Etiquette Hell

Hostesses With The Mostest => Entertaining and Hospitality => Topic started by: Cuddlepie on December 27, 2012, 05:29:47 PM

Title: Where does the responsibility lie?
Post by: Cuddlepie on December 27, 2012, 05:29:47 PM
My son recently got his license and therefore must have a zero blood alcohol when driving a car.

Son was about to leave when a guest ‘jokingly’ said he hoped my son would not be given an alcohol breath test as there was alcohol in the some of the food his wife made and brought along to share.  Son said he wished he’d been advised of this and guest said that it really was only a small amount and in reality probably wouldn’t affect a reading if son happened to be pulled over, so don’t worry. 

My question is – Should guests and hosts mention when they include alcohol (even in minute amounts) in food or should the onus be on drivers ask if alcohol is an ingredient?
Title: Re: Where does the responsibility lie?
Post by: Wulfie on December 27, 2012, 05:34:19 PM
It is one of my pet peeves when someone puts alcohol in something and doesn't tell anyone about it until after they have eaten it.  There are many people who for one reason or another can't have/don't want alcohol. For me, it can be fatal due to a very serious allergy.

Son should ask from now on if there is alcohol just to be sure with these "friends"
Title: Re: Where does the responsibility lie?
Post by: NyaChan on December 27, 2012, 05:36:20 PM
I think it depends on the amount used and how - is it a cake soaked in rum or a splash of cooking sherry in a sauce?  If it is something a person would get carded for when ordering in public, I'd definitely give a heads up.  If I knew someone was trying to avoid alcohol for whatever reason, I would also give a heads up.  If I had no reason to think alcohol would be a problem, it would depend on the item I am serving - I usually do mention when I use alcohol in cooking if it features in the dish, especially if it isn't obvious from looking that it might be in there.  Ex:  guinness & orange liqueur truffles.  If I put some mirin in a marinade for stir fry though, I probably wouldn't bother (even my parents who don't drink for religious reasons will consume that).   
Title: Re: Where does the responsibility lie?
Post by: Hmmmmm on December 27, 2012, 05:49:37 PM
It wouldn't occur to me to mention that I added a tablespoon if sherry to my sautéed mushrooms, a splash of bourbon in my pecan pie, or that the stew had a 1/4 cup of wine as I've always understood the alcohol cooks away and does not impact blood levels.  If I knew a guest did not consume alcohol for religious or dietary reasons I wouldn't cook with it.

But I'd also a guest would intuitively know that the rum soaked cake had alcohol that had not been cooked away.
Title: Re: Where does the responsibility lie?
Post by: WillyNilly on December 27, 2012, 05:53:14 PM
For the most part I think its a shared responsibility. For most people a small amount of alcohol, especialy cooked alcohol, there is no issue whatsoever, so if someone absolutely cannot have any its on them to ask/let the person serving know of the restriction. If its enough to get a person tipsy/would get them carded in a restaurant/etc then the person serving should mention it.

Since your son can have zero alcohol I think he should have asked/mentioned in advance, especially this time year when people are apt to make more elaborate dishes.
Title: Re: Where does the responsibility lie?
Post by: MorgnsGrl on December 27, 2012, 06:01:35 PM
I think it's a shared responsibility. I make a lot cookies; most of them contain small amounts of vanilla extract or some other flavoring that is alcohol based, and it would never occur to me to "warn" anyone about that particular ingredient. But if I put a quarter cup of liqueur in some frosting, or made beef stew with a lot of red wine, I would tell people in advance (or use a different recipe if I knew one of the people who'd be consuming to food couldn't have alcohol.)
Title: Re: Where does the responsibility lie?
Post by: Wulfie on December 28, 2012, 09:12:51 AM
I've always understood the alcohol cooks away and does not impact blood levels.  If I knew a guest did not consume alcohol for religious or dietary reasons I wouldn't cook with it.

This is a very common misconception! All the alcohol does NOT cook away, in fact up to 75% of it can still be in the dish after it is cooked. http://www.drweil.com/drw/u/QAA400900/Does-Alcohol-Really-Cook-Out-of-Food.html (http://www.drweil.com/drw/u/QAA400900/Does-Alcohol-Really-Cook-Out-of-Food.html)
Title: Re: Where does the responsibility lie?
Post by: SiotehCat on December 28, 2012, 09:31:22 AM
I think its the responsibility of the person eating it.

I'm a vegetarian and ask about everything.
Title: Re: Where does the responsibility lie?
Post by: CakeBeret on December 28, 2012, 10:06:36 AM
I think that if there is a significant amount of alcohol, or if the alcohol is uncooked, it is on the cook to say something.

If the eater cannot have any alcohol pass his/her lips, period, then it is that person's responsibility.

For example: I made a champagne turkey for Thanksgiving. I used one bottle of champagne over a 13lb turkey and then used the drippings to make gravy. I did tell my guests that there was champagne; chances are it cooked out, but there was a significant enough amount that it warranted a mention.

If I used a quarter-cup of white wine in four cups of sauce, I would probably not think to mention it.

If I made alcohol-filled truffles, I would mention it because the alcohol is most definitely there and is not cooked.
Title: Re: Where does the responsibility lie?
Post by: cheyne on December 28, 2012, 10:59:51 AM
I made a New Orleans bread pudding with whiskey sauce for the company Xmas party this year.  The sauce uses 2/3 cup bourbon (cooked) and 1/3 cup bourbon (uncooked-added after the sauce comes off the stove).  I told the [pregnant] hostess and all other guests about the whiskey in the sauce.  After that it was up to them to decide if they wanted to eat it or not. 

I think your son should have been told that there was alcohol in the food, especially as he is underage and was driving.  I would never serve guests alcohol without letting them know it was there, the same as I wouldn't serve a vegetarian a dish that had "hidden" meat without letting them know it was there.

Title: Re: Where does the responsibility lie?
Post by: Just Lori on December 28, 2012, 01:54:09 PM
I think that if you know someone at your table cannot have a certain ingredient, and you use that ingredient, you should disclose it.  Granted, I might not think about young drivers when it comes to adding alcohol, but obviously his uncle did, because he brought it up.   I would probably mention alcohol anyhow, because I do know a number of people who do not to drink for a variety of reasons.
Title: Re: Where does the responsibility lie?
Post by: NyaChan on December 28, 2012, 01:56:48 PM
OP, can you share what the alcohol was in and how much was used?
Title: Re: Where does the responsibility lie?
Post by: WillyNilly on December 28, 2012, 02:00:53 PM
I wonder though if the guy was just pulling the kid's chain and didn't really think there was any harm.  Having for dinner a pot roast cooked in Guinness, or having penne a la vodka, or putting wine in the red sauce really is not something the average person is even remotely concerned with when it comes to driving and intoxication, and is not really something most people would think to warn a diner about... but its an easy way to perhaps scare a teen.  Is the guest known as a 'kidder'?

