JohnL

Agreed, and that is why I use the term for "peppery". When it comes to other spices I try hard to isolate precisely which those are (cinnamon, cloves, juniper berries, etc) ← You touched on a pet peeve of mine. Far too many tasting notes these days are too vague. Just noting a wine is "spicy" in a tasting note is a result most often of laziness on the part of the taster. This, in part, has led to the prevailing "fuzziness" regarding wine appreciation and communication. In the case of Gewurtztraminer it has become accepted that these wines are often possessing of a spice component. Unfortunately, all gewurtztraminers are assumed to be "spicy" and instead of making that assessment honestly and then applying some specificity (what spices?) the term is sort of "tossed about." A perfect example is the gooseberry trait in some sauvignon blancs. I would venture that most people here in the US have no idea what a gooseberry smells or tastes like (we do have a small gooseberry market and they are grown in some quantity in California I believe). Yet I hear tasters remark about gooseberry notes in sauvignon blancs far too often--certainly our of proportion to the likely exposure in this country. I suspect that it is the Brits (gooseberries are much more widely distributed throughout the culture) are responsible. Anyway--wine tasting for the purpose of communicating the attributes and flavors (evaluation) should be honest and precise. If one notes spice on the nose or palate one should support that with specifics.

To add some perspective. Considering the total amount of spinach produced (in California alone) and considering the total number of people who eat raw spinach--I would say that the percentage of people who are seriously ill is quite low. (certainly this is of little comfort to those who have gotten seriously ill and especially to those relative few who have died.) The current system seems to be working. The FDA, the USDA the farmers and the packagers and retailers as well as the media got the word out and are taking appropriate action. Could the system be better. obviously there are always room for improvements.I am sure that spinach growing and production/distribution will be carefully looked at. Right now we can get very good quality fresh spinach year round thanks to the long growing season in California. Growing spinach locally will not remove the risk (it may reduce the scale of that risk) and it will certainly involve higher prices and doing without fresh spinach most of the year. It may make it even more difficult to recognize problems and to monitor production. In the end, there is risk reward involved. If one eats raw food items then unless those items contain preservatives or are treated some way then one risks getting a bacterial infection. This holds true for most everything. From oysters and clams on the half shell to vegetables and greens to meat. There are trade offs. Our pleasure--raw oysters are indeed a wonderful taste experience--vs health concerns. So the industries that produce food items adapt methods of production (from growth to packaging to retail) and the government establishes guidelines and laws all with an eye toward providing safe food. It is rational and logical to expect that these people "guarantee" with absolute certainty that all our food is safe to eat raw all the time? or Should we be aware of the risk and simply act accordingly. Should small children or weak or already infirm people be eating any raw foods? I would like to think that adults are capable of making their own risk reward assessments and decisions for themselves and their families. The title of this thread should be: "Do not eat that RAW spinach!--unless you have considered the risk!" The fact is--it is much (a thousandfold?) safer eating anything raw or cooked today than 100 years ago.

