IBM and Food Safety: The Irony, The (Big) Irony
Food safety advocates have had a field day with a new study funded by IBM claiming, "Less than 20% of consumers trust food they buy is safe and healthy." The Consumerist is all over it. Fooducate is all over it. As is Progressive Grocer. And Treehugger. And The Reluctant Eater. And Oldways. And Grist.
Some sites that cite the study note that IBM has a profit motive at stake. Some conveniently omit that little detail. None question if IBM's profit motive biased the study's results. And, none questioned if the timing of the study's release is an attempt by IBM to influence the Congressional debate on H.R. 2749, the Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009.
The irony (which is a nice way of saying hypocrisy) is glaring. If a Big Ag-funded study reveals results friendly to Big Ag, the food safety mob launches ad hominem attacks regarding the research organization and/or funding sources with a vengeance. The Union of Concerned Scientists trashing (see p. 19) of data from an industry group, the Animal Health Institute, showing that only 35% of antimicrobial production was consumed by animal agriculture and the Civil Eats screed berating a New York Times op-ed citing a study which showed that free-range pork was more likely to contain certain pathogens than industrially raised pork because the study was funded by the National Pork Board while neglecting to mention that the study was published in a peer-reviewed journal come to mind immediately. Yet, let Big Iron, certainly no stranger to the profit motive, release a study aligning with food alarmists prejudices and not one of them questions if the results are biased because of IBM's financial interests.
I have long suspected that the local/organic/sustainable movement and their brethren in the food safety alarmist community are ideologues more interested in promoting an aesthetic than in engaging in substantiative, fact- and logic-based debate regarding what I believe are serious issues. The reaction to the IBM study only bolsters these suspicions.
Some sites that cite the study note that IBM has a profit motive at stake. Some conveniently omit that little detail. None question if IBM's profit motive biased the study's results. And, none questioned if the timing of the study's release is an attempt by IBM to influence the Congressional debate on H.R. 2749, the Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009.
The irony (which is a nice way of saying hypocrisy) is glaring. If a Big Ag-funded study reveals results friendly to Big Ag, the food safety mob launches ad hominem attacks regarding the research organization and/or funding sources with a vengeance. The Union of Concerned Scientists trashing (see p. 19) of data from an industry group, the Animal Health Institute, showing that only 35% of antimicrobial production was consumed by animal agriculture and the Civil Eats screed berating a New York Times op-ed citing a study which showed that free-range pork was more likely to contain certain pathogens than industrially raised pork because the study was funded by the National Pork Board while neglecting to mention that the study was published in a peer-reviewed journal come to mind immediately. Yet, let Big Iron, certainly no stranger to the profit motive, release a study aligning with food alarmists prejudices and not one of them questions if the results are biased because of IBM's financial interests.
I have long suspected that the local/organic/sustainable movement and their brethren in the food safety alarmist community are ideologues more interested in promoting an aesthetic than in engaging in substantiative, fact- and logic-based debate regarding what I believe are serious issues. The reaction to the IBM study only bolsters these suspicions.
I'm surprised at your take on this one.
We have faced decades of profit-driven "food" development by hundreds, if not thousands, of large corporate interests. And we have gotten fatter, less healthy as a result of our advanced "Western diet." Rates of Asthma, food allergies, food senstitivities, diabetes, obesity are rising at faster rates than have been seen before.
Yet, when one major corporate interest (translated: profit-driven) decides to come out on the other side of the debate, you raise the alarm.
Is IBM in it for the money? Of course.
Is there anything wrong with making money solving the massive food problems we face? Not at all.
In fact, without a profit motive, many of the challenges we face will only be attacked by NGOs and government, which means slow progress.
We need the full arsenal of American entrepreneurship and innovation (not necessarily technical innovation) to reverse trends in food-related diseases and related healthcare expenses, as well as find environmentally neutral methods for feeding communities.
Do you see another way, other than denying we have significant problems?
Reply to this
Rob, I agree with almost everything you said in your comment, which makes me believe that I wasn't clear in my post.
I'm not trying to raise an alarm about IBM. In their position, I'd do exactly the same thing. Their study's conclusions may well be true. And, yes, products/services from profit-driven companies will, without doubt, improve our food system. I'm glad to see someone from the activist community state that very straightforwardly.
My ire was directed at a food safety activist community that was quick to unquestioningly embrace the IBM study when that community routinely launches attacks on the veracity and funding Big Ag studies when both IBM and Big Ag are motivated by the same thing -- profit. It strikes me that, if studies contrary to the activist position can be attacked because of the profit motive, then studies aligning with the activist position deserve the same scrutiny, which activists clearly did not give to the IBM study.
As Scott Charles writes below, "[Our] bias towards assuming credibility based on ideological position is what gets us in trouble as a society."
Reply to this
The two of us agreeing on something is a good thing, isn't it?
Regardless, comparing the gleeful reaction of the "food safety activist community" to a study showing results supporting its efforts, conducted by one of the most trusted brands in corporate America, to its typical reaction to yet another "fox-guarding-the-hen-house" study strikes me as unfair.
