slkinsey
-
Posts
11,151 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Help Articles
Posts posted by slkinsey
-
-
1% alcohol required for beverages to be sold in liquor stores?
So you can't even sell tonic or soda?
That's weird.
Do other states have similar rules?
I've never seen soda or any other nonalcoholic mixers for sale in a NYC liquor store. For that matter, you can't even buy beer in a NYC liquor store.
-
Flatiron Lounge recently had a nice Apry drink on their menu called the "Slope" (presumably after Park Slope). It's similar to the Red Hook, only substituting Apry for the maraschino. The Red Hook is 2 rye and half each of Punt e Mes and maraschino. Since Apry is not as assertive as maraschino, you'll want to play with the ratios a bit to find out what works best.
Another cool cocktail for Apry is the Golden Dawn (equal parts Calvados, gin, Cointreau, Apry -- shake, strain, dribble in a little grenadine).
Apry would also be good as the sweet component of a Julep (I've been making gin juleps with St. Germain elderflower liqueur, but that's for another thread).
-
There are a couple of issues here.
Issue #1 is whether or not those products are on some distributor's list for your state or not. It's possible that they are on some distributor's list and simply not actually stocked by the distributor in the state. It's also possible that it is stocked by the distributor in the state, and your liquor store doesn't stock it himself. The last one is the best case scenario, because you can get your liquor store to special-order some for you. The other situations are a little trickier. It's not clear that you, as an individual consumer can do much of anything. To make an example: Despite the fact that most of the top bars in NYC were asking for Laird's bonded, and despite the fact that there was built-in demand for the product such that the distributor would know it was going to move a certain reasonable volume of Laird's bonded in NYC, and despite the fact that Laird's bonded was on the list for NY, it still took over a year plus a number of phone calls from Laird's to the NY distributor before any of it came into the distributor's NY inventory.
-
Wrt measures for the Vesper, this is something we've discussed before over in the Vesper thread.
The original formula is "...Three measures of Gordon's, one of vodka, half a measure of Kina Lillet. Shake it very well until it's ice-cold, then add a large thin slice of lemon-peel."
Erik, you pointed out that the "bar measure" in England was, at the time of Casino Royale, 1/6th gill. That elicited the following post from me:
Convert-Me.com is a very convenient web site for converting all kinds of measures.1 gill = 4 ounces = 11.8 centiliters (118.3 milliliters)
1/6 gill = 2/3 ounce = 1.97 centiliters (19.72 milliliters)
25 milliliters (2.5 centiliters) = 0.85 ounces = 0.21 gills
For all intents and purposes, the old bar measure of 1/6 gill was 2 cl and the new bar measure of 2.5 cl is 1/5 gill. So the bar measure became effectively 25% larger with the switch to metric measures.
What this means about Bond's drink is a bit more complicated. Casino royale was published in 1953. As far as I know, the UK begain to adopt metric measures sometime around 1965. This means that the original Vesper was probably measured in gills and not in centiliters. Something like this:
3/6 gill Gordon's gin
1/6 gill vodka
1/12 gill Lillet Blanc
Or, converted to ounces:
2 ounces Gordon's gin
2/3 ounce vodka
1/3 ounce Lillet Blanc
Certainly not a large drink by modern standards. Probably 4 ounces or a little more after dilution with water from melting ice.
Dave's right to substitute Tanqueray for Gordon's, because the latter has come down in proof considerably since the time of Casino Royale.
-
Interestingly, while the first stufy Paul links to says:
"Results of surveys and of clinical challenges with MSG in the general population reveal no evidence of untoward effects."
It also says:
"... large doses of MSG given without food may elicit more symptoms than a placebo in individuals who believe that they react adversely to MSG."
This suggests the possibility of a purely psychosomatic response in some people who are convinced they are "allergic to MSQ" (after all, umami can be tasted).
