Ok, I understand the chemical differences, but when it comes to cooking, is
there a big difference?

laurie

"laurie" > wrote in message
news:RVbOg.2405$SQ1.13@trndny09...
> Ok, I understand the chemical differences, but when it comes to cooking,
> is there a big difference?
>
> laurie

Not really. One may have bigger crystals than the other, so a teaspoon of
one won't have the same effect as a teaspoon of the other. But, it's always
smart to start with less salt than recommended and adjust for taste, so the
variation is something you can manage.

On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 12:28:33 +0000, laurie wrote:

> Ok, I understand the chemical differences, but when it comes to cooking,
> is there a big difference?
>
> laurie

http://www.foodnetwork.com/food/ck_c...696168,00.html

laurie wrote on 14 Sep 2006 in rec.food.cooking

> Ok, I understand the chemical differences, but when it comes to
> cooking, is there a big difference?
>
> laurie
>
>
>
>

Yes...think about it...Cooking has a lot to do with taste. You won't
often cook something that doesn't taste good to you, because you wouldn't
be bothered to eat it. Not many people will waste their time, money and
energy that way more than once.

Mostly all salt is sea salt as at one time or another it all came from a
sea. Some is just fresher/newer than the others, as in that particular
sea hasn't dry up yet.

But taste is relative. So figure out which salt you like the taste of
better...sea salt or kosher... and go from there. I prefer coarse
pickling salt, so I use that.

Other than preferred taste salt is mostly just salt. There are of course
different coloured salts...like blacksalt or gray sea salt. But they all
are similar in action but not taste. Use what tastes best to you. Or
something you and your family can agree on.

--


Curiosity killed the cat, but for a while I was a suspect

-Alan

"JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote in
:

> "laurie" > wrote in message
> news:RVbOg.2405$SQ1.13@trndny09...
>> Ok, I understand the chemical differences, but when it comes to
>> cooking, is there a big difference?
>>
>> laurie
>
> Not really. One may have bigger crystals than the other, so a teaspoon
> of one won't have the same effect as a teaspoon of the other.


Ohhhh, **** off!!!!


Just goes to show you wouldn't know a mouthful of shit from a mouthful
of clay.



--
Peter Lucas
Brisbane
Australia

'Enjoy today, it was paid for by a veteran'

"laurie" > wrote in
news:RVbOg.2405$SQ1.13@trndny09:

> Ok, I understand the chemical differences, but when it comes to
> cooking, is there a big difference?
>
> laurie
>
>
>


Try doing a taste test on at least *5* different salts.



There is a *big* difference.



--
Peter Lucas
Brisbane
Australia

'Enjoy today, it was paid for by a veteran'

"PeterL" > wrote in message
...
> "JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote in
> :
>
>> "laurie" > wrote in message
>> news:RVbOg.2405$SQ1.13@trndny09...
>>> Ok, I understand the chemical differences, but when it comes to
>>> cooking, is there a big difference?
>>>
>>> laurie
>>
>> Not really. One may have bigger crystals than the other, so a teaspoon
>> of one won't have the same effect as a teaspoon of the other.
>
>
> Ohhhh, **** off!!!!
>
>
> Just goes to show you wouldn't know a mouthful of shit from a mouthful
> of clay.
> Peter Lucas

What exactly do you disagree with?

Mr Libido Incognito said...

> Other than preferred taste salt is mostly just salt. There are of course
> different coloured salts...like blacksalt or gray sea salt. But they all
> are similar in action but not taste.


That brings up an interesting point. Rock salt is added to ice in manual
ice cream makers to lower the freezing temperature, meanwhile salt is added
to a pot of water to lower the boiling point temperature. I guess that's
the same thing, just weird.

Andy

Andy wrote on 14 Sep 2006 in rec.food.cooking

> Mr Libido Incognito said...
>
> > Other than preferred taste salt is mostly just salt. There are of
> > course different coloured salts...like blacksalt or gray sea salt.
> > But they all are similar in action but not taste.
>
>
> That brings up an interesting point. Rock salt is added to ice in
> manual ice cream makers to lower the freezing temperature, meanwhile
> salt is added to a pot of water to lower the boiling point
> temperature. I guess that's the same thing, just weird.
>
> Andy
>

I add salt to boiling water , because I'll be cooking in that
water...hence I flavour it to my liking. Things like potatoes, pasta,
etc...You need to add salt to the water...you can't seem to get the same
flavour adding the salt after it is cooked.