I don't think Rancho Gordo thinks Monsanto or ADM is engaged in any kind of "plot" to make money. I believe he is saying that major problems are often only addressed when it will make money for someone even though the problems should be addressed for the sake of the people who need help, and even though there may be other ways to achieve the same goals, ways in which the people could become even more self-sufficient. That is far from believing in "plots." Monsanto giving third world nations Round-up ReadyTM seeds so they can grow crops is certainly better than having them starve, but maybe, just maybe, it would be even better if the people could be given open-pollinated seeds that they could then collect and re-use, instead of having to purchase them every year. Call me crazy. As to your quote that "most altruistic endeavors are 'big business.' They too are sometimes corrupted by bad behavior. My guess is no more or less than for profit corporations," I have to disagree. I don't think most altruistic endeavors are big business. Most altruistic efforts are local and small (i.e. church soup kitchens). Most nonprofits also have quite a bit of oversight in the form of intense audits, so I feel there is less chance that they will be corrupt. You say that you are amazed that we are so ready to attack any entity that makes money. I am amazed that anyone needs to jump to the defense of large corporations armed with a bevy of lawyers and spin doctors. Poor widdle Monsanto, sniff. Personally I don't think corporations are good or evil; they are there to make a profit. Sometimes in so doing corporations do things that are not necessarily good for everyone else (pollution being a prime example). They shouldn't be strangled with regulations, but cannot be left to guard the henhouse. That's why I think that it is wrong to fast track the approval in this case. It sets a bad example. ← I agree with your last paragraph. You make a lot of sense here. As for my statement about "altruistic" efforts -- yes many are small but there are many many large operations who generate huge amounts of money and pay salaries--altruism is big business! Non Profit does not mean no money. Their lawyers and political connections are no less extensive and powerful than those of many major corporations--in fact many of these non profits are basically lobbying firms. Their leadership are often paid handsomely. There is waste, mismanagement and fraud etc. Oversight? Sorry, there is less government oversight of charities. (not necc a bad situation) Let's not be nieve about this. And yes--I believe most charities are good people doing good things, I also believe most corporations are also good people doing good things. Call me a cockeyed optimist! Monsanto is a very large operation perhaps those who are quick to dismiss them (or any company) as a money grubbing profits at all cost operation should learn a bit about them. I visited their web site (as a result of this thread) and while I have plenty of skepticism about PR efforts, I was impressed. It is not a simple world--most major corporations are in the business of providing a beneficial product or service for which they make money. They often are active in charities and they often work with academia and charitable entities in finding solutions to problems contrary to what rancho Gordo posits in his post. (Gordo check out the Monsanto web site). I suggest you read the details on what they are actually doing re South Africa and hunger and better products. If you want to quibble over their actual or perceived motivations fine but the results are hard to fault. To dismiss corporations out of hand because they are "in business" is wrong. It is Bayer I believe, not Monsanto that is involved in the rice thing here. You may disagree but the FDA has determined there is no reason to recall the tainted rice (it may be impossible). The press did cover the story--there is no coverup. If you believe the situation could have been handled better--I will agree with that. Do we need tighter controls etc? Yes I am all for that too. But if you are accusing Bayer, the FDA or anyone else of malfeasance or criminal activity then let's see the case. In the end, all I am saying is this problem is being blown out of proportion and some are implying things that are simply not supportable by the evidence. Our press has plenty of problems but really--do you think for a minute if this contamination could even remotely have a chance of being a serious threat to our health that the media would be screaming. Maybe the rice farmers would be doing a bit more than suing for economic damages? There are a number of class action suits being filed against bayer. By the way--it is being reported that experimental genetically engineered rice from CHINA has been found in European rice supplies on a far greater scale than the US case we are discussing here. I found some very good info via Greenpeace (yes one of those non profits) that--given their agenda--is remarkably well documented and non hysterical. I also suggest you check out Monsanto's website (also Bayer's) and the FDA and USDA. GE Rice Greenpeace

we need "cranky"!!! I agree with you re: organic vs non organic and quality. We seem to be obsessed with size. Somehow small is good and big is bad. This is way too simplistic. There is an argument to be made that in many instances if small is good then it will become big. The issue is can big keep the quality of small intact? Sometimes yes sometimes no. Parmesano reggiano is the result of a large "industrial" operation. Niman Ranch is a large operation. Breyer's ics cream was 'ruined" when Sealtest bought them while Haagen Dasz has thrived under ownership of various large conglomerates. Gallo and Mondavi make some wonderful "artisinal" wines. and so on..... As for the USDA. They are not the real problem. The real problem is us! We want it all--small artisinal food producers and large industrial producers with distribution and low prices. We also want the government to protect us totally and we do not want to be bothered with any personal responsibility. There are a growing number of small family owned operations smoking and curing meats here in the US. On the East Coast we have Nodine's in Connecticut and a very small outfit in upstate NY whose name escapes me but whose bacon and sausages I love. The prosciutto situation involves an imported product and thus we want to be protected from "foreign" made items that may be made under conditions that we have no control over. Remember we citizens want to be totally safe and protected! One thing that has happened is that one can get "authentic" tasting domestic versions of, say, Italian salumi's here. Both Mario Batali's dad's operation and that of Paul Bertoli are excellent examples. I have long believed that the health food movement while offering a lot of good and very beneficial ideas/things is getting a bit out of control. Food has become too polarized wherein there is good and evil. Small good, big evil. Organic growing is good while chemicals are bad. The truth is pesticides and chemical fertilizers are not as bad as they once were. The chemical industry is improving their products and farmers are devising new techniques that reduce reliance on anything that could be harmful. On the other hand the organic movement has grown and now is benefitting from economies of scale. The downside is there are problems with this that need to be addressed. One is that too often one must sacrifice taste and flavor to "eat healthy." Either that nitrate free salami gets better or we accept less quality are to me unacceptable options--I prefer the good stuff in moderation! As for Whole Foods, I admire their attempts to adhere to a set of principles but I also believe that these principles have begun to get in the way of quality. It may well be impossible to adhere to them and provide the best quality at reasonable cost. Something's gotta give. Thus Whole Foods will not be able to offer it all. I personally prefer operations wherein the over riding principle is simply the best quality. Retailers like Fairway and Zabar's, Balducci's, Jefferson Market, Citarella, Dean and Dellucca, Di Palo etc etc etc. here in New York. What I see on the shelves of Whole Foods does not begin to compare with what is and was offered at these establishments who are not out to save the world. I do see a more valid comparison between Whole Foods and large supermarket chains like A and P and DAG and Stop and Shop. In fact, I have noticed that these outfits have begun to raise the level of quality in response to the competition from Whole Foods. I also predict that as they increase their quality Whole Foods will need to revisit their list of principles because they will be at a disadvantage. The danger in any large nationwide operation is the "dumbing down" of quality and the reduction of choices and as we define quality differently with different priorities wide choice is critical.

