feedmec00kies

← Celiac is an interesting one. Talk about underdiagnosed. I had a roommate/friend in college who was celiac.. in fact, her whole family was. IIRC, they were all diagnosed because her mother had a rare form of liver disease associated with Celiac disease, and so everyone else got tested and were found to have it. Actually, her mother has been so harmed by the disease that she can't ingest any significant amount of gluten ever again. According to what research there is for it in the US, Celiac disease is not rare - I seem to recall reading about a study done of blood donated in a US city (Chicago?), and the rate of occurrence was around 1/250 people. Britain, which has a population somewhat similar (not the same, obviously) to ours has around a 1/250 occurrence as well. Problem? It can only be detected through blood tests, and that's an expense insurance companies in the US just don't want to cover automatically. Celiac disease could be asymptomatic (it was, for all intents and purposes, for my friend), meaning that there are people who go completely undiagnosed. And with the way the syndrome manifests - by damaging the villi in the small intestine - it can cause nutritional problems as well as liver disease and whatnot. Think of all the foods you have to avoid with Celiac disease. Not just bread, but anything that uses wheat or other gluten-containing grains as fillers, thickeners, etc. And beverages that contain grains. Now that's a bad disease to have. This is certainly not one that's overdiagnosed or mythical. It's a genetic disorder where rates only increase because of awareness and screening.

Not too surprised, since that seems to be averaged, and so there would be an effect on the "meat eating rate" by families that try to cut down on (or out) meat intake for health or ethical reasons. I'd actually like to know if the Harper's article actually said what kind of meat each group was consuming on average, as well. I'm sure that poor American children are eating more processed, "fast food" kinds of meat. I wouldn't be surprised if it's a result of the broad cultural associations people seem to have with meat and being "satisfied" or "full" (associations that span across socio-economic groups) that are more likely to be countered only when food choices become broader. Those astronomically low food prices certainly don't help to produce quality food - they really aren't across the board as much as they are for certain crops and industries. Keep in mind that in most nations, malnutrition among the poor is associated with starving children. In America, malnutrition among the poor is associated with fat children - because the cheapest stuff is what's laden with fats and sugars. In these instances, caloric bang-for-one's-buck usually takes precedence (not necessarily consciously). This is nothing new; sugar consumption as it exists now in the US has a lot to do with its use by the British (and then American) working classes during the Industrial Revolution. Sugar was used in particular by workers as a sweetener for caffeinated drinks (coffee/tea, which was supported by factory owners and the British government that found ways to reduce prices because sugar+caffeine increased worker productivity which increased what we now know as GDP). For the family, it that made it easier for both parents to work outside the home, particularly as used in jam, which could easily be spread onto bread by children when both parents were out working. Additionally, access to fresh produce is more difficult in the urban areas where the bulk of our nation's poor reside. Supermarkets are reluctant to open locations in these areas because they fear crime, in particular (which adds to operating costs) and so too much food is picked up by busy parents/guardians from corner stores and fast food joints. I remember reading an article in the NY Times that kind of touched on food availability in poor urban areas (click here). In this article, it's framed within hopes for urban renewal for a part of Philadelphia, but you can kind of get a sense of what I'm talking about. Forget vegetarians; food needs to be reformed.

Heh. A friend who used to live in California said once that in his area, they called Whole Foods "Whole Paycheck." Supermarkets as a whole are decent in the New York metropolitan area, and even if they're not incredible, the bigger ones will have a decent election. If I need something in particular that I know I'll find at Whole Foods but not necessarily other places, I'll go there. Mostly, though, because of the location of my apartment, I tend to stop for things at smaller markets on my way home with a bigger trip a rare occurrence. Anyway, shopping trips are as fun as you make them. If I go to the supermarket with my sister, we usually point out all the ridiculous things to each other and make sarcastic comments. Yeah, people can be annoying and rude, but I just pick up whatever catches my eye to eat when I get home (I need to save it to reward myself for schlepping everything home, too!), and stare at the floor and zone out while I wait to check out. And I usually think about cooking (a great way for me to focus on something other than the, erm, "individual" yakking on his/her cellphone behind me).

Pfft! A time or two? I think we've set ours off at least 10 times in the 3 months my S/O and I have lived there. Fortunately, it's just for our apartment. We need to get a window fan or something, because I'm not afraid of heat at all. Unfortunately, the kitchen window faces our bedroom window in a shaft that's about 2 square yards wide. Oh, pre-war buildings!

I don't know... you could have claimed that you were influenced by the flavor of fruit with umami, like rambutan (mmmmm). Maybe you should have still added the sugar and seen what happened then! That brings up an interesting question... do people use MSG in sweet, and not just savory, dishes?

