorie dense food to a growing population.

Additional References:

Greenhouse gas mitigation by agricultural intensification Jennifer A. Burneya,Steven J. Davisc, and David B. Lobella.PNAS  June 29, 2010   vol. 107  no. 26  12052-12057

Organic Activists Realize Hypocrisy On Gene Editing and Biotech

There is a segment of the organic movement that wants to get their ducks in a row so that they can oppose gene editing technologies without hypocrisy. Quote:

“Without regulatory review” is bad enough. But to allow the use of mutagenesis, a process that involves “dousing seeds with chemicals,” in organic is a serious breach of consumer trust in the USDA organic certification program.”

Well no kidding. Not that I agree that this is a concern for safety, but its always been odd to me that recombinant DNA technologies would be ineligible for certified organic labeling (especially when Bt traits would make it much easier to exclude pesticides) while the gross number of other foods produced via mutagenesis were perfectly fine. Perhaps this cognitive dissonance was just fine until recent advances in gene editing technologies like CRISPR-Cas9. With the FDA taking comments regarding regulation of gene editing in new plant varieties, this is likely not a coincidence. 

As I stated in my comments:

"Similar to organically certified crop varieties that use chemical and radiological methods to create in-genome changes, gene edited technologies operate within genome, vs. across species.  (one popular example of gene editing includes the CRISPR-Cas9 system).  Unlike mutagenic approaches used in organically approved plant breeding systems,  these in-genome tweaks are planned, controlled, and designed to bring about very specific outcomes."

This presents a problem. Of course the page I have linked to does not explicitly state this as their rationale, you can't oppose new technologies that are actually more precise and safer than the old technologies you stand by unappologetically. (I realize in terms of safety we are splitting hairs but those hairs represent lots of money and marketing opportunities). So I don't blame this group for trying to get everyone on the same page.  Another quote:

"How do you know if your organic food comes from mutant seeds? You don’t. If you buy local, you can ask your local farmer. Alternatively, you can avoid rice, wheat, barley, pears, cotton, peppermint, sunflowers and grapefruit. These are the only mutant crops that you could potentially find in the organic section."

Slim pickings if you want to oppose gene editing with integrity.

See also: Fat Tails, the Precautionary Principle, and GMOs.

Positive Externalities and Spillovers of Conventional Food Production on Organic Food

Jayson Lusk recently pointed out that making large scale organic work (i.e. read if we want more access to organic food that means 'large scale') we need large scale conventional producers:

"Indeed, if one wants large scale organic, it almost certainly implies (given the current population) the need for large scale non-organic.  All that life-supporting nitrogen has to come from somewhere.  Until we find a better way, right now it is coming from Haber and Bosch and is smuggled into organic agriculture via animal manure. "

So organic thrives on positive externalities related to N use in conventional production. 

Let's not forget the positive externalities of biotech traits....which not only help conventional producers use fewer pesticides but also help organic producers get by without sytnthetics:

Positive Externalities of Biotech Bt Traits on Non-Biotech Crops and Non Target Insects 

Note: To be more precise, externalities represent uncompensated benefits so technically the benefits related to N use might not be true 'positive externalities.' The point is the importance of the interdependence between production systems that have been overlooked by a broader segment of the public.

Grist puts a face on Big Ag

I have written before that many people  are confused 'big ag' and 'industrial agriculture.'  These terms typically are devoid of meaning and are shibboleths that revolve around a line of thinking that corporate interests (perhaps closely connected with government agencies like USDA,EPA etc.) control our food supply and as a result deliver food that is unhealthy and unsustainable. But this really amounts to some mixture of myth and conspiracy theory.  The reality is that when you follow your food back to its source, you find what 'big ag' really amounts to is a complex network of modern family farms, biotechnology companies, food processors, and retailers that cooperate to bring healthy and sustainable food to your table.

This story from Grist basically allows one to put a 'face' on the maligned 'industrial agriculture' that is often the brunt of these meaningless terms and less than honest advertising campaigns by retailers like Chipotle.

