Please, sir, I want some more.

EK & Bittman! Huzzah!

Mark Bittman popularized no-knead bread, for which I am eternally grateful. Delicious!

Great Diavlog. I enjoyed with some Milk Duds (whoops.) I hope BHTV will have Dan Ariely on again soon. I also would love to see one of these guys do a diavlog with the Science Sat guy who wrote the book about digestion and cooking from the evolutionary standpoint.

Food Health Experts Agree...

So it's conscious carnivore, vegan, or nothing? This treatment of vegetarianism was laughable - especially when contrasted with their reduced meat discussion. It's a big reduction in meat. I mean like significant. 0 is less than anything but negative meat. That is all.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: Food Health Experts Agree...

I love them too! They don't have to be all bad. You can make 'em vegan.

Quoting Jyminee: Mark Bittman popularized no-knead bread, for which I am eternally grateful.

Internally grateful?

Great discussion. This summer at a family reunion I walked into the kitchen where my grossly obese nephew-in-law, a fundamentalist missionary in Germany, home with his family on leave, was feeding his small children Dunkin' donuts for breakfast. I didn't speak to him of it, but it struck me that such behavior is child abuse, and wicked. Buy local!

1. Re. losing veggies in the fridge... I'd recommend a refrigerator with the freezer on the bottom... with the refrigerator on top you can see all your vegetables. 2. Re. school lunches, schools allow kids to supersize their lunches without the parents' permission (if the kid has an account). They actually call it supersizing. This is in New York and probably elsewhere. Meanwhile, they send home literature about childhood obesity. They're not supporting their own efforts against childhood obesity. 3. Re. buying more vegetables, isn't there an economic issue here for poor people, and even the middle class? The more fresh vegetables I buy, the higher my grocery bill. It seems to me that this is an important issue to be addressed: making fresh vegetables more affordable. (We won't even talk about organic.)

I haven't read Mr. Bittman's work, but aim to rectify this omission. I do want to recommend the PBS program The Botany of Desire, based on the book by Michael Pollan, which tells the stories of tulips, marijuana, apples and potatoes. Most pertinent to this discussion is the story of the potato, in which a comparison is made between two systems of agriculture; that of the Andean culture, characterized by great genetic crop diversity and variety, and an eco-friendly approach, and that of American agribusiness, characterized by monoculture and heavy use of chemicals. One wonders, as the story is told, if the touted Capitalist ideal of 'Choice' is merely an empty mantra. For if you dine out and order fries with your ribeye, your burger or whatever, they may be cut and flavored in any number of ways, but they will always be Russett Burbank spuds.

Quoting moyergeo: So it's conscious carnivore, vegan, or nothing?

This treatment of vegetarianism was laughable - especially when contrasted with their reduced meat discussion. It's a big reduction in meat. I mean like significant. 0 is less than anything but negative meat. That is all.

I think you missed the point they were trying to make. As I understood it, it was not so much that they were against vegetarianism per se, but that they (1) viewed urging people to cut down on meat as opposed to doing away with it altogether as more likely to yield benefits on a population scale, and (2) found the sanctimonious nature of those vegetarians who moralize about their choice ("Meat is Murder!!!1!") often to be comically inconsistent.

Quoting yann: 1. Re. losing veggies in the fridge... I'd recommend a refrigerator with the freezer on the bottom... with the refrigerator on top you can see all your vegetables.

That's a good idea. It's also, as I understand it, a way to make refrigerators more energy-efficient. On a related note, I had to laugh that Ezra and Mark are just now learning that you don't use your crisper drawers for vegetables. As anyone who has ever hosted a college keg party in off-campus housing knows, this is where you hide your extra bottles of beer.

Oh, believe me, I understand. I generally avoid McDonalds...BUT I've never been able to resist a sau-mick-no-egg.

Interesting and timely.

Quoting graz: More like this please... and a thanksgiving sized portion, thank you.

I'm wary of paternalism generally and in regard to food I'm a federalist.
Leave it up to individuals. Except as Ezra said: Banning coke machines from schools is O.K. by me.

Agreed. At times during this diavlog, I could not help but think, "Boy, this is going to make the fans of Liberal Fascism say 'SEE? SEE? SEE?'" But overall, it was an appealing discussion, and I liked that both recognized that this ultimately has to be a long-term program of incremental changes on many fronts.

