Before she skyrocketed to fame for her role as a lovable call girl in Pretty Woman, Julia Roberts played a sassy and somewhat coarse (but still lovable) waitress in the 1988 film Mystic Pizza. In the movie, Mystic Pizza is also the name of the restaurant (in the small seaside town of Mystic, Connecticut) where Robert's character Daisy, her sister Kat (Annabeth Gish), and best friend Jojo (Lili Taylor) are employed. I'll spare you the plot, but throughout the film, restaurant owner Leona (Conchata Ferrell) and her staff live in constant dread of the day when the local, snobby food critic will grace their doorstep. Eventually he does, and in true Hollywood fashion, he gives Mystic Pizza an uncharacteristic rave review and everyone lives happily ever after, The End. Although this is a fictional story and the character of the food critic is meant to be a parody, the idea is based in truth. How many restaurant owners, in big towns and small, live in fear of the food critic? What is the critic's role in the food service industry? And in this relatively fledgling food & wine scene of Southwest Florida, is the critic actually a helpful addition for savvy diners, or is he simply a masked ego wielding undeserved, unearned power?

The critic, in theory, should be an anonymous, open-minded individual with a background based in the food service industry and at least some culinary training. This person should have an educated palate and an understanding of the inner workings of a restaurant, as well as a humble knowledge of the almighty power of his pen. He must also follow the rules of good journalism, check, double check, and triple check his facts, as well as observe a strict code of ethics. He should experience each restaurant as an ordinary patron, without warning the establishment of his impending review or garnering celebrity treatment. He should sample a wide variety of menu items and visit each establishment at least two, but preferably three, times in order to get an honest overview (everyone has a bad day once in a while). While he should patronize restaurants anonymously, he should write under his own name in order to retain credibility (a pseudonym sounds cute but does not assure diners of a consistent voice). Lastly, he should never accept free meals, gift certificates or other perks. These are the guidelines ‘suggested' by the Association of Food Journalists. However, surprisingly there are no hard and fast rules concerning the writings of food critics, and where there is no rule of law, anarchy will reign. It is this fact that takes the credibility from all food critics. How can the public be sure of the review they are reading if there is no standard, no accountability?

Certainly, there are some food critics who take their responsibilities with grave seriousness. But what about those who are simply hopping on a soapbox of temporary celebrity, mired in their own self-importance? Perhaps some personal vendetta is the fuel for their criticism, or a little green is the spark for their accolades. Does the particular establishment's lack of advertising in the critic's host publication affect their review? Would they receive a more positive outcome if they were loyal advertisers? And should any one individual have the power to affect another's livelihood? Ruin their business, their dreams? Or prop up sub-standard fare to an unknowing public for personal gain?

With approximately 83% of restaurant business garnered from word-of-mouth referrals, it is of great concern that the food critic has no accountability, no rules by which his reviews must be based. And it is of greater concern that the majority of the public is unaware of this travesty. Perhaps if these facts were as widely published as the local restaurant reviews, consumers would have the tools necessary to make up their own minds about whose opinion to value. There are far too many inconsistencies in the way these establishments are rated. In order to be fair, all businesses should be given the same treatment, the same opportunities to prove themselves worthy of a positive review. Sadly, they are not. Some restaurants are given a "heads-up" call before the critic arrives, and some are kept in the dark. Similarly, some get a call back, and some do not. And what about the language in the reviews themselves? Is it necessary to destroy someone's business with hateful speech and gross negativity? Does this benefit the food & wine industry, especially in a town that has only recently joined the style and quality of food service expected in metropolitan areas? Shouldn't constructive criticism play a part somehow in restaurant reviews? Would not allowing restaurant owners the opportunity to improve, instead of just being put out of business, be a more effective, beneficial outcome for the community as a whole?

Another inconsistency that aids in the nullification of the food critic's credibility is the restaurant rating system. It is unfathomable to this diner how an independent, fine dining, high quality establishment with an actual chef at the helm could possibly earn the same rating as a run-of-the-mill, corporate, mass-produced, middle-class slop-house. I don't care how well they microwave your vegetables; I'm just not buying it.

And what about those publications with a ‘team' of reviewers that publish their opinions under one pseudonym? This gives the false impression that readers are gleaning knowledge from one source, when in reality, multiple voices, with multiple palates, multiple qualifications, and multiple personalities are lending their "expertise." This is a decidedly unscientific and blatantly unfair system of reviewing.

Even if consumers could be assured somehow that a particular food critic does follow strict, ethical guidelines, has a superb palate, and a superior knowledge of the restaurant industry, they must also still keep his opinion in perspective. He is still only one person, with one opinion. Robert Parker revolutionized the wine industry, influencing wine makers and wine production in a way never seen before. And while some are appalled, even dismayed by this, it was not in the least what Parker himself intended to happen. In fact, he has stated on numerous occasions that wine is a matter of personal preference. His reviews are simply the educated opinion of one man. It was the hoards of followers and the resulting demand for ‘Parkerized' juice that had such a huge impact on wine production. In order to avoid this type of phenomena in the food industry, the public must be able to form their own opinions, based on personal preferences, not the writings, negative or positive, of a famous food critic. This is an underlying problem in modern society in general - the reluctance of a large majority of people to think for themselves. But it is one of which any critic must be painfully aware, and one that should make him exceedingly cautious in the manner of his reviews.

In conclusion, diners should take the critic's review literally with a grain of salt. At the end of the day, it is still your own palate, your own personal preference that is the deciding factor on where you will spend your dining dollars. And though there are certainly great food critics out there, without the structure of standards or qualifications, one can never be sure of the their ultimate motivation. Until that changes, taking advice from a critic about where to eat out is like basing your political decisions on the opinion of a Hollywood celebrity. In all probability, both are just being paid to repeat a line.