JohnL

There is something to this method. A major element of wine and food pairing success is the amount and even more importantly, the perceived presence of acidity in the wine. As a general rule (and we should be careful here) wines from cooler climates tend to be from less ripe grapes and will have more noticeable acidity. Wines from warmer climes tend to be from riper grapes and have less noticeable acidity. I use "noticeable" because a wine could have high measurable acidity but due to other factors the acidity will not be as apparent. To stand up to bigger flavors one finds in many dishes from warm climates--grilled meats , barbeque, spices etc--a bigger riper, richer, wine generally goes well. A good comparison would be to try a malbec from France with a malbec from Argentina or a Cabernet franc from the Loire vs a Cab franc from California. of course there are the myriad exceptions to any wine and food rule. I happen to love Lambrusco (Italy) with these rich and spicy foods (the best red wine IMOP with Mexican cuisine and barbeque)--perhaps it is the bubbles and the fact it is served slightly chilled (like beer).

From the textbook used by the Wine and Spirits Education Trust (WSET) "Potable alcohol as contained in alcoholic drinks is ethanol, sometimes called ethyl alcohol. Actual alcohol is the amount of ethanol present in a wine, measured as a percentage of the total volume at 20 degrees centigrade as shown on the label." These folks follow the EU to a tee!

I don't think I agree with this at all. I suppose one may say that the government of the United States has decided to take the position that alcohol consumption outside of one's home is a privilege rather than a right. But I don't agree that it's anything like driving a car at all. There is no reason whatsoever that the government should be sticking their nose into what I drink in the privacy of my own home. I think it's also worthy of note that the only reason we have a legal drinking age in this country at all is a combination of the aftereffects of the misguided temperance movement and a desire to reduce drunk driving accidents (with respect to the latter, I should hasten to point out that the same effect could be achieved by lowering the drinking age to 18 and raising the minimum age requirement for a driver's license to 21). Certainly I plan to introduce my children, when I have them, to reasonable amounts of alcohol quite early in their lives. This is commonplace in many countries. In Belgium, for example, it is not unusual for children as young as 5 years old to have a small glass of low-alcohol beer (tafelbier) with a meal. There was even a program in Belgian schools to replace soft drinks with tafelbier! ← I love libertarians! The "government" is --us!-- last time I looked we hold elections every November (primaries too). I got news for you. What is illegal outside the home (on public property) is also illegal inside your home. That goes for underage drinking as well as driving a car without a license! (well not in the house but say in your driveway). As for that European" thing. Most European countries have a legal age for alcohol consumption of sixteen or eighteen. yes, there are exceptions made for alcohol consumed at home (interestingly, some states in the US make similar exceptions). However-- If you look into what the EU is up to presently you will see: Europe has a very serious drinking problem especially among young people. Alcoholism is a very serious problem in most countries. Most every country is enacting stricter laws--in fact--wine consumption is down in France due to stricter laws that are impacting their domestic wine industry. as for the privacy thing--the stated goal of the EU is that at least 55% of all drivers be stopped and tested for alcohol with a few years. I would say a good bet is five year old kids will not be drinking beer legally at home for much longer. Europe is moving toward approaches that have already been in practice here in the US. I would also note that if you are concerned with government intrusion into your life you should look at Europe and the EU--there is no comparison. So back to the good old US: True, the "government" is not really all that interested in what your kids drink at home--however, as I mentioned, several incidents involving underage drinking at homes where in many cases parents were present resulting in injury and death have caused the government to be more focused on this problem. No one can enter your home without a search warrant so I wouldn't make much of your privacy issues.

I am curious. You note that "...restaurants do indeed routinely serve wine to accompanied minors..." Is this really true? Basically, the restaurant would have to know that the person in question was actually a minor. I am sure that we are talking borderline folks in terms of appearance. So if a person could be twenty one that is one thing but I doubt that we are talking about people who are clearly minors. Are you saying that a place would serve someone who looked twelve? Also there can't possibly, relative to the overall universe of people who dine at these places, be a large number of these instances? I do believe that law enforcement would be much more likely to focus regularly on places where unaccompanied minors could purchase alcohol in quantity--convenience stores, liquor stores, clubs, bars etc. However, I do agree with FG that a high end restaurant could become a target --and more easily than you might think--for the reason he gave--high profile make a point/example prosecution. Also for the reason I gave: an unfortunate incident involving a patron. In the end--I believe that the responsibility lies mostly with the parents and the minor who are putting the restaurant in an unfortunate position to either risk "offending" them as patrons or assuming risk themselves.

