Thursday’s ad is for Carling Black Label, from 1953. It’s from their “People Like It” series, and features a big hunk of cheese to pair with your beer. Even back then they knew that cheese and beer is a divine pairing, though I have to wonder if that’s the right beer for that cheese. Everything old is new again.
Here’s a fun little “decision chart” from Faultline helping you figure out which type of Belgian beer to choose, and what to eat with your beer. The info on the chart was put together by Ryan Sweeny from Little Bear, a Belgian beer cafe in Los Angeles. Apart from the chart butchering the spelling of Tripel, it’s a fun, simple, potentially useful chart for the uninitiated looking to enjoy some belgian beer.
To see the chart full size, click on this link.
This should be a great event. Sean Paxton, the Homebrew Chef, has teamed up with Point Reyes Cheese for an amazing day of cheese and beer. On Saturday, December 8th from 10:30 am to 3:00 pm, Sean will be at the Point Reyes Farmstead Cheese Company, makers of the wonderful Point Reyes Blue, among others. The day will include “an educational walking farm tour, focused cheese tasting and a demonstration class led by Home Brew Chef, Sean Paxton. This special day will include a craft-beer-inspired and paired 4-course lunch. This educational experience is definitely for beer and food lovers!” It would also make a great early Christmas present, too. Wouldn’t you rather be drinking beer, eating cheese and taking in the beauty of nature than fighting the Christmas shopping crowds?
The luncheon will include beer from Anderson Valley, Bear Republic, Lagunitas and Russian River. Here’s the full menu:
First Course
Hog Island oysters topped with an iced Anderson Valley Barney Flats Oatmeal Stout mignonette, crumbled Original Blue
Anderson Valley Barney Flats Oatmeal StoutSecond Course
A homage to pot pie: local root vegetables and Willie Bird turkey breasts braised in Russian River Temptation with a thyme New Blue barley crust
Russian River TemptationThird Course
Local lamb cheeks braised in Lagunitas Brewing Co. Cappuccino Stout on a bed of mashed potatoes infused with Toma, sautéed winter greens and garnished with a Marin County gremolata
Lagunitas Brewing Brown Shugga ‘10Fourth Course
Bear Republic Hop Rod Rye beer caramel mixed into a mascarpone mousse, layered with a fall spiced Red Rocket Ale cake, garnished with a pumpkin seed Heritage Ale brittle
Bear Republic Heritage Ale
Tickets can be purchased online and are $120 per person. That includes everything; a Walking Farm Tour, Focused Cheese Tasting, and the Four Course Cooking Demonstration with Lunch & Craft Beer Pairings by Sean Paxton over four and a half hours.
I try to stay away from politics for the most part, because beer lovers come from all walks of life and are from all sides of the political spectrum, too. Beer brings people together, and I find it’s usually best to keep it that way. Regular readers know that I do break that rule from time to time, more often than not when it has something to with beer. So this one’s more of a stretch, except that as I do feel that “beer is agriculture,” and because we all eat food, usually paired with our beer, it’s still within the scope of the Bulletin. If you don’t agree, feel free to just skip this particular rant. Actual beer news will follow.
Here in sunny California, there are a number of contentious propositions on the November election ballot this year, but none, it seems to me, is more combative than Prop. 37, which is about the labeling of GMOs. Although it appears to be an imperfect proposition — aren’t most of them? — the very fact that big agribusinesses and other large mega-corporations are pouring money into the state to defeat it makes me, no compels me, to be supportive of it. I am swayed by the fact that over sixty other nations require GMO labeling. I can see no harm in knowing what’s in my food. I am not persuaded that it will be as costly as the opposition claims. They said the same thing about nutritional labels on food packages, but they’re all still in business today, having endured that “hardship.” I am not persuaded by the number of newspapers against it, because most of the food producers lining up to defeat it also advertise in newspapers. Coincidence? Don’t be so naive. Of course, that could come down to simply lying. I saw yesterday that although television ads against the proposition list the San Francisco Examiner as one of the papers against 37, in fact they have endorsed it.
Even if it passes, it isn’t likely to change peoples’ eating habits any more than warning labels on cigarette cartons stopped smoking. And that’s another argument I can’t abide. Even if true — which it probably is — I tend to err on the side of having more information rather than less, and tend to be suspicious of businesses that actively try to suppress information. Corporations telling me “trust us” or “don’t worry, it’s safe, because we say so” do not exactly inspire the same confidence that transparency does. Especially when the history of corporate malfeasance is so rich with examples of companies placing profits way, way ahead of people.
