Steve Plotnicki

"Finally, it is tiresome to be repeatedly told that "you have been eating crap", but if Steve won't believe me or Yvonne or Macrosan or Michael Lewis, that's up to him." Wilfrid-But that's the nub of it all. None of my statements make any sense if you don't start from the point of view that it tasted bad, and now it tastes better. If you haven't noticed, there is a world full of people who happen to think the food there tasted awful. In fact, even with the improvement of today, they still think it's awful. If you don't see that you are in denial about it. To me there is no better evidence than Macrosan's opinion about bread in England vs bread in France. It is an opinion, but it is so far away from what the commonly held opinion would be about the quality of bread in the two countries and how they compare that it precludes having a sensible discussion. You know I have had this same discussion at least 50 times when visiting there. I find that people are slow to admit that they have been eating junk for so long. And I find that when faced with a similar proposition, Americans are more than happy to admit it that they eat junk but fess up that they like the way it tastes anyway.

Adam Lawrence-Thank you for correcting me on the reasons behind enclosure. But in correcting me, you have answered the question that I have groping to find an answer for, and which all the Brits on the board have been desperately avoiding. You said, "And enclosure was seen as a way to generate more food in time of war. War is a huge cause of social change." So the answer was that the moneyed classes (or the landowning classes if you will) opted for quantity and efficiency over quality. Still in line with my thesis I might add. Now if only someone else offered the answer to the question as to why the population stood for it. As for the rest, I find it odd that there is such difficulty admitting that the reason you have been eating crap was not due to external forces in the world, but a result of choices made in England by the moneyed or landowning classes (along with governmental support) as well as the lowers classes tacit agreement to accept it. Did external forces like war exacerbate the situation? Of course it did, No one has said it didn't. But France was at war too and it didn't impact what they ate to the same extent. Yvvone is on track when she says it is cultural. And it is obvious that the French and Italians have a tradition of fine dining. Why? The food tastes good. But that still leaves the unanswered question of why food in Britain didn't taste good (and I know this is a point of contention that others don't agree with and is the subargument here,) for nearly 200 years when it tastes good now? Some people have made arguments that people were protesting things more important than food like living and working conditions. But that seems to support the socio-economic argument bysaying that wealth distribution was so poor that food was too far down the pecking order to be dealt with by the masses, i.e. socio-economic. And that would seem to lead to a conclusion that culture is a phenomenon created by socio-economic trends and traditions (I will sign on for that one being a media-marketing type myself.) Anyway I think I'm done here because through this thread I have certainly learned the history of England from the late 1700's until the present. And I must say that much of what has been posted has reinforced my feelings as to why it all happened. Even if there is disagreement as whether it ever happened or not. Unless of course someone has something to add. But I will try and get my hands on Smith's book and post the passage about this. It's just that it's at a different location.

