Links from around the internet. As always, I welcome your thoughts.
PS: Follow me on Twitter!
*************************
Forget the risks of coffee: let's worry about cancer from grilled meats! I’d love to hear readers critique this article's reasoning and logic. (Slate, via Addicted to Canning) Also: Perhaps it’s time to re-read CK’s post on Worry Porn.
11 incorrect reasons people think calories don’t count. (Impruvism)
34 interesting kitchen hacks. (BuzzFeed)
Wait, a 32-ounce Mountain Dew is "bad" for you, but pot ...isn’t? (Jayson Lusk)
The idiocy of prescribing statins. (Protein Power)
Related: An intriguing post from a doctor vindicated as the medical industry abandons numeric cholesterol guidelines. (A Country Doctor Writes)
Here’s why you should try a 30 day "rejection challenge." (Quantified Self)
In defense of internet friendships. (Hello Giggles, via Alosha's Kitchen)
Recipes:
Easy, and far healthier than fast food: Chicken Nuggets. (My Humble Kitchen)
Forget cauliflower florets: roast the entire head! Spicy Whole Roasted Cauliflower. (PureWow)
Got an interesting article or recipe to share? Want some extra traffic at your blog? Send me an email!
How can I support Casual Kitchen?
Easy. Do all your shopping at Amazon.com via the links on this site! You can also link to me or subscribe to my RSS feed. Finally, consider sharing this article, or any other article you particularly enjoyed here, to Facebook, Twitter (follow me @danielckoontz!) or to bookmarking sites like reddit, digg or stumbleupon. I'm deeply grateful to my readers for their ongoing support.
A Cup of Morning Death? How "Big Coffee" Puts Profits Before People
Readers, we simply must rein in Big Coffee. This industry is making billions in profits at the expense of our health.
How? Let's begin with the obvious. Experts agree: coffee produces a wide range of terrible--at times even terrifying--side effects and symptoms:
* It can cause severe hyperactivity in both adults and children.
* Side effects include halitosis, dehydration and tooth discoloration.
* Coffee is directly linked to increased blood pressure. In fact, just 2-3 cups daily can raise a person’s blood pressure substantially.
* This blood pressure risk can lead to other serious cardiovascular risks, including heart attack and stroke.
* There is a widely known--but strangely under-reported--link between coffee consumption and spontaneous bowel evacuation.
* When combined with sugar (an addictive substance linked to obesity, hyperactivity and even tooth decay) coffee becomes even more dangerous.
Toxins lurking in your morning Joe
However, no discussion of the risks of coffee is complete without addressing the most dangerous toxin lurking in your supposedly "safe" cup of morning joe: the chemical 1,3,7-trimethyl-1H-purine-2,6(3H,7H)-dione 3,7-dihydro-1,3,7-trimethyl -1H-purine-2,6-dione.
Let’s start off with something no one can object to: It is never a good idea to put anything into your body that you can’t pronounce. If there’s one truth about Big Food and all the processed crap they foist onto us it’s this: the most dangerous and unhealthy foods almost always have ingredient lists loaded with long and unpronounceable words.
We also know, beyond any doubt, that Big Food hides the use of dangerous chemicals and additives by giving them harmless sounding names. We've seen this insidious practice in the branded boxed cereals aisle, where both ingredient naming and ingredient manipulation techniques are used to mislead consumers into thinking a food has less sugar than it really does.
This is absolutely no different. The 1,3,7-trimethyl-1H-purine-2,6 (3H,7H)-dione 3,7-dihydro- 1,3,7-trimethyl-1H-purine-2,6-dione lurking in our coffee has all sorts of both known (and unknown) side effects:
1) Known sleep inhibitor. This chemical severely impacts our ability to sleep, and there are hundreds (if not thousands) of studies proving a link between insufficient sleep and all sorts of health and lifestyle problems, such as depression, obesity and a compromised immune system. It also leads to a much greater risk of traffic accidents and industrial injuries.
2) Known vasoconstrictor. It causes our blood vessels to become narrower, impacting blood supply to all parts of our bodies. As we've already seen, long-term heavy use of coffee can cause serious cardiovascular problems.
3) Known to be highly addictive. Many people drink coffee all their lives, little knowing that this beverage is a delivery mechanism for such a highly addictive and dangerous chemical. Many have argued that breaking an addiction to 1,3,7-trimethyl-1H-purine-2,6(3H,7H)- dione 3,7-dihydro- 1,3,7-trimethyl-1H-purine-2, 6-dione can be as difficult as breaking an addiction to powerful narcotics like cocaine or heroin.
4) Known to have potentially severe withdrawal symptoms. As with any highly addictive substance, there are potentially dangerous withdrawal symptoms to be concerned about, including severe headaches, mood swings, irritability, drowsiness, spontaneous anger and impaired cognitive function. Once Big Coffee hooks us, they want to make sure it's as difficult as possible to get off the 1,3,7-trimethyl-1H- purine-2,6(3H,7H)-dione 3,7-dihydro-1,3,7-trimethyl- 1H-purine-2,6-dione train. Result? We remain steady, profitable consumers dying for our morning caffeine fix.
5) Known fatality risk. Most importantly--and most horrifyingly--in large doses, 1,3,7-trimethyl- 1H-purine-2,6(3H,7H)- dione 3,7-dihydro-1,3, 7-trimethyl-1H-purine-2,6-dione can be fatal.
Unholy alliance
As someone who cares deeply about public health advocacy, I simply cannot fathom why the FDA and our government haven't taken steps to protect defenseless consumers from this dangerous beverage. Could it be that all isn't as it seems in the hallowed halls of our government?
It could be. Did you know that the largest coffee brands found in our stores--household names such as Maxwell House, Folgers and Starbucks--are owned by gigantic, powerful, multi-billion dollar companies? Many suspect Big Coffee is in some unholy alliance with the government, covertly limiting efforts to regulate what has become an extremely profitable cash cow.
Despite these risks, the powerful companies behind Big Coffee will do anything to sell us more and more of this clearly dangerous beverage. Today, coffee is served in gigantic serving sizes, with twenty ounces now the norm. In the 1950s, this would be enough to serve three people! No one needs that much coffee.
It's clear: by themselves, consumers simply don't have the tools or the weaponry to resist Big Coffee’s enormous marketing machine. Therefore, in order to convince people to stop drinking a known dangerous beverage, something must be done to change the default coffee-drinking environment. Clearly, the time has come for some sort of tax--or better still, a ban--on large coffee sizes. We will do whatever it takes to rein in this greedy, powerful industry.
And yet given all the dangers, given all the health risks and given all the damaging side effects of this beverage, Big Coffee isn't required to put even the tiniest warning label on what they sell. Even something as simple as...
WARNING: this product contains 1,3,7-trimethyl- 1H-purine-2,6 (3H,7H)-dione 3,7-dihydro- 1,3,7-trimethyl- 1H-purine-2, 6-dione, which is linked to hyperactivity, high blood pressure, stroke, heart attack and spontaneous defecation. In large doses 1,3,7-trimethyl- 1H-purine-2,6 (3H,7H)-dione 3, 7-dihydro-1,3,7- trimethyl-1H-purine-2, 6-dione can be fatal.
...written in a reasonably readable font size, would only cover half of the outside of a basic 7-ounce coffee cup. Is this too much to ask? Apparently it is--when Big Coffee is involved. Obviously there's far too much money at stake to take even this tiny step forward to warn unsuspecting, uneducated consumers about the danger lurking in their daily morning beverage.
Clearly, Big Coffee puts profits before people. They simply do not care that their efforts to thwart badly-needed regulation put us--and our children--at risk. It's time to stop these powerful corporate interests from running rampant, and it's time to eliminate this dangerous beverage from our diets and our daily lives.
We've got to stop Big Coffee from exploiting us.
* NOTE: The preceding was satire. If you're not sure WHY it's satire, please read this post. And then this post.
How can I support Casual Kitchen?
Easy. Do all your shopping at Amazon.com via the links on this site! You can also link to me or subscribe to my RSS feed. Finally, consider sharing this article, or any other article you particularly enjoyed here, to Facebook, Twitter (follow me @danielckoontz!) or to bookmarking sites like reddit, digg or stumbleupon. I'm deeply grateful to my readers for their ongoing support.
How? Let's begin with the obvious. Experts agree: coffee produces a wide range of terrible--at times even terrifying--side effects and symptoms:
* It can cause severe hyperactivity in both adults and children.
* Side effects include halitosis, dehydration and tooth discoloration.
* Coffee is directly linked to increased blood pressure. In fact, just 2-3 cups daily can raise a person’s blood pressure substantially.
* This blood pressure risk can lead to other serious cardiovascular risks, including heart attack and stroke.
* There is a widely known--but strangely under-reported--link between coffee consumption and spontaneous bowel evacuation.
* When combined with sugar (an addictive substance linked to obesity, hyperactivity and even tooth decay) coffee becomes even more dangerous.
