msp

Slow cooking is not as conducive to tinkering because the low temp and long time require different techniques and approaches than those to which most of us are accustomed. To give it a shot, bear these, off the top of my head, in mind: Use whole, not ground, spices, which will give you more flavor over the long cooking.Similarly, whole leaf herbs provide more flavor than dried. Brown on the stove ahead, if you must brown. Better still, choose recipes where browning doesn't matter. The whole point is to throw your ingredients in in the morning and not have to fuss. Use a reliable recipe as a guideline for liquid until you get more familiar with slowcooking results. Quick soak dried beans in advance of slow cooking. do not add salt or acid to the beans intitially. Root veggies take longer to cook than a piece of meat. Be sure they are submerged in liquid.

While Science in the Public Interest has done some worthwhile campaigning for matters of public health, they tend toward radical overstatement in order to make their point.

As a post script to my last post...None of this is to say that I believe irradiation is without concern, or that we should use irradiation indiscriminately or as a substitute for good breeding and slaughter techniques. As with so many things, use of the technique in moderation may help improve wellness and safety and overuse could have detrimental effects on the same.

The word "irradiation" is an unfortunate one. It brings to mind men in huge white suits and gas masks at a nuclear plant. And the words elicits reactions not based on science or reality but on fear. When trying to learn about irradiation, be aware of the bias in information from a web site promoting organics. Nickn's point is well taken-- if we raised our food differently from the way we do, perhaps we could reduce the pathogens. More importantly, if we were more careful in the way we handle food at home, we could have an enormous impact on the amount of food-borne illness we experience. Improper handling in the home is far and away the biggest factor in food borne illness. Restaurant induced illness gets more publicity/npotoriety because so many more people are sickened at once. Meanwhile, though, I would urge anyone seriously concerned about the effects of radiation to explore the scientific research, and be wary of biased information coming both from meat producers and --on the other end-- organics propagandists. Both have an agendas; neither present information fully. Also, Tommy's point is important-- we can irradiate all the beef; we can test only a portion. But be aware that irradiation does NOT ensure complete safety of beef when that beef is mishandled. We, the home cooks and consumers, still have responsibility to respect our ingredients and store and cook them properly. And was it Tommy who pointed out how long we have already been using irradiation in this country? If any of you have scholarly and/or well researched articles and documents on the subject of irradiation, I would be most interested in PMs with links or leads to the info, as I am in the throes of writing an entry on the topic for the upcoming volumes of the Encyclopedia of American Food and Wine. Kim, as a mother, I see distinct advantages of the irradiated products, especially as my pre-teen and teenage kids are starting to cook-- it gives me comfort. (Furthermore, I have taught them to do as I do when cooking chicken-- they don't eat it unless they've taken it's temperature). So let the egulleters pin our sorry heads on the back of the donkey...at least we know our kids will be healthy enough to laugh at the sight!

Beef is irradiated at packaging plants, not at grocery stores. The suggested internal temperature of 160F for ground beef comes from the USDA general guidelines and applies to all beef-- irradiated or otherwise.

In Shizuo Tsuji's classic , "Japanese Cooking, A simple Art", he sprinkles pork with salt and pepper, then dredges in flour, followed by egg, then panko. For the sauce he calls for a combination of the following, mixed to taste: ketchup, Worcestershire sauce, dark say sauce, prepared mustard and sake. Tsuji says that, like tempura, tonkatsu is a dish imported from the West. It is derived from the European breaded cutlet, but deep fried. He also suggsts it is commonly served with commercial sauce, and usually served laid against shredded raw cabbage.

