A British restaurant is launching the UK's first water menu
UK
Water availabilityFacebookTweetLink
Follow
The French are known for their love of fine wines. La Popote, a French-style restaurant in northern England, is no exception.
The Michelin Guide-listed eatery in the county of Cheshire offers diners the choice of almost 140 varieties of wine. But now the business is taking a bold step to cater for discerning non-drinkers by offering an entire menu of bottled water.
Diners will have the choice of three different bottles of still water and four sparkling beginning Friday, as well as complimentary tap water.
La Popote is tapping into a global trend away from alcohol. For example, based on a Gallup poll last year, 58% of adult Americans drink alcohol, down from 67% in 2022. A growing number of Americans are giving up alcohol, whether permanently or temporarily, while many restaurants are offering a bigger range of mocktails, and sober bars and non-alcoholic bottle shops are becoming increasingly popular.
Chef Joseph Rawlins, who founded and runs La Popote with his French partner Gaëlle Radigon, said they had initially been approached about the idea by Doran Binder, who was already supplying the restaurant with their 'house' water under his Crag Spring Water brand. A water sommelier, certified by the Fine Water Academy, Binder first suggested the idea of a water menu to the couple three years ago.
'I laughed it off,' Rawlins told CNN. 'I initially thought it was a ridiculous idea.'
But when Binder invited the couple to a tasting at the 'water bar' he owns in the Peak District, a national park in north-central England, they were sold.
'It was mind-blowing,' Rawlins said of the experience, adding that he now believes that 'water isn't just water.'
At that first tasting, they tried five or six different varieties. 'Then we did a second tasting with exactly the same waters but we paired them with certain foods – like Manchego cheese, Comté cheese, chocolate, Parma ham, olives. Like with a wine, the taste just changed.'
The restaurant is the first in Britain to offer a water menu, according to Binder, and one of only a handful in the world.
Binder curated La Popote's water menu, which features a selection from across Europe, including Britain, France, Spain and Portugal. Prices range from £5 ($6.80) for a large bottle of his Crag brand to £19 ($26) for The Palace of Vidago, a Portuguese sparkling water.
'The measurement of minerals in water is what drives taste and flavor,' Binder told CNN. That measurement is called Total Dissolved Solids, or TDS, he said.
'Distilled water is zero TDS. It's brilliant for cleaning windows, brilliant for electrical appliances, brilliant for your car battery – rubbish for the human being,' he said, noting that sea water is at the other end of the spectrum with 30,000-40,000 TDS.
The restaurant's range goes from 14 TDS in the Lauretana sparkling mineral water from Italy to 3,300 for the Vichy Celastins from France.
The French water initially tastes rather salty, Rawlins said. 'Then you put it with something that's quite salty like a Parma ham and they both naturally balance each other out, so the water is not salty anymore and it's a longer-lasting flavor of the ham in your mouth.'
How the water is served is also important, Rawlins said. 'We recommend it at room temperature with ice and a slice of lemon. Water is like wine – if it's too cold, it kills all the flavor.'
The water menu is giving diners 'another dimension,' he added, noting that 'a lot of people are drinking less now.'
Binder, who has never drunk alcohol, agrees. 'There are more and more people who don't drink alcohol, like me. I'm a massive foodie and when I go to a restaurant they can't wait to throw a wine menu in front of my nose, which will never be of interest to me.
'But put a water menu in front of me and now you've opened up a whole new revenue stream. It's appealing to restaurants and it's appealing to more and more health-conscious people and really it's all about the epicurean experience.'
