Daniel Rogov

I am reminded of how years ago when talking about "dry" wines, someone looked at me, quite confused and commented that he thought all wines were wet. Tannins and dryness have nothing whatever to do one with the other. Tannins are a form of acidity that do add astringency, a puckering sensation, and possibly the "chalky" reaction that you report. Dryness deals entirely with the level of sugar in a wine. You might, for example, find a sweet red wine absolutely loaded with tannins - there is simply no contradiction there. As to why people enjoy wines that are dry - first of all, not all do, for wines that are dry are, by virtue of being less sweet than semi-dry wines, more bitter and bitterness is a taste that develops (put a drop of angostura bitters on the tongue of an infant and it will burst out in tears; put a drop of honey there and it will gurgle and giggle). Once one adopts a taste for bitterness however, it tends to be somewhat addictive, not contradicting the need for sweetness but adding a new dimension of desired flavor. As to the comment that "beverage should quench your thirst as a primary use and flavour as a secondary".....let me respectfully disagree for even though that may be true with many beverages it is certainly not the case with most alcoholic drinks. Not that people drink these to become blotto but because alcohol taken in moderation adds an element of pleasure, heightens the sensitivity of the palate and because matches so well with food. If ever we get to the point where we start drinking even the finest wines to quench our thirst, we are surely going to be in deep trouble from both an aesthetic and health point of view. I'm all for mineral water on the dinner table alongside the bottle of wine. I am not nearly as enthusiastic of the bottle of diet sprite or lemonade.

One does hate to sound simplistic but the solution to healthful eating is, as several have already implied: eat whatever you want, whenever you want, and prepared in any manner you so choose but do so with intelligence and moderation. It is clear that those with specific health requirements must make adjustments to those but beyond if one cannot deal with moderation no book, no research findings, no control methods are going to help us or in the end "be good for us"

I cannot help but think that the reason is precisely in the name of these food items: "convenience". Simply stated, nowhere is it written that all people in all place and in all situations will gain enormous amounts of pleasure in the well turned omelet. Most people eat not so much for pleasure as they do because they are hungry and if they judge the food as "good enough", that's fine with them. And I for one will be the last to find fault with these people.

Is there any evidence for this claim? ← None whatever. In fact, if I had to categorize such a statement on the scale of 1-10 (1 being fact, 10 being out-and-out nonsense) this one would rate a 9.86!!!! There is truth to the notion that from the days of ancient Rome to medieval days, marinades were often designed to hide meats that had become a bit too ripe and perhaps even out-and-out rotten, but when it comes to the classic French sauces (les sauces meres), those were designed and serve not to hide flavors but to highlight them, to add to their ability charm and even fascinate. Going a step further, methinks that the author has confused the need that was felt before refrigeration to preserve foods and that of highlighting their flavors. Simply stated, anyone who tells me that a Sauce Nantua is meant to "hide" the aroma of spoiled seafood or that Sauce Beauharnais is meant to covger up a spoiled entrecote is a person who has never eaten a Sauce Nantua or a Sauce Beauharnais!

