Food

Subterms

    Latest story

    125 Shares88 Views

    Latte-swilling ‘performative males’: why milky drinks are shorthand for liberal

    by

    Another week, another somewhat fictional online buzzword to parse. This time it is the “performative male”, basically the idea that posturing straight men only read books to get laid, outlined in recent trend pieces including the New York Times, Vox, Teen Vogue, Hypebeast, GQ and millions of TikToks.According to the Times, this man “curates his aesthetic in a way that he thinks might render him more likable to progressive women. He is, in short, the antithesis of the toxic man.” Apparently these heterosexual men who read Joan Didion, carry tote bags and listen to Clairo are not in fact human beings who enjoy things but performative jerk-offs who don’t really care about any of that girly stuff and are just trying to impress their feminine opposites. As Vox put it: “think Jacob Elordi when he was photographed with three different books on his person, or Paul Mescal publicly admiring Mitski”. Reading! Enjoying music by women! Perish the thought.Each piece differed slightly in what it defined as the key characteristics of the performative male, but they all shared one detail: he drinks matcha lattes.This was unsurprising. For three decades the latte has been the favored blog-whistle of the trend piece writer. It signals liberalism, femininity, gayness, pretension, gentrification – ideally all of the above – so reflexively that its origins as an insult are rarely revisited.It began in earnest in 1997, when journalist David Brooks writing in the Weekly Standard coined the term “latte liberal”. He was trying, disparagingly, to give name to the crunchy consumerist leftism of the time, in which organic vegetables and world music had become part of the social justice hamper: “You know you’re in a Latte Town when you can hop right off a bike path, browse in a used bookstore with shelves and shelves of tomes on Marxism the owner can no longer get rid of, and then drink coffee at a place with a punnish name that must have the word ‘Grounds’ in it, before sauntering through an African drum store or a feminist lingerie shop.”Brooks wanted to hint that leftism is a luxury only the bourgeois can afford – an idea encapsulated by the earlier formation of champagne socialist. But the latte proved a stickier, more evocative symbol, painting liberals as soft and effete.In 2004, lattes really entered politics, when a Republican Pac ran an ad accusing presidential candidate Howard Dean of being a “latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving, New York Times-reading, body-piercing, Hollywood-loving left-wing freak show”.Lattes also became a byword for gentrification. In 2000, when the Brooklyn neighborhood Williamsburg was, the Times bemoaned at the time, reaching “the point of hipster saturation”, the final straw was “a local Italian specialty store and a working-class institution … advertising the arrival of the Chai latte”. In New York Magazine’s 2005 feature L-ification, the publication mapped out how gentrification was spreading further east into Brooklyn along the route of the L train with little latte icons, a milky glyph of whiteness by that point understood by everyone.Noticeably, the latte form remains permanent, even as the type of latte shifts. Newt Gingrich accused New York mayor Bill De Blasio of “small soy latte liberalism” in 2014 – emphasising that the only thing more girlish than drinking a big dairy milky coffee was drinking a small vegan milky coffee. On Drake’s 2010 song Thank Me Now, when he’s asking the woman he’s left behind if she still thinks of him, he croons: “But do I ever come up in discussion / Over double-pump lattes and low-fat muffins?”Now the performative male has once again given rise to the idea that there is something inherently disingenuous about a milky beverage. Interestingly as the latte has changed colour, from white to green, the stereotype has expanded beyond the white liberal: matcha hails a diverse new generation of milky boys.The idea of the performative male started out mostly as a joke on TikTok, where knowing posters would show a man reading at the gym, for example, and joke that he was pretending. Contests in which men meet in parks to compete to be the most performative have been funny, postmodern, heterosexual versions of drag.But with each passing write-up, the knowing humorous element has been rinsed away, until Vox earnestly announced in its piece that the “MeToo movement showed us that even supposed ‘nice guy’ could be capable of alleged manipulation and abuse – that in fact, they could use their enlightenment as a kind of shield”. If you see a man with a matcha latte, you need to run!None of the pieces particularly wanted to reckon with the fact that, as Judith Butler put it, “gender identity is a performative accomplishment” to begin with, or that Arthur Schopenhauer was complaining in the mid-19th century that a performative reader “usually confuses the purchase of books with the acquisition of their contents”. Do we read in order to get laid? Only since forever.View image in fullscreenIronically much of this ribbing comes from the same people who decry a crisis of masculinity, and worry for future generations of boys who feel like they lack purpose and companionship. Yet in the world of the performative male, even having female friends and drinking milky coffee is a divergence from true masculinity.Why is the latte such an enduring emblem for this distrust – a way to call men you do not like effeminate?Partly it is the allegory of milk, the pursed mouth of a graphic designer on a coffee cup as a surrogate for the Madonna del Latte, the thousands of medieval depictions of Jesus nursing at Mary’s breast. Grown men drinking milk has always been laden in symbolism, the blend of nurture and eroticism evocative of a sexual infantalization. It is why so many films from A Clockwork Orange to Babygirl centre milk as a poison beyond a place of regular intoxication. When Kelis sings that her milkshake brings her boys to the yard, the lyric is so heavy in implication that the exact innuendo she is reaching for is irrelevant.Even the ancient Greeks used to have their own version of the latte joke, belittling the Persians who drank milk: Aristotle said Empedocles described it as “whitish pus”.But the milk in the context of the latte also turns coffee, a drink which was sold as fuel, bitter black stuff for TV detectives and the working man, into a sweet little treat. A latte fundamentally dilutes the taste of coffee and so it is easy to present those who drink it as watering down their wine. Even though the iconography of the latte liberal is now so strong it has stretched to drinks that do not contain any coffee to begin with. According to the performative male trend pieces, drinking a matcha latte indicates to women that you are soft, feminist-leaning and worldly (after all, it’s from Japan).Even though the latte is supposed to be this bastion of girlishness, women are not exempt from being chastised for drinking them, although the latte trope for them is more often a reflection of being superficial than performatively feminine. The logic of this makes little sense: latte liberal men are supposedly too European to be masculine, yet iced latte girlies are gormless Americans sucking on the straw of consumerism. No matter, the two sit side by side, one clutching a hot cup of simp soup, the other a pumpkin-spiced lobotomy. They are a pair one can project all their prejudices towards, without having to interrogate any of it too much.The irony is that hipsters and gentrifiers in coastal towns are rarely drinking lattes these days. They are much more likely to be sipping on a single origin V60 that’s been carefully weighed out on a digital scale. Indeed the stereotype could easily be flipped around – that it’s red states where complicated online Starbucks orders and Stanley cups filled with 32oz of latte abound. In the best survey of the coffee Americans actually drink and how it aligns with their politics by Diana C Mutz and Jahnavi S Rao, the differences were negligible. Although it is true that liberals do prefer lattes over conservatives (16% v 9%), the same research found liberals also prefer the more masculine-coded espressos over conservatives by a much bigger margin, and the vast majority of Americans prefer brewed coffee.But the milky latte stereotype persists because it is creamy and white (or green) and vaguely Italian. When GQ is asking “Are Matcha Men the New Soy Boys” you have got to wonder if gendering beverages has become the most performative act of all. More

