Jump to content

azurite

participating member
  • Posts

    131
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by azurite

  1. Begin quote

    Take a walk around an old cemetary or research some death certificates. The small plots are the most heart breaking.

    significant portion of that generation didn't even make it to adulthood in order to eat "processed" foods. Check the dates. It is even sadder when you see a family plot in which little stair steps have been laid to rest, alongside a mother, from the days before RH factors were routinely tested for and gestational diabetes was not understood, much less the factor of the poor mother going through pregnancy after pregnancy - because of lack of birth control - and the wear and tear that put on her body. Before school lunches, before WIC, before food stamps.

    I know a very dear lady who survived cancer only to die within six months from a heart attack. But the point is, she survived breast cancer which would have certainly gone undiagnosed a few decades earlier, because mammograms were not routine and even if they did find it, they didn't have a clue how to deal with it. Ironically, there was some speculation that the target area for her radiation weakened an artery.

    My mother was widowed at 32 when her husband died of lung cancer at 35 in the early 1960s. She had 5 children.

    I guess I am cautious when I feel like the Depression Era is being aggrandized. It was an awful, awful period in our history, and for humanity in general.

    I think it is pretty easy to say that things have improved since. However, the human animal does not settle into complacency.

    Edit to add: My Grandfather lost his first wife and two sons to Malaria in the early 1910s. My father lost all his hair due to high fever when he contracted Scarlet Fever as a teenager in the 1930s. He lost an older sister to pneumonia when she was three. Three of his younger siblings were stillborn. One of my Uncles contracted polio as a child, and died in his 30s. My Uncle on my Mother's side died at 4 from a congential deformity in the late 1940s. They ate organic, though.

    end quote

    I'm sorry if I gave the impression I thought that pre-sulfa/pre-antibiotic, and pre other good medical treatments era was all that much better. I don't. My mother almost died from diptheria as a child, a disease I have no knowledge of other than through her telling me her story and what I've read because of the development of a vaccine. She also suffered through scarlet fever as a child. I know two people who contracted polio (as a child or as an adult), one had a slightly withered arm, the other, now elderly, suffers from post polio syndrome. However, I've also known at least one person who died of cancer, and it was probably caused by her exposure to Agent Orange (2,4, 5-T, w/TCDD contaminant) one of the Green Revolution's herbicides. Another friend suffered from multiple miscarriages (as did many women living in that valley during that time period) most likely due to the same cause. No generation, it seems, is "safe."

    The US has (I believe) the highest infant mortality rate of the wealthy industrialized nations, so we still have a ways to go.

    Also, in "good old days" of, for example, Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" food in many urban areas was adulterated in a big way.

    What I was trying to say, and I guess I didn't say it well, is that I don't think that increased human longevity in the US can be atttributed to eating processed foods because the first generation that's had opportunity to eat alot of processed foods is probably the babyboomer generation, not the Depression/WWII generation. And it's the latter, having survived childhood, that is currently demonstrating greater longevity than prior generations.

    As you say, there are a number of factors that contribute to decreased childhood mortality rates. Among them is having fewer children (also tends to contribute to increased maternal survival rates and longevity) and starting to bear children at a later age (not 15 or 16, but 19 or 20 or around then), plus better birthing practices, antibiotics. I remember reading that a group of scientists recently voted better sanitation as the biggest accomplishment of the 20th century. Lots of factors contributing to increased longevity, decreased infant mortality.

    azurite

  2. Basmati is very special rice grown in the foothills of the himalayas in northern India and Pakistan. It is a product of these unique growing conditions, and is a long slender rice with a natural nutty perfume. Basmati rice transplated from these conditions does not produce the same rice. However, there is some basmati that has been transferred to similar growing conditions in California and Texas and is somewhere inbetween himalayan basmati and regular long grain rice.

    My local natural foods co-op sometimes has a rice labeled as Texmati (sold in bulk). It's a long grain rice and pretty good. I don't know if it's the transplanted to TX/CA basmati you describe above or something else. I'd thought I'd read somewhere Texmati was a cross between a rice grown in TX and Basmati but can't remember where I read it.

    azurite

  3. I remember La Crepe too, there was one in Manhasset, in what we then called the Miracle Mile. a long line of stores. Can't remember now what the anchor dept. store was, although I remember that Bonwit Teller's was on the other side of 25A/Northern Blvd in that general area. I think I the first time I had "French" onion soup was at La Crepe.

    Bagel Nosh. Not bad, not great. Don't know if they made it off the Island (Long Island/NY).

    Arthur Treacher's Fish & Chips. Never ate there but he, his wife, and dog lived in the same apt. building as my family in the mid 1960's (some years before the fast food place appeared) so I noticed the place when it opened up.

    Was Bill Knapp's in Michigan a chain? I remember eating there as a small child, my mother said it was one of the few restaurants in the area you could take kids to in those days.

    azurite

  4. To the fact that we're living longer even though we're eating this stuff? Why assume we'd live longer without it, when we can just as easily assume we're living longer because of it? Until those questions are answered, I'm just not sure there's any advice to give.

    I'm a little confused by who the "we" is that you're referring to. The generation that's currently living longer then previous generations is not the babyboomer generation or any generation younger then the boomers, it's the generation that went through the Great Depression. Or the generation that, if Pollan's research is correct, grew up when food was still relatively expensive (the article refers to 1947 as a year when food was expensive and since then food prices have decreased), and they might've also had less to eat during the Depression and the rationing during WWII. That generation or general age category would've been likely to have eaten primarily what Pollan calls, "real food", at least into adulthood. We don't know yet if the babyboom generation (or the whichever generation is considered to be the first generation to have opportunity to eat lots of processed foods) will experience a similarly long life span, since, as far as I know, the oldest boomers are just starting to reach retirement age.

    For all we know, the average life span of the boomer generation will be significantly shortened by a pandemic caused by a flu virus that finally makes the jump from chickens to humans to human to human transmission. If so, that viral evolution will have been caused, or made much more likely, by the way chickens are often raised today, very much en masse.

    I think no one knows for sure yet just what the impact of a diet rich in processed foods will be, at least not on longevity. I don't know about general health--I seem to see alot of articles talking about increasing rates of diabetes, obesity and obesity related health problems (for instance, joint problems). But I don' t know if there's a clear connection with those problems and processed foods--for instance there's a study that indicated that veterans exposed to Agent Orange developed diabetes at a higher rate then average. Agent Orange, a herbicide, was used quite in bit in the US before it was pulled off the market.

