Creekside Co-op Fails

My local cooperative grocery just closed its doors.  There have been issues from the start, and it's hard to say what exactly was the nail in the coffin, but in my opinion it was a combination of the meat/seafood and the organic emphasis.  The former is easy enough to outline but hard to fix: the meat, poultry and seafood were very limited and too expensive, and some of that is tough to manage at a smaller store, but there's a small butcher near me that has excellent selection and prices, so I suspect that it had a lot to do with the other issue: there was an insistence by the founding members that this store be heavy on the organic, local, smaller farm sourced...everything. 

In some areas this was nice: they always had a better selection of apples than any big chain grocery store around here (including Wegmans), and the ones that were not organic labeled were priced well.  In fact, I greatly preferred getting produce there, and consequently that was one of the main things we would get.  They also had excellent milk (including raw and goat) and other dairy products (though not really cheeses) from nearby dairies, and now I'm going to need to go out of my way to get something decent.  There was a really good local ice cream that I've never seen anywhere else (will need to check other co-ops maybe), and some of the bread/bakery goods were great, though I don't think specific to them and kinda pricey but we don't eat too much bread.  Their prepared foods were good, and the store cooked meats in the deli were some of the best I've ever had (roast beef and roast pork in particular). 

Then there was the antibiotic free, humanely raised or something chicken.  One [small] rotisserie chicken: $12 (maybe $15). A--likely significantly bigger--one from Costco: $5 (and ~$7 at most big groceries).  Sure there are people who can afford and are willing to shell out more for less because it is [ostensibly] better (for the chicken, maybe the planet), but most people don't care enough and maybe can't really afford to care that much. 

I'm perfectly willing to admit that meat products are generally too cheap and we consequently eat too much meat, but if you're 2x the price of the other grocers then you're not going to lure people away.  A 10% price premium can probably work, maybe 20% on select items, but those chickens were effectively 3-5x the price at Costco, and that's a big ask.  The other meat/seafood options were not as extreme, but still too high priced, and too poor of a selection for us to get anything there.  Even if meat was the only thing we didn't get there that still probably accounts for nearly 50% of our grocery spending, but that wasn't all.  We use a lot of dried beans, and the selection at the coop was just way too limited (and, again, often organic).  We also use canned/frozen veggies that were either not available or only available from some small producer at 2-3x the price. 

It's a nice idea to feature smaller producers and locally sourced items but if it's difficult for people to get a standard set of groceries for a comparable price to the bigger stores, it's not going to work. 

For Me? Because "Vegan" Isn't a Real Thing.

I wouldn't say that I "hate" vegans, but I do find the notion of being a vegan (as opposed to vegetarian) monumentally stupid.  The issue is that there is no such thing as vegan in the real world.  I suppose that if you got your 5 acres properly planted and maintained the ecosystem in some ideal fashion you could avoid eating any product of animal labors or whatever they're calling it, but even then, probably not!

First note: a vegitarian diet generally kills lots of animals.  Not for eating, but just because farming of many plant products kills lots of small animals.  Sure, they aren't deliberately killed, and they weren't kept in captivity, but the act of producing a loaf of bread will also produce dead animals.

The specific issue with veganism is that you aren't supposed to even use animals as a labor input to your food (e.g. no honey), but there is approaching zero farming that does not use animal input.  Specifically pollination.  Much pollination in this country is from honey bees that are kept (farmed) and moved around to polinate fields.  Without pollination, no food (well, a lot less). 

The fact is that being humane to animals does not require even a vegetarian diet, but if you don't want to eat the flesh of animals, I get that (and you're probably healthier than me), but to extend that to full veganism is, from a logical perspective, stupid.  If you don't like cheese and eggs (or honey or dairy more generally, or wear leather or...) that's fine, but calling that a separate diet from "vegetarian" is a level of smug that is both unnecessary and inappropriate.  You are certainly profiting from the work of animals, and your diet does result in the death of animals.  So vegetarian is a diet choice.  Vegan is really just a smug "lifestyle" choice. 

Things that should be better than they are

"Dark Chocolate Toasted Coconut Cashews" from Costco sound awesome and are, I guess, pretty good, but have a major flaw: the cashews are actually first coated in a vanilla creme, then with the namesake dark chocolate and coconut.  That makes it taste like milk chocolate, which they may as well have used, but also, the coating vs. the size of the nut inside is insane.  Way too much outside, not enough cashew.