    More stories

    • 125 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Talking politics has bartenders on edge in Trump’s Washington DC

      by

      Deke Dunne relocated to Washington DC from Wyoming in 2008 to pursue a career in politics. Though a progressive himself, he worked as a legislative aide for the Republican senator Mike Enzi and spent many nights at local watering holes, guzzling $10 pitchers and eating wings with fellow broke staffers from both sides of the aisle. Long before he began moonlighting as a bartender, he learned that talking politics in DC bars was always a recipe for disaster.“When I used to work in politics, I would spend a lot of time in bars near Capitol Hill,” said Dunne, “so I was exposed to more political professionals. In those spaces, you often find yourself witnessing knockdown, drag-out arguments about politics.”Today, Dunne is one of DC’s most influential mixologists, having abandoned politics almost a decade ago for a hospitality career. Serving drinks in a city that is more ideologically divided than ever, Dunne says he exercises more diplomacy behind the bar now than he ever did working in politics.There has always been an unspoken rule among Washington DC bartenders, according to Dunne, that political conversations across the bar should be avoided at all costs. It is generally understood that maintaining neutrality is critical to ensuring that guests of all political persuasions feel welcome. But the partisan rancor in Washington during the early stages of Donald Trump’s presidential encore has created palpable tension in hospitality spaces, placing undue strain on staff to manage the vibes.“It’s always been an accepted truth in DC that every four to eight years, you get a whole new swath of people in from a different political ideology and if you want to have a strong, viable business, you don’t talk politics,” said Dunne. “Trump broke that rule.”According to local bar professionals in the nation’s capital, the “tending” part of bartending has never been more challenging. “Politics in DC is not only something that a lot of people care about, but it’s also a lot of people’s livelihoods,” said Zac Hoffman, a bar industry veteran who until recently managed the restaurant inside the National Democratic Club near the Capitol. “When you’re talking about work, you’re talking about politics. That’s just the reality of where we live. It’s a company town.”At Allegory, where Dunne oversees the beverage program, the bar has always taken a progressive approach, which occasionally provokes more conservative-minded guests who stay in the Eaton, the boutique hotel and cultural hub in downtown where the bar opened seven years ago. Its aesthetic and cocktail menu reimagines Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland, but featuring a young Ruby Bridges, the iconic civil rights activist who faced a jeering mob when she desegregated a Little Rock elementary school.“Our very presence as a mission-based bar has sparked many conversations surrounding our concept, but also gender-neutral bathrooms, provocative art and advocacy,” he said. “We’ve had people that are clearly uncomfortable with our concept leave and then post a negative review but frame it about something else.”The resurgent, and often strident, brand of conservatism that dominates the political sphere in Washington today has many of the city’s more progressive bar owners on edge. At The Green Zone, a Middle Eastern cocktail bar in Adams Morgan on the city’s north side, politics have always been integral to the bar’s identity since it opened in 2018. Bar owner Chris Hassaan Francke, whose mother is Iraqi, has earned a reputation for being outspoken about political conflicts, especially those in the Middle East.But since Trump’s return to office, he admits to having toned down some of the rhetoric. “We changed the name of one of our most infamous cocktails [which contained an incendiary reference to the current president],” said Francke. “It kills me that I can’t always say everything I want to say, but ultimately the safety and wellbeing of my staff [are] more important than that.”While the city may be under Republican rule at the moment, DC itself is still overwhelmingly liberal (Kamala Harris won over 90% of the vote in the 2024 election), which means that a majority of its hospitality workers are liberal, too. “I know some bartenders who will say the opposite of what they believe around customers they don’t agree with politically,” said Hoffman. “There are plenty of socialists who make great tips talking shit about liberals with Republicans.”It isn’t only the more progressive venues around town that have become targets. After recent articles in the New York Times and Washington Post championed the upscale Capitol Hill bistro Butterworth’s as a haven for Maga sympathizers, backlash ensued. According to chef and co-owner Bart Hutchins – who, like Dunne, also left a career in politics to work in hospitality – being perceived as pro-Trump has attracted crowds to his fledgling restaurant, which opened last fall. But it’s also created some unwanted operational challenges. For one, a serial provocateur with an air-horn routinely disrupts his weekly dinner service by sounding it through the front entrance, often multiple times a week.Despite Butterworth’s reputation for being a sanctuary for high-profile Trump supporters such as Steve Bannon, not every political conversation at the bar is peaceful. “I’ve broken up at least three political arguments since we opened,” said Hutchins. “It always starts with somebody who’s really, really insistent that everyone agrees with them, someone who’s watching way too much cable news who’s really determined to have their Sean Hannity or Rachel Maddow moment.”View image in fullscreenAnother unfortunate byproduct of being known as a right-leaning restaurant in a left-leaning town, Hutchins says, has been difficulty hiring and retaining staff. “There have been times where it’s been really hard to hire people,” he said. “Early on, we had some servers self-select out and say: ‘I don’t want to serve these people.’ But a lot of those people have moved on.”Over time, the staff has found ways to put their political convictions aside for the good of the restaurant. “Our No 1 rule that’s written on a door in the back is: ‘Everybody’s a VIP,” said Hutchins. “We’re not interested in using politics as a measuring device for whether or not someone deserves great service.”For DC bars, proximity to Capitol Hill has historically increased the likelihood that the conversations inside them will revolve around politics. And while some bars on the Hill may welcome these spirited conversations, many older, legacy bars prefer that patrons leave their partisanship at the door.View image in fullscreenTune Inn, a well-loved dive bar that originally opened a few blocks from the Capitol in 1947, outwardly discourages political conversations of any kind. “You can always tell the newbies because they want to come in and immediately start talking about politics,” said Stephanie Hulbert, who has worked as a bartender, server and now general manager at the bar for more than 17 years. “They get shut down very quickly.”To keep the peace and maintain non-partisan decorum inside the bar, she and her staff regularly intervene and admonish guests to keep their politics to themselves. These interventions occur at least two or three times every week, according to Hulbert, which is why the TVs inside the bar are deliberately set to sports channels rather than news outlets. “I’ll argue about sports all day long with you,” she said. “But I won’t argue about politics.”Despite the heightened anxiety in Washington, Dunne is optimistic that healthy dialogues in more progressive bars including Allegory can effect positive change. In January, Trump’s inauguration drew conservative revelers to the Eaton, where inclusivity and multiculturalism is essential to its brand and mission. That led to some uncomfortable conversations with Republican patrons about the bar’s progressive ethos.“I don’t know how effective the conversations were, but they were constructive,” he said. “We found middle ground about the fact that what Ruby [Bridges] went through was tragic. It’s common ground you don’t find very often around here any more.” More

