Posted on

Farmers Rise to Climate Challenges

Dire warnings of the terrible effects of changes in our global climate seem to be all around us these days.

No part of our lives has more at stake in this discussion than our global agriculture and food system. Weather extremes and changes in weather patterns certainly have the potential to disrupt our modern, efficient food delivery system.

There is more at stake than short-term supply disruptions, or spikes in what we have to pay for the food we put on our family tables. Climate issues raise important questions about long-term food security for literally billions of people.

But as we enter the northern hemisphere harvest season, data from private and public sources suggest we’re more than holding our own in the quest to deliver food security for everyone, everywhere.

Despite significant weather-related disruptions to agricultural production in some parts of our world, our global network of agricultural production and trade once again has provided an abundant supply of the cornerstone commodities that form the foundation of our worldwide food system.

Climate Change – or Climate Peril?

The weather facts today are clear:

Catastrophic weather events continue to plague the planet, either as an element of global warming or part of a much longer-term cyclical pattern of cooling and warming. The debate doesn’t alter the fact that parts of our world have seen weather conditions that compromise farm productivity.

“Air temperatures on Earth have been rising since the Industrial Revolution. While natural variability, (e.g., solar flares, El Nino, La Nina) plays some part, the preponderance of evidence indicates that human activities—particularly emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases—are mostly responsible for making our planet warmer.

“According to an ongoing temperature analysis led by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), the average global temperature on Earth has increased by at least 1.1° Celsius (1.9° Fahrenheit) since 1880. The majority of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15 to 0.20°C per decade.”

The image below shows global temperature anomalies in 2022, which tied for the fifth warmest year on record. The past nine years have been the warmest years since modern recordkeeping began in 1880.

Climate and Productivity

Parts of the European Union, for example, have seen dry conditions and heat that cut production of major crops such as corn and wheat. EU corn production, for example is down 8 percent from its five-year average of production. Wheat is down 8 percent this year, driven largely by soil moisture conditions and heat.

But the picture is very different in other parts of the global farming system. The data can become almost mind-numbing.

But the conclusion is clear. The recent USDA World Agricultural Production report demonstrates that farmers worldwide continue to find ways to boost their output, no matter the climate changes.

For instance:

  • In the United States, corn production is up 10 percent above last year, driven to a remarkable average of 183 bushels per acre – more than 6 bushels above last year. Though  size of the crop this year is likely to be a touch smaller than last year, production growth continues to be impressive.
  • In Canada, despite its challenging geographic location north of the corn belt, corn yields have increased to an estimate 163-167 bushels per acre. Soybean production is up 12 percent from last year.
  • The southern hemisphere is doing its part, too.
    • In Brazil, soybean acreage has grown from roughly 10 million acres to more than 14 million, helping catapult that country ahead of the United States in production. Despite economic turmoil,
    • Argentina has seen soybean production rise by 92 percent over last year, driven by more acreage and yields that are 70 percent above last year’s number.
  • Malaysian palm oil production also is up – increasing by 6 percent from last year.
  • In India, rice production is up a full percentage point for last year, despite very slight decreases in per-acre productivity.

This year, we’re seeing farmers exploiting favorable weather and moisture conditions to drive steady increases in our farm productivity.

Some parts of our world are in fact seeing record production, based on smart use of science, technology and farm management practices. Yield increases continue to meet global demand – and in fact, produce carryover supplies that hold down prices to farmers and contribute to a highly competitive international marketplace for feed grains, food grains and oilseeds.

The U.S Department of Agriculture explains the situation in clear language:

Productivity Has Replaced Resource Intensification as the Primary Source of Growth in World Agriculture

“Since the 1960s, global agricultural output has increased at an average annual rate of between 2 and 3 percent (in volume terms, holding prices constant)…. Output growth was high in the 1960s (think Norman Borlaug’s ‘Green Revolution’), slowed in the 1970s (due to severely cold weather) and 1980s, accelerated in the 1990s and 2000s, but slowed again in the most recent period …. In this latest period (2011–21), global output of total crop, animal, and aquaculture commodities grew by an average rate of 1.94 percent per year.”

