markk
-
Posts
1,630 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Help Articles
Posts posted by markk
-
-
Heh... I did the same thing in a Brazillian Churascaria. In fact, I started a post here in the wine forum before actually going to the reastaurant. I strted off with the "When In Rome" assumption. People suggested a Malbec from Argentina. (It's close to Brazil
) And you know what, it was great. It looks like I'll be going to a Brazillian Churascaria later in the month. And you know what? I think I'll order a Malbec. I mean, if I never tried the "when in Rome" thing, I'd probably miss out on a lot of wines I would not normally have.I was in on that thread. But I don't think that people suggested the Argentinian Malbec because Argentina is close to Brazil. I think they suggested a Malbec because it's a delicious accompaniment to grilled and roasted meats, and an Argentinian one because not only are theirs delicious (and Argentina is one of the places getting great results from that grape), they are reasonably priced as well.
It was Texas de Brazil in Miami that you're referring to. I was there last week, and I also ate at an Argentinian Steakhouse (Graziano's) and had a sublime rib steak grilled over wood, and a supremely delicious Argentinian Malbec to go with it.
Now, it very well may be that the Argentinians started planting the Malbec grape looking for something to go with their delicious beef, for sure.
-
Since this discussion is taking a natural (and highly interesting) broadening, I'd like to add a personal thought on the idea of 'parental discretion'. And I promise, it relates to food (or Chinese food at any rate).
I know one set of parents who allow their 14 year old son to smoke marijuana at home (although they themselves don't), and another set (who do) who sat down and smoked a joint with their 15 year old daughter so that "she wouldn't learn about it on the streets".
(See, I told you it had to do with Chinese food.)
So I'm not thoroughly convinced that parents always know what's best for their children, and it's probably a good thing that there are laws governing certain consciousness-altering substances.
I'm not saying that I know what the legal age for drinking should be, because I don't. (And I grant you that whatever age you choose, you're probably unfairly excluding from the pleasure some underage people who could imbibe responsibly.)
-
This links to a fascinating pdf document.
Here are some excerpts from it. You might find them fascinating to read all the way through:
--------------------------
(Introductory remarks by Edward F. Kelly, Chairman NY State Liquor Authority)
Dear Parents:
The New York State Liquor Authority (SLA) works in conjunction with state and local police in
the enforcement of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law. As the law relates to unlicensed keg and
teen parties, the police are the primary enforcement agency. Despite the ongoing efforts by law
enforcement, underage drinking (including excessive drinking and binge drinking) continues to plague our communities and neighborhoods. As the legal purchase age changed from 18 to 19 and
presently to 21, the category of underage persons now includes individuals considered adults by
many other legal standards....
Unlike licensed establishments, where inspections, legal standards and levels of supervision
are required, the organizers of underage drinking parties are generally unconcerned, improperly prepared, and careless in the safety or well being of their attendees. (The bold italics are mine.)
-----------------------------
NYS Penal Law
Section 260.20 Unlawfully dealing with a child in the first degree
A person is guilty of unlawfully dealing with a child in the first degree when:
He gives or sells or causes to be given or sold any alcoholic beverage, as defined by
section three of the alcoholic beverage control law, to a person less than twenty-one
years old: except that this subdivision does not apply to the parent or guardian of such a
person or to a person who gives or causes to be given any such alcoholic beverage to a
person under the age of twenty-one years, who is a student in a curriculum licensed or
registered by the state education department, where the tasting or imbibing of alcoholic
beverages is required in courses that are given only for instructional purposes during
classes conducted pursuant to such curriculum.
Unlawfully dealing with a child in the first degree is a class A misdemeanor.
Note: The exception for the parent or guardian does not extend to premises
licensed by the State Liquor Authority. (The italics are theirs, and I bolded them.)
-------------------------------
I think they're making it perfectly clear that it is not a restaurant's discretionary right to serve alcohol to an uneraged person, but rather that the restaurant's possession of a liquor license obligates them, especially, to uphold the letter of the law.
