JohnL

What really raised my eyebrows is that in response primarily to this comment by Mr. Parker: Decanter responded with an article titled Parker: I'm targeted and misunderstood The article goes on to slap Parker in every paragraph, often taking his comments out of context and misrepresenting them. This has gone beyond professional competition; I think it's very, very poor journalism. ← I have been watching the wine journalism scene for quite a while now. I must say that I have rarely seen one person become so controversial in so relatively short a period of time. The really fascinating thing is how this controversy is largely manufactured. I recall a poster (Fat Guy?) who noted that all Mr Parker does is taste a wine and offer his impressions. So what really is the "big deal?" Why the absolutely violent reaction to him? How is it that only Parker seems to elicit these reactions--how is it that some people feel the need to respond to anything and everything Parker says or writes? Even more troubling is how most of these folks often take Parker out of context, misrepresent him or respond out of complete ignorance? I believe that a large body of conventional wisdom has formed among these critics and their audiences simply parrot what they are told about Parker. Thus: "Parker doesn't like...." or Parker only likes....." is used to explain away a perceived disagreement. If one truly disagrees with Parker over anything then fine--have a reasoned and educated debate or just move on. The Decanter piece is typical. It blows up Parker's comments --wildly out of proportion and misrepresents what he says because there is a small group of mostly British wine writers who deeply resent Parker and can't seem to stand the fact that Parker has any influence at all. Decanter is merely trying to incite things. Easy enough when normally very fine writers like High Johnson go off the deep end when they hear Parker's name. for the most extreme example I have encountered--read Tony Hendra's review of the Elin McCoy biography of Parker--Hendra literally descends into pure madness. IMOP--here's an example of the silliness. Johnson's biggest bone of contention seems to be Parker's 100 point scale. So what? Johnson himself has been rating wine over a long career so they use different means or "scales."??? Is Parker really any different in his mission than Johnson? Thus, why does Johnson (again, a distinguished writer) feel compelled to respond so bitterly to anything Parker says or does? I believe that much of this reaction is rooted in condition of the wine world--from the trade to the press--when Parker first emerged. Parker himself notes this in the interview in the Times. The influence in the press was shifting. Parker essentially challenged the status quo--naturally, the influencers at the time resented this new kid on the block. I suggest that some of them have never gotten over it (or Parker). The success of Parker and some others (Wine Spectator) is due to their simply being in the right place at the right time with the right message. It should be fun and informative to debate the issues of the wine world (we are talking about wine after all) without the bitter sniping and pettiness.

How about the "pasta police!" I have had it with restaurants ripping off us hard working folks. Wine markups? Forget about it!--wine is a bargain---even by the glass. How about ten to twenty dollars for a plate of simply sauced pasta! Spaghetti costs probably fifty cents to a buck a pound wholesale--for the good stuff. Tomatoes?--$2--for a large can of San Marzano. What's goin on--why do we allow the local Spaghetti joint to gouge us? And what's with five to ten bucks for a simple green salad--last I looked lettuce is pretty cheap even at wholesale and even at Whole Foods. And most places are not dressing your greens with Manni (I have seen those huge cans of industrial grade oil lurking in restaurant kitchens). Don't give me that "cost of labor" crap either! --how much skilled labor goes into tossing lettuce in a vinagrette? I have had it! I am not eatin out anymore--Staying home and sulking isn't much fun but at least I am not gettin ripped off!!!!

