What's wrong with cheap food(smartpei.typepad.com)
smartpei.typepad.com
What's wrong with cheap food
http://smartpei.typepad.com/robert_patersons_weblog/2010/04/whats-wrong-with-cheap-food.html
18 comments
Food is tied to a nations security. If you haven't read Omnivore's Dilemma (http://www.worldcat.org/title/omnivores-dilemma-a-natural-hi...) I highly recommend it. Michael Pollan, the author makes a much better and convincing argument.
Imagine having no Farm Policy and we end up having food shortages, there would be a revolution.
Personally, I try to buy/eat as much local organic food as I can and experiment by growing food indoors.
Imagine having no Farm Policy and we end up having food shortages, there would be a revolution.
Personally, I try to buy/eat as much local organic food as I can and experiment by growing food indoors.
Imagine having no Farm Policy and we end up having food shortages, there would be a revolution.
I can imagine. After all, this country has no Plate Policy, and I routinely end up eating off the floor. And I really wish we had a Consumer Electronics and Computers policy; I'm really jealous of the country that produced the iPhone and the Macbook because of those attributes.
Fortunately, the country I live in does have a Real Estate Policy and a Banking System policy, and they're willing to put my money where their mouths are! It's working out about as well as one would expect.
I can imagine. After all, this country has no Plate Policy, and I routinely end up eating off the floor. And I really wish we had a Consumer Electronics and Computers policy; I'm really jealous of the country that produced the iPhone and the Macbook because of those attributes.
Fortunately, the country I live in does have a Real Estate Policy and a Banking System policy, and they're willing to put my money where their mouths are! It's working out about as well as one would expect.
Pure capitalist libertarianism like that works really well if you live in a society willing to stand back and let people die as a result of different decisions or even circumstances outside their control.
History has shown that's not really the society that civilized humans want to live in.
History has shown that's not really the society that civilized humans want to live in.
Pure capitalist libertarianism is a society where government is willing to stand back and let people die. Not society. There's a difference.
In time of trouble, you can turn for help to family, friends, neighbors, private charity, or government. In roughly descending order of efficiency and humanity.
Including government at the end of that chain is a noble attempt to make sure no one falls through the cracks--like the federal reserve as a "lender of last resort". The problem is that, like the federal reserve, the guarantee at the end of the chain changes the dynamics at the front.
We respond to a government guarantee to care for the old and infirm by not doing it ourselves. Why plan to care for your mother when the government will do it? Why support private orphanages when you pay taxes to support institutionalizing them?
The result is emaciated expectations of family, friends and neighbors, and sickly private charity. Government may be inefficient and inhumane, but it's cheap--spending someone else's money--and it's guaranteed. So it dominates the space. And when the other options die away through disuse, it looks like there are no other options. And all that's left is dependence on the state.
The idea that it's government care or no care is an illusion created by a couple generations of government dependence. I am convinced that our way -- institutions, beaurocrats -- is really the inhumane way to care for the poor. I want to get rid of it, not because I don't care, but because I do.
In time of trouble, you can turn for help to family, friends, neighbors, private charity, or government. In roughly descending order of efficiency and humanity.
Including government at the end of that chain is a noble attempt to make sure no one falls through the cracks--like the federal reserve as a "lender of last resort". The problem is that, like the federal reserve, the guarantee at the end of the chain changes the dynamics at the front.
We respond to a government guarantee to care for the old and infirm by not doing it ourselves. Why plan to care for your mother when the government will do it? Why support private orphanages when you pay taxes to support institutionalizing them?
The result is emaciated expectations of family, friends and neighbors, and sickly private charity. Government may be inefficient and inhumane, but it's cheap--spending someone else's money--and it's guaranteed. So it dominates the space. And when the other options die away through disuse, it looks like there are no other options. And all that's left is dependence on the state.
The idea that it's government care or no care is an illusion created by a couple generations of government dependence. I am convinced that our way -- institutions, beaurocrats -- is really the inhumane way to care for the poor. I want to get rid of it, not because I don't care, but because I do.
I like this concept, I really do, but I'm wondering if it's a sort of idealized utopia. Are there any societies that take care of their most desperate members without that being a government function?
Almost all of the industrialized nation have some sort of safety net and/or universal health care. On the other side of the spectrum you get countries like Somalia, where they, you know, do let people die.
Almost all of the industrialized nation have some sort of safety net and/or universal health care. On the other side of the spectrum you get countries like Somalia, where they, you know, do let people die.
I don't honestly know the proper role for government in charity. I reject it rhetorically to illustrate that rejection of government charity is not rejection of charity overall, but I do not know if the extreme case is practical. You do seem to be right that it is not practiced.
I had thought I would find counterexamples in places like the Antebellum south, or ancient Rome, and while I found a reduced emphasis on the state, I did not find it completely gone. And while my off the cuff memory is that there are places in the world, even today, where the obligation for children to care for their parents in old age is so complete that people have children for that very purpose, I don't have a citation for it. And I really don't have the experience to know whether it's preferable.
On a personal level, I see very vividly the evils of institution and bureaucracy: the people it misses, the way it mistreats even the people it helps. I have helped homeless friends with transitions from shelter to shelter, even opened my home to them when it was appropriate; I don't think highly of the treatment they get, well out of the public eye. And I'm pretty sure if the city hadn't been there as an option, I'd have done more, and they'd have been better off. Is it good the city was there? I guess. But I hate the false dilemma that says it is the only way, and my instinct is that family, friends, and community are far better.
I do not know what the correct role is for the state, but I cannot but hate anything that weakens the responsibility of a man to care for himself, or that seeks to replace the hospitality that family, friends and neighbors owe to each other.
I had thought I would find counterexamples in places like the Antebellum south, or ancient Rome, and while I found a reduced emphasis on the state, I did not find it completely gone. And while my off the cuff memory is that there are places in the world, even today, where the obligation for children to care for their parents in old age is so complete that people have children for that very purpose, I don't have a citation for it. And I really don't have the experience to know whether it's preferable.
