The Mis-Adventures of a Breakfast Cereal

Years ago we discovered Post's "Blueberry Morning" cereal, and loved it.

Then the entire country was politely informed that trans-fats, which had been in the food supply for decades ("because natural coconut oil was unhealthy"), were killing us softly. Blueberry Morning had trans-fats, so we stopped buying it.

A year or two later, Post dropped the trans-fat, and this fine breakfast cereal again became one of my favorites. The first two ingredients were corn meal and dried blueberries. Their inspiration, they said on the box, was a blueberry corn muffin. And this stuff was quite tasty! Blueberry Morning was low in sodium, nutritious, and contained no partially hydrogenated oils at all.

Partially hydrogenated oil (aka vegetable shortening) is the food additive that adds trans-fats, and is still found in numerous products labeled as "0 grams trans-fat! per serving". If the amount per serving is less than 0.5 grams, they can claim 0 grams. If the serving is 1/2 cup and you eat two cups, you could be eating nearly 2 grams, which is nearly 2 grams over the recommended safe levels. Trans-fats, dear friends, are the worst food additives since the "jagged metal Krusty-O" Bart Simpson found in his lucky box.

Back to Blueberry Morning. Just months ago, it underwent another re-formulation. "New! Improved!" The first two ingredients are now rice, and high-fructose corn syrup (i.e., sugar, created from in-bred corn, fed with petroleum-based fertilizers...yum!). Again, I stopped buying it. The first two ingredients have nearly zero nutritional value. I'd be better off with a bowl of packing peanuts. (Perhaps literally, since you can now get packing peanuts made of corn-starch! You just toss them in the sink and let them dissolve...)

Last night, at my favorite local grocer, I discovered that they had discovered one remaining old box of the prior (perfect) formulation. The box was beaten, tattered, stamped with an expiration date in the not too far future (Dec 07), and perhaps a little stained with rat urine, but the goram ingredients were corn meal and blueberries!

Breakfast this morning was...(say it with me)...a Blueberry Morning!

Vegonomics

A number of people, from family to friends to total strangers, have asked me, essentially, "Why are you vegetarian?" Then, as they see me struggling for words, they usually provide multiple-choice answers: "Health? Spiritual reasons? Animal welfare? The environment?" (Okay, very few people actually know about the environmental benefits of vegetarianism, but some have indeed included it.)

I'm always thankful for the multiple-choice format, because my answer is always the same: "Yes!"

They are all good reasons, of course, and it's fun giving cryptic answers. But I never hear the follow-up question that I hope to hear, so I'll ask myself right now:

"Do you really think it matters?"

Let's face it, we live in the United States in the early 2000's, where eating meat is still a deeply ingrained part of our culture. It is a right, and also an expectation, to some degree. The amount of meat consumed in America is not affected significantly by my efforts.

I recognize the power of the masses, and I know that the masses are made up of individuals capable of making their own choices. I can choose to be a very tiny part of a very large problem, or a very tiny part of the solution, I suppose.

Glazed with a Layer of Abstraction

I recently read an odd description of the Thai relationship to meat. (I found it in a Thai cookbook, so it has to be true.) Apparently, because many Thai people are Buddhists, and Thai Buddhists are taught not to kill animals, that they are used to having meat chopped up into small pieces, so that it doesn't look like animal parts.

I don't know about the Thai, but this is certainly true for most of us Americans, right? I recall a particular meal when I was a boy: I was given a whole chicken leg, both the thigh and the drumstick. I discovered that I could make the joint move, just as the chicken had done when it was alive. I was "grossed out" to say the least. Throughout most of my life, meat has been presented as unidentifiable pieces: Fillets, patties, chunks, tenders. That chicken-leg was an eye-opening experience for that chubby little city boy.

To add to the abstraction that is "meat," much of the meat we eat retains, conveniently, the names derived from French livestock: Beef, Pork, Veal. I recall learning that we call chicken "chicken" and turkey "turkey" because the French would not eat such fowl [sic] creatures. But, for the most part, we Americans eat an abstraction called "meat" which is far removed (at least, in our minds) from animal flesh.

