Jacob Grier

I’ve had many opportunities to try fresh miracle fruit, the strange African berry that makes sour foods taste sweet, but before this weekend I’d never sampled the miracle fruit tablets that are widely available in Asia. They’ve been unavailable in the US because of a dubious decision by the FDA to deny miraculin, the fruit’s active protein, status as a “generally recognized as safe” ingredient. There’s no reason to think it’s harmful and many suspect that lobbying by the artificial sweetener industry was behind the classification (see articles by The Wall Street Journal or BBC). Instead we in the US have only been able to purchase the fruit itself, a perishable, expensive, hard-to-find berry that only grows in warm weather and acidic soil.

That’s finally changing. Given the growing interest in experiencing the effects of miraculin, a few websites have sprung up to import and sell the tablets. Made entirely of corn starch and “Mysterious Fruit Powder,” these tablets replicate the effects of miracle fruit. Miracle Fruit Express was nice enough to send me a sample for review.

“These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration,” cautions the instruction page that came with the package of miracle fruit tablets. “This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease. Although there have been no reported ill effects, or any known side-effects, we cannot guarantee your safety and can not be held liable for any damage or loss of life.”

That’s not the most comforting thing to read on a package of pills that’s just been sent you by an internet vendor, but knowing that miracle fruit has been used for centuries and having tried it many times myself, I tore into the box without concern.

They’re produced by the Sen Yuh Farm Science Company in Taiwan. The package says, “It is the most amazing sugar substitute known to man. It is 100% natural, has hardly any calories, and no known adverse side effects and is, all in all, good for health.”

As with fresh miracle fruit, the key to making the tablets work is to let them roll around the tongue and coat the taste buds as thoroughly as possible. The tablets are mildly sweet, with a vaguely cherry-like flavor. They take about a minute to dissolve. Then, it’s time for dessert! From the food I have at home (i.e. cocktail garnishes), I assembled a plate of lemons, limes, strawberries, and a shot of fresh-squeezed lemon juice to taste after using the tablet.

The taste transformation is everything I remember from my first sample of miracle fruit. The lemon and lime slices were like tart candy, the juice was pleasant to drink on its own, and the strawberries brought me back to the ones covered in confectioner’s sugar I used to eat as a kid. I couldn’t get enough of them. The effect is certainly stronger than what I’ve experienced recently with frozen berries, which tend to lose some of their potency.

Are the tablets better than the berries? Not necessarily. There’s something magical about eating a rare, fragile fruit that makes ordinary sour foods taste sweet. In a culture that’s accustomed to pills that can end our depression, put us to sleep, and extend our sex lives, getting the same effect from a tablet isn’t quite as amazing. But the fruit has some major disadvantages: it goes bad quickly, it’s costly to ship, and it’s in limited supply. Tablets last longer and can be taken any time. It’s easy to imagine dieters, diabetics, and adventurous foodies keeping a couple of them in their pockets for an afternoon treat. They couldn’t do that with the berries.

Though they lack the romance of the fruit, the tablets are cheaper and far more practical. If it weren’t for the government’s restrictive regulations, I’m sure they’d be as readily available here as they are in Asia. You can buy them now from Miracle Fruit Express. They currently go for $25 for 10, $40 for 20, and $90 for 55. Shipping is included (a nice change from the overnight shipping required for the fresh berries). For anyone who wants to sample miracle fruit without having to wait for a new crop or risk letting the berries go rotten, the tablets are a great way to try it out.

But you don’t have to take my word for it. Watch this:

With my imminent departure from DC comes a couple of job openings. First, from Cato, a newly defined position:

The Cato Institute seeks a Manager of New Media to promote Cato research products and scholars via social networking sites, blogs, and other Internet-based outlets. The position will also be responsible for increasing The Cato Institute’s presence on YouTube and other video/audio sharing websites, in coordination with the Multimedia Producer, and will maintain outreach lists of top blogs and Internet-based news outlets and assist with the development of web-based research and briefing products. The Manager of New Media will be expected to organize briefings and other events specifically targeted to web-based media as appropriate. The position requires 2 – 5 years work experience at a nonprofit, government or association marketing or public relations office, a comprehensive understanding of how the U.S news media operates, and a proven ability to promote policy issues and experts to blog and other online media outlets.

That would actually be a more interesting job for me than what I’ve been doing, though not so interesting that I’d stay in DC for it. The new vice president of communications has been a pleasure to work with and it’s a great time to join the press department here. If this kind of job appeals to you or someone you know, apply soon.

Grape and Bean is also looking for a coffee lover to take my place working the Clover on Saturday mornings. It’s a fun shop with very nice owners and great perks for people into coffee, wine, beer, chocolate, and other goodies. Contact information is on the site, or feel free to get in touch with me directly.

