macrosan

I was eating with a group of work colleagues at a large round table. The guy opposite me had ordered prawns. The waiter brought a ifngerbowl of water with a slice of lemon floating in it, and was putting it down at his place when he called out "Who ordered the lemon soup?". Honestly, cross my heart and hope to die, I was there and it happened just as I said.

The Royal College of Surgeons, Imperial College, The Weizmann Institute, Marie Curie Institute. These are organizations that have a track record of quality research; are funded only by unconditional government grants, non-political charitable foundations, self-administered trusts or private donation; do not have members with vested financial interests in either the content or direction of the research; do not sell merchandise. The question I asked about FAAN was quite open. I have never heard of them, and I am interested to know whether or not they are a credible organization whose research can be trusted. Why did you assume I was levelling any form of accusation or criticism at you, FatGuy ? Anyway, it was ShawtyCat who provided the link to FAAN.

Well, after three years of careful research, planning and preparation (errr ... procrastination) I am finally going to build my new barbecue tomorrow. Unless some major mental relapse takes place, this will be a brick BBQ with two-level grill trays, an enclosed "oven" below the charcoal tray, and a smoke hood. My past experience of BBQing has been limited to throwing unprepared lamb chops, sausages and home-made burgers onto the grill tray, and removing them when some instinct suggested they were properly cooked. I now would like to be more adventurous with marinaded chicken, steak, kebabs, fish, vegetables and whatever else proper cooks do. I'd also like to experiment with wood briquettes of different kinds. Who knows a really good BBQ cookbook, suitable for a novice ?

Is FAAN a credible, scientific, independent organization? "FAAN is supported by membership dues, sales of materials and services, grants, and donations"

I know that was just intended as a provocative show-stopper, John, but you mustn't distort the English language in that way. Bribery is payment as an agreed pre-condition to delivery of a service, and in common usage would also need to be covert. So in many African countries where everyone knows that a bid for business will require a fixed percentage "bribe" to be added to pay the facilitator, it is even arguable that this is no more a bribe than the commission charged by auction houses. (Not my own view, but certainly arguable). Tipping, by contrast, is not a pre-condition to service, and is overt. If the menu says a meal costs $20 then everyone knows that the "real" price is $23-$24. I consider tipping to be a historical anachronism, probably originating from France and any intelligent community would dispense with it immediately.

Oh, yummmm. I'll have those too, and I've changed my mind, I'll stick with the rib steak also. In the meantime, I'm going to make myself a buck rarebit for lunch while I'm waiting.

Nick, what are "Anna Potatoes" ? I am drooling at the rib steak "smothered in charred onions" . Can you do that without the rib steak ?

It's always worth remembering that the people who provide "statistics" on the "increase" in allergies are the very same people who benefit from people believing they have allergies. An allergy is a strictly bioloigical reaction to a substance, which is scientifically observable. An intolerance is generally not, but simply produces subjective responses (such as nausea) and in many cases responses which could as easily be attributable to quite different causes. Probably a majority of people suffer from pollen allergy, which is generally believed to be caused by humans drinking cows' milk as babies. But food allergies are pretty rare by comparison. I believe that blind tests were carried out several years ago in the USA on a large group of people who calimed to have a specific food allergy, and not one reacted to their allergen in the blind test !!!

Whassat ? Somebody parse that for me, pleeeeeze (preferably Tommy, but I don't hold out much hope)

Even accepting this hypothesis (I'm not familiar enough with the body of research to comment one way or the other--a clear increase in risk seems to be indicated, but it may be limited to those with certain risk factors), I don't think it's an adequate response. If there were a simple way of making a chemical factory or a foundry demonstrably safer, few would suggest that we ought to let the occassional worker get burned up by molten iron just because employers should be allowed to do whatever they want. Jordyn, you have to take into account "reasonableness". Any work environment could be made safer by expending vast sums of money, and by radically changing working methods. Most people would agree that there is a level at which it is reasonable to accept the residual risk that exists in everyone's life. In the case of a foundry, the ultimate safeguard would be to have no ovens and no molten metal Kinda defeats the object of the foundry, wouldn't you say ? But that's what is being suggested about bars. Don't have smoking, but many people will say that defeats the object of the bar.