I don't know what kind of class an underaged person would take that requires them to drink alcohol, but the law is still incredibly clear that this exception does not hold true for them if they're in restaurants or premises licensed by the State Liquor Authority. Similarly, while it does seem to say that a parent can give alcohol to an underage person, it specifically says that they cannot do it in a bar or restaurant (i.e. "licensed premises").
I have one furhter thought to add, but it belongs in a separate post, and I'll put it there.
-
as for NY restaurant owners in the upper echelon, the fact that their restaurants do indeed routinely serve wine to accompanied minors
A point of order, If I'm allowed to call for one...
I don't remember seeing any documented proof on this thread that the above claim is true, save for Bryan's specific post that he had been served alcohol a few times previously at EMP.
Would those people who can substantiate this claim please re-submit their proof?
(Thanks.)
-
I would have reminded him that...
(Oh, no, no, no! My initial comment to him was way, way out of line, and for so many reasons! But we had already established a rapport and common sense of humor, and his reply was exactly what I deserved.
(Notwithstanding that I was a guest at his almost-500-year-old family home, and a guest in his town, I was totally out of line. And the point of his highly intelligent tour was to show me that the town was prospering so many centuries ago (while nearby towns were not) solely because of the commerce in their particular wines from the places that they could ship them to in Europe at that time.
(But as I say, it was all in jest, my comment and his retort. And of course, whatever their wines tasted like in the 17th century, he has clearly established that they were highly desired all over Europe, and therefore presumably much better than what was being made elsewhere.
(OT, and my apology for this.)
-
As for food and wine pairing, the success depends upon matching a wine of a particular style (flavor profile) with the appropriate food and its style and flavor profile. The old white wine with fish pairing--fine if one is talking about a classically prepared Dover sole for eg-- became moot when many restaurants began to prepare fish that was in a red wine sauce or grilled or blackened or used tuna and salmon and swordfish--dishes that can be paired with red wines.
Right on !!
This is one of the reasons I don't take this rule as law.
Another is that I drink whatever wine seems to my own sense of taste to go with what I'm eating. A long time ago I found that drinking a big, slightly oaked, warm-climate California chardonnay (a wine that by itself I would hate, and would simply never drink) is a more pleasing match sometimes with a big manly steak grilled outdoors, than a conventional-wisdom red (which may fill the requirement for "big" only, but whose flavor profile seems to me to clash with wood-grilled and charcoal-grilled meats).
-
could you really conceive of Per Se or Ducasse being raided? really?
Oh, for crying out loud, (as they say).
We're not talking about a movie-style raid where the FBI surrounds dangerous criminals with guns drawn. I'm sure it would happen so discreetly (for many reasons, not the least of which would be that there's always the chance that the young-looking person might actually be over 21) that most people wouldn't even notice it happening.
I'd imagine that if law enforcement was present for any reason - such as the possibility that a high ranking elected official, or celebrity were present - as has been suggested, or if agents were sent because they received complaints from people in the Temperance movement - they'd quitely identify themselves to the management, and if they spotted a potentially underage person drinking wine, that they or the management might go to that person discreetly and ask him to produce ID - which would be totally within their right - and as I say, I'd hope and imagine that they'd do it very quitely and very discreetly, and not kick down the doors with their guns drawn at Per Se and scream "Police - this is a raid - everybody on the floor with your hands outstrecthed!"
-
Arguments are being made and examples given for why people believe it is a small risk in the context of NYC fine dining.
I'm just saying that the posters who have been restaurant owners have certainly not judged it a "small risk", and I'd bet that if you asked Danny Meyer or any other high-end restaurant owner to assess the risk, they wouldn't consider the possibility of losing their liquor license "small".
-
I think if you went back to 1900 and tasted the food and wine anyplace in Europe where you've been in modern times, you'd find most of it quite different. The question is which has changed more, the wine or the food?
Now I have to tell a story!
A few years ago I was invited to spend the afternoon visiting the Hugel winery in Riquewihr, France. The invitation came from Etienne Hugel, who is the 13th generation of the family, and who runs the operation with his brother. The visit included an extensive tasting, and a personally guided tour of the town. (Sorry if this is wandering, but I hoped people might enjoy this, and it does lead to a point, I think.)