I suspect it won’t pass. Money does really make a difference in how these propositions fare, and I think most people’s default position is to vote “no” on any of them that are confusing, unclear or contentious. Better to leave things the way they are than change things in an uncertain way. I have certainly felt that way on more than a few occasions. And I suspect that the doubt placed in many voter’s minds by the $34 million barrage of “No on 37” ads will lead many to do just that. I have, however, questioned much of what I’ve seen in the attack ads trying to defeat the proposition, even as for some of it I haven’t known quite what to think. Earlier today, the Yes on 37 campaign posted this video, answering atleast some of those concerns:
I confess my mind’s not made up about GMOs across the board. I certainly don’t think they’re all bad, and there have certainly been instances throughout history where tinkering with nature has been a good thing for us humans. I also know this issue came up a few years ago when Greenpeace attacked ABI for using rice in their beer that may have contained GMOs. While I don’t often side with them, I did think that Greenpeace was out of line there. I should also note that some of the No on 37 ads mention that beer is exempt under the proposition, but that has more to do with the fact that the proposition applied the same standard currently used for labeling all food products, and under current regulations, beer is exempt. So it appears the reason is not conspiratorial.
But can you decide how to vote based on who’s supporting which side of an issue? Maybe. I certainly think there’s a story in who’s on which side. The “Yes on 37 supporters” is a long list that includes (according to the website) 3,643 endorsements that is made up of consumer and public health organizations, food groups (safety, manufacturers, retail), dietary advocacy groups, farmers, farmers markets, co-ops, farming associations, individual farms, medical groups and associations, doctors, political parties, local governments, elected officials, political organizations, natural health businesses, progressive and social justice groups, GMO activists (as you’d expect), labor unions, environmental groups, academics, food writers, chefs and quite a few more.
On the other side of the aisle, No on 37 Donors number around 68 companies, all of which appear to be food or chemical companies. Of the nearly $35 million donated to defeat Prop 37, Monsanto is apparently the leader, with around $7.1 million given to kill it, with Dupont in second place. But the whole lists reads like a who’s who list of ginormous corporations, and includes such well-known players as Bumble Bee Foods, the Campbell Soup Company, Cargill, Clorox Company, Coca-Cola, ConAgra Foods, Dole, Dow, General Mills, Heinz, Hershey, Hormel Foods Corporation, Kraft Food Group, Nestle, Ocean Spray Cranberries, PepsiCo, Sara Lee, Smithfield Foods, the Snack Food Association, Sunny Delight, J.M. Smucker and Unilever. At the bottom of the “No on 37” website, they claim that their efforts are “sponsored by Farmers, Food Producers, and Grocers. Major funding by Monsanto Company, E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., Grocery Manufacturers Association” and others. But the only “farmers” there are the giant agribusiness type, while the Yes supporters include what appear to be actual farmers, or, at a minimum, dozens of places with farm-like names.
Is that dispositive? Perhaps not all by itself, but it does, I believe, lead to additional questions about why the majority of the opposition to labeling GMO foods almost entirely have something to do with their creation, manufacture or use. Is their self-interest on the other side? Undoubtedly there is, but for many, if not most, of the supporters, it appears more to be part and parcel with their core beliefs already, not manufactured arguments against transparency.
Whether true or not, it certainly feels somewhat Goliath vs. David-like. I really wish people outside California would leave us alone to vote how we will, instead of pouring money into the state to influence our politics. That always feels intrusive to me, like when the Mormons in Utah spent their millions to defeat the proposition for gay marriage a few years ago. I’ve never understood why foreign nations and their citizens are not allowed to attempt to influence our elections, but people (whether corporate “people” or the regular individual kind) from any state can spend money to influence politics in other states where they don’t live. What’s the difference? I’m certain Monsanto, for example, does business in our state, but they’re a Missouri corporation. Likewise, Dupont is a Delaware corporation. They should stay the fuck out of our politics. That, or move their companies here and start paying state taxes like the rest of us do.