On a personal level, I see very vividly the evils of institution and bureaucracy: the people it misses, the way it mistreats even the people it helps. I have helped homeless friends with transitions from shelter to shelter, even opened my home to them when it was appropriate; I don't think highly of the treatment they get, well out of the public eye. And I'm pretty sure if the city hadn't been there as an option, I'd have done more, and they'd have been better off. Is it good the city was there? I guess. But I hate the false dilemma that says it is the only way, and my instinct is that family, friends, and community are far better.
I do not know what the correct role is for the state, but I cannot but hate anything that weakens the responsibility of a man to care for himself, or that seeks to replace the hospitality that family, friends and neighbors owe to each other.
Thanks for the thoughtful response. A lot of people don't seem to like to look to other countries as examples of how individuals, societies, and governments can interact. Either as examples or as counter-examples.
NPR's excellent Planet Money podcast did a few shows on Denmark, which is like an economic bizarro-world. Employment law is such that it's really easy to fire people, but they have a very strong social safety net (2 years unemployment, or something like that) so the workforce is very fluid. Employers aren't as afraid to hire people (as they are in countries with strong labor laws like France) because they don't have the same fear of legal or interpersonal repercussions. Firing in Denmark is no big deal.
Taxes are progressive, crazy high, support fully subsidized health care, and the people there are the happiest in the world.
Note: I'm not trying to say every country should be just like Denmark, but just that the way we've always done things isn't the only way that can work.
On the other hand, you see people who complain about how "government can't do anything right" and "all regulation is bad" yet they don't realize the only reason that their houses survive earthquakes without killing them is that their houses comply with government designed and enforced building codes. There's a reason the Haitian earthquake killed more people than stronger earthquakes in other places. Haiti has had "limited government" for decades.
It's easy to paint limited government as a moral ideal, and it's easy to find prominent examples of government failures. I personally hate bureaucracy as much as anyone else. The fact remains that a lot of people (often quietly) get meaningful help from our overall society via democratically elected governments.
NPR's excellent Planet Money podcast did a few shows on Denmark, which is like an economic bizarro-world. Employment law is such that it's really easy to fire people, but they have a very strong social safety net (2 years unemployment, or something like that) so the workforce is very fluid. Employers aren't as afraid to hire people (as they are in countries with strong labor laws like France) because they don't have the same fear of legal or interpersonal repercussions. Firing in Denmark is no big deal.
Taxes are progressive, crazy high, support fully subsidized health care, and the people there are the happiest in the world.
Note: I'm not trying to say every country should be just like Denmark, but just that the way we've always done things isn't the only way that can work.
On the other hand, you see people who complain about how "government can't do anything right" and "all regulation is bad" yet they don't realize the only reason that their houses survive earthquakes without killing them is that their houses comply with government designed and enforced building codes. There's a reason the Haitian earthquake killed more people than stronger earthquakes in other places. Haiti has had "limited government" for decades.
It's easy to paint limited government as a moral ideal, and it's easy to find prominent examples of government failures. I personally hate bureaucracy as much as anyone else. The fact remains that a lot of people (often quietly) get meaningful help from our overall society via democratically elected governments.
This has been a really interesting back and forth, just a quick point:
> There's a reason the Haitian earthquake killed more people than stronger earthquakes in other places. Haiti has had "limited government" for decades.
That's actually false. Haiti ranks as the 141st economically free country in the world out of around 200, and 24th out of 29 in the Caribbean. Government spending is around 20% of GDP, the income tax rates are comparable to the USA, but the property tax rate is sky high - up to as much as 15%. So no, Haiti hasn't had "limited government" the way Singapore or Hong Kong has limited government. They've got quite a bit of government going on, it just happens to both inept and corrupt.
> There's a reason the Haitian earthquake killed more people than stronger earthquakes in other places. Haiti has had "limited government" for decades.
That's actually false. Haiti ranks as the 141st economically free country in the world out of around 200, and 24th out of 29 in the Caribbean. Government spending is around 20% of GDP, the income tax rates are comparable to the USA, but the property tax rate is sky high - up to as much as 15%. So no, Haiti hasn't had "limited government" the way Singapore or Hong Kong has limited government. They've got quite a bit of government going on, it just happens to both inept and corrupt.
Good point. I was thinking of limited in terms of what the government does for people, but I see that it was a terrible example.
I still like building codes, though :)
I still like building codes, though :)
The earthquake in Haiti was so destructive, in general, because Haiti has been a land under the heel of grinding poverty for many years. It was the poorest country in the western hemisphere, a place where children were sold into slavery to make ends meet, where eating dirt to avoid hunger pains was a practical enough approach to spawn an industry. And then natural disaster hit.
Building codes have got nothing to do with it. My sister went there a few weeks ago. I've seen pictures. Some of those houses look to me like they'd fall over in a stiff rainstorm.
[Edit: The hospital my sister helped build is the subject of the video featured on this page: http://heartlineministries.org/EarthquakeNeeds.aspx . If you haven't seen Haiti, it's worth looking at the community they served and the problems they solved.]
Building codes have got nothing to do with it. My sister went there a few weeks ago. I've seen pictures. Some of those houses look to me like they'd fall over in a stiff rainstorm.
[Edit: The hospital my sister helped build is the subject of the video featured on this page: http://heartlineministries.org/EarthquakeNeeds.aspx . If you haven't seen Haiti, it's worth looking at the community they served and the problems they solved.]
Or it might be possible to somehow have a government of the people. Not a separate bolt-on installation consisting of some type of aliens not in any way related to people with whom it constantly wars.
It's a neat idea in theory, but a lot of smart, well-meaning people have tried it, and that's rarely what you get.
I would just take the grand-parent post as a satire of the grand-grand-parent post about the need for a farm policy.
There are good arguments for having some services provided by the state (though we may argue whether they are good enough arguments). I did not take the grand parent as making the argument that everything the state does is evil.
There are good arguments for having some services provided by the state (though we may argue whether they are good enough arguments). I did not take the grand parent as making the argument that everything the state does is evil.
It might not be the world we want to live in, but that's life. Natural selection is the name of the game.
It baffles me that people think social development can be somehow exempted from evolutionary processes. Call it callous or compassionless, if you want, but there will always be less fit members of a species/society. Humans didn't get to this spot on the food chain by subsidizing failure. If we want to increase prosperity, we should stop encouraging the propagation of actions/ideas/genes that would otherwise be unsustainable without throwing short-sighted policy and/or tax money at it.
