Nathan

"I am not making the affirmative statement that it is healthy. I am saying that I am still skeptical of BGH. I am also not anti-technology. Many real advances have been made. But then not all advances are real or real significant. I still fail to see what the potential benefit of this technology is to me. I do see the risks." Well, BGH is something that occurs "naturally" in every cow. So, you're skeptical of milk in general, or cows? I assume that what you really mean to say is that you're skeptical of cows with heightened amounts of BGH. Fine. I assume that you're skeptical of dairy cattle in general (as opposed to cattle raised for beef...dairy cattle have been bred for milk production which inevitably means that they have heightened levels of BGH and have been so for centuries). The benefit of BGH is increased milk production -- which means lower prices. You haven't actually identified any of the risks that you see. Personally (and I expect to get flamed for this), I'm of the opinion that the current "organic" craze is primarily a product of conspicuous consumption...a status symbol for the affluent.

"How about the fact that organic milk's levels of pus and bacteria from rBGH-induced mastitis are measurably lower?" if true (and I would like to see a published, peer-reviewed study please), then that's what pasteurization is for.

"Smaller doses may be less of a concern, but that does not mean they are not a concern." Trace amounts of various substances are present in everything. They're also innocuous. See potato skins. As for organic milk...on what basis do you deem it healthy? (I'm sure it's just fine, but on what basis do you make that judgment? After all, human lifespans were much shorter in the past when were drinking thinks like "organic" milk.)

"For example, looking at the world at large, there appears to be some major shifting of some disease profiles going on. Diabetes is probably the most prominent. Now I am not saying that the marked increase in diabetes is due to the use of BGH. That is too far a stretch and too complex a problem to lay at the foot of a single culprit. It is, however, troubling and I cannot say that the hormone is not involved in that or other issues, either." by this muddled logic, there are literally thousands of foodstuffs and dietary habits that you should abstain from. dare I assume that you avoid imbibing all of them? put it this way: the current emphasis on "organic" foodstuffs coincides with increasing diabetes rates...if correlation implies causality....

hear hear

"and then feel perfectly confident that something that can cause these problems in cows will have no effect, long-term, on humans consuming the cows' products...?" well, we're both mammals, but different animals react in quite different ways to different things (that was the classic error made with DDT). but, I can imagine that if we directly injected BGH into humans we might have interesting effects (or maybe none at all)...but we're not. trace amounts (if that) of almost anything are exactly that, trace amounts. potato skins contain trace amounts of arsenic...I still eat em.

"If I am understanding what I am culling, Health Canada have concluded that rBGH affects the cows badly (increases in illness, noticeably shortened lifespan), which I suppose we look at as inhumane," if true, (I haven't seen the studies)...how does this make the milk unsafe? therefore, I don't see this as "debating" the safety of milk. (edited for snarkiness. sorry )

because political pressures are often quite un-scientific ("intelligent design", gm foods, etc.).... of course, food phobias vary from place to place. many Americans think that they are allergic to MSG or have fears concerning its safety while in Germany you can find it in salt-shakers at the table. (in actuality, parmesan cheese, tomatoes and mushrooms "naturally" contain significant amounts). Americans don't worry (much) about gm foods (after all every crop has been genetically engineered in the past anyway) but Europeans are petrified (the dissembling of their governments in the past over BSE probably has something to do with this). btw, the Canadian governmental food science branch concluded that rbgh was perfectly safe.

"There was a lot of "It's terrible because it isn't natural", you are what you eat, etc." the "natural" fallacy is difficult to deal with when talking about food because it's both an appeal to emotion and to an intellectual milieu dating back to at least Roussea. not only is "natural" a term fraught with definitional difficulty (maize was always a genetically engineered crops, do people have any idea what tomatoes originally looked like? -- this problem has been with us a while -- arguments used against the steel plow, tractors etc.) but "natural" my no means equates to safe. the most carcinogenic foodstuff that I am aware of is peanut butter -- and it's the "natural", preservative - free kind that is the worst (peanuts sometimes carry a highly carcinogenic mold); "organic" farmers often use pest-resistant crops that can be quite toxic, etc.

the seminal scientific publication is: Judith C. Juskevich and C. Greg Guyer, "Bovine growth Hormone: Human Food Safety Evaluation," SCIENCE Vol. 249 (August 24, 1990), pgs. 875-884. (you can find this at the library...one problem with dealing with junk science is that advocacy groups have websites while legitimate scientific research is generally still found in print journals.) which concluded that it was perfectly safe. no peer-reviewed scientific study since then has found it possible to distinguish between rbgh and bgh; or indeed found any levels in milk outside of FDA safety limits.

I will be in Rome in a week for the weekend. I will be traveling solo. I assume that eating at wine bars such as at Gusto and Trimani will not be a problem...but there are quite a few restaurants that I would like to be able to check out...how accomodating are they for a 30-year old solo diner (albeit well-dressed)? I'm assuming that La Pergola and Il Convivio are out, but what about La Rosetta, Al Ceppo, del Pallaro, Piperno, Sabatini, Abruzzi, Il Drappo, da Pancrazio, al Bric, L'Orso 80 and Macceroni? I will be staying near the Colosseum and am also looking for nightlife suggestions (both in terms of wine bars, clubs and even expat bars -- I'm told that the Drunken Ship is the place to meet American college girls)...are the Campo de'Fiori and Trevastere still the areas to hang out? Any suggestions, advice and warnings are much appreciated. Thanks.