Back to the Thai. Why would a Buddhist not be allowed to kill an animal, but still be allowed to eat it? Buddhists around the world, and within America, have numerous approaches to diet. The Buddha, himself, was not a vegetarian. He died from a bad bit of pork. You may have also read that the Dalai Lama is not (or is no longer?) a vegetarian. Vegetarianism is not prevalent amongst Tibetan Buddhists, and for good reason. How easy do you suppose it would be to grow crops up in the Himalayas?

The Thai Cookbook approach has a flaw. (For the record, I don't think the cookbook was written by a Buddhist Thai. All the more reason for it to hit closer to home.) If you eat meat that isn't recognizeable, are you a vegetarian?

"So, why bother?"

In order to avoid killing animals, I don't ask for meat in my food.

By not eating meat over the last few years, I have probably "saved" one cow (I was never a big beef eater), and dozens (perhaps hundreds) of chickens.

"Well," you say, "But someone else would just eat those chickens instead!"

The Law of Supply and Demand

I was sitting with a wonderful friend and highly respected colleague of mine at a restaurant close to his home. We ordered, and I asked for a pasta dish that came with chicken, and I asked to have it without chicken. Simple enough.

My friend ordered his dish, and then he added "I would like to have Rob's chicken."

Quite logical from a business expense perspective, whether or not it was his turn to buy! And, could he not have proclaimed "Besides, the critter is already dead!"?

No. We know from the simple law of supply and demand that they'll only manufacture McNuggets as long as we continue to order them.

I use my friends mild "faux pas" as example, only. I was not the least bit upset, nor did I comment. Besides, he enjoyed the extra chicken, and--for all I know--he may have felt a little short of dietary protein. Nor does it bother me to watch people eat meat, even a big juicy steak.

I do, however, think that our American society (i.e., its individual citizens) ought to examine the industry's treatment of food animals when making those dietary choices. Reality may be painful, but it's the only route to informed decision-making.

"Re-cy-cling?" -- Montgomery Burns, The Simpsons

A while back, I heard a story about a woman who sold a 40-year-old fur coat that she had inherited from her mother's estate. She was berated by animal-rights activists for selling fur.

What nonsense. She was selling from an existing supply, and satisfying someone else's demand without harming a living animal. It's not perfect, but it's a start.

Nobody's Perfect

I do know of vegetarians who prefer their food to be prepared so that it cannot come in contact with any meat products, such as the grease remaining on a fryer. Personally, I'm not one of them. What I try to do is reduce the demand for animal products. (For me, the ethical and "spiritual" benefits lie in avoiding harm to others. Sure, I'd rather that my garden burger is not swimming in grease, but that's the health thing.)

It's basic economics. Eventually my grocery store stops carrying things we (as a community) don’t buy. Eventually farmers will use their lands for something much more productive and healthy. Eventually. Give it another one or two hundred years.

I enjoy looking for simple ways to reduce the overall amount of suffering caused by my actions. I can't force anyone else to do the same (I would have to break the precept in order to enforce the precept, and we have too much of that going on in the world already), but I feel compelled to be this miniscule and insignificant lack-of-contribution-to-the-problem (for lack of another precise term).

A Yearly Ban on Tofurkey

What a wonderful holiday, Thanksgiving! It's a chance to give thanks for your great fortune to be living with a high degree of wealth and comfort (if you're able to read an English BLOG, you're probably in darn good financial shape), and to simply be alive! It's also the only nationally recognized four-day weekend, and the start of the Christmas shopping season!

If I’m invited to Thanksgiving dinner, I can let the hostess know that she doesn’t need to count me when calculating turkey size. And, when the plate goes around the table the second time, I may grab a slice of turkey for myself, anyway, if there’s enough for everyone. "What?!" The bird is already dead, and it has been offered to sustain my life.

I’m expecting this to seem hypocritical to some. Well, we must all make these choices for ourselves, of course. I suppose I would call myself (if I must use a label) a "mostly-vegetarian." I discourage the suffering of animals for my benefit, but will not always turn down fish or fowl when it is subsequently offered.

(Aside regarding labels: I've noticed that there is a way to let people know without labeling myself, and it truly seems to put people at ease with my choices. Rather than "I'm a vegetarian" I often say "I'm eating vegetarian these days." Labels (nouns) sound so permanent. It's as though we limit ourselves, and listeners instantly share that limited image of us.)

