JohnL

I have zero problems with this as a parent, in the same way that I think school cafeterias (and fund-raising lunch programs) should restrict their choices to healthier, more adventurous foods. ← I just believe that we are asking way too much of our schools. the real problem is kids are not exercising enough. someone who is engaged in physical activity is simply not eating as much as someone who is sedentary. The problem is not so much what kids are eating in schools (healthy or not so healthy food) but the fact that they don't exercise and when not in school are sitting in front of a TV set or gameboy or whatever, and guess what?!----eating! In fact--if kids were engaged in physical activity more--the food and eating problems would be lessened--they would be burning off what calories they were taking in. Unfortunately physical education--aka "Gym class" has been severely de-emphasized in our schools. I say--give kids a light snack (ok a healthy snack) and get them out on the playground! Schools are not health food restaurants (or any other kind of restaurant).

Katie! Though I do agree with you--the PLCB is not going anywhere for the foreseeable future--remember things can and do change--remember the Boston Tea Party!? I am interested in the Philadelphia dining scene--because I eat in Philadelphia quite a bit. It is one of my favorite cities to visit. (yes--I could also see living there as well). Being in the wine business I am also interested in the political situation re: alcohol control. I think the danger is complacency. I believe Ms Green in her recent Philly magazine piece was also concerned. As more people become aware of wine and desire wine with their meals (this trend in the US is real) restaurants will respond with better pricing and more interesting selections. Some restaurants will take the lead. Even in states like PA. I can actually see some merit in an argument that makes the case that BYO's will actually encourage more wine drinking. However, as Ms green noted, restaurants should not give up on the idea that everyone (restaurants and consumers) will be best served by the concept of a complete dining experience that includes alcoholic beverages. In the long run this is the best direction. So too, consumers should not be lulled into a notion that a dining experience that includes the option of a wide range of alcoholic beverages at fair prices is impossible to achieve (even with the current situation). BYO's have their benefits perceived and real--protection from restaurants gouging consumers on wine markups should never be an acceptable benefit--perceived or real. Things in Philadelphia are not so bad--there is a vibrant restaurant scene--it could be even better. I agree with Ms Green in her article--restaurants and consumers need to move toward a healthier situation (full service) working within the confines of the current state of affairs but at the same time working to change that state of affairs--a good start would be that Johnstown Flood Tax--if ever there was a tax whose time had passed!..... (hey I know how difficult this stuff can be--we were sold on a toll for the George washington bridge--to be removed as soon as the bridge was paid for...yeah right!--our government literally did "sell us a bridge...") One could see local restrictions and costs of operations lessened a bit--the argument is a healthier business/restaurant climate leads to more profits and more tax dollars. (politicians love money ).

Your example reduces the argument to an absurdity that Dr. Orent was not guilty of. It's like comparing global warming theorists to alien invader nuts. Be sceptical by all means, but choose your subjects with care. A lot of anti-Pasteur sceptics died from not washing their hands. I too am a John L--I could be your alter ego advising caution! ← Well--John L! The piece itself was mostly interesting and informative. I actually admire Ms Orent who has done some fine writing on epidemics. I have a problem with its conclusion (basically the last paragraph). In fact it is the paper (or Dr Orent) who reduce things to an absurdity--the very headline: "The Price Of Cheap Chicken Is Bird Flu" --gets us off to a "flying" start. Common sense tells one that there would be consequences to every action--both good and bad. As other posters here in this thread have pointed out--it is nothing new that epidemics of any sort are worsened by large populations of anything--man or beast--living in close proximity to one another. The author takes some scientific theories and-- as mizducky in her excellent post here notes: "puts an extremist spin on..." Basically the author is making a point: that commercial poultry operations are at fault and thus we were better off if all poultry was raised in small backyard flocks. Once again the irony --man and his foolishness in messing with mother nature backfires--as utilized by thousands of science fiction novels and movies! Ms Orent is using science to advance a political view point--the paper correctly places her piece --as I noted earlier--on the op-ed page. I believe my comparison is more than applicable--when one boils down Ms Orent's piece to the message it is delivering. That message is simplistic and silly. It contains no reasonable thought on possible solutions to the problem--even if one accepts her rather shaky thesis-- other than," we must learn from history and not repeat our mistakes." We are not going back to "backyard flocks" and the poor will remain poor regardless of the availability of poultry. Commercial poultry production like it or not-- is here to stay--we can and should certainly look to improve it and make it safe (yes for us and for migratory fowl) and better. Most all innovations replace one set of problems with another, so what else is new--hopefully the benefits outweigh the problems--in most cases I would argue they do. We have serious problems at hand (we always will--we are not perfect, after all) pointing fingers and chortling about the "irony" will not help with solutions.

