Links from around the internet. As always, I welcome your thoughts.
PS: Follow me on Twitter!
*************************
The "no nitrates added" hoax. (Michael Ruhlman, via Addicted to Canning)
Wait... what about all the bison? A logic hole for those concerned about greenhouse gas emissions from beef cattle. (Jayson Lusk)
Intriguing post on New York City food vendors, a surprising number of which are women. (Feet in 2 Worlds)
Breakfast is overrated. (New York Times)
Interesting read on the Food Network's decline into irrelevancy. (Salon)
The Food Babe "quackmails" the preferred seasonal beverage of hipsters everywhere. Ed: Read for critical thinking practice. (Food Babe)
Yes, salt is okay. So are eggs. (The Upshot)
"Travel may seem impossible to you right now, but it's not. You just have to want it badly enough to make it a priority in your life." (Art of Non-Conformity)
What it's like to be in a plane crash. (The Neurocritic)
What percent of daytraders make money? Cue laughter. (TraderFeed)
A renaissance in personal blogging. (A VC)
First, the main principle: the mind wants comfort, and is afraid of discomfort and change. (Zen Habits)
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.
Fair Trade: Using Poverty To Sell... More
I've written before here at CK about the highly questionable value of "Fair Trade" products. Apparently the subject hasn't just been on my mind: The Economist tackled the subject recently too.
And their conclusions are damning. Some choice quotes:
"Sales of produce carrying a fair-trade label have soared in recent years, from an estimated $1.1 billion in 2004 to $6.5 billion seven years later. Yet this is largely a marketing success..."
"...there is little evidence that fair trade has lifted many producers out of poverty, not least because most of the organisations that are certified tend to come from richer, more diversified developing countries, such as Mexico and South Africa, rather than the poorer ones that are mostly dependent on exporting one crop."
"And why the focus on agricultural produce, when a booming fair trade manufacturing sector potentially would help far more countries?"
"...so far, the fair-trade labelling movement has been more about easing consciences in rich countries than making serious inroads in to poverty in the developing world."
"...for each dollar paid by an American consumer for a fair-trade product, only three cents more are transferred to the country it came from than for the unlabeled alternative."
Three cents. Think about that for a moment. Three cents is all that finds its way to a poorer country, despite you, the consumer, paying price premiums as much as 100% for Fair Trade labeled products. So wait: Who do you think really captures the profits here?
There's one effect, of course, that Fair Trade products are guaranteed to have: they make us feel better about ourselves. And, needless to say, the companies selling to us want us to have these warm and fuzzy feelings because of an important knock-on effect: they encourage us to buy.
This is why fair trade revenues have gone up nearly sixfold in seven years. This is what they call "a marketing success." This, I would argue, is the central reason consumer products companies embraced this idea in the first place.
Rather interesting, isn't it? So who is it, then, who really benefits from Fair Trade products? Hint: it's not those who should.
Readers, what do you think?
Related Posts:
Who Gains From Fair Trade Certified Products?
More Questions On Fair Trade
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.
And their conclusions are damning. Some choice quotes:
"Sales of produce carrying a fair-trade label have soared in recent years, from an estimated $1.1 billion in 2004 to $6.5 billion seven years later. Yet this is largely a marketing success..."
"...there is little evidence that fair trade has lifted many producers out of poverty, not least because most of the organisations that are certified tend to come from richer, more diversified developing countries, such as Mexico and South Africa, rather than the poorer ones that are mostly dependent on exporting one crop."
"And why the focus on agricultural produce, when a booming fair trade manufacturing sector potentially would help far more countries?"
"...so far, the fair-trade labelling movement has been more about easing consciences in rich countries than making serious inroads in to poverty in the developing world."
"...for each dollar paid by an American consumer for a fair-trade product, only three cents more are transferred to the country it came from than for the unlabeled alternative."
Three cents. Think about that for a moment. Three cents is all that finds its way to a poorer country, despite you, the consumer, paying price premiums as much as 100% for Fair Trade labeled products. So wait: Who do you think really captures the profits here?
There's one effect, of course, that Fair Trade products are guaranteed to have: they make us feel better about ourselves. And, needless to say, the companies selling to us want us to have these warm and fuzzy feelings because of an important knock-on effect: they encourage us to buy.
This is why fair trade revenues have gone up nearly sixfold in seven years. This is what they call "a marketing success." This, I would argue, is the central reason consumer products companies embraced this idea in the first place.
Rather interesting, isn't it? So who is it, then, who really benefits from Fair Trade products? Hint: it's not those who should.
Readers, what do you think?
Related Posts:
Who Gains From Fair Trade Certified Products?
More Questions On Fair Trade
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 Links--Friday August 22, 2014
Links from around the internet. As always, I welcome your thoughts.
PS: Follow me on Twitter!
*************************
30 healthy and delicious low-carb zucchini recipes. (A Sweet Life)
An excellent (and free!) e-course on making homemade sausage. (BBQ Dry Rubs)
Why in our culture do we go to excess in our pursuit of wellness? (A Country Doctor Writes)
I'll never use a hotel room iron again after seeing this post. (Best Reviews)
Maybe "slacktivisim" isn't as pointless as it seems. (Seth Godin)
The Stoics would say "Forget lifehacks. Instead, develop a coherent philosophy of life." Insights from the author of the exceptional book A Guide to the Good Life: The Ancient Art of Stoic Joy. (21st Century Stoic)
I helped bankroll my brother... and came to regret it. (The Week)
A little known, very cool thing about Robin Williams. (Brian Lord)
Many, many reasons to be cheerful. (Matt Ridley)
"The more eager we are to show others that we care, the less eager we are to do things that both help us and help others." (Overcoming Bias)
How to get luckier. (99U, via 50by25)
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!
*************************
30 healthy and delicious low-carb zucchini recipes. (A Sweet Life)
An excellent (and free!) e-course on making homemade sausage. (BBQ Dry Rubs)
Why in our culture do we go to excess in our pursuit of wellness? (A Country Doctor Writes)
I'll never use a hotel room iron again after seeing this post. (Best Reviews)
Maybe "slacktivisim" isn't as pointless as it seems. (Seth Godin)
The Stoics would say "Forget lifehacks. Instead, develop a coherent philosophy of life." Insights from the author of the exceptional book A Guide to the Good Life: The Ancient Art of Stoic Joy. (21st Century Stoic)
I helped bankroll my brother... and came to regret it. (The Week)
A little known, very cool thing about Robin Williams. (Brian Lord)
Many, many reasons to be cheerful. (Matt Ridley)
"The more eager we are to show others that we care, the less eager we are to do things that both help us and help others." (Overcoming Bias)
How to get luckier. (99U, via 50by25)
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
"Welcome the Disagreement"
Readers, a bonus post this week: I stumbled onto the following striking excerpt in Dale Carnegie's seminal self-help book How to Win Friends and Influence People. The ideas here are simple, yet relevant to the sometimes controversial issues we discuss here at Casual Kitchen. There's help here for any instance where we're in disagreement with others. Read on and please share your thoughts.