– USDA Economic Research Service

Productivity and Food Security

The remarkable ability of our global food system to meet the supply challenge has help create a food security picture very different from the worst fears of hyperbolic headlines. The below chart graphically demonstrates this by plotting historical post-harvest wheat, corn and soybean stocks (commodities for sale by the farmers and others; also referred to as ‘reserves’).

In reality, we continue to have not just sufficient but abundant stocks of the basic commodities we rely upon.

There’s no immediate evidence of traumatic shock to our food supplies, from climate conditions, conflict-driven market disruptions or other of the many factors that cause concern about immediate food security.

As serious as the long-term questions posed by climatic change may be, there’s no cause for panic at this time.

USDA also summarizes the overall picture for basic food commodities in stark terms:

  • Abundant supplies, growing carry-out stocks
  • Continuing downward price pressures, especially for farmers
  • Continued strong demand and highly competitive international markets

Trade and Food Security

This year’s harvest data also contains a helpful reminder of the importance of trade in a truly global food system.  The community of nations relies on an efficient system of moving commodities and food products from areas of abundance to areas of need.  Trade helps balance the disruptions caused by climate events and conditions with a steady supply of the foods essential to food security – and, for many, to human survival.

The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates that global agricultural exports rose in value by almost three times between 2005 and 2022 – to almost $1.9 trillion.  For U.S. farmers, exports of agricultural products represented a market worth $195 billion, serving customers on more than 35 countries, according to USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service.  Trade remains a critical component of our food security.

A Cautionary Note

To the layperson, growth of 1.94 percent may not sound all that impressive. But when applied to crops measured in the hundreds of millions and billions of bushels, it remains an impressive accomplishment.

Even so, many in the food security discussion caution that the overall growth in productivity – while laudable – may mask another element of concern. They worry that in some important parts of the world, notably some of the poorest areas most in need of greater farm productivity – may lag in the effort to boost yields. Lack of investment, political instability, vulnerability to weather extremes and drought and many other factors continue to pose serious challenges to improvement. However, that’s where the value of trade shines: when we move commodities from countries of surplus to countries most in need.

Posted on

How bad is alcohol for us?

Sitting down for cocktails and dinner with friends and family is so enjoyable on a Friday or Saturday evening after a long week. But after tuning into an episode of Dr. Huberman’s podcast on drinking’s effects on our health, we took a closer look into how our body processes alcohol.

As it turns out, Dr. Huberman was onto something. New research has shown that the nice little drink in your hand can have more detrimental effects on our brain and body than we originally knew. In fact, emerging studies reveal that even low levels of alcohol consumption can have significant negative impacts on health.

So we gathered information from recent studies to answer some important questions:

Maybe those weekend cocktails are not such a good idea after all…

Alcohol metabolism, toxicity & cancer risk

When ingested, alcohol – also known as ethanol – is metabolized by the liver. This process involves converting ethanol to acetaldehyde, a toxic compound that damages cells and tissues. The liver uses the enzyme alcohol dehydrogenase to break down ethanol into acetaldehyde, which is then converted to acetate.

While acetate can be utilized as an energy source, the intermediate production of acetaldehyde is harmful and contributes to the toxic effects of alcohol​.

The liver, being the primary site of alcohol metabolism, suffers significant damage from prolonged alcohol exposure. Acetaldehyde can induce oxidative stress, leading to liver inflammation, fatty liver disease, and cirrhosis over time​.

But the damage doesn’t stop there. Acetaldehyde can circulate through the bloodstream, impacting various organs and systems. And ethanol and its metabolites can damage DNA and promote carcinogenesis through several mechanisms, including oxidative stress and interference with DNA repair processes.

The effects of metabolizing ethanol also influence hormone levels, increasing estrogen levels, a risk factor for breast cancer. This is why alcohol consumption is associated with an increased risk of various cancers.

Alcohol’s effects on the brain

Alcohol’s influence on the brain is multifaceted, affecting both structure and function:

Neurodegeneration:

Chronic alcohol consumption, even at low to moderate levels (7 to 14 drinks per week), can lead to brain atrophy, particularly thinning of the neocortex and other critical brain regions. In fact, Huberman suggests that anything beyond two drinks a week has negative consequences. This structural degeneration can impair cognitive functions, including memory and executive functions.