Let's flip the opening concept of this thread on it's side for a minute. A researcher in upstate new York (A Demus) was working with inner city kids, trying to determine why they made such poor food choices and how their nutrition might be improved. One day, she brought a bunch of foodstuffs into the classroom. She set out on a table in front of the room the ingredients for pizza, which the kids ate regularly: a small bunch of fresh oregano, a spoonful of yeast, a pile of flour, a bunch of tomatoes, a bunch of basil, and several links of uncooked sausage. Then she asked the class of 8 and 9 year olds to name the foods before them. Not one child could name all of them-- very few kids named more than the tomatoes and flour. Years later, I was in the fields of a farm with a bunch of NYC and NJ inner city kids as part of a James Beard program to teach kids about food and nutrition. The farmers took us in the field with their pocket knives ready (perhaps the one thing these kids recognized!)...and helped the kids pick turnips. The farmer took one of the turnips and showed the kids how to peel it, then handed out slivers so the kids could taste. They asked for seconds and thirds. One little boy said to me he'd never tasted anything that good before. Hours later, I met one of the mothers. She told me it was the first time her child had ever had a fresh vegetable. To me, that is more pressing a discussion than whether the scallops are day boat or trip boat...which is not to say the scallop question and others like it don't have merit. They do, when we keep them in perspective. When I read the title of this thread, I thought it was about the more basic question of ensuring that we all are aware of what we put in our mouths. As a culture, we generally have little knowledge of the value of the foods we eat: their value to our bodies, to their own source (earth, water, etc). The result is poor nutrition and often a focus on food as a source of pleasure and comfort, absent from its inherent value to our environment and as human fuel. This is not a rejection of food as a celebratory symbol, or food consumed only for sensual pleasure. Both are (within reason) lusciously enlivening reasons to eat... But it bodes well for all of us to keep it in perspective by realizing how many kids in the US have no idea that KFC comes from real, live chickens, those funny looking birds with feathers. Or that tomato sauce starts with that fresh fruit that grows on a vine, or that bacon comes from a pig, corn comes from tall stalks, beans grow in the ground...

A restaurant review attracts advertising in a very dangerous way. In a newspaper with any pride and ethics, there is a seperation of editorial and advertising which does not allow reviewers to be influenced by advertising dollars. A reviewer may ooze superlatives over a tiny restaurant, or sharpen her teeth on the backside of a 200-seat mess hall that runs a full page every Friday. Is this a wise investment for the publisher? The only way reviews generally attract advertising dollars is if they attract readers. Advertisers want to be where the readers (with the right demographics) are, plain and simple. Youch! And shame on this writer...A review should inform readers, tell them what to expect when they dine at the restaurant. At least, that is true here, where people read reviews partly for their entertainment value, but mostly to be informed about what it is like to dine at the restaurant being critiqued. This information won't be read if not presented in an appealing way-- well-written, engaging style matters, but so does substance. Here, here! Newspapers are in the business to inform readers. The content is best delivered in a style and format accessible to that publication's readers. I won't write in Spanish to a French audience any more than and I would give in-depth anthropological context to each dish I try when writing for a small local paper with readers who want to know if the place gives good portions for the money. Is it my job to raise the barre on their expectations? I think I can inform them, in context, of what might be out there, and how a particular restaurant compares. A newspaper, no matter how broadly read, is by its nature a local creature. The reviews help local readers decide where to spend dining dollars. A magazine like Gourmet, on the other hand, may be read all over the world. The write-ups on restaurants are more to inform readers about exciting innovations, or the best of the best. Magazine reviews tend to not critique the good and the bad-- they tell readers who care about dining about interesting or high profile restaurants. Gourmet and other publications like it won't waste their space and your time telling you, a reader in South Africa, about a restaurant you won't bother visiting in Cincinatti. Wht would be the point? The Cincinatti paper, on the other hand, tells locals about this restaurant which they may pass on the way home from work, or hear from friends is decent. And Gourmet will certainly tell you about THE place in Cincinatti to go for chili. Right, our job is to present information and report on experience in a palatable, accesible way. How many poeple will suffer through a thousand poorly strung words? Again, the review must be written in the readers language. First : what criteria? That varies by newspaper and by market. In most-- not all-- cases, a reviewer will be chosen for a combination of writing ability and some level of knowledge and/or interest about food. The budget of the publication and the readership help determine the qualifications for the job.Some editors feel a reviewer should first be a writer and second have rudimentary culinary knowledge; others feel subject matter expertise comes first, and basic writing skills will be improved through good editing. Both approaches could be argued until the cows come home. The restaurant beat not choice or high profile? That depends who you ask. A hard core crime reporter in a big city may look down his nose at the "fluff" of dining reviews, or may envy the attention and dining budget of the reviewer. Reviewers take a lot of flack, because everyone eats and everyone-- including the publisher, the publisher's cousin's best friend, and the features editor-- eats. And they all have an opinion about restaurants. Theirs may not be an informed opinion, but God help you if you disagree with the publisher's spouse! As a reviewer, you must stand fast and steady against the barrage of opinion opposing yours, and have the confidence to assert, unmoving, your beliefs. As a reviewer, I believe you must be willing to resign if your opinion is not honored in favor of the publisher's spouse, but you must also earn the respect of staff above and below you in the paper for opinion based on fact and knowledge. And, of course, you must engage readers. They may disagree with you, but they read you and refer to your reviews. Hopefully, there is a core constinuency that tends to agree with you.