    The healthiness and longevity of babyboom generation and those following in the US may be the test, although it may be difficult to separate out what's caused by processed foods and what's caused by, for instance, degree of exposure to a variety of pollutants through other means then food.

  5. According to Harold McGee, in the 2004 version of, "On Food and Cooking, the Science and Lore of The Kitchen", The black-eyed pea or cowpea ". . . is not really a pea, but an African relative of the mung bean that was known to Greece and Rome and brought to the southern United States with the slave trade." (pg. 492). The quote is from a section titled, "Characteristics of Some Common Legumes," and both peas and beans are discussed in this section. But while he draws a distinction between beans and peas I'm not sure what the considers the distinction to be. He does say that peas are "unusual among legumes in retaining some green chlorophyll in their dry cotyledons; their characteristic flavor comes from a compound related to an aroma compound in green peppers. . .." So perhaps that is the distinction or perhaps it's mostly based on what people in different regions decided to call plants or foods even if the common names don't correlate exactly with botanical classifications.

    Hope that helps a little, maybe someone else (like El Gordo?) can offer more information.

    Happy New Year to everyone.

    SH

  6. And the WSJ called us a bunch of fools writing for imbeciles :rolleyes:

    Using the same inclusive logic, we could lump WSJ journalists in with contributors to some of the dreadful tabloids as poorly skilled scurrious scandalmongers who cater to the lowest common denominator of "news" reader. L

    Don't confuse the reporters at the WSJ (or not all of them) with the editors and those who are responsible for the editorial page and most of the op ed articles. WSJ reporters still do some very good investigative reporting and sometimes the WSJ manages (whether unintentionally or not, I don't know) to get someone good to do some book reviews and theater reviews.

    Oth, the editorial stuff has gone from bad to worse to putrid and I definitely agree with what you say regarding the editorial people. In at least one editorial I glanced at once (in the past 6 months) somebody had claimed as fact, something that was most definitely not a fact and wasn't even a well supported opinion. The Letters to the Editors aren't even much good anymore because the editor rarely prints a letter that differs from the views expressed in the editorial pages.

    The Financial Times sometimes has some interesting food/cooking articles.

    I'm sorry that I did not see this thread until today and so missed an opportunity to participate in this wonderful raffle for a good cause.

    Susan

  7. I wasn't able to find any good figures for containerised shipping but I did manage to find this graph which shows the Ton-Miles per Gallon for Truck, Rail and Barge shipping.

    Now assume that the typical surburban family drives a 25 Miles Per Gallon vehicle, lives 2.5 miles from their nearest supermarket and buys 20 pounds of groceries in the average shopping trip. So on one round trip, they will travel 5 miles and use 0.2 gallons of petrol to transport 0.01 tons of groceries. Going with the 514 Ton-Miles per Gallon for inland barges, that same barge could move 0.01 tons of groceries 10,000 miles for the same amount of fuel. Even if you assume container ships are the same efficiency as inland barges, you could move that 20 pounds of groceries exactly halfway around the world by ship for the same amount of fuel as it takes for you to go to the store and back. If you buy 40 pounds of groceries rather than 20, then it's a quarter of the way around the world. If you live 5 miles instead of 2.5 miles, then it's once around the world. If you drive a SUV which gets 12.5MPG and you live 5 miles away, then it's twice around the world. You can fiddle around with the numbers all you like but the conclusion seems inescapable, where your food comes from is less significant than how you choose to get it.

    ...

    But how the goods get from the farm to the market is also an important consideration. Your typical farmers market has many small farmers from within a 100 mile or so radius individually shipping in small amounts of good via cars and small trucks. Lets say the average farmer ships in 500 pounds of produce from 50 miles away in a 10MPG truck. This means they consume 5 gallons of fuel to ship 1/4 of a ton.

    Now the prototypical "lamb from New Zealand" and "Cherries from Chile" were probably moved via truck to the nearest port in huge containers and then shipped via sea to one of the US ports before being trucked to a central distribution centre and then on to the local supermarket. Even if you assume the goods travel 5000 miles by barge and 500 miles by truck, it would still only take 4.5 gallons of fuel to transport that same 1/4 ton. If you happen to be living in a port city (Every large city except Chicago), then the distance from the port to your supermarket is even closer and even less fuel would be used.

    Now, does this on the face of it means that eating locally is crap? Of course not, all of the previous reasons to do with freshness, seasonality and supporting local farmers are still valid. But what is total crap is the idea that somehow eating locally is good for the environment through the decrease in carbon emissions from shipping. While the idea has immediate intuitive appeal, if you peer at the actual numbers, the reality is that modern containerized shipping and distribution has become so efficient that it's only really the last few miles that are important.

    You might want to include the cost/energy consumption required to keep those cherries and that lamb in reasonably good/sanitary shape, i.e., refrigeration, humidity control, etc, both while on the ship and after the ship reaches the port (and is unloaded by longshoremen or cranes or whatever, another cost) and is transported further by train and/or truck, unloaded again, unwrapped or whatever, for which more labor is required and so on. I don't know much about various grains but it's my impression that they usually require humidity controls, etc., to prevent molding, etc., so perhaps some fuel or energy use is required to keep grains in good and safe condition during storage and transport. I suspect there is also some energy consumption in, for instance, treating greens before they're packaged in plastic as ready to eat salad greens (aren't they washed in chlorinated water, bagged w/carbon dioxide for longer shelf life or something like that?). Any or all of those would increase the real cost of the product/food and if necessary to enable the food to be transported over long distances, it could reasonably be included in the "foodmile" cost.

    I try to buy locally and I belong to a local food cooperative. I can buy some fish and seafood locally (at one time I could buy only tuna, halibut and crab in season from fishermen, now I can buy more relatively local seafood from a new local fish market). I have a friend who has enough land to grow quite a bit of fruit, I sometimes help her prune fruit trees, pick fruit and she's given me both fresh and dried fruit. My fairly small yard isn't well suited to growing much, but I have a few blueberry bushes, and I've grown potatoes and greens. I try to buy and eat seasonally and locally but can't say I always manage it. I do like citrus, and no citrus grows within a 100 mile radius where I live in OR but I buy it anyway.

