Dies irae, dies illa

If I was dumbfounded when I was invited to join the Facebook group "Petition to Keep Starbucks in Marshfield, WI," I shouldn't have been. There is a whole movement at work called Save Our Starbucks that seeks to prevent impending store closings. I've never been one to cheer as people lose their jobs and as businesses close their doors for the last time, but I've had mixed feelings about the Starbucks in my hometown since it opened several years ago.

For those who haven't heard, Starbucks announced on July 1 that they would close 600 of their "underperforming" stores. Six locations in Wisconsin are on the list, including the one in Marshfield (PDF, 84 kb).

At the time of this posting, the Facebook group has 373 members who presumably support the group's mission. It was founded by Stephanie Weyerts. In particular, they encourage people to call a Starbucks customer service number to ask the company to reconsider closing store 9808. There is also, apparently, a petition that is available to be signed at the store itself.

One could point out fairly mundane flaws with this group's raison d'etre. For example, in the "Description" field for the group, they say:

So my Mom called the main office at 1-800-235-2883... (the store # is 9808)

And what they told her is amazingly great news if you are addicted to Starbucks like me lol. If enough people call and complain about it closing they will consider keeping it OPEN!!!

Starbucks, as a company that's interested in making more money than less money, undoubtedly based its store closures on financial data and is therefore highly unlikely to change its mind because of customer complaints. Since the corporate decision was based on data rather than spite, the proper response should be to frequent it more often and/or spend more money per visit. Mere complaints do not change the basic calculus at play.

Moreover, the description seems to contradict itself when it says:

BESIDES I DON'T WANT THE ONE IN TARGET! I LOVE THE DRVE-THRU! Just the whole experiance of hanging out at the store and being able to read or play on your laptop is something you couldn't really do at the target one.

If Ms. Weyerts just goes through the drive-through, does the store's ambience actually matter?

Rather, I'm more interested in the Starbucks-centricity of the group's mission, the impact on the Marshfield community, and what a coffee shop should be.

The author of the description says:

You know how long I had to wait for a Starbucks to open when we moved here from Washington state??? And now they are trying to take it away?

Marshfield has other coffee shops, such as the Daily Grind and the Coffee Cabin. The perception of coffee quality is subjective in practice, but I've long considered the coffee at the Daily Grind to be of very high quality. I may find fault with the fact that the Daily Grind serves flavored coffees in addition to regular and decaffeinated selections, but this objection is more philosophical than practical (I believe food should taste like what it is, and coffee never has a strong fake raspberry flavor naturally). To the best of my ability to discern differences in quality, I disagree with claims that Starbucks coffee is superior to the quality at other coffee shops in Marshfield.

In addition to considerations of quality alone, the Daily Grind and the Coffee Cabin are local coffee shops. When you spend money there, more of your money stays in the community; it doesn't get sent to some corporate headquarters. This means that the owner and staff of these local coffee shops can invest this money back into the community, both directly (by sourcing items locally) and indirectly (by spending paychecks at local businesses).

The Daily Grind opened shop in Marshfield years ahead of the Starbucks at a time when most of us thought of coffee as a hot, bitter beverage made by mixing hot water and Folgers Instant Coffee Crystals. The opening of the Grind opened our eyes to the world of coffee by brewing the coffees of the world. In the early 90s, there was a certain audacity in having a chalk board that said what coffee was being brewed that day. More often than not, they were labeled by place. It never occured to me back then that there was such a thing as kinds of coffee, but I began to notice that the coffee from New Guinea was very different from the coffee from Columbia. As such, the Daily Grind stands at the forefront of a local coffee revolution to many people in Marshfield. Without this pioneering work, it would be inconceivable that Starbucks would even consider opening shop in town.

Given the fondness I have for the Grind, I worry about the consequences of Starbucks closing on other coffee shops. On face value, the loss of a major competitor would seem to be a benefit to the remaining businesses. However, a much-discussed article in Slate last year argued that Starbucks in general has a positive impact on local coffee shops. The idea is that Starbucks, with its elite image and megalithic advertising capabilities, spreads and serves as a magnet for coffee culture wherever it expands. When people approach a Starbucks and see a local alternative next-door, they are likely to choose the alternative.

Anecdotally, something similar could be at play here. The Coffee Cabin moved closer to the Starbucks and has remained in business for several years despite being less than a quarter mile down the road from a Starbucks drive-through. I have no data to support such a claim, but it is reasonable to think that for people want a latte on the way to work they are simply choosing the less expensive option at the Coffee Cabin. It is also possible that the change of location was designed to place it on the right-side of the road on the way into Marshfield, making it a more convenient stop for people on their way to work.

The real price of coffee is probably closer to the prices at Starbucks than many of its competitors. Despite the high prices we pay for "black gold" (the coffee I buy from Alterra via Barriques Market sells for about $9/pound), little of that money goes to the people who produce the coffee (10-50/lb cents is typical, or a minimum of $1.26/lb for Fair Trade). In an ideal world, the high prices paid at a coffee shop would go to better trained baristas and more ethical sourcing of coffee. At Starbucks, however, neither of these factors seem to be applicable. Starbucks, in an effort to standardize quality, uses a machine to make its espresso drinks, meaning that the quality of their latte isn't related to the training of the barista. Also, as only 6% of their coffee is fair trade their sourcing is inferior to regional roasters such as Alterra, Just Coffee, and Intelligentsia despite having higher or similar prices.

To be honest, I don't know who roasts coffee for the Daily Grind or the Coffee Cabin. It may well turn out that none of it is sourced through Fair Trade standards. If that's the case, it would be better for growers to have the increased sales from Starbucks than the alternatives but the difference in 6% and 0% in a town of Marshfield's size may not be significant.

In a market where mere competition was the arbiter of success or failure of a coffee shop, the Slate model may be more applicable. But the main reason that Starbucks is downsizing is that with rising energy and food costs, people have less discretionary income. So instead of going out for coffee five times a week, people may be choosing to go once a week. Again, I have no data to back up any such claims but it is reasonable to think that something like this is going on. The same market forces which are having a deleterious effect on Starbucks is going to have an impact on local coffee shops as well. So while the remaining coffee shops in Marshfield may have bigger slices of the pie, the pie itself is becoming smaller.

Finally, I wonder if the closure of the Marshfield Starbucks says anything about what a coffee shop should be. Starbucks has been very open about its ambition to create a third place for people, as demonstrated in an interview with Howard Schultz of Starbucks on NPR last year. They hope to establish a space outside of home and work that people spend time. This is evidenced by the layout of a typical Starbucks: comfortable chairs (often described as "comfy"), seats positioned for individuals instead of groups, free electricity, and Wi-Fi access.

The difference between the Starbucks vision of the third space and the version offered by the Daily Grind could not be more stark. The Daily Grind has antique wooden chairs that are arranged for groups and intermittant Wi-Fi access (they have it, but has been unavailable every time I've tried to use it). Go into any Starbucks and it's as quiet as a library. If you wanted to talk to somone, you're likely to be shushed at by someone who has made a table their personal office. A Starbucks is a place where many people connect to the internet by themselves. In contrast, the Grind is as noisy as a bar as it's full of people talking to each other. Some people read, study, and use laptops at the Daily Grind, sure, but it's a minority and no one seems to make it their office. The Grind's approach is far more observant of the political nature of coffee than Starbucks. That Starbucks is closing while the Daily Grind is remaining in business seems to reflect an interesting rejection of the Starbucks idea of the third space.

This opinion is also philosophical rather than practical. I like the idea of a coffee shop as a place that people can go to talk and discuss great and minor things alike, but ideally there would be the option of both styles of coffee shop in Marshfield.

I am not mourning the loss of the Starbucks in Marshfield as I didn't consider it to sell a superior product, was underwhelmed by its sourcing practices, and disliked the atmosphere. At the same time, I worry that this could create a ripple effect on other, local coffee purveyors in Marshfield and may represent a trend toward coffee pricing that is out-of-sync with the real value of the product.

Prelude to pi

Happy pi day everyone!

Sorry for the tease yesterday, but the pie has some stage fright.

Actually I'm going to Chicago on Saturday and I need to wake up very early...  and the pie hasn't finished setting yet.  I'll give the pie a proper right-up tomorrow after I get back.

In the meantime, here's a picture of Ommegang Chocolate Indulgence Pie.

Thank you!

Thank you, Lisa, for adding a link to Pint and Fork from your blog Champaign Taste.

And welcome to any new readers!

Stay tuned for a special Friday pi day contribution! I'll be serving up a porter pie.

... or maybe a surprise!

Television notes: Dinner Impossible

Just after coming out with the Dinner Impossible cookbook, Mission Cook, the Food Network has decided to not renew Robert Irvine's contract. This has been all over the blogs and forums, so I don't want to rehash old news. But for those of you who haven't heard yet, he's been accused of embellishing his resume as follows:

• On Dinner Impossible, he says that he is a knight. In one news story, he claimed that he was a Knight Commander of the Royal Victorian Order -- the highest level of knighthood. An article in the Saint Petersburg Times quotes Buckingham Palace press officer as saying, "He is not a KCVO Knight Commander of the Victorian Order and he wasn't given a castle by the queen of England."

•On Dinner Impossible, he says that he cooked for the royal family. He says that he was in school when a cake was being made for Princess Diana. In the same article, he said that his role was "picking fruit and things like that."

•Robert Irvine's webpage said that he had a degree in food and nutrition from the University of Leeds. But Sarah Spiller, a press officer at the University of Leeds said that "we cannot find any connection in our records between Robert and the university."

In fairness, Robert Irvine issued a statement apologizing for unspecified "embellishments" to his resume. Despite that he has been much maligned on the internet for his predictable, traditional cooking, the fact of the matter is that Robert Irvine is a tasteful and competent chef. He's the kind of guy that you want around when you have to feed the 5000.