Or, add a little smoke with your heat and used canned chipotles in adobo.

My Japanese friend, an accomplished "housewife" cook, made mochi for her children by rolling it in sweet soy flour, then toasting it in her toaster oven. We love it as a dessert prepared that way.

Mr. Plotniki-- What are you doing over here? We only talk about things that don't matter... Haven't you got any place better to be?

I have written thousands of recipes for publication, and been published in over a hundred books, magazines and newspapers combined. In my daily column, the recipes appear as I write them; in many magazines they are edited to fit the magazine's style (and for some books, I am required to write in a specific style). I believe I have seen my meaning misconstrued, key information left out, helpful tidbits ommitted, and recipes improved with sensitive editing. Over the years, I learned to appreciate certain attributes of well-written recipes. They include: 1. Visual clues: "Cook, stirring, for 10 minutes, or until the sauce is the consistency of heavy cream." 2. Simple Explanations: "To avoid scorching the garlic, be sure to..." 3. Approximate, if not exact, time or effort required to complete a task: "Bring the potatoes and water to a boil and continue cooking for another x minutes, or until the potatoes are tender"..."Broil for 10 minutes, or until the center is barely translucent." In contrast, "Broil until the center is barely translucent" leaves the inexperienced cook wondering if she has time to make the rice from start to finish after she puts the fish in, or if she should stand by the oven door and check every three minutes). 4. Headnotes that tell you what to expect: Is the dish elegant looking? Subtle or rubust? Hearty and filling? Can it be made ahead? Is any part of the recipe tricky? There are, of course, many other considerations. Style is a matter of personal opinion. Do you like your recipes chatty or precise and concise? Do you want the recipe to serve as a rough guideline or an exact technical manual? As a writer, I think first about who my reader is for each recipe, and try to visualize him/her. Is he/she a novice or experienced cook? Harried or cooking for pleasure in leisure time? A sophisticated diner who wants simple, clear directions? Confident? Happy to be cooking? Attentive to what he/she is doing in the kitchen? I am both a technical writer and a friend as I visualize my reader. The best recipes that I read (and follow) have an authoratative, encouraging, and clear, unfussy voice.

Up until the time I stopped reviewing for the Record (this year), policy required (and expenses covered) two people per visit, and two visits. Certainly there were times when I, as a reviewer, visited with more people, but the Record covered the cost of only two people... while my friends let me taste everything, they paid for themselves. Most of my review visits included only me and one dining companion as a result of this policy. In two visits, I typically tasted 4 apps, 4 mains, 4 desserts. For whatever it's worth, I believe that gave me a good exposure to the chef's/kitchen's capability. Review policies vary by newspaper, and are the topic of much discussion among editors and reviewers.

For as many years as I can remember (and I'll grant you, my memory ain't what it used to be) the Record policy was that before any review is written, the reviewer visits twice: once on a weeknight and once on a weekend. While I no longer review for the Record, colleagues who do confirm that is still the policy.

Yup, I went last night. The only reservation we could get was at 8.30 because this place has had so much good buzz. We waited in the lobby for too long because our table wasn't ready, and the front of the house didn't think to suggest we have a seat at the bar. We figured they were about to seat us, and stood there. They were all so confident looking, so polished and hip... Finally, we were taken to our table, and on the way, I noticed several empty, dirty tables. Hmmm. The list of drinks is fun, the wines by the glass interesting. The wine list is not especially well-balanced-- definately leans toward pricey slections, and clearly favors less well-known choices. The menu. The menu looked good....I mean, it was nicely designed-- as is the restaurant. Lots of subtle animalistic curves and angles and patterns. Shapes reminiscent of the old Merlot restaurant, although the colors were more retro fifties, with tangerine, greens, yellows. The menu items seemed a little far reaching...a pounded piece of fresh foie gras crusted with pistachio. Sounded weird, so we decided to try it. Why pound a lovely piece of foie gras? I still don't know. Nor do I understand why one would crust it in pistachio, then drown it in pistachio oil. It was overwhelming-- all that oil on the slab o' foie. Parisienne gnocchi were gummy, and the black truffles could be seen more than tasted. And what gave this dish a hint of pickle flavor? Huh. Listen, the place is only about 5 weeks old, and had far too much press too soon. So they're making mistakes and having growing pains, and should be tried and reported on again in a few months. And here's why: we did have a brandade that was head over heels sumptious. All that fennel, that rich sauce, the subtle flavor of the fish...finely balanced and artfully executed with a crowning touch of baby turnips. This dish showed me there's real potential lurking in the kitchen. One other dish to comment on: An asparagus salad was decent, not overly dressed, with a dice of beets and what at first glance appeared to be a hunk of soft cheese. On closer inspection, it was a well-coddled egg...with a firm yolk (NO!) and rubbery white. Ooops. Our sweet oh-so-handsome waiter, the waitresses with plunging necklines, the living room style lighting...this is an achingly hip spot that may just need to catch up with itself. So give them some time, and someone else give it a shot and let us know in a month or two. I don't have much interest in returning, but I do think it's too soon to really tell.