This is, for me, more of a theoretical question (though it seems that at this time, no one has a definite answer). It's a commercial beer, called Ten Fidy (Ratebeer entry here). I personally did not come in contact with the mysterious gelatinous blob; someone on Ratebeer encountered it (apparently, the same thing was found in 2 other cans so far). If it was just the usual yeast at the bottom, there'd be an answer already. It was suggested by someone that it was just a lot of sediment and whatever that had collected into a clump at the bottom and ended up coming out at the same time (not sure if the beer is unfiltered... not bottle-conditioned because I don't believe that's possible in a can)... though this person described the mysterious blob as more.. ermm.. "boogery" than what he'd experienced. If I'm not mistaken, a mother needs to be oxygen to form, right? I'm not sure how it would have gotten in the can, but I don't think it's out of the question. Unfortunately, I don't know anything else about how the beer tasted or smelled when the blob was found.

Not to argue that people aren't allergic to these things, but as a side note.... from experience I know that there are some people who say they're "allergic" just because they hate a food so much or have a psychological "eek!" reaction to them that they refuse to see it or touch it. The article seems to raise some interesting points. Too bad I don't subscribe to Harper's. Hummingbirdkiss, I have to agree on your side note... it applies to lots of things, not just food-related. I think a lot of things are being diagnosed more than they were before... so even if those medical complaints are legitimate, it doesn't mean that they didn't exist before. And no, no one has blamed eggplants for autism, but of course there is a school of thought that believes a gluten- and dairy-free diet can lessen the symptoms of autism. The jury seems to be out on the effectiveness of that.. since we don't know much about the disease, it's hard to know if certain foods really do make symptoms worse outside of anecdotal evidence (it's not like PKU).

So over on beer forums at a different site, someone posted a picture - click here - of a beer glass with some random sludge that came out of the can. It freaked the drinker out. I'm pretty unknowledgabe about vinegar mothers, but for some reason that popped into my head when I first saw the picture. Is this possible, with a sealed can of beer (9.4% abv, if it matters)? Apparently there were at least 2 cans with this issue, so I wonder if there was something going on when the cans were sealed or something. (I'm asking on the cooking forum because this is where the majority of vinegar topics seem to reside...)

I once found an article about the history of MSG doing research for a food-related anthropology project. (I can't link to it because I got it through Proquest or some other paid archive service my college subscribed to, unfortunately, though I have a copy somewhere...). It's interesting that it's so commonly associated with Chinese cooking because it was invented by the Japanese... pretty much just bad luck that the association was made. I've been watching this thread because I've sort of contemplated buying MSG, but... well as chrisamirault said, I wasn't sure what to do with it; I think my (Chinese) mother avoided it with the whole scare. I guess I've used things that contained MSG (like boullion cubes) with the purpose of adding that "umami" flavor, but I guess it was one additional seasoning/ingredient to fill my cupboard with that I didn't really know if I needed, and as a result just didn't buy. That said, I think I'll go out and buy a smallish container of the stuff and experiment. I've always been kind of curious about the stuff...

Another vote for "shopping is its own reward". It's always bad news when I go grocery shopping without a strict shopping list written in order of what I pass when (which is often). Usually means I buy more than I need of yummy things that catch my eye. My reward is never anything in particular. Last time I got something (in other words, didn't strictly follow my list) it was some Moroccan oil-cured olives and Knudsen's Tart Cherry juice.

Hadn't heard. I agree, there is a time and a place for it... but somehow it just doesn't feel like herbed butter, salad dressing, balsamic reduction, or any other condiment-like food to me. I still stand by the ill feelings.

Fried Butter Balls... courtesy of Paula Deen. To make: Mix butter, a minimal amount of cream cheese, and salt and pepper. Coat with flour, egg, bread crumbs. Throw into deep fryer. Read the comments, too. Who would have thought that so many people don't realize without trying this that mixing 8 ounces of butter with 2 ounces of cream cheese results in a product that will taste primarily of butter.

Maggiethecat, that's an awesome bag. If you were in my boyfriend's family, you'd then save that bag and wrap someone's gift with it next year... and the next year... (it's a cute tradition, even though others might find it nutty to save interesting wrapping paper/packaging and reuse it). For whatever reason I'm drawing a blank right now on specific food packaging graphics that I've really liked. I'm too distracted by the bag... the style is really up my alley. Well I don't quite qualify as non-Asian, since my mom's Asian. But I can't read more than a few scattered words in Chinese, so I'm pretty much in the same boat. But yeah, I find that Japanese products - not just the ones with cute cartoon characters - tend to have the best graphic design. Then again, theirs is a culture with a whole industry built around the replication of food into non-edible but realistic forms. I kind of just take it for granted that they care a lot about presentation.

