Eggs and Pasta

[JPW]

I'm quite impressed that somebody knows this!

It crops up on my neighborhood listserv from time to time as a few families by the Arliss St. Giant keep hens. As most of those families appear to be Latino, the debate tends to be colored by cultural differences and (sometimes) thinly veiled racism.

[darkstar965]

?.. Also, "GMO" is way too broad a term to be meaningful. Dogs are GMOs, too.

That breadth is a big reason why the discussion on this thread has been especially "robust" ;-) or, veered from guardrail-to-guardrail as if on an icy street.

You're now the second to point out that dogs, as bred domestic animals, are genetically modified. Of course true they are and, at least in this country, aren't food. Still, the same point can be applied to livestock as animals raised for the food supply are also bred and modified, very much by small, local producers as well as with "Big Ag."

With produce, there are different classes ranging from soybeans and "feed corn," produced at large scale and almost entirely with GMO seed and to many/most other types of fruits and vegetables which, while surely crossed (via cross pollination, grafting, etc), can often (not always) be found in non-genetically-modified (seed) forms.

I think, for me--and this comes after reviewing all the citations in this thread--it is a very complicated issue with some scientific uncertainty. I totally understand, and respect, that a few others here disagree or may even "strongly disagree" with that statement. All good.

As long as I'm able to buy local cucumbers, tomatoes, apples and the like in season, I'm apt to do that. I think such products taste better than what I can get in large supermarkets. And, I'm not ready to sign on to the idea that GMO crops grown to be resistant to harsh pesticides like RoundUp are "fine" when there's still such fierce debate over that and RoundUp-like chemicals clearly aren't themselves safe for human consumption. Finally, I think it very important for people to at least be aware (even if they then reject) of motivations and possible conflicts of interest involved in food production. If the same Fortune 100 company has billion-dollar businesses in strong pesticides and in soybean seed, should that be a concern? That's a question for every individual to decide for themselves.

[astrid]

I will just say that when humans mess with complex systems that don't really understand, I would prefer that they proceed with extreme caution and are motivated by things other than short term greed and vainglory.  There's no re-dos for this one and only known planet capable of sustaining complex life, should we mess it up.  We don't know the long term impact of GMO organisms, yet we're forced by Monsanto (and the regulatory bodies that are in its pockets) to eat it, breath it, have it contaminate existing non-GMO corn strains, all without my consent or knowledge.

And I don't assume that old fashion breeding and hybridization is harmless or merely incremental.  There's tolerable argument that the epidemic of celiac disease comes from high gliadin modern wheat strains.  There are plenty of other "old fashion" ways to mess up the environments too, look at the destruction wrought by introduced species and diseases - mongooses in Hawaii, destruction of the North American chestnut and elm, kudzu, the increasing disease and insect pressure on fruit and vegetable crops.  Even "good" crops introductions such as the sweet potato and corn into the old world, have very serious negative consequences for the ecology whereever they're planted (see 1493 by Charles Mann).

I think that you would be very foolish to merely accept what the experts say.  Experts recommended the FDA food pyramid and demonized animal fats for decades, while letting people gulp down HFCS and Crisco as healthier alternatives.  And those were made before corporate interests invaded academia and government (through grants, revolving door careers, and election funding) in a way that it did not in 1930-1990.

[darkstar965]

I will just say that when humans mess with complex systems that don't really understand, I would prefer that they proceed with extreme caution and are motivated by things other than short term greed and vainglory. There's no re-dos for this one and only known planet capable of sustaining complex life, should we mess it up. We don't know the long term impact of GMO organisms, yet we're forced by Monsanto (and the regulatory bodies that are in its pockets) to eat it, breath it, have it contaminate existing non-GMO corn strains, all without my consent or knowledge.

....

I think that you would be very foolish to merely accept what the experts say. Experts recommended the FDA food pyramid and demonized animal fats for decades, while letting people gulp down HFCS and Crisco as healthier alternatives. And those were made before corporate interests invaded academia and government (through grants, revolving door careers, and election funding) in a way that it did not in 1930-1990.

Big agree with nearly all of that, astrid. When this discussion first started many posts upthread, I wrote that I thought the science was less settled than, say, what we now know and believe about chronic smoking and associated health issues. I chose that comparison because I thought it extreme so less likely to be controversial. I was surprised it brought out strong disagreement since we obviously, at least, don't have the long term view here (on GMO seed modified commodity food crops) that we do with tobacco. One poster upthread wrote that "90% of all food" in the US is GMO which not only seems untrue but also wasn't supported by the article linked to in that same post. Another poster felt the we already know everything we need to know about this. Of course, everyone is entitled to their own views and mine will just continue to evolve. I just try to respect any view (as you have) while expressing my own, as I think I have here upthread. To me, the case you make is compelling and very aligned with a ton of things I've read and learned in recent years.

