1) Safer Chemical Use than Conventional Synthetic and Organic Biological Controls
2) Improved Soil Conservation
3) Improved Nutrient Profiles
4) Carbons Sequestration - Carbon Credits
5) Improved Biodiversity
6) Decreased Dependence on Fossil Fuel
7) Reduces Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Explanatory Notes:
Roundup Ready technology has allowed for glyphosate herbicide to substitute for 7.2 million pounds of other chemicals that are more toxic and persistent in the environment. Bt expressed in plants is much safer than organic broadcast Bt, sulfur, copper, or conventional synthetics. Bt and glyphosate resistant varieties make strip tillage, no- till, and reduced tillage practices, as well as crop rotation more viable and profitable. These practices improve soil conservation, require less fossil fuel use, reduce greenhouse gas production, and complement carbon sequestration efforts as opposed to tillage practices of organic and conventional agriculture. By using safer more precise chemicals combined with better genetics, crop yields are optimized disturbing less land and maintaining more diversity among both pest and non pest populations. The complementary relationship between reduced tillage, carbon sequestration, and the ability to produce carbon credits is certainly something to consider if we are to ever implement Kyoto style emissions standards.
--------------------------------------
Sources:
Agricultural Outlook ERS/USDA Aug 2000
Leonard, Roger, LSU Agricultural Center and Dr. Ronald Smith, Auburn University.
Nelson, Gerald C. “Genetically Modified Organisms in Agriculture: Economics and Politics.” San Diego Academic Press 2001. Preston, Christopher. “Peer Reviewed Publications on the Safety of GM Foods. Results of a search of the PubMed database for publications on feeding studies for GM crops.” Senior Lecturer in Weed Management,
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Massachusetts v. EPA
The recent Massachusetts v. EPA decision concluded that the EPA has authority to regulate CO2 emissions. It is now up to the EPA to determine if there is truly a link (empirical vs. theoretical) between anthropogenic CO2 and global warming. It also must determine if the problem is serious enough to devote its resources to developing standards for CO2 emissions.
Some are urging congress to pass legislation to reduce CO2 emissions by 80% by 2050. A first step could involve corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards. How many lives are worth how many tons of CO2 reduction? The National Academy of Sciences 2001 report on CAFE standards estimates that the lethal impact of CAFE related changes in automobile designs results in the loss of 1300-2600 lives per year. Ford's share of the blame for the Explorer/Firestone debacle can largely be linked to CAFE related factors. Amendments to the Clean Air Act brought us the poisonous oxygenate-groundwater pollutant MTBE. These are just some instances of what could result from an overzealous reaction.
Legislated CO2 reductions that slow economic growth would disproportionately affect low-income people. This legislation also has the potential to create ‘rent seeking’ opportunities for big business. Enron was a top corporate supporter for the adoption of the Kyoto Treaty because of the expected profits that would result. When California was developing regulations for reformulated gasoline, Unocal influenced the legislation to mirror some of its own refining patents.
Instead mandating the pollution of our groundwater with energy additives, increasing the fatality rate in automobile accidents, or creating profit opportunities for big business, perhaps a better approach for dealing with climate change or any environmental problem is to develop resilient market based economies that are able to invest in the technology necessary to adapt to ever changing resource constraints.
Some are urging congress to pass legislation to reduce CO2 emissions by 80% by 2050. A first step could involve corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards. How many lives are worth how many tons of CO2 reduction? The National Academy of Sciences 2001 report on CAFE standards estimates that the lethal impact of CAFE related changes in automobile designs results in the loss of 1300-2600 lives per year. Ford's share of the blame for the Explorer/Firestone debacle can largely be linked to CAFE related factors. Amendments to the Clean Air Act brought us the poisonous oxygenate-groundwater pollutant MTBE. These are just some instances of what could result from an overzealous reaction.
Legislated CO2 reductions that slow economic growth would disproportionately affect low-income people. This legislation also has the potential to create ‘rent seeking’ opportunities for big business. Enron was a top corporate supporter for the adoption of the Kyoto Treaty because of the expected profits that would result. When California was developing regulations for reformulated gasoline, Unocal influenced the legislation to mirror some of its own refining patents.
Instead mandating the pollution of our groundwater with energy additives, increasing the fatality rate in automobile accidents, or creating profit opportunities for big business, perhaps a better approach for dealing with climate change or any environmental problem is to develop resilient market based economies that are able to invest in the technology necessary to adapt to ever changing resource constraints.
Monday, April 02, 2007
BIOTECH CROPS AND GREEN PRODUCTION
Advances in biotechnology have made new industrial biotech processes possible. They allow the use of renewable resources for ingredients which decrease costs and the impact on the environment. They often also reduce the use of petroleum-based energy sources, cut greenhouse gas emissions and even reduce water use.
