Where No Beer Has Gone Before

Space beer!

I haven't gotten a chance to taste Bell's Planetary Beer yet (boo!). Hopefully soon on that one.

Soon you may be able to drink beer brewed with yeast that traveled to space last year.

Ninkasi Brewing Company is an independent craft brewery based in Eugene, Oregon. Last year, the co-founders brewed up up a crafty scheme (puns intended): the Ninkasi Space Program (NSP). The goal of the NSP was to send brewer's yeast to space and return it safely for brewing. In July of 2014, Mission One of NSP via the Civilian Space eXploration Team (CSXT) and Team Hybriddyne launched a rocket into space carrying 16 vials of brewer's yeast. Unfortunately, this yeasty payload was lost in the Nevada Black Rock Desert for 27 days, leaving the yeast not viable for brewing. Bummer. But NSP didn't give up. In October of 2014, they launched a second payload of yeast on Mission Two with the private spaceflight corporation UP Aerospace, Inc.  Mission Two traveled 77.3 miles up (the distance to "space" is ~62 miles) and then returned safely to Earth with viable yeast. Yay!

Mission Two Launch Stats:

Rocket Name: SL 9
Launch Date: Oct. 23, 2014
Launch Time: 7:33 am
Launch Location: Spaceport America, New Mexico
Maximum Altitude: 408,035 ft, 77.3 Miles
Maximum Speed: Mach 5.5
Payload Recovery Site: White Sands Missile Range

Introducing Ground Control, an imperial stout fermented with space-traveled yeast. Ninkasi describes it as:

"Ground Control boldly combines local and out-of-this-world ingredients. This rich, complex Imperial Stout is brewed with Oregon hazelnuts, star anise and cocoa nibs, and fermented with an Ale yeast that survived a trip to space and back. Mankind will enjoy the sweet finesse of this beer that only fares better with time."

Style: Imperial Stout
Special Ingredients: Oregon Hazelnuts, Star Anise, Cocoa Nibs, and Ale Yeast Sent Into Space
ABV: 10.0%
IBU: 80
OG: 1100
Malt: 2-Row Pale, Black, Chocolate, Munich, Crystal, Honey, Special Roast, Peated
Hops: Apollo, Bravo, Comet

Ground control will be available in 22 oz. bottles as of April 13, 2015. U.S. distribution areas include Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. Canadian distribution will be Alberta, Vancouver, and British Columbia. So waaaay over here in the easter U.S. I won't be able to sample the space beer. Ya'll will have to tell me how it goes.


Enjoy other space-traveling libations? Consider Japan's Sapporo Holdings Ltd beer made from ISS grown barley or Ardbeg in Space (a whiskey launched into space).

Going to the Movies: The Story of a Popcorn Pit (Part 2)

Welcome to Part 2 of my journey to the movie theater. This will make sense if you haven’t read Part 1, but to enjoy the full impact of this visite du cinéma, I suggest you read both. If ya just don’t wanna then here’s a summary: (1) movie tickets are expensive, (2) as far as I can tell, nobody has really done a direct study of why, (3) economists try to explain why all movies cost the same through their “uniform pricing for differentiated goods” theory, (4) as it turns out, variable or differentiated pricing is probably better, (5) concessions are expensive too, (6) theaters get all of this “consumer surplus,” (7) channels of ticket distribution, group size, and theater characteristics affect concession sales, and (8) theaters get as much money as possible from people willing to pay it.

So far, we've made it past the door with our high priced tickets, and we stood in front of the concession stand wondering why those prices are also so high. Let’s say that you decide to take the monetary plunge and buy some concessions. You look over the candy, the nachos, the questionable looking hot dogs and you decide to go with popcorn. You look at the sizes of the containers, perhaps ask to see one a little closer, and go with the medium. But wait! The large is only 25 cents more! Okay, so you go with the large. I mean, if you are going to pay 5 dollars for popcorn then there might as well be a lot of it right?

What are the effects of ordering that 18 cup bucket of inflated food? It is slathered in a buttery goodness that makes it pretty frickin’ yummy, but are you really going to eat all of that? Most people tend to think that how much they eat is based on the taste of the food. Studies in the absence of environmental cues have largely shown this to be true. That makes sense if you think about it. When you have no distractions you can concentrate on the flavor of your food. However, the movie theater is the opposite of a distraction-free environment.