My college "corner store" had some Amy's stuff for sale (to pay with, ideally, your meal plan), and I often found myself most often buying - besides the plain or spinach pizza - the burritos (the first thing I had of theirs, when I was still in high school) and sometimes the "hot pocket"-like things because they were good to have around when I was in a rush between classes/activities and had little time to cook. For frozen stuff it was pretty good, and very handy to have around. I for those pocket sandwich things, the ones I've had were the spinach (and feta?), the cheese pizza, and "cheez pizza" (non-dairy, though you wouldn't know if you tasted it).

I was wondering that myself before you asked the question. I know it's been answered, but I wanted to look it up anyway. A search around the internets for "double yolk egg fertilized" got me a PDF and powerpoint presentation from what seems to be a past group project in an animal sciences class at the University of Alberta (a whole bunch of other projects/answers to random animal questions are also on the site). I also found a question (with an answer) about double yolks on the NY Times website from the Science section a few years back. So what I've gathered from it are: 1. A double-yolk egg can be fertilized, and 2. Two chicks can develop if both are fertilized, but rarely, if ever will they both hatch. Either one out-competes the other, or, much more likely, they both die from lack of resources/space. (edited to add a link)

There isn't just bias in the studies of food science, but the fact that scientists are human. If one scientist claims a dissenting opinion, even if it turns out to be true, they might be silenced by everyone else in the community. Scientists aren't immune to bias when faced with information that counters everything they've heard and believed previously. It's happened before Maybe I'm reading things the wrong way, docsconz, but I've never been under the impression that Pollan, from the reviews and from reading past NYT pieces, is against the use of scientific research with food in general. I feel like the point Pollan is really trying to make is that people in countries like the United States try to find an easy out to the disordered eating they engage in - they still want to feel like it's okay to consume foods with little merit outside of how fast they can be produced. Food isn't necessarily improving, but scientific claims are being used to say "hey, this is perfectly fine" - like those bags of chips that trumpet the words "0g of Trans Fat!" on the front. The complexities of human physiology make it very difficult to understand exactly how many processes work; even now, after the completion of the Human Genome Project, we don't have all the answers I think scientists were hoping to have. I think the point to be taken from all of this is that instead of waiting for every "breakthrough" to see a new glimpse of how things are thought to work, we should be proactive about our health.

So what I'm getting from this is that if I find a few double yolk eggs in a carton, it's more likely that the chickens are actually free range... and not the kind of "cage free" that has them standing shoulder-to-shoulder like they're at a [insert name of band the children think is hip these days] concert. Not an absolute rule, but a better sign. Yes?

I think that might be right. I Googled "serendipity frozen hot chocolate recipe" and everything I've found so far calls for a variety of different chocolates, but no "flowers" - of course, none of them mention Godiva either. Example: the recipe as it exists on Oprah's website (it was the first hit). No pictures I've found have any flowers of any kind, either. I'm no authority on their frozen hot chocolate though. Any place that brags about having the world's most expensive dessert is way too bourgeois for me.

Usually I'll go for generics because they're cheaper and are mostly worth it. However, although I agree that most of the Whole Foods 360 products are good, there are 2 I came across that I won't buy again. The first is their not-from-concentrate ruby red grapefruit juice (thin and not very good flavor-wise) - I prefer to just wait and buy grapefruit juice elsewhere because the 360 brand is the same price as "name brand" other places around me. The second is their tahini/sesame paste. Overwhelming bitter flavors dominate any nuttiness. I should have just bought the joyva tahini. I admit that there might have been something off about the particular batch or whatever I bought a carton/jar of, but they weren't cheap enough to warrant me trying them again.

I didn't have quite that many, but I did get about 4 in a dozen "cage-free" eggs about a month ago. Actually, my boyfriend was kind of weirded out by it, and was afraid there might be something freaky about those chickens.