Godito, Hi..... Your points, especially about the Budhist monk begging for his (or her, as there are an increasing number of Budhist women in public search of Nirvana) daily bread, struck home...... I agree that although food itself is not to be worshipped, the quiet reverence with which some receive their daily bread can indeed inspire a feeling of "nearer my God to thee" (that of course couched in the terminology of whatever religion or belief system is appropriate), the thought of one's daily sustenance indeed bringing one closer to one's God, gods or life itself. A point that many of us in the Western world tend to forget in our abundance. I recall many years ago travelling in India and stopping with my companions on route for a rather luxurious out-of-doors meal (not a picnic but a meal en plein air as that was when hunger struck us). Two monks approached us and we invited them to join us. They did but they accepted only one slice of bread and the smallest bit of jam each. Their calm but absolute joy in sharing with us was an experience (culinary and philosophical) that I will carry with me forever. I recall as well almost as many years ago being approached by a "bum" on New York City's Bowery who asked me for a dollar "for something to eat". When he approached I was frankly angry, for had he asked me for a dollar for a bottle of wine I would have given it to him but did not appreciate what I perceived as his subtrefuge. As a form of "revenge" I invited him to join me for lunch. To my surprise, he accepted my invitation. We went into a diner not far from 14th Street and I realized that he was truly hungry and asked him to please, order whatever it was that he wanted. He ordered food worth precisely $1.00 explaining that that was what he asked for and that was what he would take. I almost pleaded with him to order whatever it was that struck his fancy but was moved deeply by his integrity and refusal to eat more than a single dollar's worth of food. I recall that he and I ate bean soup and then something called "turkey croquettes with cream sauce" and thn a cup of coffree. I have rarely appreciated a meal more. After we had eaten I wanted very much to give him twenty dollars but he shook my hand warmly, thanked me and refused. I asked him his name. He smiled warmly at me (he was at least thirty years older than I) and said that names were not important. Perhaps that is the form that my own religion takes? Perhaps one day I will know the answer to that question. I do know however that the two monks and that "bum" are as important a part of my personal history as any of the chefs, critics, intellectuals, artists or others that I have met as I have made my way on this too often too sad and simultaneously small planet we share. Forgive a truly "corny note" but to steal a line from Dickens: "God bless us, every one"

Almass, Hello..... My experise in the Arabic language and its various dialects is far from high but I do believe that "fistook halabi" (sometimes transliterated as "fistok") is the generic name in Arabic for "pistachio nuts" regardless of from where they come. If anyone can expound further on this, I would be much appreciative.

I cannot speak to the American scene but as a possibly amusing side-story, although the importation into Israel of absoultely anything from Iran is banned, the vast majority of pistachio nuts available from Haifa to Eilat and from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem are smuggled happily into the country for our munching pleasure. Our walnuts do indeed come primarily from California. Let it be stated only that pistachio nuts (fistook halabi) are far more popular!!!!

After reading each of the posts, several intentionally disjointed comments and several implied questions (a) The gods of food may be worshipped but I do not believe there is a single case where food per se has been worshipped. Adored, enjoyed, yes....but not worshiped. (b) When food does take on a sacramental purpose it is not the edible material per se that is attributed holiness but the meaning attributed to the food at that moment © Discussing food in public or even being seen to eat in public has been a taboo at several times and in several places during the course of history. During periods of famine in the Trobriand Islands for example it was forbidden by law, in fact punishable by death, to eat with anyone in presence except members of one's immediate family and even then the mouth had to be covered with the hand while one ate. During the period of the Directoire in France, it was considered proper to eat nothing more than bread in public. Restaurants did not close during that time but diners were all situated in private rooms so that others could not observe them eating. (d) Regardless of what directions we take it is essential to realize that fewer than 5% of the population of the world has ever spent more than the equivalent of US5.00 for a single meal and that to the vast majority of the population of the world (!!) food is still perceived as a question of sustenance and not of pleasure. (e) That those people of any faith who maintain dietary restrictions as part of their faith do so (regardless of their level of conscious awareness of this) as much for social/sociological/anthropological/historical/aesthetic reasons as much as of questions directly related to faith (f) Even absolute heathens, agnostics, whatever observe dietary restrictions. Most Americans for example would find dining on still live fish or snakes quite revolting; many in India judge people like me as barbarians because we eat beef; etc, etc...... (g) Dining (not food but dining) can indeed be inspirational. It is not, however a source of worship. A passion perhaps, but not a religion. Perhaps more to be compared to the inspirational impact passed on by any art form. I have met many people who rave about (e.g.) Tournedos Rossini but I have never met anyone who worshiped either Rossini, tournedos or tournedos Rossini. And that's why sometimes I refer to my writings as "Rogov's Ramblings"

Phil.... My own experiences with this wine have been "quite happy".. Following is my most recent tasting note. Chateau de Beaucastel, Chateauneuf-du-Pape, 1989: The fourth time I have tasted this wine and it has never failed to delight me. Nor, if the truth be told, have I failed to identify it in blind tastings. Full-bodied, maintaining its plum and black cherry fruits but those now yielding gracefully to smoked meat, herbal and spicy aromas and flavors. Great structure, impeccable balance and a near-sweet fruit and leather finish that seems to linger forever. Unforgettable! Drink now-2010. Score 98. (Re-tasted but not blind 14 Jul 2004) My own finding was that although 1989 offered some very good Chateauneuf wines that many were best until 2000-2002, but this one seems to have escaped that mini-curse. Is it possible that you simply had a bottle that had, for one reason or another "gone wrong"?

