In our old (read: post-collegiate) age, we've become much less easily riled. Back when we were an impressionable young college sophomore, we could get angered dozens of times while reading just one section of the paper. These days, most stories just make us depressed. It's been a good long time since we've read something that really set our blood boiling, but a recent post about food stamps on Megan McArdle's blog over at The Atlantic did just that. (Props to MP: Chicago for bringing it to our attention.) McArdle is, we think, mainly trying to make the point that food stamps are not a good way to stimulate the economy. We have never pretended to be an economist, so we will reserve judgment as to whether or not that happens to be true, but, frankly, whether or not food stamps are a valid economic stimulus is irrelevant because that's not what they're meant to be. Food stamps are meant for people who don't make enough money to buy sufficient food. Period. They are not for people who, as McArdle contends in a later post, "take money out of their food budgets to buy something else." They're for people who don't have enough money to have a food budget to begin with.

In our personal favorite part of the original post, McArdle argues against food stamps on the grounds that "the poor don't need more food. Obesity is a problem for the poor in America; except for people who are too screwed up to get food stamps (because they don't have an address), food insufficiency is not." SERIOUSLY???? Might that be because there's, oh, we don't know, higher-calorie processed foods are cheaper because they're full of ingredients subsidized by our agricultural system?

There's an incredibly icky subtext in the posts and their comments that low-income people are in their financial circumstances purely because they make bad choices (at one point, McArdle suggests giving "the poor" money instead of food stamps because "even if they spend it all on drugs, it will hardly be much worse than spending it all on increasing their already astronomical obesity rates." You know those poors! All they want are drugs and fatty foods!

We are willing to bet that McArdle has never been to a supermarket in a low-income neighborhood. We have, and we'll tell you a few things. First of all, basic foods (milk, eggs, etc.) tend to be more expensive than they should ever be. Secondly, the produce is, generally, incredibly subpar: rotting fruits and veggies, all for astronomical prices. We don't generally eat processed foods and we'd go for the mac and cheese in that situation. Plenty of the commenters seem to think that because they have certain grocery-shopping options, clearly low-income folks do as well. Many low-income people are, to a large extent, bound to their location, especially in non-urban areas. We agree that Trader Joe's has some really great deals. That's not very helpful if you don't live near one. Sure, you can save a lot of money by doing your grocery shopping in bulk at Costco. Guess what? If you don't have a car and you can't pay for a few months worth of groceries up front, that's not feasible.

Of course it's problematic that most people who qualify for food stamps have to use them at grocery stores with sub-par options. The solution to that problem, however, is definitely not to eliminate food stamps. Instead, we need to think about how to make healthy foods realistic options for low-income consumers.

Why Not Food Stamps? [Asymmetrical Information]
Protect Them From Themselves [Asymmetrical Information]

[Photo: From the Wilderness]

You know how we feel about bees. The epidemic of Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) is incredibly troubling to anyone who enjoys fruits and vegetables. Now, three filmmakers are attempting to make a documentary about the situation. The trailer, below, is really interesting stuff and the visuals are gorgeous. Check it out and, if you like what you see, consider donating to help get the full film made.

Vanishing Of The Bees Documentary [BoingBoing]
The Vanishing of the Bees [Official Site]
The Vanishing of the Bees [YouTube: hipfuel]

We sure do love tomatoes. We make tomato sauce several times a week, slice up juicy cherry and grape tomatoes to top everything from chicken breasts to veggie burgers, and in the summer, there's little we love more than a simple salad of tomatoes, feta, and basil drizzled with a really great olive oil and some salt. Yes, tomatoes are crazy delicious, but you know what's less pleasant? The plight of Florida's tomato workers. Workers earn about 45 cents for every 32-pound bucket of hand-picked tomatoes. This results in wages far below the poverty line for most workers and, in an especially horrifying turn of events, last week a family in Immokalee, Florida, was convicted of enslaving a group of Mexican and Guatemalan immigrants and forcing them to pick tomatoes without reasonable compensation. Clearly, this is a bad scene.

But wait! There's more! In 2005, the tomato pickers received their first big raise since the 70s when Yum Brands (owners of Taco Bell and other chains) agreed to pay a penny more for each pound of tomatoes picked. In April 2006, McDonald's agreed to do the same. Burger King, however, has been steadfastly refusing to pay the extra penny, despite the fact that most estimate such a move would cost the company less than $300,000 per year (in 2007, Burger King reported $2.23 billion in revenue). The company has now released internal documents indicating that they might start searching for a new (and presumably cheaper) source of tomatoes.

