annecros

ETA: Never mind.

You are so right--perspective does color opinion! Also thanks--the Pew study is very interesting. My point has always been--people know they are overweight and they know how they got there. This is very complex and there are no easy answers. The people who like to lecture us are quick to find easy answers that suit them. ← I guess if you are really, really skeeved by a Big Mac (for whatever reason Big Mac's might skeeve you), you would naturally have a tendency to blame the commercial you see on TV for all the ills of mankind. I agree with your position, but that comes from my perspective. Anne, who is not the slightest bit overweight, but does overeat from time to time.

Ran across this today when looking for information on something else, and thought it might shed some light on the topic. http://pewresearch.org/pubs/?PubID=309 From the study: "Asked to pick the top two from a list of five possible reasons that people eat so much junk food, respondents most often cited convenience (73%). Other reasons were that it's what people like to eat (44%); it's because of heavy advertising (37%); it's more affordable (24%); and it's because people don't know which foods are healthy (14%). There is some variation in this pattern of responses depending on whether the respondent is or isn't a heavy consumer of junk food. Both groups agree that convenience is the biggest reason for America's junk food habit. But among those who say they rarely or never overeat junk food, there is a greater tendency to stress the importance of advertising as a factor in the consumption of junk food by others. Among those who acknowledge that they themselves eat too much junk food, there is more of a tendency to stress the fact that it's what people like to eat." It appears that perspective colors opinion.

Out of curiosity, I google it up real quick, and according to Pew Research enjoyment of cooking is stable, but there has been a gender shift: http://pewresearch.org/pubs/?PubID=309 From the site: "While enjoyment of eating has dropped since 1989, enjoyment of cooking has held steady. About a third of the public (34%) say they enjoy cooking "a great deal" and another quarter (26%) say they enjoy cooking "a fair amount." These figures are essentially unchanged since 1989, but there has been a notable shift in their gender composition. Today about the same percentage of women (35%) and men (32%) say they enjoy cooking a great deal; in 1989, women (39%) were more likely than men (25%) to say this. Also, more blacks (40%) than whites (33%) enjoy cooking a great deal. People who enjoy cooking a great deal are less likely to eat out regularly than are those who don't enjoy cooking as much. But about 13% of Americans say all of the following: they eat at restaurants at least weekly; they enjoy cooking "a great deal"; and they enjoy eating "a great deal." More men than women and more younger adults (ages 18-49) than older adults (ages 50 and older) are in this gourmand grouping."

I try to have two one pint mason jars going at any one time. When one gets half empty I top it off with more high proof alcohol and rotate it to the back of the cabinet. About once a year I may change the beans out, depending upon what condition it is in, and try to sterilize a new jar and move it over. I can't say for sure, but I think I have a couple of vanilla beans floating around that are probably a couple of years old. I also usually cut the vanilla measure in half depending upon the recipe. Do the same for a quart mason jar I have started with vanilla sugar. I honestly don't know if it is good indefinitely, but the vanilla beans will fall apart once they are good and solidly drunk! If you want it nice for winter holiday baking, you should start in the next couple of months. For this summer's ice cream, I would start it now. My sister uses Crown, but I usually stick with vodka.

