Granita: A Delightful (and Easy) Italian Dessert

With hot weather on the horizon, thoughts turn to cool, refreshing desserts that are easy to prepare.

A granita is a cousin to an Italian Ice. Believed to have originated in Sicily, granitas are great for summertime desserts or refreshers and they can be made out of just about any frozen liquid; fruit juice, coffee, tea or even wine. Some people use juices like lemon, lime, orange or apple. Some use freshly pureed fruits like raspberry, peach, watermelon, blackberry, blueberry, or strawberry. I'll use strawberry to illustrate this deliciously simple recipe, but the procedure is the same for any fruit or liquid.

Granita di Fragole Fresche

1 1/2 cups water
2 cups fresh pureed strawberries
1 tbsp lemon zest (or 1 tsp lemon juice)
1 cup sugar
mint leaves (optional, for garnish)

Combine ingredients in a small pan and heat, stirring, until sugar dissolves.

Remove mixture from heat and let cool. Pour cooled mixture into a glass or metal baking dish, cover with plastic wrap, and freeze for about forty-five minutes to an hour.

Remove from freezer and scrape down the length of the surface with a fork, breaking it up into icy flakes. Return to freezer for another hour or so and then scrape again. Freeze for about one more hour, then scrape and serve.

When served, the granita should look like a dry, fluffy red snow. If it's too solid, let it sit in the refrigerator for about half an hour until you can scrape it with a fork.

Scoop the granita into bowls, goblets or parfait glasses. If you want to get really fancy, granita looks great in a martini glass with a little sugar around the rim. (Dampen the rim of the glass with water and dip it in sugar.) Garnish with mint leaves, if desired, and serve immediately.

Yields 4 to 6 servings

There's No Such Thing as "Garlic Bread"

When my son first moved to Italy several years ago, he called me with two observations: you can have too much cheese on a pizza and there's no such thing as garlic bread. I'll defer comment on the first note for now, but allow me to elaborate on the second.

“Italian garlic bread,” as found in American restaurants and grocery store frozen food aisles, indeed does not exist in real Italian cuisine. It is still another Italian-American creation that nobody in Italy would recognize.

Now, there's nothing wrong with garlic bread as Americans know it. I order it in restaurants and have been known to toss a frozen loaf into the old grocery cart when the mood strikes me. But make no mistake, if you want to serve an authentic Italian-style “garlic bread” with your next spaghetti dinner, stay away from the buttery loaves from the freezer case. In fact, stay away from butter altogether.

“Garlic bread” is the American cousin of a classic Italian preparation called bruschetta. The word comes from the Italian bruscare, meaning to roast or toast over coals. First things first; that's pronounced broo-SKAYT-ah if you want to sound like an Italian or broo-SKET-ah if you want to sound like an American trying to sound like an Italian. It is only pronounced broo-SHET-uh if you want to sound completely clueless.

The common American version of “garlic bread” calls for thick slices of crusty bread – Italian or French – to be liberally coated with butter that has been infused with either garlic powder or garlic salt. Sometimes you'll find a little oregano added to up the “Italian” factor. Topping with some combination of Parmesan and mozzarella cheeses to make “cheesy garlic bread” is also a popular option on American menus. The buttery, garlicky bread is then toasted in an oven or broiler until it's lightly golden brown.

Bruschetta also starts with thick slices of crusty bread, but that's about where the resemblance ends. In an Italian kitchen, a very basic bruschetta – the closest equivalent to “garlic bread” – begins by lightly toasting the bread on a grill or a grill pan. (You can use a broiler if need be.) For the next step, Italian cooks peel a garlic clove and cut off an end. Then they rub the cut end of the clove lightly over the surface of the toasted bread to achieve a subtle garlic flavor. The bread is then drizzled with extra-virgin olive oil. (Some people drizzle first then toast, others toast first then drizzle. I'm part of the “drizzle first” crowd because I find doing so allows the olive oil to impart a nice golden color as the bread toasts.) Sometimes a very light pinch of coarse salt finishes the process.

