According to the USDA, "an estimated 12.7 percent of American households were food insecure at
least some time during the year in 2015, meaning they lacked access to
enough food for an active, healthy life for all household members."
Here are a few more notes:
1) 5.0 percent of U.S. households (6.3 million households) had very low food security
2) There were sizable differences by state
3) ~59% used SNAP, WIC, or the national school lunch program in the previous month
4) The median food-secure household spent 27 percent more for food than the typical food-insecure household
Prices Matter
In
a 2013 Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy article, researchers
found a significant impact of local food prices on food insecurity
developing a novel index of local food prices:
“We
find that the average effect of food prices on the probability of food
insecurity is positive and significant: a one-standard deviation
increase in food prices is associated with increases of 2.7, 2.6, and
3.1 percentage points in household, adult, and child food insecurity,
respectively. These marginal effects amount to 5.0%, 5.1%, and 12.4%
increases in the prevalence of food insecurity for SNAP households,
adults, and children, respectively. These results suggest that indexing
SNAP benefits to local food prices could improve the ability of the
program to reduce food insecurity and economic hardship more generally
in areas with high food prices.”
Food Insecurity, SNAP, and Health Outcomes
In
2012, researchers publishing in the Journal of the American Statistical
Association found that SNAP can have positive mitigating effects on the
health of children.
"Under stronger but plausible
assumptions used to address the selection and classification error
problems, we find that commonly cited relationships between SNAP and
poor health outcomes provide a misleading picture about the true impacts
of the program. Our tightest bounds identify favorable impacts of SNAP
on child health."
Gundersen (2015) finds a relationship between food insecurity and health outcomes for children and seniors.
"after confounding risk factors were controlled for, studies found
that food-insecure children are at least twice as likely to report being
in fair or poor health and at least 1.4 times more likely to have
asthma, compared to food-secure children; and food-insecure seniors have
limitations in activities of daily living comparable to those of
food-secure seniors fourteen years older. The Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program (SNAP) substantially reduces the prevalence of food
insecurity and thus is critical to reducing negative health outcomes"
What
we can conclude from this research is that prices matter - while
policies that help reduce or subsidize the purchase price of food can
help reduce food insecurity and provide positive outcomes, policies that
increase prices could have the opposite effect.
What about food deserts?
Over at the UofI Policy Matters blog, Craig Gundersen and others discuss the relationship between food deserts and prices. They cite a few studies:
Availability And Prices Of Foods Across Stores And Neighborhoods: The Case Of New Haven, Connecticut. Health Aff September 2008 vol. 27 no. 5 1381-1388
The above was a case study looking at stores across lower vs higher income neighborhoods. They find lower quality and fewer options in the lower income stores.
Does Healthy Food Cost More in Poor Neighborhoods? An Analysis of Retail Food Cost and Spatial Competition. Patrick L. Hatzenbuehler, Jeffrey M. Gillespie, and Carol E. O’Neil. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 41/1 (April 2012) 43–56
The above was an interesting study that found that the impacts of spatial distribution of store locations impacted consumption, although there were no price effects.
In their blog post, the authors discuss how they develop a local price index for food bundles and compare prices for areas that are and are not classified as food deserts.
"Our findings suggest that living in a food desert affects the overall
food prices faced by households to a small extent when consumers can
shop within their home census tracts and in contiguous census tracts.
The difference in prices is largely driven by differences in available
variety. As such, while higher food prices are associated with higher
rates of food insecurity, the results of our work suggest that living in
a food desert is unlikely to influence food insecurity to a great
extent"
In their related paper, presented at the 2015 Agricultural and Applied Economics Association and Western Agricultural Economics Association annual meeting you can read more.
References:
Alisha Coleman-Jensen, Matthew P. Rabbitt, Christian A. Gregory, and Anita Singh.
Household Food Security in the United States in 2015, ERR-215, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Economic Research Service, September 2016.
Christian A. Gregory, Alisha Coleman-Jensen; Do High Food Prices
Increase Food Insecurity in the United States?. Appl Econ Perspect
Policy 2013; 35 (4): 679-707. doi: 10.1093/aepp/ppt024
Kreider, B., Pepper, J. V., Gundersen, C., & Jolliffe, D. (2012).
Identifying the effects of SNAP (Food Stamps) on child health outcomes
when participation is endogenous and misreported. Journal of the
American Statistical Association, 107(499), 958-975. DOI:
10.1080/01621459.2012.682828
Gundersen C, Ziliak J. Food insecurity and health outcomes. Health Affairs 2015;34(11):1830-1839.
Monday, June 19, 2017
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
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
Thursday, June 08, 2017
CRISPR Mediated Off Target Mutations in Mice
In a very recent paper in Nature Methods , researchers used CRISPR technology to repair a gene mutation related to blindness in mice. But what they found was a large number of off target mutations compared to what is typically expected.
An article in The Conversation discusses some of the possible explanations for these findings. Some critics have suggested that the large number of off target mutations could be related to the specific methods used to control the activity of the Cas9 enzyme, which would impact the number of cuts/edits made in the host DNA that occur.
Others have pointed out that there are various flavors of CRISPR, and even temperature can impact enzyme activity and off target impacts, as well as better and worse methods of detection of off target mutations.
See:
Xiang et al. (2017). Temperature effect on CRISPR-Cas9 mediated genome editing. J. Genetics & Genomics. (Apr 20) 44(4):199-205.
High-fidelity CRISPR–Cas9 nucleases with no detectable genome-wide off-target effects. Nature 529, 490–495 (28 January 2016)
Analysis of off-target effects of CRISPR/Cas-derived RNA-guided endonucleases and nickases Genome Res. 2014. 24: 132-141
When it comes to food crop applications, critics of CRISPR technology, as well as older recombinant DNA technologies have been largely concerned with genetic disruptions. These criticisms imply that genetic disruptions indicate increased risk to consumers. I think a very relevant question in this regard (give or take the Nature Methods paper) is related to the comparative differences in genetic disruptions between CRISPR mediated genetic improvements vs traditional plant breeding methods including mutation breeding (chemical and radiological mutagenesis used in conventional and organic foods).
Given that previous risk management/regulatory reviews and agencies have found little evidence to restrict or highly regulate traditional and mutagenic crop improvement methods, if genetic disruptions for CRISPR mediated crop improvements are comparable the argument for increased scrutiny of CRISPR based crops is weakened. Previous research indicates that genetic disruptions for traditional plant breeding methods are actually greater than what we observe in recombinant DNA methods.
See:
Batista R, Saibo N, Lourenço T, Oliveira MM. Microarray analyses reveal that
plant mutagenesis may induce more transcriptomic changes than transgene
insertion. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 Mar 4;105(9):3640-5. doi:
10.1073/pnas.0707881105. PubMed PMID: 18303117; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2265136
Baudo MM, Lyons R, Powers S, Pastori GM, Edwards KJ, Holdsworth MJ, Shewry PR. (2006). Transgenesis has less impact on the transcriptome of wheat grain than conventional breeding. Plant Biotechnol J. 2006 Jul;4(4):369-80
To reiterate two important questions in relation to the Nature Methods paper as it may apply to food seem to be:
1) are the drastically higher than expected off target mutations based on sound methods/application of CRISPR
2) What is the weight of evidence comparing genetic disruptions in CRISPR vs conventional crop improvement methods.
An article in The Conversation discusses some of the possible explanations for these findings. Some critics have suggested that the large number of off target mutations could be related to the specific methods used to control the activity of the Cas9 enzyme, which would impact the number of cuts/edits made in the host DNA that occur.
Others have pointed out that there are various flavors of CRISPR, and even temperature can impact enzyme activity and off target impacts, as well as better and worse methods of detection of off target mutations.
See:
Xiang et al. (2017). Temperature effect on CRISPR-Cas9 mediated genome editing. J. Genetics & Genomics. (Apr 20) 44(4):199-205.
High-fidelity CRISPR–Cas9 nucleases with no detectable genome-wide off-target effects. Nature 529, 490–495 (28 January 2016)
Analysis of off-target effects of CRISPR/Cas-derived RNA-guided endonucleases and nickases Genome Res. 2014. 24: 132-141
When it comes to food crop applications, critics of CRISPR technology, as well as older recombinant DNA technologies have been largely concerned with genetic disruptions. These criticisms imply that genetic disruptions indicate increased risk to consumers. I think a very relevant question in this regard (give or take the Nature Methods paper) is related to the comparative differences in genetic disruptions between CRISPR mediated genetic improvements vs traditional plant breeding methods including mutation breeding (chemical and radiological mutagenesis used in conventional and organic foods).