During our tour of the town, he explained that "By 1630, the wines of Riquewihr were acclaimed as some of the best in the world, and the resulting commerce had made the town quite wealthy."
Being a smartass, I said that I couldn't imagine that at that time, people could actually taste the difference between fine wine and anything that got them drunk enough not to mind the cold and the middle ages, or the fact that the sauces of the day were probably designed solely to mask the tast of half-rotten meat. He replied "May I remind you, my American friend, that at the time your little country was founded, civilisation had already been flourishing in Europe for centuries?"
Touché! - btw.
It was a very enjoyable, and totally fun-spirited debate, by the way, all in jest.
But I think that the wines have probably changed much more than the food, because newer winemaking techniques and equipment will have been invented. Perhaps these changes have made better wines, and perhaps the wines of 1900 were fabulously more rustic, delicious, and unadulterated than the wines of today. But I think that the food will have changed less. For one thing, the only differences I can think of are that the ingredients then will have been all natural, and probably organic and what we now call free-range (and therefore better tasting, to me anyway for all of these reasons), and I think that the fact that they'd have been cooked in wood burning ovens or over flame would have made them simply more delicious than today's versions, but not otherwise very different.
But as I say, these are only guesses. Highly romanticized guesses.
-
suppose Bryan's parents allow him to become a little inebriated and he falls on the way to the bathroom and hurts himself or worse another patron.
And there you have it, in a nutshell (says the man who dropped out of the thread some time ago).
The question really isn't whether Bryan is dressed up, and whether he's dining in a fine restaurant, and it's not whether the restaurant, having served him alcohol twice in the past, is somehow required to serve him alcohol a third time.
It's whether the restaurant personnell, and Bryan and his parents, have the presence of mind to think through all of the consequences of the situation.
Everybody here is giving rationalizations for why it's okay to declare a grey area around this law, so that a nicely dressed and gastronomically accomplished twenty-year-old can enjoy some fine with with his fine dinner. But in the event of a mishap, these grey areas will turn frighteningly black and white for the restaurant owner.
If he goes to the bathroom and slips on some grease or other item that's on the stairs and requires a trip to the emergency room or a hospitalization, and he's found to have alcohol in his blood, none of the grey rationalizations is going to save the restaurant owner from serious consequences.
-
I like it!
For me though, it's not that applicable.
In my refrigerator there's really no mystery or doubt. Things are either pristine fresh and towards the very front of the fridge, having been opened within a day or two, which is the only memory period I seem to have, or in the back of the fridge with stuff growing in the jars, and no memory for me of what they are and when they're from.
But I like the product!
-
It seems to me the model assumes that the local food and wine of a region somehow evolved together in perfect harmony.
I think that perhaps "evolved together in perfect harmony" may be a romanticized interpretation.
I always start my reasoning with the thought that "people can't eat what they don't have"; this is to say that for most of culinary history, when transportation wasn't as rapid as the spoilage rate, and refrigeration, or cold transportation wasn't an option, people took a long, hard look at the foodstuffs they could pull from the land, or hunt, or catch, within a day's worth of walk from their kitchen, and they learned to make do with it. I'd go so far to say that those who did the cooking even tried to get the most palatable flavor experiences out of those ingredients.
Is it an act of God that the Emilia Romagna region of Italy produces all the ingredients necessary for Lasagne Bolognese? Or are there other local products that somebody 'way back when' had the good sense to omit from this recipe? We may never know.
But it is possible that, having tasted what passes as the local wine (for better or worse, frequently worse), regional cooks may have adapted the dishes an additional degree to ensure that they harmonize with the local wine (however good or bad it is) rather than have the food and wine clash unpleasantly.
And so, is the local Lambrusco the best match for Lasagne Bolognese? I personally don't think so. I think that the rule of "local food with local wine" is a fun starting point at best, a way to begin your dining adventure when you get to a new place.
