JohnL

Have you seen the number of fat professors in my University's Food Science department? Education isn't the issue, it's initiative. We want a quick fix. But, we fail to see that we got fat over a significant period of time, and it will probably take a similar period to get well. But, we lack the initiative to do anything about it, and we lack the self-awareness to notice we're getting a little doughy before we're busting the axles on our SUV's. ← Right you are, jsolomon. Yanno, I think it's kind of condescending to say that poor, uneducated people eat junk all day long and should be the main target of our nutritional education efforts. There are plenty of fat people in my town -- one woman sits on the committee to change the food program at the school, and she must go about 300 (and her kids as well). She's educated, wealthy, has a strong community and family network, and fat. And making decisions for others -- good ones, too. Just not for herself. ← But it's kind of rational to note that obesity is correlated with poverty and low education and focus on the poor and uneducated, isn't it? There are probably poor people living in affluent neighborhoods, and aflluent people living in poor areas, but if you can only fund one job training center, which zip code should it go into? Interesting article here, linking obesity with food prices, which I pass along with no comment other than "there are many factors, blah blah, blah... A bunch of links on this site. Note that some have found a link between obesity and federal nutrition programs. ← I would posit that obesity is currently linked and correlated with hundreds of issues--with hundreds of links to come. Someone --anyone--with an agenda can find some statistics or can initiate a study to come up with just about anything. The big hole in the argument presented in the link you provided is that there are too many thin people in "poor" neighborhoods that he can't explain away with his shoddy theory. The fact is--obesity is the result of behavior. A person takes in more calories than they burn off. Show me a person of any race, creed, economic status, "zip code", social status, anything you want to consider--who takes in more calories than they burn off and I will show you a candidate for obesity. (medical anomalies, genetics etc excluded of course). Inner city kids who spend a few hours on basketball courts can load up on MacDonalds and be thin. (I know this personally because I was an inner city kid). I also lived in Little Italy in the Bronx--want easily accessible fresh healthy food--it is literally within minutes of thousands of "poor" people. I would say that a large number of residents were obese. (my best friend was nicknamed "fat" Tommy). If we want to wallow in these side arguments (ie--statistics show poor people are more likely to be fat ergo money is a key factor in obesity....) we will never begin to solve the problem. There is risk involved in most everything we do--habits good or bad are reinforced by many things. We had an idea an inkling that cigarette smoking was possibly bad for us back in Mark Twain's time. Cigarette smoking--only recently-- has been in decline after years of education--coupled with the fact that it is pretty clear one can get some pretty bad diseases from smoking--and the fact that many people have personal experience--they either got a disease or know someone who has from smoking--watching uncle Fred die slowly from emphysema can be a powerful motivator. Obesity is just recently being linked to health problems--diabetes etc. It is all about understanding risk and reward. One doesn't have to eat whole grains and sprouts with wheatgrass juice to avoid obesity. One just needs to have a reasonably balanced diet and exercise. (Note reasonable is a key here). Yes--availability of a variety of good quality food products in all neighborhoods is an important issue. I also suggest that it is at best a minor factor (maybe even a red herring of sorts) distracting everyone from getting to the real causes. ← The old "anybody can find a link" argument is old, dull and incorrect. There is a significant correlation between obesity and income, and another between income and education. In fact, once you get rid of things like genetics and illness, they may be the strongest. If you want to try to change the behaviors that lead to obesity, it makes sense to begin your work in the communities in which obesity-linked behaviors (pathologies, diseases, market forces, whatever) are most common. If you decide to turn to a life of crime, are you going to say, "hmmmm, there are thousands of places to rob, almost anyplace has something to steal," or are you going to stick up a bank because, as the saying goes, "that's where the money is?" ← It may be "old" and "dull" but sorry-it has been proven correct over and over. I have seen a study that indicates the fastest growing segment of the population for obesity is economically well off middle class folks. (I am sure you will find a study to dispute this study). See it is an endless search for an answer based upon pondering and quatifying symptoms and never addressing real causes. IMOP your crime analogy is a bit strained--but I believe that many of the solutions these studies point to are akin to "let's solve the crime problem by eliminating the banks." You gotta admit it would have a major impact on those bank robbery statistics! I will agree with you that education is very important--knowledge is king! (but say-- isn't this an "old" and "dull" saw? I think we would agree it is true) So if we agree that education is very important then--nutrition and health should be taught in all schools--not just those where there are a preponderance of obese people. Ya know "an ounce of prevention..." Gee another old, dull idea. Also we are really talking about grammer school education not college as much (it is too late)--so income really doesn't factor in here. But it is not just about education--what about all those smart obese folks who have large incomes (a lot of anecdotal info in this thread--see the fat college professor testimony!). also let's look at poor people who exercise regularly--wonder what the obesity rate is there? Is it money or is it exercise?! I am obviously, being a bit facetious. I honestly believe that if we take the knowledge that 1--obesity leads to bad diseases 2--people who eat a reasonably balanced a diet and exercise regularly are unlikely to be obese. and get the message out in all communities. then there will be positive action at the community level. Each community will have actions that are tailored to that community's circumstances. The Alice Waters effort that started this thread is a great example. also the Philadelphia experiment someone noted. Good food exercise and moderation--communities can do a lot to promote these things. (it really won't require a sea change or a lot of money either).

