table scraps

the rising cost of food continues to disturb and alarm. nobody in the u.s. pays much attention to rioting in haiti or street violence in malaysia, ever. that it's now frequently fueled by rice or cooking oil shortages matters not. long lulled by cheap food brought about by farm subsidies (i... will... not... rant...), americans are suddenly faced with price spikes unseen for over a generation. as bad as it already may be, the fall-out of shrub's ethanol debacle is just beginning (i ... will... not ... rant...)

today the ny times (no point in a link, they go dead pronto) had a great in-your-face piece. by best but rough estimates, americans "waste" almost 30% of their food. this includes supermarkets pitching blemished produce or milk past its sell-by date; all that take-out lurking in fridges, eventually becoming a mystery and tossed; all the prepared foods at the shaw's? end of day-- dumpster; the steam tables and buffets at hotels and casinos, the groaning boards on cruise ships? yeah. britons throw away about as much, and even the swedes, whom i perceive as minimalists in every way, heave about 25% of their groceries when they are a family with small kids.

working in restaurants, i see an astonishing amount of food go in the garbage. that 30% figure seems slim to me. when i worked at the steakhouse, besides the flintstone portions of cow, everything served was bigger than your head. the a la carte baked potato and the chocolate cake slice each weighed a pound, ok? we had "muckers" -- same job-title as people who shovel out horse stalls -- who scraped the obscene uneaten portions into the trash before piling plates for the dishwasher.

when the boston dining scene was beginning to bloom, certain local chefs got known for gargantuan portions -- plates that were bold, piled up and unfinishable. i never knew if it was merely for dramatic effect, or some weird kow-towing to the city's frugal old guard. if they didn't get "left-overs" there wasn't enough food. alan richman was burned in virtual effigy for a national article slamming that. can you imagine any diner anywhere else in the world feeling cheated because he didn't get to bring bits home to microwave? or not?

nearly a decade has passed since i got hired by a truly amazing chef. his personal foibles aside, he pounced on the city with food like nobody else's. he wasn't part of the local 3 degrees-of-separation-kitchen web, so didn't have the big plate fever. we got skewered. even though entree proteins were 6-8 ounces and larded with enough butter to clog an army's arteries, the visual presentation was stark and tight on white plates. people went angry-nuts. for over a year, we did not have to-go bags, because "we serve just the right amount of food." explain that to the seersucker brahmin wanting cod and beans, but also wanting to say he'd been "there."

it was amazing to witness the disconnect. i saw how much butter went into everything. yet, people's eyes *saw* a smallish piece of something that would not have tipped over fred and barney's car at the drive-in, piled on top of the starch, on top of the veg. stark plate, but it likely contained at least 2000 calories, and was the day's last or main meal. if i had a buck for every time somebody insisted they needed to go out for burger after? bah.

will it be the money that finally brings americans 'round? i mean, hamburger/tuna helper really aren't the answer.

the sudden affluence of india and china are now often trotted out for food shortage excuses. yet, a very cogent argument remains, that if americans threw away less food, fewer people would be hungry. sure, bombayans want more beef. but poor americans eat too damn much. in las vegas, more shrimp is *consumed* than in the rest of the u.s. combined. (hello, red lobstah. nevah been.)

at last in the states, slow-food and voluntary reduction finally seem to be gaining a wee bit of traction. in my world, the former is huge, but then again, my friends never want a happy meal.