Bio-based enzymes and polymers derived from GM plants lower the amount of green house gasses emitted and release fewer toxic chemicals into the air and water. The resulting products are more durable and often biodegradable.
SOURCE: Farm Industry News Feb 1, 2007
Bio-based enzymes and polymers derived from GM plants lower the amount of green house gasses emitted and release fewer toxic chemicals into the air and water. The resulting products are more durable and often biodegradable.
SOURCE: Farm Industry News Feb 1, 2007
Monday, March 19, 2007
TYPE II ERROR BIAS IN GOVERNMENT DECISION MAKING: THE CASE OF KATRINA*
Type II error bias is not limited to just the FDA. In the April 2006 journal Public Choice Russel Sobell and Peter Leeson explain that type II error bias played a role in the delayed response of the federal government after hurricane Katrina.
Let’s say our government leader finds them self in the following predicament. After the destruction and the levees have broken someone has to make the decision to send in relief workers. However there are risks. Disease infested water, collapsing buildings and roads, roaming bandits, toxic chemical exposure etc. If our leader sends in workers and they meet a terrible fate, the consequences are on his shoulders. Later the media would hang him over sending our brave heroes in harms way.
Given limited information, here is the model in the context of hypothesis testing:
Ho: X= Xo ‘it is too harmful to send in relief ASAP’
Ha: X= Xa: ‘the harm is trivial, and justified to send in relief ASAP’
Type I Error: sending relief workers into unnecessary danger
If on the other hand, our government official decides to wait, until he has better information he could avoid this. The consequences may be the lives of hurricane victims, but the blame can be shared with nature.
Type II Error: Over cautiousness that prevents a quick response by relief authorities
In general this is one of the explanations given in the Public Choice article explaining the federal government’s response to Hurricane Katrina. It is also one of the reasons in general that many of our leaders at the federal, state, local, levels fail to make timely decisions or provide leadership when needed.
Let’s say our government leader finds them self in the following predicament. After the destruction and the levees have broken someone has to make the decision to send in relief workers. However there are risks. Disease infested water, collapsing buildings and roads, roaming bandits, toxic chemical exposure etc. If our leader sends in workers and they meet a terrible fate, the consequences are on his shoulders. Later the media would hang him over sending our brave heroes in harms way.
Given limited information, here is the model in the context of hypothesis testing:
Ho: X= Xo ‘it is too harmful to send in relief ASAP’
Ha: X= Xa: ‘the harm is trivial, and justified to send in relief ASAP’
Type I Error: sending relief workers into unnecessary danger
If on the other hand, our government official decides to wait, until he has better information he could avoid this. The consequences may be the lives of hurricane victims, but the blame can be shared with nature.
Type II Error: Over cautiousness that prevents a quick response by relief authorities
In general this is one of the explanations given in the Public Choice article explaining the federal government’s response to Hurricane Katrina. It is also one of the reasons in general that many of our leaders at the federal, state, local, levels fail to make timely decisions or provide leadership when needed.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
TYPE II ERROR BIAS: THE FDA
Let’s assume that FDA researchers are reviewing a drug for possible approval. They are reviewing results and data from clinical trials etc. Of course there are some side effects , but only from a small percentage of the samples. Let’s look at a model of their decision making process in the context of hypothesis testing. Let’s assume:
Ho: X = Xo ‘drug is harmful’
Ha: X = Xa ‘drug is safe’
If the decision makers make the mistake of releasing a harmful drug, the consequences would be easily identifiable, and could be visibly traced to their decision. They would want to avoid this at all cost. In essence, they want to avoid making a type I error.
Type I Error: = releasing a harmful drug
From my previous discussion on hypothesis testing, we know that to decrease the probability of committing a type I error, we choose an alpha level that is lower. In a t-test, if we are really afraid of making a type I error, we might set alpha ( the significance level) at .05, .01, or to go overboard.001 etc.
As previously discussed, setting alpha lower and lower increases beta, or the probability of committing a type II error. Recall, a type II error is accepting a false Ho. In this case that would be equivalent to falsely concluding that the ‘drug is harmful’ when it could actually be released and improve the lives of millions.
Type II error bias = over precaution; setting alpha so low, or setting the standard of proof so high as to almost always reject Ho, and biasing the decision in such a way that the probability of a type two error (beta) is greatly increased.
As a result of type II error bias, many life improving drugs never make it to the market.
Ho: X = Xo ‘drug is harmful’
Ha: X = Xa ‘drug is safe’
If the decision makers make the mistake of releasing a harmful drug, the consequences would be easily identifiable, and could be visibly traced to their decision. They would want to avoid this at all cost. In essence, they want to avoid making a type I error.
Type I Error: = releasing a harmful drug
From my previous discussion on hypothesis testing, we know that to decrease the probability of committing a type I error, we choose an alpha level that is lower. In a t-test, if we are really afraid of making a type I error, we might set alpha ( the significance level) at .05, .01, or to go overboard.001 etc.