Neurotransmitter disruption:

Alcohol acts as a central nervous system depressant, influencing neurotransmitter systems. It increases the activity of gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA), an inhibitory neurotransmitter, while simultaneously inhibiting glutamate, an excitatory neurotransmitter. This dual action leads to the characteristic sedative effects of alcohol and impairs cognitive functions and memory formation.

Behavioral changes:

Alcohol reduces the activity of the prefrontal cortex, the brain region responsible for decision-making, impulse control, and social behavior. This suppression can lead to increased impulsivity, risk-taking behaviors, and reduced inhibition, contributing to alcohol-related accidents and injuries.

Mood and mental health:

Alcohol disrupts the balance of serotonin and other neurotransmitters involved in mood regulation. This disruption can exacerbate conditions such as depression and anxiety. Regular alcohol use can lead to a cycle of dependence and withdrawal, further complicating mental health issues.

Impact on the microbiome

Alcohol has a significant impact on the gut microbiome, the community of microorganisms living in our intestines.

Alcohol kills both beneficial and harmful bacteria, leading to dysbiosis (microbial imbalance). This disruption can cause “leaky gut syndrome”, where the intestinal lining becomes permeable, allowing toxins and bacteria to enter the bloodstream. This condition is linked to systemic inflammation and a host of health problems, including liver disease and increased susceptibility to infections.

Maintaining a healthy gut microbiome is crucial for mitigating some of alcohol’s negative effects. Consuming probiotics and fermented foods, such as yogurt and kimchi, can help restore microbial balance and reduce inflammation.

Strategies to mitigate the effects of alcohol

The scientific evidence outlined here underscores alcohol’s potential risks.

From neurodegeneration to mental health issues, leaky gut, and increased cancer risk, its deleterious effects seem frightening, and rightfully so.

But this can feel contradictory to the social norms that encourage moderate alcohol consumption, making it a real challenge to curb this habit. And for those who enjoy the taste, like a fine wine or specialty bourbon, implementing personal behaviors that support this research can feel stifling.

However, we can exercise a few healthy habits that can help our body recover from the effects of long-term alcohol consumption while instilling new, healthier behaviors now.

Hydration is key

Proper hydration and a balanced diet are essential for mitigating the acute effects of alcohol, such as hangovers. Alcohol is a diuretic, causing increased urine production and leading to dehydration. To counter this:

  • Drink plenty of water before, during, and after consuming alcohol
  • Electrolyte solutions can help replenish lost minerals and maintain physiological balance

Dietary choices

Certain foods and supplements can help mitigate alcohol-induced oxidative stress and support liver function:

  • Antioxidants: Foods rich in antioxidants, such as berries, nuts, and dark leafy greens, can help neutralize free radicals produced during alcohol metabolism
  • B vitamins: Alcohol consumption depletes B vitamins, which are essential for energy production and brain health. Supplementing with B vitamins, especially B1 (thiamine), B6, and B12, can help reduce some negative effects
  • Milk thistle: This herbal supplement has been shown to support liver health and protect against alcohol-induced liver damage​

Improve gut health

Maintaining gut health is crucial for mitigating the negative effects of alcohol on the microbiome. Strategies include:

  • Probiotics and fermented foods: Consuming probiotics and fermented foods, such as yogurt, kimchi, sauerkraut, and kefir, can help restore the balance of gut bacteria and reduce inflammation
  • Prebiotics: These are non-digestible fibers that feed beneficial gut bacteria. Foods rich in prebiotics include garlic, onions, bananas, and asparagus
  • Zbiotics is a genetically-engineered probiotic drink that mitigates the effects of alcohol by breaking down the acetaldehyde.

Limit alcohol consumption

Reducing alcohol intake is the most effective way to avoid its negative health impacts. Strategies to limit consumption include:

  • Setting limits: Establish personal drinking limits and stick to them. For example, limit consumption to a certain number of drinks per week
  • Choosing healthy, non-alcoholic alternatives: The popularity of non-alcoholic beverages is growing, offering many options that provide the social experience of drinking without the negative health impacts. Non-alcoholic beers, wines, and mocktails can be enjoyable substitutes

 

Posted on

Media Madness and the Search for Truth

How far down the rabbit holes of news and media do you want to go? The depths seem endless, especially as we approach another election.

Thankfully, our dear friend and media savant, Garland West, sheds some much needed insight to light a path of rationality back into our overzealous media consumption habits.

