slkinsey

I think it all depends on what you're making. For G&Ts, and especially for gimlets, I don't think it makes much sense to use a subtle, high priced gin. More often than not, my gin of preference for this kind of thing is Gordon's. It has a nicely up-front juniper presence that cuts through things like tonic water and preserved lime juice -- and it goes for around 12 bucks a liter. Another versatile gin with a strong juniper presence, and smooth enough for martinis, is Tanqueray. Tanqueray is probably my favorite all-purpose gin, but it's almost twice the price of Gordon's at 22 bucks a liter.

I'm dying to. Here's Robert Sietsema's review. Here's a quote for posterity:

cdh: the "ham" Varmint is talking about is, at first anyway, a "fresh ham" (which is to say, the thigh and buttock of a pig) rather than a "cured ham." "Corning," when it really comes down to it, is nothing more than a mild salt-and-spices cure -- although I am given to understand that "corning" involves curing in brine (aka "pickling") rather than dry salting such as Varmint describes, if you want to get technical.

Here's a link to the story: http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/chi...1,5324199.story There are also some letters to another Tribune writer available today: http://www.chicagotribune.com/services/new...,4371872.column

Dude. The taco truck at 103rd and Broadway is better.

Chef, I would respectfully suggest that Karen Graham is not a very scientifically reliable source. Here are some sources you might consider in addition to those you cite: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Frequently Asked Questions about Food Irradiation and presentation on Food Safety and Irradiation. Iowa State's Food Irradiation Site, including the Consumer Questions document referenced by bkinsey upthread. This document directly refutes many of Karen Graham's assertions. The The Foundation for Food Irradiation Education's Information Website. Some Food Irradiation Links from the National Agricultural Library. An interesting PDF from Kansas State that lists the maximum dosages allowed for the various applications of irradiation. Some of the documents you find will be out of date. Even something as recent as 2000 may not reflect the most recent methods.

I don't think anyone is challenging the notion that odor is the most important contributor to flavor (flavor and odor are not the same thing)*. It's the 98% part that is problematic. First, I have never seen that number cited by any reliable source. And second, it seems too high a percentage. I know people sometimes say "98%" to mean "mostly," and perhaps that is what you mean to say. But, for now, let us agree that smell is the most significant sensory contributor to the perception of flavor and leave it at that. The new edition of McGee's On Food and Cooking has this to say: As I think these two extracts demonstrate, while smell is the central component, it's considerably more complex than simply saying "98%." I would be delighted if you could share some of this scientific data with us, including the sources. Thank you. It is always good to see someone be open to the influence of new evidence to the extent that they change their mind. I've made the point before, but it bears repeating: I don't think anyone here is arguing in favor of tasteless factory farmed mealy tomatoes. We'd all prefer to have organic sustainable heirloom tomatoes just picked off the vine and conveyed directly to our plates. For many of is, this is simply not possible, and so we make do with the closest we can come to that ideal. And the fact is that there are certain circumstances where the judicious use of irradiation can actually help in this direction. Here we have evidence from someone who had tomatoes from her own garden irradiated, and she says that they stayed in condition better and longer than the not-irradiated tomatoes! The only other way she would have been able to keep her tomatoes for that length of time without irradiation would have been to freeze, dry or can them -- and I think you will agree that either one of these processes would have far greater effect on the flavor, texture and nutrient levels than simple irradiation. I, for one, would love to be able to go to the Greenmarket and buy heirloom tomatoes from a local farmer (something I do religiously anyway) that had been irradiated. I could buy more of them, because they would keep longer. The farmer would have less spoilage, and would make a better profit. What customer doesn't want to have more heirloom tomatoes? What farmer doesn't want to sell more of them? This would be a win-win situation. What about cheeses? A young raw milk cheese could be aged to absolute perfection and then irradiated. This would not only preserve the deliciously funky raw flavor at its peak, but would also render meaningless all the safety concerns that restrict the (legal) sale of these cheeses in the US. All this is to say that sustainable, fresh, pure, slocal, seasonal, organic food and irradiation are not mutually exclusive. They could work very well together. * Taste is the sensation produced by the activation of taste buds in the mouth and throat area by certain chemicals. Smell is the sensation produced by the activation of olfactory receptors by certain chemicals. There is another chemosensory mechanism called the "common chemical sense" through which various nerve endings (especially prevalent in the naturally moist/membrane areas of the body) react to certain chemicals to create sensations such as the burn of capsaicin, the sting of ammonia, etc. These senses combine with other sensed elements such as texture and temperature to produce the impression that we call "flavor." As many people understand, smell is perhaps the most important contributor to the perception of flavor.