I can adore American hot-dogs. Kosher all-beef hot dogs when they're good are very, very good. Nathan's at 2 in the morning on the coldest night in the winter for three hot-dogs, a chowmein burger, a lobster roll, two orders of French fries and all is well. And even a Sabrett hot-dog from a street-side stand (spicy onions, mustard, ketchup, the works) But when it comes to out-and-out favorites - its got to be the knockwurst and/or bratwurst offered at the street-side stand oppostie the railroad station in Wiesbaden, Germany. A little old lady, an equally little old man, and knockwurst and bratwurst good enough for me to schedule all train trips within Germany with a stop over in Wiesbaden!!!! Accompanied by nothing more than a bit of good sharp mustard and beer (straight from the can). God's in her heaven and all's well on earth.

There is only one food that comes in cans that is truly worth eating and that is caviar. Lawsy, lawsy, how I would love to munch on about 100 grams of fine Beluga at this moment!!!!!

I've never had the privilege of tasting a Slurpee, but that they're celebrating the 40th anniversary makes me smile...... If I'm not mistaken, the Italians have been scraping ice from large blocks into cone shaped paper containers and pouring over that a variety of fruit-flavored, herbal and even liqueur based syrups for at least 400 years. Heck, first time I tasted one of those (and fell in love with them) was long before 7-11 was a gleam in daddy's eyes. And yes, in the USA!!!!!

That food has godlike qualities is demonstrated in that many cultures have had or, in some cases, still do have their specific gods of food. By various names, Inari, Tonachatechuhtli, Haumia-tikitiki, Ugajin, Daikokuten and Ru are all considered in one culture in another to fulfill that role. Of course, the actual worship of food might be thought to be akin to gluttony and in every religion that I know of that is considered sinning against God or the gods as the case may be. Me, I adore food. The day I start to worship it is the day I'll finally buy my Lambhorgini. Well….at least if my banker allows that much of an overdraft.