My first year with southern peas in south Florida. The sandy, limey soil and climate should work well for them, and will save me a drive up into central Florida if they produce for me. In the ground with third leaves are Fordhook Limas and Pinkeye Purple Hull peas. On order from Heirloom Acres are Zipper Cream Peas, Mississippi Silver Crowders, Jackson Wonder Speckled Butter Beans, White Half Runner Green Beans, and Red Valencia Peanuts just for giggles. The second bed has been cleaned, top dressed and turned and is awaiting the seed that should arrive within a couple of weeks. I hope to grow off sweet corn rotated behind the beans in one plot late in the summer, and turnips and mustard behine the other plot of beans in the fall. Not sure what varieties I want. There is a yellow globe turnip out there that looks interesting. A couple of pepper plants and squash will go into this bed with the beans as well. The cukes did too well this year! I think I'll be making pickles out of them even though they are Burpless slicers. We have six vines that are just beginning to run and bloom, and it is just hubby and I. I'm thinking they should work at least for cold pack bread and butter pickles, maybe dill spears. Can anybody think of anything else I can do with them, besides sharing with neighbors which I am sure will happen. Tomatoes are about 7 inches tall. I have a pink beefsteak and Parks Whopper Improved for early. Bonnie Original for mid and late and canning. Roma. "Mr. Stripey" heirloom for mid and late. My summer bulbs just arrive from Easy to Grow bulbs, and they really are outstanding. More work! Caladiums, Gloriosa Lillies, Rain Lillies, and they threw in some Achimines as a bonus that I am excited about. Never grew them before, but from the description they should do well planted in front of the Caladiums. I have some garlic with sprouting cloves on the kitchen counter, so I guess I will tuck them in, but haven't grown garlic before and not sure what they want. I love the spring!

I apologize Andrew. After rereading my post, I can see how it reads as if I was attributing CSPI's attitudes to you personally. Please know that was not my intention, but I certainly should have worded the post differently in order to make it clear that I object to this special interest groups philosophy and tactics. I have to be away for a couple of hours this moring, but will return this afternoon to respond to the rest of the post, and try to explain myself with more clarity.

Hey Andrew, Hope this finds you well. I don't remember conceding anything, but will have to take a look back to make sure. I thought the point was that the bulk of the calories came from agricultural products. The nutritional information with the tomatoes is simply to keep things simple. Anybody can figure it out and research it and understand the concept. The same applies to any meat in the product. Anything that mother nature produces, she randomizes. It also applies to dairy, but not to such an extent as it is homogenized, sterilized, and basically is pure protein and calcium, and fortified with Vitamin D. Unless it is skim, then it really doesn't render any nutrition to the human body at all. It is not what comes out of the cow, usually. It is almost an artificial product, due to regulation. Margarine, can you say trans fats? I knew that you could. Margarine is technically low fat and lower in calories than butter. Why do you think that low calories and low fat equal better nutrition? You keep focusing on the low cal and low fat portion of the diet, but that food delivers no nutritional, or at the best very little, value. For example, iceberg lettuce is low calorie and low fat. It also only delivers water and fiber to the consumer. How can that be good? Those salads McDonalds was pimping for a while imparted more nutrition in the dressing than the rest of the entire small drink sized cup. Think about it. A handful of iceburg, two grates of carrot, two slices of cuke, and one - maybe two - underipe cherry tomatoes. Do you really expect to remain upright on such a diet? Sure, you will lose weight on low calorie/low fat. Your body will go into starvation mode and consume itself. You will also lose weight on low carb/ high protein. Your body will go into starvation mode (ketosis) and consume itself. I think CSPI is greatly exaggerating the problem. I don't think that restaurants can, or should be required to, provide information to the consumer that is accurate to the tenth decimal place. In addition, if I read the article right, they want it mandated and regulated. By the feds. The feds need it to the tenth decimal place. In CSPI's words "It is time." Heh. Now, Andrew, explain to me why it is OK for the elite to eat Fois Gras - but not OK for the plebes to eat a salad at the Cheesecake Factory that may add up to 1,000 calories, but packs a much wider range of nutrients than that poor, abused liver ever will? Why? I sit and wonder. I am open minded as well. So give me your best shot.

See, you are not taking into account the liability that goes along with product labeling. Do you think for one second, that if the Cheesecake Factory put on it's menu that a salad had 2,150 calories, and the CSPI picked one up to go and had it analyzed and that it contained 2,200 calories, that the CSPI wouldn't jump up and down and throw a fit? So the kitchen put an oxheart tomato on top of the salad instead of the beefsteak tomato because it was what was available from the supply chain that day. There is a reason why the USDA does not require nutritional labeling on fresh produce or fresh meat. When you do see it, you will note that it is abbreviated, generalized and not at all the equivalent to the information that you get on prepackaged food. I still don't understand why people don't understand the huge variance in perishable commodities. Anything that is alive starts losing stuff when it is dead. It is just decomposition, and a hard and fast organic rule. Fresh is better than canned or frozen, canned or frozen is better than dried. Dried is better than nothing at all, and can sometimes add another dimension to your diet depending upon your particular situation. I have been said to be a cynic, as I have said before. But within my experience with government agencies and special interest groups, they must take it up a notch to survive. Sometimes, it just gets silly. Yeah, I think we are all blessed with at least a bit of common sense. Now, there are disorders that cause people to starve themselves. There are also disorders that cause people to overeat. What about the rest of the 90% of the population?