Some other factors to consdier are what happens when you make somebody else's "local" food half a planet away. If you bought the ingredients locally (to you), you've invalidated any possible influence that "terroir" has on the foodstuffs. To seek out then a wine local to the invention of the dish doesn't make the best sense. You should simply choose a wine whose flavors you find complementary to the dish.
And a last factor, for me anyway, is the profusion of new winemaking in so many parts of the world, which again negates the original premise. Sadly (to me, anyway), most modern winemakers everywhere are producing wines from Chardonnay and Cabernet (or, Lord help us, Merlot), when these wines never existed there historically, and never may have been possible to produce before modern winemaking technology was invented. When traveling, I wouldn't even consider 'pairing' one of these with a traditional food dish from that region. The winemaker may tell you that the new wine was created to go especially with the food, and the wine may represent some advances in drinkability over the traditional wine (perhaps not to me), but I also think it invalidates the rule.
So I take "local food with local wine" as a starting point, from which I begin and expand my culinary exploration of a region. (I also find that I've schlepped to many regions in hopes of sampling the traditional, local cuisine, only to find that the restaurant that's been cooking those recipes for generation after generation has gone out of business, and a Thai restaurant has opened in its place (because the locals, who eat the traditional food at home, of course, want some variety when they dine out) - but that's a whole nother issue.
-
To forestall discussion of my marital relations, here's another, less sensational and (I hope) more appropriate, example:
When I come to a corner when I'm walking, I cross if there are no cars coming. No matter what color the light is. Do I have a "legal obligation" to wait for a green light? I guess so. Would any rational person act differently? I doubt it.
Nor is this a matter of "getting away" with anything because I think I won't be caught. I do it in front of policemen. THEY DON'T CARE.
Now, if I were in a car, would I do the same thing? No. Because I understand the red light/green light laws are enforced differently against cars and pedestrians -- and rightfully so.
Is this "lawless"? No. It's living in reality.
In some countries, such as Germany, when pedestrians come to a red light on a deserted street in the middle of the night, they wait for it to turn green.
Do I wait here? No. Unless I think that there's a likelihood that there's a care that could appear from somewhere I can't see coming.
But if I were out walking with a young kid, I would teach him to stop, stand on the curb, and wait for the light to turn green.
At what age can he make the judgement that just because a car isn't in sight, that doesn't mean that one won't come roaring around the corner and plow him down while he's crossing against the red light? I don't know. Better he learns to wait for the green.
At what age is it okay for a kid to drink alcohol? I don't know. Can a 17 year old kid have a glass of wine with his dinner if his parents approve? I'm sure that's fine.
How about a 16 year old? Well... many would say that's fine, and it probably is, too. A fifteen year old?...
But the mother of a 9 year old who extrapolates that it's okay to give her daughter a beer to calm her when she didn't get picked for something at school?
There are surely laws that govern only what you may do privately, in your own home, or alone on a street corner all by yourself, and yes, I break those all the time.
But I took the discussion to have come to the point that Bryan was asking somebody else to break a law for him. And I think that in that case, it's better to work to change the law than to ask somebody to break it for you, even if they did it once or twice before and didn't get caught.
-
I don't agree with the things Bryan has said above, or the reasoning he's used, or the conclusions he's drawn.
But then again, it's okay to disagree, and I think I'd like to refrain from debating the point with him past here. He certainly has been kind enough to answer the specific questions I posed, and I thank him for the lively discussion.
Let us see, indeed, how other people in the thread feel about this.
(And what do you know - there are smilies to the left, which I saw just now for the first time in two years of posting here!)
-
The restaurant and server have a choice to uphold the law...,
No, they have a legal obligation to uphold the law.
I am asking them to take a risk*, I suppose, but I see nothing wrong with this. After all, they can deny me with the law on their side. But in return for the risk they gain the chance for a higher overall bill, a higher tip, repeat business,So in effect, you're trying to bribe them with monetary compensation to break the law.
I would lose respect for a person who knew what the law says and that he shouldn't break it, but who did so anyway for the potential of a higher bill or a bigger tip.
