HD73

Clearly TX law doesn't bind PA. I went with this case because it seemed most on point of everything available in case law, at least at first glance. Anyway, agreed on all four points - most importantly, on your first two sentences of point #4. ← I knew exactly where you were coming from - a mini-Property class for eGullet - and this is the perfect case for that. Just wanted to make sure people knew that the actual result in PA would still be very much up in the air.

A couple points on the legal analysis: 1. This case is from Texas. Unless the hypothetical was more hypothetical than I thought, the restaurant was in Pennsylvania. The chances of a PA trial court judge relying on a Texas precedent are slim to none. 2. A quick look doesn't come up with any Pennsylvania cases on point. 3. The Texas case deals with a hotel. Innkeepers generally have a special legal status, and a later Texas court distinguished a similar situation on this basis (at least in part). 4. This doesn't mean a PA court wouldn't end up applying the same principle. It makes a lot of sense to me. If the restaurant had just never found the bag, they'd be off the hook (and there's a PA case directly on this point) but after finding the bag and talking to its owner, they should have exercised ordinary care to make sure they got it back, and they clearly didn't.

Sansom Street Oyster House serves mussels. I had the red version last week and the mussels themselves were great, as you'd expect. The broth was interesting - it tasted like snapper soup to me for some (probably unfounded) reason - but not my favorite. I've never had the white ones.

Indeed Bill indeed. Besides "pontification" is far more honest that cryptic shilling for those with whom we are associated and claim to be wine knowledgeable when we are raving about 2001 Pichon Lalande.... ← Is it me, or was that another personal attack right there? I'm sorry to continue forging ahead on this off-topic path, but I couldn't let it end on such a hypocritical note. If you'd try to be a little less harsh, dismissive and mean, I think you'd find that the "personal stuff" disappeared of its own accord. Perhaps it's just the difficulty of conveying tone over the internet - the friends who vouch for you make this seem likely - but in print, you don't come off as a friendly person, to put it very, very mildly.

First of all david you owe me a pizza, i'll pass on the wine unless it's a Moscato D'asti post pizza. First of all.. http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&sa=N...F-8&um=1&tab=wi Bucatini is nearly impossible to make by hand. Osteria has a several thousand dollar machine that makes "extruded" pasta. You cant make extruded pasta by hand with any degree ofconsistent sucess. They also made the Candele in house with the same extrusion method. To further complicate your hopeless situation of trying to make this pasta at home. Osteria alos imports it's pasta and pizza flour from Italy and that is key to the flavor and texture. Translation: Dont even go there, you cant do it. Period. So now you see why the food there can be considered a bargain for the work that goes into it. I agree with gordon a pinch of salt and perhaps mace does the trick. Unless you have 8 grand to spend..... http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=htt...sa%3DG...forget it. Alternately, buy rustichela d'abruzzo pasta http://www.rustichella.it/English/home_eng.html great stuff. ← I think he's getting at least some of that flour through DiBruno's, based on a conversation I overheard behind the counter right when Osteria was about to open. No idea what brand or type, but they were discussing "Vetri's flour order for the new place."

Actually that's really not true. The more insipid the better to be a "blank slate" on which to layer the flavors of well booze soaked fresh fruits and fine brandy and orange liqueurs. I'll be happy to PM you my "one bottle batch" recipe for sangria. Or I could mail you the "BIG BATCH" recipe in commercial proportions if you prefer. How much are you making?? And more importantly will you save me a glass if I can get to Apamate after work on Tuesday night if I can sneak out early? ← I would definitely love that "one bottle batch" recipe for future use, but I was planning on just supplying the wine next Tuesday. The woman who took my reservation ended the call with "We're BYO and make GREAT sangria." What from the PLCB would you recommend as a good blank slate?

Does anyone have an opinion on just what sort of wine one should use for making sangria? Obviously it would be a crime to use anything very good, but I'd imagine that using utter plonk would also be a bad idea. Where's the sweet spot?

Thanks. I knew it was out of season around here, just wasn't sure if it was something worth shopping around for. I think I'll brave the weather and head to the RTM.

Looking to cook up a special crab cake recipe for the girlfriend tonight. Anyone have a bead on the best crab in the city? I'm not usually a crab fiend, so I have no idea. I guess default would be to hit up one of the fishmongers at the RTM, but there are those crab places around the Italian Market too. Any advice?

Have you read the studies? The are correlative, not causitive. There were no "controls" concerning heredity, other dietary factors, or just plain double blinds. ← Anne, here's a quick break down about the difference between epidemiological studies and experimental studies. -Experimental studies involve scientists actually performing experiments by altering conditions somewhat (giving someone a pill or varying any other condition. This is where techniques like double blinds come in. There is also a "control" group, which is what I guess you think I'm talking about above. -Epidemiological studies involve scientists doing nothing but observing. They don't vary conditions at all, they just collect data. Once the data is collected, you apply statistical techniques, specifically multiple regression, to "control" for various factors to prevent comparing apples to oranges and to try to discover correlation between factors. No one has ever or is ever going to perform experimental trans-fat studies in humans for the same reason we don't perform experimental lead studies in humans. It's unethical, and even if it weren't, who is going to volunteer to ingest the lead? There has never been a "double blind" study of trans-fat. Instead, scientists perform epidemiological studies. They use regression analysis to control for certain factors (by artificially holding them constant). In this case, some factors controlled would be hereditary history, intake of other fats, etc. Edited to add: And you're absolutely right about the distinction between correlation and causation. If you want to get all "philosophy of science" about it, there's no such thing as a study of causation. Just hypotheses we can't seem to disprove that suggest causation. But the fact that correlation does not equal causation is a "problem" with all science, and it certainly doesn't affect these studies more other similar studies.