Now what does any of this have to do with the question I raised which is whether French cooking is as relevent today as it used to be? "Relevent" can mean influential, it can mean practiced, or it can mean trend setting. And the question isn't unique to what is happening in America either. So going through these responses. Project-The quote in question doesn't criticize Pacaud for just using curry, it criticizes him for sprinkling it on a dish like he was sprinkling oregano on an antipasto. To the author of the quote, it is a sign to him that the chef doesn't understand curry (in fact I have never heard of sprinkled curry powder) and he says that in times when authors like Madhur Jaffrey are available to read there is no excuse for using curry in a manner that he thinks is wrong. And the author of the book uses the way the author of the quote feels about it as an example of how French cooking has hit the wall, or might even be declining. The point (by the author of the book,) isn't that this is a misuse, it is that here is a sophisticated diner (well-known chef) who feels that way about it. The inference is that people feeling that way about a 3 star restaurant is a new phenomenon. Hope this clarifies it because I certainly have no problem throwing a few pinches of curry powder (which I bought at Izrael in Paris) into the pot with my Mussels and Curry Cream Sauce. Bux-Thanks for unknowingly making my point. The person you are holding up is the most famous chef in the world right now who has invented an original technique of cooking. The reason that he can communicate his creations without speaking any other languages is that people are pulling the information into their own countries. And that was the case for French chefs up until the last decade. Now what they cook isn't as interesting anymore and clearly not as interesting as what Adria is doing. So they have been left in a position to have to "push" the information and that is where their poor English hurts them. As for Hoffman's ordering skills, I didn't say that he was looking for "classical" French cuisine when he ordered the curry dish. I said (and so did Hoffman) that he went to dinner there wanting to eat classical cuisine and was "talked into" the curry dish by a captain. You always manage to skip over that part of the story which is what makes the quote relevent. Here is a captain in a 3 star restaurant hyping a particular dish as a house specialty and it turns out that the customer feels that the dish is evidence of where the French have gone wrong. In general I think in order to make your points you are attaching a certain specificity to my question when it is asked in general terms. Nobody is saying the French aren't influential. In fact you can say that Adria is still mostly French and end the argument right there. It is a point of view. And nobody is saying they won't continue to be influential. The question is how much relative to the influence they used to have. And the only fair answer would seem to be less because for the first time I can think of, chefs from outside of France are garnering lots of attention to the use of both ingredients and technique that is foreign to France. Suvir-This conversation is not based on the billions of people who have never heard Beatles recording or have never seen those golden arches of MacDonald's. This conversation is about people who are part of the globalized culture, and to whom the references we raise would have any meaning to. As for the French and their linguistic skills, I personally haven't noticed much improvement in their English and I am there 3-5 times a year. But even if you are right, the point the author(s) make is that the French are behind the curve in almost all matters of globalization and speech is merely one thing. As for French cooking being the beacon from which all light emanates, that is absolutely correct. But someone else made the point earlier (Macrosan?) that what is happening is that it is now indirect light. And the analogy is that while you might hear the influence of Beethoven when you listen to Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds, you are not listening to classical music. You are listening to Rock & Roll. Classical music as a format is at least once removed. And one can argue that French cuisine is experiencing the same phenomenon as Beethoven. Always influential but, when performed, no new repetoire. It's influence is shown through other forms of music. I guess I am making the argument that what is commonly known to be French cuisine is really a science of preparing ingredients in a certain manner, and applying specific types of heat to them in order to manipulate textures and balance tastes in a way that is commonly known as "French." And I guess the big question is, not whether people will practice the artform. Of course they will. People still play Beethoven although there is another strain of this discussion that asks whether cuisine is more fashion than high culture. And people will also cook in the "French style." But the question I asked was about how it will impact cooks who cook, in the style that is now considered modern, and those who will cook in what would be described as a modern style? I would love to hear from Steve Klc and other chefs here as the scientific aspect of this question is a bit above the head of people who are merely diners.