A couple of days ago, someone sent me an article by Frances Moore Lappé and Anna Lappé in the Huffington Post, entitled Seven Things to Tell Your Friends About GMOs. And while I’m no fan of HuffPo — Hey Arianna, how about paying your writers instead of pocketing the millions you make for yourself, you hypocrite — the piece is interesting and brings up a number of good points, at least for a newbie to the issue like myself. Which is, I suspect, the situation most California voters find themselves. We’ve all heard a lot about GMOs, but would be hard-pressed to call ourselves experts on the subject. Since they’re so new, I doubt many people could confidently claim to be experts, but lots of people have their cherished opinions. If you’re a California voter, I’d certainly recommend the Lappé’s 7 Things. At the bottom of the piece, there’s also a link to a video by Food MythBusters: the Real Story About What We Eat which, while not exactly on point for GMOs, is nonetheless interesting and talks more generally about the misinformation spread by the big agribusinesses that are currently spearheading efforts to quash Prop 37.
So hopefully everyone in California will get out and vote this election and will think carefully about this proposition, as well. The rest of the country, and especially the food industry, is closely watching which way this one goes. I personally would love to see it pass, but as I said, I suspect it won’t, and if that’s the case hopefully the architects of it will listen to both the opposition and the honest concerns that many people had with its implementation and fix those aspects of it before re-introducing it again. One final word about it, from a molecular biologist in the San Jose Mercury News, Belinda Martineau: A scientist says yes on Prop 37 to label genetically engineered food, who gives at least one scientist’s perspective on it. For additional reading, see the Ballotpedia entry, discussing both sides of Prop 37 and there’s also the California Voter Guide, which also strives to present both sides fairly.
UPDATE: A good friend of mine tells me that the Lappés’ piece contains numerous mis-statements, so perhaps it should be taken with a grain of salt after all. But here’s another worthy read. Vandana Shiva: Why Monsanto Is Fighting Tooth and Nail Against California’s Prop 37. And SF Weekly’s Anna Roth looked into both sides of the debate over Prop 37 in Three Things I Learned When I Forced Myself to Learn About Proposition 37.
Today at noon the mayor of Munich tapped the ceremonial keg to kick off Oktoberfest. The My Destination travel blog has created an interesting infographic (I confess I love these type of things) with the statistics of just how much food and drink was consumed at last year’s folk festival.
Our 65th Session is hosted by British blogger Nate Southwood who multi-blogs at his Booze, Beats & Bites. The topic he’s chosen is “So Lonely,” meaning going to the pub to have a beer alone. Here’s how he describes his Session topic:
Speaking of fun, going to the pub with a bunch of mates is great… you have a few beers and a laugh, generally a fun time and all.
I love going to the pub with mates but sometimes I go to a pub alone and I enjoy it.
Other people say I’m weird for this as there seems to be a stigma attached to being in the pub alone — alcoholism.
There are many reasons why I go to the pub alone.
- Sometimes I just want to spend some quality time alone that isn’t at home.
- Sometimes I’m walking home and fancy a pit-stop.
- Sometimes my mates are all busy with their girlfriends/wives/children and I want a pint.
- Sometimes I just fancy going to the pub and observing the bizarre people around me.
- Sometimes I want to sit down and write blogs on my tableaux while having a pint.
- Sometimes I just want to play angry birds while having a pint.
- Sometimes I just want to prop myself at the bar and discuss beer with the bartender.
- Sometimes I want to explore pubs that I’ve never been to before but my mates don’t want to.
- Sometimes I’m just a miserable bastard and don’t want to socialise but want a nice pint.
The way I see it is that I love beer and pubs and I don’t see why I should only go to the pub when I’m with other people.
Am I weird for going to the pub alone?
How do you feel about going to the pub alone? Do you feel it’s necessary to be around friends to spend time in a pub?
So to get in the right spirit, I’m putting on the Police’s song So Lonely and pouring myself a beer as I sit in the house all my myself, alone, as it were. It seems to me the only way to write about drinking alone is by actually doing just that. The profession of writing is itself a rather lonely one, hours upon hours spent in relative solitude tapping on keys and watching letters, words, sentences, paragraphs and, hopefully, fully formed thoughts and ideas spool out onto a computer screen in the vain hope that someone else will read them, like them (or at least be moved to think about them), and ultimately pay you for them.
