Mom And Pop

Fat is out. But I like fat. Preferably charred. However fat's become a “no-no.” There are people more interested in my health than I am, and they control what I can eat. I remember a trip that my wife and I made to Spain about a decade ago. One of the things we did was to take an excursion and cross from there to Morocco, I think to the city of Tangier. Before recrossing the Mediterranean we stopped off in the city's open market. Everything and everybody was there. There were colors galore; fabrics, crafts, fruit and vegetables, and whatever you've seen in the movies. And there was meat. Sides of various animals were hung in front of the venders' booths, and flies swarmed around them. It was hot. There were some displays of cut meat available for purchase, and in every case the meat was trimmed to a point where there was almost no fat left. Even there the threat to health required the trimming of fat, even if insect-born diseases weren't of great concern.

I also recall an attempt I made to get what I liked from a local market in the Bronx. Unfortunately the market's owners had adopted the practices of larger stores. Their meat was already cut and packaged, and the corned-beef must have had only a sixteenth of an inch of fat. But there was a butcher there and I could have meat cut according to my wishes, so I ordered, for the following day, some corned-beef with a lot of fat. When I returned the beef set aside for me had meat with about an eighth of an inch of fat. That, I guess, was “a lot” by the standards of the day.

And, sad to say, we accept those standards and live by them because we have no choice. We can choose to have an abortion, but we cannot choose to have fatty meat. And our access to those who, in the past, would listen to us and fulfil our requests is all but nil.

I was in a shoe store a few weeks ago with my daughter and the clerk there asked he what size she was. Only when my daughter requested it was any attempt made to measure her feet. I looked for shoe laces in the store but didn't see any. And, of course, there is no place in my area to get them (actually there are a few in the local supermarket, but the selection I risible), or to have my shoes reheeled and resoled. That, unfortunately, doesn't matter since the shoes available nowadays are made with unreplaceable (and often hollow) rubber bottoms. So there is no longer any need for a cobbler. And modern manufacturing techniques have made his craft outdated.

And there are no blacksmiths, wheelwrights, real butchers, sawyers, tinkers, coopers, or many other craftsmen who once existed (fortunately we have a fish monger not too far away, although his prices are impressive). That's not to say that these skills are no longer needed, but to lament the fact that changes in society have obsoleted so many of them, or changed the magnitude or the nature of the establishment or individual who is offering a needed service. In some instances, and they're certain to increase, mechanical devices or robots do jobs once performed by humans (and another threat is the depersonalization of workers related to outsourcing); often “Mom and Pop stores have ceased to exist or been replaced by “big box” companies that deal in volume and can undercut any competition they have. (I remember going to the candy store when I was young. It was always a treat and an adventure. That experience is no longer available.)

We also live in an age when the philosophy of manufacturers is “one size fits all.” “We know best.” That allows them to package everything according to the standards of the day, and we have to take it or leave it. We take it. It may not be individualized to meet our needs, but we'll make do. We'll meet the manufacturer's needs. We have no choice.

When I was young you could get fatty corned-beef at the local delicatessen, but those days are gone. Now that we've decided that fat (and gluten and sugar and salt, as well as a host of other goodies) is bad for people, it's been eliminated or loudly rejected by a society that permits alcohol (except for pregnant women), cigarettes, and, in some states, “recreational” marijuana.

They don't float my boat. But Pop would. And fatty corned-beef would.

April 25, 2017

Fats, Fads, and Futility

                                                                                              

There's nothing more important than your health.ⁱ Trite, but true. Another strong component of most people's thinking is belief. We all believe in something, even if it's the idea that we can't trust Congress. For most the issue of belief relates to religious teachings; for others it's the belief that all religion is fraud. (Even atheism is a religion – a belief system.) But people have belief, and if you put health and belief together and you have a powerful force – one that controls most of us.

Unfortunately, much of what we believe has little support. For example, two of my favorite foods – fat and salt – are widely believed to be detrimental to our health. I never let that stop me, however. As it says in Genesis 45:18, “Ye shall eat the fat of the land.” I certainly wouldn't want to argue with the Bible. If it says that fat is good, who am I to dispute it?ⁱⁱ I see no benefit to following the contrary teachings.ⁱⁱⁱ

But wait. The warnings are what you read in the newspapers, so you know they're true. However you read the opposite as well. A recent article in the New York Times^iv raised questions about our view of the harmful effects of salt.^v The article pointed to “a slew of studies suggesting that reducing [emphasis added] sodium to anything like what government policy refers to as a 'safe upper limit' is likely to do more harm than good.” Such studies were widely ignored however. They didn't correspond to the dogma of the times. The author of the newspaper article also stated that “(t)his attitude that studies that go against prevailing beliefs should be ignored on the basis that, well, they go against prevailing beliefs, has been the norm for the anti-salt campaign for decades. Maybe now the prevailing beliefs should be changed.”

