Drink like a pro

Do professional drinkers get drunk?

It's a good question, and one we tend to shy away from answering. The answer is yes, of course -- but professionally.

Wine critics spit when doing official tastings. But we drink, too, probably more than anyone other than serious alcoholics. It's not unusual for a party of 6 wine industry folks to put away 6 bottles of wine -- after starting with cocktails. I've seen people leave to get a beer afterwards.

So then the question is, how do people who drink for a living avoid the health and legal problems associated with drinking?

And, is there any way that professional drinking behavior can help the average drinker do the same?

I think so. Here are a few keys.

1) Drink early, drink often! Your taste buds are freshest early in the day; this is why most wineries conduct sample testing first thing in the morning. I'm not suggesting wine with breakfast (cereal is difficult to pair) but why not have a glass (or a cocktail) with lunch? We've gotten puritanical about mid-day drinking, but you're better off having one (1!) drink at lunch, one drink when you get off work, and one drink at dinner than three drinks in a row. To me, it's fun to be slightly relaxed or mildly buzzed, but not much fun to be polluted, which I always regret the next day.

2) Drink plenty of water. No professional tasting happens without lots of room temperature bottled water. Room temperature makes it easier to drink a lot, quickly. You have to keep drinking water even when you don't feel thirsty. Make the waiters keep refilling your water glass, and tell them "no ice please." You'll be much happier the next day -- this is the best way to avoid hangovers.

3) Avoid sugary drinks. You never see professional drinkers having a Coke between rounds. Thirst means your body needs water, not sugar.

4) It's not how you feel, it's how you act that counts. If you can't restrain your behavior, stop drinking. Now. Don't finish that sip.
It's expected, at a wine dinner, to be more cheerful and talkative as the night goes on. But if you do something really embarrassing -- disrobe, punch someone, technicolor yawn -- people will talk about it for years, and the wine industry is a small world.
Before becoming a professional drinker, I was never famous for my self-control: I usually speak my mind, regardless of the consequences. But there's a huge difference between speaking your mind and acting out. Once you feel yourself about to do the latter, you have to stop.

5) Eat while you drink. One advantage about writing about wine, as opposed to cocktails, is that food is always served. Coffee won't slow down your drunkenness -- it will just make you drunk and jittery -- but food will.

6) Sniff everything before you drink it, even at dinner, just as you would if you were doing a professional tasting. For one thing, this builds your anticipation. You also get more nuances from smelling a wine than drinking it, so if you haven't smelled it first, your first gulp is just imbibing liquor, not flavor.

7) Sip, don't gulp. I like to drink, don't get me wrong. But if I can get 20 sips out of the same glass where someone else gets only 10, I'm enjoying it twice as much.

8) Don't take two rapid drinks in succession. Let the finish play out before you enjoy the next drink.

9) Plan ahead for how to get home. I rarely drive home from an event, but I know many people do. They are the unlucky ones who stop drinking an hour before the end of the meal and forgo the dessert wines.
If I do have to drive, I'm not ashamed to say, "I'm not ready. We have to sit here awhile." Be honest with yourself -- if you're not sure you're able to drive, then don't.
I like a digestif, but they're even better at home.

10) If you don't like a drink, don't finish it. Waiters are always surprised when I leave nearly full glasses of wine or cocktails I've paid for. I'm surprised that the default use of booze is to finish it even if you don't like it. Why? Do you need to be more drunk? Do you need the extra calories?
You can only drink a finite amount of alcohol in a year; we may not know what the limit is, but we know there is one. Why waste part of your allotment on something you don't like?

11) Don't let teetotallers tell you how to drink. One of the reasons the U.S. has such a poor relationship with alcohol is that we still have plenty of puritans who considers any drinking evil. I was shocked to learn that the CDC considers "regular drinkers" anyone who had 12 drinks in the previous year! In France, you wouldn't be a "regular drinker" if you only had 12 drinks per month.
This is why our alcoholism rate is high, and why young adults nearly kill themselves by drinking 21 shots on their 21st birthday. It's not just the alcohol -- it's the sanctimony. Some tight-cheeked Bible thumper, who doesn't realize Jesus turned water into wine, tells people drinking is a sin, so plenty of people don't incorporate drinking into their daily life in a sustainable way, and only go at it when they've decided it's time to sin.
Wine is a gift from God; it's all over the Bible. Leave grapes alone in a barrel and they will turn to wine by themselves. If that's not part of God's plan, I don't know what is.
Take your advice on drinking from professional drinkers, from your physician (ask if she or he has a glass of wine with dinner), from medical experts. But not from teetotallers. You wouldn't ask somebody who doesn't ice skate to teach you a triple-axle. Think about it -- preferably with a glass of wine in your hand.