The Winn-Dixie where I used to shop always seemed to have only one check lane open, so invariably you ended up waiting in line for a good while with a dozen other people. You coldn't help but notice what was in other people's baskets, and notice the disproportionate amount of stuff like that. The store actually had a fine selection of fruits and veggiess, but you could tell by the dust on the cans that alot of that stuff wasn't restocked very frequently. ← I believe that MacDonald's recently ended their healthy food offerings (salads?) because no one ordered them. The truth is--as more and more people become aware of the risk--rewards situation and take control of their diets the marketplace in all neighborhoods will reflect this. I keep saying here that this issue is not about the availability of healthy food--it is about people who are in control of their diets. It is about moderation and assessing the risk rewards of eating habits etc. getting exercise. Many of these studies remind me of the Woody allen film Bananas. We all agree that dirty underwear is a problem. Therefore your government has banned the wearing of dirty underwear. to enforce this ban for the good of the people--it is hereby decreed that all people will now wear their underwear outside their clothing.

Have you seen the number of fat professors in my University's Food Science department? Education isn't the issue, it's initiative. We want a quick fix. But, we fail to see that we got fat over a significant period of time, and it will probably take a similar period to get well. But, we lack the initiative to do anything about it, and we lack the self-awareness to notice we're getting a little doughy before we're busting the axles on our SUV's. ← Right you are, jsolomon. Yanno, I think it's kind of condescending to say that poor, uneducated people eat junk all day long and should be the main target of our nutritional education efforts. There are plenty of fat people in my town -- one woman sits on the committee to change the food program at the school, and she must go about 300 (and her kids as well). She's educated, wealthy, has a strong community and family network, and fat. And making decisions for others -- good ones, too. Just not for herself. ← But it's kind of rational to note that obesity is correlated with poverty and low education and focus on the poor and uneducated, isn't it? There are probably poor people living in affluent neighborhoods, and aflluent people living in poor areas, but if you can only fund one job training center, which zip code should it go into? Interesting article here, linking obesity with food prices, which I pass along with no comment other than "there are many factors, blah blah, blah... A bunch of links on this site. Note that some have found a link between obesity and federal nutrition programs. ← I would posit that obesity is currently linked and correlated with hundreds of issues--with hundreds of links to come. Someone --anyone--with an agenda can find some statistics or can initiate a study to come up with just about anything. The big hole in the argument presented in the link you provided is that there are too many thin people in "poor" neighborhoods that he can't explain away with his shoddy theory. The fact is--obesity is the result of behavior. A person takes in more calories than they burn off. Show me a person of any race, creed, economic status, "zip code", social status, anything you want to consider--who takes in more calories than they burn off and I will show you a candidate for obesity. (medical anomalies, genetics etc excluded of course). Inner city kids who spend a few hours on basketball courts can load up on MacDonalds and be thin. (I know this personally because I was an inner city kid). I also lived in Little Italy in the Bronx--want easily accessible fresh healthy food--it is literally within minutes of thousands of "poor" people. I would say that a large number of residents were obese. (my best friend was nicknamed "fat" Tommy). If we want to wallow in these side arguments (ie--statistics show poor people are more likely to be fat ergo money is a key factor in obesity....) we will never begin to solve the problem. There is risk involved in most everything we do--habits good or bad are reinforced by many things. We had an idea an inkling that cigarette smoking was possibly bad for us back in Mark Twain's time. Cigarette smoking--only recently-- has been in decline after years of education--coupled with the fact that it is pretty clear one can get some pretty bad diseases from smoking--and the fact that many people have personal experience--they either got a disease or know someone who has from smoking--watching uncle Fred die slowly from emphysema can be a powerful motivator. Obesity is just recently being linked to health problems--diabetes etc. It is all about understanding risk and reward. One doesn't have to eat whole grains and sprouts with wheatgrass juice to avoid obesity. One just needs to have a reasonably balanced diet and exercise. (Note reasonable is a key here). Yes--availability of a variety of good quality food products in all neighborhoods is an important issue. I also suggest that it is at best a minor factor (maybe even a red herring of sorts) distracting everyone from getting to the real causes.

