Slog - Comments on Rice Riots; Or Why Michael Pollan is Wrong

Comment by orangekrush

orangekrush — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 16:11:40 -0800

I'd love to hear that "with go that third pair of shoes" logic to all those who haven't even one pair to begin with. Ivory towers come crashing down.

Comment by infrequent

infrequent — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 16:21:58 -0800

i have three pairs of nikes. at least.

Comment by PopTart

PopTart — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 16:26:50 -0800

And they are rioting in Egypt because of bread shortages. The basic staples of a human diet are being priced out of the reach of the poorest people around the world. This could become a global crisis and I don't think we're going to avoid it here in America either.

But sure, Ms. Waters go on thinking the way you do, since we all know the higher cost of food won't be a problem for you. And we'll be sure to pass your message on to those poor people about using their cell phones less and buying fewer pairs of Nikes.

Hey, I've got an idea--Soylent Green. A perfect way to solve both the hunger problem and the overpopulation problem.

Comment by A Non Imus

A Non Imus — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 16:27:37 -0800

OK, Erica. If you know all the answers, solve the problem.

Prices aren't going up because some fat robber-baron decided that he wanted rice to be more expensive. Attacking Michael Pollan is therefore a non-sequitur.

(incidentally, perhaps you should start thinking crticially about how this hobby-horse relates to your other favorite source of hysteria: energy policy.)

Comment by Fifty-Two-Eighty

Fifty-Two-Eighty — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 16:28:00 -0800

Ah, yes, let's blame everything on biofuels. Here's a little tidbit you may not know: the absolutely best source of ethanol known to man is sugar cane. So why isn't more of it being used to produce ethanol? Because sugar prices are so artificially inflated that it would be impractical. Who's behind those inflated prices? A company named Archer-Daniels-Midland. But here's the real pisser: Why would ADM, which produces no sugar, care about sugar prices? Because they're the world's largest producer of high-fructose corn syrup. Are things starting to fall into place yet for you?

Comment by Westside forever

Westside forever — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 16:29:32 -0800

Again, this POV is biased almost entirely towards the rich western world. I doubt the Thai who can't afford rice at current prices can forgo his third pair of Nikes and make up the difference.

For most of human history, only the elites could hope for reliable, quality available food. Everybody else was at the mercy of mother nature. The green revolution of the 50s and 60s, with all of those nasty petro inputs, is what made reliable sources of food available to billions.

Comment by kinaidos

kinaidos — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 16:29:35 -0800

Simple solution (at least in the US): end farm subsidies on the one hand to stop putting more sustainable practices at an even greater disadvantage. Then if that means more hardship at the low-income end of the spectrum, give more assistance.
The problem with subsidies is that they are a very poor way to handle the problem of affordable food. They bias the whole market toward using the subsidized commodities. The lower prices help those with low incomes afford food, but it's an inefficient way to do so. The main direct beneficiaries of these transfer payments are agribusiness firms, a few of which are privately held goldmines for a very small number of people.

It's the specifics of the US economy that make higher prices (as a side effect of a more rational farm policy) desirable. That's not generally the case. It really depends on the extent to which individual nations have their own market distorting patterns of subsidization.

Comment by JD

JD — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 16:35:53 -0800

ECB, you really are more delusional than anyone could have predicted.

Comment by crazycatguy

crazycatguy — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 16:43:33 -0800

You misunderstood what Pollen was talking about, Erica. His point is that if junk food costs as much as good food, good food will have a better chance of being eaten. He's not saying all food should cost more, only the crap they serve as fast food joints. If organic, locally produced food received the same government subsidy that Big Food gets now, then it would be as cheap as the crap they serve at McDonalds.

Comment by nbc

nbc — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 16:51:46 -0800

$70/ton for rice! Hah! I paid $25 for the omakase at lunch today. And I quit my job! Being rich is awesome.

Comment by El Seven

El Seven — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 16:52:58 -0800

I really do like to buy organic and locally sourced food. But, with our population's current level and with the current rate of growth, is it even possible to have sustainable food sources for everybody? I really don't see how.

Comment by keshmeshi

keshmeshi — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 16:56:52 -0800

Let them eat celery root.

@11,

And you're right, it's not. Organic, sustainable agriculture is too inefficient to feed 7 billion people.

Comment by Jiberish

Jiberish — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 16:57:19 -0800

@9 but that's not the arguement in many parts of the world its not junk food vs good food but food vs no food. more malnutrition in developing countries will have a impede their development and progress, leading to a more insecure world.

Comment by Will in Seattle

Will in Seattle — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 17:07:09 -0800

@5 is correct.

If we got rid of the corn lobby (ethanol), oil/gas lobby, and all the perverse incentives, a lot of this would be fixed by the Invisible Hand of the markets.

Of course, to do that, we need to elect a President who is not beholden to PACs ... which ain't WalMart director Hillary "One Of Us" Clinton ...

Comment by Jiberish

Jiberish — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 17:18:16 -0800

erica is on to something our farm policies support the big farms and big crops like soy, corn etc. which turns into a glut of cheap corn syrup which then gets placed into everything. i have property in south dakota and we get paid to leave it as prairie if we wanted to plant it, it would have to be one of the big crops.

Comment by PopTart

PopTart — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 17:22:55 -0800

I'm investing in Archer Daniels Midland because I'm pretty sure they are researching the possibilities of Soylent Green right now. The high fructose corn syrup is part of their nefarious plans...

Comment by Will in Seattle

Will in Seattle — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 18:05:55 -0800

Good plan, PopTart.

Remember, though, eat local ...

Comment by arduous

arduous — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 18:06:43 -0800

@12, unless we completely change our farming methods and employ many many more farmers then we currently do. Then organic, sustainable farming might have a chance.

Comment by CP

CP — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 19:45:08 -0800

I don't think Pollan was thinking about 3rd world poverty much when he talked about the declining price of food and obesity. IIRC, he did write about the % share of household income devoted to food in the US, and how it's been dropping for decades. And other research showing that for many folks, at some psychological level, lower price = jam more into gullet.

(We really are hard wired in several ways to survive future famines...)

So, I was sympathetic to Pollan's writing on this before, but, er...

They're eating mud in Haiti.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/01/30/whaiti130.xml

Comment by El Seven

El Seven — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 20:41:06 -0800

Well, this should help the food shortage problem! We can all get drunk and forget our hunger pangs!

The problem is MEAT. Too much MEAT eating going on. And DAIRY. We don't need so much fucking dairy. I'm no biologist or whoever studies this stuff but how many other mammals drink milk past their infancy? What a load of crap.

Comment by Fifty-Two-Eighty

Fifty-Two-Eighty — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 21:38:11 -0800

None. But lots and lots of them eat meat.

Comment by Thisbe

Thisbe — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 22:45:11 -0800

Who cares what other animals do?

But, almost any omnivore will eat dairy if you feed it to them. Yum, it's all full of fat and protein!
It's not really the fault of other animals that they don't have opposable thumbs.

Though, if we're only going to eat things that other animals eat, maybe that means that we can stop with the tofu, soy milk, "protein bars", and other factory produced faux-food, too.

Comment by Zak

Zak — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 01:06:03 -0800

You have to have food to have people. There are too many people. That is why we are having this problem to begin with. I don't see why it escapes absolutely EVERYONE'S logic that for us to survive as a species we need to have dramatically less human beings VERY SOON.