Posts
Quote For The Day
33 minutes ago
Sunday, December 27, 2009
Nuclear Power At Sea?
TW: Cargo ships are big and prodigious users of oil, usually highly pollutive dirty oils. What about creating nuke powered ships? Innovators will search for workarounds, perhaps nuke cargo ships will provide an answer.
From Gahlran at Info Dissemination:
"...The head of Chinese shipping giant Cosco has suggested that container ships should be powered by nuclear reactors in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from shipping, said to account for 4% of the global total. Shipping companies have gradually been introducing 'super slow steaming', a measure designed to cut fuel consumption and substantially reduce emissions by running engines at very low speed. However, Wei Jiafu, Cosco's president and CEO, speaking at the Senior Maritime Forum of the China International Maritime Exhibition (Marintec China) in Shanghai, said that introducing nuclear-powered ships could be an even cleaner solution. He said, "As they are already onboard submarines, why not cargo ships?" He said that Cosco is in talks with China's nuclear authority to develop nuclear powered freight vessels.
...Let’s begin by noting that a merchant vessel with nuclear power is likely going to be gigantic and will require a highly specialized crew. The costs of operating such a ship will be very high, but with its great size, potential speed, endurance, and cost tradeoffs there may in fact be a lucrative profit margin behind such a vessel. It is also important to note that the vast majority of trained nuclear propulsion experts today are American, so to expect American business interests to immediately dismiss this would be to misunderstand the size, scope, and depth of the discussion.
...What about accidents and piracy? The seas are not immune to Murphy's Law. What happens when a nuclear powered COSCO ship hits a bridge in San Francisco?
...The political ramifications will be enormous, from national security to environment; the range of policy issues will be quite large. Many countries do not allow nuclear powered ships in port, although with ships as large as the ones likely envisioned by COSCO, most countries who object may not have the facilities or the demand to support such large ships. For example, Canada may reject allowing such a ship into their country, but the US may allow nuclear merchant vessels into specific ports. It would be interesting if it ever became more efficient for China to ship into the US on large nuclear ships, then rail cargo into Canada instead of shipping directly to Canada. That is just an example, because I can envision a scenario where Mexico allows huge nuclear ships, and California, Washington, and Oregon did not..."
http://www.informationdissemination.net/2009/12/will-cosco-save-planet-with-nuclear.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+InformationDissemination+%28Information+Dissemination%29
From Gahlran at Info Dissemination:
"...The head of Chinese shipping giant Cosco has suggested that container ships should be powered by nuclear reactors in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from shipping, said to account for 4% of the global total. Shipping companies have gradually been introducing 'super slow steaming', a measure designed to cut fuel consumption and substantially reduce emissions by running engines at very low speed. However, Wei Jiafu, Cosco's president and CEO, speaking at the Senior Maritime Forum of the China International Maritime Exhibition (Marintec China) in Shanghai, said that introducing nuclear-powered ships could be an even cleaner solution. He said, "As they are already onboard submarines, why not cargo ships?" He said that Cosco is in talks with China's nuclear authority to develop nuclear powered freight vessels.
...Let’s begin by noting that a merchant vessel with nuclear power is likely going to be gigantic and will require a highly specialized crew. The costs of operating such a ship will be very high, but with its great size, potential speed, endurance, and cost tradeoffs there may in fact be a lucrative profit margin behind such a vessel. It is also important to note that the vast majority of trained nuclear propulsion experts today are American, so to expect American business interests to immediately dismiss this would be to misunderstand the size, scope, and depth of the discussion.
...What about accidents and piracy? The seas are not immune to Murphy's Law. What happens when a nuclear powered COSCO ship hits a bridge in San Francisco?