But I think that the wines have probably changed much more than the food, because newer winemaking techniques and equipment will have been invented. Perhaps these changes have made better wines, and perhaps the wines of 1900 were fabulously more rustic, delicious, and unadulterated than the wines of today. But I think that the food will have changed less. For one thing, the only differences I can think of are that the ingredients then will have been all natural, and probably organic and what we now call free-range (and therefore better tasting, to me anyway for all of these reasons), and I think that the fact that they'd have been cooked in wood burning ovens or over flame would have made them simply more delicious than today's versions, but not otherwise very different. But as I say, these are only guesses. Highly romanticized guesses. ←

I also live here (NYC) and I work in the retail wine and liquor business. As I noted, I believe it is unlikely that high end restaurants would be "raided." First, while I note it is unlikely, it is well within the realm of possible. Second, NYC is currently going after clubs where underage patronage and alcohol consumption is rampant due to a few very unfortunate incidents that no one foresaw--mainly the deaths of patrons murdered. Any such "unforeseen" incident involving a patron of a high end restaurant would likely result in at the least some intense scrutiny of these establishments. We probably would not be talking "raid"--rather law enforcement would enter these places undercover and observe and probably attempt to "entrap" (legally) the personnel into serving a minor. Recently, the authorities were sending minors undercover into so called "high end" liquor stores. (this was done re: selling cigarettes). A number of high end wine shops were 'caught" selling wine to minors over the internet. Any establishment high end or low end or any end--selling restricted products like alcohol and tobacco would be foolish to not be aware of the potential for trouble and at least have someone responsible for casting a watchful eye over their businesses if not enacting a formal policy re: minors. Parents need to be alert as well. There are several cases that caused the authorities in Westchester county to actively go after private parties in private residences where alcohol was consumed by minors, often when parents were present. One such case involved the death of a minor resulting from a fight that occurred at one of these parties. So what is seemingly improbable one moment can easily become likely the next! By the way, Toyota announced today that they are well on the way to producing a car that will not start if driven by a person who has been drinking. it actually gauges eye movements and pupil dilation and responds accordingly. a few years ago this was quite improbable--I would say.

Your next book oughtta be on wine! I couldn't agree more. Wine styles have changed over the years. The problem with most conventional wisdom about wine is that those dispensing it have a particular era in mind. For eg many wine writers are using paradigm's for Bordeaux and burgundy that are rooted in the wines of the fifties, sixties and seventies. The truth is the styles of these wines is changing (as it always has) with technical advances in both viticulture and viniculture. As for food and wine pairing, the success depends upon matching a wine of a particular style (flavor profile) with the appropriate food and its style and flavor profile. The old white wine with fish pairing--fine if one is talking about a classically prepared Dover sole for eg-- became moot when many restaurants began to prepare fish that was in a red wine sauce or grilled or blackened or used tuna and salmon and swordfish--dishes that can be paired with red wines. also Most wine producing regions of the world make wines from differing grapes and differing styles. The wine world is much less homogenous. I can think of chianti's that are made in a style that is not so perfect for spaghetti as some wines from other countries for eg. I can also think of some super Tuscans that work well and challenge some zinfandels and cabs with their affinity for California grilled cuisine. I do agree with Craig and Hathor that it is good to try wines that one can't find at home. This really has little or nothing to do with food pairing though.

You are correct! The law states "possession to consume." The moral area is in purchasing the alcohol. Most of us are fine with technical crimes like speeding and jay walking and spitting on the sidewalk. However, one should not be suprised that the laws do address consequences of these actions that are potentially more serious. from tieing up traffic to causing an accident or getting run over.--creating a health hazzard etc. In most cases the system sorts out the seriousness.