-
How does that last one support MSG sensitivity? It says:
Blood levels of glutamate associated with lesions of the hypothalamus in the neonatal mouse were not approached in humans even after bolus doses of 10 g MSG in drinking water. Because human studies failed to confirm an involvement of MSG in "Chinese Restaurant Syndrome" or other idiosyncratic intolerance, the JECFA allocated an "acceptable daily intake (ADI) not specified" to glutamic acid and its salts. No additional risk to infants was indicated. The Scientific Committee for Food (SCF) of the European Commission reached a similar evaluation in 1991. The conclusions of a subsequent review by the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB) and the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) did not discount the existence of a sensitive subpopulation but otherwise concurred with the safety evaluation of JECFA and the SCF. -
...I still say that mine looks today just like it did when I got it, and performs the same too.
Right. Mine too... only I'm talking about a $25 PTFE coated pan I've had for around 5 years, not a $100 one.
-
Also for clarification: I assume that when John says "more than a half-ounce of maraschino" we're speaking of a standard "cocktailian sized" 3-ounce drink.
-
Personally for me if I have a drink that calls for more than 1/2 oz or greater of Maraschino I will use Maraska, otherwise I will use Luxardo. I find any more than 1/2 oz of Luxardo and the drink turns into a Luxardo drink.
Yea, I'm with you on that one (not that I have too many drinks with more than a half-ounce of maraschino). Although sometimes I might be tempted to just dial back the Luxardo a little bit to balance the drink. On the other hand, Maraska maraschino is a very good-quality product, albeit less assertive and funky than Luxardo maraschino, so there's no reason not to use it -- especially if dialing back the Luxardo means that you have to add sweetness from another source (e.g., simple) to balance against a sour component.
I guess one might compare the difference to, say, the difference between Wild Turkey and Maker's Mark. Both are high quality, distinctive products, but Wild Turkey is much more assertive. Different drinks would lend themselves to different choices between these two. Stock, on the other hand, compares to an okay-quality blended whiskey. Yea, there are a few cocktails where the blended whiskey might be just the thing you need. But I wouldn't choose to stock just the blended whiskey because it was "easier-mixing." If I could only choose one and was wanted one that was broadly compatible in a wide variety of cocktails, I guess I'd probably choose Maker's. This same reasoning might lead me to stock Maraska as my only maraschino, but never Stock.
Edited to add: Don, I'm with you in thinking that Luxardo is THE maraschino (although fwiw, I have an extremely knowledgable friend that makes the same argument in favor of Maraska). I probably go through 4 bottles of Luxardo for every 1 of Maraska.
-
I have a hard time putting too much credence in things that originate from truthinlabeling.org, which I have perused and much of which smacks of quackery.
-
That is interesting, and I have in the past speculated that some of the issues certain people have with MSG might have to do with contaminants in the industrial process. However, it should be pointed out that this would only apply to actual MSG, and not to things like hydrolyzed protein, autolyzed yeast, etc.
-
takadi, your "refined glutamates" idea doesn't work. There is no chemical difference between the glutamate from powdered MSG and the glutamate from aged cheese and the glutamate from kombu (etc, etc, etc.).
It is entirely possible that, for some people, foods high in glutamates trigger migranes or have other health effects. But these people should have the same problem from eating a big hunk of parmesan cheese that they have from eating a handfull of Doritos that they have from eating a cup of Chinese soup.
-
Gingerol is a relative of capsaicin. Heat, oxidation and and degradation over time transform gingerol into the compound zingerone. Zingerone is not present in fresh ginger and it's an aromatic flavor compound that isn't spicy-hot like gingerol. Gingerol seems to degrade fairly rapidly in a sugar-syrup solution (perhaps due to oxidation?). I've had some bottled ginger beers that have kept s good bite for quite some time in the bottle, but I have to assume that some special handling, processing or treating makes this possible. Experience says that ginger-infused simple syrup doesn't have much bite after a few days.
-
so while I was having a Last Word made at Milk & Honey last night I noticed that they were using Stock Maraschino. I asked if they preferred it to Luxardo and Maraskova. they stated that Luxardo was too difficult to balance in cocktails...too strong and that it was better sipped on its own.
this seems to fly against CW but I have noticed that when I make an Aviation at home with Luxardo I use less of it than when I used Stock...alternatively, it works well when tempered with violette liqueur.
thoughts?