Okay, you may ask, so where did the buttery version come from? The answer is fairly simple. Italian immigrant cooks settling in American cities often had to make do with what was at hand. The concept of “making do” is at the heart of many of Italy's regional cuisines. As hard as it is to believe today when olive oil can often be found on corner convenience store shelves, it wasn't always so. In fact, extra-virgin olive oil could only be found in ethnic neighborhood specialty stores as recently as twenty years ago. So immigrant cooks turned to the most available culinary fat in America, butter.

Now, what I've described here is just the bare-bones basis of a bruschetta. From that foundation Italians layer on a variety of toppings, including finely diced tomatoes, savory fresh basil, rich roasted peppers, and paper-thin slices of prosciutto. Various cheeses can also be used to finish a proper bruschetta.

Another question sometimes comes up; what's the difference between bruschetta and crostini? Really, the only difference is the bread. Bruschetta is usually made on rather thick slices of bread cut from a big rustic loaf. Crostini, on the other hand, are “little toasts” and are usually made on thinner slices cut from a baguette or something similar. From that point, whatever you put on them is pretty much the same, excepting only that thicker slices of bread hold up better under heavier toppings.

So next time you're hungry for a little “garlic bread,” bypass the frozen grocery store stuff and make some the true Italian way. You'll be amazed at the difference traditional techniques and fresh ingredients make.

You, Too, Can Cook Like an Olive Garden Chef

Getting a “Culinary Institute of Tuscany” Education Without Leaving Your Home

Over the past few years, I've written more than a few commentaries about Olive Garden. While none of them have been out and out bashes of the place, none of them have been particularly complimentary either. 

Understand, I have no personal ax to grind with the chain. It's not like they dosed one of my toddlers with sangria or anything. No, my issue is broader: through a series of successful business and marketing maneuvers, Olive Garden has managed to position itself in the American consciousness as the “go to” place to go to when you're looking for Italian food. And that's just wrong. Olive Garden is about as authentically Italian as my Grandma Ida's haggis. And yet this scenario plays out hundreds of times each day: “Honey, I'm hungry for Italian tonight.” “Okay, dear. Let's go to Olive Garden.” And off they go, bypassing thousands of real, authentic Italian eateries that don't have huge corporate advertising budgets.

So it was with a rather mean-spirited sense of delight that I observed the recent media revelation that one of Olive Garden's key advertising gimmicks – the “Culinary Institute of Tuscany” – is a fraud. I've always known that, but I am only one little voice crying out in the culinary wilderness. However, when Time.com, prompted by the viral online revelations of a person claiming to be a former Olive Garden manager, set out to answer the question, “What Actually Goes On at Olive Garden's 'Culinary Institute' in Tuscany,” I felt totally vindicated by the answer.

There ain't no such place.

(See the article at http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/04/15/what-actually-goes-on-at-olive-gardens-culinary-institute-in-tuscany/)

Turns out that the folks at Darden Concepts, Inc., the parent group behind Olive Garden, Red Lobster, Longhorn Steakhouse, and others, simply rent rooms at a Tuscan resort hotel with an attached restaurant during the off season. Olive Garden owns nothing; the place belongs to a local winery. But the company sends select members of Olive Garden management off in shifts to enjoy week-long, all expenses paid visits to Italy. While there, said managers spend a little time in the restaurant and its kitchen where they talk with a chef about Italian food. They visit the winery and a fresh food market and they eat lots of Italian goodies.

I did the same thing on a recent visit to North Carolina. I ate at a couple of great Italian restaurants, talked to the chef at one and to the manager at the other, visited a couple of wineries, and went to a local market. I guess that makes me a graduate of the “Yadkin Valley Culinary Institute.” (Hey, if Darden can make 'em up, so can I.)

