3 ms·

The increased yield should lower the price. Poor people might then have enough surplus income to buy more nutritious foods. (And perhaps less rice - which may

The increased yield should lower the price. Poor people might then have enough surplus income to buy more nutritious foods. (And perhaps less rice - which may be what's called a "Giffen good".)

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
peterwwillis 7y ago
Not necessarily. For one, increased yield doesn't always result in lower prices, because the free market generally isn't that free (most of our agriculture is heavily subsidized by the government). Another problem is that access to nutritious food is extremely limited for poor people, for a variety of reasons. Overhead and supply chain economics influence whether local businesses can survive. Marketing/advertising and industry pressure on politics increases the likelihood that cheap, non-nutritious, shelf-stable foods will be more prevalent in stores. And then there's the general self-medicating-through-salt-sugar-and-fat cyclical effect, and overall lack of education on healthy eating and cooking. Even when you can find it and afford it, poor people have less free time to cook. Rice is a food that is shelf-stable, cheap, and (when enriched) provides a bare minimum of nutrition. Reducing the already-bare-minimum nutritional level, or increasing the heavy metals already found in many varieties, will have a significant effect on already vulnerable populations.
- radford-neal 7y ago
  For subsistence farmers, prices and markets are irrelevant. The effect of higher yield would be that less of their land needs to be devoted to growing rice, leaving some free land for growing other foods. In anything approaching a free market, it is hard to imagine that lower production costs won't reduce the price of a heavily-traded commodity with millions of producers. In a communist system of collective farms, or a fascist system of government-mandated prices with monopolistic distribution networks, it is anyone's guess what political decisions will be made. Such systems regularly produce politically-motivated famines, so slightly lower nutrient levels will be the least of their worries.

The increased yield should lower the price. Poor people might then have enough surplus income to buy more nutritious foods. (And perhaps less rice - which may be what's called a "Giffen good".)

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

peterwwillis 7y ago

Not necessarily. For one, increased yield doesn't always result in lower prices, because the free market generally isn't that free (most of our agriculture is heavily subsidized by the government). Another problem is that access to nutritious food is extremely limited for poor people, for a variety of reasons. Overhead and supply chain economics influence whether local businesses can survive. Marketing/advertising and industry pressure on politics increases the likelihood that cheap, non-nutritious, shelf-stable foods will be more prevalent in stores. And then there's the general self-medicating-through-salt-sugar-and-fat cyclical effect, and overall lack of education on healthy eating and cooking. Even when you can find it and afford it, poor people have less free time to cook. Rice is a food that is shelf-stable, cheap, and (when enriched) provides a bare minimum of nutrition. Reducing the already-bare-minimum nutritional level, or increasing the heavy metals already found in many varieties, will have a significant effect on already vulnerable populations.

radford-neal 7y ago
For subsistence farmers, prices and markets are irrelevant. The effect of higher yield would be that less of their land needs to be devoted to growing rice, leaving some free land for growing other foods. In anything approaching a free market, it is hard to imagine that lower production costs won't reduce the price of a heavily-traded commodity with millions of producers. In a communist system of collective farms, or a fascist system of government-mandated prices with monopolistic distribution networks, it is anyone's guess what political decisions will be made. Such systems regularly produce politically-motivated famines, so slightly lower nutrient levels will be the least of their worries.