JohnL

Larry, The Center for Consumer Freedom by and large represents an opposing view to that presented by groups like the CSPI and Farm Sanctuary. Their case should be taken at least as seriously as that of the other so called interest groups. You seem to give groups like farm sanctuary more than just the "benefit of the doubt." If Farm Sanctuary and other such groups were just about providing information and promoting awareness then they would not be resorting to campaigns that include harassment and legal blackmail via law suits etc. They would simply state their case. One fact is that Farm Sanctuary has been convicted of a felony in their attempt to illegally influence a local election in Florida. It is also very obvious that simply helping to promote better industry standards they are really pushing an agenda that would result in forced vegetarianism. Not for nothing does their web site state as a primary founding tenet:" ...farm animals. At farm Sanctuary these animals are our friends not our food." If you take the time to read the various statements from many different sources, made by the founder who uses two names (I find this rather odd but let's give him the benefit....) as well as those made by his ex- wife and other members/officers present and past it is very clear where these folks would like to go. Their best case scenerio if you will. I can provide numerous links to groups and individuals who "expose" Source watch"--really Larry this can go on endlessly. By the way, for the vast and quite well substantiated case made by the Center for Consumer freedom, all you and these other special interest groups can come up with is some nit picks, really--I am just as skeptical of them as I am Farm Sanctuary! I for one, have read through all the various sources and viewpoints (most of them anyway) and have come to my own conclusion. Using no second source material I can assess Farm, Sanctuary based on their own statements and their tactics as well as the public record. My conclusion, they are a radical group employing radical (and sometimes illegal) tactics to unduly influence the food choices we have based on the belief that animals and human beings are equal. But hey, don't listen to me, just read what they say.

gee "no customers" i thought people only want to buy wine based on scores these days! are you making a statement about people who use scores being "snooty?"

I was perusing an interesting book on water. it was a guide written in the format of many guides on wine. It noted many of the different waters available and discussed each based upon it taste which was in turn, supported by the chemical composition of each water. It mineral content or lack thereof its salinity and other factors. I guess the extreme example would be waters that have a large amount of sulphur. I spent summers in Philadelphia and I can tell you I had to be pretty thirsty to drink that stuff! (also Florida is noted for this). I didn't purchase it (I have too many guides and while I can appreciate water I am not sure I want to become an active "connoisseur") I will track it down and provide the info here. Since San Pellegrino for eg, has a certain "taste" based on its chemical composition so just adding the "right" amount of fizz is not going to impact flavor.

I think the program is very respectful. I watched a recent episode where Zimmern sat down to a meal of grubs or (something they had harvested) with a family living in the rain forest of Ecuador. As Bourdain has obviously realized, there has to be more to it than just seeking out and eating strange/exotic food items for shock effect.

While it would be interesting to know for sure, I don't think it matters. The story is in print in two different publications. Both are probably benefitting from the heightened interest on the part of the public. Feuds are great for business--for everyone! (usually)

I have quoted this here before but the person who said (I forget who--possibly Shakespeare) "trust the tale not the teller" was pretty sharp. The truth is the quality and veracity are really in the words themselves. A critic who is not honest will not write honestly and readers will not have the respect for his or her writing. Whether or not we know the name of, say, the "Style Guy" in GQ is not as important as the veracity and sensibility of his words. The whole critic's anonymity thing is to me pretty ridiculous.

I disagree with FG about the "nom de plume" issue. Publications often do not print bylines under stories. Entities rather than specific people are cited as well--eg: AP or Reuters. I think he is correct in that disclosure is ideal and most often the best policy. Anything printed in a paper or magazine is representative of that publication no matter whose words are printed and whether or not the individuals are cited. Sometimes I wish there were more editorial oversight period!

