Food Bunk

Scientifically illiterate, business-hating media will always do scare stories.

(Page 2 of 2)

Then how did this all get started?

"A couple activists who used to work for the FDA didn't like this really cool scientific process that separates the beef trimming so you get the remaining ground beef. So they coined this term deliberately to try to hurt this company."

The company, Beef Products Inc., does something unique. It takes the last bit of trim meat off the bone by heating it slightly. That saves money and arguably helps the environment—not using that meat would waste 5,000 cows a day. In 20 years, there is no record of anybody being hurt by what ABC and its activists call "pink slime"—what the industry just calls "lean beef trimmings" or "finely textured beef." 

"Everybody constantly says, 'You should eat leaner beef.' So when we try to eat the leaner beef, then they take that away from us, too," Gainor said. "The company ... has received awards for how good a job they do for consumer safety. It was just one constant hit job."

An effective one. After ABC's reports, Beef Products Inc. closed three out of its four plants. Seven hundred workers lost jobs.

Scientifically illiterate, business-hating media will always do scare stories. Don't believe them. 

Most of them, anyway.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • sarcasmic||

    Everyone knows that before the FDA there was no food. None at all. People ate dirt.

  • ||

    AND THEY WERE THANKFUL FOR THAT DIRT!

    #getoffmylawnIwalkedtoschooluphillbothways

  • silent v||

    I remember those days. Sometimes I couldn't find any dirt to eat and had to go to the Olive Garden.

  • tarran||

    Luxury!

    We dreamed of having Olive Garden! We had to settle for poison for breakfast! And then off to work 26 hours in the mines.

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    And when we got home, our government would chop us in two with an ax!

  • RickC||

    No, they ate crawdads. When they didn't have any crawdads they ate sand. Which is a kind of dirt I guess.

  • Robert||

    You got the crawdads? We got only crawmoms. At least that's what they called them. I thought you had to fish for them, not scrape them from glue traps, but they told me, no, they were the real thing. And gave us Malk to drink with them.

  • $park¥||

    Stossel needs to do a better job of getting into the spirit of things.

    WE'RE ALL GONNA DIIIIIIIEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!1!1!!!11!

  • Russell||

    It's slime, John. Get used to it.

  • ||

    The only pink slime we need to be afraid from is the stuff that leaks out of SugarFree.

  • Surly Chef||

    But is SF's slime only pink?

  • ||

    There's a reason Saccharin is packaged in pink packets...

  • kinnath||

    In general, killing your customers is bad for business. The are some exceptions where the business case for a given enterprise only depends on completing one transaction with the customer, but these generally involve criminal intent on the sellers part.

  • Matrix||

    what about assisted suicide doctors?
    tobacco companies?

    In the case of the former, though, it's intended. In the case of the latter, they are informed of the dangers, because of government requirements (I'm not advocating government interference).

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Matrix,

    What about... tobacco companies?


    You mean cigarrette manufacturing companies, don't you?

    Because tobacco itself does not kill you unless a 200 LB bale falls on your head. What will kill you, eventually, is smoking lots of cigarrettes, one of several good reasons why I don't smoke. I only buy stuff and services from companies that consider it bad for business to kill me.

  • ||

    "they are informed of the dangers, because of government requirements"

    I think people are more informed of the dangers by seeing the effect it's had on them and others. Learning from mistakes, that's how the market works. Public scrutiny is much more effective at informing people than any government labeling requirements. Most people don't even read labels anymore because they know the majority of it's hogwash.

  • Scarecrow Repair||

    People have known since the beginning of tobacco time that tobacco is bad for your health. I read comments from the time of Sir Walter Raleigh about the hacking cough of smokers. They didn't earn the nickname "coffin nails" from a surgeon general's report.

  • $park¥||

    "You see, according to Cocteau's plan, I'm the enemy, 'cause I like to think; I like to read. I'm into freedom of speech and freedom of choice. I'm the kind of guy who likes to sit in a greasy spoon and wonder, "Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecued ribs with the side order of gravy fries?" I WANT high cholesterol. I wanna eat bacon and butter and BUCKETS of cheese, okay? I want to smoke a Cuban cigar the size of Cincinnati in the non-smoking section. I want to run through the streets naked with green Jell-o all over my body reading Playboy magazine. Why? Because I suddenly might feel the need to, okay, pal? I've SEEN the future. Do you know what it is? It's a 47-year-old virgin sitting around in his beige pajamas, drinking a banana-broccoli shake, singing "I'm an Oscar Meyer Wiener"."

    Also,

    Rat? This is a rat burger?
    [vendor nods]
    Not bad! Matter of fact this is the best burger I've had in years!
    Gracias, Senor.

  • Redmanfms||

    Obscure, but hilarious reference and entirely appropriate.

    Demolition Man gets more and more realistic everyday. It should probably be remade with decent actors and a more serious approach to the material.