"Leave it to the judges????" We could have long and arduous debate over this one. I got a long list of horrendous judicial decisions made by unelected people over stepping the constitutional limits and "legislating." In this case, the law is pretty self limiting. First the crime (if any) is a misdemeanor Second law enforcement is not spending much time going after fine restaurants and underage drinkers with parents present. "Absolutist silliness"--??? Yes, a judge would probably toss this one out but it wouldn't ever get that far. Law enforcement wouldn't waste their time. I got news for you--this one would never get to trial.

Forgive me if I say something that has already been said (I read most of the thread but don't have time to slog through the whole thing). I think there are two levels at play--one broad and the other narrow. First--Alcohol consumption is a privilege it is not a right. It is similar to driving a car. We have determined that there should be age limits/restrictions which ensure the safety of all of us. We can quibble with the age restriction--should it be eighteen or twenty one or whatever. I think most of us would agree that allowing a ten year old to drink or drive a car is not a good idea. Yes it is difficult to differentiate between a nineteen year old and a twenty one year old but if we agree that a line should be drawn then splitting hairs over a year or two one way or the other is --well--splitting hairs. Second--It is not just the restaurant that would break the law in BryanZ's case it would also be his parents and Bryan himself. It is illegal for a minor to possess alcohol and for anyone to facilitate that possession. thus both he and his parents were putting the restaurant in an awkward position by passing the burden to them. Third--The crime is a misdemeanor, no one is going to jail here. For Bryan and his parents we are talking a likely dismissal with a warning or at worst a fine. If the authorities even caught them and prosecuted them--highly unlikely. The restaurant stands to lose more--their license to serve/sell alcoholic beverages. Unless they have been caught and successfully prosecuted for doing this a number of times in the past--they would also receive a warning and/or a fine. The truth is most restaurants are not targeted for enforcement of drinking age laws. A Seven Eleven or a liquor store--places where these laws are more likely to be broken and with more serious consequences--are much more likely to be targeted by law enforcement. As for the use of wine in cooking situation. Technically, this is wrong and from a moral standpoint it is in a gray area (depends upon one's morals) I think most everyone would see no problem morally with an underage person cooking with wine and even if this were somehow prosecuted I doubt we are looking at serious prison time! By the way, if doing this bothered someone's conscience then I don't see why they can't just wait until legal age to make Coq au vin or do any serious flambe-ing. Or have an adult buy the wine for them. Sheesh! By the way, it would be a more serious breach of the law if they were cooking with trans fats!!!! In the end--Bryan and his parents should realize that they put the restaurant in a bad position and accept any action or non action. This whole thing to me is no big deal--I can't really fault them or the restaurant--we are in a gray area morally and the legal enforcement system probably wouldn't look at this as a big deal either--as it relates to them. However, we have only heard one side of this. I don't know if Bryan looks twenty one or fourteen. I also do not know what the restaurant's policy here is or if perhaps they have a reason to be sensitive to underage drinking on their premises. Suppose this was not wine but a round of bourbon and sodas. suppose Bryan's parents allow him to become a little inebriated and he falls on the way to the bathroom and hurts himself or worse another patron. Suppose he, being old enough to have a permit to drive , drives his parents home and.... The point is one can understand any restaurant being more than a little uncomfortable with people they do not know and actions they can not predict nor control. I understand all of this is highly unlikely and I certainly have no problem with anyone's actions in this case--don't ask don't tell is probably fine but I have a hard time faulting the restaurant's actions either.

Dining at a restaurant should be fun--of course. I do agree with FG that often wine geeks go a bit overboard in trying to intellectualize what is in essence a very hedonistic endeavor. I also agree that the sommelier who pairs up multiple courses with wines should be creating a fun and informative experience introducing diners to wines and wine experiences they may not normally have if left to their own in selecting the wines. As I noted earlier I thought that March was one of the better restaurants at this due to the brilliance of Joe Scalice. There are simply not enough truly talented sommeliers out there. Otherwise ordering a bottle of a really nice white and a fine red should suffice for most meals of one to twenty or more courses!

Agree absolutely. ← Wine geeks in America are no different than wine geeks anywhere. If one's primary interest is in wine then one will often peruse the wine list first. I know plenty of Europeans who do the same (anecdotal evidence is never really reliable). If you are trying to make a case that wine with meals is a more established tradition in many European countries then ok--not suprising given that Europe has been producing wine for a lot longer.