But if even attending the “Yadkin Valley Culinary Institute” is beyond your means, here's a cheap and easy way to get the same degree of culinary education that Olive Garden offers. Go to your local grocery store and get a nice bottle of wine. Bring it home, pour yourself a glass, sit down at your computer and log on to www.olivegarden.com. Go to the “recipes” tab, and there you can watch videos of Chef Paolo Lafata – the same “Culinary Institute of Tuscany” guy you see in the TV commercials – as he prepares “authentic Italian recipes.”

I'm serious! I've appropriated a number of Chef Paolo's recipes and they're pretty good, provided you get the right ingredients and know enough about cooking to keep from burning yourself or cutting your finger off. If you can find your way around in a kitchen, if you can assemble good, fresh ingredients, and if you can follow the recipes on the website, you, too, can cook like an Olive Garden “chef.” You can even claim to have attended the online version of the “Culinary Institute of Tuscany” and to have studied with Chef Paolo!

Make no mistake, Paolo Lafata is the real deal. Educated at the Istituto Vittorio Emanuale, he did a stint at the Fairmont Hotel in Chicago and spent seven years in the kitchens at Walt Disney World. He's Darden's Senior Executive Chef and Chef Director and he even made five appearances on “The Tony Danza Show” back in 2004. Now that's Italian! His home kitchen is not exactly in Tuscany, but it's nearby – in Orlando, Florida.

And if for some reason you find that you just can't master the skills of a “Culinary Institute of Tuscany” graduate, there's always this option: “Honey, I'm hungry for Italian tonight.” “Okay, dear. I found a great little authentic Italian place. It's right down the street from Olive Garden.”

Before You Take Your Kid To Olive Garden...

What is it with chain restaurants boozing up the kiddies this week? Hot on the heels of the debacle at a Michigan "Applebee's" in which a 15-month old got a margarita instead of apple juice, now a Florida Olive Garden serves up sangria to a toddler.

Read the Tampa Bay Online story here: http://www2.tbo.com/content/2011/apr/13/131837/toddler-mistakenly-served-sangria-at-lakeland-oliv/news-breaking/

In case you're not up on your alcoholic beverages, sangria is a mixture of red wine, grenadine, and vermouth mixed together with fruit in a simple syrup of sugar and water and served over ice. Olive Garden describes it as a "refreshing beverage, perfect for any outdoor party." Except, maybe, kid's birthday parties?

A Chicago School Bans Home Made Lunches

You've Got to Be Kidding, Right?
Whatever you think of Jamie Oliver's “Food Revolution,” the guy's on the right track in attempting to focus attention on America's abysmal diet, especially regarding nutrition in schools. But instead of shining his spotlight on Los Angeles, where he was recently shut of of the school system by local authorities, maybe he should have visited Chicago. One school there, Little Village Academy, seems to think it has the answer; no more homemade lunches.

Yeah, you read that right. According to a Chicago Tribune report, the idiots in charge of the West Side elementary school have decreed that students are not allowed to pack lunches from home. Unless they have a medical excuse, they must eat the food served in the cafeteria. The principal, Inez Carmona, says it's all about protecting students from their own unhealthful food choices. As quoted by the Tribune, Ms. Carmona opines, "Nutrition wise, it is better for the children to eat at the school. It's about the nutrition and the excellent quality food that they are able to serve (in the lunchroom). It's milk versus a Coke.”

Okay. Do I start with, “Get out of my kid's personal life and let me make the parenting choices,” or do I go with, “What are you, nuts? Talking about quality and institutional food in the same breath?”

For as long as schools have been serving lunches, students have been complaining about them. “Mystery meat” ring any bells? In a photo accompanying the Tribune article, one poor kid is seen sitting in front of a lunch tray containing an unidentifiable food substance. He has his hands over his face. Now, whether he was reacting to the photographer or to the meal is subjective, but the closing paragraph weights the evidence a little when it states, “dozens of students took the lunch but threw most of it in the garbage uneaten. Though CPS has improved the nutritional quality of its meals this year, it also has seen a drop-off in meal participation among students, many of whom say the food tastes bad.”