**********************************
How to Keep a Disagreement from Becoming an Argument
Welcome the disagreement. Remember the slogan, "When two partners always agree, one of them is not necessary." If there is some point you haven't thought about, be thankful if it is brought to your attention. Perhaps this disagreement is your opportunity to be corrected before you make a serious mistake.
Distrust your first instinctive impression. Our first natural reaction in a disagreeable situation is to be defensive. Be careful. Keep calm and watch out for your first reaction. It may be you at your worst, not your best.
Control your temper. Remember, you can measure the size of a person by what makes him or her angry.
Listen first. Give your opponents a chance to talk. Let them finish. Do not resist, defend or debate. This only raises barriers. Try to build bridges of understanding. Don't build higher barriers of misunderstanding.
Look for areas of agreement. When you have heard your opponents out, dwell first on the points and areas on which you agree.
Be honest. Look for areas where you can admit error and say so. Apologize for your mistakes. It will help disarm your opponents and reduce defensiveness.
Promise to think over your opponents' ideas and study them carefully. And mean it. Your opponents may be right. It is a lot easier at this stage to agree to think about their points than to move rapidly ahead and find yourself in a position where your opponents can say: "We tried to tell you, but you wouldn't listen."
Thank your opponents sincerely for their interest. Anyone who takes the time to disagree with you is interested in the same things you are. Think of them as people who really want to help you, and you may turn your opponents into friends.
**************************************
The advice above seems incredibly simple, doesn't it? Almost too simple, like much of what you typically find in run-of-the-mill self-help literature. In reality, however, this passage asks you to do something fairly sophisticated: it asks you to reframe disagreement into something more powerful and useful.
Most of us instantly put up barriers when we bump up against disagreement. Imagine if we repatterned that instinctive reaction and instead viewed disagreement as an opportunity to learn and collaborate.
A final thought: I'm always surprised by how much value I get each time I return to Dale Carnegie's book. How to Win Friends and Influence People is an innocent book from another era, not really the kind of book that would much get traction in today's era of rampant irony, snark and hipsterism. And yet the ideas in this book--listening first, seeking areas of agreement and common ground, giving honest praise and approbation and so on--are more true today than ever. Highly recommended.
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 to Keep a Disagreement from Becoming an Argument
Welcome the disagreement. Remember the slogan, "When two partners always agree, one of them is not necessary." If there is some point you haven't thought about, be thankful if it is brought to your attention. Perhaps this disagreement is your opportunity to be corrected before you make a serious mistake.
Distrust your first instinctive impression. Our first natural reaction in a disagreeable situation is to be defensive. Be careful. Keep calm and watch out for your first reaction. It may be you at your worst, not your best.
Control your temper. Remember, you can measure the size of a person by what makes him or her angry.
Listen first. Give your opponents a chance to talk. Let them finish. Do not resist, defend or debate. This only raises barriers. Try to build bridges of understanding. Don't build higher barriers of misunderstanding.
Look for areas of agreement. When you have heard your opponents out, dwell first on the points and areas on which you agree.
Be honest. Look for areas where you can admit error and say so. Apologize for your mistakes. It will help disarm your opponents and reduce defensiveness.
Promise to think over your opponents' ideas and study them carefully. And mean it. Your opponents may be right. It is a lot easier at this stage to agree to think about their points than to move rapidly ahead and find yourself in a position where your opponents can say: "We tried to tell you, but you wouldn't listen."
Thank your opponents sincerely for their interest. Anyone who takes the time to disagree with you is interested in the same things you are. Think of them as people who really want to help you, and you may turn your opponents into friends.
**************************************
The advice above seems incredibly simple, doesn't it? Almost too simple, like much of what you typically find in run-of-the-mill self-help literature. In reality, however, this passage asks you to do something fairly sophisticated: it asks you to reframe disagreement into something more powerful and useful.
Most of us instantly put up barriers when we bump up against disagreement. Imagine if we repatterned that instinctive reaction and instead viewed disagreement as an opportunity to learn and collaborate.
A final thought: I'm always surprised by how much value I get each time I return to Dale Carnegie's book. How to Win Friends and Influence People is an innocent book from another era, not really the kind of book that would much get traction in today's era of rampant irony, snark and hipsterism. And yet the ideas in this book--listening first, seeking areas of agreement and common ground, giving honest praise and approbation and so on--are more true today than ever. Highly recommended.
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:
habits
The Modern, Oblivious, Restaurant Diner
Readers, take thirty seconds to read this Craigslist posting, published by an apparently frustrated New York City restaurant owner. (Also here.)
There's so much to say about this posting, starting with the fact that it's possibly not entirely true. Sometimes, though, things that aren't entirely true tend to resemble the truth far more than things that actually happen. (Which is why newsroom editors tell idealistic young reporters to "save the truth for your novel!")
Thus there's a reason why this Craigslist posting resonated with people as much as it did: it shows something true, deeply true, about us as modern customers: We've become needier, more distracted, more annoying, more oblivious, and less and less present than ever. Here's what I mean:
1) We pay little to no attention to reality. Look across any random sample of people today--at restaurants, while shopping, walking down the street, wherever--and you'll see a staggering percentage of them staring or texting into their phones.
2) We're never happy enough with what comes our way. Examples: customers nitpicking about where they sit, getting up and changing tables, micro-managing their food orders, sending their food back.
3) We need to be led, behaviorally speaking, to perform basic tasks, like putting down our phone and opening a menu. And then, later, we apparently need to be led once again to choose something from that menu.
4) We need to make everything we do into some form of conspicuous display.* This helps explain peoples' neurotic need to post photos of their food, or their need to share photographic proof of conspicuous leisure activities over social media. More on this in just a minute.
5) We no longer seem to be "here" anymore. Instead of being present in the here and now, our attention is elsewhere. We're anywhere but where we are.
Another word or two about conspicuous display. It's not just that people seem less and less "here" in the psychological sense. It's that they also need all the cool things they're doing to be seen by people who aren't even physically here with them either. Social media was created to fulfill this need to be seen, and it does it so well that it's almost as if an experience doesn't count--or perhaps never even happened--unless there's some meta-representation of it online.
Look, it's a free country, and the last thing I want is for this post to sound like some "kids these days!" rant. Come to think of it, it can't be a kids these days rant when people of my own demographic are among the worst offenders. But is that little glowing rectangle really that interesting? Is blarfing out our lives online really so important that it's worth interfering with reality to do so?
Readers, what do you think?
* See Thorstein Veblen's difficult but mind-bending book The Theory of the Leisure Class, particularly Chapter 3, "Conspicuous Leisure" and Chapter 4, "Conspicuous Consumption" for more here. For a book written in 1899, it's astonishing how predictive it is of modern consumerism and modern identity construction.
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.
There's so much to say about this posting, starting with the fact that it's possibly not entirely true. Sometimes, though, things that aren't entirely true tend to resemble the truth far more than things that actually happen. (Which is why newsroom editors tell idealistic young reporters to "save the truth for your novel!")
Thus there's a reason why this Craigslist posting resonated with people as much as it did: it shows something true, deeply true, about us as modern customers: We've become needier, more distracted, more annoying, more oblivious, and less and less present than ever. Here's what I mean:
1) We pay little to no attention to reality. Look across any random sample of people today--at restaurants, while shopping, walking down the street, wherever--and you'll see a staggering percentage of them staring or texting into their phones.
