Wilfrid

I said at the top of the thread that British food has its failings, and I agree with much of what you say, although I am not "confident" you are right about the first decades of the century (and I don't like the phrase "than they had to" - but let's not get stuck on that). I was objecting to the theory that behind all this was a malign plan by the British governing classes; to the notion that you can even begin to explain the problems with British food from the 30s to the 70s without reference to, I submit, the most important factor - the Second World War; and to the generalisation of the "spam marmite" label to cover the entire British gastronomic experience, without qualification, and apparently without chronological limitation. But maybe I misunderstood you on all that. Can I focus on something I was considering over lunch? You said, "the general quality of [british] food stank until about 1995 when it started turning around." It dawned on me that I was essentially an ex-patriate from the end of 1996. Was all my good eating confined to such a short period of time? Of course not, and I think your claim is demonstrably unfair. (Note: I am not querying your own experience, Steve. You know what you ate and whether it was any good. I am querying the generality of your statement.) Let's start with London restaurants, and if you didn't mean that, we can at least narrow your statement down. Firstly, a couple of generations of French chefs were well-established in England and running their own restaurants well before 1995: Guerdin, Koffman and the Rouxs; Blanc, Loubet, Chavot and Novelli. Now, we can strike them because their French, but you have to consider the quality British chefs who were coming through their kitchens, and their huge influence on London dining standards. Turning to British chefs, I find that most of the names one would associate with the improved standards of London restaurants (I think we all agree the improvement took place) to be established, well-known figures long before 1995 - back to the early '80s in most cases. I don't rate all these chefs equally highly, but here's a list: Marco Pierre White, Gary Rhodes, Anthony Worrall-Thompson, Alistair Little, Philip Britten, Philip Howard, Richard Neat, Richard Corrigan, Sally Clarke, Stephen Bull, Simon Hopkinson, the guy who cooked at High Holborn...memory going now - there's plenty more, but surely that's enough. Incidentally, I think St John - much beloved of this Board - was open by the end of '95, but in any case, Fergus Henderson was cooking remarkable food at the French House before he moved there. I know you aren't going to tell me these chefs only learnt to cook properly around 1995, and you can't deny that they were running restaurant kitchens some considerable time (in most cases) before the date you picked. Do you want to qualify the scope of the "stinking" you mentioned?

Steven I am sorry for slacking. I am clearly not spending enough of my time on eGullet matters. :wow: Jon, I know what you mean, but I am in no doubt thatit was being used in the Steven Shaw sense on this occasion. It was such an old-style, traditional Jewish deli, and they were for sure selling "appetizing". It just occurs to me that I read an article about this. It was someone's childhood memories of going out with grandfather to by "appetizing" on Sunday mornings. Within the last couple of years, maybe, but can I remember where I read or who it's by? I can barely remember my own name.

No, Cabrales, same authors for both versions. It was just that I think Senderens wrote the recipes, and I was giving Ms Borrell credit for the text. I didn't thinkof it as Senderens' book, that's all.

Steve, I just had to go back and check up on my reading skills. Some of your earlier points: "The reasons that the British ate spam and marmite and the French didn't is that the French upper classes agreed to feed the lower classes in France far better than the upper classes in Britain agreed to feed their lower classes." "(T)he reason that Britain was on the other side of the boot was that it was well behind in what the governing class deemed an acceptable way to feed the population..." "Could the British government have subsidized the purchase of fresh food from foreign countries? I'm not expert enough to tell you. But would they have done so to the detriment of a British company who makes spam?" If you weren't addressing the intentions of the governing/upper classes, then I misunderstood you, but I think from the above you can see why. I think we all agree that government policies can affect what people eat. One other substantive point. Steve, the British "working class" has repeatedly risen up against the effects of government policies on their food supply. It happened repeatedly in the nineteenth century. In the twentieth century, I would just point to the Jarrow Hunger March. But their main issue has always been getting enough food at prices they could afford; not whether there is too much cereal in the sausage. I think Stephen, Gavin and Macrosan have given excellent examples of historical/economic conditions which have influenced British food history, and I don't wish to add anything. I really think anyone reading your early posts would have thought you were giving a different explanation - the one I found so implausible. Why make such a fuss? I do acknowledge, Steve, that - unlike some media commentators - you are being very fair in accepting that the States has had its problems too. It's not so much your post that set me off, as a stream of at best ignorant, at worst wilfully dishonest, media comments about British food (and I point to Rebecca Mead in the New Yorker again*), which have inflated the clear deficiencies in British gastronomy to the level of a myth, in which the British have been so stupid over the years that they have eaten nothing but gunk (spam and marmite, perhaps) and only found out about good food last week. I do get annoyed about this, because it dismisses the real life experiences of myself, my family, and millions of ordinary fellow countrymen. Not letting off steam at you, Steve, I promise - more at the Ms Meads of this world. *And let's assume Ms Mead is ignorant rather than dishonest.

