The Tin Lizard

Wasting Food

The U.S. National Resources Defense Council has studied our habits in throwing out food, concludes that we waste up to 40% of all food produced in the country; or, to put it another way, that food waste costs the average family $2275 a year; or yet another way, that 25% of the stuff in landfills is discarded food.  Phenomenal!  And shameful. 

The study points out that waste occurs for many reasons:  Consumers won't select blemished fruits/vegetables when purchasing; groceries overstock and have to discard food "past its date," restaurants oversize portions so more people leave food on the plate.  Another trend I've noticed is toward temporary packaging: many things are getting put into pouches or pop-top cans. These are lighter and cheaper to produce but they're also clearly more fragile and less lasting.  Tuna in a can can sit on your shelf for ten years if you want; I wouldn't trust tuna in a pouch for even one-tenth of that time.

The study also points to confusing and/or inconsistent dating on food packages as a cause.  I hadn't thought of that, but I'm sure they're correct that with some dates labeled "sell by," others labeled "best by," and still others "use by," people throw out a lot of food that's really quite edible. 

There are a lot of pitfalls in defining shelf life.  We of an older generation, I think, are more likely to take a commonsense approach to what's usable.  We didn't have dated packaging.  The younger folks I suspect take this whole "dating game" more seriously.  At the same time, our overlawyered society errs on the side of extreme caution in setting those dates.  And I can imagine the immense waste that results from occurrences like the late June east coast power outage, when practically every supermarket was required to throw out all its frozen food. 

People have to decide for themselves how to deal with the problem.  I've never just looked at a date on a package or carton and just tossed it out;  I want to look at the contents; my response to a date that's passed is usually to finish the item up sooner rather than later, but if it doesn't look bad, smell bad, or hasn't completely disintegrated (lettuce can deteriorate quickly), it doesn't get wasted.  We're pretty good about buying what we need and using leftovers, and the last dabs get added to a container in the freezer that will eventually become an excellent soup that's different every time.

Overall, it seems we could do a lot better, as has been demonstrated in Europe.

 

The Creepy New Trend In Men's Clothing

For some years now, my wife has complained of "vanity sizing" in women's ready-to-wear clothes.  Her experience has been that the actual measurement of garments has altered, so that if you used to wear a 12, or 10, or 8, and haven't gained a bunch of weight, you may find that now you will need to buy a 10, 8, or 6 respectively -- or even smaller. The point is apparently to make women feel better about themselves, able to define themselves as "a perfect size 6" even though their real size may be what used to be called a 10.

For my part, I was always happy that no such trend was evident in men's clothes, or ever would be.  I was wrong. 

Manufacturers and retailers are also playing around with men's sizing.  In many places, a size "large," which used to fit me quite well, now hangs on me like a tent.  It's not a matter of style - in casual clothes like polo shirts or sweaters, things haven't changed that much.  And it's just in those basic types of clothes that the biggest problem occurs:  It makes it difficult to order things online.

You might think that you could just check the seller's website for sizing.  But part of the playful new trend is that they have not changed the stated measurements.  A "large," for example, no matter where I look, is still described as fitting someone with a 42-44 chest.  

I measured an "L" polo I got from L.L. Bean lately:  Seam to seam it was 24.75 inches, or 49 and-a-half inches at the chest.   Bean's customer service department told me the true measurement of a "Large" should be 48, and they allow tolerances of an inch either way, so 49 would be "acceptable" but they admit 49.5 is over their limit.  I can send it back!  (But not exchange it -- they don't make that color anymore.)

I'm closer to 42, so I have an extra 7.5 inches to swaddle myself in.  But seriously, doesn't 48-49 inches sound like a pretty outlandish measurement to fit even a 44-inch body?   After all, they do have a size "XL" which fits chests 46-48".  Of course, most of us don't want a shirt that measures exactly 44 inches to fit our 44" chest; but I would think that two inches would be plenty.  A large just isn't a large anymore, it's a huge.

"Clothes That Fit Your Style" is OK, but I'd like to see them thinking a little more about "Clothes That Fit Your Body."  

Not to single out Bean's, which I consider a good company, and their customer service rep was cheerily willing to discuss these sizing issues with me -- but they're all doing it these days.  What a nuisance. 

 

Watch For ID Theft After Accidents

A Washington Post consumer affairs columnist today reminded me of a study I saw reported a couple of days ago too, noting that people often give out too much information to other drivers after a car accident, with the unintended consequence that their identity might be stolen.  The National Association of Insurance Commissioners suggests you give only insurance information and your name; no telephone (the other driver's insurance agency should contact your insurance agency), no address, and definitely no cellphone snapshot of your driver's license.

As columnist Singletary points out, however, your state may actually specify that you provide more information, in some cases the same information that you'd want to protect in today's world.  For example:

In Virginia, for example, drivers involved in an accident are required to
provide their names, addresses, driver’s license and vehicle registration
numbers.

It does seem odd that states would require you to provide personal information that could be used to your detriment.  I'd say most of them probably just haven't caught up to the modern world.  Sometimes they just need to be made aware a problem exists, so contacting your state assemblymen, Governor, insurance commissioner and other officials may be the way to go. 

(A few years ago I found that American Express was still sending out bills with my account number splashed on every page, on some pages more than once, even though most other card providers had long since abandoned that practice.  I objected, more than once; eventually gave up my card.  I now see, however, that they finally fixed this little problem.)