    • 188 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      RFK Jr wants bright artificial dyes out of food. Are Americans ready to let go?

      by

      The Make America Healthy Again (Maha) movement celebrated this month after the US dairy industry voluntarily pledged to remove all artificial dyes from ice-cream by 2028. In April, US health secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr prevailed upon the food industry to stop using artificial dyes, and many of the nation’s largest food manufacturers, including Nestle, Kraft Heinz and PepsiCo, have already promised to comply. But the ice-cream pledge made Kennedy especially happy because, he said, ice-cream is his favorite food.Prepare to say goodbye to the brilliant pink (from red dye No 40) that signifies strawberry, the cool green (yellow 5 and blue 1) of mint chocolate chip, and the heroic combination of red 40, blue 1, and yellow 5 and 6 that makes up Superman.One of the goals of the Maha movement is to prevent childhood diseases, which Kennedy argues can be accomplished by, among other things, addressing the use of additives in ultra-processed foods. A recent study published in the Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics calculated that, in 2020, 19% of food products contained artificial dyes – “the most egregious” additive, according to Kennedy. Those dyes, he claims, are responsible for a host of health issues, including cancer, hyperactivity and possibly autism.“The American people have made it clear – they want real food, not chemicals,” Kennedy said in a statement.View image in fullscreenAside from jokes on social media about Donald Trump’s skin tone and Kennedy’s alleged use of methylene blue (an artificial dye that some claim boosts “mitochondrial efficiency” and longevity), the initiative has faced little political opposition. In January, when Joe Biden was still president, the FDA announced a ban on red dye No 3 scheduled to go into effect in 2027. Red 3, the FDA explained, was shown to cause cancer in rats, and while it does not show up in food in large enough quantities to affect humans, it still violates a law forbidding additives that contain carcinogens.Meanwhile, states as politically varied as West Virginia, Texas and California have already established their own bans or requirements that foods containing artificial dyes carry warning labels, citing the need to protect kids. (In the UK and the EU, restrictions on artificial dyes have been in place for years.)Why the fuss over food coloring? Are natural dyes really that much better for our health?“They’re better for some people’s health,” says Jamie Alan, a professor of pharmacology and toxicology at Michigan State University. “There is a very small percentage of children who are very sensitive to these dyes. And when they eat these dyes, they display behaviors that we sometimes associate with ADHD.”Alan stresses that there is no evidence that those kids actually develop ADHD. But research has found that after eating foods containing certain dyes, children, including those diagnosed with ADHD or autism, can show signs of hyperactivity, moodiness and inattentiveness. However many of these foods, particularly candy and soda, also contain sugar, which has also been connected to hyperactive behavior.Alan recommends that parents talk to a pediatrician and try an elimination diet to make sure the dye and not another ingredient is to blame. But she largely supports phasing out artificial dyes; most public health advocates think this is a good idea. “In my opinion,” Alan says, “because we’re talking about children and because they are a vulnerable population, I do think this is a great thing to do. But I will recognize that it is not going to impact the vast majority of the population.”One group that the change in dyes will certainly affect is the food manufacturers themselves. Switching from artificial to natural dyes is a complex process, says Travis Zissu, the co-founder and innovation lead of Scale Food Labs in Golden, Colorado, which offers a program to help manufacturers with the dye conversion.View image in fullscreenUnlike artificial dyes, which are derived from petroleum, natural dyes come mostly from plants: turmeric, for example, is used for yellows; algae and butterfly pea flower for blues; lycopene from carrots and tomatoes for reds. These dyes can be less stable, so Scale’s program begins with finding natural pigments that will not be affected by heat and other chemicals, followed by tests to determine which combination of dyes will produce the most reliable color. Next, Scale helps companies lock in contracts that will not force them to raise their prices too much and secure light-sensitive packaging to protect the colors. Finally, there are nine to 12 months of product testing to make sure production runs smoothly and that there are no adverse effects for consumers, such as red-dyed feces (something that has been known to happen with beet powder and extract; Alan says it’s harmless, but admits it can be unnerving).But Zissu’s biggest concern is that there won’t be enough to go around. Natural color demand is already up between 30-50% across the industry since food companies began announcing their intentions to stop using artificial color, he says, and the earliest deadline – 2027 – is still years away.