slkinsey

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.

Just to be clear. . . as far as I know no one is suggesting that things like fresh uncanned (or otherwise unenclosed) tomatoes, such as one finds in the produce section of the grocery store, be irradiated as a matter of course. Right?

I presume this is a joke (although you can never be sure), because the planet Earth is irradiated every day... by the Sun.

In terms of good quality light cookware, aluminum is the way to go: either clad aluminum or stainless with an aluminum disk bottom, depending on the pan/application. Unfortunately, however, there is no getting entirely away from the weight issue. A casserole full of stew or a saute pan full of chicken is going to be heavy no matter what. To a certain extent, your friend's difficulties are probably more profitably addressed through some modifications in cooking technique rather than specific cookware choices. For example, it may be better to use tongs to transfer the chicken from the saute pan to the serving dish a few pieces at a time rather than lifting/carrying/emptying the whole full pan. Once the pan is on the stove, there aren't too many situations where one absolutely has to lift the pan.

Actually, I didn't end up using a wok stand. I thought of using a wok stand because I had assumed that my Souss tagine would be more or less wok-shaped with a fully curved bottom. But the tagine I got had more or less a flat bottom. So I ended up using a heat diffuser (~3 mm thick aluminum disk). That worked fine. I kept the heat on my crappy NYC apartment stove on low, but could have gone lower. I was under some time constraints and wasn't able to go as low/slow as I might ultimately like to do. Next time, I plan to try it on the lowest heat setting all the way. Yea, I'm really looking forward to that. Actually, considering how inexpensive these tagines are (my kitchen is full of very expensive stainless lined heavy copper), so maybe I have a peculiar perspective, I may pick up another one. I can see how two tagines would really be best for dinner parties, and that way I could use each tagine for different styles. Perhaps I'll buy a Riffi tagine for poultry and use the Souss tagine for beef and lamb. Is duck used in Moroccan cooking? Interesting. I found that using no liquid at all worked perfectly for me. I looked at those recipes and thought, "these seem to call for reducing the liquid at the end -- something that isn't really easy to do with a clay tagine. . . so I'll just use no liquid at all and probably end up with the right amount/consistency of sauce." So far, so good on that score.

I've been to the mountaintop. I have seen the glory that is cooking in an unglazed tagine. I have tasted of it, and declared it good. After curing my Souss tagine and rubbing plenty of olive oil into it over the course of several days, I finally had the time to put it to use. I made a beef and cauliflower tagine based on the recipe from Paula's book. Loved it! The striking thing was how incredibly tender the beef turned out. Some of this, no doubt, is due to the fact that I bought my beef chuck from a very good butcher who cut the pieces from a gigantic hunk of shoulder to order (they do this kind of thing as a matter of course). But I've made plenty of braised beef dishes with meat from these guys in the past that didn't turn out as tender and juicy as the meat in this tagine. There's definitely something special that the unglazed clay and gentle heat imparts. I wonder how much this may also be due to the fact that the meat is not pre-browned and comes up to temperature so slowly. One question for Paula: I notice that the recipes in your book are really geared towards using regular Western cooking vessels, and that the cooking instructions seem to be designed with this in mind (bringing things to a boil at the beginning, generally shorter cooking times, etc.) -- all entirely sensible given the date of publication. Do you have any general instructions about "converting" these recipes for use with a tagine? I mixed the meat with the spices and grated onion and put all that into the cold tagine to slowly come up to temperature, then I added the cauliflower towards the end. Is this the general procedure for cooking in a tagine? So tasty, and easy too. One could easiluy mix together the meat, spices and onion the day before and then just drop the whole thing into the tagine upon returning home from work. It requires very little watching.

Exactly. The social contract says that a certain percentage tip is expected if you receive adequate service. This is amply demonstrated by the myriad posts in these forums from members who have been embarassed by friends and/or relatives who are habitual "low tippers." Tipping <15% for adequate service in an American restaurant breaks the social contract. On the other hand, it is entirely within the social contract to tip <15% if the service is substandard. Now, some people may argue that one should have an understanding of what is/is not under the server's control before making the determination to lower the tip. I would be one of those people. That said, I would also point out that, even for things that are not under the server's control, there are things that can be said/done to improve the diner's disposition. Customers like to feel that the server is on their side. If a dish comes out late and cold, for example, one is always favorably disposed towards a server who apologises profusely, says "this isn't up to our standards" and replaces/comps the dish.

