Hacker News Reader

Comment by VladRussian2 | Hacker News Reader

>Understanding Ricardian/comparative advantage, recognising that dairy is not a matter of national security, and importing it.

A country can do without uranium, it can't do without dairy. As another example of food security being a matter of national security - look what happened to Egypt 2+ years ago once wheat prices rose - for years before that Egypt was geared ("international specialization") toward fruits/strawberries/etc... production for export while becoming world's biggest wheat importer.

View on HN

Egypt used to be an agricultural powerhouse and wheat exporter. The reason it's not now, is partly because they planted oddball crops for export to Europe, but principally because land and water was taken from "traditional" farmers and given to well-connected rich people and foreign companies. (This was an even worse form of land reform than that seen in other parts of Africa.) Mubarak deserves everything he's gotten, and worse. If he had left the traditional farm sector intact, his cronies wouldn't have been able to steal so much, but Egypt would still be able to feed itself, and he might still have been in power today.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/world/july-dec11/egyptfood_11...

Food security is not the same as milk security. Food security is a matter of national security, milk security is not. A country can do quite well with a reduced supply of milk.

In Egypt the cost of weat increased toghether with the price of all other grains. And people need grains (but not weat), so they revolted.

Also, what their agriculture changed for is not very relevant, the root of the problem is that their agriculture does not produce enough value for direct consuption or exchange into food (what made their money worth less, and imported food expensive). Growing fruits probably helped reduce the problem.

there are different levels of security. "Thanks God, children aren't going to bed hungry (and thus probably survive next few days)" vs. "children going to bed after glass of good milk and cookie (and thus probably grow healthy)". Norway [successfully] invests its national wealth in maintaining the latter level. Looks very smart to me.

To be able to give them meaningful advice to do things differently (like, for example, importing), one has to show an example of a country which does things differently (and at least as successful in achieving the goal as Norway).

http://chartsbin.com/view/1491

Apparently the Japanese consume 76.45 kg milk per year per person (as of 2007), while Norwegians consume 261.52 kg. Yet the Japanese have no problem living healthy, long lives.

South Korea gets by merrily with just 26.9 kg, roughly half of Palestine (49.17 kg). (Sure, our country has lots of social/health problems, but "not enough milk" is not one of them.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactase_persistence#Evolutionar...

"Where the C allele indicated lactase non-persistence and the T allele indicated lactase persistence, the study found that women that were homozygous for the C allele exhibited worse health than women with a C and a T allele and women with two T alleles. Women who were CC reported more hip and wrist fractures, more osteoporosis, and more cataracts than the other groups.[13] They also were on average 4–6 mm shorter than the other women, as well as slightly lighter in weight"

For colder, European climate, bigger weight/size is preferable (and bigger body requires stronger bones). Not so for warmer/Asian areas where smaller body size is ok and thus more favorable, in particular because it requires less animal protein, etc... which is less available there than in Europe.

According to Wikipedia, average January temperature of Oslo is −3 °C. That of Beijing is −3.7 °C. I wonder where you got the idea of "colder European" vs. "warm Asian" climate.

Besides, descendants of Scandinavian immigrants have no problem living quite comfortably in, say, Brazil. The genetic difference between different peoples is not large enough to justify treating milk as essential for some group of people but not for others. It's just a convenient and relatively cheap source of nutrition, that's all.

>I wonder where you got the idea of "colder European" vs. "warm Asian" climate.

No kidding. Oslo, annual average, 6.5C, Beijing : 12.5C. That's 59 latitude vs. 39, different Sun angle, longer days, etc... you know. And, btw, northern Chinese noticeably taller than south.

>The genetic difference between different peoples is not large enough to justify treating milk as essential for some group of people but not for others.

the study mentioned above explicitly describes the results of consuming milk vs. not consuming due to genetic difference. To me the difference is essential (grew in Russia). As result of evolution in Norway and overall Europe, people there also treat milk as essential.

It doesn't really matter if they produced wheat or not - as it's a globally traded commodity, the price of Egyptian wheat would've been the same (unless the country stepped out of international free trade agreements, which would've had massive consequences).

that's the point - Egypt didn't take necessary measures for their food security.

I lived through food/gas shortages and high prices at the end of USSR so i think i know how Egypt people felt. Now living in the US i appreciate the US disregard for international free trade agreements when it comes to food and gas - i.e. farmers subsidies and prohibition for oil export - thus making sure that shortages and high-prices of 197x have much less chances of happening again. Free trade is a great idea, yet it works only when implemented by all participants to the same extent and it just doesn't make any sense when implemented unilaterally (or by minor number of participants and/or to different degree).

The high food prices of the mid 2000's were most severe in commodities that were the least internationally traded..

... massive consequences such as keeping your population alive.

Don't buy into the free market propaganda too much. The biggest proponents of free market propaganda (I am looking at the EU and the US) have programs that explicitly target food security. Neither would hesitate to introduce export controls to prevent famine-induced revolts.

> A country can do without uranium, it can't do without dairy.

Look outside Europe. Dairy consumption is not even the global norm.

Norway is in Europe where dairy is a staple food. So here you go:

"A country can do without uranium, it can't do without staple food".

