Tuesday, March 3, 2026
Home Blog Page 4138

The 7 lessons Anthony Bourdain taught us about travel

In a culture that places tremendous value on celebrity, personality and anything culinary, it’s not surprising that Anthony Bourdain’s greatest talent was one that many people tended to overlook. He was a storyteller.
During his time as the host of Travel Channel’s “No Reservations” and “The Layover,” as well as CNN’s “Parts Unknown,” Bourdain used each episode to weave a story that, above all else, had a point, a message, a lesson. Often it was something that he learned from the experience that he could pass on to viewers – something deeper than “Isn’t this place neat?” which was (and still is) the deepest lesson of most Travel Channel programs.
Some lessons were stated plainly, others were in subtext or they revealed themselves over the course of a TV season. Below are some of what we learned about travel from Bourdain’s shows. (Disclaimer: I didn’t know Bourdain. I met him twice, briefly, and we grew up in the same town in New Jersey. What follows is based entirely on the content of his travel shows.)
A place is more about its people than its monuments or museums: As a chef, Bourdain spent a predictable amount of time in restaurants and kitchens, but the most important element of any episode was, for lack of a better description, the cultural Sherpa. There was always a local chef, celebrity, blogger or longtime compatriot who could explain what Bourdain – and the world – needed to know to appreciate the place. And, of course, how and where to eat the most relevant dishes. Monuments and museums that are the staple of most travel coverage were rare here, less relevant.
Context is crucial: You can’t understand what’s great about an extraordinary place unless you also understand the not-so-terrific side. Whether it was the Dracula tourism in Romania or an excruciating eternity in a tourist cave in Jamaica, Bourdain rarely shied away from the “negatives” of a place. They are part of the whole story. Any travel writer, blogger, influencer or TV host who offers only the positive side is giving you a brochure or a greeting card – and he or she should be working for Hallmark instead.
You’ll learn more by slowing down than by speeding up: In the first “No Reservations” episode, Bourdain spends the entire last 3 minutes of the show sitting in a bistro in Paris, slowly noshing on a ham sandwich and sipping coffee. In so many words, the message is that he’s learning more about Parisian culture in the simple no-impact ritual of relaxing and savoring than if he tried to visit more landmarks and attractions. It would become a theme in many episodes thereafter.
There’s more to Africa than safari animals: Western media has a shallow tendency to cover Africa solely through its wild animals. Everyone wants to write about seeing a cheetah in the wild or feeling the thundering migration of wildebeest. But there are far fewer travel stories-posts-shows that cover a major city in Africa the same way the media would approach a European city. During his tenures on Travel Channel and CNN, Bourdain produced episodes in nearly a dozen African countries, including Ghana, Nigeria, Ethiopia, Congo, Namibia and Senegal. Most focused on the music, food, art and history of the local culture – through conversations with people – instead of just on elephants, lions, giraffes or rhinos.
Great experiences require being open to them: In travel, it’s too easy to get wrapped up in snobbery, whether about food or anything else. In an essay he wrote for Bon Appetit (republished last week at MSN.com), Bourdain said his father believed that the setting and the companionship during a meal was just as important as the food itself. “Perhaps the most important life lesson he passed on was: Don’t be a snob. It’s something I will always at least aspire to – something that has allowed me to travel this world and eat all it has to offer without fear or prejudice,” Bourdain wrote. “To experience joy, my father taught me, one has to leave oneself open to it.”
The big picture: At the end of most of Bourdain’s TV episodes, he tended to impart what he learned from the experience and the place. Often the lesson was about more than the destination covered in the episode. Bourdain’s style dared viewers to ask themselves not “What did I see?” but “What did I learn?” Not just about the place but about travel, about the world, about yourself. It’s the difference between experiencing and sightseeing. Every place teaches us something, we just don’t always know what it is. If you ask the question after one trip, every trip thereafter you may start to see the patterns, the lessons.
That travel isn’t about living in a postcard: At the end of a particularly emotion-filled “No Reservations” episode in Malaysia, Bourdain is conflicted about where to go from there, physically and philosophically. “The journey changes you. It should change you. It leaves marks on your memory, your consciousness, your heart and on your body. You take something with you and, hopefully, you leave something good behind.”