Given that previous risk management/regulatory reviews and agencies have found little evidence to restrict or highly regulate traditional and mutagenic crop improvement methods, if genetic disruptions for CRISPR mediated crop improvements are comparable the argument for increased scrutiny of CRISPR based crops is weakened. Previous research indicates that genetic disruptions for traditional plant breeding methods are actually greater than what we observe in recombinant DNA methods.
See:
Batista R, Saibo N, Lourenço T, Oliveira MM. Microarray analyses reveal that
plant mutagenesis may induce more transcriptomic changes than transgene
insertion. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 Mar 4;105(9):3640-5. doi:
10.1073/pnas.0707881105. PubMed PMID: 18303117; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2265136
Baudo MM, Lyons R, Powers S, Pastori GM, Edwards KJ, Holdsworth MJ, Shewry PR. (2006). Transgenesis has less impact on the transcriptome of wheat grain than conventional breeding. Plant Biotechnol J. 2006 Jul;4(4):369-80
To reiterate two important questions in relation to the Nature Methods paper as it may apply to food seem to be:
1) are the drastically higher than expected off target mutations based on sound methods/application of CRISPR
2) What is the weight of evidence comparing genetic disruptions in CRISPR vs conventional crop improvement methods.
Wednesday, June 07, 2017
TalkingBiotech- Technology and Society
TalkingBiotech 079: Technology and Society (link)
Very nice. One thing that moved me toward studying both genetics and economics was the realization that science does not occur in a vacuum. No matter how great the scientific discovery or technological breakthrough, its ability to make a positive impact is governed and shaped by political, social, economic, and financial forces. Everything from venture capital funding, regulatory constraints, government grants, to the influences of food marketers and celebrity tweets.
"There are scientists that help define the social reaction to science and the way that scientists need to communicate issues in technology. Dr. Matthew Harsh is an Assistant Professor at the Centre for Engineering Technology at Concordia University in Montreal Canada. The discussion talks about the interface of natural sciences and social sciences, and how discussions can affect policy"
Very nice. One thing that moved me toward studying both genetics and economics was the realization that science does not occur in a vacuum. No matter how great the scientific discovery or technological breakthrough, its ability to make a positive impact is governed and shaped by political, social, economic, and financial forces. Everything from venture capital funding, regulatory constraints, government grants, to the influences of food marketers and celebrity tweets.
"There are scientists that help define the social reaction to science and the way that scientists need to communicate issues in technology. Dr. Matthew Harsh is an Assistant Professor at the Centre for Engineering Technology at Concordia University in Montreal Canada. The discussion talks about the interface of natural sciences and social sciences, and how discussions can affect policy"
Monday, June 05, 2017
Game Theory and Antibiotic Resistance
I found an interesting article in Quanta Magazing discussing a 2012 paper in PNAS discussing game theory in the context of evolutionary processes. The article in Quanta is very detailed and nicely written as well as accessible.
This was interesting because in graduate school and other work I am familiar with, the context of games is defined around human-environment interactions leading to a Nash Equilibrium/prisoner's dilemma situation where the dominating strategies involve overuse of a given technology (antibiotics, herbicide resistant crops, insect resistant crops). In this context the equilibrium strategies create selection pressure which ultimately lead to insects, weeds, or bacteria that are resistant to the given technology. However, the Quanta article provides some examples where researchers are using game theory to describe actual behavior in nature (i.e. fish, monkeys, or the bacteria themselves). Here is a slice:
"For example, scientists studying antibiotic resistance are using a game theory scenario called the snowdrift game, in which a player always benefits from cooperating. (If you’re stuck in your apartment building after a blizzard, you benefit by shoveling the driveway, but so does everyone else who lives there and doesn’t shovel.) Some bacteria can produce and secrete an enzyme capable of deactivating antibiotic drugs. The enzyme is costly to produce, and lazy bacteria that don’t make it can benefit by using enzymes produced by their more industrious neighbors. In a strict prisoner’s dilemma scenario, the slackers would eventually kill off the producers, harming the entire population. But in the snowdrift game, the producers have greater access to the enzyme, thus improving their fitness, and the two types of bacteria can coexist."
Below is the citation related to the Dyson and Press paper discussed in the Quanta article:
Press, W. H., & Dyson, F. J. (2012). Iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma contains strategies that dominate any evolutionary opponent. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109(26), 10409–10413. http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1206569109
This was interesting because in graduate school and other work I am familiar with, the context of games is defined around human-environment interactions leading to a Nash Equilibrium/prisoner's dilemma situation where the dominating strategies involve overuse of a given technology (antibiotics, herbicide resistant crops, insect resistant crops). In this context the equilibrium strategies create selection pressure which ultimately lead to insects, weeds, or bacteria that are resistant to the given technology. However, the Quanta article provides some examples where researchers are using game theory to describe actual behavior in nature (i.e. fish, monkeys, or the bacteria themselves). Here is a slice:
"For example, scientists studying antibiotic resistance are using a game theory scenario called the snowdrift game, in which a player always benefits from cooperating. (If you’re stuck in your apartment building after a blizzard, you benefit by shoveling the driveway, but so does everyone else who lives there and doesn’t shovel.) Some bacteria can produce and secrete an enzyme capable of deactivating antibiotic drugs. The enzyme is costly to produce, and lazy bacteria that don’t make it can benefit by using enzymes produced by their more industrious neighbors. In a strict prisoner’s dilemma scenario, the slackers would eventually kill off the producers, harming the entire population. But in the snowdrift game, the producers have greater access to the enzyme, thus improving their fitness, and the two types of bacteria can coexist."
Below is the citation related to the Dyson and Press paper discussed in the Quanta article:
Press, W. H., & Dyson, F. J. (2012). Iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma contains strategies that dominate any evolutionary opponent. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109(26), 10409–10413. http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1206569109
Game Theory- Applications in Trait Resistance Managment
See also: Game Theory- Selected Works
In graduate school (2005) some of the applied work I did focused on the idea of combining population genetics and game theory to model pest resistance to Bt traits in corn. Recently I decided to look at the literature in that space to see what others have been doing in this space. Below are some articles I have found from a quick search:
Press, William H., and Freeman J. Dyson. “Iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma Contains Strategies That Dominate Any Evolutionary Opponent.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 109.26 (2012): 10409–10413. PMC. Web. 5 June 2017.
Miranowski, J.A., & Lacy, K.M. (2016). When do resistance management practices pay for the farmer and society? The case of Western Corn Rootworm. AgBioForum, 19(2), 173-183. Available on the World Wide Web: http://www.agbioforum.org.
Joel S Brown, Kateřina Staňková, Game theory as a conceptual framework for managing insect pests, Current Opinion in Insect Science, Volume 21, June 2017, Pages 26-32, ISSN 2214-5745, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cois.2017.05.007.
Jussaume, R., & Ervin, D. (2016). Understanding Weed Resistance as a Wicked Problem to Improve Weed Management Decisions. Weed Science, 64(SP1), 559-569. doi:10.1614/WS-D-15-00131.1
Ervin, D., & Frisvold, G. (2016). Community-Based Approaches to Herbicide-Resistant Weed Management: Lessons from Science and Practice. Weed Science, 64(SP1), 609-626. doi:10.1614/WS-D-15-00122.1
Nicole Haynes McCoy, Pradyumna Amatya, Games People Play: Human Behavior and Invasive Weed Management, Rangelands, Volume 27, Issue 6, December 2005, Pages 8-14, ISSN 0190-0528, https://doi.org/10.2111/1551-501X(2005)27.6[8:GPP]2.0.CO;2.
In graduate school (2005) some of the applied work I did focused on the idea of combining population genetics and game theory to model pest resistance to Bt traits in corn. Recently I decided to look at the literature in that space to see what others have been doing in this space. Below are some articles I have found from a quick search:
Press, William H., and Freeman J. Dyson. “Iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma Contains Strategies That Dominate Any Evolutionary Opponent.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 109.26 (2012): 10409–10413. PMC. Web. 5 June 2017.
Miranowski, J.A., & Lacy, K.M. (2016). When do resistance management practices pay for the farmer and society? The case of Western Corn Rootworm. AgBioForum, 19(2), 173-183. Available on the World Wide Web: http://www.agbioforum.org.
Joel S Brown, Kateřina Staňková, Game theory as a conceptual framework for managing insect pests, Current Opinion in Insect Science, Volume 21, June 2017, Pages 26-32, ISSN 2214-5745, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cois.2017.05.007.