"driving the bandwagon"??? I am curious as to what you mean and what those "credentials" are. I don't think that credibility is the problem here. The piece is curiously flat and humorless. Thus, it comes across as whiney. That is the problem. I don't think anyone needs credentials to complain about restaurant service other than having dined out a few times. If one is going to have their complaints published though it would be nice if there was some style and humor--unless one is writing a letter to the editor. It is possible this piece was taken out of the context of some larger work. Otherwise it seems as if Ms Ephron is just being humorless and self indulgent. While her work is not my cup of tea, I do recognize that she can write well and is capable of being charming, witty, insightful and sometimes funny. I find none of that in her Times piece.

I know I'm going to regret this, but it's also a fact that you may cure starvation and disease through education, funding and charity. But Monsanto and ADM won't be making a profit on that. You could give a third world farmer an eduaction and some real seed that can continue through seed saving and really make a difference. Or you can give him seed that is going to cross with his pure corn and make the new seed sterile and the farmer dependent on Monsanto. Just my 2 cents. ← I am always amazed and perplexed by how we seem so ready to question and even attack anyone or any entity that makes money. Conversely, we seem to give a pass to anyone or any entity that professes any altruistic motive. You may not realize it, but, most altruistic endeavors are "big business." They too are sometimes corrupted by bad behavior. My guess is no more or less than for profit corporations. Your suspicion that Monsanto and ADM are engaged in a massive plot to make money at the expense of poor people is way to jaded (and patently absurd) to deal with. What's wrong with educating people and providing economical food items that provide nutrition and help fight disease? You overlook the fact that Americans give more money to charities than any other peoples anywhere in the world. Where does this money come from? Think about it. it is generated in large part by the jobs and salaries provided by --you guessed it--companies like ADM and Monsanto. IMOP this rice contamination issue is being used by various groups to leverage their positions. Thus, it is being blown way out of proportion. People are making assumptions--the fact is, as reported by the more reasonable media, this is not a dire crisis, the FDA and other government agencies are concerned--as is Bayer--in finding out how this happened. Bayer will be punished--they are already facing a lawsuit that could cost them a lot of money. There will be reviews of current procedures and processes some changes may be made. Life will go on. If our economic system and technology were so bad (or evil) how is it we are (by most assessments) far better off (and longer living) than at anytime before? The future looks good--at least to me! Let's enjoy the present!