ETA: Also did this guy know the OP's son could not have any alcohol whatsoever?  As someone who's well out their teens and who doesn't have teenage kids, I honestly didn't realize the blood alcohol level allowances were lower for some drivers then others.  I pretty much though anyone would be fine with .08 or less.
Title: Re: Where does the responsibility lie?
Post by: onyonryngs on December 28, 2012, 02:03:02 PM
I wonder though if the guy was just pulling the kid's chain and didn't really think there was any harm.  Having for dinner a pot roast cooked in Guinness, or having penne a la vodka, or putting wine in the red sauce really is not something the average person is even remotely concerned with when it comes to driving and intoxication, and is not really something most people would think to warn a diner about... but its an easy way to perhaps scare a teen.  Is the guest known as a 'kidder'?

Exactly!  Especially since the OP said the guy said it jokingly.  Unless it was soaked in rum, it would never cross my mind to mention it, but then "rum balls" gives one a pretty good idea of what they're about to eat.
Title: Re: Where does the responsibility lie?
Post by: jpcher on December 28, 2012, 02:54:02 PM

My question is – Should guests and hosts mention when they include alcohol (even in minute amounts) in food or should the onus be on drivers ask if alcohol is an ingredient?

Yes. I think that guests bringing food should mention what was included in the dish, be it alcohol or nuts or whatever.



eta -- actually on second thought, I think it's up to the hostess to ask what ingredients are in a brought dish. Because the hostess should know the guest list food intolerance more so than a guest who brings a dish does.
Title: Re: Where does the responsibility lie?
Post by: sparksals on December 28, 2012, 03:04:53 PM
I don't think it is reasonable to expect a teenager to know to ask if there is booze in a food.  If people have special dietary requirements, they have a responsibility to ask.  If there is booze in food, I think that the responsibility lies with the person doing the cooking to inform those who may be underrage or have religious reasons not to eat or drink booze.
Title: Re: Where does the responsibility lie?
Post by: Hmmmmm on December 28, 2012, 05:31:03 PM
The OP was concerned about alcohol impairing a driver.

http://homecooking.about.com/library/archive/blalcohol12.htm

This chart shows the amount of alcohol that is retained after specific cooking times.  If I make a stew with a 1/4 cup wine that is 12% proof and the stew serves 8, that is  a potential of 2 ounces of wine with 80% to 90% of the alcohol cooked out.  I would be shocked that a persons blood alcohol level would show this trace of alcohol in their blood stream even if they were tested immediately after eating.  And if I added 2 tablespoon (which is 1 oz) of a 15% proof sherry and only warmed it and it retained 85% of its alcohol content, that is still less than 1/8 sherry per serving.  For a 140 pound person, their blood alcohol would be less than .001 if they were tested immediately upon consumption.  So again I wouldn't think anyone could become intoxicated from my sherried mushrooms and wouldnt think to warn them. 

But as I stated I wouldn't use any alcohol when cooking if serving someone who abstains for religious, dietary, or recovering addict. 
Title: Re: Where does the responsibility lie?
Post by: blarg314 on December 28, 2012, 08:41:24 PM

I think that if someone has a 0% alcohol consumption limitation, it falls under the same category as any other strict dietary issue like allergies or religious restrictions, and is up to the person with the restriction to ensure that the food they are eating conforms to their rules.

If I were making a sauce with a lot of alcohol in it, I might mention it. If I know that my guests are not complete teatotallers, it wouldn't occur to me to announce the use of a bit of wine in dish, or vanilla extract in the dessert, any more than I'd announce the presence of gluten to a non gluten-free guest.
Title: Re: Where does the responsibility lie?
Post by: snowdragon on December 28, 2012, 09:28:21 PM
I think that if there is a significant amount of alcohol, or if the alcohol is uncooked, it is on the cook to say something.

If the eater cannot have any alcohol pass his/her lips, period, then it is that person's responsibility.

For example: I made a champagne turkey for Thanksgiving. I used one bottle of champagne over a 13lb turkey and then used the drippings to make gravy. I did tell my guests that there was champagne; chances are it cooked out, but there was a significant enough amount that it warranted a mention.

If I used a quarter-cup of white wine in four cups of sauce, I would probably not think to mention it.

If I made alcohol-filled truffles, I would mention it because the alcohol is most definitely there and is not cooked.


would you feel the same about those proportions of meat/animal products for a vegetarian/vegan?  If not =- why is alcohol different for someone who can't have it?
Title: Re: Where does the responsibility lie?
Post by: Sharnita on December 28, 2012, 09:34:38 PM
OP, were you/son worried that he would actually be impaired or that trace amounts could be detected?  I think that even being underage there is an awareness that a sip of communion wine, for example, is legal.  I am sure there are other examples of how a driver under 21 might legally encounter a tiny amount of alcohol. I think that the issue of responsibility might depend somewhat on how strictly one needs to avoid alcohol.  If even so much as a sip of wine would be too much then I think it is up to the person consuming the food to make it clear.  There are just too many sources, as others mentioned.
Title: Re: Where does the responsibility lie?
Post by: CakeBeret on December 28, 2012, 09:53:21 PM
I think that if there is a significant amount of alcohol, or if the alcohol is uncooked, it is on the cook to say something.

If the eater cannot have any alcohol pass his/her lips, period, then it is that person's responsibility.

For example: I made a champagne turkey for Thanksgiving. I used one bottle of champagne over a 13lb turkey and then used the drippings to make gravy. I did tell my guests that there was champagne; chances are it cooked out, but there was a significant enough amount that it warranted a mention.

If I used a quarter-cup of white wine in four cups of sauce, I would probably not think to mention it.

If I made alcohol-filled truffles, I would mention it because the alcohol is most definitely there and is not cooked.


would you feel the same about those proportions of meat/animal products for a vegetarian
/vegan?  If not=- why is alcohol different for someone who can't have it?

I was basing my comments on the assumption that the cook has not been told that the recipient cannot have alcohol. I would not assume that a random person can't consume alcohol, just like I wouldn't assume that a random person was vegetarian. If the op's son had not specifically stated beforehand that he could not consume any alcohol, then I don't see how the cook can be held liable for that. It's like going to a dinner party and only announcing after dinner that you're vegetarian, and blaming the hosts for putting chicken broth in the soup.
Title: Re: Where does the responsibility lie?
Post by: snowdragon on December 28, 2012, 10:11:03 PM
I think that if there is a significant amount of alcohol, or if the alcohol is uncooked, it is on the cook to say something.

