The Sweet Food Problem
#1
Posted 25 August 2001 - 09:32 AM
#2
Posted 25 August 2001 - 10:47 AM
#3
Posted 25 August 2001 - 01:55 PM
A few years ago in Brittany, my wife and I ordered two separate dishes at a two star restaurant. It was debatable which of us least enjoyed the dish or the restaurant. We found the dishes syrupy in a way that went beyond the sweetness I've found acceptable in Asian preparations. At least two more editions of Michelin have come out with the same two star rating. Unless we were there on a bad experiment day, I smell danger.
Just last month at a lcoal Parisian restaurant with no stars, but with some bit of attention in the press and by word of mouth, I had a crab salad garnsihed with a scoop of tomato ice cream. It was creamy, sweet and unexpected. It could have been dessert. It's possible to do a savory ice cream. I think sweet was a creative choice. The lacquered duck that followed was also sweeter than expected although here I expected some sweetness.
As for the U.S., one of the things that led us to approach yearly trips to the Adirondaks via Montreal rather than from airports and train stations closer to home, was the food. Everything in Burlington, VT seemed to come garnished with fresh fruit as if I was ordering some brunch special. The killer was the bowl of pasta with salmon in cream sauce, in some very fancy restaurant somewhere upstate. It really didn't need that sprinkling of fresh blueberries on top. I could only guess they ran out of dill or chives.
I would be tempted to argue with Rosie and say desserts, on the other hand, cannot be to sweet, but an Emeril Lagasse banana pie with caramel demonstrated otherwise.
#4
Posted 27 August 2001 - 09:34 PM
Addendum: Have you ever noticed in the US how many people opt for a caffeinated soft drink instead of coffee when snatching breakfast on the run? This has to either foster or reflect a major sugar preference or addiction.
#5
Posted 27 August 2001 - 09:55 PM
On the other hand, this weekend I made a chocolate polenta cake. I used Scharffen-Berger 70%. It was aces. And I didn't even have to buy a weird infomercial device.
#6
Posted 28 August 2001 - 12:44 AM
No wonder so many restaurant dishes are loaded with honey or caramel.
However Scharffen-Berger chocolate is an exception (mamsters reply). It is a very well-made product and reminds me of the quality of, say, Valrhona from France. Good chocoloate should taste of chocolate not added sugar.
#7
Posted 28 August 2001 - 06:46 AM
#8
Posted 28 August 2001 - 07:40 AM
I keep forgetting to mention El Rey. I haven't bought any in a while since Scharf is available in more convenient sizes for baking and Valrhona is available cheap at Trader Joe's, but the El Rey chocolate is an unusual product that plays up some of the fruity tastes in chocolate that other manufacturers play down. It's not better so much as different, but I have a powerful craving for El Rey from time to time.
#9
Posted 28 August 2001 - 01:31 PM
Sweet salad dressings are strange to me as well, but most American recipes for vinaigrette include sugar.
(Edited by Bux at 4:33 pm on Aug. 28, 2001)
#10
Posted 28 August 2001 - 03:15 PM
My understanding is that they use criollo beans from Venezuela for the production.
#11
Posted 28 August 2001 - 04:28 PM
http://www.egullet.com/cgi-bin/topic.cgi?forum=3&topic=3
Are we going down the chocolate path here? If so let's start a new thread somewhere.
#12
Posted 01 September 2001 - 05:19 AM
Have you noticed that American bread often has suger added? Yech.
#13
Posted 18 September 2001 - 09:12 PM
Soft shell crabs tonight in a citrus sauce that turned out to be candy orange at Aquagrill. My initial dinner at this restaurant was less than scintillating, but word of mouth led me back and we've become fond of the place for oysters. Maybe I let my guard down and slipped by ordering something that wasn't simple and plain, but this dish was unpleasant. Come to think of it, the octopus salad I ordered as an appetizer really needed some zing to counter the sweet onion marmelade on the plate.savory dishes that are overwhelmed by fruity, sweet, cloying sauces and ingredients.
#14
Posted 10 October 2001 - 06:44 AM
And even if the discussion on this board is largely about chocolate and how many of us prefer dark chocolate to milk chocolate, you have to notice that most of Middle America prefers milk chocolate. (Which has been referred to as "brown cheese", but that's a different thread altogether.)
We did get a "bitter chocolate" at Zabar's, and the name escapes me (Michel something) without realizing that 99% meant there was no added sugar. That's too extreme even for me.