Of all the things of which I have been accused, no-one has ever been foolish enough to refer to me as "a man of few words". So stating (and offered as an apology), my own thoughts about MSG. ==== I have never attempted to hide the fact that my curiosity and appetite are often triggered when I hear about the opening of a new restaurant or discover a new source for smoked oysters, a spicy new goats' cheese or even a fine loaf of bread. On the other hand, I never become gastronomically stimulated when people start talking about diglycerides, dipotassium phosphate, polysorbates or monosodium glutamate, all of which are among the most common food additives used throughout the world. Because I know that most of the things added to our foods will not harm us if used in moderate amounts, such additives do not frighten me. Because they are almost invariably used to make mediocre foods taste better, they merely offend me. What does occasionally amuse me are the heated and frequently - uninformed debates that focus on the use of such additives. No substance today is undergoing a more international debate than monosodium glutamate. The United States has one group so emotionally involved with the subject that its members occasionally threaten to burn down factories that add monosodium glutamate to their soups or other products. In England, two self-professed "food activists" recently threatened to pour petrol on their bodies and burn themselves to death if their supermarket continued to buy products that contained it. In Germany, one of the most vocal and powerful "political movements" is the one attempting to ban its use. More than this, monosodium glutamate has been the subject of debates in the United States Senate, the English House of Commons, and the French National Assembly. Possibly taking advantage of this controversy, here as abroad, as if they are trying to convince us that their products are better for our health, several major food producers have started boasting, sometimes in bold letters on their packages and in their advertisements, that their tinned, frozen and powdered soups, stews and quiches are free of monosodium glutamate. I have been hearing so much about monosodium glutamate lately that I decided to do some serious research into the matter. On my desk, in addition to 28 research reports from sources as highly respected as "The New England Journal of Medicine", "Lancet", the "Journal of Epidemeology", "The Journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology", and the "American Journal of Dermatology", are reports from the United States Department of Health and the World Health Organization. The simple overwhelming truth of the matter is that there is no evidence whatever that when consumed in anything but the most outrageous quantities, monosodium glutamate is harmful to adults. It surprises many to realize that monosodium glutamate is an amino acid that is found naturally in virtually all proteins and thus in all meats, poultry, fish, cheese, cow's milk, human milk, legumes, mushrooms, tomatoes, and many other vegetables. The first people to discover the use of this material to enhance the tastes of their foods were the Chinese and Japanese who, more than 1,500 years ago learned that foods cooked in a fish stock made from the seaweed "Laminaria Japonica" tasted good. Since that discovery, monosodium glutamate has been the most popular additive to foods in the Far East. It was only in 1908 that a Japanese investigator, Kikunae Ikedo succeeded in separating out and actually identifying the material we now know as monosodium glutamate from the seaweed. Monosodium glutamate came to the attention of Americans only when the Second World War had ended. After they had occupied Japan, the United States Army launched a massive research program to try and determine how Japanese soldiers, who were often badly undernourished, had succeeded in maintaining remarkably high levels of energy during the war. Based on badly collected, inaccurate data and a total ignoral of all psychological and cultural factors, the researchers mistakenly concluded that the high levels of energy were due entirely to the use of monosodium glutamate in the Japanese diet. Americans went mad with this new "knowledge", and before long, had become convinced that in addition to giving them more energy, monosodium glutamate would make them more intelligent, improve their memory, make them more fertile and even add to their life-span. Under the name of "Accent", jars of monosodium glutamate were placed next to the salt and pepper shakers in nearly every household in America. Europeans also caught this mania, and even today, small containers of "Aromat", the French version of the same material, are found on the tables of many French homes as well as in many neighborhood cafes and bistros. The monosodium glutamate garden of eden collapsed in 1968 when Dr. Robert Ho Man Kwok wrote a letter to "The New England Journal of Medicine". In his letter, he reported a strange set of symptoms that occurred whenever he ate in a Chinese restaurant. He described the experience as one of numbness beginning at the back of the neck, radiating to the arms and back, and accompanied by weakness and palpitations. More than this, he suggested that these symptoms were caused by some component of the cooking wine, the high salt content of northern Chinese food or the monosodium glutamate that was used. The letter triggered a deluge of similar anecdotes and before long researchers had focused in on a study of monosodium glutamate, which was by now being blamed for a variety of problems. It took less than a year until the whole world knew about the "Chinese Restaurant Syndrome", which was described as a complex of symptoms consisting of feelings of burning or warmth, pressure or tightness and numbness or tingling of the face, neck, upper chest, shoulders and upper arms, sometimes accompanied by chest pain. During the following decade, a host of research reports seemed to support the notion that monosodium glutamate was really bad for us. What very few people seemed to notice was that a great many of these studies were inadequately designed, some actually forcing bias on the participants, others injecting outrageous amounts of monosodium glutamate directly into the blood stream of laboratory animals, and yet others that relied only on anecdotes. Americans chose to ignore the reality that a meal consisting of a large steak, two medium tomatoes, a large baked potato with sour cream and a portion of ice cream contained far more naturally occurring monosodium glutamate than they would find in a meal in nearly any Chinese restaurant. So far did the hysteria go, that many Americans became convinced that monosodium glutamate was a "man made substance" when it was in fact produced primarily by fermenting cereal starch, molasses, sugar beets or sugar cane. The hysteria continued even though since 1979, no serious research studies have shown any correlation between monosodium glutamate and the symptoms usually associated with Chinese Restaurant Syndrome. In fact, according to a study carried out by physiologist R.A. Kenney in 1978 and 1980, a higher percentage