...The political ramifications will be enormous, from national security to environment; the range of policy issues will be quite large. Many countries do not allow nuclear powered ships in port, although with ships as large as the ones likely envisioned by COSCO, most countries who object may not have the facilities or the demand to support such large ships. For example, Canada may reject allowing such a ship into their country, but the US may allow nuclear merchant vessels into specific ports. It would be interesting if it ever became more efficient for China to ship into the US on large nuclear ships, then rail cargo into Canada instead of shipping directly to Canada. That is just an example, because I can envision a scenario where Mexico allows huge nuclear ships, and California, Washington, and Oregon did not..."
http://www.informationdissemination.net/2009/12/will-cosco-save-planet-with-nuclear.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+InformationDissemination+%28Information+Dissemination%29
Saturday, December 26, 2009
Looking Back At "Things I Wanted To See Happen In 2009"
TW: Early in January I mentioned a hodgepodge of things I was hoping would happen in 2009. See here.
http://treylaura.blogspot.com/search/label/Things%20I%20Would%20Like%20To%20Happen%20in%202009
While I doubt much has been done to reduce the influence of lotteries, we did manage to achieve several of the hopes: more balance between Israel and Palestine, ending the eastern European missile shield, some increased funding for science amongst others.
http://treylaura.blogspot.com/search/label/Things%20I%20Would%20Like%20To%20Happen%20in%202009
While I doubt much has been done to reduce the influence of lotteries, we did manage to achieve several of the hopes: more balance between Israel and Palestine, ending the eastern European missile shield, some increased funding for science amongst others.
Friday, December 25, 2009
Thursday, December 24, 2009
How Is He Doing?
From Andrew Sullivan at Atlantic:
"I remain...extremely bullish on the guy. There is a huge amount to come - finding a way to bring down long-term debt, ensuring health insurance reform stays on track and reformed constantly to control costs, turning the corner on non-carbon energy, reforming entitlements, finding a new revenue stream like a VAT, preventing Israel from attacking Iran, preventing Iran's coup regime from going even roguer, withdrawing from an Iraq still teetering on new sectarian conflict, avoiding a second downturn, closing Gitmo for good, ending the gay ban in the military ... well, you get the picture.
Change of this magnitude is extremely hard. That it is also frustrating, inadequate, compromised, flawed, and beset with bribes and trade-offs does not, in my mind, undermine it. Obama told us it would be like this - and it is. And those who backed him last year would do better, to my mind, if they appreciated the difficulty of this task and the diligence and civility that Obama has displayed in executing it.
Yes, we have. And yes, we still are the ones we've been waiting for - if we still care enough to swallow purism and pride and show up for the less emotionally satisfying grind of real, practical, incremental reform."
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/12/meep-meep.html
TW: It is never easy, never has been, never will. In talking to my more independently minded friends, most of whom voted for Obama but also had voted for W. Bush at least once; I get the feeling they agree with the sentiments above. Who else would be doing better given the circumstances? Certainly no visible Republican. His opponents are loud and obnoxious but loud and obnoxious is just that.
"I remain...extremely bullish on the guy. There is a huge amount to come - finding a way to bring down long-term debt, ensuring health insurance reform stays on track and reformed constantly to control costs, turning the corner on non-carbon energy, reforming entitlements, finding a new revenue stream like a VAT, preventing Israel from attacking Iran, preventing Iran's coup regime from going even roguer, withdrawing from an Iraq still teetering on new sectarian conflict, avoiding a second downturn, closing Gitmo for good, ending the gay ban in the military ... well, you get the picture.
Change of this magnitude is extremely hard. That it is also frustrating, inadequate, compromised, flawed, and beset with bribes and trade-offs does not, in my mind, undermine it. Obama told us it would be like this - and it is. And those who backed him last year would do better, to my mind, if they appreciated the difficulty of this task and the diligence and civility that Obama has displayed in executing it.
Yes, we have. And yes, we still are the ones we've been waiting for - if we still care enough to swallow purism and pride and show up for the less emotionally satisfying grind of real, practical, incremental reform."
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/12/meep-meep.html
TW: It is never easy, never has been, never will. In talking to my more independently minded friends, most of whom voted for Obama but also had voted for W. Bush at least once; I get the feeling they agree with the sentiments above. Who else would be doing better given the circumstances? Certainly no visible Republican. His opponents are loud and obnoxious but loud and obnoxious is just that.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
A Lesson On Something You Do Not Want To Do
TW: Food eating contests are a really bad idea to me, but then that is me so here is a guide if you feel the need to compete.