Spud Hilton is a San Francisco Chronicle travel editor.

RAISING WITH AFFECTION

0

ROYAL’S CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
Business organizations do not operate in a vacuum. They depend wholly and solely on the society for its survival where, the latter provides the resources such as labor, material, infrastructure, etc. to the former. This holds every business enterprise responsible “socially”, “economically” and “ethically” towards the environment in which it operates.
As per this principle, Business entities are expected to manage their operations in such a way that they can enhance economic growth, increase competitiveness, at the same time, ensure environmental protection and promote social responsibility along with stakeholders’ interest.
Nowadays many companies choose to engage in Corporate Social Responsibility. The concepts influence has evidently increased, and today more companies than ever are presenting various examples of activities that they are undertaking in the field of Corporate Social Responsibility.
Mr. Eyob Negussie, Royal Foam founder and CEO, said that to become a good corporate citizen from its inception, Royal Foam has incorporated Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) as one of the strategies to conduct business in the way that is ethical, society friendly and beneficial to community in terms of development. The activities that Royal has participated include working in partnership with local communities, humanitarian activities, developing relationships with employees, customers and their families, and involving in activities for environmental conservation and sustainability. Royal has donated funds and in-kind support worth over two million birr to local charities and welfare organizations since it has entered to the market. Despite challenges that the company is currently facing in the market, it is still devoted to resume its corporate social responsibility activities, because Royal do its business in a way that is ethical and society friendly!
Regarding charity works, in 2011, Royal Foam has warmly welcomed the request from local charity organization that operates under Bole Amanuel United Church, which has been established the same year to work together. This charity organization support children who need assistance through food and in kind. Eligible children for the program will be selected through recommendation of local government bodies and the church itself. They live with their parents who are mostly either single mother or father.
When Royal starts the program the children were ten who had received monthly food support,annual educational materials, counseling and other integrated services. Since 2012 up to now Royal’s children have reached fifty (50) those who are being raised with affection under Royal corporate social responsibility strategy.
Beyond the aforementioned supports, the CEO with his team has conducted regular visits at the children home checking on their status. Royal also gave mattresses and blankets for their families at different times and other community members who were in emergency situations, accordingly. Beside, the basic supports that Royal has been delivering for the children and their families, in order to enjoy the children; regular recreation programs have been arranged by the company. These are some to mention. In future, Royal Foam will expand its scope and continue its corporate social activities thoroughly.

Finally, Mr. Eyob delivers his message saying that there are so many people in our country who need support. Hence, business firms that are not engaged in such poverty reduction activities should have to take their responsibilities to assist these people and alleviate poverty in different ways based on their capacity and become a good corporate citizen!