Now, I'm smiling as I write this, because I really don't want this to be taken as unkind, or to be taken personally, but I don't have an appropriate icon for it.
But aside from bribery, you're invoking an implication that's irrelevant to the law. The fact that you most probably can tell the difference between a Puligny-Montrachet and a Pouilly Fume doesn't negate the fact that both contain alcohol, which it is illegal for you to consume on a restaurant's premises if you're under the legal drinking age.
Or that the young'n at the next table out with his parents at a fine restaurant is looking to get a buzz from the alcohol in whatever wine he can get some of, even if it's a Côte Rôtie consumed with his raw oysters.
And I still maintain that if each and every person in America were allowed to break every law for which he could come up with a good rationzlization for not heeding, you'd find people waiting for you to exit a fancy and expensive restaurant to rob you at gunpoint as you went down a side street, because they'd claim that it's wrong for you to be able to spend as much on one dinner as they need to keep their family alive with food for a month. While I don't agree with every law on the books, I'm glad that we have a book with laws to begin with.
-
This rule also applies to smaller roasts, because they spend less time in the oven getting crispy on the ends and outside. If you're making a full 7-bone roast, there's really no need to sear - it'll stay in the oven long enough to get crusty. As I mentioned somewhere earlier, I started searing smaller roasts (even "steaks" cooked as a roast) because I found that in the time they took to cook to rare or medium rare, they didn't crust.
And if you do have a very lean roast, by all means ask the butcher for some extra fat, and lay it over the top of the roast to drip and crisp while it cooks!
-
You don't work in New York. Management KNOWS what's going on. This is apparently the way the law is enforced here.
Why is this so hard for people to understand?
For apparently the same reason it's so hard for you to understand that:
the fact that a particular law may not have been enforced yesterday, or the day before, (possibly because no one with a badge was there to see a violation yesterday, or possibly because a person with a badge who saw a violation the day before looked the other way for whatever reason) doesn't imply that the law is invalidated, revoked, or rescinded.
If you break the law one day and don't get caught, that's not legal precedent which gives you the right to break the law again the next day. That's simply your rationalization.
You have no idea when an enforcment officer will, or may be in a particular establishment, and "neither does the restaurant.
As your mother probably told you when she yelled at you to stop putting you finger in your nose and then taking food with that finger, and when you undoubtedly answered "but Sally's doing it" - "that doesn't make it right."
This is indeed an interesting discussion that Bryan started, and I am hopeful (and pretty confident) that he's not taking any of this personally. I'm hoping he wanders back to this discussion and can reply to a question I posed earlier, where I said (respectfully) that I thought he was being unfair:
But I think you're being unfair. After all, you did say...
I never go to dive bars, buy beer at lax "quickmarts," etc even though I could because I am absolutely petrified of getting arrested and having some stupid alcohol possession smear on my otherwise clean record.... yet you're asking restaurants to take the risk of getting an alcohol violation smear on their records (a very serious situation for a restuaurant) so that you can have a drink.
Is this not correct?
I'm just asking him if he doesn't see it the way I do, that he's asking the restaurant to break the law for his convenience and enjoyment, but that he wants the restaurant to take the risk, penalties, and consequences if they get caught indulging his request.
-
I'll just take some sips from my parents' glasses. A little bit off-putting but I really have no problem with this. I've done this kind of thing at nice places in Vegas too where carding is VERY strict even at high-end places with no problem. But here the waiter comes by after my parents' drinks have been poured and I've taken a sip or two and asks me stop.
Yes, because the restaurant could lose its liquor license if you're underage and consuming alcohol there.
... I find this incredibly rude, as do my parents. We explain that my parents are simply offering me sips of their wine and that they have not served any minors directly.Regardless of who is "serving" whom, if you're drinking alcohol in a restaurant and you're underage, the law is still being broken, and it is the restaurant who will be fined thousands of dollars, or perhaps lose its license to sell alcoholic beverages.