I just had to reply to your post!! Funny--but what you describe is exactly how I got on the right track with wine enjoyment. Around 1983 my interest in wine (and food) was just getting sparked. I tried the Hugh Johnson pocket guide (ok but not very satisfying at this point) but was basically adrift. Then in the Chicago O' Hare airport bookshop I came upon Parker's first buying guide. (Benjamin Books--I still have it with the bookmark--if my wife hasn't thrown it out). It was a revelation. I firmly believe that Parker's success has more to do with timing than anything else. His approach was just the right one at a time when millions like me were on the threshold of the eighties (economic booms) and wine making was just beginning to benefit from not only the increasing market but advances in vini and viti--culture. We were ready and the wine makers were ready and there was Parker. It was the combination of notes and scores that we could relate to and, often overlooked, the knowledgeable chapters on all the wine producing regions and grape varietals. It was an educative and practical buying guide all in one. I moved to the encyclopedias (I like the Oxford best) and the coffee table books and.... Today, though, I still recommend Parker's books highly (among many others) but my advice is to start with the "Wine Styles" book. What every consumer (at every level) wants to know is what is in the bottle in terms of the wine's flavor profile. With this very basic piece of information one can make purchase decisions. The book starts there and brings in other areas like varietal and place of origin (country) and wine maker so all the bases are covered. But it is the focus on a wine's flavors and attributes that, to me, go to the heart of the matter. For example, a customer need only know there are four basic styles of white wine, if they communicate which one, a salesperson can provide an example. If the customer finds they like chardonnay then they can specify a style and a varietal and get one they are more likely to enjoy. They can hone it down further to a place or a grower/maker. Same for reds, rose's, sparklers and desert wines. That is the beauty of this approach--one can learn as much as one is comfortable with. It is all about communicating what one is looking for at increasingly specific levels. The drawbacks to the other more traditional approaches is today Bordeaux, can mean different styles of wines not just left or right bank even talking about St Julien or Pauillac is not as easy--there are differing styles within those communes. even learning varietals is daunting--there are fourteen allowed in that Chateaneuf du Pape you note. Where many consumers are intimidated is they feel they have to deal with a country a grape type, a brand or grower and let's not forget those pesky vintage numbers. This is what is most intimidating about wine. It is not by chance that wines like Yellowtail are so popular--simple--one easy to remember name. But if a customer comes in and says they like Yellowtail (or that style of red) I can show them at least a half dozen wines of better quality in that style from around the world that may open their wine appreciation horizon up a bit. Because of this diversity--most consumers are best served by expressing an interest in a type of wine--let's say a fresh un oaked white wine. Ask for that and I can guide them to any number of wines from different varietals and countries. that is basically all they need to know to get a wine in a shop or restaurant they have a good chance of liking. They can increase the odds as they learn more. (should they choose to). But that is all I need to be able to help them find a wine they will probably enjoy. The book starts there and goes down to recommending specific producers etc who make the basic styles. Anyway--this is way too rambling--even for me. Just that you mention of the Parker guides sparked some pleasant memories of simpler times. by the way--it is funny how most advice about wine includes the plaint--"Have Fun!" probably because the business/trade has made it so easy to fall into a morass of pretension. I often wish those who insist on snarkily noting that "you know "sancerre is really Sauvignon blanc..." or "that so and so is making some killer juice" would lighten up a bit! also the constant reminder to "develop or trust your own palate" enough already--I am always suspicious when folks state the obvious (yes--I do it too). The presumption is somehow people will drink something they don't like for whatever reasons. More snobbery! (though it is used so often that there is little malicious intent behind it--kinda like: have a nice day.) I often remind anyone I come across that "you know you can take that nail out of your head if you want to.." (from ramble to rant) cheers!!!

I could have written your post years ago. I was just as flummoxed by wine as you are. After stumbling along for many years--I got a handle on things to the point that I have enough confidence to at least answer your request for help. After a long time as a collector (for drinking purposes) I got some formal education in wine and now work in the retail end of the business. I offer this because I have looked at wine from different perspectives. The reason that you are frustrated (as I was) in just trying to follow someone else's recommendations (like those in, say, Food and Wine) you are flying blind. You need some basic knowledge/assistance not a seeing eye dog. I have been critical of the wine trade in general because I believe a major problem with wine at the retail level is any consumer product where one asks for some basic help and is told "you need to read a book" is in trouble! Having said this--I am going to suggest a book. But first you need a friend in the business! A good wine shop with good sales persons can be incredibly helpful to you. The problem is these are too few and far between. You should try to find a local wine shop and go there on a slow day when a sales person can spend a few minutes with you. If you see a wine described somewhere (say Food and Wine) that sounds appealing to you, cut the article out and bring it with you. Show it to the salesperson and ask if they have the wine--if not--ask them for a similar wine in style and price. If they do have the wine ask them to tell you more about it and ask about other similar wines they have. The point is engage them--establish a relationship. A good sales person (regardless of what they are selling) will be interested in you and what you like. They should ask you questions and be interested in getting to know what you might like. If you run into one who is more intent on showing off their extensive knowledge asks little or nothing about your likes and dislikes and then thrusts a bottle at you with "you will like this." --well, try another shop. Also very helpful are wine shops that hold free tastings--go--ask questions, have fun. Anyway--on to the book. The problem here IMOP is there are hundreds of books by hundreds of authors. It seems that there are as many books as there are wines. Understand that wine today is incredibly complicated simply because there are more different wines from different grapes and myriad countries available on our shelves than ever before. No one will ever know everything there is to know about every wine made. (the wine world could use a lot more humility). Traditionally, most books approach wine from a geographic standpoint (they still do for the most part). This was fine when what was available were wines from a few countries and a handful of different grapes. "ok, let's visit Bordeaux..." Today this academic approach is much too demanding for the average consumer to grasp. There are far too many different wines. (later on, if you catch the bug then these books will be valuable). Right now, you need to get some basic and practical knowledge. (understanding terroir and clonal selections can come later) Thankfully, there are some authors who are taking a different approach. Two of these are Mary Ewing Mulligan and her husband Ed McCarthy. They are wine educators who teach wine professionals as well as amateurs. They wrote Wine for Dummies (a good book). They also have written the book I am recommending to you: "Wine Style--using your senses to explore and enjoy wine" The book is easy to read and enjoyable --written in a breezy style--and not too long. It approaches wine education from standpoint of the different styles of wines. From the inside cover flap: "Have you ever felt uneasy or overwhelmed when buying or ordering wine? Do you long for a different more personal way to choose and drink wine? If the answer to either question is yes then this is the book for you. It will help you discover wines you like and make informed choices by introducing you to wine styles." It is a wonderful book. Most of all you should always be having fun. Once you establish a relationship with you local wine shop and attend a few free tastings, engage the staff and other customers, you will see that a lot of people are in the same boat. You will also see that wine can be a lot of fun--food, nice people, good conversation. Learn as much as you want to learn--learn whatever knowledge helps you have more fun. you don't have to know too much to start the process and if you ever find yourself not having fun--just step back. The key is you will know exactly how far you want to go--from just feeling confident enough to buy a bottle that will complement your lamb chops or enlivening a dinner party to who knows--maybe you will quit your job and work in the wine business like me! Just have fun!

