Results for “food” 1949 found
Food in Istanbul
My favorite sight has been the mother-daughter pair I saw on the Bosporous ferry. They were hugging each other on the bench and had virtually the same profile features, yet the mother carried full traditional dress and the daughter wore a mini-skirt and was otherwise dressed comparably. They loved each other dearly.
How you interpret these women is central to how you view Istanbul. One intuition is that they are quite alike, another is that they are quite different.
And the food? You can eat the traditional dishes, in simpler settings, or you can pay extra to eat them — slightly modified — in more gussied up surroundings. The key to eating well here is to go simple and to look for the best and purest versions of straightforward dishes. World class raw ingredients are at your disposal, if only you don't let anyone ruin them.
It's not hard to find the good stuff. Thousands of street restaurants offer seafood (the fried small smelts are my favorite, then the sea bream or "levrek"), eggplants, fava beans, doner kebab, fried mussels, salads with cheese and tomatoes, lamb brains, fried and baked potatoes, Turkish ravioli (harder to find), spicy kabob with sumac, and other delicacies. It is common for the small restaurants to specialize, an indication of quality. A meal in these places, with one small portion, will cost six to ten dollars but you can (and should) order more. Turkish sweets are the dessert and I prefer something with pistachio.
The rest is a sideshow. Avoid all restaurants near the main sights or near clusters of tourist hotels. Avoid most of the places — even Turkish ones — on the main thoroughfares. Look for the neighborhood side streets with clusters of these small restaurants, just off the larger roads. If you order small dishes, you can visit two or three restaurants in one meal, no problem.
My favorite small Istanbul restaurants have been the soup houses, especially the tripe soup (NB: you don't have to like most tripe dishes to enjoy these creations). You ladle in some liquid garlic sauce, paprika, a bit of chili pepper, and a green herb of some kind. Some of these places are open for breakfast.
Unless you've bled this city dry and sampled all the major dishes (which would take a long time), the return to going upscale, or seeking innovation, is not overwhelming. What happens is that you're either paying higher prices to be in the company of attractive Turkish women or to impress attractive Turkish women who are already in your company. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but the basic market model here is segregation of restaurant type. If it's food you're after, don't pay more for the culinary twists. The food will remain recognizably Mediterranean but it won't be the classic treatment you are looking for and which to you is still original on the fifth day of your trip.
If your restaurant has a good number of attractive Turkish women in it, perhaps you made a food mistake. Or should I say a money mistake? Or what kind of mistake? The cuisine still will be good.
The good here is very good and the best isn't that much better.
The new food pessimism
This LRB article by Jeremy Harding articulates an increasing fear that food markets will not operate smoothly over the next decade or two. He gives some major reasons (only partially reproduced here) to be pessimistic:
The first is the nature and extent of population growth: we are six billion now and by 2030 we’ll be eight billion…
The second is ‘the nutrition transition’: generations that once lived on grains, pulses and legumes have been replaced by more prosperous people with a taste for meat and dairy. Crops like maize which once fed many of us directly now feed fewer of us indirectly, via a costly diversion from which they emerge in the value-added form of meat. Global production of food – all food – will have to increase by 50 per cent over the next 20 years to cater for two billion extra people and cope with the rising demand for meat.
The third factor is energy: the industrial production of food is sure to become more expensive as fuel costs rise. It takes 160 litres of oil to produce a tonne of maize in the US; natural gas accounts for at least three-quarters of the cost of making nitrogen fertiliser; freight, too, depends on fuel.
Land is the fourth. The amount of the world’s land given over to agriculture continues to grow (in the UK, roughly 70 per cent of land is agricultural), but in per capita terms it’s shrinking. As with oil, it’s possible to envisage ‘peak food’ (the point of maximum production, followed by decline), ‘peak phosphorus’, i.e. the high point in the use of phosphate fertiliser (one estimate puts it at 2035), and, as the FAO suggests in its diplomatic way, ‘peak land’: the point at which the total area of the world’s most productive land begins to diminish (soil exhaustion, climate change) and marginal land comes up for reassessment.
