Caveman Considerations

If you even remotely enjoy a good steak and haven’t already seen Steak Revolution, do yourself a favor and check it out on Netflix. Franck Rivière travels around the world looking for the best steak. The trip is more than just a series of visit to expensive steakhouses; he spends time with farmers in Japan, Argentina, Brasil, Scotland, Sweden, France, London, New York, Montreal, Italy, and Spain. The movie was eye-opening and mouth-withering for this good ‘ol ‘merican raised on factory-farmed, CAFO-finished mediocre beef who has a basic understanding of the importance of browning and cooking technique, but very little knowledge of the effect breeding or rearing has on the overall quality. Nor did I realize there was such variety in rearing and breeding that, despite their vast differences, result in steaks of similar quality.

Suffice to say there is no one ‘right’ answer in creating or cooking the best steak. The Americans swear that beef should be corn-fed steers no older than 30 months, the Japanese prefer high-fat grain fed virgin females, and the Spaniards ancient 10-15 _year old _‘docile and noble’ steers. There is a Swedish breeder that grass-feeds his Wagyu beef and achieves remarkable marbling and and Italian breeder that feeds his Chianina barley, but prefers little marbling. All do agree in basic cooking principles: seared medium-rare with salt and/or pepper only, although there is some variation even there. The Brazilians dip the meat in salt-brine and sear over a charcoal fire, but their neighbors the Argentinians swear by rock salt. The Japanese fry steak in light oil on a steel grill to be used as a condiment for rice, the British coat in salt and pepper and sear, then bake over a gas flame. All of these varied techniques result in (according to Franck Rivière) the 10 best steaks in the world. Judging by the food-gasms of those in the film, all the steaks would easily surpass the cooked flesh that we mere commoners enjoy, despite the wide variety in breeding, cuts and prep.

Being French, Franck Rivière goes about his analysis in a heart-felt and meaningful, but hardly systematic or quantifiable way. We are not given a list of criteria for grading each steak, nor are we given all the breeding, rearing and cooking variables. He sometimes spends several minutes interviewing breeders about their specific breed, philosophy and technique, then little or no time on the cooked result. The movie jumps around seemingly randomly from #7 to #4, back to #10 and finally to #1. All of this perhaps makes for a warmer, less formulaic and more watchable documentary, but it makes it hard for my Germanic brain to get to the point: “How do I make the best steak?”

The contributing factors to steak quality cover everything from the animal’s birth (whether a male or female is chosen and/or castrated) to what cut and how it is selected after slaughter, to the finishing touch before serving. My attempt to extrapolate some criteria and each region’s variations are as follows:

Living Criteria: Breed, sex, feed, age

Raw Criteria: Carcass aging, marbling, and preferred cut

Preparing Criteria: Seasoning, heat type and technique (charcoal, gas, grill, etc)

All this made my Germanic roots politely request a detailed chart:

Watching mouth-watering steaks for an hour and a half was too much for me to bear, so I pulled a T-bone out of our freezer. We purchase a beef each year from a local farm that finishes beef yearlings on a mixture of pasture and grain. Buying the whole beef has the advantage that we always have meat in the freezer, and our steaks are cut to our specifications. In my case, 1.5″ thick. Steak Revolution makes it clear that proper browning and internal steak temperature is important, and my experience shows that steaks of 1.5″ thickness can be well-browned but still low enough temperature to be tender and juicy on the inside. I dry my steak by leaving it on a paper towel in an open container in the fridge for 24-48 hours, turning a couple times. Modern frost-free refrigerators circulate and dry the air sufficiently to allow the surface of the steak to dry.

To salt the steak I made a coarse-grind salt and pepper mix on a plate and pat the dry steak in the salt.

I chose to follow what I will call the Peter Luger technique - sear, cut, then bake, the difference with mine is that I sear in a pan instead of with gas. I seared on medium heat with avocado oil to get a brown crust:

After 2-3 minutes per side, I remove from the heat, cut the steak first off the bone, then in 1″ crosswise lengths, as they did at Peter Luger. Baked at 450ºF for 2.5 minutes.

The result was imperfectly delicious. My steak has flavor, but isn’t nearly as well-marbled as those on the show and was lacking in tenderness. It seemed clear to me the lack of tenderness was because of a lack of marbling, as the meat was certainly not over-cooked, so on a whim I went to the store to buy the best-marbled steak I could find:

Having no bone, I cooked this New York whole. I took a page from the French technique and cooked it in ghee, basting with butter at the end. What a difference the marbling made, this steak was much more tender, but with a much milder flavor. Interesting side note, the ghee works very well to sear the steak. Something about it makes it particularly slippery and I found it was much easier to brown the steak without it sticking.