When it comes to making food delicious and appealing, school kitchens historically rank right up there with hospitals and prisons. That's why kids bring lunches from home to begin with. And, as Jamie Oliver discovered in Los Angeles, many schools don't even have kitchens anymore, opting instead for the cost-saving measure of having everything prepared in a central location, then shipping it out to the individual school cafeterias where it is reheated and served. Yummy. Reheated “mystery meat.”

Ms. Carmona says she created the “no homemade lunch” program after observing kids on field trips bringing sodas and chips for lunch. And to that I say, “shame on any parent who sends their kid to school with such a lunch.” Those are the same kids who are probably getting microwaved “Spaghetti-Os” for supper. But, hey, have you seen the “healthy” alternatives most schools are offering?

When the AP picked up the Tribune story, they ran it with a photo of a student lunch taken in Gleed, Washington. Mmmmm-mmm! A processed hot dog on a processed white bun served with plastic processed cheese and a portion of processed tater tots. Oh, and there were some carrot sticks. There you go, Ms. Carmona. It's all about “the nutrition and the excellent quality food that they are able to serve (in the lunchroom).”

In an effort to restrict “unhealthful food choices,” some schools – run by intelligent people in touch with reality – have chosen a different alternative and have taken a giant step backward.

When I went through the public school system in the 1960s, I had two choices at lunchtime; I could eat whatever it was the school was serving or I could bring something from home. That was it. Well, I actually had a third option; I lived a short walk from the elementary school and sometimes went home for lunch. My mom would have a nice repast laid out for me when I arrived. I'd have about fifteen minutes to eat and then I'd head back to school. Unfortunately, in today's society that scenario is just a dream left over from “Leave It to Beaver.”

The point is, unlike today, there were no vending machines in any of my schools, whether elementary, junior high or high school. There was a student-run canteen at the high school that sold candy bars and chips, but it was closed during lunch hours. And if you wanted a soda, the only way to obtain one was to be on really good terms with a teacher who might be persuaded to sneak you one from the building's singular soda source located in the teacher's lounge. Many schools desirous of limiting the availability of junk food have returned to this old-fashioned paradigm.

I don't think snack and soda machines have a place in any school. I will grudgingly exclude from the discussion high schools and teenagers, who, by and large, have adult-level privileges and access to cars and money and quik-stops and fast food joints, but I think there should be criminal penalties for installing vending machines in grade schools. Why not just give the kids guns and matches while you're at it? “Gee, my mom gave me two dollars for lunch. Should I have meatloaf and milk or a candy bar and a Coke?” The only way to limit a kid's “unhealthful food choices” is to limit a kid's “unhealthful” food options. If you set something on the table at home and your kid doesn't want to eat it, do you have a snack machine in the hallway where he can get something he likes better? Get the coin-operated processed garbage vendors out of your school if you want to make a real difference. Playing the “old fogy” card here, “If it was good enough for my generation...”

Under the guise of “protecting students from their own unhealthful food choices,” Ms. Carmona is also “protecting” them from the healthful food choices made by concerned parents who prefer to make tasty and nutritious lunches for their kids. I mean, when I was a kid, you could wrap things up in aluminum foil, wax paper, or plastic wrap. Then it was into either my Roy Rogers lunchbox or a brown paper bag. Have you seen what kids can tote their lunches in these days? Lunch doesn't have to be PB&J and a little bag of chips anymore. You could throw a meat, two sides, and a dessert into one of those compartmentalized, thermally insulated bags with custom made air-and-water-tight plastic containers. Kids these days can have gourmet leftovers for lunch.

You'll notice, though, that I said “concerned” parents. There's the real problem. It's not the mom or dad who gets up early to prepare and pack a healthy lunch or the parents who make one up the night before and stick it in the refrigerator. No, it's the ones who buy cheap, packaged, processed crap and throw it in a bag that are at fault. The “EZ Cheez” and “Lunchables” crowd. Have you taken a minute to check a “Lunchables” label? Hey, hey! There's only 340 calories in a “Ham & American Cheese!” And it contains vitamins and iron! And 13 grams of sugar and 16 grams of fat and 35 mg of cholesterol. And let's not forget 900 mg of sodium – more than a third of the daily maximum recommended level.