“There is simply not enough supply to replace every single item in the market,” he says. “You’ll see the largest companies locking down colors soon, but there will not be enough until 2030.”There is also the worry that American consumers will reject the new colors altogether. While their counterparts in Europe, Canada and Japan have peacefully accepted the duller hues of natural dyes, Americans remain stubbornly attached to neon-bright candy and cereal.Case in point: in 2015, General Mills pledged to remove all artificial colors and flavorings from its products. The following year, it rolled out a natural version of Trix, the kid-friendly fruity breakfast cereal. But the muted Trix, colored by radishes, purple carrots and turmeric, was a flop. Customers missed the vibrant colors and complained that the new version didn’t taste right. By 2017, “classic Trix” had returned to grocery stores.On the other hand, when Kraft reformulated the powder for its macaroni and cheese and quietly began selling the all-natural version in December 2015, there was much less protest. As an Eater headline at the time put it: “Kraft Changed Its Mac and Cheese and Nobody Noticed.” Perhaps it was the marketing strategy – Kraft did not bother to make a big announcement until after it had sold 50m boxes – or maybe it was because the natural dyes were just as orange as the original. (Alan recalls that her young nieces and nephews were slightly worried about the change but accepted the new mac and cheese without much fuss.)As the adage goes, we eat with our eyes. The appearance of food should not change our perceptions of how it tastes, but, as anyone who has ever bought produce knows, it definitely does. In nature, brighter colors indicate that foods are ripe and will taste good. This principle also applies to human-made food.As far back as the middle ages, according to Ai Hisano, a professor of business history at the University of Tokyo and author of Visualizing Taste: How Business Changed the Look of What You Eat, dairy farmers would mix carrot juice and annatto from achiote trees into their butter to make it a more appetizing yellow. When scientists discovered petroleum-based dyes in the mid-19th century, the dairy industry was one of the earliest adopters: the artificial dyes were cheaper, and they helped create uniform yellows for butter and cheese that appealed to shoppers.Other food producers quickly followed suit. Meat would be red! Sandwich bread would be white! Oranges – which sometimes stayed green, even when they were ripe – would be orange! By the early 20th century, the US government had started regulating food coloring to make sure it didn’t kill anyone.This was also the beginning of the golden age of industrial food such as candy, breakfast cereal and, most notoriously, Jell-O, which came in colors never seen in nature. Food dye became vital for branding, Hisano writes. Even if brighter color didn’t really affect flavor because the food was entirely manufactured, people perceived that it did, and that was what mattered. Would a beige Flamin’ Hot Cheeto taste as spicy?View image in fullscreen“I assume many consumers in the early 20th century were frightened by those bright-red foods,” Hisano told the Atlantic in 2017. “But one reason consumers liked them is because they were excited about these colors they had never seen before.” And the knowledge that they were regulated by the FDA made them feel they were safe to eat.Because the identity of their products depends on color, the most resistance to Kennedy’s initiative has come from America’s candy manufacturers. A spokesman for the National Confectioners Association said that candy makers will not adopt natural dyes until federal regulations compel them to. Of all the biggest US food companies, only Mars, maker of M&Ms, Skittles and Starburst (incidentally, Trump’s favorite candy), has not yet pledged to give up artificial dye, except for the already banned red 3. However, FDA commissioner Marty Makary told Fox News that he thinks Mars will come around sooner than later.Zissu, the food dye consultant, foresees “an R&D sprint” to develop natural dyes before the 2027 deadline. And indeed, since May, the FDA has approved four new natural colors – three blues and one white – for a wide range of food, including juices, milk-based meal replacements, cereal, chips, sugar and ready-to-eat chicken products.But Zissu does not think that a transition to natural dyes means that the color of food will revert to a pre-industrial dullness. “I believe we will always see the bright colors in candy and other items that consumers come to expect,” he says. “There will just be a lot more research dedicated to getting those colors if artificial [dye] is banned.”It may also help if America’s food manufacturers act en masse, as they appear to be doing: the change will be so overwhelming that, as Zissu puts it, “neon synthetics will look as dated as trans fats.” Perhaps in a few years, we will look back at green mint chip ice-cream in wonder. (Some people already do: many ice-cream producers, including Ben & Jerry’s and Häagen-Dazs, don’t use green as the signifier for mint.)It seems Maha is poised to help shake America of its affair with artificial colors. But it celebrates this victory at the same time as the Trump administration guts public health infrastructure.The ice-cream industry’s pledge came just 11 days after Congress passed a spending bill that will cut Medicaid spending, and therefore healthcare for millions of children, and slash Snap food assistance for US families. It came the same day that the Department of Health laid off thousands of employees. Under Trump, the government has also cut research grants to scientists studying, among other things, disease prevention and vaccines (of which Kennedy is a notorious skeptic). Underlying issues such as food and housing insecurity and child poverty that devastate children’s wellbeing are likely to worsen.Alan thinks that if Kennedy is serious about improving the health of America’s kids, there are much more pressing issues than food dye to work on. “I just can’t believe that someone would be given a chance to make such an impact,” she says, “and this is what they choose to do.” More

