Ag Policy Blog
Chris Clayton DTN Ag Policy Editor

Wednesday 11/21/12

End of the Food Police?
From DTN's Washington Insider Column:

In an Op Ed in the Wall Street Journal recently, Jason Lusk, professor of agricultural economics at Oklahoma State University, told us to give thanks this holiday for the defeat California's Proposition 37 that would have required labeling of genetically modified foods. He thinks that defeat marks the death of at least part of the self-proclaimed "food movement" that wants to intrude into the nation's grocery stores and kitchens.

He notes that other intrusive initiatives also failed, including a "fat tax," and that such efforts are also failing overseas; In Denmark, the government this month rescinded its one-year-old tax on saturated fat because of consumer backlash and adverse economic results.

Supporters of these efforts blame negative campaign ads, but that's not the answer, he says, because one of the key lessons of politics in 2012 is that "money can't buy elections," He cites Michael Pollan's New York Times Magazine conclusion that "One of the more interesting things we will learn on Nov. 6 is whether or not there is a 'food movement' in America worthy of the name — that is, an organized force in our politics capable of demanding change in the food system." So, by that standard, says Lusk, "we must conclude that there is no viable food movement worth its sea salt. Right?"

But not so fast, he says. Lusk argues that there is a successful food movement that has caught fire over the past decade that encourages consumers to provide incentives for farmers and retailers to grow and sell better-tasting, more-nutritious produce, and is causing an "explosion of niche producers of jams and salsas in exotic flavors, the rise of craft brewers in strip malls and backyard garages all across the United States. Wal-Mart is now the country's largest seller of organic produce, he says and "That food movement is alive and well."

By contrast, the food movement that failed first tried to use the coercive power of the state to strong-arm Americans into eating "fashionably." It used scare tactics and misrepresents the consensus scientific opinion about food technologies in an effort to demonize agribusiness, and "... distrusts consumers to pick the right soda size," Lusk observes.

Lusk sees a "delicious irony" in the behavior of food-movement proponents who would orchestrate, from the top down, whatever they find lacking, and argues that they would "impose the natural and the wholesome on everyone by regulatory force." And, Lusk thinks, it is unlikely that these efforts will now end.

In fact, the failure of Prop 37 likely was the result of the advocates' failure to convince voters that the rules they wanted would correct a real and significant threat, in spite of the lack of any real evidence to the contrary. And, voters also concluded that the proposals would be confusing and expensive. And, the debate was vital and widespread, rather than covert and under the radar as is often the case.

So, while this suggests a high hurdle for the food elitists who are peddling a "food culture" without regard to its costs or benefits, it doesn't really suggest the threat has gone away — there is too great a return in book and newspaper sales by advocates. In fact, this fight likely is just beginning and should be watched carefully as it evolves, Washington Insider believes.

I can be found on Twitter @ChrisClaytonDTN.

Posted at 6:24AM CST 11/21/12 by Chris Clayton
Comments (5)
Monsanto convinced their friends to pony up $46 Million to join them in cutting off the headlong rush toward Truth in Labeling, a frightening concept already alive in 61 Industrialized Nations. Oh, by the way, there's still 3.3 million votes not yet counted, but the MSM said, "Victory.", so it must be true. Also, it's a Pyrrhic victory, at best, as the entire nation is finally paying attention, something the "Labelers" wanted, but couldn't afford to do. Now, there are Anti-GMO Organizations in every state and they're gaining ground. You'll have to hope Monsanto can keep convincing all their resistance partners to keep ponying up the money after Legislation initiatives take flight in state after state in the coming months. That's not all, there's growing boycotts, as well as rising concerns being advocated by Authorities too well-regarded to be ignored, or as easy to be denigrated as some were early on. WE WILL have Labeling, coming faster than Monsanto ever thought possible...and they helped it all along. Gee-thanks, Monsanto.
Posted by Ric Ohge at 10:41AM CST 11/21/12
Ric, probably the best solution is for nonGMO food products to advertise that unless it is labeled to NOT contain GMO's that the consumer needs to assume it does contain GMO's
Posted by Jay Mcginnis at 7:11AM CST 11/22/12
I fail to see the validity of the wannabees arguements. Till up the oversized, over fertilized, overwatered lawns, numerous recreation areas and get exercise growing your own, instead of riding around the course in a cart. Problem solved.
Posted by Bonnie Dukowitz at 7:17AM CST 11/22/12
Ric sure spices up a story! I read the two page list of backers against prop 37 and most were ethinic and social welfare organizations opposed to the higher food costs of labeling. We can also add the liberal LA times against 37. Not who you would expect to see in bed with an "evil" corporation like Monsanto. I also read that the Danish "fat tax" failed because it wasn't harsh enough to change habits - much like $3 gas did little to stop driving. If you want it bad enough, you'll pay for it! A "bad habit" tax is government at its lowest level. The only thing worse, is the rest of us tolerating such a government.
Posted by Curt Zingula at 7:36AM CST 11/25/12
In places where they TRY to grow their own, the FDA has been moving in and seizing the crop-or, if not them directly, associated State, County or Municipal Enforcement. IS this happening everywhere? Not yet, but it IS a growing problem-the magic question being, simply-why? As to the issue with the "poor" being saddled with higher food costs, the only factor that makes Organic more costly is Industrial Ag gets beau-coup subsidies-Organic does not. In the 61+ Countries where Labeling is the Law, the food costs less-in some cases less than half of what's sold here. (Note: the "offending" label is ALREADY on the export boxes...Hmmmmmmmm...)
Posted by Ric Ohge at 9:39AM CST 11/28/12
Post a Blog Comment:
Your Comment:
DTN reserves the right to delete comments posted to any of our blogs and forums, for reasons including profanity, libel, irrelevant personal attacks and advertisements.
Blog Home Pages
October  2014
S M T W T F S
         1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31   
Subscribe to Ag Policy Blog RSS
Recent Blog Posts
  • Cattle Industry, Land Group Presses Feds to Pull WOTUS Rule
  • USDA Moving Ahead with Beef Checkoff Plans
  • Politicos Weigh in on USDA APH Yield Exclusion
  • Views in Congress Vary on COOL
  • Vilsack Addresses Checkoff Controversy
  • GAO: 'USDA Needs to Better Communicate Climate Plan'
  • Offering Advice on Farm Bill Choices
  • Governors, Attorneys General say CWA Rule a Legal Threat to Farmers
  • Dem Senators ask President to Leave RFS Alone
  • Senators Push for Withdraw of Endangered Species Act Rule
  • ARC and the PLC Reference Price
  • Beef Promotion Leads to Beef Politics
  • Small Business Advocacy Group Calls for CWA Rule to be Withdrawn
  • CRP, Base Acres and Proof for Yield Updates
  • Business Groups: Withdraw WOTUS Rule
  • Photo Fees on Public Lands? C'Mon, Man!
  • USDA ARC-PLC Rollout and Decision Tools for Farmers
  • Point, Counterpoint on EPA's Waters of the U.S. Rule
  • Point, Counterpoint on EPA's Waters of the U.S. Rule
  • Senate Committee Passes Railroad Regulatory Bill