Certainly it is germaine. The chain restaurants are being accused of force feeding the public in order to directly cause diabetes, heart disease, obesity, and probably bad breath. It is a crises, so says the CSPI, and requires government regulation of private enterprise in order to prevent wholesale death and suffering. Didn't you read the original article? Some restaurants and fast food chains did and do offer different and healthier alternatives. They didn't sell: http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/conte...0629_133435.htm The entire article is worth reading, but from the cite: "U.S. BARGAIN SHOPPERS. Stomach churning? Perhaps. But the Hardee's experience is a reflection of America today. Americans thrive on value and bargains. Good health be damned, if there's a good bargain to be found. If people can drive the extra 30 miles in their quest for everyday values to shop at discounter Wal-Mart (WMT) or hunt for treasures at warehouse club Costco (COST) or at the dollar store, why should they settle for less when they stop at a restaurant? “Value is a big lure,” says Brian Wansink, professor of food marketing at Cornell University in Ithaca, N.Y. “Compared to a basic burger, if you get something really huge for just 45 cents, more is worth trading up to, especially for young men who like to leave a restaurant feeling really full.” Even McDonald's (MCD), which has been at the forefront of adding healthy items to its menu, like premium salads and sliced apples for children, recently launched the World Cup Burger during the six weeks of the World Cup soccer games. The burger, 40% larger than a Big Mac, is a whopping 1,227 calories, or more than half of the 2,000 daily recommended calorie intake. As research already shows, Americans are eating more hamburgers, french fries, and fried chicken than before (see BusinessWeek.com, 11/9/05, “Fat Times for Fast Food”). And fast-food restaurants are giving it to customers in ever-more appealing forms. This year, in a nod to the increasing influence of new immigrants and globalization, almost all the nation's fast-food restaurants adopted new, spicy foods. McDonald's launched its spicy chicken sandwich, and Hardee's introduced a jalapeño sandwich, which became a permanent item after its limited-time introduction. Sonic (SONC) also introduced its own jalapeño cheeseburger. “Burgers are the No. 1 entrée ordered in America,” says Harry Balzer, vice-president at researcher NPD Food World. “It's good to experiment with different ways of consuming such a popular food and give people reasons to come back one more time.”" What are the alternatives for the business? Ignore the demand, close up shop, and go home? Fire people? Not do business anymore? I think it is basically backlash. When somebody tells you that you "should" do this, "shouldn't" do that, and "it's for your own good because you don't know any better" I think the basic human instinct is to rebel. I haven't had one of the burgers at Hardee's. I do eat a Sonic double cheeseburger about once a quarter. Usually, I make the nutritional equivalent at home, and it tastes better. But with those numbers, somebody is buying and eating them. Probably somebody that is lurking on this thread.

I'll see your Terri Schiavo, and raise you an Emma Faust Tillman http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/30/nyregion...=rssnyt&emc=rss and a and a Fred Hale Sr. http://www.redsoxconnection.com/fans/oldestfan2.html Both lived very productive lives of over 100 years.