Now, it’s up to us to put Garland’s wisdom into good use so we may become well-informed, rational and responsible citizens.

Posted on

Your Views on Food Information Credibility

—-–

Thanks to all of you who responded to our recent survey on credibility and trustworthiness regarding our food and the food system that produces it. You spoke up loud and clear, with firm points of view and some insightful comments.

Since we began Dirt to Dinner years ago, you have made it very clear how important it is to have timely, accurate, and believable information about food. But to be of value to you, our information must be credible. You want us to meet your standards and expectations. We must work constantly to make sure we understand what enables our posts and other information to do that. That’s what our survey wanted to explore.

The findings

Here is a recap of the top-line findings from our survey – and some of the comments you made about this important subject.

Our survey focused on a few simple questions:

  1. What are your major sources of information about food and our food system?
  2. How do you rank those sources for credibility and trustworthiness?
  3. What are the major factors you use in assessing credibility and trustworthiness?

We will take a look at your responses below. But first, let’s take a step back and set the stage with a few general observations about the big messages within all the numbers.

First, who you know counts most.

You told us that your greatest sense of credibility and trust comes from people you know best or people and organizations that you already know.

People matter more than institutions, like businesses or big or distant organizations. The closer the personal relationship to the source of information, the greater the trust and credibility. First-hand information from actual people is valued far more than indirect, impersonal pronouncements from faceless institutions.

Second, credentials matter. 

When it comes to understanding our food – especially things like health and nutrition – professional standing means a great deal. You trust scientists, educators, doctors, and healthcare professionals. Close behind, you once again value the opinion of people close to you, notably family and friends.

None of that is a big surprise…but the gap between the credibility and trustworthiness of those groups compared with other sources of information was significant. We’ll look into that below.

Next, the facts…

Science and objectivity that so often come with credentials are paramount.

Credentialed people are seen to be driven by reason rather than emotion. Facts count, and impartial analysis of those facts is critical to presenting informed judgments. Fairness and impartiality are cornerstones of trust. And once again, people close to you – friends and family again – are known well enough to provide a greater degree of trust than strangers.

…and the farmers.

You trust the people who actually produce the food far more than most others along the chain from dirt to dinner.

When it comes to food, farmers are in elite company. You indicated an innate willingness to trust people at the front lines of providing us with the food we need.  Farmers and ranchers rank competitively with scientists, healthcare professionals, and educators as preferred sources of information.  People who have actually lived within the world of agriculture matter more to you than those who haven’t.

And some things that just jumped out at us:

  • The more distant and impersonal the source of information, the lower the level of credibility and trustworthiness. Businesses and business leaders, advertisers, industry and special interest groups, and to a certain extent government institutions, fared relatively poorly in your assessment of their credibility and trustworthiness as an information source.
  • Search engines, social media and podcasts seem to be important, but not yet as important as other valued sources of information. Most source categories in our survey generated strong opinion one way or another about their importance in shaping credibility and trust. But search engines and social media showed a remarkable balance between being “extremely important” or “not at all important.”
  • For all the criticism heaped upon our modern media, you indicated that national and local media remain an important source of information for you. Cable television sources, however, fared very poorly in our survey for credibility and trustworthiness.  Once again, it appears that sources who do the best job of establishing some form of quasi-personal or ‘family-like’ connection with viewers fare better than loud, argumentative, and clearly opinionated talking heads.

The ‘Uh-ohs’

We tested the same issues with a slightly different focus to assess the consistency of opinion.

  • Some of the lowest rankings for trustworthiness on food-related matters include ads, media personalities, social media influencers, and government officials:

  • Some of the lowest rankings for credibility on food-related matters include celebrities and influencers, corporations, and environmental groups.

Compare the low-ranked sources of information with those ranking highest in trust in the above chart: scientists/researchers (77% trust), friends & family (71%), and doctors/healthcare professionals (68%).

…and credibility in the information reported from educational institutions (73% credible) and farm/trade organizations (74%).