Think commodity farmers are evil?- Meet a few of them.

Religiosity, Beef, and the Environment

Some years ago in his widely popular book, the Armchair Economist, Steve Landsburg included an essay entitled 'Why I Am Not An Environmentalist.' (you can find a copy of the essay here).  He states:

"Economics is the science of competing preferences. Environmentalism goes beyond science when it elevates matters of preference to matters of morality....The underlying need to sacrifice, and to compel others to sacrifice, is a fundamentally religious impulse"

Take for instance recent headlines here and here indicating that the USDA and HHS are considering changing federal dietary guidelines that include recommendations for less beef based on so called environmental concerns instead of setting science based guidelines based purely health and nutrition. You might say, well, making a choice that is less energy intensive and one with a lower carbon footprint or involves fewer industrial chemicals or inputs might seem better for the environment.  However, when it comes to environmental sustainability, the absolute amount of energy we use, or pollution we create is not necessarily the relevant metric. Sustainable choices are those that allow us to consume today without compromising the consumption set of future generations. This is an inter-temporal optimization problem that considers both costs and benefits, and the optimal allocation is based on a comparison of marginal costs and benefits across time vs. absolute levels. 

Rigorous science might tell us with some level of uncertainty some measurable impact of dietary changes or CO2 emissions on future generations. But, to know if what we are getting in the future is larger than what we are giving up today, we have to discount future benefits (put them in today's terms). Then we can compare benefits and costs and talk about some optimal quantity of beef. (a big unknown in this is forecasting future impacts and getting the correct discount rate- see Doing Nothing: A science based policy prescription for climate change mitigation). It may be true that rigorous science tells us about the absolute level of energy use or emissions differs across an array of consumer products and production processes, but it does not tell us so much about relative trade offs across time. 

And exactly how do we pin down the 'costs' of less beef consumption today? Its more than not getting a double cheeseburger or steak the next time you eat. Its more than fewer head of cattle going to slaughter or lost revenue from grain sales next year or the year after.  Over the years huge investments have been made in technologies that have improved the efficiency of beef production, leading to significantly lower levels of water, feed, energy consumption, and pollution; especially greenhouse gas emissions. If people took these guidelines seriously, what does that mean for future investments and technological progress? It might turn out that slightly lower levels of consumption now could mean lower trend but absolutely higher levels of consumption of beef tomorrow (as the population grows), but without the potential green innovations that are on track today if current policy discourages those investments. That means tomorrow's cheeseburger comes with a larger environmental footprint than otherwise even if we are all eating less beef overall than we otherwise would have.  Already government policies and attitudes toward beef are impacting these trends. The recent stigmatization of green technologies like finely textured beef (ignorantly maligned as 'pink slime'), as well as the use of sub-therapeutic antibiotics and growth hormones is leading to beef going to market that is less green than it other wise would have been. 

How do you net out the overall impact of this? I have no idea, but that is the great thing about markets. As individuals, no matter how informed we think we are, our knowledge is limited and incomplete. The purpose of markets is to exploit the collective knowledge of millions (billions) of people in order to get the 'correct' levels of production and consumption.  Even if we didn't have to properly discount future benefits to compare to current costs, the limited knowledge of a few economists, scientists, and policy makers is not sufficient to determine the optimal quantity of any good in a society, even if they imagine they can design a mechanism that accounts for the gaps or externalities that they think current prices are missing the mark on. 