Toxins lurking in your morning Joe
However, no discussion of the risks of coffee is complete without addressing the most dangerous toxin lurking in your supposedly "safe" cup of morning joe: the chemical 1,3,7-trimethyl-1H-purine-2,6(3H,7H)-dione 3,7-dihydro-1,3,7-trimethyl -1H-purine-2,6-dione.
Let’s start off with something no one can object to: It is never a good idea to put anything into your body that you can’t pronounce. If there’s one truth about Big Food and all the processed crap they foist onto us it’s this: the most dangerous and unhealthy foods almost always have ingredient lists loaded with long and unpronounceable words.
We also know, beyond any doubt, that Big Food hides the use of dangerous chemicals and additives by giving them harmless sounding names. We've seen this insidious practice in the branded boxed cereals aisle, where both ingredient naming and ingredient manipulation techniques are used to mislead consumers into thinking a food has less sugar than it really does.
This is absolutely no different. The 1,3,7-trimethyl-1H-purine-2,6 (3H,7H)-dione 3,7-dihydro- 1,3,7-trimethyl-1H-purine-2,6-dione lurking in our coffee has all sorts of both known (and unknown) side effects:
1) Known sleep inhibitor. This chemical severely impacts our ability to sleep, and there are hundreds (if not thousands) of studies proving a link between insufficient sleep and all sorts of health and lifestyle problems, such as depression, obesity and a compromised immune system. It also leads to a much greater risk of traffic accidents and industrial injuries.
2) Known vasoconstrictor. It causes our blood vessels to become narrower, impacting blood supply to all parts of our bodies. As we've already seen, long-term heavy use of coffee can cause serious cardiovascular problems.
3) Known to be highly addictive. Many people drink coffee all their lives, little knowing that this beverage is a delivery mechanism for such a highly addictive and dangerous chemical. Many have argued that breaking an addiction to 1,3,7-trimethyl-1H-purine-2,6(3H,7H)- dione 3,7-dihydro- 1,3,7-trimethyl-1H-purine-2, 6-dione can be as difficult as breaking an addiction to powerful narcotics like cocaine or heroin.
4) Known to have potentially severe withdrawal symptoms. As with any highly addictive substance, there are potentially dangerous withdrawal symptoms to be concerned about, including severe headaches, mood swings, irritability, drowsiness, spontaneous anger and impaired cognitive function. Once Big Coffee hooks us, they want to make sure it's as difficult as possible to get off the 1,3,7-trimethyl-1H- purine-2,6(3H,7H)-dione 3,7-dihydro-1,3,7-trimethyl- 1H-purine-2,6-dione train. Result? We remain steady, profitable consumers dying for our morning caffeine fix.
5) Known fatality risk. Most importantly--and most horrifyingly--in large doses, 1,3,7-trimethyl- 1H-purine-2,6(3H,7H)- dione 3,7-dihydro-1,3, 7-trimethyl-1H-purine-2,6-dione can be fatal.
Unholy alliance
As someone who cares deeply about public health advocacy, I simply cannot fathom why the FDA and our government haven't taken steps to protect defenseless consumers from this dangerous beverage. Could it be that all isn't as it seems in the hallowed halls of our government?
It could be. Did you know that the largest coffee brands found in our stores--household names such as Maxwell House, Folgers and Starbucks--are owned by gigantic, powerful, multi-billion dollar companies? Many suspect Big Coffee is in some unholy alliance with the government, covertly limiting efforts to regulate what has become an extremely profitable cash cow.
Despite these risks, the powerful companies behind Big Coffee will do anything to sell us more and more of this clearly dangerous beverage. Today, coffee is served in gigantic serving sizes, with twenty ounces now the norm. In the 1950s, this would be enough to serve three people! No one needs that much coffee.
It's clear: by themselves, consumers simply don't have the tools or the weaponry to resist Big Coffee’s enormous marketing machine. Therefore, in order to convince people to stop drinking a known dangerous beverage, something must be done to change the default coffee-drinking environment. Clearly, the time has come for some sort of tax--or better still, a ban--on large coffee sizes. We will do whatever it takes to rein in this greedy, powerful industry.
And yet given all the dangers, given all the health risks and given all the damaging side effects of this beverage, Big Coffee isn't required to put even the tiniest warning label on what they sell. Even something as simple as...
WARNING: this product contains 1,3,7-trimethyl- 1H-purine-2,6 (3H,7H)-dione 3,7-dihydro- 1,3,7-trimethyl- 1H-purine-2, 6-dione, which is linked to hyperactivity, high blood pressure, stroke, heart attack and spontaneous defecation. In large doses 1,3,7-trimethyl- 1H-purine-2,6 (3H,7H)-dione 3, 7-dihydro-1,3,7- trimethyl-1H-purine-2, 6-dione can be fatal.
...written in a reasonably readable font size, would only cover half of the outside of a basic 7-ounce coffee cup. Is this too much to ask? Apparently it is--when Big Coffee is involved. Obviously there's far too much money at stake to take even this tiny step forward to warn unsuspecting, uneducated consumers about the danger lurking in their daily morning beverage.
Clearly, Big Coffee puts profits before people. They simply do not care that their efforts to thwart badly-needed regulation put us--and our children--at risk. It's time to stop these powerful corporate interests from running rampant, and it's time to eliminate this dangerous beverage from our diets and our daily lives.
We've got to stop Big Coffee from exploiting us.
* NOTE: The preceding was satire. If you're not sure WHY it's satire, please read this post. And then this post.
How can I support Casual Kitchen?
Easy. Do all your shopping at Amazon.com via the links on this site! You can also link to me or subscribe to my RSS feed. Finally, consider sharing this article, or any other article you particularly enjoyed here, to Facebook, Twitter (follow me @danielckoontz!) or to bookmarking sites like reddit, digg or stumbleupon. I'm deeply grateful to my readers for their ongoing support.
Labels:
Big Food,
food absolutism
Yet Another Stealth Price Hike: Baker’s Chocolate
Mole Sauce makers everywhere wept with the recent news that Baker's put through an enormous stealth price hike on their core baking chocolate products.
Yep, yet another consumer products company used a shrink-ray on their product, giving consumers the privilege of paying more for less.
And readers, this is one of the most blatant and ballsy stealth price hikes I've seen. Baker's cut their package size by half from 8 ounces to 4 ounces, while cutting their suggested retail price from $3.99 to $2.89.
I'm not very good at math, so I had to break out my calculator to figure out this next part: the per-unit price increased from 49c an ounce to 72c an ounce. In other words, Baker's raised prices by almost 50%.
We've made a practice here at Casual Kitchen of exposing stealth price hikes like these. Consumers get hit with them in practically every aisle of the grocery store: one-pound canned items are now 14.5 ounces, sugar now comes in four- rather than five-pound bags, and branded boxed cereal makers have been pulling this stunt for well over a decade--reducing the standard one-pound box to as little as 11 ounces. A few years ago Casual Kitchen even wrote about Davis Baking Powder's major stealth price hike, and we vainly tried to suppress our laughter at the company's hilariously implausible rationale: they claimed consumers wanted a smaller size.
Weirdly, this is exactly the same reason Baker's gave for their stealth hike. Hmmm.
Now, not only is this a cheesy and crappy way to treat consumers, it’s terrible for business in the long run. To see why, imagine the future size of a product if a company takes 10-20% of the weight out of a product every year or so--while maintaining price. Will consumers be willing to buy 3 ounce boxes of pasta in a decade? Will they pay a buck for a half a rotini in thirty years? At the rate Baker's is going, we will someday pay $2.89 for an individual morsel of chocolate. And they’ll probably claim we wanted it that way too. Clearly this isn't a sustainable business practice.
The bottom line is these price hikes are subversive, anti-consumer, and they are symptomatic of a company looking to maximize short-term profits at the expense of the long term. It’s bad for both shareholders and consumers.
Okay, enough handwringing. What solutions can we find?
First, here's what I tell all readers whenever a company makes a stealth price hike: Punish that brand by dropping it. Vote with your wallet and find a competing product that provides more value. They're out there--although candidly, the traditional grocery store isn't always the best place to find them. The market for baking chocolate, unfortunately, is singularly uncompetitive in most groceries, which is probably why Baker’s believed they could put through this stealth price hike without losing market share.
An empowered consumer, then, must go beyond the standard grocery store to find alternatives. For example, at Trader Joe’s, there’s an exceptional substitute: Trader Joe’s Pound Plus chocolate bars, available in milk, dark, bittersweet and 72% cacao varieties. At $4.99 for a 17.6-ounce bar, this unit price is just over one-third the unit cost of Baker’s pitiful four-ounce box. This is the first place I’ll go to meet my future baking chocolate needs.
Finally, one of my readers sent me a link to an intriguing low cost and less-processed homemade solution, using butter and standard unsweetened cocoa powder.
Readers, what's your take on this issue? What do you do when a brand pulls a stealth price hike over on you?
Related Posts:
Still Sixteen Ounces
Why Davis Baking Powder Put in a 23% Stealth Price Hike
Why Do Products Go On Sale?
Ten Thoughts On the True Value of Brands
The Mysteriously Shrinking Hershey's Bar
Prices, Zombies and the Advertising-Consumption Cycle
Divorce Yourself from the False Reality of Your Grocery Store
How can I support Casual Kitchen?