Oh, and based on my own experience in an accident we had a few years ago, do NOT follow Ms. Singletary's suggestion to have, or expect, an officer on the scene to "coordinate" all the info.   We did that, but my insurance company could not get the officer to provide the information.   

When An Issue Just Isn't

We live in a contentious society.  Often it's needlessly contentious.

I was bemused a month or so ago at all the flap over a statement against same-sex marriage by the owner of Chick-Fil-A, which continues even now.  It generated a lot of heat but no light.

• The restaurant chain owner has made no secret of his conservative religious beliefs and has a right both to his opinion, and to run his business as he sees fit as long as he's not discriminating among customers (which he is not) and is willing to take the consequences if people turn away.
• Conversely, those who disagree with his actions and statements have a perfectly equal right not to patronize his restaurants. 

Leave the rest of us out of it, please. There are issues here of importance to both sides but they are matters of personal belief and opinion so why don't we all just make up our own minds about where we stand, and act accordingly?  (To boycott, or not?  What if, like me, you've never eaten a Chik-Fil-A and wouldn't know where to find one?)  Do we really need to make a federal case of it, abetted by mass media always ready to fan the tiniest ember of controversy into a roaring flame? 

Today we're presented with another example in the form of a "controversy" over male circumcision.  In my day, nearly every boy was circumcised at birth and no one thought a thing of it.  Now some think natural is just better, or less cruel, and insurance companies of course don't want to pay for the procedure; while some in the health field still say circumcision can help prevent the spread of some diseases and others insist on snipping for religious reasons. 

There are other pro and con arguments, too (read the article for details) but to me the operative facts are:  (1) you can make a valid argument for either point of view; there is no right answer!  and (2) this isn't a life-or-death decision.  So relax, decide what's right for you and your kid (and be willing to live with it) - but lawdy, lawdy, don't go trying to tell everybody what's right for them.

We pride ourselves in the U.S. on our individuality, our freedom of choice.  Why then does everyone seem so hell-bent on fanatical proselytizing, the paradoxical aim of which is to make us all conform to one pattern?  

When Things Go Wrong

Today was one of those days when the news brought quirky reports of things going wrong.  But they were little things, no more than irritating sand in the roller track of life.  And luckily, bigger things were going right enough to allow us to laugh at these smaller nuisances.

Park And Steal Part I: Three parking lot attendants at the Udvar-Hazy Center (an adjunct of the Smithsonian Institution which houses the "large animal" collection of the Air & Space Museum) stole some $400,000 by the simple expedient of unplugging the machine that was supposed to keep count of the number of vehicles that entered the garage.  Then all they had to do was pocket the money paid by those cars that weren't registered, at $15 a pop.  It's sad.  Sad that we spend so much money just to park our cars; sadder that the system was so poorly designed that the means to turn off the controller was so readily at hand to those who could benefit from it.

Park and Steal, Part II:  I suppose it happens in all big cities -- parking is tight, merchants and apartment owners who have lots want to keep them for their own customers/residents.  The latter hire companies to monitor lots and tow cars that try to use them.  But the tow companies effectively go rogue, towing people who shouldn't be towed.   Profits can be high:  In Montgomery County, Maryland (suburb of Washington DC) towers are permitted to charge $168 per tow, and sometimes other fees are assessed.  For those who get caught up in it, these unfair practices are costly and extremely inconvenient.  

Still, I see a system failure here.  Is it really impossible to fix this problem?  Businesses need to hear from customers who park legitimately to patronize a place, then come out to find their car towed; local governments have the power to set an upper limit on how much the towers can charge -- why on earth would it be as high as $168?; and frankly, it's surprising that some of these tow companies' trucks don't experience retaliatory damage.

 

On Morning Fog today:
When Things Go Right

 

Forsaking Facebook

A feature article because a woman decided to close her Facebook account? 

So it seems.  True, this particular woman happens to have been a wordsmith for Mark Zuckerberg, so her story might be of greater curiosity, or shock value, than that of the average Facebook user.   But there is less of a story than meets the eye, because it turns out that this woman (one Ms. Katherine Losse) left Facebook more as an experiment than as a final decision, and eventually reopened her page.

Nevertheless, I think the story has resonance because of the poor showing Facebook has made in financial markets since going public.  

I've got a Facebook account too, suggested to me by more than one friend two or three years ago as a way to stay current with - or even to locate - old friends from whom I'd drifted apart.  Yet I recently realized that it had been two months (at least) since I had last bothered to check in to my Facebook account.

Why?  A variety of things.  I evidently didn't feel I was getting much that was useful from Facebook.   It hadn't taken too long for me to get sick of Zuckerberg's highhanded way of changing account features without notice, and of his dubious use of people's data.   More recently, it developed that it's almost impossible to avoid Facebook:  browsers will suck in your data and connections from it automatically; smart phones will start trying to connect you up to it; far too many websites now suggest you log in using Facebook data, meaning that they can link up to your contacts and "likes" too.

In short, Facebook sits astride the internet highway collecting a huge toll in terms of privacy, though it neither built nor maintains the highway; it offers relatively little that's useful, and - worst - requires a huge amount of my time if I want to manage where and how my information is going or being used (and keep up with the site's constantly changing rules and SOPs).  

I still have my account for now, but I suspect of the reported 900 million users, there must be a huge number like me, whose use for and interest in Zuckerberg's creation is occasional and only minimally enthusiastic.   It's not surprising the stock is doing poorly. I suspect the company's destiny is to be a flash in the pan.