Crappy Comparison in Support of Vegetarianism

I have no problem with people who are vegetarians (or even vegans) but I do have a real problem with arguments like this one that, effectively, call all meat eaters horrible people.

Yes, most livestock in this country is poorly treated, and we should stop that, and yes the reasoning is perfectly legitimate, but the result of reading this article is, for most people: nothing.  Those who are either already vegetarians or are already engaging in cruelty minimizing practices (and, if the latter, spending way more on their meat selections) will agree.  Everyone else, well, they may not like the conditions but the argument isn't new, and the tone is not one that is going to convince them to change.

The problem comes down to: meat tastes good, and poor conditions mean cheaper meat.  We really have evolved to like meat, so giving it up is not easy. On top of that most people are going to get the less expensive option...especially for things like chicken which don't have the [wagyu]/prime/choice/select grade cachet that beef has.  Humanely raised chicken is a lot more expensive (like 3-7 times the price).  Now if humane standards were required, there is a very good chance that the price of humanely raised chicken would come down somewhat (though it would still be higher than current).  That would be fine, and those things are proceeding.

Meat should cost more than it does and we should eat less than we do.  Calling [most] meat eaters assholes (effectively) may even be true but it isn't going to get them on your side.

Point out the bad conditions and work to change them: good.  Convince higher income people to go for [expensive] humane options: good.  Write yet another "Everyone should be vegetarian (or vegan) because meat is cruel/murder" article: fuck off!

Infused Water

I like cucumber water (generally with some lime juice), but most infusions don't do much for me because low temp extraction is just not very good: you use a lot of fruit for a pretty small effect.  Cucumber is an exception (watermelon works pretty well too), and cucumber seeds in particular.  In fact, splitting a cucumber (or two) and scooping the seeds out for cucumber water still leaves the rest of the cucumber for salad/salsa/whatever so you get the best of both worlds.  Maybe I should try the stringy goop around the seeds of a cantaloupe.

As for other things: muddled mint does ok but if you really want to get all the flavor out you have to cook that (hard, i.e. boil not steep), at which point you're maybe technically drinking infused water but most people would call it "tea", and other fruits certainly taste good infused, but in almost all cases, you get better flavor for less fruit by mashing and/or cooking them down and adding as a concentrate/juice/syrup.  Now if you are planning on eating the fruit out of your water, then go for it.

...also, alcohol does well for extraction so infusing a vodka or gin is useful, though its too bad cucumber infusions doesn't last long.

Food for Thought

Ever accidentally swallow a bit of seawater?

Now some people would probably look at that and think "cool" or "sure, what'd you think was there?" but then there are those who try and sanitize everything they can.  I envision them either fainting or throwing up a little at the thought of downing that tiny menagerie...and I laugh.

The world is full of life, most of which we are not even a little bit aware of.  An entire world in a drop of seawater.  Also, I now wonder about seasalt: do they filter the water before drying?  If so, how fine?  Do the diatoms get through...how 'bout copepods?

Dunkin Donuts' New Breakfast Sandwich

Oh, it comes on a glazed donut.  Best review is definitely this one.  Weirdest is at Women's Health, where the Glazed Donut Breakfast Sandwich, while described as one of the worst in America, actually seems better than almost all their "healthier" selections.

I Like Greek Yogurt

Seems there's a dark side though...

From reading through it looks like there is a good chance of a solution, though it may be we should go back to the non-Greek stuff.  As much as I like the strained yogurts the non-strained are better for some things (like mixed with granola and fruit). 

I also found the comment section amusing--it is an instant jump into "we [you] should all be vegan".  I know I've said before: there are some virtues to vegetarian diet, certainly there is a lot of virtue on reducing the amount of meat most [Americans] eat, but vegan diets are mostly silly.  Also, there is some virtue to limited meat consumption, though it is kind of hard to get at.

In the grand scheme of things, people wanting to have the lowest impact on the planet would eat some cow/sheep/goat meat and milk, and even pigs can be a conscientious choice, though probably not even in this country (at least not commercially).  These are animals that convert stuff we can't digest (grasses, waste) to stuff we can (meat, milk).