    I'm glad Fat Guy mentioned NY apples as I remember very good apples from when I lived in NY (just as I remember picking some great strawberries at a U-Pick place on LI, some excellent peaches and great corn--also on LI) and as far as I knew, NY had never stopped growing great apples. Hood River. OR, is also known for its apples (and other fruit) but there's a huge, huge, number of apple varieties and some do better in NY, some in OR. My mother lives in NY part of the year and it irritates her that she sometimes cannot find NY apples in the supermarket in the fall--only WA apples.

    It's been sad to see the decline in the number of dairies and cheese makers in NY (what is wrong with those politicians in Albany, anyway?)--IMO NY had some of the best sharp and extra sharp cheddar in the US. I can still find some occasionally, but it's much more difficult then it was, say 20 years ago. I think cheese is an example of a food that can benefit from being made locally--because of the possibility of variety. I can find some good (not cheap, but good) soft goat cheeses within 60 miles of where I live. The area was once home to quite a few dairies and creameries (Tillamook cheese is what's left of a much more extensive dairy region)--because the land isn't really suitable for growing, say, wheat or corn. But cows and goats seem do well. Also peacocks although no one seems to eat them.

    The US subsidizes agriculture in CA (and WA and OR and probably a few other states) through subsidized water, i.e., the Bureau of Reclamation. Eastern WA and Eastern OR would probably not have the extensive agriculture they do without massive federal dam and irrigation programs (i.e., subsidized water and electricity) dating from the 1930's. A quote I remember from book about US industrial agriculture stated that, we subsidize farmers in CA so they can grow alfalfa "cheaply" enough that they can undersell the farmer in TN who can grow the same crop without irrigation. So there is some question as to whether or not the type of massive agricultural concentration seen in parts of (for example) CA would exist or could continue to exist without the kind of subsidies past and present it receives (and probably favorable tax treatment) and thus some question as to whether or not that kind of agriculture would exist or seem to be as efficient without the subsidies.

    Former Sen. Moynihan and another Senator used to annually publish information that indicated how much each state got back in terms of assistance, projects, etc., per dollar paid in federal taxes. I don't know if any elected rep or other person has continued that excellent tradition. I didn't read it every year, but I do remember reading that (at least one year) NJ got the least back (considerably less than a dollar), NM got quite a bit more. So residents of some states might be getting more of food bang for their subsidizing buck then others . If in fact the import of out of season food is benefiting from similar favorable tax treatment or subsidies, then that would be a cost that should be added to compute the total actual "food mile" cost.

    As other people have pointed out, I don't think it's an all or nothing proposition. For 6 years, I did most of my errands on foot. I used a car for major shopping, about once a month. Now I live further from the center of town (more of a stretched out oval then a center) so sometimes I drive and sometimes walk (in good weather, it's a 3 mile walk each way) or I park and walk about 1/2 mile-1 mile total to do errands, including buying food. The local Farmers' market is open from May to October, that's when I shop there. I freeze some of what I buy. Most of the rest of what I buy is from the food co-op but I also go to a supermarket for a few things. The nearest Costco is close to 70 miles away, so I go there only occasionally and as part of a business trip--or a friend picks up stuff for me when she goes. I see nothing wrong with buying some food at Costco although the only produce I've bought is pistachio nuts.

    I try to put as many of my food dollars as possible into local foods (good local foods). I haven't had a yen for "fresh" cherries in the winter (I do have sour cherries from this summer in the freezer) so I haven't had to make that choice--but like I said, I do buy citrus and it's coming from CA, FL or Mexico.

    It's been interesting for me to find and try recipes that make use of in season produce or that preserved foods (dried fruits, frozen veg or fruit, etc.). It's been interesting for me to learn (by reading local newspapers, gardening articles, etc.) that some foods were much more widespread then I had thought. I had not realized, for instance, that there are some varieties of apples that do quite well in the south until I read an article about a man who has spent years collecting apple varieties that do well there so they're not lost. Reading Edna Lewis' "A Taste of Country Cooking" made me aware of how many more types of produce, etc., grew in VA then I had realized. A trip to a small farmers' market in Annandale, VA, during a visit to my sister's provided more information about how wide a variety of produce can be grown in VA.

    My point is that while people living in a more agrarian society may have gone without part of the year, there was also a much greater variety of produce seasonally available (and some of which could be preserved) then many people see now in their supermarket. Different regions had different varieties, partly due to some outstanding work by farmers, geniuses like Luther Burbank and agricultural scientists (agricultural stations, land grant schools) and and partly due to the ability of some types of plants, like grapes, to flourish over a broad range, settlers found grapes growing in a wide variety of climates (from the south to the prairies and further). So some types of produce, that many now get only from a nonlocal source, were at one time available locally, at least in in season--and were a fresher, quite possibly tastier, product (and the money spent stayed in the area). That kind of change doesn't seem like progress to me.

    Sorry about the length of the post, but these seem like important issues.

    SH

  8. Thanks and thanks.  Yes I did see those debates, and to me they came off like this:

    Schlosser: Your food is bad for people, the environment, animals and our health system

    McD's: Yeah, but we're getting better

    Schlosser: Perhaps, but not better enough

    McD's: Well can't you just give us credit for trying

    Schlosser: I have, but the changes in the UK are miniscule compared what needs to be done in the US and worldwide

    McD's: Nuh-uh

    Schlosser: Ya-huh

    I'd love to see a formal, Harvard style debate on the subject.  Meanwhile, the movie looks like fun.

    A book came out a 5? 6? years ago, I think the title was "McLibel" about McDonald's UK filing a libel lawsuit against a very small group (called Greenpeace but not connected in anyway with the Greenpeace most of us have heard of) for handing out leaflets saying about the same things Schlosser says on the first line ("Your food is bad for people. . .). and also criticising McD's employee practices/policies. Apparently this is (or was) common McD's practice in nations w/no 1st Amendment rights and libel laws like those of England's at the time (actually such lawsuits are filed in the US, called SLAP suits). It became the longest running civil suit ever in the UK. The defendants ended up representing themselves as the court decided that Legal Aid didn't apply in such an action. They did get some help from a libel attorney but only out of court assistance--it was very difficult for the defendants to get good assistance as well as represent themselves as apparently libel law in the UK is pretty byzantine and there are not many lawyers (or barristers?) who specialize in that area of the law. I think some kind of film was made about the defendants and what they went through during this lawsuit.

