Tradition

[Original Column]

Lately I've been thinking a lot about Zero Mostel in Fiddler On The Roof. I can just picture him in my mind dancing across the stage singing that song about "Tradition." Now I, of course, have no idea how Mr. Mostel or the writers of Fiddler really felt about the subject, but I've met plenty of people who, just like the character in the play, think tradition is sacred. I even admit to feeling that way myself sometimes—like when I get misty-eyed and nostalgic about my favorite baseball team.

We are all creatures of habit, and will cling to things that are familiar, even if those things are nonsensical or conflict with other values we may have. It doesn't really matter how it all gets started. Just like an untrue rumor, if an action is repeated often enough it develops a certain credibility. With the glossy patina of age, it becomes tradition.

Sometimes it's fun to think of some of the ridiculous things in our society that are perpetuated by tradition. For example, for years we have had a whole class of people called "cheerleaders" who go to sporting events in miniature pleated skirts, with funny things called "pom-poms" on both hands. Women in our society regularly wear uncomfortable shoes with spike heels, and paint their fingernails red and their eyelids blue. And lest you think that I'm pretending to be above it all, I freely admit that as I write this I'm wearing a tie. The reason for all this nonsense is beyond me. But then again, it doesn't need a reason—it's tradition.

Along with the frivolous aspects of tradition are some pretty serious ones. Tradition, of course, plays a large and beneficial role in helping to maintain the values necessary to hold our society together. Unfortunately, it can also work the other way. It can be a convenient excuse used to justify otherwise unacceptable behavior. This is what I call the "my daddy did it, and by golly I'm going to do it too" syndrome. Among the evils it's responsible for are bigotry, racism, and those fuzzy dice people hang from their rear-view mirrors.

Those of us who are vegetarians and who love animals often find the "my daddy did it" syndrome particularly disconcerting. It is the rationalization for barbaric behavior all over the world, from caged dogs in the back of South Korean restaurants, to lobster tanks in hometown America.

Sometimes the types of behavior tradition supports are as incongruous as they are barbaric. For example, lately I've been bothered by an inconsistency in our society that goes something like this: If you belong to a church and you torture and kill cats as part of your religious ceremony, you could be in big trouble with the law. If you perform the same acts under the guise of "scientific research" not only will you be protected, but you might even get government funding to do it. Now, that doesn't seem quite right to me. And I find it especially curious in light of the fact that the First Amendment to the Constitution specifically protects freedom of religion, but doesn't say a thing about scientific research.

So what explains the difference? What carries more weight than our laws, or even our Constitution? You guessed it—tradition. In this context tradition dictates that religion involves organ music and uncomfortable clothes, while "scientific research" has something to do with white lab coats and rats living on Diet Coke. Cutting open cats is antithetical to our concept of religion, but wholly consistent with our norms for science. In the scientific venue the value or morality of such an act is not even likely to be questioned.

A meat-centered diet is in general is so economically wasteful, so unhealthy, and so downright unnatural that its continued viability must in large part be due to tradition. Repetition over thousands of years (and particularly the last fifty) has given it a credibility that we vegetarians have barely been able to put a dent in. That's too bad.

A tradition like meat eating seems so deeply rooted in our society that maybe the only way to fight it is with tradition itself. Maybe we vegetarians need to start some silly tradition of our own-like eating millet burgers on Groundhog's Day, for example. If we did that for, say, fifty years, everyone would start to think it was the natural thing to do and would follow along. Of course, people will need to hear about it. It's tough to start a good tradition without lots of publicity. If we could just get some well-known celebrities to join us that would help... Too bad Zero Mostel isn't available.

The Role of Tradition

[Re-write]

Tradition is what gets us all misty-eyed when we think about our parents and grandparents, or the history of our favorite baseball team. It's the embodiment of our values, and the glue that holds our society together through the generations. Heck, it's the stuff Zero Mostel sang about in Fiddler On The Roof! With all that going for it, tradition must be pretty wonderful, right?

Well, most of the time. Unfortunately, tradition is probably the biggest enemy to vegetarianism and many of the other sane things on this Earth! Here's why...