That's Not Reflective of Bad Management

I guess it's read Matt Yglesias evening.  This post of his is mostly throw-away, but there is something very perplexing in it.  He says:

But laws like this that give local capital an advantage versus remote capital are probably bad for wage earners. What you're essentially doing is creating a protected class of capitalists who are immunized against being put out of business by a more effective owner and manager. That has negative consequences for customers but also for workers—you're essentially stuck working for a less-competent boss in a lower-productivity role than you would be in a more competitive market.

The problem is that that doesn't follow.  It's not every one, but one of the defining aspects of chain establishments is that they treat workers like crap.  Pay minimum wage, grant few benefits, cut back hours...

And that makes good sense.  "Good" managment/ownership is most often perceived as minimizing costs, and one of the easiest ways to do that is to spend as little as possible on workers.  Chain restaurants, whether of a fast food variety or not, get over untrained, low motivation workers by making it so that anyone can do the job.  Some "less-competent" boss may have to hire someone who knows what they are doing to get the same results, and that person will likely be paid more because they have some necessary skill (even if it is just operating a meat slicer, or working a grill).

Mark Bittman Doesn't Understand Farming

Another infuriating article by Mark Bittman.  Ok, yes, herb-, pest-, fung-icides are bad and dangerous and can cause problems myriad.  But organic farmers also use herb-, pest-, fung-icides, just "organic" ones.  These are not as well tested, they are in some cases known to be more toxic than the non-organic versions (I linked this before but am too lazy to find it now), and they have much less regulation attached to them.  Since they tend to be less potent they also must be applied in larger quantities.

So, no, switching from standard to organic doesn't necessarily improve your health prospects, and it may reduce them.  It does reduce your exposure to "chemicals" but we don't know what the trade-off is, and we don't know if it is better or worse.

The sustainable/natural agriculture movement in this country is very frustrating from a scientific point of view.  The hysteria surrounding things like GMOs and conventional farming is damaging to the prospects of sustainable/healthy agriculture.

The Restaurant Business is Brutal

There is a shuttered restaurant in the train station by my house.  Great location, had a bar, pretty good food, apparently popular for watching Phillies games.  Should be a slam dunk, but it wasn't.  It closed withing 3 months of my moving in and has been shut for something like 3 years now.  It is [still] for sale and the price just came down, but looking at the price and the setup, I'm not sure the restaurant could possibly do well enough. 

They are asking $700k, and that does not include the building (which leases for a "favorable" $3500/mo for at least the first couple years...the building had a published lease price of $6k/mo).  This means that the business needs to turn nearly $150k/year in profit (not including any salary the owner would need if working there as well).  Restaurant margins, particularly at startup are notoriously small, and a 5% profit margin would require $3 million per year in sales/revenue (or a bit over $8k/day).

Being kind about the lease and not taking that out of profit means only ~$100k profit per year, but adds the lease to the operating expenses cutting the margin by 1-2% and leaving the business in about the same position.  Really well managed/operated could bring margins up to maybe 12%, and then things are getting close.

But even those numbers assume that the $700k is good to go. In reality, there will be lots more upfront costs from cleaning and setup, to training new staff to advertising.  

Restaurants require lots of work, and good management.  I'd love to see this place succeed,and it could, but it will require someone capable and willing.

Pink Slime = Good Thing

Look, to the extent that people are going to continue to eat meat (as I do), the most responsible--and probably humane--thing to do would be to waste as little as possible. Pink slime helps do that. If there were another method that accomplished the same but was less...icky?...then that would be fine too. As it is Americans eat too much meat and waste too much food, I don't see making us more wasteful as a good thing.

As for the asinine commenter who stated:

This is factually incorrect. No cows need to be slaughtered because the nation has absolutely zero "need" for beef. There is a desire for beef, but not a need. People eat beef because they choose to, not because they need to.

Get the fuck over yourself! While I think it would be good if the cost of meat (including beef) went up to something closer to it's unsubsidized market price, that isn't going to happen, at least not very soon. So it is factually correct to say that we would kill a bunch more cows if we banned pink slime. Living in a fantasy where people just ate less meat if a ban were to happen is counterproductive.

