Fish and Game Dept. targets Asian Supermarket - Flawed Economics in Action

A daring sting operation has brought down another set of dangerous criminals in our midst. The proprietors of Great Wall supermarket (located about 20 minutes from where I live) have been arrested for selling "wild" sea animals including live frogs, crayfish, turtles, eels, and more. The store owners say that all of their stock comes from farmed sources, but that does not appear to be convincing the crusading Commonwealth bureaucrats.

Officer Rich Landers, of the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, had this to say:

“History has show when wildlife becomes commercialized, the population dwindles,” Landers said. “Whether it’s elephant tusks or whales, we are trying to reduce the chances that wildlife becomes commercialized.”

Lets take a moment and think of a heavily commercialized animal population, like cows. We may have another disaster on our hands: the cow population is down to the lowest level since 1958, with only 92.6 million in the United States! An estimated 25 million cows are slaughtered each year. That means that in less than four years, there won't be any cows left in the United States. Savor your steaks while you can!

See what's wrong with this story? While commercialization allows animals to be consumed, it also creates strong incentives to rebuild the population for future consumption as well. That's why the decline in the cow population has been in response to reduced profitability of cattle ranching... not an ecological shortfall. Why would this be any different for farmed eels, turtles, or fish?

The historical examples that Landers uses are all cases where no one had ownership rights over the stock of animals being hunted, and therefore no reason to maintain sustainable population levels. That is clearly not the case here when we are discussing farmed seafood.

If anything, the proprietors of Great Wall should be applauded, for meeting consumer demand for uncommon (by American standards) foodstuffs. That way, Asian families can eat farmed eels etc. and do not have to catch them wild or import from abroad, potentially bringing exotic animal diseases to afflict U.S. ecosystems.

I won't go so far as to accuse the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries of racism or xenophobia, as I'm sure they'd be just as happy to apply their short-sighted and fallacious brand of reasoning to a predominantly-American grocery store as well. But, charging honest business owners with felonies, for selling live turtles and bass, does not inspire much confidence in either the agency's competence or its underlying motives.

Ultimate Cakeoff, Econometrics, and Causality Questions

For reality television and competitive cooking enthusiasts the show Ultimate Cakeoff, produced by TLC, is a real tour de force. The premise: top cake artists and decorators are brought together to compete in creating a cake for some high-profile event. The judges evaluate their efforts based on technical difficulty, adherence to the theme, and aesthetic value, then choose a winning team to receive the $10,000 prize.

Each team has nine hours to produce their ultimate cake. In order to keep the competition interesting and generate some much-needed drama, each episode is broken up by one or two smaller challenges designed to test the team leader's technical skill and speed at a particular cake-related task (such as piping, decorating, carving, etc.) The winner of each mini-challenge can choose one of the other two teams to sit out for thirty minutes.

Nine hours is already a short timeframe to create an award-winning cake - many wedding cakes can take up to a week to construct - so it would seem like losing 30 minutes to an hour would be a serious disadvantage. But, after watching two seasons of Ultimate Cakeoff (a dirty job, but someone had to do it) I noticed something strange: teams forced to sit out didn't seem to lose with any greater frequency. In fact, they often went on to win the competition!

This counter-intuitive trend sparked my curiosity, so I decided to put the question to a statistics program. After collecting data on every episode to find the characteristics of each team, who was forced to sit out, and who won each competition, I was able to find some results. The first regression found that being forced to sit out due to a challenge would increase the chance of winning by about 24%, a statistically significant result. After controlling for the individual attributes of of each participant the statistical significance vanished, and being forced to sit out had no measurable impact on the chance of winning at all (Click here to view the regressions performed, in STATA output format).

What might explain these findings? It would seem that less working time would result in a lower-quality cake, that was less likely to take the prize. Discovering the opposite result is somewhat surprising.

Of course, cake artists forced to sit out were not chosen randomly. The most common reason when choosing who to give a penalty was some variation of "(s)he looks way ahead! Take a break and slow down!" Apparently, cake artists are pretty good at judging each others' progress, and the team that is ahead partway through the competition is often the most talented. Trying to stall them with a penalty may even the field slightly, but not enough to overcome superior cake skills and design.

Admittedly, this is a pretty trivial application for a powerful statistics program. But, there may be some broader lessons for social scientists generally. When human choice is involved few events are truly random, which would be the ideal in an experimental setting. Economists can find some clever ways to mimic a true experiment, but perfect success in that regard still remains elusive. Examining how the data are collected and what selection effects are present is crucial to interpreting statistical results... Otherwise one might be inclined to believe that a shorter work-time makes a better wedding cake!

Busting the 'egg scandal' wide open.

These eggs were not broken to make an omelet.

Recently, Wright County Egg and Hillandale Farms, both located in lovable Iowa, have come under fire for "poisoning" the public with salmonella from their eggs. An egg source for 13 different retail brands, this news has rocked supermarkets nationally, and an even wider recall might be in the works.

"The history of ignoring the law makes the sickening of 1,300 and the forced recall of 550 million eggs shockingly understandable," says William D. Marler, a Seattle attorney representing someone who became ill from a 'dangerous' egg salad. (They're all dangerous in my opinion, especially on a hot day).

The numbers above got me wondering. What proportion of the recalled eggs were contaminated with salmonella? If 550,000,000 eggs resulted in 1,300 people becoming sick, the chance of any one egg making someone ill is .000236% . Eat a whole dozen, and your odds skyrocket to .0028%, a roughly one-in-35,000 chance of becoming ill from a tainted egg.

Surely, if you're one of those 1,300 people, hearing the numbers won't cure your stomach-ache and flu symptoms, but it should be reassuring for the other 99.99% of the population. Salmonella can be dangerous for the very young and very old, but many cases are so mild they aren't even reported.