russ parsons

i haven't been there for several years, but my memory of it is that it is a very nice spa, but the restaurant is totally unremarkable. that may have changed. but there are far better places to eat in avila beach/slo.

as much as i'd like to think otherwise, i'm afraid history argues against adam smith in this case. you need only look at the cod situation in the northeast, or the abalone situation in california. unfortunately, to destroy a fishery it is not necessary to fish it to extinction. you need only fish it to extreme scarcity. At a certain point, "thinning the herd" crosses the line into a few isolated examples of survivors, at which point it becomes extremely difficult for the population to rebound (if only there were singles bars for cod!). it is convenient to point to the historical fluctuations in fishery populations, and in some cases, that is valid. but historical fluctuations happen independently of overfishing and when the two overlap, the result is disastrous. granted, at a certain point in the future, the resources expended on catching the fish will result in the fish becoming so expensive that no one will be able to afford them. but is that really the situation we want? or would it be better to implement sensible international legislation now. the funny thing is that every issue of fisheries management seems to be met with the same responses 1) there is no problem; 2) the problem is temporary; 3) it's the other guy who's the real problem; 4) this will destroy our way of life. but it is rare that you hear retrospectively that the management decision was wrong. the far more common response is: "why didn't they do that earlier" (with the implication: they could have saved us from ourselves).

there are so many variables that go into beef flavor. breed has a lot to do with it--for a while someone was raising chianina beef (the kind from the piedmont) and it had a distinctive flavor. wagyu is a label--there is great stuff and there is not so-good. the rate at which the animals are fed has a lot to do with it--marbling rather than fat veins between the muscles. finishing diet does, too. And that's just the start. There are differences in kill technique and differences in treatment during and just after rigor that can all make a big difference in flavor. personally, i was surprised by the reaction to the grass-fed beef. i've had some very good stuff, but it's atypical--there is an almost gamy taste to it that i would expect would put some people off. also, it definitely tends to dry out quickly due to the lack of marbling. whenever i read one of these stories (or, well, write one), i'm always curious as to whether the same test done a month from now would have the same result.

they are truly the devil's invention. not only do they ruin the flavor of coffee, but as someone who participates in a beach clean-up program a couple of times a year, you would not believe how many of them i pick up.

i'm not sure what the spicing mixture is, but all of the best tacos al pastor in southern california are cooked vertical roasters and then shaved off to order, like schwarma or gyro meat.

your alternative is just too disquieting to think about.

exactly. it's kind of like slipping off a sock. well, it's more like cutting off a sock that's been welded to your foot. but you get the idea. the point isn't to get the meat, it's to preserve the skin in one piece. use the meat and bones for stock.

jeremy, i don't know how thick. the batali lardo i had was about 1 1/2 inches, if i recall correctly. i checked my notes and he just said "finally found some good thick" with no specifications. And i had talked to armandino, mario's dad, who truly is the man.

i haven't made lardo, but one thing i've noticed eating american-made product is that it seems to be very difficult getting backfat that is thick enough. i've been told this by mr. batali, too, whose first attempts i found to have good texture but to be really, really salty. he said he'd finally found backfat he was happy with and that future attempts would be better.

in southern california there's a small chain of soul food restaurants called roscoe's chicken and waffles--fried chicken and good waffles. i'm not sure why it works, but it does.

he'll, i'd rather be Barak Obama or Allen Iverson ... well, maybe Kobe Bryant.

sorry, i'm sure these must be bad experiences for you. but doesn't it make sense that if there aren't very many black chefs in fine dining (as has been extensively argued here), that it would be a surprise to someone encountering one? edited afterthought: (actually, not to put this on the same plane, but i always used to get the same reaction as a man writing about food. in fact, i still have people coming up and whispering "who REALLY does the cooking in your house?")

regarding the argumente that an "african cookbook" is racist because it fails to differentiate among the various african cuisines: this follows a long history in publishing. cuisines are usually introduced in overviews (Chinese, French, Italian, American) and then if the market proves willing, later books will delve into regional differences (Tuscan, Sichuan, Provencal, Californian). it's just business. my guess is that a cookbook on malian cuisine, no matter how well done, would sell about 500 copies. Ethiopian might do somewhat better, because it seems to have more exposure ... or is that just in los angeles? and please, don't take this the wrong way, but wouldn't the aspiration to become an haute-cuisine chef be predicated in large part on having attended haute-cuisine restaurants? At least in Southern California, I'd be shocked if the percentage of diners at great restaurants came anywhere near 13%. I'd guess it's more like 5%. My impression is that this is somewhat better in Manhattan, what is it like in other parts of the country? and since this is such a touchy topic, please let me say very plainly that i'm certainly not accusing those restaurants of being racist--they'll take anyone with a phone to make reservations and a credit card to pay the bill. it just goes back to my original argument that everyone might not hold the culinary profession in the same glamorous light that we do.

