My short series on the best tools in baseball continued with my ranking of the players with the best hitting tools and the best fielding tools in the majors. I also had two draft blog posts, one on the Perfect Game All-American Classic and one on the Under Armour game.
I was the guest host of the Baseball Tonight podcast on Wednesday, with guests Tim Kurkjian and Alex Speier.
Chat is still down, so I did another Periscope video chat instead.
And now, this week’s links… 
- Back in N.W.A.’s heyday, Dr. Dre severely beat female journalist Dee Barnes, and she’s not happy the NWA biopic omitted the incident.
- The Guardian had the best op ed I saw this week on the controversy over Josh Ostrovsky, aka “the Fat Jew,” stealing jokes on social media.
- Is it the beginning of the end for online comments? I tend to hope so. Most comment threads quickly devolve into digital septic tanks.
- Major food-processing companies are fighting to reduce what you know about the food in their packages. Regardless of your views on genetic modification, organic versus conventional, and so on, any laws that reduce transparency are losses for all consumers.
- The best longread of the week is from the New York Times, on how poor people get caught in a cycle of prison time for inability to pay their bail or other court fees.
- San Francisco Giants scout Stan Saleski took his own life while advancing the Royals and Orioles for the World Series last year, and his daughter, Whitney, has turned her grief into a photo project to reduce the stigma around suicide.
- The global populations of certain species of bats has been threatened by a fungal disease, but there’s a new treatment on the horizon. It matters to us because bats are one of a handful of species, along with bees and monarch butterflies, that helps pollinate crops essential to our food supply – and the populations of all of those species are declining.
- A few weeks ago, I linked to an LA Times investigative piece on an antibiotic-resistant bacterium that hit the UCLA hospital due to a specific type of duodenoscope; well, it’s back, this time at a Pasadena hospital.
- Climate change has made the current California drought 8% to 27% worse than it otherwise would have been. There’s no silver lining anywhere in this story: It’s conserve or die.
- The New Yorker has a brief overview of the ongoing lawsuit challenging minor-league player compensation as illegal because they earn less than minimum wage. The real solution here is to end MLB’s antitrust exemption, but that would require an act of Congress.
- Yet more evidence that we are hopelessly suggestible: Hong Kong restaurant patrons preferred dishes “explained” by the chef, even when those dishes had inferior ingredients. Maybe none of them wanted to seem to be a philistine.
- If you’ve followed the Shaun King story at all, this piece from the Black Lives Matter activist is worth reading.
- Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla Motors, conceived a “hyperloop” sort of bullet train that would whisk passengers across a great distance via pneumatic tube; now it looks like construction of a hyperloop may start next year.
I was happy to see a write-up on Cooper Johnson since he’s from a high school about 10 minutes away from my house. It seems the area is producing D1 caliber catching prospects with Evan Skoug at TCU also from the area. If your scouting travels ever send you here, let me know and I can give you some restaurant recommendations.
I remember many good debates in ESPN comments sections back before they required a Facebook account, including on your articles/chats. Sometimes they would devolve into some bad comments, but usually they would either be ignored or replied with a sarcastic comment. Of course, the articles were hidden enough that there wouldn’t be a huge volume of comments. Once an article made the front page, all bets were off and it would be best to stay away. So unless there is good moderation or it is hidden, it’s probably best to get rid of them.
The most baffling thing to me about what Shaun King has been put through is the lack of a point to it all. Even if King were white – which he is not – would that really delegitimize the Black Lives Matter movement? It seems to me that everyone, regardless of race, should stand behind the movement’s message. A prominent member of the movement being white would do nothing to undermine the cause.
@ryan
But that is exactly the point… delegitimize by any means necessary. The person who originally “broke” the story was a known racist but she got picked up and the story ran because it was juicy. Unfortunately, it was patently false. And the only reason there existed a question to answer was because folks were attempting to be respectful of King’s mom. It is a god damn shame.
This is the game racists like to play… if you are a white anti-racist, you are a sell out or PC or pandering or race traitor. If you are an anti-racist of color, you are simply self-serving. The various anti-racists movements are not perfect, but anyone who is devoted to undermining them inherently needs to be outed as a racist even if they aren’t wearing a hood or burning crosses.
The Hyperloop would make way more sense connecting Houston, Austin, Dallas, and the other big cities in Texas & the plains. California is expensive land, a regulatory nightmare, and mountainous to boot. The center of the country is flat, cheap, and lax. Try it there.
Good points all around.