From Wired:
"…How to Win an Eating Contest
With good technique, you, too, can be a gustatory champion. We consulted with chowhound Crazy Legs Conti, who holds four world records in competitive eating, and Gerard Mullin, associate professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins, to find a safe and speedy method of gold-medal gluttony. The only question now is, have you got the guts?
— Jen Trolio
1. Pick the right food.
Rookies should cut their teeth on soft, single-component items like meatballs, funnel cakes, and grits. Gradually work your way up to multitextured, bread-and-meat combos like hot dogs and hamburgers.
2. Eat strategically.
You can’t just shovel it in and hope for the best. With pizza, for instance, try the reverse-fold: The cheese on the outside acts as a lubricant and protects the roof of your mouth from the abrasive crust.
3. Breathe through your nose.
An eating contest is no time to be a mouth-breather: You’ll risk choking and waste precious seconds stopping to gasp for air. For unimpeded consumption, breathe carefully through your nose while you gorge.
4. Divide to conquer.
“Reversing” food means instant disqualification. Suppress your gag reflex by dividing the chow mentally into smaller, more manageable portions. Drink water to push vittles to the small intestine and free up your gut."
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/st_howto_1801/
From Wired:
"…How to Win an Eating Contest
With good technique, you, too, can be a gustatory champion. We consulted with chowhound Crazy Legs Conti, who holds four world records in competitive eating, and Gerard Mullin, associate professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins, to find a safe and speedy method of gold-medal gluttony. The only question now is, have you got the guts?
— Jen Trolio
1. Pick the right food.
Rookies should cut their teeth on soft, single-component items like meatballs, funnel cakes, and grits. Gradually work your way up to multitextured, bread-and-meat combos like hot dogs and hamburgers.
2. Eat strategically.
You can’t just shovel it in and hope for the best. With pizza, for instance, try the reverse-fold: The cheese on the outside acts as a lubricant and protects the roof of your mouth from the abrasive crust.
3. Breathe through your nose.
An eating contest is no time to be a mouth-breather: You’ll risk choking and waste precious seconds stopping to gasp for air. For unimpeded consumption, breathe carefully through your nose while you gorge.
4. Divide to conquer.
“Reversing” food means instant disqualification. Suppress your gag reflex by dividing the chow mentally into smaller, more manageable portions. Drink water to push vittles to the small intestine and free up your gut."
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/st_howto_1801/
Banker Hypocrisy
TW: This piece frames the relative hypocrisy of many business folks their mantra is simple: if something goes wrong it is the government's fault, if something goes right it is due to their own brilliance. Ironic coming from a banker. And somehow this banker survived the government's malevolence whilst his poor competitors did not. An on-going theme now is to give the Fed and the government no credit for averting a catastrophe whilst accepting little or no personal responsibility for the crisis. Again ironic coming from those who constantly get all righteous about various forms of personal responsibility.
Anyone who spouts Ayn Rand is immediately dubious in my eyes. Many of my contemporaries came of age reading Rand during the Reagan administration, I fear they have been scarred for life especially as many of them did not read more than one or two books total the entire time I knew them.
From Economist:
"...the latest guest is John Allison, CEO of BB&T a regional American bank. Mr Allison is hard-core devotee of the work of Ayn Rand, and consequently, the interview is not very interesting. His answer to basically every question asked is: the government did it. Like so:
Question: What bank regulatory mechanisms, if any, might have prevented the crises?
John Allison: In my opinion, the crisis was primarily created by government policies, specifically the Federal Reserve putting in too much money under Greenspan where we had negative real interest rates for two years. And then Bernanke inverted interest rates, which created terrible pressure on bank margins. We couldn’t have had a bubble in the economy if the Fed hadn’t printed too much money. It ended up in the housing market because of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, these two giant government sponsored enterprises. So it wasn’t really the regulatory structure that created the problems, it was government policy from the Fed and through Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.
