JohnL

Dietz and Watson seems to have replaced Boars Head at the Food Emporium on 57th Street and Ninth Avenue here in New York City. This location is struggling to compete with the Whole Foods in the TW Center. (I am not sure if all Food Emporiums here are switching to D&W). At first--I did not take to the D&W offerings but I must admit they are growing on me. I intend to do a head to head taste test with the ever present Boars Head for myself. I will report back!!! By the way--I am curious--what cold cuts are utilized on the hoagies around Philly. I remember incredible sandwiches from delis around Woodland Avenue (Cobbs Creek Parkway) as well as at Jim's streaks and others. IMOP-the Italian sandwiches (hero's)here in New York can be great but for overall consistancy the Philly versions are better. Also the bread in Philly for these sandwiches is better than most offered here in NYC which is often too dense and chewy.

I had lunch there a week ago. (dinner charges may be higher) I was quoted a fifty dollar per 750ml bottle as corkage. To be honest--I did not get the check--my friend did and paid the bill--I will check back with him to verify what we paid if possible. The wine list is not that bad--you should be able to find something that would fit your budget. I think that one should not bring their own wine --unless the restaurant clearly encourages it--or if the wines one is bringing are rare or special wines that are not likely to be on the list. IMOP bringing wine to save money is somewhat gauche and I can see why restaurant would discourage this. To be truthful, the food is so complex here that a more simple wine would be a better accompaniment than a very complex wine. A simple white from the Loire or Macon would be great with this food as would basic reds. The list is priced on the high side but there are some offerings that would not cost an arm and a leg. The food is excellent and the wine should "stay outta the way" IMOP.

I don't think they will be fenced on the street. Buyers would not be very hard to find--unfortunately. Unless many of these wines are truly rarities that would raise some red flags--they could turn up at auctions or retailers. The thieves must have had a truck and a warehouse at their disposal. A real conspiracy would be it was engineered by an insurance company or a cellar builder or home security outfit looking for business--this theft raised a lot more awareness than a multi million dollar ad campaign! (once in a while my imagination goes into overdrive). I recall a movie with Jack Nicholson that involved a wine cellar and a jewel theft from a few years back--"Blood and Wine." The premise was the thieves got to the jewels via the wine. Good movie.

I have been trying to figure out what Pollan is really about. He is a thinker in search of answers to ethical dilemmas he creates. To boil it all down, I believe that Pollan sees the answers to these ethical dilemmas about food production and eating in small local sustainable producers. These producers will be driven by the same sense of ethics and marals that he, Pollan, has decided are critical to our well being and wholesomeness. We will be at peace with our food and ourselves. The bad things we must move away from are industrial, processed not local produced. Organic and wholesome good. Earthbound farms which produces wholesome, and organic products ( a good thing) is bad (ok partly bad) they are big and contribute to pollution because their products need to be trucked around the country. Pollan often does not see, overlooks, ignores sides of the discussion that do not lead to the conclusions he arrives at. He is "enlightened" because he has really (really) deeply thought about these very important moral and ethical dilemmas and he has some answers. Eat more vegetables that are grown on local sustainable farms. Unfortunately, for him (and others) I do not see how we are going to go back to an agrarian society. We can improve our current state of affairs and this is a good result of the agonizers over the human condition like Pollan, but we are not going to the utopia he has set up. IMOP Pollan overlooks the incredible benefits of the industrial age (food production included). he sees only the bad that results. His solutions are lovely, altruistic and righteous sounding but they do not address the fact that this country is geographically large, very diverse and 300 million people living in mostly urban and suburban areas, and we have differing growing climates. I believe that in reality technology has a better success rate and a better future in making America smaller. There are always trade offs-- Pollan just can't seem to wrestle with these, processed and industrial are hard to define and even harder to demonize--they ain't all bad and they ain't all good. He also tends to gloss over the potential problems inherent in small sustainable anything. We will have to cut down a lot of trees to provide the land for those small farms--we will need a lot of small farms too! Again, (and again and..) I think that Pollan should stop thinking and just go have a big steak (and stop reading zealots like Peter singer). I think that we will all be fine. I like the option of having reasonably tasty green peas in the dead of winter (either frozen courtesy of the green Giant) or fresh trucked in from the southern hemisphere. pollution!!??? The answer is better designed transit systems--fuel efficient and less poluting engines--bigger planes trains and automobiles!!! Better--than waiting for the local growing season and driving to the local farmers markets--wait! Driving--I will be polluting to get my fresh local peas! maybe I will wait for bus route or I can car pool or...maybe I can grow the peas myself in my apartment.--but wait I will need fertilizer and pesticides and...will the co -op board allow manure in the apartment...... aw hell--this is too much dilemma for me. i'll just take an extra vitamin pill(maybe with an aspirin)

