19.7.03

It's kiosk time for whoever keeps leaving our bathroom window open. I love nature as much as the next guy, but that love does not extend to a desire to shower with two moths, or to find june bugs swimming in the toilet.
Stentor Danielson, 15:01,

Elite Meat Shoppers sold on organic produce find its main-course counterpart - certified beef, poultry, and pork - to be elusive. Overall, the organic-food market has reportedly grown by as much as 20 percent a year since 1990. Sales of organic meat have recently grown at a faster rate - about 30 percent a year, according to Barbara Haumann, spokeswoman for the Organic Trade Association in Greenfield, Mass. But meat and meat products, Ms. Haumann says, still represent only about 4 percent of total organic-food production.

The article mentions two possible explanations for the lower sales of organic meat as compared to organic plant products -- consumer confusion over the meaning of labels, and the difficulties faced by ranchers in producing organic meat. But it seems that they're leaving out the impact of vegetarianism. I would guess that people who buy organic food are disproportionately likely (as compared to the general population) to be vegetarian, and thus not interested in meat of any kind. And added to the actual vegetarians are those, like myself, who tend to think in vegetarian terms when we're in the market for organic products (as an illustration, when I'm in Trader Joe's, it always startles me to see meat items such as tuna on the shelf -- there's something that feels incongruous about a store specializing in natural food selling meat). Many of the arguments for buying organic food come from the same environmental philosophy and culture that has spawned the most popular arguments for vegetarianism. (Interestingly, the title or this article -- "Elite Meat" -- suggests a view of organic products as status goods valued for their inherent qualities of flavor and healthfulness, rather than for their more benign externalities, which are what's most important from the environmental angle. That may explain the oversight.)

The disproportionately swift rise in organic meat sales as compared to all organic sales may, then, be partially attributable to the expansion of organic food from a small niche to a more mainstream market. As the market grows, organic foods seem more normal and less tied to a particular radical cultural image. They thus gain an appeal to people who don't fully share the norms of that culture, people who are more likely to eat meat.
Stentor Danielson, 14:59,

17.7.03

From time to time we hear stories about how terrible Americans' knowledge of geography is. But it turns out we're the world champions three times in a row (the championship is held every two years).
Stentor Danielson, 18:55,

15.7.03

In one of the posts I linked to in my previous post, Eugene Volokh prints this bit of a letter from a reader:

I happen to be 40 years old, happen to be an economist, and happen to be fertile, but I AM a man. I am not a human who happens to be a man. Being male is fundamental to who I am in a deeper way than any of these other characteristics.

Kieran Healy picks up on this argument for some speculation about what constitutes the essence of one's identity, but doesn't quite get to the good stuff. For me, being a geographer-anthropologist is a more fundamental part of my identity than being a man (or being 22 years old, or [presumably, though I've never put it to the test] being fertile).

The underlying idea in discussion of this quote seems to be that those things that are inborn are more fundamental to the person's identity. It's logical in a way, because those characteristics seem more permanent. But when I think about my own self-image, it doesn't work that way. This may be the existentialism in my worldview showing through. The most important parts of who I feel I am are not the things that I have no control over, like sex or age. Those just happened to me. The important parts are the parts I work for -- my skills, my profession, etc. I am who I make myself.

This gets somewhat more complicated when we consider gender as opposed to sex. Gender is something that is made, rather than inborn, though it often partakes of the feeling of fundamentality that sex has, when social characteristics get linked to biological ones. Being a man isn't terribly important to me -- indeed, I feel a bit strange about even writing "I am a man." I do plenty of things that are typically male, such as being emotionally reserved. But I don't think of those things as things that complement or spring from my maleness. When I try to imagine what a female version of me would be like, I don't imagine that those things would -- or should -- change. I experience them as independent of gender and sex. Perhaps there's a bit of dominant-group privilege working there, so that I, as a male, can easily see gender as less important. Yet I know many men do see many aspects of their lives as tied up in their maleness that I would see as separate and equally applicable to a female version of myself.