I am having trouble wrapping my mind around the concept that people "don't know what's good for them." I just googled nutrition, and got 132,000,000 hits in 0.07 seconds. I just googled it in the News section, which reflects current print and TV media for those that don't have internet access, and got 14.453 hits in 0.36 seconds. March is Nutrition Month, by the way. Here are the USDA's Diet, Health and Safety publications: http://www.ers.usda.gov/Browse/DietHealthSafety/ Here is the abtract from a critical study done by the USDA on its own dietary intake studies: "Abstract Dietary Reference Intakes (DRIs) are the most recent set of nutrient-based reference values, which, together with recommended dietary assessment methods, are being used to update estimates of nutrient adequacy of population subgroups. Recent estimates suggest both dramatic dietary deficiencies and excesses for selected nutrients among some subgroups. This report takes a critical look at the studies and methods used to set DRIs. The findings show that errors in dietary recall data—either underreporting or overreporting of intakes—may partially explain the inadequacies and excessive intakes. In addition, the lack of sensitive, specific biochemical markers has resulted in DRIs for selected nutrients to be based on less than optimal data. Because the DRIs are used by food and nutrition assistance programs to set nutritional objectives, establish program benefits, and evaluate program outcomes, it is important to understand the issues involved in deriving the DRIs and how to interpret the results of dietary assessments." I think we can safely say that the public is informed. My opinion is not based on not informing the public. That would be silly. In fact, I have advocated labeling on restaurant menus in the cases where it is possible to do so (May contain MSG, trans fat, nuts, etc., etc.) It is interesting to see the divergence of opinion on this issue. On MarkK's thread, recounting a specific example of children being harmed by family members due to dietary habits, it was deemed that the family dynamic not be disturbed and that the blatantly bad habits inflicting measurable damage on children be overlooked for the benefits of an older generation. Yet, in this case, grown adults responsible for themselves are deemed not capable of making dietary decisions for themselves, because they "don't know what is good for them." This puritanical streak in the American physche certainly manifests itself in interesting ways.

Here is the Cheescake Factory's home page: http://www.thecheesecakefactory.com/ Photography of the food and plating make it clear that nobody is trying to "hide" ample portions. The menu can be found here: http://www.thecheesecakefactory.com/menu.htm On page 2 of the menu are salad selections that are less than 590 calories. Notice they don't call them "diet" or "low cal" - but "weight management" selections. That's hefty for a salad, but low cal compared to cheesecake. Going to the Cheescake Factory for a meal is not about being on a diet. That is not what they do. And if you can't find SOMETHING on that menu to eat, there is something wrong. Somehow, I don't think they have "set out to promote obesity, heart disease, and stroke." I think they are providing the public with what they want. They are running a very successful chain, with the hook that there is something for everyone and plenty of it. I have eaten at Cheesecake factory three times in my lifetime. It really isn't bad food for a chain, and better than many family run restaurants. Here is what the founding principal is, and was: "1978 The Cheesecake Factory restaurant opens as a 100-seat operation on North Beverly Drive in Beverly Hills, Calif. David Overton's goal is to showcase a model dessert-specialty restaurant for prospective foodservice customers of the wholesale bakery. He convinces Linda to work part-time at the front desk. The restaurant establishes the future chain's pattern of offering an eclectic menu, big portions and signature cheesecakes and turning a previous bank site into a multimillion-dollar-sales performer." On the FAQ page concerning a question about nutritional information, they say: "At this point, we do not provide nutritional information for our menu selections. We pride ourselves on using only the freshest and finest ingredients available. Everything on our menu is made in-house on a daily basis so that we can maintain the highest food quality standards." I think they are being demonized here for thier success. My opinion, as always.

In all fairness to JohnL, I got the same impression when reading the original article you linked to. This quote from the article in particular implied conspiracy on the part of chain restaurants to me: "“Burgers, pizzas, and quesadillas were never health foods to begin with, but many restaurants are transmogrifying these foods into ever-more harmful new creations, and then keeping you in the dark about what they contain,” said Michael F. Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI). “Now we see lasagna with meatballs on top; ice cream with cookies, brownies, and candy mixed in; ‘Ranchiladas,’ bacon cheeseburger pizzas, buffalo-chicken-stuffed quesadillas, and other hybrid horribles that are seemingly designed to promote obesity, heart disease, and stroke.”" I'm not sure how to interpret that passage any other way. Perhaps I am reading CSPI's intent wrong. I get the feeling that they are a special interest group in search of a drum to beat. But, I have been known to be a cynic sometimes. My opinion.