We are all creatures of habit and will cling to things that are familiar, even if those things are nonsensical or conflict with other values we may have. It doesn't really matter how it all gets started. Just like an untrue rumor, if an action is repeated often enough it develops a certain credibility. With the glossy patina of age, it becomes "tradition".

Think of all the ridiculous things in our society that are perpetuated by tradition. Here are some examples:

• For years we have had a whole class of people called "cheerleaders" who go to sporting events in miniature pleated skirts, with funny things called "pompoms" on both hands.
  
• Women in our society regularly wear uncomfortable shoes with spiked heels, and paint their fingernails red and their eyelids blue.
  
• Men in our society wear odd paraphernalia called "ties," which appear to have no purpose other than constricting unimportant things like arteries and windpipes.
  

  The reason for all this nonsense is unknown. But then again, it doesn't need a reason—it's tradition.
  

  Along with the frivolous aspects of tradition are some pretty serious ones. It can be a convenient excuse used to justify otherwise unacceptable behavior. This is what I call the "my Daddy did it, and by golly I'm going to do it too" syndrome. Among the evils it's responsible for are bigotry, racism, sexism, and those fuzzy dice people hang from their rear-view mirrors.
  

  Those of us who are vegetarians and who love animals often find the "my Daddy did it" syndrome particularly disconcerting. It is the rationalization for barbaric behavior all over the world, from shark's-fin soup in Asia, to genitally mutilating girls in Africa, to Thanksgiving turkey in North America. Tradition is the excuse given when all others fail to explain why sons of fishermen must continue to fish when populations of fishes are threatened or sons of loggers must continue to log when our forests are dwindling. Tradition justifies the ritualistic torture of animals as part of "religious" ceremonies in the Caribbean, and under the auspices of "bullfights" in Spain and Mexico.
  

  Let's say it again, just for emphasis (yes, that would be the traditional thing to do): If behavior cannot otherwise be justified, we defend it by saying it is "tradition".
  

  A diet centered on meat and dairy products is so economically and environmentally wasteful, so unhealthy, and so downright unnatural that its continued viability must in large part be due to tradition. Just like bigotry, racism and sexism, repetition over the years has given it a credibility that we vegetarians have barely been able to dent. That's too bad. Tradition should never be used as a source of comfort for those who cannot otherwise defend their actions to themselves or others.
  

Meat In Space

I read a lot of news stories about meat and dairy products. These stories are usually pretty predictable. Either they report on some new study that says eat less meat and dairy products and more fruits and vegetables, or they are thinly-disguised reprints of industry propaganda. (You can always tell the latter. Usually they have titles like: "Scientists Say Drink Your Milk for Healthy Bones!")

Every once in a while, though, a news story comes along that is so incredible it deserves a column of its own. That's what I thought when I read a recent ABC News story about Morris Benjaminson, a researcher at Touro College Applied Bioscience Research Consortium, and his research into growing meat in the laboratory. You see, Mr. Benjaminson is concerned about our astronauts on a future two-year mission to Mars. He wants them to have fresh meat, and he's figured out how to raise that meat in space—without the animals!

This is exciting news, and to prove that I am not making this up, I've decided to give you some actual quotes from the story and my reaction to them.

• "Benjaminson sliced 2-4-inch sections of flesh from large goldfish and placed them in a nutrient solution of fetal bovine serum, a liquid extracted from the blood of unborn calves. After a few weeks in the solution, …the fish meat grew by up to 16 percent."
  

  —This sounds so tasty that I bet the public will be signing up in droves for the next Mars mission. They say with Mars getting there is half the fun, and this sounds like the food on a luxury cruise!
  

• "To test the lab-grown meat's appeal, his team showed it to colleagues to analyze for color and fried the meat to assess its aroma. Benjaminson said most considered the fish meat appetizing, although no one actually tasted it."
  

  —I bet they had to hold them back with chains.
  

• "Benjaminson, himself, restrained from eating it since he was wary of possible infectious agents from the fetal bovine serum used to grow it. 'I'm just as careful about prions as the next man,' he said, referring to the infectious proteins behind mad cow disease."
  