In 2001 Wansink and Park published a study where they gave 161 moviegoers free popcorn and soft drinks. The same popcorn was given in either a medium (120g) or large (240g) container, with before and after weights taken to see how much was eaten. Then they asked the participants to fill out a questionnaire after their movie about the taste of the popcorn. The results showed that people who rated their popcorn as tasty ate 49 percent more if it was in a large container than a medium one. Surprisingly, people who rated the taste of their popcorn as unfavorable still ate 61 percent more if it was put in a larger container. A related study from 2005, also headed by Wansink, looked at how container size can influence food intake, even when it is less palatable. Again they randomly gave 158 moviegoers either a medium or large container of popcorn, weighing the containers before and after the movie. But this time they purposefully changed the taste of the popcorn, giving participants either fresh or stale (14 days old…eww). Similar to the first study, the results showed that moviegoers ate 45.3 percent more popcorn from a large container than from a medium container when the popcorn was fresh. And while the moviegoers with stale popcorn negatively described their food as “stale,” “soggy,” or “terrible,” they still ate 33.6 percent more if they were given large containers than if they were given medium containers.

A more recent study published in the journal Appetite also looked to see if people consumed more food with larger containers, this time focusing on portion size vs. container size. They served M&M’s for free to 88 undergraduate students watching a 22 minute long TV show. Participants were served either a medium portion of M&M’s in a small container, a medium portion in a large container, or a large portion in a large container. Given the same amount of food, people with the large containers ate 129 percent (199 kcal) more than people with the medium containers, and when given a larger portion size they ate 97 percent more. Basically, that large bucket of food stimulates your food intake over and above the portion size. So perhaps that large popcorn you purchased wasn't the best idea.

But fear not! There is actually an up-side. You know how you eat most of your popcorn before the movie even starts, during the ads and previews? Well, an article published online this year in the Journal of Consumer Psychology looked at how “oral interference” (i.e. eating) affects the impact of those ads on people’s brand attitudes and choices. In their experiments, they gave free popcorn and chewing gum to participants and asked them to watch a movie preceded by a series of real but foreign commercials (so they hadn't seen them before), asking them to eat as soon as the commercials started. Then one week later they assessed the participants and a control group (no free popcorn or gum) for their purchasing choices. The researchers found that the control group spent more money and had a preference for the brands they saw in the commercials. The participants that ate during the commercials showed no such preferences. Yeah! Pop blocked!

I’ll see you next week for the last, and final, part of this series. Happy eating!


B. Wansink and S.B. Park (2001). At the movies: how external cues and perceived taste impact consumption volume Food Quality and Preference, 12, 69-74 DOI: 10.1016/S0950-3293(00)00031-8

B. Wansink and J. Kim (2005). Bad Popcorn in Big Buckets: Portion Size Can Influence Intake as Much as Taste Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 37 (5), 242-245 DOI: 10.1016/S1499-4046(06)60278-9

D. Marchiori, O. Corneille, & O. Klein (2012). Container size influences snack food intake independently of portion size Appetite, 58, 814-817 DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2012.01.015

S. Topolinski, S. Lindner, & A. Freudenberg (2013). Popcorn in the cinema: Oral interference sabotages advertising effects Journal of Consumer Psychology DOI: 10.1016/j.jcps.2013.09.008


Just for interest’s sake, an interesting article from the Smithsonian about the history of popcorn and the cinema: "Why Do We Eat Popcorn at the Movies?"



(image via birthdayexpress.com)

Going to the Movies: The Story of a Money Pit (Part 1)

I love movies. Love to sit and watch them at home. Love to have movie nights with my friends. Love going to see them at the theater. On that last one, I think we can all agree on one thing: movie theaters are money pits. Essentially you just walk up to their front door and start throwing all of your money at them. You bitch and moan but you accept it. You knew before you ever left your house that you were going to spend an exorbitant amount of cash for a load of calories and an unknown experience. With my frequent trips to the theater and the resulting cash outflow I got to wondering why. In an attempt to answer this I took a step-by-step approach, looking at a typical trip to the cinema.