    • 150 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      US dairy industry to remove synthetic dyes from ice-cream, RFK Jr says

      by

      In what Trump administration officials dubbed a “major announcement”, health and agriculture department leaders said the US dairy industry agreed to voluntarily remove synthetic dyes from ice-cream.The announcement continues the Trump administration’s pattern of voluntary agreements with industry – from health insurers to snack food makers.“This is relevant to my favorite food, which is ice-cream,” said the US health secretary, Robert F Kennedy Jr.“Since we came in about five and a half months ago and started talking about eliminating dyes and other bad chemicals from our food, we’ve had this extraordinary response from our industry.”Representatives of the dairy industry said that more than 40 ice cream companies agreed not to use synthetic dyes. Kennedy also alluded to the future release of new dietary guidelines, which would “elevate” dairy products, including full-fat dairy, to “where they ought to be in terms of contributing to the health of our children”.The head of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Dr Marty Makary, also announced that his agency approved a new plant-based dye: “gardenia blue”.The value of full-fat dairy is an ongoing subject of debate in nutrition research circles. For decades, government health authorities have cautioned against too much saturated fats, sugars and refined grains because of their link to obesity and heart disease. Some high-profile researchers now argue that full-fat dairy may not be as harmful as once thought.That is a perspective shared by the US dairy industry, which has funded nutrition research and fought against government controls on dairy in school lunches since the Obama administration.The issue is also important in rural communities across dairy country, where farmers began displaying hand-painted hay bails outside farms with messages such as: “Drink whole milk 97% fat free”.The Trump administration has held a close relationship with the dairy industry for years, stretching all the way back to the president’s first term. In 2019, then agriculture secretary Sonny Perdue toasted dairy lobbyists with a glass of chocolate milk to celebrate the reintroduction of once-banned flavored milks back into schools.“This is a great day for dairy and a great day for ‘make America healthy again,’” said Michael Dykes, the president and CEO of the International Dairy Foods Association. “We’re so happy with the voluntary industry-led commitment.”Notably, the Trump administration’s effort to reach voluntary agreements with industry has also shown the strategy’s limits. For instance, Mars, the maker of Skittles and M&M’s, resisted Kennedy’s efforts. Meanwhile, on health insurance, experts have expressed skepticism that an agreement with private insurers will significantly help Americans. More

    • 213 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      I grew up on American food. Trust me, it’s the last thing Europe needs | Alexander Hurst

      by

      All over European media, the take seems to be similar – that the EU is “under pressure” to conclude some sort of deal with the US in order to avoid Donald Trump’s 9 July deadline for the unilateral imposition of broad tariffs. What might be on the table in the attempt to secure that? In early May, the EU trade commissioner, Maroš Šefčovič, was already suggesting that a deal to increase purchases from the US could include agricultural products – a possibility that seems to remain even though Šefčovič later clarified that the EU was not contemplating changing its health or safety standards.Since I have failed to Abba (“Always be boldly acronyming”) and don’t have anything as good as Taco (“Trump always chickens out”) – coined by the Financial Times columnist Robert Armstrong – at the ready, I’ll simply reach for the easy line: opening the door even slightly to more US food imports into the EU would leave a bad taste in all our mouths. Trump’s hostage-taking approach to trade should not be rewarded, certainly not with something that hits as close to home as food does.“The European Union won’t take chicken from America. They won’t take lobsters from America. They hate our beef because our beef is beautiful and theirs is weak,” declared the US commerce secretary, Howard Lutnick, in April. Laughter aside, every time I go back to the US I become a vegetarian for the duration of my trip – even though US grocery store vegetables are themselves generally big, blemish-free and bland. Why? Call me paranoid, but I simply don’t want to ingest the same growth hormones that Lutnick’s “beautiful” meat probably contains traces of and that are banned in the EU.Growing up in Ohio, I experienced the full force of US food culture. It was the 90s, which meant that margarine was most definitely in and butter was out; an example that highlights how processed everything took root, including – in my vegetarian family – highly processed meat alternatives. The people around me meant well, but how do you fight a system that, from top to bottom, was designed to push high fructose corn syrup into practically everything (and most worryingly into school lunches)?To be fair, all of this has since generated a domestic backlash, but there’s an intense amount of momentum behind it still: almost without fail, I find that the standard sugar level in the US soars far beyond what I now find appealing. Even in places I wouldn’t expect to find added sugar at all, like pizza.And why would the Trump administration’s full-scale savaging of the US government’s administrative and regulatory capacity, including the Food and Drug Administration, increase anyone’s trust that what US regulation does exist is actually being followed?Some of you are perhaps rolling your eyes, thinking: Alexander Hurst, a naturalised French citizen, has gone full “chauvin”; converts are the worst. Except it’s not just me. There is an entire internet subgenre of content extolling the virtues of French butter, or involving Americans who come to France and realise that this is what peaches, or strawberries, really taste like.Beyond the question of whether or not Europeans want to eat US agricultural output, a hypothetical trade deal would involve hugely negative climate impacts. The distance that food travels already accounts for 20% of global agriculture-related emissions pollution, and Europe’s share in imported agriculture emissions is already high. We need to be reducing it, not adding to it through foodstuffs carted unnecessarily across the Atlantic.How can we ask European farmers to accelerate their transition to regenerative agriculture (which offers the potential to drastically reduce agriculture emissions) if, at the same time, they are being undercut by US producers who face far lower regulatory standards?“Europe already produces and grows everything it could possibly need. The last thing we want to see circulating is hormone-pumped beef or chlorinated poultry,” says Lindsey Tramuta, the author of The Eater Guide to Paris. “Even beyond the goods themselves, there’s the issue of distance: why bring food over from the US if Europeans can get their needs met from much closer to home?”Yannick Huang, who manages the Vietnamese restaurant Loan in Paris’s Belleville neighbourhood, agrees. “At a time when we’re trying to do organic, local, it’s pointless to want to import anything from the US,” he told me. Huang, who is obsessive about ingredient quality, only serves French beef. To him, US agriculture comes tainted with the connotation of “GMOs and other problems”.Hold on, you might say. Isn’t it inconsistent to oppose Trump’s tariffs while also promoting food protectionism? Fair point: it’s hard to find a “one size fits all” approach to globalisation. It has harmed some workers in wealthy economies while also reducing the gap between low-income nations and high-income ones. No country on Earth has a fully self-contained advanced semiconductor manufacturing supply chain, and in sectors where globalisation has become excessive, it might be even more economically harmful to roll back. None of that, though, means that things that have resisted becoming fully global should all of a sudden be opened up – food most of all.Ramzi Saadé is a Lebanese-Canadian chef whose Paris restaurant, Atica, is dedicated to a fiercely regional approach to haute cuisine. But taking his diners on a voyage of discovery doesn’t mean his food has to go on one too; despite focusing on first Basque, and now Corsican cuisine, he sources almost all of his ingredients from the area surrounding Paris. For a lamb dish involving 13 different elements, only the nepeta, a Corsican herb, had travelled, he said. “Is my role today to bring you Japanese culture via wasabi flown to Paris?” Saadé asked. “No, my role is to explain to you that it’s grated this way and put on fish for this reason, and I can do that with wasabi from France.”I couldn’t help but think that it’s actually far more interesting to do it his way – to interpret a cuisine rather than attempt to transpose it.We are what we eat. A cuisine is a medium of communication; it is, indelibly, tied up with the stories we tell about who we are. Perhaps that’s why it’s so disturbing to see food held hostage, or weaponised, in the pursuit of economic or geostrategic goals.Europe’s intense and varied regionality is an enormous part of how it eats and therefore what it is. Opening the market to mass penetration by US agriculture would, little by little, nibble away at that richness. It’s the kind of proposition that, if it ever makes it out of the kitchen, should be sent back straight away.