  • TANSTaaFL||

    More Serious? How can you get more serious than "I AM THE LAW!"

    ...oh wait, that was a different Stallone sci-fi thriller where he is a futuristic cop bucking contemporary authoritarian government to delve out justice to an evil villain bent on destruction and domination.

  • ||

  • ||

    Nothing wrong with media providing information on anything, including food processing. Obviously it was presented in the worst possible way, but tough luck. Cunter it with more speech.

    I don't want to eat lean beef trimmings that have to be treated with ammonia. Consumer choice and all that.

  • kinnath||

    Cunter it with more speech

    awesome

  • $park¥||

    Sound the Ken Shultz alarm.

  • ||

    Before I need to go be frightened away from libertarianism forever, I stumbled upon my new favorite phrase totally randomly by finding this song: I'ma ruin you cunt.

  • Rasilio||

    I don't even care so much that they were treated with ammonia I still don't want to eat that crap because yes, it tastes different and more importantly has a completely different texture from real ground beef.

    That said I certainly don't want the product off the market, I'd just like some honest truth in labling laws so I know what I'm buying.

  • R C Dean||

    I thought the "pink slime" was not a retail product, but was sold to institutional food operations as a filler.

    Now, no telling what they do with it once they get it, of course, but I'm curious about where you ate straight up pink slime? Have you seen it in a grocery store?

  • Rasilio||

    No I mean in the burgers you get from the institutions.

    There is a reason that a burger from the school cafeteria does not taste the same as one from Chilli's.

    One of the major differences is that I prefer a courser grind on the meat and a looser pack in the burger than is allowed by the pink slime.

    Course when I make burgers at home I rarely use just beef in them too, a nice mix of Beef, Pork, and Lamb tastes best to me.

  • R C Dean||

    That makes more sense.

    From what I remember, "institutional" burgers always tasted different. Made from a lower grade of meat, I always figured.

  • Sevo||

    aix42| 12.5.12 @ 12:29PM |#
    "I don't want to eat lean beef trimmings that have to be treated with ammonia."

    Ignoramuses going to be ignorant

  • ||

    Save them for me then, luddite. Some of us need all the protein we can get.

  • ||

    Dee: (picking out meat at the Chinese deli) OK, well, we'll take, um, that big brown mound and the curly stuff and then this thing that looks like a blanket.
    Charlie: Try some of that.
    Dee: Definitely.
    Charlie: Oh, oh, oh! What about, uh, monkey? Monkeys are, like, nature's humans.
    Dee: I doubt they have monkey, Charlie.
    Charlie: People eat monkey, Dee. They ate it in Temple of Doom. You ever see that?
    Chinese Butcher: Hey. We got monkey.
    Dee: Oh! Well, will you look at that? Great. Uh, one monkey also then, please.

  • TANSTaaFL||

    "Hello fellow American. This, you should vote, me. I leave power. Good. Thank you. Thank you. If you vote me, I'm hot."

    What?

    "Taxes, they'll be lower. Son. The Democratic vote for me is right thing to do, Philadelphia. So dooo."

  • ||

    beef carcasses are treated with rinses and a 185-degree steam vacuum

    Well, I've Googled "steam vacuum" and the only thing I could find was the kind one uses on one's carpet. What is this miracle technology she's so proud of?

  • anon||

    It's probably a trade term for a vacuum-pressurized steam room of some type, not a specific device that one can buy on Amazon.

  • ||

    Yes, I had to give "steam vacuum meat processing" as a search term and then I got hits, including this:

    Steam vacuuming is an evolution of the cabinet steam systems. One problem with cabinet cleaners is balancing the use of steam for pasteurization against “cooking” the meat by excessive exposure to high-temperature steam. Steam vacuuming was developed to address this problem. Steam vacuuming is more effective than other methods in killing pathogens that migrate from the intestinal tract to the surface of the carcass during the slaughter process. The surface of the carcass is sprayed with 280°F saturated steam for less than one second before the steam is vacuumed from the carcass. The rapid vacuuming of the steam prevents excessive heating of the tissue, which can degrade the meat.

    http://www.foodtechinfo.com/Fo.....uuming.htm

  • Steve G||

    vacuum-pressurized. Oxymoron of the day

  • Doctor Whom||

    Companies even advertise how much they exceed government requirements for food safety and purity. That's not the strongest evidence that government regulation is the only thing standing between us and a steady diet of botulinum toxin.

  • mtrueman||

    I really can't understand the great demand for these highly processed industrial foods. My feeling is that the more processing, more additives a food has undergone, the less tasty, the less healthy it is. The profits of food manufacturers or how they are portrayed in the media is not really high on the list of my concerns when I'm buying or eating food.

