Food

Subterms

    More stories

    • 75 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Unbound: An Autocrat in Waiting?

      by

      More from our inbox:The Inhumanity of HomelessnessViolence Against InmatesCommunity CompostingThe extreme policy plans and ideas of Donald J. Trump and his advisers would have a greater prospect of becoming reality if he were to win a second term.Doug Mills/The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Second Term Could Unleash Darker Trump” (front page, Dec. 5):As the basic parameters of a second Trump presidency come into focus, I find myself growing increasingly fearful. As the article presents in detail, Donald Trump, if re-elected, could transform the American government into something close to a dictatorship.Because I am an old white guy, it seems unlikely that I would be targeted and jailed or condemned to one of his camps. But if you are a high-profile Democrat, a person of color, an undocumented immigrant or someone who has spoken out against him, he may very well have his sights on you.Mr. Trump must not be underestimated, and his goals should be taken both literally and seriously. The election in 2024 may very well be our last chance to stop him.Richard WinchellSt. Charles, Ill.To the Editor:A second Trump presidency not only would be more radical, but also seems inevitable. Donald Trump and his handlers have learned to exploit every weakness in our democratic system of government.Our founders must have assumed that those who gravitate to government service would essentially be people of good faith, and the rotten apples would be winnowed by our system of checks and balances. But here we are less than a year away from the election, and while Mr. Trump’s transgressions have drawn 91 criminal charges, there has been no justice yet.He has proved to have a serpentine instinct to capitalize on weak links ranging from the Electoral College to our justice system, gathering strength every time he flouts the rule of law.Robert HagelsteinPalm Beach Gardens, Fla.To the Editor:Re “Trump Wants Voters to See Biden as a Threat” (news article, Dec. 4):While former President Donald Trump is notorious for ascribing to others deficiencies that he himself manifests constantly, his latest exercise in projection — calling President Biden “the destroyer of American democracy” — should be dismissed as ludicrous if the issue were not so crucial to the future direction of our country.The list of Mr. Trump’s actions that subvert basic democratic norms makes it clear that he is the potential threat to democracy if he is elected to a second term.One can only hope that the more thoughtful of his devoted followers will finally understand the danger of electing someone to lead the country who either misunderstands the concept of democracy or is willing to undermine it to further his own ambitions.Patricia FlahertyDuxbury, Mass.To the Editor:Re “Trump Has a Master Plan for Destroying the ‘Deep State,’” by Donald P. Moynihan (Opinion guest essay, Dec. 2):Reading Professor Moynihan’s essay reinforced a fear that I have had since the Jan. 6 insurrection.Donald Trump just might win the next presidential election. But although I worry about what he would do to our government and our society while in office, there is another fear that haunts me.What would happen when his term ends? I believe that he would not step down. He would claim that he is entitled to stay on as president regardless of the results of the next election. I think he would assert his right to be in power for the rest of his life. And he has enough supporters that his coup might work.Judy HochbergStoughton, Mass.The Inhumanity of HomelessnessKhena Minor, who works for Houston’s Coalition for the Homeless, talks to Joe Cavazos, who has been homeless for six months.To the Editor:Re “Houston Shows How to Tackle Homelessness,” by Nicholas Kristof (column, “How America Heals” series, Nov. 26):Mr. Kristof’s column was both sobering and encouraging. As an I.C.U. nurse working during the cold winter months, I regularly see the inhumanity of relegating our most vulnerable citizens to the dangers and indignities of life on the streets.For those who don’t see this side of life, here are some examples of patients I’ve cared for: a patient found outside near death whose body temperature was 71 degrees, patients whose feet or hands are black and necrotic from frostbite, patients with severe burns all over their body because their makeshift heater ignited their tent, or patients with carbon monoxide poisoning from a camp stove used in their tent to try to keep warm.To the political and social leaders of Oregon, enough hand-wringing and placing blame on drugs, alcohol or mental health alone. Mr. Kristof’s statistics on Oregon’s failure to effectively organize and follow through on housing help are pretty damning.Let’s move past good intentions and follow Houston’s example of what works. I dream of a day when I won’t see patients come into my care frostbitten, burned or poisoned as they try to survive on the streets.Grace LownsberyWilsonville, Ore.Violence Against InmatesThe Federal Correctional Institution in Tucson, Ariz., where Derek Chauvin was stabbed.Alyssa Schukar for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “The Stabbing of Chauvin Is the Latest Failure to Protect High-Profile Inmates” (news article, Nov. 26):You link the stabbing of Derek Chauvin, the former police officer convicted of murdering George Floyd, to the special dangers that certain inmates face by virtue of their notoriety.The truth is that violence against prison inmates, no matter their level of fame, is a standard feature of the American mass incarceration system. Studies over an 18-year span show that deaths in state and federal prisons increased by 42 percent, even as absolute numbers of people imprisoned fell (a decarceration trend that was reversed in 2022). By the studies’ final year, deaths caused by homicide or suicide were at their highest levels ever recorded.The most callous among us might conclude that prison is a punishment and therefore rightfully harsh by design. But even the most staunch supporters might reconsider when faced with an often overlooked reality. In the federal prison system, almost 70 percent of defendants in cases from 2022 were held in pretrial detention — innocent until proven guilty, and already condemned to levels of violence that don’t distinguish by levels of fame.Anthony EnriquezNew YorkThe writer is vice president, U.S. advocacy and litigation, at Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights.Community CompostingSandy Nurse, a city councilwoman who chairs the Sanitation Committee, says that if the cuts go forward, 198 out of 266 food-scrap drop-off sites will close.  Jade Doskow for The New York TimesTo the Editor:“Composting’s Community of ‘True Believers’ Jilted as a Curbside Program Grows” (news article, Dec. 2) describes how devastating Mayor Eric Adams’s budget cuts will be to community compost organizations. But it also perpetuates the idea that community-scale composting is unnecessary with the rollout of the city’s curbside collection program.With the lack of trust in recycling, we need solutions that create many more true believers, such as those at the New York City Housing Authority, where residents drop off food scraps in return for fresh healthy vegetables.The city also needs good-quality compost to properly maintain the millions of dollars of green infrastructure that it has recently installed. When compost is applied to street trees, rain gardens, parks and community gardens, it makes the soil and plants healthier, reduces flooding and air pollution, provides summer cooling, and makes the city greener and cleaner.Instead of cutting community-scale composting, the city should be trying to increase the number of small-scale compost sites to enable a substantial percentage of our food scraps and yard waste to be transformed into a valuable neighborhood resource.Clare MiflinBrooklynThe writer is executive director of the Center for Zero Waste Design. More