    There is a website that keeps people up to date on what's happening--I think the two defendants have filed suit in the International Court of Justice (or Human Rights?) in the Hague. Or is it Brussels? Despite the huge burden of proof that libel law placed on the defendants, the English court actually found in their favor on several issues: that McD's targets children in their advertising, that the food isn't particularly good for one and perhaps one other issue. I think McD's declined to collect the damages rewarded--because the of the bad publicity they gotten because of the lawsuit (most people back off as soon as McD's lawyers threaten to file, so their practices aren't really exposed to public/media scrutiny). McD's attorney fees were astronomical. Their lawsuit and the website seem to have become a kind of rallying point or call for others and the website keeps people up to date on annual global events, etc. Or was the last time I looked at it, probably 6 to 8 months ago.

    It's a very interesting book--I hadn't been aware of the types of tactics employed by McDonald's and I imagine some of the other large fastfood chains. Just to stop anyone from criticising them--or informing people of some of the downside of McD's food and business practices.

    I haven't read Schlosser's book yet, although I bought a second hand paperback copy of his book last year. It's still waiting for me to read it.

    azurite

  9. This statement was made in WF's reply to the Pollan letter (link upthread)
    I will say, however, that buying only local foods may be good for local farmers, but it can also be devastating to poor farmers all over the world who need to sell their products to the developed world to help lift themselves out of poverty. A strictly local foods philosophy is not a very compassionate philosophy. As Singer and Mason write in their new book, "keep your dollars circulating in your own community is not an ethical principle at all. To adhere to a principle of 'buy locally,' irrespective of the consequences for others, is a kind of community-based selfishness" (Singer and Mason p. 141). Whole Foods Market intends to continue to buy quality natural and organic foods from around the world, because our customers want us to and because doing so helps support some of the poorest economies in the world. You may not have liked those organic asparagus from Argentina very much, but Argentina is not a wealthy country (ranking only #65 in GNI per capita at $3,720 versus $41,400 in the USA-source: The World Bank, 2004) and helping their farmers to sell organic foods is very beneficial to them. Do you not feel any ethical obligation to help poor people around the world? What better way to help them, than to be willing to buy their agricultural products?

    I can't say I've ever really heard this argument or given it much thought (I would share the 'typical' reaction to out of season asparagus and tomatoes) so I'm curious to see if anyone has any thoughts...

    It depends. Some poor countries are growing crops to sell (not just food crops, but other crops as well, like cotton) instead of growing traditional food crops in sufficient quantities to feed their own citizens and residents. So they may end up relying on food aid-- they may need the cash to pay off international loans, or pay the interest. on those loans. Or need cash to pay for GM seeds instead of saving their own. So all your buying that food would mean is helping to perpetuate a cycle of poverty. In an article I saw today about, I think it might've been Brazil, soya farmers agreed to stop clearcutting rainforest in order to plant more soya crops (to sell, probably outside of Brazil). So it's possible an imported food you're buying might be encouraging destruction of important environments/ecologies.

    Unless it's a fair trade product (certified organic makes no promises regarding worker treatment, fair price being paid or fair wages) it's likely that most of whatever profits are made from sale of the food are going to the middlemen--who may or may not be citizens of the country where the crop is harvested or contribute in any way to the economy of that country, i.e., very little of the price you pay may go to the food producer (that's a problem for quite a few of the dairy farmers in the US I think). Or the food may be grown on a multinationalcorp's plantation where the workers are paid a pittance, deal w/unsafe working conditions, etc.

    Unless it's a fair trade product there is no reason to believe any farmer got a reasonable price or a worker was paid a fair wage or treated well or wasn't exposed to dangerous pesticides and herbicides (and was not told of the likely hazards of exposure or provided with protective clothing). So no way of knowing how much 'help', if any, you're giving a poor nation (or its citizens) by buying produce or other foods transported from thousands of miles away.

    I do think it's more important to support local farmers and/or orchardists and preserve some 'open' land than paying for the burning of alot of fossil fuel to bring over out of season produce from another country (I'd also much rather see my tax dollars going towards exploring ways of helping poor nations build viable economies than where those tax dollars go now, but that's off topic).

    Occasionally, that food producer is someone I know or someone I've gotten to know a bit because I've been buying produce from that grower for the past two years. I think it's great that some people whose families have farmed X number of acres for generations can stay on the land if that's what they want. Or that others can make a living doing so if that's what they want--it's certainly not an easy life--especially if you're growing crops organically or raising free range animals (USDA regs seem to make life pretty difficult for those who have small herds and don't slaughter all at once.). From some of the articles and books I've read--even some of the seed catalogues I've received--'small' farmers make our food lives so much more interesting and rewarding--to stay in business, to try to prosper-- they try growing new (to them) plants (some suggested or requested by customers) or heirloom varieties that might taste better or be easier to grow in their climate or raise a different kind of dairy cow because that type yields a milk with more butter fat . . . (Jersey cows are supposed to have milk w/above average butterfat %) that you're not going to see at the supermarket or imported because the fruit or veg doesn't travel well or is difficult to harvest mechanically. Or just because it takes a long time for a new demand to be responded to in a huge marketplace--if it's considered to be significant enough to respond to in the first place. Small farmers, smaller marketplaces (geographically smaller) may respond more quickly to new interests. And their produce or product doesn't have to travel anywhere near as far to get to my table. Because they're nearby, they may be that much more responsive to local requests. I'm going to support that.

    I'd like to know that a friend of a friend who grows about 3 varieties of berries organically is going to get a good price at the local farmers' market and that will help him support his wife (who works outside the home) and himself. And not just because he said it was ok for me to pick as many berries as I wanted when I accompanied a friend who was taking care of his animals while he and his wife were out of town attending the marriage of a family member.

    azurite

  10. The red-skinned new potatoes my mother used to cook when I was young. They were so good. I don't know if she just got them from the supermarket or from a farmstand. That was on Long Island (NY) and there used to be lots of potatoes grown there.

    The mashed potatoes I made one Thanksgiving from potatoes I'd grown--a storage potato called Corola (according to Territorial Seed Co, this potato was bred in Germany)--a waxy Yukon Gold/Yellow Finn type but w/its own flavor and some Rose Finn Apples--a fingerling potato. The mashed potatoes tasted great and seemed so rich although I don't add cream. Even my brother-in-law, who's sort of a picky eater and mashed potato aficianado, liked them. I think that was the first time I'd grown potatoes.

  11. OOh- I'm glad this thread has been bumped. Did somebody mention Gyros?:

    gallery_21237_2037_2101.jpg

    That baby is from a place in Glen Cove, Long Island, NY. I'm not sure the photo really does it justice, but it is as tasty as it is big. And it is big, a real gluttonfest (I'm so bad sometimes  :hmmm: ). I've gotten to the point that I don't even bother with the side of fries anymore. Anyway, the place has a real old-school charm, like it's been there forever (and the guys tending the grill as well); I just wish I could go more often.

