Genetically Modified Foods And American Food Policy

[memebag]

It is nearly inconceivable that having consumers grow much of their own food is in any way more efficient or better for the environment than having big agri-business do it for them. Back yard gardens require ridiculous amounts of labor and capital per unit of output as compared to what is grown in big operations.

That idea reminds me of the backyard steel mills the Chinese government advocated during the Great Leap Forward. People melted down household metal objects into usless lumps of slag in small furnaces they built in their backyards. Not that there was much use for pots and pans during the worst famine of the 20th century.

[mojeaux131]

I'd never heard of chrematistics or oikonomia, and upon looking up "definitions", it seems that somebody lacking a fundamental understanding of economics has gone and made up duplicative terms. Chrematistics is finance. Oikonomia is economics. The former is a subset of the latter.

"for chrematistics, circulation is the source of riches . . . And it appears to revolve around money, for money is the beginning and the end of this kind of exchange. Therefore also riches, such as chrematistics strives for, are unlimited. Just as every art which is not means to an end, but an end in itself, has no limits to its aims, because it seeks constantly to approach nearer and nearer to that end, while those arts which pursue means to an end are not boundless, since the goal itself imposes a limit on them, so with chrematistics there are no bounds to its aims, these aims being absolute wealth. Economics, unlike chrematistics, has a limit . . . for the object of the former is something different from money, [the object of the latter] is the augmentation of money . . . By confusing these two forms, which overlap each other, some people have been led to look upon the preservation and increase of money ad infinitum as the final goal of economics."

http://homepages.uel.ac.uk/M.DeAngelis/213ln2.htm

"The concept of sustainability is far broader than conventional economic theory. Daly and Cobb refer to conventional economics as "chrematistics" -- the "manipulation of property and wealth so as to maximize short-term monetary exchange value to the owner". Sustainability is also broader than current ecological or social theory -- it includes "chrematistics". But sustainability is quite consistent with the root-word for economics, "oikonomia" -- "management of the household (community, society, humanity & biosphere) so as to increase its value to all members over the long run" (p. 138). Daly and Cobb propose an "economics of community", which they would achieve through changes in government policies. The proposal put forth in this paper, instead, is to develop a new theory -- sufficiently broad to encompass "oikonomia", for the purpose of guiding sustainable, long run human progress. New policies could then be built upon this new theoretical foundation."

--from the preface to Toward an Economics of Sustainability by John E. Ikerd, University of Missouri, 1997

http://web.missouri.edu/ikerdj/papers/econ-sus.htm

Especially the latter example I`ve cited reiterates my understanding of the two terms, the contrast of which I first encountered in Paul Hawken`s The Ecology of Commerce.

Your goal seems to be Pareto Efficiency (sometimes known as Pareto Optimality). It encompasses short- and long-run considerations as they relate to public policy. Look it up.

This is interesting. Thank you for exposing me to this concept.

"Under certain idealized conditions, it can be shown that a system of free markets will lead to a Pareto efficient outcome. This is called the first welfare theorem. It was first demonstrated mathematically by economists Kenneth Arrow and Gerard Debreu. However, the result does not rigorously establish welfare results for real economies because of the restrictive assumptions necessary for the proof (markets exist for all possible goods, all markets are in full equilibrium, markets are perfectly competitive, transaction costs are negligible, and there must be no externalities)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_efficiency

The restrictive assumptions bear in mind the flattening of the world (globalization and its effects) and the need to eliminate externalities. I like this very much. You are most likely correct in stating that this is my goal, but I will go ahead and claim that Pareto Efficiency could be a feature of oikonomia. I hope that doesn`t bother you too much.

The America of 1944 differs from the America of 2008 in ways that are really quite dramatic. I really do hope you realize that.

Yes, but last time I checked, people still grew gardens and ate produce, so what`s your point?

In the long term, slowing population growth, increased global trade in different sorts of food products, and diversification of consumer tastes, all occuring globally, will go a long way towards limiting the expansion of botanical monoculture as well as the risks to the food supply that it entails.

Good. I hope so. I`d rather we have a backup system in place just in case this doesn`t happen, though.

This doesn't necessarily mean that the trends towards increased agricultural scale, mechanization, fertilization, pesticide use, and regional specialization are likely to abate, however. And this is really a good thing. It can be safer and more efficient.

So we can hope. I would like to believe this. I am not opposed to conventional agriculture per se, just its negative effects and costs.