Thank you for a very reasonable and well-considered response to the issues on the thread so far Sandy. Just two nits to pick. It's definitely true that one of the reasons naturally occurring trans fats are "better" for us is that we are forced to consume them in moderation, unless we're whipping up ribeye and cheddar smoothies in the blender and chugging them on the hour. The other reason, however, is that there are real differences between the primary molecules that make up articial vs. natural trans fats. Now, most of this evidence comes from epidemiological studies, meaning they took tons and tons of people and monitored them over a period of years. When they controlled for other factors in these people, artificial trans fat consumption correlated positively to heart disease. But when they controlled for artificial trans fat consumption (and all other factors) levels of natural trans fat consumption did NOT correlate positively with heart disease. Now, there are two possible explanations: 1) the different molecules act differently with regard to heart disease; 2) the study simply didn't have enough participants and the participants didn't eat enough naturally occurring trans fats to tease out the relationship. Let's assume for the sake of argument that (2) is correct (although, in my personal opinion, that's unlikely). Should our conclusions about the benefits of a ban change? The problem still disappears when you get rid of the artificial trans fats, so the mechanism making them disappear really isn't all that important. I would bet that when someone really figures out these metabolic pathways, it turns out to be explanation (1), but do we really have to delay acting until we know exactly how trans fat acts? This one's just me being nitpicky and annoying, but the term "moral hazard" has a very specific meaning and this isn't it. I wouldn't want it to go the way of "beg the question" (no, it doesn't mean "really makes you want to ask the question", or at least it didn't used to).

It's interesting to me that I need to own a restaurant to tell you that cost differences between natural and partially hydrogenated oils are minimal, but you somehow have standing to tell me that most scientists are wrong when they say there's a difference between natural and artificial trans fats. I'll give you the address to my restaurant after you let me swing by your laboratory, Doctor. There's a lot more that I could say, but your responses are degenerating into a rambling incoherence that really isn't worth reading. I think I'll just leave you to your opinions. Have a great weekend!

So, pray tell, what is your alternative food source, for the individuals who are buying this food. Would you rather they ate boiled rice, or a stir fry including fresh vegetables and trans fats? Would you rather they not eat? You and I can both afford to eat well. You want them to spend extra to eat the way YOU think that they should eat. And, as far as I can tell, you are making your decisions based upon not knowing what it is like to eat on a budget. These substances have been around forever. Butter is in and out, wine is in and out, coffee is in and out, margarine was the beesknees until it was out. Sandy, will I be able to get my cheesesteak in Philly once every three or four years with Whiz or not? I have no problem, and am in favor, of labeling. That's a separate issue from a ban. ← No, I wouldn't rather they don't eat. I'd rather they eat the same thing at the same price or a penny or two more but WITHOUT THE TRANS FAT. What do you find so objectionable about that?

Let me be ignorant and bourgeois here. I suspect that the restaurants of the caliber we praise in here are not frying in partially hydrogenated fats. Perhaps they are exposing use to margarine or shortening in desserts. Unless you are a fan of packaged baked goods, you are not going to notice much. As Vadouvan touched upon, the big shaft is getting rammed up the have nots. I can't say I am in favor of that. ← Yes, the burden of cost will fall pretty heavily on "have not" restaurateurs. But I think you're misinterpreting V's point. These "have not" restaurateurs do HAVE restaurants, and that's pretty darn good. I don't think this ban will be the death of many restaurants, especially with the non-monetary penalties it imposes. What I think V was saying was that the customers of these restaurants are the real "have nots", and they are the ones that are, dietarily speaking, getting the shaft. The ban will help them the most.

1. I started my first post with, "from an economist's point of view", so I don't think it's really fair to claim that I'm changing horses midstream. 2. I also began by talking about artificial trans fat, particularly hydrogenated oils, which every ban I've seen so far focuses on exclusively. I'm sorry if I didn't put the word "artificial" in front of every subsequent use of "trans-fat." 3.The trans-fat that occurs in meat and dairy is a significantly different molecule and doesn't seem to have the negative health effects of artificial trans fat. If some kind of ban on foods with naturally occurring trans fat was on the table, you'd have made a good point. As it stands, your point is irrelevant and you're either just spewing what you googled five minutes ago and don't understand, or you're trying to pull the wool over people's eyes.