[Josh]

Big agree, astrid.  When this discussion first started many posts upthread, I wrote that I thought the science was less settled than, say, what we now about chronic smoking and associated health issues. I chose that comparison because I thought it extremes so less likely to be controversial.  I was surprised it brought out strong disagreement since we obviously, at least, don't have the long term view here (on GMO seed modified commodity food crops) that we do with tobacco. One poster upthread wrote that "90% of all food" in the US is GMO which not only seems untrue but also wasn't supported by the article linked to in that same post.  Another poster felt the we already know everything we need to know about this.  Of course, everyone is entitled to their own views and mine will just continue to evolve. I just try to respect any view (as you have) while expressing my own, as I think I have here upthread. To me, the case you make is compelling and very aligned with a ton of things I've read and learned in recent years.

For what it's worth, I responded to your suggestion that the science behind genetic modification was not fully understood.  We absolutely understand how to manipulate genomes, whether in single-celled organisms, fruit-flies, mice, or corn.  It isn't a mysterious process, or the result of the use of the dark arts.  Such genetic manipulation is now pretty mundane from a technical standpoint.

My initial purpose in questioning Pool Boy upthread was just to get an idea of what specifically about GMOs he found distasteful (literally or figuratively).  I am far from a GMO evangelist.  In my own consumption and purchasing, I try whenever possible to buy local, sustainable, humanely produced goods.  My concerns about food center not on GMOs, but about the practices and motives of big agriculture.  Like any other technologic advance, GMOs have the potential to do some good in the world, and the potential to be utilized carelessly or maliciously.

I think it behooves us as a society to have a genuine discussion about the most efficient and sustainable way to feed the planet moving forward, but to do so, we have to start from a solid factual base.  Too many of our current "debates" are based on fear and institutional distrust as opposed to facts (vaccines, climate change, reservations vs. no-reservations at popular restaurants).  Much of the anti-GMO material I have read does not seem terribly fact-based.

[darkstar965]

For what it's worth, I responded to your suggestion that the science behind genetic modification was not fully understood. We absolutely understand how to manipulate genomes, whether in single-celled organisms, fruit-flies, mice, or corn. It isn't a mysterious process, or the result of the use of the dark arts. Such genetic manipulation is now pretty mundane from a technical standpoint.

My initial purpose in questioning Pool Boy upthread was just to get an idea of what specifically about GMOs he found distasteful (literally or figuratively). I am far from a GMO evangelist. In my own consumption and purchasing, I try whenever possible to buy local, sustainable, humanely produced goods. My concerns about food center not on GMOs, but about the practices and motives of big agriculture. Like any other technologic advance, GMOs have the potential to do some good in the world, and the potential to be utilized carelessly or maliciously.

I think it behooves us as a society to have a genuine discussion about the most efficient and sustainable way to feed the planet moving forward, but to do so, we have to start from a solid factual base. Too many of our current "debates" are based on fear and institutional distrust as opposed to facts (vaccines, climate change, reservations vs. no-reservations at popular restaurants). Much of the anti-GMO material I have read does not seem terribly fact-based.

Lots of good stuff here, Josh. I largely agree. And, any disagreement about our societal level of understanding around GMOs seems likely semantic.

I'm with you on the "practices and motives" point, one I and others have made here. As related to GMOs, it's more complicated and, while agree some have "potential to do some good in the world," my point about limited understanding isn't so much about how we genetically modify. Rather, it relates to any impact that certain and specific seed-level, genetic modifications to achieve aims like pesticide resistance, MAY have on medium and longer-term human health. Those efforts are all relatively recent so we just don't yet have the longitudinal studies we'll eventually have. In the meantime, the profit motive is more the rocket fuel than a social goal like nutrition/health.

FWIW, most of the "pro-GMO" material (largely put out by industry) and "anti-GMO material" put out by activists seems largely unhelpful to me.

So, scratching my head a bit here, but think we may be in a similar place which would be even more evident over a beer...if made with non GMO wheat. (Kidding!)

[Simul Parikh]

Fascinating conversation.

There is a difference between selecting traits for dogs and inserting another species DNA/RNA into a plant or animal.