As previously discussed, setting alpha lower and lower increases beta, or the probability of committing a type II error. Recall, a type II error is accepting a false Ho. In this case that would be equivalent to falsely concluding that the ‘drug is harmful’ when it could actually be released and improve the lives of millions.
Type II error bias = over precaution; setting alpha so low, or setting the standard of proof so high as to almost always reject Ho, and biasing the decision in such a way that the probability of a type two error (beta) is greatly increased.
As a result of type II error bias, many life improving drugs never make it to the market.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
TRICKLEDOWN TAXES
This is in response to the article in the Daily News ‘New tax OKed on first reading’
http://bgdailynews.com/articles/2007/03/14/local_news/news/news3.txt
How much of the money in the county budget shortfall is related to illegal immigrants, or refugees that are brought into the county? If either of these are reasons contributing to our budget shortfall then we have a serious case of unfunded mandates.
First, is it not the job of the federal government to control immigration? Truly, illegal immigration is only a problem if it contributes to increased levels of crime strains both federal and local resources, in cases like we may have now with Warren County. If the federal government cannot resolve the illegal immigration problem, why should we have to pay for it locally?
Even with legal immigrants that are refugees, why should we have to pay for federal programs that are unconstitutional?
In 1794 Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees. James Madison objected stating "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
Have we amended the constitution since 1794 to allow for this? If this is something that the people of the United States would like to do, then I do not have as much of a problem with it. It is in fact a very charitable act. But, it must be done with our consent. In this case, expanding the role of government beyond the powers specifically enumerated in the constitution requires consent in the form of a constitutional amendment. That requires a vote of two-thirds of both the House of Representatives and the Senate, followed by a ratification of three-fourths of the state legislatures.
This may seem like a very drawn out process, but is was designed by our founders to ensure the ‘consent of the governed.’ According to economist Walter E. Williams of George Mason University, two-thirds of federal spending has by-passed these criteria for consent. It is what economist Thomas Sowell has coined ‘the quiet repeal of the American Revolution’ in his book ‘The Quest for Cosmic Justice.’
So now, we are paying higher taxes at the federal level without our consent. As a result of these federal programs and failure to secure our borders we are having resource problems at the local level. Is that why they are proposing a tax on insurance premiums? Is this a ‘trickle down’ effect? Are these ‘trickle down tax increases’?
http://bgdailynews.com/articles/2007/03/14/local_news/news/news3.txt
How much of the money in the county budget shortfall is related to illegal immigrants, or refugees that are brought into the county? If either of these are reasons contributing to our budget shortfall then we have a serious case of unfunded mandates.
First, is it not the job of the federal government to control immigration? Truly, illegal immigration is only a problem if it contributes to increased levels of crime strains both federal and local resources, in cases like we may have now with Warren County. If the federal government cannot resolve the illegal immigration problem, why should we have to pay for it locally?
Even with legal immigrants that are refugees, why should we have to pay for federal programs that are unconstitutional?
In 1794 Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees. James Madison objected stating "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
Have we amended the constitution since 1794 to allow for this? If this is something that the people of the United States would like to do, then I do not have as much of a problem with it. It is in fact a very charitable act. But, it must be done with our consent. In this case, expanding the role of government beyond the powers specifically enumerated in the constitution requires consent in the form of a constitutional amendment. That requires a vote of two-thirds of both the House of Representatives and the Senate, followed by a ratification of three-fourths of the state legislatures.
This may seem like a very drawn out process, but is was designed by our founders to ensure the ‘consent of the governed.’ According to economist Walter E. Williams of George Mason University, two-thirds of federal spending has by-passed these criteria for consent. It is what economist Thomas Sowell has coined ‘the quiet repeal of the American Revolution’ in his book ‘The Quest for Cosmic Justice.’
So now, we are paying higher taxes at the federal level without our consent. As a result of these federal programs and failure to secure our borders we are having resource problems at the local level. Is that why they are proposing a tax on insurance premiums? Is this a ‘trickle down’ effect? Are these ‘trickle down tax increases’?
Monday, March 12, 2007
TYPE I AND TYPE II ERRORS
In an experimental setting where a statistical test of a hypothesis is conducted one may either reject the null hypothesis ‘Ho’, or fail to reject Ho. Let’s assume that the true population parameter we are testing is X. Our null hypothesis may be Ho: X=Xo.
The probability of rejecting the null hypothesis when it is true can be defined by:
Alpha = P (reject Ho X = Xo)
Rejecting the null hypothesis when it is actually true is referred to in statistics as a type I error. Therefore alpha is the probability of ‘committing’ a type 1 error. In a basic statistics, when you conduct a basic t- test ( i.e. reject Ho if t > t-critical) at the 5% level of significance, you are establishing a 5% chance of committing a type one error.