It baffles me that people think social development can be somehow exempted from evolutionary processes. Call it callous or compassionless, if you want, but there will always be less fit members of a species/society. Humans didn't get to this spot on the food chain by subsidizing failure. If we want to increase prosperity, we should stop encouraging the propagation of actions/ideas/genes that would otherwise be unsustainable without throwing short-sighted policy and/or tax money at it.
The late 19th century called, they want their rationalized institutional cruelty back.
Heh, I'm not suggesting institutional anything. Precisely the opposite. I'm saying that in the bigger picture, welfare and subsidies and coercive interference in general hurt more than they help. E.g., aid to North Korea might keep impoverished North Koreans alive longer, but it will do nothing for their long term prosperity. It just gives them a chance to give birth to more impoverished North Koreans. Farm subsidies, etc, are arrogant, over-simplistic meddling with extremely complex natural systems that will have -- as the article in question was pointing out -- any number of unpredictable consequences.
I just don't buy the idea that the short-sighted whims of politics can make the world a better place.
[edit: adding for clarity: "stop encouraging" DOES NOT translate as "start discouraging"]
I just don't buy the idea that the short-sighted whims of politics can make the world a better place.
[edit: adding for clarity: "stop encouraging" DOES NOT translate as "start discouraging"]
[deleted]
Ok, there might be no "Plate Policy", but there are FDA rules that say your plate must be clean when you eat at a restaurant and that the plates you eat from at home (surely imported from China) can't have poisonous heavy metals in them.
"After all, this country has no Plate Policy, and I routinely end up eating off the floor."
So you agree we have policies only for issues that matter.
Just because policies fail does not mean that we do not need any.
What alternatives do we have to make sure we don't have food shortages, surprise food price increases and that it all scales for everyone etc.,?
So you agree we have policies only for issues that matter.
Just because policies fail does not mean that we do not need any.
What alternatives do we have to make sure we don't have food shortages, surprise food price increases and that it all scales for everyone etc.,?
Prices are information. The best guarantee that we don't have food shortages is to use prices to communicate our desire for food, and insurance to guarantee it. That should both encourage food production and inventive ways of securing that production (e.g. diversification in crop, geography, diversity, etc.).
But policies do not communicate information very well. They don't respond as fast as markets do, to changes in demand or supply. They are liable to political interference, as different sectors of the economy capture policy-making bodies and extract rents: the people who know most about an industry come from the industry, so there tends to be a two-way door between policy-makers and the industry, warping incentives.
So I would argue that to secure more certainty for food supplies, we would be better off looking at insurance-based mechanisms, rather than direct government involvement in food production, subsidization, etc.
But policies do not communicate information very well. They don't respond as fast as markets do, to changes in demand or supply. They are liable to political interference, as different sectors of the economy capture policy-making bodies and extract rents: the people who know most about an industry come from the industry, so there tends to be a two-way door between policy-makers and the industry, warping incentives.
So I would argue that to secure more certainty for food supplies, we would be better off looking at insurance-based mechanisms, rather than direct government involvement in food production, subsidization, etc.
The problem with the food supply is that there is a long funnel that the demand feedback has to go in order to change it.
If your community suddenly realizes it needs more food, there is no way that the food can come to existence in days or even weeks. To some degree, other communities will be more willing to sell more of their food surplus to you if prices go up (after of days or weeks of delay to have the whole thing sorted out), and that would pick up some of the slack. But in the short and middle term, what will happen is that the poor will simply get priced out of the market.
An intelligent policy would be to provide a food buffer, a margin of safety, that gives the price signal enough time to travel through the markets. In this case, you get the benefits of a free market, but prevent the worst side effects of it.
If your community suddenly realizes it needs more food, there is no way that the food can come to existence in days or even weeks. To some degree, other communities will be more willing to sell more of their food surplus to you if prices go up (after of days or weeks of delay to have the whole thing sorted out), and that would pick up some of the slack. But in the short and middle term, what will happen is that the poor will simply get priced out of the market.
An intelligent policy would be to provide a food buffer, a margin of safety, that gives the price signal enough time to travel through the markets. In this case, you get the benefits of a free market, but prevent the worst side effects of it.
And this is why futures markets make sense. If a (food) insurance seller wants to hedge their risk, they could purchase futures, driving up the price of those futures; and a way to arbitrage an increase in price between today's price and a future price is to store it (i.e. your buffer). For example, the first forward contracts on the Chicago Board of Trade, the oldest futures exchange, were food contracts. But none of these mechanisms have a necessary requirement for governmental policy intervention, save perhaps collective purchasing of insurance.
Thank you, barrkel. I have been thinking hard at your response, and I don't think I can offer a complete comment on it. I think these market mechanisms solve part of the problem, and at least do better than the current policies of USDA. However, your proposal is far from perfect and has it's own set of problems. For one, your average granny on social security is unlikely to buy any futures; and the people who does is likely to come and profiteer on her. Still, that is better than starving to death.
I have read Pollan's Omnivore Dilemma, and found his description of New Deal agriculture policies very interesting. I encourage you to have a look and compare those with the ones in effect today.
I have read Pollan's Omnivore Dilemma, and found his description of New Deal agriculture policies very interesting. I encourage you to have a look and compare those with the ones in effect today.
I think it could be argued that for certain classes of good, efficient markets can be a net detriment to all involved. In the case of agriculture, the inefficiency created by government interference and planning helps flatten fluctuations in staple production, meaning that fewer people move into non-potable cash crops and the market as a whole is better served because people don't starve.
So you agree we have policies only for issues that matter.
As time goes on, more and more areas will "matter" in this way.
What alternatives do we have to make sure we don't have food shortages, surprise food price increases and that it all scales for everyone etc.,?
Well, we could try using markets and speculation, since that's what they're good at. Radical, I know.
As time goes on, more and more areas will "matter" in this way.
What alternatives do we have to make sure we don't have food shortages, surprise food price increases and that it all scales for everyone etc.,?