According to the National Association of Theater Owners, the average cost of a movie ticket in the U.S. rose to from $7.96 in 2012 to $8.38 in 2013. Granted, this rise is due, in part, to rising surcharges for 3D, IMAX films, and “luxury cinemas;” it is also indicative of an overall rise in movie ticket prices. When I fired up a few of my favored scholarly search engines, I found literature mostly on the movie industry itself but a surprising lack of literature on movie ticket prices, regional differences, surcharges, etc. There are a few papers that address movie ticket prices in terms of economic theory, but that’s kinda it. These papers look at cost-based explanations for why there is one price for all movies, all the time. It is what economists call “uniform pricing for differentiated goods,” which is usually compared to a price differentiated or variable pricing system.  Sure, there are senior and student discounts as well as matinee rates (so called “third degree price discrimination”), but in general, each moviegoer pays the same price for all movies at any time. Theater quality, seat location, quality of the movie, etc. – same price.

A paper by Rosen and Rosenfield in 1997 argues for an optimal two-part pricing system where consumers with the greatest demand buy higher priced tickets to earlier performances, a strategy that was propositioned around the same time by Universal CEO Edgar Bronfman. A scheme that was obviously not adopted. Papers published in 2001 and 2007 by Orbach and Einav examine and support the argument that theaters could benefit from price differentiation across movies and show times. However, they point out that uniform pricing may persist because consumers may perceive variable pricing as unfair, that the short life cycles of movies make it difficult to adjust prices, and the difficulties continue between distributors and theater owners. The latter is examined in more detail in a publication in Marketing Science by Eliashberg, Elberse, and Leenders that reviews the process of movie making and distribution. In the Exhibition section of their paper, they describe the contractual arrangements between distributors and cinemas and pay special attention to the relative powers of these two parties. The distributors’ power lies in the expected success of a particular movie and the amount of promotional support they are willing to commit. The theaters’ power lies in its location and relative shortage (or surplus) of available screens. Overlying all of this is the uncertainty of demand and it filters down into ticket prices. These prices are a dance between the distributors and the theaters. Theaters often prefer lower ticket prices to compete more effectively with other theaters. This has the knock-on effects of increasing attendance and revenues from concessions. Naturally, distributors want high prices and have even actively sought, although largely unsuccessfully, to increase their revenues through variable price structuring. To sum up, how much you pay at the box office essentially comes down to how consumers value goods, the legal constraints on the relationships between distributors and theaters, and the negotiations that occur between these parties.

So now you’ve purchased a ticket which is considered low by both the distributers and the theaters. Okay, we’ll go with that. Next, you walk inside to hear the pop-pop-pop of the popcorn machine, the whoosh of the soda dispenser, the lights of the menus and candy displays, and the oh-so-mouthwateringly good smell of butter. Yep, you are faced with the concession stand and the high prices that go along with it. You know those “low” ticket prices the theater owner has negotiated for you? They are offset by the sale of these concessions, revenues that are not shared with the movie distributors. Also, most theaters bar you from bringing your own food and exploit your immobility by charging high prices for their products. So how likely are you to buy those tempting confections? A paper published in Economic Inquiry back in 1991 looks at these high prices, pointing out that “if all movie viewers ate popcorn at the movies and ate the same amount, the question of pricing at the concession stand would be of little interest. The only thing that would matter would be the combined price of the ticket and the [refreshment].” But in actuality only a fraction of customers purchase concessions and by charging a high price the theater is able to extract consumer surplus.

A study by Gil and Hartmann in 2007 took a look at the role and determinants of concession sales using data from 22 Spanish theaters in 19 cities (11 provinces) between January 2003 and April 2005. This data set contained information on weekly concession sales, box office revenue, and attendance including tickets sold through 5 different selling channels. They also collected information on different markets and local theater characteristics that may relate to concession revenues (population, unemployment, advertising, etc.). Their data shows a strong correlation between theater attendance and concession sales. I would say that is pretty logical. They also associated concession sales with three broad categories of factors:

1. Channels of Ticket Distribution - For this they divided ticket sales into two categories: tickets sold at the box office and tickets not sold at the box office (further divided into subcategories). They found that people that don’t buy their tickets at the box office spend more on concessions, specifically those people that buy their tickets at home on the Internet or at kiosks.
2. Audience Composition -  For this category the authors looked at the number of tickets per transaction. Basically, group size. According to their results, if you go to the theater as part of a large group you’ll probably buy more concessions than if you are in a small group. This relationship stands even considering that people in groups tend to share their concessions. 
3. Theater Characteristics - Large theaters, measured by number of screens and seats per screen, tend to sell more concessions than small theaters even after controlling for attendance. They also found that theaters located in highly populated cities collect less revenue from concessions. Theaters located in cities with higher unemployment rates have lower concession sales, and theaters located in cities with a larger number of commercial activities per person have higher concession sales. Put together, it may actually be local characteristics that are the more important determinant of concession revenues.

