Tag: food

  • Shifting Perspective: The Efficiency Trap

    Shifting Perspective: The Efficiency Trap

    A few months ago I wrote about the privilege of having the time and money to make homemade bread. I haven’t stopped thinking about the changes that have occurred in the world, and in modern capitalist culture in particular, that have made what used to be a basic daily task into something we no longer have the time and/or money to do. It’s been on my mind more heavily recently as I ventured into experiments with making my own soap. It’s not hard; on the contrary, the basic process involves simply combing sodium hydroxide (lye) and water with oil, stirring until it thickens (a process called saponification), then pouring it into a container of some sort to harden and eventually slice into bars. I mastered these basics on my first try and have now made four separate batches, all sliced and now spending a few weeks curing before they can be used. And how much money have I spent on the tools and ingredients to make this soap? At least a few hundred dollars for a digital scale (for precisely measuring proportions of lye and oil); a steel pot dedicated to soap making; a stick/immersion blender; a few thermometers (turns out the temperature of your lye water and oils is important); various oils (palm, coconut, and olive are the basics); various essential oils for scent; a container of lye; a steel soap slicer; and silicon molds so the soap has a nice uniform shape and releases easily when it’s ready for slicing (see the photo at the top of this post for some of my nice, round, molded soap). Of course, some of these are fixed costs that I won’t incur again; but the cost of the oil alone adds up fast.

    When I mentioned this new hobby/science project to my dad, he told me that Grandma G. (already chronicled for her bread making in the homemade bread post) used to make lye soap for laundry. Daddy and his siblings would take turns stirring the big pot full of cooking grease that Grandma had saved throughout the week and combined with lye. Since they weren’t lucky enough to have a stick blender to make the process quick, the kids would stir for hours until Grandma deemed the mixture thick enough to pour. This wasn’t a science experiment or a hobby; it was a household necessity if Grandma, Grandpa, and their six kids were going to have clean clothes.

    What happened to our culture that led us to eliminate homemade bread and soap from our list of things to do? It started with things like cheap bread and soap that you could buy pre-made at the store. Buying these staples instead of making them was more efficient. It made running a household easier. It freed up time. But where has that efficiency led us? Somewhere along the way, people bought into the idea, peddled by companies with something to sell, that we had better things to do than make our own bread, formulate our own soap, grow our own vegetables, make and mend our own clothes, cook nearly all of our own meals… I am tempted to go on and on with the list of things we used to do for ourselves.

    What has the efficiency of the capitalist marketplace done for us? Many good things; but when you shift your perspective back to a time when we were more self-sufficient, you might start to wonder why efficiency has ended up making us busier than ever before. We end up being grateful that we can buy soap and bread at the store now, because who has the time to make their own? (For that matter, except for people like me who are privileged to have the time and money to engage in these DIY projects, I doubt anybody is consciously grateful for the store-bought staples we now all take completely for granted.) We are happy for all the fast-food outlets and “quick casual” restaurants and the recent proliferation of online services that will deliver pre-chopped vegetables and other ingredients to your door so that if you want to make a home-cooked meal, you don’t have to waste time on prep. Cooking from scratch has become a high-status hobby – we litter our Pinterest boards with gourmet recipes and fancy tools because cooking this way is aspirational – if you can afford artisanal cheeses and locally-sourced charcuterie, and hand-craft little cards identifying them at your wine party, then you’ve made it, by God! And we forget that there was once a time when the Sunday chicken dinner was considered the luxury meal to reward a week of hard work.

    Of course, it can always be worse. Most of us are part of the significant proportion of the population that has nothing to sell but its labor. For a big majority, that means working for as low a price as your employer can squeeze out of you, which means that maybe you can’t afford to buy enough fresh groceries to cook for yourself every day or have the time for anything but a quick stop at the drive-through. If you have kids, maybe you and your spouse each work more than 40 hours a week trying to support your family, trying to achieve the American dream that is the hope of so many, the one that is built on our addiction to efficiency, the one that has led to lower wages and higher prices in the service of shareholder profit, the one that allows us to buy $20 jeans and $10 shirts and cheap jewelry that we stop wearing after a few months, the one that entices us to fill our houses and our lives with mounds of completely unnecessary things like battery-operated nose-hair trimmers and commemorative Princess Diana plates, the one that says BUY! BUY! BUY! at every turn, the one that won’t tell us that none of these things will ever truly satisfy us.