yeah boy, remember that Chilean grape deal? that was a weird one. if we're talking about the same thing, it was a couple of cyanide pellets hidden in grapes that had been imported. as far as government goes, i think it is still bound to the mindset of "safe, cheap, plentiful," which is not to be dismissed. It's the "safe" part that worries me, because I'm afraid that when they focus on that, the "cheap" and "plentiful" parts will dictate an industrial solution, such as irradiation. and then we're headed even further down the highway of consolidation of agriculture, because there will only be a few packers who can afford the investment in equipment. The irony is, I think we're really at a point where things are beginning to work themselves out. granted that alternative agriculture (farmers markets, small produce markets) only accounts for less than 5% of production, that's still a big increase from 10 years ago. And more to the point, it's a fairly profitable segment (relatively speaking, mainly because most fruit and vegetable farming is so unprofitable).

you know, i think that would be a terrific blog, or even a book. someone from "up there" trying to eat seasonally for an entire year. why don't you do it?

darcie, No. 1: the big push of railroad transportation began in the 1880s and 1890s and was well established by 1910. i think if you will compare populations pre-1890s and today there would be a great difference (in fact, I know there is: the population of North Dakota increased by 80% from 1900 to 1910). No. 2: what people ate because they had no alternative does not apply to what people would be willing to accept today. i have some personal experience with this. my dad was raised in north dakota and his father ran a grocery store. the mere mention of the word "rutabaga" is enough to make him break out in hives.

First of all, thanks everybody for making this such a lively debate. And please let me emphasize that my interest here is not in defending the status quo. there is no question that there are serious problems that need to be addressed. My interest is in keeping the solutions from being worse than the problem and the best way to that is through an informed debate. there is no bigger supporter of farmers markets and of alternative agriculture than me. i have been reporting on them for 20 years and it is the topic of my next book. the changes that have occurred over the last 10 years have been wonderful and i am encouraged that it only seems to be growing. i find it really remarkable that so many small grocery chains are now supplementing their produce through local farmers. while this will never supplant big ag, it at least offers an alternative, in season. the same is true of the proliferation of farmers markets. i don't think there's a state that doesn't have at least a couple. granted, most of them operate only on a seasonal basis, but that is still more than what was there before. these things represent real change, not the least of which is allowing small farmers to make enough money that they can stay in the "agribusiness". but while i support all of these things as a complement, i'm afraid i don't see them as supplanting the system that now exists. certainly, people lived in inhospitable areas before the railroad (though not nearly so many of them as now). and take a look at what they ate for six months out of the year and take a look at the labor that was involved in preparing it. i hardly think it likely that the majority of americans will embrace that any time soon. so, unless we can institute some kind of culinary/agricultural dictatorship, i think we need to explore other ideas. let's go back to the starting point of this discussion--the problems with supposedly contaminated produce. what would you propose to do about it, in a real-world environment? (and, just for the record phaelon, porta-potties are a legal requirement now, though, of course, laws have been known to be broken).

This is nice in theory but falls short in practice. Granted, we're cool here on the West Coast and in some other temperate growing areas. But read any account of life in the Northeast and northern Midwest prior to the railroad. While it is true that some crops could be grown under cover during the winter months, there wouldn't be nearly enough to support the populations that live in those areas today. And again, please, let's stop talking about "agribiz". Any farmer has to be in business in order to survive. And any solution that we might propose has to acknowledge that reality. Using catchphrases does nothing to further intelligent debate; it only makes it appear that there may be simple solutions to these complex problems. I'm certainly not complacent about the absence of hunger, but I am asking that at the same time we criticize the modern state of food, that we acknowledge what has been accomplished. Name another civilization where for the vast majority of the population, the biggest health problem was too many calories, not too few. And it is certainly true that some people still have poor diets, but as you point out, for the most part, that is personal choice. Certainly you and I believe these are bad choices; it may even be, as you seem to suggest, that it is because these people are not smart enough to know what is good for them. But at least they have the choice.