    I suppose factory foods are cheaper and easier to prepare. Aside from a few items like bread, flour and condiments, probably more than 75% of the food I buy and eat never sees the inside of a factory and is no more than one or two steps removed from the hands of the producer.

    Regulating or not regulating this industry is not a worry of mine. I am more concerned over the underpinnings that drive people to make the choices they do. What I've noticed over and over again following this site, is that just like the Democrats and Republicans, Libertarians accept these underpinnings. A third party dedicated to preserving the status quo, And they wonder why they can only garner 1% at the ballot box.

  • injanear||

    If your saying we should compel people to make "better" choices there is already a party for you. Feel free to spread the organic gospel on your own dime by all means. Keep in mind though, those factory foods feed the world. Only in America are the poor people fat.

  • mtrueman||

    I really can't understand the great demand for these highly processed industrial foods. My feeling is that the more processing, more additives a food has undergone, the less tasty, the less healthy it is. The profits of food manufacturers or how they are portrayed in the media is not really high on the list of my concerns when I'm buying or eating food.

    I suppose factory foods are cheaper and easier to prepare. Aside from a few items like bread, flour and condiments, probably more than 75% of the food I buy and eat never sees the inside of a factory and is no more than one or two steps removed from the hands of the producer.

    Regulating or not regulating this industry is not a worry of mine. I am more concerned over the underpinnings that drive people to make the choices they do. What I've noticed over and over again following this site, is that just like the Democrats and Republicans, Libertarians accept these underpinnings. A third party dedicated to preserving the status quo, And they wonder why they can only garner 1% at the ballot box.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: mtrueman,

    I am more concerned over the underpinnings that drive people to make the choices they do.[...] Libertarians accept these underpinnings. A third party dedicated to preserving the status quo, And they wonder why they can only garner 1% at the ballot box.


    I don't see how any of those statements are related to each other. Whether people's preferences are for the more processed foods or not should only be their concern and not of someone else that purports to second-guess them.

    Besides that, I don't understand how a philosophy of freedom (the anathema to regulation) which Libertarians hold can be construed as a philosophy for the "status quo," which right now includes a regulatory policy. You will have to explain it to me, because it makes absolutely NO sense.

  • mtrueman||

    We simply shouldn't take their preferences at face value, without considering the social and economic forces that make mass production techniques so prevalent in our food production.

    If you are not willing to question these underlying social and economic forces and are satisfied with palming off everything that stems from them as "people's preference" which in any case you say I have no business in concerning myself, then I'd say you were pretty much satisfied with the status quo, quibblings over regulation, notwithstanding.

    If that still makes no sense, I'd be happy to have another go.

  • Jerryskids||

    I think the phrase you are looking for is "false consciousness".

    People like me only *think* that we are happy being fat and stupid and lazy, shopping at Walmart and eating at McDonalds and watching America's Idol on TV. It is up to our intellectual and moral superiors to correct our thinking - or at least prohibit our acting upon our wrong beliefs.

    Generally, any program of re-making society by first remaking Man leads to Very Bad Things.

  • mtrueman||

    "False consciousness" is an interesting notion, but I think we have to reject it. I accept that you are happy with being fat and lazy and over fed, your attention drained away in mindless trivia. I accept this.

    Where we probably differ is that this situation is already the result of a programme to "remake society" and has already led to "Very Bad Things."

    I don't expect the stupid and lazy will concern themselves much over what their moral and intellectual superiors are up to. If though superiors can blaze a better, happier trail, the stupid and lazy will follow - it's their nature.

    (For all my moral and intellectual superiority, I'm still having problems posting comments here. My apologies if this appears twice.)

  • Sevo||

    mtrueman| 12.7.12 @ 1:44PM |#
    "(For all my moral and intellectual superiority,....)"

    Uh, you'll have to pat yourself on the back; poisoning the well isn't going to make anyone else bleeve in you 'superiority'.

  • mtrueman||

    I'm not catching your meaning. Jerryskids suggested that I was talking about false consciousness. I am not, I assure you. I accept that their happiness is real and sincere. We don't need to turn to Marx to understand how McDonald's, American Idol etc hold the stupid and lazy in thrall. Marxism will only lead us astray. Just as your cocktail of anti-intellectualism and moral relativism is not helpful.

  • SKR||

    My feeling is that the more processing, more additives a food has undergone, the less tasty, the less healthy it is.

    Well there's your problem right there. You need to stop listening to your amygdala and hang out with some higher brain functions. Your feeling is wrong. A raw beef carcass may be contaminated. A raw beef carcass that has been flash steam pasteurized is much more healthy for you in the sense that poisoning is much less likely to occur. Therefore more processing equals healthier. The same holds true for the simple process of cooking. Cooking allowed humans to gain more nutrition from plant and animal sources that were unavailable in the raw state therefore being healthier. A tough cut of meat can be quickly seared, but it will be far more tasty if slowly braised for a long period of time and possibly better still if cooked sous vide at temperatures that would make most people terrified for days on end. All those additives also can make food healthier by preventing spoilage of tastier as is the case with xanthan gum. Because xanthan gum requires less starch to thicken a sauce than say an old fashioned roux, the sauce has greater flavor release profile and thus tastes better.