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      The power of junk food companies in Washington – podcast

      by

      When and why did so-called food deserts first emerge? How has the fast food industry become so powerful? And despite the growing rate of obesity in the US, why are politicians not stepping in to improve nutrition?
      This week, Jonathan Freedland speaks to Dr Eduardo J Gómez of Lehigh University, on how his new book Junk Food Politics taught him about the power of lobbyists

      How to listen to podcasts: everything you need to know More

    • 88 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Our Immigration System: ‘A Waste of Talent’

      by

      More from our inbox:Cruelty at the BorderLimiting the President’s Pardon PowersAre A.I. Weapons Next?U.S. Food Policy Causes Poor Food ChoicesMateo Miño, left, in the church in Queens where he experienced a severe anxiety attack two days after arriving in New York.Christopher Lee for The New York TimesTo the Editor:“As Politicians Cry Crisis, Migrants Get a Toehold” (news article, July 15) points up the irrationality of the U.S. immigration system. As this article shows, migrants are eager to work, and they are filling significant gaps in fields such as construction and food delivery, but there are still great unmet needs for home health aides and nursing assistants.The main reason for this disjunction lies in federal immigration law, which offers no dedicated visa slots for these occupations (as it does for professionals and even for seasonal agricultural and resort workers) because they are considered “unskilled.”Instead, the law stipulates, applicants must demonstrate that they are “performing work for which qualified workers are not available in the United States” — clearly a daunting task for individual migrants.As a result, many do end up working in fields like home health care but without documentation and are thus vulnerable to exploitation if not deportation. With appropriate reforms, our system would be capable of meeting both the country’s needs for essential workers and migrants’ needs for safe havens.Sonya MichelSilver Spring, Md.The writer is professor emerita of history and women’s and gender studies at the University of Maryland, College Park.To the Editor:We have refugee doctors and nurses who are driving taxi cabs. What a waste of talent that is needed in so many areas of our country.Why isn’t there a program to use their knowledge and skills by working with medical associations to qualify them, especially if they agree to work in parts of the country that have a shortage of doctors and nurses? It would be a win-win situation.There are probably other professions where similar ideas would work.David AlbendaNew YorkCruelty at the BorderTexas Department of Public Safety troopers look over the Rio Grande, as migrants walk by.Suzanne Cordeiro/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesTo the Editor:Re “Officers Voice Concerns Over Aggressive Tactics at the Border in Texas” (news article, July 20):In the past year, I have done immigration-related legal work in New York City with recently arrived asylum seekers from all over the world: Venezuela, China, Honduras, Guatemala, Ecuador and Ghana. Most entered the U.S. on foot through the southern border. Some spent weeks traversing the perilous Darién Gap — an unforgiving jungle — and all are fleeing from horribly violent and scary situations.Texas’ barbed wire is not going to stop them.I am struck by the message of the mayor of Eagle Pass, Rolando Salinas Jr., who, supportive of legal migration and orderly law enforcement, said, “What I am against is the use of tactics that hurt people.” I desperately hope we can all agree about this.There should be no place for immigration enforcement tactics that deliberately and seriously injure people.I was disturbed to read that Texas is hiding razor wire in dark water and deploying floating razor wire-wrapped “barrel traps.” These products of Gov. Greg Abbott’s xenophobia are cruel to a staggering degree.Noa Gutow-EllisNew YorkThe writer is a law school intern at the Kathryn O. Greenberg Immigration Justice Clinic at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law.Limiting the President’s Pardon Powers Tom Brenner for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “U.S. Alleges Push at Trump’s Club to Erase Footage” (front page, July 28) and “Sudden Obstacle Delays Plea Deal for Biden’s Son” (front page, July 27):With Donald Trump campaigning to return to the White House while under felony indictment, and with Hunter Biden’s legal saga unresolved, there should be bipartisan incentive in Congress for proposing a constitutional amendment limiting the president’s pardon power.A proposed amendment should provide that the president’s “reprieves and pardons” power under Article II, Section 2, shall not apply to offenses, whether committed in office or out, by the president himself or herself; the vice president and cabinet-level officers; any person whose unlawful conduct was solicited by or intended to benefit any of these officials; or a close family member of any of these individuals.Stephen A. SilverSan FranciscoThe writer is a lawyer.To the Editor:Beyond asking “Where’s my Roy Cohn?” Donald Trump may now ask, “Where’s my Rose Mary Woods?”David SchubertCranford, N.J.Are A.I. Weapons Next? Andreas Emil LundTo the Editor:Re “Our Oppenheimer Moment: The Creation of A.I. Weapons,” by Alexander C. Karp (Opinion guest essay, July 30):Mr. Karp argues that to protect our way of life, we must integrate artificial intelligence into weapons systems, citing our atomic might as precedent. However, nuclear weapons are sophisticated and difficult to produce. A.I. capabilities are software, leaving them vulnerable to theft, cyberhacking and data poisoning by adversaries.The risk of proliferation beyond leading militaries was appreciated by the United States and the Soviet Union when banning bioweapons, and the same applies to A.I. It also carries an unacceptable risk of conflict escalation, illustrated in our recent film “Artificial Escalation.”J. Robert Oppenheimer’s legacy offers a different lesson when it comes to advanced general-purpose A.I. systems. The nuclear arms race has haunted our world with annihilation for 78 years. It was luck that spared us. That race ebbed only as leaders came to understand that such a war would destroy humanity.The same is true now. To survive, we must recognize that the reckless pursuit and weaponization of inscrutable, probably uncontrollable advanced A.I. is not a winnable one. It is a suicide race.Anthony AguirreSanta Cruz, Calif.The writer is the executive director and a co-founder of the Future of Life Institute.U.S. Food Policy Causes Poor Food Choices Steven May/AlamyTo the Editor:Re “Vegans Make Smaller Mark on the Planet Than Others” (news article, July 22):While I agree that people could help reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by eating plants only, I find it crucial to note that food policy is the main reason for poor food choices.Food choices follow food policy, and U.S. food policy is focused on meat, dairy, fish and eggs. Our massive network of agriculture universities run “animal science” programs, providing billions of dollars’ worth of training, public relations, research, experimentation and sales for animal products.Our government provides subsidies to the meat, dairy, fish and egg industries far beyond what fruits, vegetables and other plant foods receive. Federal and state agriculture officials are typically connected to the meat or dairy industry. The public pays the cost of animal factories’ contamination of water and soil, and of widespread illness linked to eating animals since humans are natural herbivores.No wonder the meat, dairy, fish and egg industries have so much money for advertising, marketing and public relations, keeping humans deceived about their biological nature and what is good for them to eat.David CantorGlenside, Pa.The writer is founder and director of Responsible Policies for Animals. More

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      A Democrat’s obsessive quest to change the way America is farmed and fed