Emboldened by Burger King's refusal to pony up the extra pennies, the Florida Tomato Growers Exchange now wants to undo the deals with Yum Brands and McDonald's and has threatened to fine any grower who accepts extra money for migrant workers' wages $100,000. The Exchange's website explains their reasoning: "Due to legal concerns over federal and state laws relating to antitrust, labor and racketeering, we [the Florida Tomato Growers Exchange] strongly urge our members not to participate in any labor deal that requires tomato companies to adhere to terms and conditions for its employees set by unaffiliated organizations." The site gives no explanation as to why paying workers more might lead to a possible antitrust or racketeering suit.

Last week, Fast Food Nation author Eric Schlosser and our second favorite senator, Vermont's Bernie Sanders took a trip to Immokalee and were highly troubled by the conditions they found. Sanders released two letters. The first, to Reggie Brown, the executive vice-president of the Florida Tomato Growers Exchange, calls for an end to the group's opposition to the penny-per-pound initiative. The second is addressed to John W. Chidsey, CEO of Burger King, and asks the company to reconsider their position on increasing wages for the Florida tomato pickers. Both letters are signed by Senators Sanders, Richard Durbin, and Sherrod Brown. Thus far, there have been no responses.

If you're concerned about the situation in Immokalee, we recommend not eating at Burger King until matters are resolved. Beyond that, call your regular grocery store and ask where the tomatoes come from, or, better yet, buy them directly from a farm (challenging, but possible, even at this time of year). You can also write your elected officials and urge them to put pressure on the Florida Tomato Growers Exchange.

What do you think? Does this news make you more likely to choose McDonald's over Burger King?

Penny Foolish [New York Times]
Burger King May Pass on Florida Tomatoes [Florida Today]
Coalition of Immokalee Workers [Official Site]
Florida Tomato Growers Exchange [Official Site]
The Harvest of Shame [Bernie Sanders]

In a move that surprised exactly no one, last week the Boston Public Health Commission voted to give preliminary approval to a ban on trans fats within the city's limits. Shock us, shock us, shock us with that normative behavior, Boston! As in Brookline, the Boston trans fat ban would cover all food that is served in restaurants, bakeries, and school and hospital cafeterias, as well as prepared foods sold at grocery stores and delis. The ban would not extend to food sold at grocery stores and delis that was not prepared in house, so the Hostess cupcakes you buy at your local deli would still be legal, but the french fries you purchase there may well require different preparation techniques.

Although we were, initially, a little troubled by the implications of a trans fat ban, we've come to accept it as inevitable. Most restaurants and bakeries have already begun to get rid of trans fats and, frankly, we haven't noticed any reduction in quality. We even like the new trans fat-free doughnuts at Dunkie's. There's no question that trans fats are wildly unhealthy, so, as long as we can still have our very occasional fix of processed unhealthy treats, we support a ban wholeheartedly.

What do you think about Boston's proposed ban?

Boston Moves Toward A Ban on Trans Fats [Boston Globe]

As part of our continuing Electoral Politics Geek Fest 2008, we recently became rather curious about what the candidates themselves like to eat. Surprisingly, it was a little tricky to find information on the favorite foods of most of the candidates. The New York Times ran a great piece back in November about the difficulties of maintaining a healthy diet on the campaign trail. From this article, we learned that, to put it in tabloid-speak: "Candidates: They're just like US!" Mitt Romney eats the same thing for breakfast every morning (we do too!). Mike Huckabee sees food everywhere he looks (at a metal factory, he remarked that a piece of equipment looked like it would be a good grill for some rib-eye steaks)! Rudy Giuliani steals food from other people's plates! Most endearingly, the article recounts a story of John McCain surveying a table full of snacks and wistfully remarking "I'd love some spaghetti." We have the same thought every day. We certainly never expected to feel this sort of kinship with Republicans! (Also just like us? Bill Clinton who, according to the Washington Post's obligatory New Hampshire diner article, came into the Merrimack Restaurant in Manchester and "said, 'well I'm on a diet,' " reports Maria. "Then he ordered the chicken fingers and onion rings."".)