Respondent comments

Many of you also had your own personal comments to make about the survey and what’s important to you about your information sources when it comes to food. Here is just a sampling of what you had to say:

Bringing it back to D2D

Thank you once again for helping us with our continuous efforts to make Dirt-to-Dinner better and better. Your opinions are some of the most helpful guides we have to identify the kinds of posts you value, the sources we rely upon and the standards we set for the content we produce. With your help, we’ll make our site the most credible and trusted source of information about food and our food system available anywhere. To view charts derived from the survey data, please click here.

Have a wonderful 4th of July!

– The Dirt to Dinner Team

Posted on

5 Ways to Ensure What You Read is Scientifically Credible

Whether you’re looking for a quick bite of information or want to drop some knowledge on your dinnertime companions, here’s our Featured 5 of the Week!

Because of the internet and social media platforms, information spreads in a split-second, reaching thousands of users in minutes. However, this means that false news spreads just as fast. If you’re wondering how to know if what we read is accurate and credible, we’re here to help!

5. Check the references

Information that’s scientifically credible will have references to peer-reviewed articles. This means that multiple institutions have verified the research to be accurate. They’re also found in accredited medical journals, written by professionals with credentials in their related industry, or cite credible sources like government organizations and universities.

It’s a good idea to start here when trying to determine if something is credible. If there are no references cited, it’s probably best to ignore that article.

4. Is there bias?

Checking for bias is another critical first step when deciding if something is credible or not. One way to do this is to check if the organization is cherry-picking data. This means that they’re only using current and outdated data that supports their specific agenda and ignores anything that conflicts.

Another way to check for bias is to see if there’s a political pull. Any site can have an agenda, even if they don’t explicitly state it. Read the “About Us” page to see an organization’s policies, actions, campaigns, donors, and lobbies they promote.

3. Do other sites use the same facts?

Sometimes it’s hard to tell if research is reputable. Looking at other websites to see if they use the same research is an excellent way to check. It can also help you determine if an organization uses credible, peer-reviewed research because this research will be cited repeatedly.

It’s also a good idea to see how an organization is using the facts. Are they describing them the same way they were described in the research, or are they using it to support their own agenda?

2. What does the article look like?

Every article should have a few things: an author, a title, and quality writing. If it’s not clear who wrote the article, it could have been written in-house to promote an agenda. The same is true if there are no references at all. Credible organizations will cite their information from scientific studies or other well-known, credible sources.

The quality of writing should also be good. That means no typos, wrong words used, poor grammar, etc.

1. How much do they spend researching their cause?

And, how much do they spend on marketing that information?

All non-profits must publicly disclose their financials on their website. For example, EWG’s Statement of Activities page states that 13% of their expenses went toward marketing and fundraising. But, if you dig deeper, their Functional Expenses reveals a higher figure where each subcategory has its own marketing expenses. This compares to only 2% of their expenses going to research and data.

For an organization that releases a list that leads people to fear certain foods, there is not much research happening there.

Check out the full Discerning Dozen below:

Posted on

Avoiding conventional strawberries? Ask these questions first…


On the run? LISTEN to our post!

Many regular food shoppers anxiously await the results of the Environmental Working Group’s annual “Dirty Dozen” list. Even if you don’t know what or who EWG is, you’re probably aware that conventional strawberries and other common produce items are supposedly loaded with toxic pesticides. With all the press this list gets, you might assume the research behind it must be scientifically credible, right? Well…

Developing Our ‘Reliability Radar’

Some of our everyday news sources, like social media, flood us with information. And unfortunately, much of it isn’t credible. Many websites try to cloud our objective reasoning by intentionally misrepresenting data to ‘sell’ a perspective, much like the sudden popularity of the celery juice diet that Hayley Philip previously wrote about.

So how can we build our analytical defenses back up? We’ve put together our own unique list — “The Discerning Dozen” — a compilation of tips to help you identify good science from pseudoscience. This way, you can be the judge when catchy news stories like The Dirty Dozen are released.

The Discerning Dozen explores four topics to help determine a site’s credentials: credibility, accuracy/transparency, bias, and quality.

In each, we’ll walk you through a few questions to ask about any article that will help you spot problems in the logic. We’ve even created an infographic to have handy for future readings!

Credibility: 

Though challenging to read, studies from .edu and .gov websites lay the foundation for good research. Try to stick with sources that use respected institutions to verify their practices and reporting. 

