Results for “food”
2044 found

The changing economics of youth subculture

by  Tyler Cowen in

From a Metafilter discussion, here is one comment:

Music distribution, music purchasing and the ethics around them have changed. When I was a mere slip of a girl, it really mattered whether one was on a major label or not, and everyone knew someone who ran a tiny label out of their bedroom, etc etc. I can’t get over how my fellow anarchists listen to, like, Beyonce. That would not have gone over well in 1996. As a result, fashion/music subcultures are, I think, more permeable and fluid, and there’s less oppositionality associated with music.

Also, fast fashion and big changes in the distribution and status of vintage and thrift store fashion. I’d argue that up through the nineties, second hand clothes were a little bit declasse; they aren’t anymore. Clothes more than 20 years old were easy to find in the thrift stores and were of fairly high quality. Now even the last of the union-made eighties clothes are hard to find and can be quite pricey. (I mean, I remember when I bought a 50s silk-satin Dior dress – not atelier, but still – for $5.99 at Saver’s.) So style changes faster and it’s harder to associate style with oppositionality and with a stable ‘style tribe’.

“Style tribes” themselves are pretty well commodified, too – you can make a nice living catering to goths or VLV folks or whatever. So there’s less, I guess, libidinal investmentthere.

Also, life is more precarious and it’s harder to get work. Back when I was properly young in the nineties, if you didn’t have a job you could just temp. It wasn’t fun (remember that zine Temp Slave) but you could keep a roof over your head. A lot easier to do subculture stuff then. Even the serious anarchists I know now scrabble a lot more for work, food and money than back then.

Rents are higher – where in 1995 you could run a whole anarchist community center on $300/month plus utilities – which could be paid with three people who had jobs and could chip in $100 each, now you’re looking at $1200/month plus utilities and fewer people who can kick down $100.

I mean, there’s still plenty of youth fashion, music and neat stuff going on – it’s just that the support structures are more fragile and temporary and the borders between things are thinner.

That is from Frowner.  Hat tip goes to @NatashaPlotkin, the most underrated tweeter I know of, with only 76 followers.

The french fry culture that is Japan

by  Tyler Cowen in

The supposed employee added that other customers had complained. The issue seems to have been that the French fry eating went on for three hours, with the group eating sixty orders of French fries. It looks like one table was used for the feeding frenzy, while the adjacent walkway was packed with their friends who watched. Basically, the supposed employee seemed most upset about the lack of courtesy on their part.

What’s more the supposed employee pointed out that sixty orders of French fries the roughly the equivalent of one home crate of frozen fries.

“Plus, during our restaurant’s busiest period, 11am to 2pm, there was no prior notice about such a large order [from you], and this impacted what food and what tables we could offer to other customers.” The supposed employee asked them to be aware of the time. Though, this McDonald’s really should have been more aware of what would happen when a group of kids order sixty large fries.

That’s not even the main point of the story, good photos too.

For the pointer I thank Michael Rosenwald.

In case you haven’t been paying attention

by  Tyler Cowen in

And now the world’s largest general scientific society is weighing in on the debate.

The American Association for the Advancement of Science says labeling would “mislead and falsely alarm consumers.” The AAAS – best known for publishing Science magazine – says genetically modified foods are fundamentally no different from conventionally bred foods. In fact, the organization says they are tested more extensively than most new crop varieties.

And:

Opponents of genetically modified foods have a variety of concerns. Some have a gut feeling that these crops are unwholesome. Others worry that the technology is driven simply by corporate profits for seed companies as well as herbicide producers. Indeed, industry has poured nearly $41 million into advertising to defeat the ballot measure, with “No on 37” TV and radio ads warning that the labels could lead to higher prices at the store, according to The Wall Street Journal. ..

Sometimes worries about genetically modified foods are expressed as concern over food safety, but the AAAS says that concern isn’t supported by the science.

“Civilization rests on people’s ability to modify plants to make them more suitable as food, feed and fiber plants and all of these modifications are genetic,” the AAAS statement says.