Sandy! First, I really enjoy reading your thoughts here at eGullet, I look forward to your posts. I too have a background in marketing and advertising and PR. Though I have left all that to begin a second career in the wine business. I have read the Slate piece many times and I believe that we are all missing the point a bit. The Slate article is not attempting to "indict" WF--this is not an attempt to build a case against WF. What the writer is attempting to do is look at a marketing trend --a bigger picture, if you will. I believe he is merely raising some issues for thought and discussion not --as I have noted--attempting to provide indictable evidence in support of some criminal action. IMOP, the Slate piece is attempting to deal with a trend in marketing wherein companies are using their altruism and good citizenship--not in traditional PR manner, But, rather, as the main selling points for shopping there or buying their products. This may be due to a real sense of altruism, a desire to tap into the sensibilities and values of baby boomers (everyone is wearing some sort of ribbon these days) or a combination of both. Determining motives is always a murky area. Conversely, a number of corporations are being demonized because of a lack of perceived belief that they are 'good for the community."--see Wal Mart, MacDonald's etc. Incidentally, one starting up a company these days would be wise to head off some of these perception or misperceptions by establishing their "politically correct" credentials--regardless of their motivations for being in business. Thus, WF wraps itself in a banner of "good for the community." All the Slate writer is doing is raising the questions; --Is WF really good for the community? --if they are (they do practice what they preach) then is this really that important? Case in point: Thus, when WF is quick to "announce" that they only pay their executives 14 times the amount they pay their average worker., one asks: "should this be all that important to the community/shoppers?" and second: "Is WF really practicing this?" The answer to the first question is open to debate--there is a strong case that things like the "living wage" are at best difficult to define and worse detrimental to the community. The answer to the second is--WF is being a bit deceptive--they are not lying, they are stretching the truth here--Mr Mackey is not guilty of a crime--many corporations now pay lower salaries to executives as a reaction to the perception that no executive should make what the public perceives as an "obscene" salary. Tax penalties have been enacted to "punish" this behavior. To circumvent this--many companies have issued huge stock option programs for executives. So is WF just doing what a lot of companies are doing? Should we care about this overall issue? Should we care that WF is being a bit deceptive in their marketing here? But the most important area the writer is looking at is prompted by Whole Foods wrapping itself in the banner of--well--whole foods--using "organic" as a selling point. There is enough evidence available to warrant debate here. Just what organic means--"small local" farms, CSA's etc etc etc. This issue is--how are these terms defined? Are they really meaningful to consumer to communities? Should we shop at places (and in many cases pay a premium) because they are really nice folks who support all the right causes and are good for us? 1--because they say they are--"we care."? 2--in the end these issues are easily defined and are proven to be beneficial or Is it really more important (and beneficial to the community) to have businesses that offer a good shopping experience, good value and good products.? I would argue that the two are not necc exclusive but when someone says --"we offer the best tomatoes at the lowest prices"--that is a claim that is easy to resolve--if they do they should thrive and the community will benefit. However--if someone says:"shop here because we are nice folks and pay our employees a lot and our produce comes from local farms and are organic and are good for you." Well-- these claims are crossing into a very gray area-- all the Slate piece is doing is attempting to prompt some discussion. Maybe--just maybe--altruism aside--it may be better for communities if retail establishments stuck to obeying the law and offering the best products and services at the best prices. (oh and maybe supported the local food bank or shelter and supported a little league team) and not try to "save the world." Then again, maybe not!

What we are really talking about here are perceptions. The human element if you will. We are also talking about how we perceive an incredibly complex substance. You are correct that TCA in wine can be due to various problems--not just tainted corks. You also make a very good point in noting that TCA symptoms include "lack of fruit" and a "short finish." And, yes, these are also symptoms of other problems , not just TCA. So on to the human element. TCA is a real problem--it either exists or it does not. It can certainly manifest itself in varying degrees and based upon people's experience and training or lack thereof as well as one's sensitivities one may also detect it --or not. We could easily descend into a "tree falls in the forrest...." epistemological debate. I would also point out that IMOP, the term "corked" has become a catchall for perceived problems with wine and is sometimes abused by both professionals and experts or so called experts as well as the general public. If one knows what to look for and has some minimal experience with TCA tainted wines then one will be able to "recognize" the problem in most wines where it does, in fact, exist. we are talking about "there" or "not there". not the degrees of the manifestation. Yes, sometimes "experts" will disagree--been there. And yes, there are times where I personally have been a bit uncertain about a wine-we are all human. sometimes what I initially perceive as a problem "blows off" or dissipates with aeration or time in the glass. If one senses the distinct "smell" (in any degree) one starts to look for other symptoms. By the way, when we say "lack of fruit." IMOP--this is a somewhat vague descriptor. There is a difference in a wine that is merely lacking fruit due to poor wine making and a wine whose fruit is attenuated due to TCA. Just as a wine that suffers from oxidation problems will have "lack" of fruit. Anyway--I believe that for real everyday purposes--most people can gain the ability to detect problems most of the time in most cases. I also believe that the trade is severely remiss in ensuring the quality of their wine. No wine in any restaurant should be served to the host for his or her approval until the wine has been inspected by the staff who should at least be minimally trained. And in the end--"the customer is always right" applies especially to wine.