Easy. Do all your shopping at Amazon.com via the links on this site! You can also link to me or subscribe to my RSS feed. Finally, consider sharing this article, or any other article you particularly enjoyed here, to Facebook, Twitter (follow me @danielckoontz!) or to bookmarking sites like reddit, digg or stumbleupon. I'm deeply grateful to my readers for their ongoing support.
Yep, yet another consumer products company used a shrink-ray on their product, giving consumers the privilege of paying more for less.
And readers, this is one of the most blatant and ballsy stealth price hikes I've seen. Baker's cut their package size by half from 8 ounces to 4 ounces, while cutting their suggested retail price from $3.99 to $2.89.
I'm not very good at math, so I had to break out my calculator to figure out this next part: the per-unit price increased from 49c an ounce to 72c an ounce. In other words, Baker's raised prices by almost 50%.
We've made a practice here at Casual Kitchen of exposing stealth price hikes like these. Consumers get hit with them in practically every aisle of the grocery store: one-pound canned items are now 14.5 ounces, sugar now comes in four- rather than five-pound bags, and branded boxed cereal makers have been pulling this stunt for well over a decade--reducing the standard one-pound box to as little as 11 ounces. A few years ago Casual Kitchen even wrote about Davis Baking Powder's major stealth price hike, and we vainly tried to suppress our laughter at the company's hilariously implausible rationale: they claimed consumers wanted a smaller size.
Weirdly, this is exactly the same reason Baker's gave for their stealth hike. Hmmm.
Now, not only is this a cheesy and crappy way to treat consumers, it’s terrible for business in the long run. To see why, imagine the future size of a product if a company takes 10-20% of the weight out of a product every year or so--while maintaining price. Will consumers be willing to buy 3 ounce boxes of pasta in a decade? Will they pay a buck for a half a rotini in thirty years? At the rate Baker's is going, we will someday pay $2.89 for an individual morsel of chocolate. And they’ll probably claim we wanted it that way too. Clearly this isn't a sustainable business practice.
The bottom line is these price hikes are subversive, anti-consumer, and they are symptomatic of a company looking to maximize short-term profits at the expense of the long term. It’s bad for both shareholders and consumers.
Okay, enough handwringing. What solutions can we find?
First, here's what I tell all readers whenever a company makes a stealth price hike: Punish that brand by dropping it. Vote with your wallet and find a competing product that provides more value. They're out there--although candidly, the traditional grocery store isn't always the best place to find them. The market for baking chocolate, unfortunately, is singularly uncompetitive in most groceries, which is probably why Baker’s believed they could put through this stealth price hike without losing market share.
An empowered consumer, then, must go beyond the standard grocery store to find alternatives. For example, at Trader Joe’s, there’s an exceptional substitute: Trader Joe’s Pound Plus chocolate bars, available in milk, dark, bittersweet and 72% cacao varieties. At $4.99 for a 17.6-ounce bar, this unit price is just over one-third the unit cost of Baker’s pitiful four-ounce box. This is the first place I’ll go to meet my future baking chocolate needs.
Finally, one of my readers sent me a link to an intriguing low cost and less-processed homemade solution, using butter and standard unsweetened cocoa powder.
Readers, what's your take on this issue? What do you do when a brand pulls a stealth price hike over on you?
Related Posts:
Still Sixteen Ounces
Why Davis Baking Powder Put in a 23% Stealth Price Hike
Why Do Products Go On Sale?
Ten Thoughts On the True Value of Brands
The Mysteriously Shrinking Hershey's Bar
Prices, Zombies and the Advertising-Consumption Cycle
Divorce Yourself from the False Reality of Your Grocery Store
How can I support Casual Kitchen?
Easy. Do all your shopping at Amazon.com via the links on this site! You can also link to me or subscribe to my RSS feed. Finally, consider sharing this article, or any other article you particularly enjoyed here, to Facebook, Twitter (follow me @danielckoontz!) or to bookmarking sites like reddit, digg or stumbleupon. I'm deeply grateful to my readers for their ongoing support.
CK Friday Links--Friday January 24, 2014
Links from around the internet. As always, I welcome your thoughts.
PS: Follow me on Twitter!
*************************
Baker’s Chocolate blatantly joins the stealth price hike club, reducing their package size by half. Half! (Consumerist) Related: This is when it’s time to adopt some brand disloyalty.
A striking--and conflicted--article about a food blogger’s experience on food stamps. (My Humble Kitchen)
A lonely quest for facts on GMOs. (New York Times)
When you see how winemakers game wine scoring, you'll have one more reason to drink what you like… not what some silly critic says you should like. (1 Wine Dude)
Blogging: Say goodbye to guest blog posts--they'll just hurt your search rankings. (Matt Cutts)
Rethinking media consumption in the "New Yellow Journalism" era. (Farnam Street) Bonus: The impoverishment of our attention.
Book recommendation: The Family Food Project by Edie Shaw-Ewald. An intriguing, interactive e-workbook for mastering meal planning. Extremely useful advice here on how to organize your kitchen, improve your cooking efficiency, and master the preparation of healthy inexpensive food. Edie's work is original and worth a very close look.
Recipes:
Homemade Vanilla Coffee Liqueur. (Baking Bites) Bonus! Double Peanut Butter Quick Bread.
You’d never guess this fancy Linguine with Mussels and Chorizo could be so easy. (80 Breakfasts)
Got an interesting article or recipe to share? Want some extra traffic at your blog? Send me an email!
How can I support Casual Kitchen?
Easy. Do all your shopping at Amazon.com via the links on this site! You can also link to me or subscribe to my RSS feed. Finally, consider sharing this article, or any other article you particularly enjoyed here, to Facebook, Twitter (follow me @danielckoontz!) or to bookmarking sites like reddit, digg or stumbleupon. I'm deeply grateful to my readers for their ongoing support.
PS: Follow me on Twitter!
*************************
Baker’s Chocolate blatantly joins the stealth price hike club, reducing their package size by half. Half! (Consumerist) Related: This is when it’s time to adopt some brand disloyalty.
A striking--and conflicted--article about a food blogger’s experience on food stamps. (My Humble Kitchen)
A lonely quest for facts on GMOs. (New York Times)
When you see how winemakers game wine scoring, you'll have one more reason to drink what you like… not what some silly critic says you should like. (1 Wine Dude)
Blogging: Say goodbye to guest blog posts--they'll just hurt your search rankings. (Matt Cutts)
Rethinking media consumption in the "New Yellow Journalism" era. (Farnam Street) Bonus: The impoverishment of our attention.
Book recommendation: The Family Food Project by Edie Shaw-Ewald. An intriguing, interactive e-workbook for mastering meal planning. Extremely useful advice here on how to organize your kitchen, improve your cooking efficiency, and master the preparation of healthy inexpensive food. Edie's work is original and worth a very close look.
Recipes:
Homemade Vanilla Coffee Liqueur. (Baking Bites) Bonus! Double Peanut Butter Quick Bread.
You’d never guess this fancy Linguine with Mussels and Chorizo could be so easy. (80 Breakfasts)
Got an interesting article or recipe to share? Want some extra traffic at your blog? Send me an email!
How can I support Casual Kitchen?
Easy. Do all your shopping at Amazon.com via the links on this site! You can also link to me or subscribe to my RSS feed. Finally, consider sharing this article, or any other article you particularly enjoyed here, to Facebook, Twitter (follow me @danielckoontz!) or to bookmarking sites like reddit, digg or stumbleupon. I'm deeply grateful to my readers for their ongoing support.
Labels:
links
Plummeting Highway Fatalities: More Cures For Worry Porn
Perhaps some of you have seen this striking video of a test collision between a 1959 Chevy Bel Air and a 2009 Chevy Malibu while it was making the rounds on Facebook over the past few days:
[Alternate link, with commentary, here]
Astonishing, isn't it? It's very easy to caricature modern cars as flimsy and liable to disintegrate at the least provocation. That’s of course until you realize that modern cars are designed that way to protect the driver--a fact painfully driven home when you see how pathetically the crash test dummy in the 1959 car fares compared to the 2009 dummy. My face hurts just thinking about that poor dummy in the 1959 car.
Here's some data to think about: Highway deaths in the USA peaked in 1972 at 54,000 a year.[1] Today, total highway deaths have declined from this peak level by about a third.
Now, "down by a third" might seem at first like a meh datapoint, until you realize that, today, we have a 50% larger population and we drive two and a half times more miles per person than in 1972. In other words, on a per-capita basis highway deaths are only a third of what they were then, and on a per-miles-driven basis they are only a fourth of what they were. Here's a chart that drives home the point (click to bigify):
Not only that, but cars today are far more fuel efficient, far less polluting and far better built. This should particularly resonate with you if, like me, you grew up in the seventies, riding with your siblings in the "back-in-the-back" of rusted-out station wagons. With fashionable simulated wood grain paneling.
Today, when you get into your car and drive somewhere, your risk of death is now, roughly, 1/4 what it was in 1972, and down 95% since the 1920s. And yet we worry about things like bisphenol A in the linings of our canned food.