I also would agree with many of the points made above. However, These discussions often get mired in rich vs poor or black vs white. While many of these issues are real and valid they often become "excuses" or rationale--:"they are......so they can't help themselves." or "well it is no mystery that.......have an obesity problem because...." Often these arguments are put forward to advance an agenda. The root cause of obesity is not so simple--it is a result of human behavior. Behavior that is formed at an early age (before school) and reinforced by family, peer pressure, and many many other things. In the end--it is impossible to escape the fact that children's behaviors are influenced more by their parents. It is in the end--the parents who have the greatest opportunity to influence their children. IMOP--the main part of the problem is parents have ceded much of their responsibilities to others--(schools, TV, other kids/peers etc etc). We are now expecting our schools to "do it all"--I fear that we have lost a generation of parents--and now our best hope is to try for the parents of the next generation--today's kids.

First off I was not forced to resort to illegal activity. The interest on my loan was high but legal. The payments were weekly - odd, but legal. I paid off the loan in a couple of years and we went our own ways after that. Philadelphia dining is not defined by either Starr or BYO's. There is too much good food happening here beyond those. My point is that the story of Philadelphia Dining right now - the "what's happening" - has been, in my opinion at least, the BYO's. But that may just be 2004 and 2005 news. I'm not sure why BYO's elect to be BYO's. A restaurant is more profitable when it sells booze than when it does not. Logic dictates that any restaurant at that level of cuisine should prefer to serve liquor. It could be that they couldn't afford to open with a license. But when you look at the success of the BYO's that have made it, they can afford one after a year or two of operation. It could be that they can not justify the cost of liquor liability insurance. I'm assuming that since the BYO is pouring the customer's wine they have to carry some level of liquor liability insurance but perhaps not as much as a licensed restaurant. Liquor liability insurance is very expensive. It could be that local resident's organization will not permit any new liquor licenses to come into the area. South Street is a case in point. Even though legally a restaurant opening in the South Street area could pull a license from anywhere in Philadelphia county, the Society Hill Resident's Association, as far as I know, will not allow any new liquor licenses to be transferred into their community. Similarly it could be the Resident's association or a near by school or church will fight any new liquor licenses. Or it could be that the restaurant believes it will get more customers if they permit customers to carry their own wine. Or it could be that a small chef operated restaurant doesn't want to put up with all the hassles a liquor license and beverage service entails. Rather, he/she just wants to focus on the food. ← Holly, with all due respect! (they say this a lot on the Sopranos too). I was being facetious-- Again, I believe that many states are abusing their "right" to regulate alcohol as put forth in the constitution. That is the real issue here. Anyone starting a new business (especially a restaurant) should be able to do so on their terms (in the end the consumer's)--with minimal intervention by local, state or federal government. Especially insidious are financial barriers--fees, taxes etc. Local communities should have a say in things like proximity to schools zoning, drinking age etc and anyone selling alcohol of any kind should be held to some regulation. The current situation in PA is not the result of a "free" market determined by an open marketplace. The PLCB is basically dependent upon a "dictatorship"--luckily the current dictator is somewhat benevolent. It could be argued that many current BYO's would be even more successful if they had the option to offer alcohol and/or wine service--again their choice! Without facing absurdly high fees and tons of red tape.

Let me back philadining up and say that Katie does not work for PLCB. She is most definitely not a Trojan shill. As mentioned, no one is arguing that a state run system is superior, either for liquor and alcohol or anything else. Personally I do feel in some cases and industries, I would say that may be true. But that argument will be made by me in person and not here. I read sentiment on this thread to be saying: BYOB's are the very well-received byproduct of having a state system that is set up as it is. The less well-received results include: prices that were out of line with prices in neighboring areas service that often was not the most customer-friendly and random others I can't think of right now And the two less well-received results mentioned above have been drastically improved in recent years, which is of course part of the current praise given towards the PLCB. We do need to distinguish between a state-run system and an expensive liquor license system. They are not necessarily one and the same, although in this case they are to an extent. If my information is up to date (which may well be false) NJ liquor licenses are approximately 10 times as expensive as what I believe the current Philadelphia County liquor license price is, approximately $65,000. IMHO, they're the reason behind the BYOB growth in South Jersey, and also the reason why any restaurant that does have a liquor license is huge compared to a BYOB, even more so than in Philly. Can Rich or anyone else give an accurate statement as to the current NJ license price? ← I would agree with you. Yes, the breadth and quality of BYOB's in Philadelphia is a positive by product.... I wouldn't argue that (I suspect that Ms Green isn't either). Yes, NJ has issues with Liquor licenses (so do many states). Interestingly, today's NY Times talks about a new book wherein an argument is made that professional licensing by states for doctors. lawyers etc are detrimental to the common good. I am thinking of starting a new thread in the wine area because this is obviously a much larger issue beyond PA. I would argue that many states have abused the authority to "regulate" alcohol as put forth in the constitution. That power was not meant to position alcohol sales as a source of revenue--the states have gone way too far in their interpretation. But back to Philly. I believe that what Ms Green is saying is that for the future--the direction for the restaurant business in Philly would be better if the playing field were leveled. That the competition was more fair and open.