Very rarely do I require water that is boiling at a lower temp for
anything around the house or even at work. But I do require salted
boiling water for some cooking purposes. The lowering of the boiling
point is just a curious side issue for me...AFAIK.


--


Curiosity killed the cat, but for a while I was a suspect

-Alan

I tend to be a bit "heavy" with the saltshaker.

Larger crystals of Kosher salt means less salt-per-shake,
and I usually give up in frustration before I've over-salted !

.....try it if you've got an over-salter in the house.

( as Martha would say; "It's a good thing" )


<rj>

Andy wrote:

> That brings up an interesting point. Rock salt is added to ice in manual
> ice cream makers to lower the freezing temperature, meanwhile salt is added
> to a pot of water to lower the boiling point temperature. I guess that's
> the same thing, just weird.


Salted water boils at a higher temperature than unsalted. About 104
degrees instead of 100.

http://www.wonderquest.com/water-boil-salt.htm


--Lia

laurie wrote:
> Ok, I understand the chemical differences,

Obviously you do not understand the chemicasl difference because "Sea
Salt" is not pure NACL and therefore would not have asked your next
question.

>but when it comes to cooking, is there a big difference?

Sea salt tastes different because it is NOT pure NACL... salt labeled
"Sea Salt" is salt that is gathered directly from the sea and is NOT
refined.... different sea salts taste differently because they are
gathered from different parts of the world and are composed differently
chemically. It is not medically wise to use sea salt exclusively
without consulting ones medical professional (those taking certain
prescription drugs and nursing women should not use sea salt). My
personal opinion is that no one should ingest Sea Salt in large
quantities and/or on a regular basis.... limit use of Sea
Salt to occasional use only and use sparingly.

All table salt is sea salt that has been refined and is essentially
pure NACL... will contain only small traces of other elements and some
contain small quantities of anti-caking compounds. Salt labled "Kosher
Salt is sea salt that has also been refined the same as any other table
salt but is composed of larger flakes (some Kosher Salt does contain
anti-caking compounds, some do not), pickling salt is essentially
Kosher Salt (large flakes) that does not contain anti-caking
compounds... all salt is kosher.

Sheldon

Andy wrote:
> Mr Libido Incognito said...
>
> > Other than preferred taste salt is mostly just salt. There are of course
> > different coloured salts...like blacksalt or gray sea salt. But they all
> > are similar in action but not taste.
>
> That brings up an interesting point. Rock salt is added to ice in manual
> ice cream makers to lower the freezing temperature,
>
> meanwhile salt is added to a pot of water to lower the boiling point temperature.
> I guess that's the same thing, just weird.

You're what's weird.... because that's just not true... as least not in
any meaningful way for cooking.


The Effect of Sugar and Salt"

"When salt, sugar, or any other nonvolatile compounds are dissolved in
water, the freezing point of the resulting solution is lowered and it's
boiling point raised. We take advantage of this effect by using rock
salt to melt ice on roads, and to freeze ice cream. As far back as the
18th century, solutions of calcium chloride were used to reach
temperatures of -27° F. (-33° C.). The helpfullness of solutes at
the other end of the scale is, however, more limited. It takes one
ounce of salt to raise the boiling point of a quart of water by a mere
1° F. A Denverite who wanted to boil water at 212° F. would have to
add more than half a pound of salt to that quart of liquid." [Berk, Z.
Braverman's Introduction to the Biochemistry of Foods, Amersterdam and
New York: Elsevier, 1976]


Sheldon

In article >,
says...
> "laurie" > wrote in message
> news:RVbOg.2405$SQ1.13@trndny09...
> > Ok, I understand the chemical differences, but when it comes to cooking,
> > is there a big difference?
> >
> > laurie
>
> Not really. One may have bigger crystals than the other, so a teaspoon of
> one won't have the same effect as a teaspoon of the other. But, it's always
> smart to start with less salt than recommended and adjust for taste, so the
> variation is something you can manage.
>
>
>

Some sea salts have a slightly different taste, but I really doubt
anyone notices it in real cooking (as opposed to contrived taste tests).