  1. Is it written by someone from a credible establishment? Reports and studies from recognizable institutions (academic, governmental, and/or medical) often have the most detail and are peer-reviewed, meaning other institutions have verified the research. Accredited medical journals with .org and .com sites, of course, can be good resources, too. Newbies to exhaustive reports can read the overviews typically found on the first page to understand the big picture. Still need an interpreter? Check out usefulscience.org; it’s a great resource for deciphering studies and has a simple, intuitive interface. Scholar.google.com is easy to navigate, too.
  2. Does it include knowledgeable industry experts and authors? Trustworthy reports and articles come from professionals with credentials in their related industry. These experts usually provide insight garnered from data, rather than opinion and specious claims.
  3. Which references does the report cite? Reliable research that’s not written by a credible establishment and doesn’t come from an industry expert should, at the very least, cite credible sources, like the U.S. Department of Agriculture or Massachusetts Institute of Technology, to substantiate any claims.

That’s a nice little circle of trust there, right? But as we know from life, few things are that easy…yes, there’s more to consider.

Accuracy/Transparency: 

So the site ends in .org or .com and it’s not a medical journal. What’s the next step to check its trustworthiness?

  1. Is it cherry-picking data? This is when an organization only shows data that supports their agenda but fails to address conflicting info or cites data out of context, and/or relies on outdated data since nothing more recent aligns with their purpose.
  2. Do other sites use the same facts? Hopefully, you can find the same information cited by other credible institutions.
  3. How much do they spend on researching their cause – and how much for marketing? All non-profits must publicly disclose financials on their site; you just have to dig for it. For instance, on EWG’s Statement of Activities page, 13% of their expenses went toward marketing and fundraising – not horrible. However, Functional Expenses reveals a much higher figure: in addition to fundraising, each subcategory also has its own marketing expenses. Furthermore, only a paltry 2% of their expenses is going to research and data. That’s not much funding for finding solutions to a problem, is it?

Click here to download infographic.

Bias:

Time to take a peek under the hood when the site’s validity is not easily determined.

  1. Do a domain double-check: Sites ending in .com and .org aren’t as regulated as the .gov and .edu sites of the world, so you’ll need to dig into the “about us” page for some background. Sometimes it’s hard to tell reputable foundations from organizations peddling questionable products or ideas. So be sure to read the bios of the management team and authors to determine reliability.
  2. Is there political pull? Any site can have an agenda, but not all of them explicitly state it. Advocacy websites, like PETA, are quite clear in their intentions. Reading the “About Us” page can tell you which policies, actions, campaigns, and lobbies they promote.
  3. Is it clear who wrote the article? This is a simple one we often overlook. If the author isn’t stated and/or doesn’t cite sources used for its research, then you can quickly determine it was written in-house to promote the organization’s stance.
  4. Is there only one answer? Does the author address alternative viewpoints on the topic? Good writers don’t omit or contest credible data that conflicts with their intent.

Quality: 

If you manufacture a product, you know about quality control – measures and precautions taken to ensure customers that everything is in good working order. This goes for websites, too…

  1. How’s the quality of the writing? Typos? Wrong words used? Time to check the author and his/her data.
  2. Don’t judge a site by its homepage. Does the site look rather simplistic? Or so polished and bursting with content that you feel like you found a goldmine of good material? No matter the design, the site is only as good as its underlying content, so vet it accordingly.
Posted on

Jack Bobo: How We Choose Our Food

At D2D, we find Jack’s insights on consumers interesting and unique. He brings an informative perspective about our choices in the grocery store. Jack searches into the questions that drive our decisions in the marketplace, such as:

In the following interview with Jack, we scratch the surface on some of these curious topics.

D2D: How did you shift your focus from global conservation to understanding consumer food choices?

Jack: I was stationed in Mekambo, Gabon when I worked for the Peace Corp. in Africa. As I lay awake at night listening to the rain patter on the tree canopy, I vowed to protect these beautiful forests. Fast forward to my work with the State Department, it became clear that one of the biggest impacts on our environment is agriculture. My hero is Nobel Prize Winner Norman Borlaug who started as a forester, yet he saved more forests as an agronomist.

What is your personal mission?

The agricultural system has to grow 60% more food by 2050 using less land, water, fertilizer, and pesticides. Technology is key. Unfortunately, we love innovation almost as much as we despise change. There is no place we dislike change more than in the food we eat. This has led to a polarization of understanding about the role of science and technology in sustainably feeding the world.