I stopped by Boccato, the new gelato shop in Clarendon, last night for some refreshing dessert. The really exciting thing was lurking in the corner though: a not yet hooked up two group Synesso espresso machine, two espresso grinders, and a pour-over coffee bar. At the Yelp page the owner says, “Get ready for our coffee and loose leaf tea service coming July..!!! Mindblowing!!!” Sounds like there could finally be a great new coffee shop in the neighborhood, just in time for me to move a couple thousand miles away.

Check it out at 2719 Wison Blvd. Arlington, VA 22201, just across the street from the Whole Foods.

Christopher Flavelle has a solid article (with video) in Slate today examining New York’s calorie count mandate. He gives a fair representation of both sides, and he ultimately concludes that the hypothesis that forcing nutritional on consumers will make them healthier is far from proven. Once again, I’d add only that the issue is even more complicated than it appears at first glance. To judge the measure’s effectiveness you have to measure not just what people are consuming at the restaurant, but their consumption throughout the day (or over even longer time periods). If people are compensating for their Big Macs at lunch with lighter dinners and breakfasts, then targeting behavior in restaurants is somewhat beside the point. This is the argument made in a paper [.pdf] by economists Michael Anderson and David Matsa.

I also have to take slight issue with this statement:

Yet the absence of unbiased opponents of menu labeling means that lost in the debate over Big Macs and cheesecake has been any serious consideration of whether government agencies ought to be responsible for influencing how many calories we eat.

Since by “unbiased” he appears to mean non connected to the restaurant industry, he should have mentioned the writers at Reason who’ve been hammering away at the issue. Radley Balko, Jacob Sullum, Katherine Mangu-Ward, and Steve Chapman have all been making the case against mandated calorie counts. This blog’s been covering it too, with an increasingly long string of posts.

Read Flavelle’s entire piece here.

You can lead a fat guy to a fruit cart, but can you make him eat? New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is betting that he can. The city is issuing permits for new food carts that will only be permitted to sell fruits and vegetables:

The carts, which are expected to start appearing on the streets later this summer, are restricted to low-income areas that have the fewest sources of fresh produce in the city.

Coming in the wake of the city’s indoor smoking ban, a campaign to get restaurants to eliminate the use of trans-fats, and a requirement that menus list calories, the Green Carts project is Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s latest public-health crusade.

This isn’t a terrible idea, but before lamenting the lack of fruit available in NYC food carts it’s worth noting that the city has been restricting the supply of new permits since the 1970s. If the city had been more willing to open the cart market to competition, it might see more variety in what gets sold (as has recently happened here in DC). Strict regulations and frequent fines also drive up the costs of doing business, possibly pushing fruit carts off the market.

Fruit carts have the advantage of being much cheaper to purchase: $1,000 compared to $15-30,000 for carts designed to process prepared food or coffee, according to this fascinating article from New York magazine. The fact that vendors aren’t buying them suggests that on-the-go diners would rather have stuff like pretzels, hot dogs, and kebabs, thank you very much.

There is also the fear that the subsidized fruit carts will hurt the revenues of grocers. If they drive grocers out of business, they might even lessen access to produce in some neighborhoods.

In short, subsidizing green carts might marginally drive up fruit and vegetable consumption, but it’s silly for the city to be playing favorites. Freeing the cart market would likely do much more to encourage variety and deliver the products people actually want.

[Via Coldmud.]

The usual case for mandating calorie counts on restaurant menus rests on the idea that customers want to make more informed decisions, but recalcitrant fast food companies refuse to give it to them. Hardees/Carl’s Jr. is one company that’s bet against that idea, and the bet has paid off marvelously. The company’s in-store sales and stock are booming. Here’s how the chain describes what its customers really want:

The Six Dollar Burger did well with customers and in 2002 won the Silver Skillet Award from Restaurant Business magazine. [CEO Andrew] Puzder saw the future. “I think a lot of this everybody’s-gonna-eat-healthy thing is more a concern of people in the media than a concern of people who come into our restaurants,” he says. Fast-food customers had indeed been clamoring for healthy alternatives, which prompted an industrywide stampede toward salads and orange slices, but just because customers wanted them on the menu didn’t necessarily mean they wanted to eat them. For all the buzz created by snack wraps and yogurt parfaits, burgers and fries remain the two most frequently ordered items in American restaurants, according to industry research group NPD Foodworld. In fact, the addition of salads at McDonald’s and other chains is partly aimed at drawing more burger-eating men by placating wives and girlfriends who would otherwise veto the restaurant choice. “What people say they want and what they do don’t match up,” says Darren Tristano, an executive vice president at Technomic, a food-industry research and consulting firm. “If they say, ‘I’m gonna order more salads,’ they’re going to order more french fries.” CKE marketing head Brad Haley, who looks a bit like a golfer with his short-sleeve shirt, goatee, and nascent paunch, echoes the sentiment. “People say what makes them feel better about themselves in surveys.”