Certainly a female, but otherwise identical, version of me would be different in ways I can't guess. The non-permanent aspects of identity are not strictly endogenous -- they come as well from how the world treats you and what options it has open to you. And those exogenous aspects of who you are (as well as the inborn parts) can exert a strong influence on what directions the endogenous aspects want to go. But still, when I imagine alternate versions of myself, the ones that share my aspirations and accomplishments are more "me" than the ones who happen to share my physical makeup.
Stentor Danielson, 17:27,

14.7.03

(Don't let the three new posts fool you -- I'm still on quasi-hiatus. I'm just posting three things right in a row.)

Eugene Volokh has three excellent posts up dealing with the "it's unnatural" objection to homosexuality (start here and scroll down). No comments from me -- I have to get to the grocery store now.
Stentor Danielson, 19:15,

A while back I met the cleaning lady in the dorm where I'm staying. She asked me how Dayton compared to the other places I've been (basically the northeast). I told her that people in Dayton were much friendlier, which surprised her (she must never have been to Massachussetts). People on the street here will say hi for no reason other than to say hi. People in the grocery store joke with me about the amount of stuff I have crammed into one of those little baskets. As I was writing the previous post, the woman at the computer next to me noticed it and struck up a conversation about GM food.

It feels wrong to disparage friendliness, but in a way it makes me uncomfortable. Perhaps it's just that I'm an introvert. But more so, I think it's an issue of social communication. As we learn how to behave in a society, we come to understand certain behaviors as signals for certain meanings. In the northeast, for example, striking up a conversation with a stranger (particularly on the basis of something you saw on their computer screen) would mark you as a nosy person. Talking to someone on the street signals that you want something from the person you're speaking to. But in Dayton (and presumably throughout the midwest and south), those signals indicate friendliness and sociability. Northerners aren't less friendly people than southerners so much as they communicate their personality differently. So when someone crosses into the other culture, their ability to make sense of subtle social communication is disturbed. They don't know what to make of people's behavior.
Stentor Danielson, 18:45,

Monsanto Sues Dairy In Maine Over Label's Remarks On Hormones ... the Monsanto Company has sued a small milk producer in Portland, Me., over the labeling of its dairy products. Monsanto has accused Oakhurst Dairy Inc. of engaging in misleading and deceptive marketing practices by carrying labels that seem to disparage the use of artificial growth hormones in cows. ... Oakhurst's products carry the state's quality seal, and the company's milk cartons say, "Our farmers' pledge: no artificial growth hormones." -- via Ampersand

Oakhurst should launch a countersuit. Monsanto has repeatedly stated, in adverstisements and elsewhere, that its products were good (for consumers, farmers, the environment, etc.). That clearly disparages organic farming practices.

Monsanto's major argument is that growth hormones have been shown to not have any affect on the milk. (I elaborated on that type of claim in a commentary I wrote long ago -- though I should point out that since writing that column I have become agnostic on GM as a whole and pro-labeling).

I'll assume for a moment that the science behind the claim is accurate (I'm not qualified to judge). That still doesn't fully answer objections about growth hormones. Monsanto (and me, in my old commentary) is working under a limited view of consumer interests. This limited view, based on assumptions of rational self-interest, states that the consumer is only interested in, and only bases her purchasing decision on, the inherent qualities of the product -- its size, taste, long-lastingness, healthiness, etc. For many people, the decisive problem with milk produced using hormones is a disagreement with Monsanto's science -- they believe that the milk is different, specifically that it is bad for their health. If Monsanto's science can be shown to be correct, this objection to the milk is answered.

This product quality model works in most cases. But among a certain segment of the consumer population, externalities of the production process are internalized through the production decision. For example, some people will buy American-made products, not because of a belief that American products are better, but out of a desire to support American workers. Similarly, many people buy milk raised without hormones not because of the inherent qualities of the milk, but because they believe that the production process is harmful to the cows.
Stentor Danielson, 18:15,