Sometimes I wonder if these posts are nothing more than a series of objections in order to make the poster keep refining their language so people can act like the basic point of the post isn't clear. It's as if the gist is mired in the the muck of vocabulary. Mind you, the requirement imposed by the objectors to offer language that is of the highest specificty seems to be in direct corrolation to how much they don't want to admit to the basic premise of the post. Now having gotten that off of my chest, let's see, one at a time. Jon-I do not understand your assertion that there were no classes in England in the 17th and 18th century. England was a class conscious society. It still is today. Secondly, it is not a conspiracy per se. No one is saying that people sat down in a room and plotted to prevent the Brits from having a bountiful table. I am using the concept as in the government enacting programs to benefit special interest groups. Clearly the enclosure rules were instigated by industrialists who wanted to build factories. Who were those people? Clearly the upper or moneyed classes. Was the government complicit? Obviously. Did the government know that the impact on agriculture would be negative? Possibly. And the big one, should the government have done a study as to the ramifications so as to ensure the welfare of the people? Absolutely and I would bet you a Shilling that they did and they agreed (this is the conspiracy bit) to come up with a plan to make it fly even though they knew the consequences. I mean it is just the way governments of industiralized nations work including the U.S. It is for the same reason that we have a horrible rail system here. The automobile industry is our biggest industry and their lobbying efforts consistantly prevent the construction of an efficient and modernized rail system. So people must have "agreed" because the enclosure laws didn't come about in a vacuum. 2. Nobody has said that socio-economic issues are the sole (not the fish) reason for any of this. But it certainly is at the heart of the argument. So far nobidy has responded to my statement that in France and Italy, the government viewed good food as a social benefit and in the U.K. and in the States it is viewed merely as an industry. Do the Israelis have great fruit and vegetables because the government made a concerted effort? Absolutely. And does the food suck in Egypt because nobody has ever made the effort? Again, absolutely. Did the Israeli's do it because historically Jews have eaten well? Not at all. They did it because they want people to enjoy living there. 3. I can't really speak to the de-colonization of Britain and in fact, it wasn't my point. Someone else said that part of the failure in the food system was the interuption of their being able to bring food in from the colonies. But I don't think the French ever depended on their colonies the same way the Brits did on theirs. The French never needed to import food from elsewhere. They were a fertile land and the government encouraged the French to maximize the use of the land. Yvonne-Like I said, I don't have a copy of the Smith book here. But I think I've given a fair recounting from memory. I think your second point is a fair one but ultimately incorrect. You have to follow the money as they say. Britain was pouring its wealth into the building of factories. That they decided to invest in the industrial revolution as opposed to agriculture was a conscious decision. It wasn't an accident. That is why I don't understand why anybody is arguing that socio-economic policy doesn't have the biggest impact. I mean that's what happened. Those facts aren't really in dispute are they? As for Britain having the worst food in Europe, you are right. I wasn't considering Albania when I said that. Jason-I'm not a lover of German cuisine. But I will agree it is better than what the Brits had. And they do make some great wines.

Wilfrid-As an aside to all of this, during my recent trip to Oxford, I was treated to a tour of Magdelen College by its President. Upstairs in his cottage, which is directly at the head of the quad when you enter the college, is a library bequethed the college in I believe he told us 1811. The purpose of the donation at the time was to create a library for the college that had the sum total of all knowledge known to mankind at the time. I must add that the space that the sum total of all knowledge took up is smaller than my living room in Manhattan. So when you speak of the reading explosion in our lifetime I know exactly what you mean. As for my last post, aside from stupidity, laziness etc., I think the reasons for a country having a good culinary tradition are a matter of whether the population demands good food. If they demand it (and how they demand it is an entirely different subject,) history shows that they will get it unless certain unforeseen things intervene. But history also shows that all too often people stand for eating inferior products. I'm not sure why that is? Saying it is a matter of tradition is one thing. But how the tradition started is what I'm after.

Macrosan-Not a Committee, a Minion. The board is closed unless you have 10 users.

"If you have any idea why Americans have "stood for" the kind of food they've eaten over the years, fire away." Wilfrid-I won't shy away from the answer to that question the way you have. The answer is we were/are stupid. The American public was/is idiotic to allow themselves to be fed the way they have been fed. Obesity is an unbelieveable problem here because the food companies produce such artificial junk with the government's blessing. An investment banker friend of mine who represented a mail-order woman's hosiery company told me that the most popular size that women bought was something like size 18. What goes on here, and what has gone on here is disgusting. You see the difference between us is that I think agriculture is ultimately a government supported business. I don't neccesarily mean support as in subsidy, although I am not excluding that either, but support as in encouragement, both internally and in marketing a country's products to others. And somewhere behind America's obesity problem, it's disease problems that might end up being related to artificial ingredients, is a governmental body allowing it all to occur. And don't tell me that they don't know real from artificial, or fresh from frozen. The U.S. looked at food as an industry. They didn't look at it as a social benefit. Neither did the U.K. France and Italy on the other hand did. And you might say that their countries are conducive to it so that is why they did it and we didn't. But I don't buy that because, you are making great things now and so are we. And why we didn't was a more a matter of a tradition that was imposed on us by the governing classes (which we failed to complain about) than a matter of mere geography.