  —What a wimp! Well, I'm sure our brave astronauts won't have these reservations. After six months or so living on liverwurst out of toothpaste tubes, they'll probably be more than ready to gorge themselves at an interstellar fish-fry.
  

• "Eventually, Benjaminson hopes to improve the growth rate of his homegrown fish sticks and expand the technique for growing chicken and beef. The team also hopes to create a meat-growing machine to automate the process…"
  

  —Look for a late night "infomercial" on this machine, coming soon to a cable channel near you. Maybe George Foreman can even be bribed to put his name on it.
  

• "But growing meat in space has some serious drawbacks to consider. William Knott, the chief of biological programs at NASA's Kennedy Space Center points out that, unlike tending a garden of vegetables, growing meat will consume critical resources that the astronauts need themselves, namely oxygen and carbon. 'The problem is the meat would compete with the astronauts' needs,' Knott said. For that reason Knott suspects the first Mars travelers will subsist primarily on a vegetarian diet.
  

  —Hmmm. Do you just suppose that the same arguments could be made for not raising meat on "Spaceship Earth?"
  

• "Benjaminson is hoping his meat-growing technique might also find applications on Earth. For example, he wonders if some vegetarians would be willing to eat meat products that were not directly slaughtered."
  

  —Just what we poor, deprived vegetarians have been waiting for! (Some days I just can't control my cravings for the taste of goldfish in bovine serum.) Where do we sign up?!!!
  

• "Benjaminson says he has already heard from executives at a poultry company… who expressed interest in using the technique to grow boneless chicken products."
  

  —Why does this not surprise me?
  

  As Mr. Benjaminson's research demonstrates, meat in space can be a scary proposition. How are astronauts supposed to stay healthy eating a bunch of goldfish like silly college boys? How can they be expected to maintain weightlessness after a heavy dinner of meat?
  

  In response, I think it's time that the people of the Earth declared space to be an official "Meat–Free Zone." There's certainly precedent for this. Antarctica has been a nuclear-weapons–free zone for more than 40 years, and I have yet to hear anyone gripe about that decision. Anyway, if you don't count that one tragic evening when a neutron boy from the planet Xerox went on a joyride on his Farleigh-Dickenson antimatter motorcycle with a Fleshburger Supreme from Saturn's Golden Rings franchise, we Earthlings are the only folks in the whole Universe still dragging meat into space.
  

  I'm going to circulate a petition opposing meat in space. Be sure to sign it. If we all act quickly on this thing, there's still a chance we can get space declared the "Official Meat–Free Zone of the 2008 Summer Olympics."
  

  ***************************
  

  Petition to Designate Space as a Meat and Dairy–Free Zone
  

  To The Honorable Ban Ki-moon
  

  Secretary-General of the United Nations
  

  We, the undersigned people of the planet Earth, respectfully petition the United Nations and its member nations to actively promote such international treaties as may be required to designate space, including all areas of the Universe outside of Earth and its atmosphere, as a Meat and Dairy–Free Zone.
  

  In support of our petition, we call to the attention of the General Assembly the following facts:
  

  • The production of meat and dairy products is the cruelest and most environmentally destructive of all human activity.
    
  • The consumption of meat and dairy products is the leading preventable cause of human disease and death.
    
  • The goal of space exploration should be to strive for higher values, not to export our vices. (What's next—gambling on Neptune? A smoking lounge on the International Space Station?)
    
  • Cows, pigs, chickens and fish get nauseous in zero-gravity, and their space suits fit poorly.
    

  For these reasons and others, we hope and trust that the people of the Earth, led by our United Nations, will work to accomplish this noble cause. Thank you.
  

  Signed:
  

Mad as Hell

In the words of anchorman Howard Beale, as so aptly portrayed by Peter Finch in the movie Network, I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it any more.

What am I mad about?

I'm mad that the animal agriculture industry is perpetrating horrors the equivalent of the Holocaust on farm animals in this country every single day. Nobody seems to care, and nobody, except the tiny fraction of the population that we vegetarians and vegans represent, does anything about it. Why? Because to care would mean thinking about things that are unpleasant. To do something would require a change in lifestyle that might be inconvenient.

