Category: Food and Drink
Calgary is resuming with fluoride, and Quebec fact of the day
The taste and smell won’t change, but starting on Monday something was different about Calgary’s water supply — fluoride is back in the taps across the city in Western Canada.
Fluoride, a mineral found in water, has widely established dental benefits shown to strengthen the tooth surface, or enamel, and help prevent decay.
Calgary stopped adding fluoride to its water supply in 2011, deciding that the cost to treat its system with the mineral outweighed the benefits.
But a push by city residents coupled by worsening oral health among children has led Calgary officials to reverse course…
In Canada, roughly 39 percent of Canadians have access to fluoridated water, a government report says, and availability varies greatly across provinces. Less than 2 percent of the population in Quebec and British Columbia, the second- and third-largest provinces in Canada after Ontario, fluoridate their water.
Here is more from the NYT.
Flying on Frying Oil
The ever-excellent Matt Levine points us to the amusing economic policies that connect the international jet-set to Malaysian street hawkers of fried noodles. The EU and the US have created strong economic incentives to create sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) and a good way to do this is to recycle used cooking oil (UCO). What could be better, right? Take a waste product and turn it into jet fuel! The EU and US policies, however, are so strong that all the EU and US used cooking oil cannot meet the demand. Here’s a great sentence, “Europe simply cannot collect enough used cooking oil to fly its planes.”
In the US, credits under the Inflation Reduction Act can account for up to $1.75 to $1.85 per gallon of SAF. Meanwhile cooking oil is subsidized in some 
parts of the world. The result?
It turns out that restaurants, street food stalls and home cooks in Malaysia — which is “among the world’s leading suppliers of both UCO and virgin palm oil” — will pay less for fresh cooking oil than the international market will pay for used cooking oil. Fresh cooking oil is more useful to cooks than used cooking oil (it tastes better), but it is less useful to refiners and airlines than used cooking oil (it doesn’t reduce their carbon impact). Also fresh cooking oil is subsidized by the government in Malaysia: “Subsidised cooking oil sells for RM2.50 per kg versus the UCO trading price of up to RM4.50 per kg.” So if you run a restaurant, you can buy fresh cooking oil for about $0.60 (USD), use it to fry food a few times, and then sell it to a refiner for $1, which is a nice little subsidy for the difficult, risky, low-margin business of running a restaurant.
The noodle hawkers in Kuala Lumpur are getting a nice little bump in profit but who is going stall to stall to check that the oil is in fact used? And what counts as used? One fry or two? Clever entrepreneurs have cut out the middleman. Virgin palm oil can be substituted for used cooking oil and voila! Sustainable aviation fuel is contributing to deforestation in Malaysia. Malaysia exports far more “used” cooking oil than oil that it uses. No surprise.
All of this illustrates a broader point: externalities suggest policy interventions may improve outcomes but markets are complex and politics is blunt. It’s easy to make things worse. If intervention is necessary, a uniform carbon tax beats a patchwork of production-specific subsidies. A price is a signal wrapped up in an incentive. Send everyone the same signal and the same incentive to ensure that the cheapest emissions are cut first and total costs are minimized.
Crucially, a carbon tax rewards any effective solution, even ones a planner would never think of–lighter planes and cleaner fuels sure but also operational tweaks like jet washes. In contrast, subsidies tether policy to specific technologies, like used cooking oil. That invites rent-seeking and inefficiency.
Tax carbon, not inputs. Avoid games with paperwork. One verification point at the fuel supply point is simpler than tracing global waste-oil chains. Don’t subsidize the fry oil and audit the street hawkers. Tax the emissions.
Canine supply was elastic, too, South Korea edition
South Korea has now banned the dog meat trade:
Chan-woo has 18 months to get rid of 600 dogs.
After that, the 33-year-old meat farmer – who we agreed to anonymise for fear of backlash – faces a penalty of up to two years in prison.
“Realistically, even just on my farm, I can’t process the number of dogs I have in that time,” he says. “At this point I’ve invested all of my assets [into the farm] – and yet they are not even taking the dogs.”