And the harmful effects of fat, about which we're warned all the time, my be less well established than what the enemies of fat say . Another New York Times article,^vi by John Tierney, wrote, “The notion that fatty foods shorten your life began as a hypothesis based on dubious assumptions and data; when scientists tried to confirm it they failed repeatedly.” He attributed the view to a “cascade” effect in which a theory was presented which sounded plausible and subsequent experts deferred to that theory even if they couldn't confirm it. It sounded like the right thing, and most people – even scientists – aren't eager to dispute what seems true. Especially if it agrees with what they already believed.^vii

In both of the case cited above there is the disagreement among experts, but the message to the public doesn't suggest this. Salt and fat are bad. So we're told by doctors, nutritionists, newspapers, and all the other experts. Science is sloppy. It doesn't matter if the popular perception is true or if it isn't. Once an obviously correct idea captures the imagination, it is hard to dislodge it. If the media proclaim it to be true, it's true. After all, there's a scientific study which comes to this conclusion. Or, at least, a scientist. The authors of papers may have to reveal funding sources and their scientific affiliations, but there is no requirement that they disclose their political views and their pre-existing notions.

But there are also reports based on outright deceit. A single study,^viii with what has been described as “falsification” and “fraud,” led to the widespread belief that immunizations cause autism. And that view has persisted in the public mind, although scientifically disproved. As has the persistent belief that breast implants cause autoimmune disease.^ix Popular perceptions, like the ideas that megavitamins, anti-oxidants, foods said to strengthen the immune system, natural, and organic foods are good for you and genetically-altered and irradiated foods are bad, don't require proof.^x Everyone knows that electric power lines cause cancer. Why do some reject such an obvious truth? Such ideas are intuitive and, therefore, correct. Never trust a scientist or doctor.^xi Trust your intuition. Trust your gut.

But the biggest source of misinformation,^xii and a popular preoccupation of the public, can be found in the plethora of diets and the books that promote them. The simple version of weight is that the more calories you ingest, the more you'll weigh; the fewer, the less. Weight is a matter of calories.^xiii But people want magic – something that will allow them to eat what they want while shedding pounds. So there are diets that cater to every taste: diets that permit carbohydrates while limiting fat, diets that emphasize protein, high fat diets, low fat diets, low glycemic-index diets, diets that are accompanied by exercise, and those without, some supplemented by vitamins, some not, and variations of all of these. Diet books are published at almost the same rate as cookbooks. With most diets there is an initial loss of weight which sparks the enthusiasm of the followers of the plan, and their spreading the gospel of the new regimen. But later on the lost weight is usually regained – and sometimes more weight is added than was lost initially. The early results may originate in diuretic and laxative effects, as well as the enthusiasm and willingness to sacrifice of the dieter. All of these effects disappear and pall later on. So, ultimately, the diets fail.

People want THE ANSWERS to all their health problems, and they don't want to wait. They look for magic and “feel good” solutions to those problems. Belief is substituted for scientific study. And it's a strong force. So strong that convincing a believer that he's on the wrong track is almost impossible. Facts are irrelevant when compared to “obvious” and “logical” answers. But those answers are ones that the people who control our society don't want you to know. You can't trust authority.

So like other fads, most diets are doomed to failure. If any one worked there would be no need for alternatives, and no market for them. Rather, there are so many that it seems clear that none of them is worth its salt. In fact, the salt is probably more worthwhile.

As Craig Claiborne said, “Man is born to eat.” And, in the inspiring words of Orson Welles:

Ask not what you can do for your country,

ask what's for lunch.

Next episode: “7” – Other.

i        For some, politics is a strong force but many people wisely ignore it.

ii      And most of the sacrifices had salt added. Can I criticize the the desires of the One to Whom the sacrifices were made?

iii    John Mortimer's observation also has merit: “I refuse to spend my life worrying about what I eat. There is no pleasure worth forgoing just for an extra three years in the geriatric ward.”

iv     And, consequently, fit to print whether true or not.

v     “Salt, We Misjudged You” by Gary Taubes, described as an independent investigator in Health Policy Research for the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The article appeared June 2, 2012.

vi    “Diet and Fat: A Severe Case of Mistaken Consensus,” NYT, October 9, 2007.

vii   When it comes to the question of “global warming,” many attribute the statements of various scientists to political beliefs rather than scientific facts.

viii   By Andrew Wakefield.

ix     Indeed, although scientifically unsupportable, it has cost some manufacturers large sums and driven some of them out of business.

x     In fact any dispute of these views probably reflects scientific bias or conclusions driven by the deep pockets of those who gain by the controversy. It took a long time for the public to accept the fact that Laetrile was not only useless but it kept patients from getting valuable help in a timely manner.

xi     Actually that's an excellent idea if observed in evaluation of single studies, like the ones in newspapers – usually on the front page. But those are the ones that the public believes. Most scientists won't accept such studies until they've been duplicated and verified, however the failure of a study that was highly touted is not nearly as interesting, and will only be printed in an inconspicuous place on an inside page, if it appears at all.

xii    And a major source of revenue for authors and publishers.

xiii  The concept of calories was first introduced by Clément in 1842, and it referred to heat production. Later in the nineteenth century the relation to food was noted.

Mom, Pop, And Jack The Killer Giant

I happen to like a lot of fat on my steak. Preferably charred. With salt. And a nice glass of wine.