I'm mad at the fast-food industry for luring our children into their restaurants, and into a lifetime of horrible eating habits, with clowns, playgrounds and free toys. Even more, I'm mad at our government for allowing this to happen, particularly when armed with the knowledge that more and more of our children are becoming obese and diabetic at a younger and younger age.

My anger with the politicians doesn't stop there. Must they compound the problem by selling out our schools to the soft drink companies who install vending machines in the corridors and to the meat and dairy industries that dictate the school lunch program? Why is it that every single "food" item that receives a government subsidy is something that is bad for us (dairy, crops used as sweeteners, crops used for animal feed)? Shouldn't our government be spending its money to make our health better rather than worse?

I'm mad at meat-eating environmentalists who promote their causes while conveniently overlooking the 800-pound gorilla in the room—the animal agriculture industry. Not only is that industry our biggest (by far!) consumer and polluter of land and water, but it's all so unnecessary, and all so wasteful. I'm similarly mad at the medical professionals who promote a "healthy" diet, while always ensuring that it's based around ever-so-unhealthy meat and dairy products. I'm mad at "pacifists" who still condone the least pacifistic of all activities—the torture and killing of animals, and I'm mad at "feminists" who don't seem to have any problem continuing to consume dairy products and chickens' eggs despite the fact that they exploit the females of other species and require rape and the taking of babies from their mothers.

I'm mad at the way my fellow vegetarians and I are consistently discriminated against. We're uninvited to social events, left off of dinner invitations, made fun of, and all too often shunned by family, friends, co-workers and potential mates. What is our crime? We back up our moral convictions with our behavior. We "put our tofu where our mouth is" (to coin a phrase), and that makes other people feel uncomfortable. It's easier to avoid us than to think about the message we send by our example.

I'm mad too that none of this will change substantially in my generation's lifetime. It won't change in the lifetimes of our children or our grandchildren either, and maybe not until the earth, and the human life on it, is destroyed by our own greed and stupidity.

Most of all, though, I'm mad at the millions and millions of educated, compassionate people out there who continue to be part of the problem rather than the solution. In their brains they know the facts about animal rights, environmentalism and nutrition, but in their hearts they still don't "get it." The old saying goes that the hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in times of crisis, stand by and do nothing. Well, this is certainly a time of crisis. Where are these people? Can't they change their behavior just one little bit? Couldn't they manage to go just a meal or two without digging the graves of animals, the earth and themselves with their dinner forks? We need them on our side, and we need them now.

The other night I had a long conversation with an Episcopalian reverend. We talked a lot about my reasons for being vegan. She brought up the Biblical reference about the lion lying down with the lamb, and I finally had to ask her what her religious view was on killing animals for food. She thought about the question for a moment, and finally explained that there were different levels of morality—some moral ambitions that we can achieve within the confines of our society, and others that will have to wait for a better day and a better place. I didn't believe that for a moment, and from the look on her face I could tell she didn't either.

I personally don't want to live in a world where our morality changes to accommodate what's popular, pleasurable, and convenient. I don't want to live either in a society where the vast majority of the population is in a state of cognitive dissonance and rationalization—where their daily actions are totally inconsistent with their beliefs on the most basic concepts of what's good for them, how to treat others, and distinguishing right from wrong.

I guess I don't have a choice though. Room reservations on the other planets are awfully hard to come by right now, and around here almost everyone eats meat. I'm the odd man out.

I'm mad as hell about it.

Getting on the “Low-Carb” Bandwagon

Americans are getting fatter. Two-thirds of us are overweight, and we're moving toward obesity at an alarming rate. In 1991 the obese comprised less than 20% of the population in every state of the union, and less than 10% in 8 states. Eleven years later the obese comprised more than 20% of the population in 31 states and more than 15% of the population in every state. Since 1980 the percentage of overweight children has doubled.

The fact that more of us can now literally sit around the house means more than just a deterioration of the scenery at the local beauty parlor. Absent radical changes in dietary and exercise routines, one-third of Americans born in the year 2000 will develop diabetes and suffer premature death. Experts have even speculated that in some states, like Texas, we may see the first generation of children to be outlived by their parents.