By “they”, Chan-woo doesn’t just mean the traders and butchers who, prior to the ban, would buy an average of half a dozen dogs per week.
He’s also referring to the animal rights activists and authorities who in his view, having fought so hard to outlaw the dog meat trade, have no clear plan for what to do with the leftover animals – of which there are close to 500,000, according to government estimates.
“They [the authorities] passed the law without any real plan, and now they’re saying they can’t even take the dogs.”
…A spokesperson from the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (Mafra) told the BBC that if farm owners gave up their dogs, local governments would assume ownership and manage them in shelters.
Here is the full BBC story, via Rich Dewey.
Have Appliances Declined in Durability?
Many Americans believe that their appliances have become less durable and reliable over recent decades. Rachel Wharton at Wirecutter has an excellent piece pushing back. Her conclusions mirror what I found when looking at clothing quality: yes, there has been a modest decline in durability, but the main drivers are customer preferences, regulatory shifts, and Baumol effects—not corporate malfeasance or cultural decline.
“Everybody talks about the Maytag washing machine that lasts 50 years,” said Daniel Conrad, a former product engineer at Whirlpool Corporation who is now the director of design quality, reliability, and testing for a commercial-refrigeration company. “No one talks about the other 4.5 million that didn’t last that long.”
The available evidence suggests that appliance lifespans have decreased only modestly over the past few decades. Recent research from the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers trade group shows that in 2010 most appliances lasted from 11 to 16 years. By 2019, those numbers had dropped, to a range of nine to 14 years. (In some cases, such as for gas ranges and dryers, the lifespans actually increased.)
The modest decline is partially explained by regulation:
Every appliance service technician I spoke to — each with decades of experience repairing machines from multiple brands — immediately blamed federal regulations for water and energy efficiency for most frustrations with modern appliances.
…The main culprit is the set of efficiency standards for water and energy use for all cooking, refrigeration, and cleaning appliances.
The regulations change often and push producers to make changes that consumers don’t necessarily want like switching to lighter plastic parts rather than metal or by adding sophisticated computer controls that increase efficiency but also introduce new break points. See my previous posts on these issues here and here.
But as with clothing, another reason for reduced durability is that many consumers don’t want durable appliances–instead consumers want the latest model with all the whizz-bang features. (Sure, I don’t want this and you don’t want it but heh, they sell!) In other words, appliances and their colors, features and styles have become items of fashion.
And people’s desire for new things only appears to be growing. Petrino Ball said her sales research at AJ Madison showed that today consumers are buying new appliances every eight years, even if what they had before hasn’t fully failed.
…Whitney Welch, a spokesperson for GE Appliances, told me that its research showed consumers are often replacing appliances for aesthetic reasons….
If many customers don’t want to keep appliances for more than 10 years then it doesn’t pay to make them last more than 10 years.
The big story isn’t declining durability but declining price:
In 1972, Sears sold a clothes washer for $220 and a dryer for $90, per 2022 research by AARP Magazine. That’s about $2,389 in 2025, adjusted for inflation. Today you can get a washer-and-dryer pair on sale from Sears for around $1,200.
The Baumol effect means that repair is rising in price relative to buying new which is another reason why we don’t keep products around as long as we did when we were poorer and it it made sense to fix broken goods:
….prices on most new models are so low, his first suggestion to customers is to just replace the appliance. “If the cost of repair is 50% of replacement, throw it cleanly away,” he said. “If it’s 40%, consider the option.”
“Labor is highly skilled,” he added. “It can’t compete with low prices.”
In many cases, it can’t compete with lost time, either. Repairs often require waiting a few days or weeks for parts, said Petrino Ball. “Even one day without a washer-dryer or fridge is really hard for many families,” she said, “but if you buy one, you can have it the next day.”
