Adam Balic

Steve, Steve, Steve. Would you get it into your head that if Bepe served exactly the same food that he served in Tuscany people would not go! Hence the difference. I did agree that the ingredients DO matter but it's the attitude as well. You may think I'm 'preposterous' but it seems that Craig and IndiaGirl agree with me. Peter - Tuscany is full of tourists eating 'authentic' tuscan food (Although, some of them do demand their Bistecca 'well-done' etc). I should think there would be a market for it in NY. if it were possible. I am at this very mommet craving lampredotto. Curse the lack of authentic offal vans in Edinburgh.

The don't have chicken flavoured chips/crisps in the USA? They are an Australian Standard flavour. The UK is full of weird chip flavours: Pickled onion, roast beef, marmite.

No sure that you can seperate: 'Regional production of excellent quality mozzarella results in consumption of excellent mozzarella" from "Regional demand for consumption of excellent mozzarella induces production of excellent mozzarella". Hence, 'attitude' is of central importance. But this is spliting hairs. Ah - but it is a good hair to split. Part of the reason regional ingredients in Italy are of such high quality is that virtually eveyone in the region is an expert who demands only the finest. Craig - while in Italy I have eaten and seen some truely terrible ingredients. I have always wondered who normally eats this stuff as every Chiantian that I know seems to have an opinion on the 'best/proper/only' way to cook or prepare a dish. Most likely tourists.

No sure that you can seperate: 'Regional production of excellent quality mozzarella results in consumption of excellent mozzarella" from "Regional demand for consumption of excellent mozzarella induces production of excellent mozzarella". Hence, 'attitude' is of central importance. But this is spliting hairs.

This from the man who disputes 'squashed' verses 'sliced' tomato?

I think that this has a large part to do with it, yes (sourcing etc), however, put of it is also that regionalism specific attitutes breaks down as well, once you leave the defining area. eg. In Tuscany there is a well known cake (whos name excapes me), in Siena it is always topped with pinenuts, in Florence with almonds. Not only are the ingredients different the attitude is as well. In Siena it has to be made with pinenuts, otherwise people will not eat it (have watched a friend who was raised in Siena pick off all the offending almonds of a Florentine cake). These important regional distinctions breakdown after transplantation for foreigners.

No, as I read the Robert's posts, his examples are specific, but the question is general. You could also ask the question "why does 'caponata' taste different in Milan compared to Sicily, just as validly as why does Italian food taste funny in Switzerland. Anyway, my suggestion is more interesting, then reading posts by you and Peter slugging it out over how a tomato does or doesn't taste over the next ten pages. If you want to talk about 'authentic' Italian food, you may want to define "Italian" and "Authentic" first though. Gavin - in my experience much regional French food doesn't travel so well either, unless it has been beaten with the Parisian-Bistro/haute-cuisine-stick first.

Dancing-Chicken-Formerly-Known-As- Martin: Which 'Italians' are these? The ones in the South or North? West or East? Germanic, Slavic, 'Italian' or Greek Ancestry? From the Mountains or in the plains, mainland or the islands? What about those people that were formerly part of 'Italy', but are now 'Slavic', were they joyful Italians with excellent regional food one minute, then depressed Slavs with a derivative cuisine the next? It is interesting that on many other Italian threads there has been my talk about the importance of regionalism in Italian food culture, but in this discussion all Italians get lumped together. I have seen many examples of Italian food not tasting 'right' outside of Italy and outside its particular region within italy (if it is a localised food type). Could it be however, that Italian food suffers outside of Italy for much the same reason that Indian, Thai, Spanish etc also suffer? Prehaps the food served outside of Italy isn't representative of the regional food served within Italy, in much the same way that the 'Cinnamon Club' in London doesn't reflect the food served in India? Prehaps, it is the inability to transport regionalism that prevents the successful transplantation of many cuisines, rather then some attractive, but flawed ideas about a particular peoples 'joyful' attitude. Presumably, many of these 'Italian' restuarants in foreign climes are owned and ran by 'Italians', did there grandmothers suddenly change all the recipes on them, once they had crossed the border?

Yeh, several recipes are in "Ma Cuisine", which is his 'home cooking' book. Mostly tarted up with truffles, foie gras, cream etc. It was really popular late 19th C. dish, you seen it many cooking books from that era. Steve- I have fallen for you Americans with you pasta and scampi before. I order "Spagetti with Scampi sauce" in DC, no scampi. Cheapskates.

So did Escoffier.

I'm getting the feeling that this "Outback" chain is an Australian theme place? Is this so?

Odds bodkins, how difficult does this have to be: It was red pepper 'flavour', but Plotnicki only being an Ubertaster wannabe, didn't recognise it upon 'tasting' it. One presumes that Steve has tasted red peppers many times (maybe even as chile sauce which is sweet and red pepper tasting), but he didn't recognise it this time, until he 'knew' what it was. Two explanations: Steve is a cretin of the first water or it didn't taste like red pepper to him, although he knows what red pepper tastes like, due to mis-read visual clues.