Jussaume, R., & Ervin, D. (2016). Understanding Weed Resistance as a Wicked Problem to Improve Weed Management Decisions. Weed Science, 64(SP1), 559-569. doi:10.1614/WS-D-15-00131.1
Ervin, D., & Frisvold, G. (2016). Community-Based Approaches to Herbicide-Resistant Weed Management: Lessons from Science and Practice. Weed Science, 64(SP1), 609-626. doi:10.1614/WS-D-15-00122.1
Nicole Haynes McCoy, Pradyumna Amatya, Games People Play: Human Behavior and Invasive Weed Management, Rangelands, Volume 27, Issue 6, December 2005, Pages 8-14, ISSN 0190-0528, https://doi.org/10.2111/1551-501X(2005)27.6[8:GPP]2.0.CO;2.
Game Theory - Selected Works
In graduate school I looked at trait resistance management through the lens of game theory. Below are some links to some related posts, references, and short articles that I have written.
Game Theory- TalkPython podcast
Game Theory- An Introduction
Matt Bogard. "An Econometric and Game Theoretic Analysis of Producer and Consumer Preferences Toward Agricultural Biotechnology" Western Kentucky University (2005) Available at: http://works.bepress.com/matt_bogard/31/
Matt Bogard. "An Introduction to Game Theory: Applications in Environmental Economics and Public Choice with Mathematical Appendix" (2012) Available at: http://works.bepress.com/matt_bogard/22/
Matt Bogard. "Game Theory, A Foundation for Agricultural Economics" (2004) Available at: http://works.bepress.com/matt_bogard/32/
Game Theory- TalkPython podcast
Game Theory- An Introduction
Matt Bogard. "An Econometric and Game Theoretic Analysis of Producer and Consumer Preferences Toward Agricultural Biotechnology" Western Kentucky University (2005) Available at: http://works.bepress.com/matt_bogard/31/
Matt Bogard. "An Introduction to Game Theory: Applications in Environmental Economics and Public Choice with Mathematical Appendix" (2012) Available at: http://works.bepress.com/matt_bogard/22/
Matt Bogard. "Game Theory, A Foundation for Agricultural Economics" (2004) Available at: http://works.bepress.com/matt_bogard/32/
Molecular Genetics and Economics
A really interesting article in JEP:
A slice:
"In fact, the costs of comprehensively genotyping human subjects have fallen to the point where major funding bodies, even in the social sciences, are beginning to incorporate genetic and biological markers into major social surveys. The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, the Wisconsin Longitudinal Study, and the Health and Retirement Survey have launched, or are in the process of launching, datasets with comprehensively genotyped subjects…These samples contain, or will soon contain, data on hundreds of thousands of genetic markers for each individual in the sample as well as, in most cases, basic economic variables. How, if at all, should economists use and combine molecular genetic and economic data? What challenges arise when analyzing genetically informative data?"
Link:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3306008/
Reference:
Beauchamp JP, Cesarini D, Johannesson M, et al. Molecular Genetics and Economics. The journal of economic perspectives : a journal of the American Economic Association. 2011;25(4):57-82.
A slice:
"In fact, the costs of comprehensively genotyping human subjects have fallen to the point where major funding bodies, even in the social sciences, are beginning to incorporate genetic and biological markers into major social surveys. The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, the Wisconsin Longitudinal Study, and the Health and Retirement Survey have launched, or are in the process of launching, datasets with comprehensively genotyped subjects…These samples contain, or will soon contain, data on hundreds of thousands of genetic markers for each individual in the sample as well as, in most cases, basic economic variables. How, if at all, should economists use and combine molecular genetic and economic data? What challenges arise when analyzing genetically informative data?"
Link:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3306008/
Reference:
Beauchamp JP, Cesarini D, Johannesson M, et al. Molecular Genetics and Economics. The journal of economic perspectives : a journal of the American Economic Association. 2011;25(4):57-82.
Sunday, March 19, 2017
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.
“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.
Friday, March 03, 2017
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.
Vance Crowe and Shark Farmer Discuss Ag Outreach and Communication
Previously the ag industry and companies like Monsanto seemed to have
a focus on a one-size fits all solution to crop protection and seeds.
Although research indicates significant diversity within species existed
in the age of hybrid corn, this was the era in which old school
arguments about monoculture probably dug in along with the other critcisms that go along with 'big ag.'
With the convergence of big data and genomics, row crop agriculture is transforming. Its not your grandparent's monoculture anymore. Companies like Monsanto are both positioning themselves to compete in this new environment and playing a major role in the transformation.
Recently I discussed an interview on the Closing Market Report with Robb Fraley, Chief Technology Officer at Monsanto and the kind of people they are hiring to help lead this transformation.
One challenge is, have those that have spent the last decade nostalgically and critically looking back at the way we used to do things missed this transformation? Will they be willing to embrace its benefits going forward.
This may be part of what Vance Crowe, Director of Millennial Engagement at Monsanto is trying to address in his role. Recently I discovered the Shark Farmer podcast, and Crowe was a guest in one of the archived episodes. One part of the conversation really got me interested. Here Vance is describing the challenge that he discovered during his job interview that made him really want the job he has:
"if the company is what everybody on the outside thinks it is then I get unfettered access...and if its not as dark as what people think it is then you have just stumbled upon one of the greatest problems of our age which is a really misunderstood company that is producing important technology that really has world changing impact that people really misunderstand"
I always wondered, how is it that people get so enamored with Apple and its great products or embrace hybrid car technology, self driving cars, or pay premiums for food at Chipotle and Whole Foods because they think they are doing great things for the environment while shunning Monsanto and all of its technologies which are basically cutting edge green technologies (see links below). One thing they discussed in the podcast (my description not their words) was that historically the Monsanto that catered to yesterday's agriculture and had an obvious focus on its customer core, farmers, but did not really market to or emphasize outreach to consumers. I think that is an important and informing observation to make. And I think the solution going forward is a gate to plate strategy of communication, outreach, and transparency to help consumers at all levels better understand the transformation that is going on with modern sustainable agriculture.
See also:
Shark Farmer Podcast
The Biotech Story: As told in the literature
The Convergence of Big Data and Genomics in Agriculture
Not Your Grandparent's Monoculture
Hybrid Corn vs Hybrid Cars
With the convergence of big data and genomics, row crop agriculture is transforming. Its not your grandparent's monoculture anymore. Companies like Monsanto are both positioning themselves to compete in this new environment and playing a major role in the transformation.
Recently I discussed an interview on the Closing Market Report with Robb Fraley, Chief Technology Officer at Monsanto and the kind of people they are hiring to help lead this transformation.
One challenge is, have those that have spent the last decade nostalgically and critically looking back at the way we used to do things missed this transformation? Will they be willing to embrace its benefits going forward.
This may be part of what Vance Crowe, Director of Millennial Engagement at Monsanto is trying to address in his role. Recently I discovered the Shark Farmer podcast, and Crowe was a guest in one of the archived episodes. One part of the conversation really got me interested. Here Vance is describing the challenge that he discovered during his job interview that made him really want the job he has:
"if the company is what everybody on the outside thinks it is then I get unfettered access...and if its not as dark as what people think it is then you have just stumbled upon one of the greatest problems of our age which is a really misunderstood company that is producing important technology that really has world changing impact that people really misunderstand"
I always wondered, how is it that people get so enamored with Apple and its great products or embrace hybrid car technology, self driving cars, or pay premiums for food at Chipotle and Whole Foods because they think they are doing great things for the environment while shunning Monsanto and all of its technologies which are basically cutting edge green technologies (see links below). One thing they discussed in the podcast (my description not their words) was that historically the Monsanto that catered to yesterday's agriculture and had an obvious focus on its customer core, farmers, but did not really market to or emphasize outreach to consumers. I think that is an important and informing observation to make. And I think the solution going forward is a gate to plate strategy of communication, outreach, and transparency to help consumers at all levels better understand the transformation that is going on with modern sustainable agriculture.
See also:
Shark Farmer Podcast
The Biotech Story: As told in the literature
The Convergence of Big Data and Genomics in Agriculture
Not Your Grandparent's Monoculture
Hybrid Corn vs Hybrid Cars
Thursday, February 23, 2017
Comments on Rules for Gene-Editing Technology
From the literature:
“We found that the improvement of a plant variety through the acquisition of a new desired trait, using either mutagenesis or transgenesis, may cause stress and thus lead to an altered expression of untargeted genes. In all of the cases studied, the observed alteration was more extensive in mutagenized than in transgenic plants” - (Batista, et al; 2008)
So what are the implications of this? Currently the FDA is accepting public comments related to genome editing in new plant varieties used for foods. https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FDA-2016-N-4389-0001
Gene editing represents an opportunity to move forward with advanced technologies to sustainably feed the planet without the same regulatory hurdles that make development costs for transgenic plant varieties (aka GMO) up to 20x greater than conventionally bred plants(Conko and Miller, 2003). 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. Gene edited plants are not ‘gmo’ in the manner that the term has traditionally been used (or misused) by regulatory proponents, and in fact are just as natural as their organically approved counterparts in terms of their development. However they stand out in very important and positive ways.