Worse still are the parents who give their kids a couple of bucks for the vending machines or who supply them with fast food “kid's meals.” (What with McDonald's taking over the corner gas station market, is it just a matter of time before they try to franchise the school cafeteria?)

Parents who rate convenience over quality or who pander to their kid's craving for unhealthy food are the problem, Ms. Carmona, not the ones who are packing lean meat sandwiches on whole-grain bread with fruit cups and juice drinks. And while throwing out a net that ensnares the good parents along with the bad may seem like an efficacious method of dealing with the problem, it's certainly not a very educated one.

Come to think of it, Ms. Carmona, et.al, in the overall scheme of things, it's none of your damn business what I choose to feed my kid. I know what my kid likes and what he doesn't like. I know what he'll eat and what he won't eat. I know what I want him to have and what I don't. You allow for “medical” exclusions. Fine. How about religious ones? Is your cafeteria Kosher? What about ethnic and cultural concerns? Unless you're prepared to offer a huge ala carte menu at your school so the kids can pick and choose according to their preferences, your version of The Noble Experiment is doomed to failure. What's it gonna be, lady? Unhealthy kids who bring junk food to school or hungry kids who trash your “excellent quality food” because they can't stomach it?

Instead of proposing ludicrous bans that abrogate and undermine the rights of parents, how about reading your job description and acting like an educator instead of an enforcer? Educate kids about healthy foods and good eating habits. Partner up with the “Food Revolution” or Slow Food or any of a dozen other organizations committed to effecting change through education rather than through offensively asinine regulations. Do your job and instead of teaching kids to prepare for standardized tests, teach them to make intelligent choices. That way, if I fail in my job as a parent, the kids will at least have the proper tools to enable them to do the right thing.

Bottom line: to all you Ms. Carmonas out there, go back to your classrooms and get the hell out of my kitchen.

In Praise of Pepsi “Throwback”

Sorry Coca Cola, But This Is the REAL “Real Thing”

I drink too much soda. I have known this for years. The only reason I don't weigh 400 pounds is because my mother, bless her little heart, saw soda as a treat when I was growing up, rather than as a dietary essential. Therefore, until I reached my teen years, got a job, and started buying my own junk food, my soda intake was limited to a six-pack per week. We went shopping once a week, we bought one six-pack of soda, and when it was gone, it was gone. No more until next week. Period. And there was no such thing as two-liter bottles back then (heck, we didn't even know what a “liter” was in those days) or even sixteen or twenty-ounce bottles. In fact, it was a really big deal when ten-ounce bottles came out, replacing the old seven-ounce standard. So at the most, when I was a kid I consumed about sixty ounces of soda per week.

Fast forward to the present – or at least to a recent time – when I would easily down that much in a single day. Grab a fast food biscuit in the morning and swallow it down with a soda. Pop a buck or so into a vending machine mid-morning for a twenty-ounce hit. Have one with lunch. Grab another twenty-ouncer at a convenience store while running afternoon errands. Wash down supper with a sixteen-ounce glass or two, and then sip one while watching TV at night. Wow! You don't really think about it until you really think about it, do you?

I really got to thinking about it after my last routine visit to the doctor. That's when I looked behind myself as I was standing on the scale to make sure the nurse didn't have her foot on it. That's also when I started calculating ounces and converting them to gallons and deciding something had to change.

I'm not unrealistic. I'll never completely quit drinking soda. But I have resolved – and pretty successfully so far – to return to the days of my youth and limit my intake to one a day. Two if I fall off the wagon. And wouldn't you know, just as I started screwing my resolve to the sticking place, along came the Pepsi Cola people to undermine my efforts with their “Throwback” line.