Of course, you may fail to reject Ho, or loosely speaking ‘accept’ Ho.
The probability of ‘accepting’ Ho when it is false can be defined by:
Beta = P (accept Ho X = Xa)
Speaking heuristically, accepting a false Ho is referred to as a type II error. Beta is therefore the probability of committing a type 2 error.
It turns out, that as you increase the significance level of a test ( by making alpha lower and decreasing the probability of a type I error), the probability of a type II error (beta) increases. This is the theoretical basis for ‘type II error bias.’
The probability of rejecting the null hypothesis when it is true can be defined by:
Alpha = P (reject Ho X = Xo)
Rejecting the null hypothesis when it is actually true is referred to in statistics as a type I error. Therefore alpha is the probability of ‘committing’ a type 1 error. In a basic statistics, when you conduct a basic t- test ( i.e. reject Ho if t > t-critical) at the 5% level of significance, you are establishing a 5% chance of committing a type one error.
Of course, you may fail to reject Ho, or loosely speaking ‘accept’ Ho.
The probability of ‘accepting’ Ho when it is false can be defined by:
Beta = P (accept Ho X = Xa)
Speaking heuristically, accepting a false Ho is referred to as a type II error. Beta is therefore the probability of committing a type 2 error.
It turns out, that as you increase the significance level of a test ( by making alpha lower and decreasing the probability of a type I error), the probability of a type II error (beta) increases. This is the theoretical basis for ‘type II error bias.’
GOVERNMENT DECISION MAKING AND TYPE II ERROR BIAS
It has long been affirmed by economists that the FDA’s drug approval process suffers from type II error bias. This results in fewer drugs coming to the market that could improve the well being of millions. In the April 2006 journal Public Choice Russel Sobell and Peter Leeson explain that type II error bias played a role in the delayed response of the federal government after hurricane Katrina. In the next few posts I plan to explain type I and type II errors, and type II error bias in government decision making.
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
Bt COTTON AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
Because Bt cotton and Bt corn provide pest protection in the plant( a gene is expressed that is toxic to lepidoptera species of insects) there is no need for the less effective broad spectrum application of insecticides. As a result only insects that feed directly on the plant are affected. This is a great stride in protecting diversity and beneficial insect populations. In addition it reduces worker exposure to pesticides (with regards to both conventional and organic production). For example, in China, 400-500 deaths per year are attributed to pesticide poisoning. Since the introduction of Bt crops in China, pesticide applications have decreased by 75%.
The Bt plant genetics essentially displace the manufactured synthetics. According to research from Dr. Roger Leonard at the LSU Agricultural center and Dr. Ronald Smith at Auburn University, 1.04 million fewer pounds of insecticide are applied each year as a result of the reliance on Bt genetics in cotton alone. As a result about 2 million gallons of fuel are saved each year from decreased manufacturing and distribution of chemical pesticides. In addition, 2.41 million gallons of fuel and 93.7 million gallons of water are saved on the farm from fewer insecticide applications.
Sources: Dr. Roger Leonard, LSU Agricultural Center. Dr. Ronald Smith, Auburn University. Gregory Conko “The Benefits of Biotech” Regulation Spring 2003.
Gerald C. Nelson Genetically Modified Organisms in Agriculture: Economics and Politics San Diego Academic Press 2001.
The Bt plant genetics essentially displace the manufactured synthetics. According to research from Dr. Roger Leonard at the LSU Agricultural center and Dr. Ronald Smith at Auburn University, 1.04 million fewer pounds of insecticide are applied each year as a result of the reliance on Bt genetics in cotton alone. As a result about 2 million gallons of fuel are saved each year from decreased manufacturing and distribution of chemical pesticides. In addition, 2.41 million gallons of fuel and 93.7 million gallons of water are saved on the farm from fewer insecticide applications.
Sources: Dr. Roger Leonard, LSU Agricultural Center. Dr. Ronald Smith, Auburn University. Gregory Conko “The Benefits of Biotech” Regulation Spring 2003.
Gerald C. Nelson Genetically Modified Organisms in Agriculture: Economics and Politics San Diego Academic Press 2001.
Saturday, February 24, 2007
ECONOMISTS VS CLIMATOLOGISTS
When an economist is asked about a policy such as increasing the minimum wage, he is able to abstract from mathematical models and explain to the laymen the potential effects. In addition, in explaining these effects, he will often introduce contradictory models and discuss their strengths and weaknesses. In many cases he has empirical evidence to offer to support his theoretical analysis. While an economist may make what appears to be a one sided argument, he is often able to offer reasons why competing theories are off base.