ZAP ticket winner: Sex or the single man?

Thanks to the folks who participated in my contest giving away two free $59 tickets to the ZAP public Zinfandel tasting, the biggest wine tasting of the year in San Francisco.

I'm going to announce the winner later today. Before doing so, I thought I'd ask for your opinions.

I confess that I'm not tech-savvy enough to run any kind of poll that would preclude ballot-stuffing. Hell, even Dr. Vino's not tech-savvy enough to do that, and he's a Dr.! So there's no actual vote here -- you have to write a comment on which guy should win, and why.

The contest asked people to describe their best Zinfandel-drinking experience in 100 words or less. Here are the finalists.

Casey wrote,

The first time I met who would later become my father in law, he shared a bottle of Martinelli Jackass Hill Zin with us. I remember clearly because I was new to wine and though Martinelli made sparkling grape juice. That night I sexed up his daughter in their guest room who like the wine, was luscious and full bodied.
We eventually married started our wine cellar and visit Martinelli every year.

Alan wrote,

The first serious wine that I purchased and enjoyed was the Rosenblum Zinfandel Richard Sauret Vineyard 2002. I was in the process of getting divorced, living in a hotel room, and wanted some wine to help drown my sorrows. Went to the local BevMo, browsed the shelves, and bought this wine. It was fantastic and started my new "love affair" with Zinfandels. We've been happy together ever since.

It's an interesting choice: Sex or the single man? Though I guess Alan could argue that he's just as attached as Casey, and in fact he's attached to the fermented grape itself.

Please comment below, and if Casey and Alan are reading this, now is a good time to get in touch with me. Good luck!

Update: Well, it's unanimous with commenters both here and on Facebook; it seems sex and a happy ending conquer all. Casey, please make your profile public long enough for me to figure out who you are. As for whether you take your bride or your father-in-law to ZAP, that's up to you.

Two stories from the Right Bank

Though just yesterday I was profiled as blogger by Tom Wark, tomorrow I'm back in print, with a story on Saint-Emilion in the Los Angeles Times. (That's Hubert de Bouard de Laforest of Chateau Angelus, at right, in front of his winery)

On the same visit to France in October, I got to spend a delightful hour in the company of always gracious Christian Moueix (below, standing in his laboratory), and you can read all about that at Wine Review Online.



So that's my double dose of Right Bank links for the day. For me, 2010 is starting out to be an excellent vintage, but we'll just have to see how it develops. I certainly hope for a long finish, with good fruits and no bitterness.

(Oh man, how long can this tortured wine analogy go on?)

I wish I could say I felt joyful tonight, but the Massachusetts Senate result has me pretty morose. Apparently the Democrat ran a lousy race, even calling Curt Schilling a Yankee fan when he dissed her. So maybe the voters genuinely picked the better candidate. I'm trying to feel a positive spin on it because I now foresee absolutely nothing getting done in Congress for, what, ever? Maybe? The Republicans have made it clear they will be purely obstructionist, but I don't see the Democrats losing 10 seats this year so it's not like the Republicans will take over and push their own agenda either.

I'm very depressed over this. I didn't love the health-care reform bill, but nobody did, and I strongly believe -- and have for years -- that health care is our biggest issue and we have to address it. This probably kills the whole bill, ends a year's work, and just as when Hillary Clinton failed, takes health-care reform off the table for more than a decade. I'll tell you who's partying tonight -- health insurance companies.

I'm rambling here, but if the Republicans were a responsible party of conservative views, this one election wouldn't matter much. We could use such a party. But the Republicans of Michael Steele and Rush Limbaugh are not that, they've become little kids who just say no to everything. Unfortunately that does represent the political views of about 30% of Americans. And with the tea-party morons on the rise, things will just get worse.

On the bright side ... those Right Bank wines are still mighty tasty ...

Fun with Fancy Food

If a new food product is in your local store, odds are it debuted at the Fancy Food Show first. That's why the annual three-day show in San Francisco is a must-see for people interested in food trends.

