Eat This Book
by
N. Stephan Kinsella
by
N. Stephan Kinsella
Some
pairings don’t seem like they would go together melons and
prosciutto, pineapple on pizza, dark chocolate and bourbon
but pleasantly surprise you when they do. So it is with Brad Edmonds’s
recent book, There's
a Government in Your Soup: Why There's Too Much Government in Your
Kitchen, and What You Can Do About It, which combines food
and politics to yield a mighty fun read.
This
book will proudly grace your coffee table or make excellent bedtime
reading (full disclosure: Edmonds and I are buds). Edmonds
whose work will be well known to LewRockwell.com readers
draws on his experience as a libertarian writer, scholar-musician
(he has a doctorate in music), and cooking expertise to combine
a mouthwatering yet intellectually stimulating gumbo of interwoven
advice, recipes, related economic-political analysis, and fascinating
vignettes.
This
is in an age in which we are constantly harangued about our food
habits and barraged with conflicting fad diets and nutritional advice.
Body not perfect? Eat carbs? Processed food? Fat? Frozen food? Not
enough kale? Like cheese in a can? Fried spam? The occasional taco?
A nice bourbon ... and chocolate? Be prepared to feel guilty; this
is the age of guilt.
One
of the nice things about Soup is that as you read it, you
cannot help but regain your love of food, and at least temporarily
quell some of your guilt. Moreover, Edmonds helps to explain how,
as usual, government meddling makes food worse. This might sound
trivial at first blush, but of course food is one of the most essential
things in human life. As our author explains, Everybody
loves food. Everybody knows everybody loves food. What isn’t
well known is how much more we might love it how much safer,
less expensive, and more varied it could be in the absence of
meddlesome government interventions. My purpose in writing this
book is to show how government meddling works; how it hampers
our enjoyment and liberties; and how we might lessen government’s
intrusions into our kitchens and lives. [ix] What
if you eat too much? Observes our author, Frankly,
some people don’t mind being obese, at least not too much. Given
the complete inevitability of losing weight whenever you expend
more calories than you take in (it’s a law of physics, after
all), those who are overweight are making choices on a daily
basis. Occasionally fighting a spare tire myself, I understand
the unpleasantness of those daily choices. It is natural that
physical effort is aversive while eating and relaxing are enjoyable;
otherwise, we could expect lions and tigers to chase after the
strongest, fastest zebras in the herd, which of course they
don’t do. [20]
Edmonds
writes about food (and liberty) with verve, assuredness, and relish;
he is totally, completely, unapologetically in favor of food (and
liberty). A combination of P.J. O’Rourke, Henry Hazlitt, and Cliff
Clavin-the-minutiae-expert from Cheers, he serves up recipes,
advice, and fascinating food trivia. In fact, if there were a Jeopardy
on food, Edmonds would surely win it.
Yes,
there’s a dash of sound economic-political commentary sprinkled
into the mix just the right amount. Edmonds explains, In
this book, I use as examples everything from specific food ingredients
to recipes to national cuisines to show how government intervention
is always problematic, resulting in reduced variety, higher
prices, and even reduced safety for consumers; and how economic
freedom benefits all participants in a market every producer
and every consumer. [4] There’s no better way to illustrate
the power of the market the power of all of us, thinking for
ourselves, seeking solutions, and exploiting opportunities than
to look at the food itself. [26] [T]he lessons to be learned
from food are limitless. Almost any food you can name, if you
study its history, has something to say about economics, politics,
history, or culture. [29]
In
illustrative vignettes, he shows how government intervention lowers
food quality, diversity, and availability, and raises prices (or
do I repeat myself). For example:
Without
government inspections and government criteria, we wouldn’t have
so many large producers (apparently) striving to meet only the
government’s mandated minimum levels of purity, with occasional
tragic results. I would like the option of choosing between beef
producers who have their own standards of cleanliness. There is
no doubt that some would be supremely reliable. Then, I wouldn’t
have to eat dry, overcooked hamburgers every time. I’d pull out
the classical beef tartar recipes. [12]
And
consider this brief but humorously frank and to-the-point illustration
of how supposedly "healthy," organic food can be inferior
to regular food: There
are apple growers I’d call stupid, by the way hippies who grow
organically. Some of the commercial farmers are growing organically,
and they’re having to apply "natural" pesticides and
fertilizers constantly to approach the productivity of "inorganic"
(?) farms. Some of the hippies are using cow manure. They pick
the food off the ground. Thus, mainly "organic" apples
are likely to be contaminated with E. coli bacteria, and once
contaminated, some produce is impossible to sanitize. The apples
being sprayed by chemicals known to be safe for wildlife and
people, chemicals costing up to $700 per gallon, have never
poisoned any customers. But they’re the apples the environmentalists
want to ban in favor of organic apples that are more likely
to be contaminated by cow poop laden with bacteria that can
kill children. [9]
Edmonds’
political advice is also sound:
Moving
to free markets in food (and health care, and energy, and so
on) might shock a few producers at first. Some farmers would
have to find other work, or work their farms as contractors
for larger agribusinesses. Such is the march of progress, and
it can be only good news that fewer and fewer people would have
to labor to provide the market with basic necessities. The benefits
for all of us, both immediate and long term, would be lower
prices and more abundant supplies of everything edible. [14]
But
Edmonds's love for food shines through. As a native-born Louisianan,
for example, I appreciated this passage:
Louisianans
love "mud bugs," a.k.a. crawdads or crawfish; and
they are indeed bugs, just as lobsters are kissing cousins of
cockroaches. The people in Louisiana will boil crawfish in a
giant pot with crabs, potatoes, leeks, onions, jalapenos, and
whatever else is in the kitchen that might work (indeed, legend
has it that "jambalaya" loosely translated means "what’s
in the fridge?"), along with about a cup of ground spices
and dried herbs. I’ve seen a vintage cooking show where the
cook was struggling to get the lid on the pot against all the
crawdads and crabs struggling to get out. This is proper you
want to know the seafood is fresh. Only in Louisiana is boiling
a form of performance art. [93] I
also loved Edmonds’ celebration of economic/culinary progress (also
displaying his Cliff Clavin-ness): The
round-headed cabbages we know are not a natural occurrence.