This was all very intriguing, but we still wanted to know more, much more, about the candidates' eating habits. Mike Huckabee, of course, famously lost 110 pounds during his time as the governor of Arkansas and even wrote a book about his weight loss called Quit Digging Your Grave with a Knife and Fork: A 12-Stop Program to End Bad Habits and Begin a Healthy Lifestyle. A quick look at an excerpt reveals that Huckabee is not only a presidential hopeful but also an aspiring vaudevillian: "I went to my doctor, and the diagnosis was fairly simple: 'You're fat.' Thinking that a bit blunt, I responded, 'Maybe I need a second opinion.' To which he replied, 'Okay, you're ugly too.'" Ba dum DUM! He'll be in South Carolina all week, folks! Try the fish sticks!

As entertaining as his book may be, Hucakbee is, sadly, the only candidate so upfront about his eating habits. Discouraged, we turned to our perennial last resort: MySpace. We learned plenty of things while browsing the candidates' MySpace pages (several have Twitter blogs!), but sadly, we could only find a few pieces of food-related information. Hillary Clinton helpfully reveals that her worst habit is chocolate and that while she's a "lousy cook", she makes "pretty good soft scrambled eggs." We wonder if she uses the same whisking method we do! Clinton also mentions that the item that reminds her most of where she came from are the olive burgers from The Pickwick in Chicago. Ron Paul doesn't talk much about food per se, but he does reveal that he enjoys gardening and tending to his tomato plants, which is sort of adorable. We remain infinitely curious about the favorite foods of other candidates, so if you have any information on the subject, please do let us know.

As we promised this morning, we've compiled a list of the Republican presidential candidates' policies on food issues. Interestingly, far less of the Republican candidates give any information on these issues than do the Democrats. While an interest in food policy might seem to be traditionally liberal (after all, no one is calling Michael Pollan or Eric Schlosser conservative), the fact is that food issues and agricultural policy are inextricably linked and rural areas are a huge part of the Republican base. Without any further ado, let's see what the candidates have to say.

•Here's what we find most interesting about Mike Huckabee: despite the fact that he recently won the Iowa caucus, there are shockingly few headlines reading "America hearts Huckabees." Also, his slogan is "Faith. Family. Freedom." which is sort of mindboggling in its focus. Anyways, like fellow Iowa winner Obama, Huckabee groups his policies on food with those on agriculture. Unlike Obama and Edwards, Huckabee favors farm subsidies: "We take for granted that our food is not only plentiful and diverse, but also inexpensive. As a percentage of income, we spend about half what people in other developed countries do, which gives us an enormous economic advantage. We have so much more money to spend on discretionary items. Part of the reason prices are low is that subsidies keep production at high levels, so keeping American farmers in business is not just good for them but for all of us." There is a lot that's wrong with that statement, including but not limited to the fact that, as we've discussed plenty of times before, subsidies really only keep processed foods inexpensive, something we're surprised that Huckabee, who famously lost over a hundred pounds, wouldn't know. It is safe to say that Huckabee would probably strongly support a version of the Farm Bill similar to the status quo. We don't heart Huckabees.
•Rudy Giuliani apparently has nothing to say about food policy, agriculture, or the environment. We're sure that will play very well in Middle America.
•John McCain makes no mention of food or agriculture, but in a statement on the environment, he writes "John McCain believes that America's economic and environmental interests are not mutually exclusive, but rather inextricably linked." We suspect this means he would favor subsidies.
•Ron Paul is totally the Howard Dean of 2008. College kids and the Internet love him, but he will never actually win anything. Also, he's a doctor! Unlike Dean, however, Paul will probably not become the chair of his party when the elections are over. Paul's website doesn't include any information about his positions on food, agriculture, or the environment, but he does strongly oppose waitstaff having to pay taxes on their tips because "when you give someone a tip, you should not have to simultaneously tip the federal government." That crazy libertarian should probably be the official candidate of those in the service industry.
•Like Giuliani, Mitt Romney apparently has no thoughts or feelings on anything related to food.
•The "Issues" section of Fred Thompson's website is really weak. We're betting he's out of the race by week's end, so we may never know what he thinks of food policy, other than approving of the craft services truck on Law & Order.

Here's something you might not know about us: we spent our college years majoring in government, specifically American government with a focus on political behavior. Although we are doing exactly nothing with that degree (we also minored in theatre!), we are still something of a political junkie. (On Friday, in the wake of the Iowa caucuses, we sent at least three instant messages to friends reading "EXIT POLLS!!! OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!") We're tickled pink that the actual primaries (as opposed to the invisible primaries) have finally started and we're very much looking forward to our opportunity to vote next month.