Being a writer about beer is essentially a double whammy of loneliness, drinking and writing alone. As I wrote two sessions ago, “[m]y job often requires me to drink beer alone, which is far from my favorite thing to do. It’s perhaps the worst way to have a beer, even though it’s sometimes necessary. Alone, beer is stripped of all its intangibles, its raison d’etre. You can evaluate the constituent parts, its construction, even how they come together as a finished beer. In other words, on a technical basis. And that’s how you should begin, but there must be a discussion waiting at the end of that process.” So now I’m going to contradict myself and say that while that remains true some, or even most, of the time, there are indeed times when drinking alone isn’t as terrible as I made it out to be and that we can, and should, be allowed to enjoy a drink in silence and solitude.
For myself, I can’t tell you how many times I’ve ducked into a pub for a quick lunch and a beer, usually with a book in hand. It’s a satisfying way to eat a meal, drink a beer and feed your head, too. It usually reminds me of the great Bill Hicks’ bit about reading alone, “looks like we got ourselves a reader:”
But for reasons passing understanding, drinking alone is often equated with having a drinking problem or being an alcoholic. Even the “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition” does not mention solitary imbibing as a symptom of alcohol dependence. These are outlined at About.com’s Alcoholism page and you won’t find drinking alone among the symptoms. But when you click on their online quiz of 20 Questions known as the Alcohol Abuse Screening Quiz to discover if You Have an Alcohol Problem, question sixteen is “Do you drink alone?” But even most honest counseling centers, AA, what have you will admit that it’s not the act of drinking alone that signals, in and of itself, problem drinking, but the reasons for drinking alone, the underlying cause. Yet the notion of drinking alone automatically meaning an alcoholic persists. It’s downright pervasive in our society. Do a Google Image search for “drinking alone” or “at the bar alone” and look at what comes up. The great majority of images are depressing looking people, heads down, slumped over, with very few, if any, smiling people or positive associations shown.
Alone in the Bar by Argentine artist Gabriel Hernan Ramirez
As is typical, the neo-prohibitionist, anti-alcohol version of reality gets more play and has wormed its way into the public consciousness through a concerted effort of their propaganda over many decades. It doesn’t really matter that there are numerous legitimate, healthy reasons one might have a drink alone that isn’t a sign of anything untoward or problematic, but that would make the narrative more difficult to carry. It’s far easier to keep it simple and not have to explain nuance or an understanding of how, and why, people drink.
For example, the Abuse & Addiction Help Information website — who, it must be remembered makes their living by having people pay them to seek treatment for addiction — lists their Ten Warning Signs Of Alcoholism. There is is at number 2:
2. Do you drink alone? Social drinking is one thing, but we believe that drinking alone is one of the sure fire ten warning signs of alcoholism or growing alcohol dependency. Drinking alone indicates a need for alcohol.
Hmm, “drinking alone indicates a need for alcohol.” Really? It does in all cases? Of course, not. It could just as easily be explained by being thirsty, for chrissakes. And notice that they don’t say it absolutely is a sign of alcohol dependencey, but instead say “we believe that drinking alone is one of the sure fire ten warning signs of alcoholism or growing alcohol dependency.” Well, sure, if it’s in your best interests to have as many people pay for your services, then it’s no surprise that you’d believe whatever creates the impression of more alcoholics because that means more customers, too.
Even the Medline Plus online medical encyclopedia, a “service of the U.S. National Library of Medicine and National Institutes of Health,” on their Alcoholism and alcohol abuse page, includes drinking alone under their list of symptoms, as does the celebrated Mayo Clinic.
But in every case, the context is not explored. It’s presented as black and white: if you drink alone, you’re a problem drinker or alcoholic. Even if tempered by “might be,” the impression that these authoritative sources give is that drinking alone is to be feared as the beginnings of a downward slide into degradation and life-crippling alcoholism. To know that’s true, just ask any ten random people. Most of them will tell you that they believe that to be the case. And that’s because certain people and groups have been saying so for so long, with virtually no dissenting opinions or contrary evidence or even common sense or reason being allowed into the debate. We say so, end of story, case closed. Like most of the propaganda coming from, or having been twisted and influenced by, anti-alcohol concerns, it’s both infuriating and grossly untrue. This is especially so because it makes people feel guilty and shameful for doing something as natural as drinking a beverage they like and want to have just because they’re alone. It’s why this could even be a topic, because it’s so taken for granted by so many people. If you’re alone and want a beer, goddammit, order a beer.
