Local food with local wine, says who?

[Fat Guy]

If "red with meat, white with fish" is the most common (and wrong) piece of conventional wisdom in the wine world, surely the "local food with local wine" pairing advice is the second most common. I can certainly understand why such a model would be comforting, but does it have any basis in fact?

It seems to me the model assumes that the local food and wine of a region somehow evolved together in perfect harmony. But did this really happen anywhere? The "classic" dishes and wine styles of Europe are not, for the most part, centuries old. Most of them are decades old. Except in the case of a dish made with wine, for local food and wine to evolved together in any serious manner would require either that there be some physical reality of the local soil that causes different plants and animals to have common or complementary flavors, or that there be winemakers or cooks changing their approaches in order to make their products better match one another. I'm not sure how likely that seems.

It also seems to me that the conventional wisdom assumes a narrowness of local food and wine that doesn't exist in most serious culinary and wine-producing regions. Even when you divide Europe into the tiniest culinary regions, you can find incredible variety of food and wine styles in that region.

Even if there is some special affinity between local wine and food, it may be mostly just useful travelers advice -- it may not really apply to wine being sold retail outside the region. Because, even if the local jug wine pairs particularly well with the local peasant cuisine, there's no reason to assume that a bottle of wine selling for US$30 per bottle is going to fit the same profile -- or that an haute-cuisine meal selling for 150 Euros will.

I'm basically of the opinion that examples of good wine and good food from anywhere in the world have tremendous potential for harmony -- that it's nearly inevitable that more wine choices and diversity will generate stronger marriages that are not regionally based. Once you've been through one of Daisuke Utagawa's tastings of sushi with red Burgundy, it gets quite a bit harder to take the "local food with local wine" proposition seriously.

[dinwiddie]

I think you hit the nail on the head when you said it is useful traveler's advice. When traveling I find that trying the local "speciality" is often good advice, whether it be the food or the wine. However, I am not welded to doing so all the time. It still makes sense to eat and drink what you like and think go well together.

[markk]

It seems to me the model assumes that the local food and wine of a region somehow evolved together in perfect harmony.

I think that perhaps "evolved together in perfect harmony" may be a romanticized interpretation.

I always start my reasoning with the thought that "people can't eat what they don't have"; this is to say that for most of culinary history, when transportation wasn't as rapid as the spoilage rate, and refrigeration, or cold transportation wasn't an option, people took a long, hard look at the foodstuffs they could pull from the land, or hunt, or catch, within a day's worth of walk from their kitchen, and they learned to make do with it. I'd go so far to say that those who did the cooking even tried to get the most palatable flavor experiences out of those ingredients.

Is it an act of God that the Emilia Romagna region of Italy produces all the ingredients necessary for Lasagne Bolognese? Or are there other local products that somebody 'way back when' had the good sense to omit from this recipe? We may never know.

But it is possible that, having tasted what passes as the local wine (for better or worse, frequently worse), regional cooks may have adapted the dishes an additional degree to ensure that they harmonize with the local wine (however good or bad it is) rather than have the food and wine clash unpleasantly.

And so, is the local Lambrusco the best match for Lasagne Bolognese? I personally don't think so. I think that the rule of "local food with local wine" is a fun starting point at best, a way to begin your dining adventure when you get to a new place.

Some other factors to consdier are what happens when you make somebody else's "local" food half a planet away. If you bought the ingredients locally (to you), you've invalidated any possible influence that "terroir" has on the foodstuffs. To seek out then a wine local to the invention of the dish doesn't make the best sense. You should simply choose a wine whose flavors you find complementary to the dish.

And a last factor, for me anyway, is the profusion of new winemaking in so many parts of the world, which again negates the original premise. Sadly (to me, anyway), most modern winemakers everywhere are producing wines from Chardonnay and Cabernet (or, Lord help us, Merlot), when these wines never existed there historically, and never may have been possible to produce before modern winemaking technology was invented. When traveling, I wouldn't even consider 'pairing' one of these with a traditional food dish from that region. The winemaker may tell you that the new wine was created to go especially with the food, and the wine may represent some advances in drinkability over the traditional wine (perhaps not to me), but I also think it invalidates the rule.

