Nathan

Oy. I hate to say this, but in food terms, my Rome trip kind of sucked. Quality-wise, what I was able to try was very good. Had a nice meal at Trattoria Moderna and some decent antipasti at Gusto and a couple other wine bars. With that said, Rome is the worst city I have ever been in for solo dining. It's impossible to get in anywhere...other than the worst tourist crap places, no one (even on rainy Saturday with the restaurant half-empty) will serve a solo diner. It was unbelievable. (The crazy thing is, at some places I would have easily spent more than the average Italian couple). The wine was great though. But I will never travel to Italy by myself again.

I guess I'm not really sure I understand the basis of much of the criticism here of the Michelin guide. The two consistent ones appear to be rather particularized -- that Michelin perverted its standards for marketing reasons to make one restaurant a 3-star (LB) and that it failed to give deserving restaurants a star (Rich is probably the most vocal in his critique regarding the Tasting Room -- but that's been his pet cause for a while ). Both of these critiques, no matter how valid, appear to be red herrings. I would suggest that the only appropriate question is, does the Guide "work" for the purpose for which it has been intended (indeed, the only purpose for which any such Guide can be intended) -- to guide visitors, as well as NY'ers who are not intimately familiar with the dining scene, into making solid choices. I don't see anyone disputing that the Michelin list does that better than any equivalent published list or guide. In fact, I'd venture that it's a far better list. Among restaurant reviewers, William Grimes was probably the one who I trusted the most and who's palate was the most similar to mine own, but he wasn't reviewing 1,500 restaurants in a year. Here's a wager, if we asked egullet members to put together a list of 39 1 to 3 star restaurants (as well as a larger list of 500) (requiring some sort of vote for each one (maybe 80% unanimity)?)....I would bet that it would be a slightly better list but having with 75-90% commonality with the Michelin list. Considering that by definition egullet has a far larger repository of food knowledge and experience (taken collectively) than any assortment of 8 people, I think that says a lot for Michelin. Quite frankly, there are far fewer clunkers than I expected and I was quite pleasantly surprised.

I'm going to echo Marcus to some extent. I think we're treating the Michelin system as equivalent to the NYT 4-star system (with its many 1 and 2 stars)...instead of remembering that one-star is a remarkable mark of distinction (by their standards). considered in this way, it's a damn fine list of 39....and if each of us came up with our own list of 39 there would probably be 75% overlap. which says something. I, for one, will probably now check out Saul, something that otherwise I never would have done.

Ivo and Lulu -- is fun, once. then you realize that everything tastes the same -- sweet. Tartine is acceptable. AOC Bedford has BYO nights. Chez Brigitte is not a French bistro. It's a lunch counter serving a couple dishes, each accompanied by canned peas and the like.

"This is not to say, however, that there aren't plenty of good reasons to drink organic milk -- mostly having to do with the fact that these cows often have a better diet (perhaps even grass) and are likely to be on a smaller, more slocal farm, etc. But, I think there would be no meaningful difference between milk from a small local, grass-fed dairy farm that used rBGH and the identical farm next door that did not." I agree with this. Indeed, blind taste tests of "organic" and "conventional" products from identical conditions (i.e. terroir and freshness) find no difference. However, in many cases, organic products will be more local and fresh (but not always, and sometimes they may be riskier).

(I think that Balthazar is too crowded and not ambitious enough to be a one-star (and I really like it), it is a bistro after all. I'm not a fan of the Spotted Pig but it is much more ambitious than Balthazar.) Yasuda is a notable omission. I disagree on Union Square Café…I really like USC, but the menu has barely changed in years and the food is hardly innovative. It's comfort food. It is singularly important in terms of NY dining history but I fail to see why that would have any bearing on the Guide. As for La Goulue, I have never heard of it. Agreed that the Italian choices are bizarre.

considering that BGH injection increases milk production and stress decreases milk production...it seems that BGH is more likely to be correlated with less stress (if it correlates to both stress and milk production, then it must be increasing milk production by an amazing amount in order to make up for increased stress)

the omission of EMP makes sense considering that it's changing chefs.

maybe, I shouldn't have said it... but let's face it, pkeibel only used the word "chemical" instead of "hormone" for misleadingly rhetorical reasons...because it sounds "artificial"....I daresay that he/she doesn't refer to the many "chemicals" in organic grain....the use of such a general term in this context indicates to me a willing to use pejorative parlance to mislead casual readers.

pkeibel, people were wrong on DDT (to some extent). If a short term study shows that BGH doesn't show up in milk, exactly what is a long-term study supposed to show? I don't comprehend what you're asserting. but then, you admittedly don't know the difference between a chemical and a hormone. you also seem to be unfamiliar with the concept of "peer review". aside to Deborah, I'm not being facetious. If you really want to lower mastitis rates, ensure that the cows are as stressed as possible.

Pan, agreed, but my point was that for them to rock the boat they would have had to do something like that. Otherwise the list was inherently predictable. If you think about it, there is more consensus than not (between egullet, the Times and Michelin) as to what the top 30 or so restaurants in NY are. What's interesting about the Michelin list are the couple that might not have overlapped with most people's lists (Etats Unis, Saul, and Vong -- which I don't get).

It looks like the FDA concluded that BGH injections did correlate with a slight increase in mastitis. However, this is also meaningless because anything done to increase milk yields increases the occurrence of mastitis. Dairy cattle bred for higher milk yields have increased incidence rates of mastitis. Dairy cows which are less stressed (presumably organic farmers seek to achieve this) produce more milk and have higher rates of mastitis incidence. So, if your concern is really for their well-being, I would suggest ensuring that cows are as stressed as possible and producing as little milk as possible. A constant playing of Pantera concerts at a high volume should do the trick.