So, what are environmentalists and state and local governments to do in the face of lacking empirical evidence to support their personal beliefs about environmental policies and positions? They are certainly free to evangelize as private citizens. They can evangelize about how recycling and eating less beef is necessary because it serves some unquantifiable greater good, and they can even lay guilt trips on non-believers. They can even take up collections and ask for donations.  Unfortunately they do a lot more. They can actually force you to pay to support certain quasi-religous practices or in the case of recycling may even force you to participate in their rituals or pay a penalty (or should I say penance ).  Your tax money might be required to pay for recycling bins, or your local school might spend extra to add local food to its menus, promote rituals like 'meatless Monday,' or they may simply post nutritional 'commandments' that we are all encouraged to follow, and that will impact multitudes of government programs and personal choices.  As Landsburg says:

"....we face no current threat of having Christianity imposed on us by petty tyrants; the same can not be said of environmentalism. My county government never tried to send me a New Testament, but it did send me a recycling bin."

Advocates of these new proposals to eat less beef might invoke the name and prestige of science to support their position, but the science is just not very good. Ultimately they are asking us to take their recommendations on faith. To the extent possible, government agencies should stick to clearly defined roles, and to the extent possible should make policy as a matter of sound science, not faith in some unquantifiable pie in the sky greater good.

The Oregon GMO Ban: Who is really harming who?

“Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now” - Thomas Jefferson Notes on the State of Virginia

This past May two counties in Oregon voted to ban the production of GMO crops. Was this good policy?

For a moment let’s sidestep the fact that modern molecular applications of crop improvement are just as safe if not safer than conventional and organic methods.  Let’s also forget that using a democratic process to override other people’s choices may not be the optimal strategy for making the most of imperfect information and limited resources.

Often, this law is discussed in the context of property rights, and rightly so:

“This local effort is important because it’s a way for local growers to protect their property rights from genetically engineered pollen contaminating their seed crops.”

-Ivan Maluski, Friends of Family Farmers

The assignment and protection of property rights is an important role of government, and definitely serves a key function in dealing with what economists refer to as negative externalities, and what most people would think of when they think of nuisances or environmental pollution.  However, the GMO bans represent a very narrow and restrictive assignment of property rights.

Property Rights and Externalities

Basically a negative externality occurs when  a second party is harmed from an activity without their consent or compensation. In the context of the Oregon law, we might view genetic contamination as a negative externality.  In these cases, the principle of polluter pays is often the basis used to require polluters to either stop their activity, pay a fine, or perhaps levy a tax related to the level of pollution.  However, in 1960 economist Ronald Coase brought new insight in his Journal of Law and Economics paper “The Problem of Social Cost.”  Coase stated that in many cases, the issue of pollution or negative externalities was in fact reciprocal.  This can easily be understood in the context of the Oregon case. While banning GMOs certainly protects organic and conventional producers from the harms of cross-pollination it reciprocally imposes significant harm on most family farmers by limiting their ability to grow food in a way that is both profitable and sustainable.  The question becomes, who may harm who?

Put another way, who should get the right to grow the kind of crops they want? The answer is that the right should be assigned to the party that values it the most. According to what has come to be known as the Coase Theorem, the initial assignment of rights does not matter. With clearly defined property rights, the optimal level of GMO vs. non-GMO crops planted as well as optimal levels of cross-pollination can be determined through cooperative processes.  Of course in this case, we may not be assigning physical rights to property so much as we are assigning liability.

 If liability goes to the organic producers, and they want to restrict the planting of GMO crops, then they have to find a way to compensate GMO growers to reduce planting . If liability falls on GMO growers and the economic and environmental benefits of growing GMO crops exceeds the value that organic producers place on uncontaminated crops, then GMO growers can pay for damages (or buy insurance for such purposes), or compensate organic producers for shifting their crops to another location. They may also alter their GMO planting decisions in highly susceptible areas.

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, regardless of who holds the rights. This is the essence of what is known as the ‘Coase Theorem and sets a standard of morality and efficiency that the Oregon law falls tragically short of meeting and in fact egregiously preempts.