Well, we could try using markets and speculation, since that's what they're good at. Radical, I know.
> Imagine having no Farm Policy and we end up having food shortages
There is little doubt that agricultural policy in the west is all about protecting a specific industry from the realities of globalization and not about securing the food supply.
Being a small country, not having a farm policy and also going to war with your neighbors might lead to food shortages. The agricultural policies of the EU and USA do way, way more harm than good.
There is little doubt that agricultural policy in the west is all about protecting a specific industry from the realities of globalization and not about securing the food supply.
Being a small country, not having a farm policy and also going to war with your neighbors might lead to food shortages. The agricultural policies of the EU and USA do way, way more harm than good.
Indeed - they're a major contributory factor to poverty in the third world, along with aid. Yes, aid causes poverty: it warps economies and cultures them to be dependent on outside help; food aid depresses local food prices, drives farmers out of business, etc.
"The policy have now is problematic, therefore we shouldn't have any policy". This is a non sequitur, but it's common fair in the libertarian world view.
Yes, that is a non sequitur, fortunately that is not what those proposing we abolish the farm policy are saying (at least not the thoughtful ones.)
They are rather laying out problems with any farm policy. Any farm policy will distort the economics of food production. Any farm policy will influence individual consumers choices in a non-market-based manner. Any farm policy will have international implications, and any farm policy that looks anything remotely like ours at all will harm less developed countries.
I personally am inclined to think we should have a farm policy. If we are going to have an intelligent discussion about it, we should start by acknowleding that those that disagree with us might have valid points that are at least worth considering.
Really trying to understand the viewpoint of someone you disagree with is far more productive than tilting at strawmen.
They are rather laying out problems with any farm policy. Any farm policy will distort the economics of food production. Any farm policy will influence individual consumers choices in a non-market-based manner. Any farm policy will have international implications, and any farm policy that looks anything remotely like ours at all will harm less developed countries.
I personally am inclined to think we should have a farm policy. If we are going to have an intelligent discussion about it, we should start by acknowleding that those that disagree with us might have valid points that are at least worth considering.
Really trying to understand the viewpoint of someone you disagree with is far more productive than tilting at strawmen.
"Any farm policy will distort the economics of food production."
What is "The economics"? This is the next common fallacy on the libertarian side. That there is some sort of law of physics that represents "The economy" and that any regulation interferes with this one true law of God.
There is no such thing as "The economics" or "The one true market". There are many markets, and all of them are based on arbitrary rules with trade offs.
What is "The economics"? This is the next common fallacy on the libertarian side. That there is some sort of law of physics that represents "The economy" and that any regulation interferes with this one true law of God.
There is no such thing as "The economics" or "The one true market". There are many markets, and all of them are based on arbitrary rules with trade offs.
> Imagine having no Farm Policy and we end up having food shortages, there would be a revolution.
Please check when the British had their last famine, and when the times they used farm policies.
Please check when the British had their last famine, and when the times they used farm policies.
Very apropos. Many of the worst effects of the Irish famine of 1846 can be attributed to British farm policy, such as an unwillingness to block the export of grain from Ireland after the famine started.
Also see the repeal of the Corn Laws, and (unrelated) the earlier improvement of farming methods that lead to the industrial revolution and who did the improving.
[deleted]
In an ideal world I'd like no farm policy as well, but all western countries are democracies today, and all democracies respond to special interests. This is the democrat's (small "d") dilema.
Everywhere else is some flavor of dictatorship, and they have farm policies too.
(This was just a lame attempt to explain reality.)
Everywhere else is some flavor of dictatorship, and they have farm policies too.
(This was just a lame attempt to explain reality.)
We need to stop letting Iowa vote early in the primaries. So much of what's wrong with subsidies stem from the retarded level of influence that Iowa has in presidential politics.
Shouldn't that be "exagerated level of influence"? If their level of influence were retarded, I don't think you would have made this point.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=retarded
6. Retarded Having really good qualities about yourself; havin a banging body; somethin that is just that thang! "He so retarded wit it!" "Them shoes is retarded!"
6. Retarded Having really good qualities about yourself; havin a banging body; somethin that is just that thang! "He so retarded wit it!" "Them shoes is retarded!"
Given the amount of money that the agricultural corporations would be happy to throw in, and the public's demonstrated weakness for propaganda and inability to actually decide anything for themselves, I don't have much confidence in people coming to a reasonable, considered conclusion.
Fidel Castro brought Cuba back from the brink of starvation precisely with a "smarter" farm policy. For decades Cuba relied on Green Revolution techniques that required huge petroleum inputs. When the SU collapsed, Cuba lost its main source of oil. Castro's plan was to encourage local, organic farming techniques including urban agriculture. The result is that not only are Cubans not starving, they are eating healthier than Americans.
For what I have read, Cubans brought Cuba back from the brink of starvation. The main merit of Fidel was turning his eye to the other side when people began to break the official policies and do what needed to be done in order to keep themselves fed.
I agree with maybe half the things the author is saying, but I hate the way he tries to group them all together into some larger narrative of "the way we live has become synthetic and corrupted and we need to go back to a more natural way of life" Appealing to this story is only going to convince people who already believe it. If he has specific improvements in mind, he should describe them and make his case for how they will help.
Also, he opens up referring to 1 billion people going hungry, but never returns to this point. If we embrace techniques that produce less food, what happens to these people?
Also, he opens up referring to 1 billion people going hungry, but never returns to this point. If we embrace techniques that produce less food, what happens to these people?
That's probably because the blog linked to is mostly just a cut-and-paste from the linked Time article (http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1917458-1,00....). This blog post only quotes a part of page 2 of a five-page article, all of which is worth reading.
Thanks for pointing that out, I totally missed the attribution to time.com. I thought the article was just formatted weird.
I agree the full Time article is better, but it still doesn't address the billion people it mentions going hungry. Ultimately the agricultural system that is sustainable determines the population that is sustainable, and I am concerned that the people who aren't going to be sustained won't have much say in the matter.
I agree the full Time article is better, but it still doesn't address the billion people it mentions going hungry. Ultimately the agricultural system that is sustainable determines the population that is sustainable, and I am concerned that the people who aren't going to be sustained won't have much say in the matter.
