Part One: Awful

There you go! I had sworn to myself not to debate at the beginning of this year on "Dry January" because I thought that everything had already been said. So many remind us of the irrationality and illogic of this pseudo-social movement, as Jessica N Dupuy, an independent food and drink journalist, explains. It is also Tressie McMillan Cottom in the New York Times Dry January Is Driving Me to Drink who finally alarms and denounces the ridiculousness of the affair, because in addition to the excess that it represents socially, shouldn't we rather opt for intelligent moderation? (read The Wood Serpent #9). But it is above all the widely publicized statement of the surgeon general's and Eric Asimov's article Should You Change Your Wine Consumption? who forced me to change my mind and to express some personal opinions in this Newsletter know that Jesus changed "Clean" water into "Dirty Impure" Wine.

Like its three highly respected journalists, they, like almost all Whistle Blowers with public communications platforms, go around in circles to denounce the same thing in different forms without ever pointing the finger at the real issue. Thus, Jessica N Dupuy denounces a government of ostriches completely subservient to lobbyism by declaring in her article "I'm going to skip the Pop Tarts and keep the Champagne”.

« … Thank you very much. Alcohol and tobacco are taxed and heavily regulated, and for good reason. But ultra-processed foods, which dominate 70% of the U.S. food supply, remain untaxed and largely unregulated despite their link to obesity and mortality. What for? Could it be because the U.S. food system depends on them? This week, alcohol is the scapegoat, but the deeper problem lies in inconsistent public health policy that prioritizes political convenience over addressing the root causes of disease. »

As for Tressie McMillan Cottom, she wrote on January 14 about the DRY JANUARY. “…Choice is not the only concept that I find troubling. "Going dry" is inspired by the culture of performative health consumption that includes fasting, juicing, and purification. Language is a big part of these types of consumer health choices. In the early 2010s, it was no longer a question of being thin and able-bodied. It was too exclusive in a liberal culture obsessed with inclusion. Being strong and "healthy" was fashionable. It was progressive to proclaim that anybody could be strong and healthy. It turns out that the strong, healthy bodies that people organized, desired, and displayed were also thin and capable. Toned physiques in Pilates, those that are thin enough to show musculature but not too bulky, also sold us cosmetics, vitamins, workout programs, sports hobbies, newspapers, and lifestyles that promised a clean life in a polluted world.”

She will also debate the social aspect of the movement, which points to the exclusion of people of color and especially African Americans, but also the racist and misogynic concept behind this social wave. She writes on this subject: “Anything that becomes popular has politics. Dry January takes a choice and forces people to talk about it, to do it proselytizing, and ultimately to make it happen. I'm sure people think they're running dry for all the right reasons. To let others know that they are not alone. To fight against the insidious culture of alcohol consumption. But what we want to do and what we end up doing can be two different things.... In both cases, labeling alcohol use as a bad decision unfairly condemns women. Anything other than performative abstinence makes a woman too self-centered to be good for her family and for society. If we were in the throes of an alcohol crisis, I think women would have a lot of defensible reasons to get involved. I also believe that we deserve empathy, not condemnation disguised as criticism of our choice.”

But even more explicitly: “When someone alludes to 'clean' health – from healthy living to healthy drinking – someone somewhere carries the burden of being 'dirty.' You can't have one without the other. The idea of cleanliness is not apolitical because our society is not fair. Our culture sorts of people based on their bodies, from size to color to ability. Historically, he justifies who is assigned to positions without political consideration by saying that these people are dirty or impure. and above all she points out the more than political aspect of this non-ephemeral fashion. Using binary moral language like "clean" and "natural" is especially dangerous in today's social media-dominated world. We have the power to circulate millions of aesthetically pleasing images about clean life that promote upper-class white ideals as an antidote to unhealthy cultural invaders. After a pandemic that redefined a generation, Donald Trump won over voters with his vicious demonization of immigrants, minorities, non-Western countries, and transgender scapegoats. They are the ‘dirty’ threat to this nation's fantasy of itself as a clean room of meritocracy and nationalism.”