One again, in an era when it’s never been safer to be alive, it's all too easy to worry about all the wrong things.
For further reading:
Wikipedia data on highway fatalities
[1] Another way to put these statistics in (sobering) context: The United States lost 58,000 soldiers over the entire 13+ years of the Vietnam War--a terrible tragedy. Yet during the war we were losing almost that many people every year in traffic accidents.
Related Posts:
Consumer Empowerment: How To Self-Fund Your Consumer Products Purchases
What Is a Scarcity Mindset? Investing and Living In a Zero Sum Paradigm
Is Organic Food Healthier? Or Just Another Aspirational Product?
How to Blind-Taste and Blind-Test Brands
How Food Blogs Disempower Their Readers
How can I support Casual Kitchen?
Easy. Do all your shopping at Amazon.com via the links on this site! You can also link to me or subscribe to my RSS feed. Finally, consider sharing this article, or any other article you particularly enjoyed here, to Facebook, Twitter (follow me @danielckoontz!) or to bookmarking sites like reddit, digg or stumbleupon. I'm deeply grateful to my readers for their ongoing support.
[Alternate link, with commentary, here]
Astonishing, isn't it? It's very easy to caricature modern cars as flimsy and liable to disintegrate at the least provocation. That’s of course until you realize that modern cars are designed that way to protect the driver--a fact painfully driven home when you see how pathetically the crash test dummy in the 1959 car fares compared to the 2009 dummy. My face hurts just thinking about that poor dummy in the 1959 car.
Here's some data to think about: Highway deaths in the USA peaked in 1972 at 54,000 a year.[1] Today, total highway deaths have declined from this peak level by about a third.
Now, "down by a third" might seem at first like a meh datapoint, until you realize that, today, we have a 50% larger population and we drive two and a half times more miles per person than in 1972. In other words, on a per-capita basis highway deaths are only a third of what they were then, and on a per-miles-driven basis they are only a fourth of what they were. Here's a chart that drives home the point (click to bigify):
Not only that, but cars today are far more fuel efficient, far less polluting and far better built. This should particularly resonate with you if, like me, you grew up in the seventies, riding with your siblings in the "back-in-the-back" of rusted-out station wagons. With fashionable simulated wood grain paneling.
Today, when you get into your car and drive somewhere, your risk of death is now, roughly, 1/4 what it was in 1972, and down 95% since the 1920s. And yet we worry about things like bisphenol A in the linings of our canned food.
One again, in an era when it’s never been safer to be alive, it's all too easy to worry about all the wrong things.
For further reading:
Wikipedia data on highway fatalities
[1] Another way to put these statistics in (sobering) context: The United States lost 58,000 soldiers over the entire 13+ years of the Vietnam War--a terrible tragedy. Yet during the war we were losing almost that many people every year in traffic accidents.
Related Posts:
Consumer Empowerment: How To Self-Fund Your Consumer Products Purchases
What Is a Scarcity Mindset? Investing and Living In a Zero Sum Paradigm
Is Organic Food Healthier? Or Just Another Aspirational Product?
How to Blind-Taste and Blind-Test Brands
How Food Blogs Disempower Their Readers
How can I support Casual Kitchen?
Easy. Do all your shopping at Amazon.com via the links on this site! You can also link to me or subscribe to my RSS feed. Finally, consider sharing this article, or any other article you particularly enjoyed here, to Facebook, Twitter (follow me @danielckoontz!) or to bookmarking sites like reddit, digg or stumbleupon. I'm deeply grateful to my readers for their ongoing support.
Labels:
consumer empowerment,
worry porn
CK Friday Links--Friday January 17, 2014
Links from around the internet. As always, I welcome your thoughts.
PS: Follow me on Twitter!
*************************
Extra recipes this week! See below...
Is it absurd to bring your crying 8 month old to a world-famous, ultra-expensive, three-star restaurant? (Jezebel)
Interesting summary of the Master Cleanse, along with details about its creator, Stanley Burroughs. (Calorie Lab)
The journey of an Indian onion. (Jayson Lusk)
The seven core areas of preparedness. (Backwoods Home Magazine)
Business school is a ripoff. (Quartz, via The Aleph Blog) It wasn't for me, but I see the logic of this article.
TL;DR shows self-contempt. You're ignoring the useful in exchange for the short or the amusing. (Seth’s Blog)
Book recommendation of the week: Wrong by David H. Freedman. Insightful book on when (and why) you shouldn’t trust “experts.” Extremely useful and a fairly quick read. Related: my post on Worry Porn.
Recipes:
Healthy, homemade Gummy Candies. (Owlhaven)
20 great low-carb Cookie Recipes. (A Sweet Life)
Easy, delicious: Oyster Stew. (Food and Fire) Bonus: Braised Beef and Noodles
Tortilla Soup: (Mollie Katzen) Dueling textures, chili and spice, and a deep, brick-red broth from Mollie Katzen’s new cookbook The Heart of the Plate. See also CK’s review of The Heart of the Plate here!
Got an interesting article or recipe to share? Want some extra traffic at your blog? Send me an email!
How can I support Casual Kitchen?
Easy. Do all your shopping at Amazon.com via the links on this site! You can also link to me or subscribe to my RSS feed. Finally, consider sharing this article, or any other article you particularly enjoyed here, to Facebook, Twitter (follow me @danielckoontz!) or to bookmarking sites like reddit, digg or stumbleupon. I'm deeply grateful to my readers for their ongoing support.
PS: Follow me on Twitter!
*************************
Extra recipes this week! See below...
Is it absurd to bring your crying 8 month old to a world-famous, ultra-expensive, three-star restaurant? (Jezebel)
Interesting summary of the Master Cleanse, along with details about its creator, Stanley Burroughs. (Calorie Lab)
The journey of an Indian onion. (Jayson Lusk)
The seven core areas of preparedness. (Backwoods Home Magazine)
Business school is a ripoff. (Quartz, via The Aleph Blog) It wasn't for me, but I see the logic of this article.
TL;DR shows self-contempt. You're ignoring the useful in exchange for the short or the amusing. (Seth’s Blog)
Book recommendation of the week: Wrong by David H. Freedman. Insightful book on when (and why) you shouldn’t trust “experts.” Extremely useful and a fairly quick read. Related: my post on Worry Porn.
Recipes:
Healthy, homemade Gummy Candies. (Owlhaven)
20 great low-carb Cookie Recipes. (A Sweet Life)
Easy, delicious: Oyster Stew. (Food and Fire) Bonus: Braised Beef and Noodles
Tortilla Soup: (Mollie Katzen) Dueling textures, chili and spice, and a deep, brick-red broth from Mollie Katzen’s new cookbook The Heart of the Plate. See also CK’s review of The Heart of the Plate here!
Got an interesting article or recipe to share? Want some extra traffic at your blog? Send me an email!
How can I support Casual Kitchen?
Easy. Do all your shopping at Amazon.com via the links on this site! You can also link to me or subscribe to my RSS feed. Finally, consider sharing this article, or any other article you particularly enjoyed here, to Facebook, Twitter (follow me @danielckoontz!) or to bookmarking sites like reddit, digg or stumbleupon. I'm deeply grateful to my readers for their ongoing support.
Labels:
links
How To Ask All the Wrong Questions
Way, way back in the early days of Casual Kitchen, an acquaintance who wanted to start a blog emailed me with several questions:
What do you do for database backup?
Where do you host your blog?
How do you scale up when your readership grows?
And so on. They were all very interesting, intelligent-sounding questions. And seemingly reasonable questions too, considering that this woman worked in a technical field.
Except that every single one of her questions turned out to be wrong.
Why? Because barely a month or two after she (enthusiastically!) started her blog, she just ...dropped it. She wrote a grand total of four posts.
Four posts. And she hasn’t touched her blog since.
So, all those questions about scaling up, about hosting, about database backup--none of them mattered in the slightest. They were the wrong questions.
You don’t know what you don’t know
Whenever we consider a brand new activity--investing, blogging, cooking, playing tennis, etc.--we always think we know more than we do. It’s when we actually start doing the activity that we come face to face with a real sense of how pathetically little we know.
In fact, our first step towards competence in any new field only comes when we truly wrap our minds around our incompetence. You have to accept and face the disheartening knowledge that you have a long way--a really long way--to go.
In other words, my friend knew so little about blogging that she didn’t even know the right questions to ask. She couldn’t know. Worse, the questions she did ask merely caused her to focus on all the wrong things. Forget worrying about how to back up her blog, she should have been trying to figure out what would make blogging fun enough so she wouldn't quit after four posts.
Wrong about tennis
Another example: Let’s say you decide to take up tennis. You’re in a sports equipment store, nibbling on your fingernail and staring at a wall of tennis racquets. And when the tennis racquet salesperson approaches you, a (seemingly) reasonable question might occur to you: what string tension I should use for my racquet?
Sounds intelligent, right? Except that anyone who's played tennis seriously for any amount of time would laugh uproariously at you for asking it.