Gil and Hartmann also published a study in Marketing Science in 2009 looking at metering price discrimination, a second-degree price discrimination scheme. Basically, “aftermarket goods” (i.e., the concessions) are set well above cost and the customer’s intensity of demand for these goods provides a meter of how much they are willing to pay for primary goods (i.e., the ticket or admission price). The authors created a model (they call it simple, I call it a headache-inducing mathmare) and fed in some available data on concession sales, box office revenues, and theater attendance (again from Spanish theaters). Their results confirmed the presence of the demand conditions for metering with high priced concessions extracting more money from people willing to pay for the admission ticket. Although, they are not sure if theaters are consciously trying to discriminate across customers with their concession pricing strategies. I’m gonna call it getting as much money possible from people willing to pay it.

I've divided this journey to the movies into three parts. If you've made it this far you’ll know why. At this point I’ll leave you with the argument for a new, more current study. A study (likely multiple studies) that take into account the impacts of the most recent recession on prices, the rise of theaters such as the Alamo Drafthouse (which serve dinner and cater to cinephiles), the influence of independent theaters, the increasingly health conscious consumer, and the rise of digital technology (and the associated surcharges), among other things.

 See you soon so that we may choose what to purchase at the concession stand and then we'll make our way to our seats for the movie.

Sherwin Rosen and Andrew M. Rosenfield (1997). Ticket Pricing The Journal of Law and Economics, 40, 351-376

Barak Y. Orbach and Liran Einav (2001). Uniform prices for differentiated goods: The case of the movie-theater industry Harvard Law & Economics Center, Olin Discussion Paper 337 (Harvard University, Cambridge, MA) DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.290813

Barak Y. Orbach and Liran Einav (2007). Uniform prices for differentiated goods: The case of the movie-theater industry International Review of Law and Economics, 27, 129-153 DOI: 10.1016/j.irle.2007.06.002

Jehoshua Eliashberg, Anita Elberse, and Mark A.A.M. Leenders (2006). The Motion Picture Industry: Critical Issues in Practice, Current Research,and New Research Directions Marketing Science, 25 (6), 638-661 DOI: 10.1287/mksc.1050.0177

Pascal Courty (2011). Unpriced quality Economics Letters, 111 (1), 13-15 DOI: 10.1016/j.econlet.2010.12.009

John R. Lott and Russell D. Roberts (1991). A Guide to the Pitfalls of Identifying Price Discrimination Economic Inquiry, 24, 14-23 DOI: 10.1111/j.1465-7295.1991.tb01249.x

Ricard Gil and Wesley R. Hartmann (2007). The Role and Determinants of Concession Sales in Movie Theaters: Evidence from the Spanish Exhibition Industry Rev Ind Organ, 30, 325-347 DOI: 10.1007/s11151-007-9139-7

Ricard Gil andWesley R. Hartmann (2009). Empirical Analysis of Metering Price Discrimination: Evidence from Concession Sales at Movie Theaters Marketing Science, 28 (6), 1046-1062 DOI: 10.1287/mksc.1090.0494

Ticket pricing info via ScreenCrush


(image via GeekTyrant)

Pi vs. Pie

Happy Thanksgiving!

(via Incidental Comics)

MMM...Chocolate Braaains!

Tis the season for candy everything, and Halloween is a perfect time for candy body parts of all kinds.

Check this out: chocolate brains! Not just any chocolate brains though. These edible brains are made at the 3D technology company Inition. The brain-shaped chocolate candy is created using sliced data sourced from an MRI scan of co-founder Andy Millns' brain. So how do you use an MRI to create a chocolate brain? Easy:

Step 1: Convert sliced DICOM data into the STL file format (a 3D geometry format widely used for 3D printing)
Step 2: Edit that model to clean up
Step 3: Print a 3D solid model
Step 4: Produce a latex mold
Step 5: Cast chocolate
Step 6: Eat your brain while making "mmm...braaains!" noises

After consuming his own brain, Millns said: "I've been involved in some weird 3D projects over the years at Inition but eating my own chocolate brain was one of the most bizarre."



You can get the full instructions for creating a chocolate brain, and lots of neat computer images, over at Instructables.