If the eater cannot have any alcohol pass his/her lips, period, then it is that person's responsibility.

For example: I made a champagne turkey for Thanksgiving. I used one bottle of champagne over a 13lb turkey and then used the drippings to make gravy. I did tell my guests that there was champagne; chances are it cooked out, but there was a significant enough amount that it warranted a mention.

If I used a quarter-cup of white wine in four cups of sauce, I would probably not think to mention it.

If I made alcohol-filled truffles, I would mention it because the alcohol is most definitely there and is not cooked.


would you feel the same about those proportions of meat/animal products for a vegetarian
/vegan?  If not=- why is alcohol different for someone who can't have it?

I was basing my comments on the assumption that the cook has not been told that the recipient cannot have alcohol. I would not assume that a random person can't consume alcohol, just like I wouldn't assume that a random person was vegetarian. If the op's son had not specifically stated beforehand that he could not consume any alcohol, then I don't see how the cook can be held liable for that. It's like going to a dinner party and only announcing after dinner that you're vegetarian, and blaming the hosts for putting chicken broth in the soup.

  It's the law in her area, the host should be expected to know that by law the OP's son could not have alcohol and drive because in many areas the host could be held responsible also. As a presumably law abiding adult - the hosts should be looking to prevent the OP's son from doing anything that could be illegal, and should not need to be told the boy can not have it - they should know.
Title: Re: Where does the responsibility lie?
Post by: AustenFan on December 28, 2012, 10:20:51 PM
Unless the hosts believe him to be intoxicated (in which case, regardless of age, they should arrange another way home for the guest) the onus shouldn't be on them to make sure OPs son is abiding by the terms of his license.
Title: Re: Where does the responsibility lie?
Post by: snowdragon on December 28, 2012, 11:28:48 PM
Unless the hosts believe him to be intoxicated (in which case, regardless of age, they should arrange another way home for the guest) the onus shouldn't be on them to make sure OPs son is abiding by the terms of his license.

the onus is on them to makes sure he has all the information to abide by the terms of his license.   If he has no idea that the food contains alcohol, then he can not possibly be making a choice to abide or not abide by those terms, since the hosts know that this is the law in the area the onus is on them to share the fact that they included alcohol in the food. The know the age of their guest, they know the limits on his license, they have a duty to reveal.  The guest has no real reason to suspect that his host might have included alcohol in the food - why would he think to ask?
  I see this as no different than slipping anyone with a restricted diet - something they are restricted from...except that the consequences could be legal for the boy.   But if I as a host am supposed to honor all those dietary choices that others make, then I as a host would be responsible for honoring the legal obligations that one of my guests needs to follow.
Title: Re: Where does the responsibility lie?
Post by: Sharnita on December 29, 2012, 07:19:18 AM
Honestly, there is no law where a driver even under 18 can't have communion wine or a bit of vanilla on their food.  It is unclear how much alcohol would be in the food so I don't know how much was really here and what OP/son were worried about. It is possible the amounts were really so trace that the comment about getting a read was a joke.  now if they were higher than yes, they had a responsibility to let him know.  It doeasn't sound clear that it was though.
Title: Re: Where does the responsibility lie?
Post by: WillyNilly on December 29, 2012, 10:23:59 AM
Snowdragon why do assume anyone other then the teen knew the law? I've had a drivers license for 20 years - I don't know the minuate of the law for new and/or underage drivers anymore. But I certainly might josh around with a teen. If the kid had a restriction that was not universal to all, or even most drivers (most states allow .08 blood alcohol) then chances are the kid was the only one who knew the details of his own restrictions.
Title: Re: Where does the responsibility lie?
Post by: NyaChan on December 29, 2012, 01:38:31 PM
I didn't know that there was a special restriction on new drivers regarding alcohol.  If I thought about it, it would occur to me that the fact that they are underage for consuming alcohol would get them in trouble & then the fact that they are a new driver would likely get them in trouble.  But I would not automatically think that new drivers cannot be found to have any amount, not even trace amounts of alcohol in their system.
Title: Re: Where does the responsibility lie?
Post by: Hmmmmm on December 29, 2012, 02:51:31 PM
I didn't know that there was a special restriction on new drivers regarding alcohol.  If I thought about it, it would occur to me that the fact that they are underage for consuming alcohol would get them in trouble & then the fact that they are a new driver would likely get them in trouble.  But I would not automatically think that new drivers cannot be found to have any amount, not even trace amounts of alcohol in their system.

I agree and I even have an 18 yr old driver and another who will be getting his license next month.  I even asked my kids about it and they said they knew there was a zero tolerance in our state but since they don't drink at all it is not something they are concerned about.  They said in their classes they were told they'd probably have a higher chance of blowing dome trace alcohol from cough syrup that rum balls.
Title: Re: Where does the responsibility lie?
Post by: Allyson on December 29, 2012, 06:46:26 PM
I think it's on the person with the restriction to ask. It's a good idea to mention main ingredients with anything like meat, alcohol etc. sure, but if the food-maker doesn't know that the guest has a restriction, I don't think they should be obligated to list off everything that might be an issue. A little bit of alcohol in a sauce or something is so common it wouldn't occur to mention it unless I specifically knew that person intended to consume absolutely *no* alcohol.

Manners and behaviour does seem to be changing with things like food allergies and restrictions becoming more common. It might eventually become the done thing for a food-maker to do something like make a card with every possible allergen or issue that might come up--I think that's actually not a bad idea. But I still think it's up to the person concerned to make sure there's no alcohol/meat/dairy etc.
Title: Re: Where does the responsibility lie?
Post by: Iris on December 29, 2012, 09:38:06 PM
Honestly, there is no law where a driver even under 18 can't have communion wine or a bit of vanilla on their food.  It is unclear how much alcohol would be in the food so I don't know how much was really here and what OP/son were worried about. It is possible the amounts were really so trace that the comment about getting a read was a joke.  now if they were higher than yes, they had a responsibility to let him know.  It doeasn't sound clear that it was though.

There is in Australia.

http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/roadsafety/alcoholdrugs/bac/drinkinfoabout0_00.html (http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/roadsafety/alcoholdrugs/bac/drinkinfoabout0_00.html)

To save anyone clicking if they don't want to, there are specific cautions about "Some medicines, mouthwashes and foodstuffs" and a warning to check labels. As to communion wine it says "If you are caught driving with a blood alcohol level above zero, but below 0.02, and you can prove to the Court that the alcohol was consumed during a religious ceremony, this will be a defence."