Once again: know that your first questions are likely the wrong questions. The only person who will pretend this is the right question is the tennis racquet salesperson, as he attempts to sell you an overpriced $300 racquet.
Worst of all, that $300 racquet raises the stakes. It puts pressure on you to maximize your enjoyment out of tennis, and it may actually increase the chances that you’ll quit the sport in short order.[1]
Better to just go out and spend a summer or two hitting ten thousand balls with an inexpensive, or even a second-hand, racquet. Learn how to keep a ball in play for twenty hits without a miss. Then you'll be competent enough to ask informed questions about proper string tension, what kind of racquet is ideal, what tools you need to add to your game, and so on.
This principle applies to all spots: running, golf, beanbag tossing, even competitive belching. Never buy expensive equipment up front. Wait until you actually know what you need to know.
Wrong about Martha
One last example, from the domain of food: Let’s say you decide to take up cooking, and you’re wondering who to turn to in the food media for help on how and what to cook. You might reasonably look to Martha Stewart and all of her recipe ideas. After all, she’s famous for her cooking, isn’t she? She’s on TV and has her own magazine, right? Wouldn’t it be a great idea to try some of her recipes and techniques?
Nope. Any competent home cook would shake his head at your folly. Why? Because, as any Casual Kitchen reader could tell you, leaping to Martha Stewart-style recipes at the beginning of a home cooking career actually reduces the odds that you’ll continue to cook. You’re more likely to quit in frustration.
The point is this: when you start a new discipline, know that most of your questions, presumptions and ideas about that discipline will be wrong. Wrong in ways you never even imagined. Know this in advance.
Being right
Okay. So what are the right questions then? Here’s what to ask an expert in any field that’s completely new to you:
1) What are the most common mistakes that you typically see beginning [home cooks/ bloggers /tennis players] make?
2) What should I be learning as a new person starting to [cook/blog/play tennis, etc.]?
3) What did you find to be some of the unexpected early challenges of [cooking/blogging, etc.]?
4) What questions haven't I asked you that I should ask?
What’s the takeaway here? Primarily this: the questioner doesn't launch into a line of questions assuming she already knows. None of these are showoff questions that advertise the questioner’s expertise. Instead, each question is asked from a place of humility: this questioner knows she doesn't know.
This is how to take up blogging (or competitive belching) and not quit.
[1] It’s one thing to quit tennis in frustration after dropping $300 on a racquet. But in other domains, the stakes can be far higher. Take for example the domains of investing and personal finance: As many investors learned during the 2000-2002 tech crash and the 2008-2009 banking crisis, not knowing your own level of (in)competence--and not knowing the right questions to ask--can be financially devastating.
How can I support Casual Kitchen?
Easy. Do all your shopping at Amazon.com via the links on this site! You can also link to me or subscribe to my RSS feed. Finally, consider sharing this article, or any other article you particularly enjoyed here, to Facebook, Twitter (follow me @danielckoontz!) or to bookmarking sites like reddit, digg or stumbleupon. I'm deeply grateful to my readers for their ongoing support.
What do you do for database backup?
Where do you host your blog?
How do you scale up when your readership grows?
And so on. They were all very interesting, intelligent-sounding questions. And seemingly reasonable questions too, considering that this woman worked in a technical field.
Except that every single one of her questions turned out to be wrong.
Why? Because barely a month or two after she (enthusiastically!) started her blog, she just ...dropped it. She wrote a grand total of four posts.
Four posts. And she hasn’t touched her blog since.
So, all those questions about scaling up, about hosting, about database backup--none of them mattered in the slightest. They were the wrong questions.
You don’t know what you don’t know
Whenever we consider a brand new activity--investing, blogging, cooking, playing tennis, etc.--we always think we know more than we do. It’s when we actually start doing the activity that we come face to face with a real sense of how pathetically little we know.
In fact, our first step towards competence in any new field only comes when we truly wrap our minds around our incompetence. You have to accept and face the disheartening knowledge that you have a long way--a really long way--to go.
In other words, my friend knew so little about blogging that she didn’t even know the right questions to ask. She couldn’t know. Worse, the questions she did ask merely caused her to focus on all the wrong things. Forget worrying about how to back up her blog, she should have been trying to figure out what would make blogging fun enough so she wouldn't quit after four posts.
Wrong about tennis
Another example: Let’s say you decide to take up tennis. You’re in a sports equipment store, nibbling on your fingernail and staring at a wall of tennis racquets. And when the tennis racquet salesperson approaches you, a (seemingly) reasonable question might occur to you: what string tension I should use for my racquet?
Sounds intelligent, right? Except that anyone who's played tennis seriously for any amount of time would laugh uproariously at you for asking it.
Once again: know that your first questions are likely the wrong questions. The only person who will pretend this is the right question is the tennis racquet salesperson, as he attempts to sell you an overpriced $300 racquet.
Worst of all, that $300 racquet raises the stakes. It puts pressure on you to maximize your enjoyment out of tennis, and it may actually increase the chances that you’ll quit the sport in short order.[1]
Better to just go out and spend a summer or two hitting ten thousand balls with an inexpensive, or even a second-hand, racquet. Learn how to keep a ball in play for twenty hits without a miss. Then you'll be competent enough to ask informed questions about proper string tension, what kind of racquet is ideal, what tools you need to add to your game, and so on.
This principle applies to all spots: running, golf, beanbag tossing, even competitive belching. Never buy expensive equipment up front. Wait until you actually know what you need to know.
Wrong about Martha
One last example, from the domain of food: Let’s say you decide to take up cooking, and you’re wondering who to turn to in the food media for help on how and what to cook. You might reasonably look to Martha Stewart and all of her recipe ideas. After all, she’s famous for her cooking, isn’t she? She’s on TV and has her own magazine, right? Wouldn’t it be a great idea to try some of her recipes and techniques?
Nope. Any competent home cook would shake his head at your folly. Why? Because, as any Casual Kitchen reader could tell you, leaping to Martha Stewart-style recipes at the beginning of a home cooking career actually reduces the odds that you’ll continue to cook. You’re more likely to quit in frustration.
The point is this: when you start a new discipline, know that most of your questions, presumptions and ideas about that discipline will be wrong. Wrong in ways you never even imagined. Know this in advance.
Being right
Okay. So what are the right questions then? Here’s what to ask an expert in any field that’s completely new to you:
1) What are the most common mistakes that you typically see beginning [home cooks/ bloggers /tennis players] make?
2) What should I be learning as a new person starting to [cook/blog/play tennis, etc.]?
3) What did you find to be some of the unexpected early challenges of [cooking/blogging, etc.]?
4) What questions haven't I asked you that I should ask?
What’s the takeaway here? Primarily this: the questioner doesn't launch into a line of questions assuming she already knows. None of these are showoff questions that advertise the questioner’s expertise. Instead, each question is asked from a place of humility: this questioner knows she doesn't know.
This is how to take up blogging (or competitive belching) and not quit.
[1] It’s one thing to quit tennis in frustration after dropping $300 on a racquet. But in other domains, the stakes can be far higher. Take for example the domains of investing and personal finance: As many investors learned during the 2000-2002 tech crash and the 2008-2009 banking crisis, not knowing your own level of (in)competence--and not knowing the right questions to ask--can be financially devastating.
How can I support Casual Kitchen?
Easy. Do all your shopping at Amazon.com via the links on this site! You can also link to me or subscribe to my RSS feed. Finally, consider sharing this article, or any other article you particularly enjoyed here, to Facebook, Twitter (follow me @danielckoontz!) or to bookmarking sites like reddit, digg or stumbleupon. I'm deeply grateful to my readers for their ongoing support.
Labels:
cooking,
fitness,
investing,
psychology
CK Friday Links--Friday January 10, 2014
Links from around the internet. As always, I welcome your thoughts.
PS: Follow me on Twitter!
*************************
A food policy professor at Tufts University claims I made a "satirically narrow-minded caricature" of food advocates in my interview with Jayson Lusk the other day. Dr. Lusk responds here.
Chile enacts the world’s most aggressive food labelling laws. (Christian Science Monitor, via @doconnorwi)
A high school science teacher has a burst of critical thinking... and discovers that eating exclusively at McDonalds made him thin. (KCCI News, alternate video link here)
The response you’d expect from someone living in a culture of More. (Finding Your Soul, via Food Woolf)
Useful thoughts here on change negative, guilt-based self-talk. "See, guilt is the first sign that something’s wrong. But most people stop there. 'I feel guilty' is not the end, but the beginning of taking action." (I Will Teach You To Be Rich)
Seven things I learned from a year of overconfidence. (Thought Catalog)
New Year’s resolutions for behavioral investors. (Psy-Fi Blog) Bonus: The “Big List” of behavioral biases.
Read this pitifully inaccurate article on food commodity “speculators,” and then read this rebuttal from the professor slandered by it, and you’ll never trust The New York Times again. Disturbing.
Recipes:
34 intriguing, simple two-ingredient recipes (Crazy Food)
80 Gluten Free Slow Cooker Recipes! (Divine Health)
Got an interesting article or recipe to share? Want some extra traffic at your blog? Send me an email!
