Unnatural Food

My forthcoming book Unnaturally Delicious is set for release in March.  So far, the most common questions have been, "why did you pick that title?" and "is it a book about GMOs?"  The questions stem from a food culture that has elevated the status of "natural" food to such a point that it seems odd to pair a positive connotation with the word unnatural.  There is, in my assessment, a vast under-appreciation for all the unnatural ways our food has changed over time (and I'm not talking about GMOs - I only lightly touch on this issue in a couple chapters of the book - hopefully in ways people haven't thought about before).  

These thoughts came to mind when I stumbled upon  this 2011 paper by Nathan Nunn and Nancy Qian in the Quarterly Journal of Economics.  They discuss the evolution of the potato and the impacts of this crop as it moved from the New World to the Old.  Many of us think of "Irish Potatoes" or Britian's "Bangers and Mash" as if they were the most natural foods these folks could have every eaten.  The historical reality, of course, is that potatoes are were "unnatural" foods introduced to Europe only a few hundred years ago.  

The authors begin the paper:

“Between 1000 and 1900, world population grew from under 300 million to 1.6 billion, and the share of population living in urban areas more than quadrupled, increasing from two to over nine percent.”

Nunn and Qian make a compelling case that a significant explanatory factor for this change was none other than the spud.  They write:

“According to our most conservative estimates, the introduction of the potato accounts for approximately one-quarter of the growth in Old World population and urbanization between 1700 and 1900”

How?

“Potatoes provide more calories, vitamins, and nutrients per area of land sown than other staple crops”

Maybe you think the world is too crowded already, and that this change is a curse rather than a blessing.  Another way to look at it: there is a reasonable chance some of the people reading this very blog wouldn't be here right now had the potato stayed local and not spread out from South America.  

The paper makes the case that the potato, along with other items that made up the  Columbian Exchange, is a significant factor contributing to the rise in European living standards in the 16th and 17th centuries.  The paper shows that regions that first adopted the potato, and had soils and climates more suitable for potato growing, experienced more rapid population growth, and thus the potato possibly affected national and international politics of the time.  The whole paper is full of interesting historical details.  For example, looking at the height of soldiers in France, the authors find:  

“for towns that were fully suitable for potato cultivation, the introduction of the potato increased average adult height by 0.41–0.78 inches.”

However natural potatoes might now seem, it is important to keep in mind there was a time when they weren't.  And, we're better off today because our ancestors took a chance on the unnatural foodstuff.   

Why we eat better today

Megan McArdle has an excellent post at Bloomberg review that she titled The Economics Behind Grandma's Tuna Casseroles.

McArdle sets out to explain why we eat differently (and in many ways better) than our grandparents.  Here's my favorite passage:

“You have a refrigerator full of good-looking fresh ingredients, and a cabinet overflowing with spices, not because you’re a better person with a more refined palate; you have those things because you live in 2015, when they are cheaply and ubiquitously available. Your average housewife in 1950 did not have the food budget to have 40 spices in her cabinets, or fresh green beans in the crisper drawer all winter.”

She also notes that food preference were probably similar in the 1950s as compared to today, it's just that our grandparents couldn't afford to eat the way we now do, and technological changes have made what were previously "fancy" foods available to the masses.  Take, Jello for instance:

“The foods of today’s lower middle class are the foods of yesterday’s tycoons. Before the 1890s, gelatin was a food that only rich people could regularly have. It had to be laboriously made from irish moss, or calf’s foot jelly (a disgusting process), or primitive gelatin products that were hard to use. The invention of modern powdered gelatin made these things not merely easy, but also cheap. . . . Over time, the ubiquity of these foods made them déclassé. Just as rich people stopped installing wall-to-wall carpeting when it became a standard option in tract homes, they stopped eating so many jello molds and mayonnaise salads when they became the mainstay of every church potluck and school cafeteria. That’s why eating those items now has a strong class connotation.”

There is a lot more at the link and the whole thing is worth reading.

Agri-Pulse Interview on GMOs

I was recently interviewed by Agri-Pulse about GMOs, GMO labeling, and technology adoption.  You can hear the whole thing here.

End of Doom

Ronald Bailey has an excellent piece in the October print edition of Reason Magazine entitled, "The End of Doom" and a recently released book with the same title.  It's a nice counterweight to the oft-heard refrain that the world is going to hell.  

Here are a a few quotes I found particularly interesting.  In critiquing Rachel Carson's Silent Spring:

“At its heart is this belief: Nature is beneficent, stable, and even a source of moral good; humanity is arrogant, heedless, and often the source of moral evil. Carson, more than any other person, is responsible for the politicization of science that afflicts our contemporary public policy debates.”

In discussing our out-sized fears of cancers from synthetic chemicals and of biotechnology:

“It should always be borne in mind that environmentalist organizations raise money to support themselves by scaring people. More generally, Bonny observes, “For some people, especially many activists, biotechnology also symbolizes the negative aspects of globalization and economic liberalism.” She adds, “Since the collapse of the communist ideal has made direct opposition to capitalism more difficult today, it seems to have found new forms of expression including, in particular, criticism of globalization, certain aspects of consumption, technical developments, etc.””

He ends with some choice words about the precautionary principle.  

“Why does it matter if the population at large believes these dire predictions about humanity’s future? The primary danger is they may fuel a kind of pathological conservatism that could actually become a self-fulfilling prophecy.”

and

“The precautionary principle is the opposite of the scientific process of trial and error that is the modern engine of knowledge and prosperity. The precautionary principle impossibly demands trials without errors, successes without failures.

...

”An indirect implication of trial without error is that if trying new things is made more costly, there will be fewer departures from past practice; this very lack of change may itself be dangerous in forgoing chances to reduce existing hazards.” ”

Unnaturally Delicious

As I've previously mentioned, I've got a new book coming out in the Spring of 2016 on entrepreneurs and scientists working on food and agricultural innovations to help address issues such as malnutrition, obesity, soil runoff, food waste, animal welfare, and much more.  Thought I'd share a draft of the book cover the publishers (St. Martins) just sent.