Keith,
I have a technical cooking question for you involving sous vide. I know you said in your review of Richard Blais’ book that you have no intention of getting an immersion circulator and I don’t want to get one either, but I’m curious if you know of anybody who has experimented with cooking “under vacuum” but at slightly higher temperatures? I know the point of the immersion circulator is to cook the food to the target temperature with incredible accuracy while achieving a high level of concentrated favors and tenderness. So it seems to me that you could cook under vacuum in a water bath in an oven at a slightly higher temperature and achieve many of the same flavor and tenderness while ceding some accuracy. But I can’t seem to find anyone who might have tried this. Any thoughts on if it would work with a somewhat forgiving cut of meet like pork shoulder?
I don’t know, but I don’t see any reason why it wouldn’t work.
Hi Keith,
I’m a long time reader and I have immense amount of respect for the work you do here and at ESPN. You almost always look at issues, especially scientific ones, with a level head based on peer reviewed literature rather than blog posts by non-experts. I bring this because as a Ph.D. chemist it is very important that influential and smart people like yourself disseminate scientific information based only on the best available peer reviewed literature and nothing more. As someone with intimate familiarity with genetic engineering technology and the promise it could and already does provide, your inclination to support labeling cannot be rationally support by peer reviewed science. Your link today implies says “major food companies are fighting to reduce what you know about the food in their packages. Regardless of your views on genetic modification, organic versus conventional, and so on, any laws that reduce transparency are losses for all consumers.” There is no reason to single out one breeding technology over others (detailed here by plant geneticist in an infographic here: http://www.biofortified.org/2015/07/crop-modification-techniques-infographic/). The labeling campaign is mainly support by Just Label It, which is led by Gary Hirschberg from Stonyfield Organic, a major food company. Peer reviewed literature overwhelmingly supports the safety of existing food that is genetic modified and popular vote is not a reason to change food labeling. Food labeling should be guided by the best science period. I urge you to reconsider your stance on labeling and realize this label will add no useful nutritional information for anyone. More importantly, all organic produce is already non-GMO by definition so if you don’t want any GM food it is easy to avoid.
reduce what you know about your food Your links previously to the Rodale Institute and now to the propaganda
So which anti-consumer lobbying group do you belong to Matt?
I could not possibly disagree more with this statement: “Food labeling should be guided by the best science period.”
Food labels are consumer tools. Why would you ever say that consumers should not have the right to know about the contents of a processed food item?
You’re also dwelling excessively on the question of food safety, but there are other reasons to choose not to buy genetically modified foodstuffs, such as a desire to avoid contributing to the rising monoculture in key areas of our food supply. But even if avoiding GM foods is stupid, it is still a consumer’s right to be stupid as long as that stupidity doesn’t affect someone else (e.g., vaccinations).
Your view is too paternalistic for my tastes – we won’t tell consumers something they want to know about their food because they’re not smart enough to use the information wisely. If that’s your view, then let’s work to improve the often abysmal level of science education in our public schools rather than treat adult consumers like children whom we tell that Fluffy just went to a farm upstate where he can run around all day in a giant meadow.
But where does it end? If consumers want to know what state or town their food is grown in, will we require that? If consumers want to know if it is fair trade or picked only by the hands of American citizens, will we require that? The government should not be in the business of requiring labeling that isn’t related to health and safety. If GMO-free products want to label themselves as such, have at it. But no one should be required to put a GMO label on their product just as no one should be required to put a “Non-Organic” label on their product. What is the difference?
There’s a cost to be considered too. That’s usually taken into account with labelling requirements.
@Mookie
I belong to no lobbying group, I just think food labels should provide actual nutrition information rather than pit one form of breeding vs. another for no nutritional reason whatsoever. Sugar extracted from a GM beet, conventionally grown beet, or an organic are exactly the same and nutritionally equivalent. If consumers want to be scared of peer reviewed science and avoid GM foods, just buying organic is quite simple. Food labels are provided to help the consumer extract relevant nutritional information (like sugar content, fat, sodium, etc.)–a label for GM ingredients provides no useful information. Just Label It is a lobbying group supported by huge organic companies including Stonyfield Organic, large companies reside on both sides of this issue. If you want to be an inquisitive consumer listen to food scientists, plant geneticists, and other practicing scientists in the field publishing in reputable peer-reviewed journals (including publishers like the ACS and Elsevier to name a few). Upon researching this the safety of this breeding technology with regards to current GM food available is overwhelmingly safe.
Keith,
Thanks for the reply. You say that “Why would you ever say that consumers should not have the right to know about the contents of a processed food item?”