Something has to be done about all of this, and I've decided to do my part. First, I consulted with the legions of executives, experts and ghostwriters here at On or Off the Mark international headquarters. They, of course, had no idea, so I moved on to the real powerbrokers—the sales-types.

After a series of power lunches with my marketing people and my public relations people and their people and their people's people, I think I now have the answer. I am now in a position to make the exciting announcement that On or Off the Mark has become a "low-carb" column! As a matter of fact, I think I can safely say that this column is as low in carbs as any column of its type, anywhere. I'm hoping that readers will eat it up.

Of course, as a low-carb column I will now be able to proudly display the official "Low-Carb Option!" insignia from the American Diet League (not an official US Government agency). For an extra $14.95 I think they're even sending me a wallet card that I can flash at people when I want them to know that I, too, am low-carb.

Since this column is now officially "low-carb" it can safely be read by those persons, including the entire population of the United States, who are on the Atkins, South Beach, North Beach, South Pole, etc. high protein diets. (Hey, aren't these the same people who are collectively getting fatter?) And I know that this is going to appeal to all of those couch potatoes who drink those new "low-carb" dietetic beers to take off a few pounds while passively watching the game.

This development comes at a good time for the regular readers of this column too. Lately I've noticed that two of my three readers (I happen to be one of these two) have put on a couple of extra pounds. If they (okay, we) can diet while reading, that has to be a good thing!

Now, you may think this is merely a temporary publicity gimmick foisted on an unsuspecting public by an opportunist with no real commitment to the ideals of vegetarianism. To make you feel at ease, I'll make this promise: I'll keep my column low-carb at least until the next "high-carb" fad comes along. (At that point On or Off the Mark will officially become a high-carb column, perfect for "carb-loading" readers. But I get ahead of myself…)

Acquiring low carb status means that my lowly column can now join such American icons as Kraft Foods, Applebee's, WalMart and General Motors on the low-carb bandwagon. Think I'm kidding about General Motors? Well, maybe I am. But the way things are going, it's only a matter of time before we have low-carb trucks and busses.

I like this low-carb thing. It's totally in keeping with the great American tradition of ignoring the real causes of our problems and focusing on the quick-fix. Reaching for something labeled "low-carb" is a heck of a lot less work than real exercise or real dieting. It's faster than serving fresh vegetables to our kids (god forbid!), and a lot less scary to the average Joe than anything beginning with a "v." Most importantly, it's easy to market with the proverbial 30-second sound byte.

Image is everything, you know, and it beats out substance every time. Sounds perfect for this column!

The Rules of Logic (As Taught by Meat-Eaters)

When I was a kid my parents gave me a logic game for my birthday. It came with a little hourglass (so players could actually time how logical they were) and an instruction book that was a couple of hundred pages long and read like a computer programming manual. I think the purpose of the game was to hone the minds of the younger generation so we would be equipped to deal with the communist threat.

Anyway, after ten minutes with this game, I found out I wasn't very good at logic. I was better at sleeping. If the free world depended on the likes of me, we'd all be eating blintzes and borscht by lunchtime.

As I've grown older—living as a vegetarian in a meat-eating world—I've been constantly reminded of how bad I am at this logic stuff. Sometimes it seems that, when it comes to diet and the way we treat animals, almost everyone is living by a whole different set of rules. I can't figure them out. (If you're a vegetarian, I bet you've got the same problem!)

One thing I have noticed over the years, though, is that the incomprehensible logic as practiced by our meat-eating society manifests itself in certain recognizable patterns—certain omnivorous "rules of logic," if you will. Here are a few of my favorites.

• We should pay folks to do things we don't like. Whether the debate is about controlling the onslaught of waste from hog "farms" in Colorado, or limiting fishing to protect salmon populations in the Northwest, the arguments against taking action are always the same: "If we do this, we'll lose jobs." Okay, I hate to see people unemployed as much as the next guy (I have intimate experience with this myself!), but why should we continue to pay these folks to do something destructive. Is this logical?
  
