The People 9/11 Forgot

“Wake up! Wake up! Wake the fuck up!”

“What are you doing here? Go away!”

“Somebody just bombed the World Trade Center!”

“Oh my fucking god! Are you kidding me? My sister. Oh my sister!”

            I had just come back from New York City the night before. I had spent a week with my sister going to Barneys Warehouse Sale, wasting too much money on coffee at Café Gitane and raiding for kitchen supplies at Broadway Panhandler. I thought it was a good reward after 2 months of grueling research in Europe. I went back to California refreshed and rejuvenated.

            All this seemed completely trivial the next day. I staring dialing, 212… Damn. No response. 212… 212… 212… Call mom. Maybe my sister called mom. No news. Worry worry. What about her husband? Doesn’t he work in Tribeca or was it Soho? Can’t remember. Dial again. Nothing. My friend had some secret phone pass number that should work. Dial…wait…dial. Oh thank God. You’re all right. Where’s Tom? He’s all right. What about everyone else? Tom’s family? I’m calling Mom and telling her you’re OK. Don’t move from your apartment. Keep me informed….

               As we all witnessed in what can only be our generation’s version of the Kennedy assassination, 9/11 has been burnt into our minds. The images, the stories and the sorrow have occupied our national narrative now for a decade. Persons we never heard of became objects of scorn and hate. Places we never been to became headline news. Words we never knew became commonplace. In a twisted version of the Kevin Bacon Game, we all know someone that has been affected by 9/11.

            And after Iran, Osama bin Laden, Afghanistan, the Taliban, jihad, and Al Qaeda, many of us are still trying to grasp the meaning or senlessness of 9/11. The statistics bear out the damage, but not the suffering. 2,819 dead. 343 firefighters and paramedics killed. 19,858 body parts found. 3,051 children lost a parent. 146,100 jobs lost. 40.2 billion dollars in insurance claims. And on and on…

            And yet in all the numbers there were still those that were forgotten. Seventy-three workers at Windows on the World on the 106^th and 107^th floors of Tower One in the World Trade Center never got the recognition. All low-wage immigrant service workers, they slipped between the cracks of all the statistics. Many of them were illegally employed. Most had few relatives in the New York vicinity. All the workers had family members from the 4 corners of the earth: Colombia, Mexico, China, Ecuador, Brazil, etc. While all families were eligible for the September 11 Victim Compensation Fund, many of them, due to language, diplomatic or economic circumstances never did receive their share of the victim funds. Furthermore, many relatives couldn’t even penetrate the legal maze of paperwork that compensation involved.

            For those that survived the attacks, their own nightmare was beginning. Left with no job, no health care, no benefits, they were left on their own to navigate their lives post-9/11. Unlike high profile businesses such as the investment bank Cantor Fitzgerald or city employees, such as the New York Fire Department or the New York Police Department, there was no safety net for those working at Windows on the World.

            In a dirty little secret that everyone in the restaurant industry knows, restaurant workers, and not just those working at the Windows on the World, live with very few benefits, almost no health coverage, little financial stability[1] and few workplace rights (if any, and many times, those rights are routinely ignored or violated).  Part of the problem lies in the unskilled and low-skilled nature of restaurant work. Waiters, dishwashers, line and prep cooks, clean-up crew, busboys, hosts, and bartenders are all the backbone of the restaurant business, and they are paid marginally compared to the physical and stress demanded. And unlike construction workers or other unskilled labor, many of these laborers are non-union,[2] thus lack any power to collectively bargain for better wages and working conditions.

            The other part of the problem lies with restaurant owners.[3]. Food is only about 38-42% of the total budget of a restaurant. The rest of the money goes to staff and overhead. In the end, restaurants keep about $.04 of every dollar spent at a restaurant. This being said, it is no surprise that 75% of restaurants go out of business after 4 years. Considering that labor enforcement is weak and profit margins are low, there is every single incentive to cheat the system by underpaying workers.

            And then there is the documentation problem. Simply put, many restaurant workers are illegal. And no, it’s not just taco joints, greasy spoons and Chinese restaurants. Some restaurants are fooled by false documentation. Others look the other way in terms of false documentation. And then there are those who purposely hire illegal workers. In any case, illegal workers are caught in a legal catch-22 when in comes to unpaid wages or worker abuse. Complain and they get fired or possibly reported. Don’t complain and they get treated like ****.

            So what is one to do? Don’t eat at restaurants? Well, I for one could never do that – I just like food too damn much.  One solution is to check on the web which restaurants have the best employment records or policies.[4] Another solution is to support the Restaurant Opportunities Center of New York. Founded by surviving staff of Windows on the World Restaurant, the organization advocates on behalf of restaurant workers, creates job training and development opportunities for restaurant, and lobbies for better working conditions for all restaurant workers.[5] Third, push your Congressperson for immigration reform. And what you can do immediately? Pay a good tip for service. Restaurant workers work grueling hours under pretty stressful conditions so you can have a good meal. They deserve to be remembered every day – not just on 9/11.

Windows on the World’s Classic Manhattan (adapted from Dale DeGroff)

            We all could use one today.

1/2 oz. sweet vermouth

2 1/2 oz. rye

lemon twist for garnish

In a cocktail shaker, combine 4 ice cubes, sweet vermouth and rye and shake until cold. Strain into a martini glass and garnish with lemon twist.

Note: This blog post was originally published on 9/11/2011, however, as a tribute to those who served, survived and died during 9/11, I am reposting it. Considering the state of the US economy, the message has never been more pertinent to the brave workers everywhere that helped New York City recover and move on.