← I hope we are not going to see some posts slamming the critic and/or questioning his credentials. I think that there is a general consensus that Varietal has a problem in its concept and executing that concept. As for the food. There is always an element of subjectivity. I would expect to see agreement regarding the concept and execution with some disagreement more likely regarding the food. The key to Varietal's success in a very competitive restaurant environment is to draw people who will tend to appreciate the style of the food and the dining and drinking experience they offer. If they are not clearly conveying what they are all about they will not reach these people. If the experience is not successfully delivered the people they do reach will not return. This is important--I am not even talking about the food. Some will like the food some will not. I believe that the reason that WD-50 has been so successful where Paul Liebrandt has had problems is that Wylie understands the need to have a clear vision and to have the environment where he can execute that vision. The experimental and avant garde nature of their cooking (I am not talking about quality) means that their universe of potential repeat customers is limited in size. WD-50 in its location, its size, its service, its ambiance, its pricing presents a clear and harmonious vision. Its customers go to it. Were WD-50 to move to a large space in the Time Warner Building raise prices to cover the overhead--I believe it would fail unless Wylie changed his approach to cooking and/or its execution dramatically. Liebrandt would IMOP be better off if he found a smaller space downtown--a better environment for his vision. As for the cooking--avant garde is always controversial by its very nature. I believe that it is extremely difficult to pull this off. It is not that difficult to shock and suprise diners with unconventional technique, exotic ingredients and unconventional combinations of flavors/ingredients. To move beyond the shock and awe to the point that a large number of people return over and over, to offer an experience that creates a following/repeat business is difficult enough. I always thought that Grey Kunz at Lespinasse was a master at understanding his audience and introducing a certain wonderment into his food. Was he experimental? Yes. To the degree that Dufresne is? No. But each worked in the perfect stage/setting for their talents. So can Varietal overcome the difficulties in their vision and its execution? Maybe. I won't comment on the quality of the food--I haven't tried it. I can say that while the wine bar seems like it has some potential--I doubt that the owners would be happy being successful as a wine bar only. Attempting to be too many things at once is a problem--to me, a good restaurant is when the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. The whole being the totality of the experience a diner walks away with. So,I suppose if one approaches Varietal as three (or more) separate and distinct concepts: Wine bar, wine friendly restaurant, patisserie, some elements avant garde some less etc--sort of a whatever one wants it to be--then ok. I doubt this is the vision. Looks to me like a wine guy, a chef and a desert chef each decided to operate their own place under one roof. Avant garde concept? Or misguided adventure? Time will tell.

I think everyone should read/re read the Times piece in its entirety. There is no way the Grimes is insulting Greeks or greek cuisine. He is definitely not bigoted. I know exactly what he is trying to convey. The comment FG excerpted is a response to what Grimes feels was fawning of some critics over some of the Astoria restaurants. I think Grimes could have said it better. I also believe that what Grimes is saying via the comment is that Greek food, while wonderful at a certain level of refinement does not reach the heights of refinement some other cuisins have attained. I am not sure I agree with him but I do not have the knowledge and experience to totally disagree. By refinement I believe we are talking the equivalent of Haute cuisine.(its that damn French thing again). Using that paradigm, one could argue that Italian cuisine by its very nature does not achieve the level of Haute cuisine. Indeed ,many people would argue this (and do) -so what. There's no bigotry at play--just a bunch of foodies intellectualizing about food! To me Greek food at its best (as I have experienced it) is boldly flavored, warm, gregarious, very satisfying and damn good. Refined? Haute? I'd rather eat it than debate its place in the pantheon of world cuisines. (didn't the Greeks invent the pantheon?)--nuff said!