--
Peter Aitken
Visit my recipe and kitchen myths pages at www.pgacon.com/cooking.htm

"Peter A" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> says...
>> "laurie" > wrote in message
>> news:RVbOg.2405$SQ1.13@trndny09...
>> > Ok, I understand the chemical differences, but when it comes to
>> > cooking,
>> > is there a big difference?
>> >
>> > laurie
>>
>> Not really. One may have bigger crystals than the other, so a teaspoon of
>> one won't have the same effect as a teaspoon of the other. But, it's
>> always
>> smart to start with less salt than recommended and adjust for taste, so
>> the
>> variation is something you can manage.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Some sea salts have a slightly different taste, but I really doubt
> anyone notices it in real cooking (as opposed to contrived taste tests).
> Peter Aitken

I agree. In most recipes, salt is not "out in front of" other ingredients.

"Steve Wertz" > wrote in message
...
> On 14 Sep 2006 13:10:14 GMT, PeterL wrote:
>
>> Try doing a taste test on at least *5* different salts.
>>
>>
>>
>> There is a *big* difference.
>
> Yeah - in price. In flavor? Not much.
> -sw

The container I have says the salt came from "the sparkling Mediterranean
Sea", where we know there are absolutely no issues with mercury, oil leaking
from poorly maintained ships, chemical runoff from agriculture, and other
surprises. I keep it around for a friend who prefers it on her salads. She's
welcome to it.

On 14 Sep 2006 13:08:56 GMT, PeterL > wrote:

>"JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote in
:
>
>> "laurie" > wrote in message
>> news:RVbOg.2405$SQ1.13@trndny09...
>>> Ok, I understand the chemical differences, but when it comes to
>>> cooking, is there a big difference?
>>>
>>> laurie
>>
>> Not really. One may have bigger crystals than the other, so a teaspoon
>> of one won't have the same effect as a teaspoon of the other.
>
>
>Ohhhh, **** off!!!!
>
>
>Just goes to show you wouldn't know a mouthful of shit from a mouthful
>of clay.


The question, of course, is how come you do? Been eating shit to
figure it out, haven't you?


jim

Peter A wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
>
>>"laurie" > wrote in message
>>news:RVbOg.2405$SQ1.13@trndny09...
>>
>>>Ok, I understand the chemical differences, but when it comes to cooking,
>>>is there a big difference?
>>>
>>>laurie
>>
>>Not really. One may have bigger crystals than the other, so a teaspoon of
>>one won't have the same effect as a teaspoon of the other. But, it's always
>>smart to start with less salt than recommended and adjust for taste, so the
>>variation is something you can manage.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> Some sea salts have a slightly different taste, but I really doubt
> anyone notices it in real cooking (as opposed to contrived taste tests).

Depends on what it's added to. I can tell a difference between sea salt
and "regular" salt on certain foods.

Alan wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 07:18:14 -0700, "<RJ>" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >I tend to be a bit "heavy" with the saltshaker.
> >
> >Larger crystals of Kosher salt means less salt-per-shake,
> >and I usually give up in frustration before I've over-salted !
> >
> >....try it if you've got an over-salter in the house.
> >
> >( as Martha would say; "It's a good thing" )
> >
> >
> ><rj>
>
>
> You never know what's in sea salt. It is contaminated with other
> things -- which give flavor.

No doubt, contains whatever floatsom, even pubic hairs and the contents
of used condoms.

Sheldon

laurie > wrote:
>Ok, I understand the chemical differences, but when it comes to cooking, is
>there a big difference?

Yes.

Expensive food always tastes better.

--Blair

Blair P. Houghton > wrote in
m:

> laurie > wrote:
>>Ok, I understand the chemical differences, but when it comes to
>>cooking, is there a big difference?
>
> Yes.
>
> Expensive food always tastes better.
>
> --Blair
>


Even in cooking I use Maldon Sea Salt. I never use the chemically
'enhanced' crap. If I'm cooking crabs or prawns, I walk across the road,
drop a bucket in and get fresh seawater.


--
Peter Lucas
Brisbane
Australia

'Enjoy today, it was paid for by a veteran'

In article >, Alan
says...
> You never know what's in sea salt. It is contaminated with other
> things -- which give flavor.
>
> But do you have any idea what those contaminants are?
>
> Has anyone tested them?
>
> Me, I'll stay away from sea salt, and use pure salt -- sodium
> chloride.
>
>

They are not contaminants, they are the natural components of sea water.
These are calcium, potassium, and magnesium salts for the most part.

--
Peter Aitken
Visit my recipe and kitchen myths pages at www.pgacon.com/cooking.htm

In article > ,
says...
> laurie > wrote:
> >Ok, I understand the chemical differences, but when it comes to cooking, is
> >there a big difference?
>
> Yes.
>
> Expensive food always tastes better.
>
> --Blair
>


But only if you know it is expensive!

