I will never forget a review I read in the Sunday paper one sunny day in Paris, when I lived there as a student. Each week an overall top wine recommendation was made, as well as a top wine recommendation for under $7 a bottle. On this particular day, the inexpensive bottle was the overall top recommendation.

Two things struck me after reading this review. First, wine obviously did not need to be expensive to be fine. Second, if the top Paris critics knew this and wrote about it openly in the paper, prices for wine had to be based on something other than rational thinking.

Today I just read a similar story in the NYT.

HOW much do you want to spend on a bottle of wine? The intuitive answer, of course, is as little as possible. That stands to reason, except that the way people buy wine is anything but reasonable.

Substitute the word wine with security technology, and this story gets even more amusing.

For most consumers, wine-buying is an emotional issue. The restaurant industry has a longstanding belief that the lowest-priced wine on the list will never sell. Nobody wants to be seen as cheap. But the second-lowest-priced wine, that’s the one people will gobble up.

All buying is an emotional issue, no? We might tell ourselves we are making a highly informed decision, but information integrity is never perfect, and we never have unlimited time to decide. A waiter standing over the table, guests with thirsty stares, or executives impatiently waiting to report to the board, we usually rely on some kind of emotional compass to pull the trigger.

I don’t usually think of American wines as great values. Too often the producers try to imitate expensive wines using artifice — mediocre cabernet sauvignon flavored with oak chips, for example — rather than making more honest wines from lesser grapes.

That seems a bit emotional to me, but I suppose they have a point to their critique. It tells me to look for wines from smaller boutiques as they are more likely to work towards a higher standard (their own good taste, rather than an abstract notion of marketing). And, for what it’s worth, that is often also the best way to look for security vendors. If you want overpriced and only marginally palatable vintages, go with the big names. You won’t be disappointed, but you also won’t be impressed, and in many cases (pun not intended) with the big names you might not even be able to get the job done.

Growing up I had the fine opportunity to eat fruit right from the tree. One of my favorite parts of citris fruit was the peel. As I grew older I succumbed to the habit of Americans to throw away the peel and just eat the fruit. This was mostly due to the advice from some to avoid the pesticides and harmful wax/polish chemicals used in industrial growing, but also to avoid being teased as a peel-eater. Kumquats were one of the few things I could get away with.

Well, lo and behold, mom was right and the nutrients are really best consumed in the peel:

Salvestrol Q40 is found at higher concentrations in tangerine peel, than in the flesh of the fruit.

The researchers suggest the modern trend to throw away peel may have contributed to a rise in some cancers.

The center is probably designed, very intelligently, to make the peel more palatable. The idea that there should be something that is “garbage” or something to dispose for everything good may be a completely artificial notion. When you think about it, the food industry has been isolating and focusing on the wrong success factors. Industry has been completely mistaken in their race to harness sweet and succulent products, without regard to complex nutrients, and create a disposable wrapper for everything they sell.

This reminds me of companies that ask if they can be made more secure, even more compliant, without actually doing anything that would cost them money. I tell them they might as well ask me if they can be fit without exercise, healthy without eating food.

Security is sometimes described as a harsh pill, but if more business leaders learned to raise their companies on a better diet they would have far fewer emergencies later in life.

I love peel.

Researchers continue to find beneficial evidence of antioxidants. The latest BBC story, and one I particularly enjoy, suggests that Guinness is actually good for you, or at least good for your dogs:

The Wisconsin team tested the health-giving properties of stout against lager by giving it to dogs who had narrowed arteries similar to those in heart disease.

They found that those given the Guinness had reduced clotting activity in their blood, but not those given lager.

Lucky dogs.

The researchers told a meeting of the American Heart Association in Orlando, Florida, that the most benefit they saw was from 24 fluid ounces of Guinness – just over a pint – taken at mealtimes.

They believe that “antioxidant compounds” in the Guinness, similar to those found in certain fruits and vegetables, are responsible for the health benefits because they slow down the deposit of harmful cholesterol on the artery walls.

Makes sense to me. Wait, how many mealtimes are there in a day for a dog?

I love the fact that Guinness has changed their slogan from “is good for you” to “responsible drinking”. Perhaps they can modify their slogan only slightly now to “drink what is good for you” to avoid running afoul of EU laws on marketing. Or not.

But I guess my point is that the race to find the best or top antioxidant is a bit confusing. For example, here is an excerpt from a list of the hits on Yahoo! for “top antioxidant“:

1. Mushrooms beat wheatgerm to top antioxidant slot
2. Acai Berry Ranked Top Antioxidant SuperFood
3. Honeydew honeys top antioxidant ratings
4. Coffee Buzz: Drink Is Top Antioxidant Source in U.S.
5. Cranberries, the top antioxidant source
6. Beans, artichokes top antioxidant list, according to new analysis
7. Top Antioxidants: Beans At Top, With Berries To Follow

See what I mean. Even if Guinness did say “drink what’s good for you”, how would one actually figure it out any better than self-observation and study?

The BBC article makes a sly point to this effect, cleverly buried in their report:

The original campaign in the 1920s stemmed from market research – when people told the company that they felt good after their pint, the slogan was born.

“Feeling” good might be a bit too qualitative for some, but is it any worse than quantitative measures that contradict? And what about side-effects. Coffee? Beans?

Doctors in America often say one drink a day is too many, whereas some older European cultures seem to propose a higher bar and even go so far as to dispell common myths about harm:

Dr Martin Bobak from University College London and colleagues at the Institute of Clinical and Experimental Medicine in Prague questioned 891 Czech men and 1,098 women between the ages of 25 and 64 as part of their study.

[…]

The survey showed the men consumed on average 3.1 litres of beer each week with women drinking on average 0.3 litres per week.

There were few heavy drinkers. Just 3% of men drank more than 14 litres of beer in a week and just five women regularly consumed more than 7 litres in a week.

The scientists found no link between beer consumption and obesity.

14 litres (4 US gallons, 3 UK gallons) of beer in a week?!

So until someone can explain how to achieve the “top” status of foods, here’s to Guinness and to drinking what is good for you.