If fertilizer prices and transportation costs continue to rise as they have, then those costs will either be passed along to the consumer in the form of higher food prices or agricultural practices will be modified so as to consume less of those resources, for instance by way of regional de-specialization such that food sources are nearer to consumers.

This is what I have been talking about.

It is nearly inconceivable that having consumers grow much of their own food is in any way more efficient or better for the environment than having big agri-business do it for them. Back yard gardens require ridiculous amounts of labor and capital per unit of output as compared to what is grown in big operations. The opportunity cost of peoples' time is that people might either be more productive in ways to which they are better specialized, or might perhaps just enjoy that time as leisure, contributing to their mental health and feeding back positively on their productivity when they're trying to be productive.

I doubt the environment is concerned with things like labor and capital per unit of output. You might want to rephrase that part. No one needs to "have consumers grow much of their own food", but if more and more consumers wish to do so, in their own leisure time, there`s nothing wrong with it. And what opportunity cost do you speak of, the cost to those individuals, or to others who would prefer they spend their leisure time in pursuits that require more consumption?

(Please see this if you`re concerned with specialization. I find it interesting that you and this person would both hit upon this same concept. Perhaps you are willing only to spare a minute to read this, so I`ll be very specific: here`s the page

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/magazine...nted=2&_r=1 and it`s from the the third paragraph down. Maybe you can find more than a minute to read the whole article. That might be nice.)

Also, to attain urban farming on any large scale would necessitate that the entire population be given a horticultural education. But that kind of education displaces other kinds of much more important education which will prepare them to be productive in such a way as contributes to higher per capita wealth and lower fertility, which is a solution to these kinds of problems that each of us seems to be able to agree upon.

To attain urban farming on any large scale would necessitate that many people be interested in it. You seem to believe that people are incapable of learning more than one specialty. Why? Large scale urban farming does not require a population to become farmers in any professional sense. Practiced as a hobby or civic pursuit by the majority of those engaged, and given that enough people are interested in it, this type of production is completely feasible, though perhaps not at the same levels of output or yield per acre we see from mechanized, petroleum-intensive agriculture. And this would be totally fine, since this practice would exist as hobby and civic pursuit, working towards supplementing the food supply and facilitating the development of new agricultural techniques, like R and D you can eat.

In this way, the problem expressed by your last sentence wouldn`t necessarily occur. Do you think those hippies growing carrots around Haight Ashbury are having lots of kids? I doubt it.

[memebag]

It is fully within the realm of possibility to change this.

Not with the current population. Without a massive die off, we're stuck with high-yield agriculture.

The more people are able to grow their own food or obtain it from local sources, the less necessary large scale monoculture becomes.

Where are you going to put all of this locally grown, polyculture farming? Are you going to reduce the number of humans to make it work?

[mojeaux131]

Not with the current population. Without a massive die off, we're stuck with high-yield agriculture.

I do not call for an immediate stop to conventional methods. But gradually, food grown by alternative means can supplement more and more of what people eat, until such means will cease to be thought of as alternative.

Where are you going to put all of this locally grown, polyculture farming? Are you going to reduce the number of humans to make it work?

I will put my garden in my backyard, most likely. Where others grow their food is up to them. But I think I may have read about people growing food in formerly empty plots within cities themselves, or on rooftops, or in rural areas that surround cities. Again, despite the burn wounds, people are quite resourceful. Don`t you think so?

[RedScare]

I find it hilarious that Niche believes that having a "Victory Garden" will cause us to return to an agrarian society or require every college to become an A&M college. It's not to tough to plant some tomato plants and grow some cucumbers. Frightening as the thought may be, some homeowners actually ENJOY gardening. And anyone who knows how to Google can get all of the gardening help they can handle.

As for hurting the environment? Please. Every patch of St. Augustine removed from the earth improves the environment. If replaced with crops, so much the better.

BTW, this is not a new idea. Urban Farming

Edited April 21, 2008 by RedScare

[mojeaux131]

No joke. Thanks for the backup. I was wondering when the cavalry was going to arrive...

[TheNiche]

I find it hilarious that Niche believes that having a "Victory Garden" will cause us to return to an agrarian society or require every college to become an A&M college. It's not to tough to plant some tomato plants and grow some cucumbers. Frightening as the thought may be, some homeowners actually ENJOY gardening. And anyone who knows how to Google can get all of the gardening help they can handle.

Total straw man. This is the third time you've done this in the last day or so. It's getting annoying.