Moreover, as I argued with clothes, it is possible to find durable appliances if you shop carefully. Interestingly, Wharton notes that you can either go high or low. The top-of-the-line appliances from Sub-Zero and Wolf do last longer but they are very expensive and often do not include whizz-bang features. Alternatively, you can go low–buy a GE or Sears refrigerator and get it without frills–no ice or water dispenser, no electronics, no lux colors and chances are it will last a long time.
In short, appliance durability hasn’t collapsed—it’s evolved to meet consumer demand. We’re not being ripped off. We are getting better products at better prices. Rising incomes have simply redefined what “better” means.
Bordeaux observations
The central core is one of the most consistent eighteenth century cities you will find in Europe. Until the visit, my first there, I had not realized how much of the town’s growth came during that time, in part because of some special trade privileges, and in part because of the slave trade. Here is some 18th century economic history of Bordeaux. The central plazas and radiating streets are splendid, as is the large Girondins monument nearby.
The main museum is subpar, with some good Redons (he is from there), and the main church is pretty good but excelled by other locales. In this sense there is not much to do in Bordeaux. There is, however, some good modern and also brutalist architecture near and across the main river bank. Check out this bridge. I enjoyed these creations, as they injected some element of surprise into my visit.
You can still get an excellent meal at the nearby country chateaus, but if you just stop for normal French food in the town it is pretty mediocre, not better than say WDC. The classic French food traditions are moving more and more into corners of the country, and away from everyday life.
Typically I am surprised by how normal France feels. People want to say “The French this, the French that…” but to me they are fairly Americanized, often speak good English, and have few truly unique cultural habits these days. They also seem reasonably well adjusted, normal mostly in the good sense, and thus of course somewhat boring too.
Walking and driving through the less salubrious parts of town is a useful corrective, but I do not feel the place is falling apart. And the best estimates are that six to nine percent of the city is Muslim, hardly an overwhelming number.
I learned just before leaving that Kevin Bryan was in town too, here are his observations. Bordeaux is certainly worth visiting, but I also am not surprised it is the last major French city I have been to in my life.
Hayek Goes Supersonic
When I post about lifting the ban on supersonic flight, smart commenters show up with charts: optimal fuel burn is at Mach 0.78–0.84, they say, or no one wants to pay thousands to save a few hours. Maybe. But my reply is always the same: Bottled water!
In 2024, Americans spent $47 billion a year on H₂O that they could get for nearly free. That still boggles my mind—but bottled water has passed the market test. I argue for lifting the SST ban, and similar policies, not because we know supersonics will work but because we don’t. Hayek reminds us that competition is a discovery procedure. Like science, markets generate knowledge by experiment—hypotheses are posted as prices, and the public accepts or rejects them through revealed preference. Fred Smith’s FedEx plan got a “C” in the classroom, but the market graded the experiment and returned an A in equity. Theory is great, but just as in science, there is no substitute for running the experiment.
Travel bleg for Avila, Salamanca, Segovia, and other smaller places nearby
Your suggestions are most welcome, thank you!
The Bank of Starbucks
Connor Tabarrok points out that Starbucks is also a bit of a bank:
In 2011, Starbucks rolled out the ability to load money onto a virtual card via their mobile app. purchases made with these pre-loaded dollars earned extra rewards points, which could eventually be redeemed for free drinks. According to their quarterly report from this March, through the app pre-payment system and physical gift cards, Starbucks owes almost $2 billion in coffee to it’s customers.
…The company can treat this money as a 0% interest loan, and with about 10% of funds eventually being forgotten, it’s actually a negative interest loan.
Starbucks can make money on the float and it makes more money as interest rates rise. At $2 billion and 4% they can earn about $80 million annually on the float. Moreover, breakage (some money on the cards is never redeemed) is running at about 10% so that’s another $200 million a year for a grand total of $280 million or a little over 5% of the $5 billion in operating profit. Not a game changer but also not bad for free money.
As interest rates rise, the value to Starbucks of pre-loaded cards increases. So does the cost to users but I suspect supply incentives will dominate here so you can expect to see Starbuck’s pushing these cards.