Wild cabbage, which still grows along the shores of the Mediterranean,
looks somewhat like celery, with big stalks and relatively few
leaves. Endive or romaine lettuce, available at your local grocery,
looks much like wild cabbage. The round-headed stuff wouldn’t
have evolved on its own, I’m sure. It’s a ball of leaves, tightly
wound on top of each other, the vast majority not contributing
to the plant’s nutrition through photosynthesis. Round-headed
cabbage isn’t even an evolutionary dead end; it’s more of an
evolutionary "what?" No, we humans selectively bred
the wild stuff until we developed the round-headed stuff. We
did so because we wanted to. This unnatural selection began
more than 2,000 years ago.
A
robust, free-thinking man would say that’s exactly what vegetables
are for. They’re here for us, not for themselves. People rule,
and that includes ruling cabbage, if it suits us. Cabbage is highly
nutritious when eaten raw, and various national and regional cuisines
have made culinary art from it, from Prussian sauerkraut to the
ubiquitous American coleslaw (yes, I know, the Dutch may be at
the bottom of that, "kool sla" and whatnot, but they
don’t make or eat it like we do, even though they put mayonnaise
on french fries). Cabbage is a tribute to the victory of genetic
engineering over vegetable nature, even if the engineering was
done the slow, old-fashioned way, one cabbage generation at a
time. [2728]
What
a great passage! Interesting and pro-liberty. In its exaltation
of human achievement in manipulating nature to satisfy human wants
and needs, it’s almost Randian, except that it has a sense of humor.
To-wit (and more Cliff-ness): Both
the best and the worst of men’s tendencies are illustrated by
poopoo coffee, as I call it, or Kopi Luwak (civet coffee), as
it’s called in Indonesia. The civet is a mammal, apparently
a variety of cat that resembles a cross between an opossum and
a rhesus monkey. Where there are both civets and coffee, civets
eat big red coffee berries. Civets can’t digest the beans, so
the beans can be found on the ground after the civets have passed
them through their digestive tracts.
According
to reports, the beans are unaffected by the adventure, and are
prized for the special flavor and aroma they impart when roasted,
ground, and brewed. Such beans are probably the rarest of coffee
varieties, and sell over the Internet for $300 per pound. It
might as well be noted that if passing through the bowels of
a cat didn’t affect the flavor of the final product, these particular
beans would be no more prized than other Indonesian coffees.
[35] As
Edmonds concludes, "This represents the worst of humanity,
in my opinion, with regard to gullibility: People are paying $300/lb
for, and consuming, things picked from animal crap."
Edmonds
is no food snob. Although obviously an expert chef in his own right,
here’s what he has to say about French food sentiments that will
no doubt resonate in many of us who have been bewildered at what’s
supposed to be so great about French restaurants: Many
Americans labor under the misnotion that French food is the
finest cuisine, but that is the result of successful marketing
(if effete snobbery qualifies as marketing). The French love
to talk about, look at, and sell food. The Italians love to
cook and eat it. For my money, anyone who will age pork and
cheese for two years, and vinegar for twenty, is a food lover
who merits emulation. [45]
And
did I mention chocolate and bourbon earlier? I got that advice from
this suggestion: "After eating a good meal meat, cheese,
salt there’s little I enjoy more than a slice of cheesecake
or hunk of chocolate along with a shot of bourbon or single malt"
[56]. I’m partial to dark chocolate so tried that; and he’s right,
it’s great with bourbon!
I’ll
conclude with this quote: The
lesson? People make life better. Freer people make life better
faster. And as the Italians keep demonstrating, advancing technology
isn’t the answer, it’s the result. People entrepreneurs, inventors,
experimenters, and especially customers are at the bottom of
it all. Leave them alone to do their work, and watch your quality
of life improve. [38]
July
24, 2004
Stephan
Kinsella [send
him mail] is an attorney in Houston. His website is www.StephanKinsella.com.
Copyright
© 2004 LewRockwell.com
Stephan
Kinsella Archives
|