[memebag]

I do not call for an immediate stop to conventional methods. But gradually, food grown by alternative means can supplement more and more of what people eat, until such means will cease to be thought of as alternative.

But still a luxury.

I will put my garden in my backyard, most likely. Where others grow their food is up to them. But I think I may have read about people growing food in formerly empty plots within cities themselves, or on rooftops, or in rural areas that surround cities. Again, despite the burn wounds, people are quite resourceful. Don`t you think so?

So this is just about you, not about the rest of the humans. I'm a little confused. Are you advocating the end of high yield agriculture or just thinking about planting some lima beans?

[RedScare]

So this is just about you, not about the rest of the humans. I'm a little confused. Are you advocating the end of high yield agriculture or just thinking about planting some lima beans?

It is rather clear what he is suggesting if one does not hide behind economic theory (Niche) or becoming intentionally obtuse (memebag). There are a lot of good reasons for one to grow some of their own vegetables. For one, you know it is not coated with unknown pesticides. Two, it is a hedge against food inflation. Gardening is well known to be relaxing, and as I stated earlier, vegatables are less of a strain on the land than grass lawns. Vegeatables grown in your yard can be traded with others for foods that you do not grow. And, of course, tractor-trailers are not needed to transport your veggies to your local Kroger.

Even if one does decide to use fertilizer and pesticides on their 'victory garden, because of its smaller size, there is not the overspraying that occurs in large scale farms. Therefore, not as much pesticide and fertilizer washes downstream, creating deadzones in our tributaries and gulfs.

The only drawback is that victory gardens, like conservation and minimalist living, has not achieved sexy status in the US. Therefore, the actual effect on super large farms will be zero. The efficiency, or lack of, in a backyard garden is of no consequence. Some things are done even though....or precisely because....they are inefficient. I renovate my home myself, even though it might be more efficient to hire someone to do it, because I enjoy working with my hands. I drink my rum and coke from a glass, even though it would be more efficient to inject the alcohol into my vein, because I enjoy the act of drinking. Some things are just more enjoyable when they are inefficient. This may explain why economists are universally considered bores.

[mojeaux131]

[memebag]

It is rather clear what he is suggesting if one does not hide behind economic theory (Niche) or becoming intentionally obtuse (memebag).

I didn't mean to be obtuse. I'm unaware of anything obtuse in my posts.

[TheNiche]

"for chrematistics, circulation is the source of riches . . . And it appears to revolve around money, for money is the beginning and the end of this kind of exchange. Therefore also riches, such as chrematistics strives for, are unlimited. Just as every art which is not means to an end, but an end in itself, has no limits to its aims, because it seeks constantly to approach nearer and nearer to that end, while those arts which pursue means to an end are not boundless, since the goal itself imposes a limit on them, so with chrematistics there are no bounds to its aims, these aims being absolute wealth. Economics, unlike chrematistics, has a limit . . . for the object of the former is something different from money, [the object of the latter] is the augmentation of money . . . By confusing these two forms, which overlap each other, some people have been led to look upon the preservation and increase of money ad infinitum as the final goal of economics."

http://homepages.uel.ac.uk/M.DeAngelis/213ln2.htm

"The concept of sustainability is far broader than conventional economic theory. Daly and Cobb refer to conventional economics as "chrematistics" -- the "manipulation of property and wealth so as to maximize short-term monetary exchange value to the owner". Sustainability is also broader than current ecological or social theory -- it includes "chrematistics". But sustainability is quite consistent with the root-word for economics, "oikonomia" -- "management of the household (community, society, humanity & biosphere) so as to increase its value to all members over the long run" (p. 138). Daly and Cobb propose an "economics of community", which they would achieve through changes in government policies. The proposal put forth in this paper, instead, is to develop a new theory -- sufficiently broad to encompass "oikonomia", for the purpose of guiding sustainable, long run human progress. New policies could then be built upon this new theoretical foundation."

--from the preface to Toward an Economics of Sustainability by John E. Ikerd, University of Missouri, 1997

http://web.missouri.edu/ikerdj/papers/econ-sus.htm

Especially the latter example I`ve cited reiterates my understanding of the two terms, the contrast of which I first encountered in Paul Hawken`s The Ecology of Commerce.

This is interesting. Thank you for exposing me to this concept.