  • SKR||

    People erroneously equate processing with low grade food. This is wrong as some of the finest food in the world is highly processed with the same "additives" and processes that are used in industrial facilities. But the difference is the quality of the ingredients. Fine chefs use those materials and methods to highlight the fine quality of the ingredients. Factory food producers use those same materials and methods to hide the poor quality of theirs.

  • mtrueman||

    I don't eat beef carcasses, raw or cooked. I don't eat any meat. I prefer to add my own additives and do my own processing. I don't like to eat in restaurants, however expensive, because I prefer that the food I eat is not handled by others.

  • d_remington||

    How was the harvest this year?

  • BoxyBoxyBoxyBoxy||

    How are libertarians "dedicated to preserving the status quo"? Libertarians are generally opposed to force. How can you possibly preserve the status quo in an era of constantly improving technology and social change without using force?

  • mtrueman||

    I think it comes down to social and economic forces that incentivize massification, favour consolidation and concentration. They are inimical to liberty. They are degrading to dignity, infantilizing and fragment our lives. They lead to McDonald's, Wallmart and American Idol. These lead in turn to a happy but fat, lazy and stupid bunch of consumers.

    Preserving the status quo is easy, don't question the underlying forces, and go with the flow. Contribute to it as we see here so often by calling for reforms that intensify the imperative.

  • Intn'l House of Badass||

    More status. Less Quo.

  • OldMexican||

    Government regulation may help a little, but we are safe mostly because of competitive markets.


    Actually, government regulations become, in the best of scenarios, an unnecessary hindrance; in the worst of scenarios, an artificial barrier of entry for new and more dynamic (alas with less wherewithal) than their established and more bloated competitors.

  • The Derider||

    So government regulations on releasing arsenic into the water supply are at best unnecessary?

  • Jordan||

    That would be assault with a deadly weapon. Already illegal. Derp.

  • The Derider||

    Hahahaha

    So government regulations aren't really regulations if they stop a company from killing you with pollution?

  • ||

    So regulation of consensual transactions is the same as laws against coercion? Derp.

  • SKR||

    Most arsenic in municipal water supplies comes from the earth. Good luck getting mother nature to comply.

  • The Derider||

    Was this always true? Or true now because government regulations cleaned up the water supply?

  • SKR||

    AFAIK, always true. Except maybe for few isolated locations at some time that experienced heavy human caused contamination. Arsenic occurs in the ground. During natural percolation, water picks up arsenic. In some places, the natural concentration is so high that you shouldn't eat certain crops because of arsenic poisoning.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: The Dehydrated,

    So government regulations on releasing arsenic into the water supply are at best unnecessary?


    WHOSE water supply? Yours, or your neighbor's? Or for both?

    Because if it is entirely YOUR water supply, the regulation is at best unnecessary. So it would be if you share it with your neighbor. And if it is your neighbor's, then what you're committing is destruction of private property and even an attept to do bodily harm, for which there are already laws in place. Again, making such regulations redundant.

    This is an easy exercise, Joe. I can only surmize that you're simply intellectually lazy, judging by your facile conclusions and your stupid questions.

  • Intn'l House of Badass||

    Wait, releasing arsenic into drinking water is ILLEGAL???? Why the fuck didn't somebody TELL me that BEFORE NOW?

  • The Derider||

    How do libertarians reconcile their hatred of the media with their unyielding faith in the efficiency and wisdom of the market?

    The media reports the way it does because that maximizes profits.

  • Jordan||

    The media reports the way it does because that maximizes profits.

    And? I support the right of free speech even though it gives you the right to ask painfully stupid questions.

  • The Derider||

    If the market is producing "Scientifically illiterate, business-hating media", doesn't that imply that the market isn't good at producing non-shitty media?

  • Jordan||

    The market is responding to demand. Are you really this stupid?

  • The Derider||

    So there's a demand for scientifically illiterate, business-hating media? A demand so strong that it overwhelms the demand for non-shitty media?

    Why should we expect that the "marketplace of ideas" would result in the elevation of truth and reason, when we observe that the market is responding to demands for the opposite?

  • Jordan||

    So there's a demand for scientifically illiterate, business-hating media? A demand so strong that it overwhelms the demand for non-shitty media?

    Let's see what the average American cares and knows more about: any random scientific topic or Kim Kardashian.

    Why should we expect that the "marketplace of ideas" would result in the elevation of truth and reason, when we observe that the market is responding to demands for the opposite?

    I don't know. Why should we expect that? I think a better question is why should the fact that the marketplace is not producing what you deem appropriate be an excuse to inflict violence on peaceful people?