Jordan Valinsky contributed to this report.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
23 minutes ago
- Forbes
China Market Update: Xiaomi's Results Roar (Quietly) As Hong Kong & Mainland China Take A Breather
Xiaomi fell by -1.23% in Hong Kong trading but reported earnings after the market's close. Xpeng fell by -1.85% in Hong Kong trading. A bigger piece of news after the close was that the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT) held a symposium on competition in the solar industry, highlighting efforts to standardize competition and promote the orderly exit of outdated production capacity. The MIIT will strengthen price monitoring and enforcement against practices such as sales below cost and false advertising. It will be interesting to watch how US-listed China solar stocks respond, as this could affect Hong Kong and Mainland markets tomorrow. Asian equities were mixed as Vietnam gained 1%, Hong Kong closed lower for the fourth consecutive day, and Mainland China took a breather after its market cap hit a 10-year high . Profit taking centered on growth stocks and sub-sectors, but Tencent (+0.94%) and electronics held up well, aided by Premier Li's positive comments on domestic consumption. East Buy Holding was a notable decliner, dropping -20.89% in Hong Kong and -3.41% in Mainland China after reaching 52-week highs yesterday, reportedly on an unconfirmed rumor. Meanwhile, Mainland investors bought the Hong Kong dip in volume, with $2.38 billion in net buying, and strong flows into the Hong Kong Tracker ETF following Friday's $4.58 billion of net buying. The 1 and 3-Year Loan Prime Rates (LPRs), set at 3% and 3.5% respectively, are not expected to change; the 3-year rate remains the reference rate for mortgages. Diplomatic relations between India and China seem to be improving, as China has agreed to sell rare earths to India following Foreign Minister Wang Yi's visit. Having returned from a family holiday, I'm still shaking off the proverbial mental fog, although my wife insists that's a permanent state, and she's got plenty of evidence, too. I missed that Tong Cheng Travel reported Q2 financial results yesterday after the Hong Kong close, posting beats in revenue, adjusted net income, and adjusted earnings per share (EPS). It is worth noting that 2020 revenue was RMB 5.93 billion, and the 2025 revenue estimate is RMB 19.51 billion, yet the stock has only risen 35% over the past five years. This is fairly typical in our space, where revenues multiply but stock appreciation lags. New Content Read our latest article: Labubus: How Pop Mart's Newest Craze Reflects Chinese Cultural Influence in the U.S. Please click here to read
The Hill
24 minutes ago
- The Hill
Democrats need to start using AI to help save democracy
As American democracy unravels at the hands of President Trump and his enabling congressional and Supreme Court majorities, millions of Americans are desperate to identify whatever possible countermeasures remain to slow the country's descent into fascism. The outcome of the 2026 midterms is unlikely to produce meaningful change, even if the Democrats take control of the House. Without a cooperative Senate, it will be impossible either to pass legislation or secure a conviction on impeachment charges. Oversight hearings can bring public attention to things like rampant corruption, but the threats Trump poses to the rule of law and democracy are already well-known. The courts can only do so much. There's another emerging tool, however: artificial intelligence. Trump seems to understands the transformative power of AI. Last month, the administration announced an ' AI Action Plan ' for 'winning the AI race.' Among other measures, it promises to remove 'onerous Federal regulations that hinder AI development and deployment, and seek private sector input on rules to remove.' As part of this initiative, the General Services Administration and OpenAI announced earlier this month that the company will be 'providing ChatGPT to the entire U.S. federal workforce' under a 'first-of-its-kind partnership.' Participating agencies will pay a nominal cost of $1 each for the first year to enable federal employees to 'explore and leverage AI.' The company is also 'teaming up with experienced partners Slalom and Boston Consulting Group to support secure, responsible deployment and trainings.' Last week, the AI company Anthropic likewise announced it had struck the same deal with GSA to enable federal agencies' access to its Claude model. The Trump administration's effort to streamline the federal government with AI models makes some sense. Research has shown that generative AI — particularly large language models, which consume vast amounts of data to understand and generate natural language content — can enhance government efficiency in data processing, analysis and drafting, among other potential advantages. But AI systems also increase the risk of widespread government surveillance, personalized misinformation and disinformation, systematic discrimination, lack of accountability and inaccuracy. According to a recent academic paper, 'although many studies have explored the ethical implications of AI, fewer have fully examined its democratic implications.' Trump's alliance with OpenAI head Sam Altman goes back to start of his second term, when he announced a $500 billion joint venture with OpenAI, Oracle and Softbank to build up to 20 large AI data centers. Trump called the venture 'Stargate.' The deal's details are murky, including who will have access to Stargate and how it will possibly benefit taxpayers. Although a spokesman for OpenAI told Fox News Digital that 'Sam Altman sort of planted a flag on democratic AI versus autocratic AI,' let's not forget that Altman is not a government official or employee. As a legal matter, it is unclear whether these ' fast-tracked ' deals will fully comply with traditional oversight and procurement laws and procedures. No major AI company is currently approved under the Federal Risk And Authorization Management Program, for example, which is the process for authorizing the use of cloud technologies by federal agencies. According the GSA website, the program aims to ensure 'security and protection of federal information' by imposing strict cybersecurity controls to protect against data breaches, hacking and unauthorized access, and requiring ongoing monitoring and reporting. Given that the GSA is reportedly working on 'developing a separate authorization' for generative AI systems like ChatGPT and Claude, the potential threats to national security and private citizens' personal information are significant. The Trump administration's lack of transparency also risks creating a black-box government run by proprietary algorithms that the public cannot inspect — centralizing control over federal AI in two companies whose interests clearly lie in market dominance, not the public good. This is why these kinds of decisions are best made through established legal procedures — including the Federal Competition in Contracting Act (requiring fair and open competition), the Privacy Act of 1974 (limiting how agencies can collect and disclose personal data), the Federal Records Act (requiring the proper retention and archiving of public records) and the Administrative Procedure Act (requiring public comment and input into major policy decisions). For now, OpenAI has promised that its 'goal is to ensure agencies can use AI securely and responsibly. ChatGPT Enterprise already does not use business data, including inputs or outputs, to train or improve OpenAI models. The same safeguards will apply to federal use.' This promise from Altman's company is no substitute for actual legal standards enforced by the federal government. Whether AI tools embedded in federal government systems could one day be used to sway elections to favor Trump and his cronies is a vital question. For now, what's clear is that Democrats need to get into the AI game, and fast. A Democratic political action committee called the National Democratic Training Committee recently unveiled on online course entitled 'AI For Progressive Campaigns,' which is designed to teach candidates how to use AI to help create social media content, draft speeches, craft voter outreach messaging and phone-banking scripts, conduct research into their constituencies and opponents, and develop internal training materials. The founder and CEO of the group, Kelly Dietrich, stated that 'thousands of Democratic campaigns can now leverage AI to compete at any scale.' This effort, although laudable, does not go far enough to capitalize on AI's potential to help outmaneuver authoritarianism in the U.S. There's much more that might be done, including using AI to educate citizens on the benefits of democracy, how institutions work and the facts underlying important issues; to create large-scale, moderated public deliberation and consensus around divisive issues; to detect and alert the public to manipulated media, thus combatting misinformation and disinformation and fostering public trust in an alternative to Trump; and to create and implement effective messaging strategies for alternative visions for the future of the country. AI could be American voters' best friend, not their enemy. It just needs to be asked.
