Self-Motivation
David Goggins
Former Navy Seal
Career Development
Bryan Cranston
Actor
Critical Thinking
Liv Boeree
International Poker Champion
Emotional Intelligence
Amaryllis Fox
Former CIA Clandestine Operative
Management
Chris Hadfield
Retired Canadian Astronaut & Author
Learn
from the world's big
thinkers
Start Learning

The $200 Fast Food Burger

Question: If consumers felt the real costs that go into making a Happy Meal, would they change the way they eat?

Jonathan Safran Foer: Well, I don’t think the externalities need to be felt by the consumer, but by the corporations.  So there was a study, actually after I published my book that tried to quantify the environmental costs of a 50-cent hamburger, fast food hamburger.  Putting the human health costs, putting aside the question of animal welfare, and the number they came up with was $200 per 50 cent burger.  It’s not a hypothetical, it’s not an imaginary number—that’s what it actually costs.  

You know, it’s the number one cost of global warming; in fact, a recent study has suggested that it’s responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions than everything else in the world put together and as the U.N. has said, it’s one of the top two or three causes of every significant environmental problem in the world, locally and globally.  So we are paying for this.  And you’re right, it’s spread out and there’s a distance between consumers and this cost.  When we go to the cash register, it sure seems cheap.  

So there are people in this country who don’t have access to alternatives, who live in what are called "urban food deserts."  And ask them to eat differently is unfair.  We have to ask people to change according to their abilities.  So most people watching this, I imagine, are able to find other kinds of food.  

Now, it’s true that buying good meat is dramatically more expensive than buying cheap meat. But always the cheapest way to eat is vegetarian and always the healthiest way to eat is vegetarian and always the most environmentally sustainable or sensitive way to eat is vegetarian.  And people should peruse a menu the next time you’re in a restaurant and look at what the least expensive options are and they’re almost certainly going to be vegetarian options.  

Question:
How does the food industry manipulate language to deceive the consumer?

Jonathan Safran Foer: Well the industry is incredibly manipulative.  They recognize that people care about these things.  Cage-free and free-range eggs are not the fastest growing sector in the food industry in America.  And it’s not because the egg distributors have a good conscience and suddenly want to try to promote these alternative methods.  It’s because people recognize that putting cages—chickens in a cage so small that they can’t turn around or flap their wings—they recognize that it’s not right.  It’s not right for reasons that are really self-evident.  And so even though this food doesn’t taste any better, even though this food isn’t any better for our health, people are buying it.  And not just in Berkeley and not just in New York.  They’re buying it everywhere in the country.  

So the problem is that this extraordinarily manipulative and deceitful industry has found ways to take advantage of our concern.  To ask us to pay more money for something that is in fact, not better at all.  So in the case of eggs, for example, free range eggs, you know, you’ve probably seen "free range eggs" in every supermarket you’ve been in, in the last year or two.  They’re everywhere.  You’ve probably even seen them on menus.   Free range is not legally defined.  The U.S.D.A. doesn’t define "free range" when it comes to eggs.  It means nothing.  You could keep 100 hens in your toilet and sell their eggs as free range.  Legally.  And ask people to pay more money.  So this should make people angry.  You know, it makes me angry; it makes everybody I’ve told about it angry.  

"Cage-free" is defined, but only in the most literal sense; they’re literally not in a cage.  It doesn’t mean you can’t have 60,000 of them in a windowless shed pressed body to body.  So what we need is some very clear legal terminology that is enforced.  And we need to get those totally deceitful pictures off of the packaging.  You know, when was the last time you saw a windowless shed on a pack of eggs?  Never.  You see a farm or maybe a farmer with a pitchfork or hay or grass or a barn.  And it’s total crap.  It has absolutely no correspondence to reality.

Recorded on August 26, 2010
Interviewed by Max Miller

A recent study calculated the environmental costs of a 50-cent fast food hamburger to be 400 times its price at the register.

Remote learning vs. online instruction: How COVID-19 woke America up to the difference

Educators and administrators must build new supports for faculty and student success in a world where the classroom might become virtual in the blink of an eye.

Credit: Shutterstock
Sponsored by Charles Koch Foundation
  • If you or someone you know is attending school remotely, you are more than likely learning through emergency remote instruction, which is not the same as online learning, write Rich DeMillo and Steve Harmon.
  • Education institutions must properly define and understand the difference between a course that is designed from inception to be taught in an online format and a course that has been rapidly converted to be offered to remote students.
  • In a future involving more online instruction than any of us ever imagined, it will be crucial to meticulously design factors like learner navigation, interactive recordings, feedback loops, exams and office hours in order to maximize learning potential within the virtual environment.
Keep reading Show less

Has science made religion useless?

Placing science and religion at opposite ends of the belief spectrum is to ignore their unique purposes.

Videos
  • Science and religion (fact versus faith) are often seen as two incongruous groups. When you consider the purpose of each and the questions that they seek to answer, the comparison becomes less black and white.
  • This video features religious scholars, a primatologist, a neuroendocrinologist, a comedian, and other brilliant minds considering, among other things, the evolutionary function that religion serves, the power of symbols, and the human need to learn, explore, and know the world around us so that it becomes a less scary place.
  • "I think most people are actually kind of comfortable with the idea that science is a reliable way to learn about nature, but it's not the whole story and there's a place also for religion, for faith, for theology, for philosophy," says Francis Collins, American geneticist and director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). "But that harmony perspective doesn't get as much attention. Nobody is as interested in harmony as they are in conflict."

Signs of Covid-19 may be hidden in speech signals

Studying voice recordings of infected but asymptomatic people reveals potential indicators of Covid-19.

Ezra Acayan/Getty Images
Coronavirus
It's often easy to tell when colleagues are struggling with a cold — they sound sick.
Keep reading Show less

Octopus-like creatures inhabit Jupiter’s moon, claims space scientist

A leading British space scientist thinks there is life under the ice sheets of Europa.

Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/SETI Institute
Surprising Science
  • A British scientist named Professor Monica Grady recently came out in support of extraterrestrial life on Europa.
  • Europa, the sixth largest moon in the solar system, may have favorable conditions for life under its miles of ice.
  • The moon is one of Jupiter's 79.
Keep reading Show less

Supporting climate science increases skepticism of out-groups

A study finds people are more influenced by what the other party says than their own. What gives?

Photo by Chris J Ratcliffe/Getty Images
Politics & Current Affairs
  • A new study has found evidence suggesting that conservative climate skepticism is driven by reactions to liberal support for science.
  • This was determined both by comparing polling data to records of cues given by leaders, and through a survey.
  • The findings could lead to new methods of influencing public opinion.
Keep reading Show less
Quantcast