Asset Test for Food Stamps

It's a really bad idea for myriad reasons, but PA is apparently getting on with it. Someone under 60 with at least $2000 in assets gets no food stamps. Even if their income is $15k/year. This is counter productive: it discourages saving, it discourages participation in the economy. It encourages lying and deceit (and probably drug/alcohol use, if that $1000 saved up is going to count against you, why no use it to buy a mess of liquor?).

It is particularly bad as $2000 is not a lot of money. It isn't bad for a month, but even a cheap rent is likely to run $6000/year. Forcing people to spend their meager savings and sell off assets before they are allowed food stamps is just another way of driving more people into greater poverty. Oh, and all the effort it will cost the state to ensure that people aren't committing "fraud" could well cost more than we save. Dumbasses.

Also, too, Philly.com showing that it still has some of the worst excuses for human beings filling up the comments section. I have no love of drug use, but how horrible a person do you have to be before you start to demand drug testing for welfare recipients? Like it's not bad enough that they are impoverished and addicted, these people think making them suffer more will, what exactly? Make them rethink their life choices? Go get cleaned up and start running a business? How disconnected from reality are these people?!?

Eating Dogs

First: barring some dire need I don't see a reason to. That said, it's very odd to see how worked up people get (article: meh, comments: an insight into souls) about one kind of diet or other. It would be different if the people who are so strongly opposed to eating dogs were equally opposed to eating pigs, and some most likely are.

For anyone who really wants to try and get at a moralistic stance regarding what type of animal meat comes from there are ways to do so, and they are related to sustainability and efficiency. Unfortunately we eat too much meat in the US to deal with sustainability right now, and the one thing we should do is eat less of it. Still, there are differences between animals. In general, the higher up the food chain you go, the less efficient the meat you produce. This is why farmed salmon are bad--you have to feed them other fish--while farmed vegetarian tilapia are good.

With mammals, herbivores like cattle, sheep, goats, horses and deer do a remarkable thing for us: they convert food--greens like grass and most leaves--that we cannot digest into food--meat--that we can. Some omnivores, like pigs, can perform another complimentary task: they convert waste that we cannot extract nutrition from into meat that we can. Dogs cannot perform these functions and neither can any completely carnivorous animal (e.g. cats). Dogs essentially eat the same food we do, so raising them for meat is counter-productive.

So there is a sustainability/efficiency argument against eating dogs that will let you happily continue to gnaw the flesh off a pig's rib bone (as I, myself, am inclined to do). Of course, this is pretty much ignoring that we do not produce beef and pork in this sustainable fashion. While these animals are fed foods we cannot digest, they are also loaded up on corn that we can digest (maybe even better than cattle can). This is where I come back to saying that we eat too much meat.

Non-Scientific Garbage

I liked when Mark Bittman wrote "The Minimalist" column, but I think that his change over to more political-food commentary is mostly good. Still, one thing that really gets me is bad- or no-science judgments about things...and food politics comes loaded with it.

Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO's) are a real touchy subject. The whole of the objection to GMOs is emotional, anti-rational, paranoid fear-mongering, and Bittman is no exception. In this latest column on the subject he is complaining that they are not labeled so consumers do not have a choice in avoiding them. So let's look at his arguments...

His first argument is "It’s unlikely that these products’ potential benefits could possibly outweigh their potential for harm." Ok, this is a garbage argument..."unlikely"? For reals? Based on what? Your hunches? Your extraordinary knowledge of genetics? That he would write this is embarassing.

He continues, "[the U.S.D.A. doesn't] want to 'suggest or imply' that these foods are 'different'," which is a pretty sound argument for the USDA, especially when his next paragraph starts out: "They are arguably different, but more important, people are leery of them." So, they are only "arguably" different, and people are leery of them, so the USDA should reinforce that "arguable" misconception by labeling them and making people more afraid of something that the science so far (coming back to this) says they shouldn't fear even a little?

He is making the USDA's case for not labeling GMOs. This fear-mongering is what the USDA is worried about. But he does have some real arguments...