Quoting yann: 3. Re. buying more vegetables, isn't there an economic issue here for poor people, and even the middle class? The more fresh vegetables I buy, the higher my grocery bill. It seems to me that this is an important issue to be addressed: making fresh vegetables more affordable. (We won't even talk about organic.)

In my city there is a city-wide program whereby gardening is coordinated and organic produce is channeled to families who wouldn't be able to afford it. I'm happy to lend my back yard and my green thumb to this effort. It feels so much better to utilize my 'property' in this way, rather than devoting it to idle amusement, and there is nothing so beautiful as a thriving organic garden.

Quoting bjkeefe: Agreed. At times during this diavlog, I could not help but think, "Boy, this is going to make the fans of Liberal Fascism say 'SEE? SEE? SEE?'"...

That is the first step to recovery. I wish you god speed on your path to true enlightenment. Just so you don't misconstrue the meaning.

I follow Mark Bittman's food column in the times and enjoy his recipes quite a lot. That being said I am an omnivore and have no intention of giving up meat.
Having grown up on a farm I am quite aware of where my meat comes from and have butchered my own meat on a regular basis. Concerning obesity: I learned a long time ago that controlling my weight mostly required controlling my intake of carbohydrates not protein and fat. Frankly individual self control is the functional factor in obesity. Calories burned verses calories ingested is the simple equation. Ingest more than you burn and you gain weight. It's that simple. I do not believe that the government has any business in regulating what individuals eat or feed their children. Universal Education about food and eating is one thing, regulation of what people eat is quite another.

Quoting Richard from Amherst: I follow Mark Bittman's food column in the times and enjoy his recipes quite a lot.

That being said I am an omnivore and have no intention of giving up meat.
Having grown up on a farm I am quite aware of where my meat comes from and have butchered my own meat on a regular basis.

Concerning obesity: I learned a long time ago that controlling my weight mostly required controlling my intake of carbohydrates not protein and fat.

Frankly individual self control is the functional factor in obesity. Calories burned verses calories ingested is the simple equation. Ingest more than you burn and you gain weight. It's that simple.

I do not believe that the government has any business in regulating what individuals eat or feed their children. Universal Education about food and eating is one thing, regulation of what people eat is quite another.

What gets regulated is what people sell, don't you think? And there seems enormous precedent for that.

Quoting Richard from Amherst: Frankly individual self control is the functional factor in obesity. Calories burned verses calories ingested is the simple equation. Ingest more than you burn and you gain weight. It's that simple.

So you think there's a self-control epidemic? Where did America's self-control go?

"Bittman" = great name for a food writer. I had a physical therapst named Feely. And, my father's PT is named Healy. Perhaps the most apropos is a chiropractor I know named "Knotback." None of this is made up!

Quoting graz: More like this please... and a thanksgiving sized portion, thank you.

I'm wary of paternalism generally and in regard to food I'm a federalist.
Leave it up to individuals. Except as Ezra said: Banning coke machines from schools is O.K. by me.

what graz said.

Quoting claymisher: So you think there's a self-control epidemic? Where did America's self-control go?

Well no actually, I think there is an epidemic of lack of self-control in America. I just don't think that "Government" can "regulate" self-control. That's why they call it "self"-control and not "government"-control. People have to be responsible for their own actions especially when it comes to the individual's own diet and body don't you think? I don't want the Government telling women if they can have a child or abort one. I don't want a bureaucrat telling my mother she is too old for a medical treatment and I don't want the government telling me what to I may or may not buy and eat. I have no trouble with the government providing balanced high quality meals in schools in fact I think to do anything else is close to criminal. I certainly want nutrition, cooking and home economics taught to all children and young adults in schools (regardless of their gender). What I do object to is taxing things to get less of them and telling me what I can and cannot do with my own daily diet. The reality is that

Quoting AemJeff: What gets regulated is what people sell, don't you think? And there seems enormous precedent for that.