In our time here at MenuPages, we've become increasingly aware of the political issues surrounding what we eat (see: our coverage of the Farm Bill), so we were quite excited when we saw Serious Eats link to a rundown of the candidates' policies on food issues. We thought the rundown on Food Democracy was great, but we were a bit skeptical that John Edwards was really the only candidate who had actually outlined a policy on food. A little sleuthing on the candidates' websites revealed that while Edwards was the only candidate to title his food policy section "Food Safety", the bulk of the candidates have some information about their food policies online. In the interest of better informing you, dear reader (and you are voting, dear reader, right? RIGHT?), here is a handy list of what we know about the candidates' views on food. We'll list the Democrats now and the Republicans this afternoon.

•Hillary Clinton's website reveals nothing about her beliefs on food policy or, for that matter, agriculture, which seems an odd choice for someone who just campaigned in Iowa and has races in New Hampshire and South Carolina coming right up.
•As Food Democracy pointed out, John Edwards has the most clearly articulated food policy of all the candidates. In the words of the estimable Ed Levine: "Is Michael Pollan an Edwards advisor? That's what it sounds like." Indeed, Edwards seems to be hewing quite directly to Pollan's seminal New York Times Magazine piece on the Farm Bill, calling for country-of-origin labelling, limiting farm subsidies, and expanding conservation programs.
•Did you know that Dennis Kucinich secretly has the best-organized website of anyone? It's true! Kucinich has policies on mad cow disease ("In Congress I intend to introduce legislation that will prohibit the feeding of the remains of any mammal to any animals that humans eat.), farm policy ("Agricultural research and development institutions must be given funding priority to help family farmers make a transition to profitable and sustainable agriculture."), genetically engineered food ("People must have a right to select foods for themselves and their families that are proven to be safe and environmentally friendly."), and organic farming ("The organic farm produces an alternative to chemically raised foods that may well be more nutritious and is usually tastier, all while giving the organic grower a decent livelihood from farming (organic farmers usually don't have to work off the farm to make ends meet.)").
•Barack Obama's food policies are somewhat hidden in his website's section on rural issues, but he has quite a comprehensive policy that is, in many ways, quite similar to Edwards'. Like Edwards, Obama calls for country-of-origin labeling and stronger support for family farmers. Obama also has a few ideas of his own, including a proposal to encourage young people to become family farmers.
•Like Obama, Bill Richardson (it turns out he's still in the race! Who knew?) has buried his views on food reform in another section (in this case, agriculture). His policies are not as clear as those of Edwards, Kucinich or Obama, but he does state that "I will institute tougher standards on food imports fromforeign countries, increase FDA inspections, implement Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) laws, and fight for fair trade to promote our agricultural exports."

Food is one of the most important parts of the holiday season. In our family, Hanukah means our dad makes something delicious (we're especially fond of his fully homemade pizzas). On Christmas Eve, we cook dinner with our mommy and then the next morning we eat cinnamon rolls and drink hot cocoa before going to a family friend's house for a delicious meal that usually involves some sort of excellent meat dish (we're lobbying for a return to Beef Bourguignon this year) and our own Alsatian Apple & Cream Tart. Unfortunately, not everyone has the resources to eat a beautiful or even sufficient holiday meal. Every year, many Americans rely on food banks and, as the New York Times recently reported, due to a variety of reasons from a lack of agricultural surpluses (again, it all goes back to the Farm Bill) to the increased foreclosures and gas prices, this year, the numbers are even higher. Many food banks are placed in the terrible position of having to turn families away and giving families smaller packages of food.

If it's remotely feasible, we strongly encourage you to help out in whichever way you can. The Greater Boston Food Bank accepts help in whatever form you can provide it, whether through a donation of food, money, or time. Most of us are crunched for at least the latter two during the holiday season, but won't you do what you can to help? Remember, everyone deserves a happy and delicious holiday.