Personally, I think Stock maraschino is pretty lame. I'm not even sure it's real maraschino. Now... that said, the real thing (Luxardo or Maraska) can be a bit funky and strong for inexperienced palates. So, for those people, Stock has its place.
As for that the person said at M&H... Well, let's just say that they have to make hard decisions as to what they will stock, because they just don't have room for 3 different brands of maraschino. Last time I was there, they also weren't stocking Lillet -- I guess there just weren't enough orders for Lillet cocktails to justify taking up the space with a bottle. So, I guess if they want an easy-mixing brand of maraschino that will be acceptable to the largest number of customers, Stock is a logical choice. And, let's be honest, Milk & Honey isn't getting the same percentage of die-hard cocktail geeks they were getting 3-4 years ago. It's too well-known now, and there are too many other games in town. You or I might be disappointed if an Aviation didn't have that Luxardo funk, but the average M&H customer might be put off by the funk.
All that said, it's disappointing to me to hear that a leading cocktail bar in New York City is using Stock instead of Luxardo because, supposedly, Luxardo is "too difficult to balance in cocktails." That's like choosing Stock triple sec over Cointreau because Cointreau is "too difficult to balance in cocktails." I don't think there can be any argument that Luxardo isn't a superior product, and if it's intensity of flavor and funk makes it a little more "difficult to balance" -- well, that's why we're paying 15 bucks a cocktail at M&H: to have people with the expertise to balance the best, most distinctive spirits in a cocktail.
-
...if you dine at Per Se today - you are limited to 1 of 2 fixed $250 tasting menus. Plus liquor - tax and 20% tip.
Um... There is no need to tip 20% at Per Se. It is "service included."
-
I would argue that you can make 95% of all Italian foods using regular home equipment. The only central Italian food you truly cannot make at home is dry pasta. For this reason, I'm not sure you picked a good list of "iconic Italian foods" (they are more "iconic Italian" to those of us who are not Italian than to actual Italians). I also think that one could pick a similarly difficult to make list for other countries.
Your list is espresso, gelato, dry pasta and pizza.
I would say that most everyone who lives in Italy lives within a reasonably short distance from a bar where they can get a decent shot of espresso (and a good cup of gelato and a decent pizza). But, more to the point, espresso is largely a 20th century machine-age invention. Meanwhile, most Italians who drink coffee at home use a mokka and make a slightly different style of coffee that is equally good, just different.
I would argue that gelato isn't considered an "iconic Italian food" inside Italy (they simply think of it as "ice cream"). I would also argue that making quality ice cream at any level requires lots of expensive equipment. Yes, you can make old-fashioned American-style ice cream with nothing more than ice, rock salt and a hand-cranked machine, but it won't be as good as the stuff you get at Emack & Bolio's after your homemade stuff has spent a day sitting in your freezer. And, for that matter, if you feel like keeping your ice bath a little warmer, cranking a little more slowly and eating your gelato on the same day you make it, you can have absolutely outstanding homemade gelato for very little money. It's just a huge pain in the ass.
Dry pasta is a factory-made product. Not sure there is anything in French cooking that compares to this.
As for pizza, I would argue that access to wood-fired ovens capable of making great pizza is not all that unusual in rural Italy, and of course it is possible to make a certain style of "casalinga" pizza with typical home equipment.
But, as I said, it would be possible to say similar things about other cuisines. For example, what is more "iconic French" than the boule and baguette? Impossible to make at the highest level without an expensive oven (unless you live in the country and have access to a traditional communal oven). There are, of course, all kinds of effects that are possible on expensive French restaurant equipment that are difficult, if not impossible to duplicate in a home kitchen -- certainly no more possible to duplicate than making Italian coffee, pizza or gelato on a home setup. What about "iconic" American barbecue? Needs an expensive pit. "Iconic" Chinese wok cooking? Need an expensive wok burner setup. The list could go on and on and on.