• The reason we do it this way is because we've always done it this way. Let's see… people eat cottage cheese when they're on a diet, "chicken" soup when they're sick, hot-dogs (with none of the fixings) at the ballpark, a ham for Easter dinner, and cow's milk when they need something "healthy." Has anyone really given any thought to this? Do people really enjoy this stuff, or are they just going through the motions???
  
• It's what you think, not what you do—good intentions are all that matters. We vegetarians are tired of hearing about the good intentions of the meat-eaters around us. By their logic, they all have the healthiest and most compassionate diets in the world. Sure.
  

  […Hey, wait a second. I had some good intentions myself. Wasn't I going to get up at five every morning to ride my exercise bicycle, read Milton, and iron my socks? And didn't I sleep in today and eat chocolate for breakfast? Okay, so maybe this is one perverted rule of logic that isn't unique to meat-eaters.]
  

• It doesn't count unless people are involved. I found a great example of this on the radio news the other day. There was an environmental story about the dwindling population of salmon in an Idaho river. The activist they interviewed was very upset. Her concern: she wanted fish in the river so her son could get out the old rod and reel—and kill them.
  
• Meat-eating is good—this is beyond question. Even a knot-head like me can figure this one out. It goes like this: "Meat-eating is humankind's most barbaric behavior. Meat-eating is okay by definition. Ergo, everything else must be okay too!" (The logic guys love to use Latin words like ergo.)
  

  For a classic example of this look no further than the current debate over "xenotransplantation" (Logicians like Greek too!), the raising of animals to supply replacement body parts for transplantation into humans. I was amazed the other day when I read the results of a CNN poll, finding that only 17% of the people responding found any ethical problem with this practice. And what about those ethical problems? They were analyzed for us in a recent article by Jeffrey P. Kahn, the Director of the University of Minnesota's Center for Bioethics.
  

  According to Dr. Kahn, there may be some humanitarian concerns if the "xenotransplanted" organs come from fun animals like dogs and chimpanzees, but those problems magically go away if they come from the kinds of animals we eat. If we can, say, genetically alter pigs that are raised for food to also produce the kinds of organs we humans need, that makes it all okay. At that point the only "ethical" issues remaining are how safe the procedures will be (Safe for the humans, that is—i.e., can we get mad cow disease?) and how people will feel about eating genetically-altered "bacon."
  

  Let me see if I've got this straight. We might care a little bit about the animals if we're only killing them to save a human life, but we don't have to care at all about killing them for the pure pleasure of putting something supremely unhealthy on our BLTs?
  

  I'm sure the good folks at the University of Minnesota pay Dr. Kahn a lot of money for these insights. As for me though… well, I just don't understand the logic.
  

The Latest Innovations

The world is full of inventors and inventresses, and every now and then I like to use this space to highlight some of the exciting new developments they've come up with—especially as they impact the worlds of vegetarianism and anti-vegetarianism. Both the good guys and the bad guys have been doing a lot of innovating lately, so let me just pop the top on a frosty Soy Beer (the latest drink of choice for the discerning vegetarian) and let's see what's new.

• Neither Fish Nor Ford— You'll be excited to know that a new product named FastBass, a plastic fish painted to look like a race car, is available on-line for $59.95 at www.fastbass.com. It aims to capitalize on the growing market appeal of both NASCAR racing and professional bass fishing—the so-called "redneck twins of Southern sports." Marketers see this as a natural fit, noting that, "The 100,000 bubbas in the [NASCAR] stands are the same people who have an avocation for bass fishing."
  
• Even the President Gets No Respect— And speaking of bubbas… Eaves Food Incorporated of Georgia has developed a one-third pound hamburger affectionately called the "BUBBA burger". Recently the company was forced to recall 28,860 pounds of BUBBA burgers because of possible E. coli contamination.
  
• My Bells!— The Bella Mia restaurant in San Jose, California came up with a great way to save on the cost of veal—they just used pork instead. Now the restaurant has agreed to pay a $60,000 court settlement. The district attorney assigned to the case noted, "There are several groups who don't eat pork products, and many of those people may have been ordering veal to avoid pork." Gee, I wish I had $60,000 for every time I've gotten meat in a restaurant entrée labeled "vegetarian"!
  