It does not appear to me that climatologists are able to do this. At least not as presented in the media. Climate models are no more complex than an economists comparative statics, differential equations, or econometrics. The media certainly expounds on the facts that global temperatures have risen by about 1 degree since the early 19th century, and that CO2 emissions have at the same time increased 30%. Immediately man's connection to global warming is made, and with a few quotes from the IPCC, the prestige of science is granted to movies such as "An Inconvenient Truth" and "The Day After Tomorrow." You seldom hear about competing ideas. When you hear about a skeptic, they are immediately discredited and lumped in with Holocaust deniers ( which is the same as resorting to personal attacks vs. arguing facts).
It does not appear to me that climatologists are able to do this. At least not as presented in the media. Climate models are no more complex than an economists comparative statics, differential equations, or econometrics. The media certainly expounds on the facts that global temperatures have risen by about 1 degree since the early 19th century, and that CO2 emissions have at the same time increased 30%. Immediately man's connection to global warming is made, and with a few quotes from the IPCC, the prestige of science is granted to movies such as "An Inconvenient Truth" and "The Day After Tomorrow." You seldom hear about competing ideas. When you hear about a skeptic, they are immediately discredited and lumped in with Holocaust deniers ( which is the same as resorting to personal attacks vs. arguing facts).
QUOTES
These are some great quotes from our founding fathers. I obtained them from the website of economist Walter E. Williams of George Mason University.
In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia, James Madison stood on the floor of the House to object saying, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." -- James Madison, 4 Annals of congress 179 (1794)
"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." --Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Albert Gallatin, 1817
"Whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force."-- Thomas Jefferson, Draft Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors, ME 17:380
"I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity. [To approve the measure] would be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded." -- President Franklin Pierce's 1854 veto of a measure to help the mentally ill.
"I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit."-- President Grover Cleveland vetoing a bill for charity relief (18 Congressional Record 1875 [1877]
In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia, James Madison stood on the floor of the House to object saying, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." -- James Madison, 4 Annals of congress 179 (1794)
"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." --Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Albert Gallatin, 1817
"Whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force."-- Thomas Jefferson, Draft Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors, ME 17:380
"I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity. [To approve the measure] would be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded." -- President Franklin Pierce's 1854 veto of a measure to help the mentally ill.
"I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit."-- President Grover Cleveland vetoing a bill for charity relief (18 Congressional Record 1875 [1877]
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
ADVANCES IN BEEF PRODUCTION: HUMAN AND ENVIRONENTAL HEALTH
Since I’ve covered some of the major objections to beef production ( hormones, feeding grain to cattle(see “ETHANOL AND CORN FOR FOOD ”), and antibiotic use) I’m ready to talk about the health and environmental benefits that consumers have derived from the scientific advances in beef production.
In 1990, there were only 9 cuts of beef that could be classified as ‘lean’ (< 10 grams of fat/serving). Now there are 29 cuts, including the tenderloin, sirloin, and 95% lean ground beef.
These cuts have less than 10 grams of total fat, 4.5 grams or less of saturated fat and less than 95 milligrams of cholesterol per 3-ounce serving. On average 20 of the 29 lean beef cuts have, only 1 more gram of saturated fat than a skinless chicken breast per 3-ounce serving.
I read this info from the National Cattlemans Beef Association web site, and thought to myself is this really true. All it took was one trip to Kroger’s meat section and some packaged beef/chicken comparisons and I was convinced. The media, past experience, and general consumer ignorance made me think that beef was an unhealthy product in general. I could not have been more wrong ( but I liked it anyway). In additon. beef is not only low fat, but also very nutrient-rich. Compared to a skinless chicken breast, beef has eight times more vitamin B12, six times more zinc and two and a half times more iron.
In addition, the advances in nutrition, management, and genetics has made beef more productive. Beef production per cow has increased from about 185 pounds since the mid-1960s to 585 pounds per cow in 2005. More food per pound of grain equates to a lesser impact on the environment.
In 1990, there were only 9 cuts of beef that could be classified as ‘lean’ (< 10 grams of fat/serving). Now there are 29 cuts, including the tenderloin, sirloin, and 95% lean ground beef.
These cuts have less than 10 grams of total fat, 4.5 grams or less of saturated fat and less than 95 milligrams of cholesterol per 3-ounce serving. On average 20 of the 29 lean beef cuts have, only 1 more gram of saturated fat than a skinless chicken breast per 3-ounce serving.
I read this info from the National Cattlemans Beef Association web site, and thought to myself is this really true. All it took was one trip to Kroger’s meat section and some packaged beef/chicken comparisons and I was convinced. The media, past experience, and general consumer ignorance made me think that beef was an unhealthy product in general. I could not have been more wrong ( but I liked it anyway). In additon. beef is not only low fat, but also very nutrient-rich. Compared to a skinless chicken breast, beef has eight times more vitamin B12, six times more zinc and two and a half times more iron.