moving us away from the food culture of my youth with it's Cream of Mushroom soup, frozen vegetables, and endless casseroles, to more seasonal ingredients, good bread and cheese, wine with meals, and yes, less processed food.(The food culture I chose to emulate is mostly French. Feel free to talk smack about me over in this thread. ) ← I was being a bit facetious. I wouldn't make assumptions about other cultures being healthier. It is not that simple. For eg the Japanese get a different set of diseases than we do. Just going on life expectancy is a bit more complicated as well. There are so many factors in addition to diet that impact how long and how well we live. Comparisons are difficult--America is a geographically very large and diverse country. maybe one of the few places where one can eat such a wide range of foods and chose italian or french or Chinese or.. Pollan is a thinker. I do not always agree with his process or his perceptions but I do agree with many of his conclusions. We can have large farms and small farms, organic and non organic, processed foods and natural foods. Each has upsides and downsides. I think they all bring something to the table. We need to look carefully at people who profess to have all the answers and especially when they get our attention with messages of doom and gloom. If we have choices we can make them based on moderation, common sense and what works for each of us and our families.

John, you are consistent in your defense of large agribusiness in this topic and elsewhere. One of the reasons many are so distrustful of them is that their raison d'etre is profit and not altruism. Of course not as that is what business is. If the nature of the business were to look for long-term profits and sustainability over short term gains and maximizing current profits for stakeholders, concerns would be much less. However, they are responsible to current stakeholders and maximizing current and near-term profits potentially at the expense of later generations. In addition the stakes are huge. Is it any wonder that so many are suspicious of their motives and their actions? It is not as if big business in general has historically cared for anything other than profits. That is not to say that big business is evil or hasn't contributed great things to the world or even that what large agribusiness is doing and has done is necessarily wrong or not good. At least some of it probably is. Sometimes the interests of big business and the rest of the world do intersect, but their motives must constantly be scrutinized. ←

Well it seems there is a real lack of editing most everywhere these days. As for Greek cuisine: It seems that our opinions of any cuisine are influenced by what is around us. I also believe that we judge food today in terms of French cuisine as a paradigm. There is an age old debate as to whether Italian cuisine can ever be equal to French haute cuisine. (will Del Posto get four stars?). French cuisine can be viewed in distinct categories that we generally agree upon--bistro, brasserie, haute etc. Other cuisines often do not have French equivalents and are thus difficult to define and categorize and thus deal with in a comparative manner (if one wants to "deal" with and compare cuisines). As for what is around us. I have often felt that for a long time Spanish food in New York was in a rut. There was a lot of mediocrity, decent neighborhood places that often showed flashes of potential but that mostly lacked one or more of the following: fresh and authentic ingredients, authentic recipes (I sensed a lot of the cooking was sort of Amercanized versions of Spanish dishes), laziness in preparation, boring wine lists, lack of refinement and innovation etc etc etc. I feel the same way about the current state of affairs re: Greek food. Though as with Spanish food things are improving. A first step were restaurants like Periyali then Molyvos and the various estatoria. There were always one or two pretty good taverna type places (I liked the Acropolis on 48th Street--which may or may not still be there which was a step up from a good Greek diner--the always present gaggle of Greek Americans arguing something or other in Greek --politics I assumed--adding a lot of color to the place). I enjoy Uncle Nick's the same way I enjoy neighborhood French bistros and Italian equivalents. --here's the rub though--the comparisons to other cuisines. I think, knowing a bit about Grimes, that he is using the French paradigm which IMOP becomes the French paradox. Is it fair top be using these comparisons in the first place--shouldn't any cuisine be judged on its own as to what it is and what it can be. I do not think that Greek food in New York has reached a point where it is what it can be and it certainly has not taken an added step where talented chefs are innovating and modernizing (is there a Greek equivalent to what is happening in Spain and barely happening here?). it is easier to find a well made lasagna than it is a well made moussaka. I think that Grimes should have been more precise in his assessments and definitely provided support for his views. But hey--sloppy writing and criticism is the norm for most journalism today. Shouldn't we be judging writers and critics against a paradigm?

