Reason Magazine - Topics > Food

Raw Milk Rebellion

feedback@jacobgrier.com (Jacob Grier) — Fri, 16 May 2008 15:00:00 EDT

On May 1, Pennsylvania state troopers arrived at the home of Mennonite farmer Mark Nolt, seizing a reported $20,000 to 25,000 worth of farm equipment and placing Nolt under arrest. His crime? The illegal sale of unpasteurized milk and other dairy products. And Nolt isn't alone. In February, federal investigators subpoenaed two employees of Mark McAfee's Organic Pastures Dairy in California. Though the subpoenas do not indicate the purpose of the investigation, McAfee told me the feds were seeking evidence that his dairy was selling unpasteurized milk for human consumption across state lines.

These are just the latest skirmishes in the growing conflict over the right to sell unpasteurized, or "raw" milk. On one side of the fight is an odd coalition of whole foodists, dairy farmers, and libertarians who want the government to butt out of their milk-drinking decisions. On the other side are public health officials and assorted busybodies determined to tighten regulations.

Fittingly, the debate has come to a head in California, a state equally known for its organic foods and its nanny state meddling. Late last year, the legislature quietly enacted strict new bacteria limits on raw milk, holding the product to the same standard of sterility as its pasteurized counterpart. Proponents contend the rule is necessary to protect consumers from dangerous diseases. Opponents, including McAfee and state Senator Dean Florez, say the standard is unfeasible and will put dairymen out of business. They've secured a temporary restraining order against the law, but losing in court could bring about what Florez calls "the end of raw milk in California."

While the fight to produce and consume unpasteurized milk might seem like a step back in time, raw milk advocates have good reason to lament the state of the modern dairy. Today's agricultural processes sacrifice flavor for safety. In the 2004 edition of his classic book, On Food and Cooking, food science writer Harold McGee explains how milk used to change with the seasons. When it wasn't preserved in cheese, butter, or other products, it was enjoyed fresh on the farm and tasted of the pasture. The growth of cities in the 18th and 19th centuries changed this. Without access to grass, cows were often fed on less nutritious fare, like the spent grains from beer brewing. The resulting milk was less flavorful and frequently unsafe. Expanding railroads and the invention of the refrigerated rail car brought fresher milk to the cities, but these required producers to pool their output, increasing the risk of contamination. Milk-borne illness quickly became a major cause of infant mortality.

Thus pasteurization came as a tremendous boon. By heating milk below the boiling point, producers killed off potentially harmful bacteria and increased their product's shelf life. As pasteurization became the norm, both the federal government and many states prohibited the sale of unpasteurized milk. Though these regulations made milk safer, today's burgeoning growth in natural foods requires a looser regulatory approach.

In short, safer milk resulted in the loss of seasonality and taste. Cooking milk introduces new flavors, some of them unpleasant. And since pasteurization kills bacteria indiscriminately, many raw milk devotees argue that the process robs them of probiotics, bacteria that they say build their immune systems and aid digestion. As McAfee put it to me, "kids are germ magnets." Exposing them to raw milk, he argues, is good for them. Similarly, the testimonials section on the website of the Campaign for Real Milk, a project of the Weston A. Price Foundation that aims to overturn legal barriers to unpasteurized milk, is full of quotes from people writing that the product has cured them of everything from indigestion to autism. While some of these claims are obviously far-fetched, it's clear that many raw milk drinkers believe they benefit from introducing a thriving population of bacteria into their bodies.

And therein lies the problem. If a batch of unpasteurized milk happens to be tainted with E. coli or Listeria, feeding it to a "germ magnet" will lead to potentially serious illness. In his testimony at Florez' senate hearing, University of California-Davis professor Michael Payne testified that although raw milk accounts for just a tiny percentage of milk consumption in the U.S., it is responsible for twice the number of disease outbreaks as pasteurized milk. John Sheehan, director of the FDA's Division of Dairy and Egg Safety, takes things further and compares drinking raw milk to "playing Russian roulette with your health."

Alarmist statements like Sheehan's make it hard to believe the government's more reasonable warnings, and the FDA's ban is arguably part of what gives raw milk its allure. Payne does not advocate banning the sale of raw milk, but he does suggest that tighter regulations could help ensure safety. At greatest issue is California's new requirement that raw milk contain no more than 10 coliform bacteria per milliliter, the same standard that pasteurized milk must meet. The state argues that even though these bacteria are not inherently harmful, their presence is suggestive of fecal contamination; McAfee contends that such a low measure will be impossible to satisfy in California. Although Maine and Washington have instituted the 10 coliform limit without killing their raw milk industries, he is right to worry. Nearly a quarter of samples tested in Washington and Maine didn't pass the test, and even California's own Department of Food and Agriculture reports that only 25% of bulk milk samples collected in the state pass the test before being pasteurized.

Florez is considering legislation that would substantially raise the coliform limit for raw milk and increase testing for pathogens, along with other safety improvements. Given that so many raw milk consumers demand live bacteria in their milk, it's a reasonable compromise, and one that McAfee says his dairy could live with.

And yet, while certain regulations make sense for broad retail sales, there's something heroic in the civil disobedience of men like Mark Nolt. After all, if a consenting adult wants to buy milk taken straight from the cow, is it any business of the law to interfere?