• Kids' Stuff— The dairy industry always has something dubious in the works, and lately they've been developing new containers targeted toward children. Among those being tested are the "Milk Chug" (jazzy single-serving bottles of flavored milk aimed at teenage boys) and new three-liter bottles that young children can pour without lifting.
  
• Better Kids' Stuff— To promote the 75th birthday of the Green Giant, the company asked kids to compete at the National Veggie Eating Invention Contest at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Museum in Washington. Winners included a "Veggie Pult" that launches carrots into the mouth and an "Easy Biter Motorized Corn Cob," with motorcycle-inspired handles.
  
• Whatever Happened to Olestra, anyway?— Just down Madison Avenue from Green Giant, America's food processors seem to be climbing back on the high-fat bandwagon. Among the new offerings are Philadelphia Snack Bars from Kraft (cheesecake "in a convenient on-the-go package"), and Calzone Creations from Sara Lee Corp. (microwavable sandwiches with as much as 12 grams of saturated fat each). According to a poll sponsored by the Food Marketing Institute, just 46 percent of the supermarket shoppers who say they are "very concerned" about nutrition are worried about the fat content of foods. That's down from 60 percent in 1996.
  
• Soy is Hot!— Have you been noticing the twelve new types of soymilk showing up every day at the supermarket? It's no wonder that the National Milk Producers Federation has registered a trade complaint asking the Food and Drug Administration to stop use of the word "milk" by soybean beverage makers. Indeed, soymilk sales in mainstream supermarkets reached $126 million last year, a 60 percent increase over the year before. (That may sound like a lot, but it's still less than 1% of the $22 billion Americans spend each year on soda and cows' milk.) Of course, the soybean's popularity isn't limited to soymilk. Everyone wants to get in on the action. The Indiana Soybean Board sponsors an annual "soybean utilization" contest that in the past has yielded such novelties as soy-based gelatin, ski wax, lip balm, fire starter and breakfast cereal. One of this year's winners was SoySnaps, a cracker said to be "similar to a Ritz," but with the "light texture of overdone pizza crust." Mmmm!
  
• Try a Little Tenderness— Finally, there's some exciting news from the meat industry in their long battle to make better use of the 10 "subprimal" cuts of meat they say they get from every steer. (Of course, for some of us all cuts of meat are "subprimal," as are the brains of those who produce and sell them.) One slaughterhouse in Corpus Christi, Texas has started zapping animal carcasses with 400 volts of electricity. They say this tenderizes them by tearing apart muscle tissue and "accelerating the aging process." Even more innovative is the new "hydrodyne" meat tenderizing process, developed in part by scientists at the USDA. They put meat—400 pounds of it at a time—into a vat of water anchored in concrete. Then they set off a small explosive charge, and voila—shoe leather is magically transformed into filet mignon! This invention is dynamite! (That's a joke.) Think of the possibilities. Think what this could do for your boss. He could certainly stand to be a little more tender!
  

Well, that's what's new. I didn't have time to tell you about the New York hotel that decorates with cheese, or the "Elvis Sandwich," but maybe I can save them for another time. I have to admit, though, I did make up the part about the Soy Beer. (It sounds like a good idea though, doesn't it?) Yes, Soy Beer is just an idea whose time has yet to come. I'm working on it. Meanwhile, I'm promoting another great idea I have: Organic Water.

Think it will sell?

Label Lies

Not too long ago in this space I talked about "Santa Cruz Fat Free Guacamole," which I found in the grocery store, and which I'm sure is very groovy stuff except for the fact that it is neither "fat free" nor "guacamole." A short while after I wrote that column I was enjoying my favorite eggplant goo, Imam Bayeldi, on some crackers. "This is great stuff," I thought. "Too bad it's so greasy." I looked at the label to see just how greasy it was and found that, despite the fact that olive oil was one of the first listed ingredients, the goo had "0" calories from fat. Either the label was wrong or my local Middle Eastern market had found a way around the laws of thermodynamics.

