I would guess that cheaper rice and potatoes would not have a great effect on the health of the population, since they're already consumed in vast quantities due to being the cheapest things available. Lack of them generally isn't what causes food cravings though, so being cheapest by a larger margin seems unlikely to shift behaviour by much.

To share a personal anecdote on the subject: I consumed cheap carbohydrates mostly out of a sense of duty to my own pocketbook for the longest time, because I didn't believe someone with my rather voracious appetite could afford to eat just meat and vegetables. When I tried cutting out cheap carbs like rice and potatoes as an experiment, I found my appetite diminished and I consumed no more meat and vegetables than I had before.

This thread seams to be missing the point... With cheaper rice and potatoes, more people in the world can avoid going hungry. The net result is a less impoverished global society.

How many people in the world starve because rice and potatoes are too expensive for them? Outright famines are becoming very rare and those that still happen tend to be caused by logistical problems.

We have been galloping into the "obesity is a bigger problem than starvation" territory for decades and we are not far from the end position. Everywhere but Subsaharan Africa, an obesity pandemics is raging. We should not ignore its cost, either human or financial. A wealthy society which suffers from a lot of obesity is de facto impoverished, too.

I would like us to concentrate on lowering the price of foods that contain more nutrients. Things like avocados have become less available to the poor in the last decades, thus stripping them of valuable source of protein, fat and vitamines.

> I would like us to concentrate on lowering the price of foods that contain more nutrients.

Potatoes are rich in nutrients especially if you eat them whole. They are also rich in fiber and starch as a complex carbohydrate takes a long time to be broken into glucose and therefore is not prone to spiking glucose.

There is a reason potatoes have been a staple food for such a long time. If you don't eat them over processed, it's a cheap and relatively healthy food. The whole low-carb diet thing really is a fad.

Cheap proteins remain available in the form of chickpeas and lentils. Avocadoes are just inherently costly to produce and hard to store.

>Potatoes are rich in nutrients especially if you eat them whole. They are also rich in fiber and starch as a complex carbohydrate takes a long time to be broken into glucose and therefore is not prone to spiking glucose.

Generally speaking, yes absolutely. What happens in a case like this article, though? Is the 50% increase in biomass matched by an increase in nutrient uptake from the soil/growth medium? What are the chances these bigger potatoes are actually less nutrient dense?

I know that whole potatoes are fairly nutritious, but I suspect that most of the surplus is going to end up in a highly processed form that suits human tongue better at the cost of quality. Such as fries.

> Outright famines are becoming very rare

Add climate change and the story may change a bit. Its a good thing to be better at making foods that are the backbone of (many people's) diets. We need other things too, but that doesn't make this less beneficial.

I would like to see a histogram of worldwide BMI. Are we past the point where world median BMI is over 25?

I am not sure if taking BMI histograms worldwide makes sense. Human populations differ and East Asians tend to suffer from complications of obesity from lower BMIs than the rest of the world [0]. Do it region-wise, if needed.

[0] https://www.who.int/nutrition/publications/bmi_asia_strategi...

I am not sure that's entirely correct.

India for example, where rice is the staple food has one big problem for feeding people. And it doesn't seem to be having not enough rice. The problem seems to be infrastructure. IIRC India in raw numbers is totally able to feed everyone using just their own production. But there are literally tons of rice rotting away being unable to reach the people in need because of the bad infrastructure.

Old article so maybe things have changed already: https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2011/07/17/why_india_cant...

Then again this is just from 2020: https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/chhattisgarh-16000-sac...

I don't disagree, my comment was specifically about cultures where overconsumption is the norm. Which aren't necessarily the ones most of us would expect.

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_obesity_r...

Alternatively, more land can be reforested and given back to wildlife.

I do agree cheaper unprocessed food is a net gain. However consider this:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2011/09/22/there-ar...

The net result is even more overpopulation.

Decrease in population is not driven by food availability. People have less kids when they don't need them to ensure their subsistence in old age. You want the world population to decrease? Raise the standard of living in poor countries and work on lowering child mortality.

> Incidentally, both rice and potatoes spike my blood sugar a lot, so I only consume them infrequently.

Have you tried 'true' brown rice (the one which takes ages to cook)?

Not yet, but I will. It is on my curiosity list.