"Under certain idealized conditions, it can be shown that a system of free markets will lead to a Pareto efficient outcome. This is called the first welfare theorem. It was first demonstrated mathematically by economists Kenneth Arrow and Gerard Debreu. However, the result does not rigorously establish welfare results for real economies because of the restrictive assumptions necessary for the proof (markets exist for all possible goods, all markets are in full equilibrium, markets are perfectly competitive, transaction costs are negligible, and there must be no externalities)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_efficiency

The restrictive assumptions bear in mind the flattening of the world (globalization and its effects) and the need to eliminate externalities. I like this very much. You are most likely correct in stating that this is my goal, but I will go ahead and claim that Pareto Efficiency could be a feature of oikonomia. I hope that doesn`t bother you too much.

Yes, but last time I checked, people still grew gardens and ate produce, so what`s your point?

Good. I hope so. I`d rather we have a backup system in place just in case this doesn`t happen, though.

So we can hope. I would like to believe this. I am not opposed to conventional agriculture per se, just its negative effects and costs.

This is what I have been talking about.

I doubt the environment is concerned with things like labor and capital per unit of output. You might want to rephrase that part. No one needs to "have consumers grow much of their own food", but if more and more consumers wish to do so, in their own leisure time, there`s nothing wrong with it. And what opportunity cost do you speak of, the cost to those individuals, or to others who would prefer they spend their leisure time in pursuits that require more consumption?

(Please see this if you`re concerned with specialization. I find it interesting that you and this person would both hit upon this same concept. Perhaps you are willing only to spare a minute to read this, so I`ll be very specific: here`s the page

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/magazine...nted=2&_r=1 and it`s from the the third paragraph down. Maybe you can find more than a minute to read the whole article. That might be nice.)

To attain urban farming on any large scale would necessitate that many people be interested in it. You seem to believe that people are incapable of learning more than one specialty. Why? Large scale urban farming does not require a population to become farmers in any professional sense. Practiced as a hobby or civic pursuit by the majority of those engaged, and given that enough people are interested in it, this type of production is completely feasible, though perhaps not at the same levels of output or yield per acre we see from mechanized, petroleum-intensive agriculture. And this would be totally fine, since this practice would exist as hobby and civic pursuit, working towards supplementing the food supply and facilitating the development of new agricultural techniques, like R and D you can eat.

In this way, the problem expressed by your last sentence wouldn`t necessarily occur. Do you think those hippies growing carrots around Haight Ashbury are having lots of kids? I doubt it.

OH, SON OF A delicate flower! I'd typed nearly an entire response over the last couple of hours, then went back to edit it, typed a backspace somewhere along the way, and somehow that acted like the browser's Back button. The Forward button sent me to a blank response.

I don't have the patience to re-do all of this, but the high points are this:

1) The folks you're citing don't actually seem know what economics or money is. They're philosophers (and not very good ones) operating on their own unique non-technical vocabulary and make normative assumptions that no self-respecting economist would ever apply to their entire field of study.

2) Economics is the study of how different people in different circumstances make decisions. There are two sides of it, positive and normative. Positive only tries to study how things already are and in objective and measurable terms. Normative tries to study how things ought to be done, but is inescapably subjective. Pareto Efficiency can be thought of as a victory condition in the normative realm.

3) Pareto Efficiency was conjured up by a mathematician. Taken rigidly, it must adhere to the assumptions that Wikipedia mentions in order to be a viable proof. But when used as a starting-point for practical cost-benefit analysis, imperfect and distorted markets and externalities can be accounted for by proper analytical techniques.

4) There are folks that engage in gardening, but the majority don't have the time or skill set to accomplish a vegetable garden. Doing so has a learning curve and requires a lot of time, and while some consider gardening to be leisure activity, most people would see it as a chore. And it's not that my parents didn't try vegetable gardening when I was growing up in the country, either. Today, burned from so many failed attempts, they limit themselves to growing mint on the rear deck for use in mojitos. Does that count?

5) I'd find it very difficult to believe that transportation costs will ever be the foremost limiting factor on agricultural localization (in the developed world). I won't count out the possibility, but it just seems as though a lot of produce can be successfully shipped in bulk, for instance by rail or barge, and that the fuel efficiency of those kinds of transportation go a long way towards assuring a diet well in excess of subsistence. Generally speaking, I think that peak oil theorists have really overblown things, failing to account for technological innovation or substitution by energy sources that are presently too expensive but that wouldn't be even at oil prices well beneath what would be required to disrupt human civilization.