I'm not so sure about that. I use my Canon PowerShot S3 IS in aperture priority mode pretty much exclusively, and I can tell you that I can only achieve that kind of depth of field by zooming in all the way; I'd be surprised if the A570 IS could do it. I love my camera, and did suggest it upthread, but if someone is looking to get that small depth of field, it's not going to come with the S3 IS. It's one of the reasons that, when I have the money, I'm going to get a DSLR. I'd keep the S3 IS because it's a great camera with the added convenience of not having to change lenses for zoom and macro and such. But it does have some limitations. Now, if a shallow depth of field isn't desired, there's no reason to buy a DSLR - I agree with that. If the pictures are straight on, for example... well, DOF isn't going to matter much, now is it? Now, if you're interested, here's the boyfriend's "technical" response: "Such is unfortunately not quite the case. Digital SLRs have sensors that are slightly smaller than 35mm, whereas non-slr digitals ("digicams") have sensors that tend to be around 10% of the size of 35mm. What this means is that the focal length needed to achieve the standard range of zoom for digicams is a very low number -- usually 6mm corresponds to 35mm. As depth of field (area of subject in focus) scales inversely with focal length, digicams have difficulty reducing it as shown above in any but the highest levels of zoom on the ultra-zoom models. In fact, the highest focal length of the S3 IS -- which has a ton of zoom -- is physically only 72mm. It corresponds to 432mm in the 35mm world, which is enough to take pictures of birds 40 feet away. FWIW, the example shots given above are from a roughly 72mm equivalent. Thus, to get the (lack of) DOF above with the S3, you would need to be zoomed in so much that you'd need to stand 50 feet away just to get the whole cake in the frame. Not very practical. It should also be noted that very, very few digicams get even down to f2.8 at full zoom, let alone f1.4. The lower the number, the less DOF/more blurring you have."

Ooh, let me know how that goes. I love that stuff, and it would be great if I knew how to make it.

I wouldn't go as far as to say that this stuff is as good as freshly-made, but Krinos (and some other brand?) makes a jarred one. I like to just keep in the fridge when I am hungry for it. They also sell jars of just the roe itself, if you want to make it yourself. One source: http://www.greekinternetmarket.com/mm5/merchant.mvc? You don't happen to have any turkish places either, do you? Sometimes they have it as an appetizer as well...

Woo depth of field.. My boyfriend decided on cheez-its because he figured if even they could look decent, well.... He says: "The point of this is to show the difference in kinds of pictures you get with a digital SLR vs a normal digital. The first one represents what you'd get with a non-slr -- full depth of field and almost no bokeh -- the blurring effect seen in the 2nd picture. "Both with the same lens, same camera... just different f-stops to represent different depth of fields. (A little different than I thought he meant about the cameras. This makes more sense anyway). "Gourmet food photography benefits strongly from a small depth of field (lots of blurring). Stick a wide aperture lens (such as the 50mm f1.8 mentioned above) on an SLR and you can get the effect quite easily. Pretty much the only food photos I've seen that doesn't employ the effect are McDonalds hamburger pictures." ------------ And as for the price of the Canon Rebel XT, dougal: I didn't look up the price in the UK, and (wrongly) assumed it wasn't going to be $400 in the US and £400 in the UK. I just converted the cost in dollars to pounds. Maybe someone should take advantage of the weak American dollar...

I don't remember if it was from Purity and Danger or some other work by the anthropologist Mary Douglas, or maybe something we read in class just at that point (I can't remember... World of Goods?)... but a professor of mine talked once about the fact that there's a tendency to have a problem with meats that are too close to humans. One aspect of this is that there tends to be more discomfort towards eating parts of animals that have the same name as they do in the human body. Euphemisms, names for cuts of meat - they help to distance an individual from the reality of what they're eating. It's not a hard and fast rule, of course. People who grew up eating organ meat, for example, are less likely to be bothered by it... and benefit financially from the lower cost these items have due to a lack of demand. Then again, people eat all sorts of "spare parts" in hot dogs, but not recognizing it as such helps people a lot. The other, more obvious aspect of this is the discomfort that people (at least in the "industrialized West") have with the idea of eating those classified as "pets" - the ones that get to live with us at home and become anthropomorphized. For many of us in the US, those would commonly be dogs and cats... and for some, horses, guinea pigs, chinchillas, etc. This differs between cultures - some cultures eat any or all of those above animals. I think it bothers people, for example, to see anthropological video or something of people roasting up a guinea pig in South America in a village, but I actually wonder how much those "owners" actually become to those animals; I doubt they see them as an extension of their families, and would scoff at the lengths that people in the US and similar nations go in treating their pets like family members; pet hotels, insurance policies, special foods... There's a difference between treating an animal ethically and treating it as family. So basically, what most people tend to deem appropriate or inappropriate food is entirely cultural. There's no reason in terms of intelligence to dictate which animals we do or don't eat - the reasons have to do with what use the animal has to us otherwise, or what use it might have had at one point that later lead to a closer relationship with humans. BTW, but I'm intending to read that Mary Douglas book linked above (only read portions so far), and would suggest it... there's some fun look at Leviticus and the Kosher dietary laws (I think it's considered her most important work).