The basis of this research is that hunger affects the decisions we make and alters our perceptions of what is acceptably risky and what isn't. (Seems intuitive to think you would take more risks to get food if you were in danger of starving to death). But of course in this society the risks we take and the decisions we make don't really centre around food any more - so this has implications for all areas of life. Should we insist that judges are properly fed before making a decision or the police/nurses/lawyers/stockbrokers etc..
I know in my work place there is a culture of "lunch is for wimps" although I don't go along with that at all. I have my lunch on time every day, away from my desk and I take time to eat it properly and I think my company gets a better employee as a result of it. But I don't make life changing decisions about other people's lives and neither do my colleagues - what about the people that do though....