I occasionally enjoy mineral water with a meal (I mostly opt for tap water at restaurants). I also think "water sommeliers" is getting a bit silly but I also do personally notice flavor differences in many bottled waters and certainly do not begrudge or belittle anyone who claims to be a connoisseur of water! I also see much argument in the convenience of having bottled water available. Carrying a container and filling it from dubious sources while driving about (I used to use the fountains in Central Park until I witnessed a guy holding his thirsty dog up- to the spigot and watched a person vomit into another one). There will always be environmental concerns. I guess that recycling is not the panacea it was sold as. Now it seems that it is simply not good enough (was it ever?) so now we need to stop using plastic containers all together. I suspect that the Alice waters/Michael pollan thing is more about the conserving of energy aspect to the environmental issue than the plastic thing (there's always some thing) as the water she served before becoming ethical was most likely from glass bottles. The solution IMOP, is industry seeking better ways to manufacture plastic containers-- GE and others are hard at work at providing a solution via better and more biodegradable packaging. Until they get there--we can all recycle. Larry, my point about going back to the agrarian society etc is relevant in that this is the real "ultimate" conclusion to what Pollan presents. He is a thinker and while I do not agree with what he says, I do believe he is serious and presents important points for consideration it is not a red herring, it is the logical end to his thesis. When restaurateurs other sellers of food decide that going beyond offering the best quality/tasting items at fair prices needs to include ethics and causes then there are problems balancing things,. Witness the contortions that MacKey and Whole Foods are going through. I am not saying that merchants should not be ethical at all--not selling an item that is endangered (swordfish etc) is fine and noble but this whole ethical thing often goes too far. Ms Waters is fine to serve or not serve whatever she wants, however when she introduces ethics into the equation things often get complicated. I wonder if she is charging for the sparkling water she produces via the machine she bought to turn tap water into sparkling? (just having some fun) So--I am going to continue to buy water (and other things) in plastic bottles and I will continue to recycle to the best of my ability.

I wouldn't argue with any of this but my question was not "are reviews relevant" (which was looking like a hung jury on the other thread on that topic when last I checked). Or even so much about the anonymity (although I did mention it). My biggest question/concern was one publication allowing a wronged restaurateur a forum to take-on another publication. We're a third-tier media city, so we don't have a lot of publications and maybe that explains why this seems off to me. It may happen a lot in larger markets but here, where the opportunities to advertise are few, it looks a little dodgy. I posted this in The Heartland rather than Media shooting for the smaller-market perspective but nonetheless thanks for your reply. ← Why not? Media is media. The diversity and independence are important so a third media entity allowing a person to be critical of another magazine or newspaper (or TV/Radio station) is fine and even healthy thing for all concerned. (certainly for consumers).

The Oxford is unparalleled in its scope and overall quality. I would say a near perfect library for learning about wine would consist of: The Oxford The Wine Bible Wine Style I agree that the Sotheby's is annoyingly rife with opinion.

That's the problem with these things. I think it is safe to say that no one country or culture has a lock on healthy cuisine or unhealthy cuisine. It's all good (and bad). I would also venture that a lot of food in restaurants of all kinds all over the world can be accused of having too many calories or too much salt or whatever. That said this so called report is not about fast food but rather restaurant food. They also say that they believe Italian and Mexican restaurant food are worse than Chinese Restaurant food. In fact, Chinese cuisine as I understand it is incredible in its scope--this is a very large and diverse nation so it would seem to me to be difficult to stereotype thee "Chinese" cuisine. Since this is dealing with chinese cuisine in some American restaurants then I wouldn't take it as a slap at what is served and eaten in China or even in all Chinese restaurants in America. The linked piece is actually one of the tamer efforts by the CSPI. Busboy--A little investigating will reveal that CSPI is about much more than just getting attention and disseminating information to consumers. They are very aggressive with lawsuits and threats. They also rely upon studies that are often dubious in methodology and results and they do not have very many scientists on board. Yes they have an agenda but they are pretty coy about it--that is what their real agenda is. ← You know, I never thought of press conferences and lawsuits as particularly coy tactics. I think the CSPI is pretty up-front: they hate everything and they're willing to sue people to get rid of it. Objectionable (depending on whose ox is being gored) but hardly secretive. I don't have the background to analyze their science, but if you have a link to someone who has done so, I would surely click it. Calling something "junk science" is such a standard tactic here in my home town of Washington, DC, that I assume that the person using the phrase has no actual evidence on their side and has resorted to name calling. ← OK CSPI MaryEngphd CSPI-Reason magazine Again, I do not think that CSPI is all bad. I do believe that what they say and do need to be looked at just as skeptically as anything the fast food industry says or does etc. I do not believe that CSPI is merely interested in disseminating information to help consumers. I also believe that their stated goals are not the end game for them. I carefully read their web site. I also am pretty good at reading between the lines. The fact is, many media outlets do not challenge the CSPI and their studies and facts they present, falling for the sexy attention grabbing headlines.

Pan. I think you know where I reside so the answer is no.I don't see where it matters.[...] ← My implication was that if you've never dined at a restaurant, it seems questionable to have a view of how good or bad it is, or to cheerlead for it on any basis other than I suppose being a friend or/and fan of someone involved (but then you could be accused of being personally biased). No offense, just making explicit what was implicit in my question. And I now see that your objection is evidently to the nature of the review, not to the pro or con judgment on the restaurant that is contained within the review. (Or is that incorrect and do you object to any kind of negative judgment in any review?) I could offer counterarguments to your critique of critiquing, for the sake of argument, but would rather not do so in this thread. For the record, I have been ignoring most of Bruni's reviews and didn't read this one. It just struck me as odd for someone who's never been to the restaurant to offer an opinion about the review. If it had been a good review, would you have been as likely to criticize it? ← Was this a "bad" review? I thought it was pretty balanced and overall: favorable.