-
I'm interested to hear why you say that "even if the coating lasts forever, its performance will be gone, anywhere from 6 months to a few years from now." What do you mean -- that food will start sticking to the surface? Do you have any evidence to back this up?
No evidence, just the accumulated experience of all the cooks that I know.
It is worthy of note that typical restaurant use of nonstick-coated pans (and all cookware in general) is far more abusive than what most home cooks would do. Almost certainly restaurants violate the warranty and instructions of any PTFE-coated cookware, most commonly by using much higher heat settings. In restaurant kitchens, PTFE-coated pans might be used over very high heat --higher than most home stoves can achieve -- with very little oil to cook "crispy-skin fish fillets" and things like that.
All of this is to say that the professional cook's experience that PTFE coatings don't tend to last more than 6 months to a year is not necessarily at odds with the home cook's experience that they can last and continue to be effective for a much longer period of time. The pans are simply being used in radically different ways.
However, the general point about not spending big bucks on PTFE-coated cookware still stands. So long as the pans have similarly thick layers of thermal material (typically, aluminum) the PTFE coating on a $38 restaurant-grade pan ought to last just as long as the PTFE coating on a $109 Swiss Diamond pan.
I think that's more a customer service issue. I've sent pans back to a number of companies over the years. Some argue with you and some just say 'here's a new pan'My experience is that SD leans toward - here's the new pan.
That's your experience? As in, you sent them a pan for warranty replacement because the PTFE coating was degraded/damaged and they sent you a brand new one, no questions asked? If so, I could see spending the extra money and simply getting a free replacement pan every few years...
-
regenbauma, I have a few questions and concerns perhaps you can address.
With respect to the warranty -- Your web site says: "Swiss Diamond USA Inc (we are not Swiss Diamond, we are a retailer of their products) will repair or replace, at their discretion, any item found to be defective, to the original purchaser. The decision whether an item is considered defective under this warranty rests solely with them. " What does this mean, exactly? There are plenty of things that ordinarily happen to degrade the coating on nonstick-coated cookware that would not be considered "defective." Where can we see a list of "defects" allowable under the warranty? And, where are defective pans sent for warranty claims? To the manufacturer in Switzerland? Or somewhere in the US?
I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss most of the criticisms on the NewsTarget.com web site. Most of them are absolutely correct from a scientific basis. For example:
As to the claim that the pans have "outstanding heat distribution with no hot spots" due to the use of diamond dust: This assertion is ridiculous on its face to anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of thermal physics and heat transfer. The only way the diamonds could meaningfully contribute to the overall thermal conductivity of the pan would be if diamond constituted a meaningful percentage of the material from which the pan is constructed. Aluminum with a microfine dusting of diamond dust on the outside will have the thermal conductivity characteristics of aluminum, not diamond.
A reading of Swiss Diamond publicity materials reveals that these are aluminum pans coated with Polytetrafluoroethylene (aka PTFE) and diamond dust. There are several ways the publicity materials are misleading as to the coating.
First, the claim that the pans are not coated with "Teflon" is only true insofar as "Teflon" is a registered trademark of DuPont. In fact, PTFE and "Teflon" are the same substance and so it is untrue to claim that Swiss Diamond's coating is meaningfully different from "Teflon" as to safety or any other characteristics attributable to "Teflon."
Second, the Swiss Diamond publicity materials make a big deal out of saying that their coating does not contain any Perfluorooctanoic acid (aka C-8 or PFOA). PFOA is considered a carciniogen and it is used in the manufacture of PTFE. However, PTFE does not contain PFOA, and Swiss Diamond's PTFE is no different from anyone else's PTFE in that respect. Ironically, the publicity materials claim that one reason this is so is because Swiss Diamond pans "use far less PTFE . . . than any other non-stick pan." I would hardly call this an advantage, and it is likely that these pans are able to use less PFTE because the diamond dust creates a "sacrifice layer" (more on this later).