  • The Derider||

    Who's talking about inflicting violence on anyone?

    And when conservatives complain about the "mainstream media", they're the ones deeming the products of the market to be inappropriate. That's my point.

  • Jordan||

    Who's talking about inflicting violence on anyone?

    You're a progressive. It's central to your philosophy.

    And when conservatives complain about the "mainstream media", they're the ones deeming the products of the market to be inappropriate. That's my point.

    Then take your strawman about markets over to Free Republic.

  • H. Reardon||

    So there's a demand for scientificallyeconomically illiterate, business-hating media?
    Have you watched MSNBC?

    Why should we expect that the "marketplace of ideas" would result in the elevation of truth and reason...
    Who thinks this? You're trying to find some fundamental contradiction in the free market where it dosen't exist. That the free market would produce a product which some feel is of inferior quality is not an indictment of the free market.

  • The Derider||

    Who thinks the marketplace of ideas is good?

    Reason editorial writers.
    http://reason.com/archives/201.....rporations
    "Under this ruling, corporations will be allowed to speak about politics, just as they may speak about their products. In both realms, though, the effort is wasted unless they offer something their audience wants. The marketplace of ideas is not so different from the marketplace of goods."

  • H. Reardon||

    Are you really this dense?

    The marketplace of ideas is good. Just because market forces cause a producer to supply a product I personally do not want to consume does not make the 'marketplace of ideas' a bad thing.

    Are you arguing that the 'marketplace of ideas' is a bad thing or that there is some better mechanism to decide what products are supplied to consumers?

    Of course not. You're just trying to be an asshole.

  • The Derider||

    I'm arguing that the marketplace of ideas does not magically produce truth and elevate better ideas over inferior ones.

    Are you arguing that if people want scientifically illiterate misinformation, it's a good thing that the market produces scientifically illiterate misinformation?

    I'm at least willing to consider that giving people exactly what they want isn't always the best policy.

  • Jordan||

    Are you arguing that if people want scientifically illiterate misinformation, it's a good thing that the market produces scientifically illiterate misinformation?

    Sigh. Really? It's a good thing that people are free to produce it.

    I'm at least willing to consider that giving people exactly what they want isn't always the best policy.

    Well, good thing it's not yours to give or withhold, now isn't it? So much for not inflicting violence.

  • Jerryskids||

    I have this same discussion any number of times with people. Is 'good' a matter of people getting what they want or a matter of people getting what they *should* want?

    An alcoholic wants another bottle of booze - are you doing a good thing by giving him one?

    I say yes. Trying to work out what 'good' really means in some larger sense is too much for a mere mortal such as I. But I will say that anybody who thinks they do, in fact, know what's good for everybody else and expresses any desire to impose their goodness on everybody else should be shot. Repeatedly.

  • ||

    The media reports the way it does because that maximizes profits.

    This statement requires supporting arguments.

  • The Derider||

    It's a fundamental microeconomic assumption.

    You doubt that the profit motive drives business decisions?

  • ||

    You doubt that the profit motive drives business decisions?

    Nope; I doubt that bad business decisions maximize profits.

  • The Derider||

    That would make sense if you were talking about one media company, at one period of time.

    What are the chances that all major media companies would make the same bad business decisions, over and over again? A far simpler assumption is that these companies are maximizing profits, and behaving rationally.

  • ||

    A far simpler assumption is that these companies are maximizing profits, and behaving rationally.

    So simple that it flies in the face of experience: companies do suffer losses (negative profit).

  • The Derider||

    Yes, companies suffer losses. That rarely happens over a long period of time, because those companies fold. It's also rare to see all the companies in the same field suffer losses simultaneously-- and when you do-- it's almost certainly because of some outside factor, not because they all made the same bad decision at the same time (although that does occasionally happen)

    So when you see many companies in a market making the same choices repeatedly, it's really unlikely that they have all chosen to suffer losses. The market punishes bad decisions.

  • ||

    So when you see many companies in a market making the same choices repeatedly

    I don't think that the Wall Street Journal and The National Enquirer make the same choices.

  • ||

    Some media report the way they do because they think that may maximize profits. They may be wrong. Individual reporters and their editors may churn out stuff that won't maximize profits because they are ideologically blinded and can't even imagine the perspective of many of their readers.

    A lot of print media is doomed due to Craigslist taking away their profit centers, and haven't finished thrashing around in their death throes.

  • R C Dean||

    How do libertarians reconcile their hatred of the media with their unyielding faith in the efficiency and wisdom of the market?

    Easily done.

    The media would be much, much worse if it were government-controlled, -funded, or -regulated.

    Was that so hard?

  • The Derider||

    So the market isn't good, but it's the least bad option available?

    That sounds exactly like my opinion of government.