Sorry if that's too much like legal advice. On the OP I think that if you know someone has alcohol restrictions it would be a kindness to let them know that there is alcohol present in the food, but as a general rule people need to be responsible for letting people know - as I have mentioned before my family has to eat gluten free, but I wouldn't expect someone to psychically know that or give a general warning to any group of people anytime they made any dish containing gluten. Similarly, DH has a 0.0 alcohol limit with ZERO tolerance for his work, but considers it his own responsibility to check what he is eating.
Title: Re: Where does the responsibility lie?
Post by: snowdragon on December 30, 2012, 11:09:55 AM
Snowdragon why do assume anyone other then the teen knew the law? I've had a drivers license for 20 years - I don't know the minuate of the law for new and/or underage drivers anymore. But I certainly might josh around with a teen. If the kid had a restriction that was not universal to all, or even most drivers (most states allow .08 blood alcohol) then chances are the kid was the only one who knew the details of his own restrictions.

I don't consider this minuate -and the Uncle knew enough to tease the kid about it , so he knew that the kid was restricted from alcohol. The kid didn't suspect that there would be alcohol in the food, so didn't know enough to ask - there for the uncle has the responsibility to disclose, because he knew.
  If a host knew that a person had restricted diet by choice, like a Vegtarian/vegan , they would be responsible for disclosing or even not serving those foods in the dinner at all, then a person should have AT least the same level of responsibility when it's a legal restriction. Especially if you know enough to "joke" about it after the fact.
Title: Re: Where does the responsibility lie?
Post by: KenveeB on December 30, 2012, 11:23:09 AM
Honestly, I think you shouldn't serve something made with alcohol to an underage person (unless you're a parent), so I would certainly mention it if I did.
Title: Re: Where does the responsibility lie?
Post by: Hmmmmm on December 30, 2012, 12:06:05 PM
Snowdragon why do assume anyone other then the teen knew the law? I've had a drivers license for 20 years - I don't know the minuate of the law for new and/or underage drivers anymore. But I certainly might josh around with a teen. If the kid had a restriction that was not universal to all, or even most drivers (most states allow .08 blood alcohol) then chances are the kid was the only one who knew the details of his own restrictions.

I don't consider this minuate -and the Uncle knew enough to tease the kid about it , so he knew that the kid was restricted from alcohol. The kid didn't suspect that there would be alcohol in the food, so didn't know enough to ask - there for the uncle has the responsibility to disclose, because he knew.
  If a host knew that a person had restricted diet by choice, like a Vegtarian/vegan , they would be responsible for disclosing or even not serving those foods in the dinner at all, then a person should have AT least the same level of responsibility when it's a legal restriction. Especially if you know enough to "joke" about it after the fact.

There is a difference between knowing there is DUI laws that state a person with BAC over .08 would be considered intoxicated and knowing there is a zero tolerence for under 21 that is .000.  I think the uncle's joke was based on DUI laws.
Title: Re: Where does the responsibility lie?
Post by: miranova on December 30, 2012, 01:15:28 PM
Well maybe I'm a terrible person but I've never mentioned to anyone when I deglaze a pan with some wine while making a sauce.  It never even occurred to me to mention it, it seems like such a common thing and most of the alcohol, if not all, will cook off while the sauce is simmering.  We did mention that there was rum in the brown sugar glaze that we made for the ham for Christmas, but it just kind of came up in conversation, we didn't make a point to mention it.  And we have plenty of children at these gatherings, including our own.

Do most people really see this as the same thing as actually serving a child a drink of alochol?  To me it is just a cooking ingredient and the alcohol traces are minute and inconsequential.  Heck, there is also rum in most chocoloate fondues that children enjoy.  It was my understanding that the alcohol is mostly burned off when it is lit on fire.
Title: Re: Where does the responsibility lie?
Post by: violinp on December 30, 2012, 01:42:10 PM
Well maybe I'm a terrible person but I've never mentioned to anyone when I deglaze a pan with some wine while making a sauce.  It never even occurred to me to mention it, it seems like such a common thing and most of the alcohol, if not all, will cook off while the sauce is simmering.  We did mention that there was rum in the brown sugar glaze that we made for the ham for Christmas, but it just kind of came up in conversation, we didn't make a point to mention it.  And we have plenty of children at these gatherings, including our own.

Do most people really see this as the same thing as actually serving a child a drink of alochol?  To me it is just a cooking ingredient and the alcohol traces are minute and inconsequential.  Heck, there is also rum in most chocoloate fondues that children enjoy.  It was my understanding that the alcohol is mostly burned off when it is lit on fire.

The thing is, even if the alcohol does burn off (it doesn't completely), the sulfites in the wine still remain, which would be a problem for people who are allergic to sulfites. So, there are also legitimate health concerns besides being however slightly impaired by the alcohol.

Also, I'm a bit of a lightweight - I become an eyes - glazed - over mouthbreather after a glass and a half of wine, so I would appreciate knowing if my food had been cooked in an alcoholic beverage. Yes, the majority burns off, but some remains, and I'd like to remain pleasant company for my hosts and fellow guests.

Not telling people if you cook with wine is not being a terrible person, but it's certainly not a thoughtful act.
Title: Re: Where does the responsibility lie?
Post by: snowdragon on December 30, 2012, 01:48:58 PM
Snowdragon why do assume anyone other then the teen knew the law? I've had a drivers license for 20 years - I don't know the minuate of the law for new and/or underage drivers anymore. But I certainly might josh around with a teen. If the kid had a restriction that was not universal to all, or even most drivers (most states allow .08 blood alcohol) then chances are the kid was the only one who knew the details of his own restrictions.

I don't consider this minuate -and the Uncle knew enough to tease the kid about it , so he knew that the kid was restricted from alcohol. The kid didn't suspect that there would be alcohol in the food, so didn't know enough to ask - there for the uncle has the responsibility to disclose, because he knew.
  If a host knew that a person had restricted diet by choice, like a Vegtarian/vegan , they would be responsible for disclosing or even not serving those foods in the dinner at all, then a person should have AT least the same level of responsibility when it's a legal restriction. Especially if you know enough to "joke" about it after the fact.

There is a difference between knowing there is DUI laws that state a person with BAC over .08 would be considered intoxicated and knowing there is a zero tolerence for under 21 that is .000.  I think the uncle's joke was based on DUI laws.