When I recently visited dairywoman Kitty Hockman-Nicholas at Hedgebrook Farms in Winchester, Virginia, I saw nothing dangerous or diabolical. Kitty showed me around the farm, introduced her cows by name, and demonstrated her milking process. It would have been illegal for Kitty to sell me raw milk—she provides it for people who buy into "cow shares" and thus technically own the cows from which they get their dairy—but she kindly sent me home with some as a gift.

My trip to the farm provided delightful insight into the origins of one of our most essential foods. I didn't enjoy any miraculous health effects after drinking it, but the taste was smooth and creamy, with none of the processed aftertaste I now can't help noticing in store-bought milk. As I sipped my unpasteurized beverage, I reflected on the absurdity of the situation: If Kitty were to offer the same experience to others for a profit, the government could forcibly put her out of business.

Though Mark Nolt, Mark McAfee, and their loyal customers' devotion to raw milk may seem eccentric to some, the consumption of raw fish in sushi or uncooked meat in beef carpaccio is equally strange to others. And with consumer freedom increasingly under attack from busybodies on the left and right, it's hard not to admire their rebelliousness and their resolution to drink milk in its freshest form. Though there is certainly a place for reasonable food safety laws, any regulation that leads to otherwise law-abiding farmers being shutdown or arrested has gone too far. With a growing movement of consumers demanding raw milk, the time has come for the government to get out of their way.

Jacob Grier is a writer at the Cato Institute.

Friday Funnies

hpayne@detnews.com (Henry Payne) — Fri, 16 May 2008 07:00:00 EDT

Chicago Reverses Foie Gras Ban

rbalko@reason.com (Radley Balko) — Wed, 14 May 2008 16:12:00 EDT

A rare bit of sanity in the Windy City:

With Mayor Richard Daley running the vote, the Chicago City Council on Wednesday repealed its controversial ban on foie gras.

Over the shouted objections of Ald. Joe Moore (49th), the ban's sponsor, the council used a parliamentary manuever to put the ordinance on the floor for a vote.

The council voted 37-6 to repeal the two-year-old ban, which critics argued had made Chicago--and the City Council--a national laughingstock.

"National laughingstock" honors now fall on the entire state of California, which passed a fois gras ban set to take effect in 2012. Ald. Moore is apparently furious:

Moore, whose pleas for a debate were ignored by Daley, warned fellow aldermen "tomorrow it could happen to you."

I'm guessing Moore was referring to the parliamentary meneuver, and wasn't insinuating that America may one day crave the fatted livers of Chicago politicians over fava beans and a nice Chianti.

reason.tv chatted with celebrity chef Anthony Bourdain about foie gras bans last November.

List: Fresh From the Farm

info@reason.com (Joel Salatin) — Thu, 08 May 2008 15:30:00 EDT

Joel Salatin is a self-proclaimed “Christian-conservative-libertarian-environmentalist-lunatic” and the proprietor of Polyface Farms in Charlottesville, Virginia, where he practices the kind of small-scale agriculture that baffles (and sometimes infuriates) regulators. He rose to national prominence with a cameo in Michael Pollan’s popular 2006 book The Omnivore’s Dilemma. In the spirit of his own recent book, Everything I Want to Do Is Illegal, we asked Salatin to list three things he would like to do on his land but can’t because of state and federal regulations.

1. Make and sell ready-to-eat foods on the farm: “Virginia just legalized homemade jams and jellies to sell. As ridiculous as that sounds, that’s a pretty important shot across the bow.”

2. Sell raw milk and other dairy products: “Officialdom believes that only pasteurized milk is safe. The fact that people have been drinking raw milk throughout human history, and still drink it all over the world and in 20-some states, means nothing to them.”

3. Sell custom-slaughtered meat by the piece: “My position is that if meat [slaughtered outside the normal factory processes] is OK for people to eat, give away, or feed their children—which indicates that it is not an inherently hazardous product—we should have freedom to also sell it. The restrictions are on the commerce of it. The attitude is: The only thing that is safe to eat is something with a government stamp on it, unless you get it free. Exchange money, and it’s somehow not safe.”

Calorie Conscientious Objectors

kmw@reason.com (Katherine Mangu-Ward) — Tue, 06 May 2008 16:00:00 EDT

Yesterday, New York's new policy requiring some restaurants to post calorie counts on their menu boards went into effect. A health department inspector swung into action, armed with "his laptop computer and a printer he carries in his backpack," for issuing violation notices.

Despite finding five violations, no fines have been issued yet because of a court ruling delaying implementation, but inspectors will begin handing out citations with a price tag attached in July to restaurants with more than 15 locations nationwide which refuse to trumpet the number of calories in a slice or a container of fries.

In case you want to support these brave conscientious objectors to the culinary paternalism (or guys who forgot to install the new menu boards--whatever), here's the honor roll:

Dunkin’ Donuts at 445 Park Avenue South, at East 30th Street; McDonald’s at 1560 Broadway, at West 46th Street; Popeye’s, at 321 West 125th Street, between Frederick Douglass Boulevard and St. Nicholas Avenue; Sbarro at 22 West 34th Street, next to the Empire State Building; and TGI Friday’s at 677 Lexington Avenue, at East 56th Street.

More on New York's war on tastiness here and here.

"Save waste fats for explosives"!

gillespie@reason.com (Nick Gillespie) — Fri, 02 May 2008 09:08:00 EDT

Over at the excellent food blog Crispy on the Outside, proprietor Baylen Linnekin walks down memory lane to Victory Gardens and points readers to this insane WW2-era poster that seems strangely relevant in a world of rising food prices and forever war:

Trans Fat, Back and Cheaper than Ever

kmw@reason.com (Katherine Mangu-Ward) — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:59:00 EDT

One reason that restaurants started using now-vilified trans fats in the first place (other than the fact that they were once considered a healthier alternative to animal fats) is that they're cheap. And, predictably, as food prices rise, those Canadian trans fat backsliders are responding to economic pressure:

An increasing number of restaurants are finding it tough to use healthier alternatives, including canola and other vegetable oils, which have been steadily rising in cost in recent months. Some restaurants and industry associations say prices for various types of vegetable oils have risen from 10 to 50 per cent in the past few months, and expect they will continue to go up as demand increases. ...
The situation reflects a larger problem that is taking shape across Canada as restaurants and other food providers struggle to cope with sharp increases in the price of cooking oil, a base ingredient in many menu items.

On the other hand, what do you expect from a country that invented poutine--fries covered in gravy and sprinkled with cheese curds? Keep fighting the good fight, my brothers and sisters in the Frozen North!

More on the grand trans fat battle here, here, and here.

Farm Bill Follies

rbailey@reason.com (Ronald Bailey) — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 12:00:00 EDT

The $300 billion farm bill is being cobbled together by Congress this week. As Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) noted, "It's not just a farm bill. This is a farm and a food and an energy bill."

As Otto von Bismarck quipped, "Laws are like sausage. It's better not to see them being made." Let's take a look at these three aspects of this unappetizing piece of sausage.

First, what do the farmers get? Answer: A lot. Last year, net farm income reached a record level of nearly $89 billion due to high crop prices. Farm household income averaged $84,000 in 2007, according to the Environmental Working Group (the 2006 average for all U.S. households was $66,000). Despite such good times, the federal government showered $5 billion in direct payments on 1.4 million farmers.

These direct payments have nothing to do with crop productivity or a safety net in case of low prices—they are basically gifts to farmers just because they are farmers. In fact, farmers with gross incomes up to $2.5 million have been eligible for these payments. President Bush wants to cap that at $200,000 in income, but the House is considering a cap of $500,000, and the Senate voted to cap the payments at $750,000 per year in income. Overall, Congress shaved just 2 percent off of the direct payments of $5 billion per year over the next four years. While this is a barely discernible improvement, one would think record high farm incomes combined with a world food crisis would make this a good time for Congress to scrap farming subsidies altogether.

It is true that about two-thirds of farm-bill spending funds nutrition programs such as school lunches and food stamps. Lawmakers added $10 billion to the food stamp program to help lower-income Americans address higher food prices. But why are food prices higher in the first place? Part of the reason is the federal government's subsidies and its mandate to turn food into fuel—which brings us to the legislation's energy policy madness.

In December, Congress passed and President Bush signed the Energy Independence and Security Act, which mandated that the U.S. produce 9 billion gallons of conventional biofuels this year. The Act requires that 15 billion gallons of conventional biofuels be produced by 2015 and that 36 billion gallons of conventional and "advanced" biofuels be produced by 2022. How does this affect food prices?

Higher corn prices result from biofuel mandates and subsidies, which encourage farmers to plant fewer acres of wheat and soybeans—which in turn raises their prices. In addition, corn is the chief feed grain for which producers of beef, poultry, and pork must pay higher prices which they will eventually pass along to consumers. In 2006, a bushel of corn sold for just under $2; today it sells for nearly $6.

Currently, most biofuels are produced by turning corn into ethanol. The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that the 2008 corn crop will be 14.6 billion bushels, of which 3.2 billion[*] bushels will be fermented into ethanol. In other words, about 22 percent of our corn crop will be floating out the tailpipes of our automobiles next year.

The new farm bill contains a small gesture in the direction of sanity by reducing bioethanol subsidies from 51 cents per gallon to 45 cents per gallon. This should reduce the price of a bushel of corn by about 3 cents, according to the Des Moines Register. On the other hand, Congress is trying get around the unintended consequences of its biofuels policy by offering $1.01 per gallon subsidy for so-called cellulosic ethanol. Large-scale production of cellulosic ethanol has yet to take off, so the farm bill also disperses $400 million in tax credits in the hope of jumpstarting such production. In addition, the bill extends the tariff on imported ethanol until 2012.

The biofuel mandate is not the only reason for higher food prices—higher oil and fertilizer prices as well as commodity speculation also contribute substantially.

But there's no excuse for Congress to make matters worse with this farm bill. As Rep. Ron Kind (D-Wis.) declared, "Negotiators managed to avoid every opportunity to reform wasteful, outdated subsidies while piling on additional layers of unnecessary spending." As a consequence, Americans can look forward to thinner wallets as they struggle to fuel their cars and feed their kids.

Ronald Bailey is reason's science correspondent. His book Liberation Biology: The Scientific and Moral Case for the Biotech Revolution is now available from Prometheus Books.

[*]: Due to an editing error, this originally read million.

The Green Fairy's Lollipops

kmw@reason.com (Katherine Mangu-Ward) — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 16:29:00 EDT

To get you through the rest of the godforsaken primary season:

For when politics isn't quite surreal enough on its own: Take two absinthe lollypops, watch CNN, and call me in the morning.

More on green fairy's (victorious) fight for a green card here and here.

When Vat-Grown Cold Cuts Come to Subway, Thank PETA

gillespie@reason.com (Nick Gillespie) — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 08:37:00 EDT

Foie Gras apologist Baylen Linnekin of the uber-tasty food blog Crispy on the Outside writes in praise of anti-carnivore group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), which just announced $1 million contest to spur development of murderless meat, A.K.A. vat-grown or in vitro meat:

PETA claims the contest is a way to advance its so-called anti-cruelty agenda, stop harming the environment, etc.
I think it's really just an admission by the group of what carnivores and omnivores have always known: meat tastes good. So good that it seems the overwhelming majority of manufactured vegetarian food-plant life that didn't grow from the ground (or ocean)-serves little more than to provide calories that mimic the taste of meat....
Bravo to PETA. This is exactly the sort of thing groups like PETA should have been doing all along. Not terrorizing or suing or intimidating what should be free choices made by peace-loving meat eaters. But putting their money where their ~~breasts~~ mouths are in order to effect voluntary consumer change. All while helping vegetarians eat better tasting food.

More here.

reason on vat-grown meat—it even sounds delicious!

Didn't the awful Subway chain miss a golden opportunity to have Warren "Enjoy Every Sandwich" Zevon become their posthumous pitchman? Move over, Jared, and tell Lon Chaney the news.

In Defence of the 3,000 Calorie Breakfast

gillespie@reason.com (Nick Gillespie) — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 09:34:00 EDT

Well, not really. In the Times of London, Giles Cohen attacks the Brits' "national dish": its 3,000 calorie breakfast featuring eggs, various sorts of meat, and all sorts of grease:

We're drunk, we're underslept, we smell, we can't walk straight, it hurts to talk and all we want is something to make the blood rush to our stomach, and away from our brains.

He means this as a bad thing. Read "Why the Great English Breakfast is a Killer."

Hat tip: Alan Vanneman.

A Cup Holder in the Bathroom, and Other Brilliant Ideas

kmw@reason.com (Katherine Mangu-Ward) — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 16:05:00 EDT

About a month ago, as part of it's ohmygodwe'relosingourchokeholdonthecoffeeindustry panic campaign, Starbucks launched MyStarbucksIdea.com. Customers log on and suggest improvements for Starbucks stores, like a shelf in the bathroom for your cup, coffee ice cubes for cold drinks, or this clever idea:

One idea that has gained traction is to embed a customer's regular order on her Starbucks card so when she enters the store she could swipe the card, her order would be put in and paid for, and she'd avoid (and shorten) the line. Other suggestions call for the ability to send in orders by phone or Web. These customers are telling Starbucks that long lines irritate them. But note well that they didn't come online to complain. Instead they offered solutions. This is the gift economy of online.

An excellent article on the project in BusinessWeek emphasized the positive, open-sourceishness of the whole endeavor. So quit yer bitchin' and go fix Starbucks.

Taco Truck Turmoil

kmw@reason.com (Katherine Mangu-Ward) — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 15:43:00 EDT

Taco trucks are already treated as second class citizens. These vagrants of the food world are constantly being told to "move along, pal (or amigo, as the case may be)." But things might be about to get tougher for the noble, mobile purveyor of taco tastiness in L.A.:

The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors is considering a new law that could leave the owners of taco and catering trucks facing jail time if they park in the same spot too long.
Currently, the food trucks that overstay the 30-minute limit in unincorporated Los Angeles County are subject only to a fine. But, as the San Gabriel Valley Tribune notes, the ordinance proposed by Supervisor Gloria Molina makes the violation a misdemeanor, which can carry jail time.

As long as there is money to be made, the taquerias will find a loophole. I've been known to give directions (like those mentioned in the original article) using food trucks as landmarks, and expect to be able to continue to do so, even if laws against the trucks become more robust nationwide. Tacos always find a way.

Via Baylen Linnekin

E.U.=U.S.S.R.?

kmw@reason.com (Katherine Mangu-Ward) — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 16:02:00 EDT

Since Poland joined the E.U. two years ago, small, traditional farmers have struggled to adapt to laws originally written with more advanced farming cultures in mind:

European law requires farms to have concrete floors in their barns and special equipment for slaughtering. Hygiene laws prohibit milking cows by hand. As a result, the milk collection stations and tiny slaughterhouses that until a few years ago dotted the Polish countryside have all closed. Small family farming is impossible.

In the U.S. we have libertarian Virginia farmer Joel Salatin (a hero in the very popular "eat local" manifesto Omnivore's Dilemma) voicing many of the same complaints in his own book Everything I Want to Do Is Illegal. But in Poland, such squabbles are supercharged by the country's Communist history.

Mr. Mann, from the European Commission, acknowledges that small farmers in places like Poland may have to adapt. “There is a place for the small farmer,” he said, “but they have to be smart and not rely on payouts.”
But deft adaptation seems hard here, a place set in its ways — and may be bad for the environment anyway. A collective system for selling organic vegetables to the city, devised by Ms. [Jadwiga] Lopata, never got off the ground.
“They tend to be very individualistic,” she said. “They think they survived Communist efforts to collectivize them, so they will survive this. They don’t realize the European Union and the global market are even harder.”

This situation perfectly illustrates the mixed feelings I have about the local/organic movement and its relationship with the state. On one hand, I hate that farmers who just want to do their own thing are being pressured and punished in the name of efficiency by a super-state entity. Why not let people milk cows by hand, for goodness sake?

On the other hand, the local/organic movement is rife with people who think the right response to current pressure by the state and from the market is collectivization (this after surviving Communism!) and perhaps a nice dose of state subsidy.

Friday Mailbag & Food Forum

jwalker@reason.com (Jesse Walker) — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 10:45:00 EDT

Sam Steri writes to reason:

Do not be fooled...the "Zesty Taco/Chipotle Ranch" collision of today (2008), the prior "Taco" flavor of 1990-2007, the bogus "Taco Bell" flavor of 1980-1990, are all NOT the same as the Original Taco Doritos made from 1967-1979. These "original" taco Doritos chips were the best chips ever made on the planet. Just a pure, genius, combination of pure spices and taco seasoning with no preservatives. This is unlike the awful sour cream, cheese, milk ingredients, artificial color and chemical preservatives of today's "Taco" chips that make them disgusting and even tasting the same as nacho cheese flavor... A TACO CHIP SHOULD HAVE A TACO TASTE. I agree whole heartedly with James Merritt.....I also have contacted Frito Lay roughly 50 times to express my disgust with their current product.....They will NOT listen, and they have not produced the original taco flavor in close to 30YEARS NOW!!!!

I have nothing to add to that, so instead I'll pose a question to our readers. I have a vivid but dubious childhood memory of reading the back of a bag of Doritos and encountering the PR-gone-haywire sentence, "Doritos are simply a more enjoyable way of eating corn." Does anyone else out there remember seeing this, or did I dream the whole thing?

Bonus link: The history of the tortilla chip.

Rough Trade in Foreign Sausage

jwalker@reason.com (Jesse Walker) — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 09:40:00 EDT

The European Union, friend of free trade:

Swiss pork-and-beef cervelat sausages have traditionally used Brazilian cow-intestine skins, but the European Union has banned imports of the skins, fearing they may contain traces of mad cow disease, or BSE.

Picnickers flock to parks at weekends to barbecue the large, bland sausages which look like giant hot dogs. But skin stocks will run out by the end of the year, forcing butchers to use alternatives which purists say split easily and lack flavour....

The [economics] minister said there would be enough sausages for spectators at the European soccer championship the Swiss and Austrians are hosting later this year, and promised to push for a review of the EU ban.

If that fails, Swiss fans may just have to put up with inferior skins, even if they do not curl the sausage when cooked, she said. "I believe Swiss consumers will have the courage to accept a slightly straighter cervelat."

Oh, well, at least there's unfettered trade in sausages within Europe. Hold on -- what's that?

The generally good relations between Czechs and Slovaks cooled dramatically last year when Slovakia applied to the EU for trademark protection for its 'spekácky' sausage. This speciality has also been produced from time immemorial by Czech manufacturers. A trademark for the Slovak sausage would mean that the Czechs would have to produce their sausage according to the Slovak recipe. The prospect triggered outraged protest in the Czech Republic. The Czech daily reports that the agricultural ministers of the two states have now reached an agreement at a trade fair in Brno. "Czechs and Slovaks are now working together again on the 'spekácky' project. Both countries will jointly apply to the EU for the registration of this regional speciality. ... If the EU grants protection, there will be a 'sausage declaration' that stipulates the recipes to be used, but allows each country to use its own."

They've always provoked passion, those sausages:

No Emparedado de Bistec con Queso al Estilo Philadelphia

kmw@reason.com (Katherine Mangu-Ward) — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 16:41:00 EDT

The debate about English as the official language of the United States rages on, but the most popular of the Anglo-Frisian languages is now the official language of Geno's Steaks, the iconic cheesesteak purveyor in Philadelphia.

In a 2-1 vote, a Commission on Human Relations panel found that two signs at Geno's Steaks telling customers, "This is America: WHEN ORDERING 'PLEASE SPEAK ENGLISH,'" do not violate the city's Fair Practices Ordinance....
[Shop owner Joe] Vento has said he never refused service to anyone because they couldn't speak English. But critics argued that the signs discourage customers of certain backgrounds from eating at the shop.

Geno's owner was pessimistic after a negative ruling from the commission a year ago found probable cause against Geno's for discrimination:

Vento had threatened to go to court if he lost. His attorney, Albert G. Weiss, said he was "pleasantly surprised" by Wednesday's decision.
"We expected that this was not going to go our way," Weiss said.

For more, watch Tucker Carlson interview the deliciously archetypal owner of Geno's, who makes the excellent point that it's unlikely people who don't speak English will be offended by the sign, since they can't read it.

Food Fight History Lesson

kmw@reason.com (Katherine Mangu-Ward) — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 12:12:00 EDT

Ever wondered what "an abridged history of American-centric warfare, from WWII to present day, told through the foods of the countries in conflict" would look like? Well, it would look like this:

The result is surprisingly violent. It's rather grisly with watch a burger (read: Americans) be blow to bits in a sushi air raid.

Watch out for the IED at the 4:45 mark.

Get the cheat sheet to decode the players here. Get the list of wars/battles included here.

Via Crispy on the Outside

Cross-posted at reason.tv

Shhhh...Farmers Love Frankenfoods

kmw@reason.com (Katherine Mangu-Ward) — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 14:54:00 EST

British farmers are ready to throw in the organic cotton towel and start growing biotech crops just like their American cousins, finds a new study from Open University:

Farmers claim that using GM crops will help them cut down on herbicides and pesticides while increasing the amount of food that can be harvested....
Prof Andy Lane, who led the series of interviews and workshops with 50 farmers and members of farming organisations, said: "New technology such as GM is attractive to farmers. They want to produce high-quality food profitably and they want to farm in an environmentally sensitive way. GM may allow them to reconcile this conundrum."

Certain environmental radicals (and many eaters) aren't quite ready for the transition, however, and they're not keeping their displeasure to themselves: A week ago, the British government confirmed that it would consider allowing shielded locations for growing GM crops, to stem the tide of vandalism. "Under existing laws, full details of every GM crop trial must be disclosed in advance on a government website, with a six-figure grid reference identifying the precise location of the field." The proposal would restrict access to the register of GM sites, or perhaps require less specificity in reporting.

"These trials are legal, so why give carte blanche to anyone who wants to destroy them? In most countries, there is nothing like the sort of specific information that has to be given in Britain," said Julian Little of the industry group, the Agricultural Biotechnology Council. The need to give the location of a GM crop is contained in a European directive, but it is interpreted differently across member states.

Eat the Invaders!

kmw@reason.com (Katherine Mangu-Ward) — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 16:50:00 EST

A lot of ecologists are wringing their hands about aggressive invasive species these days, though they're nothing new. The first recorded case was in 1245, "when Norse voyagers brought a soft-shelled clam to the shores of the North Sea on the sides of their wooden ships." Still, in an era of global trade more and more fish, bacteria, and plants are hitching rides to foreign lands, causing some serious changes. Today's New York Times op-ed section has the solution. Eat the invaders.

A half billion giant jellyfish a day forming a slimy ring around your island nation? No problem:

The citizens of Fukui, a northern Japanese island, coped by marketing souvenir cookies flavored with powdered jellyfish. Returning from a fact-finding mission to China, a professor from Japan’s National Fisheries University offered up 10 different recipes for preparing Nomura’s jellyfish. “Making them a popular food,” he told a Japanese newspaper, “is the best way to solve the problem.”

In the U.S., huge super-powered Asian carp are muscling their way north on the Mississippi and have been spotted just 25 miles from Lake Michigan. What to do?:

If we want to forestall our looming carp quagmire, [the Japanese approach] is the kind of attitude we need to adopt on our shores. Sports fishermen are already doing their part by angling for the pests (as the presence of such titles as International Carper, TotalCarp, and Carpology on magazine racks attests). Restaurateurs from Tupelo to Toronto could pitch in by replacing the bland-fleshed channel catfish on their menus with equally bland-fleshed Asian carp. It seems only fair: it was catfish farmers in the South who imported the fish to filter algae from their ponds in the 1970s and allowed them to escape into the wild during the Mississippi floods of 1993...Asian carp, Cajun-style, anyone?

More on the joys of invasive species here (snakehead fish are delish), and here (zebra mussels, anyone?)

Are Farmers Stupid, or Deluded, or Both?

rbailey@reason.com (Ronald Bailey) — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 15:00:00 EST

Last week, the ideological environmentalist group Friends of the Earth (FOE) launched another attack in its misinformation campaign against biotech crops. FOE's latest salvo is its report "Who Benefits from GM Crops?," issued explicitly to counter the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications' (ISAAA) annual global assessment of biotech crops. FOE claims biotech crops yield less than conventional crops, harm the environment, are technologically stagnant, have done nothing to help poor farmers, and are monopolized by a few giant corporations.

The ISAAA 2007 report on the global status paints a far different picture. The ISAAA notes that farmers around the world continue their rapid adoption of biotech crop varieties. In 2007 the global planting of biotech crops rose to an all time high of 282 million acres, a 12 percent increase over 2006. In addition, the number of farmers choosing to grow biotech crops rose from 10.3 million in 2006 to over 12 million in 2007. The ISAAA report notes that 11 million of the biotech growers are resource poor farmers in developing countries, the majority of whom cultivate insect-resistant cotton. Biotech crops are now planted in 23 countries, and 29 others have approved the import of biotech food and feed.

Let's look at FOE's claims about the alleged faults of biotech crops.

Do biotech crops yield less than conventional crops? FOE is artful in its use of data. Some biotech varieties did initially impose slight yield penalties when compared to conventional varieties. This occurred because breeders improved conventional varieties during the years it took biotech crops to be approved by regulatory agencies. Even so, farmers adopted slightly lower yielding biotech crops because they were cheaper to grow. Biotech crops need fewer pesticide applications and require less plowing. A 2006 study by the British agricutural and food economics consultancy, PG Economics, found no impact from biotech on soy yields while cotton and corn enjoyed higher yields. Even though biotech seeds cost more, overall lower production costs more than make up for the initial expense. The PG Economics report estimates that biotech crops have increased farm incomes by $27 billion since 1996.

Do biotech crops harm the environment? FOE claims that biotech crops use more pesticides than conventional varieties and it identifies crops resistant to the herbicide glyphosate (aka Roundup) as the chief offenders. Farmers kill weeds without harming their biotech crops by spraying with glyphosate. The PG Economics study found that the adoption of biotech crops reduced the use of pesticides since 1996 by 224 million kilograms (493 million pounds), or just about 7 percent.

In addition, herbicide resistant crops enable farmers to switch to no-till farming which dramatically reduces soil erosion. In fact, an August 2007 study in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences finds that "no-till farming can build soil fertility even with intensive farming methods." However, some regions experienced an increased use of glyphosate as farmers shifted to no-till agriculture. So if glyphosate applications are going up, is it harmful to the environment or human health? Not even the hyper-cautious Pesticide Action Network puts glyphosate on its list of "bad actors." Nor does glyphosate linger in the environment—it is rapidly degraded by soil microbes with a half-life of a week to several months, which is shorter than many of the herbicides that it replaces.

FOE also claims that spraying biotech crops with herbicides is forcing the faster evolution of herbicide resistant superweeds. Just as bacteria eventually evolve to resist antibiotics, so too do weeds evolve to resist herbicides. This process started with the introduction of modern herbicides after World War II, well before the advent of modern biotech varieties. Fortunately, biotechnology is a fine tool for developing new ways to control weeds.

FOE argues that crop biotechnology has stagnated and correctly points out that the vast majority of biotech crop varieties incorporate just two traits: insect resistance and herbicide tolerance. These traits are valuable to farmers though they don't not offer obvious benefits to consumers. If few new biotech crops have yet to make it to the tables of consumers, FOE can take a good bit of the credit. FOE and other ideological environmentalists have campaigned tirelessly to block the development and spread of new beneficial biotech crop traits. FOE does its best to stop biotech in its tracks and then turns around to assert that researchers have developed nothing new.

However, FOE will soon not be able to make that hypocritical claim. Biotech researchers are now incorporating traits for drought resistance, salt tolerance, and one which enables plants to thrive on half a dose of nitrogen fertilizer. Crops with these traits will be particularly valuable for poor farmers in developing countries. Despite FOE's opposition, "Golden Rice," which has been genetically improved to help prevent vitamin A deficiency, which blinds 300,000 to 500,000 poor children each year, should become available by 2011. In addition, researchers are creating crops that provide enhanced nutrition such as tomatoes with increased folate.

Anti-biotech campaigns by activist groups like FOE have succeeded in frightening the governments of many developing countries into banning biotech crops. Nevertheless, biotech crops have been embraced by poor farmers around the world—whenever their governments will let them. The World Banks's World Development Report 2008 (WDR) notes that second-generation biotech crops are now making their way to the market. The WDR reports, "Transgenic rice, eggplant, mustard, cassava, banana, potato, sweet potato, lentil, and lupin have been approved for field testing in one or more countries. Many of those technologies promise substantial benefits to poor producers and consumers."

And finally, FOE complains that biotech seeds are monopolized by a few large companies. Again, FOE activists should look in the mirror to find the culprits behind this industry consolidation. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the number of startup and well-established seed companies that aimed to develop agricultural biotech exploded. But, as we've seen, crop biotech ran into a buzz saw of environmentalist opposition, especially in Europe. Consequently, since biotech seeds are relatively low in value compared to biomedical treatments, small crop biotech companies withered and the industry consolidated into fairly large companies, chiefly Monsanto, Dupont, Syngenta and Bayer. St. Louis, Missouri-based Monsanto dominates the market for biotech seed. Some 60 percent of all biotech improved seeds contain traits developed by Monsanto. FOE is certainly responsible, in part, for Monsanto's exploding profits.

Finally, let's revisit the title of FOE's new report: "Who Benefits from GM Crops?" As the ISAAA report clearly shows, millions of farmers around the world think that they benefit from biotech crops. Since this is so, FOE can only conclude that these farmers are either stupid or deluded or both. If biotech crops did not deliver their promised benefits, farmers around the world would not be adopting them at exponential rates. Not even FOE's most determined efforts to spread anti-biotech misinformation can obscure this plain fact.

Disclosure: I used to own some Monsanto shares years ago. It looks as though I should have held onto them. I don't own any other crop biotech stocks. I grew up on a farm and I can tell you that plowing and weeding are not all that much fun.

Ronald Bailey is reason's science correspondent. His most recent book, Liberation Biology: The Scientific and Moral Case for the Biotech Revolution, is available from Prometheus Books.

LA's Bacon-Wrapped Hot Dog Wars

bdoherty@reason.com (Brian Doherty) — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 13:36:00 EST

Well-reported article from the LA Weekly, with fodder for both pro- and anti-regulation readers, on the city of Los Angeles' wars on street hot dog vendors. It's a story of gentrification and the imposition of outsider standards that aren't necessarily welcome; it's also a story of the resentment of those who at least are trying to obey regulations and stay aboveground against lawbreakers willing to satisfy consumer demand by any means necessary.

The unarguable upshot: you cannot legally grill a hot dog and sell it on the streets of LA, thus casting a shadow of criminality over late-night drinkers' favorite snack, the hazardously delicious grilled bacon-wrapped hot dog, a favorite of the streets outside bars in LA and San Francisco (and doubtless elsewhere).

Some interesting excerpts:

So you can imagine the frustration of vendors like [Elizabeth] Palacios, caught between the demands of the market and the demands of the law.
She would love to sell bacon-wrapped hot dogs — trust her — but a trip last year to the women's county jail, a trip she says officials orchestrated to "make an example" of her, finally pushed her to give up the bacon and illegal grilling device she used for so long. Instead, she prepares dogs the only way the county Environmental Health Department currently allows, by boiling or steaming. Not grilling. And grilling is the only way to make a classic L.A. bacon-wrapped hot dog.
"Honestly, I can tell you, I've been a working person all my life, I've worked since I was 9 years old," Palacios says. "I don't like being bothered, I don't like being arrested. Never in my life had I been to jail, and they threw me in jail for violating the laws of the health department."
..........
As the gentrification of downtown creeps south and east into territory once exclusively working-class, many of the immigrant and gritty, organically evolved elements of the urban landscape — like street vendors and bacon-wrapped hot dogs — are being gradually pushed out.
"They told me, 'The mayor wants to make this area like New York, Times Square,' but I told them, 'Who told him we want that? The people who come here are not like that.' Ninety-nine percent of the people here are mexicanos. Here, you don't really see americanos....."

But Palacios is at least trying to stay above the law. Some vendors don't:

Below the legal vendors are the more ubiquitous operators of homemade carts, which usually consist of propane tanks strapped to modified baby strollers, Target shopping carts or, in most cases, tool carts. They operate completely outside of codes and regulations, their particular rules and organizational methods a mystery to outsiders.
Licensed vendors like Palacios refer to the makeshift bacon-wrapped-hot-dog vendors as "ambulantes" or "piratas," colloquial terms for unlicensed street vendors in Mexico. ......they are almost impossible to track. They usually set up shop on a street for just a short while and then leave. When piratas' shabbily constructed illegal carts are confiscated, vendors rarely show up for hearings or pay impound fees to have their carts returned. That is, if they stick around long enough to be served with a citation. In many instances, illegal hot-dog vendors literally run off at the sight of police.....

.........

Palacios says she sees a double standard.
"[An inspector] came to check me, and the piratas were there, in front of us, and I said, 'Hey, why don't they move them? What happened?'" Palacios recalls. "She said, 'Oh, they get aggressive,' and I said, 'Oh, you want me to get aggressive?' [The inspector] says, 'You know what? I have your ID. If you get aggressive, I put you in jail, and I can't do that to them, because I don't know who they are.'"

Perhaps the most interesting lines to the anarcho-libertarian:

Palacios said she's had health-department inspectors tell her they won't deal with her because her English is not good enough. ("And why wouldn't I have an accent? I wasn't born here," she protested.) Other city workers tell her she should give up her cart and just get a job in local government, because there "you don't do anything."

And:

Authorities also say that in some areas of the city, unlicensed vendors pay "taxes" to local gangs.

Which is of course nothing at all like paying licensing fees to a city to make sure you aren't bothered by their "enforcers." The entire article is well-worth reading, just as an illegally grilled bacon wrapped dog is well worth eating.

You Know It's Bad When...

kmw@reason.com (Katherine Mangu-Ward) — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 18:07:00 EST

You know you've gone a little overboard when the man who invented the idea of a tax on Twinkies thinks that your efforts to combat obesity are too extreme.

In Mississippi this week, three state legislators proposed legislation to prohibit restaurants from serving food to obese people. The Twinkie Taxer himself, Yale's Kelly Brownell, was not amused:

"It would be hard to concoct something more ridiculous," says Kelly Brownell, director of Yale University's Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity. "This brings bias against obese individuals to a new and appalling level."

Brownell joins a broad (ha!) coalition opposing the bill which includes PeTA, nutritionists, fat people, and me.

Via CCF and alert reader P.B.M.

Is Fresh Breath a Crime?

kmw@reason.com (Katherine Mangu-Ward) — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 16:09:00 EST

I can't imagine why law enforcement officials have asked Hershey's to stop manufacturing these innocent Ice Breakers breath fresheners. Perhaps minty freshness on the lips of their suspects would distract them from their important duties? Yes, that must be it.

Or maybe:

Members of Philadelphia's police narcotics squad said the mints closely resemble tiny heat-sealed bags used to sell powdered street drugs. They charged that the consequences could be serious if, for example, a child familiar with the mints found a package of cocaine....
Ice Breakers Pacs, which first hit store shelves in November, are nickel-sized dissolvable pouches with a powdered sweetener inside. The pouches come in blue or orange and bear the Ice Breakers logo.

There's an epidemic of edgy breath fresheners! I tracked the trouble caused by the gateway gum, mojito mint, here. And don't forget Cocaine energy drinks.

Who Will Watch the Lunchboxes?

kmw@reason.com (Katherine Mangu-Ward) — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 15:48:00 EST

Bullies have long robbed the slow fat kids of their lunches and/or lunch money in schoolyards worldwide. But, in a new twist on that age old model, lunch ladies will soon be charged with plucking brown bags from the hands of the fatties if their contents don't meet government-approved standards in the U.K.

The Daily Mail reports:

If a packed lunch is deemed to contain too much fat and sugar, parents could be sent warning letters or their children's meals confiscated....
Under the Government's obesity strategy, all schools will be expected to design a "healthy lunchbox policy" on what makes a nutritional packed lunch over the next year.

Every kid is scared of the archetypal lunch lady, with her hairnet and orthopedic shoes. But this takes things to a whole new level. I'm guessing that the tasty lunch shown above will be off-limits, for example, and not just because of the beer. (Note: clicking through to this recipe for the deep fried cheese-stuffed all-bacon cheeseburger with fried jalapenos may result in adverse health outcomes)

Via CCF