    I do most of my restaurant hopping during the lunchtime hour, and some weeks I cover a lot of territory. I'll have to remember to bring my camera along. I'll leave you guys with an older shot, though I am here at least once a month and the quality never wavers. This is a thali lunch from the House of Dosas in Hicksville, and I am convinced that it is the best 7 bucks you can spend on the Island:

    gallery_21237_1811_92508.jpg

    Where in Glen Cove? I went to highschool there and my mother still lives there part of the year.

  12. Great thread--I'm so glad to find that so many other people don't like coffee. For years, I've felt like an oddball as friends sipped their espressos, lattes, etc. I don't particularly like the smell. And until about 4-5 years ago, at meetings or continuing education seminars, if refreshments were supplied, there'd be coffee, decaff coffee, sodas, maybe even herbal teas . . . .but no black tea, which I do like. Things have improved fortunately.

    The only time I thought coffee was palatable was when a friend talked me into trying what he called Irish coffee--coffee plus whisky (which I also don't like). I guess the combination of the two made both drinkable. I've had it only once-- the experience wasn't good enough to repeat.

    Peanut butter cookies, cheesecake, most soda although I like ginger ale if I'm not feeling well, black licorice, custard (mostly a textural thing I think), clams except in clam chowder, squid, butterscotch, baklava (too sweet), liver. I don't mind runny yolks but for some reason runny whites gross me out--I think it's a mouth feel thing, sweet pickles although I like dill or sour pickles, lamb although I think it may be because the few times I've had it it wasn't prepared well.

    Beer. When I was in college a guy I was seeing was so sure that the only reason I didn't like beer was because I hadn't tried the right one so he took me some place that had I think 25 different kinds of beers, ales, stouts, whatever and we must've tried at least 10 or 15 (swallows, not entire beers, or not for me anyway) and I didn't like any of them. Too bitter I think--and the one other time I tried some cheapo American beer I thought I'd never stop belching. I don't mind adding a 1/2 cup or so of Guinness or some dark beer/ale to a stew though.

    Oh--and cotton candy. I hadn't even thought about it until it was mentioned on this thread--but I too can remember looking forward to trying it with great anticipation (it looks so good) and then it was such a letdown to actually eat it. I think I couldn't even finish what I'd gotten it tasted so yuck to me.

    There may be more. An interesting thread.

    S.H.

  13. I'm 4th or something like that on the waiting list at my library to read that book and wish the people ahead of me on the list read faster as I feel like I've been waiting some time.

    Another book that deals w/some of the same issues is "Coming Home to Eat, The Pleasures and Politics of Local Foods" by Gary Paul Nabhan. The book was published in 2002--I liked the book alot. After I finished Nabhan's book, I started trying harder to buy local as well as organically grown. Last spring/summer I started going to my local Farmers' market again to try to find more local foods and was very pleased to see how much it's improved and how many more sellers there are. By the end of last summer, there was a guy offering some 'organic' meat for sale and offering the opportunity to order from a much bigger variety of meat then he'd brought w/him. I can't grow that much where I live (or at least, not without using tunnels or a greenhouse), although blueberries do well in my yard (lettuce, potatoes and sometimes snow peas do ok) providing we get some pretty warm and sunny days during their ripening period. So it was wonderful to have a variety of fresh, organically grown veggies to choose from this past summer.

    Nabhan's book talks about foraging--or collecting native/local foods to eat--unfortunately I don't have enough of the native evergreen huckleberry bushes growing in my yard to yield many berries (the berries are small)--and the bushes take a long time to become established, they're not at all like domestic blueberries--although I'm told the berries make a great jam or pie filling. I've let the native coast strawberry grow in my backyard (it's a great ground cover, stays green all year long w/no watering, never grows that tall and doesn't mind being mown from time to time--the only problem is the runners--it invades my herb and flower beds) and sometimes, if rain and sun alternate appropriately and I beat the slugs, I can find strawberries for several weeks. But that's probably the extent of my 'foraging.'

    S.H.

  14. The Gulf of Maine Shrimp thread on the New England forum might have some relevance here.

    The difference the in color & flavor of these guys vs. the farmed stuff is just so apparent.

    Sadly, they haven't been a big hit yet with the average consumer.

    I can buy "local" seafood but many people cannot--and even if you don't want to buy farmed seafood or fresh water fish, you can't find out if it is or not. I don't think any of fish/seafood in the frozen section of the supermarket I usually go to states if the fish/seafood is farmed or wild caught. And while one of three supermarkets in the town I live in states on the sign/slabels whether or not the fish/seafood in the 'fresh fish/seafood" case is farmed or fresh caught (and sometimes even where the product is from) I don't think at least one of the others does. If you ask, the person behind the counter may or may not know. Because salmon is a 'product' of Oregon, there was a big stink when people found out that farmed salmon were being injected with coloring so they'd look as "good" (or the same) as the wild caught salmon. At least for a while, the food coloring or dye was no longer used.

    For years, because I live in a community that at one time derived much of its income from fishing, crabbing, etc., I've bought locally caught fish, crab whenever I can just to support "local" business (although an individual can buy only some stuff directly from the fishermen--not everything they fish for). "Local" is in quotes because while the fishermen may be based here in Oregon, many of them go as far as Alaska to fish. I've gone crabbing a few times but don't enjoy fishing.

    But I never thought about what 'farming' shrimp or fish involved--until the tsunami hit Indonesia. One of the articles I read described in considerable detail just how toxic and destructive shrimp and other farming was as done in Indonesian waters. I started looking at labels at the fish counters and if there were no labels, asking the person behind the counter if whatever it was, was farmed or not--if they couldn't tell me, I didn't buy.

    A few months ago, a couple opened a new fish market/restaurant that sells local seafood bought directly from the more or less local people who catch it (progress). I've gone once to buy some pacific cod and Oregon shrimp and both looked and tasted good. Sometimes a fisherman who smokes some of his own fish has given me some home smoked salmon or tuna or I've bought some and that--aldersmoked salmon (with various other additions--whatever the person smoking the fish happens to like) is just soooooo good--I don't think farmed salmon could taste as good.