Funny, I asked myself exactly that question at the weekend, when I passed a deli in the East 70s, I think, which had "Appetizing" in big neon letters right under its proprietary name. It is unquestionably a noun in that context, and it's also one of those nouns that doesn't have a plural. "Let's go and buy some appetizing," right? not "appetizings." I assumed the derivation is from the familiar term "appetizers", which might reasonably thought to include lox and so on. How it got corrupted, I don't know. Cute term, though.

Cabrales, I read and thoroughly enjoyed Dining with Proust, although I think of it as Anne Borrell's book rather than Senderens', as Borrell wrote the text. Love that kind of food (although I can't say I tested any of the recipes), and its nicely illustrated.

Tommy, "Proust" is a way to fill in your spare time for approximately nine months. Another horrible English reviewer word - "plumped". As in "my dining companion plumped for the squab." Also, I don't mind Jonathan Meades describing a dish as "great gear", but no-one else is allowed to.

Yes, Macrosan, it turns out to be a highly complex story. Do government policies impact on many aspects of everyday life, including those relevant to producing and consuming food? Obviously. Have we found any evidence of a master plan by the governing/upper classes in Britain which had, either as its objective or as a corollary, lowering or keeping low the standard of food? Can't see any yet. I'm afraid a lot of things do happen by accident. There is such a thing as an unintended effect of an intentional action. I am bit vague about the American term "sharecropping" (my ignorance), but I assume Gavin Jones was referring to the enclosure laws and the massive migration of agricultural workers to the cities. Subsequent depression of food quality may have been an epiphenomenon, or side-effect of this, but I would need to be convinced that it was something anticipated by the government, or even evident - in the short-term - to the population. When, Steve, you talk about what the British would "stand for", you are assuming that changes in quality of life which may seem obvious to you, with the benefit of hindsight, were equally obvious at the time. Finally, as someone who lived in various locations in England in the 1970s and 1980s, I totally disagree with the claim that British food "stank" until 1995. You could eat bad food in that period, sure, and of course you can today. But first-rate produce was available- readily available - in regional towns and cities as well as in London - certainly by the late seventies/early eighties. I know: I was buying it. And it's nothing to do with you and I having different tastes. I just wish you had been around Bristol in the 1980s, and I could have offered you some of the best cheeses in the world, fine feathered and furred game, high quality meat, fruit and vegetables, and an unbelievable range of "artisanal" pies and pastry products. Washed down with good beer and cider (no, we certainly ain't a wine country).

Yep, that's where I get my tacos, from a little white van which parks up there on Saturdays (don't know if it's there in the week). I recommend the tongue and also the stewed goat versions. Nice fresh herbs.

But Shaddock is a great name for a sea captain. Remember Captain Haddock in Herge's Adventures of Tin Tin?

Good practical tips which I'll actually use - thanks, Pitter.

Michael Lewis's post was well worth repeating, because of course I agree with it. Steve, you are very quick on your feet: I think Macrosan and I were reasonably entitled to assume that your remarks about banks applied to Britain, and Macrosan seems to have answered my questions just before I posted them. So - no evidence of a government/upper class plot. I don't believe anyone here is defedning spam and marmite (personally, I like spam, but that is an unfortunate personal eccentricity). As for the British government adopting a protectivist policy in favour of the Spam company: sorry, won't wash. Imported corned beef has always been hugely popular in Britain, and I suspect the main competitor for spam and similar local products. In fact - glancing at the Lewis post again - is Spam not an American company? It's certainly widely available here in the States. No, I think you are taking some recent, albeit yucky, defects in British eating and trying to make them representative of the whole subject. Now, tell me, you aren;t Rebecca Mead in disguise, are you?

I too eat anything which looks appetizing, with no precautions. On second thoughts, I eat some pretty disgusting-looking stuff too. My question: is there a reason to be more concerned about street food hygiene than restaurant hygiene? I've been made thoroughly sick by many restaurants. Can't off-hand think of any bad reactions to street food (I'm probably forgetting some).