      Alexander Hurst is a Guardian Europe columnist More

    • 213 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      I grew up on American food. Trust me, it’s the last thing Europe needs | Alexander Hurst

      by

      All over European media, the take seems to be similar – that the EU is “under pressure” to conclude some sort of deal with the US in order to avoid Donald Trump’s 9 July deadline for the unilateral imposition of broad tariffs. What might be on the table in the attempt to secure that? In early May, the EU trade commissioner, Maroš Šefčovič, was already suggesting that a deal to increase purchases from the US could include agricultural products – a possibility that seems to remain even though Šefčovič later clarified that the EU was not contemplating changing its health or safety standards.Since I have failed to Abba (“Always be boldly acronyming”) and don’t have anything as good as Taco (“Trump always chickens out”) – coined by the Financial Times columnist Robert Armstrong – at the ready, I’ll simply reach for the easy line: opening the door even slightly to more US food imports into the EU would leave a bad taste in all our mouths. Trump’s hostage-taking approach to trade should not be rewarded, certainly not with something that hits as close to home as food does.“The European Union won’t take chicken from America. They won’t take lobsters from America. They hate our beef because our beef is beautiful and theirs is weak,” declared the US commerce secretary, Howard Lutnick, in April. Laughter aside, every time I go back to the US I become a vegetarian for the duration of my trip – even though US grocery store vegetables are themselves generally big, blemish-free and bland. Why? Call me paranoid, but I simply don’t want to ingest the same growth hormones that Lutnick’s “beautiful” meat probably contains traces of and that are banned in the EU.Growing up in Ohio, I experienced the full force of US food culture. It was the 90s, which meant that margarine was most definitely in and butter was out; an example that highlights how processed everything took root, including – in my vegetarian family – highly processed meat alternatives. The people around me meant well, but how do you fight a system that, from top to bottom, was designed to push high fructose corn syrup into practically everything (and most worryingly into school lunches)?To be fair, all of this has since generated a domestic backlash, but there’s an intense amount of momentum behind it still: almost without fail, I find that the standard sugar level in the US soars far beyond what I now find appealing. Even in places I wouldn’t expect to find added sugar at all, like pizza.And why would the Trump administration’s full-scale savaging of the US government’s administrative and regulatory capacity, including the Food and Drug Administration, increase anyone’s trust that what US regulation does exist is actually being followed?Some of you are perhaps rolling your eyes, thinking: Alexander Hurst, a naturalised French citizen, has gone full “chauvin”; converts are the worst. Except it’s not just me. There is an entire internet subgenre of content extolling the virtues of French butter, or involving Americans who come to France and realise that this is what peaches, or strawberries, really taste like.Beyond the question of whether or not Europeans want to eat US agricultural output, a hypothetical trade deal would involve hugely negative climate impacts. The distance that food travels already accounts for 20% of global agriculture-related emissions pollution, and Europe’s share in imported agriculture emissions is already high. We need to be reducing it, not adding to it through foodstuffs carted unnecessarily across the Atlantic.How can we ask European farmers to accelerate their transition to regenerative agriculture (which offers the potential to drastically reduce agriculture emissions) if, at the same time, they are being undercut by US producers who face far lower regulatory standards?“Europe already produces and grows everything it could possibly need. The last thing we want to see circulating is hormone-pumped beef or chlorinated poultry,” says Lindsey Tramuta, the author of The Eater Guide to Paris. “Even beyond the goods themselves, there’s the issue of distance: why bring food over from the US if Europeans can get their needs met from much closer to home?”Yannick Huang, who manages the Vietnamese restaurant Loan in Paris’s Belleville neighbourhood, agrees. “At a time when we’re trying to do organic, local, it’s pointless to want to import anything from the US,” he told me. Huang, who is obsessive about ingredient quality, only serves French beef. To him, US agriculture comes tainted with the connotation of “GMOs and other problems”.Hold on, you might say. Isn’t it inconsistent to oppose Trump’s tariffs while also promoting food protectionism? Fair point: it’s hard to find a “one size fits all” approach to globalisation. It has harmed some workers in wealthy economies while also reducing the gap between low-income nations and high-income ones. No country on Earth has a fully self-contained advanced semiconductor manufacturing supply chain, and in sectors where globalisation has become excessive, it might be even more economically harmful to roll back. None of that, though, means that things that have resisted becoming fully global should all of a sudden be opened up – food most of all.Ramzi Saadé is a Lebanese-Canadian chef whose Paris restaurant, Atica, is dedicated to a fiercely regional approach to haute cuisine. But taking his diners on a voyage of discovery doesn’t mean his food has to go on one too; despite focusing on first Basque, and now Corsican cuisine, he sources almost all of his ingredients from the area surrounding Paris. For a lamb dish involving 13 different elements, only the nepeta, a Corsican herb, had travelled, he said. “Is my role today to bring you Japanese culture via wasabi flown to Paris?” Saadé asked. “No, my role is to explain to you that it’s grated this way and put on fish for this reason, and I can do that with wasabi from France.”I couldn’t help but think that it’s actually far more interesting to do it his way – to interpret a cuisine rather than attempt to transpose it.We are what we eat. A cuisine is a medium of communication; it is, indelibly, tied up with the stories we tell about who we are. Perhaps that’s why it’s so disturbing to see food held hostage, or weaponised, in the pursuit of economic or geostrategic goals.Europe’s intense and varied regionality is an enormous part of how it eats and therefore what it is. Opening the market to mass penetration by US agriculture would, little by little, nibble away at that richness. It’s the kind of proposition that, if it ever makes it out of the kitchen, should be sent back straight away.