No maybe about it--it is coming! I have a cellar full (maybe not as full as i'd like) of French wine. I paid a lot of money for it and the thought that even one bottle of my 82 Margaux or Mouton will be corked when I open it in a few years (or more) is unnerving. I have sent back at least a dozen bottles of wine i ordered in restaurants over the last year or so--at least they replace the wine at no extra cost--the stuff i bought myself over the years--well that's another story! I do love the romance of a cork and I would love for the corked wine thing to be solved without resorting to screw tops but in the end--whatever method evolves it is a shame that so much wine is corked today! By the way--this is really an issue for all wine--French or otherwise--I got some California cabernets and german Rieslings and.... that I paid quite a bit for as well.

This isn't always true. The PLCB is the largest wholesale purchaser of wine and spirits in the world. That muscle works for other items besides the Chairman's Selections. As an example - try pricing a bottle of Dom Perignon right around New Years in Jersey and then in PA. PA is usually cheaper by ten or 15 bucks. Between the Chairman's Selection and the declassification of some Special Order products to listed, the "border bleed" to NJ and DE has been staunched. In fact I know folks from NJ and DE that now come to PA to buy some wines! If you want to talk about how many times over we'd paid to rebuild Johnstown since 1936 (at a usurious 18%!!), go pour yourself a big 'ole glass of wine and we can debate about that for hours... ← Katie I don't doubt that you guys at the PLCB are doing a good job considering the circumstances. I don't doubt that you can cite some favorable pricing situations here and there. However I would love for someone to present a reasoned argument in support of state (or federal) run businesses and how we consumers would be better off if the government (state or local) would be running any business--liquor, how about appliances or clothing or food? The most sweeping example I would offer as a counter is the late Soviet Union. I recall those photos of the "wide" selection of stuff and prices at the old GUM department store. If you folks are trying to make that argument offering the proliferation of BYO's as the over riding benefit then I give up! IMOP the little guy ought to be able to compete with Mr Starr (and others) BYO or alcohol --on the terms he or she chooses. Am i nuts here?

I don't see where this is about BYO's vs No BYO's. You make a case that you could not make money as a pure BYO. So you did what you had to do (as they say on the Sopranos). Then you say BYO's are a mini "restaurant renaissance."--the reasons you site apply to myriad restaurants that do serve alcohol. It is a shame that Philadelphia dining is "defined" by either Steve Starr or BYO's --that's limiting isn't it? As a potential restaurant owner (hypothetically) would you prefer to have the choice of serving alcohol without resorting to illegal activity or having to pay a fortune? As a consumer--is it better to have a broad and diverse menu of restaurant choices that include Mr Starr's operations as well as others AND BYO's.? I think that is all that Ms Green seems to be arguing.

No one would argue that BYOB's should (or shouldn't)exist--I certainly am not nor is Ms Green. Your point applies to restaurants that sell wine etc as well--most are, in fact, owned by couples. families etc. The point here is--the laws in PA have created a situation where restaurant owners small, or large have to resort to the sleazy semi legal activity Mr Moore had to resort to should they want to provide a service that most restaurants just about anywhere can and do provide.

It's neither a secret nor an implication of conspiracy to say that Philadelphia and other similar glossy regional magazines (not just in this area!) are beholden to their advertisers to the extent that content is...affected. ← You may be correct. You may not be. My point is--your point is moot. For the sake of the discussion on the topic at hand the motivation real or assumed (whatever) of the writer is of no consequence.

In other words, it would appear that by and large fruits and vegetables are not prohibitively expensive, even for those with low income, they simply are infrequently chosen. In fact, according to another ERS report, Low-Income Households’ Expenditures on Fruits and Vegetables, in any given week, 19% of low-income homes (as defined above) spend nothing on fruits and vegetables, which is almost twice the rate (10%) for homes with >130% poverty line income. The same report also points out "Interestingly, the largest positive influence on fruit and vegetable expenditures was a college-educated head of household, regardless of income level." ← I lived in "Little Italy" in the Bronx for years. A poor neighborhood statistically. This is a veritable paradise for fine high quality fresh foods all within a few minutes walking distance--there were (and are) many obese people walking around children and adults. Also--many of these poverty statistics based on HH income do not take into account all the money these families receive in the form of government programs and grants (food stamps, earned income credits etc). I do agree that we have too much poverty (under any definition) and that there is a problem with accessibility of good food and services for many--but in the proper perspective these are not critical factors in the topic at hand. There is a link but it is less than causal.