2) We're never happy enough with what comes our way. Examples: customers nitpicking about where they sit, getting up and changing tables, micro-managing their food orders, sending their food back.
3) We need to be led, behaviorally speaking, to perform basic tasks, like putting down our phone and opening a menu. And then, later, we apparently need to be led once again to choose something from that menu.
4) We need to make everything we do into some form of conspicuous display.* This helps explain peoples' neurotic need to post photos of their food, or their need to share photographic proof of conspicuous leisure activities over social media. More on this in just a minute.
5) We no longer seem to be "here" anymore. Instead of being present in the here and now, our attention is elsewhere. We're anywhere but where we are.
Another word or two about conspicuous display. It's not just that people seem less and less "here" in the psychological sense. It's that they also need all the cool things they're doing to be seen by people who aren't even physically here with them either. Social media was created to fulfill this need to be seen, and it does it so well that it's almost as if an experience doesn't count--or perhaps never even happened--unless there's some meta-representation of it online.
Look, it's a free country, and the last thing I want is for this post to sound like some "kids these days!" rant. Come to think of it, it can't be a kids these days rant when people of my own demographic are among the worst offenders. But is that little glowing rectangle really that interesting? Is blarfing out our lives online really so important that it's worth interfering with reality to do so?
Readers, what do you think?
* See Thorstein Veblen's difficult but mind-bending book The Theory of the Leisure Class, particularly Chapter 3, "Conspicuous Leisure" and Chapter 4, "Conspicuous Consumption" for more here. For a book written in 1899, it's astonishing how predictive it is of modern consumerism and modern identity construction.
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 Links--Friday August 15, 2014
Links from around the internet. As always, I welcome your thoughts.
PS: Follow me on Twitter!
*************************
Embarrassed to eat alone in restaurants? It's no big deal these days. (CNBC)
A key skill to eating well on a low budget: know some recipes by heart. (Owlhaven)
Learn to farm better! From people who, uh, have no idea how to farm. (Jayson Lusk)
Also at Jayson's site, a critique of the meat industry takedown book The Meat Racket. (Jayson Lusk)
Ten steps to perfect rotisserie grilling. (Dad Cooks Dinner)
Worry porn alert! Government salt intake guidelines are now "too low." (Wall Street Journal)
Seven investing truths that nobody gets. (Welcome to Kindergarten)
Fascinating meta-etymology of the phrase "Don't Peggy Olson me!" (Grant McCracken)
Some good ideas here on how to travel light. Really light. (Tim Ferriss)
Stop staring at screens and embrace being bored. (A Life of Productivity, via 50by25)
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!
*************************
Embarrassed to eat alone in restaurants? It's no big deal these days. (CNBC)
A key skill to eating well on a low budget: know some recipes by heart. (Owlhaven)
Learn to farm better! From people who, uh, have no idea how to farm. (Jayson Lusk)
Also at Jayson's site, a critique of the meat industry takedown book The Meat Racket. (Jayson Lusk)
Ten steps to perfect rotisserie grilling. (Dad Cooks Dinner)
Worry porn alert! Government salt intake guidelines are now "too low." (Wall Street Journal)
Seven investing truths that nobody gets. (Welcome to Kindergarten)
Fascinating meta-etymology of the phrase "Don't Peggy Olson me!" (Grant McCracken)
Some good ideas here on how to travel light. Really light. (Tim Ferriss)
Stop staring at screens and embrace being bored. (A Life of Productivity, via 50by25)
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
Hypermiling: Improve Your Car’s Gas Mileage and Save $ on Gas
Readers, are you looking for a few simple ways to save money on gas? This post shares ideas on how to "hypermile" with your car.
*************************
What is hypermiling? It's simply a collection of techniques to optimize and maximize your car's fuel efficiency. If you can build a habit of using even just a few of the fundamental hypermiling tips shared in this post, you could easily save 10%--and perhaps as much as 30%--on gasoline.
Two caveats: this is by no means an exhaustive list of hypermiling tips, and at least one of the tips below could be dangerous if used inappropriately. As always, please feel free to share your own favorite hypermiling techniques in the comments.
1) Know your car's optimal highway speed
In your car's owner's manual you can find your car's optimal fuel efficiency speed. This speed depends on your car's transmission, gearing ratios and aerodynamic profile, but for most automobiles, it's going to be in the neighborhood of 50-55 mph. Whenever you can do so safely, try to drive at this speed on the highway.
Note that in the current era of 65, 70 and even 75 mph speed limits here in the USA, this presents a problem: your driving speed must be reasonable relative to other cars on the road. If your car's optimal efficiency speed is 55 miles per hour, yet you're in a 70 mph zone (which really means everyone's driving 75-80), you risk getting mowed down just to save a few bucks on gas. Find a safe midpoint here and drive with the general flow of traffic.
2) Acceleration techniques
We all have an inner teenager inside us, dying to get a jump on green lights and race ahead of everyone else. I do this too, more than I ought to admit. However, rapid acceleration is just a fast way to waste fuel. It's far more mileage-friendly to accelerate gently and gradually from a standing start.
Your acceleration techniques on the open highway will affect your fuel efficiency too. For example, if accelerating from, say, 60 mph to 70 mph, resist the urge to floor it. Restrain that inner teenager! Remember: you're not impressing the ladies, you're just wasting gas.
3) Braking/Coasting Techniques
Your car uses gasoline to produce forward kinetic energy, which means any time you brake you waste gas. Coasting, on the other hand, conserves that kinetic energy. Therefore, your braking and coasting techniques have a significant impact your car's fuel efficiency.
You can use a wide range of coasting techniques to optimize forward movement with little to no gas. A few ideas:
* Use road terrain to your advantage. Many major highways have hills that are steep, gradual and long enough that you can put your car in neutral and coast for miles at or close to your desired speed.
* Don't approach a long downhill at higher than your desired speed because you'll end up braking the entire way down, wasting fuel, forward momentum--and your brakepads.
* Finally, if you have a habit of racing up to a red light and then hitting the brakes, you're doing it wrong.
4) Vents, not windows
When I was a kid growing up in the 1970s, our family car had "60-WRD Air Conditioning": drive 60 with the windows rolled down. If we'd only known the truth: it's more fuel-efficient to roll up your windows and use your car's interior vents instead. Driving with the windows down is fun and all, but it increases your car's wind resistance and drag. Note that at low speeds or in local driving, this tip won't make a noticeable difference in your mileage--the effect is far more meaningful at highway speeds.
5) High speeds = exponentially more waste
As any math geek will tell you, your car's air resistance (or drag) is a function of your driving velocity squared. In actual English, this means as your driving speed increases, you waste more and more of your fuel on wind resistance. At high speeds, your car burns fuel--a lot of fuel--just pushing air out of the way.
I'll throw some numbers at you: you can generally assume that driving at 70 mph is about 15% less efficient than driving at 60 mph. And driving at 85 mph is about 25% less efficient. Speed not only kills, it wastes money too.