John, you are consistent in your defense of large agribusiness in this topic and elsewhere. One of the reasons many are so distrustful of them is that their raison d'etre is profit and not altruism. Of course not as that is what business is. If the nature of the business were to look for long-term profits and sustainability over short term gains and maximizing current profits for stakeholders, concerns would be much less. However, they are responsible to current stakeholders and maximizing current and near-term profits potentially at the expense of later generations. In addition the stakes are huge. Is it any wonder that so many are suspicious of their motives and their actions? It is not as if big business in general has historically cared for anything other than profits. That is not to say that big business is evil or hasn't contributed great things to the world or even that what large agribusiness is doing and has done is necessarily wrong or not good. At least some of it probably is. Sometimes the interests of big business and the rest of the world do intersect, but their motives must constantly be scrutinized. ←

Well, I've waited for everyone to respond regarding Mr. Cuozzo's "informal" crticism, and I've read a lot of your comments - some I agree, others I disagree. I wholeheartedly agree with the comment that just one negative comment (wether formal or not) can tryly taint a new restaurant's reputation to the point of harm. I disagree again, with the critic who believes that the two menus are disjointed. Again, I want to point out that the newness of the idea maybe what's troubling some. Think of when El Bulli started - what an idea?!!! A restaurant that would have a laboratory? Was it "weird" or innovative? Well, the rest is history. I just read that El Bulli is the #1 restaurant in the world! It beat all the "classical cuisine" restaurants with "conservative and well-match" menus. So I guess quite a few people in the world agree me and Varietal - that new and different is not necessarily "weird" or "bad" or "negative" in any way. Although I do agree with doc that the dinner dishes are very tasty, I "personally" would prefer a little more involved and creative dishes. I still think that Chef Kahn's dishes are highly creative, super tasty and just awesome! ← I fear you are missing the point of most of the criticism. You note "the newness of the idea"--well what is the "idea" behind Varietal? Much of what posters here and even Cuozzo are critical of is Varietal seem to be confused in its overall concept. Is it a wine bar a restaurant a desert bar? all three? Is the cuisine --New American, experimental, avant garde, wine friendly? all of the above? Does one go for wine? wine plus food? a full meal? a wine tasting? just desert? The problem with the wine bar and food combination is clearly apparent. Does one eat at the bar? --what?--appetizers, entrees, deserts--a full meal. does one enjoy flights of interesting wines? with food? can all this be done comfortably in the space alloted? A "wine bar" that serves food (desert) can not recommend a wine to accompany the deserts then there is a serious problem! with--service, a wine list that has no matches for the deserts, deserts for which there are no wine matches--you can look at this from every angle--there is a problem somewhere. To use your analogy, say El Bulli offered a simple conventional flan for desert? Or say the desert menu at WD-50 consisted of conventional apple pie or a piece of Junior's cheesecake? Regardless of the quality of these desert offerings do you thing that diners would be at least mildly confused and/or disappointed? It is clear that varietal has a problem in who they are or are trying to be. people--consumers and critics are confused. In fact based upon Nishla's comments--it appears the staff is confused as well!!