Don't most people who have expensive wines keep them for special occasions? ← wkl made a good point re Craig's point. (I guess both points are good). We are talking about two different things here. First--defining "expensive." The trade considers any wine in the roughly ten to twenty dollar a bottle range a "Premium" wine. Most of the wine produced in the world is below this. Most of the wine drunk in the world is basic ordinary everyday table wine that is rarely exported outside its country of origin. This includes basic mass produced wines be they from Gallo or a French Cooperative or an Italian industrial producer. Italy may be somewhat unique in that additionally, many Italians make their own wine for their and their family and friends use. premium (and super premium wines) are drunk by people who can afford to buy them be it for a special occasion or everyday. These include a good ten dollar beaujolais or Macon white to a basic Kendal Jackson Chardonnay or an Italian Soave. then there are: Romanee Conti and Harlan estates, and Petrus and Beringer Private Reserve and Conterno Barolos, and Vega Sicilia and many others are world class wines that are bought by wealthy people around the world--this is a rarified market. There are many who drink these wines regularly and many who buy them a bottle or two at a time for special occasions. These wines are beyond super premium. I think we have a somewhat skewed concept of the wine world as most at eGullet probably fall into a reasonably wealthy and knowledgeable food and wine centric audience.

It seemed to me that you were criticizing both the lack of variety in wines on sale in shops in Europe and the fact that certain European wines are largely exported, rather than drunk in other regions of Italy, for example. And my counterargument is that if you want to match a regional cuisine with a wine, the intuitive thing to do is to select a local wine, not one from outside the region or country. Does that clarify the context of this discussion I'm having with you? ←

This is true. It should also be noted that even within one specific wine there are differences. For eg there are different styles of Burgundy or Bordeaux or Rioja or Barolo. I find that there is often some confusion in these threads. We confuse average consumers of wine with those that drink premium wines and even super premium wines. What an average working class family drinks with dinner is likely to be a very basic, locally produced table wine--the equivalent of a jug wine. (in many cases it is actually a jug wine). The vast majority of these wines are rarely exported, in fact, they are probably rarely drunk outside the areas where they are produced. What is available to consumers in local wine shops anywhere in the world is impacted by laws which govern alcohol sales and consumption and laws which impact import and export markets. Also geography and transportation is important. Until fairly recently, many wine shops in Europe offered mainly European produced wines (most likely the emphasis was on wines produced within each country). Also much of what Europe produces above and beyond basic table wines is exported. For eg.it is doubtful that the average Bordelaise was drinking much classed Bordeaux with his or her dinner. Those wines were probably being drunk by a member of the British upper class. As markets open up and new wine drinkers emerge, consumers have more choices. greater influx of imports will impact the domestic wines and vice versa. As an example, the emergence of the US as a wine drinking nation has impacted wine producing countries like Italy greatly--wine makers there have realized that if they clean up their wine making operations they can make money exporting their often very good distinctive and reasonably priced white wines to a nation of wine drinkers who are looking for alternatives to domestic produced chardonnay. In turn, US wine makers are improving the quality and diversity of their white wines. Competition is good for consumers. As for the "matchy" issue; no doubt many people (mostly wine geeks) are going a bit overboard in their quest for perfection. I wonder also if foodies are becoming overly intellectual about food. The quest to find the perfect flavors is driving the wine geeks nuts in their attempt to find the perfect wines for these perfect "bites." I believe we are talking about a very few people relative to the overall dining population though. Very few of us dine with any frequency at all, at places offering 1,500 bottle wine lists. What is interesting, and a good sign, I think, are the emergence of wine lists (pedestrian as they may be to us wine and food geeks here) at small inexpensive local restaurants and large chains like Fridays or Outback etc. When a more populist restaurant like the local Legal Seafoods offers a wine list that actually approaches that found in a place like Le Bernardin for interest and diversity--if not breadth and scope, then that is truly a good sign!