6) It is not that I'm against people being multi-talented and educated in a number of different areas, it is that the time available is finite and therefore valuable. If they want to use some leisure time to learn it, that's up to them. But I'd rather that society's focus be teaching people how to think for themselves. Intuitively, it is my belief that this is the Pareto Efficient approach to education policy and as a cultural focus.

7) Are there still hippies in the Haight Ashbury? True hippies? The poor, dirty, and stinky ones? The boomers too old to be having more kids that had given their first litter names like 'Sunbeam'? Your comment is confusing to me.

[mojeaux131]

OH, SON OF A delicate flower! I'd typed nearly an entire response over the last couple of hours, then went back to edit it, typed a backspace somewhere along the way, and somehow that acted like the browser's Back button. The Forward button sent me to a blank response.

I don't have the patience to re-do all of this, but the high points are this:

1) The folks you're citing don't actually seem know what economics or money is. They're philosophers (and not very good ones) operating on their own unique non-technical vocabulary and make normative assumptions that no self-respecting economist would ever apply to their entire field of study.

As for the first citation I used, I was showing the origins of the two terms and correcting your definition, since the terms are

Greek in origin and the citation has them quoted in their original context (albeit translated).

As for the second citation, I was defending my use of the terms by showing their appearance in an academic paper written

by someone with a Ph.D. in Agricultural Economics, which I thought might have some relevance to our discussion.

I'm sorry these people do not meet your personal standards for academic credibility. Other than that, I see little point in continuing the discussion from an economical point of view, which you seem to be fond of doing. You are very knowledgeable. Good for you.

From what little I know of economics, I'll spell out one more time why I think we should try to change how we're doing things.

a. Current modes of production are more or less dependent on a finite resource (petroleum). Verdict: We must change modes of production to be dependent on the best source of energy for agriculture: the sun.

b. Current modes of production incur large costs that are not accounted for in pricing. Verdict: We must account for these costs and therefore change modes of production to be less costly, and eventually to have no ecological cost. This is entirely feasible given organisms' capacity to recycle matter and waste into useful products.

c. Current modes of production depend on large government subsidies. Verdict: Modes of production must be altered so that those engaged in farming profit from their labor without government aid. Also, this will provide incentives for young people to enter such professions.

I don't know how these things can be done, but I have a few ideas, and I've already shared them on this thread. I believe the most important thing is just for people to realize that we can't continue to do things the same way they were done in the 20th century. Who knows, maybe those people with their heads stuck in the sand who think things are just fine the way they are are actually environmental extremists who wish to bring about human extinction and thus return the planet to its pristine, pre-human condition. Maybe that's why from the outset of any discussion that involves environmental concerns, they jump in with pessimism and loaded terms. And then sometimes they seek to obfuscate the discussion by utilizing jargon and reducing the main ideas to clumps of minutiae, not that I'm pointing any fingers.

Edit: I might be guilty of utilizing jargon in this thread, but I'm only trying to clarify my position when I do it.

I'm of the opinion that being mindful of our impact on natural (sorry, memebag) er-ecological, non-human systems and working to integrate our decisions into the natural (pre-human) order is of great importance and eventual benefit to humankind.

To paraphrase Dr. John Ikerd, intelligent anthropocentric beliefs are actually ecocentric. (Cuz memebag was right! Humans are totally part of nature!)

2) Economics is the study of how different people in different circumstances make decisions. There are two sides of it, positive and normative. Positive only tries to study how things already are and in objective and measurable terms. Normative tries to study how things ought to be done, but is inescapably subjective. Pareto Efficiency can be thought of as a victory condition in the normative realm.

3) Pareto Efficiency was conjured up by a mathematician. Taken rigidly, it must adhere to the assumptions that Wikipedia mentions in order to be a viable proof. But when used as a starting-point for practical cost-benefit analysis, imperfect and distorted markets and externalities can be accounted for by proper analytical techniques.

Please see above. If you are interested in continuing this conversation, you might want to try and convince me why feeding cows food that makes them sick and necessitates antibiotics is a good thing, or why it's okay that we use 10 calories of fossil fuel energy to produce one calorie of food energy in mechanized agriculture. Please don't hurt my head anymore with your gobbledygook.

4) There are folks that engage in gardening, but the majority don't have the time or skill set to accomplish a vegetable garden. Doing so has a learning curve and requires a lot of time, and while some consider gardening to be leisure activity, most people would see it as a chore. And it's not that my parents didn't try vegetable gardening when I was growing up in the country, either. Today, burned from so many failed attempts, they limit themselves to growing mint on the rear deck for use in mojitos. Does that count?