I am not an expert--but I did stay at a holiday Inn... First--this story is all over the internet. It has appeared in most major news outlets across the country. It is amusing to see among thousands of internet pieces on this topic a headline like :"Media Coverup! US Rice Supply Contaminated." Yes, Gregor Mendl is an apt analogy. The issue of Genetically Modified foods is a case of the Horse being out of the barn at this point! Approximately 70% of all processed foods available today contain some genetically modified element or elements. GM foods are a fact of life. One can accept this or attempt to go totally organic or macrobiotic or whatever the current terminology is. Ya know--live "off the grid" so to speak. It is also a fact that GM may provide answers to starvation and disease in the world. It may allow for bio fuels to be developed efficiently. (there is an interesting and important debate over how the emergence of bio fuels will impact food production and prices). Are there valid concerns--sure. Can we do a better job.....? Absolutely. One salient fact about this specific rice situation is that the contaminated rice in question contains a gene that is identical to one found in another strain that has been formally approved for human consumption. Maybe this "contamination" has every indication of being totally benign --hence the lack of hysteria on the part of the FDA etc. It is also quite possible--no probable--that the FDA can't fine or "punish" Bayer in this instance because they have not yet determined how culpable Bayer is or isn't. Interestingly--Bayer is being sued by rice farmers for loss of income due to the various bans on US rice around the world. Maybe there is a reason they(FDA) have not issued a ban on consumption as they have with spinach that is not motivated by some sort of "coverup" or other conspiracy theory. I love these conspiracy theory guys---convinced that a network of greedy corporate super criminals are controlling every aspect of our lives.--sheeesh! Everybody has an ox to gore. It is also very interesting to note that the rest of the world--though resistant to "resistent strains..." is in the process of slowly coming around. China is actually closer now than ever to accepting GM rice and French winemakers are looking at US attempts to produce GM modified wines that will eliminate the problem of allergies in some wine drinkers. Wine makers all over the world are already using bio science engineering techniques to produce yeast strains. Finally, I would point out that certainly technology brings many problems into play but overall we currently live in a pretty amazing world thanks to it. For all the cries of contamination and conspiracy our lives are much better (and longer). Those who want to return to the "simpler" times fail look at the big picture--and the facts of life in those earlier days. They ignore the bad things of yesteryear and see only the good. As for modern times they only see the bad and ignore the good. So--yes, I believe that we need to tighten up and improve our safeguards. Of course, anyone convicted of criminal activity should be punished. The farmers suing Bayer would seem to have a good case and may be compensated (I am sure they will ask for punitive damages). "Catastrophy?" "Cover up?" "Conspiracy?" Naaah!

"Illuminating" yes it was. However--I would not put any money on one man's opinion (informed as it may be). The fact is--people ate spinach and got sick. Leafy greens are the number two source of e-coli. (ground beef is number one). There have been over twenty outbreaks of e-coli traced to leafy greens from the salinas valley in the last ten years The production of leafy greens is not very regulated (nowhere near as closely as the beef industry). The FDA and the CDC are investigating this particular outbreak. Until they are reasonably certain of the cause and the source--it is common sense to avoid spinach--bagged or otherwise--organic or otherwise. I would also welcome a cessation of the knee jerk reactions and speculation of many who have an axe to grind. until we have some idea as to how this outbreak came to be.

