Resist the French? Mais non

AT the risk of sounding like an effete elitist, a selfish food snob or an unpatriotic wimp -- if not all three -- let me venture an opinion: All this talk about boycotting or restricting French wine and cheese as a way of punishing France for opposing a U.S. attack on Iraq seems a bit silly.

Look, I agree with President Bush that Saddam Hussein is a monster, and we’d all be better off if he were put, headfirst, through a giant food processor -- or drowned in a barrel of Zinfandel. But I’m reasonably confident that refusing to eat Brie won’t achieve that objective.

Nevertheless, several prominent Americans -- from politicians to talk show hosts and late-night television comedians -- have suggested boycotting French cheeses and Champagne. Steve Barrar, a Pennsylvania state legislator, says he will introduce a resolution in the state House asking the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board to voluntarily discontinue the sale of French wine and spirits in state-owned stores. Dennis Hastert, the speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, has asked his Republican colleagues to investigate the possibility of imposing new health standards on bottled water from France. He’s also exploring a requirement that French wines carry “bright orange warning labels” alerting U.S. consumers that the wines are clarified with “bovine blood.”

But bovine blood hasn’t been used in winemaking since the mad cow disease scare of the late 1990s, and the only health hazard associated with drinking Perrier is the sudden impulse to laugh uncontrollably at a Jerry Lewis movie.

Pennsylvania banning French wine? Why -- because no one there knows what to drink with a Philly cheesesteak sandwich? And a boycott of French cheeses? The idea that anyone who lives in the country that gave the world Velveeta, Cheez Whiz and Cheez-It should even consider boycotting the country that gave the world Camembert, Epoisses and Maroilles is enough to make me choke on my Cheetos.

Unfortunately, Hastert, Barrar and other France bashers don’t seem terribly interested in the facts -- nor, for that matter, in suggesting restrictions on, say, the import of BMWs or Mercedes, even though Germany has been as vocal as France in its opposition to U.S. war plans.

I don’t think that’s because many Americans can’t tell Kassler Rippchen from Cal Ripken. A more likely reason is that since the U.S. rescued France in two World Wars, we figure France should be eternally grateful to us, whereas Germany started those wars, and we kicked the sauerkraut out of them both times, so we don’t expect them to be reasonable or supportive.

But after hearing and seeing all the France bashing -- including the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and the Times of London quoting Bart Simpson’s description of the French as “cheese-eating surrender monkeys” -- I’m beginning to wonder where it will stop.

Will Rush Limbaugh suggest a congressional ban on the consumption of French fries? Will French dressing be banned from salad bars and supermarket shelves? Should I worry about being arrested the next time I make French toast for Sunday breakfast?

The campaign against all things French will surely affect more than just the food and beverage industry. Architects could be prohibited from putting French doors in their plans. Designers of men’s fashions may have to do without French cuffs. Composers might have to rewrite symphonies to exclude French horns. Worst of all, now that Valentine’s Day is past, I half-expect a congressional resolution banning French kissing.

Still, it is lovers of good food and wine who could suffer the most. After all, despite the enormous progress made by chefs and winemakers in the United States, Italy, Spain and several other countries, France is still the standard by which great food and wine are measured. I would hate to see Americans deprived of -- or forced to pay a special tariff to consume -- a bottle of Burgundy or a wheel of Brie.

I would also hate to see Americans decide, on their own, that boycotting French products is an appropriate response to the French government’s position on Iraq. There are, alas, signs that this is already happening.

Marc Refabert, the president of a Loire Valley company that sells French cheese over the Internet, says his sales to the United States have dropped 15% since the war debate began heating up in the last month.

The following is typical of the many angry e-mails Refabert has received from customers in the U.S.: “Your company provides an exceptional service and your products are superb. But until your government changes its position on Iraq, I will be sending no more orders.”

This might be understandable if France were alone in its opposition to war in Iraq -- or if its antiwar arguments were incontrovertibly silly or self-serving. But there are strong antiwar movements in many countries -- including our own -- as recent massive demonstrations throughout the world made clear. And whether one agrees or disagrees with France’s antiwar arguments, several United States senators (as well as diplomats from many countries besides France) have made the same arguments: that inspectors should have more time in Iraq, that containment of Saddam Hussein has been and would continue to be a successful strategy and that war would radicalize more Muslims and invite a greater terrorist threat against the United States.

So why have France -- and French-made products -- been singled out for American abuse? Is it because French officials have been the leaders in making these arguments in the United Nations? Or is it because Americans are striking back against the French for treating the opening of every McDonald’s in their country as the equivalent of the invasion of the body snatchers? Or is it because French food and wine are so well known and are so integral to the French self-image and the French economy? I mean, I don’t hear anyone calling for a boycott of bratwurst.

But with Russia and China having joined the French-German coalition, things could get even worse on the gastronomic front before there’s an actual war front. Congress could call for special warning labels on vodka bottles. They could ban Peking duck -- and Peking duct tape -- or require that snippets from President Bush’s State of the Union address be inserted into all fortune cookies. Several other members of the United Nations Security Council -- Mexico among them --are still undecided how to vote on the latest U.S.-Britain resolution on Iraq. If Mexico votes no or abstains, would Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft decide that burritos qualify as weapons of mass destruction?

If the debate over Iraq becomes as heated and divisive as the Vietnam debate was 35 years ago, we could see domestic boycotts and bans. California Sen. Barbara Boxer voted against the resolution giving President Bush authority to uses military force, if necessary, to disarm Iraq; if she persists in that stand, will residents of hawkish states boycott California wine? Would California retaliate by prohibiting the shipment into our state of beef from Texas, lamb from Colorado and pork from Iowa because both senators from each of those states voted in favor of the resolution?

Clearly, this could all get out of hand. I might be forced, by necessity, to become a vegetarian. The only good news is I still wouldn’t have to eat the most odious foodstuff on the planet -- Brussels sprouts -- since Belgium has allied itself with France and Germany, against war.

*

David Shaw can be reached at david.shaw

@latimes.com.