docsconz

Although I am not pkeibel, I will answer this. Hormones are indeed chemicals, specialized chemicals. They are proteins, steroids and other chemical entities. I believe I studied a thing or two about them in Organic Chemistryand beyond. To pick on this is truly nitpicking. Nathan, you make a lot of intersting points here. I believe that you are above that. edited to add: all hormones are chemicals, not all chemicals are hormones.

I love uni as well. The best experience I have ever had with it was eating it in Sicily right out of the sea. It was extraordinary. The best preparation I have ever had in the US was the uni at Sushi Yasuda in NYC. That was extremely fresh and superb. The uni at Kurumazushi in NYC wasn't too bad either.

Not having receptors only means that it won't have a specific endocrine type effect. It can still have an immunologic effect. This can be unpredictable as well and vary potentially from person to person. That was one of the biggest problems with porcine insulin. One question I have is based upon the mechanism of action of BGH. In humans the milk inducing hormone is prolactin, a hormone closely related to but different from human growth hormone. In cattle, it appears that BGH is the milk inducing hormone. Is that correct? What other effects does BGH have on cattle?

I actually think the list is pretty reasonable, at least as far as the restaurants I have experienced. Daniel's absence as a 3* is notable as is Chanterelle's complete absence. It seems as if Chanterelle has fallen into disfavor in recent years for some reason. It has been awhile since I was there. I enjoyed it then.

I never said that I was qualified myself to specifically refute the article and I have repeatedly said that I was willing to concede the point as it is not central to my argument or concern. I never said anything of the sort. You persist in reading into what I am saying and trying to put words in my mouth. I am not saying that the product should be taken off the market or that because I have concerns and remain skeptical of the product and the motives of the company behind it that everyone else must follow suit. I do know, however, that as good as science has been and is, the whole concept is changing as the rules change due to the influence of industry and big business. The free flow of ideas is no longer what it was as there is now a much greater emphasis on the need for industrial secrets and the potential financial ramifications of information. This is big business and we must not kid ourselves otherwise. As such the intersts of business and the public are not always necessarily aligned. As such, I remain skeptical. That is different from me saying that the study is wrong. I have never said that nor could I as I do not have the specific expertise to make that assertion. My point is, it really matters little to the argument. Where did I ever say that? I have repeatedly said that I am not advocating for the "organic" industry. How are the "organic" dairy cows different than the ones to whom rBGH is given? Are the "organic" cows products of recombinant genetic engineering and therefore new breeds or breeds that have come around by virtue of time tested selection processes? Are the breeds used different or just the animal husbandry methods? I know where I live in upstate NY dairy country there are cows who are supplemented with rBGH and those not. The breeds used are essentially the same. It appears to me therefore that this is not a variable. Nevertheless, I will repeat that my argument has not been one of affirming the "organic" industry, simply questioning the potential ramifications of the product in question. See above discussion. Of course I have biases. I do not know anyone who doesn't. My bias is not against science and the traditional free flow of ideas, however. I make my living using the products of advanced science. This also allows me to see its flaws first hand. I have seen numerous highly touted modalities be accepted until problems were subsequently discovered and the products either withdrawn or fallen into disfavor. I have also been upset when otherwise excellent products have been removed because of "risks" and politics. Vioxx and Bextra fall into that category and droperidol is another that has fallen into disfavor because of a perceived ridiculously small risk based upon an extremely flawed study and belies the long history of safe use of the drug. Of course, droperidol, a generic, was subsequently supplanted by much more expensive but no more efficacious drugs. Coincidence? Perhaps. If I have a bias it is in questioning the motives of industry and being skeptical of things that have huge potential ramifications. As big as Monsanto is and as pervasive as their products are becoming, I hope my concerns are off base and don't pan out. The consequences if the concerns are not raised and the potential consequences come to fruition are enormous, though. Thus I prefer to remain skeptical of the bigger picture. See above. Politics and economics play a large part here as well. The problem isn't always that bad drugs are left on the market. It is also that good drugs get black-balled. I do not believe that something must "save lives" to justify some risk. After all, everything incurs somerisk. However, risk tolerance is a personal thing. Some people are willing to take some risks and not others. Raw milk products are a specific example. While raw milk under suboptimal conditions can be dangerous, so can "pasteurized" milk. This discussion if not already on anothe topic and I am sure it is, belongs on one. The point is, though, that there are various reasons for assuming risk. It is my belief that risks effecting predominantly one person or a small group of people should be assessed and handled by those directly effected. I do not feel that it is right to impose my values on them. Raw milk products can be made safely and they do have significant value to a lot of people who are willing to assume those risks. In a situation, such as the potential ramifications of widespread use of rBGH, this does not apply as ultimately everyone has the potential to be effected directly or indirectly to a significant degree. We are certainly not in complete disagreement here, although JSolomon answered this better than I can. No, they were unable to detect any rBGH in rats after giving large doses of rBGH orally (studies done by UpJohn, Monsanto and American Cyanamid). These confirmed that, as expected, there is no mechanism for the rBGH to be both protected from digestion and absorbed into the bloodstream. Even if you were right and a trace amount of rBGH from the tiny amount in the milk you consume made it into your blood stream, it couldn't possibly be significant compare to the many times larger amount of Human Growth Hormone present in your body. There is a ggo reason why the cattle are injected with rBGH rather than given it orally. It has no effect given orally. ← While the paper is likely correct and the rBGH likely would be insignificant if ingested by and passed into the bloodstream of humans, your point is still flawed. rBGH is not a human hormone, therefore its effects on humans may not be the same as human growth hormone and are therefore somewhat unpredictable unless rigorously tested. Obviously a number of similar animal derived hormones such as insulin have been used in humans for years with similar effects of the native human hormones. While for many years the benefits of these hormones have generally outweighed the risks, their therapeutic benefits justified their use. Products such as porcine insulin, however, did involve long-term issues for those taking it, though. Nowadays recombinant derived human insulin has taken over with much better results (see, I am not anti-science or anti-molecular biology ). It is not unreasonable to suspect, therefore, that if trace amounts of rBGH or cattle IGF-1 made it chronically into the human blood stream that there might be long-term adverse consequences. I will repeat, that I am not saying this happens. I am simply stating my objection to your specific statement. I do appreciate your efforts to keep your arguments to the subject and not the person with whom you are discussing the issues. I would still ask, however, that you refrain from trying to put words in my mouth or assign arguments to me that I am not making.