Maybe it's the economy, but this year's show has fewer exciting new products than years past. My guess is that chefs and inventors with a dream but no funding found it impossible to get angel investors behind them.

The best new product I discovered on my first day was "Le Foam," a lemon Dijon dressing sprayed from the top of a can like cheap whipped cream. It's lower in calories because it's foamy, and I hate it when my salad is saturated with dressing. The flavor was quite good, but I wish they had more flavors. That said, the product reps said I had the same reaction as everybody else: "What is that? How do you use it?" That doesn't bode well for its reception on supermarket shelves.

Without a lot of exciting new products to check out, I spent hours grazing samples from hundreds of purveyors of everything from real Osetra caviar (you have to practically beg for a small taste) to oddities like "vegetarian caviar," made from seaweed and flavored with fish extract so that vegetarians can't eat it anyway (I tried it and will reassure vegetarians that you're not missing anything.)

If nothing else, I rediscovered how much I love some items:
* Ortiz anchovies in olive oil -- so much better than boquerones because there's no vinegar to cut the salty fishiness
* Snake River Farms American wagyu hot dog, rich and meaty and so delicious
* Merguez sausage from Fabrique Delices, so earthy and lamby
* Lavender sea-salt chocolate from Eclipse Chocolat, my favorite of the dozens of chocolates I sampled
* Sence rose-flavored soda, a delicious, delicate drink which would probably be more widely distributed if the product rep wasn't such a snob. I thought my negative reaction to her last year was my fault, but this year when talking to her once again made me feel like a homeless person trying to try on wristwatches at Tiffany's, I realized it isn't me. It's just a $4 soda, lady -- get over yourself.

Which leads me to the most amusing part of the Fancy Food Show: Goofy products and goofy conversations about them. My favorite goofy product was some new age-guru's distilled water, marketed as "intention-charged water." (What if my intentions aren't good?)

This was my best goofy-product conversation:

"Cupless Joe" is instant coffee in gelatin capsules, the size of vitamins. You're supposed to swallow 4 of them with a cup of water in lieu of drinking a cup of coffee. The product rep told me these are useful in situations where you don't have time or opportunity to drink coffee.

Me: "So it's about the caffeine."
Cupless Joe rep: "No, it's coffee. It's just freeze-dried coffee."
Me: "So I put them in my mouth and add water and it becomes coffee in my mouth."
CJr: "No, it becomes coffee in your stomach."
Me: "So it is about the caffeine."
CJr: "No, it's just coffee. You get all the antioxidant benefits of coffee." She handed me a flier.

Wow, eating freeze-dried coffee as an antioxidant. What will they think of next? (If you're thinking resveratrol-infused chocolate bars, or pasta made of Cabernet Sauvignon grape skins, you're too late, somebody's done it.)

Sustainable: The latest word co-opted by corporate America

Call me naive, but I was genuinely looking forward to an official definition of "sustainable" winery.

We've screwed up "organic" already, "biodynamic" is weird religion, and "natural" is vague. So I had hopes that the California Sustainable Winegrowing Alliance could learn from previous mistakes and give us a useful term that would, in a nutshell, help consumers identify the good guys.

I am naive. The definition came out yesterday, and it's nearly worthless. Moreover, almost all of the 17 companies that already qualify are big corporations, including E. & J. Gallo Winery and Constellation Brands, the nation's two largest wine companies.

That means both Arbor Mist Strawberry White Zinfandel and Wild Vines Strawberry White Zinfandel are sustainable, but Adam Lee's single-vineyard Pinot Noirs at Siduri are not. Sean Thackrey's outdoor-fermented wines are not. Basically, almost all small-production wines made by people who care about the vines are now officially "not sustainable."

It's green-washing, plain and simple. The Wine Institute, which gets its funding from members based on their size, has chosen to allow 3 Blind Moose wines to wear a "sustainable" label so they can sell better to young shoppers with a twinge of social consciousness.

This is disappointing because in theory, "sustainable" is the most logical term for Earth-conscious wine production in the US.

"Organic" has two big flaws: you can't call a wine "organic" if it includes added sulfites, which are necessary to preserve its fresh fruit. And, unique to wine, if it's really rainy one year, a farmer might have to choose between spraying a little anti-mildew chemical and losing his organic certification for years, or losing his crop.

I actually prefer "biodynamic" to "organic" for US wines because it allows farmers a few mildew-control options, but at the same time, it is essentially a religious belief that demands farmers follow the cycles of the moon, bury cow horns full of dung, and that sort of thing.