Perhaps I'm a megalomaniac. After all, that's what was sacrificed to the gods. Meat, fat, salt, wine – and, of course, the sacrificial meat and fat were burnt. No. I don't think I'm a god. It's just that I like a fatty piece of meat.

But where can I get it? Nowadays all the meat that's available is trimmed of all visible fat, as much as they can get. Fat, after all, is bad for you.ⁱ

I have to admit, though, that I'm ambivalent. Not about the fat, but its source. There are very few butchers left – especially if you're looking for kosher meat. Sure, there are some cuts available at kosher supermarkets, but the choice isn't very good and there's no one who will trim it the way I want it, or provide the types of meat in which I'm interested. If it's not what sells the fastest to the most consumers, the giant chains aren't interested. They won't carry it.ⁱⁱ Even the middle-size supermarkets tend to avoid anything but the common cuts cut commonly. Money's the monarch and one size fits all. That, however, allows lower prices, which is something I like. I suppose that if I looked hard enough I'd be able to find a butcher who would give me what I want, the way I want it. But the search would be a great effort, matched only by the prices. So proximity and parsimony win almost every time.

The problem, though, is not limited to food, for it involves virtually all consumer products. The “big box” stores and major chains are rapidly displacing the smaller operations – the “Mom and Pop” stores – in which I shopped when I was young. They were solitary operations without franchises or other evidences of plurality. And the staff – usually the family of the owner – paid attention to your requests. That was a time when the customer, not the purchasing agent, was always right.

That was also the time of the “five and ten.”ⁱⁱⁱ It had whatever you were looking for, rather than what was being remaindered. The focus was on the products, not the profits. Perhaps that's why those stores are out of business now. The current trend's example of a similar kind of operation is the dollar store, but they tend to have different stock each day.^iv Whatever is a bargain for the vendor. Whatever guarantees a profit. Take it or leave it. Don't expect them to order something else for you. Ditto the chains. The small mom and pop operations have been driven out of business by the giants.^v

But there's a lot more to it than that. A small store that sells something will usually stand behind it and provide whatever service is necessary if there is a problem. The person you spoke to when you made the purchase is your neighbor^vi – the same person to whom you will address your questions, and there isn't likely to be finger pointing and blame of the manufacturer or distributor. If a repair or replacement is necessary it won't require a reference to a higher authority – like a service desk or department on a different floor^vii – or the issuance of store credit. The price may be a little higher, but the ulcers will probably be fewer.

And there is also an international aspect to the issue.^viii I'm not suggesting that my steak has to be imported, but that the relentless search for a lower price for everything will probably lead not only to the chain store, but to products manufactured outside of the United States by underpaid or underage workers. Choosing that bargain requires the trading of personal financial interest for a national economic handicap. It's hard to argue with the search for higher quality wherever it may lead, but if the only goal is a lower price, an argument can be made for nationalism. At a time when we are suffering with a high unemployment rate, actions which preferentially encourage importation are certain to increase our problem. However chauvinistic that sounds, it cannot be easily dismissed.

Lest I seem too much the patriot, I'm not. I can't resist a bargain any more than anyone else. When faced with a tempting price I don't know anything about slave labor, and I make no effort to find out. But part of the calculus of a bargain involves what happens after the purchase. If I'm apprehensive about the service I may require, I'm more likely to shop locally than more distantly – especially on line. I don't like sitting on the telephone waiting for someone overseas, who doesn't really understand me or my problem, trying to talk me through a solution. And, I admit, I have trouble on occasion understanding what is being said to me.

So it really boils down to that calculus. It seems to me that it's reasonable to seek a genuine bargain if I can be sure that the low price I get more than compensates for any possible complications – like having to go back to a distant store or repackage what I got from one of the package delivery services. But when local services and products are available for a reasonable price, I prefer to encourage small, local businesses. After all, I like my meat^ix like I like my meat. One size doesn't fit all.

 

Next episode: “Because I Said So” -- Admit it. You've used that line.

i     I remember walking through an open-air market in Morocco with my wife. All the cuts of meat that were displayed showed the same degree of overtrimming that I see here in the United States. They, too, had accepted the gospel that fat is unhealthy. So the flies and other insects swarmed over well-trimmed meat.

ii    We live in the age of green. Not only environmentalism, but money, dough, jack, greenbacks, scratch, or whatever the common currency of the day is called.

iii    Known by many as the “five and dime,” signifying the cost of the merchandise.

iv    The same is true of many of the big box and chain businesses. The selection is governed by what is available at a good wholesale price, and can give the store a good profit. If only one brand or model of a particular product is being promoted by the manufacturers, that's all you'll find. And it may be different next time.

v     That's also the case with rural operations. The family farm is gone – replaced by agricultural production in the hands of huge corporations.

vi    I know that has a Frank Capra ring to it, but local businesses are usually run by local people – often those you know. Especially in a small town setting.

vii    Somewhere far off and with a long line.

viii   Apart from the fact that most of the stores and farms are owned by multi-national corporations.

ix    And fat.