It did for me at Pierre Gagnaire as well. Fortunately, I made up for it with some stellar meals at less "stellar" restaurants.

Thats silly... Everyone knows that .it's 2 + 2 = 5 . Seriously though humans are notorious for grossly overestimating the likleyhood and severity of rare errors while grossly underestimating the severity and likelyhood of common errors. Which is why more people have a fear of flying than a fear of driving, even though the drive to the airport is more dangerous than your plane trip. Even if the risks of BGH were real, the fact that it's taken so long to pick them up must mean they are incredibly subtle. Hardly something worth worrying about while other, very real and significant risks are ignored. ← You make a good point, but none of this worrying is mutually exclusive. What risks do you feel are being ignored?

mczlaw, Welcome to eGullet! Nice report. I believe that you have captured the essence of the restaurant and its appeal in these paragraghs, precisely what John Mariani didn't get as discussed here.

Barcelona, San Sebastián and Bilbao... Some people I know would say you haven't been to Spain at all, John... ← I did say in recent years, Victor

Is that true? I know that is the case in the US, but I was under the impression that it was indeed legal in Quebec.

Nathan, this is an interesting and provocative post. The "Green Revolution" has certainly promised a lot, but has it really delivered? If it has so far resulted in increased production of some crops in some places (yes, I know that there have been increased yields with various crops around the world), will those increases be sustainable over the long haul and at what price? I ask this in all sincerity as I believe that this is really the essential question. As for DDT and malaria, that is but one component of a larger question as to the overall effect. I do not purport to have all the answers, just a large dose of skepticism regarding promises not being kept and unexpected problems developing. I would be curious to see your information.