The article above (see also Baudo et al; 2006) does not specifically address gene edited plants, while it does indicate that genomic disruptions are greater in mutagenic plants vs standard transgenic plants. (one common argument for increased regulation related to transgenic crops has been based on the concern that the introduction of new genes can have unknown consequences and genomic disruptions are one way of characterizing this*) With greater disruptions, one might favor increased regulatory scrutiny similar to the existing framework in place for transgenics. However, we do not have a framework in place for mutagenically improved crop varieties that have been safely used for decades and approved by the organic food industry as well as consumers. Because both mutagenic and gene edited technologies represent similar in-genome approaches to crop improvement, this in fact argues against additional regulation for both mutagenic and gene edited plants, or it begs for the possibility of a revision of the existing regulatory framework for transgenics.
The benefits of gene editing technology offer far greater option value* than either conventional and organic mutagenically improved or even traditional ‘GMO’ or transgenic crops while the risks to human health and the environment are equally minimal. To impose new costly regulations on gene-edited plants would be to create huge hurdles for the development of next generation green technologies in food and fiber production in the United States and have significant environmental, public, and personal health implications for the rest of the world.
References:
Batista R, Saibo N, Lourenço T, Oliveira MM. Microarray analyses reveal that
plant mutagenesis may induce more transcriptomic changes than transgene
insertion. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 Mar 4;105(9):3640-5. doi:
10.1073/pnas.0707881105. PubMed PMID: 18303117; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2265136
Baudo MM, Lyons R, Powers S, Pastori GM, Edwards KJ, Holdsworth MJ, Shewry PR. (2006). Transgenesis has less impact on the transcriptome of wheat grain than conventional breeding. Plant Biotechnol J. 2006 Jul;4(4):369-80
Henry Miller and Gregory Conko. Bootleggers and Biotechs. Regulation. Summer 2003
*this post has been modified to better clarify some posited arguments some have made for regulation of genetically modifed crop plants as well as to express the potential option value that gene editing might provide in addition to previously existing technologies. Special thanks to input via twitter from @CosmicHominid for constructive input
“We found that the improvement of a plant variety through the acquisition of a new desired trait, using either mutagenesis or transgenesis, may cause stress and thus lead to an altered expression of untargeted genes. In all of the cases studied, the observed alteration was more extensive in mutagenized than in transgenic plants” - (Batista, et al; 2008)
So what are the implications of this? Currently the FDA is accepting public comments related to genome editing in new plant varieties used for foods. https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FDA-2016-N-4389-0001
Gene editing represents an opportunity to move forward with advanced technologies to sustainably feed the planet without the same regulatory hurdles that make development costs for transgenic plant varieties (aka GMO) up to 20x greater than conventionally bred plants(Conko and Miller, 2003). 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. Gene edited plants are not ‘gmo’ in the manner that the term has traditionally been used (or misused) by regulatory proponents, and in fact are just as natural as their organically approved counterparts in terms of their development. However they stand out in very important and positive ways.
The article above (see also Baudo et al; 2006) does not specifically address gene edited plants, while it does indicate that genomic disruptions are greater in mutagenic plants vs standard transgenic plants. (one common argument for increased regulation related to transgenic crops has been based on the concern that the introduction of new genes can have unknown consequences and genomic disruptions are one way of characterizing this*) With greater disruptions, one might favor increased regulatory scrutiny similar to the existing framework in place for transgenics. However, we do not have a framework in place for mutagenically improved crop varieties that have been safely used for decades and approved by the organic food industry as well as consumers. Because both mutagenic and gene edited technologies represent similar in-genome approaches to crop improvement, this in fact argues against additional regulation for both mutagenic and gene edited plants, or it begs for the possibility of a revision of the existing regulatory framework for transgenics.
The benefits of gene editing technology offer far greater option value* than either conventional and organic mutagenically improved or even traditional ‘GMO’ or transgenic crops while the risks to human health and the environment are equally minimal. To impose new costly regulations on gene-edited plants would be to create huge hurdles for the development of next generation green technologies in food and fiber production in the United States and have significant environmental, public, and personal health implications for the rest of the world.
References:
Batista R, Saibo N, Lourenço T, Oliveira MM. Microarray analyses reveal that
plant mutagenesis may induce more transcriptomic changes than transgene
insertion. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 Mar 4;105(9):3640-5. doi:
10.1073/pnas.0707881105. PubMed PMID: 18303117; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2265136
Baudo MM, Lyons R, Powers S, Pastori GM, Edwards KJ, Holdsworth MJ, Shewry PR. (2006). Transgenesis has less impact on the transcriptome of wheat grain than conventional breeding. Plant Biotechnol J. 2006 Jul;4(4):369-80
Henry Miller and Gregory Conko. Bootleggers and Biotechs. Regulation. Summer 2003
*this post has been modified to better clarify some posited arguments some have made for regulation of genetically modifed crop plants as well as to express the potential option value that gene editing might provide in addition to previously existing technologies. Special thanks to input via twitter from @CosmicHominid for constructive input
Transforming a Company for a New Kind of Agriculture (WillAg closing market report w/Robb Fraley))
Last week there was an interesting interview on the closing market report with Robb Fraley, Chief Technology Officer at Monsanto. The discussion related to possible future spending on R&D related to the potential merger with Bayer. Some interesting comparisons were made between R&D spending by Monsanto vs other research intensive industries like Samsung and Apple and pharma. The takeaway is that the combined company would have more resources to invest, and based on what is spent on R&D in other sectors there is a lot of untapped opportunity here that the combined companies could take advantage of.
I would love to know how much is spent on regulatory compliance given the extreme overkill in this area related to biotech making transgenic varieties cost as much as 20X more to develop vs conventional technologies. I'd like to know direct costs and indirect compliance costs in terms of lost revenue due to delays in approvals etc. One would wonder how much better these companies could serve the industry if those resources could be re-allocated to more productive R&D?
But to me the interesting question related to what kind of people are they looking to hire going forward? The answer included people working in or studying data science, engineers, mathematicians, statisticians. This is not a surprise to anyone following the industry, but its indicative of the kind of company that Monsanto has transformed and is transforming into. The phrase that stuck with me most was "breeding gene by gene and farming plant by plant".
The future direction, merger or not, is the integration of agronomy, bioechemistry, molecular biology, and data science to develop new products, solutions, and services that serve producers, consumers, and the planet as a whole. This is what I have written about before in terms of the convergence of big ag, genomics, and big data.
And this means more choices and opportunities going forward:
"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. 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." - From Big Data + Genomics ≠ Your Grandparent's Monoculture
References:
http://will.illinois.edu/closingmarketreport/program/feb-16-closing-market-report
Henry Miller and Gregory Conko. 'Bootleggers and Biotechs.' Regulation. Summer 2003
I would love to know how much is spent on regulatory compliance given the extreme overkill in this area related to biotech making transgenic varieties cost as much as 20X more to develop vs conventional technologies. I'd like to know direct costs and indirect compliance costs in terms of lost revenue due to delays in approvals etc. One would wonder how much better these companies could serve the industry if those resources could be re-allocated to more productive R&D?
But to me the interesting question related to what kind of people are they looking to hire going forward? The answer included people working in or studying data science, engineers, mathematicians, statisticians. This is not a surprise to anyone following the industry, but its indicative of the kind of company that Monsanto has transformed and is transforming into. The phrase that stuck with me most was "breeding gene by gene and farming plant by plant".
The future direction, merger or not, is the integration of agronomy, bioechemistry, molecular biology, and data science to develop new products, solutions, and services that serve producers, consumers, and the planet as a whole. This is what I have written about before in terms of the convergence of big ag, genomics, and big data.
And this means more choices and opportunities going forward:
"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. 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." - From Big Data + Genomics ≠ Your Grandparent's Monoculture
References:
http://will.illinois.edu/closingmarketreport/program/feb-16-closing-market-report
Henry Miller and Gregory Conko. 'Bootleggers and Biotechs.' Regulation. Summer 2003
Tuesday, February 21, 2017
The Biotech Story: As told in the scientific literature
Has biotechnology lived up to its promises? What were the ‘promises’ of
biotechnology? Does genetic engineering present food safety risks
greater than conventional plant breeding methods? These are
controversial questions. There is one version of the story that
indicates that biotechnology has not lived up to so called promises
expressed by critics and creates risks to the environment and consumers.