Well, that's the problem with real science and real information and real situations. Sometimes the data doesn't back you up and you don't find what you're looking for. And the situation is always more complicated than you thought it would be. I would suggest, by the way, that it is not particularly productive to come up with strawman arguments for why irradiation might be "bad."

I find this a puzzling statement on your part, as you seem to have rejected out of hand statements from the one person in this discussion with a PhD relevant to the topic subject and years of relevant experience in a highly applicable area. If there is one person on this thread who can claim to have education as well as professional experience and knowledge as to the effects of irradiation on biological material, it is bkinsey. And, of course, andiesenji appears to be the only person with actual experience tasting irradiated and not-irradiated foods side-by-side, but that's not acceptable either, for some reason. I'm not sure what you were expecting. Someone who works in a lab doing food irradiation experiments? I think you can see the full spectrum of responses on this thread: some pro some con; some grounded in scientific experience/education, some in personal experience, and some in politics and philosophy.

I enjoy the tacos up in our 'hood at Taqueria y Fonda La Mexicana. In particular, the lengua (tongue) tacos are extellent. They also make a pretty good tripe taco and pig's ear taco.

Evangeline, If you have a small, old electric stove, I am not sure an expensive piece of copper cookware will do you a lot of good. Your major limitation is the stove. I'd be inclined more towards heavy disk-bottom designs. In re to Falk and tarnish: Falk pans discolor with heat and use just as much as other copper pans. The difference is that they can be brightened easily with a Scotch Brite pad and some Bar Keeper's Friend due to their use of a brushed finish. In re to Sitram Magnum Pro, while I don't have any specifications for it, it does appear to be one of their "Professional" lines (links to a PDF). So I would assume that the specifications are in line with their other high end designs: heavy stainless steel body with roughly 2 mm of copper or roughly 6 mm of aluminum in the base.

So she's not a tasting expert, but you are -- is that what you're saying? You're making a lot of assertions here. Have you actually compared irradiated and non-irradiated but otherwise identical foods side-by-side?

Not open yet, but soon... And yea, it sounds pretty exciting, doesn't it?

Here I am at home, trying to figure out what to make for my inaugural cocktail with Gary's orange bitters when my friend ewindels calls to tell me that Audrey has a big article about her in the latest issue of Food & Wine. Right off the bat, they get the right idea: "In her reverence for vintage cocktails, mixologist Audrey Saunders is part scholar and part priestess." Well, we already knew that. Also mentioned is her upcoming and eagerly anticipated cocktail hotspot and mixologist Mecca, the Pegu Club. I'm glad that cat is finally out of the bag. Here's a taste: At one point, writer Pete Wells is moved to declare, "this is why I love Audrey." It's rare to find someone at the top of their game who is also a truly delightful person to be around, and if there is one thing that for me has been a great reward of getting to know the "cocktail purist" community in NYC it's that everyone I've met so far has been just a delightful and interesting person. Congratulations to Audrey. And if you need to find me in the evenings after it opens, you might think of calling the Pegu Club.

In re to tomatoes, my mother grew great ones when I was growing up in Boston (we also had chickens and kept bees, but that's a story for another time). Now that my parents are living in Houston, I don't think she has ever been able to satisfactorily raise tomatoes like she used to. The real problem she's having now is that something (we suspect rats) eats them before she has a chance to pick them for herself. In re to the Gulf Coast, until you've been someplace like Houston in July and August, you really can't understand what the climate is like down there. Houston has, I believe, one of the highest heat indexes in the country. This is mostly due to incredibly high humidity. 90F and 90% humidity (heat index of 119) is not at all uncommon in the summer months. In fact, the average for June, July and August is temperature and humidity percentage in the high 80s. Spoilage in unrefrigerated conditions is a huge problem.