I've heard that it is not profitable as of yet...but, after all, it does have significant financial backers. I'm hoping that what I've heard (which was second-hand)..is, or will be, incorrect. I've heard nothing about a potential closing.

indeed...I think my pho addiction comes from my pouring in profuse amounts of Sriracha

hmm...I live in the hood...and Raoul's has made a bit of a comeback...it really is a bit of a local hangout during the week (with the odd celeb sighting or two). sometimes these places (like say, Pravda)...if they stay in business long enough go from hip to primarily bridge and tunnel to local, semi-hip all over again. agreed that the food is so-so and overpriced for what it is.

understood...no problem.

Had an excellent meal last night at Upstairs. The service was generally good and always warm...a snafu on the bill but easily cleared up. Do expect to be intimate with the denizens of the table next to you. Had some sashimi ala carte and a couple other dishes off of the sushi menu. The quality was very good -- not far off from Yasuda or other top-notch establishments...with that said, the prices were commensurate to the quality...and considering the cramped and informal nature of Upstairs I wouldn't go there for sushi. With that said, the halibut and the lobster entrees were amazing; preparation and technique were at a very high level...I'm not sure how the sauce (laden with seasonal corn) with the halibut had such a silky, semi-gelatinous feel...but it was superlative. the lobster was extremely good as well. Bouley himself appeared to be manning the seafood station. the best part: the halibut was $16, the lobster was $21. in summary, these were 3-4 star dishes in a no-star setting...at one-star prices.....more than worth it.

rhubarbd: if you're into cocktails...you know who Audrey Saunders is and why the Pegu Club is a big deal.

I ate at the frisky oyster in Greenport almost 2 years ago. I remember it being pretty good actually....appeared to be the most ambitious restaurant in the area.

sit at the bar and tell him $100 limit. or just order ala carte... it's easy enough.

pretty hysterical....I loved the last line about HK being a "New York suburb".... of course, this sort of thing happens relatively frequently in the NY culinary world (I hear some chef gossip that I won't repeat here)...but they usually know to turn the cameras off...

Not even close to being half about the food - somewhere around 1/3 at best. How can anyone know if the restaurant deserves one star or not, when the reviewer failed to devote much space to the food? He even recommends four dishes in the insert, he never mentions in the body of the article. ← hmmm...I'm looking at it online...but it appears that most of the first page is not about food and most of the second is. as for recommended dishes not in the body of the article...that's true of every review and I think was true for Grimes as well.

To me the criticisms of this review seem a little strong: at least in terms of whether a Times star rating has any validity or not -- I'm not sure that any of us knows whether Bette deserves 1-star or not....it certainly seems plausible that it might. Bruni (in the half of the review dedicated to the food) makes the cooking sound competent enough. As for the amount of space dedicated to the celebrity-watching aspect, well, I guess that is the point of the restaurant. What bugs me is when he spends that much space commenting on other diners at other restaurants that are not implicitly "scenes." In other words, this particular review does not appear to me to be especially onerous. overall, I guess I'm not quite as down on Bruni as others -- the review and rating of The Modern (the Bar Room deserves a separate review) was an absolute travesty (but before we start pining for Amanda Hesser do recall those three stars for Spice Market) but he was right about Petrosino (an overlooked and underrated restaurant) and, imho, very right about Spriphithai. the Babbo review was marvelously well-written. with that said, I miss Grimes a great deal but I'll take Bruni over Hesser....and he's been especially good on Italian-oriented restaurants, imho

so..1. you're saying that it's not a Filipino restaurant...and; 2. that you don't think a Filipino restaurant could get more than one star. fine. so, considering your first point, how does that prevent Cendrillon from getting two stars? since it's not a Filipino restaurant I fail to see the problem. now as to the review not making sense...that's a separate question -- whether Cendrillon actually deserves two stars I do not know.

But that's my point. You seem to be asserting that Cendrillon could not be a two star restaurant because it's Filipino cooking...and then in the same breath asserting that it's not authentically Filipino. Whether it is or is not a two-star restaurant isn't germane...thus Bruni's track record isn't relevant. The question is, could it be a two-star restaurant...based upon your own standard, the answer is yes.

a couple thoughts: 1. none of us appear to have eaten at Cendrillon...thus, prima facie, Bruni's opinion carries more weight than anyone else's here. 2. I think you're contradicting yourself....according to your post (and my own recollection -- I've eaten a fair amount of Filipino home cooking in the past)...the dishes at Cendrillon vary quite a bit from Filipino home cooking. thus, as far as I understand your definition of restaurant dining...it quite easily could be a two star restaurant. In other words, Cendrillon may be to Filipino cuisine what Kittichai is to Thai. P.S., fwiw, I agree with Sripraphai garnerning two stars but believe that the Modern rating was a travesty.