of the population report the same symptoms when they consume frozen orange juice, tomato juice or cold black coffee than when consuming foods to which even high concentrations of monosodium glutamate had been added. According to a detailed study carried out in 1993 by chemical toxicologists L. Tarsoff and M.F. Kelley, so-called "restaurant syndromes" can be caused by a wide variety of food components and additives. In addition to overeating, among the most "guilty" factors are the natural allergens such as those found in sea food, fish, peanuts, walnuts, or eggs; in preservatives such as sulfites, sulfates, sorbates, benzoates, and nitrites; in food colorings such as tartrazine or carrotine; or in the general use of excessive salt. Where monosodium glutamate was once mistakenly perceived as a "miracle additive", it has now become the scapegoat for a variety of food-related complaints. The fact that not everyone became part of this anti-monosodium glutamate hysteria, is demonstrated by the fact that even though there are limitations on the amount that may be used in different food products, no government in the world has forbidden its use. Dr. Avraham Reshef, head of the Department of Nutrition at Israel's Department of Health, reports that because it is not considered "a dangerous substance" there are no restrictions on its use in Israel. Professor Michael Na'em, Director of the School of Nutrition of the Faculty of Agriculture of Hebrew University in Jerusalem agrees that it is safe, even though he concurs with other researchers that as with many other additives he would not like to see it used in excess of the limits suggested by the Food and Drug Administration of the U.S. Department of Health. More than this, Professor Na'eem agrees with Professor Shmuel Yanai of the Department of Food Engineering and Food Technology at Haifa's Technion, nutritionist Dr. Niva Shapira and chief nutritionist Olga Raz of a major Tel Aviv hospital, all of whom concur that restrictions should be applied to the addition of monosodium glutamate in the food of infants of up to 2 years of age. Professor Na'em suggests that the because the gastro-intestinal tract in neonates and infants may be immature, high levels of monosodium glutamate may reach the brain. Professor Yanai goes even further in suggesting the possibility (and, as he points out, "it is only a possibility") that this immaturity may have an effect on the hypothalamus, the pituitary gland, the visual retina in the eye and on the production of other hormones. Because of this, all of those interviewed agreed with Dr. Niva Shapira's statement that "there is no justification for adding monosodium glutamate to the foods of infants". Some even suggest that until more accurate data is collected it be eliminated from the diet of all children. As to the question of allergy, the research reports I have examined and those people I interviewed are in general agreement that only between 0.2% and 0.5% of the adult population shows any sign of allergy to monosodium glutamate and all agree that there is no medical reason to limit its use with adults. Not even the sodium in monosodium glutamate can be blamed for problems for ordinary table salt contains 65% more sodium than that in monosodium glutamate. A Food Lover's Objections Even acknowledging that monosodium glutamate is not harmful to adults, I continue to have two objections to its use as an additive in my food. My first objection is that instead of fulfilling the claim that it enhances, compliments or "wakes up" the original flavor of foods (as do thyme, oregano and rosemary, none of which I object to when used properly), monosodium glutamate makes everything, from the most mediocre soup powder to the most exquisite oysters taste the same. In fact, it gives nearly everything the ubiquitous taste of chicken soup. Ever since the days of Plato, scientists have more or less accepted the fact that there were only four basic tastes - salt, sweet, sour and bitter. Several years ago, researchers in Japan became extremely excited and reported that they had discovered a fifth taste - "umami ". Today, although many scientists in the western world are convinced that umami is indeed a unique taste, others deny this. So controversial is the subject that some highly respected scientists refuse to even discuss it, claiming that even the merest mention of umami would be to give credit to a non-existent phenomenon. Many researchers now conclude that monosodium glutamate is the material most responsible for the taste now known as umami, explaining that two basic chemical groups share the responsibility for producing the taste of umami. The first (of which monosodium glutamate is an example) are created by groups of l-amino acids and the second is a group of ribonucleotides. Many researchers have found that the materials in these two groups cause the umami taste sensation in humans as well as in animal laboratory animals. Even though many feel that the evidence for the phenomenon of umami is conclusive, that there are researchers, especially in the Western world, who perceive umami (like monosodium glutamate) not as a unique taste but as a combination of already recognized tastes, especially those of sweet and salty. When asked to describe the taste of umami, several of the researchers with whom I spoke observed, as I had that it reminds one very much of chicken soup". Personally, I have no objection whatever to chicken soup. I would even go as far as to say that I adore good chicken soup which, even though it has its variations, is a universal that will be found in the homes of Jewish, Shinto, Buddhist, Hindu, Christian and Moslem families the world over. My problem is that I do not want my next grilled steak, boiled lobster or baked spinach quiche to taste like chicken soup and this is what the addition of umami (or, if one prefers, monosodium glutamate) does. To support this feeling, one need only refer to Alain Ducasse, Joel Robuchon, Anton Mosimann, Alice Waters and Guy Savoy, five of the most respected chefs of the world, each of whom refuses to allow monosodium glutamate into their kitchens. My second objection is that the major use of monosodium glutamate, which is often found in commercially prepared soups and a large variety of frozen and tinned foods, is to make mediocre foods taste better. I acknowledge that it is economically viable for companies that are providing basic food products to the people of starving nations to add monosodium glutamate to foods that might otherwise have little taste appeal. This is not, in my opinion, a valid reason to add it to the so-called prestigious food items that are being promoted in our supermarkets and expensive specialty shops. The claim that monosodium glutamate can "add to nature" is little more than a bad joke. It is used most often to hide the fact that the prepared foods being sold to us are often so over-processed and so commercial in nature that they have nearly nothing left in common with the real thing. Fresh young garden carrots, fine lamb chops with just the right amount of fat or a fresh trout that has been cooked on a grill need no additions to make them delicious.

