JohnL

But this is exactly the situation with risotto al Barolo, as the article observes. ← Actually, the Barolo in the risotto proponents pretty much admit that it makes no difference. They do a good job of hedging things. Batali and Ladner. I suspect the use of expensive Barolo in the Del Posto risotto is more of an affectation to portray the dish as using luxury ingredients in keeping with the restaurant's image. Ladner pretty much admits this. Batali offers the "romance" of the idea but one gets the sense that he really knows that is all it is. I still believe that the "myth" evolved erroneously being grounded in the very sound advice to not use cheap cooking wines and sherries but rather a wine one would drink on its own (a table wine). I don't know many chefs amateur or professional who see "add a cup of dry white wine" in a recipe and immediately reach for a bottle of Montrachet. While I believe that many people have suspected the conclusions Moskin reaches, it is nice that the Times has confirmed their suspicions.

While the article is interesting, I think that the "myth" is largely misunderstood. The advice to "never cook with a wine you wouldn't drink" originated, I believe, when most super markets offered "cooking wines." These were cheap low alcohol wines that often contained flavorings (herbs etc) and other additives and were not meant for drinking. Cooking sherry was also available. In fact, these wines were and are (I believe they are still around) pretty vile. Somehow, the "myth" translated to a belief by some that it refers to low cost wines made for consumption on their own vs higher cost wines. I don't know of anyone who seriously believes that using a very expensive wine like Lafitte is "better" added to a dish than an inexpensive Bordeaux. The key, as stated in the article, is the chemical make up of the wine not its price or complexity. I think that the piece was a tad overly dramatic but I also believe that someone had to confirm what most sensible people probably suspect. I did have some small problems with Ms Moskin's assigning quality terms. For example what exactly is an "overly sweet German riesling?" In fact, a key quality determinant of German Rieslings is the level of residual sugar. The higher the more desirable or expensive. There's a bit of the old snobbery at play here as well. Two Buck Chuck is made for drinking. In fact, it is more recommendable for cooking than a more tannic wine that is also made for drinking and is either the same in cost or more. The red herring here is cost. Ms Moskin does a good job proving that in the end, it is not cost but the composition of the wine that determines its suitability in cooking.

Chris Schlessinger (Thrill of the Grill and East Coast Grill fame) recommended: EL YUCATECO SALSA PICANTE (Mexico) --I have used them for years both the red and the green. The sauces have loads of heat (Habanero) and great flavor. One is brighter (green habaneros) with cilantro and the other has darker (red habanero) notes. I also took Ming Tsai's advice and tried SAMBAL OLEK. It has also become indispensable for me. I often mix in other condiments (soy sauce or honey,etc to make various more complex sauces). It is a very Indonesian (I believe) chili garlic sauce very thick and has a lot of heat and also a slightly sweet note. I get it at one of the many Korean markets in my neighborhood. I also always keep a bottle of Chinese chili oil around. I also always have another Mexican sauce which is a chipotle based very smokey and dark sauce with a Bufalo on the label for whan I want heat and smoke. Finally, the always amazing standard:TOBASCO which provides a nice sour fermented note to the heat. Those are my five/six staples. I always rotate in two or three others just to keep on top of the hot sauce scene. I am usually bored by the sauces that use "ass" or "insane" on the labels. These are usually mostly heat and nothing else. They have little "personality."

Good thoughts mark. I agree. The fact is that the vast majority of people in the world are not interesting nor do they have anything interesting to say. The internet has become a vast American (or any country really) idol contest where one has to wade through countless examples of mediocrity or worse to find a tiny number of people worth listening to. I agree with Fat Guy that the "professional" blogs will survive and will continue to pressure other media.

I would put the cork back in or use one of those cute stoppers available in places like williams sonoma etc. and keep the bottle in the fridge. As long as the wine tastes ok to you then is it...well...ok. You might want to look for a red wine that is sealed with a screw top. A lot of nice wines use them these days--this makes it easy to reseal the bottle.

I didn't say he was incorrect. I believe he does get it right, for the most part. However, He just overdoes it. Commentary on historical perspective etc should be more subtle (and certainly incisive). Make the point and move on. Bruni is overbearing to me. He often becomes so hung up in his hook that he overlooks more pertinent and valuable information. For eg he mentions the all raw milk cheese selection and then elaborates on how the cheeses are listed on the menu--the use of icons etc because it fits his theme or the evolving restaurant. In doing so he neglects to indicate what some of those selections are or how they were served and how they tasted. He neglects to say how the food differs from what Nish offered at March save for the reference to the beggars purses being no longer offered. How about indicating how the current fare here compares to other popular au current establishments? How about some information that interested diners could use?