Tommy, the answer is that you're positing a non sequitur. In strict logic, you'd be right, but strict logic doesn't govern legislation. Bars and restaurants are simply traditional smoking establishments, because most smokers are triggered by drinking and eating to smoke (that's a simple biological relationship). Therefore they have been left till last by the legislators because they believe (probably rightly) that this could be their "brideg too far". Banning smoking in bars could well cause an open rebellion which the authorities simply would be unable to deal with. So it's not an issue of principle, it's simple practicality. Incidentally, the whole position with regard to safeguarding employee health has been badly overstated. If someone suffers from ear problems, they are very unwise to take a job as an air steward. The idea that they could then claim daamges from an airline if they suffered ear damage is ludicrous. In the same way, anyone who suffers from respiratory problems would be unwise to take a job in a (smoking) bar. How much of a big deal is this ? Is this really a serious infringement of a person's rights if certain jobs are denied to them by reason of their physical condition ? All research to date suggests that unless a person has a particular pre-disposition, the health risks from second-hand smoke are not unusually high. They would equate to the risks of working in maybe a chemical factory, or working in a foundry, and so on.

Interesting discussion. It amazes me that America, the bastion of individual liberty, is the country that introduces the most draconian anti-smoking legislation in the world. Let me register an interest up front. I am an ex-smoker, and I spend a significant amount of my time campaigning against smoking. But I am opposed to what the USA is doing. The problem of smoking is a practical, and a humanitarian, problem. The USA has about 70million drug addicts (smokers) who are meeting their addictive needs perfectly legally. They need help, not criminalization, to quit smoking. The Federal, State and City governments are spending billions of dollars introducing and policing anti-smoking legislation, but not a cent on providing advice or support for smokers to quit (all of that funding comes from the tobacco company settlements). Until the US government has put its money where its mouth is, and provides massive funds to help smokers to quit, and until such a program has started to successfully make significant impact on reducing the number of smokers, I think it is immoral, hypocritical and unconstitutional for further legislation to be introduced.

I assume that the American "sub" is short for "submarine", and that's a vessel isn't it ?

Peter, if you really saw some of us you would surely change your mind. This site would then have to be registered with Net Nanny and suchlike. But if you choose to ignore this warning, and still foolishly believe that the reality cannot be worse than the imaginatory, then why not come along to one of the eGullet events, when all will (sadly) be revealed. The next is a Dim Summary on August 31 and that will be followed by a Banquet at Tayyab on September 10.

That just has to go into the "Famous eGullet phrases" thread Happy Lobster Anni, Steven. Nicely atmospheric description of an easy day around town, which I enjoyed reading.

Oraklet you're right. Those Cox's used to be the best fruit of any type I ever ate. Now even the best are bland. {b]SteveP and JohnW thanks for the reference. I'll go and buy it tomorrow.

I think it's dangerous to hark back to childhood memories Children don't have the discernment of adults, specially for fresh food, and I think nostalgia too easily creeps in. I'm old enough to have been an adult 30 years ago, and I definitely see some significant worsening in fruit and vegetables. I think the determining factor is distance of shipment. Soft fruit (so plums, peaches, apricots, cherries, berries) generally have to travel long distances to reach supermarkets, or even central wholesale markets in non-growing countries. So they're frozen, heavily chilled, whatever, and as Bux suggested they may even be bred for the quality of long-lastingness, just so they can be shipped long distances taking weeks, and be stored. I also suspect that many fruits and vegetables are chemically treated to ensure they look great on the inside but are crap on the inside. It's also notable that many fruits and vegetables seem to "go off" very quickly once you get them home. I used to get a case of Cox's orange pippins from an orchard in Kent at the start of the season, just keep them in the garage adn eat them in perfect condition for a month. Ten years ago, I had to switch to buying the case from my local greengrocer. I did it for two years and stopped, because they didn't last more than a few days before they went pappy, then brown, inside. On the plus side, I think avocadoes, bananas and grapes are much better than they used to be. I'm surprised, but maybe grapes travel well without special treatment. Bananas always have, but the variety and flavor seem better than they were. I live on the edge of Kent, traditionally one of England's premier fruit-growing areas. As a boy I used to pick hops and Victoria plums to earn holiday money. Many of those orchards are now closed down. Even here, it is very difficult to find fresh produce (by which I mean produce sold in the shops within a few days of being picked). It is ironic that my best local greengrocer gets all his produce from Covent Garden, which is twice as far away as an excellent local fruit farm. He says that cost of purchase is a small issue. The bigger problem is that he does one-stop shopping at Covent Garden, and delivery costs are much lower (the farm doesn't have a delivery service). So he sells 'frozen' Cox's apples which have travelled 15,000 miles from New Zealand instead of fresh ones from the farm 12 miles away

