Mjx

I eat meat, if that even matters, and I too have rights, but I believe that any given right is bound to a responsibility: The right to eat animals seems bound to the responsibility to treat them humanely up to and including when they're slaughtered. It is by no means clear that the prevailing process of producing foie gras is not abusive, so I don't see that those who disagree with you (i.e. question or oppose the production of foie gras) can be fairly dismissed as 'liars, propagandists, deceivers, etc.' (but thanks for giving the sceptics among us a pass on being terrorists ). Wondering whether force-feeding to an extent that causes the occasional gastric rupture is needlessly abusive is neither dishonest nor extreme, but is the central question in this discussion; all reasonable participants will want to fully examine it, regardless of their position.

I don't expect to convince anyone whose view of this matter is fundamentally different from mine (i.e. 'Yes, I have the right to eat what I please, but if my choice is responsible for unnecessary suffering or loss, then I'll pass'), and I don't trot out my views unless I'm directly asked, or there is an open discussion on the matter. However, in an open discussion, I don't see why someone questioning or opposing the production of foie gras is 'telling someone what to', whereas someone supporting its production is simply 'defending their rights'. Nor do I get the 'sides' thing: This isn't a simple, two-sided debate between peaceful, tolerant meat eaters and violent, intolerant vegetarians (seriously, re-read the topic, and tell me which perspective is expressed most vehemently and uncompromisingly). An array of perspectives has been presented, most of which are not extreme. I really don't see the slippery slope thing, even though various 'sides' seem to fear (or hope) that this is the start of one. Stripped of squishy anthropomorphising and sanctimonious dribble (which hasn't been present in the current discussion), the argument against the production of foie gras is that there is apparently no humane way of producing it. The same doesn't hold true for producing other meat products. Cuteness? This doesn't seem to have anything to do with the foie gras issue, unless I've missed something (and given Americans' loss of enthusiasm for rabbit, it seems pretty clear that you don't need an animal rights group to change a population's tastes; sentimentality can do that on its own). To produce foie gras, ducks and geese must be force-fed; force-feeding is accomplished by inserting a tube in the the birds' throats, to deliver the food. These the objective points, not speculation. Since there is no direct way to understand what the experience may be like for the birds raised for foie gras, one can only rely on observation, research, and morbidity/mortality data to hypothesize. Such observation, even when carried out by groups such as the European Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare, suggest that the process of force-feeding, at least as it is currently carried out, is somewhere between moderately and severely distressing to the ducks and geese (e.g. the report I mentioned previously, Welfare Aspects of the Production of Foie Gras in Ducks and Geese). Conclusions based on observation and research do not extend past reasonable speculation. From this point on, however, any discussion moves into pure speculation ('How distressing is it for a bird to have a tube inserted into its throat and be routinely fed an amount that is capable of causing intestinal rupture?') and the philosophical ('Should I care whether or not a bird is feeling distressed?'; 'What are the relative values of my right [as a human] to eat what I want and a food species' right to have a reasonably un-distressing existence, if I have any voice in this matter?', etc.) The speculative questions are probably not answerable, and the philosophical ones are personal. Evidently, at this time, enough Californians are uncomfortable enough with their understanding of foie gras production to wish to oppose it. As someone pointed out upthread, that's democracy. Given the scale, resources and impact of the of the various meat and poultry lobbies, I just can't find it in me to start sobbing about the impact of animal rights groups, which have been pushing for all sorts of changes (from the perfectly reasonable to the bewilderingly idiotic), and have had relatively little effect. We both agreed that banning foie gras was easy, for various reasons. No satisfactory conclusion will ever be reached, unless the objective aspect is kept in sight. And there is at least one remaining objective question: If the current process of force-feeding is distressing to the birds, is it possible to develop an approach that give the same results, but is not distressing, or at least only very mildly so? Has this been seriously investigated? It seems worth the trouble of looking into, and I find it difficult to imagine that even the greatest appreciator of foie gras would object to its being produced under humane conditions!

I'm curious: How many of you keep your first aid kits in the kitchen? I actually keep (well, kept) mine just outside the kitchen, in the hall closet, where it seemed less likely to be knocked about, or have muck spilled on it.

I've never asked to have my leftovers packed up to take away, but I've been in situations where I was asked whether I'd like to take home what I hadn't eaten; is this never done in the UK?

I'd hack it up quite small, simmer it briefly in some sort of sauce, and turn it into empanada filling (which is what I'm toying with doing with some 'rubber turkey' I've just been sort of made a 'gift' of).