I won't elaborate further on all of his various statements that coincide, in different language, with those of Eric Asimov in his January 16, 2025 article: "When the surgeon general described alcohol as a preventable cause of cancer and recommended that alcoholic beverages carry warning labels, I felt torn. … How could this beautiful drink I love be considered dangerous when consumed thoughtfully and carefully? Does that make me the equivalent of a drug dealer? Why distinguish between alcoholic beverages? What about the risks of sugary soft drinks or ultra-processed foods ? The current U.S. Dietary Guidelines for Alcohol advise two or fewer drinks per day for men and one drink or less for women.”

I now propose an exercise in primary logic to limit the argumentation, and finally get to the point.

If alcohol was the real health hazard because of its carcinogenic aspect, then you should Mr. Surgeon General require the same warning labels on ultra processed food and all fermented products like yogurt, sauerkraut, sourdough bread, fruit juices, kombucha, kefir, and some soft drinks like ginger beer, that may contain low concentrations of ethanol. So let's be clear, the danger is in "Ethanol" or something else?

Mega Purple. Live or Die !!

For my part, I believe that the only subject of the Whistle Blower should be the health and carcinogenic impact of industrialization, overexploitation, and the dangers of greed. In a word, "Profit at all costs".

Generality, what I call "flattening from below" is surely the greatest danger of our society of over-communication, and these unqualified statements can cause more harm than good. It is essential to never forget that all humans have a different physical and psychological constitution, and that some must abstain completely to avoid danger, medical, physical or social impact. So, let's be clear, moderation (in everyone) is the key to good health. But there is also another reality to ease your anxiety level and restore your "Common Sense" judgment, which is to stay informed and consume with full awareness of the origin of the product consumed and its method of processing.

As for wine, and not the generality of the word "Alcohol" used by the Surgeon General, it is the use of chemicals in the entire production and processing of grapes that is the real source of the problem. Personally, I believe that there is a similar "carcinogenic" medical danger in the consumption of an industrially and chemically produced table grape as a wine with the same origins from chemical treatments (Read Vol 25. "Wine, Good or Evil?"). 

Bonde, the positive vision

Not eating the forbidden fruit is the very essence of the existence of our shop. To offer wines from winegrowers and vineyards that are Eco-Responsible, but also socially responsible through abstinence or very moderation from chemical or biochemical inputs in the vineyard or in the cellar. In a nutshell, Bonde is your local Farmer market, where we promise you that we have consciously chosen the most natural and healthy wines is possible. Bonde Fine Wine is a shop, with no gimmicks, no tricks, and no BS.

Part Two: Offal

When I speak of offal, I am speaking of all the less noble parts of the animal, and that from the sea to the earth.

In this society where inclusion and ecological awareness is so important, I am still surprised that the American consumer ignores and completely refuses to consume more than forty percent of the edible parts of an animal slaughtered for consumption. For cultural, social, or ethical reasons, this choice is far from being acceptable for the environment, and I will therefore spare you all the justifications I could develop to convince you that it is good and fair to consume these "non-noble" parts of the animal. The old adage tells us that "What is good for him and good also for me" so why don't we copy what the rest of the countries of the world consume without any problem, knowing that we all come from a country that consumes them?

As I believe that a large part of the problem comes from demand and therefore affects supply, that the cost of our grocery basket is out of control, and that, for many, your refusal comes from a total culinary ignorance as to how to prepare them gastronomically.

I therefore propose that during this year we publish for your attention various and delicious recipes on which you can base yourself to discover the taste beauties of offal. I'll start next week with an extraordinary recipe for Veal Tongue with Salsa Verde Sauce, and then Marrow Bone with Fleur de Sel, Beef Cheek Fonfit with Red Wine, Pig's Foot Confit, Italian Beef Heart, Bouillabaisse of Rock Fish, Calf's Liver Roasted with Sage, Osso Buco, Gaspésian Quiauda with Salted Cod Heads,  Oxtail with Carrot, Chicken Heart Skewer, Lamb Kidneys with Port, Motsuyaki, and more. Of course, I would give you the ideal food and wine pairings with these recipes. Bon Appetit!