According to today’s BBC News, Liberal Democrat Greg Mulholland is to propose a bill in the House of Commons that would force restaurants to sell wine in smaller glasses:-

[link]

Bearing in mind the principles of Liberal Democracy, no doubt Mr Mulholland’s intentions are aimed at “helping” people to realise that a smaller wine glass contains less wine than a larger wine glass, i.e. 125ml is less than 175ml and that choosing the smaller glass would be better for their health.

As I recall, “choice” is always at the heart of Liberal Democracy, and so being able to choose a glass that contains 50 ml less wine would mean that the range of choices available to the consumer of restaurant services will be expanded in the name of freedom, while protecting those of a weaker nature among us who may feel “forced” to down an extra 50ml of wine when really they would rather settle for less.

Lets face it, more healthy choices must make sense?

So thinking along these lines, I was wondering whether retailers should be forced to sell smaller dinner plates, narrower forks and blunter cutlery.

Smaller plates will mean smaller portions and narrower forks will mean that it takes the same amount of energy to eat a smaller portion as it does a larger one. Blunter cutlery will also mean that it requires more energy to cut up food and will probably lead to more chewing, so more calories will be consumed while consuming calories - if you see what I mean!

If anyone likes the sound of the above, I would suggest that you write to your MP and request that they raise it in the House of Commons with a view to establishing more “helpful” legislation that will increase personal choice and lead to healthier eating options for all.

Didn't know you'd been to where I work Gastro.

We do actually offer all wine with a choice of small or large glass.

PS. Following those lines then we should also stock 1/2 bottles as well or why not those little two glass ones?

How very silly gastro. It is a wonder we are all out of nappies and can drink wine without dribbling (well some of us anyway).

I've an idea, how about a series of glasses with measurements and comments on the side. All pubs and restaurants are obliged to use them. Why keep matters simple when they can be more complicated?

Glass 1

175ml Cheers! Enjoy your wine, have a great evening
100 ml Feeling chilled out now?
50ml Sip don't slurp, I'm running out
0ml Do you really need another?

Glass 2
175ml You have no moral fibre
100ml Do you realise how many empty calories are in
this?
50ml Liver?
0ml You'll regret this in the morning!

Glass 3
0ml You are drunk, go home!
And don't eat a kebab on the way!
You should be ashamed of yourself!
Apologise to your mother!
And don't blame the government, we tried warn you!

Think that will work?

Hi Barshedale

I believe some of the supermarkets do the small wine bottles - think I'm right in saying that if you go back with the empty and buy a big bottle you get a refund on the smaller one - not quite what our Liberal friend has in mind though!

I usually find I drink more if the wine is served in a small glass - I suspect I may not be alone on that one.

Hi posset

Yes I think you are on the right track there - there is the point that the glass will need to be big enough to carry the messages

I do think there should be a message on every glass making it clear which side should be presented to the lips - as getting that wrong could lead to stained fronts and litigation for cleaning bills.

Seriously, I think this about 'bandwagon' politics - of late we see various MP's jumping on it - no doubt while slurping away as usual in the privacy of their own homes

As far back as I can remember in politics, there has always been the case of 'do what I say, rather than do as I do' by many politicians. I personally have no respect for this attitude and I am hugely irritated by the nanny state mentality. Yes, there is the attention seeking 'bandwagon' that various MP's leap desperately onto. As if a blinking smaller glass will make me drink less in one go. I'd end up having 2 glasses, thus drinking 250ml instead of 175ml. Do they have nothing better to occupy their minds and fill the news. Go and get our hospitals clean, deal with yob culture, do something about proper care of the elderly. I'd hop on the bandwagon with them for that.

Re the latest in wine glasses. Should be really be trusted with glass, perhaps graduated plastic, baby's bottles.

Agree totally with posset's comments about what should be forefront but going back to good old booze.
I will drink 3 halfs a lot quicker than 1 pint.