If you don't have the time to read the whole article
Quick summary :
- subsidized cheap food has adverse health effects and health care is expensive
- affects the ecological system and is not sustainable
- animals raised in meat factories have to be fed a lot of antibiotics that have consequences on human health.
Quick summary :
- subsidized cheap food has adverse health effects and health care is expensive
- affects the ecological system and is not sustainable
- animals raised in meat factories have to be fed a lot of antibiotics that have consequences on human health.
Why does a salad cost more than a Big Mac?
http://www.pcrm.org/magazine/gm07autumn/health_pork.html
http://www.pcrm.org/magazine/gm07autumn/health_pork.html
I first saw the article you linked on a day when I'd made hamburgers and salad for dinner, and it didn't pass the smell test. I calculated the cost per person of a whole-dinner-plate salad (made from fresh veggies, including bell peppers, cucumbers, and tomatoes, with dressing) to be about half the cost per person of a quarter pound burger. This was right after the Chile quake, which had doubled the price of some of those veggies.
A McDonalds salad costs more than a Big Mac, not because veggies cost more than meat, but because McDonalds salads typically come with meat (chicken/bacon) that's as expensive as ground beef, and the salad veggies, cheese, and dressing are more expensive than a hamburger bun and condiments. (The prices of non-meat salads are anchored to the prices of the meat-containing salads.)
I'm all for criticizing food subsidies, but let's do it honestly. Even with subsidies, ground beef costs about twice as much per pound as the veggies I commonly buy, and ground beef is at the bottom end of the meat spectrum. Subsidies don't make a Big Mac cheaper than a salad; price anchoring to chicken-bacon-ranch salads make McDonalds salads expensive.
A McDonalds salad costs more than a Big Mac, not because veggies cost more than meat, but because McDonalds salads typically come with meat (chicken/bacon) that's as expensive as ground beef, and the salad veggies, cheese, and dressing are more expensive than a hamburger bun and condiments. (The prices of non-meat salads are anchored to the prices of the meat-containing salads.)
I'm all for criticizing food subsidies, but let's do it honestly. Even with subsidies, ground beef costs about twice as much per pound as the veggies I commonly buy, and ground beef is at the bottom end of the meat spectrum. Subsidies don't make a Big Mac cheaper than a salad; price anchoring to chicken-bacon-ranch salads make McDonalds salads expensive.
You are forgetting about storage costs. Frozen ground beef, buns and condiments have a much longer shelf life than the typical salad ingredients.
One under-appreciated reason is storage. Frozen meat and most of the accoutrements can be stored for vastly longer and remain "fresh". Highly processed food products are all about preservation, to their nutritional detriment.
Do you want cheap and healthy food?
Eat organic (cost more) but cook yourself and grow your on condiments.
Cooking yourself it's a no-brainer, and you know exactly what you are eating. Also I have on my patio all the herbs and few vegetables (I live in a urban area in Miami, don't think I have fields behind my condo). When you go to the store you pay $3 for a couple of springs of sage, when you could buy a sage plant for $3 and keep using it all year long. And the money you save you can reinvest it in more healthy (and more expensive) food.
Cooking yourself it's a no-brainer, and you know exactly what you are eating. Also I have on my patio all the herbs and few vegetables (I live in a urban area in Miami, don't think I have fields behind my condo). When you go to the store you pay $3 for a couple of springs of sage, when you could buy a sage plant for $3 and keep using it all year long. And the money you save you can reinvest it in more healthy (and more expensive) food.
> Eat organic (cost more)
For the most part there is no real extra benefit for Organic food - assuming you are not opposed to the idea of pesticides and other treatments (which are mostly benign anyway).
Personally all I require from my food is that it has been farmed ethically and preferably produced on smaller scales (i.e. no Bernard Matthews Turkey)
That can save you a lot.
(seconded on the cook for yourself part - it doesn't have to take long and it's a great way to unwind :D)
For the most part there is no real extra benefit for Organic food - assuming you are not opposed to the idea of pesticides and other treatments (which are mostly benign anyway).
Personally all I require from my food is that it has been farmed ethically and preferably produced on smaller scales (i.e. no Bernard Matthews Turkey)
That can save you a lot.
(seconded on the cook for yourself part - it doesn't have to take long and it's a great way to unwind :D)
The immediate health benefits of organic food might be questionable, but there is little question that the fertiluzer in the runoff is detrimental to coastal areas. The article mentions this.
"For the most part there is no real extra benefit for Organic food - assuming you are not opposed to the idea of pesticides and other treatments (which are mostly benign anyway)."
From a nutritional viewpoint, what you said agrees with what I've read. I think there's real worth, though, in experimenting with different farming techniques that don't rely on mass produced chemicals. Reliance on these chemicals makes me think of the "putting all your eggs in one basket" adage.
Recently I heard an NPR piece about nutrition studies done across decades. One line that struck me is an apple grown in the early 20th century in the US had the nutritional value of 3 apples grown today. I'm not sure how the researchers came to that conclusion. But, if it's true and if a similar ratio applies to other produce, we have the potential for a serious health issue coming up.
EDIT: Enclosed the quoted text in actual quotes for readability.
From a nutritional viewpoint, what you said agrees with what I've read. I think there's real worth, though, in experimenting with different farming techniques that don't rely on mass produced chemicals. Reliance on these chemicals makes me think of the "putting all your eggs in one basket" adage.
Recently I heard an NPR piece about nutrition studies done across decades. One line that struck me is an apple grown in the early 20th century in the US had the nutritional value of 3 apples grown today. I'm not sure how the researchers came to that conclusion. But, if it's true and if a similar ratio applies to other produce, we have the potential for a serious health issue coming up.
EDIT: Enclosed the quoted text in actual quotes for readability.
Yes, you're right there.
As I said in my main post I think the real important thing to work on is ethical farming - regardless of organic or not.
The other thing is that from a sustainability point of view (in terms of the farming infrastructure) Organic is very cost/labour intensive compared to other techniques.
There is probably a good balance; as you say we can reach it by experimenting.
As I said in my main post I think the real important thing to work on is ethical farming - regardless of organic or not.