The key is "extra costs and protective measures." There is a trade off here as to how far we want to go. Do we want a higher degree of confidence? and how much are we--consumers willing to pay for it. and will we ever reach a level of total confidence? Are you ok with fifty dollars a pound? sixty? fast Food Nation is fine--the author is making a case--he is not an "unbiased" reporter. I am as skeptical of books like this as I am of any large industry.--we all should be. In the end we have a pretty good system of checks and balances--industry--government--politicians--courts--consumer groups--scientists etc etc etc. I believe that as chaotic as things can be--we end up in good shape!

Ahh capaneus-- There is no debate. Certainly as far as I am concerned. No one--not me--would argue that there should be no BYO's. I see their good points and their negative side. In fact--i have no problem if every neighborhood has one or two BYO's. I am curious though--let's use your example. You are willing to pay a corkage fee--right? I mean even you would accept that cost. So that $9 dollar bottle plus a modest (say $10) corkage fee is now less a "bargain." The reason that some of us bring up those other mark up situations--food (ok pasta) and clothing is simply to point out that life isn't so simple--maybe if you had more disposable income and things were less expensive across the board--if the state got out of the way-- you wouldn't be so concerned about saving money on wine. You'd have a healthier business climate for restaurants--they's make more and be able to charge less--and you would have more options. (no one wants to take away your BYO's)--this is about a bigger picture. That's really all--I am saying. cheers!!!

I'm curious, Pam. What makes you believe that the risk of vCJD is lower from organic beef as opposed to conventional beef? ← I am also curious about what makes you believe the beef industry would want a situation where this disease was rampant and thriving? with people who consume their products getting sick and dying from a horrible disease?

← This is an interesting "theory." I agree that it is important that scientists explore the origins of diseases like bird flu. This is an important step in understanding and eradicating these problems. However, This piece ran appropriately on the op ed page. It is opinion. The author is seeking to assess blame to make a case. fair enough but I couldn't help but think this effort is akin to: "Automobiles responsible for 40,000 fatalities each year" Industrial age and GM to blame! I am just a hopeless sceptic!

Thanks for the reminder! I used to eat a few times a week at that hot dog stand on 53rd and Lex. not only were the dogs really good (from a butcher in NJ I believe) but the regulars were a priceless amalgam of New York characters! today there are lots of hot dog oppty's a number of Papaya Kings and Grey's Papaya. also a stand in the park behind the library on 42nd and places like Criff dog in the village etc.

Thanks Katie! Your post was very informative. You have a wonderful and informed perspective on these matters. There are some people who are obsessed not so much with prices but rather with profits. This IMOP is a two way street. You cite Moore brothers from the link you provided. Interestingly, Moore Brothers carries wines that are not found anywhere else--it is almost impossible for the consumer to compare prices at retail let alone figure out what profit Moore Brothers is making on these wines--even industry pros have a hard time here. Moore Brothers is very successful and rightly so--why? They are offering wines that people enjoy at a wide range of price points--few would really care how much profit Moore Brothers is making--customers are happy with the wines they buy there and the atmosphere and sales process. IMOP--the State liquor laws as they impact Philadelphia have created a somewhat unnatural atmosphere for the restaurant industry and consumers. as you note--it is expensive enough to open a restaurant (anywhere not just PA) and thrive and make a profit. This is exacerbated by the PA laws. A good restaurant--an optimal situation--will be able to offer a diverse and interesting wine selection across a wide range of prices providing the consumer with lots of choices. it is also important to offer consumers a chance to order mixed drinks and after dinner drinks. It is IMOP-too/very difficult/costly for a restaurant to do this in PA. As a result too many people are obsessed with prices and worse-profits-- and consumers are overly suspicious that restaurants are "gouging" them on wine costs. This is unhealthy for the entire business climate. It is a shame that Moore Brothers can not open a store in PA--or any other enterprising retailer. There is little/no competition at retail not just in terms of pricing but in terms of range of service and types of wines offered to consumers. For comparison sake take a shop like Chambers street Wines in NYC--they focus on the Loire and have an incredible selection of wines from small producers as well as a great deal of knowledge about these wines. No state/government run operation/monopoly selling anything can offer consumers what a free and healthy market can encouraging enterprise and competition. Consumers should be concerned--not with profits someone is making but rather having interesting choices at prices they can afford. having the opportunity to enjoy things well run restaurants can do best--a good full range beverage service--great mixed drinks and aperitifs, interesting wines selected to complement the food and after dinner drinks all served professionally. There should be competition among full service restaurants--not just healthy for prices but also in quality. These restaurants should be challenged to gain consumer 's business. Instead--much of the competition is with BYO's--for the local business--BYO's miss out on a lot of business and tourism customers. Again, BYO's are fine--every city should have some--this is an option for consumers. In the end--Philadelphia consumers (and restaurateurs) are being short changed--at the least even those proponents of BYO's lose out--they can't even stop in a Moore Brothers on a whim before dinner and pick up a great bottle......