This is wrong in many different ways. First, the suggestion that a bubble was impossible without a complicit Fed is absurd; Mr Greenspan was holding rates low to clean up after a bubble that had just popped, which inflated in an environment of high Fed rates. Secondly, low rates or no, America was running a massive trade deficit with China and a huge petroleum deficit with oil exporters, the flipside of which was a capital account surplus. Other countries were purchasing huge amounts of American debt, including gobs of mortgage debt. Mr Greenspan might have raised the fed funds rate high enough to deflate the rising housing bubble, but only at the cost of a severe recession. The whole of the blame for the money pouring into housing cannot be pinned on the American government.
Meanwhile, the definition of a subprime loan is one which cannot be guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The story of the massive growth in subprime originations in the latter stages of the bubble is the story of growth in non-agency mortgage lending. Fannie and Freddie did begin purchasing mortgage debt originated by other lenders, which did free up capital for additional mortgage lending, but it's just not right to say that the government is responsible for the housing bubble.
And Mr Allison essentially acknowledges this fact just a few minutes later:
Question: What was responsible for BB&T’s relative success and why weren’t other banks so fortunate?
John Allison: Well, BB&T certainly, we’ve had our challenges and we always have made mistakes, but we have done much better than other financial institutions and I primarily think it’s because of the value system we have at BB&T. We’ve had some good strategies and good execution, but they are very secondary to the fact that we were very much a principal driven organization. We’ve had a very strong culture around ethics and values for a long period of time and we’ve reinforced that over and over again. And that value system is based on rationality, which demands honesty, demands integrity, demands a long-term perspective on your business...
Interestingly enough, our value system kept us from making the negative amortization or what are the pick-a-payment mortgages. I remember pick-a-payment mortgages where somebody buys a house and their interest is $1,000 a month, but they only pay $500 a month. We chose not to do those kind of mortgages, not over some grand insight, because at the time, you could sell them in the secondary market, but because one of the fundamental commitments in our mission is to help our clients achieve economic success and financial security. We expect to make a profit doing it, but we don’t consciously want to ever do anything that’s bad for our clients. We knew real estate markets wouldn’t appreciate a 10% a year forever, we didn’t except them to depreciate like they had, but we knew that people would be taking an inordinate risk with those pick-a-payment mortgages and we chose not to do them over ethics, not over economics. So BB&T’s strength, I believe, has been its value system.
Mr Allison credits BB&T's relatively good performance through the crisis with its policy of not doing dumb, irresponsible, excessively risky, or unethical things. But if BB&T were free to not be stupid and unethical, then surely other financial institutions were as well. But, he implies, they opted not to follow that path, and as a result they suffered big losses, which triggered the broader financial crisis. Thus Mr Allison argues that the crisis stemmed from poor decisions made by his competitors.
As much as I support that conclusion, I'm forced to rethink it by Mr Allison's later espousal of a return to a gold standard and an elimination of deposit insurance. That is, he very much wants to reverse the main policy changes that prevented this recession from turning into the Great Depression."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2009/12/pointing_the_finger
Anyone who spouts Ayn Rand is immediately dubious in my eyes. Many of my contemporaries came of age reading Rand during the Reagan administration, I fear they have been scarred for life especially as many of them did not read more than one or two books total the entire time I knew them.
From Economist:
"...the latest guest is John Allison, CEO of BB&T a regional American bank. Mr Allison is hard-core devotee of the work of Ayn Rand, and consequently, the interview is not very interesting. His answer to basically every question asked is: the government did it. Like so:
Question: What bank regulatory mechanisms, if any, might have prevented the crises?
John Allison: In my opinion, the crisis was primarily created by government policies, specifically the Federal Reserve putting in too much money under Greenspan where we had negative real interest rates for two years. And then Bernanke inverted interest rates, which created terrible pressure on bank margins. We couldn’t have had a bubble in the economy if the Fed hadn’t printed too much money. It ended up in the housing market because of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, these two giant government sponsored enterprises. So it wasn’t really the regulatory structure that created the problems, it was government policy from the Fed and through Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.
This is wrong in many different ways. First, the suggestion that a bubble was impossible without a complicit Fed is absurd; Mr Greenspan was holding rates low to clean up after a bubble that had just popped, which inflated in an environment of high Fed rates. Secondly, low rates or no, America was running a massive trade deficit with China and a huge petroleum deficit with oil exporters, the flipside of which was a capital account surplus. Other countries were purchasing huge amounts of American debt, including gobs of mortgage debt. Mr Greenspan might have raised the fed funds rate high enough to deflate the rising housing bubble, but only at the cost of a severe recession. The whole of the blame for the money pouring into housing cannot be pinned on the American government.
