NOTE: Not sure if this is the right place for this. Seems it could go in a few forums here. If the Mods think it should be elsewhere feel free to move it (as if you need my permission :)).
The title kind of says it all.
Make no mistake, I am not talking about deserts or other dishes where the alcohol is raw and obvious.
I am talking about dishes where the alcohol is cooked. I like cooking but I am no expert. My understanding is, usually, the alcohol content is cooked off in the process of cooking. If any alcohol actually remains it is very, very minor (e.g. you could serve it to children and not break any laws).
That said is it a faux pas to use alcohol if you know you are cooking for a teetotaler?
I understand the amount of actual alcohol present in a dish differs from dish to dish that call for it.
If it makes a difference this is the dish I am wondering about (has two different wines in it) but I am also asking more generally.
Where is the line drawn? Assume you are cooking for one person and not a crowd (in a crowd I’d think it is less important to cater to one person’s issues).
Opinions?
(And before someone tells me to just cook something else without alcohol as a component I get that but I’d still like an answer to the overall question)
I know in some dishes there is high heat and you literally burn off the alcohol (get that great flash of fire out of the pan that looks ready to burn the house down).
In the recipe I linked the chicken is boiled in wine (mostly wine). While it cooks a long time I am not sure the heat is enough to cook away the alcohol.
I dunno…hence the question. How much does the chicken absorb? Chicken is in a bowl with broth (here’s a pic of the final dish). Is the broth full of alcohol?
my experience with cooking is that wine/liquor just adds an unsual taste to a standard recipe. in making tomato-based spaghetti sauce (clemenza-style, godfather 1) you can substitute wine with grape juice or even coca cola. your sauce turns a little purplish, removing the harshness of the tomatoes and basil. for meat stews wherein you put beer, put grapefruitfruit juice instead.
for roasts that have to come out flaming with brandy, just increase the marinade on the surface and make sure it caramelizes well.
When you suffer from alcoholism and are working your way out of it you are “recovering”. When you cross the goal line you are “recovered” (with the caveat that recovered alcoholics often consider themselves one drink away from going back over the cliff…which is really at the root of what I am asking here…will using booze in cooking cause a recovered alcoholic to go off the cliff).
Why? Do you think a recovered alcoholic is going to run amok and go on a bender because they catch sight of a bottle of booze? Is the OP hosting Barney from The Simpsons?
To answer the question, it depends on the alcoholic. My mum, sober for 17 years now, wouldn’t mind, because as you point out most of the alcohol would cook off, and as she would point out, when she wanted to get drunk, she didn’t go out and order coq au vin!
But she knows others who just won’t touch anything that’s been cooked in or with alcohol, so I’d check with your friend.
Relevant SD column. Conclusion: the alcohol doesn’t ‘burn off’ with baking - it took 2.5 hours to remove 95% of alcohol content in some cupcakes.
Debatable whether or not the amounts in a standard bakery product, or in a sauce, is enough to trigger an alcoholic’s cravings, particularly if the alcoholic doesn’t know there’s booze in the recipe. A debate I’m not going to get into as it’s not worth the heartache.
Regardless, it’s probably a bad idea to serve “drunken” or “au vin” anything to someone who believes that a single drop of the substance will push them back into full-blown addictive behaviours. And it’s probably not polite to experiment without their knowledge.
Maybe. WAM wouldn’t have posted the question if he/she weren’t concerned and not many are strong as your mother.
So what do you think the alcoholic in question would think if he or she saw that bottle, Jennyrosity? Do you think they may think, “WTF??? WAMknows I’m trying to recover and he/she leaves this bottle sitting here??? That’s pretty cold.”
I think in this instance it’s better to err on the side of caution.
No. I think if the alcoholic was truly recovered, they wouldn’t think twice about it. If they were in early recovery, my answer would completely different.
BTW, I’ve used the phrase “recovered” because the OP has, and I’m taking it to mean that they’ve been sober for a while (please say if they haven’t, OP, it does make a difference!). But my mum would say that she will only ever be “recovering” not “recovered”, because the latter suggests she’s able to drink normally - eg, enjoy a drink or two without needing to get drunk - and she doesn’t think that’s possible.
If you’re one drink away from going over a cliff, that doesn’t sound like what I’d call “recovery” at all. That sounds like a full-fledged alcoholic who’s simply not drinking at the moment.
The alcoholics I’ve known say that’s as good as it gets.
Yep. Recovered alcoholics often say it is a day-to-day thing and they are one drink away from falling back in to it (and they’ll say that after 20 years of sobriety) . Hyperbole? Maybe, maybe not. I suspect it depends on the person. I personally have known some who can never take another drink ever. I have also known some who were dry for years and now drink socially with no problems. Everyone is different.
Since people, and recovering/recovered, alcoholics are different, I would tend to err on the side of caution:
not all alcohol may evaporate and the rest might trigger an impulse.
Furthermore, the reason to use alcohol in the first place is usually the taste. People who recover from alcoholism might have a problem with the taste reminding them of alcohol. They might feel that their problem is not considered.
Worst-best scenario: worst case, you cause somebody to have a relapse or be upset. Best case: nothing happens. I’d avoid the worst case.
If there is a possibility beforehand, and depending on how good friends you are with the alcoholic in question, ask that individual how things are for them - as conscientious friend, you want to know their food preferences, just like for vegetarians or allergies. If done in private before, instead of just announcing at the table, this is also tactful.
There are people who aren’t alcoholics who avoid alcohol for a variety of reasons too. I would not use alcohol when cooking for them either. It’s easy to substitute apple/grape juice or chicken stock for alcohol in recipes.
Considering that the wine is roughly half of the liquid in this recipe, I’d tread very lightly. A splash of red wine or cooking sherry in the spaghetti sauce to add to the flavor is one thing, but this much alcohol would be noticeable.
And, really, the issue of alcohol in food is an individual thing. I’d be OK with it in small quantities, like the aforementioned spaghetti sauce (in fact, we went to the local Japanese hibachi place, where the food was prepared with sake), but I wouldn’t be OK with your Drunken Chicken recipe because there’s too much wine and I couldn’t be confident that the alcohol has cooked off. (I also take medication that doesn’t play well with alcohol, hence my need to be especially careful.) But by the same token, I know other sober folks who wouldn’t think twice about eating your dish, and I know others who won’t even touch food they suspect has been made with alcohol, and that includes the Jack Daniels barbecue sauce at Applebee’s.
That said, alcohol is in the same league as vegetarianism/veganism, food allergies, and other dietary preferences and needs. If there is a question – for any reason, not just alcoholism – it’s best to ask and avoid hurt feelings than to assume and risk the friendship.