6) Eliminate bad mileage habits
We've already covered a few important mileage-murdering habits like rapid acceleration, driving at high speeds, and so on. But there are several others. For example: do you let your car idle for long periods? Do you overuse your car's air conditioning when using the vents would be good enough? During highway driving, do you repeatedly accelerate and decelerate rather than driving at a steady speed?
Don't worry, no one's saying you can't use the A/C: only the hardest of hard-core hypermilers are willing to swelter in a hot car to save a few bucks on gas. But I will say this: if you do have the habit of repeatedly accelerating and decelerating on the highway you're not just wasting fuel. You should also know the internet has created a rather unflattering term for you. :)
7) Keep your car in good repair
This is the easiest tip of all to follow. Check your oil levels periodically, change your oil when required, keep your wheels properly aligned, and keep your tires balanced and properly inflated. These are basic auto maintenance steps that will help improve your car's fuel efficiency.
8) Avoid ethanol
We've written here at CK about the deeply irresponsible policy behind ethanol fuel mandates. Let's set aside for now the depressing truth that producing ethanol wastes more fossil fuels than it replaces. The real problem hypermilers have with ethanol is this: ethanol burns so poorly that it makes your car less fuel efficient. In fact, at ethanol/gasoline proportions above 10%, ethanol can even disrupt proper functioning of your engine.
The EPA claims that at 10% concentrations, ethanol will cause your vehicle to lose about 3% in fuel efficiency. However, many drivers have found far more significant efficiency losses with ethanol-blended fuels. Bottom line: if you want to improve your gas mileage, keep ethanol out of your car.
Sadly, however, many states mandate that gas stations sell 10% ethanol blend. Our politicians may not understand the laws of thermodynamics, but we--as environmentally concerned drivers--can try to avoid these fuels as much as we possibly can.
9) Drafting
Here's the one fuel efficiency tactic I'm hesitant to share. Why? Because it can be dangerous if misused. But I'll offer it anyway, with caveats, simply because it's the single most powerful hypermiling technique.
Depending on where you get your facts (and depending on your driving speed) wind resistance can reduce your car's fuel efficiency by up to 50%. If you ever look up and see a flock of geese flying in formation, or if you've ever seen riders at the Tour de France draft off of each other, you can see how enormously helpful it is to have someone else take the brunt of the wind for you.
In the context of hypermiling, then, drafting is essentially following a larger vehicle at a safe but fairly close distance, and using that vehicle as a wind break. A typical example is to follow a semi truck that happens to be traveling at your desired speed.
If you follow a large truck at a moderate distance (say, at a 2-3 second following distance) you'll feel a surprising amount of turbulence as your car passes through the same air the truck passed through moments before. Note however, that if you creep up closer to this truck, the turbulence drops significantly--to the point where you can actually start to feel your car being pulled along in the truck's vacuum. All of a sudden you don't need to use as much pressure on the gas pedal to maintain speed.
This is the drafting sweet spot: not so close to the truck that you risk rear-ending it, not so far back that you're sitting in the truck’s worst turbulence. Here's where you can dramatically increase your car's fuel efficiency.
Once again, I offer this specific tip hesitantly and with disclaimers. To return to the Tour de France example, always keep in mind that when the lead guy suddenly stops, all forty of the other guys in the peloton crash right into him. And that's the problem with drafting: it's riskier--and probably not worth it just to save a few bucks on gas. However, if you choose to do it, make sure you stay alert, drive safely and maintain proper following distance at all times.
10) How to manage heavy traffic
The amount of fuel wasted in traffic jams is enormous and probably unmeasurable. As with idling, if your car is running and you're not moving, your gas mileage will be… a big fat 0 mpg. Thus it makes sense as much as possible to avoid traveling during rush hour--and to especially avoid rush hour in major urban centers known for bad traffic.
Sadly, there's no foolproof way to always avoid traffic, so if you are stuck in a jam, you can use certain anticipatory acceleration and braking techniques to limit the gas mileage damage. For example: don't accelerate rapidly to catch up with the car in front of you and then hit the brakes as you approach. Instead, accelerate gently and then coast. Further, keep your eyes on what's happening several cars ahead of you, and try to anticipate and match the general movement of traffic with as little braking as possible. If you see nothing but brake lights a quarter mile ahead of you, there's even less reason to race up to the bumper of the car ahead of you.
Wait a second: does all this hypermiling stuff really work?
Yes, it actually works. Readers, about a year ago, on a long road trip from New Jersey to Texas, I did a control test: I drove normally for one full tank of gas, and drove a separate full tank's worth of gas using as many hypermiling techniques as I could from the list above.
I'll admit up front: I was cynical about the value of these hypermiling techniques. I didn't think I'd see that big a difference. And yet the improvement I was able to get in gas mileage was substantial--far greater than I expected. Normally, my car (a 2009 Pontiac Vibe) gets about 30-32 miles per gallon in highway driving. Using hypermiling techniques, however, I was able to get my fuel efficiency up to nearly 40 miles per gallon. That's a 25-30% improvement, and it translates directly into a 25-30% savings on gasoline costs.
Yes, this was just one trial, and yes, it was neither exact nor scientific, and yes, your mileage may vary (heh), but I encourage you to try some of these techniques yourself and see if you can see a difference. I'm guessing you will.
One final thought. Individually, many of these tips won’t have much of a noticeable impact on your gas mileage. But use a few--or all--of them and collectively they’ll be significant. It’s not that difficult, for example, to draft off the occasional truck here and there, build better acceleration and braking habits, and drive at a consistent and moderate speed. Just doing these things could improve your mileage by 10-20% with minimal effort. Try it--and reap the savings!
Readers, what do you think? What’s your favorite fuel saving technique?
For Further Reading:
1) MPG for Speed: a simple one-page site that walks though some of the mileage/fuel efficiency losses your car experiences at higher speeds.
2) What increased speed and air resistance does to your car’s fuel efficiency.
3) For the serious math geek: an article that looks at a several different ways to calculate energy loss at high driving speeds.
4) Top Ten Ways To Waste Gas.
5) How Does Ethanol Impact Fuel Efficiency?
6) Interesting and somewhat technical discussion thread on ethanol and fuel efficiency at the Eng-Tips Forum.
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 is hypermiling? It's simply a collection of techniques to optimize and maximize your car's fuel efficiency. If you can build a habit of using even just a few of the fundamental hypermiling tips shared in this post, you could easily save 10%--and perhaps as much as 30%--on gasoline.
Two caveats: this is by no means an exhaustive list of hypermiling tips, and at least one of the tips below could be dangerous if used inappropriately. As always, please feel free to share your own favorite hypermiling techniques in the comments.
1) Know your car's optimal highway speed
In your car's owner's manual you can find your car's optimal fuel efficiency speed. This speed depends on your car's transmission, gearing ratios and aerodynamic profile, but for most automobiles, it's going to be in the neighborhood of 50-55 mph. Whenever you can do so safely, try to drive at this speed on the highway.
Note that in the current era of 65, 70 and even 75 mph speed limits here in the USA, this presents a problem: your driving speed must be reasonable relative to other cars on the road. If your car's optimal efficiency speed is 55 miles per hour, yet you're in a 70 mph zone (which really means everyone's driving 75-80), you risk getting mowed down just to save a few bucks on gas. Find a safe midpoint here and drive with the general flow of traffic.