How can I support Casual Kitchen?
Easy. Do all your shopping at Amazon.com via the links on this site! You can also link to me or subscribe to my RSS feed. Finally, consider sharing this article, or any other article you particularly enjoyed here, to Facebook, Twitter (follow me @danielckoontz!) or to bookmarking sites like reddit, digg or stumbleupon. I'm deeply grateful to my readers for their ongoing support.
PS: Follow me on Twitter!
*************************
A food policy professor at Tufts University claims I made a "satirically narrow-minded caricature" of food advocates in my interview with Jayson Lusk the other day. Dr. Lusk responds here.
Chile enacts the world’s most aggressive food labelling laws. (Christian Science Monitor, via @doconnorwi)
A high school science teacher has a burst of critical thinking... and discovers that eating exclusively at McDonalds made him thin. (KCCI News, alternate video link here)
The response you’d expect from someone living in a culture of More. (Finding Your Soul, via Food Woolf)
Useful thoughts here on change negative, guilt-based self-talk. "See, guilt is the first sign that something’s wrong. But most people stop there. 'I feel guilty' is not the end, but the beginning of taking action." (I Will Teach You To Be Rich)
Seven things I learned from a year of overconfidence. (Thought Catalog)
New Year’s resolutions for behavioral investors. (Psy-Fi Blog) Bonus: The “Big List” of behavioral biases.
Read this pitifully inaccurate article on food commodity “speculators,” and then read this rebuttal from the professor slandered by it, and you’ll never trust The New York Times again. Disturbing.
Recipes:
34 intriguing, simple two-ingredient recipes (Crazy Food)
80 Gluten Free Slow Cooker Recipes! (Divine Health)
Got an interesting article or recipe to share? Want some extra traffic at your blog? Send me an email!
How can I support Casual Kitchen?
Easy. Do all your shopping at Amazon.com via the links on this site! You can also link to me or subscribe to my RSS feed. Finally, consider sharing this article, or any other article you particularly enjoyed here, to Facebook, Twitter (follow me @danielckoontz!) or to bookmarking sites like reddit, digg or stumbleupon. I'm deeply grateful to my readers for their ongoing support.
Labels:
links
Interview With Dr. Jayson Lusk, Part 2: Recommended Reading
Readers, today we've got the conclusion to our fascinating interview (here's Part 1) with Jayson Lusk, professor of Agriculture Economics at the University of Oklahoma and the author of the intriguing and controversial book The Food Police: A Well-Fed Manifesto About the Politics of Your Plate. If you're at all curious to learn more about the food industry, you're in luck: today, Dr. Lusk shares a exceptional list of books, online resources and people to follow. Enjoy!
Once again, I'd like to extend a grateful thank you to Dr. Lusk for spending so much time sharing his views, perspective and resources here.
************************
CK: Who else do you follow and respect on your side of the debate over food? What authors, books, or food industry figures would you recommend to Casual Kitchen readers interested in learning more about your perspective on the food industry?
JL: I’m not sure if I have a "side" but here are a few thoughts in no particular order.
First, books:
In Meat We Trust: An Unexpected History of Carnivore America by Maureen Ogle
Food Politics: What Everyone Needs to Know by Robert Paarlberg. Also see his book Starved for Science: How Biotechnology Is Being Kept Out of Africa
No More Food Fights! Growing a Productive Farm and Food Conversation by Michele Payn-Knoper
Fat Politics: The Real Story behind America's Obesity Epidemic by Eric Oliver
The Obesity Myth: Why America's Obsession with Weight is Hazardous to Your Health by Paul Campos
Just Food: Where Locavores Get It Wrong and How We Can Truly Eat Responsibly by James E. McWilliams
The Locavore's Dilemma: In Praise of the 10,000-mile Diet by Pierre Desrochers (Note: readers, I'm reading this book right now, and it's quite interesting)
The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World by Bjørn Lomborg
Here's a very incomplete list of people who I enjoy reading and following on Twitter (though I do not always agree with them): [Ed: be sure to follow Jayson Lusk on Twitter too!]
Bjørn Lomborg (an ardent defender of cost-benefit analysis),
Baylen Linnekin (a libertarian and free-market food advocate),
Cami Ryan (an agricultural advocate),
Jude Capper (an animal scientist),
Rachel Lauden (a food historian),
Keith Kloor (an environmentalist and defender of biotechnology).
Finally, some of the best and accessible information on economics is Russ Robert’s Econtalk podcasts (he has several episodes on food). For accessible information on agricultural economics, see Choices Magazine or Farmdoc Daily or, of course, my blog: jaysonlusk.com.
CK: Thank you Jason!!
How can I support Casual Kitchen?
Easy. Do all your shopping at Amazon.com via the links on this site! You can also link to me or subscribe to my RSS feed. Finally, consider sharing this article, or any other article you particularly enjoyed here, to Facebook, Twitter (follow me @danielckoontz!) or to bookmarking sites like reddit, digg or stumbleupon. I'm deeply grateful to my readers for their ongoing support.
Once again, I'd like to extend a grateful thank you to Dr. Lusk for spending so much time sharing his views, perspective and resources here.
************************
CK: Who else do you follow and respect on your side of the debate over food? What authors, books, or food industry figures would you recommend to Casual Kitchen readers interested in learning more about your perspective on the food industry?
JL: I’m not sure if I have a "side" but here are a few thoughts in no particular order.
First, books:
In Meat We Trust: An Unexpected History of Carnivore America by Maureen Ogle
Food Politics: What Everyone Needs to Know by Robert Paarlberg. Also see his book Starved for Science: How Biotechnology Is Being Kept Out of Africa
No More Food Fights! Growing a Productive Farm and Food Conversation by Michele Payn-Knoper
Fat Politics: The Real Story behind America's Obesity Epidemic by Eric Oliver
The Obesity Myth: Why America's Obsession with Weight is Hazardous to Your Health by Paul Campos
Just Food: Where Locavores Get It Wrong and How We Can Truly Eat Responsibly by James E. McWilliams
The Locavore's Dilemma: In Praise of the 10,000-mile Diet by Pierre Desrochers (Note: readers, I'm reading this book right now, and it's quite interesting)
The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World by Bjørn Lomborg
Here's a very incomplete list of people who I enjoy reading and following on Twitter (though I do not always agree with them): [Ed: be sure to follow Jayson Lusk on Twitter too!]
Bjørn Lomborg (an ardent defender of cost-benefit analysis),
Baylen Linnekin (a libertarian and free-market food advocate),
Cami Ryan (an agricultural advocate),
Jude Capper (an animal scientist),
Rachel Lauden (a food historian),
Keith Kloor (an environmentalist and defender of biotechnology).
Finally, some of the best and accessible information on economics is Russ Robert’s Econtalk podcasts (he has several episodes on food). For accessible information on agricultural economics, see Choices Magazine or Farmdoc Daily or, of course, my blog: jaysonlusk.com.
CK: Thank you Jason!!
How can I support Casual Kitchen?
Easy. Do all your shopping at Amazon.com via the links on this site! You can also link to me or subscribe to my RSS feed. Finally, consider sharing this article, or any other article you particularly enjoyed here, to Facebook, Twitter (follow me @danielckoontz!) or to bookmarking sites like reddit, digg or stumbleupon. I'm deeply grateful to my readers for their ongoing support.
Interview with Jayson Lusk, Author of “The Food Police”
Readers, I have a huge treat for you today: an interview with Jayson Lusk, author of The Food Police!
The Food Police has made several appearances lately here at CK: I read it during my 30 Day Voracious Reading Trial, I discussed the failure of Fat Taxes using ideas from it, and we even did an "intellectual honesty" book giveaway of The Food Police, pairing it with its ideological opposite: Michele Simon’s book Appetite for Profit.
There’s a reason The Food Police keeps showing up around here: because it’s a useful book and a very good read. Likewise, for those readers curious to learn more, his website offers more of his logical, common-sense and reliably well-argued perspective on the food industry. Today, Professor Lusk himself is here at Casual Kitchen to discuss his ideas.
[Reader note: this interview is in two parts: today we'll have a question-and-answer session, and tomorrow we'll let Dr. Lusk personally recommend a useful list of books, online resources--and even people to follow on Twitter--for readers interested in learning more. Stay tuned!]
Let’s hear what Dr. Lusk has to say:
Casual Kitchen: Share a little of your background with Casual Kitchen readers. Philosophically, how did you arrive at your views against heavy-handed government involvement in the food industry? What drove you to write The Food Police and to become an "anti-elitist" voice in the debate over food policy?
Jayson Lusk: I grew up in a rural area of West Texas (there were 12 people in my graduating high school class). Although my family didn’t farm for a living, I spent my summers working on neighbors’ farms and we raised animals for 4-H and FFA projects; I also worked in a large food processing plant during college. Those experiences, coupled with an undergraduate degree in Food Technology and a Ph.D. in agricultural economics, provided a deep appreciation for why we grow and manufacture food the way we do. Thus, a big motive in writing The Food Police was to try to set the record straight in terms of the popular narratives about the state of food in America.
