The (so-called) Cougareat

Today I saw a random tweet about how someone loves the Cougareat at BYU (the school's main student eatery, for the non-BYU people). It reminded me that I used to love the Cougareat when I was little, but that today it's completely lame.

When I was a kid and came to BYU during family vacations, it was still more of a cafeteria type place. I loved the food at the time, but even if it wasn't haute cuisine at least it was unique-ish to BYU. In other words, it was something at BYU that could be found nowhere else in the world.

Fast forward to today, and it's mostly filled with generic chain fast food places. Taco Bell, Subway, blah blah blah. Sure, these places aren't bad, but they're nothing to write home about. There are a few unique places (Sugar and Spice, for instance), but for the most part the place feels like it could be anywhere. Actually, no that's not true. It feels like it could be in any suburban mall. And I can think of no greater insult. (I heard students in the 90s actually wanted the Cougareat to be based on a mall food court. WTF.)

New food weekend

This last weekend Laura and I received a free hotel room in Salt Lake City. So we decided to forego our recent extreme thriftiness and have a good time. And that meant eating at several new restaurants.

First, we ate at Mountain West Burrito. Its a new shop located right in between Provo and Orem. Despite its terrible name and location — it's literally in gas station — I'd constantly been hearing good things about this place, from people whose tastes I highly respect.

So we went and it was pretty fantastic. I got the "half and half" burrito, which had chicken and vegetables, among other (more typical) burrito ingredients. At one point I took a bite and realized there was zucchini in my burrito. It blew my mind. And the chicken was probably one of my top five experiences with restaurant chicken. Ever. So try this place out if you're in the area.

After eating our burritos we drove the rest of the way up to SLC. We went to gallery stroll, which was cool(ish). While we were walking around we saw this place called Gourmadise. We thought it would be a good place for desert, and it was. Though the atmosphere was extremely chaotic and disorganized, the food was delicious. I had the croissant pudding, and Laura had a raspberry tart. Though I would never go back to this place at 9:30 p.m. on a Friday night, I would definitely go back at a time when there was a smaller crowd. (Laura just told me she wouldn't go back to this place because she thought it was overpriced and under-qualitied. I think she just ordered the wrong thing, but take that for what it's worth.)

The next morning we ate breakfast at Bruges, a Belgium waffle place near Tony Caputo's. We both got waffles. We were especially excited to eat at this place because we went to the actual city of Bruges over the summer, and ate Belgium waffles there. Surprising as it might sound, the ones we got in SLC were actually better. There was quite amazing, and filling (despite looking small, we were both full afterward.) I've read some people complain that this place is too expensive. And it was pricey; for two waffles we spent something like $13. So obviously I wouldn't eat here all the time. But on the other hand, I was as full and satisfied as if I had purchased a larger-looking meal. Also, the taste was incredible.

Finally, on our way home from SLC, we stopped and got sandwiches at Flour Girls and Dough Boys, in American Fork. Though sort of out of the way (it's in American Fork, after all), I can't say enough good things about this place. I ordered a ham and honeybutter panini, which was great, but I also highly recommend the apple and brie panini, or the cranberry-walnut-turkey-brie sandwich. The environment is cool (allbeit in a sort of, middle-aged, mom-ish way), and the sandwiches are delicious.

Monday Movie: Food Inc.

I honor of the academy awards last night, today's film recommendation is Food Inc. I saw this film a few months ago and was impressed; it presents a whole bunch of information in a way that it understandable and compelling. It basically goes into the ways in which food production (and, thus, consumption) has changed over the last 100 years, and how that is a problem.

The film isn't perfect, though. I did feel like it was a bit scattered and lacked a cohesive narrative. Still, it was informative and I've found myself thinking about it often. The academy apparently agreed, as it was nominated (but didn't win) an academy award.

I have included a video from the movie below, however, the "official trailer in HD" has embedding disabled, so you'll actually have to go to youtube and watch it here.

Animals, Food, and Compounding Problems

This morning I read this New York Times OpEd, which basically argues that many animals are being subjected to cruel treatment and that that needs to stop. I agree, but was appalled at the proposed solution: genetically engineering animals so they cannot feel pain.

Initially, I couldn't believe I was reading such a shocking and idiotic idea. Surely the author's intentions (eliminating animal cruelty) are worthy, but this seems like an absurd way to go about it. Instead of actually addressing any of the current problems with animal/meat production (of which there are many), it actually suggests that all those problems can be solved (or skirted) with a quick and easy fix.

Obviously, this raises ethical questions, (is it right to eliminate animals' ability to feel pain?) but it also raises more practical ones as well. For example, wouldn't it be better to eliminate the conditions that produced the problems in the first place? Can a technological fix solve problems that are the result of technological farming in the first place? Doesn't this article itself reveal the severity of the problems? Doesn't that mean we should try to solve them at their roots (or reverse their causes), instead of simply reducing animals' sensitivity to dangerous conditions.

