National Food Policies

Introduction

The people of every nation worry about food. As a result every nation has national food policies. Most of these policies are emotion-powered which means there is lots and lots of goat sacrificing. The emotions include fears such as worries about food supply and the quality of the food, patriotism as in “buy local”, and VPS-style save the world enthusiasm which supports programs such as growing corn to make ethanol for gasoline. Almost as much as child raising, food raising supports instinctive community intervention. In modern times that becomes hundreds to thousands of government programs concerned with agriculture and food safety.

Instinctive Roots

Worrying about finding sufficient food and good food predates being human, or even a vertebrate species. It is not surprising that there is lots of emotion involved and that the emotion insinuates itself into all sorts of political decision making. This 12 Oct 13 Economist article, “Not Being There”, is just one of thousands of articles to describe how important food protectionist policies are to politicians and their supporters. Another is this 30 Nov 13 article, “Rice Farming in Japan: Political Staple.” And this 8 Feb 14 Economist article, “The Farm Bill: A Trillion in the Trough”, talks about the magnitude of this kind of program, as in, it's huge. From the article, “While Congress was gridlocked it was easy to forget how ugly the smooth functioning of government can be. After a delay of two years, a reminder came on February 4th when the Senate passed the farm bill, a strange piece of legislation which costs nearly a trillion dollars. It mixes benefits that mostly go to the poor (food stamps) with agricultural subsidies that mostly go to the rich (crop subsidies for large farms). Given a blank slate, nobody with an interest in either alleviating poverty or improving farming would construct such a law. Yet here it is again.”

Another example of food-related instinctive thinking powering political choices comes from this 4 Nov 13 WSJ editorial, “Stephens: Does Environmentalism Cause Amnesia? Climate-change alarmist warn us about coming food shortages. They said the same in 1968”. The article, written by Bret Stephens, tells how time and time again we pay attention to warnings of coming food disasters that never happen.

Bright Side/Dark Side

The harsh reality is that our food today is much safer and more plentiful than it has ever been before. It is that way because food production consists of thousands upon thousands of modern tools and techniques. We use these new tools and techniques because they give us a lot more food output for a lot less resource input. But the dark side is that few urbanites and suburbanites in prosperous countries are aware of the complex routines of modern growing, harvesting and preparing of foods. This means there is a lot of disconnect between what people think they know about foods and what they actually know. The harsh reality is most people don't have a clue, and this is definitely a situation where a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Adding to this disconnect is a healthy dose of good intentions. When people worry about how food is produced, they mix in worrying about good diet, helping the poor, saving the world from resource exhaustion, animal rights, and other causes de jour. Also, they expect the government to do something about all these worries! People don't have a clue, but they expect their government to have one; they also expect all their good intentions to be taken into consideration by the government.

The result is a mish-mash of government policies that not only are irrational at their foundation but also float on the breeze of every worry that each decade brings. The result is an environment that is special interest group hog heaven. The waste is that good intentions are not being supported with good results. Instead, special interests are being supported because those who were advocating these programs in the name of good intentions have moved on. They are no longer paying attention.

Some Examples

Here are three examples of government policies that are out of touch with harsh reality, which makes them expensive and wasteful. Wasteful policies and programs aren't saving resources. Instead, they are generously supporting special interests.

Sugar quotas - The federal government has controlled sugar access in the US since the World War II rationing heydays. During the past six decades, government control has continued even though there is no longer a need for it. As with most government programs, there exists a successful lobby effort which the media chooses to pay little attention to. This is a textbook case of a special interest group consistently winning. In fact, it is the envy of the lobby industry.
Ethanol production - Ethanol production in the US is rooted in good intentions. This is an icon for green advocacy. The problem is that petroleum fuel production has a lot in common with frontier cooking - the raw ingredients constantly vary in consistency, quantity and quality. Further, the demand for petroleum fuel products vary seasonally and yearly. This means that oil refining is a demanding technical art. Having someone outside the business walk up and say, “You need to add ethanol” is like walking up to a cook and saying, “You need to add kale.” It’s true… some times, but not all the time. The problem is that the ethanol production laws are constant, and the regulations are slowly changing at best. The result is expensive and wasteful efforts that don’t help the good intentions at all.
Rice growing in East Asia - I encountered this issue head-on when I taught English in Korea. My students and I would talk about current events to enliven the class. One topic they discussed was the protectionist laws that encouraged rice growing in Korea. I found it curious. Why should Koreans be touchy about rice production when it can be so easily grown up and down the eastern coast of Asia? “It's part of national security.” I was told, “This way if we get in some kind of trade trouble, we'll still have food.” All well and good, but in a growing, thriving, modern economy such as Korea was developing in the 1990's, oil and communication bandwidth were just as important, and a lot more likely to be disrupted. That was harsh reality - but the Koreans worried more about rice. And they were not alone. Throughout East Asia, this worry continues to thrive to this day, and it supports some serious goat sacrificing.

Wasteful and self-defeating isn't what government policies, programs, and laws were intended to be, but the mix of food emotion, good intention, and not paying attention has allowed them to become that way.

Conclusion

Worrying about food supports goat sacrificing big time. It supports it in a thousand diverse ways, ranging from the government support programs of all sorts in nations around the world, through faddish diet advice in thousands of media outlets around the world. And where ever good intentions along with lack of attention mix, there will be the “black earth” and fertile ground for special interests.

This is an area where there is great potential for growth and change. With increased awareness about the heart-thinking that sustains goat sacrificing in all aspects of the food industry and with serious education about how to replace from-the-heart thinking with cost-benefit thinking, lots of improvement is possible.