" But haven't we come a long way from "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." or do you think you are still saying the same thing, only in a slightly different way?" Wilfrid-No I think I am still saying the same thing. The British did not have to build factories and force the people into the cities to work in them. It was a decision the moneyed classes made (along with the governments participation) as to how to grow the nation, and simultaneously their wealth. The French didn't industrialize the same way despite the fact that they could have. Instead, as Tony said, they built a society based on agriculture. And therein lies the difference between the two countries and what they ate. By the time you get to the wars, England's food culture was already in the crapper. It was on a steady downward trend for more than 100 years by then. The wars just sucked whatever life there was in the food distribution chain out of the system. Whether we agree on my analysis or not, there is one thing that is undisputable. The Brits stood for it. Again, I don't know why. Because another thing in Smith's book I recall is that he describes that one of the things that incited the French revolution is that the Royals were going into what were considered to be public forests and hunting game for their dinners. The population was so upset about it that it is one of the things that made them rise up against them. And the result Smith said was that a bountiful table became an important symbol of French society. So I keep returning to my original question which is, not why the Brits ended up with the likes of spam and marmite. But why did they agree to eat it? How come they didn't throw it into the drink like the Yanks did the tea and demand real food? Or do you not believe that the upper classes convinced them to eat it in the name of England?

Steve-You could well be right because I haven't been in Montreal in almost 20 years. But that smoked meat stuff certainly seemed like corned beef back then. As for what constitues appetizing, I think it is fish that is smoked, marinated or cured. There is another aspect to this and that is that an appetizing store is the Jewish gourmet shop. Smoked fish is expensive. So anciliary items like olives are usually found displayed as "Fancy Olives." But "appetizing" really describes the fish. But the rules of yiddishkeit allow things like tuna fish salad and sliced munster cheese to be called appetizing providing they are purchased at the same time, and included in the same bag as smoked fish. But if we went to Greengrass and bought some bagels and chocolate candies, one could not say they had purchased appetizing without breaking the rules. But if one has a measly 1/8 of a pound of lox in there, one could claim that the entire contents of the bag was appetizing when asked what's in the bag.

Stellabella-Please do not trust Macrosan's interpertation of yiddishisms. He is a Yid from Brit and the way we are using the words are idiomatic to New York Jewery. A good example of idiomatic terms describing basically the same thing would be Corned Beef - New York Jew Salt Beef - British Jew Smoked Beef - Canadian Jew (most notably from Montreal) In this instance, the word is an idiomatic use to describe the foods that would be served as appetizers, i.e., to create an appetitie for a main course. And what would one call a store that sells all things that one associates with creating an appetite? You guess it, an "Appetizing Store." The Yiddish word for appetizer is forschpeiss. The literal translation of that is "spicy beforehand" and it describes something spciy you would eat before a meal. It is sort of like Antipasta in Italian. Except the Italians had a word to describe a shop that would sell the ingredients for antipasta. Salumeria. There is another aspect to this that is probably important. Jewish dietary law dictate that milk and meat products aren't mixed together. And a delicatessen basically describes a shop with meat products. An Appetizing store pretty much describes one with dairy products. So I am assuming that the use in question is a NY Jew phenomenon and came about when someone wanted to open a shop that sold lox, herring etc. and there wasn't an equivelent of the word for it in English.

Wilfrid-Okay so let's try that again. Because you are correcting my history mistakes in order to try and prove me wrong, when the application of the actual facts only seems to make my point stronger. Because of the enclosure rules (whenever they happened, it doesn't matter,) Brits left the farms for the cities. As a result, the quality of the food started declining. But the ruling classes (whoever they were, that doesn't matter either because it just means people with power to make decisions,) assumed that there would be enough to eat, and of sufficient quality because whatvever the Brits produced would be supplemented by what they could bring back from the colonies. This system was interupted by the war(s)(one can say that this system was in large part a cause of the wars, but that is a different thread on a different board,) and England was caught without any cookies in their cookie jar. And since the war(s) went on for 40 years, and a depression occured in the middle of those 40 years, and the colonies started peeling off during those years, things became especially bad. Is that correct? So if I accept your timeline (and why not because it makes no difference to my theory,) I can pretty much chalk up the decline of British culinary culture to the above. So I don't see where we disagree on this? But where we do disagree, and it is clear after reading Macrosan's response about the bread is that the basis for your side of the discussion is that in general, the food in Britain has been good for a long time. And I start from the point of view that says it was, and still is basically horrid. And spam and marmite are examples of just how horrid. But other than that, I think we agree.