So I take "local food with local wine" as a starting point, from which I begin and expand my culinary exploration of a region. (I also find that I've schlepped to many regions in hopes of sampling the traditional, local cuisine, only to find that the restaurant that's been cooking those recipes for generation after generation has gone out of business, and a Thai restaurant has opened in its place (because the locals, who eat the traditional food at home, of course, want some variety when they dine out) - but that's a whole nother issue.

[Craig Camp]

The main reason I follow the drink local rule is not because the local wines and foods automatically go better together than similar wines from outside the region, but because I want to taste wines that may not be readily available outside the region. When I eat in Alba I am unlikely to order a Vietti or Giacosa simply because I can easily buy those wines at home. I'm looking for small hard to get producers or to find new discoveries by trying producers I'm not familiar with. In the later regard I usually rely on the proprietor and/or sommelier.

I also drink local just because it's fun.

Edited January 4, 2007 by Craig Camp (log)

[hathor]

I'm in agreement with Craig, drinking local wines can lead to some amazing discoveries.

No, I wouldn't drink Lambrusco with E-R's lasagne bolognese, but a Brachetto with those salty, delicious E-R salumi's is an unexpected match made in heaven.

I'm not sure that I agree that many European recipes are not centuries old. Poor transportation has existed for many centuries, so there was no choice but to make do with what you had on hand. Both for food and for wine, so who is to say that the development of the dishes wasn't influenced by the wine that was available to drink?

[Fat Guy]

I think if you went back to 1900 and tasted the food and wine anyplace in Europe where you've been in modern times, you'd find most of it quite different. The question is which has changed more, the wine or the food?

[hathor]

I think if you went back to 1900 and tasted the food and wine anyplace in Europe where you've been in modern times, you'd find most of it quite different. The question is which has changed more, the wine or the food?

←

Now, that is a very good question!

[JohnL]

I think if you went back to 1900 and tasted the food and wine anyplace in Europe where you've been in modern times, you'd find most of it quite different. The question is which has changed more, the wine or the food?

←

Your next book oughtta be on wine!

I couldn't agree more.

Wine styles have changed over the years. The problem with most conventional wisdom about wine is that those dispensing it have a particular era in mind. For eg many wine writers are using paradigm's for Bordeaux and burgundy that are rooted in the wines of the fifties, sixties and seventies. The truth is the styles of these wines is changing (as it always has) with technical advances in both viticulture and viniculture.

As for food and wine pairing, the success depends upon matching a wine of a particular style (flavor profile) with the appropriate food and its style and flavor profile. The old white wine with fish pairing--fine if one is talking about a classically prepared Dover sole for eg-- became moot when many restaurants began to prepare fish that was in a red wine sauce or grilled or blackened or used tuna and salmon and swordfish--dishes that can be paired with red wines.

also

Most wine producing regions of the world make wines from differing grapes and differing styles. The wine world is much less homogenous. I can think of chianti's that are made in a style that is not so perfect for spaghetti as some wines from other countries for eg. I can also think of some super Tuscans that work well and challenge some zinfandels and cabs with their affinity for California grilled cuisine.

I do agree with Craig and Hathor that it is good to try wines that one can't find at home. This really has little or nothing to do with food pairing though.

[Sneakeater]

It's so funny, because I've often thought to myself how misguided it is to follow this maxim in a restaurant in the United States with an international wine list -- but yet I do anyway.

You're absolutely right.

[Fat Guy]

but yet I do anyway.

←

Same here, dude.

[markk]

I think if you went back to 1900 and tasted the food and wine anyplace in Europe where you've been in modern times, you'd find most of it quite different. The question is which has changed more, the wine or the food?

←

Now I have to tell a story!