Still, the mind wonders what kind of hiring process the Food Network has. Do they even bother calling references?

This places the Food Network in a very odd position. As Project Runway Season 4 winds to a close this week, Bravo has been running advertisements for Top Chef Chicago that say flatly that it's the "#1 food show on cable." The Food Network must undoubtedly be sour that the "#1 food show on cable" isn't on their network. They even tried to copy the Top Chef model in the next Iron Chef competition, and it didn't even come close to the quality of Top Chef. Shows like Ace of Cakes, and – you guessed it – Dinner Impossible, are promising shows that offer a glimmer of hope about the future of the Food Network and food television in general. It won't be the "chop like this" show that's become entrenched from everyone between Julia Child and Rachel Ray. It'll be entertainment. Unlike older shows which require the elevation of the host to some level of celebrity status to be compelling, or more recently have some tacky quirk to them (I won't name names), these shows highlight hardworking and skilled professionals. The Food Network's "we don't need Emeril or Mario" attitude takes the network in a direction opposite the kind of food seriousness I expect. For the sake of the Food Network, I hope it embraces these shows and doesn't drive them from the temple.

The Food Network has announced that they would seek a new host for Dinner Impossible after the conclusion of the second season. Unfortunately, Robert Irvine's personality and manly derring-do is what makes the show worthwhile. It's really a show about time management and planning more than it is about cooking, and Irvine explains why he's making choices to meet the requirements of the challenge. It just wouldn't be the same to see some cleanly prepackaged made for tv persona like Bobby Flay take it over, for example (not that he would, but you know what I mean). I'm sure Flay could feed 2700 people in 8 hours, too, and maybe could create more creative dishes. But I think what makes Dinner Impossible so remarkable is that Robert Irvine, while being a skilled chef, isn't Bobby Flay. He's not some famous television personality, or known for being a master technician. But you get the sense that he's real, and somehow authentic. He's got a chef's temper. Hell, he doesn't even look like any other chef I've ever seen.

Since the Food Network needs Dinner Impossible, and since Dinner Impossible needs Robert Irvine, and since Robert Irvine has apologized for his actions, the Food Network should seriously consider renewing his contract for a third season.

Tasting notes: Mr. Mephisto Imperial Stout

I have to confess something.  I have an enormous amount of respect, and some jealousy, for Tom Porter, the one-man brewing juggernaut behind Lake Louie beers.  From what I've heard, he's the man.  He's the man that brews the beer.  He's the man that bottles the beer.  He's the man that sweeps the floors, and keeps the books.  He's the man that delivers the beer.  I can't even imagine how much work that must be, though at least he doesn't have much of a commute (he lives on the same property on which he brews in Arena, Wisconsin).  In other words, he's living every homebrewers' dream.

And each of his beers are of superlative quality!

That said, I swear that I'll be as objective as possible in my tasting notes for Mr. Mephisto Imperial Stout.  I had a bottle left over from the previous release last year, but I saw it on the shelves at Steve's the other day and decided it would be a good time to post some tasting notes.

Mr. Mephisto pours completely black, but raises an unusually large tan head (3/4 inch).  As time passed, the head became smaller but stayed for the entire time I drank the beer.  And it left excellent, beautiful lacing in its wake.  The head was so robust that I wonder if some wheat is used to aid in head retention.  The beer is completely opaque even when held up to the brightest light I could find in my apartment.

The aroma offers a pleasant roastiness, with some smoke and fresh raspberry notes.  It smells sweet, but has a slightly sour edge to it.  Upon tasting it, the first thing that struck me is how amazingly smooth and creamy this beer is.  If you put a pint of this beer in front of me, I would think that it was served using a nitrogen tap.  Seriously, the viscosity reminds me of drinking a stout milk shake (which is one of my favorite treats).  Some fruity esters that offer peach and raspberry flavors stick out in the very front of the profile, but quickly give way as an intense roasty flavor continues to build after each sip.  Some apple-wood smoke flavors are in there as well.  After the roastiness fades, a bread-like flavor is left as the aftertaste.  There was no perceived ethanol flavor.

As the beer warms, I noticed that the esters become more harsh and more distracting.  It also became sweeter, almost cloying to my taste, which caused me to drink it really slowly.  Although Mr. Mephisto comes close to being one dimensional, in that every other flavor is subtle compared to the pervasive roastiness of this imperial stout, it shows enormous control and restraint.

Unlike some imperial stouts that I've had that were so bitter that they were practically undrinkable, so alcoholic that it didn't taste like a stout, or so roasty that there was no room for any other flavor at all, Mr. Mephisto is an imperial stout done the right way.

Tasting notes: Imperial Weizen

After the Capital Brewery discontinued production of Kloster Weizen in 2006, I've admittedly struggled with my hefeweizen addiction.  I went through some rough patches where wailing and gnashing of teeth may or may not have been involved.  I've given serious thought to taking up a twelve step program to deal with my problem, but I couldn't find a support group for hefeweizen addicts.

Which is amazing to me because, as one of my very favorite styles, it embodies much of my attitude toward beer.  Hefeweizen is a beverage that's tied by memory and association to a specific time and place; the mere act of drinking it teleports me to some Bavarian beer garden on a warm summer afternoon.  It is a social beverage.  It's not hard to imagine sitting around a table at that beer garden talking with friends.  It quenches the thirst, and does amazing things with food.  Hefeweizen isn't a beer that's going to get you drunk (unless you drink liters of it), so it leaves you fully ready to deal with the daily grind.  The yeast is largely responsible for the remarkable range of flavors that you can expect in a hefeweizen (everything from banana, clove, bubble gum, and smoke).

Suffice it to say that I'm a hefeweizen junkie.  So when New Glarus came out with an imperial weizen as the latest installment in their "unplugged" series of beers, I fell off the bandwagon and got my fix.

This beer raises a huge head.  Although the picture at the bottom doesn't reflect well on my weizen-pouring aptitude, I swear that the first time I tried to pour the beer into my glass I only got about half of it in before the head started billowing out the top.  This, my second bottle, went to the other extreme and I didn't develop enough of a head.  Still, any beer that pours a 1 1/2 inch head when you're trying your hardest not to develop too much head is pretty substantial.  This beer is impressively carbonated, and I imagine that it would do wonders with all sorts of foods.  It left elegant lacing in my glass as I drank it.

But it was enough of a head to release the impossibly aromatic qualities of this beer.  Honestly, I've never tasted anything like it.  The nose bursts with grapefruit and to a lesser extent lime and some lemon flavors.  The cinnamon and clove aroma is less obvious, but contributes pleasantly to the nose.  There were also some floral highlights in the background that I had trouble identifying.

The flavor profile was similarly explosive.  The first thing you get is a huge hit of grapefruit that I can only assume set up a homestead on my tongue.  As the citrus flavor gradually recedes, the clove flavor becomes more noticeable.  There's also a cinnamon contribution in the flavor profile that I felt only at the very back of my mouth, but seemingly less than in the aroma.  The malt flavor reminded me of croissant, although it isn't nearly as obvious as the pervasive citrus aroma of this beer.  The citrus flavors may be the result of the yeast, but it's so robust and so multidimensional that I suspect that dry hopping with cascade hops was involved.  The problem I have with this explanation is that I've never tasted that much grapefruit from cascade hops before (although it is a characteristic of the cultivar).

With so much going on, it would be easy to miss what wasn't tasting.  Compared to other hefeweizens, there is very little to no banana flavor in this beer.  I chalk that up to either fermentation conditions or the "special strain of Bavarian Weiss yeast" mentioned on the bottle.  Second, at 20 degrees Plato (i.e. approximately 1.080 original gravity!) there was no ethanol flavor.  I readily felt the presence of ethanol, as its unusually warming for a hefeweizen.

Above all else, though, this beer is pleasant.  Unlike so many imperial concoctions, this is a beer that retains a sense of where it comes from, despite being elevated to a whole new level of deliciousness.

Milking Roger Clemens

Due to reasons that are largely irrelevant to this blog, I've had some time on my hands recently. It probably says something really bad about me, but I've spent my lunches watching C-SPAN lately. If you've been following the news over the last couple of weeks, you know that baseball player Roger Clemens has been accused of using performance enhancing drugs including human growth hormone. Since this isn't a legal or sports blog, it's not really relevant to Pint and Fork whether he did or did not use HGH contrary to MLB regulations, US law, and his own health.

When I was watching the other day, some doctor said something I found incredibly interesting. He said that detecting abuse of HGH poses an extremely difficult analytical challenge because it's literally the same hormone that is present in every single human. So to determine abuse, laboratory analysis requires looking at sharp changes in HGH levels over time. The problem with that is that players are not tested often enough to do that typically, and that somatic HGH levels covariate with dietary and other environmental factors.

En passant, he suggested that the US government could require all HGH chemical formulation to contain an inert chemical tracer. That is, a chemical that has no physiological, medicinal, or any other business being in the human body that doesn't help or harm it in any way. Preferably, it would be something that would persist in the body for some time after receiving a dose of HGH.

Now, do understand that I have no idea what a suitable tracer chemical would be. But I have a feeling that there are smart people in this world who would be able to figure out just that kind of problem.

So... Let's get this straight. It's illegal to label milk as being free of recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH) because it's analytically impossible to prove whether an animal contained rBGH as opposed to natural BGH (because they're chemically identical).

However, if the government required that an inert tracer were included in rBGH we would be able to solve that problem.

But please bear with me as I go into a little more detail.

The use of rBGH (also known as bovine somatotropin or bST) was made possible by Monsanto in the early 1980s. It was quickly shown to increase milk production in cows by ten to twenty percent, and due to industry pressure was approved by the FDA for use in 1993. The FDA's short-sighted "science-based approach" to such matters also contributed to the relatively rapid approval of rBGH. At any rate, the FDA reviewed 130 industry-funded studies that involved testing 21,000 cows and determined that rBGH was safe for human consumption and does not affect human health (i.e. it doesn't stimulate human growth).