Adam - You keep leaving out the important bit. "The question is, in the context of the dining experience, simply, can external influences influence taste/flavour of food." Once you interpose that, all they can do is change the visual clues. And while in the lollipop example I couldn't figure it out at first because the visual clues had changed, it didn't make the red pepper taste any different. All that changed was how quickly I could tell it was red pepper. That's because I have learned how to pick up the taste of red pepper by rote. But if when I was child, my mother fed me salad ingredients blidnfolded, and then together in a salad, I would have done it on the first lick. So this very biog point the scientists are making, doesn't say much about humans and their acuity. But it says a lot about the flawed ways we have trained our palates. Steve - I see this as spliting hairs. The visual clues changed they 'flavour' didn't, but it didn't 'taste' like red pepper. Within the dining experience the presentation altered you perception of the dish. End of story. You can talk until you are blue in the face, about being trained to recognise the deception, but the above still remains the same. So to go right back to the being of this thread, presentation is an important componant of the dining experience (maybe not the most important), otherwise restaurants would be serving your food on dryed cowpats and you would turn to Fatguy and say "Excellent dining experience old boy, what? That flavours are capitol, tip-top.".

Yes Steve, most people participating in the "Dining experience" are going to train themselves not to be "tricked" by presentation. However, the lollipop thing is a nice example of how you have been wrong all along, Tah!

and that is trying to be overly precise on matters that are not important to the central issue of a craft: doing your job well, whichever way you do it, whether you're aware of all the steps you take or it's become second nature to you. Oraklet - you are just getting caught up in the details. The question is simply, can external influences influence taste/flavour of food. If we keep it at your no-science-for-me level then there is no need to Gavinify it, assume flavour and taste to mean in practical terms (this was after all about the 'dining experience'). I personally would be very interested to see if certain colours made food taste more salty or sweet etc, but this to "precise" for this thread. Stepping back from whole pile of steaming rhetoric that this thread is, and looking at the question: "Can presentation of food effect taste? I think that a large percentage of people either scientists, sailors, tinkers, priests or crafts-people would say "yes". Everything else is debateable but not this.

Oraklet - it's a science, it's a craft. Doesn't matter which opinion you have, in terms of the central question.

Sure these people exist. An "Ubertaster", is born once in every generation. These people are freaks and therefore do not count in the grand scheme of things. Fatguy is an Ubertaster, Plotnicki is an Ubertaster wannabe. Ignore at will. .

Scotland - curry or a chinese take-out.

PLease Steve, no more examples of faulty logic. "Vaccination" is derived from root word for "cow" or "cattle". Therefore all vaccinated people are cows? (Maybe in the Plotnickiverse). Sure, this maybe true in part, but you have yet do to do this yet, in this instance. I think that what Wilfrid and others has been saying all along is that Fatguys and your opinions in this instance are not valid. The rest of the thread has mostly been you dodging about with the premise that as you have an "opinion", then it must also be "valid".

"do you really, really think that kind of judgement is influenced by presentation?" Yes. You 'taste' food with you brain, not you tongue. Things that influence your thinking will alter what you see, hear, smell and taste in the external world. Don't make we bring in websites to test you here, because by God I will if pushed.

What? What class warfare? This is "Scientists" (or at least people that require some type of evidence to back a claim) and you lot that just require hand waving and opinions. If it was about class warfare I would have repeated what the Prof. once said: "Plotnicki and I have one thing in common. We are both class tratiors".

Why, Oraklet, this new critial thinking of yours is almost, dare I say it, "Scientific". Although you fail at this when you say that you know several people that "almost certainly not be fooled under the described circumstances", very un-scientific. Sounds almost like a comment fro the Vatican. Chefs and Plotnicki may have better taste then most laymen, but that is not what the discussion is about. Do externals influence the 'taste' of food? Proberly. Even some scientific evidence for it. What's the big deal then?

Connoiseurs, Connisnooze. Food is for all sorts of folk. You go back to your Pertus and you foie gras and enjoy, but don't be surprised when we Scientists (+Wilfrid) take pot-shots at you when you raise you head above the wall.

OK, dining isn't precise (although elements of it are), so scientist shouldn't try to be. Fine, but if that is the case then you and Fatguy don't really have a case for 'food always tastes like food' either. Dining is imprecise, different thing effect different diners. Saying that yellow chicks on plates doesn't effect the taste of food or that people whos taste is effected by yellow chicks are 'poor tasters', whatever, is by you own comments wrong. Unless, that is, there is a certain 'exactness' in dining that can be 'precisely' defined, that is, and in this case back come the Scientists and all there specificty. You can't have it both ways. Slingshots huh? Parabolic orbits right? Physicists .

What's a "PHD"? Anyhow, physics is stamp-collecting mostly, dinner with five of the buggers, I pity you! Extreme scientific experiments? Where, the last example I saw presented by a scientist (well, the Prof. anyway) was a straight forward comparison of the abitlity of 'experts' to taste wine. Extremely, on-line with the central theme of the most recent discussion. What was the feed-back from the 'the taste of food never changes, unless your palate is compromised' camp? Nothing. Both Plotnicki and Fatguy play around with the idea of using trivial examples to back up their claims of "food tastes like food" (eg. Yellow chicks on the plate), but when some harder evidence is presented that disagrees with their theories, then they are very quite indeed. Now I don't actually disagree with the two of them, some of the things they have suggested I even agree with. But, and maybe this my scientific training, just because a panel of experts say that something is so, I require some type of evidence before I believe them. For all the times that Fatguy says that if you block out the externals, 'food tastes like food', I would like to seem some evidence of this, especially when the comment comes from a food writer, who is trying to be as 'objective' as possible.