    The Monterey Bay Aquarium issues a Seafood Watch guide for the West Coast. It's quite small, you can put it in your pocket or wallet. It has 3 columns, first is "best choices" and on to the 3rd column which is "Avoid" or what not to buy because it's way overfished, or farmed in ways that are environmentally harmful. You can download it at Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch. I don't know if there's a similar guide for East Coast or Gulf fisheries.

    Perhaps with continued advertising, guides like the Monterey Aquariums, and what seems like growth of a 'buy local foods' movement, more people will become choosier about their fish/seafood purchases.

    SH

  15. Just want to add that lots of dark people who speak foreign languages are in fact, American. Often even US citizens.

    I noticed that too and was going to mention it--works both ways though--several or more years ago I was at a small Chinese restaurant (in Manhanttan,NYC) with an old friend who's an Asian American (born in Hong Kong but US citizen for years and years) and a friend of hers--who is also an American, is also Asian but was born in (and I think she lived there for a number of years) and still has family in the Dominican Republic. They start conversing in Chinese (which I don't understand or speak unfortunately), probably a Cantonese dialect; then suddenly my friend says--in English--oh, you can order that she's (meaning me) is good for an American. Meaning, she told me later, that I was "good" about trying new or strange foods--for a white (mostly, anyway) person. I've remembered her saying that partly because I thought it was odd-she's just as much of an American as I am--partly because it was a compliment. Very enjoyable to to go out to eat with, my friend, very knowledgeable about food and cooking and enjoys eating--always ready to try something new and interesting.

    I've wondered if her kids--all of whom were born in the US and have lived only in the US--also have that perception of only white (and perhaps African-Americans?) as 'real' Americans. I hope not.

    azurite

  16. "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)."

    While I agree with you on the slapback on state's rights (except on some issues--which aren't food related so I guess I won't mention them and also so I won't start ranting), I don't think that for the past few years, you can put 'best available science' in the same sentence as FDA unless you're going to also insert, "not true at this time and probably for the rest of the Bush Administration" as well. Not only has the BA sharply reduced funding for research but a number of federal agencies besides FDA have seen politics (BA politics) substituted for good science as a basis for regulatory decisions (and not just there but at institutions that receive federal funding--see the flap at Oregon State University because some of the faculty there tried to stop publication of a study that appeared to contradict Bush Admnistration 'salvage logging" policy and the "science" supporting that policy). Thus, it is quite possible, even likely, that if a state petitioned FDA to 'allow" it to include something else on the label if Bushian cronyism/'conservatism' mandated a denial, a denial it would be, regardless of how solid the research supporting such labeling.

    BTW, apparently CA's required listing of the presence of benzene in soda has persuaded some soda manufacturers to reformulate--hard to see as a bad thing. And it's the feds, not CA (as far as I know) who classified benezene as a carcinogen--so if it was 'bad or junk science" to do so, it wasn't a state that did it.

    Another poster asked why labeling is a problem--some years ago, some milk producers decided to state on their milk containers that they did not give their cows a specific hormone (manufactured by Monsanto I believe, to increase their milk production. They were threatened with litigation by Monsanto and pulled the cartons. Understand the producers weren't going to state on the cartons that the hormone was hazardous, just that they didn't give it to their cows (apparently, if nothing else, it increases the incidence of mastitis in cows--which in turn I guess would increase incidence of administration of antibiotic or possibly use of antibiotics chronically as prophylactic measure--which some might believe not a good idea .. .). For that matter, it wouldn't have been part of the "official" label contents. Even so, it was apparently something not to be tolerated at the time.

    Last year Tillamook co-op decided to state publicly that none of their co-op members (Tillamook is a dairy co-operative headquartered in Tillamook, Oregon, sells milk, cheese, butter, ice cream and yogurt) used this hormone. No threatened lawsuit by Monsanto.... but, suddenly there was a call for a vote of all the members as some members 'suddenly' objected to fact that co-op might be telling them what they could and could not do with their cows. Fortunately, when put to a vote, the majority voted against hormone use. Of course, Monsanto denied it was responsible for the minority's sudden objection . . . .

    My impression is that entities like Monsanto are concerned that if people who actually read labels or what's printed on food containers just see something saying we don't use X, then they'll 'leap to the conclusion' that X is bad for you.

    There's been a push to include in the official "labels" if there are or are not GMO foods/seeds in a given packaged food. Given that the corporations that sell genetically modified seed swear up and down that GMOs are wonderful, don't hurt anything but pests, et., etc., you have to wonder, so, if that's true and everyone with a brain knows it, what the problem? The problem is that these corporations think it might make people wonder. Might make them suspicious. Might make them think and do some research. But if it's not there, you won't think about it. What you don't know can't hurt them.

    Particularly not if a tame federal government keeps passing protection from liability statutes. And if the only research that gets done after awhile is research paid for by the corporation that wants to market the product. There's already been one or two areas in which it seems that the EU is moving ahead of the US--used to be that many other nations relied upon EPA's data. For all I know, perhaps they used to defer to FDA's and the CDCs data and findings as well. Probably not any more.

    azurite

  17. That being said, there's an awful lot of fussiness out there hiding behind the guise of allergies.  I've seen people claim to have allergies to foods that they merely dislike, and I've witnessed a number of people lately diagnosing themselves with a food allergy, believing it to be the culprit behind their general malaise.  The latter strikes me as more a neurosis than a medical condition, but that's just MHO.

    I think you're right in some cases---I worked at a small natural foods co-op for several years (years ago), right around the time a number of new diets were coming out--gluten-free, gluten, people being told by a naturopath they had yeast 'infections' throughout their bodies and so should eat X/Y or Z, but not A, B or C, detox diets, and then much later there was the 'eat right for your blood type' diets, whatever. For some people--who I watched go from one miracle diet/food to another miracle diet and/or food it seemed to be what I called, "perfection through food." Whatever problems they had, physical and/or emotional, this new diet or new food or not exposing themselves to this additive or food, would solve their problems, they'd be happy and healthy.

    I know more people of the, "I don't like it and that's that" type. Usually it's vegetables and fish/seafood. It seems a bit odd to me in an adult (I was a picky eater as a child--although I did eat a wide variety of veggies and fruit) but if we're eating at my house, I accomodate. It's not worth arguing about--I've sat through way too much arguing over food--what is ok to eat, what is not, why aren't you eating that . . . to want to start any myself.