But, the science is pretty strong. It's at least as strong as environmental science/climate change, so they debate could be had, but I think the preponderance of the science indicates there aren't safety issues. But, yeah, we are allowed to make choices on what we eat. I think Europe has taken away choice, probably hurt a lot of poor countries that can't afford to grow non GMO crops, without strong evidence of safety issues with GMOs. Here, we will have a choice, and the affluent can buy non GMO foods if they want to, or decide to buy GMO food if they want to. Labeling probably makes sense, but then again, if there is not difference in safety, I'm not sure it should be forced by the government.

I've found it fascinating that people that are on the pro-environment side claim that the opposite side is anti-science, while these same people are willing to ignore the data on the safety of GMO foods. If you're gonna be pro-science, you ought to be pro-science.

And, just prior to this, a man was finishing his cancer treatment and asking me what he should do about nutrition. Funny, after 4 years of medical school, 5 years of residency, board certification, we get about 5 total hours education about nutrition....

S

[jasonc]

I, of course, speak only for myself and don't even know Pool Boy. And, I imagine we have a GMO topic somewhere but not sure.

From everything I've read and learned, any health-related harm or benefits of GMO foods are still somewhat unknown. Or, at least, there isn't yet enough research or scientific consensus though there are studies and articles supporting pro and con views.

I strongly support much stronger labeling laws believing all people should simply have the right to be informed and make their own choices based on accurate information. This includes GMO since we don't yet fully understand the science behind it.

And, I also don't know Simul Parikh but don't think his post referenced a specific study so much as an interest in what a rigorous one might show.

I'm interested in the wine study, which was a specific reference.

[jasonc]

There was a study done recently comparing the views of scientists and lay people on issues like this.

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/the-gap-between-public-and-scientific-opinion/

The largest gap was in the question about GMOs:

Getting back to the Pew poll, they found that the biggest gap between scientific and public opinion concerned the safety of GMO food. In their poll 88% of members of the American Academy for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) stated that they have no concerns about the safety of GMO food, while only 37% of the public did "“ a 51% gap.

This is not surprising, and is in line with my sense over the last couple of years that the GMO debate is one of the topics where the gap between science and public opinion is the greatest (which is exactly why I have been focusing on this issue of late).

I haven't read much of what was written in this thread, but I suspect a lot of the hesitation stems from the naturalistic fallacy and an attempt to rationalize it.

[darkstar965]

There was a study done recently comparing the views of scientists and lay people on issues like this.

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/the-gap-between-public-and-scientific-opinion/

The largest gap was in the question about GMOs:

I haven't read much of what was written in this thread, but I suspect a lot of the hesitation stems from the naturalistic fallacy and an attempt to rationalize it.

Interesting study (by Pew) and summary (by the Yale neuroscientist) to be sure. Many great points in it and, just personally, I agree with it on balance. That said, he makes valid points about time (I.e., it takes a lot to get to consensus) and how peer review helps to ferret out quirks or wrong answers. And, he also supports the idea that wording (of survey questions) matters quite a lot, as does normalizing for bias with sample selection and statistical method.

You should review this thread since you're interested in the topic. Some here represent both extremes wrt GMO in our food supply and its relationship to human health. GMO seeds are a fairly recent phenomenon. I wouldn't imagine a majority of scientists would agree 'case closed' simply because the longitudinal data doesn't yet exist. I suspect we'll all have our minds changed some on this in the years to come. This is newer terrain. Not really analogous to things like smoking and vaccination, which have been analyzed with huge samples, by thousands of scientists, across most regions of the world, for many decades.

For now, I'll continue to favor local/seasonal food for many reasons apart from GMO. And, I'll continue to read, learn and wonder about places like Teaism here in the DC area, who stopped selling Edamame over this issue several years ago. I like edamame. Some may say that makes me inconsistent to which I'd plead a bit guilty.

[Pool Boy]

That breadth is a big reason why the discussion on this thread has been especially "robust" ;-) or, veered from guardrail-to-guardrail as if on an icy street.

You're now the second to point out that dogs, as bred domestic animals, are genetically modified. Of course true they are and, at least in this country, aren't food. Still, the same point can be applied to livestock as animals raised for the food supply are also bred and modified, very much by small, local producers as well as with "Big Ag."

With produce, there are different classes ranging from soybeans and "feed corn," produced at large scale and almost entirely with GMO seed and to many/most other types of fruits and vegetables which, while surely crossed (via cross pollination, grafting, etc), can often (not always) be found in non-genetically-modified (seed) forms.

