A few weeks ago, we told you about Burger King's resistance to pay its tomato pickers an extra penny a pound,

Well, good news: they've decided to step it up and fork over the extra money. (Wow - big spenders, right?) But they, uh, generously decided to up it to 1.5 cents per pound, to cover payroll taxes and administrative costs.

But let's not get all excited and run out to buy BK burgers en masse. This is a decision they should have made in the first place, much like other fast food chains did.

In the meantime, BK is touting its new agreement with the Coalition of Immokalee Workers to further improve wages and the workers' livelihoods. Hopefully this isn't just all for show, and they really will pay more attention to the workers' needs.

Lately, there have been some raised eyebrows in BK's direction, mainly because they won't agree to pay their tomato pickers an extra penny per pound of tomatoes.

The tomato pickers have to pick 125 buckets worth of the fruit in order to get $50-60 per day, and work 10-12 hours in the hot Florida sun. The new measure would only cost BK an additional $300,000 per year, out of their $11 billion yearly revenue.

Other fast food joints have already agreed to pay their workers more, but BK continues to stall. Some people are afraid that tomato growers would wind up with the money, instead of the pickers, and others are worried the new agreement will violate antitrust rules.

But the shadiness doesn't stop there. BK execs admitted that they have a relationship with Diplomatic Tactical Services, a security firm with a creepy, amorphous name, which helps BK spy on its clients.

Eric Schlosser, author of Fast Food Nation, recently wrote an op-ed for the Times on the subject, shedding light on BK's Big Brother tactics.

I always knew there was something hiding behind that awful molded plastic King in the commercials...

Starbucks, contrary to popular belief, does not pays less for their coffee than other coffee buyers, using their size to bully their suppliers into meeting extremely low prices (like one here-unnamed major retailer does). In the past year, Starbucks paid about 36% more than the average price per pound of coffee beans, shelling out $1.42 for every pound of beans they bought.

Does this definitively prove that Starbucks is making the world a better place for all coffee growers and that there will be no starving farmers working coffee plantations in the world? Of course not. The latter problem can't be helped because that low average price means that there are companies paying far, far less for their products. What this does mean is that Starbucks is making positive policies that will benefit growers in the long run, setting a higher standard that other buyers will, hopefully, meet at some point.

In light of the E. coli and botulism problems over the past few months that have been linked to California growers, there has been a proposal that new standards should be implemented to ensure that consumers will feel safe and comfortable buying California produce. Most growers have already increased the amount of oversight that their produce recieives, but the new plan involves the creaton of a "seal of approval" for all leafy vegetables. The standards for the seal have not yet been determined, but growers and lawmakers plan to iron out the details later this spring. Issues being considered are how to more effectively test irrigation water and how to keep livestock, primarily cattle, away from cropland.

In spite of the fact that there is no actual plan in place yet, the idea of a "seal of approval" is already being met with opposition, with critics saying that "the industry's proposal relies too heavily on policing itself." This could be a strong argument in other industries, but when it comes to food safety, no one wants to make sure consumers are protected more than the growers whose livelihoods depend on consumer satisfaction with, and confidence in, their products.

Two fairly common wine terms are "varietal" and "blend." A varietal wine is one made primarily of one type of grape, like Chardonnay, Zinfandel or Pinot Noir. A blended wine is a combination of different types of wine, designed to enhance certain flavors, rather than a certain grape. Another word that gets thrown around a lot is "vintage," which refers to the year that the grapes were produced. Judging from the location of the winery and the vintage, wine connoisseurs can pinpoint their favorite wines based upon the quality of the harvest that year.

Since 1972, winemakers in the US have been allowed to add up to 5% of one vintage to another vintage wine and still tag it the the year of the latter. Under this standard, a 2004 wine could have up to 5% of 2001 added to it, for example. This standard was increased to 15% a few weeks ago. It was done to "give greater flexibility to domestic winemakers in blending wine to better suit consumer tastes" and the Wine Institute noted that adding older, more mature wines to younger wines would help in "improving taste appeal and quality perception." Countries in the EU, as well as Australia and New Zealand, already have this 15% standard, while countries like Chile and South Africa allow up to 25%.

Some areas in the US, prestigious American Viticultural Areas, will still be using the 95% standard, if they blend with older vintages at all.