May’s issue of Wired has an article by Mark McClusky called My Compliments to the Lab. It’s about high-tech haute cuisine (or “molecular gastronomy”), and it’s a well-written article. As a science geek, I find it pretty interesting, but as a food enthusiast, it makes me very sad.
To be upfront about my biases, I’m not a big fan of haute cuisine. I think much of it emphasizes presentation over flavor, and combines ingredients for the novelty value rather than actual taste. I love food that is steeped in history. I’m not opposed to innovation or fusion, but like Barbara Fisher of Tigers and Strawberries, I like fusion dishes to arise organically out of an understanding of the cultures and history involved, not just to be fusion for fusion’s sake. Similarly, good presentation is lovely and can enhance food–but I prefer the presentation of good sushi to weirdly flavored haute cuisine morsels. I would personally hate the one-bite-per-course presentation of many of the expensive haute cuisine restaurants.
That said, I think these high-tech haute cuisine chefs are missing out on one of the key traits of food: foods are natural, organic things that are not meant to be “pure” of flavor (ever notice how terrior foods are so expensive? That’s precisely because they’re “impure” and influenced by their place of origin). Here are a few paragraphs from the article that exemplify what bothers me about this trend:
The French Laundry’s [Thomas] Keller is not only the current arbiter of what counts as good food, he’s also [Grant] Achatz’s mentor and he catered Achatz’s wedding. Still, there’s no real secret to a Keller parsley sauce, Achatz explains. He’d puree parsley and oil in a blender and strain it.
“Then he’d have parsley oil,” Achatz says. “It tastes like parsley and oil.” Achatz instead starts with parsley juice, maybe a little water and salt. “That liquid is going to taste intensely of parsley, because that’s all it is. Then I’d thicken it with Ultra-tex 3, a modified starch that imparts zero flavor but gives it the same viscosity as oil.”
Keller, in other words, would have compromised the flavor of the parsley. Achatz believes that technology can actually deliver a purer dish.
What exactly makes a parsley-oil sauce “impure?” Oil does have a flavor–a very individual flavor by brand and batch and type–and perhaps that’s exactly the point. Garlic-flavored extra-virgin olive oil isn’t “impure” when compared to pureed garlic thickened with Ultra-tex 3. It’s a wonderful blending of flavors that will be different every time you make it according to the variety of garlic and variety of oil used.
And that’s what makes cooking art. “Pure” in this case seems to be just another word for “standardized.”
Edit: I’d like to clarify that I’m not opposed to molecular gastronomy in general. There’s a great Discover article from the February issue called Cooking For Eggheads (Patricia Gadsby) which gives some good examples of how you can improve food with science. And of course, like anyone who ever considered being a chemistry major, I know that ice cream frozen with liquid nitrogen has the creamiest texture.





5 comments
Comments feed for this article
May 5, 2006 at 7:54 pm
becky
Ultra-tex 3 may be a pure form of modified something, but that may only mean pure poison. There are cases where modifying a small part of a molecule turns it from non-poisonous to poisonous. I cringe at the elevation of chemical purity and fake texture over the infinitely varied textures and flavors of real food. Variety breeds continued interest.
Is this a new definition of “haute cuisine”? I would consider classical French cuisine haute but not high-tech, and it can deliver amazing flavor as well as visual presentation.
May 5, 2006 at 8:55 pm
Melissa
Well, Ultra-tex 3 probably not toxic (I have doubts about sucralose, from talking to chemist-types), but that doesn’t make it good, either. Cooking uses safe chemical additives (like sodium bicarbonate) all the time, but I suppose I just don’t see the point of using them when you don’t have to.
The way I understand haute cuisine now is that it’s (a) expensive, (b) emphasizes presentation (sometimes, but not always, over flavor), (c) involves unusual flavor combinations, and (d) currently, at least, is often served in 30+ course meals where each course is only a bite or two. I’m not a chef, though, obviously.
The type of cooking described in this article is mostly the California variant. I suppose I’m just a boring old traditionalist when it comes to food–give me a nice curry any day (I made lamb biryani tonight, and it was fabulous and I got to eat more than two bites of it).
May 5, 2006 at 9:04 pm
Melissa
I’m not opposed to molecular gastronomy in general, I might add. Ice cream frozen with liquid nitrogen, for example, has unparalleled texture. Unfortunately, it’s hard to find outside of expensive restaurants and chemistry labs. I’m just bothered by the “Oooh, we have technology! So we must use it and anything we make with it will be better than all that old-fashioned traditional food!” attitude.
There was an interesting ice cream blind taste test comparison in Cooks Illustrated this month — the addition of textural stablizers like carrageenan definitely gave ice creams an edge over 100% “natural” ones, but real vanilla was definitely a requirement for high ratings. Those little black specks in French vanilla ice cream are just flavorless ground-up pods for visual appeal, and they have nothing to do with flavor! The “natural” food industry has led the way in use of thickeners and stabilizers like carrageenan and xanthan gum, largely because it’s the prime supplier of gluten-free and vegan foods.
And I can guarantee that people will react with more horror to “carrageenan” than “seaweed extract” and with more horror to the chemical name than to “carrageenan.” There’s a lot of psychology in ingredients lists.
May 6, 2006 at 4:21 pm
erica
…Huh. I don’t really understand that at all. “Compromised the flavor of the parsley”? I agree with you; food is interesting in its individuality, and cooking is interesting as a combination of different individual flavors.
May 6, 2006 at 7:11 pm
Melissa
It seems like a such a strange way of looking at it. But then, I’m the sort of person who has a whole cabinet full of different kinds of oils, vinegars, and rice wines.