NYT: Wine drinkers are not local enough

Like a lot of NY Times articles lately, I find this one to be generally ho-hum, lacking focus. BUT, thinking about it further, the article implicitly levels a fairly serious accusation again wine drinkers: We are, by definition, traitors to the locavore movement.

The main thesis of this article (although it veers into other topics) is that, even though San Francisco is the urban heart of California wine country, and food-wise, is locavore to the point of dogma, when it comes to wine, it is not unusual to see San Franciscan restaurants stray from Napa/Sonoma wines and include the Europeans on their wine lists.

This was, as an aside, something I was surprised to see during my recent trip to Napa and Sonoma, no more so than at Zazu, a self-described farm-to-table restaurant. With its focus on growing, raising and processing food within a few miles from the restaurant, I was surprised to see that approximately 50% of its wine list was not from around there. In fact, arguably, the best wines on this list were European.

The article then shifts focus to the environmental effects of having a global wine list and concludes that, no doubt, San Francisco restaurants serving European wines are harming the environment. On the other hand, NY is doing better for the environment by drinking Bordeaux that is container-shipped rather than Napa Valley Cabs that are truck-shipped. (The article makes no mention of what is better for Chicago, but we're flyover country anyway.)

Why is it that even restaurants that are focused on local food veer away when it comes to wine, especially in places like San Francisco, which is adjacent to some of the best winemakers in the world? [Now, to be sure, it would be much tougher for a Chicago restaurant to have an all-local wine list, even though it can be done.] Is it that wine drinkers are discriminately indiscriminate? Meaning, they discriminate in favor of what they perceive to be the "best," regardless of where that wine comes from? Or is that their palates dull by drinking too much wine from the same region?

Or is that, as a country, we're insecure, relatively young winemakers who can't shake the notion that Europe (especially France) still makes the best wine?

Anyway, I drink all wine from all over, including some good-to-not-so-good wines from Michigan. I try not to pigeonhole myself into the notion that only one place is fitted to best represent a certain grape - it's all relative, anyway. But I do wonder whether it would ever be possible for people in the US to primarily drink wine that is purely local, as they do, say, in France. If we do, the reasons will be generally the same as the reasons for why we eat local foods, except with wine, we would certainly sacrifice taste as well as omit entirely certain varietals from wine-consuming diet.

When I was interviewing the La Quercia folks, we talked about the local movement and although they are very keenly interested in being supportive of growers in Iowa and Missouri and in helping raise the level of what's made in their part of the midwest, they not surprisingly rejected the idea that that meant California should eat California prosciutto and not their Iowa prosciutto.

This is not merely self-serving. Their first point is, which is rooted in the whole "food miles" aspect of locavorism and being a sustainable eater, is that of the four most common possibilities for eating prosciutto in California:

1) Take California farmland that could be growing lettuce beautifully, grow grain and other pig feed on it which it's less well-suited for, and feed it to pigs from whom you make prosciutto
2) Ship grain from the midwest to California and feed it to your pigs in California
3) Ship hogs from Iowa to California and make prosciutto
4) Buy Iowa prosciutto

it's the last and seemingly least local one which is probably the most environmentally responsible (and kindest to animals who don't exactly enjoy a cross-country trip). Different regions are better suited for different things.

The second, related point has to do with the fact that prosciutto is a preserved, shippable form of pork, as wine is a preserved, shippable form of grapes. They have both an historical basis in food traditions I like, and they have already involved some work to reduce the costs and effects of transport-- a case of wine may be heavy, but it's a lot smaller and lighter than the grapes it came from. (Maybe instead of food miles, we should talk about water miles-- how much water weight you've removed from something before shipping it.)

Now, that said, it does seem perverse for a restaurant in Napa to have such a European wine list. That seems like you're willfully failing to take advantage of local advantages. But I don't think that's as much an ethical issue as an aesthetic or cultural one.

couldn't it be a pairing issue? You can't grow everything in a given area, especially grapes.

