Mallet

Fantastic report and pictures! The Papdi Chaat makes me think of the Indian version of nachos

I agree with the first point, but I think the Original Post frames the question misleadingly. The original concept of food miles was: linkso I think the focus on one slice of transportation impacts as the sole gauge of the entire food mile concept is a bit uncharitable. As to your second point, I think that's best left for another thread (my initial feeling is that this is doubtful, if not from an immediate emissions perspective then perhaps from a broader sustainability standpoint: I would think that animals are a key component of sustainable farming) ...

Although I agree with most of what is said above, one thing to keep in mind is that "food-miles" as narrowly defined above (in the article C. sapidus posted) is likely to be correlated with other beneficial practices, which may in fact significantly reduce greenhouse gas impact. A simple, but hopefully not trivial example, red meat. From the article: But I'm not driving to the farmer's market to buy feedlot cattle (actually, I walk to the Farmer's Market but we'll set that aside for the moment ). I buy grass-fed beef which is raised and slaughtered locally, which means much of the rest of the supply chain (transporting grain, cattle etc.. ) is also shortened. Moving the feed to the cattle is a nontrivial cost which is totally eliminated in this example. Since it's grass fed, inputs of nitrogen etc.. are probably also greatly lowered relative to your average feedlot steer, and as the article states Although I haven't done a comprehensive search, it appears that grass-fed beef can produce %40 less greenhouse emissions than grain-fed, including methane (link). I would guess that often, these benefits can stack up and thus an attack solely on the "food miles" part of "food-miles" (I know... ) can miss the other benefits of eating locally, even if we insist on only measuring the environmental impact.

I assume you meant more ?

What about a sphere made of liquids which are either immiscible (say, oil and vinegar) or which have different densities? It could make for a cool effect, especially if the two "halves" are able to move around within the sphere. Perhaps this has already been done?

Yeah I agree the art quote perhaps was misplaced, but I still think it's a good example of an challenging and positively unpleasurable culinary experience, which is quite popular nonetheless.

Although not yet served in restaurants, vomit-flavoured jellybeans were quite the rage for a while. Although not exactly restaurant food, I think the fact that rotten egg, dirt, and earwax jellybeans are being mass-produced and, enjoyed could be significant.

Partly for this reason, I've always found the analogy between fashion/couture to be personally more helpful than the broader "art" link (not knowing a whole lot about either ). Both must ultimately be functional in some sense no matter how frivolous and odd they may first appear (clothes must be worn/ food must be eaten), and this conservatism imposed by the functioning of the human body ultimately dictates what can and cannot work. I think this is partly why "challenging" restaurants must ultimately be pleasurable, not just to a select few but to a good majority, and the fact that Chris's NE clam bake dish will probably never be found in a restaurant illustrates why (although replace that sand with some sort of maltodextrin-stock powder and the shells with thinly sliced edible pearls and I wouldn't be surprised....). I could try to develop the fashion analogy further, but I fear that would take us a bit too far OT.

Interesting about the live animal workaround, I wonder if many small operations avoid big processing plants in this manner? With the ever diminishing number of small/artisanal meat processors, I can see the sort of experience you've just had becoming more common among urban folk wishing to obtain product from small or hobby-type operations. A few questions: Are you planning to age the lamb before consumption? Did you keep the heart? Why is your meat swimming in a bucket of water? Thanks for sharing your experience. edit: I forgot to thank you for your wonderful pictures as well, they really capture the moment.

Not so! Upthread pounce has a really nifty work-around where a check valve is attached to the FoodSaver bag and the whole thing is put inside a canister. Whether it will compress fruit or not I don't know...

Another question might be "When did we start eating like this?". Although I'm no food historian, I would guess that the style which you call "real food" was derived relatively recently. Food, like culture, evolves and to some extent I think the new style of cooking reflects a more systematic exploration of the senses we use in enjoying a fine meal. I think it has to some extent allowed a food-focused person to better analyze, refine and ultimately elevate all styles of cooking. I love it.

This just killed me

Good luck beating this

On the contrary, I think that that "craft" is the appropriate term and that "wild" may be the misleading one! From the description posted, it seems like wildcrafting involves active management techniques designed to favour one species in a particular area. Sounds a bit like domestication, no? I think wildcrafting practices should be distinguished from simple foraging because of this, and that the term makes sense (shaping a "natural" environment to create sustained harvests of a particular product in a particular area, a goal which after all is very unnatural). Contrast this with say, morel foraging, in which harvests are spread throughout the continent along forest fire lines (more or less) and to the best of my knowledge there is no way to ensure a good harvest in a particular spot. Maybe I'm just feeling a little bureaucratic