Nothing can be 100% guaranteed safe from potential hazard. "It should be clearly understood by everyone that LL601 is not only safe for human consumption," .... "The principal issue for the EU is that the LL601 long-grain rice does not yet have EU regulatory approval. However, the LL601 protein has already been approved for use in other crops in some EU countries, and in Canada, Mexico, Argentina, Japan, China, Australia, South Africa, South Korea and Russia". I suppose if you spilled this rice on the floor you could slip on it and fall? SB (and it's apparently safer than organic spinach!) ← Just because a protein has been approved for use in one crop, it shouldn't mean blanket approval in every other. I don't know enough about the details of the methods used, but the construct used to ellicit appropriate expression could be different as could the plant's response to the foreign insert, just two reasons why rigorous safety testing should be mandatory. In this case, in appears as though " only environmental effects" are the regulations being sidestepped. I find this especially ironic given that the reason this crop is getting pushed ahead seems to be because of it's unintended invasion, surely an environmental effect! PS: as I already mentionned, no organic products have been linked to the E. coli outbreak at this time. ← The original analogy was not very good IMOP. The current spinach problem warrants the coverage because people are getting sick and dying. Furthermore, Earthbound Farms seem to be producing a very large percentage of the total spinach packaged and sold around the country. The FDA has advised all fresh spinach to be avoided--organic or not. I am not sure what organic has to do with anything at this point though the use of manure in growing organic spinach is suspect simply because manure is a prime source of e-coli. As for genetically modified foods, the source piece for the story that is linked is IMOP completely skewed. One would be best served by looking into GM foods more broadly. There is some hysteria over genetic modification of foods all of which is completely unwarranted. Concerns yes, hysteria no. Man has been genetically "modifying" foods since Gregor Mendl cross bred pea plants. Man has, in fact, been genetically modifying humans for a while now. There is evidence to support the belief that genetically modified foods can provide much needed help in fighting starvation as well as disease throughout the world. It is sad that proponents of organic and health foods often resort to scare tactics to promote their beliefs (many of these beliefs are good and beneficial and can certainly stand on their own). Nothing is perfect. There are always pluses and minuses.

Bistro? Marseille on Ninth around forty fourth.

good points. especially noting that there are different types/styles of pecorino. Pecorino Tuscano is a great cheese to nibble on while the Romanos tend to be better grating cheeses. (this thread is makin me hungry!)

I was at Mignon last night. I go about six times a year and this place is very consistent. The shellfish (oysters and clams last nite) are high quality. The sides are well prepared and the steaks are always cooked perfectly. The meat quality is very good. By the way--if Rutherford is a "dry town" how come there is a wine shop located on the main drag?

There's an underlying tradeoff here. Salt makes craptastic food taste good. If we persist on eating craptastic food and trying to making taste good, we require lots of salt. The solution is too obvious to mention. Maybe the processed food should move towards products with lots of spices? Maybe these would provide enough taste to allow acceptably low levels of salt... ← What's missing here is the inclusion in the debate of the amount of salt chefs use in most restaurants. (not to mention fats like butter). Also--I salt fresh tomatoes and corn (certainly not "craptastic" stuff) rather heavily--salt makes many things taste sweeter!!!! also I consider salumi/ sausages to be "processed" foods. Should we regulate finishing salts? The FDA is starting to resemble the ministry of silly walks! I say let's just have good labeling and moderation!!!

David. Processed foods are fine!!! When consumed in moderation by healthy people who have a varied diet. The food industry (processed or otherwise) is not out out kill us. I believe that they are always making improvements in ingredients and processing methods. (yes sometimes they put profits ahead of things). They are highly regulated. There is a load of salt and often nitrites in charcouterie. These are "processed" foods. We can quibble over the amount but salt is salt. In fact hot dogs are often lumped into the "junk food" category. Hot dogs are charcouterie! I believe that people simply need to be informed and the media needs to do a good responsible job of disseminating information. We need to know what is in our foods and we do need to know what current scientific /medical based thinking is. We do not need more regulations and we certainly do not need bans. There are aways potential problems with anything and everything we consumer processed or natural (need I remind you of a little spinach problem going on as we post--also as a result of this spinach thing I have learned that most of that packaged "organic" stuff is washed with a chlorine solution--it is "processed.") Too often we have self interested groups (the AMA is concerned first and foremost with their membership) lobbying the government to do things their way and the media hyping the "latest findings"--findings that often change or are contradictory with other findings. If you regulate salt as an "additive" do the laws differentiate among a twinkie and sardines packed in salt and salumi??? What exactly does "processed" mean? I believe we do need to watch what we eat. If you want to avoid "processed foods" that's certainly fine. But in defining "processed" you will run into great difficulty. Remember--that natural spinach is --to one degree or another "processed." I would prefer that we have good accurate labeling and that we make our own informed decisions. It is good to have the debate.