I am in agreement. especially re: "obsessive desire for the perfect match." Small plates and tasting menus are a relatively new phenomena in dining. One can simply choose a good bottle of white and a good red and have a great time savoring the wines with each dish. or One can go with an attempt to pair each dish with a small taste of wine. This second option introduces an intellectual angle --why this wine with that dish? It serves to focus the diner on each food item and each wine. While this can be illuminating if done properly, I often find the process somewhat fatiguing--there is something to be said for relaxing over normal sized portions of good food and wine at one's leisure--where each bite and each sip are not so critical. As to the European issue: most everyday, average Europeans drank the local wines with the local foods. More often than not, the wines were pedestrian--simple wines. There is a tradition in parts of France where folks go to the local wine co-op with their own containers and fill em up with wine from huge vats or casks. this equates to immigrants to the US who who made and drank jug wines. Simple grapey and cheap. I have had many a dinner with Italian American families in the Bronx who tapped a jug of Gallo hardy Burgundy to accompany the pasta and veal. So called wine sophisticates were found in major cities where there was a selection of wines that were usually imported to other countries or were imported from other countries. These are premium wines. Interestingly, the British are responsible for how we here view wine--at one time they consumed a large amount of Burgundy and Bordeaux, which went into upper class cellars. (the average Joe was probably drinking beer just like here in the states). There really wasn't much else available at the time. Hence the canard--Bordeaux with your lamb and Burgundy with your beef. Times have changed. The average guy is drinking better wines and has far more options both in Europe and here (as well as Russia, Japan, etc). I would like to introduce one issue. In my limited experience, most chefs are not really "into" wine. In fact there are a number I have met who are really not very knowledgeable about wine and very few who concern themselves with mating food and wine. Most seem to have a somewhat laissez faire attitude about wine. I am not saying they don't enjoy wine themselves, I am saying they don't seem to be very obsessive about it.

I basically agreed with your original post. However, this is descending into a "Europe" vs America discussion that is in my opinion a bit silly and way off the mark. The vast majority of people who drink wine with dinner on at least a semi regular basis anywhere in the world are having two or three courses with which they drink a white and or a red. They are not obsessed with food and wine pairings. Wine nuts or geeks, again, anywhere in the world are obsessed with finding nirvana in matching food and wine or wine with food. The old generalities (promoted mainly by the British) red with meat, white with fish and more specifically Bordeaux with lamb and Burgundy with beef and chablis with your oysters have been honed to accommodate both trends in cooking--red with some fish dishes (for eg bass in a red wine reduction) etc and the current trend toward multiple small plates within each course of a meal. Also, as as been noted here, there are many more options in wine available (certainly here in the US but Europe is opening up). Top restaurants everywhere have also offered large lists with many different types and styles of wines mostly people ordered a bottle of red and a bottle of white and maybe had a glass of champagne to start and/or a glass of a sweet wine for desert. If one had some knowledge one chose with or without help from the sommelier or one relied heavily on the recommendation of the sommelier. Today restaurants all over the world are serving what in essence are tasting menus of multiple small courses. For most people, a bottle of red and a bottle of white should suffice (as they always have). For some folks who are looking for wine and food nirvana the generalities are often narrowed down by having the option to enjoy a taste of wine with each taste of food. Small pours with small bites. When well executed, these experiences can be very enjoyable. Unfortunately, most of the time I find this a very flawed exercise. The best example I can provide is the now defunct March here in Manhattan. They pioneered ( certainly they were there at the beginning of this trend) small portions and multiple courses. One could order a bottle or two from a diverse wine list or for a reasonable cost, one could have each course paired with wines selected by a very talented sommelier--Joe Scalice. These pairings were often eye opening, daring and wonderful and most importantly, fun. pairings were often not just with wine but also saki--the wines were usually, rare or interesting wines from countries one usually did not encounter on many lists. in fact, they were often wines one would never chose on one's own. Most of the time they worked. I feel that often today these pairings in many fine restaurants are a bit strained--there just are not that many really talented sommeliers out there. so: This forum (as someone noted) does not represent the real world. Attempts to generalize about Europe and the US are strained at best. The truth is the wine world is changing and the entire world is adapting and adjusting. Wine and food pairing is often taken to absurdity (one wine with the white meat and another with the dark) by wine and food nuts--most people stick to one or two bottles that match up with one or two courses. The difference is, these people (wherever in the world they are) have an increasing number of choices available to them from which to choose their one or two bottles--a markedly good thing! The old canards--Bordeaux with lamb for eg are being re examined as more options become available--remember the Brits had two red wine options for a high quality wine available at the time--Bordeaux and Burgundy. Now they can select from a Shiraz from Australia, a Cabernet from the US, a Spanish rioja--soon wines from India and China will be available! Wines are made in more styles from all over the world as well. There are different styles of Bordeaux made every wine is now made in a traditional style and a modern styles and every style in between! Cooking is evolving--fish with red wine sauces etc, multiple courses foams, non fat based sauces etc etc etc. One can eat a simple meal with a wine or a complex meal with many wines there's room for the obsessive, the iconoclast or the just casual diner to enjoy wine with dinner. "Nose", "Tail"??? If you are having a pig there's a great German riesling that works with both ends of the animal--I can recommend!!!