2) Acceleration techniques
We all have an inner teenager inside us, dying to get a jump on green lights and race ahead of everyone else. I do this too, more than I ought to admit. However, rapid acceleration is just a fast way to waste fuel. It's far more mileage-friendly to accelerate gently and gradually from a standing start.
Your acceleration techniques on the open highway will affect your fuel efficiency too. For example, if accelerating from, say, 60 mph to 70 mph, resist the urge to floor it. Restrain that inner teenager! Remember: you're not impressing the ladies, you're just wasting gas.
3) Braking/Coasting Techniques
Your car uses gasoline to produce forward kinetic energy, which means any time you brake you waste gas. Coasting, on the other hand, conserves that kinetic energy. Therefore, your braking and coasting techniques have a significant impact your car's fuel efficiency.
You can use a wide range of coasting techniques to optimize forward movement with little to no gas. A few ideas:
* Use road terrain to your advantage. Many major highways have hills that are steep, gradual and long enough that you can put your car in neutral and coast for miles at or close to your desired speed.
* Don't approach a long downhill at higher than your desired speed because you'll end up braking the entire way down, wasting fuel, forward momentum--and your brakepads.
* Finally, if you have a habit of racing up to a red light and then hitting the brakes, you're doing it wrong.
4) Vents, not windows
When I was a kid growing up in the 1970s, our family car had "60-WRD Air Conditioning": drive 60 with the windows rolled down. If we'd only known the truth: it's more fuel-efficient to roll up your windows and use your car's interior vents instead. Driving with the windows down is fun and all, but it increases your car's wind resistance and drag. Note that at low speeds or in local driving, this tip won't make a noticeable difference in your mileage--the effect is far more meaningful at highway speeds.
5) High speeds = exponentially more waste
As any math geek will tell you, your car's air resistance (or drag) is a function of your driving velocity squared. In actual English, this means as your driving speed increases, you waste more and more of your fuel on wind resistance. At high speeds, your car burns fuel--a lot of fuel--just pushing air out of the way.
I'll throw some numbers at you: you can generally assume that driving at 70 mph is about 15% less efficient than driving at 60 mph. And driving at 85 mph is about 25% less efficient. Speed not only kills, it wastes money too.
6) Eliminate bad mileage habits
We've already covered a few important mileage-murdering habits like rapid acceleration, driving at high speeds, and so on. But there are several others. For example: do you let your car idle for long periods? Do you overuse your car's air conditioning when using the vents would be good enough? During highway driving, do you repeatedly accelerate and decelerate rather than driving at a steady speed?
Don't worry, no one's saying you can't use the A/C: only the hardest of hard-core hypermilers are willing to swelter in a hot car to save a few bucks on gas. But I will say this: if you do have the habit of repeatedly accelerating and decelerating on the highway you're not just wasting fuel. You should also know the internet has created a rather unflattering term for you. :)
7) Keep your car in good repair
This is the easiest tip of all to follow. Check your oil levels periodically, change your oil when required, keep your wheels properly aligned, and keep your tires balanced and properly inflated. These are basic auto maintenance steps that will help improve your car's fuel efficiency.
8) Avoid ethanol
We've written here at CK about the deeply irresponsible policy behind ethanol fuel mandates. Let's set aside for now the depressing truth that producing ethanol wastes more fossil fuels than it replaces. The real problem hypermilers have with ethanol is this: ethanol burns so poorly that it makes your car less fuel efficient. In fact, at ethanol/gasoline proportions above 10%, ethanol can even disrupt proper functioning of your engine.
The EPA claims that at 10% concentrations, ethanol will cause your vehicle to lose about 3% in fuel efficiency. However, many drivers have found far more significant efficiency losses with ethanol-blended fuels. Bottom line: if you want to improve your gas mileage, keep ethanol out of your car.
Sadly, however, many states mandate that gas stations sell 10% ethanol blend. Our politicians may not understand the laws of thermodynamics, but we--as environmentally concerned drivers--can try to avoid these fuels as much as we possibly can.
9) Drafting
Here's the one fuel efficiency tactic I'm hesitant to share. Why? Because it can be dangerous if misused. But I'll offer it anyway, with caveats, simply because it's the single most powerful hypermiling technique.
Depending on where you get your facts (and depending on your driving speed) wind resistance can reduce your car's fuel efficiency by up to 50%. If you ever look up and see a flock of geese flying in formation, or if you've ever seen riders at the Tour de France draft off of each other, you can see how enormously helpful it is to have someone else take the brunt of the wind for you.
In the context of hypermiling, then, drafting is essentially following a larger vehicle at a safe but fairly close distance, and using that vehicle as a wind break. A typical example is to follow a semi truck that happens to be traveling at your desired speed.
If you follow a large truck at a moderate distance (say, at a 2-3 second following distance) you'll feel a surprising amount of turbulence as your car passes through the same air the truck passed through moments before. Note however, that if you creep up closer to this truck, the turbulence drops significantly--to the point where you can actually start to feel your car being pulled along in the truck's vacuum. All of a sudden you don't need to use as much pressure on the gas pedal to maintain speed.
This is the drafting sweet spot: not so close to the truck that you risk rear-ending it, not so far back that you're sitting in the truck’s worst turbulence. Here's where you can dramatically increase your car's fuel efficiency.
Once again, I offer this specific tip hesitantly and with disclaimers. To return to the Tour de France example, always keep in mind that when the lead guy suddenly stops, all forty of the other guys in the peloton crash right into him. And that's the problem with drafting: it's riskier--and probably not worth it just to save a few bucks on gas. However, if you choose to do it, make sure you stay alert, drive safely and maintain proper following distance at all times.
10) How to manage heavy traffic
The amount of fuel wasted in traffic jams is enormous and probably unmeasurable. As with idling, if your car is running and you're not moving, your gas mileage will be… a big fat 0 mpg. Thus it makes sense as much as possible to avoid traveling during rush hour--and to especially avoid rush hour in major urban centers known for bad traffic.
Sadly, there's no foolproof way to always avoid traffic, so if you are stuck in a jam, you can use certain anticipatory acceleration and braking techniques to limit the gas mileage damage. For example: don't accelerate rapidly to catch up with the car in front of you and then hit the brakes as you approach. Instead, accelerate gently and then coast. Further, keep your eyes on what's happening several cars ahead of you, and try to anticipate and match the general movement of traffic with as little braking as possible. If you see nothing but brake lights a quarter mile ahead of you, there's even less reason to race up to the bumper of the car ahead of you.
Wait a second: does all this hypermiling stuff really work?
Yes, it actually works. Readers, about a year ago, on a long road trip from New Jersey to Texas, I did a control test: I drove normally for one full tank of gas, and drove a separate full tank's worth of gas using as many hypermiling techniques as I could from the list above.
I'll admit up front: I was cynical about the value of these hypermiling techniques. I didn't think I'd see that big a difference. And yet the improvement I was able to get in gas mileage was substantial--far greater than I expected. Normally, my car (a 2009 Pontiac Vibe) gets about 30-32 miles per gallon in highway driving. Using hypermiling techniques, however, I was able to get my fuel efficiency up to nearly 40 miles per gallon. That's a 25-30% improvement, and it translates directly into a 25-30% savings on gasoline costs.