Third, the claim that the coating is a "nano-composite" is misleading at best. Yes, one may call anything with parts that are smaller than one micrometer (i.e., something that would be measured in nanometers) "nano-whatever." However, it's not as though Swiss Diamond's coating incorporates nanotubes or buckminsterfullerene, or was assembled on an atomic level. Rather, the coating is made of PTFE with really small pieces of diamond mixed into it.
Fourth, the claim that the coating derives any meaningful advantages from the supposed non-stick characteristics of the diamond dust is of dubious legitimacy. Swiss Diamond claims that "there are over 200,000 diamond crystals in each Swiss Diamond pan." Let's examine that. Let's assume that each crystal has a surface area of 1 square micrometer (in reality they would have to be smaller to be considered "nano"). Okay, 200,000 square micrometers is equal to 20 square centimeters. Let's be generous and double that amount. Let's say each pan has 40 square centimeters of diamond dust surface area. Now let's think about a small 9.5 inch (24 centimeter) frypan. A little math tells us that the cooking surface of that pan will be 452 square centimeters. So, at a generous doubling of Swiss Diamond's marketing claim diamond dust still only comprises a maximum of 9% of the surface area of the pan. The rest of the pan is good old regular PTFE, just like every other non-stick coated pan. Even assuming that diamond really is super-non-stick, it's hard to imagine that an 9% diamond dust surface area will contribute meaninfully to a non-stick coating's non-stickness or durability. If the diamond bits have any effect whatsoever, it is likely that they create "microbumps" above the main surface of the PTFE coating, which reduces wear on the main body of the coating and facilitates even oil dispersion in the pan (variations of this process are employed on most modern PTFE coated cookware).
I find the scratch test done by the NewsTarget guy to be quite compelling as to the durability of Swiss Diamond's coating. I'm not saying that I would expect better durability from any other PTFE coating. But it does demonstrate that Swiss Diamond's coating is no more durable than most any other PTFE coating. I also think you're off base in suggesting that the NewsTarget report is overly sensationalistic and "against" Swiss Diamond in an effort to profit from Google ads. I don't see any evidence of Google ads on the site, and the About NewsTarget page says:
The NewsTarget Network is a non-profit collection of public education websites covering topics that empower individuals to make positive changes in their health, environmental sensitivity, consumer choices and informed skepticism. The NewsTarget Network is owned and operated by Truth Publishing International, Ltd., a Taiwan corporation. It is not recognized as a 501©3 non-profit in the United States, but it operates without a profit incentive, and its key writer, Mike Adams, receives absolutely no payment for his time, articles or books other than reimbursement for items purchased in order to conduct product reviews.Here at the NewsTarget Network, we believe that information should empower people, not just entertain them. News should be practical and unbiased, not influenced by money from big advertisers. Accordingly, the NewsTarget Network has adopted the Declaration of Journalistic Independence, which clearly spells out our ethics and behavior as a news organization. Unlike most news organizations, the NewsTarget Network never solicits, nor accepts money from the companies we write about. This is one reason why our information is known around the world for its authenticity and honesty, and why our readers find tremendous value in the content we offer.
The one area where I take exception to the NewsTarget report is where the writer engages in scare tactics with respect to the possibility of eating particles of PTFE. In fact, PTFE is one of the most benigh substances in the human body, and has great biocompatibility with humans. This is why PTFE has been used in artificial tendons and other sorts of things that stay in the body for years and years. The main danger of PTFE is that is sheds microfine particles when it is exposed to excessive (>660F) temperatures, which can clog the breathing apparatus of birds and potentially some very small animals.
So, in sum, I don't see how Swiss Diamond cookware is in any way worth a huge markup over buying something like Calphalon nonstick on one of the occasional Amazon.com supersales, or simply buying and discarding a $20 commercial pan every few years. I have friends who have owned (and diswasher-washed) Calphalon Commercial Nonstick pans for around 10 years, and the pans are still performing quite well. But no pan that has been subjected to regular use and cleaning over this time period is quite as nonstick as a brand new PTFE-coated pan.