    Isn’t that really what efficiency is about? The capitalist system is based on the majority of the population selling their labor to a tiny minority that will pay them for it, and then trading that pay for the endless conveyor belt of things that we have been tricked into believing we need, as well as the things like bread and soap that we actually do need, but no longer have the time or the resources to make for ourselves. Don’t mistake me – I am not 100% anti-capitalism; in fact, I acknowledge many of the benefits of this mode of production. But the trap of efficiency is one of the drawbacks. When people controlled their own labor and were able to provide for themselves and their families without having to rely solely on wage labor, I believe society was better for it. But now it’s all about production and growing the economy, and there seem to be few, if any, alternatives. The marketplace proliferates with new products that, when you assess them objectively, are totally unnecessary – but hey, they might make our lives easier! What’s easier than having paper plates that you can throw away instead of wash? What’s easier than a pop-up paper towel dispenser in your bathroom or kitchen instead of cloth towels that you have to launder? What’s easier than having 50 pound bags of dog food delivered straight to your door so you don’t have to make a trip to the store? With all this efficiency, why does it seem that we are busier, and poorer, and more trapped, than at any other time in human history?

  • Daily Read: Food Animals

    Daily Read: Food Animals

    I’ve been working on keeping most meat out of my diet for the past six months or so. I was a full time, fairly militant vegetarian in my early twenties but gave it up for good after college. I’ve been trying again for a couple of reasons: I want to eat a healthier diet, and I am concerned about the environmental impact and ethics of factory meat farming. I am not against meat eating, but I am against the conditions that pertain in most large-scale commercial meat farms, even when they are operated under lawful conditions. Last week, I read an article that makes a cogent, if heavy-handed, argument that if you are horrified by the death of Cecil the lion but you eat factory-farmed meat, then perhaps you should examine your position on meat eating. Even though I found the article to be written in a way that is likely to provoke a defensive reaction in a lot of meat eaters, it still reinforced my conviction to keep up with my mostly vegetarian diet. I’ve been doing pretty well but I’m going to get stricter with it – for myself, for the animals, and for the earth. Maybe this article will make you think about doing something similar – even if it’s just instituting a meatless Monday habit.

    Eating chicken is morally worse than killing Cecil the lion

  • Daily Read: Matters of Taste

    Daily Read: Matters of Taste

    If you are like me, you struggle daily with the temptation to eat food that you know isn’t good for you. I have a terrible weakness for sour cream and onion Ruffles; Mother’s taffy cookies; and just about anything chocolate, fried, or both! I have done a good amount of reading on nutrition science as it relates to obesity, and the focus is usually on the big three offenders: fat, sugar, and salt. But as we all know, fat, sugar, and salt don’t tempt us if they aren’t delivered in a package that tastes good. That’s where today’s Daily Read comes in. Julia Belluz of Vox interviews Mark Schatzker, a journalist and author of the book The Dorito Effect: The Surprising New Truth About Food and Flavor. Schatzker makes a connection that should be obvious: if it doesn’t taste good, we aren’t as tempted to eat it. And food manufacturers know this, which is why foods like the titular Doritos did not become wildly popular until they were dusted with flavor enhancers. I’m amazed that such a simple idea hasn’t garnered more attention, but the focus on fat, sugar, and salt has sucked all the air out of the room. Schatzker’s conclusions aren’t necessarily going to help me resist my cravings – I already know how good sour cream and onion Ruffles taste! – but knowing how taste affects our appetites, cravings, and choices may help us find ways to make food that’s actually good for us more palatable.