      Alexander Hurst is a Guardian Europe columnist More

    • 88 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      F.D.A. Looks to A.I. to Enhance Efficiency

      by

      With a Trump-driven reduction of nearly 2,000 employees, agency officials view artificial intelligence as a way to speed drugs to the market.The Food and Drug Administration is planning to use artificial intelligence to “radically increase efficiency” in deciding whether to approve new drugs and devices, one of several top priorities laid out in an article published Tuesday in JAMA.Another initiative involves a review of chemicals and other “concerning ingredients” that appear in U.S. food but not in the food of other developed nations. And officials want to speed up the final stages of making a drug or medical device approval decision to mere weeks, citing the success of Operation Warp Speed during the Covid pandemic when workers raced to curb a spiraling death count.“The F.D.A. will be focused on delivering faster cures and meaningful treatments for patients, especially those with neglected and rare diseases, healthier food for children and common-sense approaches to rebuild the public trust,” Dr. Marty Makary, the agency commissioner, and Dr. Vinay Prasad, who leads the division that oversees vaccines and gene therapy, wrote in the JAMA article.The agency plays a central role in pursuing the agenda of the U.S. health secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and it has already begun to press food makers to eliminate artificial food dyes. The new road map also underscores the Trump administration’s efforts to smooth the way for major industries with an array of efforts aimed at getting products to pharmacies and store shelves quickly.Some aspects of the proposals outlined in JAMA were met with skepticism, particularly the idea that artificial intelligence is up to the task of shearing months or years from the painstaking work of examining applications that companies submit when seeking approval for a drug or high-risk medical device.“I don’t want to be dismissive of speeding reviews at the F.D.A.,” said Stephen Holland, a lawyer who formerly advised the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on health care. “I think that there is great potential here, but I’m not seeing the beef yet.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 200 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      RFK Jr’s report calls farmers the ‘backbone’ of the US – but Trump’s cuts hurt them