The looming global trade war

President Donald Trump has long been keen to defend United States workers from the “carnage” of “bad trade deals.” To that end, he has now decided to impose tariffs and quotas on imports of steel and aluminum. He also threatened the European Union with trade barriers on automobiles and could take even more measures on intellectual property rights and technology goods. It is more plausible than not that this is the beginning of a costly tit-for-tat whereby United States trade protection will be countered by others.
The bad news is that a fully-fledged trade war would create serious economic damage. Recent estimations by Ralph Ossa from the University of Chicago indicate that a global trade war, resulting in a rise in trade barriers for all countries, would slash real incomes by an average 3.4%.  At the global level, this would correspond to a loss of almost one full year of growth efforts.
President Trump’s move is surprising in that it will negatively impact the United States economy, although the extent of harm would be limited to the loss of jobs in the user industries of the protected sector. According to Ralph Ossa, this can be illustrated with the case of the United States steel safeguard tariffs between March 2002 and December 2003. Back in 2002, mounting competitive pressures on the steel industry led President George W. Bush to impose safeguard tariffs ranging between 8% and 30% on ten steel product groups, with a total of 272 tariff lines.
Steel imports from North American Free Trade Area (NAFTA) countries, from other preferential trade agreement parties (Jordan and Israel) and from 100 developing countries were exempted. Moreover, around 1,000 firm-specific exemptions were granted by the United States. As a result of trade restriction, United States imports of steel products declined by 5% between 2002 and 2003, bringing the steel industry sector’s trade deficit down by 28%.
The protection of the steel industry produced negative spillover effects to other parts of the United States economy. Steel is a key input in several industries, among others manufacture of basic metals, manufacture of fabricated metal products, manufacture of electrical equipment and manufacture of machinery and equipment not elsewhere classified. Taken together, the steel-using industries generated in 2001 far more value added than did the steel industry itself and employed 57 workers for every employee in the steel industry.
Should President Donald Trump push ahead with protectionist pledges, a tit-for-tat trade conflict or at least elements thereof would be unavoidable. Smaller muscle flexing with respect to single industries would probably not harm the overall economic picture. However, a fully-fledged trade war would be detrimental to both the United States and its trading partners.
More generally, the current Trump administration’s strategy reflects a false diagnosis of the underlying problem of chronic current account deficits registered by the United States. As long as United States excess consumption is financed by savings from abroad, there is no economic reason for current account deficits to improve. Protectionism only reallocates the deficits among sectors.
Professor John Burton of Leeds University argued that with regard to protectionism and trade wars, President Donald Trump should heed the warning of his illustrious predecessor President Thomas Jefferson that “the most successful war seldom pays for its losses.” Following up on his 2016 campaign threats, United States President Donald Trump has now stoked the worst trade tensions in decades. Understandably, markets are nervous.
According to Professor John Burton, when it comes to trade, the European Union is a top global power that is able to act. External trade policies for the European Union are largely a prerogative of the European Union authorities in Brussels. Of the three major global players, the United States, the European Union and China, the European Union is the one with the least pronounced political agenda and hence the highest probability of acting roughly in line with economic logic.
Where it gets really interesting is to look at the European Union inside this triad from a the United States perspective. One insight is inescapable. The more the United States abstains from imposing new barriers to imports from the European Union, the more may the European Union support United States efforts to change Chinese practices regarding both intellectual property and market access.
At the same time, the United States government correctly points out that European Union import tariffs are, on average, slightly higher than those of the United States, according to most calculations. However, the European Union for its part can argue that it was President Donald Trump who stopped the Transatlantic Free Trade Negotiations. Under this negotiation, the European Union and the United States would have abolished almost all tariffs and many other trade impediments between each other.
The European Union may well be ready to negotiate a mini free trade with the United States. That would allow President Trump to claim that he secured better United States access to the European Union market, while the European Union would benefit from some other United States trade concessions.
Professor William Welsh of Michigan University stated that the European Union is most likely to act roughly in line with economic logic does not mean that the European Union would be a pushover for President Trump in a serious trade dispute. In the most trade-dependent countries of core Europe such as Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium, labour markets are in robust shape. German GDP growth, for example, is constrained by a scarcity of suitable labour, not by a lack of export orders. As a result, the European Union would be ready to take on the United States government, if provoked, and even if that would incur some economic costs.