In addition, the advances in nutrition, management, and genetics has made beef more productive. Beef production per cow has increased from about 185 pounds since the mid-1960s to 585 pounds per cow in 2005. More food per pound of grain equates to a lesser impact on the environment.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
HORMONE FREE BEEF
There is no such thing as hormone free beef. Conventionally produced beef with hormone (estrogen) implants contains about 1.9 nano-grams of estrogen per 3 oz serving of beef. Even organic ‘hormone free’ beef contains 1.6 nano-grams of estrogen per 3-oz serving.
This is just over a difference of ½ of a nano-gram. These amounts are enough to provide improved feed efficiency in beef production, but too little to have any response in the human body.
In contrast, a 3-oz serving of soybean oil contains 168,000,000 nano-grams of estrogen. The average human produces about 136,000 nano-grams of estrogen on a daily basis.
These claims are is just another example of a marketing strategy for ‘natural’ and ‘organic’ production.
It is also an example of food fears born out of politics and rhetoric vs. science.
SOURCES: Sources: Food and Drug Administration; Hoffman and Evers; Scanga et al.; FSIS-USDA; Dr. Harlan Ritchie, Michigan State University
This is just over a difference of ½ of a nano-gram. These amounts are enough to provide improved feed efficiency in beef production, but too little to have any response in the human body.
In contrast, a 3-oz serving of soybean oil contains 168,000,000 nano-grams of estrogen. The average human produces about 136,000 nano-grams of estrogen on a daily basis.
These claims are is just another example of a marketing strategy for ‘natural’ and ‘organic’ production.
It is also an example of food fears born out of politics and rhetoric vs. science.
SOURCES: Sources: Food and Drug Administration; Hoffman and Evers; Scanga et al.; FSIS-USDA; Dr. Harlan Ritchie, Michigan State University
Monday, January 22, 2007
ETHANOL AND CORN FOR FOOD
Should we be concerned that demand for corn for ethanol will lead to increased prices of corn based food products for consumers?
I'm more concerned with the corn used for animal feed vs. human consumption (as in Corn Chips). Corn raised for direct human consumption is a very small part of the total market for corn. It's production and cost functions are quite different from other types of corn. The different types of corn are not likely close substitutes in production. (even soybeans and corn for feed are likely better substitutes) I'm not sure if most corn producers grow more or less corn for human consumption based on demands for ethanol or livestock feed since it's not the same corn (this is also a strong rebuttal to those who laud the comment 'eat a steak starve an African').
Although I agree if corn for ethanol and animal feed becomes profitable enough, some producers may retool and switch to producing commodity grade corn, causing increased price pressures in the food markets as indicated in the previous post.
But for now I think we'll see greater ramifications from the livestock markets and meat prices. We'll see more corn acres grown at the expense of soybeans, driving up their prices as well.
From the livestock producer's perspective, a good policy question would be, why should government be legislatively creating demand for ethanol and creating a boom market for one industry segment, while increasing the costs (in corn and feed prices) in another. Of course there is debate and on going research being done related to how this is actually going to affect livestock producers.
I'm more concerned with the corn used for animal feed vs. human consumption (as in Corn Chips). Corn raised for direct human consumption is a very small part of the total market for corn. It's production and cost functions are quite different from other types of corn. The different types of corn are not likely close substitutes in production. (even soybeans and corn for feed are likely better substitutes) I'm not sure if most corn producers grow more or less corn for human consumption based on demands for ethanol or livestock feed since it's not the same corn (this is also a strong rebuttal to those who laud the comment 'eat a steak starve an African').
Although I agree if corn for ethanol and animal feed becomes profitable enough, some producers may retool and switch to producing commodity grade corn, causing increased price pressures in the food markets as indicated in the previous post.
But for now I think we'll see greater ramifications from the livestock markets and meat prices. We'll see more corn acres grown at the expense of soybeans, driving up their prices as well.
From the livestock producer's perspective, a good policy question would be, why should government be legislatively creating demand for ethanol and creating a boom market for one industry segment, while increasing the costs (in corn and feed prices) in another. Of course there is debate and on going research being done related to how this is actually going to affect livestock producers.
Friday, January 19, 2007
BEEF: ANTIBIOTICS OR ANTI-SCIENCE?
Marketing Myth: Overzealous use of antibiotics in beef production is contributing to resistance to antibiotics essential to human health.
This line of thinking is leading many to advocate possibly ‘outlawing’ the use of feed grade antibiotics. Demonstrable rates of gain can be made by adding low levels of antibiotics to feed rations. These antibiotics are not the same drugs used to fight infection in humans.
Most antibiotics used in the livestock industry are used for treating, controlling, and preventing disease. Only 13% are used to improve nutritional efficiency and enhance growth. Despite fears related to antibiotic use in livestock and resistance in humans, no scientific link has been found.
