- Cut up hot dogs before serving to young children
- CAUTION: Do not cut hot dog into shape of knife, gun or razor blade
- To prevent choking on grapes, mash into a paste
- Use separate sets of salad tongs for kitchen and bathroom
- Remember: if item cannot pass easily through a cardboard tube, it may be a choking hazard.
- Cardboard tube may also be a choking hazard; check by passing it through another tube.
- Do not allow children under 6 to go bowhunting for wild turkey.
- Hint: All food products which include the word "Fiesta" carry salmonella.
- Order hamburgers and steaks well done, or better yet, kill yourself.
- Fumigate bacteria by stuffing whole turkey with cigarettes
- Reduce pesticides by thoroughly washing and conditioning produce with Paul Mitchell products; avoid blow-drying as heat can damage the cuticle.
- If you see your dog licking the Christmas ham, for God's sake, don't tell anyone. You'll ruin Christmas.
- Packaged lettuce can carry E. coli, due to the proximity of cattle to the fields. Also, you really don't want to know what sheep do to broccoli when we're not looking.
- Using a digital thermometer will ensure thorough cooking, and make you look like a compulsive douche.
- Don't let your dad hear you worry about the risks of foodborne illness from rare meat, as he may choke from laughing so hard at what is the most ridiculous thing he's ever heard and he's married to your mother.
Recently in food Category
I recently finished reading two "popular science" books. That is, books about science directed at a lay audience. Both were very challenging reads, and the two had some significant elements in common. I hope explore this connection in a multi-part review.
The first book is "Good Calories, Bad Calories" by Gary Taubes. Taubes, a journalist who specializes in science, has been writing about diet issues for years. The first most notable example was his 1998 article for the journal Science, "The (Political) Science of Salt" (get a college friend to help you with fulltext access...). This article was a historical analysis of the scientific research that built the dogma that salt causes hypertension in otherwise healthy people. Taubes' conclusion was that the scientific literature itself was not really enough to substantiate the supposed connection. This led him to the hypothesis that confirmation bias on the part of doctors and public health advocates was skewing the conventional wisdom.
The second big article in Taubes' timeline was his 2002 cover story for the New York Times Magazine, "What if It's All Been a Big Fat Lie?". It was a similar historical look into the scientific literature that formed the bedrock of the dietary fat/cholesterol/heart disease triumvirate, which is now the unquestionable basis of all dietary recommendations in the US. Once again, Taubes found a discrepancy between the actual conclusions of the body of scientific literature, and the vehemence with which doctors and public health advocates insist that dietary fat leads to certain death.
After the stormy reception of both these articles, Taubes embarked upon a book-length exhaustive unraveling of the dietary fat/heart disease story. The resulting book, "Good Calories, Bad Calories," (GCBC, for brevity's sake) is a historical, statistical, anthropological and physiological treatise, ending with over 100 pages devoted to citations and footnotes. It's dense, technical and vitriolic -- and it will blow the top of your head right off.
It's worth reading Taubes' Times Magazine article for a summary of GCBC's findings. It's hard to encapsulate such a tome, particularly one whose burden of proof is particularly high. It's hard enough to convince a neutral party; Taubes first has to show that the past 60 years' worth of common knowledge is wrong, and then has to build a case for a completely different understanding of diet and health.
People familiar with the Atkins diet won't be surprised by his conclusions: consumption of sugars and starches causes the hormones which regulate fat-storage to go haywire. Normally, fat tissue dynamically releases caloric energy to meet minute-to-minute metabolic needs; excess carbohydrate, and the resulting disruption of insulin, prevents fat from being used, resulting in both obesity and other endocrine-based health problems. While the concept of obesity as "Metabolic Syndrome" is not new, GCBC is indispensable in its own right because it cites recent research which Atkins, writing in the 1960's, could not yet have at his disposal. Atkins wrote from the standpoint of creating an effective weight loss plan (by which he himself lived); Taubes is making the physiological case for why such a diet makes sense. This explanation is well-organized and convincing, but it isn't what makes GCBC so inflammatory, or important.
The value of GCBC is its critique of the culture of science, that is, the culture of scientists. The low-fat diet, Taubes argues, did not become law because scientists impartially followed the direction of the literature. Rather, cliques, warring personalities, paternalism and political favoritism allowed one faction of the medical & scientific community to effectively silence another. History, and public health recommendations, were written by the winners. And, as with any institutionalized orthodoxy, dissent makes you not only a heretic yourself but a threat to those around you. Get the doctrine wrong and you damn your flock to hell; challenge the health wisdom and you doom your patients to die.