The issue of "everyday" versus "luxury" wines goes back quite a ways. During the reign of the Pharoahs, some wines (grape and other fruits) were set aside with special seals and in special amphorae for the nobility; certainly during Roman days wines were already categorized, not so much by appelation but with specific regard to quality, the best being designated on their containers not only with the harvest date but the vineyard from which the grapes came. More than that, during Roman times, wine negotiants played a major role in determining not only to where wines would be shipped throughout the Empire but the prices that would be attached to them. Question for Brad: You use the term "coca cola". I've heard that term somewhere. Is it vitis vinifera???

Fair enough!. Yesterday I received an email from the organizers to the effect that a video of the entire conference will be posted within the next few days on their internet site at www.mishkenot.org.il Perhaps best to let all draw their own conclusions. My own overall reaction was that it was good to meet and chat with many of our colleagues as well as with members of the surprisingly well-informed audience.

Looks like a truly great sandwich. Calls to mind the "good old days" when attending Stuyvesant High School (when it was still on E 15th Street) and when opposite the school was a sandwich joint affectionately known as "Ptomaine Joe's" where the hero sandwiches were truly heroic and those who attacked them no less so. Enjoy your picnic!!!

Ciao Hathor... I've taken the information about the lack of hummingbirds in Europe from Science (referred to before) but will indeed check. I have sent off emails to the appropriate departments at the Universities of Geneva and Torino. Will post again when I have further information.

Esther Hello... If prepared at home (and assuming one's home to in North America for purposes of this rough estimate, the meal prepared for twelve with no ingredient substitutions in the recipes presented above, would cost somwhere between US$ 1800- 2000 for twelve. This is only the beginning of the story, however, for considering that the wines should be of the same quality as those served by Babette and these were an unspecified Amontillado Sherry, an 1960 Veuve Cliquot and an 1845 Clos de Vougeot. Considering that those superb wines have long gone on to their maker, modern equivalents would be (a) the medium-dry Bodega Vieja 100 Anos, n.v. of Emilio Lustao; (b) a late disgorged 1971 Veuve Clicquot and © the 1990 Clos de Vougeot of Leroy. Assuming that 12 guests would consume 2 bottles of the first and 4 each of the second and third, that would add approximately US$5,900 to the bill.

When discussing Roman dining habits, well worth keeping in mind the dictate of Careme to the effect that "Roman cooking was sumptous and magnificent but fundamentally barbarous".

Adam, Hello.... A fun dialogue but, not having been around either 30,000,000 years ago and having been born a bit (just a bit mind you) after Apicius, I cannot vouch for any of this personally. As to personal taste, the only bird's tongues that I have tasted were those of parrots and an assortment of songbirds (shot by noble hunters in Igoumenitsa in Greece) and to tell the truth, I think I would prefer eating a handkerchief.