Meanwhile, the definition of a subprime loan is one which cannot be guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The story of the massive growth in subprime originations in the latter stages of the bubble is the story of growth in non-agency mortgage lending. Fannie and Freddie did begin purchasing mortgage debt originated by other lenders, which did free up capital for additional mortgage lending, but it's just not right to say that the government is responsible for the housing bubble.
And Mr Allison essentially acknowledges this fact just a few minutes later:
Question: What was responsible for BB&T’s relative success and why weren’t other banks so fortunate?
John Allison: Well, BB&T certainly, we’ve had our challenges and we always have made mistakes, but we have done much better than other financial institutions and I primarily think it’s because of the value system we have at BB&T. We’ve had some good strategies and good execution, but they are very secondary to the fact that we were very much a principal driven organization. We’ve had a very strong culture around ethics and values for a long period of time and we’ve reinforced that over and over again. And that value system is based on rationality, which demands honesty, demands integrity, demands a long-term perspective on your business...
Interestingly enough, our value system kept us from making the negative amortization or what are the pick-a-payment mortgages. I remember pick-a-payment mortgages where somebody buys a house and their interest is $1,000 a month, but they only pay $500 a month. We chose not to do those kind of mortgages, not over some grand insight, because at the time, you could sell them in the secondary market, but because one of the fundamental commitments in our mission is to help our clients achieve economic success and financial security. We expect to make a profit doing it, but we don’t consciously want to ever do anything that’s bad for our clients. We knew real estate markets wouldn’t appreciate a 10% a year forever, we didn’t except them to depreciate like they had, but we knew that people would be taking an inordinate risk with those pick-a-payment mortgages and we chose not to do them over ethics, not over economics. So BB&T’s strength, I believe, has been its value system.
Mr Allison credits BB&T's relatively good performance through the crisis with its policy of not doing dumb, irresponsible, excessively risky, or unethical things. But if BB&T were free to not be stupid and unethical, then surely other financial institutions were as well. But, he implies, they opted not to follow that path, and as a result they suffered big losses, which triggered the broader financial crisis. Thus Mr Allison argues that the crisis stemmed from poor decisions made by his competitors.
As much as I support that conclusion, I'm forced to rethink it by Mr Allison's later espousal of a return to a gold standard and an elimination of deposit insurance. That is, he very much wants to reverse the main policy changes that prevented this recession from turning into the Great Depression."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2009/12/pointing_the_finger
Could There Be a Stronger Argument For Gun Control?
TW: Chuck Schumer and Ben Nelson "hunting" in Nebraska...what has the world come to...those two trying to hunt has to mess up the cosmos somehow. Some folks really should not be allowed to dress up and use a gun that way.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Feynman the Rubber Band Man
TW: The late Richard Feynman was noted for not only his brilliance but his ability to articulate the complex into simplified explanations. In other words he was truly brilliant.
Kinda Harsh...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/opinions/anntelnaes/?hpid=opinionsbox1&referrer=emaillink
TW:...but we always like blog reader suggestions....
TW:...but we always like blog reader suggestions....
No Kidding!!
From Joe Klein at Time:
"A friend suggests that one of the reasons why support for health care reform has ticked upwards in recent days--and that support for the war in Afghanistan ticked upward after the President announced his policy--is that people hate DC gridlock, with its accompanying ration of pettiness. They want action and hope it works. I hope it works, too."
TW: I would file this under the no shit category. Why do you think the Republicans have adopted the oppose everything 24/7/365 approach. Because it works. And also because the corralary is true. If Obama with some Republican help was blazing trails with a united front to address climate change, health care, the economy etc. all incumbents would be polling through the roof, instead there is talk of a 2010 Republican wave. Folks like to say it does not but it does which is a shame (for the governance of our nation) but a reality of life.