    That said, my mother and her cousin are both allergic to celery--my mother can tolerate a small amount of cooked celery in a soup, but has a fairly strong rxn to raw celery. I was in my 20's before I finally tried some raw--and didn't have a problem. Years ago because of some difficulties I was tested (just the skin testing) for allergies and was told I was 'sensitive' to dairy (esp.cheese), tomatoes and wheat.' But the allergist didn't say to stop eating any of those foods--only that I might do better if I avoided dairy if I was having allergic symptoms (to the things like molds that I'm more allergic to--although I can eat a bit of blue cheese w/out a rxn). I still eat them--although I try to eat sheep and goat's cheese (Such a trial) since if I am mildly allergic to cow's milk, it's probably to the proteins. I have a friend who cannot eat anything in the curcubit (or curcurbit?) family. She says she had a mild rxn when she was young and it got worse until she just avoided anything in that family. A friend who was diagnosed with MS about 6 years ago (after being diagnosed w/lupus when she was 14) has found she's reacting (hives, upset stomach) to more and more kinds of fruit as she gets older and she hates it as she really likes fruit.

    My father developed celiac disease when he was in his 70's so perhaps some sensitivities or allergies develop w/age.

    Other than that (and a sister w/Crohn's), I have few friends with any kind of serious food allergy or sensitivity. My sister is lactose-intolerant. And my mother--the only one w/a major food allergy--she was born and lived in Austria until she was 18 so it's the European of the family who has the food allergy.

    I've read that some food intolerances or sensitivities (inability to digest properly) or actual allergies have some ethnic connections: favism (which can vary in severity) or a rxn to a fava beans is pretty much restricted to people of Mediterranean area descent. Lactose intolerance or an inability to digest lactose (lack of lactase enzyme I believe) is supposed to be more common in Asians and Africans or people of Asian or African descent. Supposedly because cow's milk is not available much anyway or drunken much after very early chlidhood, while many northern European peoples have relied on milk as a significant food source for centuries and so retain the ability to digest milk. I'm not sure if the information on lactose intolerance is still current.

    azurite

  18. Now, I did smoke the filterless version of The Green Death (Export A Plain)

    The Green Death? I had a few friends who used to swear by the Grey Export loose tobacco--they said that Canada didn't do as much to its tobacco (put in as many additives) as the US companies did . . . I think they eventually switched to whatever that US brand of allegedly untreated tobacco is. Is it Export brand that was stronger or just the Green type?

    Since I quit, I don't know why I care but I'm curious anyway.

    Susan H.

  19. I quit smoking cold turkey in May of 2005. I used a book I found for 50 cents at the perpetual book sale at the public library: "Freshstart:21 Days to Stop Smoking" it's an old quit smoking book by the ACS (American Cancer Society), I think the copyright is 1986. It worked well for me, maybe it was just the right time but I think some of the information in the book regarding, deep breaths, drinking lots of water (and always having water around to drink), rationalizations, stuff like that, were very helpful. I also printed out two pages worth of a list of all the diseases, disorders that smoking makes worse and looked at them every few days. The NHS (UK) quitsmoking website--especially the "secrets" (of staying quit) section was helpful.

    I had one really bad hour about a week or so into the process, it was a weird experience as well as difficult as it seemed I had at least 3 voices in my head arguing different positions re: smoking or not, my appearance, and other aspects of my life. To my surprise, walking, drinking water, three deep breaths and making sure I spent time in no-smoking places made the difference. I must've tried quitting at least 15 times before, and once managed to stop for 3 months. I also told people I'd quit--it's been interesting to see who is supportive and who is not--one of my friends who's a smoker was very supportive--to the extent of going outside of her own house to have a cigarette the first time I visited after quitting, to a non-smoker whose response was to say that her father had died of a smoking-related illness even though he'd stopped 10 years before onset (which sure made me feel like going though all the emotional swings was worthwhile!). All of the materials I've looked at strongly suggest working out strategies for dealing with stressful situations (frequent and hopefully infrequent)--"think" and "do" strategies, the think being what you tell yourself the do being what you will do (walk, take deep breaths, drink some water, whatever works for you) if faced with a situation that elicits a strong desire to smoke.

    One thing that was sort of suggested in the Fresh Start book and some other materia ls I've looked at--is to reward yourself/look to see if/how you may need to 're-balance' your life--so that you do more 'wants' and fewer 'shoulds." I tend to be a bit, oh, well, it'd be nice to do that but . . . .work to do, whatever. So last August, when I discovered there was a big exhibit of the works of a photographer I admire at MOMA, decided I'd fly back to NY (used to live on LI years ago, my mother still does)--just for a few days--just to see the exhibit. And it was great--contrary to what I thought, I did not melt in the humid heat of August in the city (I'd forgotten how wonderful AC can feel), I re-experienced the steamy pleasure of walking on the upper east side in the early morning on a Saturday when no one is out and about except a few joggers and dog walkers, I saw another good photo exhibit at MOMA and yet another at the Museum of the City of NY (where I'd never been before) and--of course--ate some good food and saw my mom and a few friends.

    I guess I've gone on for too long--I think it still surprises me that I did it (I strongly dislike flying for one thing, even though I do it at least once a year)--and I enjoyed the trip so much.

    I'd really been looking forward to a better sense of taste/smell but have noticed little, if any improvement. Occasionally a smell (sometimes of flowers--alyssum, for instance) of a particular thing will come through strongly but generally there's not much improvement. And I'm still touchier than normal, although that's improved quite a bit.

    Susan H. (Oregon coast)

  20. Step away from the recipe book - do your own thing, experiment. It won't always be perfect. Somtimes it will be awful, but you will learn so much more. Anyone can follow a set of instructions, but doing it for yourself will teach you a feel for your food. With feeling comes passion

    I agree with this, but only after you have followed the recipe to the letter. In the past, I would often tweek a recipe as I go, changing things to suit my tastes. But I find that by adhering to a recipe for the first try out, I discover so much more and get a true appreciation of say, why a certain herb is suggested over another. Good cookbook writers have already played around with many variations and what they propose is generally the result of much research.

    It is sooo nice to hear someone say that! It's what I do but I have a friend who is a good cook and has been cooking and baking for years (she's 15 years old than me) so she just sort of does stuff. Although she does follow a basic recipe for curry. Her son, just turned 18, also cooks and has been encouraged by her to experiment rather than use cookbooks (although I think now that he's moved from a very rural area to the 'big' city he's watching the Food Network). When I'm around them I feel like a OCD jerk because I do follow a recipe exactly the first time I try something new (I've been telling them it's because I took 2 years of college chem, and did some sample processing w/acids and it can really matter that you follow instructions carefully . . . and what is cooking but a kind of experimental biochemistry?). Lately I've been trying to read a recipe, imagine how it would taste and then decide if I want to change anything or try it as written--just to try to stretch myself. Or after I've tried a recipe, think of what might make it taste even better (if anything).