Everything you said EXCEPT these two things are correct, and these two pieces of information are COMPLETELY FALSE. Irradiation does destroy anti-oxidants and vitamins and it does reduce texture and produce an "off" flavor. I suggest you check your source on that info. Chef, I think you mean to say can rather than does. And that would depend on the amount/kind of irradiation. Even assuming that some antioxidants and vitamins are destroyed by irradiation, and further assuming that these things are destroyed by irradiation to a greater extent than they would be anyway by things like sunlight and time, and further assuming that irradiation doesn't actually forestall some of the destructions of these things that would ordinarily happen over time as the result bacterial, fungal and enzymatic action, I don't think we can say that irradiation causes "causes food to lose its nutritional value" and become nutritionally worthless. Are you suggesting that an irradiated tomato would have no nutritional value? Cooking the food would seem to have a far greater effect on this score. Similarly, I don't think there is evidence that irradiation "causes all food to taste funny." Does paprika "taste funny" because it has been irradiated? Have you tasted an irradiated tomato to verify whether it has "reduced texture" and an "off flavor?" The evidence from andiesenji, who has tasted irradiated tomatoes, seems to be that both of these things are actually improved by irradiation -- especially over time. So actually it doesn't seem like these assertions are completely false.

I am now looking at five ten (yes, ten) ounce bottles of Regans' Orange Bitters #6. Guess what I'll be doing tonight? Now the only question is what to make... what to make... what to make...

Yes, but I'd rather have an irradiated semi-charming tomato from 2 states over than a gassed wet-sand-textured red sensibility-offender from 7 states over. I agree with that too. The reality is that most of us (if we're lucky) have the ability to get high quality natural aged beef or local, fresh ripe fruits and vegetables but also have to rely on lesser/further-away-grown products as well. This is the nature of the modern world. There is no "eating only fresh, seasonal, local produce" year-round for someone who lives in North Dakota. So, it's a balancing act. To the extent that irradiation helps to spread the availability of heirloom tomatoes and natural meats and similar products, helps to reduce the use of post-ripening fumigants, helps to preserve grains for longer periods of time before spoilage, helps to prevent the worldwide spread of pests and diseases from lond-distance transportation of food items, etc. -- I'm all for it. But it's not going to stop me from supporting my local farmers down at the Green Market, and it's not going to stop me from working towards having more sustainable/slocal/seasonal foods produced in the world. They're not mutually exclusive. No one who has ever had one could disagree.

It's also a fact that irradiation will never be a substitute for getting high quality natural aged beef or local, fresh ripe fruits and vegetables.

Side note: though you may not have intended it, I think you may have slandered Ms. Carson. The research and opinion that she presents in her book is absolutely based on scientific method: that of observation analysis for cause rather than laboratory experimentation. Your opinion might be that the public and governmental response to her work was hysterical (though I think it is poor word choice) but if you read the text, her method and was sound. My statement was to characterize the response to the book, not Ms. Carson. However, one of the key assertions in Silent Sping was that DDT is a liver carcinogen. Repeated studies have failed to support a link between DDT and cancer. In fact, many studies even contradict her assertions as to DDT's eggshell thinning effect. Furthermore, some of her assertions (e.g., that "few of the eggs [laid by DDT-fed pheasants in a controlled experiment] hatched") were wholesale misrepresentations (e.g., the DDT-fed pheasant's eggs actually hatched at 80% compared to only 57% for the control group).