In fact the health consequences of reducing antibiotic use in animals could have far more serious implications. This may sound counter intuitive to what’s reported in the media. However, in Denmark where some feed grade antibiotics have been banned, an increased reliance on therapeutic usage (30%) has resulted because of the increase in animal sickness. The same thing happened in Sweden as well. Let it be known that this increase represents increased of drugs that happen to be vital for human health.
Even after reviewing the science behind feed grade antibiotics, if consumers still want ‘antibiotic free’ beef, there is certainly a market for it. However, politicians and activists should not make political ‘hay’ from these interests by promoting feeding regulations that endanger the health of consumers as a whole.
This line of thinking is leading many to advocate possibly ‘outlawing’ the use of feed grade antibiotics. Demonstrable rates of gain can be made by adding low levels of antibiotics to feed rations. These antibiotics are not the same drugs used to fight infection in humans.
Most antibiotics used in the livestock industry are used for treating, controlling, and preventing disease. Only 13% are used to improve nutritional efficiency and enhance growth. Despite fears related to antibiotic use in livestock and resistance in humans, no scientific link has been found.
In fact the health consequences of reducing antibiotic use in animals could have far more serious implications. This may sound counter intuitive to what’s reported in the media. However, in Denmark where some feed grade antibiotics have been banned, an increased reliance on therapeutic usage (30%) has resulted because of the increase in animal sickness. The same thing happened in Sweden as well. Let it be known that this increase represents increased of drugs that happen to be vital for human health.
Even after reviewing the science behind feed grade antibiotics, if consumers still want ‘antibiotic free’ beef, there is certainly a market for it. However, politicians and activists should not make political ‘hay’ from these interests by promoting feeding regulations that endanger the health of consumers as a whole.
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
PORK: MARKET INCENTIVES FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT
If you read my previous entry you might say OK, so what about the environment? What good does it do to provide consumers with healthy food if it leads to an unhealthy environment?
Well the same trend in technological advancement that is leading to healthier pork products are also leading to cleaner, ‘greener’ production practices. Simply, improved nutrition and swine genetics means better nutrient utilization and basically less ‘potent’ excrement. With more nutrients being absorbed and utilized by the livestock we have fewer making it into streams and water sources. This results in less pollution
Examples include corn with altered amino acid profiles, energy content, and available phosphorus levels. NutriDense corn developed by ExSeed Genetics is a prime example. Other companies such as Monsanto and Pioneer Hi-Bred are also developing similar products. Rations have even been developed to help manage odor control.
The bottom line is that better nutrition and genetics that leads to improved feed efficiency and rate of gain means less impact on the environment per pound of food produced. The truth is that laws mandating healthier food choices did not bring about these advancements. They were brought about by consumer demands and the profit incentives associated with meeting those demands.
Well the same trend in technological advancement that is leading to healthier pork products are also leading to cleaner, ‘greener’ production practices. Simply, improved nutrition and swine genetics means better nutrient utilization and basically less ‘potent’ excrement. With more nutrients being absorbed and utilized by the livestock we have fewer making it into streams and water sources. This results in less pollution
Examples include corn with altered amino acid profiles, energy content, and available phosphorus levels. NutriDense corn developed by ExSeed Genetics is a prime example. Other companies such as Monsanto and Pioneer Hi-Bred are also developing similar products. Rations have even been developed to help manage odor control.
The bottom line is that better nutrition and genetics that leads to improved feed efficiency and rate of gain means less impact on the environment per pound of food produced. The truth is that laws mandating healthier food choices did not bring about these advancements. They were brought about by consumer demands and the profit incentives associated with meeting those demands.
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
PORK: MARKET INCENTIVES FOR BETTER HEALTH
McDonalds has been in the news lately for its unhealthy menu. People like to blame unrestrained capitalism for the poor choices people make in their diet and the widespread availability of unhealthy food. However, we must recognize that there are many positive, healthy, and environmentally friendly trends that are also consumer and profit driven.
In order to compete with the poultry industry, and its perceived leaner and healthier food products, the pork industry has been campaigning for over a decade to respond to consumer demands for healthier food choices i.e. the campaign slogan ‘Pork: the other white meat.’ Due to advances in feed technology, management, and swine genetics, the pork industry has been able to improve their products to meet these demands. It is now possible to choose pork over chicken and not have to compromise on fat intake. Pork loin now has less fat than an equal serving of chicken breast.
In order to compete with the poultry industry, and its perceived leaner and healthier food products, the pork industry has been campaigning for over a decade to respond to consumer demands for healthier food choices i.e. the campaign slogan ‘Pork: the other white meat.’ Due to advances in feed technology, management, and swine genetics, the pork industry has been able to improve their products to meet these demands. It is now possible to choose pork over chicken and not have to compromise on fat intake. Pork loin now has less fat than an equal serving of chicken breast.