If you rob a store at gunpoint, you're breaking the law; if a dying, unemployed man who was about to rob the store so that he could take money to feed his family stumbles outside the store from weakness and asks you as you're going in please to take his gun and rob the store for him, and you do it, you're still breaking the law.
I understand how much you want the restaurant to look the other way so that you can enjoy some wine with your meal. But the truth is, if you insist that they allow you to drink wine on their premises, you're asking them to break the law so that you won't be inconvenienced.
As I've said, it's certainly a shame that fine-food-loving people who are underage can't have a glass of wine with their meal in a restaurant. But the law says you can't, and the restaurants will expose themselves to great potential losses if they break the law.
I don't object to your desire to have wine with your meal, and it seems that neither does anybody else here. And of course, everybody is familiar with your posts and your fabulous cooking, and really likes you, me included (!!)
But I think you're being unfair. After all, you did say...
I never go to dive bars, buy beer at lax "quickmarts," etc even though I could because I am absolutely petrified of getting arrested and having some stupid alcohol possession smear on my otherwise clean record.... yet you're asking restaurants to take the risk of getting an alcohol violation smear on their records (a very serious situation for a restuaurant) so that you can have a drink.
Is this not correct?
[edited to remove extraneous content]
-
Indeed! I don't agree with the law either. I can't see any reason why a responsible young person falling a bit short of the legal drinking age, dining in a fine restaurant with a parent, shouldn't be allowed to have wine with his meal if it's okay with said parent. But we can't rule that laws don't have to be followed just because we don't agree with them, and I think that a liquor license isn't something that a restaurant should be asked to risk losing by breaking the law.
Still, I think they could have handled it much more diplomatically, at the very least by having a captain or manager come to the table and say something as simple and straightforward as "it appears that the young man may not be of legal drinking age, and if that's so, we're unfortunately not allowed to serve alcohol to him".
It's an unfortunate social and gastronomic situation, but you'd be surprised by how many people from how many different walks of life can each rationalize away the laws that they think are unfair and don't want to abide by. I think we're better of with laws than without them, and that we should work to change the ones we don't agree with, rather than expect people to break them for us when it exposes them to a risk.
I also think it's very unfortunate that Bryan was denied a fine wine with his meal.
-
Anyone else have problems with a temp. probe. I have no idea what could have been wrong. The probe was in the center of the meat and the plug at the other end of the probe was inserted into the outlet on the side of the oven. It is very hot (duh!) and it was hard to raise the lid of the outlet and continue trying to insert the plug, but it did seem to click as it pressed in all the way.
That has happened to me a lot with my Kitchen Aid convection oven. At the moment that the roast goes in the oven, the probe plug won't insert and click all the way into the receptacle in the oven, and the damned little hinged lid gets in the way, and is burning hot. I've used thermal gloves and screwdrivers, and then I found the soultion...
I insert the oven end of the probe (the plug) before I even start. I leave the "meat" end of the probe just dangling outside the oven until I'm ready to put the meat in. It's just not a problem, because the dangling probe is simply reading the temperature of the air in the kitchen until I insert it into the meat, so nothing happens to throw off the cooking. It took me a few frustrating attempts with the probe before I realized I could do this.
-
Do buffets where you are not charge for excessive wastage? The ones I'm familiar with always charge a certain amount per 100 grams of wasted food.
Some of the buffets do have signs that say "you will be charged for wasted food", but I've never seen that hapen - and it certainly has not happened to me.
But I must say - if the guy at the duck station tells me that I must take a bun for every piece of duck I get, then it's entirely their fault that the food gets wasted, and I pity the person who might try to make it my fault, or charge me.
And on a related note, I sometimes take a small sample of many things from a new buffet, and certainly don't eat the things I don't like, so if they tried to tell me that that was "waste", they wouldn't get very far either.
But how does it work where you are? Do they actually come around and inspect the plates and weigh what you haven't eaten? And are they so picky as to judge "waste" in 100 gram increments? That could be a few bites of various things that you didn't like! (As opposed to somebody with 'big eyes' simply taking extra pounds of food that goes to waste uneaten, I mean.)