  If they knew enough to mention that he should not be pulled over for a breathalyzer - they knew this could be a problem, even if they didn't think it would be a problem, it was not their choice to make for the boy.  He should have been warned - would you feel differently if this was a Muslim who was fed alcohol because it was "just a little bit and I don't think it would matter" or someone who is LDS? 
Title: Re: Where does the responsibility lie?
Post by: miranova on December 30, 2012, 01:50:15 PM
I think if someone is allergic to sulfates, it is their responsibility to tell me.  That is certainly not the only allergy out there, so in order for me to avoid allergens I need to know what they are ahead of time.  What if I avoid wine but instead someone is allergic to milk?  I don't think it's pratical to hand a list of ingredients to all potential guests, the guest with the allergy needs to speak up and I personally will bend over backwards to accomodate them. 

Also the amount of wine used to deglaze a pan is far less than a glass and a half and is distributed among all the guests AND most of the alcohol is burned off.  We are really talking about a very small amount of alcohol remaining, if any, per guest.
Title: Re: Where does the responsibility lie?
Post by: miranova on December 30, 2012, 01:52:37 PM
Snowdragon why do assume anyone other then the teen knew the law? I've had a drivers license for 20 years - I don't know the minuate of the law for new and/or underage drivers anymore. But I certainly might josh around with a teen. If the kid had a restriction that was not universal to all, or even most drivers (most states allow .08 blood alcohol) then chances are the kid was the only one who knew the details of his own restrictions.

I don't consider this minuate -and the Uncle knew enough to tease the kid about it , so he knew that the kid was restricted from alcohol. The kid didn't suspect that there would be alcohol in the food, so didn't know enough to ask - there for the uncle has the responsibility to disclose, because he knew.
  If a host knew that a person had restricted diet by choice, like a Vegtarian/vegan , they would be responsible for disclosing or even not serving those foods in the dinner at all, then a person should have AT least the same level of responsibility when it's a legal restriction. Especially if you know enough to "joke" about it after the fact.

There is a difference between knowing there is DUI laws that state a person with BAC over .08 would be considered intoxicated and knowing there is a zero tolerence for under 21 that is .000.  I think the uncle's joke was based on DUI laws.

  If they knew enough to mention that he should not be pulled over for a breathalyzer - they knew this could be a problem, even if they didn't think it would be a problem, it was not their choice to make for the boy.  He should have been warned - would you feel differently if this was a Muslim who was fed alcohol because it was "just a little bit and I don't think it would matter" or someone who is LDS?

You aren't asking me specifically, but of course it matters.  I would assume that the comments about small amounts were related to alcohol content as pertains to actually impairing driving, which nothing in my cooking would ever do, since we are talking about inconsequential amounts remaining.  However, if someone is morally opposed to alcohol I would certainly NEVER serve it to them in any amount.  It is not even remotely the same thing in my mind. 
Title: Re: Where does the responsibility lie?
Post by: snowdragon on December 30, 2012, 02:00:58 PM
Snowdragon why do assume anyone other then the teen knew the law? I've had a drivers license for 20 years - I don't know the minuate of the law for new and/or underage drivers anymore. But I certainly might josh around with a teen. If the kid had a restriction that was not universal to all, or even most drivers (most states allow .08 blood alcohol) then chances are the kid was the only one who knew the details of his own restrictions.

I don't consider this minuate -and the Uncle knew enough to tease the kid about it , so he knew that the kid was restricted from alcohol. The kid didn't suspect that there would be alcohol in the food, so didn't know enough to ask - there for the uncle has the responsibility to disclose, because he knew.
  If a host knew that a person had restricted diet by choice, like a Vegtarian/vegan , they would be responsible for disclosing or even not serving those foods in the dinner at all, then a person should have AT least the same level of responsibility when it's a legal restriction. Especially if you know enough to "joke" about it after the fact.

There is a difference between knowing there is DUI laws that state a person with BAC over .08 would be considered intoxicated and knowing there is a zero tolerence for under 21 that is .000.  I think the uncle's joke was based on DUI laws.

  If they knew enough to mention that he should not be pulled over for a breathalyzer - they knew this could be a problem, even if they didn't think it would be a problem, it was not their choice to make for the boy.  He should have been warned - would you feel differently if this was a Muslim who was fed alcohol because it was "just a little bit and I don't think it would matter" or someone who is LDS?

You aren't asking me specifically, but of course it matters.  I would assume that the comments about small amounts were related to alcohol content as pertains to actually impairing driving, which nothing in my cooking would ever do, since we are talking about inconsequential amounts remaining.  However, if someone is morally opposed to alcohol I would certainly NEVER serve it to them in any amount.  It is not even remotely the same thing in my mind.

The amount they can consume is the same -zero.  To me it illustrates that there is one set of rules that gets more respect than others. If you don't serve something to some for a choice they have made - and religion is a choice - then you don't serve it to them for a legal obligation - which is not.
Title: Re: Where does the responsibility lie?
Post by: Hmmmmm on December 30, 2012, 02:04:06 PM
Snowdragon why do assume anyone other then the teen knew the law? I've had a drivers license for 20 years - I don't know the minuate of the law for new and/or underage drivers anymore. But I certainly might josh around with a teen. If the kid had a restriction that was not universal to all, or even most drivers (most states allow .08 blood alcohol) then chances are the kid was the only one who knew the details of his own restrictions.

I don't consider this minuate -and the Uncle knew enough to tease the kid about it , so he knew that the kid was restricted from alcohol. The kid didn't suspect that there would be alcohol in the food, so didn't know enough to ask - there for the uncle has the responsibility to disclose, because he knew.
  If a host knew that a person had restricted diet by choice, like a Vegtarian/vegan , they would be responsible for disclosing or even not serving those foods in the dinner at all, then a person should have AT least the same level of responsibility when it's a legal restriction. Especially if you know enough to "joke" about it after the fact.

There is a difference between knowing there is DUI laws that state a person with BAC over .08 would be considered intoxicated and knowing there is a zero tolerence for under 21 that is .000.  I think the uncle's joke was based on DUI laws.

  If they knew enough to mention that he should not be pulled over for a breathalyzer - they knew this could be a problem, even if they didn't think it would be a problem, it was not their choice to make for the boy.  He should have been warned - would you feel differently if this was a Muslim who was fed alcohol because it was "just a little bit and I don't think it would matter" or someone who is LDS?

He made a joke.  I don't think the uncle really believed the teen had consumed enough whiskey sauce on the bread pudding or port wine sauce on the tenderloin to cause him have any increased BAC.  It would be like me remarking to my sister that if she ate another piece of fudge she'd go into a chocolate coma.

And to your other question, I stated twice in previous posts that I do not serve foods cooked with alcohol to people who alert me to dietary restrictions or those I know who abstain for religious reasons or any one recovering from an addiction.