I also am more likely to die in a motorcycle accident and I don't own a motor cycle!

If you live in the U.S., is beef still on your menu? ← Just a question or two-- That would be three cows? Out of how many? and How many people have gotten sick from these three cows? also How many people have come down with the Creutzfeldt- Jacob disease from eating meat from cows (any cows). While waiting for the answers --I am gonna have a big juicy rare burger for lunch! (with red onion)

I agree things in Philly are improving wine list wise. Not so much because they are competing with BYO's though this is a factor--rather--people in general are becoming more interested in wine and food. The trend is seen in cities with few BYO's. The problem IMOP--you see the restaurant scene in Philadelphia as before BYO's and after BYO's --the "rush to offer great lists" is happening where there are few BYO's as well. As a fact, I live in a more realistic (or at least representative world) when it comes to restaurants and alcohol and liquor sales. You are living in the exception. As for your jaded and very cynical view of restaurants. I am realistic--they are businesses and they compete as such for my business--that's what helps motivate them to provide good food and beverages and service and atmosphere and yes--value. Asa for your warm fuzzy feelings about your state government and their protecting you from the evil restaurateurs who want to gouge you--I have three words: Johnstown Flood Tax!

I have a radical idea let's get rid of all the school cafeterias. let's get em out on the playground and exercising! ok I am being a bit facetious here but the real problem in most cases is not food--it is exercise.

Wow--forgot about Uncle Tai. the original Hunam (or Hunan) on second avenue in the forties was great! there was also a great vegetarian Indian restaurant on forty eighth street forget the name. also the original Darbar loved David's bread (and the cookies) one of my all time favorite and most hedonistic restaurants was David's Chez Louis FYI--he has a place in Mt Kisco called Luna. and Thomas Keller's place Rakel Lola's Cafe Seiyoken the greek place on 49th street and eighth Arizona 206--same owners as Sign of the Dove (Brendan Walsh is now at the Elms in Ridgefield CT) Santa Fe Jerry's on 23rd street (10th ave I think)

He also used the "blackened" technique. Searing in a very very hot pan--delicate things like fish and chicken came out incredibly juicy! I guess my pan roasting suggestion is along these lines--though I end up slow roasting in the oven after searing.

I really agree. Consistency is the result of not just using the same ingredients or technique it is caring deeply about producing the best pie they can every time every pie. I recently watched a pie being made at my favorite place--one location family owned. The family is always there--the pies are made exactly the same way each time i go and watch--but either the old man or the sons or help--watch the ovens like hawks--constantly moving pies around sometimes just turning them in seemingly precise degrees etc. I get the feeling that they want these pies to be perfect! One may prefer other places pizza making methods and ingredients but i am convinced that the key to consistency is care and knowledge/experience and wanting to make the very best pizza one possibly can. I have seen too many instances of standards falling proportionate to the number of outlets and the distance from the mother shop!

Pan Roast em. I do this all the time. First sear the breasts with the skin on (bone in is also better than boneless). High heat thick skillet. Then finish them in the oven at 360.

I understand your point about choices and agree. But I think you inadvertently hit on the reason why so many restaurant patrons cavil about wine markups and ignore all the other markups in the two sentences I italicized above in your quote. Now, if you're eating in a fancy restaurant, it won't--or shouldn't--be such a big deal that you will also spend $50 or more on a bottle of wine to go with the two $50 entrees you ordered. But if you are someone of more modest means--a group that in this case includes the merely affluent as well--you may feel it when you can't find a good wine value on the list to go with the two $20 entrees you ordered. If the only choices are a $25 (based on your statement above) wine that you saw in the regular section of the State Store for $9, a more interesting wine that will cost more than you spent on both entrees put together, or a generic house wine at $5 the glass, you may well feel more pain over the cost--or the Hobson's choice you've been presented with--when you contemplate the wine portion of your tab. And what if you're not in the mood for the food served at that wine-by-the-glass place? What if you want pan-Asian rather than Italian? "Just spend a little more" is precisely what the diners who fall into this category don't want to do. Even though the markup may be lower, the total cost remains higher, and it's that that the diner is focusing on. Shifting gears just a little bit: Yes, we are all agreed on the anticompetitive nature of the Liquor Control Board regime (emphasis added). But we still have it not only because the employees' union has some clout in Harrisburg, but also because many of the residents in Pennsylvania's 62 other counties aren't as concerned about the issue--and some of them even prefer things as they are now. ← I think we are getting somewhere! My point was and is--restaurants should offer a wide range of wine options at differing price points. The over riding concern of the patron/diner should be to find a bottle of wine they can afford that will enhance their dining experience--that works well with the food. What the restaurant is making in terms of profit on either the wine or the food or anything is not important. At the low end of the wine list spectrum it is IMOP most important that the restaurant offer good quality wines to go with the food and encourage people who would not normally order wine to try a bottle and to offer a good choice to those who just do not have a lot to spend. The fact is--few people really care about the restaurant's profits--they want to have a good time and they know what they have to spend. Even fewer people will know what most bottles of wine on a list cost the restaurant. The real issue here is not markups! It is restaurants offering consumers more interesting choices at the low end of the wine of the wine list price spectrum. If a diner can order a bottle of twenty five dollar wine that provides pleasure and enhances their experience it should be of no (or very little) consequence how much the restaurant paid for the wine. Another salient point--and one that I believe Ms Green was making in her Phil Magazine piece we discussed here in an earlier thread--is most other major cities are seeing a rapid growth in a wide variety of full service restaurants that are offering interesting wine selections at all price levels. Philadelphia is not. BYO's are fine but they are not a positive direction for a major city like Philadelphia. I believe that the wine lists in Philadelphia should be more varied and less expensive--the system works against this. I also believe that the many fine chef's emerging in the area should be able to open restaurants that enable them to offer beverages that complement their food. Must be a great feeling for a creative chef to see his or her efforts accompanied by a mundane sauvignon blanc or a banal cabernet someone "saved" money on rather than a wonderful interesting good value wine they know would work perfectly with their cuisine. It is the "experience" not the deal you are missing.