      by

      Independent and organic farmers say chaos created by the Trump administration’s cuts has hurt their businesses, even as the US health secretary, Robert F Kennedy Jr, praises small farms and regenerative agriculture.The split-screen for small and organic farms – which one farmer described as the administration “talking out of both sides of their mouth” – comes on the heels of the release of the “Maha” report. The White House document mentions farms, farmers and farming 21 times, and argues conventional agriculture has led to more ultra-processed foods.“Reading that report, it’s like a small-scale organic farmer’s dream,” said Seth Kroeck as he slammed the door on his 1993 F350 truck. Kroeck owns the organic Crystal Spring Farm, 331 acres (135 hectares) in Brunswick, Maine. “But then at the same time, [secretary of agriculture] Brooke Rollins’s name is on this – she’s proposing to cut two-thirds of the agriculture budget.”Kroeck had just finished planting 2,500 brussels sprouts and one-10th of an acre of specialty peppers. He still needed to fix a flat on a piece of farm equipment that day. He said small-scale farmers have promoted local, organic and whole foods for decades.While Kroeck is presumably the kind of farmer Kennedy would laud, all he finds is frustration with the administration, and actions that will “undoubtedly” make food more expensive.“We’re dealing with two personalities with our government,” said Kroeck.As conventional farmers decry the Maha report’s criticism of agricultural chemicals such as atrazine and glyphosate (the active ingredient in RoundUp), some organic and independent farmers have found that the meager government support they depend on has been upended by an administration that claims it wants to support them.“Farmers are the backbone of America – and the most innovative and productive in the world,” the report, led by Kennedy, argued. “We continue to feed the world as the largest food exporter. The greatest step the United States can take to reverse childhood chronic disease is to put whole foods produced by American farmers and ranchers at the center of healthcare.”But by March, the administration had already cut a total of $1bn in programs that supported small farms that grow locally produced fruits and vegetables. For instance, they cut a program that helped tribal food banks provide healthy food and ended a $660m program that brought fresh local foods to school cafeterias. In just one example of impact, the cut quickly ended fruit and vegetable snacks in New York City schools.“This is a huge deal for small farmers,” Ellee Igoe told the New Lede publication in March. Igoe is a co-owner of Solidarity Farm in southern California. “We’re growing healthy food and providing it to local communities. And they are cancelling contracts without real reason. Out here, it feels like it is very politically motivated.”In just one example of direct impact to Kroeck, the Trump administration fired most of the staffers at Kroeck’s local Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) office, an arm of the US Department of Agriculture that provides technical assistance to farmers, including on-site visits. The staff shrank from six to one – only the director remains.“In my book, she’s a superwoman, but how long is that going to last?” said Kroeck. “And what farmer is going to want to take on new contracts when it’s going to take her months and months and months just to return a call?”Kroeck also criticized the Maha report for including apparently invented scientific references.“The citations in the report seem to be made up by ChatGPT – this is crazy,” said Kroeck, who said he’s not a cheerleader for occupants of ivory towers, but “we do have to have some standards”.Groups such as the Organic Trade Association have largely echoed Kroeck’s sentiments, noting that this is what the organic movement has been saying all along and they need money.“We’ve long known that health begins on the farm and encourage the administration to invest in meaningful policies that expand access to organic for consumers,” said co-CEO Matthew Dillon in a statement to the Guardian.While some organic farmers say their relationship with the government has always been tenuous, small farmers say chaos has only worsened that relationship. Coastal wild blueberry farmer Nicolas Lindholm said at least a portion of the funding he was expecting for the year – to mulch his blueberries with wood chips – was “dead in the water”.“My wife and I have an organic wild blueberry farm here on the coast of Maine,” said Lindholm.“Over the past five months, we had applied for three different funding programs – all different – and finalized them through December and into January – and as of February all three of them were basically frozen.” Like many farmers, Lindholm’s needs were time-sensitive: blueberries can only be mulched every two years because of their growing cycle.In addition to direct cuts by the administration, congressional Republicans proposed cuts to food programs that indirectly benefit farmers. House Republicans passed a bill proposing $300bn in cuts to food stamps, or the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Snap), to fund tax cuts. They have also proposed cuts to a food program that helps new mothers and babies buy fruits and vegetables.The panic within conventional agriculture communities has also been pronounced – with pointed criticism of the report coming before it was even published. Corn and soybeans dominate American cash crops, accounting for $131.9bn in receipts in 2023, versus just $54.8bn in all fruits, vegetables and nuts combined.“It’s no secret you were involved in pesticide litigation before you became secretary,” said Cindy Hyde-Smith, a Republican senator for Mississippi, to Kennedy, leading into a question about the need for glyphosate (the active ingredient in RoundUp), and asking whether Kennedy could be impartial.Kennedy, who went on to pledge he would not put “a single farmer” out of business, said: “There’s nobody that has a greater commitment to the American farmer than we do – the Maha movement collapses if we can’t partner with the American farmer.” More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      RFK Jr.’s War on Pesticides Riles Farmers and a Republican Senator

      by

      A health report commissioned by President Trump has been causing angst within the agriculture industry who fear the chemicals will be identified as a driver of childhood disease.Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s long-running crusade against agricultural chemicals ran into pushback on Tuesday from the agriculture industry and a Republican senator, who pointedly instructed Mr. Kennedy not to interfere with the livelihood of American farmers by suggesting certain pesticides are unsafe.The admonition from the senator, Cindy Hyde-Smith of Mississippi, came as President Trump was preparing to release a report on Thursday from a commission, led by Mr. Kennedy and named for his movement, to examine the causes of childhood chronic disease.Mr. Trump established the panel to look at a range of potential factors, including chemicals, which Mr. Kennedy has said “pollute our bodies the same way that they pollute the soil.” Mr. Kennedy and his followers in the “Make America Healthy Again” movement have previously singled out the agricultural chemical glyphosate, originally made by Monsanto, which is now owned by Bayer, the German chemical and pharmaceutical giant.The key ingredient in Roundup, the chemical has long been a target of environmental groups. In 2020, Bayer paid more than $10 billion to settle tens of thousands of claims alleging Roundup causes cancer. In 2018, when he was an environmental lawyer, Mr. Kennedy helped win a $289 million judgment against Monsanto, in a case brought by a man who said the company’s weedkillers, including Roundup, caused his cancer.As Mr. Kennedy was testifying Tuesday before members of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Ms. Hyde-Smith asserted that “1,500 studies and 50-plus years of review” of glyphosate by the Environmental Protection Agency and “other global health authorities have affirmed its safety when used as directed.” She also suggested in no uncertain terms that the commission had better get its facts straight.“Mr. Secretary, we have to get this right; you have to be 100 percent certain,” Ms. Hyde-Smith said, adding, “Before you start suggesting an initial assessment that the methods in which the farmers provide our food is unsafe, I trust your report will be described as an initial assessment of things to be considered but yet to be determined.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More