For thousands of years human beings have adapted to the elements. We have hunted and gathered, sowed and preaped and toiled from dawn to dusk to get enough food to eat. And when finally we are on our own at the supermarket and can choose virtually any food in the univers, what do we want to eat more than anything?

A cookie.

One theory to account for this is that we have not surpassed our ancestors physiologically. Our brain does not know how to tell us when to stop eating junk because the subject never came up among our Cro-Magnon ancestors, who were programmed to eat anything that didn’t eat them first and were equipped to store fat for times of famine.

We can’t explain away our almost desperate yearning for a cookie by claiming to possess a sweet tooth. A more plausible theory is that when we are starving, inborn instinct makes us seek out high-calorie, high-fat, quick-energy foods.

Imagining we are starving is a relative thing, especially when we know there is a cookie or candy bar nearby.

Seeing is Believing

Television is another phenomenon our ancestors didn’t have to contend with. The excitement of seeing a pizza flashing on the screen alerts our appetite control center, which in turn sends fast and furious messages to the salivary glands to get ready for the feast. EAT? Is the question. NOW is the answer. NO is not even an option. Hungry is the consequence of the sighting of food, even if we have barely rested our fork from the prvious meal.

An Appetite for Sugar

Hunger is not the same as appetite and has almost nothing to do with taste. Hunger relates to a drop in the level of blood sugar and the physical need for food.  Appetite relates to the desire for food, and taste is the ability to to differentiate one food from another.

None of this thinking goes even the smallest step to explaining why we think we are hungry so soon after eating Chinese food. One hypothesis is that the meal doesn’t end properly — meaning there is no chocolate cake and no ice cream. We find ourselves (unless we are of Chinese heritage,) with a subconscious sense of loss and longing. Naturally this feeling of deprivation leads us to think we are hungry when in fact we are just being peevish.

A cookie usually solves the problem.

Almost everyone agrees food labeling is a good thing. But, no sooner do we arrive at a consensus than someone starts asking foolish questions, and muddying an issue that was perfectly clear.

A food label must fulfill three criteria:

• It must be Truthful
• It must be Verifiable
• It must be Enforceable

So here’s the first problem: If the label on a genetically modified food is truthful, it must state that there is no evidence to say this food is safe to eat. In the interest of balanced scientific accuracy, it must also say there is no evidence to suggest it is unsafe to eat.

Therefore, the only way to tell the truth is to declare on the label that this food may or may not be safe to eat.

The verifiable part also is a bit of dilemma. There is no practical, economical test that can measure the presence of a protein derived from a genetically modified ingredient. This situation can be compared with having sex without, well, you know what… in other words there is no issue.

It is rather like asserting something might be there, or it might not there, but if it is there, it doesn’t present a problem.  In yet other words, the house may or may not be haunted, but if it is, the undetectable ghost is really friendly.

The enforceable issue presents the biggest predicament of all. If the label says that this food may or may not be safe because something that might be there might not be there, but if it is there, we must plead with a government agency to enforce a ruling that something that is not detectable is O.K. to eat.

Sounds like good work if you can get it. Rumor has it that there would be paid vacations if such a job existed.

You’ve probably noticed how the media gets stuck on a word, or a phrase, and in no time at all, it is hovering on the lip of every pontificating pundit on the Sunday morning chitter chatter shows.

I first noticed this phenomenon when David Stockton, former Secretary of the Treasury, denounced Ronald Reagan’s economic policy by declaring. “If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it probably is a duck.”

Clearly, without coming right out and saying so, he was implying the proposed budget was a dead duck. Stockton was fired soon after delivering his shockingly disloyal opinion.

Dead ducks are not what any one wants — even as economic indicators. Sitting ducks are something else again. (A variation on this duck business lately has become, “If it looks like a duck and talks like a duck — shoot it.”)

Some time ago a terrible controversy about apples erupted. There was furious suspicion of behind-the-scenes hanky panky. Yet another scandal had surfaced.

Washington State Fuji Apple

It had been revealed on the Sunday evening program, 60 Minutes that apple growers in Washington State were using Alar to promote the growth of their fruit.

A representative of the US Food & Drug Administration was invited to cower before star correspondent and unofficial finger wagger Mike Wallace, who more or less accused the government of planning to poison all the innocent little children throughout the land.

The first words that tumbled from the lips of the hapless scientist were: This is a par-a-dox…” He got out not one word further. He had aroused the ire of the nation that thought, (incorrectly as it turned out), he was belittling the problem by describing the impending disaster as simply “a pair of ducks.”

In so doing he cooked his goose. Apple pie, the salt of the earth, was clearly endangered. The nation howled.

As voters’ confidence in Congress continues to unravel, it is reassuring to learn there are still a few (food) visionaries in the world…

Create Jobs for USA

Starbucks is planning to do something inspirational to restore our faith in our institutions.

Here’s the idea: Starbucks Coffee Co. next month (November 1) is planning to ask customers to pay $5 or more toward a national fund for community business lending in a move aimed at creating jobs.

The Seattle-based coffee chain is partnering with the Opportunity Finance Network (OFN), to launch the “Create Jobs for USA program.

And, starting Nov. 1, Create Jobs for USA will begin accepting donations online or at Starbucks’ nearly 6,800 locations throughout the U.S.

Donors who give $5 or more will receive a red-white-and-blue wristband with the word “indivisible” inscribed.

Starbucks said all of the proceeds will go to the OFN to help fund loans to businesses. The coffee company also will contribute $5 million in seed money from its Starbucks Foundation.

“Small businesses are the backbone of America, employing more than half of all private sector workers — but this critical jobs engine has stalled,” said Howard Schultz, CEO of Starbucks. “We’ve got to thaw the channels of credit so that community businesses can start hiring again.”

I’m sending in my contribution right now. How about you?

Read more:

• http://nrn.com/article/starbucks-partners-job-creation-program?ad=policy&utm_source=MagnetMail&utm_medium=email&utm_term=ichalmers@earthlink.net&utm_content=NRN-News-NRNam-10-04-11&utm_campaign=A%20look%20at%20Chili%27s%20new%20ads#ixzz1ZoaDR6rs