The proposal also fails to adequately acknowledge the dangers that current meat production techniques pose to humans. Though I'm not, as a rule, opposed to all genetic engineering, I am opposed to raising animals in ways that are both cruel to them and unhealthy to the people eating them. The article points out, for example, that some animals are suffering because they have an unnatural high-grain diet. That diet not only hurts the animals, however, but also makes the eventual meat they become far less healthy for people to consume. Altering animals to not feel pain doesn't begin to address that problem. In essence, the same things that are producing cruel situations for animals are making meat products dangerously unhealthy for humans. Genetically reducing animals' pain would allow unhealthy practices to continue, ultimately causing far more harm (to animals and humans) in the long run.

Ultimately, this article advocates a dangerous idea. It will deceive consumers into thinking that they're getting a better product when they're actually getting something that is the same, or worse, as usual. Instead of figuring out how to make animals more comfortable in horrible situations, we should be figuring out how to eliminate those situations. We could give them the proper food, space to grow properly, and a more natural environment to live in. There are serious farming-related problems out there for which we urgently need solutions, but simply reducing animal pain would mean winning one battle while ignoring a much larger war. Fighting that war might mean higher prices for consumers (and/or less meat consumption), but side-stepping it with more genetic engineering will only compound a terrible situation.

In-N-Out is a Typical Chain Resturant

Recently, In-N-Out infiltrated northern Utah, where I currently reside. It's been a big hit. However, I'm always surprised by the quasi-religious devotion that the company engenders. Its food is decent and, having grown up in California, I've partaken of it many times. On the other hand, it isn't the best out there.

With the company's continued expansion, I think it's important to remember one`` thing: In-N-Out is a chain. Like all chains, it does some things well, but it also does some things very poorly. Generally speaking, it promotes a particular world view that, while perhaps more salient than that of McDonalds et al., is no less generic.

More specifically, In-N-Out, as a chain, works against local communities in a number of ways. Most obviously, it siphons profits back to its California headquarters. Though it reportedly pays its employees well and ranks high in customer satisfaction, the bottom line is that the people getting the richest are concentrated in one central location. In my case, that location also happens to be hundreds of miles away.

In addition, the company competes with and undercuts more unique businesses that are based in the community. Someone will probably read this and complain that if those businesses can't compete they deserve to go under, but what options are available to them when confronted with the billions of dollars and virtually unlimited resources of a huge company? Without any real advertising budget or marketing strategists, it might take years for a local burger joint to achieve profitability. If In-N-Out decides to open a store nearby, they're immediately out of time to win over new customers. Entrepreneurial vigor obviously wilts and with it creativity and diversity. Because of the chain's clout and name recognition, then, consumers don't really have a chance to make informed decisions.

There are lots of reasons that In-N-Out, like all chains, is destructive to local communities, but the point here is that it isn't extraordinarily cool, unique, or better than other companies that are frequently lampooned as "evil corporations" in popular culture. It surely siphons less profits back to its corporate headquartes than McDonalds, but it still does it.

Of course, some people would argue that In-N-Out is a family run business, not a franchise, and that that somehow makes it better. And it's true, the company certainly isn't as big (or as bent on world domination) as other companies. Yet, aren't most huge companies "family run" at some point. Wal-Mart, for example, was started by the Walton family. McDonald's began with two brothers. For In-N-Out's turn, it's not actually owned by the original family anyway, so how exactly is it a family company?

Other devotees maintain that the company embodies admirable values. They cite things like the Bible verses on the food packaging, or the good treatment of employees. To these claims I would say that there is no doubt that In-N-Out is less bad than bigger (and less personal) chains. However, it's also less good than many local businesses, which may espouse the same values.

What is so surprising about this debate, however, is how thoroughly people believe in the image that In-N-Out is selling. Much like Apple Computers (which I use and love), In-N-Out has marketed an ethos of coolness, underdog values, and small-time business. Increasingly, however, the image is simply the result of slick corporate packaging. Compared to local businesses, the company merely puts a facade on a bloated profit-machine. They've essentially duped the consumer into thinking they're better than other chains, when in reality, they're the same.

Ultimately, people have a right to eat what they want. Also, I'll probably eat at In-N-Out again at some point in my life (after all, I don't dislike their food). I'm not arguing that the chain is evil, but rather that it isn't particuarly helpful to non-So Cal towns. Basically, I can't imagine that there is any community anywhere that has an In-N-Out but also doesn't have something better. The Provo/Orem area has quite a few better burger joints (here, here, here, here, here). And, not only do they have better food, but the money they make stays in the community. Though In-N-Out markets itself as hip and small, it's really just pushing these kinds of places out of business.