The Tin Lizard

Lean Finely Textured Pink Slime

In a surprisingly fast turnabout - only about a week after investigative revelations that the amusingly named "pink slime" is used in up to 80% of ground beef nationwide - nearly all major grocery chains decided to stop using it, and the product's major (only?) producer has shut down three of its four plants and could face bankruptcy.

I grant that "lean, finely textured beef" - which is the maker's term for what it turns out - may in fact be perfectly edible, safe, and yes, even "actual beef" and certainly no worse than what goes into a lot of sausages. I concede that any effort to extract the last bit of food value from the huge amounts of waste that are processed out of slaughterhouses makes economic and environmental good sense.

Thus it's arguable that the recent flap is mainly a public relations disaster. But if so, it's one of the key players' own making. Underlying the marketing strategy is a clear effort to deceive, in which the manufacturer, the FDA, and supermarket chains (let's call them collectively the "Gang of Three") colluded. It could easily have been avoided with a reality check.

The Gang need only have asked themselves what the public's conception of "ground beef" was. Surely the answer would be that it's ground meat with some of its associated fat. LFTB may indeed be "up to 97% lean beef" but to the public it has a very different cachet, so it is not the same as "beef." And it's cheaper. None of the Gang could have been ignorant of those basic facts. None of them could have expected that the consumer, if she/he knew, would accept the presence of LFTB in her "ground beef" with equanimity. The quick retreat by all supermarkets demonstrates the truth of this simple observation.

It's a big blow to owners, employees, and local communities when a business goes under, but if that happens I won't have much sympathy for this company, which undoubtedly lobbied heavily to make sure its product was not listed as a separate ingredient. Meanwhile I await with anticipation the further developments of this saga:

• Will Beef Products Inc. find a new market for LFTB, perhaps by developing a product with a defined - and labeled! - percentage to be sold at a lower price?
• Will the Governors of Texas, South Dakota, Iowa, and Nebraska be shown on tonight's news chowing down on a 100%-LFTB burger? Will they risk their political futures on endorsing the product for consumption by the citizens of their states?
• Will the USG agencies involved promise to use common sense in future in pushing back against industry pressure?
• Will supermarkets admit their own role in this? (HInt: At my own grocery store this past weekend, one of the "reformed offenders," there were no signs suggesting that their ground beef is now free of pink slime, or that it had ever contained it.) Will they be reducing their price as a kind of "deception discount?"

 

A New Meaning To "Sparkling Wine"

I could hardly be expected to read Al Kamen's regular gadfly column in the Washington Post today, without passing along a small part of it (scroll to the bottom, with the subhead "sparklehootch").

It seems California winemakers E & J Gallo have asked the FDA for clearance to add "mica-based pearlescent pigments" to [some of?] their wines. These pigments are, apparently, already being used in such products as canned frostings. In that case, I suppose it won't be long before the FDA approves the Gallo gunk. I guess what goes around comes around. Could this be the next pink slime? I think I recall it was the Romans who used to drink ground limestone in their wine. And look what happened to them.

Electronic Gadgets And Airplanes - Unfriendly Skies

There is apparently some hope for air travelers that the latest generation of portable entertainment devices (i.e. electronic book readers, tablets, and the like) might some day become usable on passenger aircraft at levels below 10,000 feet.  That, at least, is the promise of the FAA's intent to look into more effective means of testing such devices to determine if they really have an effect on aircraft safety.

Ever since I first acquired a Kindle, I wondered about the ban on their use on planes.  It turns out, as the above report explains, it's just as I suspected:  There is little reason to think that these devices have any effect on airline safety, but as always in the security field, the choice is always to err on the side of extreme caution.  It's easier (for the airlines).  

Most of us understand I think, that the original ban on cell phone use may make some sense:  We instinctively "get" that an electronic device actively receiving/transmitting during flight could represent a danger -- not so much out of concern for a bomb (because we assume the terrorist who put it there will NOT have turned it off) but for its potential effect on the aircraft's guidance system and instruments.  OK.