  • ||

    So the market isn't good, but it's the least bad option available?

    The free market is the best option available.

    The government is the worst option available for those functions the free market provides.

    For further details, see Hayek's The Road to Serfdom.

  • The Derider||

    First, "the least bad" and "the best" have exactly the same meaning.

    Second, what functions does the free market provide? All of them?

  • ||

    First, "the least bad" and "the best" have exactly the same meaning.

    Yeah, the least bad athlete gets the gold medal in the Olympics.

    Second, what functions does the free market provide? All of them?

    As Comrade Lenin said: Learn, learn, learn!

  • ||

    There's no "the market". There are individuals participating in voluntary exchanges, somewhat hampered by government interference.

    There's isn't anything bad about individuals participating in voluntary, mutually beneficial exchanges. Almost no one would dispute that wording. It's only when you obscure that with the phrase "the market" that people think something wrong is going on.

  • The Derider||

    What if voluntary, mutually beneficial exchanges result in the production of useless, or actively harmful media?

    That seems like a bad thing.

  • ||

    What if voluntary, mutually beneficial exchanges result in the production of useless, or actively harmful media?

    Impossible; the mere fact that someone is willing to exchange his goods for a particular media (message) implies that s/he deems it useful for him/her.

    All exchange of goods is based on subjective evaluation of value: there's no objective way to measure subjective value.

  • hotsy totsy||

    Or they buy it, try it, don't like it, and never buy it again.

  • Dweebston||

    I'm curious, Derider; are you, in actuality, a long-time poster and closet libertarian fashioning weak liberal arguments in a devil's advocate bid to break up the echo chamber monotony here?

    Yes, I realize my use of weak is redundant.

  • Intn'l House of Badass||

    Stop using "bad." You have no idea what bad is.

  • ||

    How do libertarians reconcile their hatred of the media with their unyielding faith in the efficiency and wisdom of the market?

    I don't hate "media". I hate reading certain statist media such as the NYT. Media such as Reason or Lew Rockwell are fine.

    But, as much as I'm rooting for the NYT to go under, I don't begrudge them selling propaganda to statists who are willing to buy such drivel.

  • Libertopian||

    The media isn't totally free market. There is government licensing and the FCC and things to worry about. So there's pressure on stations to favorably depict government.

  • ||

    Wait, this is a better thread for this comment.

    I just want to use this thread to say: FUCK "GLUTEN FREE". Fuck it. Seriously.

    This latest food fashion was invented by hypochondriac food nazis intent on showing off their social status by emphasizing that their constitutional feebleness (a clear product of superior genetic breeding) renders them incapable of eating the same vulgar ingredients, like wheat, as the rest of us.

    LOOK AT ME! I'M SO REFINED THAT NOT ONLY DO I KNOW WHAT THE WORD "GLUTEN" MEANS, MY BLUE-BLOODED LINEAGE MAKES ME INCAPABLE OF EATING ANYTHING SO BASE, AND I CAN AFFORD NOT TO!

    I CAN AFFORD TO SPEND FIVE TIMES AS MUCH AS THE REST OF YOU ON A GLUTEN-FREE GLAZED ALMOND-PEAR TORTE, NOT THAT ANY OF YOU POOR VULGAR POTATO-EATERS WOULD BE ABLE TO AFFORD THE REGULAR KIND.

    MY SUPERIOR BODY IS LITERALLY INCAPABLE OF INJESTING THE GARBAGE YOU PEOPLE FEED YOURSELVES!

  • ||

    It's also for people that can't eat gluten. One of my classmates can't eat gluten at all. I'm not sure of the severity of the reaction (didn't ask), but apparently it isn't exactly pleasant.

  • The_Choctaw||

    No, no. Anyone with any special dietary restrictions is just a pussy who should man up. I agree with HazelMeade.

  • d_remington||

    All you weak fuckers who simper and whine over eating a widdle rat-poison better man the fuck up!

  • ||

    Stossel should do an expose of the "Gluten-free" industry.

    Just how many people honestly legitimately suffer from gluten allergies?

    And how many just see a label that says "X-free" on it and assume that it must somehow be special and superior?

    Do we see sections of grocery stores devoted to people with nut allergies (a far larger number)? NO.

    What we see are "Word-I-don't-understand -but-sounds-scientific-free" sections, designed to cater to exactly the same market as the organic-food industry, for people who think organic is just too mainstream nowadays so they need to invent some other bullshit to make themselves special. How will people know you're superior if you aren't spending 3 times as much on speical food to feed your special body?

  • R C Dean||

    I'm guessing one of your relatives crapped all over Thanksgiving dinner with a gluten-free rant?

  • ||

    No. I just took one look at the NYTimes article on gluten free food in today's Google Spotlight and wanted to vomit.

  • ||

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12.....d=all&_r=0

    First line:
    I was gluten-free before it was cool to be.