I agree with luckylies. However--for future reference: anytime i am being seated at a restaurant i quickly assess the location of the table i am being offered. in addition to noting the proximity to swinging doors, the kitchen the restrooms a sound system speaker, traffic flow, heating systems/air conditioning units etc i always note if there are tables for large parties set nearby! (believe it or not--this all takes a few seconds) it is IMOP-always better to avoid a bad situation than to have it remedied after the fact! also bad behaviour is never excusable---we do after all note "good drunks" and "bad drunks."

This is all well and good but it is a very small part of the equation. Obesity in children is not just about food it is about growing up believing that one can indulge oneself whenever one wants. It is about children who get very little exercise. Remember--obesity, in most cases, is a result of taking in more calories than one burns off. so it ain't just about food. (not that nutrition isn't a good place to start) mankind has been gathering around food for ages--remember the diner or the car hop? today it's MacDonald's or the food court at the Mall peer pressure looms large in our habits. the more sane lesson is moderation and a balanced lifestyle have a cheeseburger and a shake for lunch--just don't supersize it--then play some ball in the afternoon before dinner and eat a balanced meal for dinner. don't sit in front of a game boy for more than an hour a day --kids need to learn there are consequences to their actions and parents need to teach this! schools can really only reinforce the lessons. take the damn game boy and maintain control of it--monitor how long your kid is using it. this isn't just about money either--we have too many obese kids from wealthy families--discipline costs nothing. schools are already equipped to do a lot more--why is it we need to feed kids all day at school? give them a banana or a fruit salad and a container of skim milk and get them out onto the playground! more community groups and efforts like the Alice Waters venture are needed. they don't take much funding--just a commitment. and they are usually more effective because communities know best what they need and what works.

I wasn't saying that at all. My point was made when it was said that children need to be taught when to stop eating. That is a major part of a solid food and nutritional education. We've had our children in many public and private school systems in the country, and few of them dealt much with the effects of what happens when one overfeeds and underuses the body. Underfeeding it is discussed but overfeeding is pretty much ignored. I was happy to see that the middle school here spent a portion of time in the health classes talking about attitudes toward people ... and included fat or obese people in the mix. ← This is a small part of it. Nutrition and science and health are good taught in schools when kids are older. I can't help but think that we should look at very young kids who are "indulged" by parents--that is kids learn that they can have anything they want anytime they want it--not just food either. Also how many parents use food to "shut kids up."--here have cookie--or a banana or whatever! My parents were very strict about these things and we knew they were in total control over us--hey we were kids, they were parents. Today-I watch many parents "give in" constantly and even engage small children in debate. By the time we were nine or ten--we knew not to even ask for a cookie before dinner! Something is horribly wrong with our generation as parents!

I kinda sympathize, but not much. If this women thought her only choices were moldy grapes or . . . cookies, its no wonder her daughter is overweight, and it sounds like she needs some training on how to shop. Eating healthy doesn't have to be any more expensive than eating unhealthy. Even if the produce is garbage there are plenty of other choices. ← Wow, is that an oversimplified answer! How are you supposed to reach that good, healthful food if you don't have transportation, or you're working two jobs? Just because the woman was in New York City, that doesn't mean the stores in her neighborhood have affordable, healthful food. And have you tried shopping for a family by bus? ← I don't think my answer was oversimplified at all. I think the real oversimplication is pretending that you have to buy cookies for your obese daughter because the grapes are moldy. I lived for many years on minimum wage, and therefore know from my own experience that you can find reasonably affordable healthy food in just about any grocery. ← I think the above exchange illustrates that this problem is fairly complex. It also illustrates how the media often oversimplifies things to make a point. I have lived in New York City for many years and in many different neighborhoods wealthy and poor. I would have to agree with PatrickS here. I have a problem with the NPR story--it just doesn't ring true in terms of presenting an accurate larger picture. The obesity problem is a recent problem-- the disparity in the proliferation of super markets in wealthier neighborhoods vs poor neighborhoods has been around far longer. So, while it is a factor--I would argue it is a small factor. We should stop making excuses for people rich and poor. I would ask simply, do we for a minute believe that , in most cases, any child living under the supervision of parents who were actively aware and concerned about that child's health would be less prone to be obese? Regardless of wealth or where they lived? To me this is the essence of the problem. In the past forty years we have removed a crucial element from children's lives--discipline. At school and in the home. we have ceded authority to others. It is not Ronald MacDonald's fault that he influences kids more than parents do today. Children today spend too much sedentary time. In front of electronic babysitters--TV sets, gameboys, Ipods, cell phones etc and while they are sitting there-they are eating junk food. The way to avoid obesity is basic--burn more calories than you consume! It is hard to be eating a candy bar while playing basketball or soccer. IMOP--the answer is lies in community based programs--yes like the Alice Waters effort. First comes awareness/education then action. Community based programs are more effective because they can be tailored to the specific situation in each locale rich or poor. This is less about money than many people would like to think or have us believe. We need to stop making excuses. Playgrounds and athletic fields need to be open and available for kids--many potential activities are hindered or non existent because in our litigious society we are too busy passing blame or afraid of legal action. Schools can teach nutrition and science and health and provide guidance --they can also make healthy foods available. Peer pressure--is powerful--witness the decrease in smoking--this needs to be harnessed as well. But parents need to start saying no to kids and taking more of an interest in their children's health (by the way they need to take an interest in their own health first). This is not going to be easy--we may have lost a generation of parents but hopefully, we can win back the next generation of parents--today's kids.

