Richard Williams: The ‘natural’ food debate continues … to get the word wrong

posted in: Society | 0

A bill restricting cultivated meat is moving forward with significant support in Florida. Leaders there, in other states like Alabama, and in the federal government are fighting alternative proteins — milk, cheese, poultry, seafood or meat products not resulting from the old, “natural” cultivation methods — and in many cases calling them “fake.” Does that mean our houses are fake?

Caves are natural but don’t make the best homes, so we cut down trees, make bricks and concrete, toilets, wires and insulation. We also breed and plant seeds, fertilize and water them, harvest them with machines, package and transport and then cook them. Doesn’t that make most foods unnatural, i.e., “fake?”

Did anything on this Earth evolve specifically to be safe or healthy for humans to eat? In fact, the reverse is true. Plants and animals evolved myriad defenses against being eaten, including bad tastes, foul smells, claws and even poisons. We’ve been using plant and animal breeding technologies for tens of thousands of years to overcome evolution and are now in a position to do so much more precisely and rapidly.

The Bible instructs us that “everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving.” If we want diets that are both safe and healthy, calling some foods “fake” in a somewhat arbitrary way is zero help.

Cows are not natural. They’ve been bred for over 10,000 years from a now-extinct wild ox called the auroch that was slightly smaller than elephants and lived in Eurasia and Africa. Most cows are raised in factory farms where they can be periodically confined in crowded buildings with no windows where they can barely move. There is nothing whatsoever natural about that.

Love bacon? One practice common with some pork products (called unclean in the Bible) is called “feedback.” Pig poop is fed to females who haven’t given birth yet to help them adapt to germs on farms. (There are so many germs on farms that farm kids are healthier than non-farm kids due to the exposure.) It’s not just the females that get lousy treatment. Male pigs can have their tails and testicles ripped off by hand without anesthesia — you know, naturally.

Regardless, we’re seeing a backlash in our capitals. One Florida representative called one type of the new proteins, cell-cultivated meat, an “affront to nature and creation.” Let there be no doubt, though, that some of the resistance originates with agricultural interests who don’t appreciate the competition.

Maybe with newer and better products coming onto the market, incumbent producers will work their way through the five stages of grief. But instead of denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance, expect denial, anger, depression, regulation (of the interlopers), and finally adding the new products to their own lines.

Currently, there are over 1,000 companies either producing cultivated (made directly from cells) meats, poultry and seafood; precision-fermentation meat, seafood, eggs and dairy products; or plant-based foods. There are over 800 of the latter. These companies are worldwide and they are growing. Over half of all U.S. households are using these products and over 60% among younger generations — Millennials and Gen Z — are trying to incorporate such foods into their diets.

The reasons these products will ultimately be cheaper and succeed are obvious. They are produced in a safer (less exposure to pathogens) environment than farms, do not harm animals, have less environmental impact, can be produced closer to consumers (eliminating huge transportation costs), and do not suffer the same kinds of supply disruptions we saw during COVID. Most importantly, we can control their nutritional composition. One prediction has the global alternative protein market reaching $423 billion by 2033.

We need micronutrients including vitamins and minerals, carbohydrates, fats, protein, fiber and water for energy and to maintain the body’s structure, and microbes that, among other things, protect us from bad bacteria called pathogens, aid in digestion, and help our immune systems. If we do not have to use slow and unpredictable breeding and cultivating techniques, we can make foods precisely to fit our needs.

Just like building a house that shelters us and keeps us healthy, we can, and should, build foods that are both safe and healthy. It’s natural.

Richard Williams is a former director for social sciences at the FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition and a senior affiliated scholar with the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. He wrote this column for Tribune News Service.

Related Articles

Opinion |


Pamela Paul: Colleges are putting their futures at risk

Opinion |


Other voices: TikTok scapegoated for failure to regulate Big Tech

Opinion |


Thomas Friedman: Netanyahu is making Israel radioactive

Opinion |


Karl W. Smith: If only Congress would focus on the deficit that matters

Opinion |


Stephen L. Carter: The Ivy League is right to revive the SAT

Lily Gladstone’s upset loss to Emma Stone was expected for this reason

posted in: News | 0

When Emma Stone’s name was announced Sunday night as the winner of best actress at the 96th Academy Awards, she looked genuinely stunned, as many pundits had said that Lily Gladstone was the frontrunner and predicted she would make history as the first Native American woman to win an acting Oscar.

