Agriculture Topics Addressed in State of the State Speech

Some of what Gov. Andrew Cuomo said about agriculture in Wednesday's State of the State address:

"This year I propose our most ambitious entrepreneurial partnerships that we are excited about.

The first deals with agriculture and food. As you know, agriculture is a critical part of our economy. As you also know, there is a growing health concern among consumers about the food we eat -- what is in it and how it was grown. There is a burgeoning market for safe, healthy food. 

However, consumer confidence is lacking. Many of the labels that are on those products are virtually meaningless and they have no standard and they have no legal definition. Labels like “all natural” or “no antibiotics” actually have no legal definition. Much of our quote-unquote organic produce comes from overseas. So consumer skepticism is justified. To reassure and inform consumers – and provide an opportunity for New York farms – we will initiate the first program to certify the bona fides of natural products.

The Departments of Health and Agriculture will define what are now vague standards and conduct inspections to certify those standards are being met. Labels like “all natural” will mean something. “No pesticides” will mean something. “Hormone free” will actually mean something. The Attorney General will police the program so consumers will know when they buy that product, they are getting exactly what that product says it is.

We are going to call it the 'NY Certified High Quality' program. It will be voluntary for our farmers to participate but we will advertise this program and its products nation-wide and we think there is a significant marketing asset for the farms that participate. It’s an exciting opportunity. It can help grow our farms. Better products for our consumers. It’s exactly what we need. Let’s take a moment and say thanks to Commissioner Ball, Dr. Zucker and Attorney General Schneiderman."

Cuomo also reiterated his push for a $15 an hour minimum wage, although this move is opposed by some in agriculture, including the New York Farm Bureau.

Cornell University Study Looks at Food Labeling

News from Cornell University:

Take a look at any food label and there’s a good chance all design elements, from the color palette to the smallest detail, were meticulously chosen.

Now, amid public debate about whether food companies should list genetically modified (GM) ingredients on their labels, that same deliberative process may be crucial to the perceived legitimacy surrounding controversial decisions. 

A Cornell University study found consumers are more supportive of labeling decisions when they believe the company considered the public’s input in the process.

The study bolsters longstanding research into the impact of perceived fairness and transparency surrounding any decision-making process, known as procedural justice. For the first time, Cornell researchers investigated how the theory relates to the contentious issue of GM labeling, with implications for how companies reach their decisions and communicate them to the public.

For the study, researchers asked 450 participants to read one of four fictitious news articles detailing an agro-food company’s decision about labeling the GM content of their food products. The mock articles varied on four key points: the decision whether or not to label the presence of ingredients grown from GM seeds, and whether or not the company considered the public’s input as part of their deliberations. 
Participants then gave their reactions on a six-point scale regarding the legitimacy of the process and whether they support the company’s decision.

Researchers found a significantly more positive reaction to a decision — regardless of whether it was to label or not — when people believed the company engaged with the public and used their input. 

Even when companies made the generally unpopular choice not to label, the study showed people considered the decision more legitimate if they believed the company listened to their customers rather than made the decision on their own. 

The study appeared in the Journal of Risk Research.

“People care about a process, even when they don’t get the decision that they want,” said study author Katherine McComas, professor and chair of the Department of Communication in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. “Having a fairer process can lead to a more acceptable or perceived legitimate outcome, and can improve discourse even around polarized decisions,” she said.

While the study found people reacted more positively to a decision when they believed the company engaged the public, any decision that led to labeling was deemed more favorable compared to either non-labeling process. 

That pro-labeling attitude is in line with other research and opinion polls showing a preference for GM ingredients to be displayed on packaging, she said.

Still, McComas and her say the results could provide insCght to risk managers and decision-makers about the value people place on a process that incorporates public input.

“It comes down to transparency, and this idea that people want the right to know in order to make an informed choice. A process that doesn’t involve the public, or doesn’t involve their values, undercuts the legitimacy of that decision. Transparency can build trust and legitimacy in that process,” McComas said

Study: Consumers Wants Negative Info on Food Labels

From Cornell University:

It’s no surprise that labels are becoming the “go to” place when people have questions about how food is produced.

 

But new Cornell University research finds that consumers crave more information, especially for the potentially harmful ingredients that aren’t included in the product.

 

The laboratory study of 351 shoppers found consumers willing to pay a premium when a product label says “free of” something, but only if the package includes “negative” information on whatever the product is “free of.”

 

For example, a food labeled “free of" a food dye will compel some consumers to buy that product. But even more people will buy that product if that same label also includes information about the risks of ingesting such dyes.

 

“What did surprise us was the effect of supplementary information,” said Harry M. Kaiser, a Cornell professor whose field of study includes product labeling. “Even seemingly negative information was valued over just the label itself.”

 

When provided more information about ingredients, consumers are more confident about their decisions and value the product more, Kaiser said.

 

Published earlier this month as “Consumer Response to ‘Contains’ and ‘Free of’ Labeling” in the journal, Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, the Cornell study might interest CEOs of food-processing companies, government policy makers and American consumers alike.

 

Other authors of the journal article were Jura Liaukonyte, Nadia A. Streletskaya and Bradley J. Rickard, all of the Dyson School. The study was supported by internal funds from Cornell’s College of Agriculture and Life Sciences.