These experiences got me to wondering what other food labels may contain grossly misleading information. I decided to investigate, and here are some of the things I found…

• Food labels love to make health claims, whether they are true or not. For example, Post Golden Crisp Cereal advertises itself as "wholesome," despite the fact that sugar is its first listed ingredient. Actually, of its 7 listed ingredients, 3 are sugars, one is hydrogenated oil, one is artificial color and one is salt. I guess that leaves "wheat" as its "wholesome" ingredient. Wholesome indeed.
  
• Hundreds of products lie about their fat content. Annie's Natural "Low Fat Gingerly Vinaigrette" salad dressing, for instance, gets 50% of its calories from fat. This doesn't sound like "low fat" to me, but it's a lot better than the bottle of Hidden Valley Original Ranch "Fat Free" dressing with bacon I found that gets 130 of its 140 calories from fat. Maybe they got the labels mixed up (??!!), or maybe in Hidden Valley what they hide is the truth.
  
• Speaking of hiding the truth, check out Dinty Moore "97% fat free" Chicken and Dumplings, Valley Fresh "96% fat free" chunk chicken, and Swanson "99% fat free" chicken and beef broth. Despite these claims, each of these products gets 25% of its calories from fat. And "90% lean, 10% fat" ground beef actually gets 50% of its calories from fat. Well, at least that's better than the "80% lean" stuff, which is in reality over 2/3 fat.
  
• Of course, many meat products don't have nutrition labels at all. Why? They would look terrible, so the meat lobby got them exempted. (Labeling of meat products is controlled by the Department of Agriculture ("DOA"), and isn't subject to the FDA labeling requirements.) "It's not a bribe, Mr. Congressperson—just think of it as a tip."
  
• Dairy content is another area that seems to spawn food label lies. On the Coffee Mate coffee creamer label it says, "This is a non-dairy product." Under "ingredients" on the very same label it lists "sodium caseinate (a milk derivative)." How do you suppose they define "dairy?" Of course the other "non-dairy creamers" lie on their labels too.
  
• If you want food labels that are both misleading and dumb, check out Hormel Pig's Feet and Cedar Springs leg of lamb, both of which advertise themselves as "semi-boneless." What does that mean, anyway? Wouldn't it be more honest just to admit that they contain hunks of fibula and/or a few toe bones carefully hidden inside?
  
• My prize for dumbest misleading label, though, goes to Herb Ox Vegetable Bouillon Cubes. Among its ingredients is "fat flavor" (mmmm!), which, in turn, contains "partially hydrogenated corn oil" and "flavor." Gee, that's informative.
  
• Of course, misleading food claims are not confined to product labels. Indeed, restaurant menus can be some of the worst offenders. How many gazillion times do non-vegetarian dishes show up in the "vegetarian" section of the menu? How many gazillion times do they forget to mention the cheese or chicken broth or worse in menu descriptions?
  
• Sometimes restaurant lies even carry over to their national advertising. For example, the restaurant chain Chili's incessantly advertises "baby back ribs." Despite this depraved-yet-enticing claim, clearly intended to raise images of cannibalism, I have it on good authority that there are no actual babies in these ribs at all. Instead, they are made with dead animal parts, just like all their other menu items. (Jonathan Swift and Jeffrey Dahmer, eat your hearts out.)
  
• Of course the mother of all food label lies is found on your friendly neighborhood carton of cow's milk. Milk labeled as "2%" really gets 34% of its calories from fat. The reason the dairy people lie and call it "2% fat" is that they sell more milk if people mistakenly believe it is a low-fat product rather than a high-fat product. Simple? Yes. Blatant frauds on the consumer? Absolutely!
  

  
   

  What I want to know is, where is our government in all of this? The folks in Washington have been strangely silent. Have the FDA, DOA and Congress all sold out to the meat and dairy and Coffee Mate lobbies, or is it that they just don't care very much? And if they don't care, why not? Why pass labeling laws in the first place if you are going to ignore noncompliance?
  

  Maybe it's time we took matters into our own hands. Hindus are already suing McDonald's over their fraudulent claims about "beef" in their fries. Maybe it's time we stand up to the other lies too. If only Jonathan and Jeffrey were here to sue the Chili's folks over the "baby back ribs" scandal, I'd support them in a minute. It just seems like the right thing to do.