The other thing is that from a sustainability point of view (in terms of the farming infrastructure) Organic is very cost/labour intensive compared to other techniques.
There is probably a good balance; as you say we can reach it by experimenting.
The problem with saying organic has no benefit is that i can always say, "DDX", and refute your argument.
DDT has done a ton of good, too, saving millions of lives. From the wiki article:
"For example, in Sri Lanka, the program reduced cases from about 3 million per year before spraying to just 29 in 1964. Thereafter the program was halted to save money, and malaria rebounded to 600,000 cases in 1968 and the first quarter of 1969"
"For example, in Sri Lanka, the program reduced cases from about 3 million per year before spraying to just 29 in 1964. Thereafter the program was halted to save money, and malaria rebounded to 600,000 cases in 1968 and the first quarter of 1969"
True.
it's pretty awesome at retarding growth of some of the most virulent disease vectors - but at the same time, it's also a fairly awful carcinogen and I wouldn't want it sprayed on my lettuce to keep away some pesky caterpillars. :)
it's pretty awesome at retarding growth of some of the most virulent disease vectors - but at the same time, it's also a fairly awful carcinogen and I wouldn't want it sprayed on my lettuce to keep away some pesky caterpillars. :)
Well you could :) but I would have no idea what you meant (a quick google didn't turn anything up).
I assume your talking about some sort of chemical? Which is why I made a point of mentioning the idea of ethical farming.
It's not that Organic farming has no benefit - but there isn't much extra benefit compared to properly farmed non-organic food (my extended family runs an organic farm so this is based on experience/observation).
The major problem with Organic food is it is uneconomical due to more labour intensive methods, higher product failure rates, too small scale etc.
As I mentioned; there is sure to be a compromise somewhere in the middle that has economical but safe farming :)
I assume your talking about some sort of chemical? Which is why I made a point of mentioning the idea of ethical farming.
It's not that Organic farming has no benefit - but there isn't much extra benefit compared to properly farmed non-organic food (my extended family runs an organic farm so this is based on experience/observation).
The major problem with Organic food is it is uneconomical due to more labour intensive methods, higher product failure rates, too small scale etc.
As I mentioned; there is sure to be a compromise somewhere in the middle that has economical but safe farming :)
ErrantX and I weren't claiming organic farming has no benefit. We were only making the point that side-by-side comparison of nutrients for a (e.g.) zucchini grown using organic methods vs. one grown using pesticides yields little difference.
Another important point is that the term organic has been distorted so that you can't buy a product claiming it is organic and actually be sure it was grown using completely organic farming methods using seeds derived from an organic growth.
Another important point is that the term organic has been distorted so that you can't buy a product claiming it is organic and actually be sure it was grown using completely organic farming methods using seeds derived from an organic growth.
Heh-
I was thinking about math and wrote DDX.
What i meant to write was DDT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT
caused some quite awful effects.
I was thinking about math and wrote DDX.
What i meant to write was DDT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT
caused some quite awful effects.
Hated this. Distorted statistics mixed with cliched sound bites and fermented in rhetoric.
For starters, sugar and starch have more calories than lettuce and fruit not just for each dollar, but also for every pound.
The author took a couple of well known symptoms(run-off! animal cruelty! resistant bacteria!), tossed it together in a salad bowl, and chucked it in the general direction of the nebulous "food industry".
He doesn't offer deeper reasons of why the system is how it is, doesn't suggest methods of fixing the situation, and goes no further than regurgitating one sided talking points.
For starters, sugar and starch have more calories than lettuce and fruit not just for each dollar, but also for every pound.
The author took a couple of well known symptoms(run-off! animal cruelty! resistant bacteria!), tossed it together in a salad bowl, and chucked it in the general direction of the nebulous "food industry".
He doesn't offer deeper reasons of why the system is how it is, doesn't suggest methods of fixing the situation, and goes no further than regurgitating one sided talking points.
A lot of it isn't food, but is instead a food-like substance containing some macronutrients.
If unhealthy food is cheaper than healthy food on a per calorie basis and we eat too many calories, than why don't we just eat fewer calories in total, comprised of healthy food for the same amount of money?
One, because the math doesn't work. You can live on a few dollars a day if you eat unhealthy food. If you buy healthy food with those same dollars, you're going to see people going hungry again.
Two, because the choices aren't equally available. At least in Detroit (the only city I'm qualified to share anecdotes about) it's not as if healthy and unhealthy food choices are across the aisle, or even across the street from one another.
You simply can't make healthy choices without special scheduling, trips and thus even higher cost. Can people do it? Sure. Do they? Absolutely. The local gardens and the Eastern market are the absolute brightest spots in this city. The problem is that they simply can't afford (in time, energy or money) to make that choice nearly often enough.
So, to me, the question isn't "why don't people make better choices?" nearly as much as "why do we, as a society, make it so much harder to make better choices?".
There's certainly a willpower and personal responsibility component to this problem, but the larger issue is why our society has stacked the deck against it.
Two, because the choices aren't equally available. At least in Detroit (the only city I'm qualified to share anecdotes about) it's not as if healthy and unhealthy food choices are across the aisle, or even across the street from one another.
You simply can't make healthy choices without special scheduling, trips and thus even higher cost. Can people do it? Sure. Do they? Absolutely. The local gardens and the Eastern market are the absolute brightest spots in this city. The problem is that they simply can't afford (in time, energy or money) to make that choice nearly often enough.
So, to me, the question isn't "why don't people make better choices?" nearly as much as "why do we, as a society, make it so much harder to make better choices?".
There's certainly a willpower and personal responsibility component to this problem, but the larger issue is why our society has stacked the deck against it.
Another issue which is often ignored in discussions about food and health is that healthy food doesn't keep well. By that factor alone it's going to be more limited and more expensive, because it's harder to produce, transport and store.
You can live on a few dollars a day if you eat unhealthy food.
In my experience this is only true about processed and prepared foods. Check the price on dry beans or rice in bulk. If you're willing to bake your own bread the cost is competitive to even the cheapest products. Learning these techniques requires a time investment initially, but if your time is really so valuable why are you living on a few dollars a day?
because the choices aren't equally available.