So your view is that one opinion is as good as another? Why is my opinion of equal or lesser weight than that of someone who has not even read the paper in question? This doesn't seem logical to me. Where and how do you draw this conclusion? I never said or implied that your opinion was not good. I have simply been trying to address the points, not the person. It is your total assumption that your opinion is necessarily more valid than mine or others who disagree with you as evidenced by your condescending and unnecessary and flawed statement, Do you deny that development of antibiotic resistance is a major problem? It is neither unforeseen nor hypothetical. It does occur and is a major health problem, just ask those people needing treatment for antibiotic resistant tuberculosis amongst other entities. Over and unnecessary use of antibiotics is a huge problem. Anything that encourages that with the unnecessary need for additional antibiotic use is part of that problem. This issue appears to fit the bill. I don't believe it is a conspiracy either. I never accused anyone of conspiracy. I just don't think that Monsanto's motives necessarily intertwine with what may be in the longterm best interest of the Earth and its inhabitants. I have admitted that the direct health effects of rBGH may not be significant for humans, although I still remain skeptical even if the scientific methods are flawless. I have seen too many instances in very respected journals where even years later, dogma has ultimately been refuted. You keep making the argument against organic milk as if I am arguing for it. My point is that I am skeptical of rBGH supplementation to dairy cattle and all that goes with it. I have not taken the affirmative response for the so called "organic" product. There is a difference. I still think that this would be a daunting study to do without the assistance of Monsanto and I doubt that they would give it willingly as they don't have anything to gain from it and potentially a lot to lose. My concerns about the product remain, however, even if I concede that it is likely to be safe as far as direct human health effects on humans ingesting the milk derived from animals to whom it has been applied- see below. Based on what? I deal with relative risk everyday. You have given no evidence to support this ad hominem statement. This is not and has not been my argument. Maybe it is risky, however, for many people who enjoy milk, there is also a defined benefit. There may be risk to raw milk cheeses. I feel that the cheeses are often sufficiently superior and my pleasure sufficiently great that I am generally willing to take that risk. Believe what you will. I have tried to counter your arguments with logic, but have been faced with a lot of ad hominem assumptions. I will not address this issue further with you if you continue to make those assumptions. Although I am not absolutely convinced that the potential for direct health effects are inconsequential, the possibility that they are not is not the crux of my argument. I am personally more concerned about wider issues that are not reflected in the Science article. If you wish to address the ideas directly or the issues I would be very happy to continue this discussion, however, if you continue to simply claim that you are a scientist and thererfore know better on that basis than count me out.

Sheer speculation, but the carcass quality of the cow might also be better at that two-year shorter date. This would also help offset things. There are many wholly-owned chains, e.g. Braums, that own the cows, and the stores and sell the meat from the cows in the stores. "Value-added" I think is the concept. ← Ah, yes, watch me continually expose my ignorance of the whole agri-business... It's really not appetizing, is it? although presumably knowing the meat is used is better than thinking it isn't. It just feels so calculating and profit-driven, to me. ← I don't mind the profit driven aspect of this so long as it is done responsibly and I have the ability to vote with my wallet.

Globhal warming produces riper grapes? Hmm, I always thought vintners picked their grapes according to how ripe they were. This article implies that the harvest is done on the same day every year, and that in warm years the grapes will be riper on the designated "Harvest day." I don't believe that's how it works... ← While you are correct about this, one thing to consider is that the climate can potentially effect the peak sugar level in a grape so that if a grape never achieves a significantly high level in the first place it is not going to contribute to a high alcohol wine. But you are correct that if that is not a consideration when the grapes are picked and at what brix level is up to the vintner. I personally agree with those that think the major influence on this is fashion, although I don't think the global warming question is entirely preposterous if it means that more vintners are now able to make higher alcohol wines because their grapes are now able to achieve higher sugar levels.