--
Peter Aitken
Visit my recipe and kitchen myths pages at www.pgacon.com/cooking.htm

Peter A wrote on 15 Sep 2006 in rec.food.cooking

> They are not contaminants, they are the natural components of sea water.
> These are calcium, potassium, and magnesium salts for the most part.
>

Plus any runoff like pesticide,pig farm run off, benzine , whatever the
manufacturing plants in the area were dumping in the river in the 50-80's
(think love canal)...real health stuff. Didn't the detroit river catch on
fire once or twice, the Thames did. That crap evenutally flows into the
ocean. In Toronto in the late 90's a high school kid did a science fair
project. Using just Lake Errie water as developer he developed some
pictures he took. Yumm good stuff. There isn't a filtering system other
than the fish and plants to get this crap outa the ocean.

--


Curiosity killed the cat, but for a while I was a suspect

-Alan

In article >,
says...
> Peter A wrote on 15 Sep 2006 in rec.food.cooking
>
> > They are not contaminants, they are the natural components of sea water.
> > These are calcium, potassium, and magnesium salts for the most part.
> >
>
> Plus any runoff like pesticide,pig farm run off, benzine , whatever the
> manufacturing plants in the area were dumping in the river in the 50-80's
> (think love canal)...real health stuff. Didn't the detroit river catch on
> fire once or twice, the Thames did. That crap evenutally flows into the
> ocean. In Toronto in the late 90's a high school kid did a science fair
> project. Using just Lake Errie water as developer he developed some
> pictures he took. Yumm good stuff. There isn't a filtering system other
> than the fish and plants to get this crap outa the ocean.
>
>

Thanks for cheering me up <g>!

--
Peter Aitken
Visit my recipe and kitchen myths pages at www.pgacon.com/cooking.htm

"Peter A" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> says...
>> Peter A wrote on 15 Sep 2006 in rec.food.cooking
>>
>> > They are not contaminants, they are the natural components of sea
>> > water.
>> > These are calcium, potassium, and magnesium salts for the most part.
>> >
>>
>> Plus any runoff like pesticide,pig farm run off, benzine , whatever the
>> manufacturing plants in the area were dumping in the river in the 50-80's
>> (think love canal)...real health stuff. Didn't the detroit river catch on
>> fire once or twice, the Thames did. That crap evenutally flows into the
>> ocean. In Toronto in the late 90's a high school kid did a science fair
>> project. Using just Lake Errie water as developer he developed some
>> pictures he took. Yumm good stuff. There isn't a filtering system other
>> than the fish and plants to get this crap outa the ocean.
>>
>>
>
> Thanks for cheering me up <g>!
> Peter Aitken

You weren't aware of this before? Here's something interesting:
http://www.health.state.ny.us/nysdoh/fish/fish.htm

If it's in the fish, it's in the water.

On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 14:06:43 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
> wrote:

>"Peter A" > wrote in message
...
>> In article >,
>> says...
>>> Peter A wrote on 15 Sep 2006 in rec.food.cooking
>>>
>>> > They are not contaminants, they are the natural components of sea
>>> > water.
>>> > These are calcium, potassium, and magnesium salts for the most part.
>>> >
>>>
>>> Plus any runoff like pesticide,pig farm run off, benzine , whatever the
>>> manufacturing plants in the area were dumping in the river in the 50-80's
>>> (think love canal)...real health stuff. Didn't the detroit river catch on
>>> fire once or twice, the Thames did. That crap evenutally flows into the
>>> ocean. In Toronto in the late 90's a high school kid did a science fair
>>> project. Using just Lake Errie water as developer he developed some
>>> pictures he took. Yumm good stuff. There isn't a filtering system other
>>> than the fish and plants to get this crap outa the ocean.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for cheering me up <g>!
>> Peter Aitken
>
>You weren't aware of this before? Here's something interesting:
>http://www.health.state.ny.us/nysdoh/fish/fish.htm
>
>If it's in the fish, it's in the water.
>

Here is a comparable warning for NJ waters.
http://www.state.nj.us/dep/dsr/2006f...rybrochure.pdf