H5N1 Hasn’t Gone Away
Trump dominates the news cycle but it’s important to remember that events continue even when not watched. In particular, we are not winning against H5N1. Here’s a summary of a recent paper in Science:
High-pathogenicity avian influenza subtype H5N1 is now present throughout the US, and possibly beyond. More cattle infections elevate the risk of the virus evolving the capacity to transmit between humans, potentially with high fatality rates. Nguyen et al. show that from a single transmission event from a wild bird to dairy cattle in December 2023, there has been cattle-to-poultry, cattle-to-peridomestic bird, and cattle-to-other mammal transmission. The movement of asymptomatic dairy cattle has facilitated the rapid dissemination of H5N1 from Texas across the US. Evolution within cattle, assessed using deep-sequencing data, has detected low-frequency sequence variants that had previously been associated with mammalian adaptation and transmission efficiency.
Our non-eggcellent regulations
Germany, Italy, Poland and Sweden are among the nations the U.S. Department of Agriculture approached to address the shortage brought on by a bird flu outbreak, according to European industry groups.
But supplying Americans with eggs would be complicated for foreign producers — but not because of political tensions over the myriad import tariffs President Donald Trump has imposed or threatened to impose on his nation’s top trading partners.
Even if they were eager to share, European countries don’t have many surplus eggs because of their own avian flu outbreaks and the growing domestic demand ahead of Easter.
One of the biggest obstacles, however, is the approach the United States takes to preventing salmonella contamination. U.S. food safety regulations require fresh eggs to be sanitized and refrigerated before they reach shoppers; in the European Union, safety standards call for Grade A eggs to be sold unwashed and without extended chilling.
Here is the full story, via Rich Dewey. So no, American scientists will not be moving to Europe — their eggs are too dangerous. And yes it is Germany too:
It is common in parts of Europe, for example, for consumers to buy eggs that still have feathers and chicken poop stuck to them.
Here is Patrick Collison, comparing the virtues of America to the virtues of Europe. I do not mind that he left out the chicken poop, for me it is a sign of authenticity. As for eggs, the best ones I ever had were in Chile.
America’s Tourism Deficit: How the French Are Winning the Currency War One Croissant at a Time
Every year, American tourists pour billions of dollars into France, wandering the Louvre, sipping overpriced espresso in Montmartre, and snapping selfies along the Seine—while far fewer French tourists bother making the reverse pilgrimage to admire, say, Disney World. The result? A massive tourism deficit.
On paper, this reflects wealth differentials and revealed preferences – Americans, being richer and more numerous than the French, express a high demand for old world Parisian experiences. But behind this innocent wanderlust is something more sinister. When Americans vacation in France, that’s counted as a US import of tourism. When French people vacation here—fewer, more begrudgingly—that’s a US export. So voilà, the tourism deficit creates a trade deficit, an excess of imports over exports!
The tourism deficit means there is a steady leak of the world’s reserve currency into the hands of a nation famous for its cheese, wine, and suspicion of American capitalism. France, using little more than museums and moodiness, is accumulating dollars from innocent American travelers. And they’re not just hoarding them for kicks. Those dollars are claims on real assets. First it’s a Napa vineyard. Then a Brooklyn fintech startup. Eventually, who knows? The Port of Long Beach? The Federal Reserve’s snack bar?
Make no mistake: France’s true comparative advantage isn’t wine or luxury goods—it’s the ruthless extraction of tourism dollars, performed with flawless precision, a disdainful shrug, and a little help from Emily in Paris. We’re being out-traded, one overpriced pastry at a time, by a nation whose strategic horizon spans centuries—and whose Netflix marketing is impeccable.
The political implications are, shall we say, obvious.
From now on, we demand a tourism balance. No more visa waivers, no more jet-setting to Provence until they send an equal number of French tourists to Branson, Missouri. It’s high time the French get over their Napoleon complex and start to appreciate American corn dogs and Dolly Parton. France needs to treat us with the same respect as the friendly countries that enthusiastically dispatch high-spending tourists to our shores.
It’s one-for-one, or the deal is off. Tourism parity or rien! Point final.