Sorry, but apart from being an inaccurate generalization, it's an argument in the category of, 'Well, you lost only one finger in the sink disposal, it could've been two or more!'; yeah, but the existing situation isn't great, either. There isn't any good reason to consume meat every day. For most people, it's completely fine, but there's no point in suggesting that not eating meat on a daily basis is some sort of screwball idea. Eating the amount of meat (or any protein) we currently average isn't necessary, to say the least; we eat too much of everything, and meat is no exception (I can, and have, happily eaten a 0.75kg bistecca fiorentina on my own, but there is no way I would make that an everyday, or even every month occurrence, my body wouldn't stand it). There isn't anything daft about eating less meat than most people do, and it's hardly a shift towards vegetarianism to cut back a bit! Erm... right. So, you've never met a large animal vet who's vegetarian?!

I'm familiar with the various groups' agendas, and frankly, they can wish for the moon and a gold hat, too: They're as likely to get one as the other. They are both outnumbered and out-funded by the the various meat industry lobbies. Foie gras was easy because the number of US producers is relatively small, the number of Americans who consume it is also relatively small, the mode of production is not what anyone accurate would describe as humane, and there is no way to make it so. The bill is unlikely to stick for very long either; it certainly didn't last long in Chicago. I don't see any rational reason to believe that this bill represents anything like the thin end of a wedge. ETA: Frankly, I find extremism of any stripe tedious, and whenever people start with the equivalent of shrieking 'The sky is falling, the sky I falling!!!' I'm bored. Possibly disturbed, too, but mostly bored. The whole discussion about 'rights', regardless of whether it is in reference to one's appetites or another species is valid and worthy of serious discussion, but degenerates so quickly into squealing and foot-stamping, that it becomes impossible to take anyone seriously.

Hang on, care to elaborate on the reason you think those particular things ('beef tenderloin, chicken tenders, fish eyes, pork trotters') are particularly likely to be next in line? I'm not seeing this at all. I have serious doubts that the animal rights lobbies exceed the magnitude of the beef and poultry industries' lobbies. (Just to be clear, I'm not particularly extreme in my views, but have thought about this subject a lot, I've had to: I was raised a vegetarian, by parents who made this choice for ethical reasons. I eat meat: I have no cogent argument to support my decision, and if you ask me whether I believe this to be justifiable on rational grounds, I have to say that I don't. I've also assisted in the slaughter of chickens, which left me shaking for quite a while, and not just because I was a little concerned that my friend might hack off part of my hand, along with the chicken's head, with the not-exactly-super-sharp hatchet. Doing the job humanely would have been less dangerous, as well as kinder. And yes, I think they deserved a baseline of humane slaughter, even though they're gross cannibals, and generally ill-tempered)

Brillat-Savarin, Dumas (père), and McGee. It would make for fascinating conversation, answers to lots of my questions, and possibly a stupendous argument, which should help take my mind off the fact that this was my last meal.

I don't get the impression that extremist animal rights activists are numerous enough in California to have been able to get this bill passed, without plenty of others agreeing with them; a lot of people are simply disturbed by the process involved in the production of foie gras. The difference between the production of foie gras and slaughtering animals is that there is no humane way to do the former. So, it comes down to 'Is my right to eat foie gras more important than the right of another species to have a reasonably comfortable existence until I eat it/portions of it?' Evidently, a lot of Californians think not, but I doubt that most had extremist views on this. Just consciences.

Not old hat, but the question of sustainability has been raised repeatedly over the last century, so it can't be described as 'new'. If it were truly a trend, rather than a lot of marketing talk, we'd be seeing far more extensive results. Point taken, this is a cooking forum, but all the so-called trends... sorry, they still strike me as marketing more than anything else, and honestly, not new, either.

What brand do you use? I've tried these, and although they did the job nicely, they came loose once much was done with the hands, even with a bandage/finger cot/glove over it. Duct tape might hold them in place, haven't tried that.

I'd add a couple of rubber bands (quick, temporary tourniquet for when a finger is bleeding like crazy, but you don't really have the option of walking about swearing and hand-clamping proximal to your wound for five minutes until clotting starts/you can bandage without it being sort of pointless), and New-Skin or similar to seal small cuts and scrapes, especially if keeping a plaster in place is not going to really work out, and some surgical gloves (powder-free) for when you've done something truly spectacular to your hand in the wound department. I also keep alcohol on hand, since I rely on hydrogen peroxide mostly for puncture wounds. Have you actually had any luck at all with finger-tip plasters? So far, the only time I've gone to the emergency room for a kitchen injury was when I severed an artery (you could tell straight off, since it was spurting rhythmically), which isn't something to mess about with (although I did take out the stitches myself). A bad burn (sort of hard to define, but location and size would determine it) would send me to ER, too.