Boron

"Boron Elgar" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 14:06:43 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
> > wrote:
>
>>"Peter A" > wrote in message
...
>>> In article >,
>>> says...
>>>> Peter A wrote on 15 Sep 2006 in rec.food.cooking
>>>>
>>>> > They are not contaminants, they are the natural components of sea
>>>> > water.
>>>> > These are calcium, potassium, and magnesium salts for the most part.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> Plus any runoff like pesticide,pig farm run off, benzine , whatever the
>>>> manufacturing plants in the area were dumping in the river in the
>>>> 50-80's
>>>> (think love canal)...real health stuff. Didn't the detroit river catch
>>>> on
>>>> fire once or twice, the Thames did. That crap evenutally flows into the
>>>> ocean. In Toronto in the late 90's a high school kid did a science fair
>>>> project. Using just Lake Errie water as developer he developed some
>>>> pictures he took. Yumm good stuff. There isn't a filtering system other
>>>> than the fish and plants to get this crap outa the ocean.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for cheering me up <g>!
>>> Peter Aitken
>>
>>You weren't aware of this before? Here's something interesting:
>>http://www.health.state.ny.us/nysdoh/fish/fish.htm
>>
>>If it's in the fish, it's in the water.
>>
>
> Here is a comparable warning for NJ waters.
> http://www.state.nj.us/dep/dsr/2006f...rybrochure.pdf
>
> Boron

All together now: Thank you, George Bush!

Peter A > wrote:
>In article > ,
>says...
>> laurie > wrote:
>> >Ok, I understand the chemical differences, but when it comes to cooking, is
>> >there a big difference?
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> Expensive food always tastes better.
>
>But only if you know it is expensive!

That's why they put it last on the entree side of
the menu.

--Blair

Where I have noticed a huge taste difference is using freshly ground
salt added at the table. Doing some tests of doing a blindfolded test
of getting spoonful of food and putting morton table salt vs the fresh
ground salt I can easily pick which is which. If added while cooking
no difference. I do keep some koser salt around for dry mixes on
meats, and table salt is used for everything else.

As for putting salt in the water when doing pasta,potatoes,etc it is
done for taste. While those foods are cooking in the water the food
opens up and allows the salt to get into them, providing a salt taste
to all parts. As opposed to if you just salted afterwards you would
just cover the surface. You will need to add a fair amount of salt to
get decent penitration but generally do not have to worry about over
salting.


Peter A wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
> > "laurie" > wrote in message
> > news:RVbOg.2405$SQ1.13@trndny09...
> > > Ok, I understand the chemical differences, but when it comes to cooking,
> > > is there a big difference?
> > >
> > > laurie
> >
> > Not really. One may have bigger crystals than the other, so a teaspoon of
> > one won't have the same effect as a teaspoon of the other. But, it's always
> > smart to start with less salt than recommended and adjust for taste, so the
> > variation is something you can manage.
> >
> >
> >
>
> Some sea salts have a slightly different taste, but I really doubt
> anyone notices it in real cooking (as opposed to contrived taste tests).
>
>
>
> --
> Peter Aitken
> Visit my recipe and kitchen myths pages at www.pgacon.com/cooking.htm

On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 12:40:16 -0500, Alan wrote:

>Sorry, I'm not usually person who sounds this paranoid, but I really
>do wonder at some new, trendy food ingredient which isn't made in any
>way which includes any testing or accountability.

Ugh..I don't think sea salt is a new or trendy ingredient. People
have been using it for thousands of years... And there are plenty of
things that we haven't tested....

Christine

Alan, wrote:

>
> >Please don't assume that, just because you can buy it in a pretty
> package, sea salt is necessarily a good thing.
>
> Who is testing it? Well, the public is. In 25 years we *may* look
> back now and realize that the fad caused *some* people to develop
> health problems because *some* of the "natural components" are
> harmful to peoples' health.
>

I have a sister in law who used to be a pain in the ass health food fanatic. It
wasn't that she ate particularly healthy foods. On the contrary, she was a
horrible cook who boiled the nutrition out of everything she cooked. The big
problem was that she never shut up about it. Health foods and vitamins were all
she talked about. Everything came back to proper diet.

One of the things she harped about was the value of sea salt. She insisted that
it was saltier. I found that hard to believe because our table salt is mined
from old sea beds. I have to admit that I can now detect the slight iodine
taste in table salt SiL had to switch back to iodized salt when her daughter
developed a goitre.

Mr Libido Incognito wrote:
> Didn't the detroit river catch on
> fire once or twice,
>
> -Alan

No, that was the Cuyahoga in Ohio. Detroit sits on top of what was
once of the most productive salt mines in the world, though.

