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

Great discussion at the AgTech So What podcast about capitalism and food innovation. Probably an innovation that gets the most headlines these days, and discussed in the headlines is related to plant based proteins and companies like Impossible Foods. But to answer the question more broadly, can capitalism be a force for good in the food and agricultural sector, we can look at previous ag tech innovations to get some kind of answer. 

For example, positive benefits associated with the development of biotech crops include non-trivial decreases in greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to the removal of nearly 12 million cars from America's roads on an annual basis (this is roughly 50% of the number of new cars purchased annually). Additionally, we see benefits in terms of improved health and safety related to decreased levels of mycotoxins, reduced pesticide exposure, reduced groundwater pollution, and improved biodiversity to name some of the health and environmental benefits as well as social benefits related to gender equity.

In the livestock sector we've also seen incredible improvements in the health and environmental benefits related to beef. Thanks to advances in economic development, technological change, innovations in management, marketing, and pricing (for just a few examples see here, here, here, here, and here), we've seen gains in beef production and quality. For instance, consider Brad Johnson's work at Texas Tech related to increasing marbling and healthy fats without increasing unhealthy backfat while also reducing time on feed. Or like the research in beef genetics and air quality and emissions at U.C. Davis.

In 2007 compared to 1977 we were able to produce the same amount of beef using roughly 30% fewer cattle and 30% less land. Feed and and water usage were down between 15-20% with a 16% lower carbon footprint (Capper, 2007). All in all, based on full lifecycle analysis, U.S. beef consumption accounts for less than .5% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Additionally when compared to beef produced and consumed in other parts of the world, the carbon footprint of beef produced and consumed in the U.S. is 10 times or more lower (Herrero et al., 2013).

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

And these technologies don't require scaling up 100 fold or doubling every year for the next 16 years the way some analysts project for cell cultured meat. Nor do they require drastic dietary or lifestyle changes. These positive benefits are driven by capital investment and consumer and producer driven choices in the marketplace without the requirement of coercive mitigating policies or significant behavior change. That's not to say more can't be done or that the last mile won't be difficult, but it is a testament to the role markets and technological innovation have played in the last few decades that is often overlooked or even shunned in many contemporary conversations.

References:

C. Alan Rotz et al. Environmental footprints of beef cattle production in the United States, Agricultural Systems (2018). DOI: 10.1016/j.agsy.2018.11.005

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

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

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

The environmental impact of recombinant bovine somatotropin (rbST) use in dairy production Judith L. Capper,* Euridice Castañeda-Gutiérrez,*† Roger A. Cady,‡ and Dale E. Bauman* Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 July 15; 105(28): 9668–967

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

J. L. Capper, The environmental impact of beef production in the United States: 1977 compared with 2007, Journal of Animal Science, Volume 89, Issue 12, December 2011, Pages 4249–4261, https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2010-3784

Herrero M, Havlík P, Valin H, Notenbaert A, Rufino MC, Thornton PK, Blümmel M, Weiss F, Grace D, Obersteiner M. Biomass use, production, feed efficiencies, and greenhouse gas emissions from global livestock systems. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013 Dec 24;110(52):20888-93. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1308149110. PMID: 24344273; PMCID: PMC3876224.