But isn't that what the Cheescake Factory and its competition are doing? Giving the customer 200%? It is hard to argue with success. Somehow, people see enough of a value in this chain's offerings to willingly be put on a waiting list for 45 minutes to an hour in order to enjoy the priviledge of sitting at a table and eating a meal. Have you looked at The Cheescake Factory's stock history? Impressive. As far as the "nutrional" information is concerned, well, maybe I would be concerned if it could be done factually. That's just not really "real" information at this point in time, and most people know what is good for them, in my opinion.

Nah, those calories are coming from other agricultural products. Milk, butter and margarine. As far as I can tell, the big advertising ploy used by the larger and more successful chains is using fresh ingredients. The calorie count between an underipe tomato and a vine ripe tomato is significant. The underipe low cal tomato will provide you with water, some fibre and some vitamin C. The high cal tomato will provide you with all that, plus A and B vitamins, trace amounts of iron, magnesium and calcium, and those lovely leukotrienes. Which nutritinal information do you think the chain is going to use? South American Broccoli tastes good in January. It was also harvested three weeks prior to arriving at the SYSCO warehouse. No two ways about it. Now, maybe one day, mother nature will be completely neutralized so that everything is identical in nutritional content, taste and texture. Today is not that day, however. I would think it would be quite boring, and take some of the fun out of eating, personally. My opinion.

But, there is no control over seasonality or consistency of ingredients. I agree that the recipe is very strict, but a grape tomato in August is a very different creature than a grape tomato in January. Same for beef. Steaks are hugely variable in fat content and trace minerals. Even 80/20 ground chuck is "no less" than 80% lean. Big difference between 80% and 85% when considering fat intake. Pork, onions, carrots, peas, green beans, chicken, the potatoes sliced up for the french fries (matters much more than the count of fries on the plate) and what soil they were grown in and under what conditions. Even the prefab stuff from SYSCO is going to have variances from season to season, and even package to package. Naw, thin air. An average, not even an adjusted mean. Certainly not tested on a gas cromatograph per plate. Are you telling me you've never encountered a bad pint of berries? Would you expect them to be a "close estimate" in nutrional value to the good pint of berries? The stuff Ruby Tuesday's is putting out, and McDonald's for that matter, is just marketing material meant to sell a product. Buyer beware. And just eat a balanced diet, with lots of fruit and veggies, and don't eat too much of anything. ETA: I do want to repeat - human beings are living longer and healthier lives than ever before in the history of mankind.

Umm, I have a malabsorption issue in my small bowel. I have to eat nutrionally dense foods in order to sustain life. I know exactly what I am eating, and make my choices accordingly. Sometimes I enjoy a little iceberg lettuce, though. Because I want to.