Here is more, with hat tip to Michael.  Isn’t it time for some of the respected left-wing economists to weigh in on this one?

GMOs and pesticide use (an email from Greg Conko)

by  Tyler Cowen in

Here is a further Mark Bittman column on GMOs, arguing against GMOs on the grounds that they lead to greater use of chemicals and pesticides.  I would start with quite a simple point, namely to the extent there is a problem with chemicals and pesticides (as there may be with or without GMOs), let’s regulate that problem directly.  Somehow that option is not put on the table as an alternative to what is widely recognized as a rather dubious referendum.  In any case, I posed the question about GMOs and pesticides to Gregory Conko, who has written a book on GMOs, and he responded to me (Greg’s email goes under the fold)…

GC: Note that “pesticide” is a broad term that includes both insecticides and herbicides, as well as fungicides, nematocides, rodenticides, etc. Use of GE crops has had a measurable impact on insecticide and herbicide use, with insecticide use incontrovertibly down and a mixed record on herbicide use. And because there is much more acreage planted with GE herbicide tolerant varieties than with GE insect resistant varieties, herbicide use trends tend to drown out insecticide use trends.  Critics tend to obfuscate these distinctions by using the term “pesticide”, rather than the more specific sub-types, probably because they know casual readers will think “insecticides”.  But even the herbicide data need some additional context.

When measuring raw quantities of active ingredient, you find herbicide use on herbicide-tolerant GE crops to vary widely with crop species and region. In corn, for example, where atrazine is used extensively on non-GE varieties, a switch to Roundup Ready varieties tends to reduce slightly the quantity of active ingredient used, but mainly results in a switch from one to the other chemical. In soy, on the other hand, where herbicides of any kind are used much less frequently in non-GE varieties, a switch to RR soy almost invariably increases active ingredient use significantly.  And because RR soy is by far the most widely grown GE crop (amounting to well over 60 percent of all the soy grown anywhere in the world), on net across all species, this tends to result in an increase in quantity of active ingredient for GE crops generally.

However, merely saying that GE HT varieties result in higher use of active ingredient says little about the environmental or human impact of that change.  Because glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, has close to zero mammalian, avian, invertebrate, etc. toxicity, and biodegrades rapidly, it has a vastly lower Environmental Impact Quotient (EIQ) than the herbicides it’s replacing.  Thus, a switch to RR soy may result in an increase in “pesticide” use while nevertheless being far better for humans and the environment.  Focusing only active ingredient use without any discussion of EIQ is therefore patently misleading.

It’s also worth noting that there is nothing unique about genetic engineering’s ability to produce herbicide tolerant crop varieties. In fact, there are scores of non-GE herbicide tolerant varieties grown all around the world.  A farmer who wants to plant HT canola or rice but doesn’t want to be beholden to Monsanto, or another farmer who’s tired of waiting for full regulatory approval of Roundup Ready wheat or sunflowers, can buy “Clearfield” branded seed from BASF that’s been bred with induced mutagenesis to tolerate the herbicide imidazolinone. Why are GE opponents not talking about imi-tolerant crops? Because they’re not GE. Plant breeders can expose seeds to mutagenic chemicals or ionizing radiation to scramble the plant’s DNA in entirely unpredictable ways and then put them on the market in the United States without reporting to or asking permission from a single regulatory agency, and not a one environmental activist or consumer group will bother criticizing them for doing so. For some reason, skeptics seem to be fixated on the use of recombinant DNA techniques, even though what they criticize publicly are phenomena that occur with all sorts of plant breeding methods.

See here, for example, for a nice critique of the recent study by Charles Benbrook concluding that GE crops increase pesticide use: http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2012/10/do-genetically-engineered-crops-really-increase-herbicide-use/. And a related discussion, with references
to the literature, can be found here: http://academicsreview.org/reviewed-content/genetic-roulette/section-6/6
-2-new-herbicide-tolerant-crops/.

