docsconz

The current iteration of the tasting menu has had some interesting reactions. I have been most surprised and disappointed by Wendy's response as I have sensed that we share similar culinary interests and I very much urged her to go to WD-50. In fact my wife and I hoped to join her there, but couldn't connect. I have never had anything from Wylie or Sam that I haven't enjoyed immensely on different levels, but then I haven't tried this particular menu. Even so, I share the sentiment stated above that given the nature and spirit of the restaurant, I would be willing to afford it an occasional off-note. It has been way too long since I have been there, though. i have to figure out how and when I can remedy that.

Don't fret too much about not having anyone doing anything this creative in Montreal. There aren't too many places anywhere doing food like this.

One of the things that makes Barcelona such a vibrant city and a city absolutely worth visiting is the mutual existence and complementary nature of the traditional and the new. The city and Catalunya would be less exciting and interesting without either.

My kids drink a lot of milk. We go through a couple of gallons per day. When I was a kid I drank a lot of soda. Now I drink water or wine. I prefer the taste of goat's milk or youghurt when I have cereal. While this could be heading off topic, I offer this in light of Sam's and Michael's posts and to reflect one source of my interest in this topic.

I would be more concerned about choking to death on a steak or getting Q-fever from my organic milk then with risks associated with rBGH. These are apples and orange comparisons. At least with a steak I can anticipate the pleasure of it and enjoy eating it. Raw milk cheese as well. At least those have significant potential benefits for me. It is not that it is a single study; you will not see another publication on the subject in a reputable journal unless it refutes the first study. That is the way science is done. ← The study may or may not be a good one, but this statement is more than a little condescending and more than a little inaccurate. I have been involved in the world of science and scientific studies since 1977. My undergraduate major was in molecular genetics and I have been involved in laboratory and clinical studies over the years including having published and cited work. I believe that there is a lot of potential benefit that we have received and smany till to be had from Molecular genetics and its offshoots, but I do not believe it blindly or because one study (even in a reputable journal) says that something is so. Studies can be flawed in any number of ways. Was that study funded by Monsanto? They would not be likely to fund or publish any additional studies to possibly contradict a study that supported their product. Unfortunately, that practice is all too commonplace in the world of industrial science. Merck and Vioxx an otherwise excellent and valuable drug are examples of this phenomenon as Merck apparently held back adverse outcome data. An independent study to adequately examine the issue would likely be very expensive to do and would quite likely not receive any help from Monsanto (e.g. product to examine) and could quite likely come under fire from the company's daunting legal arm. Actually in most of the world of non-industrial science, corroborative studies are appreciated and welcomed. That is not at all uncommon in the medical literature. So the question I ask is why aren't there supporting studies? See above for a possible explanation. This is good and somewhat reassuring. perhaps the potential direct effects really are minimal. I still don't see the real benefits to society at large. I think this is a case of a company selling a product. I am still not convinced that the potential benefits of this product outweighs the potential risks. However, I am not nor have I ever in this thread been talking solely about direct human health risks. Technology is not evil. Some if its products and uses can be dangerous, however, with the potential for many unforeseen consequences. I am also not saying nor have I been saying that "organic" is the end all and be all. I do believe, however, that some ways of doing things are more sustainable than others, more economically beneficial to society (as opposed to specific entities) than others and actually produce more varied and better products than others. I am not convinced that the addition of increased amounts of BGH recombinant or otherwise fits those criteria. That is not to say that other technologies could not and have not. I would not be able to do my job nearly as well as I do without so many technologic advances.

That is why we pump them full of antibiotics. I am also for irradiating the milk instead of pasteurizing. Pasteurizing doesn't get all of the bacteria, which is why milk spoils. ← This is one of the major related problems I was referring to and one of the risks of this technology that is not readily apparent. What happens when animals keep getting pumped full of antibiotics is that that the bacteria against whom the bacteria are used become ever more resistant and the race continues at ever greater expense to fight those bacteria that might not have needed to be fought in the first place. This issue of antibiotic resistance is a huge one certainly amongst humans and the way antibiotics are used in animal husbandry by factory farms I am sure it is there as well.

i must not have explained myself very well earlier on. I never said that using additional BGH caused diabetes. What I did say is that there are a number of health issues such as diabetes that are mysteriously on the rise. The cause or causes are unknown. My principle point is that it is a very complex issue and because a single study of a commercial product even in a reputable journal such as Science, deems it "safe", doesn't necessarily mean it is so. There are potentially other factors besides direct effects on an organism. I am not saying that the additional use of this hormone is bad. I don't know that. I am just not yet convinced of its value (to me) and that it is not bad. I agree that "organic" or "natural"as buzzwords are not necessarily all that it is purported to be. I much prefer sustainability for a guiding principle. I also agree that quality of product is of paramount importance. Every food item bears some degree of health risk. The question is, is the item worth the risk?

This is cool. I will have to keep an eye out for both. Patrice, will you have the books at the restaurant?

Some may be more innocuous than others. What we don't know may hurt us. I am not making the affirmative statement that it is healthy. I am saying that I am still skeptical of BGH. I am also not anti-technology. Many real advances have been made. But then not all advances are real or real significant. I still fail to see what the potential benefit of this technology is to me. I do see the risks.