Many thanks all! I guess my concern stems from the fact that the restaurant notes on their menus (via the website) that tasting menus must be ordered per table. I will check in with them and see of they would allow me to order whatever they want to cook for a tasting menu and allow substitutions for any red meat dishes for my wife. (she's fine with seafood, chicken fowl etc). I am getting hungry just thinking about my upcoming meal!

How exactly is bottled water "environmentally destructive?" Bottled waters are different. The taste differences of these waters while often extremely subtle is different as is the chemical composition of various waters. The differences can be proven. Europeans have long believed in the taste differences and health qualities of water from springs and spas etc. There is a restaurant somewhere, I recently read about (maybe LA?--which would figure) that has a "water list" and a "water sommelier." Recommending specific waters with each dish. There is a guide to waters of the world--I perused it at Borders yesterday--which notes the taste differences on various waters. Even some of the waters that are essentially tap water (the companies claim these waters are filtered etc) have some benefits. Having a bottle of water in drink coolers, sitting next to the myriad soft drinks is a good thing. I can't count the times I opted for the healthier choice of a bottle of innocuous water instead of a Coke or Pepsi! Bottled water of any kind is transportable--I often keep some in the car or buy it while on the road to drink when I get thirsty driving. Is bottled water a "ripoff?" To some who see no difference in taste or no benefit from having water available as an option to other beverages ok that's their opinion. One could take any number of consumer products and make a cost benefits case against them. Want a real ripoff? Try athletic shoes or jewelry. And are people still buying into the diamond is forever stuff! One can also make a case for any number of consumer products being bad for the environment. How about any product that is transported by plane, truck, train, auto etc? Pollan is really making the case that we make and grow everything we use nearby. A return to the days where we all lived in agrarian societies and got our water from the local well or river or stream and made our own clothes and grew our own vegetables and every family raised their own chickens and the local cobbler made our shoes and..... Very romantic and very impractical!

I don't think this is a big deal. In the end, customers and consumers will decide how accurate the critic is or isn't. Restaurateurs can make their case and rebut reviews. The anonymity of critics is much discussed and debated. It is usually a silly red herring IMOP. Some newspapers seem to believe that restaurant critics can report more accurately on a restaurant when they are not recognized by the establishment. This is the old "hidden camera" thing. It works well for consumer reporters trying to catch unscrupulous merchants but is somewhat of a joke in the restaurant review game. Since it is probably true that most critics are recognized by restaurants, any good critic should know this and also be able to recognize when they have been recognized and are receiving "special" treatment by the restaurant and adjust their reviews accordingly. This is all much ado about.....

not much as long as the chef doesn't run "across the street" for some Chilean sea bass when a customer demands it!

That's the problem with these things. I think it is safe to say that no one country or culture has a lock on healthy cuisine or unhealthy cuisine. It's all good (and bad). I would also venture that a lot of food in restaurants of all kinds all over the world can be accused of having too many calories or too much salt or whatever. That said this so called report is not about fast food but rather restaurant food. They also say that they believe Italian and Mexican restaurant food are worse than Chinese Restaurant food. In fact, Chinese cuisine as I understand it is incredible in its scope--this is a very large and diverse nation so it would seem to me to be difficult to stereotype thee "Chinese" cuisine. Since this is dealing with chinese cuisine in some American restaurants then I wouldn't take it as a slap at what is served and eaten in China or even in all Chinese restaurants in America. The linked piece is actually one of the tamer efforts by the CSPI. Busboy--A little investigating will reveal that CSPI is about much more than just getting attention and disseminating information to consumers. They are very aggressive with lawsuits and threats. They also rely upon studies that are often dubious in methodology and results and they do not have very many scientists on board. Yes they have an agenda but they are pretty coy about it--that is what their real agenda is.

Of course not! The customer is NOT always right. But again that is a different subject (see the 'cancelled reservation' thread in this forum). IMHO her decision is fine. As for the decision to be left to the customer. Well, that is all fine and good too and is not better or worse than her decision to just not serve the bottled water. Like I said, decades earlier she decided to serve local and organic produce and it was her decision. She did not give the customer the option to order locally produced vs. not. ← You raise an interesting point. Ms Water chose locally produced items, I believe, because the main impetus was to serve food that was better tasting and fresher and to support local businesses. I could be wrong, but I do not believe she made this choice for primarily socio- ecological-political reasons. I wonder if for argument's sake, the local lettuce was not very good tasting-- would she forsake serving this in favor of say, imported lettuce that was better tasting? So say the local tap water was ok but not very good maybe a bit of sulphur etc--what then? Would the earth have to suffer or her customers?

