![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Fud.
UCLA social scientists recently completed a study of 30-some American families, and from what I have read by the scientists, the book, called Life at Home, promises to be interesting and compassionate good science.
The reporting, predictably, has been reactionary, because that is the state of science reporting. As I understand it, one speed-reads the paragraph-long abstract at the front of a study, brainstorms the most provocative possible headline, writes an opinion piece on that headline, and then skims a press release about the scientific study to pull a few quotes that can be wedged in. Ta da! Science article!
And predictably, some of this reporting has been done by the Globe's Beth Teitell, who reliably finds interesting subjects and then takes the least interesting possible approach to them. She's like half a good reporter seamlessly merged with the most irritating member of your local PTA. I need to stop reading her articles, because when I do it is like I am trolling myself. I mean, I might as well read the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal or listen to movie reviews on NPR.
I draw your attention to this sentence:
"Most families rely heavily on convenience foods even though all those frozen stir-frys and pot stickers saved them only about 11 minutes per meal."
This is a sentiment I have heard (albeit with less data) variations of for the last several years. Presumably this is the end result of the way Alice Waters has permeated through the culture. Death on prepared foods! Let us put our hands in the wholesome dirt!
If I told you I'd figured out a way to shave 11 minutes off my daily commute each way, you'd be ecstatic for me. No "only" 11 minutes. 11 minutes is an amazing amount of time to save yourself while doing a necessary task not everyone is excited about doing. (Oh, but cooking is so much fun! As is taking a leisurely drive through beautiful countryside in a responsive car. There is cooking, and then there is getting a meal on the table.)
Assume 3 meals a day. Assume 33 minutes a day. I want 33 extra minutes a day. 24.55 hour days? Sign me up. I can spend that half hour enjoying the back yard the study tells me (accurately) I never get to relax in even though the study tells me (accurately) I have invested in making it an outdoor room.
However, the thing that I keep returning to is the concept of "convenience foods," and trying to untangle the ontology of convenience foods.
At what point does a food become convenient?
Are pickles convenient?
Are they less convenient if I make them myself?
What if they are made not by me, but by someone in my house, and then I use them?
What if a friend makes them?
Peanut butter?
Butter?
Is flour a convenience food?
Can I use a blender to grind things?
How much dirt needs to be on a vegetable before it's not pre-washed?
What if the pickles are inherited?
The reporting, predictably, has been reactionary, because that is the state of science reporting. As I understand it, one speed-reads the paragraph-long abstract at the front of a study, brainstorms the most provocative possible headline, writes an opinion piece on that headline, and then skims a press release about the scientific study to pull a few quotes that can be wedged in. Ta da! Science article!
And predictably, some of this reporting has been done by the Globe's Beth Teitell, who reliably finds interesting subjects and then takes the least interesting possible approach to them. She's like half a good reporter seamlessly merged with the most irritating member of your local PTA. I need to stop reading her articles, because when I do it is like I am trolling myself. I mean, I might as well read the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal or listen to movie reviews on NPR.
I draw your attention to this sentence:
"Most families rely heavily on convenience foods even though all those frozen stir-frys and pot stickers saved them only about 11 minutes per meal."
This is a sentiment I have heard (albeit with less data) variations of for the last several years. Presumably this is the end result of the way Alice Waters has permeated through the culture. Death on prepared foods! Let us put our hands in the wholesome dirt!
If I told you I'd figured out a way to shave 11 minutes off my daily commute each way, you'd be ecstatic for me. No "only" 11 minutes. 11 minutes is an amazing amount of time to save yourself while doing a necessary task not everyone is excited about doing. (Oh, but cooking is so much fun! As is taking a leisurely drive through beautiful countryside in a responsive car. There is cooking, and then there is getting a meal on the table.)
Assume 3 meals a day. Assume 33 minutes a day. I want 33 extra minutes a day. 24.55 hour days? Sign me up. I can spend that half hour enjoying the back yard the study tells me (accurately) I never get to relax in even though the study tells me (accurately) I have invested in making it an outdoor room.
However, the thing that I keep returning to is the concept of "convenience foods," and trying to untangle the ontology of convenience foods.
At what point does a food become convenient?
Are pickles convenient?
Are they less convenient if I make them myself?
What if they are made not by me, but by someone in my house, and then I use them?
What if a friend makes them?
Peanut butter?
Butter?
Is flour a convenience food?
Can I use a blender to grind things?
How much dirt needs to be on a vegetable before it's not pre-washed?
What if the pickles are inherited?