But in the run-up to Sunday’s ceremony, some awards watchers were skeptical. They expressed doubt that Gladstone would achieve this historic milestone and not because she didn’t give a superb performance in “Killers of the Flower Moon.”

They cited the issue of Gladstone’s relatively limited screen time in the Martin Scorsese epic crime drama, set in the Osage Nation in the 1920s, and the view that her character, Mollie Burkhart, wasn’t really the film’s narrative focus.

Gladstone, who has a white mother and whose father is of Blackfeet and Nimíipuu heritage, is on screen for about 56 minutes in a film that’s three hours and 26 minutes long, according to Matthew Stewart, a screen timer expert with Gold Derby.

With that 27% screen time, some critics have argued that the film is more interested in the character played by Leonardo DiCaprio, who is on screen for 1 hour and 49 minutes. Gladstone’s limited screen time also sparked debate months ago over whether her role was supporting and she should have campaigned in the supporting actress category.

On the Hollywood industry podcast “The Town” Thursday, host Matthew Belloni and guest Michael Lasker, a talent manager and Oscars expert, agreed that Gladstone had a supporting role. Mollie is an Osage woman whose relatives are systematically being murdered by her husband, played by DiCaprio, and his uncle, played by Robert De Niro, in a bid to seize her family’s oil-rich Oklahoma land.

Belloni and Lasker compared the Mollie character to Stone’s Bella Baxter, whose story is definitely at the center of “Poor Things,” making it more of a traditional leading role.

“I am on record as saying that Emma Stone is going to win,” Belloni said. “It’s a flashier performance.” In Yorgos Lanthimos’ costume drama, Stone plays a woman who goes on a journey of self-discovery after being brought back to life by an eccentric surgeon. She’s on screen for one hour and 37 minutes, or 69% of “Poor Things” running time.

“I think ultimately voters watch the movies, evaluate the performances and select based on what they think is the best performance,” Belloni continued. “There are other factors that come into it. The representation issue, I think, is a big one. (Gladstone) would be the first Native American actress to win in this category. It would be a great moment on stage at the Oscars, and I do think that comes into a little bit.”

Lasker agreed that it would have been a great Oscars moment for Gladstone to win and to give a moving speech on the historic nature of the honor. He also said she was “amazing” in “Killers of the Flower Moon,” though he, too, noted that she’s only in the movie for about 50 minutes.

“It occurred to me: If they had run Lily in supporting, she probably would have run in a landslide,” Lasker said.

Maybe Gladstone would have won in the supporting category, but she would have had stiff competition: Over the course of the 2023 awards season, Da’Vine Joy Randolph was the overwhelming favorite to win that trophy for her performance in “The Holdovers.”

Some people online wondered if the increasingly international makeup of the Academy’s membership could have favored an Emma Stone win. Others expressed concerns that Gladstone’s loss was due to racism and Hollywood’s unwillingness to rectify its “ugly history” of marginalizing and misrepresenting Indigenous people.

For many others, the results of the race revived debate about the narrative intentions of “Killers of the Flower Moon.” As Scorsese and Gladstone promoted “Killers of the Flower Moon,” they, as well as Gladstone fans and some film critics, insisted that her Mollie character was “the moral center” of the film’s narrative.

“If Mollie is the movie’s conscience, Gladstone is its center of gravity: Even when she shares scenes with A-listers like DiCaprio and De Niro, the film bends to her,” New York Times writer Kyle Buchanan wrote in a profile of Gladstone.

A Goldstone fan also posted on X Sunday night: “lily gladstone was the heart and soul of KotFM. the sheer intensity she commanded was astounding. every look, scream, tear, word that came out of her, i felt it in my bones. a performance for the ages in a film that has cemented its place in film history.”