I'm not sure the 1975 date makes sense. 1975 is when McDonald's opened its first restaurant in Hong Kong. It was already firmly established in the US in the 1950s. Nor was it the first such chain. White Castle dates to 1921. Moreover, people have been drinking Coca-Cola since 1886. My parents, born in 1937, grew up in the 1940s and 1950s drinking soda, eating the same commercial candy bars we eat now, grabbing fast-food burgers in their car, etc. They probably ate fewer vegetables -- especially fresh ones -- that today's kids. I think the baby boomers, who are slightly younger than my parents, are a generation we can examine to see the effects of the modern American diet -- and the news seems to be good. The boomers are incredibly vital as they approach retirement age. If current statistical projections hold, they will push the life expectancy average farther than it has ever been pushed before. ← One of my largest problems and complaints with a lot of this is too many "experts" do not have a firm grasp on the past. Worse many seem to ignore or misrepresent things to further their thesis. The media is no help here either. The same papers (show, magazines etc) that promote tales of impending doom run pieces on how vital and longer living we are these days. The doomsday message of social security heading into oblivion popular (we are living longer etc) in the headlines these days literally contradicts the doomsday message of how diet or cigarettes, or the environment or (pick your poison) is killing us off! Another interesting historical note--I recall a robert Altman film circa 1994 called The Road to Wellville based upon a T. Coraghesson Boyle novel which dealt with the food and health fads of the early 20th century promoted by John Harvey Kellog a physician and founder of the cereal company. Obsession with health and eating is not new. Interestingly, Kellog was viewed as somewhat of a nut or eccentric. The proliferation of media outlets today has contributed to legitimizing many health issues and experts with answers as well as hucksters far beyond what ocurred in the past. Also worth noting are the doom and gloom predictions of world famine (Erlich) of the early to mid seventies. (world hunger actually decreased contrary to Erlich and other's dire predictions). We've also been through climate change crisis (both hot and cold) as well as numerous other impending catastraphies! All of which were backed by scientific data and loads of studies!!!!

Gee, Hollywood is just the place to go for an accurate assessment of things! The movie you note sounds like a rehash of the concept presented in "Soylent Green" back in the seventies. My main problem is that Hollywood (and certain intelligencia) believe that most of the population (especially Americans) are "stupid." (everyone else that is--not us ) We are all sheep (again the others not us) who are susceptible to clever marketing efforts promoting shameless and evil big (the bigger the more evil) capitalist corporations in collusion with corrupt government --in the end we will all die! Unless of course we are saved by the smart and enlightened guys (and gals) who know what's best for us and..... Actually, the "Idiocracy" movie sounds like fun--I would be rather skeptical of any "message" it is conveying (subliminally of course--we all know art is subtle)

you might not, but many other people do. and they're not all innocent dupes of evil corporate mind-engineering. ← Let me make my point more clearly, then: I don't think that people usually have the same motivation for getting a whopper that they have for getting prime beef and micro greens, nor do I think those three products are marketed to the same demographic or on the same basis, for the most part. ← You know Pan, last week I would have agreed with you. But, last week, someone, gave me a light slap up the side head, and let me know that prime beef, micro greens, and whoppers, do co-exist within the same customer. It's more complex than you or I thought. ← Is anything simple or straightforward? ← Let me clarify (I will try to be straightforward and simple!) I believe that taste and flavor drive the success of most food items. I recently bought some fresh ground natural beef. It was pretty tasteless (I have had examples that were brimming with flavor--this is nature afterall). So--I added a bit of garlick and some worcestershire sauce and served it on a bun with a slice of red onion and a touch of Dijon mustard. In effect I was taking a processed product and processing it further to come up with something that tasted better. Now--this is basically what MacDonald's does. They have additional criteria that come into play--profits they are reselling their product (this is similar to mom adding bread crumbs to meatloaf to stretch the budget). The current trend in artisinal food products leading to smaller farms is IMOP really driven in large part, by chefs who are looking for better tasting items for their customers as well as coinciding with farmers looking for profits in an increasingly difficult atmosphere for smaller farming enterprises. The health benefits and the politics (save the earth) are adjunct to quest for profits and taste. There are similarities between great restaurants and large fast food chains. We often tend to overlook these because we often like to demonize large corporations and promote small enterprises. Few people start a small farm and grow micro greens because of altruism. I do think Pollan has correctly noted that there is now growth of businesses whose raison d'etre is not profits and good quality and good taste etc. The so called "healthfood" industry. I also believe that the dilemma that an operation like Whole Foods faces, causes them to wrestle with too many goals--the end result of juggling too many criteria is often expensive tasteless and mediocre in quality. people still look for taste--better put--no one buys a tasteless or bad tasting food item because doing so promotes a good cause or is politically correct! There is some irony, at least for me, in a trend that sees chefs using the same chemicals that have long been used by the mass food industry to make foods taste better--gums, guar gum or xanthan gum for example. By the way--isn't arrowroot a chemical additive? Baking soda? And isn't Homeru Cantu using products that are highly processed and of little nutritional value--edible paper for eg? (just thought I'd throw this last stuff in to help--clarify the issue!) In the end--there are no neat little packages of wisdom here. (Doc may be right). We(the intellectuals who ponder all this) are in danger of paralysis due to intellectual overload. It is one thing to ponder and quite another to agonize. I do agree with Pollan that we should eat first and foremost for pleasure--we are truly blessed that we can do this--there are far too many people who eat to survive. But I believe that each person should balance their own criteria and choose their diet based on common sense and facts. Pollan does a prety good job in the piece in question at providing some perspective but in the end he can't seem to avoid making a recommendation as to what and how we should eat. another piece of irony--(I just can't seem to resist!) those large multinational food conglomerates we love to trash are more likely to help solve world hunger (at least alleviate it) than any small local organic, biodynamic etc farms and farmer's markets! see --simple and to the point!!!