For a more general discussion of the impacts of GE crops on pesticide use, see:

National Research Council, Impact of Genetically Engineered Crops on Farm Sustainability in the United States, 2010,
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12804
” Generally, GE crops have had fewer adverse effects on the environment than non-GE crops produced conventionally. The use of pesticides with toxicity to nontarget organisms or with greater persistence in soil and waterways has typically been lower in GE fields than in non-GE, nonorganic fields. … When adopting GE herbicide-resistant (HR) crops, farmers mainly substituted the herbicide glyphosate for more toxic herbicides.” (p. 3).  And, ” Targeting specific plant insect pests with Bt corn and cotton has been successful, and the ability to target specific plant pests in corn and cotton continues to expand. Insecticide use has decreased with the adoption of insect-resistant (IR) crops” (p.6).

G. Brookes and P. Barfoot, “Global impact of biotech crops: Environmental effects 1996-2009,” GM Crops Vol. 2, No. 1 (2011) pp.
34-49, http://www.landesbioscience.com/journals/gmcrops/BrookesGMC2-1.pdf
Abstract:
This paper updates the assessment of the impact commercialised agricultural biotechnology is having on global agriculture from an environmental perspective. It focuses on the impact of changes in pesticide use and greenhouse gas emissions arising from the use of biotech crops. The technology has reduced pesticide spraying by 393 million kg (-8.7%) and, as a result, decreased the environmental impact associated with herbicide and insecticide use on these crops (as measured by the indicator the environmental Impact Quotient (EIQ)) by 17.1 %. The technology has also significantly reduced the release of greenhouse gas emissions from this cropping area, which, in 2009, was equivalent to removing 7.8 million cars from the roads.

TC again: In other words, the charge about chemicals and pesticides is not such a strong one.  As we can see from the earlier Indian farmer suicide accusation, the critics are still just clutching at straws.

Peter Sloterdijk’s *Bubbles, Spheres 1*

by  Tyler Cowen in

I read about one hundred pages from this book and here was the part which stood out the most in my memory:

With this neither gay nor sad science of foams, the third book of Spheres presents a theory of the current age whose main tenor is that deanimation has an insurmountable lead over reanimation.  It is the inanimable outside that gives food for thought in intrinsically modern times.  This conclusion will inevitably drive the nostalgic yearning for a conception of the world, which still aims for a livable whole in the education-holistic sense, into resignation.  For whatever asserts itself as the inner realm, it is increasingly exposed as the inner side of an outside.  No happiness is safe from endoscopy; every blissful, intimate, vibrating cell is surrounded by swarms of professional disillusioners, and we drift among them — thought paparazzi, deconstructivists, interior deniers and cognitive scientists, accomplices in an unlimited plundering of Lethe.

I know that Sloterdijk is sometimes considered a genius on the Continent, and is virtually a household name in Germany, but you can sign me up as one of the professional disillusioners.  Here is part of the problem (from this review):

This is fundamentally a work of philosophy, and its author is in more or less avowed dialogue throughout with the thought of Martin Heidegger, whose disquisitions on time and space describe a rooted, authentic sense of being in the world that Sloterdijk wants in part to counter with his vision of mobile spheres.

Here is one very excellent review.  Here is a more positive review.

The origins of kimchi in Korea

by  Tyler Cowen in

Many would be surprised to discover that this seemingly traditional food was in fact first developed in the late 19th century.  Also, the most important ingredient of kimchi, red pepper, was first introduced to Korea in the early 17th century through either China or Japan.  The import of cabbage in the late 19th century from China explains the rather late emergence of cabbage kimchi.

That is from Seoul: A Window into Korean Culture, a very good book by Choi Joon-sik.

Michael Pollan on Proposition 37

by  Tyler Cowen in

I am a big fan of the food writings of Michael Pollan, but his recent opinion piece on GMO labeling could be stronger.