"Sustainable" is perfect in theory for wine, in that it allows farmers to use minimal intervention in good years and take necessary steps in tougher ones. But with 3 Blind Moose wines already "sustainable," the term is compromised before it ever becomes a label sticker.

What does "sustainable" officially mean now, exactly? That's a good question, and not one to which the Wine Institute can provide a good answer (and I have asked, repeatedly). There are 227 "best management practices" on which wineries are supposed to grade themselves, as well as 58 "prerequisites."

I've plowed through some of these areas in what's available online and there are definite good points about the program. Wineries are required to examine their performance in areas they might not have considered before, like energy efficiency and ecosystem management. The basics, like soil management and pest management, are in there as well. I'm probably the only person who's going to write negatively about this program, because improving performance in all these areas -- from air quality to human resources -- is a good thing.

But the big problems just won't go away.

1) It's based on self-reporting.
2) You can keep a good rating by "improving" weak areas, rather than achieving definite targets.
3) It's easier for a big company to find the time to do the paperwork, and that's obvious by the list of giant companies that were in the pilot project. There are a few exceptions (good job, Honig Vineyard & Winery, Kunde Family Estate and Cooper-Garrod Estate Winery). But most of the list is behemoths*, including Diageo Chateau & Estate Wines, Meridian Vineyards and Concannon Vineyard (owned by The Wine Group, the 3rd largest US wine company).

* Conspicuous by its absence is Bronco Wine Company, makers of Two Buck Chuck, and easily the largest company not to participate. Owner Fred Franzia doesn't get along with the mainstream of the U.S. wine industry, having lost some nasty lawsuits, and that may be why. But a test of the usefulness of this initiative is whether there will be any pressure on Bronco to join the party.

4) The biggest problem of all is that "sustainable" is now impossible to explain quickly or understand easily. I have big problems with "organic," but I know basically what it means, and so does everybody else. Here's my best shot at quickly interpreting the new meaning of "sustainable" (feel free to use this, Wine Institute):

"Sustainable" means a wine company must document its attempts to continuously improve its performance in 227 areas, including some related to farming, the environment and community relations.

In other words, "sustainable" is well-meaning corporate-speak. That's not what I'm looking for when selecting a wine, and I suspect that most of America is with me on this. If you want a wine made by a winery that cares about the Earth, you'll have to stick with "biodynamic" or "organically grown grapes" (sigh) for now.

Great wines from the Chronicle Wine Competition

Last week I posted great value finds from tasting more than 350 wines as a judge at the San Francisco Chronicle Wine Competition.

Here are a few other wines that were highlights of the week for me, in two categories:
1) Wines I really loved that are reasonably priced.
2) A couple of rare oddities that I might foolishly have turned my nose up at, had I not been asked to judge them.

First, the great wines. There's a strange theme here: all four would have been illegal in Europe, because the winery is in one AVA but the grapes (and the label listing) is from another. Sometimes Europeans don't know what they're missing.

Kendall-Jackson Grand Reserve Mendocino Sauvignon Blanc 2008 ($20): I guess those K-J people know how to make white wine, but they should have priced it 1 penny less. This wine is simply outstanding; intense passion fruit and lime flavors with good balance, a fine mouthfeel and a very long finish. It won the $20 and up Sauvignon Blanc category and would have easily won the $14 to $19.99 category -- which I was a category judge on -- had it been 0.05% cheaper. As it was easily the best Sauvignon Blanc out of 199 submitted, had it been listed in the cheaper category, I think it might have won best white wine overall. I voted for it.

Brazin Fall Creek Dry Creek Valley Zinfandel 2007 ($25): I voted for this as my red sweepstakes winner, meaning I thought it was the best red wine of the whole competition. It's spicy, with great fruit both black and red and complexity, as well as good balance. I don't know anything about this wine, but the winery usually makes Zin from Lodi, so maybe this was a small production one-off. In any case, I kept going back to it while tasting the other best of class winners, and I thought for varietal character, interest, deliciousness and price performance, this wine was tops. Hopefully you'll have two chances to try it, at ZAP on Jan. 30 (win free tickets here!) and the Chronicle competition's public tasting on Feb. 20.