G.E. products may grow faster, require fewer pesticides, fertilizers and herbicides, and reduce stress on land, water and other resources; they may be more profitable to farmers. But many of these claims are in dispute, and advances in conventional agriculture, some as simple as drip irrigation, may achieve these same goals more simply. Certainly conventional agriculture is more affordable for poor farmers, and most of the worlds’ farmers are poor. (The surge in suicides among Indian farmers has been attributed by some, at least in part, to G.E. crops, and it’s entirely possible that what’s needed to feed the world’s hungry is not new technology but a better distribution system and a reduction of waste.)

So GMOs may reduce damage to the land and reduce our use of toxins/fertilizers. Good. Maybe not as much as some claim. Still good. Maybe other advances will get there too. Still good. Non-GMO maybe better for poor farmers (at least right now). Still good. Better distribution/waste reduction can do a lot to help with hunger. Still, GMO's don't take away anything here, the only effect throughout this paragraph is the first one, so GMO's are...good.

Note: I am not ignoring the Indian farmer suicide thing, it sounds bad until you realize that it has nothing to do with GMOs but everything to do with megacorps and pursuit of profits at the expense of poor farmers. I certainly agree that the way corporations are handling GMOs (and, really, tons of other things) is ethically dark, but that is unrelated to whether GMOs are, themselves bad. So this is a rather random, non-argument either way.

But wait, there's more:

To be fair, two of the biggest fears about G.E. crops and animals — their potential to provoke allergic reactions and the transfer to humans of antibiotic-resistant properties of G.M.O.’s — have not come to pass. (As far as I can tell, though, they remain real dangers.)

So the biggest fears bout GMOs seem to be a load of crap, but Mark doesn't like that so he will drop in completely unfounded and senseless commentary in parentheses so that people will ignore this and continue to be afraid. And this is fair how?

But there has been cross-breeding of natural crops and species with those that have been genetically engineered, and when ethanol corn cross-pollinates feed corn, the results could degrade the feed corn; when G.E. alfalfa cross-pollinates organic alfalfa, that alfalfa is no longer organic;

um...So?...*Oh noes, my alfalfa is no longer organic, the world as we know it shall end!* (Of course it still has the other "organic" benefits, if there are any.)

...if a G.E. salmon egg is fertilized by a wild salmon, or a transgenic fish escapes into the wild and breeds with a wild fish … it’s not clear what will happen.

This last scenario is impossible, say the creators of the G.E. salmon — a biotech company called AquaBounty — whose interest in approval makes their judgment all but useless. (One Fish and Wildlife Service scientist wrote in material obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, “Maybe they should watch ‘Jurassic Park.’ “)

Ok, there may be a point here. We don't know. We never really do until after we experiment. That's one of the things about science: there is always uncertainty, particularly when going forward with something new. The ignored (by Mark) counter point here is: we are depleting fish stocks, and faster. We've already done a number on Atlantic Salmon and there is a chance that GMOs could help. It doesn't mean that these getting out would be good, but again, there used to be lots of Atlantic salmon, now there are not, so if some get out, they could either help the population or further diminish it...or do nothing. In this case however, even the bad outcome would have next to zero ecological impact because this species already has been/is being decimated in the environment. Still, this could be either good or bad or neutral. Net 0, but unpredictability will cause a skew a little to the bad. Of course this is still fish specific.

The subject is unquestionably complex. Few people outside of scientists working in the field — self included — understand much of anything about gene altering. Still, an older ABC poll found that a majority of Americans believe that G.M.O.’s are unsafe, even more say they’re less likely to buy them, and a more recent CBS/NYT poll found a whopping 87 percent — you don’t see a poll number like that too often — wants them labeled.

...and then more on this strain "we have a right to know" like Europeans or some such.

Non-scientists are, by and large, really, really, really bad at understanding science. This article is proof of that. If all the uncertainty was real and meaningful and there were sound reasons to not do GMO then the appropriate response is that the USDA should not allow GMOs to be sold to us, not to label them. Lables are appropriate to let people know what is in something, but if GM corn has the same thing in it as non-GM corn, there is NO DIFFERENCE to label.

Now there may be a real fear associated with whether the USDA is a capable arbiter of GMOs, but the fact remains that they are stocked with competent scientists, who could easily leak docs to the right people about corporations buying out the execs of the USDA and making non-science based decisions. I would jump all over that evidence.