It's not the "in your face" kind of marketing we should be worried about! Guys-- I do not disagree with you. This issue here is not ADM (or anyone else). It is Whole Foods. The Slate piece is basically just applying some of the skepticism and scrutiny to WF and its marketing efforts as well as the whole "organic" movement. If you believe this is wrong or unwarranted--ok--then make the case. There is enough information available from enough sources to indicate there is a "dark" side to the health food industry. By the way--plenty has been offered about WF right here at eGullet (if I am not mistaken and there is a very recent thread on "organic" wherein one of the major points made by the Slate writer is supported. We should also understand that there is fraud and criminal behavior by non profit operations as well. Finally, if one wants to see damaging, misleading and insidious PR efforts, I offer what labor unions have been up to. See--the Food Lion case and take a look at who is behind a lot of the misinformation about Wal Mart. (please I don't want to debate Wal Mart--suffice to say they are not angels but they are surely not the anti-christ some would have us believe). IMOP, the Slate piece is simply taking a look at another (for profit) company and their marketing efforts as well as the whole health food industry and their claims. Should these issues be immune to any scrutiny, let alone criticism?

You wrote earlier that Whole Foods had told at least one lie in their promotions, specifically about salaries, which isn't a lie at all. It is commonly accepted business practice for salaries to be equated differently from stock options, health benefits, and bonuses. But, if it is a lie, then it's fraud and actionable, so in the words of the gambler "Put up or Shut up." More importantly to me, Don't speak for where my views come from. You don't know me, you don't know my family, and speaking for me shows you as ignorant to the many opinions in this world and how they're formed. And that is black and white. ← I think you are over reacting. Please allow me to clarify: We are all influenced by marketing/advertising and public relations efforts--if you watch TV listen to the radio, read a newspaper, magazines, use the internet, shop in any store. We also get information via first hand experiences and from listening to others. If you are saying that your and your opinions are formed independently of these sources--then ok I guess you are not influenced by advertising or PR. No one has accused WF of "lying" nor is anyone attacking WF for criminal activity. a a matter of fact, I shop there. This whole issue is about how WF markets itself. I would refer you back to the Slate piece. If you feel that the writer is misstating something or has presented information that is incorrect, then please let us know. IMOP the writer raises some interesting issues--certainly open to discussion and debate. The issues raised: "organic", CSA's, high salaries and benefits, local farms among others are not cut and dried, black and white issues. all have been discussed and debated independently of the Slate piece and WF. If Whole Foods is utilizing these things to market its self then one is certainly justified in bringing not only the "good" side of them but also the the other side. Unless, of course, one believes that the mere use of the term "organic" is pristine and so noble and carries no downside whatsoever; that the entire health food industry is immune from any scrutiny or criticism.

No one is talking "lawsuit." Just a discussion of some issues that Slate raised. I would argue that: The views you present of Whole Foods and Wal Mart are influenced by active PR/Marketing efforts and that things are not so black and white here.

Exactly. ← Too simple. and way too jaded for me. Every major charity and cause employs PR.--the various "walkathons" are PR events. many companies support causes because they believe in them first and foremost and not as a "PR effort."

Isn't being a "good corporate citizen" primarily P.R.? Nothing new about that. Speaking of which, have a look at this brief article on Ivy Lee, considered by some the founder of modern public relations. I don't think anyone's accusing Whole Foods of the kinds of things John D. Rockefeller was guilty of. But what do we remember Rockefeller for now? For his wealth, for Rockefeller Center, and for the Rockefeller Foundation -- not for the Ludlow Massacre or other notorious crimes he was involved with, all of which are now pretty much forgotten by everyone, except for some historians. That's what effective P.R. does. I can't get too excited over Whole Foods doing a mild and relatively harmless version of it. ← I think that being a good corporate citizen can and often does have nothing to do with PR. PR is basically a communications tool. First and foremost though --any company large or small has only an obligation to obey the law--granted many (too many) try to operate in gray areas and some do break laws. Above and beyond this many companies and their executives are engaged in altruistic ventures motivated by nothing more than a desire to do the right thing. PR is simply a mechanism for telling people about these"good deeds." A company can actively let people know what they are doing or they can choose not to. However, I believe the Slate piece is looking at WF as a company that is using not just PR but marketing and advertising that is basically saying to consumers--"we are promoting organic produce and we support local farmers etc etc, so buy from us!" This goes beyond a traditional strategy of :"we offer the best stuff at the best prices etc." or even: "we have friendly service or, it's a pleasant experience to shop with us...." WF strategy (and tactics) raise a few questions: --just what is "organic?" and is Organic produce better for us? is it better quality? is it worth the extra money it usually costs? --what about local farms? should we care? should we pay more for locally produced produce? is small always better than large? --what about WF?--should we shop there because they are telling us they are good corporate citizens? should we pay more for this? are they really good citizens? finally, Slate asks an interesting question: in the end-- Wouldn't just offering good quality at low prices be a better way to help a community? Are we paying a premium to "feel" better--that we are doing the "right thing by shopping at places that tout their noble intentions?" Thus the "elitist" aspect of what WF is doing--they are in essence attempting to convince consumers that they are better people for shopping there. There are no easy answers here--Slate is really asking questions in an attempt to provoke some thought and discussion. There are always two(at least) sides to every issue.