However the story that we find in the scientific literature tells us
that biotechnology in crop production and applications in the livestock
industry is just as safe or safer than traditional technologies,
promotes biodiversity, reduces the levels and toxicity of herbicides and
pesticides used in row crop production, improves food safety, and
reduces our carbon footprint. This annotated review of key scientific
papers from sources including The Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, Science, Nature Biotechnology, Crop Science, Ecological
Economics, and others tells this story.
Matt Bogard. "The biotech story: as told in the scientific literature" (2017)
Available at: http://works.bepress.com/matt_bogard/35/
See also: Modern Sustainable Agriculture (video)
Matt Bogard. "The biotech story: as told in the scientific literature" (2017)
Available at: http://works.bepress.com/matt_bogard/35/
See also: Modern Sustainable Agriculture (video)
Tuesday, February 07, 2017
The progressive way to deny climate change
Julie Kelly makes an interesting point with this question:
"who are the real deniers: those who are reasonably skeptical about climate change or those who give lots of lip service to it while living a lifestyle totally inimical to every tenet of the climate change creed?"
A different but related argument is given by Steve Horwitz:
“It is perfectly possible to accept the science of global warming but reject the policies most often put forward to combat it. One can think humans are causing the planet to warm but logically and humanely conclude that we should do nothing about it. In fact, those who think they can go directly from science to policy are, as it turns out, engaged in denial”
This is not that different from what I have argued before. To me this is the fundamental problem of climate change:
Without being able to accurately predict future damages, or discount them to evaluate them in today's dollars, it's hard to value future climate related gains that today's sacrifices (driving less or smaller or hybrid cars, switching from coal fired electricity to natural gas or solar, changing our diet or other lifestyle changes, lost income or returns from capital investment etc.) will buy. In other words it's hard to know to what extent it makes any sense to do anything about climate change.
Bringing these perspectives together, some of the most ardent proponents of doing something about climate change based on 'science' are in denial about real world workable solutions:
Unfortunately, many of the same people so vocal about adopting policies based on the so called science of climate change (taxes, permits, dietary restrictions, regulations etc.) are also many of the same people that would restrict us (via GMO labeling laws, bans, strict limitations on hormone and antibiotic use, demonization of LFTB via derogatory terms like 'pink slime' etc.) from doing the very things that would have the greatest positive impact on our climate and environment.
So it seems we have some people that want to as Steve says, jump straight from the science to policy and skip over asking the hard questions or making a critical case for it. At the same time they are they are ignoring real world workable solutions, which are in fact based on solid science, if not actually trying to block them. For progressives of this flavor its not about science, its about invoking the name and prestige of science to override other people's choices while being in denial about rigorous evidence to support their position.
See also:
Doing Nothing: A science based policy prescription for climate change
Facts, Alternative Facts, Evidence, and Marching for Science
Science + Economics = Sound Policy
"who are the real deniers: those who are reasonably skeptical about climate change or those who give lots of lip service to it while living a lifestyle totally inimical to every tenet of the climate change creed?"
A different but related argument is given by Steve Horwitz:
“It is perfectly possible to accept the science of global warming but reject the policies most often put forward to combat it. One can think humans are causing the planet to warm but logically and humanely conclude that we should do nothing about it. In fact, those who think they can go directly from science to policy are, as it turns out, engaged in denial”
This is not that different from what I have argued before. To me this is the fundamental problem of climate change:
Without being able to accurately predict future damages, or discount them to evaluate them in today's dollars, it's hard to value future climate related gains that today's sacrifices (driving less or smaller or hybrid cars, switching from coal fired electricity to natural gas or solar, changing our diet or other lifestyle changes, lost income or returns from capital investment etc.) will buy. In other words it's hard to know to what extent it makes any sense to do anything about climate change.
Bringing these perspectives together, some of the most ardent proponents of doing something about climate change based on 'science' are in denial about real world workable solutions:
Unfortunately, many of the same people so vocal about adopting policies based on the so called science of climate change (taxes, permits, dietary restrictions, regulations etc.) are also many of the same people that would restrict us (via GMO labeling laws, bans, strict limitations on hormone and antibiotic use, demonization of LFTB via derogatory terms like 'pink slime' etc.) from doing the very things that would have the greatest positive impact on our climate and environment.
So it seems we have some people that want to as Steve says, jump straight from the science to policy and skip over asking the hard questions or making a critical case for it. At the same time they are they are ignoring real world workable solutions, which are in fact based on solid science, if not actually trying to block them. For progressives of this flavor its not about science, its about invoking the name and prestige of science to override other people's choices while being in denial about rigorous evidence to support their position.
See also:
Doing Nothing: A science based policy prescription for climate change
Facts, Alternative Facts, Evidence, and Marching for Science
Science + Economics = Sound Policy
Saturday, January 28, 2017
Facts, Alternative Facts, Evidence, and Marching for Science
From:
Scientists planning their own march in Washington (CNN Politics)
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/25/politics/scientists-march-dc-trnd/index.html
"There are certain things that we accept as facts with no alternatives," according to the site. "The Earth is becoming warmer due to human action. The diversity of life arose by evolution. ... An American government that ignores science to pursue ideological agendas endangers the world."
While I could not agree more with this, one thing that concerns me especially since this last election is the extreme emphasis given to isolated facts vs critical thinking and evidence. Ideological agendas thrive on isolated facts. The real danger as economist Thomas Sowell points out in some of his writings is when an American government invokes the name and prestige of science to override other people's choices.
Take for example the following "facts" we often hear from activists in the agriculture space.:
1) Over the last two decades we have seen increased plantings of "GMO" crops resistant to roundup as well as weeds resistant to roundup herbicide.
2) GMOs have lead to increased use of chemicals in agriculture and that increases risks to health and the environment.
3) Industrial scale farms get subsidies from government to grow mostly monocrops of corn and soybeans which are primary ingredients going into cheap unhealthy foods at the same time we are seeing an obesity epidemic
And this fact from the article above:
4) The Earth is becoming warmer due to human action.
One could take these "facts" and then lobby for policies to address all of these concerns including increased regulation, carbon taxes, changing farm subsidies, labeling laws, or taxing foods. In every case we are pushing an agenda to override the choices of millions in the name of science, based on "facts". But there is a big difference between facts and evidence that supports one policy or another. When we consider each of these facts in the proper context, when we begin to think critically instead of ideologically, science based policy becomes something different. For instance, we know that roundup (or glyphosate) has largely replaced other chemicals much more toxic and persistent in the environment (USDA, 2000). We also know that monoculture and its implications for genetic diversity and sustainability are quite different than what popular stigmas imply. And finally, the links between farm subsidies, commodity crops and obesity are very very frail when we look at the actual impact these policies have on food prices or even the potential for things like soda taxes. But what about climate change? If we are going to make progress here we have to accept that it does not make one a climate change denier to understand that our response to climate change also has to be based on facts and evidence held to the same level of rigor and scrutiny as the science supporting its existence.
Economics teaches us that the world is complicated. There are numerous facts and details to consider when trying to solve a problem. While it is certainly bad for governments to deny the truthfulness of established facts based on sound science, we must also understand how to make sense of them. Economics provides a theory for deciding which facts are central and which are periphreal.* To quote Paul Heyne, Boettke, and David Prychiko in their text the economic way of thinking (10th ed) "we can observe facts but it takes a theory to explain causes. It takes theory to weed out the irrelevant facts from the relevant ones".
As I stated before economics can put science, good or bad, into a context relevant to the things we really care about.
So while I support a march for science and appreciate the driving concerns around politicians efforts to muzzle science, at the end of the day lets emphasize critical thinking and sound theory over isolated facts and talking points. While the "facts" stated in the article may have no alternatives, there are numerous alternatives with regard to the policies so called purveyors of truth may have in mind to address them. These policies imply numerous margins and tradeoffs to be considered. Only critical thinking, evidence, and sound theory can help us find the best path among many for addressing these issues. Economics provides mathematically precise theories and empirically sound methods that together provide a rigorous policy analysis framework for addressing these problems.
Isolated facts grounded in the truth of science but devoid of critical thinking about causal relationships and policy tradeoffs can be just as dangerous and little better than alternative facts that deny the truth of science.
It's probably also true that the truth of science can risk losing ground to alternative facts if not properly communicated. We know this when it comes to alternative facts about biotechnology that currently drive the snake oil marketing practices of many food companies and lobbying for related policies.
From what I can tell the March for Science is nonpartisan and its more about freedom of speech and science communication than taking a stance on one policy vs another, so I don't think they are attempting to recruit activists for one policy vs another. But the march for science could present an awesome opportunity for science communication about many of the issues in agriculture related to biotechnology, genomics, technology, and modern production practices that so often come under the radar of activists, politicians, and the media. Or, at least the chance to segway into conversation.