[Fifth] Alternative fuels are reducing the amount of land available for growing food.
The Julian Simon-savvy crowd that reads MR might not be so impressed, but I wouldn't write off these worries so quickly. On the list, #1 and #2 do not impress me per se, but they do require that market mechanisms of adjustment be allowed to operate. Note that agriculture and land markets are highly regulated around the world and that you don't have to read this as a story of market failure. As for #3, most energy is mispriced today. Keeping it cheap means growing pressure on that externality, while taxing it means a solid whack to a lot of food markets. #5 stems from bad government policies. Another problem, mentioned later by Harding, is that very often water for agriculture is subsidized and unsustainably so. Keeping water cheap means growing pressure on that externality, while removing the subsidies (which I favor) means a solid whack to a lot of food markets, at least in the short run. The world as a whole is consuming its capital of aquifers and the like and engaging in short-term thinking by refusing to let the price of water rise as it ought to. Internalizing all the relevant externalities, and increasing sustainable long-run production, would in fact mean big "tax" hikes on growing food today.
There is also a critical scale at which fertilizer run-off and erosion externalities start to matter at a level beyond which we are accustomed to seeing.
I believe these factors mean a stronger case for agricultural free trade, rather than "localism," yet at the same time removing the subsidies for sprawl. Yet so far the people worried most about these issues are often the ones with the least economically informed answers. It would be a mistake to, say, mock Paul Ehrlich's earlier doom-saying predictions and ignore these problems altogether.
The economics of dog food
How does the environmental impact of a dog compare to that of an SUV? Via Robert Nagle in the MR comments section, here is one article defending the dog. It makes many good points but right now I am especially interested in this passage:
…most dogs DO NOT eat meat and cereals. With a few exceptions, they eat “meat” and “cereals.” The “meat,” in particular, tends to be byproducts–things that people in the US simply won’t eat, even in hot dogs.
Does that mean that the cow parts are a "free lunch," environmentally speaking? Let's say you have a dogless world and the cow organs are thrown away. Dogs come along and suddenly those organs are sold to dog food companies. The profit margin on cows increases. The supply of cows goes up, as more resources are put into raising cows, and that means more cow emissions. This process continues until the (private) costs of cow production rise, and/or the prices of cow products fall. In other words, it depends on elasticities but the dog diets do have an environmental impact.
Why don’t more people like spicy food?
Andrew, a loyal MR reader, has a request:
Tyler, why don't more people like spicy food? What prevents them from trying spicy dishes?
Mexicans acculturate their small children to spicy food gradually, by mixing increasing amounts of chilies into the meal. It takes a while before the kids enjoy it and at first they don't like it. If this has never been done to you, you need to make the leap yourself, usually later in life. The whole point of spicy food is that at first it is painful, causing the release of endorphins to the brain. With time the pain goes away and you still get the endorphins, although you may seek out an increasingly strong dose to boost the endorphin response.
Not all Americans think this is a good deal. Older people are less likely to make this initial investment and endure the initial pain. The same is true for uneducated people (adjusting for ethnicity), who both are less likely to know it will end up being a source of pleasure and who on average have higher discount rates. What other predictions can be made? If you and your country are too obsessed with dairy you will be led away from spicy food, one way or the other. Milk usually counteracts the pleasing effects of chilies.
How to think about Iranian food
Sadly, I've never been to Iran, though I would love to go. Here are a few tips for the Iranian food I've had elsewhere:
1. A good koresh (stew) almost always beats a good kabob. Ghormeh sabzi and bademjan are national treasures.
2. The choice of rice is a central decision. Get zereshk polo — barberry rice — as much as you can. Or get cherry rice, rice with pistachio, etc. All those choices are winners.
3. Lamb shank can end up being dull in a Persian restaurant. If served with dill the dish is often too dry.
4. Fesanjan, fesanjan, fesanjan. In Iceland I once ate fesenjan guillemot. The fesenjan in a can that you find in Persian groceries is actually pretty good.
5. Don't be afraid to smear mast-o-moseer (or musir; the spellings and transliterations vary, as with many of these dishes) into your rice. Always order mast-o-moseer.