Most drinks come with a garnish, such as a lime wedge, lemon twist, etc. It's part of what makes the drink. But if you don't want the garnish, ask the bartender to leave it out. (Or just take it out and set it aside.) I guess I don't see the parallel here. That is, I understand if you don't like horseradish in a Bloody Mary (it's a variation that's not uncommon, but it's not universal either), but its addition is not like the addition of a garnish -- it's part of the recipe. But again, if you don't like it, ask the bartender not to include it. No, they're not improperly made; if you want them without garnishes, ask for them that way. However, if you want a mojito without mint, I'm not sure what you can do except order a different drink. ← thanks Garnish is fine--my point is that this is often overdone--too much stuff garnish etc can get in the way of the actual cocktail--most of this should be removed prior to drinking anyway--so how much is too much? as for the Bloody Mary--sort of a trick question I suppose--I have seen the origins of this drink debated--horseradish was not part of the original recipe nor was lime. What is served in many places is quite far removed from the original recipe. I actually like the tomato and horseradish combination flavorwise but prefer it in its better form--seafood cocktail sauce. The shredded root suspended in the drink is off putting to me.--maybe a garnish of a single shrimp would be more appropriate than a lime wedge. (by the way--lime wasn't part of the original recipe either). as for the Mojito--the mint is absolutely required--it is a mojito afterall. I just wonder if there is a way to keep the muddled leaves on the bottom of the glass or would it be advisable to strain them out of the drink? I also find that too many places load up the glass with leaves and garnish and ice leaving me to strain to actually drink something. anyway--I was just wondering if anyone else felt the same way.

Of course, you should take everything with a grain of salt, but -- and I'm surprising myself a bit here by coming to the defense of Whole Paycheck -- I'd say that WFM's CEO strives mightily to practice what he preaches. Whole Foods offers an ESOP to its hourly employees. (ESOP = Employee Stock Ownership Plan. It's a fringe benefit more common in small businesses than large ones. It allows employees to purchase stock in the company out of their paychecks, often at favorable prices. Some ESOPs offer employees part of their compensation in the form of stock, but these are very rare.) On top of that, regular employees get stock options based on hours worked in a year. So you can't accuse Mackey of taking advantage of something that his employees can't when it comes to owning Whole Foods stock or options. Info about Whole Foods Market benefits ← The issue at hand as per the Slate piece is the use of things like "organic" and "Small farm friendly" to "sell' consumers on one's operation as a better place to shop. Whole Foods, as the article notes, does this a lot--in fact--it is a marketing strategy the company embraces. Part of this strategy is letting consumers know that the company is a good citizen and practices good corporate responsibility--therefore one should shop there. I used the Mackey salary thing to illustrate the point that while the company is eager to let consumers know Mr Mackey and other executives are paid a "responsible" salary ("no executive is paid more than 14 times the salary of our average employee") this is not quite true. WF marketing is IMOP worth looking at because we are seeing this strategy executed more and more these days as corporations, large and small, seek to gain sales by convincing consumers that they are good citizens and support all the "right" causes. "we are good for the community so shop here." This is a departure from--basically offering the best products and services and good value. It is one thing to be a good corporate citizen (no one would argue with this). It is quite another when one's corporate marketing strategy includes good corporate citizenship as a tactical message to leverage sales. IMOP the Slate piece is on target--(no pun intended) there has been a lot of corporate bashing (some certainly justified--but a lot of it just plain wrongheaded) of companies like MacDonald's and K-Mart while other companies preaching good citizenship are escaping any scrutiny. It is an interesting issue for sure--should we shop somewhere because they have great tomatoes at great prices or somewhere else because they say they support all the right causes. I would argue that the two are not necessarily--mutually exclusive.