If one staple food disappears, the country won't just starve; that would be stupid. It will start eating something else. If Norway entirely stopped producing food, it would still eat just fine, and if it entirely stopped eating dairy, it would still have plenty of food.

>If one staple food disappears, the country won't just starve; that would be stupid.

shortage of staple food will cause price spike with related economical/political/social effects. Staple food isn't just a whimsical choice of consumer. Beside some exceptions (where people moved and brought their tradition with them), a staple food is a result of hundreds or thousands of years of evolutionary optimization for that population in that region. Milk in Europe is exactly such a case, and is a very important one to the population there. (see my other post in this thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7034795). Specifically, in case of milk in Norway any issues with its availability, in addition to short term price-spike related effects, would in long term affect negatively health and well being of children whose body/skeleton would be forming at the time.

I'm completely on board with the idea that eliminating milk from the northwest european diet would be hugely disruptive and have unknown knock-on nutritional effects due to long-term adaptation to milk consumption. My point in that area was limited to the idea that hunger wouldn't be an issue.

However, my other point, that Norway can easily import 100% of its food demand (see "if Norway entirely stopped producing food, it would still eat just fine"), stands.

As long as Norway can import food, there is no problem. That is not what food security is about in the case of Norway - we're wealthy, we can outbid "anyone" for food if need be.

The issue is what if we can't. As I've pointed out elsewhere in this thread, this has happened - the most well known instance being the British 5 year naval blockade during the Napoleonic wars, which caused years of famine, and death.

And because of Norway's extremely strategic position, with a long coast line and many defensible ports if you have naval superiority, coupled with huge oil industry, and a position to lock the Russian Northern fleet out of the Atlantic, any defence planning for Norway is going to assume that in the case of another war, Norway will either be occupied or attempted blockaded or both.

Then the situation changes. Norway has very little arable land due to the mountains, so it is not a given that taking the dairy away would leave us with sufficient food in the case of a blockade. Certainly during the British blockade we did not have enough food to sustain a much smaller population.

How do the cows eat? I've always been under the impression that raising animals is vastly more resource intensive than just feeding yourself on plants. Raymond Crotty, I believe, documented that raising cows for dairy is something like ten times more efficient than raising them for meat, but I'd still expect grain to be even easier to get -- animals are something of a luxury item.

Is that wrong?

>How do the cows eat? I've always been under the impression that raising animals is vastly more resource intensive than just feeding yourself on plants.

the cows (and other grazing animals in their group) evolved very special stomach to consume the grass (parts of grasses) which aren't consumable by predators like humans.

The comparison of consuming human-edible plants (or their parts) directly vs. feeding it to cows is rooted in industrialized beef production where corn is fed to cows. Such wasteful conversion of human edible food into more tastier/pricier human edible food allows for higher revenue and larder total profits - people will eat the same calories, beef is just more expensive packaging of it and thus generates more total revenue and profit in the societies which can afford it and want it.

>I'd still expect grain to be even easier to get -- animals are something of a luxury item

In normal situation, cows milk is a source of calories _additional_ to the grain as cows are fed on grasses grown where grain cultivation doesn't make much sense - short summer, not plain land, etc... They also fed on [minimally processed - fermented in big piles] wheat stems after grain is extracted. The cows feed today also includes processed waste from other areas of food industry - the quality of this stuff varies greatly from country to country depending on regulations and industry and society mentality about it.

Dairy consumption is not even the global norm because most people have lactose intolerance. Most Northern Europeans do not.

It very much is considered a vital part of diet in Norway, though, to the point where you'd pretty much be considered to be abusing your children if you don't ensure they drink lots of milk. While we certainly could survive without it, any politicians suggesting to Norwegians we should do without milk would find themselves out of a political career.

Just to point out, lactose intolerance exists at low levels in Norway. I wouldn't recommend ensuring that the lactose intolerant drink lots of milk just because it's part of the culture.

I absolutely guarantee you that you can live quite healthily without dairy. You're essentially arguing against all free trade. Should Norway policy ensure it can build its own computers, phones, or shoes?

A world that relies on trade is a world at peace.

>You're essentially arguing against all free trade.

it is a stretch. Free trade just isn't always the best approach to every situation.

>A world that relies on trade is a world at peace.

again, big stretch. Just for example:

http://www.economist.com/news/books-and-arts/21578978-world-...

"Rather, the world of 1913 was quite like that of 2013: modern, substantially urbanised and, even as Woodrow Wilson set about slashing import tariffs, thriving on global trade. "

> "Rather, the world of 1913 was quite like that of 2013: modern, substantially urbanised and, even as Woodrow Wilson set about slashing import tariffs, thriving on global trade. "

Good point - people were in fact using the argument that the extent of international trade made large wars between powers like Germany and the UK unlikely...

A world that relies on trade is a world at peace.

Colonialism was driven by a lust for trade, so that's hardly a truism.

There's a difference between food security and securing access to "nice to haves". Food security is about ensuring short-term survival in the event of war (think blockade), or global upheavals large enough to prevent trade. The entire point is that it is protection against a situation where trade is disrupted and the world is not at peace.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com