Then I would think you would know enough to actually look up the paper read it as well as all the studies it cites before you decide that it is worthless. If you were a professional scientist such as myself you would have a much deeper understanding of these matters. ← I never said the paper was worthless. It is a good paper and appears to be a good study. Nevertheless many "good studies" in "reputable journals", even journals such as Science have later on been shown to be problematic. Whether this one will or not remains to be determined. Your assessment that this is valid and you feel comfortable with it is certainly your right. Once again, however, you should beware of making condescending remarks. You know nothing about me or next to nothing and your statement about what you think my level of understanding is is an ad hominem remark that I take exception to. I will not engage in a flame war with you or attack your qualifications of which I know nothing more than what you claim. However, a scientist knows that what is today's fact is often tomorrow's falacy. I am not saying that the study is wrong, but I do remain skeptical of it, Monsanto and the industry in general. I also remain very skeptical of the business of science. We all know that numbers can be used in many different ways to support arguments and scientific studies can be and are often manipulated toward a desired result. I fear that this is especially the case in industrial science in which scientists' livelihoods rest on the backs of their industrial supporters. I am not saying that the scientists are fudging data or corrupt. I am saying that it is easy to manipulate data and results to prove a point and that it is easy to withhold data that does not support a point. Whether that is the case with this topic or not I can not say, however, the possibility of it is one reason I remain skeptical of it. Skepticism is a trait that any reputable scientist should have. The major argument I have been making doesn't even concern the question of direct effects on human health. I am more concerned about the indirect effects on health and the environment based upon needs for increased or persistent need for antibiotic coverage and the potential for development of resistance, etc. I certainly don't trust Monsanto to evaluate that properly. There is certainly the potential with any new technology to have many hidden risks and costs. Some technologies, including many potential uses for recombinant genetics have potential benefits that are readily apparent and worth taking some degree of risk for. I still fail to see that for this technology, even if I were to accept that the potential for direct effect on human health is minimal.

Pedro, this is sensational. The series presented a very enlightening view of one of the great chefs of the world. It's funny how a sort of rivalry has grown up between Santi Santamaria and Ferran Adria. Personally, like Corinna, I am glad they are both doing what they are doing. I find them to be complementary rather than at odds. Life and dining would be much more boring and certainly less delicious without either of them.

Hardly an exclusive Barcelona trait. Indeed, it's an apt definition of Spain as a whole these days. Culinarily and otherwise. ← No doubt, although the only other area of Spain that I have been to in recent years is San Sebastian and Bilbao. I will have to remedy that.

I think these wines generally tend to be highly extracted, although they come with varying degrees of oak. In general, they do tend to be more new world or globally styled. The ones I mentioned above are reasonably well balanced if you can find them.

I can't touch Carswell's fine post, but in the spirit of the original request here are a few that come to mind.... Rabbit Ridge Fairview Goats do Roam Fairview Goat Roti Grog's leap Stag's Leap Stags' Leap Cheval Blanc Ravenswood

As a general rule, they are inky deep purple fruit bombs much beloved by Mr. Parker and myself. I had the pleasure last year of visiting a couple of wineries in the area, Masia Duch and Jose Puig. The most common grape varietals are grenache, carignan,cab and merlot. The area itself is arid, mountainous and beautiful.

Funny, bu this doesn't sound terribly appetizing!

The more sugar there is in the original juice, the more there is that can ferment to alcohol, no? If the sugar content is high and the wine maker wishes to ferment it to low residual sugar it is my understanding that the result will be a high alcohol wine, which happens to conform to the Parker style and therefore a high degree of fashionability. While I do not find the idea preposterous, I think the high alcohol content in wines today is more likely related to the desire to produce salable highlyrated highly extracted "fruit bombs".

Which lens did you use?

Please?

My goodness, Patrick, this takes the cake! I can't say which is better, the photography or the cake. The cake looks absolutely extraordinary. I want some!!!!