Jacob Sullum notes that a study of Subway customers — likely a more health-conscious demographic than the average fast food buyer — aren’t reporting that prominent nutritional information affects their consumption:

Even so, only 12 percent of Subway customers in this study (i.e., 37 percent of 32 percent) said they noticed the calorie information and took it into account. This suggests that the vast majority of fast food customers are not very interested in nutritional information, as does the fact that most chains make it available without highlighting it in the way that the New York City health department thinks is appropriate. The restaurant business is highly competitive. If people are clamoring for impossible-to-ignore calorie counts, why don’t more restaurants voluntarily provide them as a way of attracting customers? A legal requirement is necessary not because diners want conspicuous nutritional information but because, by and large, they don’t want it. The information apparently does not enhance their dining experience and may even detract from it. Perhaps they prefer to enjoy their food without being reminded about what it may be adding to their waistlines.

This, I think, gets it exactly right. If you’re a paternalist about eating decisions, you can argue for bludgeoning people over the head with information about why they should order the salad instead of the burger. But there’s not much evidence that consumers are denied information they seek and that their health will improve when they get it. Keep in mind also that the effectiveness of mandated calorie counts can’t be measured merely by what people order in the restaurant; those who indulge in richer fare may compensate by having lighter meals at other times during the day.

See also the recent columns from Radley Balko and Steve Chapman, or this blog’s previous posts on the topic.

[Hardees link via Ezra Klein’s unlinkable link blog.]

In our final installment, Paul advocates the death penalty for cooks who serve trans fats, while I … no, just kidding, we both favor education over regulation. Check it out here, and thanks to Paul and the L.A. Times for bringing this discussion together.

I’d never noticed that organic milk has a longer shelf life, but this is interesting:

Organic milk lasts longer because producers use a different process to preserve it. According to the Northeast Organic Dairy Producers Alliance, the milk needs to stay fresh longer because organic products often have to travel farther to reach store shelves since it is not produced throughout the country.

The process that gives the milk a longer shelf life is called ultrahigh temperature (UHT) processing or treatment, in which milk is heated to 280 degrees Fahrenheit (138 degrees Celsius) for two to four seconds, killing any bacteria in it.

UHT pasteurization has a greater impact on flavor than the standard process, so, oddly enough, organic milk is in one way less natural than conventional.

[Thanks to Julie for the link.]

Those of you who’ve been wanting more of a smackdown between Paul Roberts and I won’t find it in today’s exchange, where we agree that there are plenty of reasons to enjoy eating natural, locally grown food — as long as you’re not kidding yourself about the health and environmental benefits. Read it here.

Tomorrow’s topic is foods that need to be banned, so things could get a little more heated then.

In today’s edition of Dust-Up, Paul Roberts predicts the end of food and I call for tearing down export restrictions. Read it here.

Today in Dust-Up, Paul Roberts and I discuss whether or not the FDA has enough regulatory power. You can guess where I come down, but Paul doubts the agency’s efforts too.

On a related note, Peter Van Doren lays down some skepticism about food safety regulation in this Cato Daily Podcast.

Update: Also, whoever writes the headlines at LATimes.com deserves a raise.

Previously:
Back in The Jungle
Don’t blame Milton!

This week in the L.A. Times Dust-Up feature, I’m discussing food policy with Paul Roberts, author of the recently released The End of Food. We take on a different question each day, taking turns on who goes first. Today’s question considers food-borne illness in our produce: is it a major menace or a manageable threat?

This should be a fun discussion. Paul and I don’t agree on everything, as you’ll see in the coming week, but we’d both like to see consumers eating better, fresher food, an end to subsidies for industrial farming, and regulations that aren’t bent to the interests of major corporate players. His book is worthwhile reading for anyone interested in why so much of our food is so bad and how out of touch we are with its origins.

Paul Krugman makes another foray into the food safety issue today. His logic of blaming free market advocates for the failures of a regulatory agency is completely absurd — especially since the regulatory captures he notes in the article are exactly the kinds of things that make libertarians skeptical of government regulation in the first place.

Moreover, it’s not clear that the food safety crisis Krugman writes about has even occurred. News reports about food safety issues are certainly prominent, but according to Alex Tabarrok, the numbers tell a different story. The CDC’s data on foodborne disease outbreaks show a decline from 1998-2006.

Krugman’s previous column on food safety was covered here. Sadly, the intervening year hasn’t made him a better writer.

Long-time readers know about Dublin Dr Pepper, the only version of the drink still made with sugar cane. Tariffs and corn subsidies drove the switch to high-fructose corn syrup in the 1970s. Unfortunately the Dublin plant has just a tiny distribution plant, making it a rarity outside of northern Texas. My friend Chad Wilcox introduced me to it a few years ago, and it definitely has a better taste. Chad notes that Dr Pepper week is coming up in Dublin, leading to this lengthy piece in the Dallas Observer.

