enthusiast

i've just been given a stand alone ice cream maker (gaggia) for my 40th birthday. ok, so its still new but what what a wonderful toy. my favourite so far is mango and vodka sorbet - the vodka seems to stop it freezing completely so you can eat it straight from the freezer. this seems to be one dream to give into. the key though is to have enough counter space to put it on so its always out. if its put away it won't be used. i'm drooling over the new Jura coffee maker and hankered for years after a stainless steel moulis rather than those cheap tin ones that just feel so tacky. i finally bought one and it was hopeless - cost about £80! frequently tempted by copper pans but don't fancy the cleaning and i've just received the Diva de Provence brochure to dribble over.

the egg shell gets sieved out with the rest of the peel/rind etc. the egg gives the lemonade a depth and richness and also makes a great foam on the top. of course you could crack the egg into the blender - i was trying to demonstrate how easy it was - particulalry useful if you have thirsty kids wanting a drink now!

this may be too simple for you sophisticated folks but i think it is so good and so easy. 1 lemon, cut in half (or more), 8 ice cubes, a few desert spoons of sugar, top up to 1 litre in total (ie including lemon, ice etc)with water. and blend/whizz for 10 seconds on maximum power. sieve and serve. its instant, cold and refreshing. adjust sugar levels for taste but don't be too ascetic about it. a nice addition is a raw egg (don't bother to remove shell)

The JP Morgan research shows a very remarkable similarity to the research i published for another investment bank in November 2002. which goes to show that even plagiarism isn't beyond our industry.

all freedoms need boundaries in order to be defined. markets do not work without regulation. the freedom exists within the rules. the alternative is anarchy. no i don't. a key role of society is to protect the weak. the protection (in this case) comes not from coercion but illumination. i don't see how anyone can complain about insisting on honest information - or claim that it is condescending. if eevryone truly understood the consequences of what (and how much) they were eating then giving them more information would make no difference. why are the food companies so against it? because they know that their consumers do not undersatnd. consumers don't know that the price of longer lasting baking products is ingesting the poison that is trans fatty acid. once they know, and know that it is generally accepted that it increases the risks of heart disease and diabetes, then they can make an informed choice about eating the stuff. type II diabetes used to be called adult onset diabetes. it isn't any more because more and more children are contracting it. it is not trivial and i don't think it is condescending to try to do something about it.

from memory so it may be inaccurate... "she lifted the lobster clear of the table. it had ten seconds to live. it is a quick death. it is not." Sam Beckett First love

but its the horizontal motion of the knife (sawing) that bumps into your neighbour, not the vertical movement of your fork (shovelling!).

i guess that's sort of meant to be the last word on the matter...but if we start from the assumption that we want to live in a freedom loving democracy where the state has a minimal role to play we have to act like responsible citizens. and that means that we need to regulate the actions of free markets (among other things) for the greater good of society. obesity (overeating or what you will, lets not get hung up about terminology) is a problem. its a growing problem and it already costs a lot of $$$ to treat and causes a lot of misery and pain. the precise causes and what to do about it are not clear but that is not an excuse for no action. Kraft's moves yesterday look like a step in the right direction but we should not be fooled - their motives (wholly legitimately) are entirely commerical. they want to head off regulation/litigation etc before it hurts. it's good that existing pressures are pushing them in the right direction but that is no reason to be complacent and allow them to determine the solution unilaterally. of course we must enjoy good food...love cooking etc...but that doesn't mean we can, as members of society, ignore the bigger issues. and nobody is saying that the state should control what we eat. the only issue is to ensure that as far as possible people really do know what they're eating, what the cosnequences may be and that children are not cynically exploited by sophisiticated corporations peddling over sugared, fatty waste products.

most of the food on my desk is stuck in between the keys of my keyboard. i empathise with all those "back in the days when i had an office" comments. my very first job was in Hong Kong and i had an office overlooking the harbour. i was 21. i've never had an office or a view (to speak of) since. "repurpose my lunch" sounds horribly familiar too

interestingly the main chapter in the official review of the Karelia Project on mortality changes insists on quoting improvements relative to the whole of Finland rather than Kuopio (tho' it does quote an analysis that "showed" there was a significantly greater delcine in Karleia than Kuopio - Salonen et al, 1983). Incidentally there were some other surveys that purported to show that there was no sig nif difference in smoking between the two regions after 5 years but ten years on there was a sig nif greater reduction in smoking in Karelia. which all goes to show that you can "prove" anything from these studies. can you change a society's habits so as they lose wieght? i think we can try and if we start by better education/labelling and a rather more stringent control of advertising claims (eg "90% fat free"!!). then i think we have nothing to lose at very low cost. my new ice cream machine on the other hand is a thing of beauty...

i haven't read Ravnskov but the comment sounds slightly dubious. The North Karelia project started in 1972. Five years later it was rolled out across the whole of finland because it was so successful. subsequently mortality from coronary heart disease tumbled across the country as well as in Karelia. but my point was a slightly different one which is that it IS possible to change a population's habits - now what you change them too and whether that's the right thing to do is a differnt matter and there is no doubt that this is a massively complex subject with no easy answers. # : ^ )

freezers are like video recorders - if you don't use what you store within a week you never do.

My first post on eGullet and i came to look for advice about cookers! i published some research on the obesity issue for an investment bank last year. i then marketed it to clients around the world. my background is as a financial analyst - no nutritional expertise - and my research is ultimately not interested in what is true or not but what the impact will be on quoted stocks. i have thoroughly enjoyed reading this thread and wanted to add a few observations... fat tax very difficult politically to get through, so unlikley to happen as a deterrent (as opposed to a way to raise some extra revenue from, say, a penny on a soda can). but the mistake people make in this argument is to assume we start from a neutral basis. one of the major problems in the (food) world is the existing distortions from subsidies (esp corn syrup), trade restrictons and existing taxes. ignorance Fat Guy argues that he is not ignorant but is still fat (though not getting fatter). this is beside the point. the proponents of intervention/education are not attempting to restrict freedom of choice but attempting to give people the chance to make a real choice by being in possession of as many objective facts as possible. this can make a huge difference. the best example of this is the Karelia project in Finland where, through education, heart disease mortality was reduced by 65%. yes people still smoke but many many fewer than used to before people knew about its dangers and before restrictions on advertising. corporate behaviour response to my report from large corporations was not positive. inevitably. the only rational answer to the obesity epidemic is to persuade people to consume less (or exercise much more). this does not of course mean people should necessarily spend less but they probably would. this is not an argument that goes down well with capitalists. mind you if it's possible to persuade people to buy all that bottled water... addiction? i can't believe food manufacturers have not investigated making their products "addicitive" - at least in the sense of leaving you with a craving for more. it is their job to make us buy more and if its not illegal they should be (are?) doing it. markets are great and efficient but they need regulating - there is an enormous amount that should be done on education/labelling/advertising standards to give people a chance of making an informed choice. (sorry about length - about that cooker - i'm interested in something available here in the UK)