Claude's or Chez Claude (very fine French on 81st street I beleive) also Trastevere--in a townhouse in the eighties) and there was a place with the phrase "Duck Joint" in the name. the original Brasserie. El Toremolinos Gatopardo Rocky Lee's Jam's also--I wonder if Wo Hop is still open--a recall many marijuana fueled marathon meals there!

It could have been Dodin Bouffant or Quilted Girraffe...they were both very good and very pricey for the time. ← Could have been, but more likely it was The Palace located in the shadows of the 59th Street Bridge. It was very expensive and a mandatory 23% tip was added - 15 to the waiter, 5 to the captain and 3 to the wine steward. The average dinner for two was in the $350 range - very pricey for 1980. (I actually ate there in February, 1979.) ← The Palace is a good possibility. also I recall The Forum of the Twelve Caesars (somethign like that)

I loved Flower Drum on second ave Vienna 79 Madame Romaine de Lyon (omelet heaven) Uncle Louise (east side in the fifties i believe--the spelling is correct) John Clancey's (wonderful sea food in the village and later an uptown branch) Chez Louis (David Lederman's truly amazing take on Le Amis Louis --Paris on Second avenue) Hunam (second avenue in the forties) Wilkinson's Seafood (York Avenue) The Ideal Cafe (great German home style cooking on 86th Street) Amsterdam and who can forget: Child's Pancake House Tad's Orange Julius David's Chicken (takeout on third ave)

I think Grotto Azura is still there and open!

Seems to me that the net effect of this legislation is to shift costs from the food corporations (ultimately borne by us consumers) to the feds (ultimately borne by us taxpayers). So food (theoretically) gets a little cheaper, & taxes go up a little. Either way, we pay. First paragraph of article, sure sounds to me like the legislation will remove warning labels: Later in the article, Waxman says the bill will overturn 200 state laws. What's the reality here? ← The reality is we are a nation of regulations--hundreds of thousands of pages of regulatory rules and regulations etc. It costs a lot of money to do any kind of business here--much of that is to comply with regulations etc. This issue here is--as I see it--our system of checks and balances at work to make a bit of sense out of our desire to have the government protect us from everything all the time. A fool proof absolutely safe paradise/utopia if you will. Sometimes the process makes things worse or more complicated--most of the time it seems to work. We do have a tendency to err on the side of safety--hence the plethora of silly labels warning us not to do things that anyone with an ounce of common sense would "know" not to do. people are, ultimately responsible for themselves. everyone should be aware of what they eat and make a point--within reason--to be informed. there are a lot of sources of information available. between--government (yes, politicians), government agencies industry, the tort and court system, the media (eGullet included) we have a pretty "safe" society. perfect? no I am convinced there is no utopia attainable but we shouldn't stop trying to get there. reason, responsibility, moderation, common sense can certainly help us in the quest!

I am laughing-- though the mask I wear to protect me from the air we are forced to breathe is making it difficult. (this haz mat suit is too damn warm anyway) great stuff!

I really see no reason for any debate here. The Times piece is pretty clear-- NYC (most places) have rules and regulations re proper and safe handling of food in restaurant kitchens. Yes, sous vide has been around for a long time but it is just recently becoming prevalent in restaurants. Apparently the health department is in the process of establishing guidelines for what the industry admits is a cooking method that can --if not executed correctly--cause problems. Low temperatures etc. That's pretty much it--as I see things. So really--what is to debate?