      by

      Each year for the last 26 years – nearly his entire tenure in the US Congress – Earl Blumenauer has advocated for a law that would utterly transform US agriculture.Nearly every time, though, his proposals have been shut down. Even so, he persists.Blumenauer, a Democrat from Oregon, wants to see a version of US agriculture that centers people, animals and the environment, rather than the large-scale, energy-intensive commodity crop farms that currently receive billions of dollars in subsidies. In effect, he has a completely different vision for how 40% of the country’s land looks and works.“Every year is an uphill battle. We’re up against entrenched, wealthy, strong interests,” said Blumenauer, known for his signature bowtie, circular glasses and bicycle enamel pin. He’s the spitting image of a progressive environmentalist and doesn’t shy from discussing some of agriculture’s most divisive issues.But he remains optimistic and steadfast in his vision for the American food system. Now more than ever, he feels momentum and support surrounding the future of farming and food production. People care about where their food comes from and what kind of impact their food is having on the climate, he says.Blumenauer’s newest plan, the Food and Farm Act, was introduced earlier this year, as an alternative to the farm bill – the package of food and agricultural policies passed every five years that is up for renewal this fall. His proposal would redirect billions of dollars away from subsidies for commodity farms towards programs that support small farmers, climate-friendly agriculture and increasing healthy food access.The bill also prioritizes food waste management and animal welfare – areas that have been completely neglected by previous iterations of the farm bill.“We simply pay too much to the wrong people, to grow the wrong foods the wrong way, in the wrong places,” Blumenauer said.While unlikely to pass, Blumenauer’s bill, which has been introduced and referred to the agriculture committee, has won endorsements from prominent food writers such as Marion Nestle and Mark Bittman, as well as dozens of environmental, animal welfare and food justice organizations – representing the growing desire for change in US agriculture.At the heart of Blumenauer’s bill is farm subsidy reform. In the most recent iteration of the farm bill, approximately $63bn was dedicated to subsidies. These mostly benefited the largest farms and agribusinesses, with 70% of subsidy payments going to just 10% of farms, most of which produce commodity crops like soy, corn and wheat, which are often used to make animal feed, processed foods and even fuel for cars.This means that taxpayers are subsidizing processed food, but not the fruits and vegetables you buy in the grocery store – and that commodity farms have little incentive to switch to more sustainable modes of production or more nutritious foods that people will actually eat.“Most of us don’t even know that the public dollars initially designed to protect farmers and keep supply managed to feed a hungry nation in the Great Depression are now reinforcing wealthy agribusiness corporations to grow commodities that are not even meant for human consumption,” said Joshua Sewell, a policy analyst at the nonpartisan watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense.Farmers that grow what are called “specialty crops”, which include fruits and vegetables, usually don’t qualify for subsidies. Most of the farms excluded from subsidy payments are those using sustainable growing methods that preserve soil and benefit the climate in the long term.“It’s just maddening to me that the men and women who are working hard producing food, and particularly those that are doing so in a sustainable fashion, or who want to be involved with organics, they’re shortchanged,” Blumenauer said.The Food and Farm Act also proposes limiting the total payment a farmer or agribusiness can receive to $125,000, and narrows eligibility, so that only farmers with annual incomes less than $400,000 would be eligible. (Previously farmers who made less than $900,000 were eligible, and could receive more than $1m in subsidies.)In developing the bill, Blumenauer spent the last five years interviewing and engaging with agricultural producers in Oregon, a state that mostly produces milk, grass seed and wheat. He asked about their needs and wants, what’s working for them and what’s not. He always asks the same question: “What would a farm bill look like if it was just for you?”He found that many farmers and ranchers want to see a redirection of resources from the largest producers to small-scale farmers.“There is a pretty strong consensus that we’re not meeting the needs of farmers and ranchers and we’re not meeting the needs of the American public,” Blumenauer said.Blumenauer’s bill also considers agriculture’s impact on the environment.“Agriculture is one of the most environmentally destructive activities,” Blumenauer said. “There is an increasing awareness of how much carbon is produced and how much carbon we could save and sequester by making relatively modest changes in agricultural practices.”Many of the 2018 farm bill’s conservation programs, including the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), pay money to the largest agricultural operations, even though their practices are often harmful to the environment, explains Sophie Ackoff, farm bill campaign director at the Union of Concerned Scientists. Large producers are paid to make their operations more sustainable; however, much of that funding has been used for things like land clearing and road building, which provide little value to conservation.In 2019, 10% of the program’s funding went to Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs), which have negative impacts on water quality, animal welfare and human health.Factory farming and animal agriculture contribute nearly 15% of all greenhouse gas emissions worldwide and previous farm bills haven’t acknowledged the impact of factory farms on the climate, says Alexandra Bookis of Farm Sanctuary.“As a system, it has a direct impact on the climate crisis that we haven’t addressed head on,” she said.Blumenauer’s bill would instead end all payments to CAFOs and factory farms, as well as ensure more funding goes toward sustainable farming practices and operations that “demonstrably improve the quality of the environment”. It also mandates that any farm receiving a subsidy payment must comply with certain environmental standards.Nutrition assistance and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Snap) is a point of political contention every farm bill cycle, as the title accounts for nearly 80% of the farm bill’s budget. In May, Republicans proposed expanding work requirements for recipients of Snap, which would make it more difficult for people experiencing food insecurity to qualify for the program.Blumenauer’s bill would not only expand Snap’s funding and eligibility, but it would also provide more funding for local food systems in urban and rural food deserts, as well as increase fresh fruit and vegetable consumption in schools.“It’s a win for people on food assistance, but also farmers selling locally. So many of the farmers I’ve worked with get into it because they want to feed their communities, they don’t want to just sell really expensive food,” Ackoff said.A significant portion of the bill is also dedicated to supporting new and beginning farmers – who often face barriers to entry, like lack of capital. It’s an area of untapped potential, and many young farmers are eager to grow food to feed their communities, they just need the resources to do so, Blumenauer says.“Frankly, these are appeals that really touch American citizens,” Blumenauer said. “The support for family farms, for resiliency, access for younger people – these are themes that are extraordinarily popular, and very important.” More