Positive Externalities

Positive externalities occur when one or more parties engage in some activity and actually benefit another party without getting compensated for it.  An example of a positive externality is the concept of herd immunity that can occur when most people are vaccinated for things like measles.  Government funding of vaccination programs is often justified on the grounds of positive externalities. An unintended side effect of the Oregon law banning GMOs is the elimination of positive externalities associated with the planting of GMO crops. Research has shown that genetically modified crops have improved the genetic diversity of beneficial pest populations and have provided external pest protection benefits to non-gmo crops worth billions of dollars annually. In addition, biotechnology has contributed to significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and reduced the use of toxic chemicals and pesticides.  The Oregon laws eliminate all of these positive externalities associated with GMO crops in effect harming organic producers and all consumers.

Are these options practical or realistic? Nothing I could put in print likely would be. Policy makers and economists are not in a situation to know exactly all of the margins that individuals consider in their decision making and the options available, which is another flaw in the Oregon laws which make this assumption.  Some assignment of property rights or liability that accommodates a cooperative space for individuals to live their lives would be superior to both no law at all, or one as draconian as the two counties in Oregon have adopted.

References:

The Problem of Social Cost. R. H. Coase. Journal of Law and Economics, Vol. 3 (Oct., 1960), pp. 1-44

Areawide Suppression of European Corn Borer with Bt Maize Reaps Savings to Non-Bt Maize Growers. Science 8 October 2010:Vol. 330. no. 6001, pp. 222 - 225 DOI: 10.1126/science.1190242W. D. Hutchison,1,* E. C. Burkness,1 P. D. Mitchell,2 R. D. Moon,1 T. W. Leslie,3 S. J. Fleischer,4 M. Abrahamson,5 K. L. Hamilton,6 K. L. Steffey,7, M. E. Gray,7 R. L. Hellmich,8 L. V. Kaster,9 T. E. Hunt,10 R. J. Wright,11 K. Pecinovsky,12 T. L. Rabaey,13 B. R. Flood,14 E. S. Raun15

Communal Benefits of Transgenic Corn. Bruce E. Tabashnik  Science 8 October 2010:Vol. 330. no. 6001, pp. 189 - 190DOI: 10.1126/science.1196864

Genetically Engineered Crops: Has Adoption Reduced Pesticide Use? Agricultural Outlook ERS/USDA Aug 2000

GM crops: global socio-economic and environmental impacts 1996- 2007. Brookes & Barfoot PG Economics reportOctober 2010:Vol. 330. no. 6001, pp. 189 - 190DOI: 10.1126/science.1196864

Greenhouse gas mitigation by agricultural intensification Jennifer A. Burneya,Steven J. Davisc, and David B. Lobella.PNAS  June 29, 2010   vol. 107  no. 26  12052-12057

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.

Indirect Reduction of Ear Molds and Associated Mycotoxins in Bacillus thuringiensis Corn Under Controlled and Open Field Conditions: Utility and Limitations. Dowd, J. Economic Entomology. 93 1669-1679 2000.

A Meta-Analysis of Effects of Bt Cotton and Maize on Nontarget Invertebrates. Michelle Marvier, Chanel McCreedy, James Regetz, Peter Kareiva Science 8 June 2007: Vol. 316. no. 5830, pp. 1475 – 1477

"Why Spurning Biotech Food Has Become a Liability.'' Miller, Henry I, Conko, Gregory, & Drew L. Kershe. Nature Biotechnology Volume 24 Number 9 September 2006.

Diversity in Crop Production

Market forces accommodating producer demands for traits optimized for diverse conditions and environments and the risks they pose drive technological advances in biotechnology and plant breeding. 

Schap and young make this point in their 1999 Cato Journal article:

Enterprise and Biodiversity: Do Market Forces Yield Diversity of Life? David Schap and Andrew T. Young Cato Journal, Vol. 19, No. 1  (Spring/Summer 1999)

"At the root there appears to be a conflict between the efficiency of the market and the preservation of biodiversity. The conflict is real, however, only if the market is at odds with biodiversity. Does the market destroy biodiversity? We contend that it does not. Rather the market often can, and indeed does, provide biodiversity—both deliberately and as an unintended consequence of market forces. In the specific case of hybrid maize seed, we show that biodiversity is provided unintentionally both at the industry level and at the level of the individual firm. We explain that maize seed firms behave according to economic theories of monopolistic competition and optimal diversification, furnishing biodiversity as a fortuitous byproduct of their pursuit of profit."