Agreed: However because every aspect of food can be regulated under interstate commerce doesn't mean every aspect should be. I think that purity of food is another story. We don't want farmers mixing melamine in powdered milk or E.coli in ground beef or on spinach. However if a an adult person wants to eat a half gallon of pure, high quality ice cream and drink a bottle of scotch at a sitting, imprudent as that may be, it should be his or her prerogative as long as that person don't drive or operate machinery afterward and clean up the bathroom after he or she gets done puking.

Quoting Richard from Amherst: Agreed: However because every aspect of food can be regulated under interstate commerce doesn't mean every aspect should be.

I think that purity of food is another story. We don't want farmers mixing melamine in powdered milk or E.coli in ground beef or on spinach. However if a an adult person wants to eat a half gallon of pure, high quality ice cream and drink a bottle of scotch at a sitting, imprudent as that may be, it should be his or her prerogative as long as that person don't drive or operate machinery afterward and clean up the bathroom after he or she gets done puking.

I'm pretty sure that the things you listed are still possible. I'd add injecting pure borax (or heroin) to your list, and committing deliberate suicide, or having sex with pancakes. But regulations on purity and quality, and labeling and transparency, are all fine by me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__r9y5xBwug I must have seen this PSA a hundred times when I was a kid in the mid-80s, and it made me a beans and rice man for life. We need more catchy propaganda—maybe They Might Be Giants's next album will be about nutrition*? They could cover the Dead Milkmen song... * This is not a joke. I estimate a 10% chance that somewhere in Williamsburg, this is being recorded as I type this.

Quoting Richard from Amherst: Well no actually, I think there is an epidemic of lack of self-control in America.

I just don't think that "Government" can "regulate" self-control. That's why they call it "self"-control and not "government"-control.

People have to be responsible for their own actions especially when it comes to the individual's own diet and body don't you think?

I don't want the Government telling women if they can have a child or abort one. I don't want a bureaucrat telling my mother she is too old for a medical treatment and I don't want the government telling me what to I may or may not buy and eat.

I have no trouble with the government providing balanced high quality meals in schools in fact I think to do anything else is close to criminal. I certainly want nutrition, cooking and home economics taught to all children and young adults in schools (regardless of their gender).

What I do object to is taxing things to get less of them and telling me what I can and cannot do with my own daily diet. The reality is that I rarely eat meat more than twice a week but that

Or, bhTV alumnus Raj Patel. I think there's much in what is suggested. I limit myself to one rice bowl of food, and I do use chopsticks about 6 days a week. Even if the table is covered in food - a great feature of Korean dining - I stop when I finish the rice. But, I also eat meat about twice a day on average. OTOH, my food usually made at home, and I eat out rarely. But, I'm conscious that all my meat is industrially produced to be convenient. All my flash-frozen chicken breasts, sausage, duck, and beef cost a lot to produce so that I can save money. I am also aware of the transportation costs of my veggies because I live on an island, where the local produce is trucked out only to be distributed back into the island by the mega food chains. There's no local market here, and people have illegal lettuce patches on the curbs to defray costs. I think the food system will win out without political action from the grassroots, which means structural reform. Tobacco companies are still in business! And, the sort of middle class ethos Bittman is suggesting is under fire the world over, because how many people are middle

I do not understand the concern about killing 10 billion animals a year. Wild chickens and cows are not being hunted. The animals are bred to be eaten. They would not have existed if not for the demand for their meat. Their lives may not be enviable but it is better then never had existing. Plus the animals in factory farms do not exist in nature, having been modified over many years. If their entire lineage would not have existed then that gives more weight to not being as concerned with slaughtering them for food.

I'm just going to go out on a limb here and say it probably has something to do with the welfare state and that back before Social Security and Medicaid, before every kid got a trophy for being on the soccer team, before political correctness and "Happy Holidays", nobody was fat.

Have you ever killed and eaten the same animal? I would have paused before advocating rights for all creatures, but I think you just convinced me otherwise. At least you didn't claim the animals were happier for their predicament. I thought you were talking about slavery.

This summer at a family reunion I walked into the kitchen where my grossly obese nephew-in-law, a fundamentalist missionary in Germany, home with his family on leave, was feeding his small children Dunkin' donuts for breakfast. I didn't speak to him of it, but it struck me that such behavior is child abuse, and wicked.

