Thursday evening roundup

Okay, Virginia government, this is a no-brainer: don't take away prisoners' access to books.

DC truly does have bad roads, but what resonated was the statement that you never know whether a drive that could take five minutes will actually take 35 minutes. I was thinking about this the other day when I figured that it may be time to start making my own hummus. Trader Joe's is good enough--their three-layer is pretty good--but more than once, it's gone off within a day (my former roommate also had this problem with their hummus). You know I love the Mediterranean Bakery's hummus, but that's a 10-15 minute drive in no traffic (and there is only no traffic very early on weekend mornings, or in the late evenings). So it might be time to get over myself and make hummus from scratch.

I repeat, it's unfortunate that some people have a deep-seated resentment against federal employees.

Okay, guys-- I'm going to group the next few articles into a theme or two. Actually, I'm going to group this article about how the working class faces challenges in eating healthily with a handful that I've posted recently, including the one from this morning about sustainability certification; the one from last week about giving Fruit Loops a "healthy" designation; and the Grist's slideshow on local-washing.

Let me start with this: I think the Time piece is a load of hippie crap. I think it's insulting to working class people and it also provides excuses for unhealthy lifestyles. I think they should do a comparative study on working class Eastern European and Asian immigrants and see how they somehow manage to eat healthily on a budget. Or maybe grad students. Honestly, how hard is it to, say, buy a big container of peanuts and put some in a ziploc or small tupperware container to snack on during the day? Carrot and celery sticks, hard-boiled eggs, a basic sandwich. Buy some dried beans, soak overnight, stick in a slowcooker, freeze what you won't use that week? Dried milk? Okay, so people are afraid to take lunch breaks because they don't want to lose the wages-- that is a valid issue that needs to be addressed in and of itself. But as far as time and money for food preparation, I'm not buying the argument that it's too expensive and time consuming for the working class.

Anyway, moving on to the three previously posted articles: what is the most appropriate role of the government in getting people to eat healthily and sustainably? Note that I'm not invoking Michael Pollan's column from this morning, which kind of touches on that. I'm also not touching agricultural subsidies, because it's a different discussion in and of itself.

Where does the government cross the line from oversight to paternalism? And obviously, some believe there shouldn't even be oversight. I think it's great that the government mandates nutritional labels and ingredient lists, as well as warnings on cigarettes. There was a time when neither was required.

I think the government's role is to ensure that information is available and that it is accurate. It is not to spoonfeed that information. The "better for you" designation, or whatever it is, is pointless; people should just read labels. The information is available. If they can't be bothered to check it, then who can blame the food industry for trying to deceive them with a catch-all label?

The certification process is more appropriate in cases where the information isn't available (organic, sustainable, etc.). And in those cases, there has to be integrity in the certification process; it can't be watered down or misleading. Organic and/or sustainable has to mean that.