Great Sustainability and Biotechnology Discussion- Join In!

The economist has started a discussion of biotechnology and sustainable farming that no one should miss. Check it out!

Whole Food's Seafood Sustainability Labels: Is this the right path?

Robert Seistema, in a recent Village Voice Blog, pointed out that some Whole Foods branches have started labeling the fish they sell according the Blue Ocean Institutes Sustainability rating. The kicker is, Whole Foods continues to sell the "red label," or unsustainable, species. We're left to wrestle a question- if they know that the fish is unsustainably harvested, do they have the responsibility to stop selling it?

Well, let's start with a little bit more background. Before instituting this program, Whole Foods would label wild caught fish designated as sustainable by the Marine Stewardship Council, but leave all others unlabeled. So there's no denying an improvement. At least now people aren't left guessing about the sustainability of anything not MSC certified, and Whole Foods has a plan in place to phase out all "red label" fish by Earth Day 2013.

But this all dodges the main question- do suppliers have the responsibility to stop selling unsustainable fish?  Honestly, its almost seems ridiculous. Sure, for a grocery chain like Whole Foods that thrives on a sustainable image, it might make sense. However, for most grocery stores, that is like asking them to redirect customers to another store upon arrival. On the other hand, adding sustainability labels will likely reduce the consumption of unsustainable seafood and won't drive customers away, but it certainly doesn't solve the problem. Like most free rider problems, there needs to be some sort of system in place to keep individuals from over indulging and damaging public welfare. That is, we have to keep working at this as an international community. We have to increase our fish conservation efforts through programs like protected waters. If species begin to revive, then we might be able to rely on consumers (and thus grocers) choosing responsibly. Asking them to cut it out entirely probably won't create much success. In short, while it makes sense to label all seafood according to its sustainability, expecting more responsibility from grocers is unlikely to save a species.

Read the full Whole Foods Phase-Out Plan.
Related News: Island of Kribiti Closes more than 150,000 Miles to Fishing

Why We Should Move On From Organic

When Organic first became a term for describing agriculture, it was used similarly to what we now mean by "sustainable." It wasn't strictly defined, but meant to represent farming with particular care for our land, animals and future. As soon as we started to certify organics, we placed a strict definition on the term. Animals must have a certain amount of freedom to roam. No synthetic fertilizers. Minimize all pesticide use. No growth hormones. No genetic engineering. Setting this definition nationally in 1990 eventually led to huge changes in our agricultural system. Today, organic produce, meat and even processed foods can be found in nearly every super market in the country. This popularity of the organic label has set a precedent, and a measure of restriction, on every new food label we'll see in the future.

The first thing to note about the term organic, is that it is really an umbrella term. Because it has so many meanings, it reduces the relevance of many other labels. You still may see labels indicating things such as No Growth Hormones or Non-GMO, but you probably won't see it side-by-side with an organic label. Allowing multiple layers of labeling like this, can easily lead to consumer confusion and misdirection. Asking consumers to keep track of what organic means for animal products, processed products and produce, leads to a lot of guessing in the grocery aisles. Would we be better off with a list of certifications like Non-GMO and Cage-Free? Probably. The thing that organic certification does well- forcing farmers to adopt a wide range of socially conscious practices- is also its greatest fault. There's not much flexibility to an organic label. Rather than farmers making rational decisions about how to make the most difference at a minimal cost, he's stuck with a national standard. Such inefficiencies  undoubtedly drive the cost of  organic produce higher.

But let's not overlook the impact that the organic label has had on society. Labels that meant something to a spectrum of consumers (like organic) has a lot more appeal to large producers, and the more a label is in stores, the more people will be willing to learn about it. We shouldn't have regrets about creating the organic label- it sparked a great step forward, but it is time to move on. Why not a short list on the side of a label, marking off the sustainable claims of product. Shouldn't consumers decide if grain fed or hormone free is more important to them? Or if they want both? Labeling item by item, rather than with umbrella terms, creates a clarity and flexibility for both consumers and producers. In short, it's efficient.

This Week: Thoughts on Food Labels

I set out today to write a short entry on food labels, but quickly discovered that these debates are too varied and extensive to capture in a single blog entry. So, all this week, I'll discuss a different aspect of food labels and how they do (or could) affect the way we eat.