I have heard that the original disciples of the Buddha, when they went begging for food, were allowed to eat meat as long as it was not killed specifically for them (i.e., leftovers were okay). I've used a "rule of thumb" that is almost the opposite of that: If I forgot to tell the host at a dinner party that I'm a vegetarian, and the cook has prepared something for me, with meat, I'll eat it. I would rather skip being a vegetarian for a day than make my host feel incredibly uncomfortable.

Apparently my hero, Robert Aitken (my, how my heroes have changed over the decades), has a similar take on this. I don't recall the exact quote (or where I read it), but to paraphrase: The creature is already dead; the hostess is not.

Beef and pork are another story: For me, mammals are out. I find it far too unhealthy (animal fats), risky (mad cow), and repulsive to eat a creature that is so similar to us biologically.

Don't get me wrong: When I'm watching you eat your filet mignon, butterflied and cooked medium-rare; I'm more apt to drool than to turn my head in revulsion. And don't get me started on the joyous childhood memories of McDonald's cheeseburgers! But those joys have been replaced, and I really don't miss 'em. Much.

Apply Gentle Pressure

Christmas 2004: I was talking to Mom before Christmas and she said that we would be having some homemade stew before going to see A Christmas Carol. I let her know that I was vegetarian, and that I could not eat pork and beef. She let me know that I would be able to remove the meat from the stew. That was fine, and I told her so.

The night of the play, she had a wonderful, savory vegetable stew waiting for us! (No meat.)

Thanks, Mom. Essentially, I didn’t make it an issue, and she didn’t make it an issue, either. Mom’s great! :) I hope Dad didn't miss the meat too much. He has made so many sacrifices ove r the years, but his tend to be less obvious. Dad is great, too!

And, yes, I had some turkey with my Christmas meal. Just a little, and with much gratitude to the poor fat bird who gave its life for mine.

Of Mice and...Lobsters

I'm in Charlotte, NC on business, and I noticed an editorial in the local paper inspired by a recent spate of local animal-cruelty issues (and regulations) about cooking lobsters live, and keeping them in those grocery-store aquariums.

She (the author, and I'm recording this from memory, so I don't recall the name) brought up some very good points about this issue.

She mentions that vegans and vegetarians should stop and think before claiming the moral high-ground. She points out how many field mice are chewed up by wheat-harvesting machinery, and the environmental costs of having baby greens wrapped in plastic and shipped across state lines.

She wasn't suggesting that we should give up wheat for lobsters, but that we should try to be more aware of the trade-offs, and to eat food produced locally. She lives in a place where lobsters are plentiful, and are fed in a semi-wild fashion for about seven years before being harvested. She knows a lobster fisherman, and he pointed out that lobsters have more in common with mosquitoes than humans, so why are we so ready to defend the lobsters but eat the beef? Even if we stop boiling lobsters alive, you know we'll just start buying pre-boiled, packaged lobster nuggets, just so we don't have to hear those screams...

She mentions the book The Omnivore's Dilemma as a good place to read about the realities and trade-offs of our meals.

I think the biggest point was about proximity: Eat what's locally available (and therefore seasonal).

I'm not planning to change my diet, but then I have the great fortune of living very close to farms that bring fresh produce to the grocery store, and dairys that treat their cows quite humanely. (We have also planted an organic vegetable garden, and berry bushes, in our yard.) And that pretty much sums up my diet: Vegetarian, with a lot of dairy.

I hope I'm not being smug. I know I'm very fortunate. If my good fortune helps a little, great.

I may have to give some thought to those field mice, though...

Rising healthcare costs - Part II

I wouldn't consider reducing benefits because it's too hard to find great employees.

-- director at a high-tech Seattle-based company

(to see Part I, including the survey responses, click here)

1. Does your organization currently pay 100% of the medical premiums for employee, spouse, and family? If not, what percentages are paid?

I was surprised by how few respondents indicated that their companies paid 100% of the insurance premiums for employee, spouse, and dependents.

Apparently, I've been spoiled. I've always worked for small companies, and they've almost always taken care of all the incidentals. Those that did stand out in my mind as great companies. And not just from my point of view: They were also highly successful.

The sample is small--I've only worked for eight or nine companies in my 18-year post-gratuate career (and I haven't always had a spouse/dependent)--yet, I've sensed a trend: The most successful companies were those that focused less on managing income and expenses, and more on creative product development, competitive strengths, and a sense of community within the organization.

Income and expenses are important, of course, but secondary to the real work of running the business.

