docsconz

The only question here I could answer based on limited experience involves One.Waterfront. If you will be staying there it should be no problem. I would say, though if you know when you wish to dine, I would suggest reserving as far in advance as you know. That would apply to any restaurant.

A Fourfold increase in IGF-1 levels may be enough to be significant. Non-rBGH milk (I will use that instead of "organic"), therefore, is not necesarily as risky as rBGH milk, although you are correct that it is not proven that either puts one at high risk. That rats don't appear to have a significant problem with rBGH is certainly reassuring, but rats are not humans and do not necessarily react the same way humans do. The rat model, while a good and useful one and perhaps the best one at our disposal, is still not perfect. The data looking at the effects of IGF-1 in humans, though not conclusive, remains IMO cause for concern. I am not suggesting that rBGH be removed from the market, even though I believe it was put on too hastily. I will, however, for the time being , prefer to support dairies not using the hormone for the combination of reasons expressed all along. By the way, thanks for coming back in. I was starting to get lonely here

A year ago we made coq au vin with roosters obtained from Chinatown. I would have loved to have been there for the procurement. I'm sure it would have been interesting. You are right about the flavor and texture. It worked nicely in the slow braise with plenty of marinade time. Good luck.

To me, an "appy" is an appendectomy. it is amazing that not everything has a food connotation for me

Today's NYTimes Dining and Wine section published three articles pertinent to this discussion. Coincidence? I think not. They areAn Organic Cash Cow and Bottle of White by Kim Severson and A Hormone for Cows by Marian Burros. The first one discusses the organic milk industry. From the article: and The article basically goes on to say that while "organic" producers need to conform to rules, those rules are not necessarily what consumers have in mind. She particularly notes confinement and access to pasture rules as having large gray areas for the industrial organics to skirt through. This is one reason why I don't defend the "organic" industry per se. The second article was about a blinded taste test of various brands of milk. The tasters generally picked milks that conformed to their experience. The third article is that one that most closely takes on the issues discussed here. It is a well balanced article that outlines some of the direct health risks associated with rBGH: The article went on to say

As interesting as this discussion of Zagat is, unless it pertains directly to the topic at hand, i.e. Ultra luxe restaurant websites, it should be taken to another thread.

And now so am I!

Hi Dominicana and welcome to eGullet. I don't know about the UWS, but I know they can be had in Chinatown. Unfortunately, I didn't get them myself so i can't tell you exactly where. Hopefully someone else can chime in. How are you planning on using them?

Doc, I will the next time I make it. I take a muffin pan and lay the plastic over and form a cup and then I close it up and make a little cocoon. Molto E ← I look fo rward to seeing it almost as much as I would look forward to eating it.

Can you please post a photo of what the egg looks like in the bag? That breakfast is truly decadent.

This could be the N.A. East Coast's version of Copper River Salmon!

It depends on the tradition. Tradition for tradition's sake is to me not valuable and therefore not necessarily worth keeping in the face of improvement (assuming the innovation is an "improvement". On the other hand, many traditions are such because they have their innate value and quality. Those of course need to be preserved even if the innovation stands side by side with it. Piemonte is a great example of this with great wines from both the traditional camp as well as the innovators.

Doc, Yukon Golds , no but the next shipment he says that he will meet me first so I can get a pictorial. He delivered a 260 gram one to Brad Thompson at the Phoenician last year. To answer your question-Omelete, sous-vide eggs, risotto, white truffle potato tortellini, shaved over fresh tagliatelle made in a tomato water butter. Chef Binkley told me he is going to make a white truffle truffle that he will place over risotto so when you pierce the truffle-goodness all over the risotto. I like that better than parmesan air but we shall see. Molto e ← Sounds great. Unfortunately, I will have to be satisfied with photos for now (so long as you take and post them)

Are you sure those aren't potatoes? Seriously, those look great. How will you use them?

This thread is a testament that some people obviously do

I believe they are good for business because a good website is good for the consumer, who is less likely to be disappointed by the real thing. It also helps increase anticipation and buzz. It certainly is a legitimate question, though.

Hi Andy, Welcome to eGullet! What makes Guy Savoy your favorite?

But you would agree that I have a better chance of obtaining the winning Mega Millions lottery ticket by holding my open hand out of my window for 10 minutes and waiting for it to land on my palm than for rBGH to be an environmental hazard? ← That may be so, but then the potential implications are very different In actuality, I don't really know all the environmental hazard potentials for rBGH, which is what I am most concerned about. It would appear that the potential environmental hazards of rBGH are significantly less than some of the gonadophilic hormones given to cattle and other livestock, but I really have yet to come across much directly addressing the issue. So no, I actually can't agree with your statement. While it is conceivable that the environmental hazards of this agent may not be high, I would venture that they are likely a bit higher than what you suggested. I would even suggest that they are higher than the odds of your winning that lottery even if you bought a ticket and had it in your hand up and were there at the lottery drawing! Again, environmental hazards can come in many different guises, those considered and those not. I hadn't even previously considered the possibility of waste run-off as a potential issue. Everything in life has risk to some degree or another. We must not be paralyzed because of the mere possibility of risk, but then we mustn't bull ahead without considering all the potential ramifications. Indeed these potential ramifications always need to be regarded against the potential benefits. Unfortunately, it is usually easier to assess the potential benefits than it is the risks. I am an anesthesiologist. The risk for an otherwise healthy person incurring significant morbidity and mortality undergoing anesthesia for routine surgery prior to the mid 1980's was somewhere around 1 in 4-5,000 anesthetics administered. While these were pretty good odds for any given individual, bad things could and did happen with a relatively high frequency. For a number of reasons including major scientific advances in monitoring, pharmacology and training that risked has dropped probably 100-fold today. We are now able to do cases routinely and safely that previously we would never even dream about. Nevertheless, despite all the advances and the best care, an occasional major complication for an otherwise healthy person still occurs and the risks for less healthy people are significantly greater. Does that mean we avoid anesthesia and surgery? Absolutely not. It does mean, however, that each individual case needs to considered on its own merits and the risks of a particular procedure weighed against the procedure's anticipated benefits both by the physicians involved and the patient. Occasionally, we cancel surgery when we feel that the potential risks are too great or, said differently, not low enough compared to the anticipated benefit. Although the scale and the implications are different for the question(s) discussed here, I don't see the necessary approach as being different. If anything, given the potential scale of the risks, we need to be even more conservative with the environment than we are in surgery, where an adverse outcome effects particularly one person or a small group of people.