Give the sustainable food movement a couple years of similar studies to begin leveling the playing field. If at that time they are still bitching about bias, then claiming they're the pot calling the kettle black is fair game.
Reply to this
Rob: I would like to respectfully add that it wasn't only "decades of profit-driven "food" development by ... corporations", it was that plus consumers buying into those products. If the free market is going to work, it has to be driven the consumers. Or else let's just call it something else (e.g., socialism, communism or whatever).
Reply to this
Socialism? Communism? Are you serious?
What we are talking about is consumerism, which sits at the center of American capitalism - a great model when properly checked.
I trust you understand that "consumers buying into those products" is directly and significantly influenced by tens of billions of dollars spent every year by food industry corporations.
The resulting sales of the most profitable foods manufactured by those companies generated the profits necessary to invest in the development of the next "crop" of highly-processed and profitable foods, along with the advertising budgets necessary to build demand.
This cycle continually repeats, dragging the unsuspecting along for the ride.
The problem is that these manufactured foods are not providing the dietary balance people need to be healthy, but I guess cheap and convenient has its short-term benefits.
The long-term "surprises" are another matter all together.
Reply to this
Rob: well I would agree that consumers drive the type of free-market capitalism we have in the US -- which was exactly my point (as near as I can tell we are in agreement). It seems to me you are saying they were misled, and made bad choices. So be it. I won't dispute that. Going forward I hope they make better choices; I hope they (me!) are free to make those choices. Otherwise, if they are not, let's call it something else other then "free market capitalism".
Reply to this
Here's to consumers making better choices, which will require transparency of what is in the food they are buying, e.g., labeling.
I am curious about what you are thinking might be implemented that would take away consumer's freedom to make choices regarding food.
Can you expand on what such actions might include and who would be implementing them?
Reply to this
Rob, I'm with you on labeling. As I point out in my post regarding milk labeling, http://bit.ly/TTQEh, it's essential for efficient market operation. In general, the food activist community has been out in front of Big Ag and Big Food on this issue and in a good way. I have a bit of sympathy when restaurant chains worry about the expense of performing nutritional analysis on specials or items being tested for inclusion on their menus. (To your second point, this might be an example of how regulation could limit consumer choice.) Beyond this, however, the big boys are just trying to limit expense (can't blame them) but labeling is generally an expense they should bear to inform consumers.
An example of a proposed government regulation that could take away consumer choice is the mandatory farm-to-fork tracking that is being advocated in some quarters. Such a requirement could impose huge record keeping costs. Ask any start-up trying to go public how much implementing Sarbanes-Oxley costs them. The usual answer is $1,000,000 per year. That's money they'd rather spend on innovation instead of record keeping. Because there are often scale economies associated with systems requried to implement government regulation, I fear that additional rules will tilt the playing field toward the big guys, endanger small players and, perhaps more importantly, deter innovative new players from entering the market. (Note: These last few sentences plagerize a comment I made on my 5,000 foodborne illness deaths annually post, http://bit.ly/zUAvT.) Fewer players in the market equals less consumer choice, by definition. Further, I question if such tracking really would reduce foodborne illness and death. See the policy implication section of http://bit.ly/zUAvT.
Reply to this
Grumpy: Your points are well said.
I agree 100% that when one is reading published research, one has to consider the source, and the methodology. In other words look for the bias.
For most people I think finding the bias is tricky because most people don't understand research methodology. So they (as you allude to) take sides based on their alignment with the source. This bias towards assuming credibility based on ideological position is what gets us in trouble as a society (IMNSHO).
That said, the IBM study, when compared to the several others out there (Rutgers, Harris, IFIC, Harvard) indicates a general trend:
1) awareness is high for food safety issues (e.g., people know about various recalls, although they are a bit fuzzy on details)
2) concerns are high (e.g., consumers are somewhat worried)
3) inertia is high (consumers don't seem to take action)
4) consumers think the problem should be solved by government agencies and corporations.
5) Consumers are skeptical about whether their interests are taken seriously. The word "cynical" might apply here (as it does in the whole "green" debate).
My point is that when in doubt about a particular study, check it against other similar studies. Even considering the various bias that could be introduced, if every study says the trend line is "up and to the right", it probably is.
Food safety is a real issue, consumes are aware, but they are a bit apathetic. Unless you believe the IBM study, which says they are taking some action (e.g., changing their purchase behavior). Which I have to say I'm glad to see, but I'll wait before I celebrate (I'd like to see another study confirming that trend).
Best Wishes
Scott Charles
PlumbBob Research
http://plumbbobresearch.com
Reply to this
"This bias towards assuming credibility based on ideological position is what gets us in trouble as a society" Hear! Hear!
Thanks for the thoughtful comment and the references to other studies. IMO, food safety advocates would do themselves a huge favor if they did what you did -- cite a study as part of a trend rather than as a point (often, Holy Grail) result. Their arguments would hold more credibilty if they did so.
Reply to this