I would suggest that we revisit the original post. The issue(s) introduced therein are many and complex. Pollan and his friendship with Water's is noted as well as the intriguing notion that Water's actions are part of something much larger. In fact, this has little to do with bottled water or water at all. It has to do with the reason for Ms Water's action. Not the water but rather the container the water is held in and the ecological implications as well as those of the transportation of the water and the ecological implications. Also asked in that post was the question should bottlers of said bottled water be concerned whether this action by the aforementioned Ms Waters is indeed the start of something more wide reaching? Here's a question. Would it be better if Ms Waters continued to serve bottled water and allowed her customers to make the choice? After all is not the customer always right!!!?

Well if it were that simple then there really isn't any issue at all is there? Let's see: "What a restaurateur chooses to serve in her restaurant." ok anything she wants. I guess the thread can end here!

I certainly do not "hold a grudge" against Ms Waters. She can and should run her place as she sees fit. I don't even have a problem with Pollan he can be thought provoking and that is good. However, we are witnessing an explosion of do gooders, law suits, threats, dire warnings, save this or that admonishes etc. Calls for bans, actual bans enacted by frightened legislators, misuse of information and dissemination of faulty information, myriad studies and on and on..... We are being told how to live our lives and if we don't go along, well then there's a law or a ban to help/force us be good citizens. It is all tiring and downright subversive! so the Alice "tap" Waters only thing is not in and of itself a big deal but these things do add up. By the way it's a good thing Alice doesn't serve Chinese food! (the CSPI is screaming that this cuisine is killing us). Otherwise Chez Panisse would only serve nothing but tap water! (Alice being the good and concerned citizen she is)

I could use some advice/help. I have a reservation in April for Manresa. Sunday evening (at 7:30) is the only day that works. Unfortunately, my wife is probably too finicky for the tasting menu (no red meat etc). Any advice as to get the most out of the evening? I am really excited about this meal based mostly on this thread! also Is late April too early for the garden?

I've recommended it before but: "Wine Style" by mary Ewing Mulligan and Ed McCarthy (her husband) is an incredibly helpful book--a great companion to the Wine Bible. Most books (the Wine Bible) approach wine from a geographical standpoint. Wine Style approaches wines from a flavor profile--what the wines taste like. Ewing Mulligan (the first female MW in the US) runs the International Wine Center (WSET course in America) is a great teacher and writer.

There are similar concerns with both, in my experience. In neither case do you need a very good wine, because the subtleties that separate a good wine frome a merely ok one will be destroyed by heat. But in both cases, certain broad stroke qualities of the wine can make important differences. Body, acidity, and residual sugar are high on the list. This is why it can make a difference whether you use white or red, a riesling or a bordeaux, a chardonnay or a muscadet, etc.. It's also important with any red wine sauce to reduce the wine in the presence of protein, to help prevent the pigments from dropping out and the wine from becoming overly tannic. There are a few cases (like traditional dessert sabayons) where the subtletties of the wine are preserved. in these cases you have to be a bit more picky. ← Great advice!!! My whole point (including the reference to the "romance" of cooking and wine etc) is when cooking with wine you are looking for (as you put it so well) the "broad stroke qualities" of the wine. This is paramount vs where the wine comes from or the cost of the wine. You said it perfectly! I am also cringing over someone's claim that a corked wine is fine for cooking. I won't argue with one's personal experience but this breaks the cardinal rule of using a wine you would drink. A corked wine should be promptly recorked and taken back to the wine shop for a replacement!

AHA! Always look to the source and an agenda! Thanks for that tidbit. ← There are plenty of activist groups out there. Some good some not so good. Not everything the CSPI says is necessarily bad but a lot of credible people have challenged their goals and their methods. Also the CSPI has issued warnings about :Fast food, Mexican food etc, the Chinese food issue was raised a few years ago--they are persistent. There is also a lot of money at stake. People who are quick to be skeptical of large corporations like McDonald's (with good reason) are often not skeptical of these activist groups. while we know McD's is in it for profit, these groups are funded and salaries are paid based upon their convincing people they are relevant. The M.O is usually to get a study (often done under less than pure scientific conditions) then call a press conference and proclaim we (or our kids) are at great risk. If public information was their main goal I wouldn' thave a problem so much-- but these folks go a lot further by blackmailing corporations with law suits and threats--the ole class action game for eg.