A few years ago I was invited to spend the afternoon visiting the Hugel winery in Riquewihr, France. The invitation came from Etienne Hugel, who is the 13th generation of the family, and who runs the operation with his brother. The visit included an extensive tasting, and a personally guided tour of the town. (Sorry if this is wandering, but I hoped people might enjoy this, and it does lead to a point, I think.)

During our tour of the town, he explained that "By 1630, the wines of Riquewihr were acclaimed as some of the best in the world, and the resulting commerce had made the town quite wealthy."

Being a smartass, I said that I couldn't imagine that at that time, people could actually taste the difference between fine wine and anything that got them drunk enough not to mind the cold and the middle ages, or the fact that the sauces of the day were probably designed solely to mask the tast of half-rotten meat. He replied "May I remind you, my American friend, that at the time your little country was founded, civilisation had already been flourishing in Europe for centuries?"

Touché! - btw.

It was a very enjoyable, and totally fun-spirited debate, by the way, all in jest.

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

But as I say, these are only guesses. Highly romanticized guesses.

[JohnL]

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

But as I say, these are only guesses. Highly romanticized guesses.

←

[markk]

As for food and wine pairing, the success depends upon matching a wine of a particular style (flavor profile) with the appropriate food and its style and flavor profile. The old white wine with fish pairing--fine if one is talking about a classically prepared Dover sole for eg-- became moot when many restaurants began to prepare fish that was in a red wine sauce or grilled or blackened or used tuna and salmon and swordfish--dishes that can be paired with red wines.

Right on !!

This is one of the reasons I don't take this rule as law.

Another is that I drink whatever wine seems to my own sense of taste to go with what I'm eating. A long time ago I found that drinking a big, slightly oaked, warm-climate California chardonnay (a wine that by itself I would hate, and would simply never drink) is a more pleasing match sometimes with a big manly steak grilled outdoors, than a conventional-wisdom red (which may fill the requirement for "big" only, but whose flavor profile seems to me to clash with wood-grilled and charcoal-grilled meats).

[markk]

I would have reminded him that...

(Oh, no, no, no! My initial comment to him was way, way out of line, and for so many reasons! But we had already established a rapport and common sense of humor, and his reply was exactly what I deserved.

(Notwithstanding that I was a guest at his almost-500-year-old family home, and a guest in his town, I was totally out of line. And the point of his highly intelligent tour was to show me that the town was prospering so many centuries ago (while nearby towns were not) solely because of the commerce in their particular wines from the places that they could ship them to in Europe at that time.

(But as I say, it was all in jest, my comment and his retort. And of course, whatever their wines tasted like in the 17th century, he has clearly established that they were highly desired all over Europe, and therefore presumably much better than what was being made elsewhere.

(OT, and my apology for this.)

[LOS]

The main reason I follow the drink local rule is not because the local wines and foods automatically go better together than similar wines from outside the region, but because I want to taste wines that may not be readily available outside the region.

Well, generally, you don't really have a choice about drinking locally or non-locally. For the most part, in Europe, local wines are the only ones on the list. Paris and Rome are exceptions. But I've been to a good 30 restaurants in the Cote d'Or, and I can't recall a single one other than Lameloise that had wines from outside the region.

Even places like Naples, cities built on trade, offer only local wines (for the most part).

Edited January 4, 2007 by LOS (log)

[Sneakeater]

What's also funny is the contortions people will go though trying to find an indigenous "match" for foreign cuisines from countries that don't have wine cultures. (I use the world "foreign" here because I think this issue applies mainly to eating in restaurants in the United States).

I've been in churrascarias where tablemates went through the exercise of debating whether to order a Portuguese wine (because Brazil used to be a colony of Portugal) or Argentine (because Argentina is on the same continent as Brazil).

I've seen people in Mexican restaurants having no Mexican wines on their list decide to order an Argentine wine because Argentina is a Latin-American country, while foregoing California wines even though California is geographically and historically much closer to Mexico. (Not that I'm saying that California wines should therefore have been ordered.) (They also ignored the fact that, at least as far as my experience goes, wine doesn't go well with Mexican food.)