---

[1] A 2005 study by the Restaurant Opportunities Center in NYC reported that 60% of restaurant workers earn wages at the poverty level. Since the recession of 2008, that number has surely increased.

[2] This is not to suggest there are not unions for the service industry, but only 1% of the NYC restaurant workforce is unionized. Amazingly, 43 of the 73 workers that died at Windows on the World were members of the hotel and service industry union, UNITE HERE. The restaurant industry has special challenges to labor organizers due to the fragmented nature of the restaurant industry. Unlike hotels, casinos and the like, 93% of restaurants employ less than 50 workers, according to the National Restaurant Association (think about the local taco joint or the Thai place around the corner – NOT Daniel). Trying to build a coalition around small business requires an immense amount of resources that unions don’t simply have (even thought the mafia seems to do it well…).

[3] Once again, this is not to suggest that all restaurants are guilty of this. Many of NYC’s best restaurants hire legally and pay wages according to law. Some of them even give their workers health insurance and benefits, most notably at Tom Colicchio’s Craft and Danny Meyer’s Shake Shack (Bouley also gives health benefits, but no paid sick days or vacation. Boo!). But several high profile restaurants, including Del Posto, Morimoto, Alto as well as chefs/restaurateurs Mario Batali and Bobby Flay have been accused of stiffing their working stiffs in the kitchen (Wall Street Journal, August 31, 2011. For the article, click here.) Many restaurateurs claim that there is confusion in the law regarding the distribution of wages, especially to those that regularly receive tips, such as bartenders and wait-staff. (According to US wage law, those workers who receive tips on the job are paid less than the minimum wage.) Dishwashers and other staff just get screwed at minimum wage (or less).

[5] The Restaurant Opportunities Center of New York City has released a restaurant guide for restaurants that adhere to fair labor practices (click here for the list).

[6] If you are outside New York, Restaurant Opportunities Center United works on a national basis for restaurant workers rights, with branches in Michigan and Chicago.

Organics! We don't need no stinking organics...unless we do.

Crop duster working overhead in California as farm workers pick produce

Well, the jury is out. Stanford University just published a study saying that the literature “lacks strong evidence” that organic foods are more nutritious than conventional. Some of you are probably kicking yourself for trading your child for that precious locally grown, organic tomato you bought last week at Whole Paycheck.  

While conventional farmers are doing the “Told-You-So” dance and bobo moms weep for their not-above-average children, is there still a reason to eat organic despite the study? Yes there is and it has everything to do with health. Despite the title of several headlines across major newspapers,[1] organic food is better for you, and dare I say it, healthier for you. And here’s why[2].

1.Pesticides. According to the study, the researchers found that 38% of the food study had pesticide residues. This is in comparison to 7% found in organic produce. The researchers had basically poo-poohed the effects of pesticides because all pesticides levels were below the mark of what is accepted by Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). But what the researchers did miss was the long-term effects of pesticides. The longest term study was two years. Most cancers and other associated diseases with pesticide exposure take much longer than 2 years to manifest.[3] And if you have kids, you should be especially worried. Because pesticides affect children more adversely than adults due to body weight, their even exposure that is under EPA levels for adults could be threatening for children.

2. Antibiotic exposure.[4] While the researchers did acknowledge antibiotic exposure as a reason for going organic, what they did not explicate was the effect having antibiotic-laced meat in most grocery stores, namely, antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Currently, 80% of all antibiotics used in the US are for livestock use. And most of those antibiotics aren’t curing Elsie the cow of her nasty cold – they are used to promote growth or yield (e.g. milk or meat output) for animals. This rampant use of antibiotics in farms and ranches has only increased the amount of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. According to the US Food and Drug Administration’s own reports, common meats, such as chicken breast, ground turkey, ground beef and pork chops, have had increases of 26.6%, 55.3%, 11.5% and 17.5% in E. coli that were resistant to 3 antibioitic classes. Ground turkey, for some reason is the real winner with 28.2% of all samples resistant to four antibiotics classes. And that’s just E. coli. Just wait to you see the numbers for Salmonella.

Until the FDA actually gets their act together about banning or severely curtailing sub-therapeutic use of antibiotics, the only insurance we have against the growing tide of antibiotic resistance is consumer power. If there is a growing market for antibiotic-free meat, then farms will realize there is a market for them. Yes, that means you will have to pay for your meat, but do you want to see salmonella become the next ebola? Only through collective action can we stop this public health nightmare. Relying on the vegan next door will not do the trick.

3. The Environment. Although there are plenty of people who argue this point, I think it’s worth reiterating. The methods used for organic farming protect soil fertility. Any farmer will tell you the key to growing crops is in the soil. No soil equals no farm. The problem of conventional farming is in the snowball effect it has on the environment. By using destructive tilling practices and monoculture, conventional farming denudes and erodes the soils of not only the healthy bacteria and nutrients needed to grow crops, but insures that for the next generations that they will be dependent upon fertilizers to get the same yield. The run-off of fertilizers from industrial farms have been implicated mass pollution that not only destroys drinking water for residents but also creates “death zones” (or eutrophication) in bodies of water due to high concentrations of fertilizers. Organic farming insures that nutrients are not stripped from the soil. And healthier soil means less water, less erosion and often, better yields.

Speaking of pesticides, they too cause a chain reaction across ecosytems by poisoning the entire food chain in a particular ecosystem. But there’s one benefit to pesticides – pests get heartier. In a farmers’ version of the nuclear arms race, heavy use of pesticides encourage pesticide resistance in organisms, which in turn only encourages heavier use of pesticides in another form.[5]

4. Biodiversity. And of course, organic practices encourages biodiversity. Plants and animals, like people, depend on genetic diversity to keep a healthy population. Monoculture and industrial farming practices not only destroy the genetic variation that keeps plant species hearty, but also destroys the local ecosystem that provides homes, food and shelter for millions of other species in the area.