Happily, not everyone is so myopic and certain you’re life will fall into ruin with a solitary drink. Modern Drunkard published The Zen of Drinking Alone, which includes this bon mot:
Drinking alone, on the other hand, is a much more pure and forthright form of imbibing, and I say that because it focuses entirely on the simple act of putting alcohol into your bloodstream. It tosses aside all the half-hearted pretensions about merely using alcohol as a social tool. It gets down to what drinking is all about: getting loaded, and by doing that, getting down to the inner you. The inner joy, the inner madness, the subconscious you, the real you.
And a few years ago, Esquire magazine published suggestions on How to Drink Alone, which included some I agree with — ignore the television, look up often and read, don’t pretend to read — but also some I do not — don’t eat or that it’s never about being happy. Still, I love that they not only have no problem with drinking alone, but positively celebrate it. I think that’s how it should be. No one should tell another person or society as a whole that something that may be a problem for a minority of people should be avoided by everybody on the off chance that they can’t handle it. It would be like making red meat illegal because some people insist on eating too much of it and develop a heart condition. It sounds absurd when applied to almost everything else, but no ones questions it when it’s alcohol because neo-prohibitionists have dones such a good job of painting alcohol with the broad brush of danger. At the same time, they both ignore and insist that there is nothing positive about drinking alcohol, despite common sense and the obvious error of that position.
That people enjoy alcohol for a myriad of reasons and that most can continue to enjoy it as responsible adults should, it seems to me, be so obvious that it shouldn’t even have to be mentioned. But as long as there are people who fear it and believe it is the ruin of everything good in the world, I guess we have to keep reminding them that their position is not true for everyone; it’s not even true for most people. Most of us can have a drink alone for the best of reasons and not fall into a ruinous life. That we should wonder if that’s okay is perhaps the unkindest cut of all; proof positive that the anti-alcohol wingnuts are winning the war. They’ve obviously been allowed to frame the argument in their terms, because the question really should be why should we even have to ask if we can drink alone. If we can, we can. Now go away, I have a beer to finish and I want to be alone.
Who knew that Betty Crocker even knew about beer? Today, I saw that they posted 35 Beer Terms Every Beer Lover Needs To Know, and it’s not a bad list. Of course, it helps that it was compiled by a Cicerone — Michael Agnew. But beyond that, there’s a whole section on Betty Crocker’s website dedicated to beer entitled Betty’s BrewHouse. Way to stay hip and with it, Betty. I guess she’s not just about cakes and brownies anymore.
Yesterday, one of my favorite beer events of the year took place. The annual Toronado Belgian Beer Dinner with food by Sean Paxton, the Homebrew Chef, ran to twelve courses and was paired with 21 different Belgian and Belgian-inspired beers. Including the beers that were used as ingredients in each dish, a total of 48 different beers were involved in the meal. Here’s my photo record of the event.
The Toronado ready for its annual beer dinner.
With preparations for the dinner going on in the back room.
While diners waited outside for the doors to open and the feast to begin.
Back inside, the first beer, Dupont Avril, was poured and ready for the thirsty, incoming throngs of people.
Then Sean Paxton introduced the meal and talked about the first course, the idea behind it, what ingredients he used and the beer or beers he paired it with. This was repeated for each of the twelve courses.
First Course: Cream of Caramelized Belgian Endive Soup. White Belgian endive coated in Belgian soft sugar and caramelized, Foret Saison, yukon gold potatoes, splash of organic cream. Paired with St. Louis Gueuze.
One of my favorite stories of the dinner was that brewer extraordinaire Jeff Bagby and his fiance Dande were in town for a friend’s wedding, read about the dinner here on the Bulletin, and decided they could make part of the meal before catching their flight back to San Diego. Toronado owner Dave Keene wore this short in honor of Jeff and Dande coming, and in the end they cancelled their flight so they could stay for the entire feast and left the next morning.
Second Course: Charcuturie Platter. Liberty duck rillettes infused with Itchegem’s Flemish Red, house-made headcheese cooked in Russian River Temptation Batch 3, duck heart rabbit liver Affligem Noel pâté, herbs de Provence cornichons, house-made Nieuw Ligt Grand Cru ‘03 & date mustard, dried fruit Gouden Carolus Noël compote, red beet juice & Oud Beersel Geuze Vielle pickled cauliflower, served with local ‘The Bejkr’ breads. Paired with Boon Oude Geuze Mariage Parfait 2003 and Rochefort 6 2007.