That is certainly interesting Steve, and I now understand your point better. I have the impression that we are talking primarily about the twentieth century. As you know, British financial institutions are, one way or another, in private hands (with the exception, I suppose, of the Bank of England). Which leaves us with a couple of factual questions to which I don't have the answer (maybe it's in Smith's book): to what extent is British farming dependent on support from financial institutions; and, more importantly, how are private financial institutions constrained by government in making loans to farmers? If banks have been heavily regulated in this sphere of their activities, I am still not sure you have laid a foundation for there being a policy, or even a presumption by the governing classes, that food quality in Britain need not be kept at a high level - although that might be an effect of such regulation. At the same time, I still feel that big assumptions are being made about just what people were eating over this period. Let's assume "spam and marmite" is a marker for low quality, unfresh convenience foods, maybe with loads of additives and artifical flavourings. Do you agree that widespread use of such foods is a phenomenon of the mid-to-late 1960s on, and that it is causally related to a whole range of social changes? - I mentioned women in the workplace, but there are others. If so, then what about the earlier period? Was British food before the war really worse than French food - across the board, or was it just different? What I know leads me to suspect that food in Britain was actually pretty good in the couple of centuries leading up to 1939, and that important culinary traditions were lost, and have only been partially recovered. Or is it your belief that British food was lousy, whether in 1850, 1890, 1910 or 1950?

Steve, I think Tony and I could be forgiven for assuming that quote 1. refers to French people generally, peasants included, rather than to consmpolitan urbanites. I tried to move this down to the UK thread, but while we're here...oh, in random order: Britain doesn't have wonderful farmland like France does. Just doesn't. Britain does have food markets in its streets. Not as good as they used to be, and never were as good as France. Lots of reasons for that, which I'll go into if invited, but not part of any central plan that I'm aware of. The French government ensuring the continuance of French culture? Absolutely - but have you heard about the BBC, the World Service, the National Theatre, the Arts Council, and so on and on? Major involvement of British government from the end of the war up to Thatcher, and reduced involvement since. Somewhat different from France, but not fundamentally - and not in a way which explains your, well, fantasy about the way the British eat. But I am just not sure what your point is. Are you really saying there was a French upper/governing class master plan aimed at ensuring a high standard of eating for big city dwellers? I mean, when I state it, it just sounds so implausible.

I can add little to what Bux has said. It's a beautiful room, and I think all the tables are nicely situated - but try to get away from the door if the weather stays like this. The wine list used to be exclusively French - I don't know if it still is. They used to have some incredible bargains among the burgundies - a premier cru from a decent year (1995/6) could be had for $60 or $70, which must represent a very small percentage mark up. Very sweet service too.

I don't know, but I am convinced I will be sitting under a blasted oak eating freshly killed silky bantam with a group of people in white hoods before I ever sit down to an eGullet New York dinner.

Steve, I thought I already put up a post saying I would raise the subject on the UK Board, but I don't see it now, so I'm saying it again. Don't want to mess up the Frenchness of the thread.