5. Taste. Last, but not least, taste is probably a huge reason why you should buy organic. While the jury is still out as to whether there is a statistically significant difference in flavor, but think about it. Because organic farmers have higher costs compared to conventional farmers, the need to take care of their crops is paramount if they want to market them. Seen all those pictures of workers dumping bins of green, unripe tomatoes into a giant truck? Try doing that with a ripe brandywine, and you can forget about selling it…because it will be tomato sauce.

Furthermore, as freshness counts in good tasting produce, the quicker turnaround time between farm to market insures a better tasting product. What tastes better? A three-month old apple from Argentina or an apple you just got off the tree? Most conventional produce is grown for shelf-life-NOT for taste. Add the chemicals sprayed on most apples, and you’ve a recipe for avoiding apples. Going organic insures a steady market for farmers that care about good tasting food – instead of good for a trans-Atlantic-boat-ride food.

Of course the irony in the Stanford study was that it proved what organic advocates said it was supposed to do: raise crops and livestock that have no exposure to pesticides, antibiotics and hormones. Organic practices are about METHOD-no one every promised a nutritional benefit. But in buying organics, you are buying for health – your health, public health and the earth’s health.  And if don’t remember that, we’re going to be a lot less healthy in the future.

---

[1] Titles include This Week’s “Is organic food a waste of money,” National Public Radio’s “Why Organic Food May Not Be Healthier for You,” New York Times, “Stanford Study Casts Doubt on Advantages of Organic Meat and Produce.”

[2] There are several problems with the Stanford University study. And they are serious ones. But main gist here is WHY one should buy organic, NOT why Stanford researchers stink. But in the interest of scientific geekdom, I will go through the major problems of this study. First, the actual design of the study is problematic: the researchers did a meta-analysis of 240 studies and only used 17 studies actually looked at the effects in humans themselves. The biggest problems with meta-analysis is in selection and confirmation biases. We don’t know which studies why studies were accepted or taken for analysis, therefore researchers could potentially cherry-pick studies that confirm their original hypotheses. Also meta-analyses are not consistent in experimental assumptions and methods, including that of the meta-analysis itself. It’s like comparing apples and oranges. And then there’s the infamous Simpson affect. The studies themselves could all point to being statistically significant in one direction, but the meta-analysis proves otherwise. The best example of this would be Derek Jeter’s batting average.  A study at Dartmouth looked at different ways of calculating Jeter’s batting average…only to conclude that different calculations gave very different answers.

            Furthermore, the study has some serious omissions in terms of what defines health. Only 17 of the studies included human test subjects, and of those 17, only three analyzed the health outcomes (of which two of the three looked at allergies-which has nothing to do with nutritional profiles of organic food). The lack of metabolic analyses in these studies is seriously problematic in determining the full nutritional or health value of organic versus conventional. Could our bodies use nutrients more efficiently if they were found in organic food form? What role does pesticides and antibiotics have in metabolizing food? Without a deeper analysis into those biomedical questions, the study doesn’t really help with the study of health outcomes.

            And lastly, the study didn’t look into the other motivators for eating organic. While the researchers in the study claimed that the question of organic foods’ nutritional content was a frequent one, people eat organic for plenty of different reasons, with nutrition probably being one of them. But by not investigating the actual motivators in buying organic foods, the researchers missed a real opportunity to pinpoint the why consumers make the food decisions that they do.

[3] Diseases linked to pesticide exposure include Parkinson’s, hormone disrupters or endocrine system imbalances (early puberty, decreased sperm count, etc.) and cancer (260 studies link pesticide exposure to cancer).

[4] For those interested in exploring the relationship between antibiotic use and public health, there’s a really nice piece done by PBS’s Frontline on the effects of sub-therapeutic use of antibiotics in farms on public health.

[5] There’s one more environmental benefit to organic farming: carbon sequestration. According to some studies, organic farming is better at capturing carbon than it’s conventional couterpart, thus making it a better weapon fight climate change. Unfortunately, there are not enough studies to make this a conclusive benefit of organic farming. But if it is true, organic farming could be another weapon against climate change.

Don't Pity the Fool!

Gooseberries!

“We were getting rather frustrated with Transport for London at one point and discussed internally trying to get on a bus with a coffin.” – London funeral director John Cribb expresses frustration at special road lanes set aside for Olympic vehicles.

            By now, we probably have a case of Olympic fatigue. I know I do. Even thought the 2012 London Olympics are officially over[1], there are only so many rounds of women’s boxing, shot put and Michael Phelps that one can take within a 14-day period. There is no way that anyone can convince me that McDonalds builds Olympic champions. And don’t even get me started on the overly-enthusiastic commentary from sportscasters…no matter how much you yell, synchronized swimming is not an inherently scream-in-your-face sport.

From the looks of it, it seems that Olympic attendees have had it with the food offerings at Olympic venues. Stories of faux-Mex, 12-dollar crap fish-and-chips, 10-dollar beer and McDonalds everywhere have been the complaint of many attendees. Add industrial scones, cheap tea and Cadbury chocolate bars, this was probably not British food’s finest moment. This is especially sad considering the renaissance that British cooking and restaurantation has had in the last 10 years. Maligned for many years as a cuisine of mushy-peas, Marmite and funny names,[2] British cooking has returned to its roots by concentrating on high quality regional foodstuffs and ingredients. Neal’s Yard Dairy, in London, has a full selection of artisanal British cheeses – from 4 different types of cheddar, several blue cheese that are NOT named Stilton and a Stinking Bishop.[3] St. John in London has done this brilliantly by bringing back old classics such as Eccles cake, pigs tails and Welsh rarebit in a form that actually tastes like it was supposed to (by that, I mean it tastes like food you really want to eat).