Buy local! What does buying local have to do with feeding your kids junkfood? To me, this comment goes to show how foodie issues are mostly just thoughtless snobbery, often detached from real considerations of health, affordability, or sustainability. Just a bunch of slogans and patterns of conspicuous consumption to create a smug self-identify out of.

Quoting rook: I do not understand the concern about killing 10 billion animals a year. Wild chickens and cows are not being hunted. The animals are bred to be eaten. They would not have existed if not for the demand for their meat. Their lives may not be enviable but it is better then never had existing. Plus the animals in factory farms do not exist in nature, having been modified over many years. If their entire lineage would not have existed then that gives more weight to not being as concerned with slaughtering them for food.

A lot of people look at animals with far more human characteristics than you do, and so want more protections for them. Unless they are insects, bacteria, or simply ugly. When taken too far, nut jobs get more upset that a dog was put down after attacking a child than upset at the dog for having attacked the child. Or more empathy is given to the non human than the human. But most are less extreme than that. Unless they are Peta members. Long ago I was listening to Howard Stern when he was still on normal

How many red herrings can you stuff into a post? No one was talking about PETA! It's simply an issue of economics, and not the textbook kind: what and how do we want to eat?

Quoting Baltimoron: How many red herrings can you stuff into a post? No one was talking about PETA!

It's simply an issue of economics, and not the textbook kind: what and how do we want to eat?

There will always be more optimal modes. Not eating animals in favor of plants is definitely less energy intensive. But I could make the same case for so many other aspects of life. Being in a relationship and living together is more optimal in terms of energy usage than being single, two households/apartments, two fridges, etc etc. Perhaps we should coax Bill Maher to give up bachelorhood. Help the planet in that way.
But in lands of plenty, like the western world, people can afford to worry and engage in what they like as opposed to what is optimal and cheapest.

Quoting JonIrenicus: A lot of people look at animals with far more human characteristics than you do, and so want more protections for them. Unless they are insects, bacteria, or simply ugly...

If you are arguing that the more human-like an animal is the less moral it is to eat it I believe the opposite is true, assuming the animals are being bred for food. If Americans developed an appetite that only found Great Apes tasty and the choice was breading them or not, the moral choice would be to do it. That would be 10 Billion Great Apes who lived every year until they were old enough to go to slaughter. To deny them existence because of the moral squeamishness of a few is morally repugnant to me.

Hurry for the Kuznets curve! But do we have 2 centuries to wait for the developing world to get to the point where we all might figure out a solution and actually implement it? Or, do you suggest we just colonize Mars?

Quoting kezboard: I'm just going to go out on a limb here and say it probably has something to do with the welfare state and that back before Social Security and Medicaid, before every kid got a trophy for being on the soccer team, before political correctness and "Happy Holidays", nobody was fat.

There is something to the ease of access Ezra brought up. Fast food is far more pervasive than it used to be, physical activity is down (outside playing shifted some due to video games), and something not mentioned, more calories consumed today from drinks. Some of my weekly calories come from frappuccinos from starbucks or those ice blended drinks from coffe bean. And those drinks contain a TON of calories.
Often times I would rather have a plate of baked salmon with some brown rice, but that is alot harder to cook up than making something microwaveable. Guarding against the flawed nature and choices of humanity seems appropriate with food in the modern age. As to the rest of the developing world, don't hold your breath on them not shifting to meat. I see no alternative for increased demand, sustainable or not.

You're not considering the environmental and epidemiological effect of eliminating species through consumption and industrial slaughter - since most animals left on the earth are not domesticable, slaughter is the only course. Slaughtering could also be costlier than the profits and nutritional benefits of consuming many animals. Finally, it would all come down to consumer decisions, which would require more money to convince through ads and education. And, there are industries that profit from animals without eating them - like eco-touriism - which would lobby against spending for slaughter.

Quoting rook: If you are arguing that the more human-like an animal is the less moral it is to eat it I believe the opposite is true, assuming the animals are being bred for food. If Americans developed an appetite that only found Great Apes tasty and the choice was breading them or not, the moral choice would be to do it. That would be 10 Billion Great Apes who lived every year until they were old enough to go to slaughter. To deny them existence because of the moral squeamishness of a few is morally repugnant to me.

Eating a great ape would be infinitely more repulsive to me than eating some cow. It has everything to do with my human bias, and things closer to our capacity get more protections on an emotional level.