    • 163 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Rightwingers say ‘pink-haired liberals’ are killing New York pizza. Here’s what’s really happening

      by

      Woke bureaucrats want to destroy the last of New York City’s beloved coal and wood fired pizzerias in a crazed climate crusade.That’s the lie fueling the latest rightwing outrage cycle, in a distorted account of a commonsense air quality rule passed in New York City seven years ago. In reality, the rule, which soon takes effect, requires a handful of pizzerias to reduce the exhaust fumes that could harm neighbors, using a small air filter like those required at other New York City restaurants, which have been used by pizza shops in Italy for decades.But conservative attention-seekers seem determined to make this another kind of “Pizzagate”.“Some fucking little liberal arts, Ivy-League, pink-haired, crazy liberal who’s never worked one day in the real world is trying to get rid of coal oven pizzerias in New York City,” seethed Dave Portnoy, the founder of Barstool Sports.“This is utter bs. It won’t make a difference to climate change,” wrote Elon Musk on Twitter. (New York’s rule doesn’t actually mention climate change.)And a pro-Trump activist, Scott LoBaido, unleashed an in-person tirade against “woke” lawmakers at New York’s city hall, throwing slices of pizza over the gate. (Mayor Eric Adams, a vegan, responded that LoBaido “needs to bring a vegan pie to me so we can sit down and I want to hear his side of this”.)For actual New York City pizza lovers, it’s a spectacle without basis in reality. “This is not legislation that will corrode the New York pizza scene,” says Scott Wiener, a leading New York City pizza expert and historian, but some people “are so resistant to facts”.The pizza pile-on was sparked by a inaccuracy-riddled report published over the weekend by the New York Post, which claimed that the city’s department of environmental protection was “targeting” coal- and wood-fired pizza restaurants by forcing them to install expensive emission control devices to reduce their “carbon emissions” by up to 75%.The report also quoted an unnamed restaurateur who complained the air filters would be “ruining the taste of the pizza” and “totally destroying the product”.The Post’s story was highly misleading. The rule doesn’t target only pizza restaurants, but was passed in 2016 as part of an update to the city’s air pollution control code that applied to all commercial kitchens in the city. It doesn’t ask restaurants to cut carbon emissions or fight the climate crisis, but to reduce particulate matter – the tiny particles that can cause serious health problems if inhaled, including bronchitis, asthma, heart disease, and cancer.What’s being asked of traditional oven pizza restaurants is simple: install a type of air filter in their chimneys to keep their cancer-causing dust from blowing into their neighbors’ homes. The city originally asked kitchens to do this by 2020, then postponed the plan until this year due to the pandemic. But many restaurants had already made the changes, some of them years before the rule was even drafted.The actual impact has been minimal, says Wiener. “Pizzerias have mostly already adapted, and most pizzerias that need them have already installed them, and nobody has noticed. This is something that is not going to make or break a pizzeria.”But outside of New York City, conservatives have portrayed the move as a total pizzapocalypse. The far-right media personality Benny Johnson declared on his YouTube show that “New York has canceled pizza”, adding:“You’re no longer allowed to eat pizza.” And the Colorado GOP congresswoman Lauren Boebert claimed incorrectly on Twitter that “the majority of NYC’s world-famous pizza joints utilize decades-old brick ovens, and will be directly affected by this”.In reality, coal- and wood-fired pizzas are just two of the many kinds of pizzas that New York City is known for. Coal and wood fires can bake pizzas very quickly at high temperatures, which creates a crispy exterior and a soft interior – “a dual texture that makes this pizza different from other styles”, says Wiener. But coal and wood fires don’t work well for thicker styles – like Sicilian pizza – that are also popular in New York.If anything, the air cleaners may be what allows these traditional ovens to keep operating.Roberto Caporuscio, an internationally recognized pizza chef raised in Italy, who now runs Kesté, a high-end wood-fired pizzeria in lower Manhattan, believes he was the first in New York City to install an air cleaner, back in 2009. Before, “everybody