One of those quintessential British ingredients is the gooseberry. Native to the UK, northern Europe and parts of Asia, the gooseberry (Ribes uva-crispa) is related to currants. Native to parts of Northern Europe (both in the UK and on the continent) and across Asia, gooseberries are thorny bushes, about 1-3 feet. While gooseberries can be found in the US, its cultivation is very limited.[4]

Gooseberries look much like their currant cousins in shape, but slightly bigger in size. While there are several varieties of gooseberries, most are a pale bright green and are used primarily in desserts and preserves. Primarily fruiting in mid-late summer, their sweet-tart flavor is a primarily used for pies and preserves. But honestly, why waste fresh fruit? Gooseberries are perfect for another one of those classic British desserts: Fool.[5]

Fool, like its related desserts (or puddings, if we really want to all-Brit) Eton Mess and trifle, is merely a sweetened fruit puree folded into whipped cream.  And fool, like gooseberries, has been around for a while-some sources have it dated as far back as the 15^th century, especially the gooseberry variety.

 Because it is SO simple to make, it is absolutely crucial to have to best quality ingredients-namely, good fruit and fresh cream. Now I could go on about the abysmal quality of dairy in the US, but if you are lucky enough to get good cream[6] this is the perfect use for it. In terms of the berries, if you happen to get real gooseberries, then by all means use them. In a pinch, you can substitute any soft fruit, blackberries, strawberries, etc. and it will just as good. The only key is that the fruit be ripe and in season. And the best part about fool? It’s NO COOK cooking. The only equipment you really need is a hand mixer, and you don’t even need that (for those who want an upper bicep workout). Mash fruit, whip cream and fold and you’re ready to eat.

And with this, I say good riddance to the Olympics. But I definitely hear the UK calling. And it’s because I’m a fool.

Hay-Infused Gooseberry Fool (with blackberry garnish)

Hay-infused Gooseberry Fool

Because I like a twist on things, I have incorporated a little something extra for this particular fool recipe – smoked hay.  You’re probably thinking I’m nuts, but smoked hay accentuates both the cream, by bringing out its grassy/savory elements, and the gooseberries, by foiling the acidity. But if can’t really deal with the idea of horse fodder in your food, by all means you can omit it, but I think you’d be really missing out. You can get hay at any pet shop, but if you are lucky enough to have a local source, by all means use it. (And for those of you worried about diseases and those sorts of things, because the hay is heated, any critter, small or large, will not survive. Trust me.)

2 large handfuls of hay

1 pd. of gooseberries (or any other soft fruit, e.g. blackberries, strawberries, raspberries) with some reserved for garnish

¼ c. sugar + 2 tbs. sugar

11/2 c. cream (see note)

Mint leaves for garnish

1.     Smoke hay. Heat oven to 350F. Take a metal baking sheet and line with foil. Place hay on top in an even layer. Place in oven and bake until it starts to smoke and have a noticeable scent, about 45 minutes to an hour. (Start checking at 45 minutes. You don’t want a fire in your oven).

2.     In the meanwhile, take the cream and place it in a metal bowl. Place in the refrigerator to chill until hay is finished smoking.

3.     Also while hay is smoking, make the fruit puree, take chosen fruit you are using, and mash roughly with a potato masher, until desired consistency. (For a smoother consistency, mash thoroughly and strain skin and seeds out with a fine-meshed strainer or a chinoise.) Add ¼ cup of sugar, stir thoroughly to dissolve and place in refrigerator to chill. (You will probably have more than you need for the recipe. Use the rest for yogurt or pancakes!)

4.     When the hay has finished smoking, immediately place the hot hay into the cold cream and let it infuse for 2 hours in the refrigerator.

5.     When ready to serve, take infused cream and strain hay out of cream, using cheesecloth lined strainer (you want the taste of hay, not actual hay in your mouth) strain all the hay out of the cream. Press on the hay to make sure you can extract all the cream from the hay.

6.     With a hand mixer, add 2 tbs. of sugar into the cream and whip into hard peaks form. Add 1 ½ c. of fruit puree; gently fold into cream until thoroughly combined.

7.     Place into individual dessert bowls or into a large serving bowl. Garnish with reserved berries and mint sprigs. Serve immediately.

---

[1] I’m not sure what is defined as “over” by the Olympic committee. Even though the closing ceremonies were Sunday, I hear that the Bronze soccer match is going to be today. Are the over or are they not? Does anyone have an answer to this?

[2] Funny names would include Toad in the Hole (sausages encased in Yorkshire pudding batter), Bubble and Squeak (fried vegetables from a roast dinner) or pasties, which are encased meat pies (for a long while I wondered why the British were naming food after the things you put on your boobs).

[3] Stinking Bishop is a washed rind, soft cow’s milk cheese that is pretty stinky, but not offensively so.  Made exclusively in Gloucestershire, the cheese used to be made solely of Gloucestershire cows, but due to scarcity of the breed, other cows’ milk may be added.

[4] To those that get annoyed by the US customs agents asking you if you have any fruit, plants or seeds from a foreign country, get over it. The main reason why gooseberries and currants are not cultivated in the US has to do with invasive species. The Ribes sub-genus is a host for white pine blister rust, which has devastated pine forests all over Europe. For that reason, Maine and a couple of other states (mainly in New England) have forbidden the cultivation of currants, gooseberries or any hybrids in any form.