Using a slow cooker is like having a wife: at the end of the day an aromatic, ready-to-eat meal greets me as I walk in the door. (I've been tempted to drape mine in pearls and garnish with a wig, to ape that whole "Leave it to Beaver" lifestyle) Having tested and developed different recipes in the slow cooker over the years, I will tell you that you must use seasoning very differently-- flavors of dried herbs tend to disappear, and whole spices work better than ground. So you can't wing it quite as easily and just throw a bunch of stuff in the pot in the morning...you're better off starting out with some good recipes. Also, Rachel earlier suggested using a slow cooker with the lid off, which you absolutely can't do. The temp is already quite low, and the cooking process slow...if you leave the lid off or ajar, I think you're likely to have raw food at the end of the day. Any time you are cooking animal proteins, it is important to follow the manufacturers instructions, or you risk forming a perfect breeding ground for the bacteria that cause food borne illness. Here's one I developed years ago for a magazine that I particularly like. I remember it was particularly aromatic...but more importantly, we loved the robust flavors. 5 garlic cloves, slivered 3 tablespoons flour 1/2 teaspoon salt 1/4 teaspoon black pepper 2 pounds chicken thighs 20 pimento stuffed green olives 20 dried prunes 1 tablespoon grated lemon peel 3 bay leaves 2 tablespoons fresh thyme 2 tablespoons honey 1 cup Rioja wine 1 cup orange juice 1/2 cup loosely packed parsley, chopped -Place the garlic in the slow cooker. -Combine the flour, salt and pepper on a plate. Dredge the thighs in the flour and set, flesh side down, in the slow cooker. -Distribute the olives, prunes, lemon peel and fresh thyme over the chicken. -Combine the honey, wine, and orange juice and pour over the chicken. Cook on low setting for 8 hours. -Serve chicken with pan juices and sprinkle generously with parsley.

Nickn: works for me. I've done times on the docks at Gloucester for a story, so it's in keeping. As long as I get to eat what I pull up (after Nick cooks it for me)..I'll drive.

Think how boring writing would be if each dish were accompanied by "I liked this dish because" rather than language that draws a real image of the appeal of the dish, such as "intensely sweet...pulled togther by salty..." Also, I believe in this instance "pillow-like" was a description of the lightness of the gnocci, not of gnocci in general... Having said all that, it is certainly up to any given reader whether they enjoy a certain writer's style. Some people prefer very plain,unembellished language, some prefer subtly in description, some like verbose language, and some pine for irreverence. OK, well I'm off to teach a writing class (did I really just manage to so smoothly slip that in there?), so I'll leave this to all of you to continue...

Shortly after my very first review appeared (many years ago) in the paper, our server was fired. I had written about a serious service issue-- one which was a reflection of poor management, not a fault of the server's. She'd been sent home at the end of her shift, prior to our getting the bill. When we were ready to leave, it took over 45 minutes to get our check. When I heard she'd been fired, I thought I'd never write a review again. (And some on the NJ thread may wish it were so!). It was an early, valuable, and unfortunate way for me to learn that what we write as reviewers may have a dramatic impact on lives. On the other hand, we are responsible to our readers to report on our experiences. As a reader, you should know that my server in this elegant restaurant clunked my plate down, snapped his gum while reciting the specials, wiped his nose on his sleeve (a few of my favorites)...and that this is a matter of poor training. But not every sentence about the service will include a reminder that the server was poorly trained. Yes, as Rail Paul points out, the server has some responsibility for his or her actions...but as Nick agrees, the ultimate responsibility is with restaurant management. It is my opinion that after reading a good review, I can (to some extent) envision the physical space, sense the ambiance, anticipate the level of service and taste the food. I believe--and my opinions are only my own-- that every sentence in a review should work towards those goals. One last logistical point: Sometimes, after a restaurant has been reviewed, management will try to figure out which night the reviewer was in, based on the dishes described, etc. Once they figure that out, and thus know who served the table, they have a scapegoat. They can also prove their willingness to correct mistakes by stating, "We fired the kitchen staff!! We rid ourselves of the poorly trained waiter!! Come back and see how much better we are now!!"