6. Soups are excellent, especially if they are fragrant and have noodle-like entities. Soups without barley are usually better than soups with barley.
7. In this country Westwood, Los Angeles has the best Iranian food overall. Check out Westwood Ave. and also Pico.
8. If you are in a country where you do not expect to see Persian food, and you see Persian food, it is usually very good. As a partial exception to a rule of good eating, a single Persian restaurant can be very good even if there are not other Persian restaurants around.
Fast Food, Fat Food
Catherine Rampell at Economix posts this interesting chart showing the relationship between the "time the average person in a given country spends eating and that country’s obesity rate (as measured by the percentage of the national population with a body mass index higher than 30)."
Can people distinguish pâté from dog food?
The forward march of science continues:
Considering the similarity of its ingredients, canned dog food could be a suitable and inexpensive substitute for pâté or processed blended meat products such as Spam or liverwurst. However, the social stigma associated with the human consumption of pet food makes an unbiased comparison challenging. To prevent bias, Newman's Own dog food was prepared with a food processor to have the texture and appearance of a liver mousse. In a double-blind test, subjects were presented with five unlabeled blended meat products, one of which was the prepared dog food. After ranking the samples on the basis of taste, subjects were challenged to identify which of the five was dog food. Although 72% of subjects ranked the dog food as the worst of the five samples in terms of taste (Newell and MacFarlane multiple comparison, P<0.05), subjects were not better than random at correctly identifying the dog food.
The title of the paper is, appropriately: Can
People Distinguish Pâté from Dog Food?
Food in Portugal notes
Many of you recommended the pasteis in Belem, so when we were picked up at the airport we were immediately whisked there: "We know already that you wish to go" was the explanation.
The white asparagus is in season and they stack ham on top of many things, including trout. No other cuisine can make the blend of rabbit and clam seem so natural. A good rule of thumb here is to order game, beans, and any combination of ingredients which sounds like a mistake. The biggest mistake here is to try to replicate the kind of seafood meal you might enjoy in the U.S.
If you prefer Michelin "two-fork restaurants" to their starred alternatives, Portugal is the eating country for you. I haven't seen a single Chinese restaurant. It is Lusaphone eating: for your foreign options, you can find Brazilian, Mozambiquean (good chicken), Cape Verdean, and excellent Goan. French and Italian are rare.
If I had a thousand dissertations to research, one of them would be: "The historical interconnections between the Portuguese dessert and the Calcutta sweets shop."
The fact that I found this post interesting to write makes me fear that Western Europe is not yet an optimum currency area.
What is the best food produced en masse?
Ben, a loyal MR reader, asks:
What is the preferable type of food to eat when it is produced en masse? I.e., for what type of food does the quality not diminish significantly when it's produced for a buffet? How much worse is Panda Express from "real" Chinese food vs. Fast Food Mexican from "real" Mexican?
Indian food, produced en masse, sits relatively well, especially the non-meat dishes and the ground meats. It can sit and stew for a long time. Chinese food, which usually should be cooked at high heat and served immediately, wares about the worst. Barbecue can do fine, if it is cooked properly to begin with (not usually the case, however). At Chipotle the carnitas are pretty good and they are cooked sous vide at a distance and then reheated in the restaurant. But the top prize goes to Korean vegetable dishes, many of which are fermented and pickled in the first place. Natasha and I catered our wedding party with Korean vegetables (and a bit more, including some cold meats) with no loss of culinary value.
Food bleg
Is there anywhere good to eat right off the road between Phoenix and Sedona? I won’t be there long, it really must be along the way. And it must be tasty.
How much do biofuels drive up food prices?
Biofuels have forced global food prices up by 75% – far more than
previously estimated – according to a confidential World Bank report
obtained by the Guardian.The damning unpublished assessment is
based on the most detailed analysis of the crisis so far, carried out
by an internationally-respected economist at global financial body.The
figure emphatically contradicts the US government’s claims that
plant-derived fuels contribute less than 3% to food-price rises. It
will add to pressure on governments in Washington and across Europe,
which have turned to plant-derived fuels to reduce emissions of
greenhouse gases and reduce their dependence on imported oil.