I just read the two star review of "Nish" in today's paper. I don't have much to say about the stars or the reviews of the food but this is one wordy restaurant review! All the verbiage dedicated to advancing and elaborating on Bruni's "hook" that "Nish" is a dressed down version of March because the restaurant/dining world in NY is changing. Any English professor worth his or her salt would hand this back to Bruni and tell him to cut a hundred words and use clear and precise language. If anything a review (of anything) demands brevity and precision. OY!

I wonder if there was a big debate when wine was first put into glass bottles instead of earthenware amphoras etc? Of course they didn't have the web or net back then!

The WSET has its pluses and it also has its minuses. You should make sure you understand what you are getting into. One drawback is the course is a distinctly European (read British) approach to wine. It relies upon studying wine from the perspective of place and is heavy on the geography. It also promulgates the stereotyping of wine. A perfect example is "many california chardonnays tend to be similar." I would posit that they "tend" to be no more or less similar than wines from any particular region anywhere in the world. In fact, upon closer scrutiny, one can discern distinct differences among wines from just about anywhere in the world including California. The problem with the stereotyping of wines is that while once more valid, today the wine world has changed and is changing. it has also grown rapidly. Obtaining a MW (or diploma or...) twenty years or more ago was a lot easier than it is today. The old canards do not apply so easily any longer. (if they ever did) The future focus (really the present) of wine knowledge is moving toward flavor profile and away from place of origin. The "old world" and "new world" descriptors are more applicable to denoting a general style of wine and less so regarding a specific geographical location. There is some unrest with the MW approach and also as to its validity or worth as a professional benefit. Check out Jancis Robinson's web site as well as some recent pieces in Decanter et al. I personally know of many industry professionals of rather high standing here and abroad who question the whole wine education situation today. (really the WSET and MW approach as opposed to formal schooling at Davis or other enological institutions around the world). I can say that there are some benefits to the WSET. One should determine if the courses are for them after some careful consideration. Best of luck!

somewhere out here at eGullet is a thread--I am sure! There's an element of luck involved--I can go quite a while and not experience a corked wine and then hit a patch where I encounter a few over a short period of time. Badly corked wine has a distinct musty wet cardboard smell--once you experience it you will remember it! A corked wine may also lack an overpowering smell but will have little or no nose at all and will taste flat--little or no fruit on the palate with no vibrancy. sort of dull. A bit harder to detect but still with a bit of experience.... The first time I think I met a corked wine was at a restaurant--I ordered a nice california Cabernet. I tasted the wine and didn't notice anything but as I drank more I felt uncomfortable with the wine. It just seemed to lack the fruit flavors I had come to expect from a california cabernet. It really wasn't obviously (to me) unpleasant, rather it was dull and boring. I should have called the sommelier over but did not and sort of suffered through it. What i should have done and will do now every time I even suspect a problem with a wine or am not happy with it (differentiating between not happy because i don't like the taste from the wine not tasting right) is immediately ask for whomever is the wine steward. If you have experience and know there is a problem with the wine a simple--"I believe this wine is bad or corked" will suffice. If you have bought the wine at a wine shop, then bring the unfinished bottle back to the store and ask if someone could taste/inspect the wine and confirm your suspicions. I would let them know you are unsure and new to wine and would appreciate if they could let you know--all wine shops should take back unfinished bottles from unhappy consumers--the customer is always right but in this case I would let them know you want to learn what corked wine is like and ask for their opinion/verdict. I recently opened several 1982 and 1986 Bordeaux first growths and found corked bottles--when i hear people lament today's experiments with screw tops, I remind them of my bad luck! Overall, I would say that it is hard to ascertain the percentage but my guess would agree that about one out of twelve or fifteen bottles is bad.

these are really good questions. As for the serving temperature of wines the recommended temps are: Light fruity reds (basic beaujolais, lambruscos etc) Roses most whites should all be served chilled. The recommended temperature is 45-50 degrees F and around 10 degrees centigrade. An ice bucket is faster than a fridge for this. You may like a particular wine cooler or warmer (less cool) it's really up to you. More serious reds and whites should be served at "cellar temperature" which is recommended to be 15 degrees centigrade or 55-59 degrees F. personal preference plays a role here as well. I find that for most whites chilling them a bit cooler than I would prefer normally and letting them come down in temperature is good for me. The key is wines that are more aromatic benefit from a slightly warmer temperature while if served too warm become flabby. I suggest you play around a bit and see which wines you enjoy at what temperatures. as for age worthiness. I believe this is entirely up to your personal preference. The vast majority of wines are made to be drunk on release. However, there are wines that develop secondary and tertiary aromas and flavors with age. It all depends upon your preference for fruit flavors vs the non fruit flavors that emerge as the fruit attenuates with age. It is also important what your tolerance for tannins is. In my experience, it is difficult to find the single optimum drinking age unless one buys several bottles and drinks them at various periods in their development. That is to say, when a wine tastes good to you then by all means drink it! When a critic or anyone says that a wine will keep or will improve (there's an important difference) for a certain period of time, I would take this advice with a big grain of salt. as always, with wine there are no hard and fast rules and one should experiment a bit to find out what they like.