Certainly, Scorsese tried to deflect criticism that he had created another film that focuses on a group of White male antiheroes or on a White male savior. The legendary director explained in interviews that an early version of the screenplay focused on federal agent Tom White, who led the investigation into the Osage murders. DiCaprio originally was cast in the Tom White role. Scorsese and co-writer Eric Roth adapted the script from the book by David Grann, but the script wasn’t working.

“After a certain point, I realized I was making a movie about all the white guys,” Scorsese told Time. “Meaning I was taking the approach from the outside in, which concerned me.”

The script was retooled to examine Mollie and Ernest’s fraught marriage and how racism fuels hatred and greed, NPR reported.

But some said that Scorsese didn’t go far enough in prioritizing Mollie’s perspective, according to NPR. Upon seeing the film at its Los Angeles premiere, Christopher Coté, one of the Osage language instructors brought on to coach the cast, expressed disappointment to The Hollywood Reporter that Mollie wasn’t really at the center of the movie, while acknowledging that its overarching theme is complicity in white supremacy.

Coté said: “Martin Scorsese not being Osage, I think he did a great job representing our people, but this story is being told almost from the perspective of Ernest Burkhart.”

On Sunday night, the Times’ Buchanan defended the choice for Gladstone to campaign in the leading actress category. “There’s more to a film career than winning an Oscar,” he wrote on X. “By going lead, Lily told Hollywood to treat her like a lead. And she just booked another lead, which many supporting winners struggle to do.” But someone responding to Buchanan’s post argued that it would have been “bad optics” for Gladstone to be considered a supporting actor in a story about the Osage Nation while DiCaprio was pushed as a lead actor.”

Gladstone’s supporters could argue that she had as much right to campaign for a leading acting Oscar as Anthony Hopkins did in 1991, when he won best actor for his 16 minutes of screen time as Hannibal Lecter in “The Silence of the Lambs.” Meanwhile, as her fans expressed disappointment that she didn’t win the Oscar, they said her nomination itself was historic. As the Washington Post reported, Gladstone’s season was “trailblazing,” with her racking up Golden Globe and Screen Actors Guild awards. She also received a standing ovation when she won the SAG award last month.

Some cultural commentators also spoke of the “Lily Gladstone effect,” how her high profile this awards season, standing at podiums to accept multiple honors, would help lift up other Native talent in the industry, the Christian Science Monitor reported.

“Lily Gladstone not winning does not take away from the fact that she gave one of the best performances of the year,” said Variety editor Jazz Tangcay on X. “Her performance and the film will live on long after tonight is over. Her wins have been historic and trailblazing. She already made history.”

Related Articles

Entertainment |


How Kacey Musgraves opened herself back up to love

Entertainment |


‘Nolly’ review: On Masterpiece, Helena Bonham Carter plays a soap star who’s been sacked

Entertainment |


Calling all ‘Top Chef’ nerds: Here are 6 more ways to feed your inner foodie

Entertainment |


What to watch: Kristen Stewart sizzles in wild ‘Love Lies Bleeding’

Entertainment |


St. Patrick’s Day Parades land on Saturday, not Sunday, and other tips o’ the Irish to keep in mind

Owner of Willmar massage business charged with forcing woman into prostitution

posted in: News | 0

WILLMAR, Minn.  — The Willmar business owner arrested last weekend in an alleged assault at her massage business has been charged with inducing a woman into prostitution.

Ying He, 55, made her first court appearance Tuesday in Kandiyohi County District Court on charges of inducing a a female employee to engage in prostitution at her massage business in Willmar, a felony offense. A gross misdemeanor charge of running a disorderly house and a misdemeanor fifth-degree assault charge also were filed against her.

Minnesota statute defines a disorderly house as a location where habitual violations of the law occur, which could include prostitution, sale or possession of controlled substances, gambling or unauthorized sale of liquor.

Judge Melissa Listug set $150,000 bail with no conditions. Conditional bail was set at $50,000, including the conditions that He have no contact with the victim and turn in her passport within three hours after her release.

She remained in custody as of Friday at the Kandiyohi County Jail. Her next scheduled court appearance is for a remote hearing on March 20.

According to the criminal complaint, Willmar police were dispatched March 9 to a business in the 2400 block of First Street South. The owner was waving the officer down outside, but the 911 caller was said to be inside the business.