Yes, this was just one trial, and yes, it was neither exact nor scientific, and yes, your mileage may vary (heh), but I encourage you to try some of these techniques yourself and see if you can see a difference. I'm guessing you will.
One final thought. Individually, many of these tips won’t have much of a noticeable impact on your gas mileage. But use a few--or all--of them and collectively they’ll be significant. It’s not that difficult, for example, to draft off the occasional truck here and there, build better acceleration and braking habits, and drive at a consistent and moderate speed. Just doing these things could improve your mileage by 10-20% with minimal effort. Try it--and reap the savings!
Readers, what do you think? What’s your favorite fuel saving technique?
For Further Reading:
1) MPG for Speed: a simple one-page site that walks though some of the mileage/fuel efficiency losses your car experiences at higher speeds.
2) What increased speed and air resistance does to your car’s fuel efficiency.
3) For the serious math geek: an article that looks at a several different ways to calculate energy loss at high driving speeds.
4) Top Ten Ways To Waste Gas.
5) How Does Ethanol Impact Fuel Efficiency?
6) Interesting and somewhat technical discussion thread on ethanol and fuel efficiency at the Eng-Tips Forum.
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:
environment,
saving money,
travel
CK Links--Friday August 8, 2014
Links from around the internet. As always, I welcome your thoughts.
PS: Follow me on Twitter!
*************************
Call me crazy, but avoiding added sugar for a year struck me as a grand adventure. (Mind Unleashed)
It takes a Canadian to show Americans how to eat well on a food stamp budget. PS: Don't miss the link to the free cookbook! (NPR)
Related: Did Mayor Corey Booker Really Try With His Food Stamp Challenge?
Wait: processed foods aren't all bad? (LinkedIn, via Addicted to Canning)
Why are so many low-income people so overweight? (Pacific Standard)
Another study claims organic food is more nutritious--except it's flawed too. (CNN)
In defense of the serious Bucket List. (Raptitude, via Ombailamos)
Interesting price comparison of air conditioners in the 1950s vs today. (Carpe Diem)
Things you should know about introverts. (Playfully Tacky, via Climb the Rainbow)
"If you never leave the small comfortable ideological circle that you belong to, you'll never develop as a human being." (Farnam Street)
Investors! A simple cure for confirmation bias. (The Big Picture)
Ditch the elliptical machine and get a real workout. (Diet Rebel)
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!
*************************
Call me crazy, but avoiding added sugar for a year struck me as a grand adventure. (Mind Unleashed)
It takes a Canadian to show Americans how to eat well on a food stamp budget. PS: Don't miss the link to the free cookbook! (NPR)
Related: Did Mayor Corey Booker Really Try With His Food Stamp Challenge?
Wait: processed foods aren't all bad? (LinkedIn, via Addicted to Canning)
Why are so many low-income people so overweight? (Pacific Standard)
Another study claims organic food is more nutritious--except it's flawed too. (CNN)
In defense of the serious Bucket List. (Raptitude, via Ombailamos)
Interesting price comparison of air conditioners in the 1950s vs today. (Carpe Diem)
Things you should know about introverts. (Playfully Tacky, via Climb the Rainbow)
"If you never leave the small comfortable ideological circle that you belong to, you'll never develop as a human being." (Farnam Street)
Investors! A simple cure for confirmation bias. (The Big Picture)
Ditch the elliptical machine and get a real workout. (Diet Rebel)
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
Toxic Kidney Beans?
We are, perhaps, uniquely among the earth’s creatures, the worrying animal. We worry away our lives, fearing the future, discontent with the present, unable to take in the idea of dying, unable to sit still.
--Lewis Thomas, The Medusa and the Snail
***********************
Readers, there's something new to worry about. If you want to, that is.
Toxic beans.
I learned about toxic beans thanks to a comment from Mike Vrobel at Dad Cooks Dinner on my Easy White Bean Stew recipe. Mike warned readers to watch out for the toxin phytohemagglutinin, which can be found in kidney beans and certain related white beans (cannellini beans for example, which are cousins of the kidney bean). Mike helpfully directed readers to a page at the US Food and Drug Administration's website discussing details of this risk (link here).
There's an easy fix, fortunately: just boil the beans for ten minutes or more. This breaks down the toxin.
But the possible problem here lies with kidney beans cooked in a crockpot or slow cooker while using the low setting. It's theoretically possible that someone's crockpot, on a low setting, might not bring the beans quite to the boiling point, which wouldn't break down the phytohemagglutinin toxin. You might then be eating toxic beans.
Clear so far?
Now, the easiest way to eliminate any risk of food-borne illness is to cook your food properly and thoroughly. If you're concerned about your crockpot's low setting while making my Easy Bean Soup, just look in on it after a few hours. Is the soup bubbling? If it is, you're in the clear.
However, I want to go further. I want to tackle this "toxic beans" issue on its own merits. Is this really a risk that we should worry about? Because, to be honest, it smells like yet another example of we here at Casual Kitchen call worry porn.
Before we analyze the true risk of toxic beans, I want to make two points. First, this is in no way a criticism of Mike. I love Mike's work. I always enjoy his insightful writing, and I've found significant value from his book Rotisserie Grilling, which is literally the reference guide on the subject. He's a credit to the food blog world, and I'm grateful he brought up this issue--not least because it gave me the idea for today's post.
Second, in no way whatsoever am I saying that the risk of toxic beans isn't real. It is real, as we will soon see. Just rare.
Except that, well, human spontaneous combustion is real too. And also rare. So rare, in fact, that we can safely ignore it as a risk.
So really, the question is: how rare is death or illness due to improperly cooked kidney beans? Is it rare enough that we can ignore it?
Remember, we are surrounded by worries, and surrounded by a system of media designed specifically to grab our attention with worrisome things. As a result--and despite the fact that life in the modern era has never been safer--we are worrying more than ever.
So, it's up to us to choose: will we submit to every seemingly convincing fear tossed at us? (Protip: they will all sound convincing.) Or will we consider the fear rationally and disregard it if it lacks merit?
I'll give you the punchline first. With toxic beans we quickly arrive at an obvious conclusion: disregard for lack of merit.
What's sad and disturbing about this particular worry, however, is how much exaggerated and even incorrect information I found sitting, right there, on the FDA's phytohemagglutinin toxin factsheet.*
We'll get to the errors in a minute. But first, let's look at the prevalence and probabilities behind "kidney bean syndrome." The FDA cites one primary paper citing specific cases of this toxicity from the UK (see bullet point #6 on the factsheet). This study cites, for example, seven examples of "outbreaks" from 1976-1979. If you hunt down the study (a quick Google search uncovers it: link here, see pages 236-237), the cases over this four year period involve a total of just 43 people in the UK, a country where kidney beans are rather popular and which (at the time) had a total population of 55 million. Of these 43 cases, everyone recovered rapidly, and no one died.