Two problems. First, cows that are treated with rBGH develop mastitis more frequently than non-rBGH treated cows. This requires the extensive use of antibiotics, which are positively known to enter the milk of treated animals. The FDA has a mandate to test for antibiotics in milk, but in practice it does not even come close to having the resources to do so.

Second, the use of rBGH increases levels of insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1). Unlike rBGH which is a different chemical entirely from HGH and therefore has no biological activity, bovine-derived IGF-1 is chemically identical to human IGF-1. And IGF-1 may well stimulate unnatural growth in infancy and may increase the risk of cancer for adults. This risk is mitigated somewhat by the denaturation (biologically deactivated for non-chemists) of the protein in gastric fluid, however some has been demonstrated to be absorbed before it can become denatured.

(For completeness, research has shown reduced casein levels, reduced short-chain fatty acid, increased long-chain fatty acid, increased concentration of thyroid hormone triiodothyronine enzyme, frequent contamination with unapproved drugs for treating mastitis, and increased somatic cell counts due to mastitis.) (PDF, 645.3 kb)

Anyway because rBGH is chemically indistinguishable from natural BGH the FDA determined that it's illegal to label dairy products as being rBGH free. I personally think that given the two risks noted above, I -- as the consumer -- should be given the ability to make a choice. And I can't make a choice without adequate labeling. But, hey, maybe that's just me.

The relevant FDA guidance document discusses this matter explicitly. It says that

FDA is concerned that the term ``rbST free'' may imply a compositional
difference between milk from treated and untreated cows rather than a
difference in the way the milk is produced.

So you can't label milk as "rBST free" unless you provide what the FDA considers "proper context":

FDA believes such misleading implications could best be avoided by the
use of accompanying information that puts the statement in a proper
context. Proper context could be achieved in a number of different
ways. For example, accompanying the statement ``from cows not treated
with rbST'' with the statement that ``No significant difference has
been shown between milk derived from rbST-treated and non-rbST-treated
cows'' would put the claim in proper context. Proper context could also
be achieved by conveying the firm's reasons (other than safety or quality)
for choosing not to use milk from cows treated with rbST, as long as
the label is truthful and nonmisleading.
(Bold type added by Pint and Fork for emphasis.)

In other words, you can give your reasons for not using rBGH right on the package, as long as it doesn't imply that your product is safer (as good science has shown) or is of higher quality (which is common sense to this observer).

So clearly, an FDA-mandated inclusion of an inert tracer in rBGH formulations could overcome this hurdle with a techno fix. That is to say, with the least amount of effort because it requires no changes in the way things are done. But some facts, I think, undercut the need for rBGH in the first place.

First of all, it cannot be argued that American farmers need rBGH to keep pace with foreign demands. For one thing, milk is fresh only briefly and it cannot be effectively frozen. rBGH has been banned in the European Union, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan. So at first glance, it would seem that we could increase the sell-ability of US milk if we rendered rBGH illegal because then we could sell it in Canada.

Second, there has always been a surplus of milk -- even during the Great Depression. There is no reason why we would want to produce more of it. In fact, more of a product will devalue the commercial value of that product and hurt the small-scale operations the most.

Third, there are a finite number of antibiotics in our pharmacopoeia. We should be trying to limit their use to the greatest extent possible for only cases where the need is warranted. The use of antibiotics in cattle for meat production has been demonstrated to lead to an increase of antibiotic resistant pathogens. This is a very bad thing. If we can reduce the use of antibiotics by not using rBGH, then so much the better.

Fourth, the FDA itself opened up the door of certification programs. That is, a third party could conduct regular inspections and audit paper records to verify that rBGH was not used in raising cows. In an FDA interim guidance document on the subject, they clarify that this can be done not to address safety concerns but to defend the farmer against claims that the label is misleading. To quote the FDA document:

States should consider requiring that firms that use statements indicating
that their product is ``certified'' as not from cowstreated with rbST be
participants in a third party certification program to verify that the cows
have not been injected with rbST. States could seek to ensure that
certification programs contain thefollowing elements: Participating dairy
herds should consist of animals that have not been supplemented with rbST.
The program should be able to track each cow in the herd over time. Milk
from non-rbST herds should be kept separate from other milk by a physical
segregation, verifiable by a valid paper trail, throughout the transportation
and processing steps until the finished milk or dairy product is in final
packaged form in a labeled container. The physical handling and recordkeeping
provisions of such a program would be necessary not because of any safety
concerns about milk from treated cows but to ensure that the labeling of
the milk is not false or misleading.

Unfortunately, farmers are very rarely responsible for the distribution of their product. That means that physically separating certified rBGH free milk on the way to the packaging facility is often impossible as a matter of practice.

At any rate, there is the kind of technical fix the food industry so much adores in the form of inert tracers. This completely invalidates the argument that dairy products cannot be labeled "rBGH free" because there's no chemical difference. With this in mind, the FDA should revisit their guidance document and allow such designations to be included.

And I thought nothing good would ever come of watching C-SPAN.

Blog commentary

My friend xenobiologista recently made an interesting post about inefficient packing of organic versus conventional products, and practices of Whole Foods and Wal-Mart.

Issue 1. My friend recently purchased salmon burgers at Whole Foods. The salmon burgers were wrapped in plastic-coated paper that was meant to look like news paper.

I don't think that you can fault them for not using real newspaper as the ink rubs off the pages too easily, and the ink is not approved for human consumption by the FDA. In other words, it would be illegal to use real newspaper. They're presumably using a plastic-coated paper because it creates a hydrophobic surface, which prevents the juices from your salmon burgers from soaking the head of garlic that's also sitting in your basket.

I agree that, all things being equal, it would be great if Whole Foods used paper without ink.

I feel that Whole Foods is doing more than other companies in this area. They're eliminating plastic bags at the checkouts by April 22, 2008. Sure they will still offer paper bags at the checkout and there will presumably still be plastic bags used in the produce section. But this is an important step in the right direct, and hopefully one that will reduce the use of plastics. Moreover, they have a fairly progressive list of unacceptable food ingredients that will disqualify an item from being sold at Whole Foods. This list includes such chemicals as aspartame, EDTA, bleached/bromated flours, MSG, FD&C colors, and sucralose. This list limits the extent to which items can be processed, which presumably saves energy and decreases dependence upon unsavory chemical additives. (Note: I disagree with the inclusion of foie gras on this list. Foie gras production is an ancient tradition, produces wholesome food, and is humane.)

But there are some reasonable points that can be made here. They probably would have been happy to not wrap the salmon burgers at all if you had brought your own reusable container. Second, yes it's a waste of ink to make the paper look like a newspaper. But I'm not certain how significant this inefficiency is in the scheme of things. Do you buy new books or do you only buy used books or (even better) only check books out from the library? When you are afraid that you're going to forget your eye exam next Thursday at 1:30 PM with Dr. Robinson, do you write a reminder on a post-it note or do you reuse scrap paper? The point being that people waste a lot of ink all the time. Singling out the ink on the paper at the meat counter seems inappropriate unless you intend to address the issue comprehensively to reduce ink use across the board.

Issue 2. Extra packaging on organic foods. My friend noticed that organic cabbage was wrapped in plastic while conventional cabbage wasn't. She also noticed the long standing head-scratcher with egg packaging: the organic, vegetarian, "free range" (cough cough) eggs are usually in plastic containers while conventional eggs are usually in cardboard containers.

Just some background, though. While organic eggs have to comply with USDA organic standards, there is no regulation of the term free range in the United States (unlike in the European Union and Japan). In many cases, it just means that the farmer bought a cage that's a couple of inches larger and installed a window in the hen house. The organic standards require that livestock have (21 CFR title 7 205.239)

(1) Access to the outdoors, shade, shelter, exercise areas, fresh air, and direct sunlight suitable to the species, its stage of production, the climate, and the environment;

To be clear, this standard prohibits the use of battery cages which most experts believe is strictly inhumane. Unlike the European Union and Canada, the US has no plan and no time line to legally prohibit the use of battery cages.

Unfortunately, there is currently much abuse of the federal code's lack of specificity. For example, it's perfectly acceptable for a farmer to theoretically allow his animals to roam freely but exert psychological control of them so that the animals naturally eschew the outdoors. Studies have shown that most farm animals, when raised indoors prefer to remain indoors and eat feed even when given the option to go outdoors and eat natural foods. Come to think of it, this sounds applicable to humans as well. Other common ways around this are providing only very small outdoor areas for a large number of animals, or an outdoor area that's covered in concrete or gravel or dirt (i.e. not covered with vegetation).

Federal regulations also require that organic animals must be fed organically. This prohibits the use of less-savory industrial by-products such as animal blood, slaughter house waste, ground up male chickens (high speed maceration), and feces.

So organic-certified eggs may be better than conventional eggs in terms of access to the outdoors and what they're fed. But even the organic label is no guarantee.

But my friend's original point was that organic eggs tend to be packaged with less sustainable materials than conventional eggs. Good point! But there are some things you can do about it.

For one thing, you can always buy eggs directly from a local farmer (e.g. Pecatonica Valley Farm) or through an intermediary (e.g. Artisan Foods Delivered). Such small scale farmers generally use cardboard packaging and actually want the cardboard back so it can be reused. The eggs also don't travel as far, which reduces the energy cost associated with transporation.

It's not realistic that large numbers of people will switch to buying local eggs. In the interest of completeness, Organic Valley does sell organic eggs in cardboard containers. Unfortunately, even these eggs have a plastic label glued onto the cardboard which adds up to more packaging than conventional eggs. I have heard that Organic Valley doesn't allow farms to enter its cooperative that have fewer than 2000 laying hens and really prefer that a farm have at least 5000 hens. Given how large these numbers are, it's likely that these farms live up the lofty goals Organic Valley purports to hold -- although, to their credit, they are open about their standards and even post them on their website.

So, in summary, yes it's bad that most organic, vegetarian, and free-range eggs are sold in plastic containers. But you can choose to buy ones that are not sold in plastic or -- which may involve buying eggs locally.

Issue 3. Wal-Mart has been criticized for its entry into the organic foods market.

It's great that Wal Mart wants to get into the organic foods business. For as many short cuts and half-hearted attempts to be green as some companies take, organic practices are generally more environmentally friendly all other things being equal. If you don't use pesticides, you don't have to pay to have them shipped to your farm, there's less demand for industrial chemicals, and you're putting fewer chemicals into our water supply. If you use natural fertilizers, you're not less dependent upon the Haber-Bosch cycle which is extremely energy demanding even with the use of a catalyst.

It's unfortunate, however, that many companies including Wal-Mart are continually lobbying the federal government to relax organic standards. The other issue here, as far as I'm concerned, is that there are now organic versions of many processed foods (check our your local breakfast cereal aisle). Yes it's great that these foods probably have lower environmental costs, but you're still supporting the processing of the food product which is environmentally inefficient.

Moreover, organic practices are only one part of a larger picture; eating organically is great, but not sufficient. Food should also be local and seasonal to the greatest extent possible. The environmental gains from not using pesticides are readily lost if the product has to be shipped a much farther distance to market.

Beyond placing value on organic, local, and seasonal products, one should also hope that the people intimately involved in the production of said food will be fairly rewarded for their labor. As the saying goes, farming is the only job where everything you buy is at retail and everything you sell is at wholesale. Wal-Mart's mantra of "low prices always" is largely incompatible with proper compensation of farmers, and instead creates a system that can achieve no more than the bottom line. Indeed it brings the bottom line down across the board as even stores like Whole Foods and the Willy Street Co-op offer prices to farmers that are only marginally greater than at conventional stores (i.e. that the added dividend to the farmer is less than the premium paid by the shopper). In the absence of cooperative bargaining, the Nash equilibrium is readily established. The current approach is a great way to deliver large amounts of food to market cheaply, and I hope that basic food shouldn't be so expensive as to be a privilege. But it's a crummy way to deliver food that meets the standards that many consumers expect. The quantity issue would also be more sensible if we weren't producing a significant excess of food already.

I think the closing chapter of Fast Food Nation resonates with a lot of people. Schlosser talks about the German city of Plauen, which had the misfortune of being a part of the DDR. Even though the city was occupied by Russian troops, who largely maintained political control due to a network of Stasi informants, over twenty thousand people rose up against their government on October 7, 1989 in the first of many mass demonstrations. The crowd demanded the "freedoms of their forefathers" and remained largely non-violent despite government efforts to break up the demonstration. Just over a month later, on November 9, the Berliner Mauer fell.

This is an extreme example, yes. But it demonstrates the ability of individuals to effect large-scale social change. I know it's likely a pipe dream but I hold out the hope that the more people taste real food that's skillfully prepared, the more these people will demand honest, delicious food. And they will come to accept nothing less in much the same way that many craft beer drinkers would never "lower themselves" to drinking BMC.

We should expect more from our food's supply chain, whether the point-of-purchase is Wal-Mart or Whole Foods.

Tasting notes: 120 Minute IPA

I couldn't help it.

Compared to its promiscuous 60 and flirty 90 minute sisters, this beer definitely plays hard-to-get. And I may have been distracted by its 20% alcohol content.

At any rate I'm still basking in the afterglow.

The Dogfish Head 120 Minute IPA is -- to quote a commercial recently airing in the Madison area -- "unique, one of a kind, and impossible to find anywhere else." And the 20% ethanol content is just the beginning.

Hops were added to it continuously over 120 minutes using Dogfish Head's signature hopping regime whereby a shaker adds hops continuously over the time of the boil. Most beer is boiled for only sixty minutes and may have anywhere from two to five hop additions. The traditional hop addition method results in quantized hop flavors: the sensation of hop bitterness, the hop flavor, and the hop aroma. Dogfish Head's IPAs, hopped continuously, have a beguiling hop character that stands apart from every other beer I've ever tasted. Someone with excellent calculus skills figured out that it adds up to 120 IBUs. Which is insane.

It was also dry hopped every day for a month and then aged on a bed of whole leaf hops for another month. Given the hop shortage, this beer is perhaps somewhere between extravagant and wasteful. But the hops are so expertly employed that they really deliver. If it weren't for the solid use of hops, any beer of this size would be cloying and undrinkable.

The beer has also inspired an internet phenomenon whereby people chug 120 Minute IPA and post videos of it on YouTube. Name one other beer that's gotten that kind of attention. I recommend the one at Should I Drink That? ("even if it's crappy, we drink it so you don't have to"). The video is not necessarily family or work friendly, if that's a concern for you. The guy downs an entire bottle in about three seconds, which I can only assume is unhealthy -- it's only 71 mL of pure ethanol. That's more than four shots of vodka.

The beer also draws righteous indignation from people who gasp at the >$9/12 ounce bottle price tag (I think I paid $12 for it a year ago, but I have seen bottles for as low as $9). As far as I know, Dogfish Head doesn't sell packs of 120 Minute IPA. I'm not sure if this was intentional or not ($9/bottle * 6 bottles/6-pack = $54/6-pack), but aside from price I find that this highlights the uniqueness of the beer.

I'm not sure how they hit 20% alcohol content -- whether they use what could only be described as a "crap load" of malted barley or excessive amounts of adjuncts. At any rate, their yeast must have a high alcohol tolerance. Given the limitations of conventional yeast strains, the ale character of the beer comes through surprisingly cleanly.

When I opened the lime green cap, an intense and rich sweet aroma burst forth that reminded me somewhat of sticking my head in a jar of honey like Winnie the Pooh. There's some roastiness to it, and a slight poppy seed aroma to it as well. And of course there's definitely ethanol, but a lot less than I expected.

It poured in my glass with plenty of carbonation, raising a respectable head (about five millimeters) that lasted as long as there was beer in my glass. The amount of lacing was excellent. This beer is for kissing -- not making out -- and as such is pretty much the ultimate brandy snifter beer, and I would have used more appropriate glassware if I had it. It was initially quite hazy, again like honey, but the haze disappeared as the beer warmed. The beer had a rich reddish-gold color.

The flavor is enormously vivacious. It is complex and surprisingly smooth. The initial taste is surprisingly sweet, and it's only later that you taste the intense bitterness. The flavor mellows into a sourdough-like bread flavor, with biscuit-like highlights. Like the 60 and 90 minute versions, it has a slightly horse blanket maltiness. Given the fact that I aged this bottle for about a year, there's very little distinct hop aroma or flavor. But it does have a very floral flavor. There's an underlying mealy apple flavor, which may not sound appealing but it matches with the malt character perfectly. The ethanol hits the palate with impossible warmth that is something like sweaty middle-of-summer sex.

Dogfish Head's 120 Minute IPA is seductive and intoxicating. Bring one home, treat it with the respect it deserves, and savor every moment with it. Like the perfect partner, it's perfectly fulfilling in every regard but leaves you thirsty for more.

I couldn't help loving this beer.

Second and Third Tastes: Capital Vintage Ale

I've got too much on my mind
I think of everything to be discovered
I hope there's something to find
Searching for the time that has gone so fast
The time that I thought would last
-Paul McCartney from "Ever Present Past"

It's hard to believe how the time has flown! On December 28, 2006, I cracked open the first bottle in a four pack of Capital's Vintage Ale. The verdict: harsh and tastes like booze. But it showed potential.

At the time, I suggested that I would open the next bottle on the first day of spring in 2007. Only five days late (can't be drinking a strong ale when you have to work the next day), and three months after my first taste, I opened my second bottle on March 26, 2007. A couple of things changed. For one thing, the first bottle I had was crystal clear; the second bottle I had showed significant turbidity. While the first bottle showed little carbonation, the second bottle raised a more robust head. This could be caused by glassware cleanliness, but I keep my beer glasses very clean so I have to discount that as unlikely. The first bottle was bursting with Kent goldings and cascade hop aroma, the second had a much more muted -- but more complex -- aroma. Instead of discrete hop aromas, the aroma was slightly floral behind a dominant maltiness. The second bottle was very smooth, and didn't have the harsh ethanol flavor of the first bottle. At the time, I also thought it was sweeter and more viscous than the first bottle.

Tonight, ten months after my last taste, I cracked open the third bottle. When I opened the bottle, the aroma has definitely developed since the second tasting. It smells fruity, like grape fruit, and like the inside of a flower shop. The taste is still smooth with little ethanol flavor. There is a strong maltiness to the flavor like sourdough bread, only much stronger. As a result, the flavor is very sweet and seems out of balance until the bittering hops hit relatively late in the progression of flavors. As it warms, the grapefruit flavors become more pronounced. It definitely takes on some complexity like port or sherry. The beer is even more turbid than it was in the second tasting.

As a side note, reading reviews of this beer on Beer Advocate has been an interesting experience. One reviewer gave it a D+, another described it as a "trainwreck." As one reads reviews that become increasingly current, the grades improve. Maybe this is because of sampling bias, that people who took the effort to find bottles of it are more likely the kind who would give Vintage Ale the attention it deserves. I prefer to think it reflects well on its potential to get better over time.

I'm not sure when I'll get around to cracking my final bottle of the 2006 Vintage Ale. It has proven itself as a great beer for aging. If I was worried that there was nothing else to find in this aging experiment, I shouldn't have been; I've had three distinct beers so far, two of them sublime. I do find myself searching for time, wishing it would last like this fine contribution from the Capital Brewery.

The weather outside is frightful

When it snows eight inches, there's only one thing you can do.

Braise something.

And what better than beef bourguignon, the classic French stew? But I didn't want to settle for the Julia Child version; being stuck indoors, I was feeling more ambitious and decided to go with the Thomas Keller version instead.

The basic principle is pretty simple. You reduce some wine, add it to beef stock and braise some tough cut of beef until it's tender. Then you add some cooked root vegetables and eat it.

The challenge in making any stew -- much less this one -- is elevating each ingredient into something sublime. In other words, each component needs to taste exactly like what it is. But there must also be something inevitable about each ingredient. Without it, the stew wouldn't exist to its full potential. And if anything were added to it, it would upset the harmony of the stew and taste out of place.

To accomplish this goal, I had to break some laws of Economy that have been imprinted upon my midwestern DNA. In making the wine reduction for the braise, I added carrots, onion, leeks, and garlic. The wine reduction was then strained before it was added to the beef stock. More mirepoix vegetables were added to the beef stock during the braising process. These too were discarded. Someone might think that I wasted a lot of vegetables; one taste of the broth will immediately convince that person otherwise.

After the meat has been braised, refrigerate it for several hours with the broth. This will help ensure that the meat retains enough of its moisture. It will also allow you to skim more fat off that would otherwise upset the beautiful sheen of an elegant stew.

At this point, pick all the meat out of the broth and set it aside. Discard all of the vegetables and skim the broth several times (I used a coffee filter) until all the "stuff" stuck in suspension has been removed. The two most important parts of the stew are done: braised beef and a flavorful, beautiful broth. If you'd like, you could simply combine the two and dig in.

I grew up eating stew with vegetables in it, so that's how I like it. To prepare the vegetable garnishes, Thomas Keller recommends adding fingerling potatoes, carrots, celery, and mushrooms. Since it's not spring, I didn't have any fingerling potatoes. And since it's not the middle of the summer, I didn't have any celery. But I did have cute little red potatoes and some celeriac.

I simmered the potatoes until they were tender, used a towel to remove the skin, and quartered them.

I sautéd the carrots and celeriac in some butter and let them steam until al denté.

The mushrooms were also sautéd in butter until brown and delicious.

Keller's recipe calls for a cab, but lacking that, I used one of the bottles of côtes du Rhône that I always try to keep on hand for just such occasions. It was less fruit-forward, but upon significant reduction I'm sure the difference was minor. (Besides, unlike Keller, I don't share his enthusiasm for all things Californian.)

The recipe also calls for boneless shortribs. Lacking those, I used some beef stew meat from my Sylvan Meadows Farm CSA. I can only imagine how amazing the result would be with such a fine cut of meat, but it turned out pretty well anyway.

Instead of adding fresh thyme, which I'm sure would have been delightful, I decided to add rosemary instead. It added an appropriate seasonal note to it that otherwise would have been lacking. The rosemary also paired well with the Capital Brewery US Pale Ale I enjoyed with the stew. The hoppy notes mirrored the piney flavor of the rosemary, and the carbonation cleared the palate and left me hungry for more.

If you're in the habit of making your own stocks as I am, I encourage you double-check that you've thoroughly de-fatted your stock before adding it. The presence of "stuff" in the stock makes it difficult to throughly remove it later.

The stew was delicious, with tender meat with vegetables cooked to the point of doneness and no futher. A broth infused with beef, root vegetables, and grapes. Everything in its place, squared away, and the way it should be.

It didn't make me forget the snow bringing the world around me to a standstill. It made me revel in it.

The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth

The Wisconsin State Journal really missed the mark in a December 1 editorial.

Here's the backstory: Wisconsin had a prohibition era law that prevented any business from producing beer at more than two locations or more than 4000 barrels of beer per year. To be fair, this law made sense at the time as it helped prevent the formation of tied houses. Tied houses are inherently anti-competitive, so we should be glad to be rid of them. However, the Great Dane hit a regulatory brick wall in 2005 when they were forbidden from producing beer at their Hilldale location. Instead, the Great Dane-Hilldale had to serve beer from other breweries.

This all changed with Senate Bill 224 (pdf, 101.3 kb) which lifted some of these restrictions by raising the caps to six locations and 10,000 barels/year. In a political sleight of hand, SB 224 was merged with the 2007 Wisconsin Act 20 (aka the state budget, pdf, 4.3 Mb - see section 125.295) and signed into law. Euge! Common sense! Paradise regained, right?

Well, yes. Sort-of. I mean, it's great that the Great Dane can sell more of their delicious beer. But Senate Bill 224 was more than a common sense correction of a 1933 legal relic. Eheu!

To understand why SB 224 has been called the "screw the small brewer bill" in the Tyranena Brewery newsletter, you have to understand a few things about beer distribution in Wisconsin. In order to prevent unfair consolidation in the beer market, the law has historically required a three-tier distribution system that divides up the beer market between the brewer, wholesaler, and retailer. SB 224 short-circuits this system by creating a new classification called a brewpub that exists next to the three-tier system, and clearly spells out limitations of a brewery and a brewpub.

In the past, any brewery could hold a so-called Class B license that allows on-site consumption. Also, breweries could hold a restaurant permit. Now, with SB 224, breweries cannot have restaurants. To serve food, the brewing facility must qualify as a brewpub. To quote the Legislative Reference Bureau's summary of SB 224, "This bill prohibits a person issued a brewers' permit after the bill's effective date from holding a restaurant permit, thereby requiring a person who intends to begin manufacturing beer and operating a restaurant after this date to obtain a brewpub permit." For this to happen, the facility must produce less than 10,000 barrels of beer/year (per SB 224 page 9 line 19), must "manufacture" all beer served on premises (per SB 244 page 9 line 21), and sale of alcoholic beverages must account for less than 60% of all gross sales (page 9 line 23), must offer to sell beer other than that "manufactured" by the brewpub group (page 10 line 3), and have no more than six brewpub permits (page 11 line 10).

Now... by restricting food service exclusively to brewpubs, the law does great and I fear tangible harm to our state's brewing traditions. Many breweries also maintain on-premise restaurants such as the Ale Asylum, Lake Front Brewery, Central Waters, Milwaukee Ale House among others. Instead of holding a brewers' permit, they will have to hold a brewpub permit with all of the restrictions listed above. For one thing, to continue serving food total production will be capped at ten thousand barrels annually. For another, food sales would have to account for at least 40% of gross sales -- which is clearly impossible for many of these establishments. The end result is that food service will sadly have to cease in many instances.

Which eliminates competition for brewpubs by forcing competitors to register as breweries instead of brewpubs. Is this what the Great Dane wanted all along? If so, this seems selfish and short-sighted. It's not like there was anything even approximating market saturation as anyone who's ever tried to get a table at the Great Dane-Downtown at 8 PM on a Saturday night can tell you.

Furthermore, the restrictions on food service and food-alcohol sales percentages limit business in unnecessary ways that unfairly hurt small and start-up brewing operations. Traditionally, brewers have used food sales to provide a second source of income that dampens the impact of market fluctuation in beer sales. If a start-up brewery can't maintain at least 40% of all gross sales in food service, it would have to forgo food service all together.. After all, people usually start brewpubs (as opposed to restaurants) because they are skilled at making beer.

Why restrict the ability of the entrepreneur to start and operate a business like this? It doesn't make any sense. For that matter, why restrict brewpubs to 10,000 barrels of production? Shouldn't a brewer simply be allowed to produce the amount of beer that the market demands? Why cap it at all?

Even if you agree with SB 224, you will no doubt be less enthusiastic about the manner in which it was passed. SB 224 was slipped into the state budget at the last minute. Recall: Wisconsin was the very last state in the union to pass a state budget for the current fiscal year. As a result, the Wisconsin State Journal among many other papers were raising a clamor to get a budget passed. Because of this strong public pressure, attaching SB 224 to the state budget essentially assured its passage -- all without the benefit of floor debate or serious consideration by the full legislature.

All manner of scandalous connections have been well detailed by Michael Horn and need not be repeated in their entirety. Suffice it to say that extensive lobbying by the Great Dane Pub and Brewery Co, Wisconsin Beer Distributors Association, and the Wisconsin Independent Business Inc. overcame lobbying by the Wisconsin Brewer's Guild. Indeed, the total lobbying dollars spent are staggering. The Great Dane spent $13,500 hawking this bill. The Wisconsin Beer Distributors Association spent $16,335.20. With all this money trading hands, I can't help but to think that this isn't how our government was meant to work.

The Great Dane has some smart people working for them. They built a third brewpub knowing that they would be unable to sell their own beer there. Then they were free to appeal directly to the public essentially saying, "Look, we built a nice new brewpub and we can't sell our own beer there! Poor us!" Had the Great Dane simply had a business plan on hold for the Hilldale location pending changes in the law, I imagine the public reaction would have been less direct and more deliberate.

The Great Dane supported the bill because it's going to allow them to make a lot more money. The Wisconsin Beer Distributors Association presumably supported the bill because it further protects the three-tier distribution of beer and because SB 224 requires brewpubs to sell beer purchased from wholesalers. On the other side you have the Wisconsin Brewer's Guild which is made up of small Wisconsin breweries. And these breweries said "no" to SB 224. This is telling.

Finally, the production caps for brewpubs were set to ten thousand barrels per year being produced at no more than six locations. I wonder what the Great Dane will say when they reach 10,000 barrels a year or six retail locations? Many of the same arguments that went into raising the limits are equally valid should that happen. What would be the reaction if the Great Dane built a seventh location? Why couldn't the Great Dane-Location Seven sell its own beer? And that's what really disturbs me about the Wisconsin State Journal lavishing such praise upon SB 224: it just reserves the original problem for Great Dane-gate round two.

Wisconsin deserves beer regulations that make sense. The changes brought about by SB 224 don't solve the fundamental regulatory issue it tried to solve; it merely kicks the pebble a little bit down the way. And in so doing, it creates a multitude of new problems requiring urgent legislative attention.

To quote Wolfgang Pauli, "That's not right. It's not even wrong."

A frank discussion about Pint and Fork

In case you haven't noticed, Pint and Fork has been on hiatus for the past two months. I've spent that time reflecting on what I'm trying to achieve by writing this blog, and what direction this blog should follow in the future.

See, it's like this. You can get food and beer writing from a lot of places. But I've always attempted to infuse a subtle perspective drawn from my experiences into this blog that gives it terroir. Right now, I live in Madison, Wisconsin and many of my posts have been germane to the local food, beer, and the politics of each. But as the focus of Pint and Fork has become increasingly specific, its readership I fear has become smaller.

Which is fine with me on the whole. As Dario Cecchichi is quoted as saying in Bill Buford's book "Heat", I'm not interested in "bizzzness."

I'm not interested in showing how "refined" my palate is by writing, say, restaurant reviews in which I find fault with everything and write about it in the most mocking ways. Such reviews, while fun to read perhaps, lower the bottom line of food blogging as a whole. Writing mean things about people is not what I'm about. I never want to write anything that sounds like this bit from Amuse-Biatch:

* Reading the blogs: "I'm weaning myself off them. They're vicious. They attack me, my wife, my dog. These people don't seem to have anything better to do."

[Um, first of all, we do have better things to do (and we do them); it's just that we enjoy doing this (like Hung, we lack both "heart" and "soul"). Secondly, we never attacked your dog; we believe in intraspecies honor. Look, Brian, possum, we'll level with you. You're a very cute guy (especially once you shaved that asinine soul patch), but it's not our fault that you had a penchant for bullshit, airy-fairy dish names, ugly man-jewelry and stupid hats (we're not positive, but we think even the International Male catalogue has banned thumb rings and leather wristbands). You might, as you claim, be loved by the Gays, but possum, we's a tough crowd, and tough crowd equals tough love. Also, it's not our fault that your wife put specific information that presumably implicates you on a public MySpace page for all the world to see. On the positive side, we applaud and congratulate you for not saying that you were weaning yourself "off of" blogs. Good grammar is a wonderful thing to behold. See? We're not all bad.]

Just as I'm not interested in being another tabloid blog, I also have no desire to be the CNN of the food blogging world. Pint and Fork isn't "first on the scene" journalism, nor is it going to report on gossip. I'm not the blogger that shows up on restaurants on their first night in operation or reviews a beer after a single bottle. I've been working on an ethics policy and I'll post it when it's ready. In the mean time, let it suffice it to say that a fair amount of effort goes into fair representation of facts. Pint and Fork is slow and deliberate. It is the opinion page of the newspaper and not the front page.

It's tempting to sell out these principles to boost my blog's popularity, but I believe that there's an audience out there that isn't interested in that kind of blogging and who prefers the perspective that I can bring to the table. So to speak.

I hope I'm right.

I'm inspired by Alder from Vinography who continues to be one of the strongest voices in the wine blogging community. He has gotten there not by being flashy, mean, or spurious, but by being thorough, consistent, and a fine writer. Alder stays on topic and he does it well.

That said, I have some exciting plans for this blog to dish up when the time is right. In the meantime, I hope to return to a regular weekly posting schedule.

For all of my readers, welcome back!

All's Quiet on the Western Front

A curious thing happened in Viroqua on Monday.

People actually demonstrated in favor of concentrated animal feeding operations. Local large-scale farmers hauled over fifty pieces of farm equipment onto the streets surrounding Western Technical College, mostly to express opposition to a measure being evaluated by Vernon County's Health Committee that would temporarily restrict development of new livestock operations of 500-1000 animals. Regulations surrounding herds of more than 1000 "animal units" would still fall under Wisconsin Statute 93.90. So basically, Vernon County has proposed to have a stricter standard than the rest of the state of Wisconsin.

City folks and small-scale farmers demonstrated to express their support for the proposed moratorium. Virginia Goeke was there are and laments that

Unfortunately, some of the media has portrayed this issue as Vernon county Farmers are against the moratorium, meanwhile city folks are for it. John and I, along with other small family farms have spoken publicly in favor of the moratorium at the recent public hearing, however there was a very large showing of very large-scale farmers, replete with their large, new, shiny tractors & spray rigs, that of course grabbed the media eye.

It all started when Jeff and Bonnie Parr proposed the development of a 2400 "animal unit" hog operation.

As a moratorium, it wouldn't permanently ban the development of such large-scale farms. Health Committee member Gail Frie said, "This is a temporary short-term moratorium, not a prohibition." The idea is that the committee needs more time to arrive at a definitive conclusion on the best way to move forward. The board supported passing the draft moratorium on June 11 on the testimony of David Chakoian who demonstrated that large scale hog farms promote the spread of antibiotic-resistance pathogens. Chakoian's view was rebuked by that of Arthur Mueller, a veterinarian, who concluded that "The important thing is this confinement unit will not threaten the public health of its neighbors."

This moratorium is not only a good idea; it doesn't go far enough. The conditions that allow concentrated animal feeding operations to exist ought to be made illegal, and I hope that Vernon County will make it so. Furthermore, it is in the best interests of everyone that Vernon County acts in this manner.

In a confined animal operation, animals are kept in such close proximity that anti-biotics have to be administered to entire herds. This is even more important because many of these pigs, once able to subsist on anything, are bred or genetically engineered in such a way that they would die outside. Pumping an animal full of antibiotics and then eating it sounds like a recipe for the spread of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and it does in fact result in nasty infections. Chee-Sanford et al. demonstrated in 2001 that antibiotic-resistance can also be transmitted by ground water from liquid animal waste.

Given the solid scientific evidence demonstrating that the continued use of antibiotics poses a human health risk, and given that such antibiotics are administered most on concentrated animal feedlot operations, it only makes sense that the proposed moratorium would have a positive impact upon human health.

In talking about health risks, we run a risk of focusing too myopically on health and safety issues in neglect of environmental, ethical, culinary, and public interest considerations. These large farms won't be able to compost their animal waste, leading to groundwater pollution. The swine that will live on the Parr's farm will experience very low quality of life, which many people would consider unethical. Omnivores ought to demand this moratorium in light of the fact that happy animals taste better than sad animals. Is it in the public interest that the swine industry should become progressively more consolidated? Is this in support of the area's famed rural agrarian heritage? Does the potentially lethal malodorous effluent rank high on the dread-and-outrage scale in the public view? Does an increase in antibiotic resistance bacteria post a threat to national security? This is precisely the sort of political trap the food industry has relied upon for decades. Hasn't anyone read Safe Food by Marion Nestle?

The Vernon County board should open the discussion to consider all relevant views of the topic, not just health and safety.

The real insult to injury here is that the Wisconsin's Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection (!!!) (DATCAP) has threatened to sue Vernon County if the moratorium goes into effect. Virginia Goeke alleges that the "DATCAP/ state of Wisconsin has been consulting with the National Pork Industry Council on this issue." Pint and Fork cannot confirm nor deny this claim. If they define consumer protection as doing everything in their power to subvert the public interest in favor of private interest, they're doing an excellent job
fulfilling their mission statement.

Farms that confine animals and use antibiotics pose a threat to human health, contaminate Wisconsin's ground and surface waters, threatens our heritage and debases our collective identity, and is not in the interests of anyone. Wisconsin has long been an agricultural leader; standing our ground and not giving in to the interests of a few factory farms preserves that leadership.

Life's for livin'

Have a drink, have a drive
Go out and see what you can find
-Mungo Jerry from "In the Summertime"

The Wisconsin State Journal today devoted their staff editorial to the need to getting serial DUI offenders off the road. To recap... Shockingly, Thomas J. Dworak has been convicted a dozen times for drunken driving. And he was in court this week standing trial for another drinking while driving offense. William A. Skare has been convicted on fourteen counts of drinking and driving. Clearly, these two Wisconsin men should not be allowed behind the wheel. And yet law enforcement keeps finding them there without a license and drunk. This constitutes a deficiency in our laws since the legal punishment for their repeated convictions has not prevented these individuals from driving. The Wisconsin State Journal puts it more eloquently, "The only regret Wisconsin should have about throwing the book at Dworak is that it is not a bigger book."

Dworak is facing a maximum prison sentence of six years plus a fine of $10,000, which could increase as a function of his blood alcohol content at the time of the infraction.

Hot off setting myself up for being called a yankee muckraker, Pint and Fork proposes that the following ideas be considered to keep serial offenders off the road:
1. Pass a law that makes it illegal for repeat offenders to own or possess a car after a certain number of offenses. I mean if we can make laws that "infringe" upon a convicted felon's "second amendment right" to bear arms, we can make a law that restricts access to motor vehicles. Cars in the hands of the intoxicated are deadly weapons and killed nearly 17,000 people in 2005 alone (insert obligatory comment about the number of US soldiers killed in the Iraq War, or on September 11, 2001). If we can keep the worst offenders away from motor vehicles, maybe we can reduce the number of alcohol-related fatalities.

2. Impose criminal penalties for allowing a known repeat offender to operate a vehicle in your possession. In my mind, this is similar to laws that we have in place concerning the provision of alcohol to minors. Law enforcement doesn't just penalize the offending minors; they can also penalize those who provided the alcohol in the first place. And so it is with cars and repeat DUI offenders.

3. The Wisconsin State Journal cites South Dakota law that allows repeat offenders to drive if they submit to Breathalyzer tests twice daily with the sheriff. I'm not sure that the article makes it clear, but the South Dakota law is a so-called "24/7 sobriety" zero-tolerance law. That is, a person can get a special permit to operate a motor vehicle so long as they get tested, pay the expenses of the testing, and consume absolutely no ethanol. The detection of any amount of alcohol necessarily revokes that individual's right to operate a motor vehicle.

However unlikely, it may be possible to fool a Breathalyzer. Google helped me find all sorts of tricks for beating a Breathalyzer including breathing heavily before analysis, eating shit, and sucking on activated charcoal. My scientific training and an episode of Mythbusters has me doubting the effectiveness of any way to cheat the test. To obviate any technique for fooling a Breathalyzer analysis, blood samples should be randomly collected from program participants.

I'm not sure that measure three would stop Dworak from driving, seeing as how he wasn't deterred by having his license revoked by a preponderance of repeat offenses. So while this 24/7 sobriety program offers a legal road map to obtaining a driving permit, it is insufficient to keep the worst offenders from driving because they will do so with or without a permit. Still, I regard this as a significant step forward.

All my ex's

And that's why I hang my hat in Tennessee.

Some folks think I'm hidin',
It's been rumored that I died,
But I'm alive and well in Tennessee.

-George Straight from "All My Ex's Live in Texas"

The media never ceases to amaze me.

In case you haven't heard, Tennessee took a tough stand against underage drinking recently when it created a mandatory carding law at all grocery and liquor stores.

At least that's the impression one comes away with looking at the news coverage the new law has created. What they don't tell you is that this law will do virtually nothing to reduce the consumption of alcohol to minors. And secondly, it's an insult to beer drinkers.

At the heart of the issue is the Responsible Vendor Act of 2006, which was sponsored by State Senator Joe Haynes (SB3316) and State Representative Gary Moore (HB3210). What it does is make carding mandatory for all beer sales at grocery and liquor stores in Tennessee starting July 1, 2007. It's the first law of its kind in the union and is on a trial basis until July 1, 2008, when the law is set to sunset. It is widely believed that, if successful, the sunset provision will be removed (pdf, 20 kb). This law does accomplish some noble goals, including eliminating carding discrimination and reducing the positivity bias noted by McCall and Nattrass. A complete copy of the act is available here (pdf, 48 kb).

It's like creating a law that says that you can't buy alcohol for home consumption after 9 PM (in Wisconsin), it just means that people who drink will buy their beverages earlier in the day, having a presumably negligible influence upon drinking habits. If minors aren't able to buy beer themselves, they'll just have other people buy it for them in greater numbers.

Without increasing the penalty for providing alcohol to a minor and stepping up enforcement efforts, this loop-hole will drain the Responsible Vendor Act of any effectiveness beyond encouraging the responsible sale of beer. What happens to beer after its sale is less controlled and even less controllable. I don't know how to prevent the provision of alcohol to minors; I do know that the lack of effective and suitable preventative measures means that this act will accomplish little.

Moreover, the act merely raises the street value and prevalence of having fake forms of identification. Fake identification documents are already ubiquitous as illustrated by an article in the Christian Science Monitor that describes just one of many sources minors turn to to obtain a fake id. I mean, look. I'm not CNN and I'm not going to harp about how this is going to aid terrorist groups, but it does expose a fundamental flaw in the bill and in state-issued forms of identification. So long as identification cards can be counterfeited, this act will have little impact.

In fact, I'm curious to see in what percent of cases underage drinking was due to the failure to card in the first place. Based upon my personal, anecdotal experience, I never tried to buy alcohol before I turned 21. And yet, I had absolutely no problems sourcing any kind of alcohol I wanted. Go figure.

One thing I find most curious is that the bill only addresses the sale of beer for off-premise consumption. Not wine coolers, not wine, not liquor. It doesn't affect bars either. A study put together by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (part of the NIH) determined the prevalence of consumption of beer, liquor, wine, and wine coolers among 18 - 20 year old individuals. Interestingly, only 26.8% of individuals drank beer at home while 62.0% of individuals said they consumed beer in the homes of friends or family. In comparison, 31.1% said they consumed wine coolers at home while 59.1% consumed wine coolers in the homes of friend or family. Similarly, 22.3% said they consumed liquor at home while 61.8% said they consumed liquor at the homes of friend or family. It is clear that beer consumption is only one piece of a larger puzzle. As a result, even if this act reduces the sale of beer to minors, it is unlikely to affect wine coolers, wine, or liquor consumption as the bill doesn't apply to these forms of alcohol.

The same study broke down consumption habits by gender and race. I am not a statistician and could not tell you what a significant difference is between values presented in Table 3. However, upon an uneducated glance, it strikes me that the type of beverage is related to both gender and race. If the act will reduce consumption among men and women, American-Indians and Alaska natives, the hispanic, and college students most of all, it does little to curb consumption among other groups. For example, 5.0% more women drank wine coolers at home than men. Liquor consumption is prevalent among all groups in the homes of friends or family. But this act: no impact. This could be especially hurtful to asians who have the highest rates of out-of-home liquor consumption (70.7%), for example.

In an ideal world, I wish we would instead teach our children to respect beer the way they do in many other parts of the world. Our "alcohol is bad" approach just reinforces the notion that alcoholic beverages only have value in proportion to their ethanol content (I also suspect it undermines our much needed "crystal meth is bad" message). Beer is a wonderful beverage with a rich tradition extending back thousands of years. Why aren't we instead teaching children to appreciate it, within reasonable limits? Abstinence only sex-education may be best in theory, but certainly not in practice. It's the same with alcohol-education.

Saving the moment

Like practically everyone else in my generation -- and probably yours, too -- I grew up with little dependence upon foods that had been preserved at home. Yet, people have been figuring out ways to slow down the inevitable decay of foods for thousands of years. And people have been canning foods since Nicolas Appert figured out how in 1809. I concede our forebears preserved food more out of necessity than for taste, which I hope you know by know is one of the leitmotifs throughout all of my writings for Pint and Fork.

However, there are good reasons to preserve food today. When we capture a product at the peak of its season, we have that vegetable at its seasonal prime all year. This is the overarching reason why I intend to can large amounts of tomatoes this year including derivative sauces such as pasta sauce and tomato salsa. Francis Schott and Mark Pascal, of The Restaurant Guys fame, swear by this approach at their flagship restaurant Stage Left.

Moreover, so much of our food comes from thousands of miles away by anonymous growers. Reducing the energy consumed schlepping food around the globe has to be a good thing. And furthermore it gives me an excuse to support local farmers to a greater extent. Call it sentimental hogwash, but I like knowing the names of the people growing my vegetables.

Of course, I'm also just curious and eager to try something new. That's why this year I'm going to put more emphasis upon food preservation in hopes that I'll have some good eats this winter. Throughout the summer I hope to show off all the food I've put aside. And besides, maybe canning is going to become cool the way knitting is these days.

I bought five pounds of asparagus from the Priske family at the Dane County Farmers' Market this last weekend. Since asparagus has very little acidity, it has to be autoclaved ... I mean pressure canned (i.e. not water bath canned). To prepare, I cut the spears so that they would fit inside my widemouth pint-size mason jars. I fit as many as I could inside the jars. Then I added boiling water and half a teaspoon of canning salt to each jar. After attaching the lids, I processed the cans under 11.6 psi for thirty minutes and then allowed the pressure to attenuate naturally over 25 minutes.

As the provenance of canning recipes is important (unless you want to get botulism, which you don't), I followed these directions from the National Center for Home Food Preservation.

Next time I get my hands on fresh asparagus, I think I'm going to try pickling it.

The people have spoken

Assembly Bill 122, which was the subject of my previous post, was signed into law today by Governor Jim Doyle. Obviously, Pint and Fork's strong advocacy of this bill was instrumental in its passage...

But seriously, I did think it was interesting that the only feedback I got was for the bill. This shouldn't be that surprising since most of the readers of Pint and Fork probably value beer and eschew neo-prohibitionism.

Whenever I say something about a person, be it good, bad, or otherwise, on Pint and Fork, I make a reasonable effort to notify that person via email. I do this for several reasons. The first, and most selfish reason, being that I want to increase the reader base of my blog. The more people who know about Pint and Fork, the better.

But the second, lesser, and more ethical reason is that I want to give those whose opinions differ from my own a chance to disagree with me. I hope that eventually some good discussions will take place in comments in my blog. I also feel that notifying people I talk about also keeps me honest in my writing. It's easy to say that so-and-so is stupid when you're doing it behind their back, quite another when it's in the open.

So the reason I was surprised was this: I heard back from the office of State Senator Pat Kreitlow. No one wrote in to say that I'm a dumb-dumb for supporting AB122, which is surprising because Pat Kreitlow is only one of two people I mentioned who support the bill. I mentioned three or four people who are against it.

At any rate, I think this speaks well to our state... Especially in comparison to Alabama, where the sale of bottled beer is unreasonably restricted. No beer sold in Alabama can exceed 6% alcohol by volume or come in a bottle greater than one pint. South Carolina, West Virginia, and Mississippi are the only other states that have similar restrictions. But when the house had a chance to change the law in Alabama, they decided to table it instead. I've been planning on doing a full-fledged piece on the issue at some point, and may still do one as there's more drama than an episode of the Gilmore Girls, but in the mean time I wish Alabamans that support the so-called gourmet beer law the best of luck in their political pursuits.

Not Funny

I think everyone that knows me well knows one thing about me: I love comics. When I was little, I read Garfield and Peanuts voraciously. Then I got into The Far Side, Calvin and Hobbs, and Doonesbury. And I've always had a thing for political cartoons. When done well, they're clever depictions of complicated issues. As something simple, they can be incredibly powerful statements of opinion. Just look at Thomas Nast.

So I can take a joke.

But I think Joe Heller's recent political cartoon about free beer samples in grocery stores wasn't funny.

At stake is Wisconsin Assembly Bill 122, which would allow free samples of beer to be given out at grocery stores in Wisconsin. Specifically, it allows a maximum of two 3-ounce portions to be given to a person of legal drinking age between 11 AM and 7 PM unless specifically prohibited by municipal government.

The bill, sponsored by State Senator Pat Kretilow, passed the Senate Affairs Committee unanimously and is to be scheduled for a vote on the senate floor.

The way the law is now written, two 3-ounce portions of wine may be given free of charge to an individual of legal drinking between 10 AM and 6 PM (AB122 changes the times to 11-7):

125.06(13)(a)
(a) The provision of wine taste samples of not more than 3 fluid ounces each, free of charge, by a "Class A" licensee to customers and visitors for consumption on the premises. No "Class A" licensee may provide more than 2 taste samples per day to any one person. This subsection applies only between the hours of 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. Notwithstanding s. 125.07 (1) (a) 1., no "Class A" licensee may provide taste samples under this subsection to any underage person. No "Class A" licensee may provide as taste samples under this subsection wine that the "Class A" licensee did not purchase from a wholesaler.

125.06(13)(b)
(b) Notwithstanding par. (a) and s. 125.10 (1), a municipality may prohibit the provision of wine under this subsection.

A play-by-play analysis of the exact changes proposed in the current version of AB122 is provided here (PDF, 20kb). In its current form, it proposes that section 125.1 be revised from

125.25(1)
(1) Every municipal governing body may issue Class "A" licenses for the sale of fermented malt beverages from premises within the municipality. Subject to s. 125.34 (5) and (6), a Class "A" license authorizes retail sales of fermented malt beverages for consumption off the premises where sold and in original packages, containers and bottles. A license may be issued after July 1. That license shall expire on the following June 30.

to (changes noted in bold)

125.25 (1) Every municipal governing body may issue Class “A” licenses for the
sale of fermented malt beverages from premises within the municipality. Subject to s. 125.34 (5) and (6), a Class “A” license authorizes retail sales of fermented malt beverages for consumption off the premises where sold and in original packages, containers, and bottles. A Class “A” license also authorizes the licensee to provide, free of charge, to customers and visitors who have attained the legal drinking age fermented malt beverages taste samples that are not in original packages, containers, or bottles and that do not exceed 3 fluid ounces each, for consumption on the Class “A” premises. No Class “A” licensee may provide more than 2 taste samples per day to any one person. Taste samples may be provided under this subsection only between the hours of 11 a.m. and 7 p.m. Any other provision of this chapter applicable to retail sales of fermented malt beverages by a Class “A” licensee also applies to the provision of taste samples, free of charge, of fermented malt beverages by a Class “A” licensee. A license may be issued after July 1. That license shall expire on the following June 30.

So basically all Assembly Bill 122 does is make legal for beer what is already legal for wine.

Yet, here's Joe Heller portraying a bunch of men standing around a grocery store chugging beer at a grocery stand resembling a bar. The figure behind the "bar" resembles a young store clerk. By portraying someone who might potentially be underage serving beer implies that there's no check to make sure that all samples are given to people of legal drinking age. And it could be construed to imply that the underage clerk himself might have access to beer, and help himself.

There are four empty cups littering the floor around the men. This depiction implicitly suggests that individuals who would sample beer at a store are irresponsible.

Moreover, there are two women in the cartoon. With a dour look on her face (the other woman merely looks condescending towards the men), one of them says, "He never wanted to come to the grocery store with me... now I can't get him to leave!!" This further implies that all beer drinkers are men, and that men love beer more than their spouses. It also implies that there's no limit to the number of free samples, or that the serving sizes are large. And indeed, the cups don't appear to be tasting portion sized. As a result, it seriously misrepresents the AB122.

Finally, the caption reads "Wis. legislature considers allowing grocery stores to hand out beer samples." Again, there's no indication that responsible alcohol service is legally mandated by the bill.

The hue and cry about AB122 is beyond absurd. I will first address Heller's apparent criticisms, then I will respond to the arguments of other opponents of the bill. Finally, I will argue in favor of AB122 and strongly urge its approval without delay.

First, grocery stores providing beer samples will have to do so in a responsible manner. Regulations surrounding who can and cannot serve alcoholic beverages will apply to the distribution of free samples. And more than likely, the grocery store won't set up a bar. It might have a small table, which draws far less attention.

While people do litter, I question the apparent causal relationship between a free beer sample and litter in grocery stores. You can't tell me that everyone who takes a toothpick of Mystery Sausage at the grocery store puts the toothpick into an approved trash receptacle. You also can't tell me that men are more likely to litter than women. Or that beer drinkers are more likely to litter than wine drinkers or Mystery Juice drinkers.

With serving sizes limited to two 3-ounce pours, individuals trying a free beer sample would have to leave at some point because there's no reason to stay. It wouldn't lead to massive crowding at grocery stores. It wouldn't lead to public drunkenness. It wouldn't lead to neglected spouses. And let's face it: the times I've had a sample of wine at retail locations, the pour was more like one ounce. The volumes given are maximums, not The Exact Amount Which Must Be Poured and Then Consumed.

Having read numerous press accounts of the AB122 controversy, I found some more criticism of the bill. Nearly all of them go like this, "AB122 promotes drunkenness, alcoholism, and increases the chances of underage drinking and alcohol-related traffic fatalities. In addition, AB122 could be harmful to children and recovering alcoholics."

To be fair and balanced, I'll allow the critics to speak in their own words.

As quoted by Patrick Thornton of the Green Bay Press Gazette, Portage County District Attorney Tom Eagon says, "There are a lot of places in our community for people to get a drink." Yes, but if I wanted to go out and get a drink I want to go out and get a drink. What I wouldn't do is cruise around to grocery stores walking up and down each isle to see if free tasting samples were being distributed. And even if I found a grocery store that was providing tasting samples, I'd get at the very most six ounces (half a bottle) worth of beer. Given the amount of time and effort that an individual would have to spend obtaining a ridiculously small amount of beer, Mr. Eagon's argument is absurd. It is also an irrelevant point because people could already go out to grocery stores and get free tasting samples of wine.

Lauri Rockman, coordinator of Portage County's Coalition for Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention, is quoted as saying, "The environment we create for our young people is critical to their long-term health. We need positive adult modeling. Making alcohol part of a trip to the grocery store is just another way to make it so pervasive and casual in our culture." Of all the arguments against Assembly Bill 122, I think this is the most outrageous. Like a lot of things (sugar, salt, fat, etc.), alcohol is not inherently bad. Perhaps that's why her organization has the word "Abuse" in its title, not "Consumption." Anyway, I agree. It's extremely important that adults provide positive role models for their children. I just disagree with Ms. Rockman that the consumption of alcohol in moderation sets a bad example. Beer is a beverage with ancient roots, and strong traditions in many european countries (and a strong tradition here in the US). It can be incredibly complex and highly refined. To be honest, if I have kids someday I hope they have an appreciation for real beer as adults. If she doesn't want beer, she doesn't have to buy it or support retail locations that sell it. But please, Ms. Rockman, don't tell me that I can't or shouldn't enjoy it.

Mr. Eagon continues, "People with alcohol issues can't stop at one or two. One of the ways they deal with their problem is to avoid situations where they will be tempted. A grocery store should be a safe place." Ok, I get that argument. But where do you draw the line? If I recently had a heart attack, should I be tempted by fattening meats, whole milk, and candy bars in the checkout? If I suffer from celiac disease, should I be tempted with gluten-containing products? And furthermore, it stands to reason that economics would balance this out. If a store provides free samples of beer and you couldn't resist, then don't go there. If the grocery store loses enough business, it will be forced to stop providing free samples of beer.

But again, Mr. Eagon's argument misrepresents the issue. If grocery stores had a keg in the middle of the produce section and were handing out beers by the pint, I'd understand his comment about not being able to stop at "one or two." But let's face it. Six ounces of beer maximum is not a lot. And if you're talking about ethanol content it's far less than six ounces of wine. Let's say most beers come in around 4% alcohol by volume while most wines come in around 14% alcohol. That means in 6 ounces of wine, there's about 7 grams of ethanol for beer as opposed to 25 grams for wine. So you're going to end up consuming more than three times as much alcohol drinking the already-legal tasting sample of wine. And it's not like grocery stores don't already sell beer, wine, and hard liquor which could potentially compromise the safety of a store for a recovering alcoholic.

Assembly Bill 122 deserves to become law without further ado. The homebrewing and microbrewing revolution in the last twenty to thirty years in the United States has lead to the creation of some amazing breweries and world-class beers. Facing a dizzying variety of beer choices at a store (go to Woodman's Market or Steve's Liquor in Madison if you don't believe the selection could be intimidating), many customers won't know what to choose. If the retail location periodically provides free samples of beer, it helps beer drinkers try new styles without committing to a six pack. As a result, more people are more likely to try more beer.

This is a great for craft brewers who often survive on razor-thin margins. Paul Graham, president of the Central Waters Brewing Company, acknowledges this when he is quoted as saying, "Some people are hesitant to spend money on a beer they haven't tried before. This would give them a chance to sample our product before they purchase it." This legislation could potentially help smaller craft brewers compete with the macrobrewers.

This is great for the beer movement in the United States. For a long time, beer meant american light lager (e.g. Miller Lite). Then it meant american light lager and stout (e.g. Guinness). Then it meant american light lager, stout, and pale ale (e.g. Sierra Nevada Pale Ale). Now it pretty much means every kind of beer from every brewing tradition on the planet, plus experimenting with new ways of doing things. Helping people understand that beer can taste like fresh cherries (e.g. New Glarus Belgian Red) to espresso (e.g. Central Waters Bourbon Barrel Stout) and everything in between will help maintain diversity of brewing portfolios. And it may be exactly what is needed, given that the Capital Brewing Company discontinued Capital 1900 and Kloster Weizen, two worthy and unique offerings by a local craft brewer.

And finally, it helps raise the profile of beer drinking by making it placing it rightfully as wine's equal.

Assembly Bill 122 is a good measure that will help Wisconsin business, benefit Wisconsin residents, and maintain Wisconsin's reputation for beer. Although it has been assailed by critics, their arguments are very weak compared to the tangible benefits that AB122 provides. The state assembly should not delay its passage.