Well, there are two questions. First is the question of why people tip. This seems like a simple question: people tip when and where it a cultural expectation. I agree that, in America anyway, tipping is no longer a "reward" but rather part of the social contract. Second is the question of why people tip large amounts. That is a question that has many answers, depending on who is being asked. I am sure that some people are big tippers for the very reasons you suggest. I tip a minimum of 20%, which I consider standard. This is because I have many friends in the food business and I know that they depend on this income to support themselves.

This is true, in an absolute sense. However, for me there is a difference between leaving $2 more or less as part of a total payment of $150 and leaving $2 more or less as part of a total payment of $15. And, the fact is that with the percentages I'm talking about (3% or less) it's a very small difference to the customer. Even on a very large bill of around $500, we're talking about less than $15. On most bills, it's more like one or two dollars. My feeling is: if I have the means to spend $100 on dinner, spending $102 isn't going to mean much to me. Two dollars is, after all, only two dollars. Yes, I think you have made your feelings on this subject abundantly clear -- and they are not unreasonable points that you make. If you would like to start a thread on the inherent problems in the "working for tips system," I invite you to do so. I think it could make an interesting discussion. But this discussion isn't about changing the system, it's about choices people make within the system.

As explained by me up here, the difference in total cost to the customer between tipping on the tax and on the pre-tax is around 1.5% assuming a 20% tip and a 10% tax rate. If the tax and tip rate are both 20%, the total difference to the customer is only 3%. This is, I think, an entirely inconsequential difference to the customer. To the worker, on the other hand, the difference in the size of the tip is equal to the tax rate. If the tax rate is 10%, the difference in the amount of the tip varies by 10% depending on whether you tip on the pre-tax or total amount. A 10% difference in income, I think we will all agree, is not inconsequential to the worker. If increasing my tab by 1.3% increases my server's income by 8.625% (NY sales tax), I am happy to do it. In reality, people do this anyway most of the time by rounding up when it comes time to put down cash or write out the credit card receipt. It doesn't take too much rounding up to reach 1.3%.

Yes, that probably is a recommendation for people who know what they're doing (i.e., professionals). When I read your first post and you said you were looking at the budget and saw that only two bartenders were scheduled, I also thought you were hiring. Somehow my eye skipped over your later explanation that they are going to be inexperienced volunteers. I, too, would probably recommend something like eight. My experience in working with volunteer organizations is that at least two of them won't be reliable anyway. One thing that should help is for you to divide the tasks down into components and perhaps rotating those assignments to keep it more interesting for the volunteers. For example, serving the drinks is the easy part. Who is keeping the bar and equipment clean, who is making sure the bar is stocked (fetching new bottles and kegs when needed, opening bottles, tapping kegs, refilling the margarita machine, etc.). You could split the task so that you have essentially two bartenders and one barback per station.

Interesting. I'm looking at Dave's Esquire Drinks and see 2 oz gin, 1/2 oz lemon juice and 1 tsp maraschino. The whole Aviation question is an interesting one for me. I recently had a fun conversation about it with Marco Dionysos, who was in town from SF for a few days. If you look at the older recipes, there doesn't seem to be a "balanced" recipe for a gin/lemon juice/maraschino cocktail (by balanced, I mean with approximately equal parts of sweet and sour). In the Savoy Cocktail Book, for example, there is the Aviation with 2 oz dry gin (2/3) 1 oz lemon juice (1/3) and 2 dashes maraschino and there is the Allen with 2 oz Plymouth gin (2/3) 1 oz maraschino (1/3) and 1 dash lemon juice. I can't find anything with, say, 2 ounces of gin and a half ounce each of lemon juice and maraschino. To my taste, the Savoy Aviation is fundamentally a sour drink whereas the Savoy Allen is fundamentally a sweet drink.