...not to mention catching diseases from an animal whose genetic structure is quite similar to our own!

Quoting Baltimoron: How many red herrings can you stuff into a post?

Why are you advocating overcrowding these poor innocent fish? ;^)

Quoting rook: I do not understand the concern about killing 10 billion animals a year. Wild chickens and cows are not being hunted. The animals are bred to be eaten. They would not have existed if not for the demand for their meat. Their lives may not be enviable but it is better then never had existing. Plus the animals in factory farms do not exist in nature, having been modified over many years. If their entire lineage would not have existed then that gives more weight to not being as concerned with slaughtering them for food.

I used to work with a woman who was not a strict vegetarian, but she would only eat meat or fish that was hunted; i.e., she would not eat meat from any animal that had been raised only to be slaughtered. As far as moral reasons for vegetarian-like behavior go, that position always seemed the most sensible? reasonable? appealing? (something) to me.

Quoting Peter Twieg: This summer at a family reunion I walked into the kitchen where my grossly obese nephew-in-law, a fundamentalist missionary in Germany, home with his family on leave, was feeding his small children Dunkin' donuts for breakfast. I didn't speak to him of it, but it struck me that such behavior is child abuse, and wicked.

Buy local!

What does buying local have to do with feeding your kids junkfood? To me, this comment goes to show how foodie issues are mostly just thoughtless snobbery, often detached from real considerations of health, affordability, or sustainability. Just a bunch of slogans and patterns of conspicuous consumption to create a smug self-identify out of.

You think the Twinkie plant is around the corner from your house? Most junk food is highly processed, mass produced stuff that you're not going to find on the produce shelves at a farmer's market. You think it's smug, I'd say, because you haven't considered the implications. (Can it just be smug slogan, like "Support the Troops?" You betcha!)

Quoting AemJeff: You think the Twinkie plant is around the corner from your house? Most junk food is highly processed, mass produced stuff that you're not going to find on the produce shelves at a farmer's market. You think it's smug, I'd say, because you haven't considered the implications. (Can it just be smug slogan, like "Support the Troops?" You betcha!)

I'm pretty sure if people only bought local, then you'd end up with locally-produced junk food. Maybe not twinkies, but donuts and plenty of other items? Sure. And if the issue were really "don't buy junk food", then the advice should be "don't buy junk food", not "buy local". In any case, I finally got around to watching this, and my main thought is that I'm amazed that a discussion of the command-and-control taxes and regulations we'd need to encourage sustainability managed to proceed without any mention of carbon taxes or cap-and-trade. If the problem with food production is that it uses energy, and energy usage generates whatever externalities (which it does in some processes more than others, but we'll set that aside for now), then why would an energy tax not solve these issues? Why

why not just go cannibal?

Quoting rook: If you are arguing that the more human-like an animal is the less moral it is to eat it I believe the opposite is true, assuming the animals are being bred for food. If Americans developed an appetite that only found Great Apes tasty and the choice was breading them or not, the moral choice would be to do it. That would be 10 Billion Great Apes who lived every year until they were old enough to go to slaughter. To deny them existence because of the moral squeamishness of a few is morally repugnant to me.

I'm having a hard time following your thinking. I only care that I am alive, because I am alive. What is morally wrong about denying some being life, when said being is not yet alive and can't care about the issue one way or the other? Should I feel guilty to my potential kids that I am not running around trying to have as many kids as possible and thus denying them life? P.S.
As an aside, isn't there a logical contradiction in being against the practice of raising animals for slaughter and yet

Can self-awareness and intelligence be correlated in this manner?

Quoting Starwatcher162536: how can you not also care about fetuses that exceed the level of self awareness a cow has being killed.

you are just wildly speculating, right? or do you think you have any evidence to back up those claims?

Quoting popcorn_karate: you are just wildly speculating, right?

or do you think you have any evidence to back up those claims?

I would think that cows exceed the intelligence and level of self-awareness of fetuses.

Just speculation.

Quoting look: I would think that cows exceed the intelligence and level of self-awareness of fetuses.

that was basically my point. Although i would say i'm not 100% convinced about it. I think people generally underestimate the level of intelligence and awareness of many animals.