This gets to the crux of misunderstanding. A GM label on a food product does not provide any information about product contents. Thus by your logic there is no need for this label. Sugar from a GM sugar beet, an organic beet, or a conventionally grown beet are nutritionally and chemically equivalent. Also, why single out one crop breeding technology? If you label one breeding method the only responsible thing to do would be to label everything. Thus we would have to label organic ruby red grapefruit as “made via radical mutagenesis” among other things. By the way, that breeding technique is the least controlled and least understood but those products can be still sold with the organic label.
Secondly, you mention people may want to avoid GM bred food because of monoculture. Monoculture long predates the existence of GE technology. History and economics are the main drivers monoculture, not crop breeding technology. Farmers in the corn belt for example mainly rotate between corn and soybean due to profit margins independent of breeding method used.
Finally, you mention that my view of labeling it too paternalistic. My view is quite the opposite as I thinks consumers are quite savvy. Once again, you can avoid GM food by buying organic so the information is already there for the consumer.
Major corporations are on both sides of this issue so relevant information for the consumer should be the only information included on a label. Attacking one breeding technology for no scientific reason is not the standard we should use when it comes to food labeling.
A GM label on a food product does not provide any information about product contents.
False. There’s more to product contents than the chemical formulae of the ingredients. Consumers want to know from where the ingredients came, and even if that information isn’t as useful as they think it is, I see no valid reason to deny them this information.
Monoculture is more than just using a single crop, but now refers to overuse of single strains of crops, such as using Roundup-resistant corn and soybean at the expense of those crops’ normal genetic diversity.
Organic isn’t synonymous with non-GMO. A foodstuff can be non-GMO without being organic.
Indeed, you’ve depicted your view as the scientific consensus, but I don’t think that’s quite the case. The Union of Concerned Scientists has pointed out the same risks I have, as well as the increased use of certain pesticides that comes from heavy reliance on GM crops that were bred to resist them. That heavier use of Roundup and its ilk has contributed to the decimation of the North American monarch butterfly population by killing off much of our native milkweed supply. If a consumer wants to specifically avoid buying any foods with ingredients grown from glyphosate-resistant seeds, why shouldn’t s/he have that information? Simply saying “buy organic” is over-broad and likely forces the consumer to pay more than s/he would otherwise have to.
Given the intersection of old school hip hop and Muppets, I expected to see this at some point:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wv9t0EdZLTk
Keith,
If consumers want to know where their food comes from then I assume we are going to label all breeding techniques used on each food product? If not then you and others are attacking one breeding technology over another without scientific reason.
You bring up scientific consensus on GM food safety and it is actually higher than that of man made climate change according to a recent Pew study querying members of the AAAS. I consider 89% (and climbing) a scientific consensus but I guess we can agree to disagree. Beyond the poll, there are over 240 scientific organizations including the AAAS, WHO, and many more that support the safety of GE technology;
http://www.siquierotransgenicos.cl/2015/06/13/more-than-240-organizations-and-scientific-institutions-support-the-safety-of-gm-crops/
Monoculture is about crop rotation but there are monocultures of organic and conventionally grown produce as well as GMO produce. Farmers should rotate crops and it is not a GMO specific issue.
You also mention the UCS or Union of Concerned scientists where on this particular issue they are siding with known anti-vaccine folks at Natural News and spreading fear. UCS likes to cite the serralini study which was subsequently retracted. There are no peer reviewed studies that support their position on this issue.
Finally, let’s get some facts straight. Glyphosate long predates GMO technology. The success of glyphosate, developed in the 1970s is not due to the success of GMOs but the opposite. It was so successful as an herbicide that when scientists found a bacteria resistant to it the idea of adding it to the crop directly was born which you now see as roundup ready produce. This herbicide is safer than most other pesticides with an LD50 orders of magnitude below that of caffeine among other things. These resistant crops help with no till agriculture and are better for the environment which it why it has been so widely adopted. Glyphosate is a good weed killer that kills milkweed too unfortunately. The solution is mitigation strategies like planting milkweed where it would not be a pest. The U.S. Government and even Private companies have pledged money to do just that.
It’s not just “food safety.” GM crops are absolutely safe to eat. It’s about a much bigger picture than that – whether the reduction in biodiversity that comes from having so much of our food supply derived from a handful of strains like glyphosate-resistant corn or soy. Isn’t that same lack of genetic diversity why the Cavendish banana is currently threatened (and, by the way, means bananas will only be saved by genetic modification)?
BTW, tying UCS to the nut jobs at Natural News invokes the guilt by association fallacy.