Oh gosh, there is nutritional information everywhere. Just google it up, read a newspaper, or watch TV. The difference between packaged consumer goods and a perishable commodity are dramatic. A large manufacturer can buy from a wide variety of sources for tomatoes for ketchup or corn for canned corn - thus trumping mother nature. Even at that, batches are adjusted with additives and ammendments in order to make the product uniform. That is what the "may contain" line is all about. Nutrional labels are updated regularly from season to season, as well. Corn is a vivid example: http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/sustainable/peet/...es/botcorn.html From the citation: "Kernel sugar content. In standard sweet corn cultivars, such as 'Silver Queen', kernel sugar content peaks at 5 to 11 percent. Peak levels last in the field only 2 days at 80 degrees F or 5 days at 60 degrees F before sugar is converted to starch. Even if ears are picked at peak sugar content, quality decreases rapidly after picking because of loss of sugar. In 24 hours after picking, sugar content declines 8 percent at 32 degrees F and up to 52 percent at 86 degrees F. Thus, it is difficult to pick sweet corn before it becomes starchy and difficult to get it to the consumer before sugar levels decline. For these reasons, 'supersweet' cultivars are now preferred for commercial sweet corn production. These cultivars start out sweeter, convert sugar to starch more slowly on the plant and lose sugar more slowly after harvest. In 1988, 98 percent of the sweet corn acreage in Florida was in sh2 supersweets. Acreages of sh2 are also increasing in New York and North Carolina. While any lines with more sweetness than the standard are sometimes referred to as supersweets, technically only those lines with the sh2 or shrunken 2 gene should be called 'supersweets'. The name 'shrunken 2' reflects the fact that so little starch is present in the kernel that it appears shrunken, even when compared to standard sweet corn lines with the su-1 gene. Peak sugar levels of sh2 hybrids range from 22 percent to 40 percent,compared to 5 to 11 percent in standard sweet corn. While it is reasonable to expect commercial sweet corn crops in the future to be dominated by sh2 hybrids, some people say the sh2 hybrids are too sweet and lack the characteristic sweet corn flavor and tender kernels. Kernels of many of the newer supersweet releases are as tender as those of standard cultivars, however. The original supersweets were also harder to grow and even the newest sh2 hybrids challenge the grower because of isolation requirements from other types of corn. See the appropriate sections of this chapter for special management practices for supersweets including isolation requirements. Sweet corn cultivars with the se gene offer a third option for roadside marketers or those who will use or sell the corn within 1 to 2 days of harvest. These sugar-enhanced types start out with higher sugar content than standard sweet corns, but convert sugar to starch at the same rapid rate after harvest. Cultivars which are homozygous for the se gene have peak sugar contents of 12 to 20 percent while those heterozygous for the se gene have sugar levels of only 7 to 15 percent. The advantages of these cultivars are that they have the same tender kernels and creamy texture (sometimes described as 'real corn flavor'), as standard corn, but seedling emergence characteristics are better and isolation requirements less stringent than for the sh2 hybrids. Se hybrids are susceptible to some soil pathogens, however, and, like standard sweet corn, must be isolated from sh2, field and popcorn types. If planted next to standard sweet corns, individual kernels may be like those of the standard sweet corn, but this is much less objectionable than when starchy, hard kernels develop on the ear, as is the case when standard sweet corn pollinates sh2 gene corn cultivars." That's just harvest to eating time variance in sugar content for corn. It doesn't take into account crop conditions, climate, etc. etc. Produce distributors invest a great deal of time and money in equipment to determine ripeness and sugar content in fresh fruits and vegetables. I've seen the equipment used with my own eyes, and yes, plums from the same orchard can vary in sugar content by up to 75% when they hit the shelf or the back door of a restaurant. The same is true for anything mother nature produces. Sure, refined white sugar has a stable calorie count, and zero fat. Two cows can have dramatic variances in fat content, even within the same USDA grade. Ruby Tuesday's is pulling numbers out of thin air. Best they can do is a ballpark, and that's a pretty big ball park. I thought we had documented the fact that people are living much longer, healthier lives than ever in the history of mankind on another thread here somewhere? I'll have to look around...

Sure, people know it's a lot of food. Do they know how much food it is? It has been shown repeatedly that people are lousy judges of portion size. Even something as simple as the size of the plate can throw perceptions off. So I'll ask again: what's the matter with giving people facts? ← Oh come on. I think everybody knows when they have a lot of food in front of them. If not, by the time they are half way through the portion they know. People already have the facts. Printing a calorie count and fat content on the menu for each item? Not practical. Number one, I don't want an encyclopedia dropped in front of me that is punitive in "tone" at best, it's like scolding the customer. Number two, the best they can do is give an approximation, due to variations in the fresh ingredients and how closely the recipe is followed. Number three, what about a special? Who calculates the calories and fat in the super fantastic fish dish that the place is running on deal today and tomorrow? There is nothing wrong with giving people information. My opinion, and it is only an opinion, is that just about everybody already knows what's good and bad for them. I don't want to be sent on a guilt trip every time I decide to treat myself to a dinner. It would make me grumpy. And I don't have any dietary restrictions and have never had to count calories. It has been my experience that those people who need to count calories can do so on their own, or just don't do it. Free country and all. Now, informing the public that MSG or transfats are used in some dishes is fine. Just like letting people now that a dish is spicy, or contains nuts. It's in the public interest. It's just a little overkill to expect a restaurant, even a chain, to print on its menus that this dish has a gazillion calories, and that dish has a gazillion and one calories, and that something contains less than 1% of the USDA's reccomended daily intake of iron. Just my opinion.

