Skip to content

Category: Uncategorized

Agriculture: America vs. Europe

Rivals in other lands have sniffy theories about why America, a rich country, is so good at producing cheap food. They paint American farmers as pawns of giant agri-corporations, bullied by market forces to produce genetically modified Frankenfoods. Lexington has not forgotten the face pulled by a French agriculture minister, interviewed during a previous posting to Europe, as he mocked America’s “aseptic” farm produce.

Foreign rivals are right about the power of market forces in America, but wrong to see its farmers as passive victims. Americans have thought differently about agriculture for a long time—and not by accident. Settled in a rush of migration, peaking in the 1880s, Nebraska’s prairies were parcelled out to German, Czech, Danish, Swedish and even Luxemburgish pioneers. From the start the plan was to convert Old World homesteaders to the scientific ways of the New World. As the system developed, Congress sent county agents from universities to teach menfolk modern farming and their wives such skills as tomato-canning. In the 1920s educational trains trundled through the prairies, pulling boxcars of animals and demonstration crops. At each stop, hundreds would gather for public lectures. Older folk resisted such newfangled ideas as planting hybrid corn bought from merchants rather than seedcorn from their own harvests. Enter the 4-H movement, which gave youngsters hybrid seeds to plant, then waited for the shock as children’s corn outgrew their parents’. Later youngsters promoted such innovations as computers.

Because America was a new country, argues Greg Ibach, head of agriculture in Nebraska’s state government, a primary concern was feeding a growing population and moving food large distances. Europeans fussed about appellations and where food came from. Americans “treated food as commodities”.

A great, highly instructive read from Lexington titled “Farming as Rocket Science” in The Economist.

Of Gold Standards and Golden Means

(Source: NatalieDee.com)
(Source: NatalieDee.com)

A recent Twitter conversation I had with other social scientists made me reflect upon the state of my own discipline when it comes to standards of evidence. That is, about when we can say that we are fairly certain about a specific conclusion drawn from analyzing data.

The conversation began when Raul Pacheco-Vega said “I love experimental methods, but being obsessed with it is unhealthy.”

I responded that what is unhealthy is the attitude according to which “the only good research questions are the ones that can be randomized.” That is, the mode of thinking – dominant among certain empirical economists – according to which if a research question does not lend itself to randomization, it is not worth one’s time to try answering that research question.

Miscellaneous Food Policy Links: GMOs, Lobster, and Conflict

  1. Amy Harmon had a great article on golden rice — and the paranoia surrounding GMOs — in last Sunday’s New York Times.
  2. If you’ve missed Harmon’s excellent piece on orange rust and the use of GMOs to combat crop diseases, you can find it here.
  3. In this New Yorker, James Surowiecki’s column was dedicated to the collapsing price of lobster… and to how restaurants have failed to adjust.
  4. Again on the topic of GMOs, Grist magazine had a good three-part series on the topic: parts 1, 2, and 3 (ht: Jayson Lusk).
  5. Tom Friedman discovers the food price–conflict nexus… two years too late (ht: Hal Brands).
  6. Economic Logic discusses my most recent working paper, the one with Nick Carnes on agricultural protection in the US (ht: Economic Logician).