*fingers crossed*

Well, the thread is called "Do lobsters feel pain?", so I hardly feel this is a side-discussion I've argued above that consciousness is not an all or nothing thing and I do not take it as given than a lobster does not display some degree, no matter how small, of consciousness. If we take a look at the wikipedia articles on consciousness and sentience, we find things like: Although we both agree that some sort of subjective experience is likely to be necessary to experience pain, I think we disagree on whether an animal like a lobster "experiences" (in the sense of a subjective experience) anything. Since we don't even know why humans experience anything, I think it's premature to exclude a rough analogue for lobsters. Certainly all the elements of consciousness are found in various degrees throughout the animal kingdom, so it might not be that crazy to suppose that consciousness itself is also experienced to varying degrees. Obviously shrimp don't "think", but I find it difficult to believe that an organism can experience relatively complex social behavior (including mating behavior, social/territorial behavior, formulating foraging strategies), without incorporating some sort of model of "self" in its perception of the world. As for your other question I think that a simple but potentially useful rule of thumb is that the method which terminates sensory activity in the fastest way with the least stimulation is likely to cause the least pain (I don't know what the tradeoff should be, surely it varies with each species). I don't know enough to really say which method does this for lobsters, but since lobsters have a fairly diffuse nervous system which some high-level functions spread throughout, I think a whole-body dispatching method (like boiling or electrocution) is the most promising.From this page I also found this summary interesting (2005) edited to add: I should note that the report cited above does not suggest boiling as an acceptable method but instead recommends chilling and electrical methods, and makes no mention of the knife to the head method. I can't tell if they suggest it's ok to chill and then boil, or that you should chill until death.

This is an important point, but I think overly simplified as stated. Surely an organism's capacity for consciousness will affect its capacity to suffer, but consciousness is not an all or nothing thing (and consequently is not exclusively a human capacity). Obviously, a lobster will not experience pain in the same way that a human one (apologies if I'm just belaboring this point), but that doesn't mean it doesn't experience a response which is analogous (homologous?) to our experience of pain. As I've said above, determining an organism's capacity to experience pain and suffering should to a large extent determine our level of consideration in dispatching it, or whether current dispatching practices make it ethical to consume it at all. This is why the current discussion is not *just* a philosophical one.

Also, there's a careful distinction to be made between killing and cruelty. Killing is not automatically cruel and, as paulraphael pointed out, what we've been discussing is the question of whether lobsters feel pain, not whether it's ok to kill them. The answer to that question (whether they feel pain) will determine how much care we should put into killing them (two extremes: (1) carrots: it would be patently ridiculous to talk about various carrot harvesting techniques in terms of minimizing carrot pain (2) cows: we generally deeply care about minimizing pain during the slaughter process, and design slaughter techniques appropriately, the questions: where do lobsters lie on that spectrum?). As a few of us have stated above: in the absence of conclusive evidence either way, the most ethical thing to do is to try and choose a method of dispatch which is likely to minimize pain (especially if that method carries no cost to the dispatcher).

Still, though, I find it hard to equate the death of an oyster to the death of a fish or even a lobster (having personally killed all of the above:from clam to mammal). I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that these organisms have different capacities to experience pain/negative stimuli, and that our care in minimizing this discomfort should be commensurate. After all, one wouldn't throw a rabbit in a pot of boiling water, right? I agree with Milagai that the goal should be to minimize cruelty. However, cruelty itself is a slippery concept (is it minimize any negative reaction, or to minimize unnecessary pain: how do we decide what is necessary?). In any case, it seems clear that methods which dispatch a lobster the fastest way possible are likely to be the less cruel (with the possible exception of freezing), and that since these methods (like the knife technique) can be implemented at no cost to us, it would seem irrational not to do so. The question of whether lobsters "feel" pain is an interesting one to be sure, but I'm not sure the end result is any different to an ethical eater (given that you are willing to eat this animal, dispatch it in the most humane way practicable, or not at all). Feeling philosophical, Martin

I just ate a 10 egg-white omelette (leftovers from an ice-cream recipe). I guess I'm out of luck

Thanks for the extra information, Oyster Guy! I didn't realized that C. gigas was introduced as well.

Katie, you should check out Hog Island Oyster Bar . They have at least 2 canadian oysters on their menu (East Coast: St-Simon and West Coast: Kusshi).

I think that calling them Malpeque oysters is a bit misleading. Nearly all East Coast oysters are the same species (Crassostrea virginica), and differences between the various oysters (malpeque, st-simon, colville bay etc..) are due to culture practices and environmental conditions. This would no more be a Malpeque than a Canadian pinot noir be a Burgundy. edited to add: further, Eastern Oysters are not native to the West Coast, do we really need to be spreading around another introduced species? (some Eastern Oysters are already cultured on the West Coast, but I don't know much about their biology)

It looks like there will be a few recipes on the website, which I think is brilliant. It'll give me a chance to get my feet wet before the book comes out.

Lucky you! I still remember my first real taste of cognac, and it was indeed a revelation. Personally, I find that in the lower price ranges I find the money better spent on other spirits (some top rhums can be had for under $60, and there are a lot of superb single-malt scotches in the $50-80 range). I personally never find VS or VSOP worth it for sipping in this context (obviously, mixing is another matter entirely). The big name XOs are usually quite good (the one which I've had the most often is Rémi Martin XO) and I don't think you'd be disapointed with any of these. Whenever I go to France, I always pick up a bottle of Otard 55, which is probably my favourite (although I've never spurged on some Louis XIII ).