Greg Zywicki

In article >, Alan
says...

> Oh, Peter. They are contaminants in that no one knows if they're
> good for one, or not.
>

They are NOT CONTAMINANTS! Get a dictionary for chrissake and look the
word up.

> Don't forget: Arsenic (the poison) is natural and organic.

So what?

>
> Please don't assume that, just because you can buy it in a pretty
> package, sea salt is necessarily a good thing.

Please read my messages - I never claimed it was a "good thing" - in
fact I think it's a waste of money. But there is no evidenmce of any
health dangers. The fact that a few ill-informed people run around
flapping their hands in the air is irrelevant.

>
> Who is testing it? Well, the public is. In 25 years we *may* look
> back now and realize that the fad caused *some* people to develop
> health problems because *some* of the "natural components" are
> harmful to peoples' health.

>
> Remember, No one is actually monitoring the sea salt. The natural
> components could contain anything, including what Sheldon mentioned!
>
> Sorry, I'm not usually person who sounds this paranoid, but I really
> do wonder at some new, trendy food ingredient which isn't made in any
> way which includes any testing or accountability. You might want to
> take of your rose-colored glasses.
>

Do you really think that sea salt is new? People by the tens of millions
have been using it for thousands of years.

--
Peter Aitken
Visit my recipe and kitchen myths pages at www.pgacon.com/cooking.htm

"Peter A" > wrote in message
...

> Please read my messages - I never claimed it was a "good thing" - in
> fact I think it's a waste of money. But there is no evidenmce of any
> health dangers. The fact that a few ill-informed people run around
> flapping their hands in the air is irrelevant.

I'm not taking sides here because I don't give a damn about sea salt. But,
keep in mind that there never CAN be evidence with regard to the minute
amounts of strange chemicals we ingest all our lives. It's impossible based
on current technology, research methods, and laws.

Christine Dabney > wrote:
>On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 12:40:16 -0500, Alan wrote:
>
>>Sorry, I'm not usually person who sounds this paranoid, but I really
>>do wonder at some new, trendy food ingredient which isn't made in any
>>way which includes any testing or accountability.
>
>Ugh..I don't think sea salt is a new or trendy ingredient. People
>have been using it for thousands of years... And there are plenty of
>things that we haven't tested....

I think paying $7 for 4 oz. of it is the "trendy" part...

--Blair
"W.C. Fields knew all about water."

On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 04:21:43 GMT, Blair P. Houghton > wrote:

>I think paying $7 for 4 oz. of it is the "trendy" part...

You're buying it in the wrong place.
I can find sea salt at Trader Joes, for a very reasonable price, for a
good sized container.

Christine

Christine Dabney > wrote:
>On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 04:21:43 GMT, Blair P. Houghton > wrote:
>
>>I think paying $7 for 4 oz. of it is the "trendy" part...
>
>You're buying it in the wrong place.
>I can find sea salt at Trader Joes, for a very reasonable price, for a
>good sized container.

But it doesn't have the special crystal mojorifficness of
Michael Chirello Signature Model Just A Little Grey Salt
On Your Grey Salt in the moisture-retaining pig.

--Blair

"Blair P. Houghton" > wrote in message
. ..
> Christine Dabney > wrote:
>>On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 04:21:43 GMT, Blair P. Houghton > wrote:
>>
>>>I think paying $7 for 4 oz. of it is the "trendy" part...
>>
>>You're buying it in the wrong place.
>>I can find sea salt at Trader Joes, for a very reasonable price, for a
>>good sized container.
>
> But it doesn't have the special crystal mojorifficness of
> Michael Chirello Signature Model Just A Little Grey Salt
> On Your Grey Salt in the moisture-retaining pig.
>
> --Blair

Someone gave me a cookbook called "Best Recipes of 1999". Not sure according
to whom. But, the intro mentions that according to trendy chefs everywhere,
the "spice of the year" in 1999 was salt. You can bet that some of the self
appointed judges are selling this miracle spice, having come up with the
idea while drunk at a lame party in the Hamptons.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
> > Someone gave me a cookbook called "Best Recipes of 1999". Not sure according
> to whom. But, the intro mentions that according to trendy chefs everywhere,
> the "spice of the year" in 1999 was salt.

Says a heap for "trendy chefs everywhere"... salt is NOT a spice.

Sheldon