“Throwback” sodas are, as the name implies, a throwback to the days when such beverages were made with real, honest-to-goodness sugar instead of the cheap, nasty corn sweetener that is such a great affront to the American palate, and which, despite numerous health concerns, has become an overwhelming part of the American diet since the early 1980s

I've been on a tear in recent years to eliminate as much high fructose corn syrup from my diet as possible. I'm not one of those lackeys sold on the corn industry's “sugar is sugar” campaign. I believe otherwise. Health concerns aside, I can taste the difference between cane sugar and corn syrup and I much prefer the taste of sugar. Coca Cola tried to pee on our collective legs and tell us all it was raining when they abandoned the “New Coke” debacle in the '80s and returned to the “classic” formula – except they really didn't. They phased out expensive cane sugar and replaced it with cheap corn sweeteners. And I have always been able to tell the difference. Find a tienda that sells Mexican Coke and compare it to the stuff bottled in your area and you'll taste the difference, too. (Mexican Coke, made with sugar and bottled in Mexico, is not “officially” sold in the United States because if it were, people would stop drinking the abysmal dreck that Coca Cola has been “officially” marketing here since the “New Coke” disaster.)

Of course, Pepsi was no better. Over the years, they succumbed to cheapening their products, too, as did almost every major soft drink manufacturer. It was a gradual but ultimately effective dumbing down of the American palate. I suppose you could learn to like carbonated castor oil if somebody poured it down your throat every day for years and years.

But changes have been in the wind in recent days. In the first place, there's been a change in the balance on the “Cola Wars” front. Coca Cola has emerged as a clearer winner since Diet Coke pushed Pepsi from its perennial second place pedestal. You know how they used to say, “When you're number two, you try harder”? Well, that goes double when you're number three.

Secondly, people are beginning to reject HFCS in numbers great enough to cause panic among the pushers. That's why the Corn Refiners Association is ginning up a “corn sugar” campaign to pretty up the image of its tarnished product. And, despite official company denials, I believe that's one reason Pepsi decided to quietly return real sugar to its beverages under the “Throwback” label, a move that leaves me torn.

You see, the problem now is that since Pepsi is once again tasting like Pepsi did back when I was a member of “The Pepsi Generation,” I'm finding it much harder to stick to my plan to cut back. The stuff is just so darn good! Stripping forty years worth of inferior crap off my taste buds, Pepsi has once again “Come Alive.” And it has resurrected Mountain Dew, Sierra Mist, and Dr. Pepper right along with it. Of course, Sierra Mist doesn't claim to be a “Throwback.” It just touts the fact that it's made with “real sugar” and prominently displays the word “Natural” on it's label.

And that's where the corn pushers start to get testy. They quite correctly point out that corn is every bit as natural a product as sugar cane. That's the basis for their attempt to get the terminology changed so that “high fructose corn syrup” can simply be called “corn sugar.” Then they can continue to extoll the “naturalness” of “corn sugar” and to trumpet “sugar is sugar” to the gullible masses.

But any reputable scientist not in the employ of the corn industry will tell you that sugar is not sugar. There are different types of sugar and they are processed by the body in different ways. And the biggest difference between HFCS and cane sugar is the way the body processes them. It's not just a matter of taste.

The science at a very basic level says that what we commonly call “real” sugar throws an “off” switch in the brain that HFCS does not. Simply put, the body knows when it has had enough sugar and it says “enough.” With HFCS, there is no “off” switch. You could mainline the stuff intravenously and your body would never say “enough.” So while sugar does indeed make you fat, HFCS makes you fatter because your body lacks the chemical mechanism to stop consuming it when it should.

Okay, so does this qualify Pepsi “Throwback” as a health food? Emphatically not. Too much of a good thing is still too much. But it is a marginally better alternative to products sweetened with HFCS. At least a sugar-sweetened soda will give your body a sporting chance to regulate itself.