As of now, however, the only REAL evidence out there is that GMOs are not different from the food perspective and that they confer some benefits to the environment over the standard crops. Inducing panic, and stoking Mark Bittman's and others' irrational fears by labeling them, in a total absense of bad evidence is wrong. Maybe GMOs are going to market with insufficient testing, and maybe Mark Bittman and 87% of the public don't understand science and GMOs and are being irrational paranoid nuts, but this article fosters bad science understanding and Mark should apologize to the scientists and researchers who are working hard to safeguard America's and the world's food supply.

Final note: no USDA requirement doesn't mean savvy producers won't start slapping "GMO-free!" labels on their food sometime in the near future. Then there will be the necessary USDA intervention to make sure that "GMO-free!" labeled foods actually are and a whole new fight will break out...

Dead Animals Mean Food

Moral and health hazards abound when looking into what to eat. That we eat too much meat in this country, is not controversial. That we have a lot of industrial agriculture that is not good for the environment or for animals is also pretty well understood. It has become an increasingly commonly held belief that farm subsidies are antiquated and mostly neither a good use of money nor a producer of good results.

One of the moral issues that I tend to get prickly about is vegetarianism...particularly veganism. Our health would be better if we ate more veggies, and it would probably be better still if we were all vegetarians subsisting on legumes, whole grains, fruits, veggies, dairy and eggs. Of course, that doesn't mean that a vegetarian diet is best for the world or the environment, and certainly not one that results in no dead animals for our food. Even vegan diets are responsible for the killing of many millions of animals as the direct result of farming.

More subtle is that meat can actually be a very ecologically efficient food source. The way much of it is produced in the US, it is not, however. There are a couple reasons. One is we eat too much meat, and so need to produce too much, and the cost/time efficient methods to do so are not ecologically efficient and so we are where we are. Another reason (outline in the post, which is reviewing this book) is that we have made some of the ecologically efficient methods illegal--particularly feeding waste to pigs.

Until we fix industrial agriculture, it will be hard to determine what is the "best" diet for us to have. Still, that doesn't mean we should just keep on as is. Strong pushes to increase fruit and vegetable consumption and to reduce meat consumption are very good ideas. Moral grandstanding by vegans is probably counterproductive, particularly when done by the poorly informed.

Lion Burgers...Seriously.

I was reading Tea and Food where I followed a link to this nugget: "US Restaurant to Serve World Cup Lion Burgers." This is not a marketing gimmick (well, it is, but...) but actual lion meat ground up (with some beef), cooked, and served on a bun.

I find this decision by the restaurant a bit odd, due to the response which should have been obvious (bomb threat not withstanding), but I don't have a personal problem with it. My feelings are pretty well summed up by (Tea and Food blogger) Aaron Kagan:

If you're not opposed to eating animals in general, why is this so bad? If they're raised (and presumably slaughtered) humanely and are bred in captivity and not removed from the ecosystem that depends on them, why is eating a lion worse than eating a cow? Is it a matter of intelligence of the animal? If so, it may be that pigs are smarter than lions, but it doesn't make news when we eat them.

Still I really liked (Tea and Food writer) Aaron's friend's explanation about why he thinks this is horrible. It's wordy, and I only post long posts when the words are mine, so go read the whole thing but the gist is:

The fact that a lion could tear me to shreds in a fight - it not only instills me with a sense of fear but a sense of deep respect. The idea of raising these beautiful and mysterious creatures to kill and eat in a commonplace burger feels on a visceral level like cheating. It's cheating nature. It's cheating life. It's ruining the mystery.

Jamie Oliver - Spoiled Ignoramus

I'm not much of a Jamie Oliver fan. Not because of his food, but because he just comes off kind of ignorant and haughty. I, therefore, am tickled by his Food Revolution fall on his face. I first saw the clip on Colbert where he grinds up and seives chicken gunk (bones, cartilage, fat, skin, some scraps of meat) to fry then asks kids whether they want some of those chicken nuggets, and they all do!

I was happy. The main reason was that grossing people out of eating some foods--while effective on some level--is a bad idea. Plenty of people, were they to go to a slaughterhouse, would swear off meat. Most of those would return to eating meat within a week. More, how many people refuse to eat things that are good because of some arbitrary perception that it is gross? Grossing people out just doesn't work: people will go back to eating some things, and will use that as an excuse to not eat others.