    I think it's important to be adventurous--if I like a given type of food (say Indian food from several regions of India) then not to think it was too complicated or complex for me until I've gone through cookbooks, tried a few recipes (following them exactly) and discovered that--at least one comes out just fine. Same for baking bread. Like at least one other poster has said, maybe it won't be perfect first time, but, so what?

  21. There's a direct contradiction between US and European conventions for using a knife and fork, which I'm sure everyone here knows about. It's an indication that which hand you hold an implement in is less important than the modesty with which you wield it.

    My mother used to tell my father he shouldn't crumble his crackers into his soup. One evening he was a guest at a banquet with President Franklin Roosevelt, who, of course, crumbled his crackers into his soup. Mother lost that one.

    What about dunking bread in soup? The first time I did that my father told me it was a "peasant" habit. Not that he stopped me.

    I give my parents a great deal of credit for not forcing me to eat food when I was young. Try it maybe but no forcing. I was a very picky eater as a child--I think I would've stayed that way had my parents not decided to pretty much let me eat what I would--although my father never forgot how, when we went to France when my sister and I were quite young (I was 4, she was 6) we went to a chateau/hotel and my sister and I insisted upon spaghetti. My father, who grew up in a small town in east Texas, was an adventurous eater and was dismayed that neither of us were taking 'advantage' of this culinary opportunity. On the other hand my mother (who grew up in Vienna, Austria) just shrugs and says, you were so young . . .

    While there were some difficult and unpleasant meal times in my family while I was growing up, what I miss most about our family meals is that we talked alot (well, sometimes we argued alot . . .). Many of the people I know now sit down and eat. Little to no conversation. I'm usually the last person to finish (although to be polite I try not to finish too long after everyone else). In my family we talked about chemistry (both of my parents had chem degrees), history, biology, politics (that caused a significant % of the arguments), books read, etc. Sometimes things deteriorated into kvetching but were some good times and laughter. I think one relationship I had broke up partly because the guy complained that I took "too long" at meals.

    My sister and I learned about multiple utensils when we ate dinner at my mother's parents' apt. They gave quite a few small dinner parties--with my family and some of their friends or a few adult cousins. While my mother kept an eye on us when we were young to make sure we behaved properly, she was not a martinet and I think it was easier to learn there then at home. Partly because it was my grandparents who were setting this more complicated table, not my parents. My sister and I were fascinated to find that you could have your very own small salt shaker or salt cellar (we have since inherited my grandmother's salt cellar/individual shakers as my mother did not want them). I've also found Ms. Manner's rules (in her first book) about dealing with complicated settings (how to do them, how to eat using them) useful.

    I am very glad to hear of so many parents working with or teaching their children such good table manners. There have been times at restaurants when my meal has been made unpleasant because the parents pretty much ignore their kids--who are left to stand in their seats, fling food (into my hair), throw cutlery, etc. (these are the kids of people sitting near me, not those of my friends). Scenes like that leave me feeling very appreciative of better mannered children.

    azurite

  22. Interesting that Cook's Illustrated  found the best saffron from Pennsylvania!

    A few years ago I planted some fall crocus bulbs hoping to get a small crop, but the plants were eaten by unknown predators.

    These were Iranian bulbs sold by a noted bulb purveyor, Cruickshank's in Toronto.

    If I had another source, I'd try it again.

    Try brentandbeckysbulbs.com, they do two bulb catalogues/year (spring flowering, summer flowering) and in one of them they offer saffron crocus. Their catalogue doesn't saying anything about shipping to Canada but unless there are pest-prevention related regs to stop them I don't know why they wouldn't. My experience w/them is that their selection is good, prices good and just about all of the bulbs I've ordered from them have grown and thrived.

    Last fall a friend bought about 40-50 saffron crocus bulbs from them and just about all of them flowered--but then our area got a whole lot of rain--at a time of year we don't usually get that much rain (but then we had weird/atypical weather for just about all of 2005 in this area) so she wasn't able to pick that many of the pistils (is it pistils or stamens?). However, she says they seem to be reproducing well, so she has hopes for next fall.

    I get the impression from most of the posts that, with the exception of Cook's Illustrated, most people believe or have found that only arid climates, like Spain and Iran, produce good saffron. Does anyone know whether the lack of rain is necessary only in the fall, at harvest time? Or is it like chile peppers, where an arid hot climate is best for getting the best flavor? I live in a temperate rainforest climate (at the moment, what w/global warming and all the trees being cut down and replaced by manufactured homes and concrete, the climate is changing)--often we will have no rain for close to 3 months from about end of June/early July into September. Some ground fog off and on where my friend lives.

    Perhaps a year ago the UK Telegraph online, gardening section, had an article describing a part of England that had once been a saffron growing area. My impression is it stopped when labor costs became too high in comparison to those in Spain, Iran, et al--not that the climate produced lousy saffron (but then would the editors of the UK Telegraph let an article through that criticised English ag?). But my climate is not that different from England's (except for the 2-3 months without much rain), southern England anyway, so I wondered if England could produce good saffron, so could a garden in the foothills of the OR coast range?

    My friend gave all the saffron she was able to pick and dry to her son and I have yet to hear what his opinion of the taste was, if he had one. So I don't know how good the saffron was--I saw it before she gave it to him and the color looked pretty good.

    S. Hogg

  23. Last week I picked up a lovely cheese pumpkin from the greenmarket.  Roasted it and turned it into a lovely soup with ginger and cider.  The seeds got toasted and sprinkled on top.

    bloviatrix what is a cheese pumpkin, I haven't heard of that before??

    Ummm, the photo doesn't look like the cheese pumpkins I used to buy from farmstands when I lived on LI (in NY). The ones I bought looked like small flattened versions of 'standard' pumpkins--generally the hollow inside is much smaller, i.e. more of the pumpkin is flesh--I that's what the stuff you cook/eat is called. In Oregon--where I live now--the same or a very similar pumpkin seems to be called sugar pumpkins, so perhaps you could find them in Seattle under that name as well.

    First post, if I made any mistakes, sorry.

×
×
  • Create New...