I have a problem. Specifically with mojitos and bloody mary's. With mojitos (I love this drink) I often get a glass loaded with stuff! Mainly the muddled mint leaves which are off putting when you get a mouthful of flora as you drink. or leaves sticking to your lips...... On top of that there is often a lime wedge and a sugar cane stick/swizzler etc add ice and you end up with not a lot of liquid--if you can ever get to it. likewise--Bloody Mary's with horseradish --like drinking diluted seafood cocktail sauce. (add the lemon or lime wedge and the celery stick and the....) am I getting drinks that are improperly made or am I supposed to put up with these inconveniences? hard to know when to swallow or chew!!!!

That is the sanest and most reasonable take on this issue I have seen. I couldn't agree more.. There's another ongoing thread here--"Is Wholefoods Wholesome?" that refers to a linked piece in Slate that looks at WF use of organic --in their marketing. I think "artisanal" works for me. Thanks for helping clear things up (a bit).

I think the subject does start to veer away from food and into economics and politics. I would say though your post is an example of what I was talking about. we need to look below the surface and beyond altruism. High wages and lots of benefits sounds good. (it is good) but there is another side of this. Higher costs to consumers. I would also point out that some very large corporations are in serious trouble (many thousands of jobs are at risk) because of "high wages" and lots of benefits. Let's look at that nice "responsible" salary that WF Chairman John Mackey receives ---the piece in Slate says WF claims that no management employee makes more than 14 times the average salary of employees. Mr Mackey's salary is a "reasonable" $342,000 per year. Sounds great--a company that really cares! Well last year (2004 tax year) Mr Mackey made $885,216 --see what they don't tell ya about their noble sounding policy is that executives get stock options on top of their "modest" salaries. bet those folks making $13/hour haven't the chance to cash in to the tune of some $5MM (the value of Mr Mackey's options). That's my point--we are too quick to take at face value an altruistic sounding statement or marketing tactic. IMOP --I am fine with whatever salary the board deems appropriate. what I have a problem with is the little white lie used to sell us on WF as somehow a better place to shop. I am equally skeptical of a lot of marketing claims re: organic etc. Things are never so simple.

I thought the article was fine. IMOP--it is not an "indictment" of anything. it applies some healthy skepticism (an all to rare occurrence in journalism these days) to the marketing tactics Wholefoods employs. It also questions some of the altruistic claims that the "organic" and local CSA proponents (WF for one) often make. Interestingly, WF "hedges" their bet by offering many of the same items in both "organic" and non organic versions. Invariably the "organic" is more costly than the non organic. IMOP the real question is exactly what are we paying for? I find some of the organic CSA proponents to be a bit over zealous the author raises an interesting bit of irony at the end of his piece when he notes the "elitist" aspect of the whole organic and CSA movements--it is definitely elitist--and operations like WF are capitalizing on this via their marketing efforts. In the end--I believe we have been prone to scrutinize and quick to demonize big vs small anything. Big agribusiness vs small (CSA's) Big retail (K-mart) vs small "the local "family" run business. We often overlook the fact that K-Mart started out "small" and local and that Wholefoods and Trader Joe's et al are really big and national (multi national). We also overlook the big picture--that there are pluses and minuses to both sides of the coin. We also tend to give a free pass to anyone who develops and displays an "altruistic" mission statement for their enterprise. The truth is Wal-Mart ain't so bad and WF ain't so good, big agribusiness ain't so bad and CSA'a aren't all good.--it is as simple as that. These issues are not a question of good vs evil--if we can get past this we can see the good and bad sides to everything and make better choices.