[5] For a while, I thought the name fool came about because it was so simple to make, but the Oxford English Dictionary basically told me I was fooled (HA!). There seems to be very little history on the dessert itself, beyond it’s ubiquity after the 16^th century. Some have traced the etymology from the French word fouler, or to crush, but according to the OED, that is completely off. If anyone has a clue as to the origins of this word, let me know. I’ve been wondering about this for a while….

[6] I think raw cream is amazing stuff, but honestly, from a public health perspective, raw cream is a raw deal. Anyhow, it is almost impossible to get unless you know some dairy farm that will supply you with the illegal goods (yes, raw milk is illegal in several states). The main problem with raw milk is that it is usually filled with pathogens, e.g. E. coli, Salmonella, and Listeria. Yes, pasteurization kills a little bit of the taste, but you won’t taste much from a hospital bed if you get food poisoning.

Drink It Up!

“Wear sunscreen. If I could offer you only one tip for the future, sunscreen would be it.” – Baz Luhrman, “Everyone is Free to Wear Sunscreen”

I’m usually not much of a drinker. I do enjoy a nice glass of wine now and then, but honestly, if you were to ask me the minute differences between a Super-Tuscan and a Brunello di Montalcino, I’d probably say, “Uh…one’s tastier than the other?”

            This is not to harsh on oenophiles and wine experts. In fact I’m pretty envious of their knowledge of terroir and their palate memory. I’m not going to try to compete with 70 year old guys that can’t find their glasses but can sure as hell tell me which side of the hill a Trebbiano was grown on. I’ll just be content to see a picture of happy vintner in bucolic nowhere-ville.

            I would probably have to say the same of cocktails…until it comes summer. Somehow the combination of heat, bared bodies and stale coconut oil has me thinking cocktails…in any form. Martini, Negroni, Long Island Ice Tea, whatever. As long as it’s cold and it has alcohol, I’ll pretty much drink it.

Cocktail at Grant Achatz's Aviary in Chicago

            This attitude has gotten me pretty far, for the most part. But if anyone has noticed, cocktails and spirits have gone the way of wine, in terms of science and knowledge (and snobbery, but we won’t to there). Want bacon infused vodka? Vaporized tea? Liquid nitrogen? They got it, and then some. Call it molecular mixology or crazy drinking, but this is NOT your dad’s gin and tonic. Bars such as Aviary and Longman & Eagle in Chicago, PDT in New York City, and Bourbon and Branch in San Francisco have re-examined not only the ingredients of drinks but also the technique involved in making them. Even cooking schools have noticed. David Arnold, technology director at the International Culinary Institute[1] and inventor extraordinaire at David Chang’s Booker and Dax, has gotten into the game by distilling his own spirits (Hint: Don’t try wasabi…) and pressure cooking onions for a future drink.[2] Homemade bitters, herb-infused spirits, and vegetables have all become the new ginger ale, sour mix and maraschino cherries for barkeeps. And it’s not just vodka, whiskey and gin. A whole set of old world spirits, such as Fernet Branca[3], Crème de Violette, Herbsaint, have been playing with new artisanal rums, tequilas, and brandies to create some pretty unique concoctions that wouldn’t be out of place in a lab.

            In the spirit (HA!) of the summer cocktail, today’s recipe takes some classic late summer fruits and puts them to boozy use. Blueberries, which are right now in season across northern latitudes of Europe (Germany, Poland, Scandinavia) and in northern US states[4], are amazing in drinks. The problem is with the skin and the seeds, which does not make for a pretty drink. But by muddling and straining the blueberries, you get all the booberry deliciousness without any seeds stuck in your teeth (definitely NOT sexy). But for you men who might think that any “fruity” drink is not manly enough, don’t worry, I’m on to you. To give some hair on this drink, I’ve added a nice herbal element: thyme and mint. By infusing some time into some sugar syrup as well as muddling some mint with the blueberries, you get a foil to all the sugar. Add some gin and you’re ready to rock. But trust me on the sunscreen.

Thyme's up!

Thyme’s Up

Yield: 1 drink

1 c. sugar

1 c. water

Zest of 1 lemon

1 large bunch of thyme (reserve a sprig for garnish)

10 blueberries + 2 for garnish

10 large mint leaves (use Moroccan mint if you can get it)

1 oz. gin (I use Hendricks or Bombay Sapphire, but any good quality gin is good)

1 oz. vodka (I use Stoli, but once again, any good vodka will do)

Soda water

Crushed ice

Lemon cut into eighths

Lemon peel twist for garnish

1.     To make the thyme simple syrup, take sugar and water in a small saucepan and put over medium heat. Stir to dissolve the sugar and let come to a boil. Take thyme and slap it between your hands, as if you were clapping with mint between your hands (to bring out the essential oils in the thyme) and place into the syrup. Add lemon zest and let it steep 8 hours or overnight, covered. (You will have far more than you need for the drink. Save the rest for other things…like more drinks or as a sweetener for tea.)

2.     To make the drink, take a glass muddle blueberries until they are completely juiced. Take mint and slap it (exactly the same method as the thyme) and then place into glass and muddle with smashed blueberries. Take the muddled blueberry mixture and using a fine meshed strainer, strain the juice out of the blueberries until all the juice is extracted (push on the solids with a spoon to get the maximum amount of juice).

3.     Place a handful of crushed ice, gin, vodka and 2-3 tsp. of thyme syrup with the blueberry juice and shake or stir mixture until cold and well mixed. Strain drink into serving glass, top with soda water. Taste to see if more syrup is desired (I like my on the not-so-sweet side) and add the juice of 1 lemon eighth. Garnish with thyme sprigs, blueberries and lemon twist.

