William A. Masters, an agricultural economist who has turned up on this blog before, recently gave an interesting farewell speech at Purdue University (he is moving to Tufts).?Masters offers a vision for both “unified fields in the social sciences” and “an ethical economics of agriculture and food policy.” “What if organic, local, traditional and artisanal products don’t actually deliver a healthier, more secure and sustainable food system?” Masters asks. “This is not a hypothetical question. Right now, the preponderance of evidence is pointing in that direction.” [%comments]
Toward an Ethical Economics of Food Policy
and 
. You can also watch it on 
Why knock the guy when you know nothing of his research. For 20 years he has been trying to improve the lives of the poorest people on the planet. Your “taste better” tomatoes aren’t doing much toward that end.
We all eat everyday, there are more than 6 1/2 million people on the planet. It is not the little organic movement here that is what is helping the poorest people around the globe.
It may make you feel better, but it isn’t helping the starving children in India the way Golden rice did.
For readers who might be curious enough to follow up, here is some of the evidence that Dave and Ann have asked for…
But before getting to that, anyone who clicked through to the actual talk would see that it fully endorses our search for more organic, local, traditional and artisanal foods. These are not bad ideas. The question is what can these particular things really deliver, and what else do we need from the food system?
It turns out that the evidence base is building only slowly, in part because research of this type is woefully underfunded. On the question of health effects from organic foods, a nice new review just appeared in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition:
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/ajcn.2010.29269v1
On the question of environmental effects of local foods, interesting studies appear here:
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es901016m
and here:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2008.11.001
Regarding economic-development effects, try this:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2008.09.007
As to the funding of my own research (and an explanation for why this kind of work is generally underfunded!), a full list of sources for my own work appears on my website (click on CV). You’ll see support comes from public agencies and philanthropic donors; I have never been funded by Monsanto or any other for-profit company. If they knocked on my door with a check it wouldn’t bother me or change what I do, but the reason they don’t fund my research is not that I’d refuse — it’s that my work is too unpredictable and unlikely to help them in particular.
From Masters’ talk:
” In economics the remedies involve changing incentives or institutions, not changing people.”
That is a very important distinction, with huge consequences for social policies.
Jim Purdy
The 50 Best Health Blogs
@9–Ginger: “… there are more than 6 1/2 million people on the planet…”
True. In fact, there are 1000X that many.
Agreed with Ginger….He’s no corporate hack. Constantly working to improve access to food and nutritional outcomes in Africa. Was a great farewell lecture with a pertinent message.
You know we are in trouble when sophistry is used to convince the public that what we all know is true from first hand experience is, actually, false. War is peace, hate is love, and if you just look deeper you are told that only highly concentrated industrial agriculture holds the key to health, happiness, economic prosperity, and the salvation of all mankind. Just eliminate common sense – and you will know the truth? I think Monsanto should spray our air with chemicals – since their air will be safer than the natural air we breathe. Then charge us for it.