-
When I re-read my original post and saw that one of these additives is actually banned in the US, I reposted this with a new topic header here:
Banned in the US, on sale at my local supermarket.
(I trust a moderator may remove this thread in favor of he newer one.)
-
I had posted about a juice I bought at my local supermarket with additives that I subsequently looked up and found suspect - and then I re-read my own post and realized that the Wikipedia article on one of the additives actually says that it is banned in the US !!
I'm reposting the info below under this new heading, with the question: how is this possible? How can a very major supermarket chain be selling an imported product with an ingedient that's banned in this country ???
It's the E122 (Azorubine; Carmoisine) mentioned below.
From my original post:
I bought some imported Sour Cherry juice at my local supermarket - the brand on the juice is BBB and it's imported from Bulgaria, and two of the ingredients are E150d, which is "Sulphite ammonia caramel", and E122, "Azorubine; Carmoisine".
I looked them up (on Wikipedia) and found the descriptions horrifying (at least the word 'sulphite' in the first one anyway), and everything about the second one, including the line that it's banned in the US:
------------------
E150d
Sulphite ammonia caramel
These colourings, which range from dark brown to black, are made by controlled heat treatment of sugar beet or sugar cane (with or without the presence of alkalis or acids) but as it is possible to use sugar from maize starch which may come from a Genetically Modified crop. The caramel group of colours are the most widely used group of colours, comprising some 98% of all colours used.
Between them they can be found in beer, brown bread, buns, chocolate, biscuits, brandy, chocolate flavoured flour based confectionery, coatings, decorations, fillings and toppings, crisps, dessert mixes, doughnuts, fish and shellfish spreads, frozen desserts, glucose tablets, gravy browning, ice cream, jams, milk desserts, pancakes, pickles, sauces and dressings, soft drinks particularly cola drinks, stouts, sweets, vinegar, whisky and wines.
Not recommended for consumption by children.
-------------------
E122,
Azorubine; Carmoisine
A synthetic red azo dye used in foods which must be heat treated after fermentation. Also found in blancmange, marzipan, Swiss roll, jams and preserves, sweets, brown sauce, flavoured yogurts, packet soups, jellies, breadcrumbs and cheesecake mixes.
It appears to cause allergic and/or intolerance reactions, particularly amongst those with an aspirin intolerance. Other reactions can include a rash similar to nettle rash and water retention.
Not recommended for consumption by children.
The Hyperactive Childrens Support Group belive that a link exists between this additive and hyperactive behavioural disorders in children.
Whilst being a commonly used colour in the UK, its use is banned in Japan, Norway, Sweden and the United States.
-
"E122,
Azorubine; Carmoisine" - is this by any chance "red dye #5"?
Sulpher in its own right is nothing to be afraid of. And the quantities of sulphite are probably quite low. Can you taste it in the juice if you take a sip?
Do you ever eat dried fruit ? Its often sulphered.
Perhaps you could look up a few of the coloring agents you do frequently eat, and see how the descriptions compare.
I don't consume sulphites, for health/medical reasons, and I'm certainly not going to taste it. And no, I don't eat dried fruit that contains sulfites (I do by "unsulphered" dried fruit, though).
And I'm certainly not going to taste anything with that red dye in it either.
These items were only identified by their E numbers on the carton, so I bought it to look them up. Now I'm going to return it to the supermarket.
Food Cost Control of Brazillian Rodizios?
in Restaurant Life
Posted
Acutally, I would think it's quite the opposite amount of wastage at a Rodizio. They're only cooking as much as one skewer-full of any one meat will hold, especially as the evening winds down, and I'd think that they time it so that they're not left with much waste at all.
If they're starting some skewers of meats to have at the ready to finish cooking as they need them, they'd certainly refrigerate those overnight.
I say this especially because I was just at the Texas de Brazil in Miami (which I normally love), and we were there late, and pretty much had to beg for meat, and were pretty much only offered whatever well done pieces were already cooked (which is not typical of them). But I'd bet that wastage is controlled to be at a minimum.