Thwarted arbitrage?
US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has intercepted an increasing number of eggs from Mexico, where a carton of a dozen costs about $2. For comparison, the cost in many parts of California is just under $10 per dozen, according to the United States Department of Agriculture.
Nationally, there has been a 48% increase in eggs being detained at ports of entry this fiscal year compared with the same time last fiscal year, according to CBP. In San Diego, these “egg interception” cases have increased by a whopping 158%.
Every day, more than 200,000 cars cross the border from Mexico to the United States.
…Once confiscated, the eggs are destroyed by officials in oven-sized incinerators.
Here is the full Guardian story.
My first trip to Haiti
This was in 1994, right after the Aristide regime was restored by Clinton. I had traveled a good deal by that time, mostly in North America, Europe, and southeast Asia. But I had never been anywhere truly dangerous. It seemed impossible to visit such places. It is not that I did any serious risk calculation, rather the option simply was not part of my mental toolkit.
But somehow I started thinking about visiting Haiti. It seemed like it would be the most dangerous place I could possibly choose. I had this recurring mental image that I could not even set out on the street without someone coming along and cutting off one of my arms with a machete.
And so I bought my ticket. I suppose I viewed this as a kind of challenge. I also knew that if it went OK, I would end up going to a lot of other places as well.
Not long before the trip, I was on the phone with my friend Christopher Weber, the renowned investor, writer, and Offenbach scholar. I mentioned I was going and next thing you know Chris, being a “bounder of adventure,” was coming along with me.
I arrived in Haiti first. As I walked into the baggage and pick-up area of the airport (lovely live compa music), some men immediately grabbed my bags and took them from me. “Uh-oh.” In fact they brought them to the cab and wanted a tip, and they didn’t want anyone else carrying my bags first. High-trust oases in low-trust countries remains a very interesting topic to me, to this day.
I stayed in Pétion-Ville, the wealthier “suburb” of Port-au-Prince, known for its restaurants and nightlife, and I loved the place. The food, music, and art were all amazing, and they were everywhere. You could find interesting artwork on many of the street corners and for very low prices. A known artist might be selling a work for $200. I bought a political satire piece by Maxan Jean-Louis entitled “Aristide’s Wedding,” showing his semi-forced alliance with the United States military. I also bought “Soccer Angels” by the great Jean-Baptiste Jean, and a Claude d’Ambreville painting of women with basket on their heads, now a Haitian standard. That set me off buying art.
The architecture was amazing — think a more elaborate New Orleans style — but very badly ailing, you could even say collapsing.
My favorite dishes were the “combie hash,” the Dinde (a small turkey, best I have had), and the seafood mixing French and Caribbean influences. The tender conch (lambi) is arguably the Haitian national dish. The rice and beans cooked in mushroom juice was another delight, totally new to me. At the time it was obviously the best food in the Caribbean.
My arms remained intact, and walking around Petitionville required some basic caution but did not feel dangerous. Furthermore, the population at that time was hopeful for the future, so it felt very good to be there. The storytellers communicated an appropriate sense of drama.
After a day of walking around, Chris and I rented a car, which was in retrospect an unsound thing to do. We drove to Moulin Sur Mer, a “resort” on the ocean, originally an 18th century sugar plantation. Only a few other people were staying there and one of them appeared to be a Dominican drug lord family. Inside one of the buildings was a list of all the Haitian presidents, and at times the rate is about one leader per year — “model this.” I recalled Hegel’s adage that governments based on voodoo religion were bound to be unstable.
The water was lovely, but the drive to and from Moulin Sur Mer was not uneventful. On the way back, at a service station, a man pulled a submachine gun on Chris and asked for a rather favorable exchange rate on our gasoline purchase. Another man ran at the car and tried to jump on the roof as we drove past. I still am not sure whether he wanted to commandeer the vehicle or simply was looking for a free bus ride (Haitians frequently ride on the tops of their buses).