This is a big problem, and a free-market paradox in my opinion. When healthy food isn't available, it's removed from the culture and unless everyone has good education about nutrition demand disappears.
In my experience this is only true about processed and prepared foods. Check the price on dry beans or rice in bulk. If you're willing to bake your own bread the cost is competitive to even the cheapest products. Learning these techniques requires a time investment initially, but if your time is really so valuable why are you living on a few dollars a day?
because the choices aren't equally available.
This is a big problem, and a free-market paradox in my opinion. When healthy food isn't available, it's removed from the culture and unless everyone has good education about nutrition demand disappears.
Because often unhealthy food tastes better.
It's funny that there are people who won't put ARCO gas in their car, but will gladly put AM-PM hot dogs in their stomach.
ARCO gas is negligibly cheaper and less convenient.
AM-PM hot dogs are considerable cheaper, and more convenient.
AM-PM hot dogs are considerable cheaper, and more convenient.
The government pays to fix your stomach problems, but not your car problems.
I don't think that fully explains it. Government paying for your health care is not the same as if government were to pay for your car repair. The former will always carry repercussions for you--diabetes is a very difficult condition to have, even if the bills are paid by Medicare--whereas there is no real other pain caused by a car repair, other than financial.
Many of those without health care insurance still eat food that is linked to detrimental health.
Many of those without health care insurance still eat food that is linked to detrimental health.
The worst is that cheap food usually tastes great... :)
A physician friend of mine explained to me once that humans are hardwired to like fat and sugar. Fat has a high number of calories per gram and is necessary for brain development. ("Healthy fats" are necessary anyway.) Sugar stimulates our most primitive taste preference - sweet. Out of the womb humans prefer sweet but learn to like the other 4 flavors.
Cheap food typically gravitates towards a combination of these 2 ingredients.
Cheap food tastes great until you try it next to food made from high quality ingredients and prepared the way you want it. For example, I used to like white bread. Since getting used to the different flavors in multigrain bread, white bread is too boring. (By multigrain, I don't mean the refined stuff being labeled as multigrain. I mean the kind in which you bite into a chewy grain with a nutty flavor.)
Cheap food typically gravitates towards a combination of these 2 ingredients.
Cheap food tastes great until you try it next to food made from high quality ingredients and prepared the way you want it. For example, I used to like white bread. Since getting used to the different flavors in multigrain bread, white bread is too boring. (By multigrain, I don't mean the refined stuff being labeled as multigrain. I mean the kind in which you bite into a chewy grain with a nutty flavor.)
Then comes the aftertaste... And the regret. And you vow never to eat it again, but that only lasts a couple of weeks until you're lazy and craving it again!
not really. that's the msg which is there to trick you that it tastes good.
How is being tricked into thinking something tastes good and tasting good different?
It's a shame I've gotten downvoted here, and you got upvoted as much. I guess hackers like the idea of hacking food too.
Here's the deal, though:
You could conceivably add the right chemicals to a pile of offal cooked in a skin of some kind and it'd taste like a gourmet sausage. You might have in fact eaten such a thing. It's also common to add flavorings such as "grandma's special recipe" or that from a dude in a coat from Kentucky. All these things make us think that something tastes good, which as also commented in this thread translates in your brain to mean: "hey, this is good for you, have more!".
But the reality is, what you're eating is almost certainly mechanically reclaimed meat (where carcasses with so little meat it's almost pointless to continue cutting are put through a machine which crushes, juices, minces and turns out a slushy type 'meat' goo). and MRM is the place where salmonella and other friends live. It's also not really meat: there's plenty of cartilage (aka 'gristle') and such that is cut so small, you actually ingest it. It doesn't cook properly, and it's not really good for you to eat- you just pass it. But if it's carrying salmonella or e-coli... I hope you didn't have something important to do for the next couple weeks.
Also, the nutrition recovery from such a meal is incredibly limited. You feel bright and happy for a short period (the msg et al) and then you have a come down, a craving, and want some more- for that high again. So in fact, what you're eating is a bunch of mind-altering chemicals ontop of a bed of processed waste.
Food shouldn't be like that.
Food should melt in your mouth and be an explosion of flavor and something you genuinely feel excited about. It should be, you have a meal, which provides you with some instant energy, and also some which is "slow-burning". Brown grains (rice, some wheats, etc) are great for this. You will feel full and energised for longer periods.
Cheap base foods are cheap because they are often subsidized (e.g.: corn) or because their most common consumer is the cattle, pigs, chickens etc that you want to eat. This has given a false sense of price - people expect all food to be as cheap. So supermarkets etc will look to find ways to make everything else like it. So you'll see battery farmed chickens, who are so close together they often aren't able to stand up; You'll find chickens who are injected with water to make extra weight. (yeah, that chicken you just bought? probably a pound of it is water. You just paid chicken price for water).
Good food is good because it provides great nutrition, is often respectful of the environment and is sustainable.
Everything else is just yet another sign of man's dominance over everything else.
(BTW, no, i'm not an enviro-hippy, it's just that i refuse to eat crap if i can help it- why put yourself through that kind of thing when there's so much better choice out there?)
Here's the deal, though:
You could conceivably add the right chemicals to a pile of offal cooked in a skin of some kind and it'd taste like a gourmet sausage. You might have in fact eaten such a thing. It's also common to add flavorings such as "grandma's special recipe" or that from a dude in a coat from Kentucky. All these things make us think that something tastes good, which as also commented in this thread translates in your brain to mean: "hey, this is good for you, have more!".
But the reality is, what you're eating is almost certainly mechanically reclaimed meat (where carcasses with so little meat it's almost pointless to continue cutting are put through a machine which crushes, juices, minces and turns out a slushy type 'meat' goo). and MRM is the place where salmonella and other friends live. It's also not really meat: there's plenty of cartilage (aka 'gristle') and such that is cut so small, you actually ingest it. It doesn't cook properly, and it's not really good for you to eat- you just pass it. But if it's carrying salmonella or e-coli... I hope you didn't have something important to do for the next couple weeks.