The modern conceit of science is that it exists independently of society. This could only be true if science were undertaken by machines. But because science is done by human beings, it loses its transcendence. People, scientists included, have agendas and grudges. Lack of self-awareness causes scientists to confuse their personal beliefs with the conclusions of their research. The second book on the docket, "Why I Am Not A Scientist", by Jonathan Marks, delves deeply into the social consequences of this problem.
End of Part I
The first book is "Good Calories, Bad Calories" by Gary Taubes. Taubes, a journalist who specializes in science, has been writing about diet issues for years. The first most notable example was his 1998 article for the journal Science, "The (Political) Science of Salt" (get a college friend to help you with fulltext access...). This article was a historical analysis of the scientific research that built the dogma that salt causes hypertension in otherwise healthy people. Taubes' conclusion was that the scientific literature itself was not really enough to substantiate the supposed connection. This led him to the hypothesis that confirmation bias on the part of doctors and public health advocates was skewing the conventional wisdom.
The second big article in Taubes' timeline was his 2002 cover story for the New York Times Magazine, "What if It's All Been a Big Fat Lie?". It was a similar historical look into the scientific literature that formed the bedrock of the dietary fat/cholesterol/heart disease triumvirate, which is now the unquestionable basis of all dietary recommendations in the US. Once again, Taubes found a discrepancy between the actual conclusions of the body of scientific literature, and the vehemence with which doctors and public health advocates insist that dietary fat leads to certain death.
After the stormy reception of both these articles, Taubes embarked upon a book-length exhaustive unraveling of the dietary fat/heart disease story. The resulting book, "Good Calories, Bad Calories," (GCBC, for brevity's sake) is a historical, statistical, anthropological and physiological treatise, ending with over 100 pages devoted to citations and footnotes. It's dense, technical and vitriolic -- and it will blow the top of your head right off.
It's worth reading Taubes' Times Magazine article for a summary of GCBC's findings. It's hard to encapsulate such a tome, particularly one whose burden of proof is particularly high. It's hard enough to convince a neutral party; Taubes first has to show that the past 60 years' worth of common knowledge is wrong, and then has to build a case for a completely different understanding of diet and health.
People familiar with the Atkins diet won't be surprised by his conclusions: consumption of sugars and starches causes the hormones which regulate fat-storage to go haywire. Normally, fat tissue dynamically releases caloric energy to meet minute-to-minute metabolic needs; excess carbohydrate, and the resulting disruption of insulin, prevents fat from being used, resulting in both obesity and other endocrine-based health problems. While the concept of obesity as "Metabolic Syndrome" is not new, GCBC is indispensable in its own right because it cites recent research which Atkins, writing in the 1960's, could not yet have at his disposal. Atkins wrote from the standpoint of creating an effective weight loss plan (by which he himself lived); Taubes is making the physiological case for why such a diet makes sense. This explanation is well-organized and convincing, but it isn't what makes GCBC so inflammatory, or important.
The value of GCBC is its critique of the culture of science, that is, the culture of scientists. The low-fat diet, Taubes argues, did not become law because scientists impartially followed the direction of the literature. Rather, cliques, warring personalities, paternalism and political favoritism allowed one faction of the medical & scientific community to effectively silence another. History, and public health recommendations, were written by the winners. And, as with any institutionalized orthodoxy, dissent makes you not only a heretic yourself but a threat to those around you. Get the doctrine wrong and you damn your flock to hell; challenge the health wisdom and you doom your patients to die.
The modern conceit of science is that it exists independently of society. This could only be true if science were undertaken by machines. But because science is done by human beings, it loses its transcendence. People, scientists included, have agendas and grudges. Lack of self-awareness causes scientists to confuse their personal beliefs with the conclusions of their research. The second book on the docket, "Why I Am Not A Scientist", by Jonathan Marks, delves deeply into the social consequences of this problem.
End of Part I
I'm sick of the abuse of the word "simple" in the world of cooking. I don't care whether the food is simple or complicated, as long as it's good. I have a theory that "simple" became fetishized because it neutralizes the intimidation of people who have never cooked something before. It reassures them that they're not doing anything too challenging. "Simple" also has a kind of rustic romanticism that appeals to the more bourgeois gourmet crowd.
I call the cuisines of these two demographics White Food and Brown Food.
