Let Them Eat Ramen

Over at NPR, Eliza Barclay wrote an interesting story on Ramen noodles.  I shudder to think how much of my nutritional intake in college and grad school came from Ramen noodles.  Little did I know they might have such global importance.

Underpinning Barclay's story is the provocative question: Can Ramen noodles solve the problem of global hunger?

When I was recently on Fox and Friends talking about the cheapest-most nutritious food in human history, it appears the a better candidate might have been Ramen noodles rather than the McDouble.  Here is the NPR piece:

it's the multinational noodle companies' conquest of countries like Papua New Guinea, Nigeria, Brazil and Mexico that really interests the anthropologists: Frederick Errington of Trinity College, Tatsuro Fujikura of Kyoto University and Deborah Gewertz of Amherst College. And it's here that they make one of their most intriguing arguments: Instant noodles do good by alleviating the hunger of millions of people around the world. These supercheap, superpalatable noodles, they write, help the low-wage workers in rich and poor countries alike hang on when the going gets tough.

I also found this passage interesting:

The authors say that "real food" advocates like journalist Michael Pollan, who wring their hands over rising consumption of industrial food like ramen, raise important questions about its perils. But the authors also call ramen a "virtually unstoppable" phenomenon. And they foresee a world of 9 billion people "in which the affluent will be presented with too many food choices and [will be] called upon to use their survival skills to choose wisely, and in which the poor will have to use their survival skills to get by on cheap food" like ramen.

"I'd love to take Michael Pollan to a squatter settlement and have him deal with poor, hungry people in such circumstances, who have no choice of going back home to grow subsistence crops or be part of a regional food system," says Gewertz. "Subsistence agriculture is hard, dirty and hot work. People want out of it. It's not to be over romanticized."

Did I say after a decade-long hiatus from Ramen, they're back in our house - my kids love it!

Steinbeck and Farm Policy

Over at Econlog, David Henderson has been blogging recently about the life of the economist John Kenneth Galbraith.  Henderson pointed out that Galbraith (who was often in favor of price controls and help implement them during WWII) knew that FDR's farm policies designed to increase prices consisted of destroying said crops - an act that was certain to hurt those who were starving at the time.  

I was absolutely astounded at John Steinbeck's description of the effects of those farm policies.  Here is what Henderson had to say: 

But if Galbraith's friend, John Steinbeck, was aware of FDR's policies, he never said so. Instead, he attributed the crop destruction policies to farmers rather than the feds.

In The Grapes of Wrath, after describing a scene in which orange growers spray oranges with kerosene to make them inedible, Steinbeck writes:

There is a crime here that goes beyond denunciation. There is a sorrow here that weeping cannot symbolize. There is a failure here that topples all our success. The fertile earth, the straight tree rows, the sturdy trunks, and the ripe fruit. And children dying of pellagra must die because a profit cannot be taken from an orange. And coroners must fill in the certificates--died of malnutrition--because the food must rot, must be forced to rot. The people come with nets to fish for potatoes in the river, and the guards hold them back; they come in rattling cars to get the dumped oranges, but the kerosene is sprayed. And they stand still and watch the potatoes float by, listen to the screaming pigs being killed in a ditch and covered with quicklime, watch the mountains of oranges slop down to a putrefying ooze; and in the eyes of the people there is a failure; and in the eyes of the hungry there is a growing wrath. In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage.

Galbraith and Steinbeck were friends. I wonder if Galbraith ever told Steinbeck the truth: the criminal here was Franklin D. Roosevelt. He's the man against whom Steinbeck should have directed his wrath.

Food Nudges

Over at Reason.com, Baylen Linnekin writes about the the growing call for Food Nudges.   The issue of libertarian paternalism - government enacting rules to, among other things, framing the way options are presented - has gained a lot of attention since news stories indicating the development of a "behavioral insights team."  

This is an important enough issue that I devoted all of chapter 4 of the Food Police  to this topic.  Here are a few of my quick thoughts on the issue:

• "Libertarian paternalism" is certainly less objectionable than old-fashioned paternalism in that it presumably preserves freedom of choice, while only trying to nudge people toward the "correct" choice (thus, Bloomberg's large soda ban would be an example of old-fashioned paternalism whereas making the larger cups less prominently displayed would be an example of a nudge).
• Nevertheless, there is a a key philosophical problem here in determining what is the "correct" or "best" choice toward which people should be nudged.  Who decides what is "best"?  And how can the bureaucrats objectively claim the option is "best" when people are choosing something different?  Here are the ways I put it in the book:

"Thus, the elite seek to replace each individual's judgement of the "good" with their own."

and

"The supposed proof of this irrational behavior is said to be found in survey responses in which we say we wished we weighed less or saved more.  But our current self will always wish that our previous self had dieted and saved more, because we are now in the position to reap the benefits without paying any of the costs.  The paternalist has simply decided that your abstract future self is right and your current-acting future self is wrong, and the only possible excuse the paternalist can give for his paternalism is his own preferences for your actions."