In general, the consequence of a new food label on a package is complicated. In addition to impacting consumer behavior, it can mean big changes on the producer side. A 2007 Amber Waves article, Do Food Labels Make a Difference? ... Sometimes, makes the argument that mandatory labeling often has more impact on producer behavior than consumer behavior. For instance, requiring producers to label whole grain content, could mean many producers move to whole grains even though only a small portion of the population reads this label. While mandatory labels are the most likely to create this producer-side change, we've certainly seen voluntary labels have a big impact too- consider that Trix are now made with whole grains. As I wonder through different controversies regarding food labels, I'll be looking at the effects on consumers and producers  to see if all the trouble of a label is worth it.

Corn Sugar or HFCS? The implications of changing a label

There's no doubt that High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) has faced a surge in public scrutiny over the past few years; domestic sales slipped 11% between 2002 and 2008 while sugar sales increased by 7%. In reaction to increasing public concern, the Corn Refiner's Association has asked that the FDA rename HFCS as "Corn Sugar" on product labels. This suggested change has drawn a lot of attention, including a great NYTimes article. The FDA's response is unpredictable.

On one side, relabeling HFCS as Corn Sugar can completely undue public awareness of the product.  While the health effect of HFCs opposed to cane sugar is still debated, HFCS often serves as a litmus test for one rather vague term- processed foods. This precedent of using HFCS as a tool for distinguishing unprocessed from processed foods has both long and short term effects. In the short term, it might help to guide consumers away from nutritionally empty products. In the long run, however, it drives unhealthy foods from using HFCS and even leads to advertising cane sugar like a health product. These long term effects are already at hand- products ranging from Jones Soda to Wheat Thins have made the switch.  If you think this trick will never fly, reconsider the public perception of organic products.

Understanding the New School Lunch Act

Officially titled the Healthy, Hunger Free Kids Act of 2010, the latest renewal of the school lunch program was recently passed by the Senate and is waiting of full passage from Congress. Like its predecessors, the bill includes a wide variety of programs that address domestic hunger, primarily through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP or "food stamps"), school lunches, and the Women Infants and Children program (WIC). While the breadth of this bill makes discussing all of the programs difficult, its important to highlight a few major changes.



It is the first non-inflationary funding increase to the school lunch program since 1973.
While generally seen as a necessary for improvement, this measure has still been a bit controversial. In order for this act to remain deficit neutral, the money for this increase is being taken out of SNAP. Based on current projections, it shouldn't have a significant impact. That is, relying on decreases in unemployment, SNAP's funding needs should decrease as the funds move over to the school lunch programs. We'll see whether this plays out correctly, but being deficit neutral was probably essential to the bill being passed through unanimous consent rather than with a formal vote, difficult to attain in such a busy legislative period.

Reducing Agriculture's Greenhouse Gas Emissions- Analysis of a few different approaches

If you haven't noticed yet, a recent article from the Economic Research Service is stirring up quite a bit of buzz. The article, The Role of Agriculture in Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions, suggests how agriculture might be incorporated into a national greenhouse gas reduction program. One of the best traits of this article is in its comprehensive list of ways that farmers across products can reduce their emissions, ranging from biogas to alternative tilling. It also offers up a few approaches for encouraging changes, and its seems like a good opportunity to discuss the pros and cons of these options.



The first incentive program mentioned gives carbon credits to farmers who change their practices, which they can then sell to industries participating in a cap and trade program. This program offers a lot of efficiency gains, but not necessarily huge environmental benefits. All incentive programs, if priced correctly, will motivate farmers and general industry to reduce emissions to a socially optimal point. In addition to this sort of efficiency, trade between sectors will make sure the reductions are spread appropriately. That is, society could take on undue costs in reducing greenhouse gases if all of the responsibility relies on one industry. Clearly, this type of program has a lot to offer. However, notice that all the of reduction emissions attained in the agricultural sector are compensated for by increases in emissions within the capped industries. This means that accurate forecasts of farmers responses are necessary, as the goal for reduced emissions in agriculture has to be worked into the initial cap and trade limitations. So this program might require a bit more planning, and doesn't offer environmental gains to programs that already have cap and trade in place, but it comes with a bundle of efficiency gains that make it very appealing.