"A friend suggests that one of the reasons why support for health care reform has ticked upwards in recent days--and that support for the war in Afghanistan ticked upward after the President announced his policy--is that people hate DC gridlock, with its accompanying ration of pettiness. They want action and hope it works. I hope it works, too."
TW: I would file this under the no shit category. Why do you think the Republicans have adopted the oppose everything 24/7/365 approach. Because it works. And also because the corralary is true. If Obama with some Republican help was blazing trails with a united front to address climate change, health care, the economy etc. all incumbents would be polling through the roof, instead there is talk of a 2010 Republican wave. Folks like to say it does not but it does which is a shame (for the governance of our nation) but a reality of life.
Picture Of the Year
TW: Someone asked me what I thought of Obama's first year. It is simple. Times are challenging, they always are. There is no other human being I would rather have in the office and there has been no other one during my lifetime. Folks on the left have fantasies about him being able to wave a magic wand to accomplish their goals despite the rest of the country not buying into them. To them I say trying managing something in real life instead of theorizing lala land stuff. Folks on the right, just do not like the concept of a progressive POTUS black, white or whatever. To them I say, I can only hope our side keeps winning enough elections to keep the luddites, reactionaries and "good, old days" fetishists out of power.
Monday, December 21, 2009
Best Of 2009: Yum, Yum, Yum
TW: This really should have been part of a Laura "food" post but she refused...I have always been more or less impervious to the occasional hair etc. in my food, this piece validates my cynicism...
From Int'l Herald Tribune:
"...insects and mold in our food are not new. The FDA actually condones a certain percentage of "natural contaminants" in our food supply - meaning, among other things, bugs, mold, rodent hairs and maggots.
In its (falsely) reassuringly subtitled booklet "The Food Defect Action Levels: Levels of Natural or Unavoidable Defects in Foods That Present No Health Hazards for Humans," the FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition establishes acceptable levels of such "defects" for a range of foods products, from allspice to peanut butter.
Among the booklet's list of allowable defects are "insect filth," "rodent filth" (both hair and excreta pellets), "mold," "insects," "mammalian excreta," "rot," "insects and larvae" (which is to say, maggots), "insects and mites," "insects and insect eggs," "drosophila fly," "sand and grit," "parasites," "mildew" and "foreign matter" (which includes "objectionable" items like "sticks, stones, burlap bagging, cigarette butts, etc.").
Tomato juice, for example, may average "10 or more fly eggs per 100 grams - the equivalent of a small juice glass - or five or more fly eggs and one or more maggots." Tomato paste and other pizza sauces are allowed a denser infestation - 30 or more fly eggs per 100 grams or 15 or more fly eggs and one or more maggots per 100 grams.
Canned mushrooms may have "over 20 or more maggots of any size per 100 grams of drained mushrooms and proportionate liquid" or "five or more maggots two millimeters or longer per 100 grams of drained mushrooms and proportionate liquid" or an "average of 75 mites" before provoking action by the FDA.
The sauerkraut on your hot dog may average up to 50 thrips. And when washing down those tiny, slender, winged bugs with a sip of beer, you might consider that just 10 grams of hops could have as many as 2,500 plant lice. Yum.
Giving new meaning to the idea of spicing up one's food, curry powder is allowed 100 or more bug bits per 25 grams; ground thyme up to 925 insect fragments per 10 grams; ground pepper up to 475 insect parts per 50 grams. One small shaker of cinnamon could have more than 20 rodent hairs before being considered defective.
Peanut butter - that culinary cause célèbre - may contain approximately 145 bug parts for an 18-ounce jar; or five or more rodent hairs for that same jar; or more than 125 milligrams of grit.
In case you're curious: You're probably ingesting one to two pounds of flies, maggots and mites each year without knowing it, a quantity of insects that clearly does not cut the mustard, even as insects may well be in the mustard.
The FDA considers the significance of these defects to be "aesthetic" or "offensive to the senses," which is to say, merely icky as opposed to the "mouth/tooth injury" one risks with, for example, insufficiently pitted prunes. This policy is justified on economic grounds, stating that it is "impractical to grow, harvest or process raw products that are totally free of non-hazardous, naturally occurring, unavoidable defects."