rich, do you have much experience cooking paella over an outdoor grill? a couple of years ago our own archestratus came by the house and did one. the flavor was terrific, but the thing that surprised me was how quickly the rice cooked. it was a very fast flame; he used bomba rice; and as i recall, the paella was done inside 10 minutes. i've never seen rice cook that fast and i have no idea how to explain it.

this issue is so complicated, but the stakes are high and i think it's important that we really think through every proposal before we rush to any judgements. exactly--according to the CDC report (which is in some dispute), there was a half-mile neutral zone between the cattle and the field. how much is safe enough? in much of california (including san juan bautista), the terrain is very irregular: crops are grown on bottom land and cattle are grazed on hillsides that won't support crops. so who loses their right to use their land? and isn't that pushing us in the direction of micro-culture? Chains don't buy from local farmers for the same reasons that most of us don't go to separate butchers, produce shops, dairy shops, bread shops and fishmongers. it's damned inconvenient--maybe even impossibly inconvenient for the supermarket. If you've got 300 stores, it takes a LOT of produce to supply you. No reasonable farm could do it alone. and while we foodies may scorn supermarkets and the farming they require, it's important that we also acknowledge what they have accomplished--hunger has been all but eradicated in this country (the real thing, i'm not going to argue about the spiritual kind). If you want to break up those supply chains and introduce inefficiencies in the name of quality and good health, you should also acknowledge that you're calling for higher food prices, which will inevitably mean some people are going to go hungry. i'm not ready to come down on one side or the other, but we can't pretend that there is a simple fix that will make everything better.

a couple things: regarding the cattle operation, did you also notice that it was a grazing operation, not a feedlot. there is a distinct difference. that was my point. acreage means nothing; density means everything (100 cows over 1,000 acres is bucolic; 100 cows over 1 acre is a hellhole.) as far as corporate influence despite individual ownership, lynn, you're making my point exactly. and you can even chase it further up the ladder. individual farms work under corporate direction (it's not quite that cut-and-dried), because almost all of our produce is sold through supermarket chains and the chains can't deal with individual farmers. and all of our food is sold through supermarket chains because ... well, we consumers like convenience and low prices. again, i'm certainly not arguing that there aren't problems, only that if we are to understand them in any meaningful way, we need to understand the full context. perhaps, as michael pollan seems to suggest in yesterday's NYT, the best answer is a system that is not so streamlined and "efficient" and that relies on more local producers and shorter distribution chains. That undoubtedly will cause its own share of problems (cost being one that comes immediately to mind). but it's certainly a debate worth having.

thanks all, but the props go to the inimitable charlie perry, who wrote the piece.

The LA Times ran this piece this morning, which I think is about as lucid a presentation of the facts and arguments as I have seen. lettuce story

wooden salad bowls are great if you like the taste of rancid oil. my esteemed colleague charlie perry wrote a short piece on it years ago: From the 1930s through the '60s, Americans were convinced you had to have a certain kind of bowl to make a proper green salad: a plain, unvarnished wooden bowl which could never be washed. The idea was that the wood "cured" over the years, making ever more exquisite salads. Actually, the dressing seeped into the wood and the oil turned hideously rancid, so the bowls stank to high heaven. A sly foodie named George Rector had simply hoaxed the whole country. He'd invented the myth of the wooden salad bowl to spice up a story in the Sept. 5, 1936, issue of the Saturday Evening Post. Playing on Americans' fear of snobbish French gourmets, he painted green salad as the most finicky dish of all. And the secret of the perfect salad? Rubbing a clove of garlic on a wooden bowl, which would give just enough garlic flavor but not (horrors!) too much . . . and then never washing the bowl. The French themselves had never believed any such thing. In fact, Parisian gourmets didn't even like garlic in their salads--as Rector knew perfectly well, since he'd worked in Parisian restaurants. In his cookbooks, he had published garlic-free French salad recipes. But this myth just pushed all sorts of buttons with Americans. Faced with a haughty French waiter, you could never go wrong ordering salad; by patiently leaving your salad bowl unwashed, you could create a gourmet masterpiece at home. So for a generation, Americans tossed salads in smelly bowls in the faith that they were steadily approaching perfection. Rector was not a total fraud, though. Way back in the '30s, he was championing steamed vegetables and freshly ground pepper. In fact, his salad article also single-handedly revived the pepper mill. And that's why American restaurants still have the odd habit of offering freshly ground pepper for salad--and not for anything else.

actually, more than 80% of the farms in california are owned by individuals or by families. this is not to argue that there isn't a problem, just that the problem is a lot more complex than the usually cited "agribusiness" (how long would a farm that was not a business stay open?) or "corporate farming."