Also, the nutrition recovery from such a meal is incredibly limited. You feel bright and happy for a short period (the msg et al) and then you have a come down, a craving, and want some more- for that high again. So in fact, what you're eating is a bunch of mind-altering chemicals ontop of a bed of processed waste.
Food shouldn't be like that.
Food should melt in your mouth and be an explosion of flavor and something you genuinely feel excited about. It should be, you have a meal, which provides you with some instant energy, and also some which is "slow-burning". Brown grains (rice, some wheats, etc) are great for this. You will feel full and energised for longer periods.
Cheap base foods are cheap because they are often subsidized (e.g.: corn) or because their most common consumer is the cattle, pigs, chickens etc that you want to eat. This has given a false sense of price - people expect all food to be as cheap. So supermarkets etc will look to find ways to make everything else like it. So you'll see battery farmed chickens, who are so close together they often aren't able to stand up; You'll find chickens who are injected with water to make extra weight. (yeah, that chicken you just bought? probably a pound of it is water. You just paid chicken price for water).
Good food is good because it provides great nutrition, is often respectful of the environment and is sustainable.
Everything else is just yet another sign of man's dominance over everything else.
(BTW, no, i'm not an enviro-hippy, it's just that i refuse to eat crap if i can help it- why put yourself through that kind of thing when there's so much better choice out there?)
This is all irrelevant to your claim that food tasting good is different from thinking it tastes good. Taste is entirely a mental phenomenon. Maybe food should melt in your mouth and be an explosion of flavor and what-not — I can't tell you what food should be. But if something tastes good to you, it tastes good to you, whether or not it should.
OK, so if we want to get technical...
taste cells on the tongue contain chemoreceptors. Those turn chemical signals into potential - i.e nervous system signals.
Since normal food has normal type chemicals, whereas manufactured, msg type food has make-it-taste-nice chemicals. Those are two different sets of chemicals and so, yes. food which tastes good is different from thinking it tastes good - they activate different chemical pathways and trigger different receptors.
taste cells on the tongue contain chemoreceptors. Those turn chemical signals into potential - i.e nervous system signals.
Since normal food has normal type chemicals, whereas manufactured, msg type food has make-it-taste-nice chemicals. Those are two different sets of chemicals and so, yes. food which tastes good is different from thinking it tastes good - they activate different chemical pathways and trigger different receptors.
There is no difference between "normal type chemicals" and "make-it-taste-nice" chemicals. Salt is NaCl, whether it's found naturally or added to your food. Same with sugar (although it's true that fructose doesn't occur naturally in the same proportion as processed foods), and fats.
Well, to put it in the most extreme example - if you were drinking pure formaldehyde that had an additive that made it taste just like a delicious lemonade, would you feel taht you had been tricked into thinking it tastes good?
Taste is supposed to identify healthy and needed substances vs. deleterious or poisonous substances, so when this is subverted artificially, it feels like a trick to me.
Taste is supposed to identify healthy and needed substances vs. deleterious or poisonous substances, so when this is subverted artificially, it feels like a trick to me.
Taste is just a heuristic, and it's based on a definition of "healthy" that evolved in a very different environment. Your taste is as likely to be "subverted" naturally as artificially. For example, strawberries taste much better than kale, but they're not really better for you — just sweeter.
Yeh, especially as it is, chemically speaking, pushing exactly the same sort of buttons.
[deleted]
We evolved to like MSG, it's no more of a trick than adding salt.
You actually need to eat a lot of salt to survive, so it's much more of a trick than adding salt. MSG is not an essential nutrient that you need in any quantity, so using it is a trick to make your body think you're being well nourished when you aren't.
Just wondering, if vegetables were cheaper than corn, would McDonalds invent a vegetable bun with a small token pancake slipped in with the meat?
They would probably have to find a way to preserve the vegetable buns as well as the existing bread buns. They're currently loaded with a generous amount of sugar and miscellaneous preservatives.
I think we have as much a knowledge problem as a food problem. If cheaper food has more calories, then for heaven's sake eat less of it! Split a supersized big mac meal into breakfast/lunch/dinner and you'll hit your daily caloric target right on the button.
Not saying this is healthy, but there's no reason it should cause obesity if you're smart about it.
Not saying this is healthy, but there's no reason it should cause obesity if you're smart about it.
For those who are wondering, PEI is Prince Edward Island, a small province in Eastern Canada.
"We have given up control of our food to people from far away" no most of the grain grown goes to feeding the animals to be slaughtered - not to third world countries.
The mantra is very simple: Fresh. Organic. Seasonal.
Technically, I think that's a dogma, not a mantra. In a way, of course, one of the greatest triumphs of modern civilisation is that we now have so many folks who can afford to be picky about where their vegetables come from. I think that's great! More or less. However, I rather like the notion of getting certain produce all year-round...there's no talking me out of it, frankly.
Indeed. So the better mantra might be: "Eat food. Mostly vegetables." (Where food is defined as anything your great-great grandma would have recognized as food.)
I am fond of going with the seasons, but I am also fond of oranges, which do not grow here--any season.
I am fond of going with the seasons, but I am also fond of oranges, which do not grow here--any season.
In India or Nepal people are consuming exactly this kind of food, because it is local which means cheap. Locally grown vegetables is the cheapest food possible.
The main source of food is local markets, which operates at morning and evening times. Most of goods are managed to be sold the same day, and delivery agents adopts to this circles. So, each morning it is fresh.
If you enter into some local tea-shop or kitchen and take a look which kind of dishes they serve and how it was made and from which ingredients you could catch the idea.
Of course, most of fast foods are using not fresh or organic sources simply to get more profit, but if you can cook yourself you can choice whatever you want on nearest market.
The main source of food is local markets, which operates at morning and evening times. Most of goods are managed to be sold the same day, and delivery agents adopts to this circles. So, each morning it is fresh.
If you enter into some local tea-shop or kitchen and take a look which kind of dishes they serve and how it was made and from which ingredients you could catch the idea.
Of course, most of fast foods are using not fresh or organic sources simply to get more profit, but if you can cook yourself you can choice whatever you want on nearest market.
No, thank you.
I don't want a "smarter" farm policy. I'd like no farm policy. It's clear that both parties don't actually care about this issue besides making sure that agribusiness is happy.