Additional chocolatey brain links:
Inition blog story "Inition Co-founder Eats His Own Brain"
Laughing Squid story "Edible Chocolate Brains Created From MRI Scan Data"
That's Nerdalicious blog story "Company Creates Edible Chocolate Brain From MRI Scan Data"

The Wine-ific Method

I tend to buy wine like I buy books: by their cover. Give me a good label and I'll probably give it a try.

This is why when I came across the wines of the Roots Run Deep Winery I got all kinds of impressed in the science-nerd part of my brain. Roots Run Deep is a Winery out of Napa Valley, California, and they pride themselves on producing great wines that are also affordable. In my opinion, they should also pride themselves on their wonderful naming and labeling system.

Meet Hypothesis, a Cabernet Savingnon that is 100% produced from a brand new winemaking technique called "flash detente." "This technique is an all natural and organic pre-fermentation process that simply involves quickly heating and cooking the skins of the fruit before beginning fermentation." As far as wine names go though, this one is pretty good.

 

Next, meet Educated Guess, a Cabernet Sauvignon that got its name "during a lively, second bottle of wine conversation about winemaking styles, vineyard sites, and the progressive escalation of wine prices without comparable increases in quality. The discussion the proceeded to the 'art vs. science' aspect of winemaking and after a few more glasses of wine...'Educated Guess' was born!!!" Not only is the name great, I find the label to be spectacular! The label was "deigned to tell the story of how you can make an educated guess in winemaking," showing you "the actual winemaking formulas that are either induced or naturally occur during a specific winemaking process." I'll drink to that!

Head over to the Roots Run Deep Winery website to learn more about their unique wines.

One-Third for the Birds

For this post I was looking for something a little different. Not so much a weird topic, but more like a topic that I haven't really posted on before. I came across an interesting article about predator-prey relationships as they relate to population sizes. It is one of those basic dynamics that is taught in almost every biology and/or ecology class there is, and rightfully so, because when you get down into it it is actually pretty interesting, no to mention really important.

Most people think they know predator-prey relationships. One thing eats another thing. The organism doing the eating is the predator and the one that is eaten the prey. That is perfectly true. Now think about it in terms of evolution. The predator and the prey evolve together, what is usually referred to as the "evolutionary arms race." If the predator does not catch any food then it does not survive; those that evolve better ways to catch food survive (speed, stealth, smell, sight, etc.). If the prey gets caught by the predator then it (obviously) does not survive, and so it evolves better ways to evade predators (camouflage, speed, poison, etc.). It is important to point out that both the predator and they prey are both adapting, a type of co-evolution. Next, think about the system in terms of population. The interaction of predators and prey greatly affect their population sizes, often on several levels within the food chain/web (or tropic pathway/cascade). When predators eat prey they: (1) decrease the population size of the prey, (2) survive, thereby not decreasing their own population, and (3) are healthy, and alive, enough to breed additional predators, increasing their population. So when there are lots of predators you see a big dip in the size of the prey population. You will can make the same types of conclusions when you take the point of view of the prey. When prey is eaten by the predator: (1) they are removed from the population, decreasing population size, (2) are no longer healthy and alive to reproduce, (3) release their food source (if there is one) to increase their population, and (4) by decreasing their population there is that much less food for their predators. These interactions can result in very predictable, natural boom and bust cycles within these populations and is more the focus of today's topic. If you want pictures and graphs then check out the classic lynx-hare relationship and the Lotka-Volterra Model.

A new paper published in Science takes a look at the role of top predators in marine ecosystems. These upper tropic level (UTL) species include seabirds, marine mammals, and large predatory fish. All groups that have been depleted due to human activities. Fisheries impacts cause direct mortality in the targeted species and indirect, often more subtle, mortality lower down in the food chain/web. Fisheries that specifically target lower tropic level (LTL) species (small fish, squid, crustaceans, etc.) threaten those higher tropic level species by directly removing their food sources. However, it can be very challenging to assess the impacts of fishing on food webs, an ecosystem level approach. Think about it: all those predator-prey interactions in the ocean. That's tough. Often what you see is studies, even large ones, taking on a big chunk of the system, modeling how it works based on gathered data, and drawing conclusions or feeding it into an even bigger model. This study in Science specifically looks at seabirds.