Is the "Zagat" system wherein a place is reviewed for food, decor and service for eg better? (I am not talking about the methodology of assessing the scores or stars).

Bars and Restaurants in DC are "40% healthier?" After "we" ban alcohol they will be 90% safer!!!!!

Thanks for mentioning, "Mindless Eating"; I may check that out. Some of the issues you outline regarding the very real economic drive for restaurants to increase serving are also discussed in this article by Michael Pollan which I give a link for in this post: click I also don't think there is a conspiracy for restaurants to serve supersize portions rather I think it is purely a straightforward business decision to increase profits. While there is nothing wrong with that persay, the results in persuing that goal may not always be best for society or the consumer in the long run. (There are other examples of this in our society as well.) Poor diet and too much food have effects over a much longer time period and direct cause and effect between long term diet and particular health issues is not simple to understand or study. The restaurants and other processed food makers are not in controll of a conspiracy in the sense that they hold all the strings (factors) in achieving the outcome. Nor do they hide what their goal is; namely, to increase profits each year for their shareholders. And as you pointed out, they need to do this no matter how much cheaper foodstuffs becomes or no matter what the population growth. Chain restaurants are not increasing portion sizes because of consumer demand, rather they are constantly trying to figure out how to sell more food (more portions or larger portions). That is their job, but is it not necessarily good for us. I think a number of factors "conspire" to achieve the upselling that the restaurants have successfully implemented. So, if this upselling is considered a problem (i.e. obesity and health-related issues) one can look at all the factors involved. Some of the factors that aid businesses in increasing their profits are the use of powerful marketing tools (often directed at children), benefitting from government- subsidized tax breaks for production of for eg., soy and corn and lobbying efforts of very large food processing companies in order to have foodstuffs cheap enough so that they can increase profits even as they increase portion size. And, these factors all dovetail very neatly into the other drivers in people's lives that affect their food choices--convenience for those with less time, a "good" deal (lots of food for relatively cheap prices), natural instincts for people to like fats and sugars, a trigger for saiety that can be easily and persistently overrun, etc. Thinking about making calorie and fat information available for people at restaurants may be helpful but it is only one of many factors that affect our food choices. I think that people who are interested in losing weight or increasing their health should look at all the factors within their controll. Does this mean that we should ignore the existence of all factors that are beyond our direct personal choice or that we should not attempt to understand the complex set of factors that are behind our own personal choices? This is what JohnL seems to recommend although I don't understand why. Although some change might be effected by people's votes if some of these issues become part of the national dialogue, I agree with JohnL that the quickest and most direct way to effect change is through ones personal choices. Unlike JohnL (perhaps), I think it may be easier for people to make the "right" choices for themselves if they understand more explicity, the factors behind their "simple choices" and in some cases, to be given information to help them make their choices. ← I believe that good information is very important. However, these issues have become very politicized so much of the information is slanted or corrupted in service of an agenda. I also have a big problem with forcing information on people. If restaurants list nutritional information and serve healthy food and people still ignore the info and the healthy meals then printing larger information making it more obtrusive is equivalent to shouting at people. What's next? Having a nutritional expert take each customer by the hand as they enter the restaurant and reading them the dangers and options before allowing them to eat? having each customer sign a waiver? People are quick to quote from Pollan or others and yet I wonder how many seek out more balanced information? How many people simply take writers like Pollan or organizations like the CSPI at face value and do not question what they say. Not that everything they say is necessarily wrong --I think Pollan has some valid thoughts. How many of us are really thinking?

Why is it that health food restaurants are not as popular as MacDonalds? As for the cigarette companies "infamous" memos. We have known that cigarettes are not healthy for us since mark Twain wrote Tom Sawyer and earlier. So why did we continue to smoke? We can claim that ads made us pick up the first cigarette and the evil tobacco empire got us addicted but at some point we need to realize that personal choice is the key factor. I am all for education and information to help us make our choices. Companies are not as jaded as you seem to think. Most, in fact, do care what people do with their products after purchase and how they are affected by these products. Yes, there are some bad apples but we have laws and rules and regulations.