The Oud Beersel Geuze Vielle pickled cauliflower.
Third Course: Water Buffalo Butter Poached Sea Scallop. Smoked in Mort Subite lambic barrel staves, De Dolle Oerbier duck demi glaze, turnip purée infused with Gouden Carolus Carolus D’Or 2006, sprinkled with black truffle salt. Paired with: De Dolle Stille Nacht Special Reserva 2005.
Arne Johnson from Marin Brewing, Rodger Davis, currently working on his own new brewery — Faction Brewing, Jeff Kimpe, from Triple Rock, and Betsey Hensley, friend of the Bulletin and former Toronado employee.
Fourth Course: Waterzooi. Monkfish, crawfish and lobster meat mixed with purple potatoes, baby fennel, leeks, lobster mushrooms, shallots and simmered in a Westmalle Tripel shellfish stock with a sweet cream. Paired with Delirium Tremens and Tripel Karmeliet.
Fifth Course: Lapin a lá Gueuze. Local rabbit braised in Drie Fonteinen Oude Geuze with shallots, thyme, bay leaves, served with a candied kumquat baby carrots, caramelized pearl onion gueuze sauce.
The fifth course was paired with Russian River Temptation Batch 4 3L and Dupont Avec les Bons Voeux 2009.
Sixth Course: Duck Braised in Sour Cherry Sauce. Sonoma county duck legs cooked sous vide with a dried and sour cherries Boon Kriek sauce on a bed of beluga lentils simmered in Goudenband. Paired with Cantillon Oude Kriek 2008 and Rodenbach Vintage 2008 .
At the halfway point. Jeff Bagby, Dave Keene, Bruce Paton and Sean Paxton.
Seventh Course: Carbonnade of Lamb Cheek. Westmalle Dubbel stewed lamb cheeks with leeks, caramelized onions, prunes, dried figs, thyme, bay leaves and a Mort Subite Kriek red currant sauce. Paired with De Dolle Oerbier Special Reserva 2002 and Maredsous Brune.
Sean keeping things moving in the back room.
Eighth Course: PB & Foie Gras. Cantillon Saint Lamvinus foie gras mousse, on a hazelnut fig cracker, tart cherry gastrique, garnished with vanilla bean sea salt. Paired with Malheur Brut Michael Jackson Brut 2006.
Pouring Duvel.
Ninth Course: Beyond Greens. Curry-scented cauliflower, quinoa cooked in Fantôme La Dalmatienne, mâche greens, golden raisins rehydrated in Moinette Blonde and toasted hemp seeds and toasted almonds with a Drie Fonteinen Doesjel Lambic Paneer cheese tossed in a goat yoghurt Drie Fonteinen Oude Geuze dressing. Paired with Duvel.
Tenth Course: Assorted Belgian Cheeses, including Grevenbroecker, Meikaas Boerenkaas, Kriek Washed Fromage, Charmoix, Wavreumont, and Le Saint-Servais
With Saucerful of Secrets wort honey, The Bejkr Biologlque bread, Oude Gueuze Tilquin injected dried apricots, Cantillon Rosé De Gambrinus beer jelly and assorted crackers and breads. Paired with Bockor Cuvee Des Jacobins Rouge and Orval.
Eleventh Course: Strawberries & Cream. Organic strawberries and lemon thyme macerated in Hanssens Oudbeitje Lambic 2006 with a homemade Advocaat, Lindemans Gueuze Cuvée René 2006 sabayon, almond crumble. Paired with Russian River Damnation 23 Batch 46.
Twelfth Course: Liège Style Waffle. Speculoos flavored yeast waffle made with Chimay Red, Belgian pearl sugar, drizzled with a St. Bernardus Special Edition Abt 12. quad chocolate sauce.
The last course was paired with De Struise Black Albert 2009, De Struise Pannepot 2007 and Rochefort Trappistes 10.
My dinner companions at the end of the feast. Dave Suurballe and Pete Elzer from Wine Warehouse.