If anything--IMOP--corked wines are "under diagnosed." Corked wine and "cooked" wine are two very distinct and different maladies. Corked wine is easily recognized by anyone with some experience with it. (I believe that most anyone can detect it if they simply know what they are looking for). As for "cooked" wine; first, Kermit Lynch's book was written in 1988 it is still a fine read but there is much less mishandled fine wine on the market these days--thanks in no small part to people like Mr Lynch (one still needs to be careful and buy from reputable sources). Recognizing a mishandled wine can be a bit more difficult and require more knowledge and tasting experience than recognizing a corked wine. Corked wine is a fairly pervasive problem, i have seen estimates of as high as 10% of all wine. my own experience is probably around 5%. It is not very difficult to detect --it either exists or it does not-there is no middle ground (one can not be a "little" pregnant). As some other posters noted, I am also surprised that even in very fine restaurants wine servers do not "inspect" the wine before serving it to the host for his or her approval. A restaurant should do everything in their power to ensure that every wine they sell --especially expensive and/or well aged wines--is in peak condition. As for the dilemma at hand, if one is not the host, one must act according to their best judgment. I would suggest that a bit of a white lie and a will to be daring may work in cases like Brad's--I would discreetly approach the host---"sir (or madame) I have enjoyed this wine in the past and I must say, this is a perfect choice for the occasion. However I recall that the wine I had was showing much better than this and I do know there are some bottle variation problems with this wine--may I suggest that we have the sommelier see if they agree and can provide a better bottle for us?" Ok--I did note one must be daring here--the risk is the host tells you to f--K off. Or awards you several brownie points for being upfront and ballsy as well as being a wine maven. the kind of guy that is looking out for the boss's or clients best interests. Of course you also have to be ready to approach the restaurant wait staff and make sure a "scene" does not develop. Also--one probably should not try this if one is the guest at a mob dinner and your host is Tony Soprano (or the Joe Pesci character in Goodfellas).

Sorry, but the reality is that physically active kids will generally eat more in order to take in enough calories to keep up with calories burned. Anybody who exercises on a regular basis knows this. Furthermore, kids should be "concerened with eating" and taking an active interest in food, rather than treating it as mere fuel. Although the main onus should be on parents to teach this to their children. ← You all seem to be missing the point I am trying to make! (probably my lack of clarity at fault here). First--i started thinking about this when I was watching the documentary: "Supersize me" by Morgan Spurlock. There is a scene where he interviews two inner city kids (teens actually) who are thin and athletic looking. They admit that they eat fast food all the time. I am not minimizing the importance of healthy food intake--I am trying to put all this in perspective. I have not seen many kids who are physically active that are obese. I think we would all agree that exercise is very important. The fact is people who exercise regularly tend to have more regimen in their lives--they are not sitting around a lot. I believe a lot of us are obsessive about feeding kids and what kids eat (that may be okay) but the kids who have weight and health problems also have bad eating habits and lives that are out of balance. Just providing a healthy school lunch is a costly and IMOP-often futile solution. Kids will eat what they want to eat--I recall using the milk carton to stuff my "healthy food into to avoid the lunchroom police who examined every kid's tray before we could go out to the playground. (on the way home we stooped for pizza and black and white cookies). were we fat?--no we were also constantly playing rigorous games and various sports. we were allowed two hours of TV a night maximum and were not allowed to eat in front of the TV set. Too many kids are given food for the wrong reasons--crying?--here have a cookie! We need to engender discipline in kids lives--yes absolutely important to have healthy food in schools and even more important education about nutrition etc. But we are fighting a losing battle if we do not make sure kids get lots of physical activity and have a healthy attitude/habits toward eating. Moderation is key and understanding that there are consequences to eating a twinkie--it is about perspective! I am not disagreeing with most of what is being said here. I am just looking at a bigger picture.

It seems ironic here in B.C. our provincal government, which is really up tight about wine and wine laws, started allowing patrons to take home unfinished wine just over two years ago. All we have to do is seal the bottle up in any type of bag and tell the customer to put the bottle in the trunk of their car. I would have thought it would be much more common in the States? The sealed bags are a great idea much more professional than a bag stapled and handed to a customer. Interesting thread topic. Stephen Bonner Vancouver ← Is the situation in Canada similar to the chaos we have here? Does each Province have their own wine laws and regulations?