I believe the Beard article states, "Rumors are swirling that CT plans on leaving his namesake restaurant" not that he IS leaving...

The Antarctic Project, a group which monitors the waters where the toothfish is caught, is one such group that is alarmed by the dwindling stock of the fish. It is expected that the fish will shortly be added to the endangered list, but it is also probably too late to save the stock. (Not incidentally, two species of birds are also in danger because of toothfish fishing: the albatross and the petrel) The NOAA (see Fat Guy's link) has set catch limits, and is requiring papers on legally caught fish in recognition of the decline of the stock. I do not believe any agency denies the fish is in serious decline. American fishermen are the ones who are fishing toothfish most legally, and that is why you can get fish with good papers. The sad fact is that we America buys only ten percent of the toothfish, and only about 15 percent of the fishermen taking toothfish. The remining fish is taken into other countries by non-American fishermen. The waters, which we don't control, are very difficult to monitor. So American fishermen may be doing everything right, but unless there is a complete moratorium, illegal fishing will continue to deplete the stocks...into non-existence. Sadly, a moratorium is extremely unlikely. And Nick-- not all fish farming is harmful, either economically or environmentally. There are fascinating examples of fish farming that actually produces by-product which feeds another crop. You may not like the flavor of the farmed striped bass, but in California, it is being farmed in an environmentally sensitive way. Much of fish farming is still in the dark ages-- like most shrimp farming-- but progress is being made. (And fish farming will become an increasingly important way to feed the world population) The Marine Stewardship Council at www.msc.org is a good source of information : they are assessing and recognizing healthy well, managed fisheries. MSC works with the National Audobon Society's Living Oceans Program. Sea Web and Seafood Choices Alliance are conservation groups working toward ocean health, and there are others. Chefs may be interested in the program run by Chef's Collaborative, although even some conservationists have issue with the very anti-farming stance Chef's Collaborative took a couple of years ago. Its all about balance. Just as we could save toothfish from extinction if humans were willing to fish it in a balanced (not greedy) manner, the arguments for fishing and farming any species must take into account human nature and ecological needs.

oops...one more important note: Sea Bass is not the same thing as Chilean Sea bass, although some menus don't specify and you will need to ask. They are very different fish with very different flavors and tesxtures. Sea Bass is now being farmed with wonderful tasting results-- and there are no sustainability issues associated with it. Do not try substituting sea bass for Chilean Sea bass in recipes-- it won't work. Try halibut which looks similar but is not nearly as fatty, or very fatty mild tasting fish like black cod (sable) which is sometimes available at Whole Foods

Chilean Sea Bass will soon be extinct. That is not rumor, that is hard fact-- confirmed by the agencies which monitor the seas in which it is caught. More than 60% of the chilean sea bass (not a bass at all, but actually "patagonia toothfish") that we eat has been pirated or poached. And as long as there is someone willing to eat that last fish, it will be caught and sold. Americans consume over 2/3rds of the fish they eat in restaurants, not at home. By not ordering chilean sea bass when you see it on a menu, you send the chef/restauratuer the message to not buy it. If we all send that message, perhaps we won't fish the last chilean sea bass out of the water. And we could certainly all pleasure our palates with other fish while the stocks rebuild. (There are great success stories about resting stocks. I went to Gloucester MA fishing docks and talked to fishermen about once endangered cod that was practically jumping in their boats, thanks to better stock management) For further information on the subject, go to seaweb.com, look in the archives of the NYT for several recent articles, or see the June 2002 Cooking Light for my article concerning the chef's boycott to which Nick refers. Or, for more in depth information, send me a PM and I will send you the full text of an longer article I wrote on the topic. And please, do not jump all over consumers who are skeptical about the situation. Those of us who are aware of the plight of this (and other) nearly extinct species have an obligation to educate, not to disparage. Not nearly enough has been done to publicize this. We who love food and care about it's sustainability can pitch in by telling our friends and colleagues.

In answer to the question about fennel: while I am certainly no expert on the topic, and have not taken time to research this, my guess is that the strictest interpretations (or most rigid) of kosher laws prohibit fennel for the same reason asparagus is prohibited by some. It is thought that the shape of the asparagus spear could hide from even the most scrupulous eyes tiny insects which would not be kosher to eat. I was teaching a cooking class in a strictly kosher JCC, and several students refused to taste the dish I prepared because it had fresh asparagus in it.