The caller, the woman from California, was sitting on the floor of the business and appeared to be crying. She told the officer through an interpreter that He, her boss, had confined her in a small room within the building, would not let her eat or drink or turn on lights, and would not allow her to leave.

She advised the officer that she had flown to Minnesota from California on March 3 and had been living inside the business since then. She alleged that He would lock her inside a small room every day whenever there was no business appointments.

According to the complaint, the woman told the officer that she had given a 30-minute massage to a customer that day and when the customer asked for more work to be done, He became upset with her and punched her on the head. She further stated that she felt dizzy and had a headache.

The woman was transported to the hospital via ambulance for treatment of minor injuries.

At the hospital, she told a detective that she had been in Willmar for approximately one week after she found employment through an agency based in Los Angeles.

According to the complaint, she paid the agency $100 and was told her flight to Minnesota would cost about $630. She advised she paid for half of her flight ticket and He, her new boss, paid for the other half and arranged an Uber to bring her to Willmar from the airport.

The woman told police that He controlled her movements and she was forced to begin working the day after she arrived. She further stated He told her to do “whatever the customer wanted her to do.”

The woman alleged He told her to perform sex acts on customers, clarifying that “small jobs” meant masturbating the customer, and “big jobs” meant having intercourse with the customer.

According to the complaint, when the woman refused to do as instructed, He got mad at her and allegedly threatened that she would find her if she tried to leave. He allegedly described her own boss in Los Angeles as a lawyer who worked for the courts.

When He spoke to the responding officer, she denied hitting the woman and said the woman had yelled at her and tried to hit her with a water bottle, according to the complaint.

She told police the woman was driving customers away because she did not know how to do massages. She told the officer she wanted the woman to leave and denied forcing her to live there, according to the complaint.

Police later returned to He’s business and viewed surveillance video. According to the complaint, the video shows an interaction between the woman and He in a hallway outside a client room that an adult male was seen entering.

It is unclear what the interaction was about, according to the complaint, but the two women passed each other and the video shows that He punches the woman on her head and punches her a second time before the woman starts walking away.

After reviewing the video, officers placed He under arrest.

According to the complaint, law enforcement seized eight different cellphones along with business ledgers and DNA swabs from inside the business while executing a search warrant.

Related Articles

Crime & Public Safety |


Terminated St. Paul firefighter loses appeal over subduing patient with neck pressure points

Crime & Public Safety |


Inmate sentenced for assaulting Oak Park Heights prison sergeant

Crime & Public Safety |


Teen driver fled police as passenger fired shots at Ramsey County sheriff’s deputy, charges say

Crime & Public Safety |


Man found fatally shot in vehicle in St. Paul’s Dayton’s Bluff

Crime & Public Safety |


St. Paul man charged with shooting at Ramsey County sheriff’s deputy

 

Pamela Paul: Colleges are putting their futures at risk

posted in: Society | 0

For more than a century, an understanding existed between America’s universities and the rest of the country.

Universities educated the nation’s future citizens in whatever ways they saw fit. Their faculty determined what kind of research to carry out and how, with the understanding that innovation drives economic progress. This gave them an essential role and stake in both a pluralistic democracy and a capitalist economy — without being subject to the whims of politics or industry.

The government helped finance universities with tax breaks and research funding. The public paid taxes and often exorbitant tuition fees. And universities enjoyed what has come to be known as academic freedom, the ability for those in higher education to operate free from external pressure.

“Academic freedom allows us to choose which areas of knowledge we seek and pursue them,” said Anna Grzymala-Busse, a professor of international studies at Stanford University. “Politically, what society expects of us is to train citizens and provide economic mobility, and that has been the bedrock of political and economic support for universities. But if universities are not fulfilling these missions, and are seen as prioritizing other missions instead, that political bargain becomes very fragile.”

Her remarks came during a recent conference on civil discourse at Stanford, ranging from free expression on campus to diversity, equity and inclusion hiring statements. But underlying all the discussions was a real fear that universities had strayed from their essential duties, imperiling the kind of academic freedom they had enjoyed for decades.