In other drinks news, the Belgian company InBev is bidding for American brewery Anheuser-Busch. I can’t imagine how letting A-B getting taken over by Belgians could possibly make the company’s brews any worse, but nostalgic Americans are up in arms — including Missouri governor Matt Blunt, who’s looking for ways to legally block the deal.

It’s a big week for raw milk coverage, with stories this week from Marketplace and the Associated Press.

And finally, these seven deadly sins wine glasses spotted by BoingBoing are fantastic. Just don’t be the guy at the party who gets stuck with the envy stem.

In a working paper, economists Michael Anderson and David Matsa search for a correlation between easy road access to fast food restaurants and obesity. They don’t find one. The reason, they suggest, is that consumers are smart enough to offset unhealthy restaurant meals by eating less at other times during the day:

Matsa and Anderson next looked at data on individual eating habits from a survey conducted between 1994 and 1996. When eating out, people reported consuming about 35 percent more calories on average than when they ate at home. But importantly, respondents reduced their caloric intake at home on days they ate out (that’s not to say that people were watching their weight, since respondents who reported consuming more at home also tended to eat more when going out). Overall, eating out increased daily caloric intake by only 24 calories. The results for urban and suburban consumers were similar.

The paper casts doubt on the idea that mandating calorie counts in restaurants will effectively reduce obesity, since consumers already appear to be compensating for the dense intake. Our abundance of affordable food, sedentary lifestyles, and consumer preferences are likely greater contributors to unhealthy weights than simple ignorance about the nutritional value of our food.

[Full paper here [pdf]. Via Marginal Revolution.]

Previously:
Calorie counts are lies, all lies!
Guess what? Burgers make you fat!

A few weeks ago I experimented with making my own tonic water. Originally a true tonic meant to ward off malaria through the intake of quinine, tonic water was a medicinally bitter product that went down well with gin. Modern tonics are weak and sweet in comparison.

The hardest part of making homemade tonic water was finding the ingredients. They’re readily available online, but harder to find locally. Citric acid is supposedly found in well-stocked stores, but I had no luck finding it. Instead I repeated conversations like this:

“Excuse me, do you carry citric acid?”

“I don’t think so. What do you need it for?”

“I’m making tonic water.”

“Oh. You know we do sell tonic water.”

“Yes, but it’s not the same.”

So at least a few store clerks think I’m completely insane. In any case, I was finally able to find the acid and cinchona bark, the source of quinine, at La Cuisine in Alexandria. I then made a batch of homemade tonic water using Kevin Ludwig’s recipe from Imbibe, which calls for citric acid, the bark, lemongrass, sugar, and lime. It’s a far superior product — snappy, bitter, and with a unique flavor of its own. Commercial tonics, in contrast, are little more than a vehicle for diluting gin.

Friends have been asking me to post the recipe. Since this was my first attempt and I haven’t yet added anything of my own to it, I’ve been reluctant to do so. Luckily, I don’t have to: Jeffrey Morgenthaler posted his own variation this morning. It looks like a tasty, approachable recipe with more fruit and spice, one that might appeal to a wider audience unaccustomed to a strong quinine taste. If you’re curious to try an authentic tonic water, Jeff’s version could be a great place to start.

Since mandated calorie counts are a weirdly hot topic of discussion here, this story about inaccuracies in restaurants’ nutritional info is worth posting:

From March to May this year, Scripps stations tested food in eight cities from chains that cater to calorie counters by offering special, health-conscious menus — a growing segment in the restaurant industry…

While some items contained only as many calories and fat as the restaurants claimed, many dishes were found to have several times as many calories and fat as the companies stated….

The Macaroni Grill sample showed the widest variance from the menu’s claims. Its “Pollo Margo Skinny Chicken,” which was supposed to have 500 calories, actually had 1,022, according to the testing. The chicken dinner was supposed to have 6 grams of fat. It had 49.

Perhaps it’s because I don’t have to go to these kinds of chains very often, but I didn’t realize voluntarily providing this information had caught on so well. Of course, this doesn’t matter if the listings are bunk anyway.

One might argue that mandating labeling on menus would improve this information, but misleading consumers is already against regulations (according to this article) and chains would still be able to sneakily increase portion sizes in individual restaurants.

I remain unconvinced that requiring precise calorie counts on chain restaurant menus will accomplish much. I suspect restaurants will voluntarily expand their informational offerings for healthier items, hopefully with more accuracy than they do now. As for the rest, common sense may prove just as good a guide for variable, individually-prepared dishes as misleadingly precise calorie counts would be.

Previously:
Another problem with calorie counts