-
MSG is a specific, refined product. Monosodium glutamate is a sodium salt of glutamate (meaning that it is glutamate plus a sodium atom), which is the commonly occurring anion (negatively charged ion) of glutamic acid, which is a common and important amino acid having the chemical formula C5H9NO4. Under FDA rules, when MSG is added to a food in its refined form, it must be listed on the ingredient list as "monosodium glutamate."
All these other so-called "sneaky ways to get MSG into the food" are, in fact, not additions of monosodium glutamate (the sodium salt of glutamate). Rather these are ingredients that are high in free glutamates. That said, many of the things listed by Athena1963 are added to processed foods precisely because they contain lots of free glutamates, and they don't particularly contribute other flavors (of course, the same might be said about the kombu kelp traditionally used in making dashi). But it would not be accurate or appropriate to characterize them as "adding MSG."
When monosodium glutamate is dissolved in water, it dissociates into free sodium and glutamate ions, much the same way that table salt dissociates into free sodium and chlorine ions. There is, then, no difference between the glutamate ions that come into your body from monosodium glutamate and the glutamate ions that come into your body from other sources of free glutamate.
You can increase the concentration of glutamate ions in a food by adding traditional ingredients that are high in free glutamtes (soy sauce, kombu, parmesan and other aged cheeses, tomato concentrate, etc.), or by adding nontraditional ingredients (hydrolyzed protein, autolyzed yeast, etc.) or by adding refined monosodium glutamate. The fact remains, however, that unless you are someone who has a bad reaction from foods that are naturally high in free glutamates like dashi, soy sauce, parmesan cheese, and so on, you are not going to have as bad reaction from eating foods that contain either the nontraditional ingredient sources of free glutamate or simply straight MSG.
-
From the DOH Website:
Inspection Date: 01/26/2005Violation points: Not Available *
Violations were cited in the following significant area(s) and those requiring immediate action were addressed.
1.) Non-food contact surface improperly constructed. Unacceptable material used. Non-food contact surface or equipment improperly maintained.
2.) Lighting inadequate. Fixture not shielded.
3.) Facility not vermin proof. Harborage or conditions conducive to vermin exist.
4.) Sanitized equipment or utensil, including in-use food dispensing utensil, improperly used or stored.
5.) Food not protected from potential source of contamination during storage, preparation, transportation, display or service.
6.) Hand washing facility not provided in or near food preparation area and toilet room. Hot and cold running water at adequate pressure not provided at facility. Soap and an acceptable hand-drying device not provided.
7.) Evidence of mice or live mice present in facility.
Inspection Date: 01/06/2006Violation points: 34
Violations were cited in the following significant area(s) and those requiring immediate action were addressed.
1.) "Choking first aid" poster not posted."Alcohol and Pregnancy" Warning sign not posted. "Wash hands" sign not posted at hand wash facility. Resuscitation equipment: exhaled air resuscitation masks(adult & pediatric), latex gloves, sign not posted. Inspection report sign not posted.
2.) Accurate thermometer not provided in refrigerated or hot holding equipment.
3.) Toilet facility not maintained and provided with toilet paper, waste receptacle and self-closing door.
4.) Wiping cloths dirty or not stored in sanitizing solution.
5.) Personal cleanliness inadequate. Clean outer garments, effective hair restraint not worn.
6.) Evidence of mice or live mice present in facility's food and/or non-food areas.
7.) Food worker does not use proper utensil to eliminate bare hand contact with food that will not receive adequate additional heat treatment.
Inspection Date: 02/23/2006Violation points: 38
Violations were cited in the following significant area(s) and those requiring immediate action were addressed.
1.) Non-food contact surface improperly constructed. Unacceptable material used. Non-food contact surface or equipment improperly maintained.
2.) Lighting inadequate. Fixture not shielded.
3.) Toilet facility not maintained and provided with toilet paper, waste receptacle and self-closing door.
4.) Facility not vermin proof. Harborage or conditions conducive to vermin exist.
5.) Food contact surface not properly washed, rinsed and sanitized after each use and following any activity when contamination may have occurred.