How is it nanny-ism to provide information? Seems to me that it allows people to make informed decisions for themselves: that is, exactly the opposite of a nanny. ← It's not like information is being held back from the public, is it? I think it is common knowledge that a pound of cheesecake is loaded with fat and calories. Do you know anybody who is ignorant of the fact that overeating is bad for you? Fans of those particular places go for the large portions, knowing that they are going to be there an hour trying to finish a portion, then takeaway boxes of food. Too much is being made of it, I think. But that's just my opinion.

How could any reasonable, rational, thinking human being not sit in front of a plate at the Cheesecake Factory, and not know that it is loaded with calories and fat and all that other stuff? Honestly, do we need a nanny to hold our hands every time we walk out the front door? Things are getting uncomfortably close to my fridge and pantry. Don't like it. I mean, are we as home cooks going to have to start labeling for meals we prepare for guests in our home in case they consume too many calories? It is market driven, I agree Gabriel. People want food that tastes good, and they want a lot of it, and they will pay the price and wait in line for an hour to get it.

I wanted to drop by and bump up this thread as I read another alarming article today with new information: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/27/business...26af&ei=5087%0A From the article: "In 24 states throughout the country, beekeepers have gone through similar shocks as their bees have been disappearing inexplicably at an alarming rate, threatening not only their livelihoods but also the production of numerous crops, including California almonds, one of the nation’s most profitable. “I have never seen anything like it,” Mr. Bradshaw, 50, said from an almond orchard here beginning to bloom. “Box after box after box are just empty. There’s nobody home.” The sudden mysterious losses are highlighting the critical link that honeybees play in the long chain that gets fruit and vegetables to supermarkets and dinner tables across the country. "

All salt is sea salt. ← I guess I meant rock salt. When you buy table salt I don't think it's labeled sea salt? Morton's is labeled iodized salt. But when you see various rock salts they are labeled sea salt. ← Rock salt is dirty stuff meant for deicing the front steps or for the purpose of freezing cream on an incredibly hot summer day by applying to ice outside of a container of cream. It is mined out of the ground, dug up, unrefined. Table salt is usually the mined stuff, dissolved I think, then additives like iodine and anticaking agents are added. Rock salt is just a very crude, unrefined, cheap salt. Not meant for the table. The Morton Salt people can give you an idea of the various grades and applications of commonly used salts: http://www.mortonsalt.com/ They even give you an idea of what Kosher salt is. Would you really use the same salt on your front steps on your vine ripened tomato? Sea salt is generally obtained by evaporated, naturally or artificially, sea water. It is not mined. Therefore it has a different sort of texture, but is still coarse and chunky, but has this sort of nice flaky thing going that floats my boat. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_salt There are other salt heads around here who have much more knowledge than I do. ETA: The application of rock salt to ice in a cooler of hot beer will cool the bottled beer down to cold refridgerator temp within 5 minutes. After about 20 minutes, you need to pop the lid on the cooler though, or your beer bottles will burst from freezing the beer inside the sealed bottle. Better living through science!

Sheesh, you must have a different sort of humidity than we do. Even the shakers in restaurants with the "Rains it Pours" stuff in it has about 20% rice. Otherwise you have muddy white goop in the salt shaker. Nasty. I don't find it necessary to grind as fine as table salt, as long as I get a pretty even coverage. After all, it should dissolve on the surface. Even the surface of room temp unsalted butter on bread, or even the flesh of cucumber which is below ambient temp. It's that moisture thing. As far as salt types are concerned, yes, trace minerals add both color and flavor to salt. Some is good, some others not so much.