← It's about time. Processed foods are the foods that are killing us - not Foie Gras or Carbs or fat or Raw Milk cheese or anything - the less processed foods we consume the better. ← "processed foods are the foods that are killing us" really! First--the Times in positioning this issue as a "war" is engaging in a bit of hyperbole (gets attention and sells papers--a common media ploy these days). We have the AMA (a group also seeking some attention) making an assertion and a demand that would lead to more regulation (do we have enough regulations?). The AMA has an agenda and keep in mind no group has been infallible. It was not too long ago that the Doctors and Scientists were saying salt was not bad for us. Then the Times did a piece about how salt was becoming trendy. We heard how bran was the answer then we were told bran was not the answer. La Di La Di Life goes on! I prefer that people get information and all sides of the story. Then make their own decisions. I am for reasonable product information and labeling. Seems to me that regulating salt may not be the best solution/answer. Maybe it is education. I also do not look at the food industry as an evil empire out to kill us via salt. I believe in moderation. and awareness. not bans or regulation. I prefer to save myself thank you! so here's how it should work. The doctors and scientists have their say. The food industry has theirs. The Time reports the facts. We make the final decision. I gotta go now--cable news is reporting that some group has declared the board of directors for MacDonalds are war criminals! The revolution is at hand!!!! They're coming for my charcuterie!!!!!

Nice recipe idea. A lot of this depends upon how rich and intensely beety this risotto will be. also white wine would be ideal. However, I would suggest a richer fuller bodied white. Chardonnay with some buttery richness and with earthy notes. A nice big Burgundy or one of the modern style Italians. for red--I would stay lighter and dry, a Barbaresco or one of the better Valpolicellas!

Given how little aloe vera is probably actually in expensive lotions on the market . . . ← Gee--this gave me a great idea for mushroom growers. Sunblock!!!! (spf fifty stuff) Then they can grow em faster outdoors no need for any buildings or shade etc. Anyone wanna join me--I need investors!!!!

I agree wholeheartedly! The piece has no humor whatsoever. A good rant can be hilarious--the over the top nature and out of proportion anger and frustration are pretty funny as are pieces loaded with sarcasm.. Bourdain is a master. This isn't even a poor rant. Goin the other way and being subtle and clever is also funny. Calvin Trillen or Steingarten etc This ain't that either. What it is --is a humorless, unclever whine by a notoriously self absorbed woman. Even someone with a modicum of intelligence and a modest sense of humor could do a decent job skewering the affectations and customs of modern dining. I will also add that I am sick and tired of writers of all political persuasions gratuitously interjecting their politics into non political pieces. But then what do I know--Charlie Rose seems to like her!

I bet someone at your wine shop will be able to help you out with the cheese situation as well. If you really get into this--you can access some great cheeses via the internet. also IMOP--the best book on cheese (with wine pairing suggestions) is Steve Jenkins "Cheese Primer"--available in paperback I believe. Have fun!

