Patrick S

There's been some association between eating the brains of any animal and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease as well as Alzheimer's. Also some researchers believe that old fashioned mad-cow is transmitted by to us by eating lamb or pork that fed on ground up infected beef. ←

If you go back and read the actual article that describes the proposed legislation, you'll see that the proposed legislation is *not* intended to remove warning labels. Rather, it just takes the warning labeling power out of the states hands and puts it in the FDA's hands. ← And since the FDA has deemed the bovine growth hormone safe, a state will not be able to put it on a warning label. I appreciate being able to choose products that don't come from injected cows, even though the FDA has deemed these injections safe. ← Right, FDA has determined that BGH is safe, and therefore no state should have the right to mandate "warning labels" stating otherwise. You may wish to have the information to choose milk from non-BGH supplemented cows, but you have no basis to demand such information in the form of a "warning label," which are specifically supposed to warn of human health risks. Having said that, does the legislation in question remove the right of producers of milk to add labels relating to BGH, as many of them choose to do right now? I understand that it would prevent a state from mandating such labels, but I don't know that it would prohibit private milk producers from doing the same kind of labelling they are doing right now. If the legislation in question prohibits factually accurate and nonmisleading labelling by private companies, I would certainly oppose it. But if the legislation applies only to what types of food labeling the states can mandate, that would be very different.

I think this may also be related to the sugar content as well, since I get these with the higher sugar recipes but not the lower sugar recipes. I think what happens is that the outside of the cookie forms a sturdy shell that doesnt shrink when the cookies cools. So when the inside cools and shrinks, it just pulls away from the outer shell, leaving that void. With PH's, I think the shell is not so sturdy, so as the cookie cools, the shell collapses a little bit, and that's why you get a little wrinkling on the top. That's just conjecture on my part, however, and there may be some other explanation.

FWIW, even though PH's recipe only has 13% less sugar than NK's, I've made both recipes and find the difference in sweetness (and texture and appearance) to be readily apparent.

Same here. I knew I had too much batter when I was filling the bundt, so I left out about 10% of the batter. It still rose a little above the pan in the middle, but wasn't a problem. I'm sure my pan is 12 cup capacity, as the recipe specifies. It might have something to do with the shape of our pans -- even though my pan has 12C capacity, I think it is deeper and has a smaller diameter than a traditional bundt pan.

Which recipe are you using? Most of the recipes Ive tried have too much sugar, IMHO. ← You probably already read this, but a calculated the sugar ratios for several recipes a couple of pages back:

Which recipe are you using? Most of the recipes Ive tried have too much sugar, IMHO.

^ Nice. Is that crushed-up millefeuille on the sides?

That's priceless! As for myself, I prefer to extract all my energy and protein needs directly from cosmic radiation, Boddhisattva-style, bypassing all potentially harmful plant or animal products. jackal, in light of the proven risks associated with DHMO exposure, don't you agree that products containing this powerful solvent should bear warning labels? The really insidious thing is that it is tasteless, colorless and odorless, so you can't always tell when you're being exposed.

That's right. I haven't tried the "tweaks" yet.

That's interesting. Could you point me to more information on the neurological diseases aquired by eating pork and sheep brains?

Looks good, Mette! I think that the next time I make this I will replace the meringue discs with daquoise, which are one of my current Favorite Things. Alinka, excellent tart and excellent photo! I agree with you on the tart dough. Its still probably my favorite.

Okay, I tried a slice after dinner. The texture is very good. Its heavy and sturdy enough that it cuts and plates well. The chocolate flavor is nice and strong. I don't really like the subtle tang from the sour cream, but its not really a major turn-off. This cake has a lot going for it, but flavor-wise I would still prefer the Double Chocolate cake. I think this cake will appeal most to those of us who prefer a less sweet cake.

And I would also point out that the scientific part of the FDA did their job well -- they reviewed all the evidence and concluded that the drug was safe and effective. What has happened now is that the FDA has postponed a decision on OTC sales, but it appears to me that it is only a matter of time before this is approved. In other words, it appears to me that the drug will be approved for OTC despite political pressure.

That's true, but the obvious rejoinder is that states are just as much, if not more so, prone to unscientific political influence as the FDA. I'm sure there are overwhelmingly anti-abortion Red States who would be happy to put all sorts of warnings on morning after pills. In other words, I think you could see as much or more political influence at the state level than at the federal.