I mean, this is taking this fallacy a bit far, isn't it? "If the region in question has no wine, try to choose the most analogous region."

Edited January 4, 2007 by Sneakeater (log)

[JohnL]

What's also funny is the contortions people will go though trying to find an indigenous "match" for foreign cuisines from countries that don't have wine cultures.  (I use the world "foreign" here because I think this issue applies mainly to eating in restaurants in the United States).

I've been in churrascarias where tablemates went through the exercise of debating whether to order a Portuguese wine (because Brazil used to be a colony of Portugal) or Argentine (because Argentina is on the same continent as Brazil).

I've seen people in Mexican restaurants having no Mexican wines on their list decide to order an Argentine wine because Argentina is a Latin-American country, while foregoing California wines even though California is geographically and historically much closer to Mexico.  (Not that I'm saying that California wines should therefore have been ordered.)  (They also ignored the fact that, at least as far as my experience goes, wine doesn't go well with Mexican food.)

I mean, this is taking this fallacy a bit far, isn't it?  "If the region in question has no wine, try to choose the most analogous region."

←

There is something to this method.

A major element of wine and food pairing success is the amount and even more importantly, the perceived presence of acidity in the wine.

As a general rule (and we should be careful here) wines from cooler climates tend to be from less ripe grapes and will have more noticeable acidity. Wines from warmer climes tend to be from riper grapes and have less noticeable acidity. I use "noticeable" because a wine could have high measurable acidity but due to other factors the acidity will not be as apparent.

To stand up to bigger flavors one finds in many dishes from warm climates--grilled meats , barbeque, spices etc--a bigger riper, richer, wine generally goes well.

A good comparison would be to try a malbec from France with a malbec from Argentina or a Cabernet franc from the Loire vs a Cab franc from California.

of course there are the myriad exceptions to any wine and food rule.

I happen to love Lambrusco (Italy) with these rich and spicy foods (the best red wine IMOP with Mexican cuisine and barbeque)--perhaps it is the bubbles and the fact it is served slightly chilled (like beer).

[Sneakeater]

I happen to love Lambrusco (Italy) with these rich and spicy foods (the best red wine IMOP with Mexican cuisine and barbeque)--perhaps it is the bubbles and the fact it is served slightly chilled (like beer).

←

Thanks. I'm sure this will continue to be the single most useful thing I'll hear today.

[Sneakeater]

There is something to this method.

A major element of wine and food pairing success is the amount and even more importantly, the perceived presence of acidity in the wine.

←

Note, though, that the people I'm talking about are going for some half-baked "cultural" analogy. You seem to be advocating a sort of climatic analogy (which is a very interesting idea). Believe me, the people I'm talking about would have NO idea.

[docsconz]

(They also ignored the fact that, at least as far as my experience goes, wine doesn't go well with Mexican food.)

←

Go to Topolobampo in Chicago and have them pair wines with Mexican food and you may sing a different tune. In fact many of those wines will be Mexican. I am not saying that they necessarily pair better than other wines, but many do in fact pair well.

[docsconz]

I wonder if this paradigm might hold more water in regions that have long-standing histories of excellence in wine-making? I would think that in those places traditional dishes may have been more likely to develop around the wine and in relation to the wine. To postulate that wines from a region might have developed around a cuisine does not make sense to me.

[KatieLoeb]

I wonder if this paradigm might hold more water in regions that have long-standing histories of excellence in wine-making? I would think that in those places traditional dishes may have been more likely to develop around the wine and in relation to the wine. To postulate that wines from a region might have developed around a cuisine does not make sense to me.

←

Right. I think the "classic" matches like Muscadet and oysters or Sauternes and foie gras or Rioja and Jamon Iberico fit this model moreso than others and that's precisely why they're considered classics!

JohnL: I must seriously try the lambrusco with Mexican food or barbeque pairing. Sounds perfect and not something I ever would have thought of.