I am one who was not wild about Zinfandel when I first experienced them. Initially, I was not a fan but over the years and after tasting many, I now appreciate them. At their best, Zinfandel provides a lot of immediate pleasure (some do age well but this is the exception not the rule). The key is loads of ripe fruit (the best seem to come from the hotter climes of California---Dry Creek in Sonoma for eg) a medium to heavy body, notes of pepper and spice. You will also get (because of the ripeness of the fruit) relatively high alcohol levels. The key to the better examples is how the fruit balances the alcohol--that is--how much do you notice the alcohol? These wines are not really complex wines on the nose or the palate but some can be suprising in having some added depth beyond the luscious fruit. They are also fairly broad in delivering this fruit. There is not a lot of structure or backbone though, again, some will suprise here. Some will have spicy, peppery notes, some herbs (watch out for too prominent herbal notes--not good). Most will have oak flavors --vanilla etc but you don't want too much so the fruit is masked also they should not be overly tannic. Prunes and raisin notes but these shouldn't dominate--the fruit should be the main thing and it should have a freshness to it. Mouthfeel should be lush and glossy almost silken qualities. Most of the recommendations here, thus far, are good. I would add Ravenswood (vintner's blend), Trentadue, Marietta Cellars (Old Vine Red), Peachy Canyon, etc. There are quite a few good wines at reasonable prices. If you can, try to taste one of the higher end examples from Turley, Martinelli, Biale, Ridge(Lytton springs), Ravenswood (Old Vines), Rosenblum (Rockpile). Though these offerings often start at around $50 --they are IMOP --about as good as Zinfandel can possibly get. I think the key is to taste Zinfandel and appreciate it for what it is, not making comparisons to other wines and varietals. Look for examples that balance the high alcohol with fruit--it is really about the fruit here. Don't look for complexity but be prepared to be suprised. Acidity is also not what these wines are about but you want enough balance to focus the fruit on your palate. They should not be flabby. As for food. Easy, really, big bold flavored food--grilled meats especially with a glaze (fruit and sweet sour spice hot pepper combinations). Duck or Venison. Simple hamburgers or steaks. A cool evening outdoors around the grill! To me, Zinfandel is about simple flavors and enjoyment. I wouldn't get too intellectual about these wines. They are not wines to sip and ponder. They are not going to spark Proustian self awareness and contemplation. They will, at their best, provide basic drinking pleasure--the very top examples will offer an initial wow factor and if you can be happy with that and not be concerned about finding the meaning of the universe in the glass--you will really enjoy them.

Ya know... This may be an area that will suffer due to their attempts to adhere to a philosophy that puts criteria other than just providing the best tasting food in play. I know I have babbled on about this here before but.... Trying to reconcile often complex and confused terms like "organic" and "health" and Macro and micro biotic and local produced and fair trade and humane and.... with good taste and good quality is, at best, a difficult if not impossible proposition. toss in "at fair and competitive prices..." Sometimes these things work out--often they do not! I much prefer establishments whose criteria is simply to offer the best tasting items. I would rather see more focus on artisinal items (which are more often than not ethically produced under healthy conditions whatever that means) than finding products that meet these so called moral and philosophical standards (which often are lacking in the taste and quality areas). But that's just me. I get my prosciutto from DiPalo brothers and I have no idea if it is organic or from ethically raised pigs--it is just incredibly good--and they know how to slice it!

You had to bring the poor quality of bread into it, didn't you? You should check out the new lay-out in Tenleytown and the huge amount of space given over to mediocre chocolates!!! Cautionary remark is in order. Good point. But, they DO sell ham for sandwiches and a couple of types of salami. (Their pate just never looked worth buying.) And until now, they could always be counted on for Italian prosciutto. But how come fancy cheeses, walnuts suspended in honey, olive oil, sherry vinegar, olives and what not can come from France, Spain, Italy, New Zealand et al yet meats....? ← The bread offered here in NYC is pretty good--they have a selection from Sullivan Street Bakery which is about as good as bread can get. (it gets pretty damn good). With their WF philosophy, I believe the cured meats situation is somewhat grim. Aversion to nitrites and trates or whatever. Let's face it charcuterie is not a "health " food. (for the soul yes-- for the body...). I would avoid buying prosciutto there regardless of quality because I do not believe there is a counterman (or woman) who even begins to understand how to slice it properly.

Well as most often when dealing with wine--it seems everybody is right!!! Wine Making is far too complex and is an intriguing mix of voo doo and science both in producing it and drinking it. Wine--the end product--is a result of grape growing (viticulture) and wine making (viniculture) with mother nature (weather etc) playing a huge role. It is impossible to just look at any one of these and establish rules--every rule has any number of exceptions. One could say that a wine maker can take dilute grapes and concentrate them and one could say that a grape grower can do things in the vinyard that will increase the chances that they will end up with more concentrated grapes. (and then it rains at harvest!!!) Dr Greenspan, in the nice article a poster links to in this thread holds that the ripening process is really responsible for quality. He also notes that one of many factors that provide the environment for optimum (and no one can seem to agree on what optimum really is) grape ripening process is........drum roll.........LOWER YIELDS!!!! TA DA!!! This is simplifying things way to much though. (as Dr Greenspan admits). The correlation has been fairly well established it is explaining the correlation that is so difficult. (and remember there are those pesky exceptions to the rule). The empirical evidence is that most great wines come from vinyards with low yields. However attributing the quality solely or mainly to the yields alone is a dicey proposition. I recommend you turn to the Oxford Companion to Wine edited by Jancis Robinson. Look under--"Yields." (I am getting a migrane pondering all this)