You Eat What You Are, Part 1 (Ep. 76)
Our latest Freakonomics Radio podcast is called “You Eat What You Are, Part 1″ (Download/subscribe at iTunes, get the RSS feed, listen via the media player above, or read the transcript here.)
It’s about how American food got so bad, how it’s begun to get much better in recent years, and who has the answers for further improvement.
We begin at Union Square Green Market in New York City, a rustic oasis in the heart of the city, where Berkshire Berries has wonderful jams, Windfall Farms offers a cornucopia of greens, and Hudson Valley Duck Farm does all kinds of things with the modest duck. We also channel John McPhee and his wonderful essay “Giving Good Weight.”
But how much can the farmer’s market solve America’s food problems?
We talk to Tyler Cowen, whom you’ve heard from before. He’s a professor of economics at George Mason University, a blogger at Marginal Revolution, a food blogger at Tyler Cowen’s Ethnic Dining Guide, and the author, most recently, of An Economist Gets Lunch: New Rules for Everyday Foodies. He argues that economists were historically very concerned with food, and describes the current “crisis”:
COWEN: If you are a foodie today you have more options than ever before. But there’s also more bad food than ever before. There’s more obesity. There’s more junk food. The food world is getting a lot worse and a lot better at the same time. That’s one way to think about the crisis.
In fact, 15 percent of Americans are said to be “food insecure,” while 35 percent are obese. Cowen argues that the typical finger-pointing is often directed at the wrong people:
COWEN: I think agribusiness and consumerism are seen as the great villains. I think both are essential; we can’t do without them. They feed the seven billion people in the world. We do need to improve them, but I would work on them through innovation. The biggest food problem in the world today is that agricultural productivity is slowing down and for a lot of the world food prices are going up. And for that we need more business, technology and innovation, not locavorism.
We also speak with food philosopher Michael Pollan, who has been thinking and writing about food for years, perhaps most notably in The Omnivore’s Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals:
POLLAN: The phrase “the omnivore’s dilemma” is an anthropological terms for an omnivore that can eat so many different things, some of which are not good for you, some of which will kill you, and deciding between what is good and what is bad is a big part of why we have these giant brains we have. And that anxiety afflicts us. It doesn’t afflict the cow or the koala. They eat that one thing, and if it’s not that one thing, it’s not lunch. And things are pretty simple. You don’t need a big brain; you just need a big stomach to digest all those leaves. So it’s part of our existential predicament to worry first do we have enough food and second do we have the right food.
You’ll hear from slow-food godmother Alice Waters (who has appeared on Freakonomics Radio before). She owns the famed Berkeley restaurant Chez Panisse (where Pollan happened to be heading for dinner the evening we interviewed him). To Waters, the priorities for the food future are clear:
WATERS: I think that the work of the farmer needs to be elevated to a very important and vital place, and we need to consider the people that take that on as precious as the people who educate us in schools. And when that happens, when we begin to value our farmers, you’d be surprised how many people will answer that call, who will really be encouraged to take on that profession. It’s happening already, just among young people who are concerned about the future of this planet, and know that we’re headed to a dead end if we don’t think about where our food comes from and take care of that land that produces our food.
Along the way, you’ll also get to hear some World War II-era tape of New York Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia talking about how to stretch the meat budget. If you’re interested in this kind of thing, WNYC has a massive archive of historical tape; furthermore, it also maintains a Mayor LaGuardia Twitter feed.
And that’s all just Part 1 of “You Eat What You Are.” In two weeks, we’ll release Part 2, which focuses on the local-food movement.
Hope you enjoy.


matt
I find it fascinating that the slow food, organic food, and "green" food movements have taken the stance of being in the right...looking at the menu of Alice Waters lowest price on the offerings for the week is $65 for a meal for one person...So only the best class gets the best cuts...Alice Waters shame on you for propogating this lie that your snobby foodie philosophy is the right way and the moral way. Abrecrombie and Fitch on a plate. BOOOOO!
Rollin Shultz
Many try to make the case that factory farming is more efficient and abundant because it produces higher yields. What they fail to consider is, the higher yields deplete the lands of their proper nutrients which makes the high produce farming less efficient, because the crops and livestock produced yield far less in actual nutrient value. People can eat more of this factory food while gaining less healthful benefits.
You will not see studies about these effects on food of over farming the land and the effects of GMO crops on such things as dieing off of bee populations from eating pesticide containing pollens, because these ultra rich corporations fund the universities and labs which do the research.
Industrialization has destroyed our economies and the ability of our communities to be self sustaining and versatile.
WE have given up small scale farming of rich nutrient containing foods for plastic packaged nutrient depleted products.
We have given up rich handcrafted, heirloom quality furniture for particle board, machined, screw together facades of furniture that do not last.
As industrialization increases, quality decreases. TV commercials use psychology to convince the public that more is better and faster is as well, yet we are settling for low quality and liking it. It would be better for us to return to the horse and buggy days and live more locally, because we would have a higher quality of life.
I can picture it now a horse and buggy with solar panel on top and tricked out Bose stereo system.
kevin leeds
When I think of the study of economics, I think the ideal economic theory would include an omniscient data source that could track where all the money is at different times, and track all the trades being made. Today I had a brilliant flash of insight that the techniques of economics (which are applied to money) study could be applied to food instead. The word I thought of for it this "foodonomics" obviously, but the word has already been taken, sadly, by people who just want to write about some small facet or other of the larger idea I'm envisioning. I'm lacking the right Google search terms, obviously. - Food Ecology maybe people call it, but I'm thinking of the economic aspects in particular. Basically, how significant is food money, and food workers, to the larger economy is the question I have in mind. What if the value of the dollar could be based on food instead being based on gold or floated or printed all willy-nilly ... ?
Robert
Get the facts straight about Monsanto..
https://ksj.mit.edu/tracker/2013/03/demolishing-myth-monsantos-engineered-cr/