I just wanted to note that "Science" is more than just a legitimate journal, but arguably the pre-eminent Scientific journal. No doubt and the study is probably very good for what it is. And your point is? These performance enhancing drugs haven't exactly been demonstrated as safe. Smaller doses may be less of a concern, but that does not mean they are not a concern. I still do not see the benefit here. If you do, great. Enjoy it and for your sake as well as your future generations I sincerely hope the risk is as low as you believe it is. That may be one cause, but it is by no means the only one as the incidence and prevalence of diabtes type 2 amongst non-obese and younger people is increasing at an alarming rate. The causes are not clearly understood right now. It could, although I find that unlikely. The risk to any given individual from this practice may not be high, but I do believe that as regards individual health and the health of society as a whole (not just medical health), the jury is still out and will be out for some time. I prefer to proceed on the side of caution.

Carcinogenesis is but one concern of potential food related health effects. I agree that "natural" does not necessarily mean "healthy" as there are many natural poisons. I also agree that synthetic does not necessarily mean unhealthy. Nevertheless, I remain quite skeptical of the milk from BGH treated cows as well as any studies that have concluded it "safe". For example, looking at the world at large, there appears to be some major shifting of some disease profiles going on. Diabetes is probably the most prominent. Now I am not saying that the marked increase in diabetes is due to the use of BGH. That is too far a stretch and too complex a problem to lay at the foot of a single culprit. It is, however, troubling and I cannot say that the hormone is not involved in that or other issues, either. The problem with declaring it safe is that the epidemiology is very complex and cause and effect associations are very difficult to prove, especially when there is a lot of money behind a particular product. I simply do not trust the current results. As a result, I prefer to avoid the product for now and have my family drink the older product that is relatively tried and true. Everything we eat and drink has some risk. In my job I have to assess risk vs. benefit and balance them as best I can. I do not see that benefit outweighs the risks with this product.

These of course would be the "Noble" Prizes.

Patrice Demers is one of the most talented pastry chefes I have ever encountered. I wish him luck with his book. I will either have to learn better French (I'm trying) or hopes it comes out in English. I noticed on the samed page of the link above that Laurent Godbout has a new book as well. Has anyone seen that?

From the cited article: How cool is that?

awesome! I love this dish. I used some of your techniques for a stir-fry tonight with variations. It came out pretty well. Thanks again for taking the time and putting in the effort to do this.

David Rosengarten in a recent issue of his newsletter lauded El Bulli and basically told readers who were interested to say he recommended them. He did not promise any results, although that appeared to be implied. I personally doubt that would make a difference, but one never knows. In many of his newsletters he offers subscribers "codes" so that when they order products that he recommends from a particular vendor/producer, the customer will get something extra or a particular discount. I like his newsletter, because every product that I have tried based upon his recommendation has been excellent.

I made an interesting and tasty variation on a martini the other night with Tanqueray No. 10 and a splash of nocino shaken with ice. The No. 10 was very smooth and delicious. Unfortunately, I can't compare it to the gins mentioned here other than basic Tanqueray, to which No. 10 is the smoother with a bit more of a citrus component to it.

Daniel, I do not believe that anyone is arguing for ignorance. I wholeheartedly agree that at least a rudimentary knowledge of the language of wine helps with its enjoyment. However, one must learn to walk before one can run. One must get over the initial intimidation to be able to say, "hey, I like this stuff". Now I have no idea if this stuff is at all likeable, whether by a new wine drinker or an expert. I don't really intend to find out as I like to pair my wine and food.

Nicely said, and you did add something new to the discussion after all these pages!

Perhaps Stephen Spurrier who organized the famous blind tasting of the 70's that showed that non-French wines could also excel. That was a revolutionary moment in wine-drinking circles.

Wendy, I'm disappointed that you didn't enjoy it more. The only dish that you had that I have had ws the deconstructed tongue. Ironically, while I thought the dish good, it was one of my less favorite dishes the night I had it. I am still dying to try the shrimp "pasta". Is anyone in Seattle doing anything like this?

Daniel, I don't disagree with you, but the fact is that many people who might enjoy wine are intimidated by it and stay away from it as a result. Most children walk before they can talk. People need to be introduced to wine before they can get into it. Those who do and have curiosity will seek out communication about it. Those that start with an innate curiosity will also be less likely to opt for this product as a starter and will look for education.

I agree with Vinfidel. If this gets people drinking wine rather than beer because people feel less intimidated so much the better for the wine industry. As people get used to drinking more wine, many will get bored with the plonk and seek out different products. Many will just stick with this kind of product, but I don't necessarily think that is a bad thing. Demand for interesting high end wines will not disappear because of this. I think it will only increase.

I don't think that the restaurant has ever been a money machine, but I hope this is nothing more than a rumor.

Once again, a beautiful report, Molto! The uni/oyster combo looks dynamite. What is the little herbal (?) strip on top? I have never seen a fish head presented on a sashimi platter before. Was that simply for decoration or was it part of the platter to eat?