The NYT article wrote:Of course, shipping wine has other costs, namely energy. Tyler Colman, a writer and blogger (drvino.com), has studied the cost of greenhouse gas emissions in the wine trade. He has found, surprisingly, that for wine consumers in New York, it’s more environmentally sound to drink, say, Bordeaux, than Napa Valley cabernet because it’s far more efficient to transport Bordeaux by container ship than it is to truck in the California wine.

How nice that the NYT's wine critic includes a convenient loophole for New Yorkers. Funny there was no mention of New Jersey wines in the comparison of energy costs...I'm guessing the cost of transporting wines from their neighboring state would be far lower than shipping them in from Europe or trucking them in from Sonoma.

Khaopaat wrote:

The NYT article wrote:Of course, shipping wine has other costs, namely energy. Tyler Colman, a writer and blogger (drvino.com), has studied the cost of greenhouse gas emissions in the wine trade. He has found, surprisingly, that for wine consumers in New York, it’s more environmentally sound to drink, say, Bordeaux, than Napa Valley cabernet because it’s far more efficient to transport Bordeaux by container ship than it is to truck in the California wine.

How nice that the NYT's wine critic includes a convenient loophole for New Yorkers. Funny there was no mention of New Jersey wines in the comparison of energy costs...I'm guessing the cost of transporting wines from their neighboring state would be far lower than shipping them in from Europe or trucking them in from Sonoma.

LOL! I was thinking the same thing -- and that there was no suggestion that NYers should consume NY wine even though there are some nice wines from NY and its winemaking industry has steadily improved over the years . . .

bbqboy wrote:couldn't it be a pairing issue? You can't grow everything in a given area, especially grapes.

According to the article, that is what it is for some restaurateurs (although with respect to Napo, I sense that he wants Italian wine simply because he serves Italian food). However, I think you'd be hard-pressed not to find a Napa, Sonoma, heck even Mendocino or Lake County wine that will pair with whatever food you're serving. But with respect to the upper Midwest, yes, pairing may be an issue especially if you're looking for big reds to pair.

Thanks for posting the link to the article, and sharing your thoughts about this this interesting subject. I'll probably have more thoughts later, but for now, this struck me:

aschie30 wrote:...I do wonder whether it would ever be possible for people in the US to primarily drink wine that is purely local, as they do, say, in France. If we do, the reasons will be generally the same as the reasons for why we eat local foods, ...

I'm not sure that I agree with the second sentence above. In France and Italy, perhaps part of the reason people drink local wine is because of the same locavore sentiments some people here have, but I think government policy is a much bigger reason. France and Italy tax the begeezus out of wines not produced locally, and eliminate virtually all tax on the stuff produced within one's region. The result is that local wines in France and Italy cost a fraction of what other wines cost.

My first reaction to Aschie30's initial post was disgust: anyone who thinks that drinking non-local wine violates some tenet of localvore-ology doesn't know or care that much about wine. And, who are these mythical localvores that literally don't eat anything from beyond X miles away? Then I decided to read the article and it is actually much more balanced than I thought.

Kennyz is absolutely correct: taxes on imported wine are extremely high in Europe (and Mexico, to my surprise).

Darren72 wrote:My first reaction to Aschie30's initial post was disgust: anyone who thinks that drinking non-local wine violates some tenet of localvore-ology doesn't know or care that much about wine. And, who are these mythical localvores that literally don't eat anything from beyond X miles away? Then I decided to read the article and it is actually much more balanced than I thought.

Kennyz is absolutely correct: taxes on imported wine are extremely high in Europe (and Mexico, to my surprise).

To be clear, I'm not positing that anyone who drinks non-local wine ceases to be a locavore. But I think the article starts by examining the oddity inherent in SF restaurants having so many European wines when they wouldn't dream of importing their food and they have such world-class winemakers nearby. Is there a distinction that localvores make between eating local and drinking local that makes drinking non-locally, if you will, permissible?