---

[1] International Culinary Institute is formerly known as the French Culinary Institute.

[2] David Arnold is currently working on a book on the science of cocktails. Rumor has it that it will come out with Norton some time in the next year….

[3] A lot of these spirits have been around for ages. Aperol, Chartreuse, Lillet – they’ve been traditional Apéritifs and digestifs for Europeans for quite some time. The interesting thing is their “rediscovery” as cocktail ingredients instead of just a straight shot (or with a bit of soda or water).

[4] Blueberries usually are seasonal starting from June to August. Fruiting primarily depends on latitude and altitude, with lower altitudes and latitudes starting first. Of course with climate change, fruiting is starting earlier and earlier.

Noma - A Work Still In Progress

“I have never seen further than standing on the shoulders of giants” – Sir Isaac Newton.

When Sir Isaac Newton uttered these words, he was referring to the years of research and discovery from such greats as Galileo, Kepler and Brahe that gave him the base to do his own work. Although we would like to think that genius is the force of scientist, any scientist will tell you for every good thought they ever had was the product of years of study, lab work, number crunching and observation.

In a lot of ways, cooking is in the same vein. For every top chef that is anointed the next best thing by Michelin, San Pellegrino Top 100 restaurants, or Food Network, there are years of training and apprenticeship (stagiaire in French). While a phenomenal dish may be born in chef’s head since they were 15, there are hours (and hours and hours) of peeling vegetables, stock making and kitchen drudgery before that plate even hits a restaurant 10 or even 20 years later.

Thus when I first went to Noma [an abbreviation of “Nordisk Mad” (Nordic Food)] in 2007, I realized that something was brewing in René Redzepi’s head long before the wood sorrel even hit the plate.

By now, the origins story of Noma is fairly well established. BN (“Before Noma”), there was only a revolving door of pork, potatoes, herring and grumpy Protestants. And AN (“After Noma”), every restaurant in Denmark is busy foraging for herbs with funny letters and killing moose with their bare hands.

But as with any origins myth, the truth is far more complicated. Yes, Denmark for years was not what anyone would call a “dining destination.” Beyond the famed smørrebrød, all you could in terms of fine dining was from Italy and France. And outside Denmark? Interest in Scandinavian food was a novelty – but mainly of the IKEA and butter cookie-kind (Granted, Marcus Samuelsson did Scandinavia a huge favor by elevating Scandinavian food to fine dining in the early aughts with Aquavit).

            In 2003, Claus Meyer, the Danish restaurateur, approached a bunch of chefs about opening a high-end restaurant that highlighted Nordic ingredients. Most chefs passed. Except a young chef named René Redzepi. After having stints at Pierre André in Copenhagen, Jardin des Sens in France, El Bulli, and French Laundry, Redzepi, then working as a sous-chef at the Kong Hans, agreed and a partnership was born.

But the beginning was not easy. Sourcing was a bit of a problem: No one just had piles of wood sorrel at the grocery store. But that was the least of Noma’s worries: How do you convince diners, much less chefs, that there was any worth in Nordic food? Chefs were the easy bunch. Ten months after Noma opened, Redzepi and Meyer did a Lars Von Trier. Working with area chefs, they created the Manifesto for the New Nordic Kitchen.

Chefs working inside the kitchen at Noma

But as the 17^th century French playwright Moliere said, “I live on good soup, not on fine words.” The proof was ultimately in the pudding. After reading several reviews of Noma, I decided on a whim to go there for lunch in 2007.  After eating at many of the world’s top fine dining establishments, WD-50, Charlie Trotter’s, French Laundry, I was not expecting to be surprised.

            How wrong I was. Starting with a couple of amuse-bouches of root crisps and egg cream, beef tartar with wood sorrel and a juniper vinaigrette and an aebleskiver (a donut like pastry made with batter) filled with pork and dusted with vinegar powder, this was not your farmor’s food.            

            The mains also did not disappoint. Instead of the ubiquitous pork, there was seafood abounds. Squid was served with unripe strawberries, cream and dill. Razor clams were served with an edible shell of parsley gelatin and a dill-mustard sauce, garnished with a mound of horseradish powder. Tender reindeer had ramson, woodruff and celery. This was food that broke ALL the rules yet maintained a rigor in taste. I tried to convince my friends of the ingenuity of the food I was eating, but I mainly faced a deer-in-headlights expression. They didn’t get it and to a certain extent, neither did I. It wasn’t that the food wasn’t delicious. It was fantastic. What I couldn’t get my head around was the juxtaposition of radically local ingredients with classical technique. It was if someone put a chef in Mars and asked him to go crazy.

            But it just wasn’t the food. Who decided that an old ship warehouse could be repurposed to a fine dining destination? Who has the chef greet you like you were his neighbor? And shouldn’t chefs be cooking the food and not serving it? And since when did fine dining destinations look like a hunting lodge? And it still gets a Michelin star?!

René Redzepi has now become the poster boy for an uber-locavore and foraging movement that even has New York’s Central Park worried for its plants. Almost as if he predicted a backlash to the chemical warfare of molecular gastronomy, Redzepi’s style of cooking has now become a dining meme to the point that a television show, Portlandia, has made an entire parody of locavore and wildvore dining practices.

Amsue Bouche of Malt Flatbread with Juniper being prepared

            Did two Michelin stars, a Time Magazine cover and three consecutive number ones in San Pellegrino Top 100 Restaurant list change anything? Certainly the restaurant itself has changed. From a kitchen staff of under 10, the staff is now of close to 40, including 20-30 stages, plus a hoard of foragers, farmers and fishermen supplying the restaurant. Add a completely renovated kitchen, a food laboratory, an actual head chef beyond Redzepi, and it’s any wonder that the restaurant is in the same physical location.