rancho_gordo, I have to say that I absolutely disagree with almost everything you said in your last post. The record shows that there are plenty of discussions here about issues like food politics, agricultural sustainability, slow food or the basic assumption that local, fresh seasonal food is a worthwhile goal. Whether or not everyone agrees with you 100% is another story. That's why they call it a "discussion." It wouldn't be very interesting if the eG Forums were for nothing but mutual back-slapping. I, for one, strongly support ideas like agricultural sustainability and fresh/seasonal/slocal food. But that doesn't mean I stick my head in the sand about the realities of food today, or that I won't try to address misinterpretations or misunderstandings of science where they are made. It is unfair to the others who have posted to this thread or elsewhere to suggest that any of them views "modern and corporate science as The Answer" or, for that matter, doesn't embrace the ideas of agricultural sustainability and fresh/seasonal/slocal food. I don't think anyone is suggesting in this thread that irradiation of food is preferable to eating fresh seasonal foods from one's own garden. As for deletions... as you well know, deletions are made in the eG Forums for one reason only: when they break the rules. So, to the extent that one might try to hijack a thread about favorite processed snack foods into a political debate on agricultural sustainability and fresh/seasonal/slocal food instead of creating another thread (always an option) yes, those posts might be deleted or moved. If you want to make your points, make them, support them and defend them. But don't insult your fellow members and walk away with your nose in the air. Not only is it unfair to everyone else, but it doesn't help further your beliefs either.

This brings up a good argument against the widespread use of labeling for irradiated foods, namely that the general public has very little understanding of what "irradiated" means, tends to confuse it with "nuclear radiation," and tends to believe that irradiated foods become radioactive and that the irradiation process causes nuclear waste. None of these things are true. In fact, the X-ray and electron beam irradiators used today are non-nuclear. It is not the case, by the way, that the only positive benefit of irradiation is increases shelf life. We're already doing things to increase shelf life, but irradiation can be used instead of fumigants such as methyl bromide. In addition, irradiation could help to prevent the worldwide spread of pests and plant diseases as fresh food items are shipped around the globe. rancho_gordo makes a good point in suggesting it's possible that, "if the food were handled right in the first place we wouldn't need to go to such extremes." However, it's unclear to me that one can handle food "right enough" when it is being shipped from Peru or China to New York or Chicago. Tana: The whole DDT thing comes mostly from hysteria that began with the publishing of Silent Spring by Rachel Carson. Most of this is not founded in science at all, but rather in politics. In fact, DDT is quite safe for humans compared to most pesticides, although it can cause the eggshells of certain birds (notably the Bald Eagle) to become unsustainably weak. There is no sound scientific evidence linking DDT to cancer. When one considers that something like 1 million people die every year from malaria, and that some estimate as many as 60 million preventable deaths due to insect-borne illnesses resulting from the various DDT bans, it makes a pretty good case for the judicious use of DDT in the right contexts. Something to think about the next time West Nile Virus raises its head in your town.

Without giving you her entire CV, I can tell you that Dr. Berma M. Kinsey, otherwise known to me as "mom," has never worked for a "corporation" -- unless you count universities as corporations. IIRC she has been a teacher and researcher throughout her career, having worked places like Harvard School of Medicine, Northeastern University, Baylor College of Medicine, and Rice University. Over the years she has worked extensively with radiation. I'm sure you can look her up in the relevant journals.

Hmmph. Maybe I'm wrong about that, then. Wouldn't be the first time.

For speed, nothing can beat the regular old Boston shaker used with a hawthorne or julep strainer. For home, use, however, I prefer to use something from my modest collection of inherited and acqired vintage shakers/pitchers. I've heard people assert that metal shakers make for a colder drink, usually citing the fact that metal is a much better thermal conductor than glass. While it is true that metal is a better thermal conductor than glass, this should actually make a metal shaker worse, not better, at chilling the drink -- as it more readily conducts heat from the surrounding environment (your hands, for example) into its contents. If this is, in fact, true -- and I won't believe it until I do the experiments myself -- it likely has something to do with glass shakers having a greater thermal capacity compared to metal shakers. This being the case, a pre-chilled glass shaker should actually perform best. In terms of glasses, I like the old ones better as well. Or, failing that, older style glasses. I like them around 5 - 6 ounces, sized to hold a drink at around 3-4 ounces. Lately I've been influenced away from the standard "V" glass and have grown fond of cocktail glasses with more of a "globe" or "coupe" shape. Drinking out of a good glass makes a big difference, and can really influence the mood of the cocktail. Splificator's "Tombstone" cocktail, a fine drink with an "old fashioned" feel is served in a glass shape that I really like at Flatiron Lounge.