2. Does your organization have plans to reduce that benefit, particularly for spouse/family?

I was pleasantly surprised by the answers to the second question. A reduction in benefits, particularly while a company is turning a profit, is probably counterproductive.

It's true, health insurance premiums are sky high. Something has to be done. And a company should shop around for health insurance at a good rate. But what does it mean for a company to reduce the amount it pays by increasing the amount the employee pays?

It would be perceived as a pay cut, pure and simple.

It's true that the employee's portion can be deducted on a pre-tax basis, which would help. But it still has the exact same effect as a pay cut. And in my experience, a pay cut is a sign that it's time for employees to start searching for the life-rafts. Whether the company is profitable or not, the employee takes a small kick in a sensitive spot. Companies that make themselves more profitable by taking away money from their employees are really shooting themselves in the foot. After all, where does the company derive productivity, and where does the employee get money?

The most profitable companies I've worked for (as measured either by how rich the owners were by the time we parted ways, or by how immense the profit-sharing bonuses became over time) all followed what I call the "C-E-O Principle."

The What?

The following is a restatement of a "principle" I first put forward on Ward Cunningham's original wiki:

The C-E-O Principle:

In order to be truly successful, a company must foster a community of customers, employees, and owners. Decisions containing conflicting interests among these groups should be made in a way that favors those groups in the specified order: Customers, Employees, Owners.

I did get some grief from people who pointed out that CEOs are legally bound to serve shareholders (Owners). And apparently those naysayers were right: I just watched The Corporation, and learned that, indeed, CEOs really are beholden to shareholders and the bottom line. But that doesn't mean the principle is false, or (as some have claimed) illegal. Someone else on the wiki came to my rescue and pointed out that many CEOs have the freedom to follow their own instincts and experience in these types of decisions.

What I'm saying is that, in the long run, this is the best approach for the bottom line. And even though I've only once (okay, twice) worked for a company that was larger than 40 people and publicly traded, I'm apparently not alone in my beliefs.

There is the example of Hyperion's offer to give $5k to each employee who buys a hybrid car (mentioned in the wiki discussion). And how about Ray Anderson, CEO of Interface, who was interviewed in The Corporation? You may think he's gone bananas, but I can see pure clear-eyed common sense in his words and his expression: This man has somehow seen through the haze of corporate greed to a better way to run his company. (Actually, he credits his employees for nudging him towards his "epiphany.")

As far as I know, no CEO has recently been terminated or jailed for turning the organization into a better corporate citizen. If nothing else, it's extremely good PR. Consumers like to know that someone is watching out for the "little guy."

General Motors (GM) may be heading for bankruptcy down the road, but I had to buy my 2006 Toyota Prius sight-unseen because they're selling as fast as Toyota can make them. Sure, in a lot of cases consumer choices are driven by self-interest. But Toyota has turned self-interest and environmental concern into a benefit to their own organization. Toyota saw a need and answered it, years before anyone else. Good for Toyota, good for me, good for America, and good for the Earth. A "Win-Win" scenario, and it has the added appeal of being more than just an idealistic mirage.

Of course I care about American jobs, and I groaned when I heard about Ford's huge layoffs. Let it be a message to American auto manufacturers: Follow the consumer's needs, not those of your oil-barron shareholders. If they follow this one simple rule of thumb, perhaps they will be the first to offer a sexy hybrid convertible, and I'll trade in my Prius!

Rising healthcare costs giving you a coronary?

First: Many thanks to those who responded to the survey.

Here are the results of my small, informal, and unscientific survey of friends and colleagues, including (but not limited to) HR folks, executives and owners, and people in high-paying, high-tech jobs.

Fourteen people answered each question directly. Others provided interesting anecdotes, but didn't respond with values. I have included a little of both. First, the "statistical" answers:

1. Does your organization currently pay 100% of the medical premiums for employee, spouse, and family? If not, what percentages are paid?

Responses follow, with one paragraph per respondent. Where necessary, the answer has been edited to reflect the percent payed by the employer, not the employee. Where the response is a direct quote, I have added quotation marks.