I think every restaurant in Manhattan is a "neighborhood" resaurant to one degree or another. Some, for various reasons, draw larger numbers from outside their respective neighborhoods than others. Some of these patrons are tourists or visitors to Manhattan from various places. No restaurant can survive for long as a "trendy" establishment--it may be a trendiness that launches a restaurant, generating a certain level of PR and thus desirability. In the end any restaurant, especially one with pretensions of being a high end place must establish itself beyond a trend. It must draw regulars and satisfy those regulars night after night. It is about food, service, location, pricing, overhead--finding its crowd so to speak. I would suggest that most succesful restaurants over the longer haul seem to know who/what they are and who their target is. Every place has a life cycle. Eventually, most succomb to any number of things including an inability to keep up with competition, an inability to reinvent itself as times and dining habits change. As for the B& T issue--I believe this is a red herring in the discussion here. Funny but years ago there was a place called "Arties Warehouse" (I believe) on the far West Side--midtown. At the time there was practically nothing there save for very trendy discos (talk about trendy--see nightclubs etc). Because of the location--near the clubs which were near the west side highway which is near the Bridges and tunnels--this place was built for the disco crowd--all mirrors and glitz. great steaks and pasta though (I remember the food as being quite good). as a "sophisticated Manhattanite, I used to take dates here who were invariably impressed with this "cool" out of the way place with people right from the Saturday Night Fever set. I also often took my dates across the river to the real Jersey shore-- some wonderful restaurants with the best view of the Manhattan skyline anywhere. Sometimes it's " hip to be square"-if ya know what I mean!

Yeow! I never heard of this happening but your possible explanation re: the machine "missing" a bottle makes sense. It would be nice if you alerted the retailer so they can be on the alert for more of these! They in turn can alert the distributor/importer.

yes "older" champagnes will taste "nuttier" (oxidation) and flatter. However, if the Bollinger was stored well (in a reasonably cool vibration free environment) it will be quite youthful. These champagnes age very well and as I noted earlier this wine has quite a long life ahead of it. In fact, when I drank it last year, it was still displaying a lot of its young characteristics with a hint of what this wine will be in the future. I'd say this is somewhat equivalent to a teen ager of say seventeen or eighteen--still young but displaying signs of adulthood. By the way, a "backup bottle" of the same wine will set you back well over a hundred bucks on the current market!

If stored well this is a wonderful wine! I had this last new year's eve and it was drinking beautifully though it will age and improve for at least ten more years or so. 96 was a fine vintage for champagne and the Bollinger was a brilliant example with loads of flavor and bracing acidity.