On tom pf that, this chicken nugget thing to me was encouraging waste rather than healthy eating. It would be better if we ate more of each animal, fewer animals overall, and threw less away.

After reading the link, I got a bit more angry. It kind of distills Jamie down to his essence. Yes, it would be good for people to eat better, for many reasons. But many (probably most) people lack the time and money to have good quality meals on a regular basis, whether home made or premade (like Kashi). Good food is expensive, time consuming, or both. Jamie's attitude is more than a little arrogant. I like to cook, but I don't do so every day, because I am tired and don't have that much time. I probably do have the money to eat well even when I'm not cooking but I don't because I think it's too expensive. Plenty of people have less free time and money than me. Jamie Oliver is an ass.

Don't Get the Disgust

Over KFC's new "sandwich" the Double Down. It's really no different than eating chicken cordon bleu: a fried chicken cutlet wrapped around cheese and pig (ham). I suppose everyone is grossed out by the idea of meat as bread, but that's really more of a mental block than something that is actually disgusting. I can't see there being all this news if the double down was exactly the same but a bun was added around the outside of it. It's two pieces of fried chicken with cheese and bacon.

If this was served on a plate with the cheese and bacon on top of the chicken and along side some potato salad (or mac and cheese) and green beans, it'd be a $15 dinner and people would be saying how it was comfort food or some shit.

On top of all this the noteworthy lack of carbs in this means that, for a sizable chunk of our population, it counts as diet food!

I guess the main thing that bothers me is that the press coverage (like that of the ipad and Tiger Woods) of this is just stupid. It's a novelty item that should be relegated to a quick mention between real news.

Maybe if there was a piece of lettuce in there folks would back off, but then CNN wouldn't be giving KFC so much free advertising. So way to go KFC! Shame on you news media!

"Real Food"

I like cooking. I'm not so keen on the cleanup but I like cooking (and eating the things I've cooked...usually).

I feel a certain smug superiority when I cook. It is healthy. It is cheap. I tend to cook with minimum prepared ingredients (I use almost exclusively dried beans e.g.). Mostly though, it tends to taste better than much of what I can get out.

Still, I think these people are idiots. There is nothing inherently wrong with "processed" food. Bags of frozen vegetables are "processed" food. The bag of frozen okra I cooked up with tomato and onion said: "Ingredients: Okra" and nothing else. The fact that the okra was chopped and flash frozen made it processed. It also made it easier to ship longer distances and made it so that it was less likely to rot on a shelf and go to waste. Frozen foods in general are less wasteful than fresh...which wouldn't so much matter if all groceries composted their produce waste.

Now, it is certainly true that we have a wealth of overly processed food in this country and I would never argue that cheeze wiz is a good thing to eat, and there is something environmental to be said about eating local as much as possible--especially with fresh produce and meats which have more limited shelf lives and so much reach the shelf faster. Eating "real" foods that exclude, e.g., lowfat milk and dried pasta, is, on the other hand, pretty fucking stupid.

One of the things I read in the article mentioned a steak and baked potato meal. Seriously? I've got a chicken chili at home that has some processed foods (canned tomatoes, dried beans, olive oil) that I know is better for a person than would be a steak and potato dinner. The tomatoes I stewed with the okra were from a can, and that was certainly healthier than either the steak or baked potato (actually that whole meal which added pan fried chicken thighs and baked sweet potato was healthier than the steak/potato combo-more fiber, more vitamins, less saturated fat, more antioxidants, and probably more good fat as I used x-virg olive oil in the okra).

So long as the ingredient list of whatever it is you are eating is made up of food, it's fine. Even some of the unidentifiable shelf extenders are not bad: they mean less waste. I am more into not wasting food than I am into making sure I get lots of fresh or "never frozen" anything. I tend to get a lot of frozen veggies, canned tomatoes and dried beans/grains because they keep for ever. I run through onion, carrots and celery like crazy, and other root veggies have long shelf lives, so I can get those in the produce section, but I don't like waste, and the first thing mentioned was to throw away a bunch of food.

Pretentious, wasteful, earth-hating, holier-than-thou type idiots.