First regarding Ms Green. The points she was making deserve to be addressed at face value. Attempting to construct a possible conspiracy to slander her motives is dubious at best and with a lack of any evidence futile. Really, all you would be creating is a moot point for use as a red herring. So really, who cares about her or her magazine's motives--it makes sense to debate the content of what she says. Second, I agree that wine service in many restaurants is poor and that there are many instances of high markups. I also am seeing many diverse and well priced lists as well as good service (glasses etc). The current trend for many places is in the positive direction. Third, my whole argument here is not that BYO's are necessarily bad nor that restaurant's with wine service are necessarily good. My point is restaurateurs in Philadelphia (Pennsylvania) are limited by wine laws. Would you argue that because of economic factors, say, the owners of Marigold should be denied the choice to serve wine in their establishment . Would you argue that only a select handful of well heeled and well connected people should be able to own restaurants that serve wine? Again, I am arguing for choice. If a restaurant owner wants to operate as a BYOB that's fine with me. Finally, a BYOB "culture" is fine as long as it is a result of a free marketplace. I can see much benefit to a BYOB near ,say, Penn or Temple. Also, would not some increased competition possibly create a healthier situation wherein wine lists around town would moderate somewhat? So, if you are making a case for BYOB's that is fine. If you are making a case for a situation where a chef/owner, restaurateur has his or her hands tied by restrictive liquor laws, preventing them from offering their customers a wine or alcoholic beverage service, then I would love to hear your case! ← My case entirely ignores the restaurateur's freedom. I have come to like Pennsylvanias restrictive laws because they have created an environment in which I can drink and eat far above my means or station. The regulatory environment is what it is. The fact is that there is a much longer-standing environment that produce a world in which $3000 premiers crus are out of my financial reach. I would like that changed, too. But in the meantime, far from preventing people from opening restaurants, folks are in fact being permitted to come up with a "starter" restaurant concept - the BYO - which is only viable because better-capitalized places are hindered. If you take away the PLCB barriers, you won't see the democratization of the restaurant experience. In essence, you'll be restoring the conditions that led to overpriced wine lists in the first place. You argue about competitive pressure to bring down wine list prices? For the first time in my twenty years in Philly, we got that! And it's the BYOB explosion that's providing it. ← Gee your "case" ignores everybody's freedom. Even your retail prices are higher than they should be: 30% mark up plus 18% flood tax plus a per case handling charge plus sales tax. little or no competition, union influence it all adds up. So you are paying too much for that bottle of wine you are bringing to the restaurant. No wonder most savvy wine buyers head to New Jersey (and believe me they have their own problems--we all do). (that hypothetical $3000 first growth will be several hundred bucks more in PA). You refer to "starter" restaurants. A restaurant is a restaurant is a..... Again, I think that BYOB's have a place and I certainly see a point in your argument about the overall price of a meal plus wine however, I doubt there are many folks who "like restrictive laws." I also bet that most of those BYOB restaurant owners would opt for a wine service if they had a chance.

Sandy! I was wondering when you'd check in. As always --great information--thanks. I think that the point Ms Green was trying to make (I haven't read her piece) is that more BYOB's is not the optimum direction for the Philadelphia restaurant scene to be moving toward. The fact is, the BYOB situation is a result of the state of affairs not a result of market conditions. While there may be much good in a healthy BYOB scene (I would argue that this is over rated) the fact is, development of restaurants that serve alcohol is being hindered by the regulations. There is simply no reason, I can see, why there should not be a more level playing field for restaurateurs and customers. If consumers want BYOB's then restaurateurs will tap into that desire. If restaurateurs want to offer wine service then they should be able to do so. I say--let the market place decide.

