A paper from a partnership between the Harvard Food Law and Policy Clinc and the National Resources Defense Council (pdf)
from the exeutive summary
This policy brief examines the historical impetus for
placing dates on food—namely a desire to indicate products’
freshness—and the ways in which the system has failed to
meet this goal, while creating a range of ancillary problems.
Relevant federal laws and authorities are described along
with a review of the legislative history on this topic, and a
comparison of state laws related to food date labeling is
provided. The paper then describes why and how date labels contribute to the waste of edible food in the United States
and explains specifically how:
° The lack of binding federal standards, and the resultant state and local variability in date labeling rules, has led to
a proliferation of diverse and inconsistent date labeling
practices in the food industry. Such inconsistency exists
on multiple levels, including whether manufacturers
affix a date label in the first place, how they choose which
label phrase to apply, varying meanings for the same
phrase, and the wide range of methods by which the date
on a product is determined. The result is that consumers
cannot rely on the dates on food to consistently have the
° This convoluted system is not achieving what date
labeling was historically designed to do—provide
indicators of freshness. Rather, it creates confusion and
leads many consumers to believe, mistakenly, that date
labels are signals of a food’s microbial safety, which
unduly downplays the importance of more pertinent
food safety indicators.
° This confusion also leads to considerable amounts of
avoidable food waste as the mistaken belief that past-
date foods are categorically unsuitable for consumption
causes consumers to discard food prematurely.
° Inconsistent date labeling policies and practices harm
the interests of manufacturers and retailers by creating
increased compliance burdens and food waste at the
° Date labeling practices hinder food recovery and
redistribution efforts by making the handling of past-
date foods administratively and legally complex.
After analyzing these five core problems with the
contemporary date labeling regime, this report will introduce
recommendations on how to begin to remedy the food waste
and food safety issues related to date labeling, by creating a system in which date labels more clearly communicate
information. Recommendations are broken into two
sections: the first section proposes key changes to the date
labeling system across the United States, and the second
section identifies relevant stakeholders and describes actions
that each should take to address the issue.
A few issues .. students across the country are becoming less interested in football and worry more about the cost of education. Student bodies are becoming increasingly female where there is little interest in football - not to mention it doesn't represent the athletes among them. Very few colleges make money on football and all of them are powers in major athletic conferences ... CSU plays in a second tier conference and the money required to build a major team would be formidable. Not to mention potential issues with the college football bubble collapsing if cable tv goes ala carte and only people who are interested in sports subscribe to ESPN (currently every cable sub pays about $60 a year for ESPN like it or not) and the sport may see major changes to deal with concussions... and the list continues...
One wonders why what is essentially a professional sport is coupled with higher education in the US in the first place ... Sport is just sport, but can move into entertainment at the professional level. One has to face the fact that top caliber college football and basketball are really professional sports where the players aren't compensated and colleges get sucked into the promotion act.
High speed still photography is within reach of the amateur - you just have to be a bit clever with flash illumination and triggering the photo. Video slow motion, at least beyond 120fps or so, is more difficult and expensive.
College-age Americans are divided among not two but three distinct worldviews: Religious,
Secular, and Spiritual.
o Each of the three worldviews is attached to a distinct outlook on theological,
philosophical, scientific, public-policy, and political issues.
Gender gaps are noticeable within the Secular (with more males) and Spiritual (with more
females) groups, while the Religious group attracts males and females more evenly.
Each of the group has a distinct religious identification make-up:
o The Religious group is overwhelmingly Christian of various denominations.
o The Secular group overwhelmingly distance themselves from religion; 70% profess no religion (Nones) and 11% refuse to answer.
o The Spiritual group is varied in its religious make-up: one-third are Nones and 17% identify with Eastern religions, Judaism, and New Religious Movements.
Many college-age students seem to have a worldview different from the one in which they were
o The Religious group attended religious services regularly (91% monthly or more often) in
o The Secular group is almost evenly divided; 49% were raised in actively religious homes,
and 51% attended infrequently in their early years.
o The Spiritual group seems to lie midway between the Secular and Religious populations;
two-thirds were raised in religious homes.
Patterns of belief in God are remarkably different in the three worldviews:
o The Religious group mirrors the general American adult population with 70% firmbelievers and only 2% saying they don’t believe in God or don’t know where there is a God and don’t believe there is any way to find out.
o At the other spectrum are Secular students, of whom 77% either don’t believe in God or don’t know if there is a God.
o Spiritual students exhibit an array of preferences: 27% believe in a higher power (but not
in a personal God); 24% are firm believers; 21% believe in God (while having doubts);
12% don’t know if God exists and only 5% don’t believe in God.
Opinions on scientific and philosophical issues differ widely.When asked separately, “Do you believe in miracles?” and “Do you believe in reason/rationalism?”
o A strong majority of Religious students believes in miracles and a smaller majority
believes in reason and rationalism.
o The Secular are as committed to reason (83%) as the Religious are to belief in miracles
(84%). Only 13% of Seculars believe in miracles.
o The Spiritual are between the two other worldviews.
Similarly, the results show considerable divisions by worldview with regard to belief in
Creationism/Intelligent Design and Evolution/Darwinism:
o A majority of Religious students believe in Creationism/Intelligent Design. Another
majority believes in Evolution/Darwinism. Presumably this reflects the split between
conservative and liberal religious believers, with some small group believing in both
o The Secular group overwhelmingly endorses Evolution (93%) and rejects Creationism
(only 5% ‘yes’).
o The Spiritual group believes strongly in Evolution but a significant minority (26%)
believes in Creationism or Intelligent Design.
On public policy issues the Spiritual and Secular groups hold similar worldviews, with Secular
students consistently more liberal and the Religious more conservative. The pattern is similar for
all issues raised: women’s reproductive rights, same sex marriages, gay adoptions, gun control,
and belief in assisted suicide.
Spiritual students seem to distance themselves from religious institutions. When asked “Do you
agree or disagree: Religious institutions and clergy are entitled to their tax breaks?” only 29% of
them agree, compared with 58% of Religious students and 16% of Secular.
Finally, the political orientations of the worldviews are quite distinct:
o Religious students are the most likely to regard themselves “conservative” (34%) compared with 11% of Spiritual and 4% of Secular.
o Secular students are also the most likely to view themselves as “liberal” (44%) compared with 35% of Spiritual and 17% of Religious.
o Secular students are also the most likely to describe themselves as “progressive” (20%) compared with 12% of Spiritual and only 5% of Religious.
o Interestingly, the “libertarian” option attracted almost the same share of students in each group.
o The Religious are the most likely to consider themselves “moderate.”
A friend had a bit of a place in Manhattan's West Village for awhile - about 10 people sharing a very small place. She rented the couch for 12 hours a day along with a space for a suitcase, part of a shelf in the fridge and a time slot for the shower. She has moved on to much better things, but at the low end of the scale I would imagine terrible things are happening even in "respectible" areas.