complained all the time” about his chimney fumes, he says, sending a regular stream of health inspectors through his doors. But as soon as he put in the air cleaner, there was “no more problem”, he says. “It’s a really incredible machine.”Paulie Gee, the owner of an eponymous pizzeria in Brooklyn, installed the same machine in 2020, and also noticed it made his neighbors much happier. “I don’t want to seem like this greedy person that’s willing to put all the smoke in somebody’s apartment so I can make pizza,” he says. “I wouldn’t be able to live with myself any more, If I knew that they were continuing to have problems.”The machine itself is a roughly four-by-three-foot metal box, sold as the Smoke Zapper 300 by a small family business called Smoki USA, which imports it from Italy, where it was invented nearly three decades ago. The Smoki CEO, Peter de Jong, says he’s baffled by the backlash. “Literally thousands of these units are installed in Italy. You actually can’t have a wood fired oven in most towns without installing one of these units,” he says.The way it works “was designed to not be an onerous requirement for a pizzeria”, explains De Jong’s son Connor, Smoki’s technical development executive. The device sits near the chimney opening, intercepting the pizza oven’s exhaust. The Zapper is technically a “wet scrubber”, which means it forces smoke through high pressure water nozzles. Particulate matter “gloms on to” the aerosolized water and then drops into a water tank which is drained away, Connor explains. What’s left is clean, cooled-down vapor that is released into the atmosphere.In addition to happier neighbors, the Smoke Zapper produces another benefit: a remarkably steady airflow through the chimney. A coal- or wood-fired oven requires a draft through the chimney to feed the flame, tricky even for pro chefs to get just right. But the Smoke Zapper pulls in air at a constant 300 to 400 cubic feet per minute – considered ideal for baking pizza, the De Jongs say. The chefs agree: “The water inside creates a more natural flow,” says Caprocuscio. “It’s better,” says Paulie Gee. “You’re guaranteed a draft.”The main issue is cost – and at around $20,000 including installation, a Smoke Zapper 300 isn’t cheap. But they’re still smaller and more affordable than the air cleaners in many other commercial kitchens, which use pricey electrostatic filters. And it’s better than having to close. “We’ve helped restaurants all over the country that were going to be shut down because of neighborhood complaints,” says Connor. “They installed our unit, and they stay in business.”Gee thinks the city could do more to subsidize the cost of the units – and final negotiations between restaurants and the department of environmental protection are reportedly ongoing. Mayor Adams struck a moderate tone on Monday: “We don’t want to hurt businesses in the city and we don’t want to hurt the environment. So let’s see if we can find a way to get the resolutions we’re looking for.” But Wiener has a blunter take on why there’s been backlash against the units at all: “The only people you will hear say anything negative about it are the ones who haven’t complied and don’t want to spend 10 to 20 grand.” (The city’s environmental agency did not immediately return a request for comment.)That still leaves the biggest question. Could the air filters affect the pizza’s taste?Every expert and chef I spoke to for this story concurred: there was simply no way an air cleaner at the end of an oven’s exhaust system could affect the taste of a pizza. It’s an “absurd concept”, says Connor. “That’s like saying you can taste in your spaghetti what brand is the kitchen fan on the end of the stack. It just makes no sense.”More than that, it’s a common misconception that the coal or wood ever adds flavor to the pizza. “If you’re eating pizza inside a wood-fired pizzeria, the flavor that you’re getting from the fire is through your nose – you’re smelling the fire,” Wiener says. “If you take that same pizza outside, you are not going to taste the wood because this is a 60-second bake. Unlike barbecue, which is an eight-to-12-hour cook, slow and low in the smoke.”Still, I had to see for myself. I walked to my neighborhood wood-fired pizzeria, the kind that’s supposedly been “canceled”. The air outside was clean, and the shop was filled with happy customers. My pie came out, as it always has, with a handsome char on the outside. I looked around to double check for any leftist officials watching me (there were none) before taking a bite. This may come as a shock – but it was still pizza, and delicious. More