Title: Re: Where does the responsibility lie?
Post by: miranova on December 30, 2012, 02:06:39 PM
Snowdragon why do assume anyone other then the teen knew the law? I've had a drivers license for 20 years - I don't know the minuate of the law for new and/or underage drivers anymore. But I certainly might josh around with a teen. If the kid had a restriction that was not universal to all, or even most drivers (most states allow .08 blood alcohol) then chances are the kid was the only one who knew the details of his own restrictions.

I don't consider this minuate -and the Uncle knew enough to tease the kid about it , so he knew that the kid was restricted from alcohol. The kid didn't suspect that there would be alcohol in the food, so didn't know enough to ask - there for the uncle has the responsibility to disclose, because he knew.
  If a host knew that a person had restricted diet by choice, like a Vegtarian/vegan , they would be responsible for disclosing or even not serving those foods in the dinner at all, then a person should have AT least the same level of responsibility when it's a legal restriction. Especially if you know enough to "joke" about it after the fact.

There is a difference between knowing there is DUI laws that state a person with BAC over .08 would be considered intoxicated and knowing there is a zero tolerence for under 21 that is .000.  I think the uncle's joke was based on DUI laws.

  If they knew enough to mention that he should not be pulled over for a breathalyzer - they knew this could be a problem, even if they didn't think it would be a problem, it was not their choice to make for the boy.  He should have been warned - would you feel differently if this was a Muslim who was fed alcohol because it was "just a little bit and I don't think it would matter" or someone who is LDS?

You aren't asking me specifically, but of course it matters.  I would assume that the comments about small amounts were related to alcohol content as pertains to actually impairing driving, which nothing in my cooking would ever do, since we are talking about inconsequential amounts remaining.  However, if someone is morally opposed to alcohol I would certainly NEVER serve it to them in any amount.  It is not even remotely the same thing in my mind.

The amount they can consume is the same -zero.  To me it illustrates that there is one set of rules that gets more respect than others.

I am not aware of any law against a teenager consuming minute amounts of alcohol that was used in cooking.  I've never heard of that, so it certainly isn't about me disrespecting a set of rules.
Title: Re: Where does the responsibility lie?
Post by: Hmmmmm on December 30, 2012, 02:23:31 PM
Snowdragon why do assume anyone other then the teen knew the law? I've had a drivers license for 20 years - I don't know the minuate of the law for new and/or underage drivers anymore. But I certainly might josh around with a teen. If the kid had a restriction that was not universal to all, or even most drivers (most states allow .08 blood alcohol) then chances are the kid was the only one who knew the details of his own restrictions.

I don't consider this minuate -and the Uncle knew enough to tease the kid about it , so he knew that the kid was restricted from alcohol. The kid didn't suspect that there would be alcohol in the food, so didn't know enough to ask - there for the uncle has the responsibility to disclose, because he knew.
  If a host knew that a person had restricted diet by choice, like a Vegtarian/vegan , they would be responsible for disclosing or even not serving those foods in the dinner at all, then a person should have AT least the same level of responsibility when it's a legal restriction. Especially if you know enough to "joke" about it after the fact.

There is a difference between knowing there is DUI laws that state a person with BAC over .08 would be considered intoxicated and knowing there is a zero tolerence for under 21 that is .000.  I think the uncle's joke was based on DUI laws.

  If they knew enough to mention that he should not be pulled over for a breathalyzer - they knew this could be a problem, even if they didn't think it would be a problem, it was not their choice to make for the boy.  He should have been warned - would you feel differently if this was a Muslim who was fed alcohol because it was "just a little bit and I don't think it would matter" or someone who is LDS?

You aren't asking me specifically, but of course it matters.  I would assume that the comments about small amounts were related to alcohol content as pertains to actually impairing driving, which nothing in my cooking would ever do, since we are talking about inconsequential amounts remaining.  However, if someone is morally opposed to alcohol I would certainly NEVER serve it to them in any amount.  It is not even remotely the same thing in my mind.

The amount they can consume is the same -zero.  To me it illustrates that there is one set of rules that gets more respect than others. If you don't serve something to some for a choice they have made - and religion is a choice - then you don't serve it to them for a legal obligation - which is not.

I live in Texas.  Texas alcohol & tobacco laws specifically address alcoholic beverage sold to or consumed by minors.  It does not prohibit consumption of alcohol when presented in food.  Therefore, no law would be broken if I served a rum ball to my 16 yr old cousin.

Eta:  moderators if I'm getting to much into laws let me know and I will drop from the conversation.
Title: Re: Where does the responsibility lie?
Post by: MariaE on December 30, 2012, 03:20:45 PM
I would never dream of mentioning that I used 1tbsp of sherry in the marinade for the stirfry or a dollop of wine in the bolognese. Not out of spite, but it honestly wouldn't even cross my mind to do so. If somebody cannot have any alcohol, It is their responsibility to let me know - just like with any other dietary restriction. And in that case I will of course respect it.
Title: Re: Where does the responsibility lie?
Post by: WillyNilly on December 30, 2012, 07:08:23 PM
Snowdragon why do assume anyone other then the teen knew the law? I've had a drivers license for 20 years - I don't know the minuate of the law for new and/or underage drivers anymore. But I certainly might josh around with a teen. If the kid had a restriction that was not universal to all, or even most drivers (most states allow .08 blood alcohol) then chances are the kid was the only one who knew the details of his own restrictions.

I don't consider this minuate -and the Uncle knew enough to tease the kid about it , so he knew that the kid was restricted from alcohol. The kid didn't suspect that there would be alcohol in the food, so didn't know enough to ask - there for the uncle has the responsibility to disclose, because he knew.
  If a host knew that a person had restricted diet by choice, like a Vegtarian/vegan , they would be responsible for disclosing or even not serving those foods in the dinner at all, then a person should have AT least the same level of responsibility when it's a legal restriction. Especially if you know enough to "joke" about it after the fact.

There is a difference between knowing there is DUI laws that state a person with BAC over .08 would be considered intoxicated and knowing there is a zero tolerence for under 21 that is .000.  I think the uncle's joke was based on DUI laws.

  If they knew enough to mention that he should not be pulled over for a breathalyzer - they knew this could be a problem, even if they didn't think it would be a problem, it was not their choice to make for the boy.  He should have been warned - would you feel differently if this was a Muslim who was fed alcohol because it was "just a little bit and I don't think it would matter" or someone who is LDS?

You aren't asking me specifically, but of course it matters.  I would assume that the comments about small amounts were related to alcohol content as pertains to actually impairing driving, which nothing in my cooking would ever do, since we are talking about inconsequential amounts remaining.  However, if someone is morally opposed to alcohol I would certainly NEVER serve it to them in any amount.  It is not even remotely the same thing in my mind.