I think, for me--and this comes after reviewing all the citations in this thread--it is a very complicated issue with some scientific uncertainty. I totally understand, and respect, that a few others here disagree or may even "strongly disagree" with that statement. All good.

As long as I'm able to buy local cucumbers, tomatoes, apples and the like in season, I'm apt to do that. I think such products taste better than what I can get in large supermarkets. And, I'm not ready to sign on to the idea that GMO crops grown to be resistant to harsh pesticides like RoundUp are "fine" when there's still such fierce debate over that and RoundUp-like chemicals clearly aren't themselves safe for human consumption. Finally, I think it very important for people to at least be aware (even if they then reject) of motivations and possible conflicts of interest involved in food production. If the same Fortune 100 company has billion-dollar businesses in strong pesticides and in soybean seed, should that be a concern? That's a question for every individual to decide for themselves.

Precisely and hear hear.

[Simul Parikh]

Though I'm solidly comfortable with GMO foods, there is a distinct difference between dog breeding and selecting crops for positive traits vs injecting the nuclei of organisms with spliced genomes. It is like breeding dogs, but injecting some sort of gene that keeps it from getting sarcoma at an early age. Maybe good, maybe bad, but certainly different. It's why cloning and gene therapy are still ethical morasses, but marrying a prettier girl than me so our kids look cute is totally fine.

I think that the key is that we get to see what's out there, taste what we like, and make choices that make us feel comfortable. If non-GMO food tastes better to you, than it does, and you're welcome to purchase it. Countries like India deal with famine and pestilence and the ravages of climate change; to feed their people, they made need Round Up resistant crops. I'd rather my countrymen not starve than eat organic/non-GMO food, but again, I hope they get to make that choice.

[hillvalley]

Back to eggs tasting better in Europe...

I don't think I understand. Every egg in Italy is better than any egg in the US? I don't think that can possibly be true.

In my albeit limited experience, yes. The don't do GMO and Round-up bathed food for chickens there for one.

To me, there is absolutely a difference in taste between eggs in the US, farm fresh or otherwise, and eggs in Italy and Switzerland (the only two countries where I can speak based upon long term personal experience).    There is no question that for me there is a huge difference in taste.  The eggs tasted eggier.  The flavor was richer and bolder.  Even in the dining hall of the school where I worked, where meals were mass produced for 200-400 depending on the day, the eggs were better than what we can make here.  American eggs, including organic and/or free range,  are bland in comparison.

When dealing with Swiss eggs it was because Swiss laws prohibit chemicals that are free flowing in the US.  Swiss customers were more demanding as well.  Each egg sold in Switzerland, whether purchased at the local butcher or at the mega grocery store, had the date it was laid stamped on it.  Eggs more than eight or so days old would not sell. When I found eggs eight days old I was encouraged to write the conglomerate to complain. (Migros for those who know European grocery stores) I should note that said eggs were never refrigerated.  In orientation at my school they had to teach the Americans staff to Not refrigerate their eggs.

Italian eggs, while subject to less stringent regulations (Switzerland is not part of the EU and therefor can be as nutty as they want about things such as chemicals used in their country), were better than most of what you can get here.  Again, Europe does not use the amount of chemicals we do in the US.  Eggs were not refrigerated there either (at least in northern Italy).  All over Europe I found that fruits and veggies tasted better, even when over steamed or under ripe.  In the US most of the veggies I eat, when I have control over where they are purchased, are from local organic farms via CSAs.

I believe that Americans, even those of us who eat a combination of fresh, seasonal, local, and/or organic vegetables, fruit, and eggs have forgotten what they are used to taste like.

In the late 1980s I worked for a company that performed irradiation services - mostly for things like medical equipment, cosmetics, etc., but also for certain foodstuffs.  I remember a number of news articles on the subject.  People didn't like the idea.  They were afraid of the word "irradiation", and there were many who would never be convinced that it wasn't dangerous in some way, like making the foodstuffs radioactive (poppycock), or changing its chemical structure in some way.

Depending on the company you worked for, I live with the guy who was in charge of the PR campaign to convince the public that irradiation was a good thing.

[darkstar965]

Back to eggs tasting better in Europe...

To me, there is absolutely a difference in taste between eggs in the US, farm fresh or otherwise, and eggs in Italy and Switzerland (the only two countries where I can speak based upon long term personal experience).    There is no question that for me there is a huge difference in taste.

...