So I’m walking through the grocery store the other day; and I’m hungry, which is never a good combination. I’m perusing the frozen food section, when something catches my eye. It’s Cheddar Bites, or more specifically “Crispy Beer Battered Aged White Cheddar” by Alexia. Now it’s not that they’re beer-battered — which I’m pleased about — but it’s nothing new. That’s not what caught my attention. On the box is a small tri-colored square, at an angle, to the right of the main label, declaring that these cheddar bites aren’t made with just any old beer, but are “Craft Beer Battered!” Woo Hoo! We’ve come a long way, baby, when that becomes a selling point. It made me laugh a bit, and naturally there’s no information about what craft beer was used for the batter. The company’s in Washington, so that’s a clue, I suppose.
Still, I find it interesting that a food company thought it was enough of a selling point to include it as a separate element on the packaging. That certainly suggests that they believed it would appeal to a certain type of consumer, and specifically one for whom the fact that the beer was “craft beer” had some meaning. That’s an interesting development. And it worked, I suppose, since I bought them. The family verdict was mixed. My wife thought they were just “meh,” whereas I liked them just fine; though in fairness my tastes run toward anything that’s not too good for me and can be considered comfort food.
Has anyone else seen similar labeling on packaged foods? It’s the first time I’ve noticed it, but I’m curious if this is happening enough to be considered the beginning of a trend.
I should confess right up front that I’ve never been a big fan of Martha Stewart. I’m not really sure why, but her advice and how she presents it has always bugged me for some reason. I guess for me, it always comes across as trying to be for everyone, the common people, but can really only be followed by people with a lot of free time and money. Even my wife disagrees with me on this one, so I have to conclude it’s just a weird personal prejudice I have about her.
So Stewart was on the Today show this morning in a segment entitled “Bottoms Up! Martha throws a beer party.” And yes, I know it’s great whenever craft beer gets attention from the mainstream media, but the curmudgeon in me just can’t let it pass uncritically. Here’s how it went down.
Matt Lauer begins the segment by saying that “forget the college keg, beer has grown up. Now it’s all about pairing some cold brew with great snacks.” So those are the two choices of what beer can be, “college keg” or “grown-up?” I know it was just an off-hand remark, but sheesh. And being “grown-up” means pairing it with snacks? It just seems like they could do so much better if they really cared about it.
So in comes Martha Stewart, beer savvy housekeeping diva, and declares “a beer tasting party is like the new thing.” That statement reminds me of the actor or musician who finally has a big hit after toiling in his or her craft for thirty years and is suddenly hailed as an overnight success. For millions of people, beer tasting has been a pretty big deal for quite some time now, but now that it’s reached Martha’s notice it’s “the new thing.”
But before she goes too crazy, Lauer reigns her in, suggesting that she “keep it casual, it doesn’t have to be fancy.” Naturally, you should keep it casual, because it would be absurd to suggest otherwise. Stewart, who usually seems at ease in front of the camera, looked unsure of herself talking about the beer, and even appeared to skirt any questions about it.
After showing off the chalkboard oilcloth table cloth where people can use chalk so they “can write their impressions of the beer” right on the table, Lauer asks her what beers are on the table, and guesses, “light, dark and amber.” Stewart replies “yes,” explaining that it’s because “each have a very specific kind of quality.”
When they moved over to the food, she perked up and appeared much more comfortable and at ease. Her demeanor seemed far more confident, since she was now in her element. But the weird thing is, the food seemed much more fancy, with onion jam made with balsamic vinegar and maple syrup and cocktail meatballs with three kinds of meat. That’s not “keeping it casual” to me. So in keeping things “casual” because it’s beer, the food doesn’t stay casual? That seems weird to me. Beer can’t be fancy, but food almost has to be.
In the four and a half minute piece, no more than a minute was about the beer, and in the end, they never got any more specific about the beers than “light, dark and amber,” and that much only because Matt Lauer asked. No mention of what styles. No mention of what brands, though Greg Koch tweeted that he’d been told the dark beer was Stone Smoked Porter. Maybe they didn’t need to talk about specific brands, but to not even discuss what kinds of beers they were tasting seemed odd, especially since the whole point was supposedly to tell people how to throw “a beer party.” They never adressed how or why any of the food paired with the beer, apart from an offhand remark Martha made that the parsnip chips paired with the dark beer’s “smokey flavors.” In the end, it was really all about the food, and really very little, if anything, was communicated about the beer. Which, if you think about it, is pretty pathetic if, as they’re claiming, “a beer tasting party is like the new thing.” Like, for sure. And I guess it must be; after all I saw Martha Stewart say so on national TV.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
.jpg){kind=link}