I really like the sound of this! Much as I like macarons, I find the butter-cream to be a real drawback, since it almost invariably leaves me feeling a bit queasy, sometimes even if I eat just one.

Mixed feelings about this: On the one hand, a ban does seem like an exercise in futility, but on the other hand, a process that causes extensive physical trauma to an animal during feeding is on the disturbing side (e.g. The Report of the Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare's Welfare Aspects of the Production of Foie Gras in Ducks and Geese), so I can understand people regarding this as inhumane. I'll be honest, though: My views might be different, if I didn't have an 'I can take it or leave it' reaction to foie gras, simply as a food.

I'm assuming 'trends' actually means 'marketing trends', correct? Nothing mentioned so far is particularly new, and some have been traditional for decades, or even centuries. In terms of what most people actually do, trends seem to have little significant impact (e.g. although the increased visibility of MC made more people aware of it, few who have a real interest in it were attracted to it because it was trendy). ETA: Now that this topic has been rolling about in my head a bit, I'd have to say there does seem to be a trend to think more about food, and its sources and preparation (not particularly new or specific, but it does represent a shift).

Apparently not that difficult to get funding for, because if you search the scholarly articles for this topic (asparagus + urine), you pull up quite a few. You could, of course gather together a bunch of friends who claim to notice this difference in smell, and, well, fill up a bunch of plastic cups, and check the truth of the conclusions of previous research. But we'd have to be talking very good friends, here, or friends who happened to be committed biologists who'd just never heard of any of this research (or, had reached the end of boozy party, and were hammered as hell, when doing this sort of thing seems both brilliant and hilarious. Not that I'd know a thing about that sort of party).

Yep, I know

What?! What exactly did you do? I want to try this, now.

According to A polymorphism of the ability to smell urinary metabolites of asparagus (Lison, Blondheim & Melmed 1980), 'The urinary excretion of (an) odorous substance(s) after eating asparagus is not an inborn error of metabolism. . .' but 'The detection of the odour constitutes a specific smell hypersensitivity.'

Venison would be very "authentic" for a Thanksgiving meal, just not traditional. I was thinking 'traditional', in terms of what was eaten at the earliest Thanksgivings, and through the early part of C20. When my family first returned to the US, I can remember teachers saying that turkey was traditional at Thanksgiving, because 'that was what the pilgrims ate'. This was reiterated over and over, and I never gave it any thought, until I eventually came across various things pointing that game might actually have been the only available meat (depending on whether or not any livestock were brought across the ocean and survived). I'm probably mostly looking at any cheap excuse to avoid eating turkey, which I don't like that much. Anyone else considering a pumpkin-based tiramisù for dessert?

I'm fairly certain that I've been told that not everyone has the gene that enables them to detect the difference in smell.

I've almost never done this, unless there seemed to be a possibility of hurting someone's feelings if I said 'No thanks' to the doggy bag offer (this happened recently with a dessert). I seldom order more than I can eat, and usually don't go home immediately after I dine out, so the I'd end up awkwardly carrying about something that would probably not be good to eat by the time I got home with it.

It's difficult, the whole tipping thing in the US. You'd probably find some way of finding a balance between conscience and indignation. You probably wouldn't stop feeling troubled (at least, in the 15 years of my more-or-less adult life spent in back in NYC, I didn't; then again, I budgeted a flat $10 week for the homeless, even when I didn't have enough to pay $75/week SRO rent, so I'm probably a complete sucker). And, of course, this brings us back to the question of, 'What constitutes bad service?'

I think about this a lot, and it's had an effect on the way I cook (e.g. rice and legumes are cooked in the biggest batches I can manage, and frozen, since they reheat well), and the energy ratings and types of of appliances/fixtures we've purchased. Also, running the water the entire time someone is washing up always bothers me, because I've lived in countries where drought warnings are a fairly normal summer occurrence; unless I'm rinsing the dishes, the water is off. Other things to, but those spring to mind. A lot of it is habitual, now. As others have already noted, the relative amount of energy consumed in the kitchen is only a small fraction of overall consumption, but it's a good place to start, and once the habit of this attitude is established, it spreads to other areas too (e.g. car or bike? if a car, which car? and so on).