Food Banks, in a Squeeze, Tighten Belts [New York Times]
Greater Boston Food Bank [Official Site]

The New York Times' health blog, Well, has a spectacularly dumb post up about restaurant portions. It turns out that most chefs are rather ignorant of what the United States Department of Agriculture considers to be appropriate portion sizes. A study recently published in Obesity Magazine (sidebar: the phrase "Obesity Magazine" makes us giggle and giggle and giggle. Maybe it is because we're exhausted, but whatever! Funny!) asked 300 chefs about portion sizes. It turns out that most chefs are serving what they consider to be "regular-sized" meat and pasta dishes. These dishes, however, are much, much larger than what the USDA considers to be a serving. For example, the chefs were asked to estimate how much penne comprises a typical portion, half gave amounts that were six to eight times as much as the USDA considers to be a serving (one ounce). This would be super-interesting, except that USDA servings are not so much real servings. The USDA recommends that most Americans get at least six servings of grains per day. No one is expecting you to sit down for dinner with one ounce (a mere half cup!) of pasta on your plate. That's just dumb.

What bothers us even more than the willful ignorance about the food pyramid, however, is the implication that chefs and their portion sizes are responsible for consumers' overeating. While we definitely do not dispute that when something is delicious, it's tempting to eat every last bite, ultimately, you're in control of how much you eat. We've found that portions at the vast majority of restaurants are large enough that we can eat half the dish for dinner and the rest for lunch the next day. Not only is this more healthful, but it's economical. $20 for an entree isn't so steep if you think about it as two $10 meals. Just because your plate is piled high with pasta doesn't mean that you have to eat it all, especially not after you've had bread and oil and maybe an appetizer. Next time you're faced with a giant entree, eat half (or even a third) and then pause and assess whether you're still hungry. If so, keep eating! If not, rejoice in the fact that you're saving money and get pumped for a kickass lunch tomorrow.

Oversized Portions? Blame the Chef [Well]
My Pyramid [USDA]
Chef's Opinions of Restaurant Portion Sizes [Obesity]

Dear Sam Holden,

Hey there. We just finished reading your article entitled "Why Women Can't Cook." Sam, we're sorry that your wife is allegedly, an awful cook. We're sorry that you've been subjected to overcooked pork chops and soggy pasta in sour creme fraiche. But really? You want to turn that into evidence that women can't cook because:
•"All they can do is to cater"
•"Women are less inclined to experiment. Good cooks are those who take risks, who wonder whether X goes well with Y, or perhaps even with Q. If it fails, it doesn't matter, you can always start again. Women are more afraid of failure, perhaps because they are wary of all that nasty male criticism, so it does them well to stick to well-trodden recipes."
•"Blinded by a series of numbers and symbols, they get confused, and usually add the wrong amount of sugar or salt, or, more likely, substitute one for the other." (Note: this is sooo true. Math is hard!)
•And finally "The reason why men make better chefs than women is precisely because we are sensationally good at multi-tasking." (Oh, really?)

Come on, Holden. We pray to god that you're trying for satire here (although the last paragraph makes us suspect you're being earnest), but, really, you can't do better than sub-Alan Partridge jokes about women's abilities? Really? We can't even be much bothered to respond angrily to this sexist claptrap. Please work harder next time.

Sincerely,
MenuPages Boston

Why Women Can't Cook - By a Very Brave Husband [Daily Mail]
Women Take Off the Gloves and Come Out Multitasking [New York Times]

[Photo: mandarine]

We're always glad to be reminded that we're not the only ones troubled by the dialogue surrounding female chefs. Now, Antoinette Bruno of StarChefs has added her voice to the fray. Bruno recently interviewed eight of America's top female chefs (and, somewhat mysteriously, Danny Meyer), including Cambridge's own Ana Sortun (of Oleana) and Jody Adams (of Rialto, which someone should inform StarChefs is not, in fact, located in San Francisco).

Both Chef Sortun and Chef Adams came across as totally awesome badasses. Adams neatly dismissed Marco Pierre White's recent claim that the physical demands of restaurant work keep women from reaching the top of the culinary ladder: "I think men and women are equally strong, both emotionally and physically. My back is incredibly strong. There wasn’t anything that I couldn’t do that at a man could. There have been men who couldn’t keep up with me — and plenty that could!" She also recounted an excellent anecdote about an interview she did with the New York Times in the early 90s wherein the photographer declined to take her picture for the story because "I already have a picture of a woman." It was Sortun, however, who really summed up our own feelings on the matter: "What it takes is ‘game.’ You’ve got to want to play ball. It is not about being physically stronger or tolerant. It’s about wanting to play bad enough." The question, of course, remains why more women don't want to play bad enough or if there's something taking them out of the game. As always, we welcome your comments on the matter.

At The Top of Their Game [StarChefs]
Oleana [Official Site]
Rialto [Official Site]