              But what about the food? Over the course of this year, I was lucky enough to dine at Noma twice, once at lunch and once for dinner, and well, things have changed. But to use the words “better” would be a misnomer: Noma didn’t become “better” or “worse.” It just is.

            This was evident the minute I sat down to eat. Opening with an amuse-bouche of malt flatbread shaped in the form of a tree branch with a dusting of dried pine needle powder set inside a vase of local flora, the setting might have proved to be too precious – until one took a bite. The slightly burnt caramel undertones of the malt were offset by the herbal bitterness of the pine powder, as if one could capture the Swedish woods in a cracker.

            And on and on it went, this series of amuse bouches, each reminiscent of the best Scandinavian holiday you never had. A blue mussel with concentrated mussel juice and celery was encased in an edible shell with the taste of Limfjord in a mind’s eye. A pot of baby radishes and carrots planted in a “soil” of ground malt bread and a puree of herbs and crème fraîche. A tin of cheese “cookies” topped with chopped arugula and stems taken from an assortment of herbs used in the kitchen that day. Toast topped with smoked cod roe was the summer picnic on the bay.

Snack of Blue Mussels with an edible shell

            By the time I finished all the amuse-bouches, I realized what the change was there. Yes, some of the “standard” Noma dishes were still on the menu: the beef tartar with sorrel, the marrow salad with pickled vegetables, but others got a new twist, such as the æbleskiver.

While earlier, Noma nibbled on the edges, it was evident in within that first hour that Noma had pushed itself to virtually change the ontology of fine dining. The categories of what were “ingredients,” “cooking,” and “food” were all challenged, just in 14 bites. Salad? Forget it. René has ants. They tasted like lovage, simply dressed with vinegar. Aebleskiver, looked the like its generic self-until you saw the muikku (a small Finnish freshwater fish) speared through it. One bite later, revealed a square chunk of piping hot pickled cucumber. And using shaved frozen cod liver, normally destined to Omega-3 supplements, as a Nordic answer to foie gras? Huh?

Tastes like lovage! Live ants dressed with vinegar

But the push was also in seeing how much work ingredients and technique could do. Redzepi asked more of his ingredients, geography and culture. And in turn, Redzepi was asking his diners to take that risk with him. A dish of fresh and fermented peas (or “peaso” as our server joked) used the fermentation techniques of ancient Japan to place vegetable, animal and mineral all in one dish.  A dried scallop, beechnut and biodynamic grains plate used locally grown grain and herbs to create a “grød” or porridge with dashi-esque freeze-dried scallop chips placed on top for an umami crunch.

Pear Tree dessert with pear and thyme sponge

 But lest one think that the desserts were to be neglected, Noma’s chef de partie Milton Abel and pastry chef, Rosio Sanchez, did not disappoint. A dessert of poached/grilled pear, seasoned with lemon thyme, sat next to a frozen sponge of thyme and a sauce of thyme oil. The natural sugar in the grilled pear only became more evident with the judicious use of thyme and a sprinkling of salt. A dessert of walnut and berries had no hint of it’s origins until you took a bite-it was walnut ice cream, but balanced with the tannic notes from a slightly bitter walnut powder and an acid punch of powdered berries.

             “Is everything all right?” asked the waiter. It was more than “all right” – it was incredible. But in some ways, this is not really the right question to ask. No one ever asked Newton, if things were “all right.” Nature is as nature does, but even Newton admitted that while “Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done.”  The question for Noma is not whether there should be expectations upon what the “perfect” dining experience should be. The genius of Noma, like in science, is in creation. It still is becoming.

        

Cross-posted (with edits) on The Daily Meal   

Are we MAD? Yes we are! Reflections on Day 2 of MAD Food Camp

Ferran Adria burning down the house at MAD Food Camp

Considering the theme of MAD Food Camp was appetite, the first day’s speakers certainly whetted the audience’s appetite. In the words of one chef, Josh Pollen of London’s Blanch and Shock, day two was only bound to be “massively epic.” With heavyweight speakers Wylie Dufrense, Nordic Food Lab, Fergus Henderson and Trevor Gulliver, and Ferran Adrià, listeners had no excuses.

Chido Govera

But before any of the speakers began, René Redzepi paid to tribute to Spain – Spain’s soccer team, that is. Busting out a giant picture of the Spanish flag, Redzepi asked the audience to listen to the Spanish national anthem – probably much to the consternation of Massimo Bottura. But the start of day two was not about games. In what was probably the most poignant talk of the entire symposium, Chido Govera talked about hunger, memory and the will to do differently. Govera, a young Zimbabwean, was orphaned at the age of seven. Left to take care of younger brother and grandmother, Govera learned to forage for mushrooms from her grandmother. Saved from forced marriage by her own decision, she was fortunate enough to be chosen for a pilot project on fungiculture. Taught how to cultivate mushrooms using agricultural waste, Govera skills provided her money and food for not only supporting her own family, but also other orphans in her community. Using her story, she has not only taught fungiculture to other disadvantaged youth, but also started her own business to fund her development projects across the Africa and even in Oakland, California. But what does this do with appetite? In what could be said as an inspiration to the world, “Appetite lets us look inward and bring it outside to make change with what we have.” 