See also:
Diversity in Agricultural Production
Modern Sustainable Agriculture - Video with Annotated Bibliography
Genetically Engineered Crops: Has Adoption Reduced Pesticide Use? Agricultural Outlook ERS/USDA Aug 2000
*taken from Alan Stockman, Introduction to Marcoeconomics. 2nd Edition.
Left vs Right vs Propensity to Regulate http://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2016/06/left-vs-right-science-vs-risk-vs.html
Fat Tails, the Precautionary Principle and GMOS http://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2015/01/fat-tails-precautionary-principle-and.html
Scientists planning their own march in Washington (CNN Politics)
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/25/politics/scientists-march-dc-trnd/index.html
"There are certain things that we accept as facts with no alternatives," according to the site. "The Earth is becoming warmer due to human action. The diversity of life arose by evolution. ... An American government that ignores science to pursue ideological agendas endangers the world."
While I could not agree more with this, one thing that concerns me especially since this last election is the extreme emphasis given to isolated facts vs critical thinking and evidence. Ideological agendas thrive on isolated facts. The real danger as economist Thomas Sowell points out in some of his writings is when an American government invokes the name and prestige of science to override other people's choices.
Take for example the following "facts" we often hear from activists in the agriculture space.:
1) Over the last two decades we have seen increased plantings of "GMO" crops resistant to roundup as well as weeds resistant to roundup herbicide.
2) GMOs have lead to increased use of chemicals in agriculture and that increases risks to health and the environment.
3) Industrial scale farms get subsidies from government to grow mostly monocrops of corn and soybeans which are primary ingredients going into cheap unhealthy foods at the same time we are seeing an obesity epidemic
And this fact from the article above:
4) The Earth is becoming warmer due to human action.
One could take these "facts" and then lobby for policies to address all of these concerns including increased regulation, carbon taxes, changing farm subsidies, labeling laws, or taxing foods. In every case we are pushing an agenda to override the choices of millions in the name of science, based on "facts". But there is a big difference between facts and evidence that supports one policy or another. When we consider each of these facts in the proper context, when we begin to think critically instead of ideologically, science based policy becomes something different. For instance, we know that roundup (or glyphosate) has largely replaced other chemicals much more toxic and persistent in the environment (USDA, 2000). We also know that monoculture and its implications for genetic diversity and sustainability are quite different than what popular stigmas imply. And finally, the links between farm subsidies, commodity crops and obesity are very very frail when we look at the actual impact these policies have on food prices or even the potential for things like soda taxes. But what about climate change? If we are going to make progress here we have to accept that it does not make one a climate change denier to understand that our response to climate change also has to be based on facts and evidence held to the same level of rigor and scrutiny as the science supporting its existence.
Economics teaches us that the world is complicated. There are numerous facts and details to consider when trying to solve a problem. While it is certainly bad for governments to deny the truthfulness of established facts based on sound science, we must also understand how to make sense of them. Economics provides a theory for deciding which facts are central and which are periphreal.* To quote Paul Heyne, Boettke, and David Prychiko in their text the economic way of thinking (10th ed) "we can observe facts but it takes a theory to explain causes. It takes theory to weed out the irrelevant facts from the relevant ones".
As I stated before economics can put science, good or bad, into a context relevant to the things we really care about.
So while I support a march for science and appreciate the driving concerns around politicians efforts to muzzle science, at the end of the day lets emphasize critical thinking and sound theory over isolated facts and talking points. While the "facts" stated in the article may have no alternatives, there are numerous alternatives with regard to the policies so called purveyors of truth may have in mind to address them. These policies imply numerous margins and tradeoffs to be considered. Only critical thinking, evidence, and sound theory can help us find the best path among many for addressing these issues. Economics provides mathematically precise theories and empirically sound methods that together provide a rigorous policy analysis framework for addressing these problems.
Isolated facts grounded in the truth of science but devoid of critical thinking about causal relationships and policy tradeoffs can be just as dangerous and little better than alternative facts that deny the truth of science.
It's probably also true that the truth of science can risk losing ground to alternative facts if not properly communicated. We know this when it comes to alternative facts about biotechnology that currently drive the snake oil marketing practices of many food companies and lobbying for related policies.
From what I can tell the March for Science is nonpartisan and its more about freedom of speech and science communication than taking a stance on one policy vs another, so I don't think they are attempting to recruit activists for one policy vs another. But the march for science could present an awesome opportunity for science communication about many of the issues in agriculture related to biotechnology, genomics, technology, and modern production practices that so often come under the radar of activists, politicians, and the media. Or, at least the chance to segway into conversation.
See also:
Diversity in Agricultural Production
Modern Sustainable Agriculture - Video with Annotated Bibliography
Genetically Engineered Crops: Has Adoption Reduced Pesticide Use? Agricultural Outlook ERS/USDA Aug 2000
*taken from Alan Stockman, Introduction to Marcoeconomics. 2nd Edition.
Left vs Right vs Propensity to Regulate http://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2016/06/left-vs-right-science-vs-risk-vs.html
Fat Tails, the Precautionary Principle and GMOS http://ageconomist.blogspot.com/2015/01/fat-tails-precautionary-principle-and.html
Saturday, August 20, 2016
GMOs and QR Codes: Consumers need more than a label they need a learning path
I recently came across an article in national geographic about the new GMO labeling compromise that I thought was well written:
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/people-and-culture/food/the-plate/2016/07/gmo-label/
The article asks:
"But what good is a label if people don't know what it means?"
That's the point...a blatant politically charged label with direct language or terms like "genetically engineered" is meaningless. I've discussed before how this can increase information asymmetry (i.e.consumer confusion).
One thing the article discusses is the huge gap in the science related to biotechnology and consumer knowledge and perceptions (something I have been studying since graduate school):
"Despite thousands of scientific studies, support from the World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, and the National Academy of Sciences, and, most recently, the concerted advocacy of 107 concerned Nobel laureates, the bulk of the public remains firmly convinced that GMOs are at best undesirable and at worst, downright dangerous. In other words, to the majority of Americans, a GMO label on a can of corn might as well be a skull-and-crossbones. What we’ve got here is a gaping divide between reputable scientific research and public perception. Unfounded GMO fear-mongering is doing us, as a planet, more harm than good."
There is huge burden on the consumer in terms of understanding complex modern agriculture. Earlier in the article there is some criticism of the currently proposed labeling paradigm:
"The federally approved warning label can consist of a QR (Quick Response) code, accessible by smartphone, or an 800 number that customers can call for information. These alternatives are not immediately helpful, and require time and effort on the part of consumers, many burdened with long grocery lists and fractious toddlers."
But given the huge gap in information I'm not sure there is any label that can be immediately helpful. The last thing we need is a shortcut label with confusing language like "genetically modified" that information economizing consumers will just interpret as a skull and cross-bones and move on. That approach is no better. It may in fact be the case that the QR code, if implemented properly may be the best way to attempt to fill that gap. It accomplishes a couple important things:
1) It can provide full disclosure and transparency
2) For consumers that truly want to understand what is in their food, it *can* potentially provide a learning path that helps fill this gap of knowledge from farm to fork
As I understand it, the details around the content and format of information related to QR codes is yet to be decided. I think a few things are necessary to make this work.
First, if this issue is important enough to be addressed FEDERALLY with a national labeling standard, then lets make this work for all food. Maybe require in some format that all foods that fall under this legislation have a "more information" section and a QR code, not just foods that contain so called "genetically engineered" ingredients. If a label with a QR code becomes a proxy indicator for GMOs, that will defeat the whole purpose of an effort genuinely designed to inform the consumer. After all there are lots of approaches to food production out there- conventional breeding and hybridization, recombinant DNA, mutagenic approaches, and on the horizon CRISPR cas technology (HT: John Phipps).
Second, what should the 'landing page' look like for a QR code? What kind of information should it contain and how should it be presented? This is where the government needs to elicit the help of experts in science and communication. I am not sure, but I propose a learning path. Before saying anything about how a specific food product was produced, the consumer should quickly and effectively be exposed to a summary or survey of the many ways plants and animals are modified in agriculture to produce the foods we have today. (again conentional breeding/selection/hybridization/mutagenic/recombinant/CRISPR cas9/fermentation/cheese cultures etc.). Also they should be informed about the safety, regulations etc. about these technologies and the consensus views of groups like World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, and the National Academy of Sciences etc.
Finally they should be informed about the specifics of the food they are considering to purchase. All of this info can be standardized and used as stock for all food products, with more specific information for each food product detailed at the end of the 'learning path.' Maybe this could all be accomplished with a video or interactive infographic. But I firmly believe that a more comprehensive universal learning path approach like this is the most honest and transparent way to inform consumers about current and new technologies on the horizon and their safety and benefits. Not some politically loaded unscientific term like "genetically engineered" or "genetically modified."