I believe that Americans, even those of us who eat a combination of fresh, seasonal, local, and/or organic vegetables, fruit, and eggs have forgotten what they are used to taste like.

 ...

This is really interesting since think your experience in Switzerland was very recent or even current? I have travelled in Europe quite a bit and even lived in Southern Europe for awhile but years ago.

Here in the US, eggs marked "organic" and "free range" can be purchased in large grocery stores. I haven't liked those very much and, at times, the difference between the standard $1.50 BigAg type eggs hasn't even been obvious.

For me, it's the eggs from local,farms I've visited, often not certified organic but from hens raised with very traditional and humane methods, that taste different and better from all the others I've had here. I do remember thinking eggs in the EU especially great, flavorful and all the rest. But I'd liken small farm, and verifiably fresh (your 8-day standard being a great one and consistent with the practices of some small farms) eggs here to what I've had in Europe though my experience there isn't as recent.

[Pool Boy]

Hillvalley - I am glad it is not just me! The whole bit about the refrigeration of eggs here versus everywhere else is kind of maddening. And we could have the same discussion about cheese and butter.

darkstar95 - I love great eggs. I wish I had a relatively convenient source (say, 10-15 min from my house or job, at a time of day that is realistic (nights/weekends)) of local farm eggs that are humanely treated, etc but are raised without GMO feed.  Or I just need to nerd out every week or two and go out of my way to get good local eggs.

[jasonc]

Hillvalley - I am glad it is not just me! The whole bit about the refrigeration of eggs here versus everywhere else is kind of maddening. And we could have the same discussion about cheese and butter.

darkstar95 - I love great eggs. I wish I had a relatively convenient source (say, 10-15 min from my house or job, at a time of day that is realistic (nights/weekends)) of local farm eggs that are humanely treated, etc but are raised without GMO feed.  Or I just need to nerd out every week or two and go out of my way to get good local eggs.

But why non-GMO feed?  

[ktmoomau]

But that doesn't really explain why eggs from a person with a coop that let's their chickens roam free during the day and feeds them the same things as essentially they would be fed elsewhere (some supplemental greens, etc) would taste completely different, except perhaps the refrigeration.  No offense, but it's not like small European farmers with chicken coops are feeding them completely different things than a small farmer here in the states. Now, big ag might be, but your average small farmer with layers for their own consumption wouldn't neccessarily.  The Amish farm I grew up on let their chickens range and just supplemented their diet.

I am just going to say if you buy from a grocery store in the US and expect it to taste the same as buying from a market in Europe it might be different, but I just don't buy that fruits and veggies of the same variety, raised on similar size farms would taste completely differently, except perhaps soil or weather variations from year to year.  Now I admit, I had a quite charmed life growing up on small farms in Western Maryland and ate from huge family raised gardens. Now Europe does have a lot of small farms, but so does the US.  We certainly though have a larger ratio of large farms which produce cheaper produce, at expedited growing times to feed the world.  I am not saying you are tasting things wrong, I am just not sure what your food memory comparisons are formed by, it would be interesting to have a scientific study measuring things like sugars, acidity, ph, etc.

[darkstar965]

Aside from diet, free-ranging practices and breeds (of layers), I think freshness and refrigeration are likely huge differences between "typical" Western European eggs and "typical" US eggs. If you compare poaching two-week old and two-day old eggs, the differences in coherence, color and taste are more obvious. I'm not sure but I'd guess hillvalley's points about refrigeration and regulated freshness explain much of the perceived difference. It would be easy to do anecdotal home testing on that but we may lack the right commercial and governmental incentives here to see large-scale scientific studies here funded on a question like that.

[DonRocks]

To anyone who thinks not refrigerating eggs is weird: There's a reason why chickens sit on their eggs.

Because they don't have chairs.

[darkstar965]

To anyone who thinks not refrigerating eggs is weird: There's a reason why chickens sit on their eggs.Because they don't have chairs.

That's soooo bad. So very painful. There should be a penalty for posts like that. It, then again, you're in charge. Alas, woe is us.

With thx to TH. 😀

Edited February 25, 2015 by darkstar965

[The Hersch]

 Alas, woe are we.

I believe that should be "woe is us".

[darkstar965]

I believe that should be "woe is us".

Thank you. Knew I wasn't being Shakespearian. But a fail on the grammar. And, though I don't seem able to correct it (no "edit" option for some reason?), I appreciate the correction whether from you or that clever terrier.