    The Dorito Effect: Healthy food is blander than ever — and it’s making us fat

  • Daily Read: Chocolate-Dipped “Science”

    Daily Read: Chocolate-Dipped “Science”

    Are you confused by science reporting about health and nutrition? Have you given up listening to what the media reports about our diets and what foods are good (or bad) for us? If you answered yes, I’m not surprised, and I fear that reading this article will give you even less confidence in media reporting on these important topics. But I still think you should read it. John Bohannon explains the hoax he perpetrated with the help of some German researchers in a bid to illustrate how easy it is to dupe the media into publishing bad science. In brief, Bohannon did an actual scientific study that generated real results showing that eating a bar of dark chocolate every day accelerates weight loss – but his methodology was full of holes and his conclusions were weakly supported. Nevertheless, when he got his study published in a pay-to-play “science” journal  that will take any study as long as the author pays the fee (an enormous problem itself and the topic of a future rant), and then released an accurate – but detail-scant – press release trumpeting his results, it was snapped up immediately and uncritically by media outlets throughout the globe and published with no scientific fact-checking.

    The upshot? We need more critical thinking not just in our media but in media consumers. People need to be taught how to critically evaluate how a study was conducted and ask the right questions: what was the sample size? What statistical tests were used to calculate the results? How many parameters did the study measure? I realize that learning how to do this takes education and experience, but we need it. It’s not enough to rely on media outlets to do it for us when their bottom line is driven by clicks, shares, and page-views. And this article also illustrates why it is so unbearably easy for the unscrupulous purveyors of modern snake-oil to fool their customers with sophisticated nonsense. It’s a large part of the reason the anti-vaccine movement has any traction at all, why the Food Babe has any followers, and why homeopathic remedies have yet to be banned from store shelves. We have to learn for ourselves how to spot bad science.

    I Fooled Millions Into Thinking Chocolate Helps Weight Loss. Here’s How.

  • Daily Read: Naturally Toxic

    Daily Read: Naturally Toxic

    I’ve been meaning to write a post about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and why I have no problem with them for a while, but I haven’t done it because I know so many people who are anti-GMO and I’m not yet ready to step on that particular landmine. That said, I am getting increasingly alarmed at the new trend towards “natural” labeling of foods because I recognize it for what it is: greenwashing in the service of the profit motive. The lionizing of the “natural” label reveals a common logical fallacy that I have yet to write about: the naturalistic fallacy. I promise I’ll write more about it, but in summary, this is the fallacy that leads people to believe that if something is natural, it is better for them. This is absurd; it only takes a few moments of reflection to realize that a natural substance like, say, rattlesnake venom is not exactly good for you. The flip side to this is the assumption that if something has been altered by human intervention, it is bad for you. I suspect people who have survived diseases like cancer because of modern medical treatments would beg to differ.

    This is a long introduction to today’s Daily Read, brought to us by Yvette d’Entremont (previously featured in this Daily Read). D’Entremont tackles the idea of natural automatically being better by discussing recent decisions by chains like Chipotle and Panera to remove certain ingredients from their foods. The article is packed with links if you want more information, but it’s a good start all by itself. The upshot here is that it is misleading to slap the “natural” label on a food, and there is no harm from leaving in the ingredients that have been demonized with the “chemical” label. The greater harm comes from fooling people into thinking that natural is automatically better – and from companies using this fallacy to promote their products as being better than they really are.

    The Bullshit Hypocrisy of “All-Natural” Foods

  • Daily Reads: Food Logic

    Daily Reads: Food Logic

    Lack of critical thinking about food has long been one of my biggest peeves. I rant to my students every semester about why they shouldn’t worry about gluten unless they have celiac disease; that the paleo diet is based on pseudoscientific reasoning about human evolution; and why their blood type has nothing to do with what kind of food they should eat. So I truly appreciate today’s Daily Read from Alan Levinovitz. Writing for Slate, Levinovitz compares diet fads to religions and laments the fact that no amount of facts and logic will dissuade people from their uncritical faith in charlatans like Dr. Oz and the Food Babe. He deconstructs how these folks make abundant use of sophisticated nonsense to manipulate people and scare them into compliance with their absurd dictates about “unnatural” foods and insidious “chemicals” and “toxins.” Levinovitz sounds pretty discouraged about the possibility of changing people’s minds; yet he ends by making a compelling argument for improving people’s critical thinking skills by educating them about such persuasive techniques and logical fallacies. Perhaps there is hope yet.

    The Logical Failures of Food Fads