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/people-and-culture/food/the-plate/2016/07/gmo-label/
The article asks:
"But what good is a label if people don't know what it means?"
That's the point...a blatant politically charged label with direct language or terms like "genetically engineered" is meaningless. I've discussed before how this can increase information asymmetry (i.e.consumer confusion).
One thing the article discusses is the huge gap in the science related to biotechnology and consumer knowledge and perceptions (something I have been studying since graduate school):
"Despite thousands of scientific studies, support from the World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, and the National Academy of Sciences, and, most recently, the concerted advocacy of 107 concerned Nobel laureates, the bulk of the public remains firmly convinced that GMOs are at best undesirable and at worst, downright dangerous. In other words, to the majority of Americans, a GMO label on a can of corn might as well be a skull-and-crossbones. What we’ve got here is a gaping divide between reputable scientific research and public perception. Unfounded GMO fear-mongering is doing us, as a planet, more harm than good."
There is huge burden on the consumer in terms of understanding complex modern agriculture. Earlier in the article there is some criticism of the currently proposed labeling paradigm:
"The federally approved warning label can consist of a QR (Quick Response) code, accessible by smartphone, or an 800 number that customers can call for information. These alternatives are not immediately helpful, and require time and effort on the part of consumers, many burdened with long grocery lists and fractious toddlers."
But given the huge gap in information I'm not sure there is any label that can be immediately helpful. The last thing we need is a shortcut label with confusing language like "genetically modified" that information economizing consumers will just interpret as a skull and cross-bones and move on. That approach is no better. It may in fact be the case that the QR code, if implemented properly may be the best way to attempt to fill that gap. It accomplishes a couple important things:
1) It can provide full disclosure and transparency
2) For consumers that truly want to understand what is in their food, it *can* potentially provide a learning path that helps fill this gap of knowledge from farm to fork
As I understand it, the details around the content and format of information related to QR codes is yet to be decided. I think a few things are necessary to make this work.
First, if this issue is important enough to be addressed FEDERALLY with a national labeling standard, then lets make this work for all food. Maybe require in some format that all foods that fall under this legislation have a "more information" section and a QR code, not just foods that contain so called "genetically engineered" ingredients. If a label with a QR code becomes a proxy indicator for GMOs, that will defeat the whole purpose of an effort genuinely designed to inform the consumer. After all there are lots of approaches to food production out there- conventional breeding and hybridization, recombinant DNA, mutagenic approaches, and on the horizon CRISPR cas technology (HT: John Phipps).
Second, what should the 'landing page' look like for a QR code? What kind of information should it contain and how should it be presented? This is where the government needs to elicit the help of experts in science and communication. I am not sure, but I propose a learning path. Before saying anything about how a specific food product was produced, the consumer should quickly and effectively be exposed to a summary or survey of the many ways plants and animals are modified in agriculture to produce the foods we have today. (again conentional breeding/selection/hybridization/mutagenic/recombinant/CRISPR cas9/fermentation/cheese cultures etc.). Also they should be informed about the safety, regulations etc. about these technologies and the consensus views of groups like World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, and the National Academy of Sciences etc.
Finally they should be informed about the specifics of the food they are considering to purchase. All of this info can be standardized and used as stock for all food products, with more specific information for each food product detailed at the end of the 'learning path.' Maybe this could all be accomplished with a video or interactive infographic. But I firmly believe that a more comprehensive universal learning path approach like this is the most honest and transparent way to inform consumers about current and new technologies on the horizon and their safety and benefits. Not some politically loaded unscientific term like "genetically engineered" or "genetically modified."
Tuesday, August 16, 2016
An Econometric and Game Theoretic Analysis of Producer and Consumer Preferences Toward Agricultural Biotechnology
It is no secret these days that there are anti-biotech activists that reject the science related to the safety and benefits of biotechnology but yet have no issues accepting the science related to climate change or other fields. In my early days, back in graduate school I hypothesized that beliefs about the safety of biotechnology were more related or driven by political constructs than knowledge or acceptance of science itself. This was crude (I wish I had the floppy with the actual paper...and a drive to read it) but my general findings were that those that believed in climate change or were supportive of stem cell research were less likely (45-50% less using the divide by 4 rule for marginal effects) to believe in the safety of biotech foods.
Of course this work had some drawbacks, including small sample size and power. But also, after a few years on the job and working on a limited basis with structural equation modeling, there are more powerful methods I could have used looking at these effects. But I think it was an interesting preliminary finding that seems to still hold true almost a decade later.
See also:
Perceptions of GMO Foods: A Hypothetical Application of SEM
Left vs Right Science vs Risk vs Propensity to Regulate
Monsantophobia Explained
Reference:
Matt Bogard. "An Econometric and Game Theoretic Analysis of Producer and Consumer Preferences Toward Agricultural Biotechnology" Western Kentucky University (2005)
Available at: http://works.bepress.com/matt_bogard/31/
Abstract:
Of course this work had some drawbacks, including small sample size and power. But also, after a few years on the job and working on a limited basis with structural equation modeling, there are more powerful methods I could have used looking at these effects. But I think it was an interesting preliminary finding that seems to still hold true almost a decade later.
See also:
Perceptions of GMO Foods: A Hypothetical Application of SEM
Left vs Right Science vs Risk vs Propensity to Regulate
Monsantophobia Explained
Reference:
Matt Bogard. "An Econometric and Game Theoretic Analysis of Producer and Consumer Preferences Toward Agricultural Biotechnology" Western Kentucky University (2005)
Available at: http://works.bepress.com/matt_bogard/31/
Abstract:
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, food safety, and climate change. However, perceptions of the
safety of recombinant DNA technology on the part of consumers and
management decisions by producers can shape the policy environment in
ways that may inhibit expanded use of biotech traits in agriculture.
This presentation presents a summary of results from an econometric and
game theoretic analysis of consumer perceptions and producer decisions
as they relate to agricultural biotechnology.
Submitted in partial fulfillment of AGRI 597 Independent Study/Special Problems in Agriculture.
Wednesday, July 06, 2016
CRISPR Technology
A nice article related to CRISPR technology and an application with waxy corn in a recent DTN article:
https://www.dtnpf.com/agriculture/web/ag/news/article/2016/06/17/gene-editing-comes-agriculture
A very nice description of CRISPR technology:
"The letters CRISPR stand for "clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats," that is, snippets of DNA….They work as part of the bacteria's defense system, in partnership with a group of special, DNA-cutting Cas ("Crispr-associated") proteins and RNA molecules….When viruses invade, the bacterial CRISPR-Cas copies DNA sequences from the virus and saves this information as a short CRISPR repeat -- a sort of molecular mug shot. When that virus invades again, these repeats are remobilized as RNA molecules, which recognize the virus DNA sequence and guide the CRISPR complex to it. There, the Cas protein snips the offending DNA sequence out, disabling the virus."
"Using a specific protein, Cas9, researchers are now using this CRISPR complex to target specific genes in the genome of plants, animals and even humans. The RNA guides the CRISPR complex to the gene sequence in question, and Cas9 cuts it out. Researchers can leave the DNA to heal on its own or they can insert a desired gene in its place."
The article goes on to discuss the regulatory environment and applications related to a new variety of waxy corn in the development pipeline for Pioneer.
https://www.dtnpf.com/agriculture/web/ag/news/article/2016/06/17/gene-editing-comes-agriculture
A very nice description of CRISPR technology:
"The letters CRISPR stand for "clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats," that is, snippets of DNA….They work as part of the bacteria's defense system, in partnership with a group of special, DNA-cutting Cas ("Crispr-associated") proteins and RNA molecules….When viruses invade, the bacterial CRISPR-Cas copies DNA sequences from the virus and saves this information as a short CRISPR repeat -- a sort of molecular mug shot. When that virus invades again, these repeats are remobilized as RNA molecules, which recognize the virus DNA sequence and guide the CRISPR complex to it. There, the Cas protein snips the offending DNA sequence out, disabling the virus."
"Using a specific protein, Cas9, researchers are now using this CRISPR complex to target specific genes in the genome of plants, animals and even humans. The RNA guides the CRISPR complex to the gene sequence in question, and Cas9 cuts it out. Researchers can leave the DNA to heal on its own or they can insert a desired gene in its place."
The article goes on to discuss the regulatory environment and applications related to a new variety of waxy corn in the development pipeline for Pioneer.