I suppose I just see this in the old saying of when is a door not a door.

What I mean is, when is a glass not a glass? When it's half a bottle!

How many people are actually aware of how much is in the "glass" of wine they have? Then on the way home when they assure the officer, "I only had one glass"

Well that one glass, especially from a wine bar, could have been a lot more.

Nothing wrong with having a "double" and asking for it to be served in a large glass, as long as there is a standard measure and you know exactly what you are getting.

How ludicrous is this!? What problem prey tell will this solve? In restaurants? Good grief.

How about starting with the 24 hour licences and the resulting yabbos Mr Blair created?

How can one really define a "glass" anyway? Will I have to order two glasses as I'm seated like many do on the airplane?

Here's a couple of headlines in one of today's newspaper for your comments; mine being has the world gone mad?

"Chocolate sauce 'too dangerous'"

Fruit juice 'more likely to cause gout than alcohol'

posset - these quotes out of context can be misleading:-

"Chocolate sauce too dangerous", say the organisers of the forthcoming all nudist plane trip

Fruit juice more likely to cause gout than alcohol, says David Beckham in no win no fee court case!

The chocolate sauce is definitely a misleading headline, Health and Safety Laws on compensation are the reason behind that one!

But the fruit juice and gout aparently does have a link.

[link]

Choc sauce deemed too dangerous to be put on a 'take out' ice cream in case it drips on the floor and some one slips in the shop. What happens should it drip on the pavement? Do we sue the council, the ice cream van or should choc sauce be banned altogether for being 'too dangerous'!

Excessive fruit juices and Fizzy drinks, many that contain fructose are said to increase uric acid levels in the body. Diet drinks do not have this effect. In other words moderation is the key. But, the headline is misleading. Can you imagine the conversation in households across the country. "Eat your fruit, you need 5 a day!. "No, I'll get gout"

Chocolate sauce on a nudist flight, could be promoted as a 'Flight of Fancy' by the organisers, with free Choc sauce for every passenger.

I agree posset - looking back over the years, the phrase: "all things in moderation" seems to stand up as a good guideline through time.

My dentist is always advising that any carbonated drink is harmful to tooth enamel, as is fruit juice, wine ( ) and basically anything acidic.

There was a discussion about the effects of fruit juice on teeth on the BBC not so long ago - and the dentists involved said cleaning teeth just after drinking fruit juices, wine, etc, was not a good idea because the enamel remained in a vulnerable state for about an hour after the contact.

At the moment I'm working on a nasal drip aimed at the ardent wine drinker - self-testing of course

You might not like his politics, not call for this rudeness!

I meant it does not call for this rudeness.

I see some of the offending posts have already been removed Olive and posset. I hope the one about his language is also removed as it nothing whatsover to do with food.

Serving wine by the glass is a problem when the customer doesn't know how much is in the glass. Enforcing wine to be sold by a standard measure in the same way as spirits and beer makes a lot of sense.

The post in reference to Greg Mulholland using stray word in the commons has nothing to do with the wine issue or this site.

LOL

The original poster seems to have missed the whole concept of Mr. Mulhollands bill then go on to ridicule something they don't understand.

Of course there are health benifits and dangers in drinking any alchocol. If you choose to ignore them it is indeed your choice. If you are being hoodwinked into paying more and drinking more than you chose it is a different matter.

Fundamentally the new bill would ensure we know how much we are drinking by the means of making it Law to sell wine by a measured unit, as opposed to the differentials the public is faced with at present.

This whole thread is baffling, something must have been deleted??? It doesn't seem to flow [like most of the threads recently]

Anyway - - - - now that I've given this further thought, personally I can see the logic of this - if nothing else than to reduce the amount of cheating on what you get from our esteemed proprietors.

I love the little line on the glasses that tells us what we got for our quid!

If I want more I'll just order another glass!! Actually that's probably a foregone conclusion