British cooking and British eating habits have had their failings over the years. I am a Londoner by birth, but I am not going to dispute that fact. Nevertheless, I am perpetually surprised by the kinds of criticism of British food I read, both in magazines (see Rebecca Mead) and on sites like this. I have just had an exchange with Steve Plotnicki about this on the French cuisine thread on the General board, but it would seem more appropriate to pursue the discussion here. Among other things, Steve wrote: "The reasons that the British ate spam and marmite and the French didn't is that the French upper classes agreed to feed the lower classes in France far better than the upper classes in Britain agreed to feed their lower classes. It is really that simple. How well a population eats is simply a matter of how wealth is distributed. Macrosan touches on it in his post. The French invested in creating high quality ingredients because they set up an internal economic and social system that 1)taught the populace what good food was and 2)provided them access to it by making it affordable to them. There is no reason that a similar phenomenon couldn't have happened in Britain because it is happening there now. So while I agree with you that the results of the war(s) had impact on both countries, the reason that Britain was on the other side of the boot was that it was well behind in what the governing class deemed an acceptable way to feed the population before the war(s) ever started. What was always amazing about it (and it goes to the Spam, Marmite example,) is why the British population stood for it for so long?" I don't know what others think, but this take on history is just unrecognizable to me. Just to keep to a manageable period of history, let's talk about the nineteenth and twentieth centuries up to the Second World War. In that timeframe, I see little evidence that the public's eating habits were determined centrally by the "upper classes". Determined to a large extent by economic and social forces? Sure, but hardly by any one social group in society. What forces determine eating habits? Decisions in agriculture, I guess. I am sure there are some upper class farmers in Britain, but the farming class has traditionally been overwhelmingly distinct from the aristocracy or even the upper middle class. Fishing? Ditto. Shopkeepers? What do you think? The rise of large food-purveying enterprises, such as Sainsburys, where one might detect dominance by the upper reaches of society, is a relatively recent phenomenon. I am trying to get a handle on just how the upper classes (or the government, if that's what Steve means) were controlling what people grew, hunted, bought and ate. I do not know whether there were central government programmes or policies relating to nutrition in the 1930s - because of the Depression there might well have been - but I would date central government involvement in the food industry (which was practically effective in terms of surviving a siege, but which created long-term gastronomic damage) from the Second World War. The war was followed by years of "austerity" - that was the description - as rationing dragged on and the country recovered from its war-time experiences. Steve, you do realise that Britain had a socialist government after the war, don't you? It's hard to know what else to say in the absence of more detail: when was this French system set up and who by? What was this agreement not to do the same in Britain? Any historical clues? (Steve, if it's "as simple as that" can you give any specifics?) Okay, switch to a period after the war - where I can be more of a first-hand witness. People seem consumed with fantasies about what ordinary British people ate? Spam, and other tinned meats? Sure, a bad habit and a hangover from the war. But in the pretty ordinary household in which I grew up in the sixties and seventies, almost all meals were home cooked from fresh ingredients. Most canned foods (there were exceptions), and certainly frozen foods, were looked on with suspicion. A lot of fresh fish, and both fresh and preserved shellfish were consumed. Pies, puddings were baked at home; jam was made; vegetables were pickled. As a toddler I had the job of shelling fresh peas. Now, my family had no culinary pretensions whatsoever. This was just normal life, and it was the same for millions. Convenience food did indeed begin to erode cooking skills, along with the rise of the supermarkets and the huge and rapid increase in women working outside the home (rather than cooking all day). But I don't detect any master plan to feed people badly there, either. Let me stop droning on. What do others think?

I think the Nero Wolfe cookbook has a planked shad recipe.

I am now having a nightmare that almost every contributor to eGullet is actually Rebecca Mead writing under an assumed name.

Brings back some memories, Simon. I haven't been there for years. I remember the tables had plastic numbers screwed to them. Nice to know it still exists.

Delighted to see they are still garnishing the beef dish with bone marrow. One experience at GT which warmed my heart was complimenting them on the use of bone marrow, and almost instantly receiving an extra helping of it. Love that fat.

Tsk tsk. Have you been hanging out with Rebecca Mead? Let's not perpetuate these myths. I can't see that you've put a time frame on the remark about the Brits. It is absolutely true that in the nineteen forties, fifties, and on into the sixties, French eating was incomparably better than British eating. There are a number of reasons for this, but the blindingly obvious one is the contrasting performance of the two countries in the war against Germany. The French agricultural and food industries suffered little interruption in their activities as a result of the war. Britain - which, in any case, was less agriculturally self-sufficient than France - was isolated from its regular sources of food supplies for a very long period. Rationing persisted for some time after the end of the war. Milk/dairy production and other functions were centralised in order to ensure that the population could continue to be fed. It took decades for local, high quality, "artisanal" food producers to re-establish themselves. I believe that many bad eating habits were formed in the nineteen fifites and sixties, and Britain only began to learn to eat again over the last twenty or so years. The "spam and marmite" comment is just inaccurate if it refers to the first decades of this century, and of course is inaccurate today. (Oh no, I think I've done another pompous post. Never mind.)

Ruby, I do know what you mean. I am prepared to say that the post in which I analysed Michael Lewis's remark about Colombian families was quite pompous. Since I strongly disagreed with his comment, I wanted to take it apart, analyse it, and show what I thought was wrong with it. I find it hard to do that properly while maintaining a jaunty and rakish tone. It's hard to know whether threads are going to turn out po-faced and long-winded, or light and cheeky - and there's not much any one contributor can do to guarantee the direction. Happily, I think we have a generous mixture of both on eGullet.