Saturday, June 04, 2016
Left vs Right Science vs Risk vs Propensity to Regulate
Jayson Lusk has an interesting post on his blog related to an article in the Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics finding an interesting relationship between left leaning voters and their willingness to support GMO labeling initiatives:
“One distinction, which I think is missing, is the greater willingness of those on the left to regulate on economic issues, such as GMOs, than those on the right. Stated differently, there are questions of science: what are the risks of climate change or eating GMOs. And then there are more normative questions: given said risk, what should we do about it? Even if the left and the right agreed on the level of risk, I don’t think we should expect agreement on political action.”
If I understand this correctly, I think this implies that if both those on the left and right agreed that there was some 'day after tomorrow' scenario (in terms of climate change) that warranted some type of government intervention, and they agreed that the science says there is a 3% chance of it happening without the intervention, then those on the right might object to the intervention for that given level of risk while a more left leaning person would support it. A right leaning person might suggest more market based alternatives or taking the gamble. But perhaps if the risk were higher, they might support doing more. In other words there might be different thresholds for the level of risk required to support a given policy interventions across the political spectrum.
Of course, the scientific consensus on climate change may not really even be strong enough to know for sure, i.e. the science isn't settled on exactly what scenarios are likely to play out and the probabilities that they will occur. There's a lot of science to support a wide range of probabilities and scenarios based on a number of assumptions. (see here, here, here, and here). So really, I think even the science, risk, and potential outcomes or scenarios are largely based on perceptions and these might actually differ significantly across the political spectrum. Maybe its really about perceived risk.
Just thinking about this a little more what if we specified a model of preferences toward government intervention like that below (this is more an illustration than a serious attempt to look at this empirically):
Pr(SUPPORT POLICY) = B0 + B1 PERCEIVED RISK + B2 KNOWLEDGE
So if we estimated simple linear probability models as specified above for democrats and republicans (as short hand for political preferences) according to the story line above B1 would be higher for democrats than republicans. (I'm ignoring the use of interaction terms on purpose for simplicity) I wonder if this would also be true for B2, for a given level of knowledge, would B2 be higher for democrats/liberals? I also wonder if PERCIEVED RISK is really a function of KNOWLEDGE? Maybe a different specification would look something like:
Pr(SUPPORT POLICY) = B0 + B1 PERCEIVED RISK(KNOWLEDGE)
where PERCEIVED RISK = f(KNOWLEDGE)
So in this case perhaps B1 would still be higher for those with more left leaning politics. Still I wonder, besides this effect, what if its the case that the level or mean of PERCEIVED RISK is in general higher for those on the left? So you have this effect of a greater inclination for a preference for government intervention given a level of PERCEIVED RISK (via B1) but also a population of left leaning voters with a PERCEIVED RISK levels that are on average some magnitude higher. Both of these effects would likely increase the propensity of supporting government intervention.
Consider also....if PERCEIVED RISK = f(KNOWLEDGE), is the level of KNOWLEDGE about GMOs or climate change the same for those on the left and right and is this really what is partly determining different levels of PERCEIVED RISK? I'm not sure....how often do we hear arguments from the left that drastic actions or mitigating policies to combat climate change are necessary because of the scientific consensus on climate change when in fact the consensus as it is is pretty weak. Too weak to offer much guidance on actions, or very precise estimates of actual risks. (again see here, here, here, and here). And even some of the world's leading experts in risk modeling tend to have some ideas about GMO risks that can be seriously questioned (see here). There was a really good book a few years back discussing voter preferences and systemic bias regarding economic policy that addressed similar issues (see The Myth of the Rational Voter).
If preferences toward policy can be modeled in this way, an interesting and maybe promising feature is that perhaps the level of knowledge feeding into PERCEIVED risk can be altered. We often hear that science and evidence rarely will change minds when it comes to biotechnology or climate change, however, in a paper recently published by the Journal of the Federation for American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB) Jayson and Brandon McFadden observed the following:
1) consumers, as a group, are unknowledgeable about GMOs, genetics, and plant breeding and, perhaps more interestingly
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.
I'm not a PhD Economist or Psychometrician but I would think an approach similar to the structural equation modeling framework I discussed before (depicted below) might get closer to specifying and measuring all of the causal paths and connections between latent constructs around risk perception and the policy environment for GMOs or climate change. Of course that would also require a solid data set and valid survey instruments. Jayson's work seems to be leading the way. These are just my initial thoughts prior to even reading the Jayson and McFadden article or the JARE article mentioned above and honestly I have not reviewed much of the actual literature or survey analysis related to risk and perceptions or policy preferences since graduate school. Maybe a lot of this has been done already.
(click to enlarge)
.png)
“One distinction, which I think is missing, is the greater willingness of those on the left to regulate on economic issues, such as GMOs, than those on the right. Stated differently, there are questions of science: what are the risks of climate change or eating GMOs. And then there are more normative questions: given said risk, what should we do about it? Even if the left and the right agreed on the level of risk, I don’t think we should expect agreement on political action.”
If I understand this correctly, I think this implies that if both those on the left and right agreed that there was some 'day after tomorrow' scenario (in terms of climate change) that warranted some type of government intervention, and they agreed that the science says there is a 3% chance of it happening without the intervention, then those on the right might object to the intervention for that given level of risk while a more left leaning person would support it. A right leaning person might suggest more market based alternatives or taking the gamble. But perhaps if the risk were higher, they might support doing more. In other words there might be different thresholds for the level of risk required to support a given policy interventions across the political spectrum.
Of course, the scientific consensus on climate change may not really even be strong enough to know for sure, i.e. the science isn't settled on exactly what scenarios are likely to play out and the probabilities that they will occur. There's a lot of science to support a wide range of probabilities and scenarios based on a number of assumptions. (see here, here, here, and here). So really, I think even the science, risk, and potential outcomes or scenarios are largely based on perceptions and these might actually differ significantly across the political spectrum. Maybe its really about perceived risk.
Just thinking about this a little more what if we specified a model of preferences toward government intervention like that below (this is more an illustration than a serious attempt to look at this empirically):
Pr(SUPPORT POLICY) = B0 + B1 PERCEIVED RISK + B2 KNOWLEDGE
So if we estimated simple linear probability models as specified above for democrats and republicans (as short hand for political preferences) according to the story line above B1 would be higher for democrats than republicans. (I'm ignoring the use of interaction terms on purpose for simplicity) I wonder if this would also be true for B2, for a given level of knowledge, would B2 be higher for democrats/liberals? I also wonder if PERCIEVED RISK is really a function of KNOWLEDGE? Maybe a different specification would look something like:
Pr(SUPPORT POLICY) = B0 + B1 PERCEIVED RISK(KNOWLEDGE)
where PERCEIVED RISK = f(KNOWLEDGE)
So in this case perhaps B1 would still be higher for those with more left leaning politics. Still I wonder, besides this effect, what if its the case that the level or mean of PERCEIVED RISK is in general higher for those on the left? So you have this effect of a greater inclination for a preference for government intervention given a level of PERCEIVED RISK (via B1) but also a population of left leaning voters with a PERCEIVED RISK levels that are on average some magnitude higher. Both of these effects would likely increase the propensity of supporting government intervention.
Consider also....if PERCEIVED RISK = f(KNOWLEDGE), is the level of KNOWLEDGE about GMOs or climate change the same for those on the left and right and is this really what is partly determining different levels of PERCEIVED RISK? I'm not sure....how often do we hear arguments from the left that drastic actions or mitigating policies to combat climate change are necessary because of the scientific consensus on climate change when in fact the consensus as it is is pretty weak. Too weak to offer much guidance on actions, or very precise estimates of actual risks. (again see here, here, here, and here). And even some of the world's leading experts in risk modeling tend to have some ideas about GMO risks that can be seriously questioned (see here). There was a really good book a few years back discussing voter preferences and systemic bias regarding economic policy that addressed similar issues (see The Myth of the Rational Voter).
If preferences toward policy can be modeled in this way, an interesting and maybe promising feature is that perhaps the level of knowledge feeding into PERCEIVED risk can be altered. We often hear that science and evidence rarely will change minds when it comes to biotechnology or climate change, however, in a paper recently published by the Journal of the Federation for American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB) Jayson and Brandon McFadden observed the following:
1) consumers, as a group, are unknowledgeable about GMOs, genetics, and plant breeding and, perhaps more interestingly
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.
I'm not a PhD Economist or Psychometrician but I would think an approach similar to the structural equation modeling framework I discussed before (depicted below) might get closer to specifying and measuring all of the causal paths and connections between latent constructs around risk perception and the policy environment for GMOs or climate change. Of course that would also require a solid data set and valid survey instruments. Jayson's work seems to be leading the way. These are just my initial thoughts prior to even reading the Jayson and McFadden article or the JARE article mentioned above and honestly I have not reviewed much of the actual literature or survey analysis related to risk and perceptions or policy preferences since graduate school. Maybe a lot of this has been done already.
(click to enlarge)
.png)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)