Popular journalistic exposés about food are beautifully written, but they are sensationalized and rarely provide proper context or the full picture, and the unfortunate reality is that many people were being persuaded by anecdotal evidence rather than science. The "anti-elitist" comes in because of the belief by a handful of writers (and now influential policy makers) who presume to know how to properly run a farm when they have no experience doing so. Moreover, many of the modern food movements are an attempt to force one group’s (typically upper-middle class) tastes and preferences on another group of people who have much different incomes and desires. The problems of hunger and food security have been forgotten in favor of issues like local and organic.
CK: There’s a fascinating discussion in your book on the negative unintended consequences of things like fat taxes, ethanol subsidies, soda bans and other well-meaning food policies. Why is it so easy--for all of us--to be blind to unintended consequences? Why do you think unintended consequences keep springing up in the world of food advocacy?
JL: It is easier to focus on the effects we can see rather than the effects we don't see or which lay outside our immediate attention. Unfortunately, all those unseen effects can dwarf all the seen effects. I think this is one of the things that drew me to the field of economics: a recognition that life has no easy answers – only tradeoffs – and that one should always be cognizant of the unseen effects.
There are two other tendencies which lead to unintended consequences. The first is the urge to "do something" in light of an announced food problem. Trying to pass a law or advocating for a specific change gives the satisfaction of feeling like something is being accomplished and that can blind us to the total effects the changes will ultimately have. This phenomenon also tends to overlook the many millions of choices by consumers and farmers who are indeed "doing something" in response to the incentives they face. We should be more cautious of the single top-down "doing something" and more appreciative of the many millions of bottom up "doing somethings."
Secondly, there is a natural human urge to take those things that are important to us and presume they should be important to everyone else. Many foodies care passionately about the quality of food and they presume others should too (in spite of their incomes or their particular tastes). This can cause us to focus on the effects that interest us and ignore the effects that are less important to us but that are important to many other people.
CK: Do you ever find yourself agreeing with any of the views of "pro-government involvement" food advocates like Marion Nestle, Michael Pollan or Michele Simon? Your right-to-know position on GMO labeling comes to mind as one surprising example. Are there others?
JL: I think these folks get a lot things right. For example, I enjoy reading Pollan's books and I think he's right to praise the taste of local food, to celebrate cooking, and encourage people to slow down and enjoy eating. Where I think he goes astray is advocating policies that would mandate or subsidize these activities. And while he is right to point out some of the downsides of modern production agriculture, he selectively chooses which stories to tell, and as a result, fails to point out the immense benefits of the use of technology in food and agriculture, particularly for the least fortunate among us. His stories of cause-and-effect are often poorly rooted in history or economic science.
There are two short-cut ways of thinking about the politics of food and if I had to crudely boil down the impression one gets when they read Nestle-Pollan-Simon it is: "agribusiness and food companies bad, government good." It is true that sometimes food corporations do bad things and the government has some beneficial duties, but in The Food Police, I remind people of the good from entrepreneurship, technology, and convenience that food companies provide in response to our demands – and the damage that bad food policies can do. Where I believe the aforementioned kind of thinking goes astray is the failure to recognize the benefits of competition in providing us foods we want at a price we are willing to pay: companies face competition, the government doesn't.
By the way, I do not have a "right-to-know" position on GMO labeling; I have recently encouraged companies to voluntarily provide such information. Here is my most recent, more nuanced, discussion on the issue, but I still firmly believe the arguments I've made against MANDATORY GMO labeling.
CK: You've been falsely criticized for being somehow "bought and paid for" by the food industry, simply because there have been instances where you’ve sided with industry in food policy debates (readers, see Jayson’s post "Do I Work For Monsanto" for more context here). How do you usually respond to unfair ad hominem attacks like this? Is there a response?
JL: First, I point out the truth: no one pays me to write the things I do. I also point out that I've never consulted or received income from Monsanto, Coca-Cola, McDonalds, etc. If one looks in the footnotes of The Food Police, you'll find references and citations to the best science on the subject, and the arguments I make are firmly rooted in the best scientific evidence. As such, these sorts of ad hominem attacks don’t really bother me that much because they are the weakest form of argument.
When someone levels this charge it is typically because they cannot rebut the substance of my argument. There is an important point to clarify. I am not a defender of "big ag" or "big food." I perceive myself as a defender of the food consumer. However much we say we want more local or more healthy food, the reality is that food price typically trumps when we are in the grocery store. Those who advocate for policies that would increase food prices, make foods less convenient, or (sometimes) less safe are advocating for policies that, based on most consumer's shopping behavior, would cause them economic harm. I'm defending consumers' preferences as reflected in the choices they make.
CK: Why is it that many food policy advocates strongly dislike the phrase "personal responsibility"? Michele Simon, for example, makes a semantic argument that the mere use of the phrase is a distraction tactic: that food companies rationalize selling unhealthy food by saying consumers need "personal responsibility" to eat it in moderation. What’s your perspective on the semantic debate here? Does the food industry share in personal responsibility for the food we consumers willingly buy?
JL: I have a good friend who once remarked that it is impossible to have a reasonable discussion about the concept of free will. That probably extends, on some level, to the concept of personal responsibility. Clearly, our choices are shaped by the environment in which we live and by the offerings of food companies. But, we have to realize that our food environment is also shaped by our cumulative choices. To stay in business, food companies must respond to our desires. [Readers: see CK's post "Survivor Bias" for more on this subject.]
I’m not sure where it leaves us to argue we have no volition or personal responsibility. If I'm not responsible for my choices then who is? I believe I have a much keener interest in the outcomes of my food choices (and my children's food choices) than does some third party in California or Washington, D.C. I see it as one of my most important goals to teach my children to take responsibility for the choices they make and to act with character and honor. What is to be said for the argument that would absolve people of responsibility?
Finally, I'm not sure how useful it is to use the word "responsibility" in regard to food companies. Food companies face legal liability if they mislead or damage consumers; they can also suffer reputation losses if they have a food safety recall or otherwise act in negligent ways. They have a huge financial stake in making clean, safe, affordable food. Food companies can only stay in business by making and selling us things we will buy. It puts farmers and food companies in a pickle to mandate that they sell foods we won't buy: it is a recipe for unprofitability and bankruptcy. Food companies respond to consumer demands. Consumers are the ones with the ultimate choice of how to spend their money.
Readers, you can find Part 2 of this interview here!
How can I support Casual Kitchen?
Easy. Do all your shopping at Amazon.com via the links on this site! You can also link to me or subscribe to my RSS feed. Finally, consider sharing this article, or any other article you particularly enjoyed here, to Facebook, Twitter (follow me @danielckoontz!) or to bookmarking sites like reddit, digg or stumbleupon. I'm deeply grateful to my readers for their ongoing support.
The Food Police has made several appearances lately here at CK: I read it during my 30 Day Voracious Reading Trial, I discussed the failure of Fat Taxes using ideas from it, and we even did an "intellectual honesty" book giveaway of The Food Police, pairing it with its ideological opposite: Michele Simon’s book Appetite for Profit.
There’s a reason The Food Police keeps showing up around here: because it’s a useful book and a very good read. Likewise, for those readers curious to learn more, his website offers more of his logical, common-sense and reliably well-argued perspective on the food industry. Today, Professor Lusk himself is here at Casual Kitchen to discuss his ideas.
[Reader note: this interview is in two parts: today we'll have a question-and-answer session, and tomorrow we'll let Dr. Lusk personally recommend a useful list of books, online resources--and even people to follow on Twitter--for readers interested in learning more. Stay tuned!]
Let’s hear what Dr. Lusk has to say:
Casual Kitchen: Share a little of your background with Casual Kitchen readers. Philosophically, how did you arrive at your views against heavy-handed government involvement in the food industry? What drove you to write The Food Police and to become an "anti-elitist" voice in the debate over food policy?
Jayson Lusk: I grew up in a rural area of West Texas (there were 12 people in my graduating high school class). Although my family didn’t farm for a living, I spent my summers working on neighbors’ farms and we raised animals for 4-H and FFA projects; I also worked in a large food processing plant during college. Those experiences, coupled with an undergraduate degree in Food Technology and a Ph.D. in agricultural economics, provided a deep appreciation for why we grow and manufacture food the way we do. Thus, a big motive in writing The Food Police was to try to set the record straight in terms of the popular narratives about the state of food in America.
Popular journalistic exposés about food are beautifully written, but they are sensationalized and rarely provide proper context or the full picture, and the unfortunate reality is that many people were being persuaded by anecdotal evidence rather than science. The "anti-elitist" comes in because of the belief by a handful of writers (and now influential policy makers) who presume to know how to properly run a farm when they have no experience doing so. Moreover, many of the modern food movements are an attempt to force one group’s (typically upper-middle class) tastes and preferences on another group of people who have much different incomes and desires. The problems of hunger and food security have been forgotten in favor of issues like local and organic.
CK: There’s a fascinating discussion in your book on the negative unintended consequences of things like fat taxes, ethanol subsidies, soda bans and other well-meaning food policies. Why is it so easy--for all of us--to be blind to unintended consequences? Why do you think unintended consequences keep springing up in the world of food advocacy?