"I can only conclude, because the studies say that rBGH cows are less healthy, i.e., with greater incidence of mastitis, etc., etc., " cites?

Was any other result possible? We always knew what the 2 and 3 star places would be, the only question was which would be which. There just aren't any other possibilities. Which means that the 1 stars were going to be a grab-bag by definition. I have to say that if they'd picked a Sriphathai instead of a Vong that might have made some waves....on the other hand, the omission of the Nobus, Megus, Spice Markets, Bolos, etc. made some points....(and the right one in my book). Some overlooked restaurants made this list and in that sense they did a service: Etats-Unis, JoJo, March, Picholine.

Vong? very surprising....interesting that they picked it and not Spice Market or Perry Street...a mixed result for JG in that respect. I'm not familiar with La Goulue or Lo Scalco (though its menu looks ambitious enough). Saul I hadn't heard of and a look at its menu puts it in a significantly lower price range than the other solo stars. Interesting that one non-Manhattan restaurant made the list.

"One question I have is based upon the mechanism of action of BGH. In humans the milk inducing hormone is prolactin, a hormone closely related to but different from human growth hormone. In cattle, it appears that BGH is the milk inducing hormone. Is that correct? " I believe so.

a quick note: "rBGH is not a human hormone, therefore its effects on humans may not be the same as human growth hormone and are therefore somewhat unpredictable unless rigorously tested." the first phrase is absolutely true. in fact, rBGH has no effect on humans, partially because humans do not have receptors for it. Daughaday, W, Barbano DM. "Bovine somatotropin supplementation of diary cows." JAMA. 1990; 264:1003-1005

as for the IGF-1 issue -- see the following: "NIH Technology Assessment Conference statement on bovine somatotropin" in: JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association). 1991 Mar 20;265(11):1423-5. which assesses the available literature (as a sidenote it notes that there was not conclusive data on BGH's effects on cows) and gives this pithy talking point....the amount of IGF-1 ingested (which by the way is completely broken down in your metabolism) in 1 liter of milk is equivalent to the amount IGF-1 in the saliva you swallow every day. for a more recent source, see: WHO Food Additives Series No. 41. also see: Daughaday, W, Barbano DM. "Bovine somatotropin supplementation of diary cows. JAMA. 1990; 264:1003-1005. Finally, see http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/cgi/reprint/11/11/1441 (an article in the Journal of Cancer Epidemiology) finding that women with the highest blood concentrations of IGF-1 are vegans who drink soy milk. lets see some citations from the other side folks. time to put up or.... (btw, Deborah, the use of BGH increases milk production up to 25%, 10% is the lowball figure).

as for DDT and malaria, here's an article from the Lancet (not exactly a right-wing or industry beholden source): Roberts DR, Manguin S, Mouchet J., "DDT house spraying and re-emerging malaria.", The Lancet, 1999. if you examine malaria-relating NGO's you'll find numerous advocacy papers, such as here: www.fightingmalaria.org. Ralph Nader has also been active on this. (I post this only for those impressed by such websites. The Lancet article is really the place to start.)

Here's a good summary paper with which to start: www.williams.edu:803/Economics/wp/Gollin The Green Revolution.pdf also try this article: http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=50 granted that butterfliesandwheels is a science advocacy site...my real point in using this article is the extensive bibliography -- if you're really interested in the subject it's an excellent listing of legitimate sources. and by way of snide comparison...whatever organic or "sustainable agriculture" websites you may be reading for this "the green revolution didn't happen myth" -- you'll notice that none of them actually have this kind of sourcing....coming from an academic background, that's very telling.

I can tell you off the top of my head that in Asia, crop yields rose THREE HUNDRED PERCENT during a 30 year span with barely an increase in the amount of land utilized. Estimates of human lives saved range up to a billion (even if exaggerated 500% that's still the greatest example of human benevolence in history). Africa hasn't seen the same success because wheat and rice generally don't grow on the continent. However, we're now turning attention to crops that do, cassava and the like.

steve, Am I correct in reading you as denying the entire "Green Revolution"? In other words, the end of famine, the sharp decline in malnutrition, the extraordinary promise of "golden rice" for millions, etc, never happened? Is that what you're claiming? As for DDT, are you aware that 2 million people have died from malaria since DDT was essentially banned worldwide? (With the best of intentions, the environmental movement has quite a bit of blood on its hands.) Are minor activist movies the most reliable sources of scientific information? If you were not asserting any of the above, then maybe I failed to understand your post.

I presume that you also reject cattle bred for higher milk production (i.e. having higher levels of bgh -- (that pkeibel calls it a chemical shows an astounding level of ignorance)) as being unnatural and therefore you never use dairy products? Do you eat grains, use soybeans, eat tomatoes? What, pray tell, is your arbitrary line between "natural" and "unnatural" - I would venture to assert that it's almost certainly the following: "If the practice has been engaged in for at least 50 years it's natural, if it was developed in the last 50 years -- it is unnatural."

Stovetop: If I read you right, you would support the following label on any product containing maize (i.e. most cereals at your health food store): "This product contains grains that do not and have never existed in wild form. They were engineered by human beings and are therefore not natural." I also assume that you would support the following label on organic milk: "This milk product may contain trace levels of BGH."

I agree with all of this. I actually don't like milk, but your advice is analogous to mine on purchasing produce. The major criterion in the nutritional value of produce is freshness. I'll purchase whatever is fresh -- usually local -- I could care less whether it's "organic" or "conventional"...it'll be more nutritious than something trucked in from 3,000 miles away no matter how it's grown.