White Food means white bread, white meat chicken, American cheese, Sara Lee cake, and tuna casserole. Occasionally it means shredded coconut and marshmallow Peeps. It is a highly traditional American cuisine and I have nothing against it except for the fact that it's bland and often too sweet for my tastes. White Food recipes are plentiful in women's magazines like Family Circle.
Brown Food is the stuff of New York Times Magazine photo shoots -- root vegetables still covered in an appetizing layer of compost, alongside a flayed rabbit, strewn about with truffles. The whole mess sits precariously on the edge of a rough-hewn wooden table, ready to be butterflied, trussed, & stewed in rooster blood. It's all terribly Continental.
Despite the production values, though, somehow I doubt that the Times' readership is sincerely fond of organ meats. Sophisticated, well-traveled Manhattanites don't race home from the office to grate celeriac, or set their husbands to the task of boiling and plucking the evening's hens. Instead, they head out to restaurants where they will be underfed, overcharged and verbally abused. White Food may be a disappointing reality, but Brown Food is only a fantasy.
Maybe I have more in common with Heartlanders just by making something, anything. Is it better to look at pretty food, or to actually cook ugly food?
Tastes like chicken - not Maker of Yummy Vat-Grown Fungus Sued Over "Dangerous Reactions"
Above, an article on Consumerist.com about a pending lawsuit by watchdog group Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), against the manufacturers of a faux-meat product called Quorn.
CSPI exists for only one reason: to tell people not to eat things. And my, how many things! Instead of listing the foods which CSPI thinks are bad (which would take days), it should just be noted that CSPI essentially urges a low-fat, low-salt, vegetarian diet (with some fish), and no alcohol consumption. They also encourage taxing all foods & beverages which fall outside of this diet.
The curious thing about CSPI is the religious fervor with which they try to demonize enemy foods. They use the most melodramatic language possible to suggest that eating "bad" foods -- even occasionally -- will kill you. It's like fundamentalist nutrition. CSPI also relies heavily on lawsuits and press releases to call attention to the "bad" food of the week.
Their position on Quorn is similar to the war they waged against Olestra back in the 1990s. When Olestra (an uncanny calorie-free fat substitute) was originally introduced, CSPI was largely responsible for the level of panic about the additive's possible side effects. Soon enough, all of pop culture was completely convinced that Olestra gave everyone...well, you know the story. The problem is that the gastrointestinal effects of Olestra were greatly exaggerated. To get sick from eating it, you would have to eat a huge amount in a very short period of time. CSPI had a problem with Olestra simply because it was man-made, new and different. (I also suspect that they felt confounded by the notion that people would be able to eat potato chips with fewer calories and therefore less guilt). In the end, they got what they wanted - everyone was afraid of Olestra, and the product failed on the market.
(By the way -- you can still buy Olestra potato chips at the supermarket, and the FDA took off the warning label a few years ago. Turns out it wasn't really justified.)
A similar situation is happening right now with Quorn. Quorn has been available in Europe and the UK for about 30 years. It has only recently been introduced in the US. CSPI has been doing its damnedest for almost 10 years to make people hate and fear Quorn:
CSPI's Quorn Page
Above, an article on Consumerist.com about a pending lawsuit by watchdog group Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), against the manufacturers of a faux-meat product called Quorn.
CSPI exists for only one reason: to tell people not to eat things. And my, how many things! Instead of listing the foods which CSPI thinks are bad (which would take days), it should just be noted that CSPI essentially urges a low-fat, low-salt, vegetarian diet (with some fish), and no alcohol consumption. They also encourage taxing all foods & beverages which fall outside of this diet.
The curious thing about CSPI is the religious fervor with which they try to demonize enemy foods. They use the most melodramatic language possible to suggest that eating "bad" foods -- even occasionally -- will kill you. It's like fundamentalist nutrition. CSPI also relies heavily on lawsuits and press releases to call attention to the "bad" food of the week.
Their position on Quorn is similar to the war they waged against Olestra back in the 1990s. When Olestra (an uncanny calorie-free fat substitute) was originally introduced, CSPI was largely responsible for the level of panic about the additive's possible side effects. Soon enough, all of pop culture was completely convinced that Olestra gave everyone...well, you know the story. The problem is that the gastrointestinal effects of Olestra were greatly exaggerated. To get sick from eating it, you would have to eat a huge amount in a very short period of time. CSPI had a problem with Olestra simply because it was man-made, new and different. (I also suspect that they felt confounded by the notion that people would be able to eat potato chips with fewer calories and therefore less guilt). In the end, they got what they wanted - everyone was afraid of Olestra, and the product failed on the market.