Steak Revolution disproves the notion that grass-fed beef has to be tough and that grain-fed has better marbling, see the Yorkshire Longhorn served by Hawksmoor in London. In fact four of the top ten were partly or entirely grass-fed animals. It also proves that there are many delicious breeds to be had, and that no one breed was better. More important were how well the breed was adapted to its living conditions so that sufficient marbling was achieved. With the exception of the Matsusaka beef from Japan (curing simply isn’t mentioned), all the top five were dry-aged and heavily marbled. Not mentioned in the movie is the importance of having the surface of the steak dry before cooking. Excess moisture on the surface slows the browning of the meat because the boiling water holds the temperature below that required to brown. The extra time to brown means the inside will be over-cooked. When the surface is dry salt does not stick to the surface as well, and will not dissolve into the meat. This means it is nearly impossible to over-salt a dry steak.

In Oregon, the State and its subdivisions have the right to ‘acquire’ property for ‘public use’ that is ‘necessary’ as per ORS§ 456.145. By ‘acquire we mean forcibly take, essentially at the point of a gun, property from law-abiding citizens that have done nothing wrong except have their property in a place the city/county/state would like to start a project, and by ‘necessary’ we mean ‘whenever the government wants it.’ Interestingly ORS § 456.145(2) states that ‘no real property belonging to the city, the county, the state ... may be acquired without its consent.’ So in the case of eminent domain, the government is exempt from its own laws. How messed up is that?

I was recently surprised at the vitriolic opposition to self-service gas among Salem residents. I was surprised just how many had such strong feelings against allowing self-service gas. Some found it more convenient to stay in their car on a cold, windy day, and one even argued that allowing self-service gas was ‘imposing my values on her’.

In 1951 Oregon voted to restrict pumping of ‘Class 1 Flammable liquids’ to ‘trained personnel’ only. Currently the fine for self-serving at a gas station is $500. All because I did something that people in 48 other states can do perfectly well.

At the time it  seemed a prudent safety measure. It was convenient because you didn’t have to get out in the cold to handle a smelly pump handle yourself. Since transactions were cash and you had to have an attendant anyway, it didn’t save much time to pump your own. Over the years attempts were made to legalize self-serve, but residents resisted. A recurrent argument in favor of full-serve gas is that it ‘creates jobs’. So the arguments come down to this: 1) its safer, 2) more convenient, 3) it creates jobs. All of these seem like great arguments until you look more closely.

1) “Its Safer”

In the 65 years since the law was put in place all but one other state has moved to self-service gas and there doesn’t seem to be a rash of filling-related accidents. Sure, the occasional idiot lights himself and/or his car on fire when he smokes while filling, but its far from an epidemic. We also now have pumps that shut off automatically and can sense when the nozzle is inserted. So the safety argument is invalid. Oregonians are just a smart as Washingtonians or Idahoans and can master the ‘dangerous’ task of putting a nozzle in hole.

2) “Its More Convenient”

Whereas safety is a more objective argument and would be better suited to proof or disproof, convenience is very subjective and different for each person. Many argue that its much more convenient to stay in their car when its cold and rainy outside rather than get out and pump their gas. Its easy to empathize with those feelings, but that doesn’t justify forcing me to do the same. Convenience is subjective, so allow consumers to chose whats best for them.

Most in favor of full-serve feel strongly the gas pumping world is a binary game; that if I was allowed to pump my own gas, they would be forced to do the same. Ironically, while I see full-service advocates as imposing their views on me, some felt I was imposing my views on them, because of the perception that allowing sell-service would eliminate full-service.

In reality, allowing self-service does not outlaw full-serve, it simply allows both parties to do as they please. If there ends up being no full-service stations available, it means people didn’t want to pay or wait more and chose not to patronize full-service stations enough to make them economically viable. The lack of stations would be a market decision that could change any time as consumer demands change, unlike the current situation where I am dis-allowed from making the choice thats right for me and threatened if I do.

Some also argue its quicker for a attendant to do the job because they’re familiar with the process. It may be true that they’re quicker than Oregonians, but thats a catch-22 fallacy: Oregonians are only slower at pumping their own gas because they aren’t allowed to. Because an attendant has to watch and manage several pumps at a time, they could, in the best of conditions, only ever be about as quick as someone helping themselves. In the 21st century I need never leave the pump or interact with an attendant; I can pay, pump and be done in a matter of minutes. Some may find it more convenient to wait in the car, but others find the convenience of more quickly pumping themselves to be preferable. 

Another convenience argument is for the disabled. How will the disabled be able to fill their car? I’d argue that if they are mobile and intelligent enough to be driving a 1.5 ton vehicle at 55+ MPH, they’re able to do a simple task like pumping gas. Besides, as mentioned above, they’re still allowed to patronize full-service gas stations. 

3) “It Creates Jobs”

Saying I should be forced to pay someone to pump my gas is like telling someone they aren’t allowed to mow their own yard; they have to hire a landscaper because it ‘creates jobs’ and if I do mow my own lawn, I’ll get fined. Such an argument makes no moral or ethical sense. It is immoral to force me to pay for a service of which I am capable and that I wish to do myself. Consider this: if I disobey, I am fined $500. If I refuse to pay said fine, men with guns will come to my house and take my belongings or put me in jail; all this for having the audacity to doing someone else’s ‘job’.