I come back to the original question, though: If consumers indicate they want certain information, like country of origin labelling on meat, then they should have it. We put lots of information on packaging that doesn’t apply to nutrition, and in my personal opinion the more words we put on packaging perhaps the more consumers will realize that processed foods are just that – processed. I personally prefer foods, GM or non-GM, that will get most of their processing in my kitchen.
Meant to write the LD50 for glyphosate is orders of magnitude higher than for caffeine.
Actually, I’ll give you a good counterargument: Expiration dates. They’re totally useless, based on no real science, and actively promote bad consumer behavior (discarding food and drugs that are still safe to eat and, in the case of the medications, effective).
Keith,
First let me say that I really enjoy the back and forth and I am happy there is someone with reach you possess discussing scientific policy issues. I do wish other practicing scientists became more involved in science policy issues but that is a discussion for another day.
You noted: “I come back to the original question, though: If consumers indicate they want certain information, like country of origin labelling on meat, then they should have it.” I think this is where we fundamentally disagree. You seem to believe science should be a democracy and I wholeheartedly do not. The reason why can clearly illuminated in the following survey: A January 2015 survey conducted by agricultural economists at Oklahoma State found that 82% of Americans want their food labeled if it contains GMOs. The same survey found that 80% of Americans want their food labeled if it contains DNA. So you think these consumers should decide what goes on our food labels? The biofortified blog covers this very well here: http://www.biofortified.org/2015/04/science-democracy/ (note biofortified is blog where Ph.D. plant geneticists and biotech professionals post about various scientific issues independent of industry funding)
An excerpt from that post: “This whole topic raises the question of whether scientific matters (such as food labeling) should be decided by a public that is not educated in the technical aspects or nuances of an issue. Should scientific matters be decided upon democratically?
This whole topic raises the question of whether scientific matters (such as food labeling) should be decided by a public that is not educated in the technical aspects or nuances of an issue. Should scientific matters be decided upon democratically?
Here are just a few examples: the Shasta County Board recently decided to look into chemtrails; Portland, Oregon rejects adding fluoride to the city’s water; Humbolt county votes to ban GMO production.
If we, the people, get to decide on such important scientific matters democratically, then why do we spend billions of dollars, on institutions such as the National Institutes of Health, the National Academy of Sciences, USDA, FDA? Do we just fund them so that they can come up with recommendations and guidelines which we can then ignore depending on whether we find it convenient or if our favorite celebrity endorses it?”
I could not have said it better myself. I do not believe science is a democracy much like I don’t watch a drug commercial and demand a specific treatment plan based on my Google degree. Dunning-Kruger effect is in full force here as it is when people are uncomfortable with GE technology for not rational reason.
With regards to the UCS, please see here: http://www.biofortified.org/2013/09/the-union-of-concerned-scientists-and-scientific-consensus/
Pamela Ronald, plant pathology professor at UC-Davis (has a great TED talk on the topic) notes how the UCS is stepping back from their extreme position, clarifying what they mean and joining the NIH, AAAS, FDA, USDA, and tons of other scientific organizations supporting the safety of GE technology. They are not the same as Natural News beyond this one issue so I will just say they are bucking the overwhelming scientific consensus on this one issue.
Finally, you mention expiration dates. I agree they are useless and I’d be all for a science based system replacing them. Ironically, some GE crops are specific designed to help address food waste. For example, the non browning Artic Apple. This will help with food waste and this was developed a company with <10 employees so it is not just big agribusiness practicing this method of plant breeding.
The worry about crop rotation and diversity is real but that is conflating two separate issues. Monocultures are an issue both with and without GE crops. If this is to change it is up to the farmers and ultimately government policy via the USDA to incentivize more crop diversity.
I’m going to give a short answer now so I don’t end up forgetting, but I want to offer one distinction.
I draw a line between policies that result in government action (e.g., mandatory vaccinations, fluoridation of tap water) and those that merely provide information. If we want to label all food that contains DNA (I laughed at that, BTW), great. Maybe consumers will end up more educated. Giving consumers information that they might not be able to interpret doesn’t bother me; the best answer is to ramp up science awareness, knowledge, and education. That’s nothing like “science by democracy,” where you would probably still have some wackos setting up task forces to determine if 9/11 was an inside job and endless committees investigating “cancer clusters.”
Thanks for the reply. I truly enjoy these discussions and anything that helps scientific literacy I am all for. You have a much larger reach to the general public than I ever could have so I’m grateful you take the time to critically think about these things.
You’re welcome and thank you for reading and the dialogue. If you see articles on any of these topics (especially anti-science and science literacy) that I should include in a future links post, please post them in any comments section here. I’m always looking for more.
Keith, please tell me the Hyperloop is the precursor to the Gravitube.