The amount they can consume is the same -zero.  To me it illustrates that there is one set of rules that gets more respect than others. If you don't serve something to some for a choice they have made - and religion is a choice - then you don't serve it to them for a legal obligation - which is not.

If I didn't know someone was Muslim and/or that they had a religious objection to alcohol I would feel zero guilt serving them some.  I wouldn't feel badly serving a silent vegetarian animal products either.  Just like the teen driver, the onus is on the restricted person to communicate their restrictions. If the Muslim keeps quiet, then too bad for them if they accidentally eat something cooked with alcohol, if the vegetarian doesn't tell me, I don't know to use vegetable broth, and if the teen doesn't speak up, I'm not withholding the cooking wine. I can only stop myself if I know I have to.

As for someone knowing there was an issue to make the joke to begin with - its possible there was, you know, conversation throughout and after the meal.  Its absolutely possible no one knew when the food was being served there would be any issue, then then throughout the course of the evening the teen mentioned he just got a license and through that conversation it came about there are alcohol restrictions, and voila - perfect opening for a joke about alcohol in the food.
Title: Re: Where does the responsibility lie?
Post by: LifeOnPluto on December 31, 2012, 01:51:47 AM
I'm also in Australia, and yes, there are several jurisdictions here that stipulate that P Platers must not have ANY trace of alcohol in their blood. In fact, I recently watched one of those reality police shows where a teenager was booked because he had traces of alcohol in his blood. It turned out that his girlfriend's mother had given him a few rum balls, which (obviously) contained traces of rum! Luckily, he was let off with a warning.

To me, a lot depends on what type of food it it. For example, a dessert traditionally made with alcohol, such as trifle, tiramasu, or rum balls, I'd expect the guest to have a pretty good idea that alcohol might be an ingredient.

For things such as sauces and marinade, these can just as often be made without alcohol as without. So I think the onus is on the host to inform guests if there's any alcohol used in things like that. Especially if they know (or ought to know) that that particular guest cannot consume alcohol, for whatever reason.
Title: Re: Where does the responsibility lie?
Post by: Redsoil on December 31, 2012, 05:29:48 AM
I just checked, and Cuddlepie is an Australian resident. 

Most people I know here are fairly well aware that both P plate drivers and professional drivers must have a ZERO blood alcohol reading at all times when driving.  Even for "normal" drivers here, the limit is 0.05 (not 0.08 as I believe it is in the US and other places).  Australian rules are pretty strict with BAC enforcement - even a whiff will have a teen (or truck driver for instance) detained, and taken back to the police station for further testing, and possible prosecution/loss of licence. 

Given that, I would think the hosts should have mentioned that some of the foods contained alcohol - I certainly would have (and I have no kids, just in case that factors in).  I'd mention to the teen to double-check in future, as it seems people may not think of it.  Ultimately, he's the one driving, it's his licence and future.

*Just so others know, Aussies are legally able to drink once they turn 18, so it is definitely an issue with P plate drivers.  Plenty of ads out there reminding people about it re. drinking and driving, and limits.
Title: Re: Where does the responsibility lie?
Post by: RingTailedLemur on December 31, 2012, 06:10:24 AM
I would never dream of mentioning that I used 1tbsp of sherry in the marinade for the stirfry or a dollop of wine in the bolognese. Not out of spite, but it honestly wouldn't even cross my mind to do so. If somebody cannot have any alcohol, It is their responsibility to let me know - just like with any other dietary restriction. And in that case I will of course respect it.

The trouble is, it wouldn't cross my mind that you would put alcohol in something like bolognese.  I react very badly to red wine (migraines), so I turn it down if offered and am happy to explain why.  It would not occur to me to point at every dish and ask if it has red wine in it because it seems an odd ingredient to me.  Much like the thread we had about putting chicken somethingorother in mashed potatoes.
Title: Re: Where does the responsibility lie?
Post by: MariaE on December 31, 2012, 06:58:25 AM
I would never dream of mentioning that I used 1tbsp of sherry in the marinade for the stirfry or a dollop of wine in the bolognese. Not out of spite, but it honestly wouldn't even cross my mind to do so. If somebody cannot have any alcohol, It is their responsibility to let me know - just like with any other dietary restriction. And in that case I will of course respect it.

The trouble is, it wouldn't cross my mind that you would put alcohol in something like bolognese.  I react very badly to red wine (migraines), so I turn it down if offered and am happy to explain why.  It would not occur to me to point at every dish and ask if it has red wine in it because it seems an odd ingredient to me.  Much like the thread we had about putting chicken somethingorother in mashed potatoes.

Presumably, if we were friends I would know that about you, and then I would know not to add red wine to stuff when cooking.
Title: Re: Where does the responsibility lie?
Post by: RingTailedLemur on December 31, 2012, 06:59:26 AM
I would never dream of mentioning that I used 1tbsp of sherry in the marinade for the stirfry or a dollop of wine in the bolognese. Not out of spite, but it honestly wouldn't even cross my mind to do so. If somebody cannot have any alcohol, It is their responsibility to let me know - just like with any other dietary restriction. And in that case I will of course respect it.

The trouble is, it wouldn't cross my mind that you would put alcohol in something like bolognese.  I react very badly to red wine (migraines), so I turn it down if offered and am happy to explain why.  It would not occur to me to point at every dish and ask if it has red wine in it because it seems an odd ingredient to me.  Much like the thread we had about putting chicken somethingorother in mashed potatoes.

Presumably, if we were friends I would know that about you, and then I would know not to add red wine to stuff when cooking.

I'd have thought so, but I have been given two bottles of red wine this year even though I thought everyone knew  :-\
Title: Re: Where does the responsibility lie?
Post by: MariaE on December 31, 2012, 07:09:17 AM
I would never dream of mentioning that I used 1tbsp of sherry in the marinade for the stirfry or a dollop of wine in the bolognese. Not out of spite, but it honestly wouldn't even cross my mind to do so. If somebody cannot have any alcohol, It is their responsibility to let me know - just like with any other dietary restriction. And in that case I will of course respect it.

The trouble is, it wouldn't cross my mind that you would put alcohol in something like bolognese.  I react very badly to red wine (migraines), so I turn it down if offered and am happy to explain why.  It would not occur to me to point at every dish and ask if it has red wine in it because it seems an odd ingredient to me.  Much like the thread we had about putting chicken somethingorother in mashed potatoes.

Presumably, if we were friends I would know that about you, and then I would know not to add red wine to stuff when cooking.