So the feds are taking the right to require food labels away from the states. What happened to states' rights? ← In case you've missed recent developments, apparently "states rights" do not really exist any more, except as a historical concept. Given SCOTUS decisions like Ashcroft v Raich, the fed apparently has the right to regulate basically anything they like under the guise of regulating interstate commerce (even if there is no interstate commerce involved, apparently). As I said, "Personally, I don't care if food warning labels are solely the province of the fed or not, I just want them to be based on the best available science and not political expediency." As far as I am concerned, states should be able to add warning labels if they like, with the caveat that they are based on sound science (as judged by a concensus of experts in the relevant fields). Yes, absolutely. For instance, groups like the National Academy of Sciences and the National Toxicology Program and so forth routinely conduct expert reviews of health risk issues and would be far better suited to make judgements about the utility and validity of food labels than, say, states attorney generals.

Did you read the article? None of the FDA/federal warnings are threatened by the legislation we are discussing here. Allergen labeling was established by the Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act of 2004, which is an amendment to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and therefore would not be affected in any way by the legislation described in the article.

If you go back and read the actual article that describes the proposed legislation, you'll see that the proposed legislation is *not* intended to remove warning labels. Rather, it just takes the warning labeling power out of the states hands and puts it in the FDA's hands. If a state wants to add their own warning labels that go beyond federal standards, they can petition the FDA, and presumably it will then be the FDA's job to determine whether the warning is based on sound science. Now, if the question is "Why are some food producers against states being able to add their own health warnings?," the example of acrylamide makes the answer quite clear: some states have politicians that want to slap warning labels on products that warn consumers of nonexistent or unproven health risks, which would inevitably harm the companies that produce those goods. Personally, I don't care if food warning labels are solely the province of the fed or not, I just want them to be based on the best available science and not political expediency. I'd rather they be decided case-by-case by toxicologists and nutritionists and epidemiologists, not by politicians.

Based on skyflyer and merstar's recommendations, I tried the CI Chocolate Sour Cream Bundt Cake again. I used Callebaut bittersweet, which despite the name is actually a fairly sweet chocolate, and Hershey's cocoa (one of the few "natural" cocoas I find palatable). I baked to moist crumb stage. I had a little batter left over which I baked in a 4" pan. I tried a few bites of the 4" about an hour out of the oven, and my first impression is very favorable. Sweeter than I remember, moist, very chocolatey. I certainly like this better than the CI Old Fashioned Chocolate Cake I tried, and the Wooley cake as well. I'll try to post pictures and further commentary after I try the cake tomorrow, but right now I'll go ahead and say this cake is very good and definitely worth a look.

I doubt that. I see absolutely no prospect whatsoever that ALL warning labels will be removed. Literally no one, to my knowledge, has attempted this or even proposed this, and if they did so in the form of legislation, it would without doubt be squashed like a grape. In fact, the trend seems to me to be precisely the opposite -- as evidenced by recent federal labelling requirements of allergens, trans fats or other ingredients for which there are well-established health risks.

As I understand it, this would not affect any warning labels required by the FDA, only the state-specific warning labels, which are far too often based on junk science anyway. An example of that would be California Attorney General Bill Lockyer's attempt to put warning labels on foods containing acrylamide (a rodent carcinogen created by cooking starches at high heat), even though the evidence seems perfectly clear that acrylamide is not a human health risk. Any state that wanted to add their own specific set of warning labels would have to petition FDA to do so.

Angels don't have bodies. No meat on those bones and no bones, so it would be impossible to eat them. ← Well, the scriptures often seem a little inconsistent on this point. Certainly there would seem to be instances, like in Genesis 6, where angels appear to be doing things, like impregnating earthly women, that would seem to require a body, or are actually described as having ordinary-appearing bodies and being mistaken as normal people. I dunno.

Ditto that! Ruth, that's awesome, a true work of art.

I haven't had much time to bake over the last few days, but I did put together a plated dessert over the weekend. I made the components and assembled them, but the recipe ("Chocolate Temptation") is from Greenspan's Desserts by Pierre Herme. The sauce is banana/citrus/avacado, and I added about 1T of sugar. There is about 1/3C on the plate. The Manjari chocolate cake is flourless and somewhat molten (out of the oven). The recipe called for infusing the butter with a sliver of habanero, but I didn't do that. The cake is garnished with an orange tuile, and the plate with a few caramelized banana slices. The pictures below show 2-3 different platings, taken under different lighting conditions. In the first picture, you see a picture of a warm cake taken under harsh daylight. Note the prominent shadows: The next picture was taken under soft, natural light. The cake in this plating is chilled. The third picture was taken at night in my kitchen using a single studio strobe.

I would recommend using a paddle if you don't have a stick blender, but the truth is that the texture is going to be different if you use anything but the stick blender, because you'll whip air into it. Using a stick blender, it looks like a shiny, yellow pudding (see below). I doubt it will harm the taste though. As you say, it probably will taste like a lemon buttercream. Also, I can't tell if you baked it or not, but let me point out that you'll want to spread the lemon cream into a prebaked tart shell --once you've added the butter, you don't want the lemon cream to get hotter than 140F. Congrats, and hope you enjoy it, Shaya!