I agree wholeheartedly, and I can't tell you how many thousands of hours (literally) I've spent doing just that. Far too often these discussions about nutrition and food safety are devoid of any discussion or critique of the actual scientific evidence. ←

It's right in the Preamble to the U.S Constitution: An argument can be made that there are other Constitutional provisions more important than the purpose of "[promoting] the general welfare," but the Constitutional basis for these actions, misguided or not as the actions may be, is right there. Furthermore, it seems pretty clear that the courts will not rule that governments have no right to "encroach on the right of the people to make decisions for themselves." Most every law in fact impinges on that right, which is not absolute; otherwise, murder wouldn't be prohibited (or, if you want a victimless crime, it would be legal to purchase any drug anyone wanted to purchase for personal use). Now, you may be a diehard libertarian, and that's a respectable and logical position, but it isn't really relevant to the reality of the situation, which is that governments (Federal or lower) DO have the power to encroach on people's rights to make decisions about what they put into their own bodies and, therefore, that the only counterarguments that are likely to have any effect would have to do with just how dangerous this chemical is and what economic impact the ban will have. And my guess is that the ban will be tried for a few years or so and then judged as to its actual effects. ← You have identified the problem. It is one of degrees. I would argue that we should always err on the rights of people to make their own choices. We do need laws and regulations. It s a question of how far we want to go in transferring power from individuals to the government (the government is really the citizenry). It is interesting (and way beyond the scope of this web site) that there is a debate over whether or not one has the "right" to take one's own life (suicide bans etc). The transfat banners would seem to be saying we do not. The problem is, these issues become overheated and science is often used or worse twisted to support one's position. I believe that with today's communications, knowledge is power and armed with facts and opinions people can decide for themselves. Should we ban everything that can be proven to be bad for us? Back to alcohol! Regardless of any "paradox's" alcohol directly and indirectly kills many thousands of people, especially children! I would say the evidence and severity/urgency far surpasses what we know about trans fats. Are we ready to ban alcohol--the regulations aren't working very well as statistics point out. Should we allow only adults to buy any item with trans fats in it? Card people before they can enter MacDonalds? Or how about we make sure any product containing trans fats be labeled and we decide? As with everything in life, there are tradeoffs, consequences etc. I suppose in the end, the best thing to do is wait for the zealot we have as NYC health commissioner to leave office--we can't vote him out he wasn't elected.

Bordeaux produces a lot of wine. There has always been plenty of wine from the AC at reasonable prices. In good vintages, always important here, there are often some real bargains. In the past wines like Gloria, Meyney, Sociando Mallet, Potensac, Camensac, Greysac, Prieure Lechine, etc (there are probably twenty or thirty more) have offered a lot of wine for very reasonable prices. The trick is to look beyond the top growths and find chateau and lesser growths that are over performing and/or underpriced.

You are getting closer! The real issue is much more elemental as you astutely note. Life is very complex for example there are many known carcinogens and poisons that occur naturally in many foods we eat--in many basic fruits and vegetables. There are genes--heredity. there is the environment. Science does not have many of the answers as to why some people are healthy and some are sick and some live a long time and others do not. Not long ago we were told that butter is bad so we ate margarine now we are told margarine is bad and natural butter is better. Bran? remember the fiber fad? There are recent studies that show bran has little or no impact on things we were once told that it did. We feed mice humongeous amounts of substances in completely unnatural environments and when the mice get sick we declare Ah HA! --another substance is regulated or banned. (incidently and ironically, mice and rats seem to be impervious to just about anything in more natural environments--we can't seem to get rid of them). I for one, am uncomfortable with government banning anything. I am a bit more comfortable with regulating. We happen to have taste buds--certain things provide pleasure. Some of these things have consequences. In our quest for utopia we are moving toward a pleasureless existence. I believe that we should be informed and make our own decisions. All these "bans" seem to follow a pattern. We must ban something to save someone else. Children, animals, stupid people who can't fend for themselves. --it's always about someone or something else--not ourselves! I prefer we be informed and take care of our own lives and our children and our animals. Regulations are fine--regulations that actually achieve intended consequences and respect the rights of adults to chose. No one wants the government in our bedrooms--should they be in our kitchens? The same arguments used against cigarettes can be used against alcohol. Against many things we get pleasure from. Those who think it is fine to ban or regulate out of existence tobacco should be ready to give up liquor, wine and beer. Fast food? It is not as big a leap from trans fats to a hamburger as you may think! Amazingly, with all the so called bad things we indulge ourselves with, we are living longer than ever. We have been ingesting trans fats (and worse) for many many years. I thought we were literally killing ourselves with food and pollution--somehow life seems to go on! So in our attempts to live longer and healthier will we be living better?