Previous work in the journal Crop Science supports Schap and Young: 

''Diversity of United States Hybrid Maize Germplasm as Revealed by Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphisms.'' Smith, J.S.C.; Smith, O.S.; Wright, S.; Wall, S.J.; and Walton, M. (1992) Crop Science 32: 598–604

In addition to actual crop diversity, new technologies like Bt traits actually help improve the diversity of insect populations, as indicated in the following 2007 article in Science:

A Meta-Analysis of Effects of Bt Cotton and Maize on Nontarget Invertebrates.Michelle Marvier, Chanel McCreedy, James Regetz, Peter Kareiva Science 8 June 2007: Vol. 316. no. 5830, pp. 1475 – 1477

If we think of 'monoculture' and 'diversity' in a very strict and narrow sense, we might lead ourselves to believe that modern agriculture has serious problems. However, the real actions taken by risk averse producers that rely on a diverse portfolio of genetic assets to achieve narrow margins in a fast paced ever changing environment prove otherwise. In many ways, 'monoculture' is a myth. 

See also: 

''Hybrid Corn.'' Abelson, P.H. (1990) Science 249 (August 24): 837.

I, Chicken

“I was really shocked when I bought my first ever whole chicken tonight. Five bucks? For a whole chicken? KFC charges five bucks for one breast and one wing. How can a farmer breed, hatch, raise, feed, house, butcher, package, and ship a chicken for five bucks? Blows my mind.”

This was a very insightful observation made by a friend of mine. The subject of economics in a lot of ways is just a collection of stories consisting of observations and insights like this. This particular insight speaks directly to the concepts of comparative advantage from Ricardo and specialization and trade from Adam Smith- read more about these economists at the Library of Economics and Liberty.

Because of the principle of comparative advantage,  you choose to buy the chicken from the retailer at $5 as opposed to raising it yourself or even sourcing it locally at a much greater cost in terms of money, time, and perhaps the environment.  Because of the principle of comparative advantage we often don’t raise most of our own food or make our own cars or many of our own clothes or even source most of these things locally either. The concept of comparative advantage and the associated gains from specialization and trade lead to an increase in the size of the ‘economic pie’ which can be used to make everyone better off. 

Getting a chicken at your local retailer for $5 is also a testament to the market’s ability to solve the the fundamental problem of economics, the knowledge problem. This is a problem that exists because the necessary information for allocating scarce resources does not exist in concentrated or integrated form, but is incomplete and dispersed among individuals. Through markets, prices bring all of this incomplete and dispersed information together in a coordinated manner, producing a ‘spontaneous order’ as described by economist F.A. Hayek.

 We get $5 chicken because a spontaneous order comprised of specialized farmers, feed and nutrition specialists, veterinarians, pharmaceutical companies, breeders, packers, processors, supply chain managers, and retailers all cooperate to bring healthy, sustainable, and affordable food to your table. Modern food supply chains, made possible by companies such as Cargill, ADM, and retailers like Wal-Mart, have not only allowed us to get foods cheaper than we can produce ourselves or source locally, but may have also helped to reduce our impact on the environment.  

Another way to think about the knowledge problem and the concept of a spontaneous order in relation to $5 chickens is to admit that no single person really knows how to make a chicken any more than a pencil, as illustrated so perfectly by Leonard E. Read in his famous essay ‘I, Pencil.’ Milton Friedman does a good job summarizing the essay in 2 minutes in the following You-Tube video: 

 

It is also important to recognize that $5 chicken owes a great debt to entrepreneurial driven technological change and economic growth, and this is truly mind blowing. As economist Robert Lucas said “once you start thinking about growth it's hard to think about anything else.”

Think, “I’Chicken.”