[The Hersch]

Thank you. Knew I wasn't being Shakespearian. But a fail on the grammar. And, though I don't seem able to correct it (no "edit" option for some reason?), I appreciate the correction whether from you or that clever terrier.

Oh, I have no idea if there's any "correct" way of saying this. If you start with "woe is me", though, an expression I don't really know the origin of, but which is idiomatic if formally quite odd, you'd get "woe is us". "Woe are we" would imply that you started from "woe am I", which is certainly not idiomatic. But then neither, really, is "woe is us", as far as I know. Perhaps we should all just agree that "we're in the shit".

[darkstar965]

Back on topic (again ), this the video a short scroll down on the page makes me want to book a flight to LA asap.

http://www.four-magazine.com/articles/2508/bucato-pasta-fatta-a-mano

[Pool Boy]

Trattoria Caprini - pasta made shortly before lunch for us

[The Hersch]

Oh, I have no idea if there's any "correct" way of saying this. If you start with "woe is me", though, an expression I don't really know the origin of, but which is idiomatic if formally quite odd, you'd get "woe is us".

This has been nagging at me, and after I thought a little, I realized "woe is me" is just like "vey is mir" in Yiddish, or "Weh ist mir" in German. The "mir" is dative, which has pretty much died out in English, which is why "woe is me" sounds archaic: it is. "Woe is me" means "woe is (unto) me". This kind of dative usage had dwindled so much even by Shakespeare's time that Shakespeare based a whole (perhaps over-long) comic passage in The Taming of the Shrew on a misunderstanding of it. From Act I scene ii:

	[Enter PETRUCHIO and his man GRUMIO]PETRUCHIO	Verona, for a while I take my leave,	To see my friends in Padua, but of all	My best beloved and approved friend,	Hortensio; and I trow this is his house.	Here, sirrah Grumio; knock, I say.GRUMIO	Knock, sir! whom should I knock? is there man has	rebused your worship?PETRUCHIO	Villain, I say, knock me here soundly.GRUMIO	Knock you here, sir! why, sir, what am I, sir, that	I should knock you here, sir?PETRUCHIO	Villain, I say, knock me at this gate	And rap me well, or I'll knock your knave's pate.GRUMIO	My master is grown quarrelsome. I should knock	you first,	And then I know after who comes by the worst.PETRUCHIO	Will it not be?	Faith, sirrah, an you'll not knock, I'll ring it;	I'll try how you can sol, fa, and sing it.	[He wrings him by the ears]GRUMIO	Help, masters, help! my master is mad.PETRUCHIO	Now, knock when I bid you, sirrah villain!	[Enter HORTENSIO]HORTENSIO	How now! what's the matter? My old friend Grumio!	and my good friend Petruchio! How do you all at Verona?PETRUCHIO	Signior Hortensio, come you to part the fray?	'Con tutto il cuore, ben trovato,' may I say.HORTENSIO	'Alla nostra casa ben venuto, molto honorato signor	mio Petruchio.' Rise, Grumio, rise: we will compound	this quarrel.GRUMIO	Nay, 'tis no matter, sir, what he 'leges in Latin.	if this be not a lawful case for me to leave his	service, look you, sir, he bid me knock him and rap	him soundly, sir: well, was it fit for a servant to	use his master so, being perhaps, for aught I see,	two and thirty, a pip out? Whom would to God I had	well knock'd at first, Then had not Grumio come by the worst.PETRUCHIO	A senseless villain! Good Hortensio,	I bade the rascal knock upon your gate	And could not get him for my heart to do it.GRUMIO	Knock at the gate! O heavens! Spake you not these	words plain, 'Sirrah, knock me here, rap me here,	knock me well, and knock me soundly'? And come you	now with, 'knocking at the gate'?

[Simul Parikh]

I'm interested in the wine study, which was a specific reference.

Forgot to ever post this:

http://web.stanford.edu/class/linguist62n/morrot01colorofodors.pdf

The tasters were grad students at a French Wine academy.

[sandynva]

the study/comments on how much the mind impacts the taste of wine reminded me of this

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2014/10/23/mcdonald_s_organic_prank_for_foodies_two_dutch_pranksters_play_trick_at.html

I think it's clear that with expensive wine, organic, and even local foods, for at least some people, some of the improved taste is due to their expectation or belief that it will taste better. for me the interesting q is--doesn't that point, in some ways,  moot the studies? after all, for those people, if they drink the expensive wine, they really do think it tastes better and are happier about their experience, so then does the fact that it was all in their head matter?