Let them eat potatoes

Recently, as the price of rice started rocketing, someone suggested that perhaps it's time we start looking for alternatives as our staple, such as the potato.

I could not help but think about 2 historical incidences.

When his officials told him that the people were dying of hunger, the Chinese Emperor of Jin Dynasty Sima Zhong (司马衷，晋朝） asked, "Why don't they eat meat porridge?"

When told that people could not afford to eat bread, Marie Antoinette, the Queen of France in the 18th Century said, "Let them eat cake."

Of course, the suggestion to consider potato as an alternative is not as far fetch as the above incidences. But I was still piqued, because I wondered if it really make sense economically. If people could not afford rice, is the potato really more affordable? I always had the impression that potatoes were more expensive than rice.

So I made a trip to the NTUC and checked out the prices. I found the price of 5 mid-sized potatoes to be $1.35. That should be about slightly more than a kilogram. On the internet, I found that someone at XpatXperience had quoted $3.20 for 2.27 kg of potatoes in January 2008 (as part of price index survey). Price of potatoes does fluctuate quite a bit, depending on the varieties and supply situation. But I guess the range is probably around there. And if I were to eat potatoes as a meal, I would need about 2 mid sized potatoes, or 4 small ones. That means mean about $0.50 per meal ( 2 out of 5 potatoes at $1.35 for 5).

The price of a 5 kg bag of rice ranged from $7.50 for the cheapest (NTUC house brand) to $26 for top grade Thai race. The cheapest variety, was the type I grew up with, which a shop keeper once told my mother that it was meant as dog feed and not for human consumption!

Well, since I am talking about affordability, I shall take the cheapest brand. I estimate that I would need about 100 g of (uncooked) rice per meal. So a 5 kg bag would last 50 meals, meaning each meal is about $0.15.

Even if I were to buy the most expensive brand at $25 per 5 kg. It would cost me at most $0.50 if I consume 100g per meal.

So really, in spite of the increase in the price of rice, it is still cheaper than potatoes!

And that does make sense according with my experience. A plate full of rice is about 30 cents to 50 cents at the hawker stall. But potatoes are dishes which cost far more than that. French fries aren't cheap either. Even at a hawker stall, a plate of fries for snacking is easily $2. Baked potatoes can cost a few dollars at the restaurant just for 1 potato.

So in spite of the increase in the price of rice, I think it is still more affordable the potatoes. I am not sure what is the price difference between rice and potatoes in other countries. But I find it hard to imagine why people would insist on rice if potatoes are more affordable.

My father always finds it an irony that today, sweet potatoes is more expensive than rice, when during the 2nd World War, rice was an luxury and people subsisted on sweet potatoes.

Now, sweet potatoes are even more expensive than potatoes, so I won't even consider sweet potatoes as an affordable alternative staple for the poor.

So whoever suggested that replacing rice with potatoes really need to do some math.

Having said that, it is not totally with merits either. Potatoes can be grown more quickly and in harsher climate. It is also not traded as a commodity and not used an bio-fuel, and hence not subjected to the inflationary price pressures other staple crops like rice, wheat and corn are experiencing. The FAO has in fact made year 2008 the International Year of the Potato and has some pretty interesting facts about the potato on the website http://www.potato2008.org

For me, I guess I'll stick with the good old rice as my staple. Tastes aside, it really is still more affordable than potatoes.