Figure 1: A map of the distribution of
seabird and prey species. (click for
larger view)

Seabirds are a good system because they are conspicuous members of the marine ecosystem globally, have been studied and measured for decades, can reflect change at several scales, long-term breeding datasets from several species in several environments exist, and data from systems where prey availability has been measured suggests that seabirds can be used as indicators for forage fish population fluctuations. This study looked at the response between seabird breeding success and forage fish abundance across various species and ecosystems. The modellers compiled 438 data points spanning 15 to 47 colony-years per breeding site, in a total of seven marine ecosystems spanning 19 time series, 14 seabird species and their prey. They crunched a whole lot of numbers, using statistical methods that I'm not going to mention here, to quantify the fluctuations in food abundance and breeding success.

They found something that you usually don't see when you crunch that much data - all their species showed the same response. The results showed that the number of fledglings per breeding pair started to decline and was more variable when their forage fish food source dropped below one third of its maximum observed amount. The prey becomes scarce and as a result the hunting becomes more inefficient. The birds do not have enough food to successfully raise that many young.

Sure, there are the normal high and low cycles that I mentioned at the beginning, and those are natural. However, adding high rates of fishing from humans into it and, as with many other systems, we exacerbate the problem or collapse the system completely. The fish populations never recover from low seabird numbers because predation and habitat destruction by humans still puts a large amount of pressure on the fish, causing chronic food scarcity for the birds. And, as this study shows, this scarcity can have long-term affects on breeding success, can reduce survival in adult birds, and may affect the trajectory of their populations. The thresholds revealed by this study should inform management objectives in balancing predator-prey interactions, a "keep one-third for the birds" approach. If done well, these management decisions can sustain healthy UTL predator populations, maintain LTL fish populations, and could be applied to other marine ecosystems.

Read the paper here:
Philippe M. Cury, et al. (2011) Global seabird response to forage fish depletion -- One-third for the birds. Science: 334(6063), 1703-1706. (DOI: 10.1126/science.1212928)

And a write-up in ScienceNOW called "A Surprising Threshold for Seabird Survival"

Learn more about predator-prey interactions at
University of Michigan's Introduction to Global Change Curriculum's "Trophic Links: Predation and Parasitism"
New England Complex Systems Institute (NECSI)'s Predator-Prey Relationships page
University of Wisconsin-Madison's SSCC page on Predator-Prey Models (Warning: Contains potentially scary math)
A neat demo from Wolfram of a Predator-Prey Model of foxes and rabbits

Also, revisit my post called "To Eat or Not to Eat, That is the Fishy Question" to learn more about how to purchase seafood from green stores or restaurants and guides on choosing the correct seafood.

(image from readysetwhoa.wordpress.com)

To Eat or Not to Eat, That is the Fishy Question

I love seafood as much as the next person...well, ok, probably more. It is a healthy and delicious food source, but there is a limit to the fish in the sea. We tend to think of ocean fish and shellfish as just food on our plates, but they are wildlife. Wildlife that we hunt on a very large scale.

Humans have been fishing the oceans for thousands of years, but within the last half century technology has developed such that we are able to fish farther, deeper, and more efficiently. As such, more than 70 percent of the world's commercial marine fish stocks are either fully exploited, overfished, or have collapsed. Add to that illegal fishing, habitat damage, and bycatch and you have a serious worldwide problem. Over the past few decades aquaculture, or fish farming, has become an increasingly popular solution to the increasing pressures on marine resources. In fact, today, half of our seafood comes from farms. However, the ecological impact of farming depends on the species raised, the farm location, and how the animals are raised. What does that mean? Well, some species are easier to raise than others, some farms are closed-systems where wastes are controlled, some farms have higher escape rates which threaten native species with diseases, and some farms feed a vegetable- or soy-based diet while others feed with wild caught fish.

Alright, well, that's pretty bleak right? So what can you, the single lowly consumer, do about it? Actually, that is pretty simple. Ask questions and watch what you eat. First, there are a few ocean-friendly steps that you can take:

1. Purchase seafood from a green (or if unavailable, yellow list) or look for the Marine Stewardship Council blue eco-label in stores and restaurants. (see below about where to get and how to read seafood guides)

2. When you buy seafood, ask where it comes from and if it is farmed or wild-caught. Most reputable markets will label their fish. However, some stores and restaurants only give generic names and catch locations for their fish. Ask anyway and tell them why you care, it may prompt them to look into it. An alternative is to buy seafood through online retailers, such as EcoFish.com, who feature sustainable species and deliver right to your home.