    • 125 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Why Are We So Obsessed With the Way Politicians Eat?

      by

      I never thought I would relate to Ron DeSantis, a man whose political beliefs I vehemently oppose. But a few weeks ago, when I read this report about the Florida governor’s eating habits, I felt a deep sense of somewhat shameful recognition.“He would sit in meetings and eat in front of people,” an unnamed former DeSantis staffer told The Daily Beast, “always like a starving animal who has never eaten before.”This is me. I don’t eat my food; I inhale it.Actually, this is my entire family. I sometimes joke that my husband and I got married because we both eat so quickly and aggressively. Dinner at our house rarely lasts more than 10 minutes. When I eat in public, I have to consciously try to slow down — and I hate that.Where DeSantis lost me, though, is in the one detail about his manners that went viral. Per The Daily Beast:Enshrined in DeSantis lore is an episode from four years ago: During a private plane trip from Tallahassee to Washington, D.C., in March of 2019, DeSantis enjoyed a chocolate pudding dessert — by eating it with three of his fingers, according to two sources familiar with the incident.It’s an image so specific — scooping pudding with not one, not two, but three fingers — that I can’t erase it from my mind. It’s so indelible that it ricocheted around the internet: Talking Points Memo called it “PuddingGate.” In an interview covering DeSantis’s possible run for president, Piers Morgan asked the governor if he’d really eaten pudding with three fingers. “I don’t remember ever doing that,” DeSantis hedged. “Maybe when I was a kid.”PuddingGate reminded me of a similar uproar in 2019, after The Times published an anecdote about Senator Amy Klobuchar, at the time a presidential contender, eating salad with a comb, another surprising and unforgettable moment in the annals of political dining. Then memories of other politicians-and-food stories came flooding back to me: Why do I remember that Barack Obama’s White House chef joked that Obama ate exactly seven almonds as a snack? (An allegation Obama was moved to debunk.) And why is any of my precious brain space, what little is left of it, occupied by a 2016 report that Donald Trump prefers his steak so well done “it would rock on the plate”? (In 2017, The Takeout asked if Trump dunking a $54 steak in ketchup was “a crime” — though not one he was recently charged with.)“I think in our minds, what and how people eat tells us a lot about who they are,” said Priya Fielding-Singh, a sociologist and an assistant professor of family and consumer studies at the University of Utah, and the author of “How the Other Half Eats.” The public believes that a person’s eating habits tell us something unique and authentic about them, she said, “something that we can’t learn through their political speeches or policy endorsements. It gives us this window into their character, their values, their willpower, self-discipline, virtuousness, laziness.”Our interest in politicians’ eating habits isn’t new, either. According to Harold Holzer, the director of the Roosevelt House Public Policy Institute at Hunter College and the author of “The Presidents vs. the Press: The Endless Battle Between the White House and the Media — From the Founding Fathers to Fake News,” Americans have been turning a spotlight on the diets of presidents at least since Thomas Jefferson served ice cream at the White House. “People were amazed at what he was eating,” Holzer said.Holzer, who has studied Abraham Lincoln most extensively, said Lincoln didn’t have much of an appetite, “but when he was hungry, he would take out a pen knife and core an apple,” cutting off chunks and eating them, which some people apparently found odd.Perhaps these stories are able to take hold because they correspond with our perceptions of each of these men — Jefferson as the well-traveled aristocrat, bringing a delicacy to greater recognition in the States, and Lincoln as more of a common man, less concerned with appearances. Remember the hubbub