Where does the responsibility lie?

[sparksals]

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.

[Hmmmmm]

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. 

[blarg314]

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.

[snowdragon]

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?

[Sharnita]

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.

[CakeBeret]

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.

[snowdragon]

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.

[AustenFan]

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.

[snowdragon]

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.

[Sharnita]

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.

[WillyNilly]

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.

[NyaChan]

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.

[Hmmmmm]

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.

[Allyson]

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.

[Iris]

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

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.