    BARF.

  • ||

    Let me continue...

    So I had to give up tagliatelle, Belgian-style ale, granola and — I feared — cooking for friends.


    Oh God, don't take my tagliatelle away!!!! How will people know how much better I am than they are if I'm not eating tagliatelle ?

  • SKR||

    Having to cut out wheat based pastas is a bitch.

  • ||

    Except she didn't say "wheat based pastas", but went out of her way to mention an obscure type of italian pasta that only food snobs would know about.

  • d_remington||

    Are they those wiggly bits that look sort of like little bowties?

  • SKR||

    I get where you're coming from, but my lady is gluten free because of a sensitivity (not full celiac)and it is a measurable thing. She has had blood tests for antibody and hormone levels that are associated with it. The biggest most obvious symptom, IBS, goes away completely when she abstains from gluten. It also comes back when she consumes it, even unknowingly. She's pro-gmo and anti-organic so she is reasonably rational. But there are a lot of douchebags out there pimping gluten free like they do organic.

  • Rasilio||

    This, my wife has the same issue.

    She is not allergic to gluten but definately sensitive to it with easily measurable health markers to show when she has or has not consumed gluten.

    Does make dinner a bitch on most nights however.

  • ||

    The criteria for "gluten sensitivity" are actually extremely vague and difficult to measure, which makes it easy for people to "self-diagnose" as having gluten sensitivity based on random variations in health.

    For example:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu.....MH0001280/
    The symptoms of celiac disease can be different from person to person. This is part of the reason why the diagnosis is not always made right away. For example, one person may have constipation, a second may have diarrhea, and a third may have no problem with stools.


    Vague enough for you?

  • SKR||

    Not really since there are much more specific tests that can be applied to celiac disease to confirm a diagnosis than simple differing manifestations of gastric distress. And it is a spectrum disorder that can be indicated by specific antibodies and and hormone levels.

    Of course there are still a bunch of douchey people that glom onto any new chance of being a victim. That doesn't mean that gluten sensitivity isn't real.

  • ||

    And many people disagnose themselves with gluten sensitivity based on vague symptoms such as gastric distress.
    And the use that as an excuse to glom onto this latest food fad.

    What especially bothers me about this particular one is that it's a food fad whose central feature is that it's extremely exclusive, in that 90% of the American diet suddenly becomes off limits, so you suddenly have to shop for very special foods that cost a lot more. That and it involves a heavy dose of self-inflicted unnecessary misery.

    It's a lot like women who spend hordes of money on shoes with 6-inch heels. So they can walk around in total agony all day to show other people just what insane lengths they are willing to go to to keep up with the trends.

  • ||

    Here's an excellent article that gets into the psychology behind the fad.

    http://www.slate.com/articles/.....ingle.html

    The health benefits of a gluten-free diet might also be a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy. It's well-known that our digestive system adapts its secretions (rather quickly) to whatever we're eating. A prolonged stint on the Atkins diet, for example, can make it harder to digest starchy foods. According to a 2006 study in Journal of the Pancreas, a colony of lab rats subsisting on low-carb, high-fat food pellets ended up with less pancreatic α-amylase, an enzyme that helps break down complex carbohydrates. Now imagine that you've cut out gluten from your diet completely—that means no bread, no cereal, no wheat whatsoever. Chances are you'll have reduced your total intake of carbs, and thus the amount of α-amylase in your gut. In other words, the mere fact of being on a gluten-free diet could make you more sensitive to grains and cereals—which would only reinforce your conviction that you're gluten-intolerant. Slip up for even one meal, and you'll pay the price with indigestion. (Same goes for people who don't eat meat or dairy: A momentary lapse can yield a nasty stomachache.)

  • SKR||

    I wouldn't call that an excellent article. More like an article written by someone that has been annoyed by someone and now she has to come up with a bunch of vague correlations to prove that she is right in being annoyed. Fucking get over it. It's wors for the people that actually have the problem and no they aren't making it up. Let's make fun of lupus patents next.

  • SKR||

    gahh!
    *worse
    *patients

  • ||

    The point of the article is that a lot of people who diagnose themselves with gluten sensitivity ARE making it up. In that it is all in their heads. They're being hypochondriacs.

  • alittlesense||

    "Journal of the Pancreas": What a great name for a magazine! I can see the entries now; "Dear Diary, the liver tried to make a pass at me today, so the small intestine punched his lights out."

  • SKR||

    Yeah I hate it and eat lots of delicious gluten every time we go out.

  • hotsy totsy||

    Do we see sections of grocery stores devoted to people with nut allergies (a far larger number)? NO.

    I do see lots of soy-nut substitute peanut butters in the peanut butter section so yes.