I would like to de-escalate the tensions in the food system to save the planet. There is not just one answer and one production method. We need diversity of thought and diversity of methods. It is also important for the farmers to have the freedom to farm the way it works best for their land.

As I learned about science, agriculture, and the potential to solve these problems at the State Department, I was taken aback by the lack of public support for agricultural technology. I went on a journey to discover how to educate consumers on food science and agricultural technology. I spoke to thousands of people in dozens of countries. What I learned was: If you lead with the science, you may lose with the science. Science tends to polarize the conversation. This led me to study behavior science, psychology, and consumer trends.

Why do we, as food consumers, not trust research and science?

The lack of experience with food production has led to a trust lost between food producers and the public. Consumers are not convinced that companies have their best interest at heart. But this is not just food companies – there is a lack of trust in many organizations across the sectors. The internet has accelerated this because we get information and answers from different places. It can be liberating – like getting a second opinion – and on the other hand, make people more skeptical on any advice they are given.

“Consumers have never cared more, nor known less, how their food was produced.”

This has led to the desire for transparency. Where does our food come from and whom do we trust? Animal welfare, the environment, production practices, and food safety are all topics that the consumers wants to understand.

How does the consumer know whom to trust?

We only ask questions if we don’t trust and never ask questions if we do trust. Most people don’t ask the necessary questions.  For instance, are you concerned about local issues, global issues, or both? Are you willing to change your mind based on new information? What makes you trust an organization? Why do you not trust the information source? These are the types of questions to ask yourself before making a decision.

In your talks, you mention the difference between Hazard and Risk. Can you explain how that applies to food?

A hazard is something that can cause harm, and risk is something that does cause harm. A shark in the water is a hazard, but not if we are standing on land. Even if you are in the water, it is a low risk (1 in 3,748,067). Most consumers are hard-wired to know hazard. If it can hurt us, we immediately believe it will hurt us. Risk is a statistical concept.

Consumers mainly perceive risk by communication through various organizations such as businesses, governments, and NGOs. Governments are good about communicating real risks – like coronavirus. They do not focus on hazards. Through marketing and the internet, consumers are flooded with information on hazards that might hurt us.

Regulators think of risk like this: “Hazard multiplied by Exposure equals Risk”. My formula is now: Hazard times Media Exposure equals Perception of Risk. Let’s take Hint water as an example. It is non-GMO, gluten free, sugar free, sweetener free, preservative free, vegan, no MSG, nuts, soy, and the bottles are BPA-free. This leads the consumer to believe these items are in most of our foods and will hurt us. And, with all these perceived ‘risks’, we grow fearful of our food.

When you say that people don’t see reality as it is, what do you mean?

Often our brain sees things as we want to see them. It uses mental shortcuts to make decisions, but often that can lead to the wrong result. Take this chart below: you automatically think there are two hues of blue, when in reality, it’s all the same hue.

Also, there is confirmation bias, which is the root of polarization. We look for information consistent with our beliefs and avoid information that is inconsistent. Our brain also uses word association as a short cut. For instance, with the word ‘natural’, we think of positive thoughts, such as fresh, home-baked bread and honey. We don’t think of Ebola and Zika viruses – which are also natural. We tend not to support man-made things because our brain wants to think of things it understands.

In general, we don’t really understand food safety additions, such as food additives and food preservatives, so we tend to avoid them. For instance, many people avoid chemicals in their foods, but what many don’t realize is that foods are made up of chemicals, whether natural or man-made.

What kind of articles can we look forward to reading?

I will be writing on subjects about consumers. For example, how decisions are made; why we fear the food we eat; and how powerful words change our feelings. There will be a series of 10 articles on the Futurity website. Some of these ideas were covered in a TED Talk I gave last year.

Click here to be directed to Futurity Food

We look forward to summarizing Jack’s concepts on Dirt to Dinner in the future.

Interested in Jack’s perspective on another topic? Email us at info@dirt-to-dinner.com!

Posted on

Why are we buying so much toilet paper?!

Such behavior has become common amid the global spread of COVID-19. The empty shelves bear witness to the fact that consumers around the world are stockpiling hand sanitizer, canned foods, toilet paper, and other goods.