when Obama bemoaned the price of arugula during his first presidential run? People glommed onto that detail because it fit with the claims that he was too elitist to appeal to regular, vegetable-hating Americans. (Good thing he didn’t call the bitter green “rocket” or he might not have made it out of the primaries.)As Holzer notes, part of any presidential campaign — any high-profile campaign, really — involves traveling around and eating local delicacies in the correct way: Lord help you if you eat pizza with a knife and fork. Heaven forfend if you order lox, capers and onions on a cinnamon-raisin bagel, Cynthia Nixon’s “troubling” selection during New York’s 2018 gubernatorial race that prompted commentator George Conway to tweet “Lox her up?”Writing for The Atlantic in 2018, the food anthropologist Kelly Alexander called this “gastropolitics”:Since the advent of American democracy, politicians have deployed foods in order to show how populist they are — how much they are like you and me. They attend barbecues in the South (and in Arizona) and corn festivals in the Midwest; they visit citrus growers in Florida, Mexican restaurants in California, and fishermen in Maine and Massachusetts, all while eating whatever the local specialty is in front of as many people and as much press as possible.But there’s a difference between information about eating habits that politicians control or release themselves (for example, Canada’s Green Party leader giving President Biden a “Peace by Chocolate” bar from a company founded by Syrian immigrants) and the often unflattering details that leak, sometimes from anonymous former staffers who seem to have an ax to grind. The latter tend to make more headlines because we may think that the way someone eats in private is more representative of their true self.Which brings me back to DeSantis. I don’t share the view of New York magazine’s Margaret Hartmann, who entertained the possibility that eating pudding with three fingers is “so weird it may end his 2024 presidential bid before it officially starts.” If you’re a fan of the governor, I doubt you’d be moved to vote against him because his hunger overcame his sense of good manners. Though he’s dipping in the national polls against Trump, he beat Trump among regular Florida Republican primary voters in one new poll, and his approval rating is higher in his home state than it was in September. The brand he’s trying to create is that of a regular (you know, Yale-and-Harvard-educated regular) guy who’s battling “elites” on every front. As an unfazed DeSantis said to Morgan: “They’re talking about pudding? Like, is that really the best you’ve got? OK, bring it on.”One sure takeaway, though? If you’re ever running for office, keep spare utensils handy at all times.Tiny VictoriesParenting can be a grind. Let’s celebrate the tiny victories.My oldest daughter is 19 and in her second year of university. The tiny victories are just as sweet, even though she no longer needs me to wipe her face. As this semester began, she was juggling two part time jobs as well as full time study. I urged her to reduce her waitressing shifts the same week that lectures started. She was sure that she’d be fine to keep working at the restaurant at the same pace for a couple of weeks. Turns out, it was too much. Oh, my friends, how sweet it is to receive a text message that begins “Mum! You were right.”— Miriam McCaleb, North Canterbury, New ZealandIf you want a chance to get your Tiny Victory published, find us on Instagram @NYTparenting and use the hashtag #tinyvictories; email us; or enter your Tiny Victory at the bottom of this page. Include your full name and location. Tiny Victories may be edited for clarity and style. Your name, location and comments may be published, but your contact information will not. By submitting to us, you agree that you have read, understand and accept the Reader Submission Terms in relation to all of the content and other information you send to us. More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Why are M&M’s caving to rightwing anti-woke pressure? | Tayo Bero