So, let's look at these four peak years of 1976-1979, when by far the worst burst of cases occurred, and let's calculate the worst-case odds: a per-annum risk rate of 1.95 x 10 -7, or, roughly, one chance in five million.** Infinitessimal. If you were to consider the longer period of 1976-1980 (the UK study lists an addendum of another small outbreak in 1980), or if you were to consider a related paper that found and studied 50 suspected cases of toxic beans (but confirmed only nine cases) between the fourteen year period of 1976-1989, the probabilities become laughably low.
Sure, this toxin may exist. But it cannot kill you. And unless you were alive in the 1970s in the UK and lottery-winner unlucky, it can't even make you sick. It seems more probable that "kidney bean syndrome" is rooted in some other factor--perhaps some idiosyncrasy with how beans were processed in that era in the UK, or perhaps a combination of processing techniques combined with improper cooking. Most likely the real root cause is simply unknowable.
What is known, however, is this syndrome's freakish level of infrequency. Despite this, the FDA somehow manages to claim on its factsheet that "this syndrome has occurred in the United Kingdom with some regularity." Worse, the FDA page appears to make a factual error in saying "in the seven outbreaks mentioned above, the attack rate was 100%." The 1980 study is not so definitive. Finally, in the primary 1980 study, all but one of the "outbreaks" came from eating raw kidney beans.
Okay. So don't eat raw kidney beans. You never needed to be convinced of that in the first place.
This next part I want to be sure I phrase carefully. On the factsheet under #10 ("Selected Outbreaks") the FDA links to the CDC's website, which provides a search of the term phytohemagglutinin. Here, the CDC website offers two entries, except that neither involve any instance of kidney bean toxicity at all.
The first of the two entries has nothing even to do with beans--it's a rodent study of isobutyl nitrite--something completely unrelated. The second entry, "Outbreaks of Gastrointestinal Illness of Unknown Etiology Associated with Eating Burritos: United States, October 1997-October 1998" essentially says "a very small number of people got sick eating burritos, and we don't really know why, but here are some possible reasons."
Except that the document itself says kidney bean toxicity couldn't have been the reason for these illnesses. Why? Because the questionable burritos contained... pinto beans, which don't contain the toxin in the first place.
I'll state it as clearly as I can: It's one thing for the FDA to use the phrase "with some regularity" in describing a food illness as freakishly rare as kidney bean poisoning. It's another thing entirely to link to "selected outbreaks" that are not actual outbreaks.
Forget worrying about toxic beans, I'm worried about the FDA's ability to inform us appropriately about health risks.
Look, I'm no one special. I'm neither a doctor nor a scientist. And yet I was able to easily identify clear exaggerations and factual inaccuracies on a public FDA factsheet. I expect this kind of shoddy work from, say, The Food Babe's website, not the FDA. This is our own government's food and drug regulatory body--the very people who are supposed to be in charge!
What's depressing about this--to me, at least--is how much time and due diligence it takes to follow up on links cited as evidence of a given health risk, only to find that the links aren't really evidence at all. Will the average reader search out all of the linked and unlinked sources behind the FDA's worry page to see if those links support what the FDA says they support? Do you have the time to do this? No one follows all the links and reads all the studies.***
I expect more from our FDA than a scaremongering factsheet with links to outbreaks that aren't. You should too.
So. Are you looking for more and more things to worry about? Do you think it's a coincidence that you keep finding them?
Readers, what do you think?
Related Posts:
The Cure for Worry Porn
Could Toxins Be Good For You?
Four Incredibly Useful Books on Fallacy and Cognitive Bias
Understand the True Nature of Consumer Retailing
Organic Food, Chemicals, and Worrying About All the Wrong Things
When It Comes To Banning Soda, Marion Nestle Fights Dirty
Footnotes:
* Perspicacious readers will note that the FDA factsheet says two things: "The content on this page is provided for reference purposes only. This content has not been altered or updated since it was archived." and further, that there is a new version of this reference guide (the "Bad Bug Book") available. Sadly, the new text (which you can find here, see page 254 in the PDF for the text on phytohemagglutinin) is substantially the same as the old text, and most importantly, the links and errors I criticize--including the CDC link to "outbreaks that aren't"--remain extant in the document. The errors survived into the new edition and were not checked or corrected.
** I'm making an implicit and extremely conservative assumption of one serving of possibly toxic beans per person per year on average in the UK. We all know the English love their beans.
*** Readers: this brings us a highly effective technique not only to instill fear and worry, but to win any online debate: just link to tons of stuff and pretend it supports your case! The sheer weight of all those links means you win. Who cares that they don’t say what you say they say? No one will check anyway.
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.
--Lewis Thomas, The Medusa and the Snail
***********************
Readers, there's something new to worry about. If you want to, that is.
Toxic beans.
I learned about toxic beans thanks to a comment from Mike Vrobel at Dad Cooks Dinner on my Easy White Bean Stew recipe. Mike warned readers to watch out for the toxin phytohemagglutinin, which can be found in kidney beans and certain related white beans (cannellini beans for example, which are cousins of the kidney bean). Mike helpfully directed readers to a page at the US Food and Drug Administration's website discussing details of this risk (link here).
There's an easy fix, fortunately: just boil the beans for ten minutes or more. This breaks down the toxin.
But the possible problem here lies with kidney beans cooked in a crockpot or slow cooker while using the low setting. It's theoretically possible that someone's crockpot, on a low setting, might not bring the beans quite to the boiling point, which wouldn't break down the phytohemagglutinin toxin. You might then be eating toxic beans.
Clear so far?
Now, the easiest way to eliminate any risk of food-borne illness is to cook your food properly and thoroughly. If you're concerned about your crockpot's low setting while making my Easy Bean Soup, just look in on it after a few hours. Is the soup bubbling? If it is, you're in the clear.
However, I want to go further. I want to tackle this "toxic beans" issue on its own merits. Is this really a risk that we should worry about? Because, to be honest, it smells like yet another example of we here at Casual Kitchen call worry porn.
Before we analyze the true risk of toxic beans, I want to make two points. First, this is in no way a criticism of Mike. I love Mike's work. I always enjoy his insightful writing, and I've found significant value from his book Rotisserie Grilling, which is literally the reference guide on the subject. He's a credit to the food blog world, and I'm grateful he brought up this issue--not least because it gave me the idea for today's post.
Second, in no way whatsoever am I saying that the risk of toxic beans isn't real. It is real, as we will soon see. Just rare.
Except that, well, human spontaneous combustion is real too. And also rare. So rare, in fact, that we can safely ignore it as a risk.
So really, the question is: how rare is death or illness due to improperly cooked kidney beans? Is it rare enough that we can ignore it?
Remember, we are surrounded by worries, and surrounded by a system of media designed specifically to grab our attention with worrisome things. As a result--and despite the fact that life in the modern era has never been safer--we are worrying more than ever.
So, it's up to us to choose: will we submit to every seemingly convincing fear tossed at us? (Protip: they will all sound convincing.) Or will we consider the fear rationally and disregard it if it lacks merit?
I'll give you the punchline first. With toxic beans we quickly arrive at an obvious conclusion: disregard for lack of merit.