But technically, this is not a concern with e-readers, tablets, and the latest generation of smart phones, nearly all of which provide a way to switch off the internet connection while still using the device.  The concerns expressed by various airline and safety officials about the effects of "several hundred people using their devices at once" simply aren't relevant here.  So why shouldn't we be able to use them, in their "disconnected" or "airplane" mode, when there are l-o-n-g waits to be whiled away, and hardly anyone is carrying an actual book anymore?

Two reasons:  One is bureaucratic lethargy.  It's just easier to issue a blanket ban.  The other is more real:  human nature.  If you've attended any public gathering lately at which people are cautioned ahead of time to turn off their phones, you're still likely to hear a half-dozen or more phones ringing during the program.  People are idiots, and can't be relied on for responsible behavior; even the best of us suffer memory lapses or make mistakes. 

So while the FAA's efforts may be a step in the right direction, they're unlikely to provide an immediate solution.   Meanwhile, it's probably not reasonable for airlines to permit people to use their devices "disconnected," when clearly some won't be. The only solution I can think of is that maybe the next generation of devices should have a light of a specific color, clearly visible on the face of the device, indicating it's truly disconnected.  Then airplane crews might be able to check effectively.    

Work Gloves

In recent years I've found that during the winter, rubber gloves are a big plus when doing dishes; they keep my fingers and hands from drying and cracking.  Accordingly, I acquired a pair of True Blues brand gloves, and perhaps I should have written a glowing testimonial for them, because they lasted four years, have a somewhat "grippy" surface that keeps objects from slipping out of your hands, and they held up very well.

This month I decided I needed a new pair and found that they are now green, but otherwise seem to be an identifical product (in fact they're still called "True Blues."  Alas and alack, they don't seem to be the same product.  What's missing is that non-slip texture.  Unlike the old ones - these were so slippery I could hardly keep ahold of the dishes.

The company (Glove Supply) hasn't responded to my inquiry asking if this is typical and what may be the cause.  Personally, I suspect some minor reformulation of the material - these new ones are latex-free (I don't recall that the earlier ones were); they're made of vinyl (weren't the old ones rubber?); or because they are now made in China (though I don't know for sure where the blue ones were made).   Either way, the slipperiness makes this one of those products that's just not suited to the job it's sold for, so I'm hunting for a new brand.   

Forward To The Past: Our Home Computers

In the ongoing boom of personal technology, the iPad and its various imitators has led the pack of late.  The latest version is arriving in stores today.  The trend to tablets is unmistakably clear and large. 

Do tablets do anything a laptop or desktop computer can't do?  No.  They have the advantage in portability, but beyond that they do far less, IF you actually use your computer for things a computer is good at, you'll probably never embrace a tablet.   I keep a half-dozen databases, I do some online publishing, I do my two blogs, I edit photos, I do bookkeeping and taxes for a small business and a charitable organization -- none of these would be particularly convenient to do on a tablet, even if it had the requisite memory and speed to run the programs involved.  While I don't do much with graphics or design programs, I'm pretty sure artists, architects and others would also find tablets sadly wanting for these purposes.

But the question posed above is the wrong one to ask.  Although tablets arose out of the concept of the home computer, they're not really computers, but mobile entertainment centers.  (To put a retro twist on it, they are today's transistor radios, just as SUVs are today's station wagons.)  Tablets are all about fun and games -- movies, music, photos, web surfing, e-books, shopping, and e-mail -- and that's probably what about 90% of users really want. 

The genius of the iPad was in deconstructing the 1990s concept of home computers. Two decades ago, computers made the jump from offices to people's homes, largely based on the much-ballyhooed advantages of all the wonderful things they'd be able to do.  Mostly, these were the same things the iPad now does (allowing for the inevitable advances in technology).  The computer world is now being re-stacked into a consumer/consumption segment (increasingly, tablets) and a work/production segment.

I'm comfortable with that, so long as I can still get a desktop to do the things I need to do.  On that score, Microsoft's new operating system (Windows 8), which by all accounts is focused on moving its software to giving the user a touch-screen, tablet-like experience, gives some cause for concern.  The main issue I see is that the new OS won't allow you to keep more than two programs or "windows" open at once.  This makes impossible my standard operating procedure, when I'm likely to have - and need - four or five things open. 