At last the common sense emerges! As always, brilliant Daniel!!! and Thanks to FG for showing that one should never accept the conventional wisdom without examining both sides of the argument. There are always facts and often there are other facts. One can find an ethical dilemma in most everything. One can also miss out on a lot of pleasure being consumed with these dilemma. Life will always be too short!!!!

I am 100 per cent in agreement with FG on this. This entire issue has been politicized. The discussion has become rife with ill supported conventional wisdom. It has been corrupted and confused by various groups with political agendas--so called movements. There is also a nasty thread of anti capitalism, anti big business running through a lot of it that appeals to self loathing and self obsessed Americans. I find it interesting that these discussions invariably turn from processed foods to corporate America and MacDonald's a linkage that always seems to be bubbling just below the surface. The debate and discussion of interesting and important topics has become poisoned by a good vs evil mentality that has made rational thought something that just gets in the way of the cause. For example the term "processed." Most every food is processed as has been noted here. yet we can't have the discussion because to many this is not really about what we eat etc it is about polemics--" processed" is a code word for MacDonald's et al. it really means "processed our way vs processed their way." I also agree that leaving out a critical element like exercise renders most of these discussions about health and nutrition moot. Same for ignoring the reality of our overall health today vs the our health in the past. Another factor often left out is taste and the pleasure of eating. Eating is about a lot more than nutrition, and health. I find the current selling of wine as a healthy product with claims of disease prevention obnoxious. How about we like it with our food and enjoy the effects of alcohol! That's good enough for me! How about process with the goal of producing food that tastes good! Then we can talk about process in terms of saving the planet or the animals or the whatever. All the agonizing over statistics and dire warnings of we're killing ourselves, processed food is killing us, we gotta join a movement --healthfood, slow food, organic food, no food, yadda yadda yadda. Eating and health? The answer may be all too simple. Moderation and exercise! But hey--that's too easy. One can't sell many books based on advice that obvious. ← Did you read the article? If so, I am not sure what you are ranting about here on this topic. The reason I suggested that this article be "required" reading before engaging in discussion in the politicized food topics is because I think it does a good job in conveying the complexities of the situation while also recognizing the realities of the issues facing today's world. Neither the issues nor the solutions are simple. They are complexly inter-related defying the easy fixes of nutritional supplementation, which are aimed squarely at a demographic looking to have their cake and eat it too. I would like those easy fixes too, but realizing that they don't exist, I am making a conscious decision to eat what pleases me and not pay too close attention to the purported health fads of the moment. I don't worry about it too much because I happen to enjoy eating a varied diet. I do, however, sometimes have trouble understanding what "moderation" means. ← Well depends upon what the meaning of is...is! My point is you speak of "the realities of issues facing today's world." Well, I am arguing that the "issues" as well as the "realities" are debatable. OK take obesity. Its importance as an issue is dependent upon the realities. As FG has pointed out in a few posts here the realities are in question. Same for the incidence of disease as compared to long ago. The fact is, we are simply better off in most ways today than we were years ago. If one accepts this then the urgency of the current debate is much less dramatic. I would argue that the increase in awareness of small farms and artisinal food products is driven not by ethics or a need to save the world or even eat healthier (whatever these mean) but rather a desire to eat things that taste good. The same drive that gave us the whopper also gave us prime beef and micro greens! I am more fearful of "ethical" people who use their ethics and morals to ban things to tell us what we should eat or not eat and ultimately reduce our choices. Life is so much better today-- but it is still too short!

in a large bowl i take a stick of really good sweet butter and smear it around the entire inside surface. I dump into the bowl cooked fresh fettucini and add lots of Reggiano Paremsan and toss. (sometimes I add some bacon and/or green peas.

