Jason Campbell

"the average use was 0.33 grams per person per day" If this is the case then it can be explained by increased consumption of meat.

I find the idea of taking your left overs home with you creepy, having them forced into your car is just abusive. I mean, No means No! Somebody chasing me down the road with my half eaten lunch is the stuff of nightmares.

I think we can't have any 'educated' debate when we can't access the report. I tried through my Athens Account but this didn't work. Without reading [and understanding] the paper then we have to fall back onto 'educated' common-sense. Always dangerous. From a 'common-sense' angle, there has been generally accepted research (WHO) that suggests Japan's obesity crisis has a correlation with their adoption of Western foodways. This is relevant as MSG has a cultural tradition in Japan, less so in China. Something that springs to my mind is the possible relevance of cultural perception of obesity, not all cultures find obesity the 'turn-off' that we in the West do. I seem to remember some research done about 15 years ago on the fattening of pigs which found that by adding MSG to their [lower cost] feed the producer was able to induce the pigs to eat food that they would not normally prefer, hence fattening them up more cheaply. I will have to search for the e reference though. If we extrapolated that, then the hypothesis might be that those in the lower economic strata use MSG to make unpalatable foods more unctuous. But we would have to examine not just the calorie intake but the foods consumed.

MSG intake suppresses weight gain, fat deposition, and plasma leptin levels in male Sprague-Dawley rats. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18559279

Well my 'educated' response, without reading the original paper, is that a study group of so few subjects, combined with only one ethnic group- plus the restrictive age range- suggests it probably doesn't prove much. Does the paper examine any economic reasons for MSG usage (I ask as I haven't been able to access it)?

I couldn't state for sure that they are the same, but the corn oil generally available is refined and is one of the cheapest available, the most popular brand is Mazola. You only find the cold pressed oils [except Olive oil] in speciality shops or the upper end supermarkets. In Walmart/Asda it's Mazola or their own brand. Based on shelf space the slightly more expensive sunflower oil is more popular. The cheapest oil is just called 'vegetable oil' and is an unidentified blend of soya, safflower, rapeseed, cottonseed and maybe processed palm oil. I dislike the stuff as I feel it often gives a noticeable unpleasant flavour to, in particular, deep fried foods. I don't perceive the same market for Canola oil in the UK as America, the food press has been a bit snobby about rapeseed in general, associating it with questionable environmental and health issues. I think it doesn't help that rapeseed is used in 'vegetable oil' and so becomes guilty by association, although I have seen a high priced organic, cold pressed, rapeseed oil I've never used it, I think it's intended for salad dressings.

I find corn oil has too strong a flavour [although that wouldn't matter for popcorn of course]. Then again most UK books I've read state that corn oil has a strong flavour so it may just be auto-suggestion. Anyway, I've used it, and it works but I find the flavour a little heavy for me. Saying that, I use sunflower oil for deep frying and that has a notable flavour that I feel isn't ideal, but it has an acceptable balance on price. I would prefer to use peanut [groundnut oil] if I didn't have to consider cost. Like others here I like grape-seed oil as it's good for most things, I like it for salad dressings but it's fine for shallow frying too [never tried deep frying with it, again cost]. If I'm cooking a steak/chop I never add the oil to the pan, or oil the grill bars, I always oil the steak- I don't eat butter but you can do the same thing with melted butter. I just paint it on with a pastry brush. I've not experienced flare ups with this method, and over charcoal I think I would get more flare ups oiling the grill bars that the meat. I've never used safflower oil or soya oil.

So, if it is really difficult to eat at this restaurant then I would imagine that the customers are a rather exclusive bunch, who probably wouldn't want to be pictured eating their supper? Here in the UK my child's school asked for written permission before they would allow photos to be taken of the children[school trip]. I sense that the decision to ban cameras[and mobile/cell phones? A more disruptive crime than taking a photo IMHO] is motivated by some legal complication rather than the cook's opinion?

I think humans have always had a deep relationship with food, early cave paintings showing the hunt are not so very different to photographing your supper in their intent. Of course it is only food, just as sex is only sex [not that this has stopped a billion dollar porn industry], so by extension we should refrain from any celebration of either? If it's just food, to be eaten, then we could start by telling the Jews and Muslims to stop being such fussy eaters. It seems strange that a cook should worry about what a customer does with his food. As long as the customer is paying and leaves happy then surely the work has been done? Burger King don't let you take photographs in their restaurants, but I always thought that was because they didn't want you reminding yourself that your lunch looked nothing like the picture on the overhead menu. I also can't see how it can be enforced, will customers be frisked before being seated, or ejected once they have committed the sin?

I'm speaking from a U.K. Perspective, but to a lesser or greater degree it might also apply to other Western countries. By my reasoning people don't eat out exclusively (as a generalisation, I know some may). When the price of food staples goes up (be those staples microwave ready meals, bread or caviar) then people will either find substitute staples (cut down on the caviar) or cut back spending in other less essential areas. It's easier to substitute if your staples are things like caviar, but less easy if your staples are bread or ready meals. The choice then might logically be to eat out less, but if you eat out less then that also demands that you spend more on staples to replace 'restaurant' food, which in turn means you have less to spend on eating out. In the short term restaurants can absorb food cost increases (and the large chains have greater leverage as they agree fixed price contracts, the smaller operators by saving on labour costs). But eventually many will have some hard decisions to make. The supermarkets don't get it all their own way, not only do they have to compete with each other as normal, but with higher fuel prices they get less frequent opportunities to grab your custom as you visit less supermarkets less often to save on fuel costs. Equally they will have less to spend on advertising to try and draw consumers back, while high food prices will give producers of staples much greater bargaining power with the supermarkets/fast food companies than they have had for many decades. None of this, of course, means a general return to cooking at home, only eating at home. They may just be eating a ready meal 7 times a week rather than 3 times a week. It also ignores the fact that the UK and the USA both have obesity problems, maybe everyone will just go on a diet and to aid their progress they might dig up their back yards and start planting food. Unlikely, I know.

Nisbets would be able to do this, as you are making a significant purchase. They aren't the cheapest available, but they could do this. http://www.nisbets.co.uk/content/contactdetails.asp