[jsmeeker]

What's also funny is the contortions people will go though trying to find an indigenous "match" for foreign cuisines from countries that don't have wine cultures.  (I use the world "foreign" here because I think this issue applies mainly to eating in restaurants in the United States).

I've been in churrascarias where tablemates went through the exercise of debating whether to order a Portuguese wine (because Brazil used to be a colony of Portugal) or Argentine (because Argentina is on the same continent as Brazil).

I've seen people in Mexican restaurants having no Mexican wines on their list decide to order an Argentine wine because Argentina is a Latin-American country, while foregoing California wines even though California is geographically and historically much closer to Mexico.  (Not that I'm saying that California wines should therefore have been ordered.)  (They also ignored the fact that, at least as far as my experience goes, wine doesn't go well with Mexican food.)

I mean, this is taking this fallacy a bit far, isn't it?  "If the region in question has no wine, try to choose the most analogous region."

←

Heh... I did the same thing in a Brazillian Churascaria. In fact, I started a post here in the wine forum before actually going to the reastaurant. I strted off with the "When In Rome" assumption. People suggested a Malbec from Argentina. (It's close to Brazil ) And you know what, it was great. It looks like I'll be going to a Brazillian Churascaria later in the month. And you know what? I think I'll order a Malbec. I mean, if I never tried the "when in Rome" thing, I'd probably miss out on a lot of wines I would not normally have.

The flip side to this is when I went to the Slanted Door. Vietnam doesn't have a big wine histroy. The wine listed was loaded with Rieslings from Germany. It works great. Germany is hardly like China.

[markk]

Heh...  I did the same thing in a Brazillian Churascaria.  In fact, I started a post here in the wine forum before actually going to the reastaurant. I strted off with the "When In Rome" assumption.  People suggested a Malbec from Argentina.  (It's close to Brazil  ) And you know what, it was great.  It looks like I'll be going to a Brazillian Churascaria later in the month. And you know what? I think I'll order a Malbec.    I mean, if I never tried the "when in Rome" thing, I'd probably miss out on a lot of wines I would not normally have.

←

I was in on that thread. But I don't think that people suggested the Argentinian Malbec because Argentina is close to Brazil. I think they suggested a Malbec because it's a delicious accompaniment to grilled and roasted meats, and an Argentinian one because not only are theirs delicious (and Argentina is one of the places getting great results from that grape), they are reasonably priced as well.

It was Texas de Brazil in Miami that you're referring to. I was there last week, and I also ate at an Argentinian Steakhouse (Graziano's) and had a sublime rib steak grilled over wood, and a supremely delicious Argentinian Malbec to go with it.

Now, it very well may be that the Argentinians started planting the Malbec grape looking for something to go with their delicious beef, for sure.

Edited January 5, 2007 by markk (log)

[hathor]

I wonder if this paradigm might hold more water in regions that have long-standing histories of excellence in wine-making? I would think that in those places traditional dishes may have been more likely to develop around the wine and in relation to the wine. To postulate that wines from a region might have developed around a cuisine does not make sense to me.

←

Normally, I'm totally in step with you. But. Wine and cuisine could not have developed independently: the little old wine maker was married to the little old wife. The wine and the cusine had to develop in lockstep. They (the winemaker and the wife) had no other resources, so the chicken followed the egg or vice versa. I'm working from the bottom up assumption...peasant food begat haute. The local dish and the local wine sprang up, grew up, matured together. Maybe someone from Venice came through with a bit of cinnamon, but day after day, they had the same grapes, the same pigs, and the same eggs.

As far as food in 1900: it was probably much more intense in flavor...bad and good. The flavors could not have been as constant or dependable...one chicken may not have tasted the same as the next; depending on diet, butchering or other constraints. By 1900 food was being tampered with in not very nice ways: kerosene to cut milk, for instance. I suspect that 1900 in Europe was a far different culinary experience than it was in NY. Europe had the weight of tradition, and NY had the YAHOO! feeling of being the new world. But, I'm probably romanticizing, I'm really not that old. And where this puts wine/food pairing is anybody's luxurious guess. Accent on luxury.