I am 100 per cent in agreement with FG on this. This entire issue has been politicized. The discussion has become rife with ill supported conventional wisdom. It has been corrupted and confused by various groups with political agendas--so called movements. There is also a nasty thread of anti capitalism, anti big business running through a lot of it that appeals to self loathing and self obsessed Americans. I find it interesting that these discussions invariably turn from processed foods to corporate America and MacDonald's a linkage that always seems to be bubbling just below the surface. The debate and discussion of interesting and important topics has become poisoned by a good vs evil mentality that has made rational thought something that just gets in the way of the cause. For example the term "processed." Most every food is processed as has been noted here. yet we can't have the discussion because to many this is not really about what we eat etc it is about polemics--" processed" is a code word for MacDonald's et al. it really means "processed our way vs processed their way." I also agree that leaving out a critical element like exercise renders most of these discussions about health and nutrition moot. Same for ignoring the reality of our overall health today vs the our health in the past. Another factor often left out is taste and the pleasure of eating. Eating is about a lot more than nutrition, and health. I find the current selling of wine as a healthy product with claims of disease prevention obnoxious. How about we like it with our food and enjoy the effects of alcohol! That's good enough for me! How about process with the goal of producing food that tastes good! Then we can talk about process in terms of saving the planet or the animals or the whatever. All the agonizing over statistics and dire warnings of we're killing ourselves, processed food is killing us, we gotta join a movement --healthfood, slow food, organic food, no food, yadda yadda yadda. Eating and health? The answer may be all too simple. Moderation and exercise! But hey--that's too easy. One can't sell many books based on advice that obvious.

I think something like quail with a wine or port reduction would work also rather than roast pork a pan seared or grilled pork chop would be fine. Also duck would be a good pairing with this wine. I have had it with D'Artagnan confite duck legs over simple braised red cabbage. By searing or grilling you will get some carmelization that will help the meat stand up to what is a big wine with loads of fruit. another idea for this wine-- Roasted winter vegetables--snips, beets, turnips, carrots, shallots, roast garlick, potatoes, mushrooms etc.

Doc: You are right on! You are absolutely right! But I will disagree with JohnL again. His quote: "If I were alive at the time and didn't like Picasso's "rose period," maybe I'd have stopped buying his paintings until he modified his style to something I liked more.", proves exactly my point! JohnL, if you don't like something, you don't have to say you like it, but you should neither say that it is bad or weird! You may say, it looks or tastes bad to "ME", but never "IT" is weird for the rest of the world to know. Cuozzo did single out Varietal, and that is my entire point - it was wrong. Again as far as your description of "disjointed menus" some of "US" enjoy that, we like the unusual, the taking risks, the different menus, etc. So, I "COULD" say that the unusual style of this restaurant is "awesome" to me, I should "NEVER" imply that "IT" is awesome for everyone, like you. Obviously many of us who have been there have a much different opinion than you - and that's ok. My objection is to making blanketed statements - that's all! Thanks for reading! ← For the record. I didn't make the observation a la Picasso's rose period. (I do sorta like it though). Aren't you over reacting to Cuozzo? He is a critic and his job is to criticize to express his opinions.. The piece in question is not a review of the restaurant and he indicates that clearly. I agree there are some areas where he (and the headline writer) were not being as clear and effective in opinion being expressed. I also feel you are parsing phrases and words a la "it depends upon what the word is....is" I guarantee that if the ingredients for the desert menu were shown to a hundred casual to even serious diners the combinations would be described as "weird"! That would not be a judgment of quality, rather it is an indication that most people would find the ingredients out of the norm for deserts. So what? You are also overlooking the part where Cuozzo offers some praise for the chef. All too often we look for validation of our own opinions when reading a critic or writer. If we don't get that validation we then often ignore what the critic is saying and attempt to devalue him or her. I love this place (or movie or play or painting or...) If so and so does not then: they are clueless, they are idiots, they are not the expert they claim to be, they are not qualified.... and so on. We can disagree. Everyone has an opinion. Attacking the messenger because we don't like or agree with the message is not the best way to advance one's disagreement or argument. Calling someone the equivalent of a jerk doesn't get anyone very far in a debate, discussion. The Cuozzo piece has some things wrong with it. It is one person ruminating about a facet of restaurants today using a visit to Varietal as the impetus. Shame on him and his editor for not being more precise or compelling but the fact remains, the best way to refute those views and opinions is to deal directly with them and present your case. Not call Cuozzo incompetent and dismiss him completely. As I noted earlier--this trend toward blogs in tone and format today has some problems. These things are likely to be taken far more seriously by many than warrants. The casualness can lead to a certain sloppiness. We have seen this with Bruni and others. As for you liking the "disjointed" nature of Varietal you are certainly entitled to your likes and dislikes! It is however, something that is worth noting and my guess is many people will find it to be a problem to one degree or another. Some, will find it to be a positive attribute. The fact is, most restaurants make an effort to provide a clear execution of their vision, nowhere does there seem to be an effort by whoever is behind Varietal to be clear in what their vision is. That has been left to the critics and the public and via on line threads and blogs and in the media mainstream and otherwise, that is what we are all doing!