(By the way -- you can still buy Olestra potato chips at the supermarket, and the FDA took off the warning label a few years ago. Turns out it wasn't really justified.)
A similar situation is happening right now with Quorn. Quorn has been available in Europe and the UK for about 30 years. It has only recently been introduced in the US. CSPI has been doing its damnedest for almost 10 years to make people hate and fear Quorn:
CSPI's Quorn Page
It's pretty low, for a group that uses the word "science" in its name, to exploit people's fears and base reactions to things. It's also extremely immature. First of all, CSPI never misses an opportunity to point out that Quorn is made from a fungus, as though fungus is somehow inherently bad. They also like pointing out that the Latin name of the fungus includes the word "venomous", which is extremely misleading, because the species includes a variety of strains, some of which are not poisonous at all. This is like the authorities of 16th-century Europe who warned people that tomatoes were poisonous, because they are in the same family as deadly nightshade.
Second, the photo they use calls attention to the fact that Quorn can be made into various shapes and textures. Well, so can textured vegetable protein, another non-meat protein which is now ubiquitous in vegetarian products like fake sausages, fake chicken, fake bacon and fake turkey. I don't really like the texture of TVP products, so I doubt I would like Quorn, but it seems disingenuous to demonize one and not the other.
The "Medical Evidence" section of their Quorn site is pretty laughable. It's got one unpublished study, several peer-reviewed studies which did NOT find a strong adverse effect of Quorn, and several letters which CSPI's executive director sent to journals stating his own opinions. The few corroborative pieces of evidence are articles about a handful individuals who have allergies to Quorn - certainly not enough to justify a huge scare campaign.
The brunt of CSPI's case against Quorn is their database of customer complaints -- complaints which they solicited. As they report, "Since 2002, more than 1,400 British and American consumers have filed adverse reaction reports on a website maintained by CSPI, quorncomplaints.org."
7-8 years, 1,400 complaints. (They say "more than", but it's probably between 1,400 and 1,500, or else they would have said "more than 1,500"). That averages out to about 200 or so per year. Quorn's manufacturer reports that in that timespan, 40 million servings of Quorn have been sold in the US, and something like 500,000 servings are consumed PER DAY in the UK. It would be one thing if CSPI wanted to play the cigarette card and say that Quorn will eventually kill us all, but from what is actually happening right now, I don't think their ire is justified.
The fact of the matter is that CSPI isn't anything more than a cult of personality for its Executive Director, Michael Jacobson. I have never seen another human face connected with CSPI. He makes all their public statements and press conferences. Whenever an article mentions CSPI, only he is ever quoted. Everything he eats is OK, and everything he doesn't eat must be banished.
Second, the photo they use calls attention to the fact that Quorn can be made into various shapes and textures. Well, so can textured vegetable protein, another non-meat protein which is now ubiquitous in vegetarian products like fake sausages, fake chicken, fake bacon and fake turkey. I don't really like the texture of TVP products, so I doubt I would like Quorn, but it seems disingenuous to demonize one and not the other.
The "Medical Evidence" section of their Quorn site is pretty laughable. It's got one unpublished study, several peer-reviewed studies which did NOT find a strong adverse effect of Quorn, and several letters which CSPI's executive director sent to journals stating his own opinions. The few corroborative pieces of evidence are articles about a handful individuals who have allergies to Quorn - certainly not enough to justify a huge scare campaign.
The brunt of CSPI's case against Quorn is their database of customer complaints -- complaints which they solicited. As they report, "Since 2002, more than 1,400 British and American consumers have filed adverse reaction reports on a website maintained by CSPI, quorncomplaints.org."
7-8 years, 1,400 complaints. (They say "more than", but it's probably between 1,400 and 1,500, or else they would have said "more than 1,500"). That averages out to about 200 or so per year. Quorn's manufacturer reports that in that timespan, 40 million servings of Quorn have been sold in the US, and something like 500,000 servings are consumed PER DAY in the UK. It would be one thing if CSPI wanted to play the cigarette card and say that Quorn will eventually kill us all, but from what is actually happening right now, I don't think their ire is justified.
The fact of the matter is that CSPI isn't anything more than a cult of personality for its Executive Director, Michael Jacobson. I have never seen another human face connected with CSPI. He makes all their public statements and press conferences. Whenever an article mentions CSPI, only he is ever quoted. Everything he eats is OK, and everything he doesn't eat must be banished.