The National Geographic from my childhood was a beautiful resource for pictures and articles of unique and beautiful places and things from the natural world. More recently the magazine has begun to take editorial positions on issues that undermine its respected position as an impartial source of information. In the ‘War on Science” article Achenback admits that when scientists take a policy or political position on an issue they undermine their own credibility as an impartial provider of information. Ironically, in publishing that very article, National Geographic Magazine is committing that very fallacy.

The article reads more as a sermon rather than a logical disproving of dissenters’ doubts. Case in point: replace every reference in the article of ‘science’ with ‘God’ and see how the only difference with this article and a religious sermon is the subject; it shares tone, attitude and righteousness with the latter.

Achenback presents a one-sided, demeaning and derisive view: he mentions many now-disproved anti-science leagues and movements from the past. eg anti-evolution league, square earth, but does not mention the failed ‘scientific facts’ from the past that illustrate science is not always correct, as with the stress theory of stomach ulcers. Nor does he mention any time when dissenters of the ‘scientific consensus’ were proven right as with the recent debate regarding cholesterol and saturated fat. In fact, he commits a grave error by assuming science has ever ‘proven’ anything. Scientific ‘facts’ are always considered works in progress. He even mentions this in his article, but then laughs at those who dare question the veracity of current science.

Achenback commits a clear straw-man fallacy by inventing fictitious and ignorant anti-science opponents. His arguments paint a broad, generalized and stereotyped strokes of these dissenters, lumping together the ‘square-earth league’ of the 19th century and a psychopathic movie character with those legitimately concerned about the potential health hazards of GMO foods. He says GMO experts point out “…there’s no evidence that [GMOs aren’t safe] and no reason to believe that altering genes in a lab is more dangerous…” but he commits a logical fallacy by stating that a lack of evidence of danger equates to evidence of safety.

Achenback fails to back up his arguments with references or facts. He states “It’s very clear, however, that organizations funded in part by the fossil fuel industry have deliberately tried to undermine the publics understanding of the scientific consensus by promoting a few skeptics.” He states this as fact but fails to corroborate the statement. Where’s the proof?

In the article Achenback writes “The internet makes it easier for skeptics and doubters to find and publish information. Gone are the days of powerful institutions … that served as gatekeepers of scientific information” He says this leads to a ‘filter bubble’ where we let in only information with which we already agree. This doesn’t make sense. How does access to MORE information lead to a filter bubble that DECREASES the information people receive? If anything, having information filtered through a few dominant organizations would have more potential for restriction of the truth as a result of the bias of those institutions. It is arrogant and paternalistic to insinuate that its best if a few organizations filter and spread the ‘correct’ information to the presumably illiterate masses.

Disclaimer: I get vaccinated because I work in a hospital with sick people.

Like anything, the vaccination debate is dominated by 'polarists'; many who think 'all vaccines are good' and others 'all vaccines are bad.' Both sides often deride the other for having the audacity to think differently. As a result we don't have a safe environment to have an open conversation. Consequently both sides retreat to their respective corners and feed themselves their own propaganda and deny any truth in the opposite camp. The pro-vaccers refuse to acknowledge the concerns of the anti-vaccers and refuse to study complications to their satisfaction so anti-vaccers have to resort to shady pseudo-scientific sources.

First,  a little history of Portland's street maintenance. Historically the money allocated for streets was not actually spent on streets. Over the past 10-20 years, Portland city council has repeatedly ignored its own advice on road maintenance and diverted $200 million to other projects. Some money was spent on debatably laudable projects such as bike boxes and lanes, while other money was diverted from the Portland Bureau of Transportation (PBOT) completely. As a result of insufficient maintenance, street quality has steadily decreased. Little problems that would have cost little to maintain have now become large issues and Portlanders complained enough that the Portland City Council came up with a solution: a 'street fee' AKA income tax, to pay for the roads. 

But if money in the past that was allocated to roads wasn't actually spent there, what makes people believe that introducing a new fee will result in more money for streets? The City of Portland has historically prioritized mass transit over road quality, and opted for hip bike boxes while failing to maintain the roads themselves. Bike boxes and lanes are important infrastructure, but should not come at the expense of maintenance.  

Lets take a step back for minute to see the bigger picture. Voters likely would have rejected or resisted paying for these diversions directly, so it was easier to divert money from roads. Down the road (pardon the pun), when roads deteriorated because of deferred maintenance, it is easier to raise money for this important infrastructure.

Sadly, this is a familiar tactic: money is often diverted from the agencies that most agree are important, police, fire, transportation. When the underspending become evident it's easier to raise money for these important agencies than for the pet projects of the people that make up government.