One thing that I dislike is that much of the "fresh" food we get is actually dried or frozen. Reconstituted "fresh" fruit juice is not fresh by my definition. Fruit or vegetables which have been deep-frozen for shipment are not "fresh". I saw a post here which said that the typical "fresh" apple in the shops hade actually been in deep-freeze for over a year. I remember once asking in a restaurant if the whitebait was fresh. "Oh yes", said the waiter, "it's fresh frozen".

Variety and availability, of ingredients and restaurants, are surely better than they were. I think the quality of shop-bought ingredients is generally lower. I guess hygiene is supplanting high cuisine.

Just not so, Steve. It was Britain that paid for the war from the collapse of France in June 1940 to the entry of America in December 1941. Britain was effectively bankrupted in the process, and the cost of fighting alone for one and a half years was what led to the over-hasty dismemberment of the British Empire after the war. Of course, even after the end of 1941, Britain continued to carry a huge burden of cost. That simply didn't happen to France.

I am intrigued by the continued reference by experienced and knowledgeable people on this site to the "power" of food critics and reviewers. It's clear to me that those critics and reviewers have no power over people here, not even influence. People here know them well, know their work, and either admire them or deride them. So what's the problem ? Well it can only be that eGulleteers are concerned for "the masses", the uneducated, those other people out there. Isn't that patronising ? I would guess that those people "out there" can probably look after themselves in their own way. If they choose to be influenced by a bad critic, or an ill-defined guide, I would presume they're quite happy with the result. Otherwise they'd do what I do --- ignore it next time. The only real influence a critic/reviewer has is a short term influence over the commercial success of a restaurant. If the critic/reviewere proves wrong too often (in other words if customers find often enough that they disagree with him, and stop reading or buying the guide) the critic/reviewer will pretty soon be out of a job. If he gives a good review to a bad restaurant, the restaurant will pretty soon be out of business anyway. If he gives a bad review to a good restaurant, I accept the restaurant may be in some early financial difficulties, but good marketing and reputation will soon bring in the diners. The general perception of the power of food critics and reviewers, like that of theatre reviewers and the media in general, is in my view overblown. They have just as much power as the public are willing to allow them to have.

My approach to guides is strictly heuristic. I use a guide a few times, if I find I agree with it I use it again , if I don't I junk it and find another. I don't want or need to research the reviewers and their biasses, I will discover whether their biasses match my preferences by experimentation. There is surely no better method than that to select a guide, and I assume that most people do the same. Behind that, I also find it interesting to debate intellectual honesty and purity, but that is quite distinct from my method of assessment. For myself, I used and disliked the Michelin Guide, the Which Guide and the AA Guide (in the UK) and finally and permanently settled on Egon Ronay (RIP) which I used for many years. Indeed, I once employed an ex-inspector of the Ronay Guide (he specialized in pubs!!!) and gained from him an understanding and respect for how the Egon Ronay Guide "worked".

Not that Tommy needs any support from me, but as I was with him on his last visit to GT I'll confirm that I too found our server to be a pain in the ass, and I wasn't even aware until later that Tommy also had problems with him over wine service. Nesita you used the word "deconstructive" twice in your post. What do you mean by that ? That was a terrific detailed description. You obviously admired and respected the food at GT, but were overall disappointed. I guess that's encouraging, because if we all enjoyed the same things, the culinary world would be a boring place.

Oh yes, Rat Mornay, yummy. And of course a side of Asperge a la Bastille.

Oh dear, Peter, I'd have thought that a very good reason for continuing the conversation would be that you don't think we understand what you're talking about. At least now we know you're not a Plotnickist.