Adam, Hello... You are correct that the only hummingbirds in Europe today are those kept in cages or those which have escaped from captivity. Hummingbirds are not, however, at all strangers to Europe, having existed there for some thirty million years. I believe you will find an extensive report of the archaeological findings, including full fossils that were found in Germany in the 7 May 2004 issue of Science (published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science). Hummingbird fossils have also been found in the Dorogne region of France, the French and Spanish Pyrenees and the Swiss Jura. The interesting question is when the hummingbirds disappeared from Europe and unless there was a major conspiracy at work during Roman days, mentions of hummingbirds can be found in more than forty of the literary works that have come to us extant from those times. At this point, going entirely on memory as my full data base is not available to me, was it not the Emperor Egalabus who was accidentally responsible for the death of several guests at one of his feasts when a net above the visitors fell and they sufficated under the flood of hummingbird wings in which they were buried? Whether the Egalabus story is merely apocryphal (he was an odd bird to say the least) is unimportant though.....what seems to be important is that the hummingbirds vanished from Europe only sometime in the last 2,500 years, to be rediscovered again only during the exploration of the New World in the late 15th and early 16th centuries.

Indeed, vomitoria were not for vomiting and the Roman's might have occasionally indulged in the tongues of larks but only occasionally, as the bird tongues they preferred were those of hummingbirds. A favored recipe among some of the more perverse emperors was for dormice stuffed with hummingbird tongues.

A Post-Script to my earlier coments. Because Jim and I posted so closely one to the other, I did not see his response until now. His point about critics invariably tasting without food is a good one and should be well taken as nearly all wines are indeed meant to be matched with food. There is a double problem here for the professional, the first part being that eating anything other than very bland bread when tasting wines tends to dull the palate and the second that good food, especially when well matched with wines, almost invariably makes wine taste better, this in turn making it more difficult to use valid criteria in judging the wine itself. It thus falls on the critic to use his/her experience to estimate precisely how a given wine or set of wines will pair with various foods. I do agree with Jim though and if this were indeed a best of all possible worlds would love to taste all wines twice - once during regular blind tastings and then again matched with food. Alas, considering the number of wines that I taste annually, were I to do that, it would require far more money for my meals than any publication could ever afford, would send my weight well into astronomical figures and would have me as drunk as a skunk twenty-four hours daily. It is 01:28 in the morning where I am. To demonstrate the danger of this, even thinking about this and even at this odd hour has me lusting after a fine Meursault and a humongous portion of lobster Thermidor. I think instead a final sip of Armagnac will put me well to bed.

Chris, Hi.... Like all mortals, even critics have their biases. I will go as far as to state that the critic who has no biases, prejudices or personal likes or dislikes is a critic who ranges somewhere on the scale between simply stupid and out-and-out brain-dead. In my own case, for example, I adore all fine Champagne but above all I adore the vintage Champagnes of Veuve Clicquot; and among the things I do not enjoy are semi-dry wines made from Emerald Riesling grapes and, to paraphrase Will Rogers, "I have never met a white Zin that I liked". The question is not what the critics like or dislike but about how they avoid letting their personal tastes (biases or prejudices if we like) interfere with what they write about the wines they are critiquing. Several safeguards in this - the greatest of which is the blind tasting (including doubling up on the same wine in the same or different flights) and another important one of which is re-tastings. A no-less important defense is a constant awareness that our personal likes or dislikes have very little place in our crits but if they are expressed they should be expressed with full openess and perhaps even with a bit of humor. As I say, I don't like semi-dry Emerald Rieslings but when I taste them I feel professional and competent enough to be able to evaluate them not according to my tastes but to a set of general standards. A question that might be justifiably asked is what happens even at a blind tasting when one recognizes a wine that one particularly likes (as I will almost always pick out the Veuve Clicquot wines in a Champagne tasting) or dislikes. Simple enough - first to be consciously aware of one's own biases and to have the moral strength to (a) report them openly to one's readers and (b) as much as is humanly possible, to set them aside and again relate to standards. I have written on several occasions for example that "although the Veuve Clicquot wines are among my favorites, I would never dream of saying that they are better or the best", that decision falling on the shoulders of those consumers who buy and taste wines, for after all, they are the final critics. As to the situation of "liking" or "disliking" a particular winemaker or winery for any reason and the bias that might build in to one's reviews - also no real problem for all it takes is the least bit of moral integrity to realize that the role of the critic is not to write about the winemaker but about his/her wines. Hope that helps somewhat in clarification.