In any case we pressed on, and it didn’t all seem that dangerous after all. I went away vowing to return, and indeed over the years I was to make four more trips to Haiti, as it became one of my favorite countries. The next time I went I met Selden and Carole Rodman in the line boarding the flight from Miami, and that was to change my life yet again…
The Curious Surge of Productivity in U.S. Restaurants
We document that, after remaining almost constant for almost 30 years, real labor productivity at U.S. restaurants surged over 15% during the COVID pandemic. This surge has persisted even as many conditions have returned to pre-pandemic levels. Using mobile phone data tracking visits and spending at more than 100,000 individual limited service restaurants across the country, we explore the potential sources of the surge. It cannot be explained by economies of scale, expanding market power, or a direct result of COVID-sourced demand fluctuations. The restaurants’ productivity growth rates are strongly correlated, however, with reductions in the amount of time their customers spend in the establishments, particularly with a rising share of customers spending 10 minutes or less. The frequency of such ‘take-out’ customers rose considerably during COVID, even at fast food restaurants, and never went back down. The magnitude of the restaurant-level relationship between productivity and customer dwell time, if applied to the aggregate decrease in dwell time, can explain almost all of the aggregate productivity increase in our sample.
That is from a new paper by
Hire Don’t Fire at the FDA
As a longtime critic of the FDA, you might expect me to support firing FDA employees—not so! My focus has always been on reducing approval time and costs to speed drugs to patients and increase the number of new drugs. Cutting staff is more likely to slow approvals and raise costs.
To be fair, we’re talking about the firing of some 200 probationary employees from a total of some 20,000. Unusual but not earth shaking. But the firings are indiscriminate, and as I explain below, the FDA is a peculiar target for cost-cutting because user fees under PDUFA cover a significant share of the FDA’s budget so its workers are among the cheapest federal employees. So what is the point? Shock and awe in advance of bigger reforms for the FDA? Perhaps. Regardless, I think we should keep in mind the big picture on staff and speed.
The Prescription Drug User Fee Act of 1992 (PDUFA) provides strong evidence that with more staff the FDA works faster to get new and better drugs to patients. Before PDUFA, drug approvals languished at the FDA simply due to a lack of staff—harming both drug companies and patients. Congress should have increased FDA funding, as the benefits would have far outweighed the costs, but Congress failed. Instead, PDUFA created a workaround: drug firms agreed to pay user fees, with the condition that the funds be used for drug reviewers and that the FDA be held to strict review standards.
PDUFA was a tremendous success. Carpenter et al., Olson, Berndt et al. and others all find that PDUFA shortened review times and it did so primarily through the mechanism of hiring more staff. Thus, Carpenter et al. report “NDA review times shortened by 3.3 months for every 100 additional FDA staff.” Moreover, the faster approval times came at little to no expense of reduced safety. Thus, Berndt et al. report:
implementation of the PDUFAs led to substantial incremental reductions in approval times beyond what would have been observed in the absence of these legislative acts. In addition, our preliminary examination of the trends in the number of new molecular entity withdrawals, frequently used as a proxy to assess the FDA’s safety record, suggests that the proportion of approvals ultimately leading to safety withdrawals prior to PDUFA and during PDUFA I and II were not statistically different.
And in a later analysis Philipson et al. find that:
more rapid access of drugs on the market enabled by PDUFA saved the equivalent of 140,000 to 310,000 life years. Additionally, we estimate an upper bound on the adverse effects of PDUFA based on drugs submitted during PDUFA I/II and subsequently withdrawn for safety reasons, and find that an extreme upper bound of about 56,000 life years were lost. This estimate is an extreme upper bound as it assumes all withdrawals since the inception of PDUFA were due to PDUFA and that there were no patients who benefitted from the withdrawn drugs.
If we’re going to have FDA review, it should be fast and efficient. We need to shift the focus from the FDA’s balance sheet in the Federal budget to the patients it serves—more staff means faster reviews, better access to treatments, and a healthier society.
More generally, government regulation, not staffing, is the real problem. Cut regulation, and staff cuts can follow. Cut staff without cutting regulation, and the morass only gets worse.