3. Spread the word. The more people practicing safe seafood the better.

Seafood guides are a free and easy way to help you choose the right seafood. In general, the lists are broken up into three colors:

•  Green (Best) - abundant, well-managed and caught or farmed in environmentally friendly ways.
• Yellow (Good/OK) - an alternative to green but there are mixed records on how they are managed, the health of their habitat, or how they are caught or farmed.
•  Red (Avoid/Worst) - have one or more serious environmental problems such as overfishing, poor management, high bycatch, extensive habitat damage, or come from farms that allow widespread pollution, spread disease, use chemicals, or have a high escape rate.

No matter the country you live in you should be able to find a list that works for you. There are small pocket guides, larger lists, and even easy-to-use online searches. I've listed some great websites below where you can find more information about sustainable seafood and lists to help you choose wisely.

Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch
This is the best website I have found for information, guides, searches, and links.

Environmental Defense Fund's Seafood Selector
This is a great website that includes a lot of information about each of the species on each of the three lists. They also include great, free, downloadable guides.
Blue Ocean Institute's Seafood Page
This website includes a great FAQ page as well as a seafood and sushi guide.

Natural Resources Defense Council's Sustainable Seafood Guide
This guide delves more into the topic of contaminated seafood but includes a shopping guide, recipes, and health alert information.

Marine Stewardship Council
Find out what MSC products are available in your country. Find out about what it takes to get a product certified and even track a fishery.

Marine Conservation Society - FISHONLINE website
This is for you U.K. folks. You can search for a fish, get fish ratings and lists, get information on fishery/production areas and methods, and download seafood guides.

Australian Marine Conservation Society
This one is for the Aussies. They include all the information you could want about your oceans. There are downloadable seafood guides and also an iPhone app!

WWF Sustainable Seafood Consumer Guides
Not in the U.S., the U.K, or Australia? Not a problem. Check out the World Wildlife Fund's list of worldwide seafood guides. The is a link to your country's web page with link to download a seafood guide PDF. While you are there (no matter your country of origin) check out their information on fisheries and sustainable seafood.

End of the Line
This is the world's first major documentary about the effects of overfishing. It premiered at the Sundance Film Festival this year and is now out on DVD. Go to their website to watch the trailer, find or organize a screening, order a DVD, and/or find links for guides.


(image from envirothink.wordpress.com)

Gateway Bacon

A couple of days ago NPR's Health Blog posted an interesting, and rather fun, story. The post was about bacon and vegetarians. Now, vegetarians are not normally known for their consumption of bacon, but you may be surprised at how many crave it and even eat it. Yep, bacon is the gateway food. In fact, I have a vegetarian friend who considers bacon a condiment and therefore considers it not breaking the vegetarian rules. I don't blame her. That sizzling, glistening goodness, that smell, not to mention that delicious taste. Am I drooling?

The bloggers over at NPR decided to find out what makes even the strictest vegetarians go all gaga over bacon. They decided to ask some scientists who study how food tantalizes the brain just what's up with the bacon-craves. One such scientist was Johan Lunstrom, who studies how the brain processes sensory information, like smell. Did you know that bacon is one- to two-thirds fat? True. It also has lots of protein. Because of that it likely speaks to our evolutionary quest for calories. That oh-so-yummy smell also contributes. Considering that 90% of what we taste is related to odor, it isn't all that surprising that bacon's strong and delightful smell hits our olfactory centers with a powerful "eat me" message. Additionally, odor is strongly connected to emotion and memory. All you have to do is think about a weekend breakfast and you'll likely include the taste and smell of bacon. The social aspect of said big breakfast also seems to be important and helps to solidify the memories. Add in to the mix the desire to try new and interesting bacon concoctions - like chocolate-covered bacon - and you've got a vegetarian on the edge! Bacon has also gained all kinds of status in foodie circles. This status adds a whole new layer of enticement to vegetarians. Forbidden fruit...or...um...bacon.

Here's the NPR Story:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2011/01/30/133304206/why-bacon-is-a-gateway-to-meat-for-vegetarians

Fun Bacon Links:
http://bacontoday.com/
http://www.baconfreak.com/
http://www.thinkgeek.com/stuff/41/squeez-bacon.html
The bacon explosion! I've actually tried this one: http://www.bbqaddicts.com/blog/recipes/bacon-explosion/
http://www.oddee.com/item_96679.aspx

TurBacon Epic!