You're right, you convinced me. We must fight this trans-fat ban, or else the government will surely ban water tomorrow and we'll all die! Sheesh. Make fun of the word disingenuous all you want, but there's not a better word to describe this line of argument. Should have known better than to join a political discussion on a food board.

I disagree, sugar and alcohol are huge dietary issues, but I don' t think they should be banned. Government was created to provide for the common defense, period, and in my opinion. But, I guess you would probably categorize me as an "extreme" libertarian. Although concerning a libertarian philosophy, that is not an anachist philosophy, it would be difficult to characterise any libertarian philosophies as extreme. Unless you want to single out a nut case. But that can be done for any philosophy, and I find that sort of misrepresentation of any group do be "extremely" disengenuous. ← Sugar and alcohol are huge health issues, but that's not why comparing them to trans fat is silly. A few pertinent differences: Sugar, in some form or another, has been around for the whole of human existence (I know its refined form is relatively recent). It's one of the major building blocks of life. Alcohol, I'd bet, has been around for the entirety of human existence minus the week it took to ferment something. Trans-fat, at least in the form that is relevant to this discussion (partially hydrogenated oils) has been around for less than a century. If you banned sugar and alcohol today, the city would fall apart. Thousands of businesses would grind to a halt, tens of thousands of people would become unemployed, and life as we experience it would be vastly different. Every cookie, cake, and brownie you had for the life of the ban would taste markedly different. Our whole culture would be changed as alcohol was forced underground. Crime would rise, etc. If you banned trans fat today, many food purveyors would have to buy a different brand of frying oil. A couple of things might taste different if a particular purveyor didn't care enough to shop around. The cost of running a restaurant would rise incrementally. Basically, nothing would happen. Except we might see a real decline in heart disease in 20 years or so. There are a spectrum of libertarian beliefs, just like any other philosophy. Believing that government exists only for the common defense* is quite a bit different from a civil libertarian who is more concerned with a certain set of core rights and not getting rid of all regulation. If you really are of the persuasion, that all regulations should be eviscerated, then what I said is true: debating this with you is silly, because you're entrenched in your beliefs against all regulation. *(I assume you're just leaving out policing and some criminal prohibitions etc., or you're on the very edge of libertarian and shading into anarchist)

Neither is sugar a health food, diabetes is epidemic. Sugar is in lots and lots of products needlessly. It does rot teeth. There's a probably link between alcohol* and alcoholism. Drinking water recently in the news tragically killed a woman. And our government is not known to be able to draw the line. If one regulation is good, then many more will be better and better, right? *That ban didn't work at allll! ← If that's really the way you feel about government, then why should we even have one at all? If your argument actually made sense, then any government law or regulation would be a bad idea, including the Clean Water Act, requiring driver's licenses, criminal laws, etc. If you're actually coming at this from an extreme libertarian perspective, it's kind of pointless to debate with you. No one is threatenting to ban sugar or alcohol in Philadelphia, and comparing trans-fat to either one of them is silly and disingenuous.

I don't know, from an economist's point of view, this is the type of situation where government regulation accomplishes something that a free market can't. The cost difference between using trans-fat laden oils and trans-fat free oils isn't huge. It's just kind of a pain in the ass to switch over to the trans-fat free kind and entails a little agonizing over making the food taste the same. It's not like trans-fat makes food taste better, it just a) improves shelf life; and b) takes longer to spoil if you're using it, say, in a deep fryer. The public at large knows trans-fat is bad for them, and is capable of shopping for trans-fat free products at the grocery store, so that's not a problem. But when you're going to a food cart, how the hell are you supposed to know what's going on? You think the couple that runs the Yue Kee truck can tell you how much trans-fat is in the Beijing Hot Noodles? So we've got an industry that just needs a small push to become drastically healthier at little cost to consumers, but also no incentives to do it on their own. This is where government regulation is a good thing. Do you really feel terrible that McDonald's is going to have to shop around for a new source of frying oil? Do you really not feel better knowing that your intake of a very unhealthy substance is going to go down without changing the taste of what you're eating? You can argue the finer points of smoking bans, foie gras laws, etc. and make some good points, but I fail to see any serious downside to a trans fat ban.

It was a while ago, I had it at a boisterous dinner, and I'm not much of a wine expert - but those disclaimers aside, I thought it was great. Don't remember enough to give you specifics, but I liked it enough that I grabbed a couple bottles the next time I was at a wine and spirits store. In a city with so many Italian BYO's, having a few good Chianti Classicos in reserve is handy.

Just grabbed a bottle of the Barbe Rac at the Wine and Spirits Store between 12th and 13th and Chestnut. It was definitely the last one in the store.

I have zero insider information, but I ate at Pif in early December and David Ansill was in the kitchen and made several forays into the dining room to chat with patrons. Maybe I just got lucky, but he was there on at least one night.

I got some thai chiles, lemongrass and galangal at Hung Vuong and some lime leaves at Sue's produce. Thanks for the tips!

I've been trying to find some kaffir lime leaves and galangal to make tom kha gai but haven't had any luck yet. Any suggestions? The closer to South Philly the better.

Four bells it is: http://ae.philly.com/entertainment/ui/phil...&reviewId=19512