The most recent edition of the booklet (it has been revised and edited six times since first being issued in May 1995) reassuringly states that "the defect levels do not represent an average of the defects that occur in any of the products - the averages are actually much lower." Instead, it says, "The levels represent limits at which FDA will regard the food product 'adulterated' and subject to enforcement action."
...But the unsettling reality is that despite food's reassuring packaging and nutritional labeling, we don't really know what we're putting into our mouths...
http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/02/13/news/edlevy.php
From Int'l Herald Tribune:
"...insects and mold in our food are not new. The FDA actually condones a certain percentage of "natural contaminants" in our food supply - meaning, among other things, bugs, mold, rodent hairs and maggots.
In its (falsely) reassuringly subtitled booklet "The Food Defect Action Levels: Levels of Natural or Unavoidable Defects in Foods That Present No Health Hazards for Humans," the FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition establishes acceptable levels of such "defects" for a range of foods products, from allspice to peanut butter.
Among the booklet's list of allowable defects are "insect filth," "rodent filth" (both hair and excreta pellets), "mold," "insects," "mammalian excreta," "rot," "insects and larvae" (which is to say, maggots), "insects and mites," "insects and insect eggs," "drosophila fly," "sand and grit," "parasites," "mildew" and "foreign matter" (which includes "objectionable" items like "sticks, stones, burlap bagging, cigarette butts, etc.").
Tomato juice, for example, may average "10 or more fly eggs per 100 grams - the equivalent of a small juice glass - or five or more fly eggs and one or more maggots." Tomato paste and other pizza sauces are allowed a denser infestation - 30 or more fly eggs per 100 grams or 15 or more fly eggs and one or more maggots per 100 grams.
Canned mushrooms may have "over 20 or more maggots of any size per 100 grams of drained mushrooms and proportionate liquid" or "five or more maggots two millimeters or longer per 100 grams of drained mushrooms and proportionate liquid" or an "average of 75 mites" before provoking action by the FDA.
The sauerkraut on your hot dog may average up to 50 thrips. And when washing down those tiny, slender, winged bugs with a sip of beer, you might consider that just 10 grams of hops could have as many as 2,500 plant lice. Yum.
Giving new meaning to the idea of spicing up one's food, curry powder is allowed 100 or more bug bits per 25 grams; ground thyme up to 925 insect fragments per 10 grams; ground pepper up to 475 insect parts per 50 grams. One small shaker of cinnamon could have more than 20 rodent hairs before being considered defective.
Peanut butter - that culinary cause célèbre - may contain approximately 145 bug parts for an 18-ounce jar; or five or more rodent hairs for that same jar; or more than 125 milligrams of grit.
In case you're curious: You're probably ingesting one to two pounds of flies, maggots and mites each year without knowing it, a quantity of insects that clearly does not cut the mustard, even as insects may well be in the mustard.
The FDA considers the significance of these defects to be "aesthetic" or "offensive to the senses," which is to say, merely icky as opposed to the "mouth/tooth injury" one risks with, for example, insufficiently pitted prunes. This policy is justified on economic grounds, stating that it is "impractical to grow, harvest or process raw products that are totally free of non-hazardous, naturally occurring, unavoidable defects."
The most recent edition of the booklet (it has been revised and edited six times since first being issued in May 1995) reassuringly states that "the defect levels do not represent an average of the defects that occur in any of the products - the averages are actually much lower." Instead, it says, "The levels represent limits at which FDA will regard the food product 'adulterated' and subject to enforcement action."
...But the unsettling reality is that despite food's reassuring packaging and nutritional labeling, we don't really know what we're putting into our mouths...
http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/02/13/news/edlevy.php
Best Of 2009: Laura Misses Her Flight
TW: She has been taking language lessons which came out spontaneously
Best Of 2009: Every Mummy Needs a Spritz
TW: As you many know the Soviets mummified Lenin 90 or so years ago when he took the down card. But like any mummy he apparently needs a tune-up once a year or so, a bath to refresh.
TW: The interesting thing about this post which originally went up last March is that it still garners hits generally from international surfers.
TW: The interesting thing about this post which originally went up last March is that it still garners hits generally from international surfers.
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)