1. Approximately 90% for the HMO plan, 75% for the PPO plan.
2. 60-80%.
3. 73%.
4. Approximately 85% for employee and dependents.
5. No. (This person's employer uses a tiered approach for families of varying ages and incomes.)
6. "100% employee. mumble% spouse (50?), child unknown."
7. 75%.
8. 100% for employee and 50% for dependents.
9. "We currently get 100% of the employee's medical and dental covered. There are upgrade plans, e.g., an improved medical plan and cancer insurance, which the employee pays group-rates for. Spouse and kids are covered at a rate that puts the company's overall expenses near the national average (for software companies?), which I think was 76%; I think the company covers something like 48% of the cost for spouse and family."
10. 75% for employee and dependents.
11. "Yes." I.e., 100%.
12. 100% for employee, 0% for dependents.
13. "We [the company] used to [pay 100%] until this January."
14. 100% for employee and dependents.

2. Does your organization have plans to reduce that benefit, particularly for spouse/family?

The same respondents, in the same order:

1. No.
2. Not sure.
3. Not sure.
4. No.
5. No.
6. No.
7. No.
8. "Two digit rate increases would trigger one of the following: put the contract out to bid to see if another carrier will cover us at more reasonable rates or ask the employees to contribute more of the cost. Another option that companies consider are the HSA (health savings plans)...a good option for new companies - and they have the added benefit that whatever the employee doesn't use can be accumulated for their use at a later date."
9. "I expect the family benefit to increase, and perhaps the employee benefit to decrease..."
10. "No, in fact we had no spouse or dependent coverage until a recent benefit increase."
11. No.
12. No.
13. "They just did."
14. No.

3. If you were to reduce such a benefit, would you do so only for new hires, or would you reduce the benefit for existing employees?

The answer from all who chose to respond to this question was that such changes would affect everyone. I was not surprised. Some respondents made me realize that, though there are no stupid questions, there are some that qualify as absurd.

In the interest of fairness we would make the change across the board for all employees.

-- HR executive, financial sector

We firmly believe in the "same rules and perks for everyone" philosophy...

-- COO, software consulting firm

Grandfathering equity morsels is one thing -- not health benefits.

-- Colleague, at a company whose name is now a household synonym for "search" ;-)

Other Respondent Comments

A friend, ex-employer (early 90's), and company president had this to say:

As you know, I used to pay full medical benefits.

There can be enormous differences in costs. For a young person, it may "only" be $100 or so per month. For [my spouse] and I, and a fairly high deductible ($2000 or $2500 I think) it is a little over $1000/month now. But what is even more scary is that increases are very rapid. I've had increases in this cost of over 20% year to year at times.

Be sure to look at Health Savings Accounts. They may encourage better use of healthcare.

Since over 1/2 my business is with doctors, I hear a lot about health insurance. At best, it is a horrible mess. The inequities and stupidity in the current system are incredible. I'd estimate that over 25% of all healthcare dollars go into administering the finances. That number might be as high as 50% in reality. I could go on a rant...

Universal coverage makes more sense to me than most alternatives. I think that has worked OK for the most part with Medicare. Extending it to all would make sense to me in the long-run.

Another old friend says:

At the law firm when I started there 7 years ago, we paid $20 a month for medical (hmo) and dental (100% covered plan). When I left this year, we were paying $30 a paycheck (or $60 per month)... and the deductibles had gone from $10 copay for doctors and $5 co-pay for prescriptions, to $25 co-pay for doctors and prescriptions.

At the LARGE company I am with now... it is even worse.

We pay $51 a paycheck.... and have a mediocre HMO to choose from.

The owner of a small insurance agency had this to say:

Regarding health benefits, I only provide coverage for [one employee] and not her dependents. The other two employees are covered by their husband's insurance. I assume we will continue paying her insurance at 100%.

Industrywide deductibles are going up and employees are being asked to contribute up to 40% of the premium. In some cases the premium for family coverage is $1600/month.

Employers can't keep up with the 20 - 30% increases they're getting every year.

A good friend and single mom who is holding down two jobs, school, and a teenager, responded to question #2 with this:

They just did [lower our benefits]...However, they did do one smart thing in the process, in order to keep costs down, they have single, single plus one (which works for domestic partners of either sex and single parents with one child).

I'm planning to give my own impressions of the survey results in a different post. (I want this one to stand alone, untarnished by my interpretations.) But I will end with a quote from a colleague and director at a high-tech Seattle-based company. The emphasis is mine:

I wouldn't consider reducing benefits because it's too hard to find great employees.