As to Kenny's point, by "local", I don't mean France or Italy as whole countries; I mean that, many people living in, say, Burgundy, drink Burgundy table wines. Perhaps for more special occasions they move up or out of the region. That's what I mean by local. In the US, we don't do that -- is it pricing? Lack of tradition? A belief that American wine isn't that good? Anyway, my question wasn't meant to examine necessarily why French people drink French wine, but rather, to examine the reasons for why locavore Americans would drink local wine -- or put differently, why they wouldn't drink local wine? (And I think that's where the article was going, albeit inartfully, when it raised environmental issues as being considerations in deciding what to drink.) But anyway, the article posits, I think, that wine drinkers aren't local enough even when they have no excuse not to be (in the case of California). But, I guess, that's where Mike's point comes in -- wine is easily shippable, whereas whole foods suffer during shipment. But still, wouldn't the same reasons (except taste) for why you eat local (such as environmental concerns) apply in drinking local?

That's what I mean by local. In the US, we don't do that -- is it pricing? Lack of tradition? A belief that American wine isn't that good?

I'm not sure why this is puzzling (although why SF restaurants would focus on European wines is a bit odd). Wine production is not suitable everywhere. In Europe, people in Scandinavia, England and Ireland, for example, are not drinking local wines. People in Chicago are not eating locally grown pineapples. I grew up in New Jersey and have had New Jersey wines, and they are not good. Maybe someday someone will figure out how to produce wines in some of these states that are decent, but I guess I don't understand why we would expect people to drink crappy products just because they are local. If there were decent local products at an affordable price, the demand would be there.

Most Americans are not drinking European wines, they're drinking California and maybe Australian wines.

aschie30 wrote:

Darren72 wrote:My first reaction to Aschie30's initial post was disgust: anyone who thinks that drinking non-local wine violates some tenet of localvore-ology doesn't know or care that much about wine. And, who are these mythical localvores that literally don't eat anything from beyond X miles away? Then I decided to read the article and it is actually much more balanced than I thought.

Kennyz is absolutely correct: taxes on imported wine are extremely high in Europe (and Mexico, to my surprise).

To be clear, I'm not positing that anyone who drinks non-local wine ceases to be a locavore. But I think the article starts by examining the oddity inherent in SF restaurants having so many European wines when they wouldn't dream of importing their food and they have such world-class winemakers nearby. Is there a distinction that localvores make between eating local and drinking local that makes drinking non-locally, if you will, permissible?

Oh, I'm really sorry that I wrote so carelessly. I wasn't referring to what you wrote when I said my reaction was disgust. My disgust was aimed at what I presumed the article said. I agree with everything you said. In particular, I like to "eat local" because it generally means I'm getting fresher, better tasting food. I'm generally not thinking about environmental impacts. By contrast, there's no taste advantage to drinking local wine. Sometimes there's a fun aspect - like drinking North Shore's products - but I wouldn't continue to drink them if they didn't also taste great.

Speaking of which, I just had some Mary Michelle ice wine produced in Carrollton, IL. It was decent.

aschie30 wrote:Like a lot of NY Times articles lately, I find this one to be generally ho-hum, lacking focus. BUT, thinking about it further, the article implicitly levels a fairly serious accusation again wine drinkers: We are, by definition, traitors to the locavore movement.

I didn't read the article as accusatory or damning to wine drinkers at all.

aschie30 wrote:To be clear, I'm not positing that anyone who drinks non-local wine ceases to be a locavore. But I think the article starts by examining the oddity inherent in SF restaurants having so many European wines when they wouldn't dream of importing their food and they have such world-class winemakers nearby.

I really appreciated the gist (since it was rather unfocused) of the article precisely because Asimov presents the issue as more of an oddity (good word) rather than as some betrayal to a political movement. I'm experiencing some locavore burn-out right now* because I think "the movement" has sucked out a lot of the aesthetics and broader culture of food and eating with its pedantry and overlooked the important context that food from far-away places provides for local food (whether the former "raises the bar" or just situates local food historically).

*My burn-out is more with the propaganda than with the practices in my own life. I don't consider myself a locavore though I probably consume more local food than the average person.

happy_stomach wrote: I'm experiencing some locavore burn-out right now* because I think "the movement" has sucked out a lot of the aesthetics and broader culture of food and eating with its pedantry

You really think that? Where is all this pedantry? I know this is a repeat of lots of past debate, but I still wonder where these locavores are who are propagandizing with their strict rules and guidelines. I consider myself a locavore, but all that means to me is that I seek and try to enjoy the best things available in my region. No rules, no restrictions. It means largely the same thing to lots of other locavores I know.

Kennyz wrote:

happy_stomach wrote: I'm experiencing some locavore burn-out right now* because I think "the movement" has sucked out a lot of the aesthetics and broader culture of food and eating with its pedantry

You really think that? Where is all this pedantry? I know this is a repeat of lots of past debate, but I still wonder where these locavores are who are propagandizing with their strict rules and guidelines. I consider myself a locavore, but all that means to me is that I seek and try to enjoy the best things available in my region. No rules, no restrictions. It means largely the same thing to lots of other locavores I know.

Maybe I blame the false advertising of Dominick's or the rigidity of Green City Market. Maybe I should hang out with more locavores.

The popular sentiment seems to be that eating locally can be very practical*, but I feel like the preponderance of the "it's not about what's permissible" message has evolved into its own kind of pedantry. I just need a break from all of the guides and lists and "know your food, know your farmer" tote bags (of which I own more than I could possibly ever use, even on my most indulgent trips to GCM). Again, I fully admit that what I'm experiencing now is burn-out, not fully-reasoned, due partially to a seasonal need to rebel. Having mostly relied on local fruit for my sweets this past summer (and happily), I just want to eat chocolate every day.

*I really do love The Local Beet!

I run into pleasure-killing, doctrinaire locavores all the time. Like in this article, or in some interviews with the author of this book.

Funny I never run into them at farmer's markets or restaurants like Vie or Mado, though...

I read this article yesterday, so I was sort of surprised to see some of the questioning in the OP in terms of an American wine inferiority complex etc. The answer for why the restaurants do not go local was in the article. The restaurant wine directors quoted said that they thought European wines paired with the food better because they were not as heavy and didn't overwhelm the food. This explanation makes sense to me although I'm no expert. I went to a wine tasting a few years ago led by Alpana Singh and something she said has always stuck with me. She said certain regions of the world (California, Chile and Argentina, South Africa) had perfect conditions for making wines that are just explosive in terms of the taste sensation in your mouth. Again, I like wine, but I'm not expert, but I could see how a sommelier would not want wines like those to pair with food.

CCCB wrote:The restaurant wine directors quoted said that they thought European wines paired with the food better because they were not as heavy and didn't overwhelm the food. This explanation makes sense to me although I'm no expert. I went to a wine tasting a few years ago led by Alpana Singh and something she said has always stuck with me. She said certain regions of the world (California, Chile and Argentina, South Africa) had perfect conditions for making wines that are just explosive in terms of the taste sensation in your mouth.

Europeans do not have the patent on wines that are not heavy and don't overwhelm food. While it's true that Napa is known for its explosive Cabs, that is not what California wines are exclusively about. Of course, it's tough to argue with a sommelier (if some of these restaurants in the article even have one) who asserts that a certain European wine pairs better with a certain dish, but I still think that it would be tough for the same sommelier to assert that there is not one (or ten) California wines that would pair just as well. As for the inferiority complex I mentioned in the OP, keeping in mind that the California wine industry was a joke as recently as forty years ago, it is still relatively new to worldwide acceptance. In that regard, I still think there *may* be a pervasive idea that European wines are better across the board and pair better with food.

As for the inferiority complex I mentioned in the OP, keeping in mind that the California wine industry was a joke as recently as forty years ago, it is still relatively new to worldwide acceptance. In that regard, I still think there *may* be a pervasive idea that European wines are better across the board and pair better with food.

I don't know. I came of age in the 80's and a friend in college who was an early adopter yuppie wine lover (before he even had an income) was all obsessed with California wines, and when I did spend more time thinking about wine in the 90's, I relied on Oz Clarke's basic guide, which was very biased toward California and almost anti-Europe sometimes, so I think the inferiority complex is in the distant past.