Storrs Winery and Vineyards Two Creek Vineyard Santa Clara County Rhone Blend 2006 ($25): This vintage is apparently not on sale yet, as the Storrs website is still pushing the '05. It's a savory, spicy, interesting blend, reminiscent of a good Chateauneuf du Pape (not one of the '07 extraction monsters, if that's what you're thinking). Apparently the vineyards are dry farmed and produce only about 1 ton an acre, which makes this a very fair price. Santa Clara County has plenty of people wealthy enough to afford a $25 bottle even in a recession, so get thee to Storrs and support your local winery.

Quinta Cruz Bokisch Vineyard Mokelumne River (Lodi) Graciano 2007 ($28): This was in my top 5 wines from all the best of class winners, and was the "non-traditional" red varietal that most impressed me. Quinta Cruz is actually a second label for Santa Cruz Mountain Vineyard, but the grapes come from the Lodi vineyards of Markus Bokisch, a specialist in Spanish varietals. This wine had great red fruit and acidity, but what I liked best about it was that it had presence in the mouth without weightiness. A number of other judges mentioned how much they liked it, and it makes me wonder how close it came to winning the overall prize.

Now, the oddities. It's thrilling to taste what a winemaker committed to excellence can do with unusual fruits. At these prices, these wines are truly labors of love.

Goose Watch Winery Finger Lakes Diamond 2008 ($10): Click here to order

I had never tried Diamond before this one; it's a cross of two native American grapes, Concord and Iona. It's an intense, distinctive wine, with savory character, a Riesling-like diesel note, melon fruit and a bit of the "foxiness" that native American grapes are known for. I only sipped it a few times in trying it among all the other white Best of Class winners, so I don't know how well I would enjoy a whole bottle. But for $10, I'd certainly be motivated to find out.

Prairie Berry Winery South Dakota Red Ass Rhubarb ($17): Click here to order

This is one of the best fruit wines I've ever had. It's tangy, like having rhubarb pie, and its moderate sweetness means it could work well with dinner or dessert. Unless Oakland A's second baseman Mark Ellis starts hitting again, this wine could be my 2nd favorite thing about South Dakota, just behind watching untrained college kids wrestle alligators at Reptile Gardens.

Wine distributors choose Sarah Palin

In case you didn't have enough reasons to hate wine and spirits distributors, try this: For their 2010 convention, they chose Sarah Palin as keynote speaker.

You couldn't ask for a more clear statement on where the Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America (WSWA) stand politically. This is the organization that fights actual free enterprise -- in the form of direct shipping -- at every opportunity, and they use social conservatives as their foot soldiers.

What better way to get Palin's angry, unwashed fans to support the WSWA in their ongoing fight to keep big business big, and prevent small wineries from getting their product to wine lovers?

Actually, though, I think this is a good thing for wine lovers. Here's why.

Few people in the wine industry except Tom Wark have the courage to criticize WSWA. The distributors are just too powerful to irritate, and they don't even have to take action to destroy a brand.

All Southern Wine & Spirits needs to use is inaction: its portfolio is so large that if its salespeople don't carry samples of a certain brand out to retailers, sales will plummet without anyone really knowing why.

This is why wine lovers should fight the three-tier system. In a state like California, where wineries can sell directly to stores without a middleman, we enjoy fantastic wine selections even at tiny local shops. But in most states, where wines must go through a distributor because of state law, WSWA members act like funnels with sticky sides that attract $100 bills. Distributors winnow the tens of thousands of wines available in this country to just a few hundred that they favor, often because they're getting a legal kickback for selling it.

Whenever a state legislature considers modernizing the system to allow free enterprise, though, the WSWA claims teenagers will order wine over the Internet, get drunk, have sex, and become pregnant. You might think I'm exaggerating, but that's an actual ad campaign the WSWA ran against direct wine shipping in the Northeast U.S.

Doesn't that campaign sound exactly like the sort of thing Sarah Palin would say? She's a natural for this job!

The average citizen doesn't really understand three-tier distribution -- hell, the average wine geek doesn't understand it -- so it's hard to get emotional about it.

But those of us with an IQ over 100 understand Sarah Palin. We know where she stands, and it's not with us, unless we're standing on a publicly funded Bridge to Nowhere holding a shotgun and looking at Russia.

So let's do all we can to publicize the connection. The WSWA hearts Sarah Palin. Sarah Palin speaks for wine distributors. If you like Sarah Palin, you'll love the WSWA. But if you don't, maybe you need to look at the company she's keeping.