JL: It is easier to focus on the effects we can see rather than the effects we don't see or which lay outside our immediate attention. Unfortunately, all those unseen effects can dwarf all the seen effects. I think this is one of the things that drew me to the field of economics: a recognition that life has no easy answers – only tradeoffs – and that one should always be cognizant of the unseen effects.
There are two other tendencies which lead to unintended consequences. The first is the urge to "do something" in light of an announced food problem. Trying to pass a law or advocating for a specific change gives the satisfaction of feeling like something is being accomplished and that can blind us to the total effects the changes will ultimately have. This phenomenon also tends to overlook the many millions of choices by consumers and farmers who are indeed "doing something" in response to the incentives they face. We should be more cautious of the single top-down "doing something" and more appreciative of the many millions of bottom up "doing somethings."
Secondly, there is a natural human urge to take those things that are important to us and presume they should be important to everyone else. Many foodies care passionately about the quality of food and they presume others should too (in spite of their incomes or their particular tastes). This can cause us to focus on the effects that interest us and ignore the effects that are less important to us but that are important to many other people.
CK: Do you ever find yourself agreeing with any of the views of "pro-government involvement" food advocates like Marion Nestle, Michael Pollan or Michele Simon? Your right-to-know position on GMO labeling comes to mind as one surprising example. Are there others?
JL: I think these folks get a lot things right. For example, I enjoy reading Pollan's books and I think he's right to praise the taste of local food, to celebrate cooking, and encourage people to slow down and enjoy eating. Where I think he goes astray is advocating policies that would mandate or subsidize these activities. And while he is right to point out some of the downsides of modern production agriculture, he selectively chooses which stories to tell, and as a result, fails to point out the immense benefits of the use of technology in food and agriculture, particularly for the least fortunate among us. His stories of cause-and-effect are often poorly rooted in history or economic science.
There are two short-cut ways of thinking about the politics of food and if I had to crudely boil down the impression one gets when they read Nestle-Pollan-Simon it is: "agribusiness and food companies bad, government good." It is true that sometimes food corporations do bad things and the government has some beneficial duties, but in The Food Police, I remind people of the good from entrepreneurship, technology, and convenience that food companies provide in response to our demands – and the damage that bad food policies can do. Where I believe the aforementioned kind of thinking goes astray is the failure to recognize the benefits of competition in providing us foods we want at a price we are willing to pay: companies face competition, the government doesn't.
By the way, I do not have a "right-to-know" position on GMO labeling; I have recently encouraged companies to voluntarily provide such information. Here is my most recent, more nuanced, discussion on the issue, but I still firmly believe the arguments I've made against MANDATORY GMO labeling.
CK: You've been falsely criticized for being somehow "bought and paid for" by the food industry, simply because there have been instances where you’ve sided with industry in food policy debates (readers, see Jayson’s post "Do I Work For Monsanto" for more context here). How do you usually respond to unfair ad hominem attacks like this? Is there a response?
JL: First, I point out the truth: no one pays me to write the things I do. I also point out that I've never consulted or received income from Monsanto, Coca-Cola, McDonalds, etc. If one looks in the footnotes of The Food Police, you'll find references and citations to the best science on the subject, and the arguments I make are firmly rooted in the best scientific evidence. As such, these sorts of ad hominem attacks don’t really bother me that much because they are the weakest form of argument.
When someone levels this charge it is typically because they cannot rebut the substance of my argument. There is an important point to clarify. I am not a defender of "big ag" or "big food." I perceive myself as a defender of the food consumer. However much we say we want more local or more healthy food, the reality is that food price typically trumps when we are in the grocery store. Those who advocate for policies that would increase food prices, make foods less convenient, or (sometimes) less safe are advocating for policies that, based on most consumer's shopping behavior, would cause them economic harm. I'm defending consumers' preferences as reflected in the choices they make.
CK: Why is it that many food policy advocates strongly dislike the phrase "personal responsibility"? Michele Simon, for example, makes a semantic argument that the mere use of the phrase is a distraction tactic: that food companies rationalize selling unhealthy food by saying consumers need "personal responsibility" to eat it in moderation. What’s your perspective on the semantic debate here? Does the food industry share in personal responsibility for the food we consumers willingly buy?
JL: I have a good friend who once remarked that it is impossible to have a reasonable discussion about the concept of free will. That probably extends, on some level, to the concept of personal responsibility. Clearly, our choices are shaped by the environment in which we live and by the offerings of food companies. But, we have to realize that our food environment is also shaped by our cumulative choices. To stay in business, food companies must respond to our desires. [Readers: see CK's post "Survivor Bias" for more on this subject.]
I’m not sure where it leaves us to argue we have no volition or personal responsibility. If I'm not responsible for my choices then who is? I believe I have a much keener interest in the outcomes of my food choices (and my children's food choices) than does some third party in California or Washington, D.C. I see it as one of my most important goals to teach my children to take responsibility for the choices they make and to act with character and honor. What is to be said for the argument that would absolve people of responsibility?
Finally, I'm not sure how useful it is to use the word "responsibility" in regard to food companies. Food companies face legal liability if they mislead or damage consumers; they can also suffer reputation losses if they have a food safety recall or otherwise act in negligent ways. They have a huge financial stake in making clean, safe, affordable food. Food companies can only stay in business by making and selling us things we will buy. It puts farmers and food companies in a pickle to mandate that they sell foods we won't buy: it is a recipe for unprofitability and bankruptcy. Food companies respond to consumer demands. Consumers are the ones with the ultimate choice of how to spend their money.
Readers, you can find Part 2 of this interview here!
How can I support Casual Kitchen?
Easy. Do all your shopping at Amazon.com via the links on this site! You can also link to me or subscribe to my RSS feed. Finally, consider sharing this article, or any other article you particularly enjoyed here, to Facebook, Twitter (follow me @danielckoontz!) or to bookmarking sites like reddit, digg or stumbleupon. I'm deeply grateful to my readers for their ongoing support.
CK Friday Links--Friday January 3, 2014
Readers, just a quick update: CK's next post will be a really interesting interview with Dr. Jayson Lusk, author of The Food Police. Look for it on Tuesday! Hope you all had a safe and healthy New Year.
Links from around the internet. As always, I welcome your thoughts.
PS: Follow me on Twitter!
*************************
Hilariously easy! Cast Iron Roasted Butterflied Chicken. (Dad Cooks Dinner)
Ten nutrition myths. (Cooking Light)
While we’re at it: 13 lies that made the world sick and fat. (Business Insider, via BELLAVITÆ)
New York City's most obnoxious food trends of 2013. (New York Post) Picking on food hipsters is sometimes... too easy.
Fascinating interview with Hugh Johnson, one of the world’s most-read wine authors. (PS: He thinks we should ditch wine scores too!) (Wine Searcher)
Why are newspaper articles so short all of a sudden? (Columbia Journalism Review)
Avoiding "upgrade malaise." (Early Retirement Extreme)
Big trouble with snooze buttons. (New Yorker)
Always an interesting read to see the year’s Darwin Awards (My Underwood Typewriter)
Good article describing the Ego Trap. Are you caught in it? (The Rawness)
Got an interesting article or recipe to share? Want some extra traffic at your blog? Send me an email!
How can I support Casual Kitchen?
Easy. Do all your shopping at Amazon.com via the links on this site! You can also link to me or subscribe to my RSS feed. Finally, consider sharing this article, or any other article you particularly enjoyed here, to Facebook, Twitter (follow me @danielckoontz!) or to bookmarking sites like reddit, digg or stumbleupon. I'm deeply grateful to my readers for their ongoing support.
Links from around the internet. As always, I welcome your thoughts.
PS: Follow me on Twitter!
*************************
Hilariously easy! Cast Iron Roasted Butterflied Chicken. (Dad Cooks Dinner)
Ten nutrition myths. (Cooking Light)
While we’re at it: 13 lies that made the world sick and fat. (Business Insider, via BELLAVITÆ)
New York City's most obnoxious food trends of 2013. (New York Post) Picking on food hipsters is sometimes... too easy.
Fascinating interview with Hugh Johnson, one of the world’s most-read wine authors. (PS: He thinks we should ditch wine scores too!) (Wine Searcher)
Why are newspaper articles so short all of a sudden? (Columbia Journalism Review)
Avoiding "upgrade malaise." (Early Retirement Extreme)
Big trouble with snooze buttons. (New Yorker)
Always an interesting read to see the year’s Darwin Awards (My Underwood Typewriter)
Good article describing the Ego Trap. Are you caught in it? (The Rawness)
Got an interesting article or recipe to share? Want some extra traffic at your blog? Send me an email!
How can I support Casual Kitchen?
Easy. Do all your shopping at Amazon.com via the links on this site! You can also link to me or subscribe to my RSS feed. Finally, consider sharing this article, or any other article you particularly enjoyed here, to Facebook, Twitter (follow me @danielckoontz!) or to bookmarking sites like reddit, digg or stumbleupon. I'm deeply grateful to my readers for their ongoing support.
Labels:
links
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)