  • ||

    One of my tasks yesterday was returning some off-smelling meat my wife had bought at Safeway. You know -- government-inspected meat. She'd lost the receipt, but they took the meat back anyway and let me swap it for something fresh. Guess they didn't want some customer making a fuss in front of other customers about them selling tainted meat.

    Good thing we have the government to help us, otherwise those Evul Capitalists would have laughed at my insistence on getting non-rotten meat, knowing I had no recourse but to continue shopping there.

  • KimInGA||

    I once returned a pork shoulder to Publix without actually returning the meat itself. Just the wrapper. Opened it the day I bought it and the damn thing smelled like a pig had died in my kitchen. There was NO WAY it was riding back with me in my car all the way to the grocery store. And they gave me a full refund, no problem. I strongly suspect that the outcome would be different if we had one state-controlled grocery store.

  • Redmanfms||

    I strongly suspect that the outcome would be different if we had one state-controlled grocery store.

    If we had a state-controlled store you probably wouldn't have been able to buy pork shoulder, rotten or fresh, in the first place.

    My aunt hosted two kids from a Russian youth soccer team back in '87 and then again in '88. Their older sister came over as a chaperon. My mom took the girl shopping with her one day and the girl was astounded that all of the products in the store were available to purchase to anybody who had the money to pay for them. She was amazed upon entering the store that the shelves were all stocked and the size and variety available in the store. Seems all stores in the Soviet Union had tiered purchaser levels. Beef and pork were the two most exclusive meats and only available to the Party-connected. Shortages of basic essentials available to everyone (namely bread and chicken products) were common according to this girl (it's worth noting that all the families involved had to pass KGB background and loyalty checks). The team came from Korolev a suburb of Moscow, the city in USSR with the best supply of all consumer goods due to the relatively large number of foreigners living there.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: The Dehydrated,

    How do libertarians reconcile their hatred of the media with their unyielding faith in the efficiency and wisdom of the market?


    The market is YOU, ME and everybody else, you imbecile, and not some thing up there in the sky, unfathomable for your puny mind. The media is just a bunch of naive fools playing newspaper. If you want to know a person that is more clueless about the real world than a 16 year old girl, talk to a news media person.

    The media reports the way it does because that maximizes profits.


    Judging by the shrinking market share of lefty media, I would say you know even LESS about finance and economics than they do, if you think theat they're thinking about maximizing profits.

  • Mike Moskos||

    I'm pretty active in the local food movement down here in Miami and among other things, volunteer for a raw milk/pastured meat club. One thing I have noticed is that the same people who--5 years ago were pushing for more government involvement in food safety--now want NO government involvement in food. Why? Because the best food comes from those with the smallest farms, who set an appropriate price to do things right. No one is more burdened by food safety laws than those micro farmers. Eliminate the laws and not only would there be a larger quantity of quality food, but it would be cheaper and (emphasis here) far more convenient to get.

    The members of our food club sound more like Joel Salatin every day.

  • Janet||

    I'd like to watch the authors of this article eat it.

  • Jerryskids||

    If you've never watched the Jamie Oliver bit on pink slime - aka mechanically separated meat - you should watch it some time. He chops up a chicken, runs it through a blender, cooks the puree in some form of chicken nuggets - and then is aghast that the children he is demonstrating this process to in order to teach them how horrible it is still clamor to eat those tasty chicken nuggets. Now just what the hell makes chicken meat bad by running it through a blender? He never does explain - he seems to take it as a given that we all know using a machine to gnaw all the little scraps off a chicken bone rather than our teeth to accomplish the same end is just plain wrong.

  • uythsb||

    thank you so much.Equipment is routinely taken completely apart to be swab-tested.

  • Danno||

    Pink Slime is discernible from regular ground beef. The texture and taste is different. Clearly, this is added to make the per lb cost less, i.e. cheapen the product. Therefore, it should have been labeled. Personally I don't want to eat ammonia tainted beef and will pay market price for 100% non-ammonia beef. If someone else wants to buy the ammonia beef, go ahead.

  • ||

    Good thing there is no measurable amount of ammonia in the final product then.

  • triclops||

    not if you subscribe to the homeopathic dilution theory of potentisation, like our man danno must.

    also, don't tell him one of his organs this very moment is full of ammonia in solution!

  • Sevo||

    Kemikullz!

  • jili5||

    I'm fine with companies selling "pink slime" but if they are going to claim it's just beef then they should be prosecuted for fraud. This article acts like they were just selling good ol honest beef, yet they weren't, they were mixing it with ammonia and customers have a right to know what they're eating. If they lie on the package and just claim it's beef, then that's fraud and that's grounds for a lawsuit. Just like I don't want a door to door salesman to sell me an energy drink laced with arsenic, I don't want beef companies selling me ammonia. Fraud is wrong and those that choose to lie to us need to suffer the consequences of their actions.

  • injanear||

    test it and tell us how much ammonia you find.

  • attractions guide||

    I like pink smile.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement