Posted by Meg
Looking for a place to eat in NYC? Looking for other stuff by that restaurant, places to walk, food shops and regular shops? Want to find it by borough, landmark or street address? Then Mappetite is for you!
I think I’m in love. Must steal my foodie counterpart and take the Dragon Bus to NYC!
Posted by Meg
In yesterday’s Washington Post, Jimmy Carter wrote on the misery of farm subsidies.
He says,
It is embarrassing to note that, from 1995 to 2005, the richest 10 percent of cotton growers received more than 80 percent of total subsidies. The wealthiest 1 percent of American cotton farmers continues to receive over 25 percent of payouts for cotton, while more than half of America’s cotton farmers receive no subsidies at all. American farmers are not dependent on the global market because they are guaranteed a minimum selling price by the federal government. American producers of cotton received more than $18 billion in subsidies between 1999 and 2005, while market value of the cotton was $23 billion. That’s a subsidy of 86 percent!
And how.
This week’s Economist is about the end of cheap food thanks to farm subsidies (among other things). They say,
The trillions of dollars spent supporting farmers in rich countries have led to higher taxes, worse food, intensively farmed monocultures, overproduction and world prices that wreck the lives of poor farmers in the emerging markets. And for what? Despite the help, plenty of Western farmers have been beset by poverty. Increasing productivity means you need fewer farmers, which steadily drives the least efficient off the land. Even a vast subsidy cannot reverse that.
“The Economist’s food-price index is higher today than at any time since it was created in 1845 (see chart). Even in real terms, prices have jumped by 75% since 2005.”
Enter agflation. There are certainly other things that drive up food prices (change in global diet, the weather, the rest of the market economy), but subsidies, subsidies, subsidies are the prime factor. They started out with the best of intentions, but at this point, they are not working and should be abandoned, or drastically revamped. The trifecta of Meg, Jimmy Carter and the Economist agree: it must be true. But how change?
The Farm Bill is being discussed again this week in Congress. If only Iowa weren’t so important right now, we could discuss wildly inefficient ethanol subsidies for what they are, and not the votes they have the potential to win.
Posted by Meg
2007 has been a less than stellar year as far as food safety is concerned. Seemingly every week we’ve faced yet another recall: beef, chicken, pork. An article in the New York Times this morning talks about what Tyson is doing to change their beef processing. They’re changing the way they steam, vacuum, and treat a carcass. But Dean Danilson, the man in charge of food safety at Tyson, hits on something interesting in one line of the article. He says, “Keeping the dust down [at cattle ranches], knocking some of the caked-on mud and things off, any little bit helps.”
The way I see it, there are two distinct parts to the meat process: the part where the animal is alive, and the part where the animal is dead. Why put all the burden on the meat processors? Why not share the burden of food safety with ranchers? Mass ranching is a brutal and disgusting process. If we make it a little cleaner, a little more humane, a little less crowded, maybe we’ll have fewer problems with extremely dirty, damaged carcasses coming to the meat processors. Same goes for chickens and pork.
Maybe I’m beating the PETA drum a little too hard, but I think it could make a difference. Many consumers are responding well to cage free eggs, and the commercials about “happy cows” for California cheese were somewhat successful. Why not expand into meat production? Furthermore, a less crowded method of farming will leave a smaller ecological footprint. Green is in, and hey, not getting food poisoning is always a winner. Let’s go with it.
Posted by Meg
Today’s New York Times dining section announces the extinction of entrees in restaurants across the country. Personally, I’m glad. I agree with all the foodie chef-y explanations like boredom of the palette, but I like it for another reason. Entrees these days are giant. I mean, they’re enormous. I don’t want to leave a restaurant feel like I’m going to puke. I just want to enjoy something tasty and be satisfied. Call it a snack, a small plate, whatever you want. I’m convinced that this new dining phenomenon is simply a return to normal portion sizes… with tastier edibles.