6.) Personal cleanliness inadequate. Clean outer garments, effective hair restraint not worn.
7.) Evidence of mice or live mice present in facility's food and/or non-food areas.
8.) Food worker does not use proper utensil to eliminate bare hand contact with food that will not receive adequate additional heat treatment.
Inspection Date: 04/18/2006Violation points: 17
Violations were cited in the following significant area(s) and those requiring immediate action were addressed.
1.) Lighting inadequate. Fixture not shielded.
2.) Personal cleanliness inadequate. Clean outer garments, effective hair restraint not worn.
3.) Evidence of flying insects or live flying insects present in facility's food and/or non-food areas.
Inspection Date: 03/15/2007Violation points: 89
Violations were cited in the following significant area(s) and those requiring immediate action were addressed.
1.) Non-food contact surface improperly constructed. Unacceptable material used. Non-food contact surface or equipment improperly maintained.
2.) Lighting inadequate. Fixture not shielded.
3.) Plumbing not properly installed or maintained; anti-siphonage or backflow prevention device not provided where required; equipment or floor not properly drained; sewage disposal system in disrepair or not functioning properly.
4.) Facility not vermin proof. Harborage or conditions conducive to vermin exist.
5.) Personal cleanliness inadequate. Clean outer garments, effective hair restraint not worn.
6.) Hand washing facility not provided in or near food preparation area and toilet room. Hot and cold running water at adequate pressure not provided at facility. Soap and an acceptable hand-drying device not provided.
7.) Evidence of mice or live mice present in facility's food and/or non-food areas.
8.) Cooked or prepared food is cross-contaminated.
9.) Food Protection Certificate not held by supervisor of food operations.
Inspection Date: 03/23/2007Violation points: 16
Violations were cited in the following significant area(s) and those requiring immediate action were addressed.
1.) Non-food contact surface improperly constructed. Unacceptable material used. Non-food contact surface or equipment improperly maintained.
2.) Lighting inadequate. Fixture not shielded.
3.) Facility not vermin proof. Harborage or conditions conducive to vermin exist.
4.) Evidence of mice or live mice present in facility's food and/or non-food areas.
Inspection Date: 03/29/2007Violation points: 7
Violations were cited in the following significant area(s) and those requiring immediate action were addressed.
1.) Facility not vermin proof. Harborage or conditions conducive to vermin exist.
2.) Evidence of mice or live mice present in facility's food and/or non-food areas.
Inspection Date: 05/30/2007Current violation points: 77
Violations were cited in the following area(s) and those requiring immediate action were addressed.
1.) Non-food contact surface improperly constructed. Unacceptable material used. Non-food contact surface or equipment improperly maintained.
2.) Facility not vermin proof. Harborage or conditions conducive to vermin exist.
3.) Administration other
4.) Food contact surface not properly washed, rinsed and sanitized after each use and following any activity when contamination may have occurred.
5.) Food not protected from potential source of contamination during storage, preparation, transportation, display or service.
6.) Personal cleanliness inadequate. Clean outer garments, effective hair restraint not worn.
7.) Evidence of flying insects or live flying insects present in facility's food and/or non-food areas.
8.) Food worker does not use proper utensil to eliminate bare hand contact with food that will not receive adequate additional heat treatment.
9.) Food Protection Certificate not held by supervisor of food operations.
10.) Food not cooled by an approved method whereby the internal product temperature is reduced from 140°F to 70°F or less within 2 hours and from 70°F to 45°F or less within 4 additional hours.
-
Interesting stuff, Owen. Taking this information into consideration, the gloves issue for Dom DeMarco is that he a) removes the pizza from the oven using his bare hands and b) garnishes the pizza afterwards (with basil, etc.) using his bare hands. This is, of course, not the only issue the DOH has with the way things are being done at DiFara.
Part of the problem, I have to believe, is that Dom seems to be someone who has a bit of a stubborn streak and "won't be told" anything about his pizzeria (he doesn't let his own children make pizza and refused to visit their now-failed Manhattan pizzeria, for goodness' sake!). Unfortunately for him, as Steven points out, he's got no choices now other than slavishly obeying the DOH's every little whim or closing his doors. There's no playing games at this point.