Sounds interesting. I have not had an old Zin for some time. I'm guessing it is old school style with the alcohols up there in the 15.5-16.5+% range. Yummy. Stephen Bonner Vancouver ← I thought high alcohol wines were new school wines!? I recall waiting for ever (seemingly) for some Mayacaymus cabernets to "come around" some were pretty good some were dried out and astringent by the time the tannins subsided. I have had some interesting (good) zins that have had some age--I am not sure this varietal is as ageworthy in general as other grapes. I believe that long ago California winemakers made wines that they thought would age over a long time as they followed their paradigm--Bordeaux. I would love to try one of these Mayacaymus Zins out of curiosity.

Actually, I wish my 6-year-old had more time to finish her food, instead of having to wolf it down so that the whole table can go out for recess. ← But that's sort of my point. Kids should be eating less ---exercising more. I think a healthy snack followed by lots of exercise is better than a big lunch. or let them have a snack--healthy of course after recess. I don't know--maybe this makes sense maybe not. In the end--parents need to be actively involved and making sure kids havea chance to develop healthy eating habits and understand moderation and consequences.

Cheaper in the short term, yes. But is it really cheaper in the long run? ← I would think so. IMOP--if we get kids exercising more the food issues are still there--we do need to provide and encourage healthy eating--but they will be lessened somewhat. No matter what one eats exercise is a good thing. The debate rages on about what exactly we should feed kids--what is healthy and what is not--witness the threads here at eGullet. After we agree on those things then how do we get kids to eat the food. I still think if kids are busy with physical activity then they will be less concerned with eating and will eat less and--whatever they eat they will be burning a lot more calories than they presently do. Kids are pretty resourceful and even with healthy meals at school --they will still eat junk foods--a major coup would be to get kids to eat smaller portions and cut out the snacks in front of the TV. Not much schools can do here.

Exactly. It's one of the side effects of our "ten-thousand-year experiment called agriculture", as Ronald Wright explains in A Brief History of Progress: It's unwise to dismiss such analysts as Ronald Wright or Wendy Orent as prophets of doom bearing a political message because they don't offer solutions. (For that matter, solutions to mass survival problems are ineluctibly "political".) If they merely make us aware of global threats about which the human race is collectively in a state of invincible denial, they will have performed a very real service. ← We could have a wonderful debate about all this--but here is not the best place for it I fear. as for Wendy Orent--she has actually been a voice of reason re: flu epidemics her politics aside. Mr Wright is interesting to read, however his views are open to much debate. i would merely point out that not everyone agrees with his view of utopia and the "noble savage" and "progress" and that not very long ago we were inundated with cries of anguish over the great nuclear freeze that was coming! seems we are doomed one way or the other--either by boiling or freezing--so I guess which one doesn't really matter. humans are not perfect--we do need to be reminded of this from time to time. So whether one has a bone to pick with the industrial poultry business or applauds the many benefits of "cheap chicken" we still have problems and yes we will create new problems with our solutions--However, I am a glass is half full guy and I would rather be alive today than in the nineteenth century or the seventeenth or.... I come to this conclusion after some thought and balancing the pros and cons--I am optimistic for the future because as much bad and evil are within human beings there is much good. in the end we just try to do the best we can.

while I agree with you. My idea is easier and cheaper to implement.

That sounds a lot more informative and less potentially misleading. ← Interesting exchange here. To illustrate (I hope) how sticky an issue this all is I offer an extreme and very hypothetical case: Suppose a marketer put the following label on their produce: "While no research (or the FDA) has determined that there is any danger to humans from agriculturally safe soils all our produce is produced through the use of hydroponics--our vegetables never come in to contact with dirt of any kind." or "scientific studies have shown that agricultural soils can contain traces of radioactive elements..." or studies have shown that soil can contain bacteria... or etc etc etc What I am getting at--is someone can create the impression that there may be something wrong with anything in the desire to establish one's products as superior or safer. Warning labels can be beneficial but they can also create more confusion and can be misused. by the way--I hope I am not causing any more confusion with my post!

Who is "chortling" about anything? ← Ms Orent. That's my impression of her tone--at the end of her piece. Her tone changed from one soberly offering an interesting theory based upon some scientific data to one wagging a finger and musing over "ironies." I don't mind folks preaching or talking about how life was so much better in the old days but lately a lot of folks have been using science in their sermons and well... gets my dander up--ya know puts me in a fowl mood. I do applaud the paper for putting this very opinionated piece on the op ed page so I certainly have no complaints--just some observations and disagreements of my own!