First regarding Ms Green. The points she was making deserve to be addressed at face value. Attempting to construct a possible conspiracy to slander her motives is dubious at best and with a lack of any evidence futile. Really, all you would be creating is a moot point for use as a red herring. So really, who cares about her or her magazine's motives--it makes sense to debate the content of what she says. Second, I agree that wine service in many restaurants is poor and that there are many instances of high markups. I also am seeing many diverse and well priced lists as well as good service (glasses etc). The current trend for many places is in the positive direction. Third, my whole argument here is not that BYO's are necessarily bad nor that restaurant's with wine service are necessarily good. My point is restaurateurs in Philadelphia (Pennsylvania) are limited by wine laws. Would you argue that because of economic factors, say, the owners of Marigold should be denied the choice to serve wine in their establishment . Would you argue that only a select handful of well heeled and well connected people should be able to own restaurants that serve wine? Again, I am arguing for choice. If a restaurant owner wants to operate as a BYOB that's fine with me. Finally, a BYOB "culture" is fine as long as it is a result of a free marketplace. I can see much benefit to a BYOB near ,say, Penn or Temple. Also, would not some increased competition possibly create a healthier situation wherein wine lists around town would moderate somewhat? So, if you are making a case for BYOB's that is fine. If you are making a case for a situation where a chef/owner, restaurateur has his or her hands tied by restrictive liquor laws, preventing them from offering their customers a wine or alcoholic beverage service, then I would love to hear your case!

Mary! My point was that according to the writer of the piece--Squire's bulletin board is "....the most far flung and heavily trafficked site in the ether..." So according to him, these numbers do not apply to other sites. I agree, the Squires site is huge--covering just about everything under the vineyard sun. So it is no wonder that one finds the very best and the very worst in the ethernet here. IMOP the good far outweighs the bad though. You raise a very interesting issue when you differentiate the behavior in sites between the threads dealing with specific wineries and general information, tasting notes and knowledge etc and those dealing with more "controversial issues." Also you note the trade's perception of the site. This is IMOP somewhat ironic because I firmly believe that it is the trade itself that raises issues and incites people in many of these "controversial" areas. (the wine press is plenty guilty here as well). This is certainly fodder for a separate thread sometime. All in all though, I thought the article was pretty good for what it was attempting to accomplish. I do agree with Jim--this is, in the end, about wine--a beverage to enjoy with food--we need to step back once in a while and remember this. ok-- Now on to those misguided barbarians who like their chardonnay oaked!..............................

Despite the general adage that you shouldn't cook with wine that you wouldn't drink, I think these wines are too good to use in cooking. I suggest getting a much cheaper bottle for the cooking, you could get a similar style of wine. The remainder of this could be kept for another night or alternatively try both wines to see how the "bang per buck"(using the US expression) compares. ← Ditto the part about trying to get off a bit cheaper with the cooking wine. Ask the same store for something less than $10 that's well balanced and you'll be fine. I usually tend towards a cheap French Sauvignon Blanc. Something I'm often concerned about when someone who admits not being that into wine asks for advice is the word "dry". By the book that means absent of residual sugar. If that's what you mean, then all the suggestions in the first reply would work. However, if you mean a crisp, high acid wine (which is typically what I find people are asking for when they want a "dry" white), I'd stay away from the white Rhones. I'd bet the Savennieres would be a great match. I actually have the basic Baumard on my list and it's one of my favorites. Not as tightly wound as they can tend to be when they're young and showing glorious peach and citrus flavors. Of course, the acid is definately there. ← That Baumard Savennieres is a really fine wine--I have a bunch in my cellar! For inexpensive crisp dry whites one can rarely go wrong with Muscadet from a good producer. also-- while we are in the Loire--Sancerre fits the bill as well. I can also say that a good Soave can be a wonderful dry white experience for a relative little money --but that is Italy and we could probably start a long thread on dry whites from that country!