What's sad and disturbing about this particular worry, however, is how much exaggerated and even incorrect information I found sitting, right there, on the FDA's phytohemagglutinin toxin factsheet.*
We'll get to the errors in a minute. But first, let's look at the prevalence and probabilities behind "kidney bean syndrome." The FDA cites one primary paper citing specific cases of this toxicity from the UK (see bullet point #6 on the factsheet). This study cites, for example, seven examples of "outbreaks" from 1976-1979. If you hunt down the study (a quick Google search uncovers it: link here, see pages 236-237), the cases over this four year period involve a total of just 43 people in the UK, a country where kidney beans are rather popular and which (at the time) had a total population of 55 million. Of these 43 cases, everyone recovered rapidly, and no one died.
So, let's look at these four peak years of 1976-1979, when by far the worst burst of cases occurred, and let's calculate the worst-case odds: a per-annum risk rate of 1.95 x 10 -7, or, roughly, one chance in five million.** Infinitessimal. If you were to consider the longer period of 1976-1980 (the UK study lists an addendum of another small outbreak in 1980), or if you were to consider a related paper that found and studied 50 suspected cases of toxic beans (but confirmed only nine cases) between the fourteen year period of 1976-1989, the probabilities become laughably low.
Sure, this toxin may exist. But it cannot kill you. And unless you were alive in the 1970s in the UK and lottery-winner unlucky, it can't even make you sick. It seems more probable that "kidney bean syndrome" is rooted in some other factor--perhaps some idiosyncrasy with how beans were processed in that era in the UK, or perhaps a combination of processing techniques combined with improper cooking. Most likely the real root cause is simply unknowable.
What is known, however, is this syndrome's freakish level of infrequency. Despite this, the FDA somehow manages to claim on its factsheet that "this syndrome has occurred in the United Kingdom with some regularity." Worse, the FDA page appears to make a factual error in saying "in the seven outbreaks mentioned above, the attack rate was 100%." The 1980 study is not so definitive. Finally, in the primary 1980 study, all but one of the "outbreaks" came from eating raw kidney beans.
Okay. So don't eat raw kidney beans. You never needed to be convinced of that in the first place.
This next part I want to be sure I phrase carefully. On the factsheet under #10 ("Selected Outbreaks") the FDA links to the CDC's website, which provides a search of the term phytohemagglutinin. Here, the CDC website offers two entries, except that neither involve any instance of kidney bean toxicity at all.
The first of the two entries has nothing even to do with beans--it's a rodent study of isobutyl nitrite--something completely unrelated. The second entry, "Outbreaks of Gastrointestinal Illness of Unknown Etiology Associated with Eating Burritos: United States, October 1997-October 1998" essentially says "a very small number of people got sick eating burritos, and we don't really know why, but here are some possible reasons."
Except that the document itself says kidney bean toxicity couldn't have been the reason for these illnesses. Why? Because the questionable burritos contained... pinto beans, which don't contain the toxin in the first place.
I'll state it as clearly as I can: It's one thing for the FDA to use the phrase "with some regularity" in describing a food illness as freakishly rare as kidney bean poisoning. It's another thing entirely to link to "selected outbreaks" that are not actual outbreaks.
Forget worrying about toxic beans, I'm worried about the FDA's ability to inform us appropriately about health risks.
Look, I'm no one special. I'm neither a doctor nor a scientist. And yet I was able to easily identify clear exaggerations and factual inaccuracies on a public FDA factsheet. I expect this kind of shoddy work from, say, The Food Babe's website, not the FDA. This is our own government's food and drug regulatory body--the very people who are supposed to be in charge!
What's depressing about this--to me, at least--is how much time and due diligence it takes to follow up on links cited as evidence of a given health risk, only to find that the links aren't really evidence at all. Will the average reader search out all of the linked and unlinked sources behind the FDA's worry page to see if those links support what the FDA says they support? Do you have the time to do this? No one follows all the links and reads all the studies.***
I expect more from our FDA than a scaremongering factsheet with links to outbreaks that aren't. You should too.
So. Are you looking for more and more things to worry about? Do you think it's a coincidence that you keep finding them?
Readers, what do you think?
Related Posts:
The Cure for Worry Porn
Could Toxins Be Good For You?
Four Incredibly Useful Books on Fallacy and Cognitive Bias
Understand the True Nature of Consumer Retailing
Organic Food, Chemicals, and Worrying About All the Wrong Things
When It Comes To Banning Soda, Marion Nestle Fights Dirty
Footnotes:
* Perspicacious readers will note that the FDA factsheet says two things: "The content on this page is provided for reference purposes only. This content has not been altered or updated since it was archived." and further, that there is a new version of this reference guide (the "Bad Bug Book") available. Sadly, the new text (which you can find here, see page 254 in the PDF for the text on phytohemagglutinin) is substantially the same as the old text, and most importantly, the links and errors I criticize--including the CDC link to "outbreaks that aren't"--remain extant in the document. The errors survived into the new edition and were not checked or corrected.
** I'm making an implicit and extremely conservative assumption of one serving of possibly toxic beans per person per year on average in the UK. We all know the English love their beans.
*** Readers: this brings us a highly effective technique not only to instill fear and worry, but to win any online debate: just link to tons of stuff and pretend it supports your case! The sheer weight of all those links means you win. Who cares that they don’t say what you say they say? No one will check anyway.
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 Links--Friday August 1, 2014
Links from around the internet. As always, I welcome your thoughts.
PS: Follow me on Twitter!
*************************
Millennials aren't impressed by brand name products either. (Forbes)
Related: The Do-Nothing Brand.
"I was wrong. We should be FEASTING on fat." (Daily Mail)
We are drowning in "stripped carbs." (Michael Ruhlman)
One of the all-time best posts on why it's pointless--toxic, even--to keep up with the news. (Mr. Money Mustache)
All your trigger warnings are triggering me! By the author of the seminal book The Best and the Brightest. (Bully Bloggers) [warning: long]
Teens and expenses. How we do it. (Owlhaven)
The introspection illusion: why positive thinking is not a positive thing for investors. (Abnormal Returns)
Critical investing concepts you must unlearn, including bragging at cocktail parties. (A Wealth of Common Sense)
"I started to realize how important my memory could be. And then, eventually, I realized that it can get me into trouble." (ESPN)
Read this essay and you'll never want to send your kid to an Ivy League university. Ever. (New Republic)
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!
*************************
Millennials aren't impressed by brand name products either. (Forbes)
Related: The Do-Nothing Brand.
"I was wrong. We should be FEASTING on fat." (Daily Mail)
We are drowning in "stripped carbs." (Michael Ruhlman)
One of the all-time best posts on why it's pointless--toxic, even--to keep up with the news. (Mr. Money Mustache)
All your trigger warnings are triggering me! By the author of the seminal book The Best and the Brightest. (Bully Bloggers) [warning: long]
Teens and expenses. How we do it. (Owlhaven)
The introspection illusion: why positive thinking is not a positive thing for investors. (Abnormal Returns)
Critical investing concepts you must unlearn, including bragging at cocktail parties. (A Wealth of Common Sense)
"I started to realize how important my memory could be. And then, eventually, I realized that it can get me into trouble." (ESPN)
Read this essay and you'll never want to send your kid to an Ivy League university. Ever. (New Republic)
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)