• Paternalism - of any sort - is less objectionable when we're talking about children.  But, these arguments must cease a some age - otherwise we are merely wards of the state. 
• There seems to be an under appreciation of the ability of competition and the market to structure the choice environment in a way that we most prefer (as determined by our actions).  It seems a little arrogant for some third-party to claim to "know" that re-arranging the choices to nudge us will lead to a "better" outcome, when there are hundred if not thousands of businesses competing for our paychecks, the most successful of which (the ones who stick around and multiply) offer those combinations of choice options we find most desirable.  
• I am not at all claiming that our choices can't be influenced by the way they are framed or presented to us - the research seems pretty clear on that matter. However, when we begin to divorce the idea that the choices people make correspond with what they ultimately want, we open the door for all kinds of coercive and tyrannical behavior.  Much of the behavioral economics literature is useful - and I have no problem with the government using those insights to make the things they are already doing more efficient and less cognitively demanding on citizens (I'm thinking here of the pain in the rear it is to fill out my income tax forms), but I balk when we start to license a third party (or a "behavioral insights team") that presumes the responsibility to (directly via a ban or indirectly via a nudge) know what I should choose.   

The Psychology of GMO Aversion

Maria Konnicova recently published an interesting post at the New Yorker entitled THE PSYCHOLOGY OF DISTRUSTING G.M.O.S.

Here is one tidbit:  

Psychologists have long observed that there is a continuum in what we perceive as natural or unnatural. As the psychologist Robert Sternberg wrote in 1982, the natural is what we find more familiar, while what we consider unnatural tends to be more novel—perceptually and experientially unfamiliar—and complex, meaning that more cognitive effort is required to understand it. The natural is seen as inherently positive; the unnatural is not. And anything that involves human manipulation is considered highly unnatural—like, say, G.M.O.s, even though genetically modified food already lines the shelves at grocery stores. As Michael Specter putit, “The history of agriculture is the history of humans breeding seeds and animals to produce traits we want in our crops and livestock.”

The author goes on to talk about the psychology research showing that people look at "unknown" or "novel" risks differently than those that seem more familiar or controllable.  It also appears acceptance of risk is related to perceived necessity.     

I have argued in several talks I've made recently that these are precisely the reasons for the gap between farmer attitudes and general consumer attitudes toward biotechnology,  growth hormones, pesticides, and gestation crates just to name a few.  The fact that farmers are around these technologies all the time and that they seem them as "necessary" goes a long way toward explaining their acceptance.  To this I'd add in some of Jonathan Haidt's observations about moral intuitions.  Here is what I said about that a while back:

What struck me as I read Haidt was his discussion on moral disagreement.  It is very had to change someone’s intuitions about what is right or wrong.  If we can’t even articulate the reasons why we think something is wrong, how can someone possibly make a compelling, reasoned counter-argument?  Haidt argues that trying to use reason to change someone’s moral intuition is a bit like trying to make a dog happy by grabbing its tail and wagging it. 

So, how is it that I intuitively feel so differently about various aspects of food production (e.g., biotechnology, irradiation, pesticides, herbicides, etc.) than others who are revolted by the same issues?  When I think about these issues, I am not appalled; I don’t feel any disgust.  But, I suspect I’m in the minority of Americans. 

I gave the Shepard lecture last night to a group of students and faculty at Kenyon College about the future of food.  Although we had a civil, productive discussion, it’s safe to say that many of the students in the room had different moral intuitions about these topics and I do.  Their moral intuitions are that many modern food technologies are self-evidently wrong (while other issues like local, organic, and natural are self-evidently right). 

How is it that our moral intuitions can be so different?  I grew up around “big ag.”  I’ve personally sprayed Monsanto’s Round-Up on hundreds of acres of cotton weeds.  I’ve personal castrated farm animals to limit aggression and off-tasting meat.  I’ve personally had to throw away thousands of pounds of salsa that grew mold because adequate levels of preservatives weren't added.  I’ve personally met and know people who work for Monsanto, Cargill, ADM, etc.  I grew up going to school with kids whose parents were immigrant farm laborers living at or below poverty. 

Now, that doesn’t necessarily make my intuitions about modern food production somehow objectively correct.  But, I at least can lay claim to the fact that they are based on actual life experiences and insights. 

 I've previously touched on some of the psychology factors driving aversion to risk and to GMOs here and here.

Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs

I'm pleasued to announced that in addition to being named as Regents Professor at Oklahoma State, I have also been appointed as the Samuel Roberts Noble Distinguished Fellow at Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs (OCPA).  The appointment comes as the OCPA launches a new center, the Agricultural Center for Markets, Policy, and Property Rights.  The OCPA is a free market think tank focused on state issues. I'm happy to have the opportunity to work with OCPA, the Noble Foundation, and continue my fantastic job at Oklahoma State University.