Monday, December 11, 2006
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
THE REAL THANKSGIVING ( FROM NOV'05)
Thanksgiving was not about the Pilgrims embracing diversity and thanking the Indians (otherwise known as Native Americans) for helping them survive. The celebration was about thanking God for the abundance which ultimately resulted from a move away from socialism ( imposed on them by the Colony’s Sponsors) to free market capitalism.
As governor William Bradford commented on the dreadful conditions of 1622:
" . . . the young men . . . did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense. The strong . . . had not more in division . . . than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter the other could; this was thought injustice. The aged and graver men to be ranked and equalized in labors and victuals, clothes, etc . . . thought it some indignity and disrespect unto them. And the men's wives to be commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meat, washing their clothes, etc., they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could many husbands well brook it.""For this community of property (so far as it went) was found to breed much confusion and discontentment and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort . . . all being to have alike, and all to do alike . . . if it did not cut off those relations that God hath set amongst men, yet it did at least much diminish and take off the mutual respects that should be preserved amongst them."
In the Spring of 1623, they moved away from Socialism and embraced the incentives of Private Property and Capitalism:
"All their victuals were spent . . . no supply was heard of, neither knew they when they might expect any. So they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery. At length . . . the Governor (with the advice of the chiefest among them) gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular, and in that regard trust to themselves. . . . And so assigned to every family a parcel of land . . . "
"This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn, which before would allege weakness and inability, whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression."
Thanksgiving is therefore about freedom, private property and the unrestrained ability to worship and show thanksgiving.
As governor William Bradford commented on the dreadful conditions of 1622:
" . . . the young men . . . did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense. The strong . . . had not more in division . . . than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter the other could; this was thought injustice. The aged and graver men to be ranked and equalized in labors and victuals, clothes, etc . . . thought it some indignity and disrespect unto them. And the men's wives to be commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meat, washing their clothes, etc., they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could many husbands well brook it.""For this community of property (so far as it went) was found to breed much confusion and discontentment and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort . . . all being to have alike, and all to do alike . . . if it did not cut off those relations that God hath set amongst men, yet it did at least much diminish and take off the mutual respects that should be preserved amongst them."
In the Spring of 1623, they moved away from Socialism and embraced the incentives of Private Property and Capitalism:
"All their victuals were spent . . . no supply was heard of, neither knew they when they might expect any. So they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery. At length . . . the Governor (with the advice of the chiefest among them) gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular, and in that regard trust to themselves. . . . And so assigned to every family a parcel of land . . . "
"This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn, which before would allege weakness and inability, whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression."
Thanksgiving is therefore about freedom, private property and the unrestrained ability to worship and show thanksgiving.
Monday, November 13, 2006
A RELIGIOUS THANKSGIVING
(reprint from Nov '06)
George Washington certainly felt that the celebration of Thanksgiving could not be divorced from any religious connotation, as indicated in the following Thanksgiving Day proclamation:
"It is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favors."
Although certainly not as revered as the Birth of Christ, it is as much a religious holiday as Christmas, Easter or Passover. Unfortunately this aspect of Thanksgiving has been downplayed in our schools and replaced with teachings about tolerance and ethnic diversity. They have been so successful at this there is no wonder that when it comes time to talk about Thanksgiving in the classroom, virtually no one opposes. This is because the celebration has become completely divorced from its true meaning, and hence is uncontroversial to the secularists.
They have not been so successful with Christmas, however the attempts to divorce this holiday from all historical meaning are well underway. We are seeing 'Christmas' replaced with 'Holiday.' It is done in the name of tolerance and diversity awareness.
It was in 1789 that George Washington gave the above Thanksgiving Day Proclamation. By 1989 its celebration has already lost much of its true meaning as taught in the schools and celebrated by many. I wonder what will be the fate of Christmas in the year 2089?
George Washington certainly felt that the celebration of Thanksgiving could not be divorced from any religious connotation, as indicated in the following Thanksgiving Day proclamation:
"It is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favors."
Although certainly not as revered as the Birth of Christ, it is as much a religious holiday as Christmas, Easter or Passover. Unfortunately this aspect of Thanksgiving has been downplayed in our schools and replaced with teachings about tolerance and ethnic diversity. They have been so successful at this there is no wonder that when it comes time to talk about Thanksgiving in the classroom, virtually no one opposes. This is because the celebration has become completely divorced from its true meaning, and hence is uncontroversial to the secularists.
They have not been so successful with Christmas, however the attempts to divorce this holiday from all historical meaning are well underway. We are seeing 'Christmas' replaced with 'Holiday.' It is done in the name of tolerance and diversity awareness.
It was in 1789 that George Washington gave the above Thanksgiving Day Proclamation. By 1989 its celebration has already lost much of its true meaning as taught in the schools and celebrated by many. I wonder what will be the fate of Christmas in the year 2089?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)