Darn it all, ludja, but I was counting on all that scrolling to be my weight-loss exercise for the day. ← I occasionally forget myself, but trimming quotes both helps to focus the discussion and makes for easier readibility. Sorry for the diversion! I'm looking forward to any new perspectives anyone has on the topic! Thanks for mentioning the movie, JohnL and rconnelly. It sounds like the movie reconnelly was referring to was 1994's The Road to Wellville based on Kellog's life. And it looks like "Health" or "H.E.A.L.T.H." by Altman in 1980 is a different movie which spoofs the politics and hypocrisy behind the scenes of a fictional world health organization. ← You are correct!! Thanks Not only does one's metabolism change after forty but the memory..... Ya know this might make for an interesting food and health related double feature!!! I haven't seen these films in years. Nice opportunity to make a large bowl of popcorn (no butter of course)

it is interesting that the Kellogg cereal company was founded by a health fanatic who wanted to promote healthy eating (along with colon cleansing) around the turn of the century I believe. This inspired a 1980 movie "Health" by Robert Altman. Many of these studies confirm the common sense. For example kids --teens and young adults would seem to be resistant to nutrition information--they are (most anyway) at a physically active stage in life and believe they will live forever. Of course, there is that aforementioned (by me) age line where a lot of us experience a change in our metabolism! Suddenly, we seem to burn far less calories and everything we eat seems to show up as excess avoirdupois

I don't mean to be rude (ornery and cantankerous maybe) But it seems a lot of this is about helping others. This is fine up to a point but people need to help themselves. I get antsy when a group of folks decides that another group of people has a problem and proceed to "help." Education and awreness are good. Especially in schools. we need to be careful that a line is not crossed. Interestingly, on tonite's local news there was a story of some study that compared the effectiveness of various popular diets. (Atkins won) it was revealed however that all diets effectiveness was negatively impacted because people start them but do not maintain them and thus end up where they started. "It's that old devil in me" I am all for providing information and support to enable people to help themselves but that is where it needs to end.

This thread started as a result of a "lobbying" groups declarations and efforts. Discussing portions and types of foods offered in restaurants doesn't get very far. Aside from metabolic and genetic or other physiological problems, we all know what the relationship between diet and exercise and weight gain (or loss) is. People simply do not wake up one day and "discover" they are obese. We all tolerate levels of weight gain or loss and reach our own level of comfort or discomfort. Most of us are responsible for our condition. If one is gaining weight and is uncomfortable about it then we are each capable of reviewing what we are eating and making the appropriate adjustments. Some folks can not get it that we are not "victims" of restaurants, fast food, agribusiness, TV commercials or whatever. Information is fine, it is a good thing. But as already indicated here in this thread, when restaurants make the info available many people do not access it or ignore it. So the answer is not make it bigger or more prominent short of forcing people to memorize it by law--even that won't work people will still eat what they want to eat. Adding salads to menus has not worked either--not enough people order them. Lifestyle changes are difficult. people have to make them for themselves. And the one truth that remains is: eat in moderation exercise. and you will be well.

Best topic headline and subhead in a long while! The link even funnier! Bravo!!!!

Artful implication with the use of "yes, Virginia" that the issues on the table are a myth, like Santa Claus, and that anyone who chooses to think otherwise is a child-like innocent, like the Virginia of the famous letter. Unfortunately, this implication does not compute as anything but sarcasm used in argument for emotional effect, in my book. Again, you have said you do not make assumptions for others but it does sound rather as if that is precisely what you are doing in saying that "we all know what those consequences are--really we do." I would agree with you though, in saying that this is not a simple issue. I don't believe that anyone said it was, though I could be wrong. ← I think my assumptions make more sense! I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt. My use of "Virginia" was exaggerated--not to mean these issues are myth's but that there is a lot of conventional wisdom that is just plain off the mark. These wisdoms often achieve mythological proportions! (sheesh--even I no longer understand what i am saying). It is just that I am tiring of all these do good organizations (gotta be organized there's no money in standing alone). Creating or taking advantage of difficult problems and attempting to save all of us or our children. The do good ban on trans fats is already creating new problems. According to today's NY Times the baking industry has been told to get rid of all trans fats by large corporations attempting to do good. (Starbucks is one outfit ordering all their suppliers to eliminate trans fat). well seems like butter has more trans fats than margarine so the bakers are using margarine which we have been told is not as good for us as butter but it has less trans fat. The more we try to enforce a perfect society we get deeper into the....... Let's just ban food we can all go on IV diets with our drips controlled by the state--we will all be thin we will be happy we will be...perfect!! Farmland will revert back to forests --more trees--less global warming! The save the earth folks will rejoice--animals will run free --PETA will dissolve into ecstasy!!! The sheer lunacy of it all!!!!