His argument for voting “yes” on mandatory labeling is mostly mood affiliation, namely that this is part of some broader battle against “Big Food.”  He doesn’t for instance consider how the Proposition may damage many smaller farmers, or that GMOs seem to lower carbon emissions and otherwise help the environment.  Here is yet another discussion of benefits, or see this survey post.

His final and in fact main argument contains a simple error in economics, all too common among food writers:

…to date, genetically modified foods don’t offer the eater any benefits whatsoever…

He forgot to mention that they increase supply and lower price.  Quick question: how did the GMO products otherwise obtain market share?

For the pointer I thank Michael.

Do you tip more on-line?

by  Tyler Cowen in

David Popkin writes to me:

I hope all is well. I was having a heated discussion and thought of you and your blog.

Do people tip more/less/same via online delivery services compared to phone orders where they pay cash?

Possible reasons for bigger tips on seamlessweb/online services

-tip disclosed before delivery=pressure to put up or deal with cold food

-credit card money less “real”

-no excuse of rounding (i.e. if $3 is norm, can’t escape it because you only have a $20 to pay the 17.75 order total)

Possible reasons for bigger tips in cash

-looking someone in the face

-poor math skills/rounding

-more willing to tip more after the fact based on speed etc.

I would be most interested to hear what the best and brightest have to say about this.

An MR reader on Proposition 37 (GMO labeling)

by  Tyler Cowen in

He wrote to me:

There’s two things about the labeling debate that really bother me:

First, we have to concede that not everything can be labeled.  If so, the burdens would almost instantly put huge swaths of businesses out of business.  My dad, a dentist, does not have to label every instrument to describe where the metal came from, which machines made it, etc.  So the question is: where do we draw the line on what should be labeled?  My view is, if there is scientific evidence suggesting a plausible connection to harm, then requiring labeling makes sense.  But the view of the food activists is that they should just know everything, regardless of evidence, irrespective of cost.  So everyone should pay high costs because of their fears, which have no basis in evidence or fact.

On related matters, here is Mark Bittman on his ideal food labels, serving up a rather ambitious proposal.

On one specific point, he wants to levy a black mark against companies which treat their workers poorly.  On the contrary, that is a sign the product likely comes from a poor country and probably you are doing the world more good in buying it and, in the longer run, bidding up wages and working conditions in that country.  It helps other people more to buy from China than Portland, even though workers fare much better in the latter locale.  This difference in perspective is a simple illustration of how “ideal” food labeling can rather rapidly go wrong, especially when it is tangled up with the desire to make expressive statements about what one wishes to affiliate with or not.

A further question: at which margin do consumers stop paying attention?  When was the last time you read your new iTunes “I agree” contract before clicking?  Attention is scarce, so we need to pick and choose priorities.

What about the cost of producing such complicated labels and the enforcement of their veracity?  Food supply chains these days are often quite complicated.  Do you need to monitor how the fish sauce or oyster sauce in your composite food product was produced?  Bittman writes:

These are not simple calculations, but neither can one honestly say that they’re impossible to perform.

That is setting a rather low bar, and vaguely at that.  Most bad economic policies would meet that standard.  I would rephrase it: first figure out how many small and poor and foreign farmers this labeling proposal would put under — and then get back to us with a proposal.

Here is my earlier survey post on Bittman and evidence relating to GMOs.  And here Jonathan Adler offers an excellent analysis, including freedom of speech issues.

A Brief Visit to North Korea

by  Alex Tabarrok in

Tyler is in North Korea, Alex is in South Korea.

Alex is in North Korea, Tyler is in South Korea.

If we look a little tense it was because it was tense, perhaps even more than usual since just days before a North Korean soldier had killed two of his commanding officers while defecting to the South. North Korea also appears to be undergoing greater food shortages than in many years which no doubt adds to the tension. I had not realized, by the way, that you can see North Korea from a major highway in South Korea and the land is clearly stripped bare of trees which have been cut down for firewood and what little nutrition the bark offers.

Here are the North Koreans watching and photographing us to put into their permanent records.