I'd have thought so, but I have been given two bottles of red wine this year even though I thought everyone knew  :-\

I'm sorry :( That sucks.
Title: Re: Where does the responsibility lie?
Post by: RingTailedLemur on December 31, 2012, 09:00:32 AM
I would never dream of mentioning that I used 1tbsp of sherry in the marinade for the stirfry or a dollop of wine in the bolognese. Not out of spite, but it honestly wouldn't even cross my mind to do so. If somebody cannot have any alcohol, It is their responsibility to let me know - just like with any other dietary restriction. And in that case I will of course respect it.

The trouble is, it wouldn't cross my mind that you would put alcohol in something like bolognese.  I react very badly to red wine (migraines), so I turn it down if offered and am happy to explain why.  It would not occur to me to point at every dish and ask if it has red wine in it because it seems an odd ingredient to me.  Much like the thread we had about putting chicken somethingorother in mashed potatoes.

Presumably, if we were friends I would know that about you, and then I would know not to add red wine to stuff when cooking.

I'd have thought so, but I have been given two bottles of red wine this year even though I thought everyone knew  :-\

I'm sorry :( That sucks.

It's okay, it's just a little embarrassing sometimes.  I might post a new thread about it.
Title: Re: Where does the responsibility lie?
Post by: cocacola35 on December 31, 2012, 09:35:43 AM
I wonder though if the guy was just pulling the kid's chain and didn't really think there was any harm.  Having for dinner a pot roast cooked in Guinness, or having penne a la vodka, or putting wine in the red sauce really is not something the average person is even remotely concerned with when it comes to driving and intoxication, and is not really something most people would think to warn a diner about... but its an easy way to perhaps scare a teen.  Is the guest known as a 'kidder'?

That was my thinking when I first read the OP.  I cook with wine often.  The most I use in recipes is about half a cup and it's almost always sauteed out of the pan and combined with about 12 other ingredients.  Knowing that, there is absolutely no chance someone could get drunk or even have traces of that show up on a Breathalyzer test after eating my risotto or sauteed kale.  It wouldn't wouldn't even occur to me to mention I used wine in the cooking to parents or minors unless I was concerned about allergies.   

Title: Re: Where does the responsibility lie?
Post by: WillyNilly on December 31, 2012, 11:17:45 AM
I would never dream of mentioning that I used 1tbsp of sherry in the marinade for the stirfry or a dollop of wine in the bolognese. Not out of spite, but it honestly wouldn't even cross my mind to do so. If somebody cannot have any alcohol, It is their responsibility to let me know - just like with any other dietary restriction. And in that case I will of course respect it.

The trouble is, it wouldn't cross my mind that you would put alcohol in something like bolognese.  I react very badly to red wine (migraines), so I turn it down if offered and am happy to explain why.  It would not occur to me to point at every dish and ask if it has red wine in it because it seems an odd ingredient to me.  Much like the thread we had about putting chicken somethingorother in mashed potatoes.

Presumably, if we were friends I would know that about you, and then I would know not to add red wine to stuff when cooking.

I think its important to remember in the OP's story of this thread, the alcohol dish was brought by a fellow dinner guest, not prepared by the host and the comment made to the teen was made by this guest not the hosts (the kid's uncle, et all).

I do think, Ringtail, its a safe assumption that any tomato sauce based dish might have red wine in it.  Even a pizza sauce.  Sure plenty don't, but its a pretty common thing - common enough it wouldn't be odd to ask about it because you are going to get a "oh actually yeah" a good number of times.
Title: Re: Where does the responsibility lie?
Post by: Allyson on December 31, 2012, 03:14:56 PM
Even if I have been told sometime in the past that a friend has X restriction...well, with my group, most people have *something* they can't have. So I think expecting the cook to remember everything they've ever been told about what someone can't have is unrealistic. People forget, and unless it was a very direct, serious conversation, may not really have been paying attention to a comment in passing. I think either every dish should have a list of ingredients and possible allergens, or it's up to the person with the restrictions to mention it at the time. It's just too easy to make a mistake otherwise.
Title: Re: Where does the responsibility lie?
Post by: MurPl1 on January 02, 2013, 11:02:27 AM
To those who think it's unreasonable to expect a teenager to be responsible enough to ask about food ingredients when he has a restriction, I have to counter with the fact that this is a person that has been deemed responsible enough to drive a vehicle.  If you aren't responsible enough to watch your diet knowing your restrictions, then you are not responsible enough to drive something that can seriously injure or kill someone.
Title: Re: Where does the responsibility lie?
Post by: Lynn2000 on January 02, 2013, 12:36:52 PM
What an interesting thread! I do think it depends somewhat on the "culture" of Australia and the extent of general knowledge about new drivers having zero alcohol, which as a non-Australian I don't think I could give a good opinion on.

I will say, though, that it sounds to me like the uncle was making a joke, the kind of joke that new teen drivers in many places (like the US) get, and although it may have been in poor taste and eyeroll-worthy, I wouldn't consider it any more sinister than joking about a new teen driver being able to reach the pedals or back up without hitting the mailbox, etc.. Not necessarily a nice and confidence-boosting thing to say, but also not indicative of a larger conspiracy to get the kid thrown in jail, you know?

I think this is a very good point:

To those who think it's unreasonable to expect a teenager to be responsible enough to ask about food ingredients when he has a restriction, I have to counter with the fact that this is a person that has been deemed responsible enough to drive a vehicle.  If you aren't responsible enough to watch your diet knowing your restrictions, then you are not responsible enough to drive something that can seriously injure or kill someone.

And this could be a very good learning experience for the young driver, especially if he's never dealt with having other food restrictions before.
Title: Re: Where does the responsibility lie?
Post by: auntmeegs on January 02, 2013, 04:21:29 PM
I wonder though if the guy was just pulling the kid's chain and didn't really think there was any harm.  Having for dinner a pot roast cooked in Guinness, or having penne a la vodka, or putting wine in the red sauce really is not something the average person is even remotely concerned with when it comes to driving and intoxication, and is not really something most people would think to warn a diner about... but its an easy way to perhaps scare a teen.  Is the guest known as a 'kidder'?

That was my thinking when I first read the OP.  I cook with wine often.  The most I use in recipes is about half a cup and it's almost always sauteed out of the pan and combined with about 12 other ingredients.  Knowing that, there is absolutely no chance someone could get drunk or even have traces of that show up on a Breathalyzer test after eating my risotto or sauteed kale.  It wouldn't wouldn't even occur to me to mention I used wine in the cooking to parents or minors unless I was concerned about allergies.

POD.  That this is even remotely an issue is bizarre to me.