The problem with this issue is its not a simple issue. first the assumption is people are stupid or at best not aware or informed. Most people who are obese know they are obese, understand that obesity can lead to health problems and yes Virginia, they even know (or at least have a pretty good idea why they are obese). All without knowing the exact amount of calories in the krispy kremes they are scarfing down with a cup of coffee laden with three tablespoons of sugar and half and half. Maybe, despite this many chose to be overweight or obese and live happily with the consequences. I don't know because I chose not to make assumptions for others. Furthermore, maybe the so called explosion in obesity is a result of the baby boom generation attaining the age where one's (at least mine) metabolism changes and combined with the fact that we don't get as much exercise as we did at twenty five (I just can't play touch football anymore lest I pull or break something). maybe it is not just that we are susceptible to the crafty messages the geniuses at MacDonald's and their ad agency folk are using on us. (subliminally of course). Maybe, the fact that kids today are spending a lot of time in front of the TV or worse a game boy and parents would rather give em a cookie than say no or send them to a playground is just a bit of the problem and not the fast food industry conspiracy to get everyone addicted to twinkies! Maybe we have met the enemy and the enemy is-------US!!!!! maybe the complex problem has simple answers! And maybe, just maybe we have all the answers-- eat in moderation and get some exercise!!!! if you chose to indulge then accept the consequences (we all know what those consequences are--really we do).

Also worth noting for those in the New York area: Both Henckels and Wusthof have factory warehouses in Westchester. Henckel's is in Hawthorne (on RT 9A) Wusthof is in Briarcliff manor (on RT 9 just south of Tarrytown) Every fall (Nov/Dec) they have great sales where most first quality items are at least 50% off. Some factory seconds are also offered). At the Wusthof event I believe they will sharpen any knife (any brand) for free. (I would check on this). I bought some great knives at Wusthof--some were 60% off retail! Including their top of the line forged knives. An additional plus to the Henckel's location is they are very close to the Wine Enthusiast headquarters/store. Usually, in Nov and Dec they have a lot of wine related stuff on sale. (glasses decanters etc).

I agree. Sometimes these threads are not just a magnifying glass but often amount to more of a microscope (an electron model at that). Take today's review of Sfoglia--a restaurant I know well and like a lot. I think overall, Bruni's review/assessment is fair and accurate. I like that he mentions the attraction of lunch in a restaurant. I think this should be a regular part of all his reviews--lunch is important--not a one time serendipity (his). I also believe he leaves out important information that would add substantive perspective to what the chef is attempting here. He (Suhofsky) has a far more interesting background than the passing mention he was a line cook in a Boston restaurant. While noting that the chef and pastry chef met cute--is, well, cute their not insubstantial backgrounds are IMOP more important. Also missing is mention of how this place treats vegetables (contorni)--important in Italian cooking and worth noting here. The fact that Bruni does "know" something about Italy (at least purportedly) would seem to be interesting if applied to this place which does seem to have pretensions of being somewhat "authentic" in its approach. OK so maybe there is some nit picking here, but again, while I agree in general with Bruni's assessment I am left a bit dissatisfied with with the review. Again, the feeling that while nothing is wrong, there is some perspective and some information that I feel was missing that would have provided me with a better sense of what the restaurant is all about.

I think it's silly and pretentious. We obviously disagree on this. Maybe the problem I have is that Bruni seems to approach reviewing restaurants like a reporter rather than a critic. Then becoming a diarist in executing the review. It seems that his writing style often intrudes --his use of a "hook" to hang the review on is often strained-- too apparent to the reader. A review should convey important information and express opinion which is supported by evidence. I feel there is a problem with writing style often getting in the way of substance with Mr Bruni. I am constantly distracted by his "style" reading his reviews and too often, feel unsatisfied with the information provided and more importantly not provided. Perhaps one should be a blogger or a diarist or memoirist after one has achieved a certain level of experience and expertise. Then style and personality becomes more relevant in a natural way they are earned. It seems the Times is forcing things with many of its writers and reporters and critics. I believe the paper is (as many newspapers are these days) desperate to find a way to regain its importance in people's lives in the face of a lot of competition from other media. Media that sell style over substance and where stardom is not earned it is simply declared.