So far Microsoft is getting high praise from techies for reinventing itself, and the trend away from proprietary software isn't new.   Microsoft appears to have thrown in the towel to it, but I for one am tired of costly format, program, and interface changes and hope this latest one is a leap I can avoid until my dotage.  If not, I suppose I'll find myself having to migrate to different OSs and software, maybe UNIX based.    

Britannica, Another Death By Print

Have we all heard the news that the venerable old Encyclopaedia Britannica, after more than two centuries, will no longer publish its print edition?   This comes on the heels of other disappearances that I've lamented (the Schwann Catalog, for example). 

As I've also said before, the demise of printed encyclopedias per se is not necessarily bad.  They were expensive, bulky, and most important, out of date almost as soon as they were published, rapidly becoming as unused and unwanted as printed telephone books.  EB has undoubtedly made a good - and necessary - business decision.

Britannica has said it will continue publishing its online product, but this may be an uphill struggle for survival.   Wikipedia is free (but now requests donations from users), Britannica online will run you $70 a year.  How many users will find an EB subscription worth the cost?  I may - I'm thinking about it. 

Britannica can be considered authoritative and unbiased; Wikipedia will likely be more up-to-date, and could be authoritative depending on who has wikied it recently; but on many topics, it's informational quicksand, a constantly shifting amalgam of fact, objectivity, myth, and bias.  Again, as I noted just yesterday relative to a slightly different subject matter, the trend leads us toward slanted information.    

Bringing Darkness Into The Light

Today once again, we awake to darkness when in should be light.  Regular readers of Morning Fog know why:   It's the day we all get to hustle around and re-set clocks but more importantly, and depressingly, the day the 5:30 AM light disappears for roughly another six weeks.

Despite all evidence that there is no concrete benefit to it and in fact it may be harmful,* Congress continues to impose this idiotic time shift on us.  I suppose we can be  glad, at least, that they didn't lengthen the misnamed "daylight saving" by extending it still further, beginning in February rather than in March.

* Evidence:  As previously noted here, there is no demonstrable energy saving from daylight time; but on the other hand, it's beginning to be recognized that a surprising number of people have heart attacks on the day that we switch.  (For details, search "daylight saving" in the search box in the right margin, on this blog or Morning Fog (www.morning-fog.com.)

In today's brave new world in which every topic becomes politicized, why can't libertarians go to work on something that makes sense, like the abolition of DST?

And in a world of increasingly sloppy journalism, could reporters please stop telling us that we are getting an "extra hour of sunshine" by shifting to DST?  There are no extra hours; if there were we could just time-shift about 8 hours, and that way we'd get daylight all day!

Eating Well

The media seem constantly preoccupied these days with diet.  Not just in the old sense of weight loss, but also in terms of eating what's good for you.  There's certainly some truth in most of them - it seems that eating vegetables and whole grains is probably a pretty good thing, for example.  But at the same time, there's a lot of nonsense out there.

Take, for example, the idea of "body ecology^TM" that recently came to my attention.  The idea is to avoid eating certain categories of food in combination with certain other categories.  Unfortunately the categories are immensely broad.  Check out the website, particularly the "food combining chart," and perhaps you'll be persuaded that you shouldn't ever eat berries and yogurt with your cereal, or should avoid a pepperoni pizza, because these combinations include food groups that don't get along.  If you're the type that confuses mild occasional gas with "allergy," this approach may be right up your alley, and it may even help you.  But it's not for me.

I realize this idea will attract a certain following, at least until another fad diet comes along, but to me, it's just overreaching.  (Except where it underreaches - it appears for example that some fruits - nonacidic ones - aren't accounted for at all.)  I think the problem is that like many dietary suggestions, it tries to improve on nature.  I'm especially suspicious when the whole concept is trademarked, as this one is.  Nature don't do trademarks!

The evidence of our entire digestive system (our several types of teeth, for example) is that human body is designed to eat pretty much all types of foodstuffs, anything that isn't fatally poisonous.  Based on that, I've found that I can boil down questions of diet to a couple of simple principles:

Eat everything.
Don't eat too much of any one thing.

Or to put it another way, variety and moderation.  The first principle is modified by foods to which you may be truly allergic - i.e., you break out in a rash and can't breathe.  And some of us have a little trouble with the second one.  That's where will power takes over.  Otherwise, it's pretty simple.  Don't mess with Mother Nature.