And of course you can't deny the taste factor. Once upon a time – 1929, to be precise – Coke advertised itself as “the pause that refreshes.” And that was probably true back in 1929 because Coke was then made with real sugar. In fact, the words “refresh” and “refreshing” repeat over and over in Coke's ad campaigns throughout the years. And that's what now sets “Throwback” sodas apart; there is something about Pepsi's “Throwback” products that is truly refreshing. There is a crisp taste and a clean mouth feel in a “Throwback” that is not present in a “regular” Pepsi, Mountain Dew, Coke or anything else made with cheap HFCS. Anybody with two working taste receptors in their mouth can tell the difference even if they can't quantify it. Call it a “kick,” call it a “charge,” call it a “Jolt” – as one cola maker already did. The taste of any of the “Throwback” products is just simply – refreshing, which various dictionaries define as “pleasantly fresh and different,” “pleasantly different or novel,” or “tending to refresh; invigorating.” Any soft drink will get your mouth wet – including the “diet” ones artificially sweetened in a chemistry lab – but the sensations produced on your palate by a quality sugar-sweetened beverage like any of the “Throwbacks” are truly “pleasantly fresh and different.” Cheap sweeteners are cheap and they leave a cheap, cloying aftertaste in your mouth. Don't take my word for it. Go get a “Throwback.” Try it and then try to deny it.

Unfortunately, most of two generations have been fed an increasingly steady diet of the cheap stuff and have never known the difference. Oh, there have been some small, regional efforts made by artisan producers like New Jersey's Boylan Bottling Company and the aforementioned “Jolt Cola,” which, sadly, also turned to HFCS before its ultimate demise. Whole Foods produces a line of sugar-sweetened sodas for sale in its stores,as do other “natural” retailers. But with the advent of Pepsi's “Throwback” line, a new nationwide “Pepsi Generation” is poised to discover what we graybeards once experienced long ago: the real Pepsi taste. And the good news is that after a lot of test marketing, Pepsi has determined that there is enough support for the product to keep it in permanent production, or, as a Pepsi rep put it, “as long as people are buying it, we'll make it.”

I'm buying it. Six-packs may be gone but that's okay. I'm content with purchasing a twelve-pack every couple of weeks. Thanks, Pepsi. Because of superior stuff like “Throwback,” I'll probably still drink too much soda.

A Visit To North Carolina's Childress Vineyards

When you think of domestic wines and domestic wine producers, you automatically think California, right? Well, to quote Ira Gershwin, “it ain't necessarily so.” A lot of people are beginning to think North Carolina.

There are nearly a hundred wineries and vineyards in the Old North State, a number that has almost quadrupled in the last decade. The state ranks seventh for wine production and tenth for grape production in the United States. But there was a time when that number was much higher. Forgotten by many is the fact that at the turn of the last century – before Prohibition – North Carolina was the leading wine-producing region in the United States.

Of course, Prohibition indirectly led to the rise of another notable North Carolina trademark, NASCAR. (Think “liquor cars,” “runners,” and “Thunder Road.” Yeah, I know “Thunder Road” was actually in Tennessee, but you get the idea.)

I am not much of an oenophile, but my wife is. I'm also not much of a NASCAR fan, but, again, my wife is. So when the opportunity came to combine the two on a recent visit to North Carolina, we took advantage of it.

Around 2002, former NASCAR driver, racing team owner, and North Carolina native Richard Childress decided to diversify, sinking a chunk of his winnings into planting grapes in a vineyard near Lexington, located in the Yadkin Valley AVA (American Viticultural Area), one of three such designated areas in the state. (The others are Swan Creek and the Haw River Valley.) And so in October of 2004, Childress Vineyards was born.

Now, Richard Childress never thundered down a treacherous mountain road in his native state behind the wheel of an overpowered car loaded down with cases of illicit wine, but he does display his roots in the iconic checkered flag displayed on the labels of many of his winery's products. This alone, I think, makes him something of a stand-out among vintners worldwide, most of whom tend to put stuffy, pretentious things on their labels.

In fact, Childress' whole operation is pretty outstanding. Having done tours and tastings at Biltmore and other North Carolina wineries as well as at wineries in other parts of the country, we found the facilities at Childress Vineyards to be quite impressive.