First let me say, I live in NYC and have relatives in Philadelphia (I also have spent a lot of time in Philly on business). After reading through this thread I have a few points. One can attack the messenger here (I am not familiar with Aliza Green) or come up with some conspiracy between the publisher and --well, I am not sure whom-- but I find it more productive to deal with the points and issues she raises. A restaurant exists IMOP, to provide a dining experience. That includes food and beverages. (alcoholic or not alcoholic). In most every major city in the world--the majority of restaurants provide both food and drink. Thus, Philadelphia is basically "out of step." In and of itself not necessarily a bad thing. But most diners would prefer to have the restaurant provide the beverages for their meal. BYOB can be a nice novelty but it just should not be a "way of life." I do not (and I would guess that most visitors to Philadelphia would join me) like to have to arrange to buy wine somewhere prior to my entering the restaurant. Why? One--one usually has no idea of what one will be ordering to eat--so what wine to select?--also one needs to purchase a "safe" quantity of wine for he/she and their guests etc-- and most often should one feel like an after dinner drink or an aperitif --well then it is mostly tough luck! One also may only want a glass of white to start and then a bottle etc. Two--my guess is it is somewhat uncomfortable for a visitor not familiar with a city to have to locate a wine shop that is open at night etc. What I am getting at is: BYOB's severely limit a customer's choices and options and present an element of inconvenience. I would also add that I have "discovered" many wonderful wines on restaurant wine lists. I believe that Ms Green is making a point that while BYOB's have some of their own charm and may be a "good deal" for the locals (I would debate this), Philadelphia is holding itself back from becoming a world class dining destination --the BYOB situation is hindering the restaurant scene from becoming what it can be. I also believe that the government (state or local) has no business being "involved" in any consumer business. With all due respect to Katie, "regulate" does not mean "take over and run the business in question." Those claiming that BYOB's are beneficial from a financial standpoint should be taking a stand against a system that prevents/limits competition. In the end--a restaurant should determine for themselves whether or not they want to serve alcohol. Consumers should have benefit of choice. Restaurateurs also have a choice--they can opt for a a service that can provide them with a healthy profit center to offer them more flexibility in the food quality and options and the opportunity to advertise more often as well as pay better wages etc. More restaurateurs could compete with the Starr's of the world and the chains like Capitol grill etc. As for the benefits of BYOB's--even for one who has an extensive cellar--I find them quite limited. Yes a meal can be "cheaper" in some cases. Too many restaurants do mark up wine too much but there is a trend (consumer driven to a degree) toward more reasonable wine pricing and more flexibility (wines by the glass etc). And if I want to bring a special bottle from my own cellar--there are many restaurants with reasonable corkage fees--that way I can bring a great red from home and still have a glass of white from the restaurant list as an aperitif (or with my fish course) or I can bring a red and a white--see it's all about choice and options. Factor in the inconveniences I noted and the BYOB is maybe not such a great deal especially if that is what you are limited to. I do believe that most supporters of the BYOB fall back on the money thing--I also believe that for locals who have their favorite BYOB it can be a nice benefit--they "know" the menu and can tailor their wine selections and then buy the wine at a shop with which they are familiar--a routine that is anything but for a visitor to the city or a resident who just doesn't want the bother. In the end--the PA liquor laws are arcane and limit growth for businesses and choice for consumers. That is really what this is about--BYOB's and corkage fees will have their place. Restaurant wine list prices will moderate with competition.

My sentiments exactly. It also doesn't bother me to tell the waiter/waitress who ordered what, as long as they bring out the stuff we ordered. Some people are really hard to please. ← Yep. As a tipping customer, I want to order once and for the server to get it right without having to ask again -- including when the dishes are brought to the table. I also don't care if the specials are read from a card. When they've been "recited from memory" I've found what arrived on my plate not to be entirely what was recited. But this brings up one huge problem I had with a local restaurant, and I don't mind saying the name. Pane Vino Dolce had a practice (maybe they still do, but I'm never going back to confirm) of not printing a wine list. When I asked about wine, the server replied, "Oh, we talk to you about the wine." Apparently each server has the list memorized. Okaaaaayyyyy. So they describe a couple of bottles. I have to ask if they have any of this or any of that. I have to ask the price (which now I don't trust). Then I see a table with a bottle not mentioned -- "I didn't know you had that wine." "You didn't ask." "You don't get a tip." ← I also do not really care as long as the person gets the order right. I would ask--what is the point in having waiters memorize orders?--as Daniel notes above--there may be a need for a waiter to remember what was ordered. as for specials--beyond one or two--these should be printed out (or on a blackboard etc) with prices. (too often both the waiter and the customer suffer from the silly practice of memorized specials that often run several hundred words with descriptions etc). RE: Your anecdote about Pane Vino--what a bizarre way to encourage staff and customer to engage over wine selection. Not is the same league but still annoying are places that do not print vintages on their lists. I also abhor it when I carefully peruse a wine list--make a selection and then am told (often after the wait staff has spent several minutes searching for my wine) that they are out. If a restaurant is making an effort to provide good wine service then they ought to make sure wait staff are informed about inventory--perhaps if the wait staff didn't have to memorize specials etc....

Jim Is the Wine Lover's Discussion group to which you refer--Robin Garr's site? If so that is a nice site--I haven't visited in a while but your post is a reminder for me to visit soon. also-- You make a good point re: Parker's site actually, many of these sites. Interestingly, Parker's forum site is an adjunct to his web site though he does participate once in a while the forum site really operates on its own. Robinson's site has a place for discussion and remarks from posters but is tightly controlled by her. These are two approaches (I guess). There are times I like Robinson's approach and times I seem to prefer Parker's (or really Mark's). You are correct that a lot of the discourse can be intimidating--additionally, there is often a lot of posturing with wine which is, I believe, actually encouraged by a lot of the wine press themselves. The good news is the web is rife with all sorts of information and discussion about wine--something for everyone! By the way, I have enjoyed a feature on the Wine Spectator site--a compilation of their weekly features where tasting notes for a specific wine are presented and one has the opportunity to 'guess" the provenance of the wine. Tis can be very educational and a lot of fun.

← Anybody ever visit Winetalk--I believe it is Serge Birbier (sp?) who hosts it. ← Yes I have. The innovative combination of wine and firearms is exciting! Just think of the possibilities if they added deadly weapons to the Robert Parker Forum. ← good response! I wonder what exactly is the firearms thing on wine talk? This is one quirky site.