      by

      Corporate cowardice: M&M cave to the right with pause on their ‘woke’ spokescandiesTayo BeroThe brand made a vague symbolic gesture – and rightwing pundits twisted it into a devious agenda. Now they’re retreating They were inciting a communist takeover. They were promoting radical wokeness. Worst of all, they weren’t hot any more.A year after it first began, one of the most ridiculous back-and-forths between a large corporation and the media I’ve witnessed in my lifetime is finally over. The M&M’s have pulled their beloved spokescandies.It all started early last year when Mars Wrigley, the company that owns M&M’s, began making a number of changes to their colorful signature characters. In January, the green M&M traded in her signature go-go boots for more comfortable-looking pumps with lower, block heels, as did the brown one.Unfortunately for Fox News pundit Tucker Carlson, this new version of the lady M&M’s without heels simply weren’t hot enough. The woke mob wouldn’t be satisfied until all cartoon characters were completely unattractive, he moaned to an audience of millions of other adults.“When you’re totally turned off, we’ve achieved equity,” Carlson said. And, as if picturing yourself on a date with a button-shaped chocolate isn’t bad enough, the pundit Kat Timpf added that Ms Green was “an opportunistic, evil bitch” and warned that people “run from women like the green M&M”.And so it continued. M&M’s made some kind of symbolic stand on a pressing social issue, and conservative pundits twisted it into a devious agenda.In December, the company released a new all-female packaging to commemorate International Women’s Day. In response, Fox News personality Martha MacCallum suggested that the all-girl packaging was a distraction that left the US vulnerable to its communist enemies.No, actually. Here’s the quote if you don’t believe me: “I think this is the kind of thing that makes China say, ‘Oh good, keep focusing on that, keep focusing on giving people their own color M&M’s while we take over all the mineral deposits in the entire world.’”You can probably imagine what happened next – M&M’s completely ignored the naysayers, doubled down on their efforts and will now be releasing a new line of genderfluid spokescandies who reject societal convention and actually don’t wear shoes at all.Just kidding. That would require creativity and some actual guts.In reality, after months of this very legitimate, completely serious, totally-needed-a-response pressure from the right, M&M’s announced this week that the brand has decided to take “an indefinite pause from the spokescandies”.If you think this kind of outrage over anthropomorphized sweets is an aberration, then you clearly haven’t been paying attention. The M&M’s debacle is both a clear sign of our political times, and an elaborate distraction.Conservatives are carefully picking away at seemingly irrelevant parts of our everyday culture while they wreak havoc on the civil liberties of marginalized people. Teachers in Florida’s Manatee county are being forced to remove or cover up books in their classrooms unless approved by a librarian or “certified media specialist”. Mass shootings continue unabated, and drag queen book readings across the country are now regularly besieged by gun-toting bigots.Why M&M’s, in the midst of real problems in America, conceded to this conservative foolishness we’ll probably never know. And the brand’s statement doesn’t clarify matters much, either.“In [the spokescandies’] place,” the statement said, “we are proud to introduce a spokesperson America can agree on: the beloved Maya Rudolph. We are confident Ms Rudolph will champion the power of fun to create a world where everyone feels they belong.”Give me a break. Are we still talking about candy here? And what is it about a woman in sneakers, or campaigning for women’s rights, that is hard to relate to? Why are we giving legitimacy to this nonsensical posturing?Don’t get me wrong, Ms Green, Ms Blue and Ms Purple were never the answer to female oppression. And in the grand scheme of things, gestures like this can feel flat and meaningless.But still: so what if M&M’s was engaging in mindless corporate virtue signalling? Their unnecessary reaction to the pushback has shown that even their meaningless show of “inclusivity” apparently wasn’t worth fighting for – even when the fight is simply ignoring conservative trolls who are worried about losing their attraction to a sassy chocolate.
      Tayo Bero is a Guardian US columnist
      TopicsCultureOpinionUS politicsFox NewsChocolateFoodcommentReuse this content More

    • 113 Shares129 Views

      in World Politics

      The Importance of Being Asian and Earnest about It

      by

      The Fair Observer website uses digital cookies so it can collect statistics on how many visitors come to the site, what content is viewed and for how long, and the general location of the computer network of the visitor. These statistics are collected and processed using the Google Analytics service. Fair Observer uses these aggregate statistics from website visits to help improve the content of the website and to provide regular reports to our current and future donors and funding organizations. The type of digital cookie information collected during your visit and any derived data cannot be used or combined with other information to personally identify you. Fair Observer does not use personal data collected from its website for advertising purposes or to market to you.As a convenience to you, Fair Observer provides buttons that link to popular social media sites, called social sharing buttons, to help you share Fair Observer content and your comments and opinions about it on these social media sites. These social sharing buttons are provided by and are part of these social media sites. They may collect and use personal data as described in their respective policies. Fair Observer does not receive personal data from your use of these social sharing buttons. It is not necessary that you use these buttons to read Fair Observer content or to share on social media. More