Ïîïóëÿðíûå ñîîáùåíèÿ

среда

We have to confess: When we heard that Twinkies will have nearly double the shelf life, 45 days, when they return to stores next week, our first reaction was – days? Not years?

Urban legend has long deemed Twinkies the cockroaches of the snack food world, a treat that can survive for decades, what humanity would have left to eat come the apocalypse. The true shelf life — which used to be 26 days — seems somewhat less impressive by comparison.

While the Twinkie is indeed a highly processed food — its three dozen or so ingredients include polysorbate 60, sodium stearoyl lactylate and others that could only come from a lab — it isn't any more so than thousands of other food products out there.

"It is absolutely typical of all processed foods," says Steve Ettlinger, who spent five years tracing the origins of ingredients in many processed foods for his book Twinkie, Deconstructed.

"Perhaps disappointing to foodies, it's mostly flour and sugar," he tells The Salt.

So why does the Twinkie persist in the popular imagination as a paragon of delicious, unnatural food creations? Perhaps it is the way the snacks seem to override our senses. Unwrapped from their plastic packaging, these sponge cakes appear impossibly soft, their filling so creamy — not rancid, as logic tells us that any milk product left out for days must surely be.

Indeed, most of the items on Twinkies' long list of ingredients go into pulling off that hat trick. Normally, you need butter, milk and eggs to give cakes their moisture and tenderness.

Americans will get the same ham slabs and bacon slices they have enjoyed for generations, even after Smithfield Foods becomes a Chinese subsidiary, Smithfield CEO Larry Pope told Congress on Wednesday.

"It will be the same old Smithfield, only better," Pope said in prepared testimony at a Senate Agriculture Committee hearing.

But several senators weren't buying the bacon-will-be-unbroken story once Hong Kong-based Shuanghui International Holdings owns Smithfield.

Worried about the impact on the U.S. consumer, farmer and even the taxpayer, they expressed qualms about Chinese intentions.

"Is Shuanghui focused on acquiring Smithfield's technology, which was developed with considerable assistance by U.S. taxpayers?" asked Debbie Stabenow, the Michigan Democrat who chairs the Senate committee.

"Can we expect that after the company has adopted Smithfield's technology and practices, they will increase exports to Japan, our largest export market, in competition with U.S. products?" she asked in her prepared statement.

Stabenow also raised questions about:

- Fairness. "Can we really expect increased access for our pork products in China?"

- Consumers. "Will we see volatility in prices?"

- Precedent. "One pork company alone might not be enough to affect our national security, but it's our job to be thinking about the big picture."

The deal is being reviewed by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, known as CFIUS, which monitors and reviews foreign investments.

The Salt

Will Chinese Firm Bring Home The Bacon With Smithfield Deal?

As astute commentators pointed out in an earlier Parallels post about the vagaries of getting a drink in the Middle East, that isn't the only place where the laws regulating alcohol are more than a touch confusing, or where there's debate over them.

Some Americans don't need to look any further than their own local bar.

Commenter Glenn Zanotti shared his perspective:

"If the Southern Baptist Convention had its way, buying alcohol here in the Dallas area would be just as difficult. As it is, I have to drive 20 miles for a bottle of Bourbon. I used to have to drive to the next town to buy a six-pack of beer. Thank goodness for the separation of church and state — voters decided to allow beer and wine sales in my suburban city about 10 years back. Now I can buy beer and wine close to home, but not that evil liquor. Maybe we'll change that in another 10 years."

The Senate is planning to vote Wednesday on a plan to bring interest rates on subsidized federal student loans back down to 3.4 percent for one more year. The rate doubled on July 1 when the chamber failed to agree on a plan.

While the Senate prepares to take the issue back up, college students are left staring at several competing proposals.

This fight has been all about what's best for those students. To make that point, House Republicans recently gathered more than 100 of them to sweat and squint under the summer sun for a press conference on the Capitol steps. The guys were wrapped in wool suits and ties — most of them congressional interns plucked from offices just that afternoon.

One of them was Wes Hodgin, who said he kept thinking one thing while he waited 45 minutes for House leaders to arrive: Do not faint.

"I'm just going to try to stand out here, sweat all I can, and just not faint today," he said.

Hodgin's going to be a junior at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill this fall. He has student loans, but not the subsidized kind, so the rate doubling on July 1 technically didn't affect him.

Nevertheless, House Republicans had one central message: The Senate still hasn't passed a student loan plan.

"They've been more involved in internal bickering rather than actually addressing the issue," said Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, chairwoman of the House Republican Conference. "And the students that are surrounded with us today — they're all suffering because of it."

Related NPR Stories

Education

Loan Education Becomes Prerequisite As Student Debt Balloons

Blog Archive