The Mob Mentality

A number of books have been written about the “wisdom of crowds” and how groups of people often arrive at better decisions than individuals. Unfortunately, crowds can also become mobs. When that happens, the decisions they make generally ignore their own conscience or rational judgement – thus are not in the best interest of society or individuals.

When people are stressed, it can be difficult to think rationally. As a result, we look around to see what others are doing. When we see people scrambling for toilet paper or spaghetti, we tend to engage in similar behavior. The funny part is we may be stocking up on foods that we wouldn’t normally eat, such as lots and lots of pasta and chips. When was the last time you ate canned peaches?

For this reason, it may not be a good idea to post your photos of empty shelves on social media. If you do, you are sending signals that goods are in short supply, which could stress your friends and family and encourage panic-buying that hurts us all.

Why Are We Acting Like This?

While panic-buying may seem irrational—does anybody really need 80 rolls of toilet paper?!—it isn’t unreasonable for us to emulate the behavior of those who came before. After all, if everybody else is stocking up on toilet paper, it won’t be long before there isn’t any left for reasonable people. Better to grab the last couple packages while you can!

Behavioral economics and cognitive psychology can help us make sense of these behaviors. Information cascades and herd behavior describe how it sometimes makes sense to go along with the crowd even when you do not believe they are behaving rationally.

Understanding what is happening in the grocery store means recognizing that we do not shop simply to meet our physical needs but also to meet our emotional needs. “Retail therapy” occurs when we make purchases to manage our emotional state. Such purchases allow us to take back control in situations where we feel particularly out of control.

Where We Find Value

The coronavirus pandemic makes it particularly difficult for people to get control of their lives. It isn’t clear how long the crisis will go on or how bad things will ultimately get. In reality, sitting at home doing nothing may be the best course of action for most of us, but it does not contribute to a sense of control.

While panic buying may be irrational, other consumers behaviors make better sense. In particular, we are looking for longer term value in our purchases. This can be seen in the types of goods that consumers are buying and the shelves they are picking clean. Consumers are drawn to canned and dried goods that will keep for a long time as well as frozen foods. This was especially clear during the first couple weeks when consumers were advised to stock up.

This search for value also explains why some foods and brands remained on the shelves while seemingly similar products disappeared. In my local store, consumers focused on store brands over premium products. Pricey sauces and expensive oils remained on the shelves while lower cost versions were absent.

Planning for the Long Haul

As the coronavirus situation develops over the weeks and months ahead, we can expect to see further shifts in consumer behavior. I’ve seen some changes already at my local grocery store. While it may not reflect broader patterns, I noticed last week that the shelves of beef products were empty, while chicken remained readily available. This week, I noticed the opposite was the case. This could mean that consumers stocked up last week on beef and are now looking to do the same with chicken, or it could mean that they are shifting purchasing patterns to lower cost options in anticipation of the crisis lasting longer. Time will tell.

As time passes, economics and refrigerator space, will overtake consumer psychology in dictating purchasing behavior. Panic-buying of products with limited shelf life won’t make sense. Consumers will find a new rhythm for their purchases.

Many consumers will also begin to feel the financial pinch of lost earnings soon, if they haven’t already. Consumers unable to work will need to make their savings last longer. 27% of Americans have little or no savings, and the average American has about $183,000 in all bank and retirement accounts. Sheltering-in-place will impact tens of millions of Americans who have jobs but are not able to work, therefore not bringing home a paycheck.

Mapping the Road Ahead

Looking much further out, to a time when the worst of the crisis passes, we may see lasting changes in consumer food purchasing patterns. Consumers may find that some labels that seemed so important at the beginning of the year no longer seem quite so meaningful any longer. They may be reminded that “natural” does not guarantee safety, as the coronavirus demonstrated. On the other hand, it won’t be surprising if interest resurges in superfoods and functional foods, which can demonstrate real health benefits, perhaps helping them fend off the next COVID-19.

For now, pay attention to your behavior. Do you really need that extra roll of paper towels or toilet paper, or are you just stocking up? Pay attention to your own conscience and your own household needs rather than the frantic person pushing the grocery cart next to yours. Rest assured, the grocery stores will continue to be stocked with food and supplies.