Did she understand that rBGH is not a hormone (in Humans) but merely another bovine protein and present in only trace quantities in the milk? And that, even in animals where it is a hormone, it has no detectable activity when administered orally? ← That discussion did not specifically relate that risk to rBGH. She is not an expert on that particular issue. Instead, the point was more of a general one as an additional concern other than direct transmission via milk or animal protein. Whther this applies specifically to rBGH as a potential concern has not to my knowledge been addressed. That rBGH amy not have detectable activity when administered orally to animals that were tested does not necessarily mean that it cannot effect other animals present in an environment that hadn't been tested, for example various fish, amphibians and reptiles.

Another interesting discussion with citations of the potential direct human health effects of rBGH and why more formal dissent may be rare. This is by no means definitive, but definitiveness of the risk is not the point. This and so many other discussions raise a significant specterof doubt about this technology that have not been adequately answered in my opinion. If and when they are adequately answered or the benefits to society justify the risks, I will be the first to embrace the technology(ies). I will take a little breather before I rack up too many posts in a row without further discussion

Here's more from Science News with references on the potential environmental effects of steroid applications in cattle with particular emphasis on the potential effects of run-off. While this particular article does not specifally discuss rBGH, similar concerns exist.

John I still think that their practices are sustainable and they (the farmers you are talking about) are very aware of all inputs into the farm. I question the Organic industry, it does not include all inputs, such as gas (transportation); In BC in the middle of the summer when the organic people are importing product from California (we have so much local food around) does not the input of fossils fuels into the environment be included in their measurement of the introduction of overall fossil fuels? This is as opposed to lower mainland people buying local produce that is not certified organic. I wonder what the difference is?? This for me is as big as a conundrum as the whole process of introducing a protein or hormone into a closed farm system to increase milk production when there is really not a shortage of milk, where is the gain?? ← That I think those farms are practicing sustainable agriculture is one of two reasons I buy from them even if it is at a bit of a premium. The other reason is that the products are darned good

Here is a reprint of an article from MSNBC about the debate over the safety of BGH supplementation in dairy cattle. Granted, this is not a scholarly article, though it does a good job in expressing the concerns re: health, many of which have been brought up on this board. Although, I was not aware of this specific concern when I used it as an example of the kinds of health problems increasing in prevalence in the US, if not the world, there is a discussion on rBGH and a possible diabetes link. Clearly there is not enough evidence to make a distinct and unassailable connection between the two, however, it does provide food for thought. I just returned from an unrelated conference at my collegiate alma mater, at which I had the opportunity to chat with the Dean of the Faculty, who also happens to be an Environmental Biologist. While she is not an expert on the specifics of the rBGH question, she did state that individual and environmental health risks can still be present even if the hormone does not get into the human food supply from milk. Other potential avenues of concern could be through excretion of a hormone via urine or feces with concomitant run-off into the environment. Hormones (not necessarily rBGH, but possibly) can then have deleterious health effects on other animals, which could then have an environmental impact and/or adverse human health consequences. This is a potential avenue of impact that I hadn't even considered. This may or may not be a factor for rBGH, but I don't know if information about this is available if it has even been studied. To reiterate my concerns, but stating them slightly differently than I have: If milk was a rare commodity in short supply and increased production of a limited but important resource was really necessary than the use of this technology might justify taking the risks at this time.. That production in the US and Canada is not really an issue now balances the equation such that I believe much additional consideration needs to be given to this technology before widespread use is adopted. Unfortunately, it may already be too late for that. Perhaps at best, we can hope that the concerns expressed here and elsewhere don't pan out to reality.

Some are suggesting that this comment was tongue in cheek and reverse psychology. This post may illustrate his true feelings. He certainly brought attention to the restaurant as a consideration for Wendy (or anyone else reading this). ← ← No problem. I must admit it wasn't readily apparent at first to me either. As you become more fluent with the technology and familiar with the various posters, it becomes easier to check things and recognize some of the subtleties that make the site ever richer. One of the aspects that makes this site valuable for me is that over time I can get a sense of different posters and their sensibilities, especially as relates to restaurant and food style preferences. As such I am more likely to relate to a poster who I have been able to gauge over time than I am to someone whose tastes and style I am less familiar with. I still read those reports with avid interest so as to develop a sense of that posters preferences over time and to see how they equate with mine. Of course restaurant and food style preferences are only one thing that makes eGullet a valuable resource. Topics like this one are good example. People make good arguments for one place or another. As a reader becomes more familiar with various posters, that reader can weight specific advice more readily according to his or her own taste. Of course, even this is no guarantee of a perfect match as so many other variables come into play.

Some are suggesting that this comment was tongue in cheek and reverse psychology. This post may illustrate his true feelings. He certainly brought attention to the restaurant as a consideration for Wendy (or anyone else reading this).