"It was a shitshow" Oh boy. Danny Bowien of Mission Chinese

Hope was also the message of Anthony Myint and Danny Bowien of Mission Chinese Food.  In only what could be a described as a fairy-tale which even made St. John Bread and Wine head chef Lee Tiernan cry, Myint and Bowien told the story of Mission Chinese Food. Myint, then a line cook in San Francisco, “didn’t know what I (Myint) wanted to do with my cooking career. As I often do in moments of uncertainty, I ate a taco.” And thus the story of Mission Chinese Food was born. First starting with a food truck and then renting space from a hole-in-the-wall Chinese restaurant for the princely sum of 300 dollars a day, Bowien and Myint started cooking food in a cramped kitchen, also shared with the still running Chinese restaurant. It wasn’t easy. As Myint and Bowien put it mildly, “It was a shitshow.” After doing their own cooking for a stint, Myint and Bowien would then sponsor guest chefs at the restaurant. As each night was a “logistical nightmare,” both Myint and Bowien thought that maybe “failure was an option.” After closing the restaurant for a month, Bowien and Myint reincarnated themselves as Mission Chinese Food. Like other Chinese restaurants, Bowien and Myint hired local Chinese immigrants to be staff. Unlike local Chinese restaurants, they paid their workers living wage and donated a large part of their profits to charity: one year alone, $130,000 dollars was donated to the San Francisco Food Bank. Using their appetite for good food and social justice, Bowien and Myint’s story proved that Cinderella can go to the ball… even with Szechuan peppercorns.

As several speakers noted, part of understanding appetite is understanding science. In studying the memory of meals, Dr. Paul Rozin examined the psychology of memorable meals and his findings should make restaurants take notice. After surveying diners in America, Rozin asked “Why should be serving dessert at the end of meals if it’s not our favorite dish?” (Sorry, pastry chefs.) The key to memorable meals is in the physical ordering and structure of meals. Foods that are novel, food order (quick survey of Mad Food Camp participants found that majority liked appetizers the most), and communality all affect our experience with meals. But are chefs willing to incorporate those elements into planning meals? Are we missing a certain vocabulary about how we understand the meaning of food?

In challenging conceptions, the Nordic Food Lab’s Lars Williams and Mark Emil Hermansen presented the world of edible “inedibles” – namely insects.  In a world where food security has become paramount concern of policy makers, environmentalists and governments, why aren’t we eating more “inedibles”? For Nordic Food Lab, that question is one of the reasons to go wildvore. But the other major concern? Deliciousness. “Deliciousness is the driving force of edibility.” Distributing a little bag filled with live ants, bee larvae and a fish sauce of garum and grasshoppers, “Everything is edible, just some things have consequences.” Luckily for us (and any future diners at Noma), the ants, bee larvae and grasshoppers happen to be delicious and can create unique flavor palates.  So why aren’t we eating more ants, grubs, and grasshoppers? “Only prejudice can make it taste bad.”

Science. For any occasion. Wylie Dufrense of WD-50

And speaking of prejudices, there are the chefs who just aren’t interested in science. To those who think as such, Wylie Dufrense of WD-50 has a message for you: “There are many people outside the kitchen with much more knowledge than chefs. We have to learn from them too.” For Dufrense the appetite for knowledge came out of a curiosity to know how and why chefs cook. Going through the motions is not good enough: “Understanding the processes and having more knowledge about the ‘whys’ helps us (chefs) to do our jobs better.”  But lest anyone think that Dufrense is just a scientist, he also emphasized the personal and creative aspect of chefs. How can that be expressed? With humor. But in the end? “Whoever knows the most wins…Let’s keep knowing. Let’s keep learning. Let’s keep cooking.”

But that humor bit? Leave it to Mr. and Mrs. St. John to provide it. Sitting down on two hay bales with a nice bottle of red, Fergus Henderson and Trevor Gulliver of St. John Bar and Restaurant in London.  What do these refined gentlemen have to say about appetite?  Fergus said it best: “I am a prisoner of appetite. I have a lunch habit.” But in terms of where that appetite comes from? It’s from diners. That is where the force is. But in terms of a restaurateur? Trevor tells it like it is: “A good restaurant will take five or six years. You have to have an appetite to hang on while you build that.”  To wit, Fergus suggested that “chefs have to be Jedi knights, or rather, Jedi chefs.” But most importantly, the message was one of humility – and a good bon mot.

The St. John Show: Fergus Henderson & Trevor Gulliver

Adria explains the entire culinary universe...on a flipboard

But in what was probably the most anticipated talk of the entire symposium, Ferran Adrià took the stage. Considering the circumstances, it was a miracle that he appeared at all: “For 18 months, I (Adrià) swore I would never go to another chef symposium. I swear. But I came. And I want to explain why.” In what may seem as a surprise to many, Adrià explained from 1994 to 2008, El Bulli never made any money. But it was never the point: “I got into cooking because I like the challenge of creativity, to forge new paths. I never searched for success, but happiness.”  Creating that happiness takes a lot of work. In probably the only statistical demonstration using grapes, Adrià pointed to the miniscule population interested in avant-garde cuisine-in a grape seed. “What’s a grape seed? It’s nothing! But if you put it in the ground, it grows.” But that growth is one that takes hard work, dedication and creativity. And creativity does not come automatically. It’s a capricious beast: “If you want to play at the Noma/El Bulli level, know that creativity has no compassion, no matter how passionate the chef.”  But ultimately it is not just one chef that makes a great restaurant. For Adrià, “El Bulli is not made by Ferran Adrià. El Bulli is bigger than any of us.” And in what could only be a tribute to the 2000 staff that came through the restaurant, Adrià reminded all of us what it’s all about: “The human side of this symposium is always with human values - ethics, honesty, happiness and justice – and you.”  If Ferran Adrià and El Bulli are any indication of the manifestation of those ideas, the world is going to be a better – and happier – place for it. 

Cross-posted at The Daily Meal.