One thing I have to admit I hadn't considered about wearing gloves is the spread of human-carried illness through contact with food. I've always thought of gloves as a way of (supposedly) ensuring that the cook's hands were clean to prevent the spread of bacteria from touching contaminated surfaces. Of course, gloves are actually not very effective at this, and may even increase the spread of contamination if workers are not diligent about changing them frequently. In general, I believe that washed hands are better because the worker should be more aware of when his hands are dirty. However, no amount of hand washing will prevent the spread of Hepatitis A.
-
Interesting timeline of DiFara's recent DOH involvement on Eater:
6/04/07 - Failed inspection with 51 points - Closed
5/30/07 - Failed inspection, 77 points
4/02/07 - Passed re-opening inspection
3/23/07 - Failed re-opening inspection
3/23/07 - Failed re-opening inspection
3/15/07 - Failed inspection 89 points - Closed
4/18/06 - Passed inspection with 21 points
2/23/06 - Failed inspection
1/06/06 - Failed inspection
7 failed inspections in 5 months is pretty bad. And the first two failed inspections came before the current DOH crackdown (the "KFC rats" video was posted on youtube on February 23).
-
In what way wouldn't they be "safe"? They might not be good, but something kept at 5 degrees F should be "safe" pretty much until the end of time, I'd think.
Most sources I've seen (like this one say something like "Frozen foods remain safe indefinitely; storage recommendations are for quality only."
Clearly, after 4 years there is likely to be some decline in quality (although at "deep freeze" temperatures, I'm not sure this would be true).
-
I'll be interested to see how it compares. One thing that I have to believe is integral to the Lockhart style is the use of open pits. This is simply not possible for a NYC restaurant (Hill Country uses Ole Hickory closed pits).
Proposed (by me) ban on wraps
in Food Traditions & Culture
Posted
Daniel, what Steven is talking about is a use of large flour tortillas as a bread replacement. Imagine a ham sandwich with mustard, Swiss cheese and lettuce on rye bread. Now, take away the rye bread and roll up everything else in an extra-large "spinach flavored" tortilla. That is a "wrap." The essence of "wrapness" is that the tortilla serves as a replacement for bread in an otherwise quotidian American sandwich. If the food is something that would ordinarily be served wrapped up in a tortilla (e.g., anything taco-like) then it would not be called a "wrap."
I don't prefer wraps, and I wouldn't necessarily buy one if I were going to buy a sandwich for lunch. But I do eat them with some regularity. This is for a few reasons.
First, I can get very high quality extra-large flour tortillas at Fairway. If I had to make do with those flabby, faux-flavored Mission brand flour tortillas, I don't think I could do it.
Second, they are a good choice for weight control versus bread, although one wrap often has more calories than two slices of bread. This is because, if you're me, you'd like to fill up the sandwich as much as possible with low-calorie ingredients (lettuce, arrugula, sprouts, onions, peppers, mushrooms, cucumbers, tomatoes, etc.) and use a small amount of high calorie foods like meats and cheeses primarily for flavoring. This way I can get the stomach-filling satisfaction of eating a big sandwich with a relatively small number of calories. Logistically, it's simply impossible to get that amount of vegetables between two slices of rye bread.
Third, I find that wraps are better than bread when I'm packing a lunch. If a sandwich is going to be living in the refrigerator wrapped in wax paper and stuck inside a paper bag or reusable plastic container for 5 hours before I eat it, bread will inevitably become unappetizingly soggy (especially if, per the above, it contains a lot of vegetables). Wraps, in my experience, end up in much better shape when lunchtime comes around.
Now... if weight-control is not a consideration, if I'm ordering a protein-focused sandwich at a deli to be consumed within the next 20 minutes, and if I'm basing my decision 100% on what will taste best... of course I'm choosing bread over a wrap. But if I did that I wouldn't be saving around 40 bucks a week on lunch money and I would be a lot fatter than I already am.