How do you know how most people would perceive gardening? Anyway, just because something is difficult doesn't mean it's not a worthwhile pursuit. I believe the majority could do it if they chose to do so. Are you arguing the opposite?

5) I'd find it very difficult to believe that transportation costs will ever be the foremost limiting factor on agricultural localization (in the developed world). I won't count out the possibility, but it just seems as though a lot of produce can be successfully shipped in bulk, for instance by rail or barge, and that the fuel efficiency of those kinds of transportation go a long way towards assuring a diet well in excess of subsistence. Generally speaking, I think that peak oil theorists have really overblown things, failing to account for technological innovation or substitution by energy sources that are presently too expensive but that wouldn't be even at oil prices well beneath what would be required to disrupt human civilization.

Okey dokey. Solar is free and unlimited though, and plants have the amazing ability to turn solar energy into yumyums for people to eat. Maybe it'd be better if we just let the plants do their thing without spraying them with icky chemicals and fertilizers that create giant hypoxic zones in the gulf.

6) It is not that I'm against people being multi-talented and educated in a number of different areas, it is that the time available is finite and therefore valuable. If they want to use some leisure time to learn it, that's up to them. But I'd rather that society's focus be teaching people how to think for themselves. Intuitively, it is my belief that this is the Pareto Efficient approach to education policy and as a cultural focus.

Yep, people can think for themselves. They can choose to learn to grow food or study economics or design video games or whatever they want. We are in agreement here. Another economic thingy I know is that the less prevalent a skill set is, the more valuable that skill is (unless you're in a system that's all screwed up by crazy subsidies and are dependent on a finite resource to practice your skill set). So if something big does happen, maybe people who know how to grow food will become "valuable" to a sufficient degree in the eyes of others.

Your idea of society's focus with respect to education is the same as my own.

7) Are there still hippies in the Haight Ashbury? True hippies? The poor, dirty, and stinky ones? The boomers too old to be having more kids that had given their first litter names like 'Sunbeam'? Your comment is confusing to me.

I don't know, they may or may not be the hippie scum you referenced in your earlier posts in this thread. Anyway, my point was that people in developed countries are having less children period, regardless of occupation. Furthermore, a lot of these hippies that are so into urban farming and eat local movements and alternative agriculture and all that aren't having many (or any) children on purpose. That's what I meant.

Edited April 21, 2008 by mojeaux131

[mojeaux131]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/11/opinion/...tml?ref=opinion

Neat article.

[mojeaux131]

'Nother neat article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/10/us/10far...nted=1&_r=1

[escapee]

In the last 6 months or so, Brookshire's and HEB have been selling a pre-packaged 93/7 fat to lean ratio ground beef that has a totally different color and texture. It is a deeper pink, almost like it is bruised. The texture is more ahesive. Strange.

Has anyone else handled ground beef that seemed odd?

[mojeaux131]

Tiny home gardens save Africans from starvation:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7432972.stm

[mojeaux131]

...And Houstonians are beginning to take more of an interest in growing food themselves!

Check it out!

Editorial

July 11, 2008, 10:25PM

Adaptation

Painful gas prices are creating some authentic gains

Copyright 2008 Houston Chronicle

"Gary Edmondson, Urban Harvest's education director, suggests that Houston's early adopters try arugula, yard long beans and suyu cucumbers right now. He said local gardens might do better lower to the ground than the waist-high African versions.

From Edmondson's perspective, the most striking behavior change of late has been among late adopters

Edited July 13, 2008 by mojeaux131

[Subdude]

In the last 6 months or so, Brookshire's and HEB have been selling a pre-packaged 93/7 fat to lean ratio ground beef that has a totally different color and texture. It is a deeper pink, almost like it is bruised. The texture is more ahesive. Strange.

Has anyone else handled ground beef that seemed odd?

I was just reading that meat processors dye meat red to make it look more appealing. That may explain the odd color.

[RedScare]

I was just reading that meat processors dye meat red to make it look more appealing. That may explain the odd color.

Actually, 93% lean meat versus the far more common 80% or even 70% explains not only the color, but the texture. Meat is red. Fat is white. Change the percentage of each and you change the color and texture.

BTW, I bet eating 93% lean meat tastes like eating cardboard.