Lastly, I notice that dishes combining meat and fruit aren't always a corruption; sometimes they harken back to an earlier time. I cite "Pork Tenderloin with Cherries" which appears in my "Modern Italian Cooking" by Biba Caggiano. In the intro to the recipe, she says, "Cooking with fruit is nothing new. In many dishes from the Renaissance, we find that fruit appears often in conjunction with meats or fowls." She goes on to say that for her, eating game with fruit is the only way: the fruit is a foil to the gamey flavor. Takes all kinds.
#15
Posted 10 October 2001 - 07:22 AM
True and even in an earlier time one might question how the French, who gave us such "classics" as Duck a l'orange, could say that Americans liked sweet things with meat. However, the difference really was about the way the fruit and it's natural sugars are used in combination the meat and other ingredients. It's one thing to use fruit as a foil and another to let the fruit overwhelm and worse yet to add additional sugar as if the fruit were dessert and the higlight of the dish.dishes combining meat and fruit aren't always a corruption; sometimes they harken back to an earlier time.
#16
Posted 10 October 2001 - 08:08 AM
Of course this thread started based on a discussion of restaurant food and not packaged or prepared food, but the argument still works. If Americans came to expect extra sweetness in one venue, then why not another? Chefs are people too, and what they themselves see on the shelves, and what people around them expect are certainly factors in their choices.
2.) Consumption of soft drinks for breakfast isn't inherently any more ridiculous than consumption of caffeine. Whether its true or not, many people at least THINK that the sugar will act as a stimulant.
Of course I've seen people drink DIET SODA with Breakfast. What's the deal with that?
3.) Meat and Fruit: I think this thread got away from Fat Guy's original complaint about "fruity, sweet, cloying sauces and ingredients". For me, at least, the natural sugar in the fruits isn't the problem--its the idea of a sauce supplemented by fruit and/or added sugar--especially when its something not suited to it. Heck, I don't even like Cranberry sauce on Turkey--I'd rather my Turkey have gravy with a full body and I don't even want that Cranberry sauce on the same plate.
4.) Sweet corn: One added bonus of Sweet corn is that it doesn't need butter. A bit of roasted garlic rubbed up against it is more than enough.
#17
Posted 10 October 2001 - 08:38 AM
i ask, what's *wrong* with that?!?Quote: from jhlurie on 11:08 am on Oct. 10, 2001
Of course I've seen people drink DIET SODA with Breakfast. What's the deal with that?
#18
Posted 10 October 2001 - 08:38 AM
It's a question of balance. As for the chicken and egg question, my earlier reference to a soft shell crab dish was about a level of sweetness comparable to dessert and not the unneccessary but still subtle use of sugars in packaged foods. Admittedly I tend to avoid packaged foods, but as noted earlier in some thread, we use canned chicken broth as a staple. Still manfacturers of food product wouldn't add sugar if they didn't have reason to believe it helps sell the product. It does lead to a vicious circle."gratuitous added sugar"
It's the diet soda mention that really caught my attention. As the "pick me up" in colas is the caffeine anyway, diet cola might make as much sense as black coffee.
#19
Posted 10 October 2001 - 09:22 AM
#20
Posted 10 October 2001 - 03:16 PM
Quote: from franklanguage on 7:44 am on Oct. 10, 2001
In many dishes from the Renaissance, we find that fruit appears often in conjunction with meats or fowls."
One could argue that fruit grown during the Renaissance wasn't nearly as sweet as the fruit we get today. Many of the hybridizations, etc. have been made specifically to get a sweeter fruit.
I'm one who detests sweet stuff with my meat. I was beginning to think I had bad taste, because virtually every upscale restaurant serves it sweet. Glad to see that some of the "experts" in this discussion agree with my taste buds.
#21
Posted 10 October 2001 - 03:43 PM
I normally try to avoid writing negative reviews--I'd rather just recommend someplace else--but I'm going to make an exception just so I can rant about sweet food.
#22
Posted 10 October 2001 - 04:14 PM
I'm old enough to have seen the tide turn. Most fruits seem to be bred for looks and ability to be shipped without blemish. Sweet is only one of the tastes lost, but I won't carry on an off-topic rant right here and now. ;)Many of the hybridizations, etc. have been made specifically to get a sweeter fruit.
#23
Posted 10 October 2001 - 06:37 PM
I, for example, favor very tart apples would speculate that the sweeter alternatives might have been bred in that direction to contrast.
#24
Posted 01 November 2001 - 09:59 PM
Well, remember: the forbidden varieties of any fruit are always the sweetest of all.Quote: from jhlurie on 9:37 pm on Oct. 10, 2001
Sweeter fruit: Can we be more specific? Are we talking about berries, pears, bananas, grapes, oranges, apples or something else? And with WHICH varieties?