Here is the story, the report is not yet available, at least not to me. Seventy-five percent seems like a high estimate to me, especially since many foods are more expensive but they are not all used for biofuels. Still, the government’s estimate of three percent is surely way too low. Biofuels are maybe a good test case for various estimates of government quality: will the bad biofuels still be subsidized five years from now?
The eleven best foods you aren’t eating
This has already achieved widespread circulation through the NYT, but if you don’t already know, its presented expected value is high. A good way to eat pumpkin seeds is to fry them with chopped tomatillos and chopped white onions and a few chiles, then Cuisinart the whole thing into a sauce and use it with the meat or vegetable of your choice. Tuna works well too, noting that a rural Mexican might add pumpkin or squash. You can serve it with either rice or tortillas.
Food Fight
In a story rich with irony the Senate, led by Democrat Dianne Feinstein, has voted to privatize its restaurants and food services. The House privatized twenty years ago. The result? Sort of like East and West Berlin.
In a masterful bit of understatement, Feinstein blamed [millions of dollars in losses] on "noticeably
subpar" food and service. Foot traffic bears that out. Come lunchtime,
many Senate staffers trudge across the Capitol and down into the
basement cafeteria on the House side. On Wednesdays, the lines can be
30 or 40 people long.House staffers almost never cross the Capitol to eat in the Senate cafeterias.
Naturally some of Feinstein’s colleagues were not pleased.
In a closed-door meeting with Democrats in November, she was
practically heckled by her peers for suggesting it, senators and aides
said.
"I know what happens with privatization. Workers lose jobs, and the
next generation of workers make less in wages. These are some of the
lowest-paid workers in our country, and I want to help them," Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), a staunch labor union ally, said recently.
The reporter adds without comment, "The wages of the approximately 100 Senate food service workers average $37,000 annually." Who says we can’t get a better press corps?
Feinstein had an ace in her sleeve, however, and when push came to shove she unleashed her threat. Feinstein warned "that if they did not agree to turn over the operation to a private
contractor, prices would be increased 25 percent across the board." Well that was it – the Senate voted to privatize.
The carbon footprint of food
Ezra reports:
…two Carnegie Mellon researchers recently broke down
the carbon footprint of foods, and their findings were a bit
surprising. 83 percent of emissions came from the growth and production
of the food itself. Only 11 percent came from transportation, and even
then, only 4 percent came from the transportation between grower and
seller (which is the part that eating local helps cut).
In other words, when it comes to food the greenest things you can do, if that is your standard, is to eat less meat and have fewer kids.
Norman Borlaug on the Food Crisis
Here is Norman Borlaug, father of the green revolution, from about a decade ago but highly relevant today:
Yields can still be increased by 50-100% in much of the Indian sub-Continent,
Latin America, the former USSR and Eastern Europe, and by 100-200% in much of
sub-Saharan Africa, providing political stability is maintained, bureaucracies
that destroys entrepreneurial initiative are reigned in, and their researchers
and extension workers devote more energy to putting science and technology to
work at the farm level….I now say that the world has the technology – either available or
well-advanced in the research pipeline – to feed a population of 10 billion
people. The more pertinent question today is whether farmers and ranchers will
be permitted to use this new technology. Extremists in the environmental
movement from the rich nations seem to be doing everything they can to stop
scientific progress in its tracks. Small, but vociferous and highly effective
and well-funded, anti-science and technology groups are slowing the application
of new technology, whether it be developed from biotechnology or more
conventional methods of agricultural science. I am particularly alarmed by those
who seek to deny small-scale farmers of the Third World -and especially those in
sub-Saharan Africa – access to the improved seeds, fertilizers, and crop
protection chemicals that have allowed the affluent nations the luxury of
plentiful and inexpensive foodstuffs which, in turn, has accelerated their
economic development.
And here is an awesome graph showing how much land has been saved by improved agricultural productivity in the United States. 