The International Code of Marketing of Breast-Milk Substitutes

Have you heard of “The International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes”? The WHO Code includes the below 14 important provisions:
No advertising of products under the scope of the Code to the public.
No free samples to mothers.
No promotion of products in health care facilities, including the distribution of free or low-cost supplies.
No company representatives to advise mothers.
No gifts or personal samples to health care workers.
No words or pictures idealizing artificial feeding, including pictures of infants, on the labels of the products.
Information to health workers should be scientific and factual.
All information on artificial feeding, including the labels, should explain the benefits of breastfeeding and all costs and hazards associated with artificial feeding.
Unsuitable products such as sweetened condensed milk should not be promoted for babies.
All products should be of a high quality and take account of the climatic and storage conditions of the country where they are used.
Promote and support exclusive breastfeeding for six months as a global public health recommendation with continued breastfeeding for up to two years of age or beyond.
Foster appropriate complementary feeding from the age of six months recognizing that any food or drink given before nutritionally required may interfere with breastfeeding.
Babies don’t need ANYTHING but breastmilk for the first 6 months of life.  From 6 months onward, it is recommended that you continue to breastfeed while providing nutritious complimentary foods for up to two years or beyond.
Complementary foods are not to be marketed in ways to undermine exclusive and sustained breastfeeding.
Financial assistance from the infant feeding industry may interfere with professionals’ unequivocal support for breastfeeding.
Breastfeeding gives all children the healthiest start in life. Breastmilk stimulates brain development and acts as a baby’s first vaccine. Breastfeeding lowers health-care costs, creating healthier families and a smarter workforce. It also protects mothers’ health. When mothers breastfeed, everyone benefits. Still, worldwide, only 43 per cent of children younger than six months are exclusively fed breastmilk. By age two, only 46 per cent receive any breastmilk at all. UNICEF and the World Health Organization (WHO) are leading a global Breastfeeding Advocacy Initiative to increase the political commitment for breastfeeding, which is one of the smartest investments a country can make. The Breastfeeding Advocacy Initiative seeks to join forces with partners who are also working to realize the Sustainable Development Goals’ vision of a better world. Our aim is to integrate agendas, messages, and advocacy, so we can maximize our collective influence. Together, we will go further than any of us could alone.
The aggressive marketing of breastmilk substitutes creates a major barrier to breastfeeding. Studies show that these tactics reduce breastfeeding rates, putting both children’s and mothers’ health at risk. Consequently, countering this industry’s marketing practices and promoting the benefits of breastfeeding are top advocacy priorities. Breastmilk substitutes (BMS) include all milk products-such as infant formula, follow-up formula, and growing up milks- marketed for use by infants and children up to 36-months old. Inappropriate and unnecessary use of BMS is associated with an increase in the risk of respiratory and diarrhoeal diseases, as well as an increase in deaths in children under five. Despite the World Health Assembly’s prohibition on all BMS promotion, manufacturers still make unsubstantiated claims about the health benefits of their products. BMS manufacturers spend millions of dollars annually to promote their products. These efforts are highly successful, and the sales of BMS are projected to increase from US$45 billion in 2014 to US$71 billion in 2019. The widespread promotion of BMS leads to the circulation of misinformation about breastfeeding which influences the decisions that families make about feeding their infants and young children. Aggressive marketing of BMS products influences nutritional decisions that impact children throughout their lives. This is why BMS products cannot safely be marketed in the same way as other food or dairy products. The International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes was adopted to protect families from the industry’s aggressive marketing tactics. Since its adoption, the Code has been regularly updated by World Health Assembly resolutions, which have addressed new scientific evidence on breastfeeding and the BMS industry’s new products and promotional tactics. When the Code is successfully implemented, it protects families from the misinformation and commercial pressures that can dissuade women from breastfeeding. Repeatedly, the World Health Assembly has called on governments to give effect to the provisions in the Code through national, legally-binding regulations. Unfortunately, the Code has not been uniformly implemented. And monitoring efforts have highlighted consistent violations in many countries. These violations include: Using advertising and social media to promote BMS, bottles, and teats to the general public and to health-care systems; Distributing free samples to mothers; Enticing customers to buy BMS products using sales inducements such as special offers or price reductions; Publicizing health claims on labels or other BMS materials; Idealizing BMS products in text or images;  Providing free supplies of BMS, bottles, or teats to health facilities; Sponsoring the education and meetings of health workers.
Now that you know, be aware.

Source: ADVOCACY BRIEF Breastfeeding and the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes by WHO and UNICEF
Ton Haverkort