Brad's lamb suggestion is a good one. I recently had the Insignia with a simple roast leg of lamb (au jus) and the pairing worked very well. A basic loin of lamb pan seared and then roasted with some string beans would be IMOP a great follow up to the risotto. (which should also be nice with the Insignia!).

Doc I don't want to dominate this thread and I think we are at the point where I would agree with you that whatever its flaws Varietal is certainly worth a visit. This may be fodder for its own thread but given this thread's Cuozzo issue as well as other --Bruni and the current thread in the PA forum about "James--is this a joke..." It seems that restaurant criticism and writing are evolving into a kind of blog/top of my mind writing by critics. While not formal restaurant reviews, it seems critics are referencing restaurants they have not reviewed (they may be in the process of writing a review) in making points or raising issues. This is often in a very informal and bloggy style--often in their on line blogs. I, for one, am concerned that this informality may not be such a good thing. I also wonder how much a large number of people (the public at large) are relying on formal reviews anymore but rather turn to more informal avenues--blogs, websites, Zagats (I think Zagat is much more influential in people's decisions than local newspapers). The danger is many of these outlets are informal, often using shorthand and often not a result of the more traditional in depth review process. I didn't take Cuozzo's piece with the weight I would give a formal review, but your point that much of what he wrote does amount to some criticism of Varietal is well taken.

← Thanks Leonard! Unless refuted, this makes sense. This is the problem with the internet. A responsible news outlet would have (ok should have) contacted the Food Network and/or MacDonald's for comment and explanation--prior to posting the clip or reporting the story. It is amazing to me that the conspiracy theorists jumped on this without making sure they had some minimal facts. Not for nothing are these folks lacking in even minimal credibility.

I am not sure how it is in Portland area as far as wine shops go. Many wine shops on the East Coast have web sites with their inventories listed. Also many wine shops around the country list much of their inventories on sites like wine searcher.com. I would say that most shops in the NY area hold regular free wine tastings. These are often led by a representative from a distributor as opposed to an employee of the wine shop. Also many shops hold off site wine dinners and tastings and many have on premise space devoted to tastings and dinners. Many do have newsletters and/or mailed catalogs. Some wine shops are becoming involved in wine education and hold classes in wine appreciation etc. You should check to see if Oregon has any local laws restricting on premise events/tastings.

Actually I got in early decision. So I may never know the answer to that question... And yeah. I stayed. ← I got into Penn because I successfully interviewed for a job there. Turned out to be a pretty good career move in the long run. As for where I went to college...well, it is in the Ivies.... ← You folks are too Penncentric! NYC has one Ivy League school and it ain't Harvard, Yale or Princeton. Too much grass is greener syndrome if you ask me.