Of course, there have long been attempts at political interference in academia, with a distrust of elitism smoldering beneath the widespread disdain for the ivory tower. But in the past few years, these sentiments have boiled over into action, with universities jolted by everything from activism by its trustees to congressional investigations to the wresting of control by the state to the threatened withdrawal of government support.

The number of Republicans expressing a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in universities plummeted to 19% last year, from 56% in 2015, according to Gallup polls, apparently due largely to a belief that universities were too liberal and were pushing a political agenda, a 2017 poll found. But it could get much worse.

“A Trump presidency with a Republican legislative majority could remake higher education as we’ve known it,” Steven Brint, a professor of sociology and public policy at the University of California, Riverside, warned last week in The Chronicle of Higher Education, citing the potential for the Department of Justice to investigate universities for admissions procedures, for example, or penalties for schools that the government determines are overly beholden to social justice priorities. In some states, it could mean decreased funding from the state, the elimination of ethnic studies or even the requirement of patriotism oaths.

That would bump up against what many students, faculty and administrators view as the point of a college education.

“I was reading applications for my graduate program,” said Jennifer Burns, a history professor at Stanford. “The person would describe their political activism and then say, ‘And now I will continue that work through my Ph.D.’ They see academia as a natural progression.” But, she cautioned, the social justice mentality isn’t conducive to the university’s work.

“We have to keep stressing to students that there’s something to being open-ended in our work; we don’t always know where we want to go,” Burns said.

Right now, the university’s message is often the opposite. Well before the tumultuous summer of 2020, a focus on social justice permeated campuses in everything from residential housing to college reading lists.

“All of this activity would be fine — indeed, it would be fantastic — if it built in multiple perspectives,” noted Jonathan Zimmerman, author of “Whose America: Culture Wars in the Public Schools,” in a 2019 essay in The Chronicle of Higher Education. “For the most part, though, it doesn’t.”

Instead, many universities have aligned themselves politically with their most activist students. “Top universities depend on billions of dollars of public funding, in the form of research grants and loan assistance,” The Economist editorialized last week. “The steady leftward drift of their administrations has imperiled this.”

One of the starkest examples of this politicization is the raft of position statements coming from university leadership. These public statements, and the fiery battles and protests behind them, take sides on what are broadly considered to be the nation’s most sensitive and polarized subjects, whether it’s the Dobbs ruling or the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program for young immigrants, the Israel-Hamas war or Black Lives Matter.

At last month’s conference, Diego Zambrano, a professor at Stanford Law School, made the downsides of such statements clear. What, he asked, are the benefits of a university taking a position? If it’s to make the students feel good, he said, those feelings are fleeting, and perhaps not even the university’s job. If it’s to change the outcome of political events, even the most self-regarding institutions don’t imagine they will have any impact on a war halfway across the planet. The benefits, he argued, were nonexistent.

As for the cons, Zambrano continued, issuing statements tends to fuel the most intemperate speech while chilling moderate and dissenting voices. In a world constantly riled up over politics, the task of formally opining on issues would be endless. Moreover, such statements force a university to simplify complex issues. They ask university administrators, who are not hired for their moral compasses, to address in a single email thorny subjects that scholars at their own institutions spend years studying. (Some university presidents, such as Michael Schill of Northwestern University, have rightly balked.) Inevitably, staking any position weakens the public’s perception of the university as independent.

The temptation for universities to take a moral stand, especially in response to overheated campus sentiment, is understandable. But it’s a trap. When universities make it their mission to do the “right” thing politically, they’re effectively telling large parts of their communities — and the polarized country they’re in partnership with — they’re wrong.

When universities become overtly political and tilt too far toward one end of the spectrum, they’re denying students and faculty the kind of open-ended inquiry and knowledge-seeking that has long been the basis of American higher education’s success. They’re putting its future at risk.

Pamela Paul writes a column for the New York Times.

Related Articles

Opinion |


Other voices: TikTok scapegoated for failure to regulate Big Tech

Opinion |


Thomas Friedman: Netanyahu is making Israel radioactive

Opinion |


Karl W. Smith: If only Congress would focus on the deficit that matters

Opinion |


Stephen L. Carter: The Ivy League is right to revive the SAT

Opinion |


Lisa Jarvis: Sex differences could be key to treating long COVID — and so much else