You can't miss the vineyard as you motor down US 52 toward exit 89; there are informational and directional signs along the highway and besides, the place is huge! On the long drive up Childress Vineyards Road off Hwy 64W you pass through acres of neatly planted fields, each bearing signs indicating what variety of grape is sown there. There is a walking trail in evidence, as free tours are offered daily.

The road ends at a beautiful and imposing 35,000 square foot edifice constructed in the style of a Tuscan villa of the Italian Renaissance period. Upon passing through massive doors, you find yourself in an opulent grand entry hall. To the right are banquet facilities and The Bistro at Childress Vineyards, featuring daily lunches and three-course tasting flights prepared under the direction of Executive Chef David Thomas. Lunch is served until 3pm and we, of course, arrived at 3:01.

No matter. To the left is a delightful gift shop and a tasting room that Wine Enthusiast Magazine includes among its Top 25 in America. My wife is an inveterate taster and I'm an inveterate shopper, so it was the perfect place for us to spend the hour before the next available winery tour.

As I said, I am not an oenophile, but I know enough about wine to hold my own in conversations and at tastings. I know something about color and clarity and nose and finish. I know buttery and oakey and grassy and I know about breathing and decanting. And I know the “Five Ss” of wine tasting: see, swirl, sniff, sip, and savor. I guess that's how I fooled the wine steward into thinking I knew what I was talking about as I watched my wife proceed through a “classic tasting,” one of three currently offered in the tasting room.

For a $10 ticket, she sampled five sweet wines; a classic white, a classic blush, and a classic red, as well as a 2009 Riesling varietal and a Polar dessert wine. The $12 “barrel select” tasting includes five varietals, and the $15 “signature tasting” offers a selection of five premium wines. Each tasting also includes a crystal souvenir glass.

I was most impressed with the steward or sommelier who conducted our tasting. Unlike other wineries we've toured, the tastings at Childress are individual affairs rather than big group outings where everybody swirls and sips in unison. Olga, the young woman who guided us through our “classic tasting,” was easily the most knowledgeable and personable example of her trade I've ever encountered, and I don't say that just because she was a pretty Russian girl who spoke a little Italian. She really was a joy as well as being a marvelous professional who knew her stuff. She was a font of information both general and arcane and was very thorough in the presentation of her product.

Another pleasant young woman named Courtney took a small group of us on a tour of the winery itself. It was cold, rainy, and generally nasty outside, so we contented ourselves with a look at the bottling and storage facilities contained within the lower levels of the building. Even there, the Italian Renaissance theme was carried through, especially in the wonderful “barrel room” that included a waterfall that was both decorative and functional, its purpose being to maintain a level of humidity for the French-made oak barrels stored within.

Childress produces good stuff. Their wines have garnered more than 650 medals in the relatively short time the winery has been around, including over 60 golds and double golds and four Best of Show honors. They currently have 77 acres under vine with twelve varietals planted.

One of the grape varieties cultivated at Childress is the muscadine or vitis rotundifolia. Known locally as “scuppernongs,” the grape is native to North Carolina, and is, in fact the official state fruit. The first grape cultivated in the United States, a 400-year-old “Mother Vine” on Roanoke Island is said to be the oldest known grapevine in the country.

My wife has had several unpleasant experiences with Muscadine wine over the years. Many of them can have a very tart or sour flavor. Not so with the wines she sampled at Childress, which she found to be very light bodied and sweet. She also found room for a bottle of American Muscadine Sweet White Wine in our luggage. Actually, the inventory at Childress was depleted by several bottles when we departed, and we definitely plan on returning for more.

The winery is seeking to be more of an overall destination and to that end they have incorporated a number of special events, including live music in the vineyards throughout the summer months. See their website at http://www.childressvineyards.com/home.asp for complete details of these events as well as for scheduled hours, directions and much more.

Whether you're a casual connoisseur or an established aficionado, there's something for you at Childress Vineyards. I'll see you there sometime soon.

Childress Vineyards

1000 Childress Vineyards Road

Lexington, NC 27295

(336) 236-9463

http://www.childressvineyards.com/home.asp