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
We follow the money in politics, and the trail just keeps getting longer
According to the nature of our economy, it's typical that costs increase over time (hello, inflation). But what we're seeing in elections cannot be considered normal. The Pew Research Center recently asked Americans to list which issues are the biggest problems facing the economy right now. Seventy-two percent said the role of money in politics is a 'very big problem' — landing it the foremost spot above health care costs, inflation, the federal deficit, poverty and every other issue. This is significant. While candidates for Congress and the presidency quibble over who gets access to power, moneyed interests continue to creep into the system, making elections costlier than ever. Sometimes it starts to feel like a contest just for the contest's sake. Let's take a look at the numbers. Just three presidential cycles ago, in 2016, the total cost of all federal elections rang in at $6.5 billion, a (relatively) modest increase from 2012. But four years later, the total cost more than doubled to $15.1 billion and, in 2024, nearly matched that total ($14.8 billion). The U.S. vastly outspends all other nations on elections. The source of money has also changed. Twenty-five years ago, the vast majority of candidates who raised more than $200,000 for general election campaigns collected that money from within their districts from people they would ultimately represent if they won (79 percent of House candidates, 62 percent of Senate candidates). As my organization has reported, congressional elections truly have now become national campaigns, with just 17.6 percent local money in House races and only 27.5 percent in Senate races for 2024. So, while more money is pouring into the U.S. election system than ever before, the traditional relationship between elected officials and those they represent has fallen apart. Thanks to the research done by Unite America, we know that nearly all congressional elections are decided by less than 10 percent of voters. Put those low voter participation rates together with low local fundraising rates, and you end up with elected officials who no longer represent the people. And if our officials are not beholden to their constituents, but rather to partisan forces, we end up with a dysfunctional government. We shouldn't be surprised that the American people have had enough. Amid a more politicized landscape in which partisans are moving increasingly toward the extremes, money in politics is one of the few issues that both sides of the aisle can agree on — with 66 percent of Republicans and 78 percent of Democrats citing it as a very big problem. And yet, our leaders appear uninterested in changing a system that helps them stay in power. In every Congress, a handful of lawmakers have introduced legislation to reform the role of money in politics, but none of those bills have any chance at becoming law. In fact, a meaningful campaign finance law has not been enacted since the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act was signed in 2002 — nearly a quarter-century ago. Since then, the courts have eaten away at the restrictions created by the law, clearing the way for super PACs and the untraceable ' dark money ' funds that support them. And then there's the Federal Election Commission, which is tasked with regulating campaign fundraising and expenditures in line with current law, enforcing the rules and punishing those who break the law. But even in the best of times, the FEC rarely takes action. When fully staffed, it has three Republican and three Democratic commissioners, leading to partisan gridlock. But deadlocked votes would be a welcome change from what we are facing now. In order to take action, the FEC requires a quorum of four commissioners. Right now it only has three, so it cannot complete most of its core functions. That leaves the judiciary as the only branch of government considering changes to campaign finance laws. All eyes are on Maine, where voters overwhelmingly approved a 2024 ballot measure setting caps on contributions to super PACs. Opponents have sued to overturn the measure, and the case has been teed up for a federal district court's review. It is likely to end up before the Supreme Court in the next couple years, in what will likely be the most significant ruling on money in politics since Citizens United. Before that case makes it to the high court, the justices may consider another campaign finance case. Current law limits how much money party committees can spend in coordination with candidates' campaign committees. That law is being challenged and the case could be heard this fall. While all this is happening (or, at the FEC, not happening), political operatives are already gearing up for the next elections and strategizing how to raise as much money as possible. If nothing changes, the dollars will only get bigger, and voters will be even more dissatisfied. We deserve better.