Macrosan-And the Lionel Poillane of Britain is.....? Prince Charles? How about the Pierre Hermes? Or the Robert Linx or the Phillipe Conticini? Or who is the equivelent of Poujerain? But I am glad you have shown your true colors. In the future I will consider your advice about bread with extreme caution. And furthermore, if ever you invite me to your home, please do not serve any sandwiches.

Shop-Rite? Ooh, that was a Jersey chain. Did they sell appetizing there? Just kidding, just kidding.

Tony-I have to say that was one of the best posts I've seen on this board. The analysis of "pub culture" was fascinating. It is deserving of it's own thread. It reminded me of the stories of how the tango came about in cafes in Argentina at the turn of the century because there were no women there. But what your post seems to be saying isn't all that different from what Drew Smith said as well as what Stephen said earlier in this thread. It was Britain's decision to partake in the industrial revolution, and to force the population into the cities that was the single most important decision that negatively impacted the quality of food in Britain. And that point is made when you say that a larger percentage of the French population stayed on their farms during that period. The French obviously didn't have a program to force people into the cities. But earlier on, someone pointed out that the decision to industrialize in Britain was coupled by the Brits beliveing that they could bring in sufficient and cheap food from their colonies. Without those colonies as an agricultural base, maybe they wouldn't have enacted the enclosure laws the way they did. Fascinating. So would it be fair to say that the "lousy" food in Britain was because of their (meaning the ruling classes) decision to go down the path I just described? And by the onset of the 20th Century, the system was dependant on the colonies and the British loss of the colonies set them back considerably? Then the war(s) come and a depression. In light of those occurences and based on the system in place before they happened, it is easy to see why the general quality hit the depths it hit and why it is taking so long to recover. Is this a fair analysis?

Wilfrid-We are getting bogged down in the accuracy of my choice of 1995 as "the" year. I have just used that year as if to say "around." You might be correct in that it might be 1994, or 1993 or even 1988 that was the pinnacle year. Whatever year it was, my use is symbolic of there being a dividing line, not that I have placed it with perfection. So my apologies if you misunderstood my intent. But I have to say that my gut tells me that '95 is not too far off from the epicenter. But this quote of yours really gets me. "I was objecting to the theory that behind all this was a malign plan by the British governing classes;" I thought you said you grew up in England? How could that be and you not be aware that every single thing that ever happened in England was a malign plan concocted by the governing classes? There are two ways to look at wealth and natural resources from the perspective of the governing classes who are in a position to influence things to their liking. One can say that a society is better off if wealth (or natural resources) are distributed more evenly. And the more equitable the distribution of resources is will create even more wealth for the upper classes because the lower classes become good customers. But the cornerstone issue there is the upper classes taking notice that a quality product is the bedrock of that system. The other way to look at it by the upper classes is for them to say that if we limit accessability to products, the lower classes are stuck with what we have to offer them. Therein we will maintain our wealth based on a smaller effort. Now which one of those two examples do you think historically describes the U.K., U.S. and France?

Rachel-You are simply wrong. We had a family friend who owned an "appetizing store" in Canarsie. And that is exactly how my father reffered to it. And on Sunday morning when he went out to buy lox, if you asked him where he was going he would say "the appetizing store," which was in the shopping center near our apartment. Let me teach you guys Jewish immigrant speak. "Appetizing" is the noun used to describe anything that is carried by a store which is basically in the business of selling smoked fish. All the ancilaries to smoked fish are part of the description. This rule works until you are trying to describe an item that has its own store to describe the item. For example, on a trip to Barney Greengrass, you might buy bagels, lox, cream cheese and a babka (yeast cake for those who don't know.) The first three items are appetizing and the babka is a cake bought at an appetizing store. Technically appetizing because of its inclusion but not appetizing as an item. And it would be allowed to refer to the babka as "appetizing" when purchased in that manner. Everybody got that? Another example that illsutrates this well is the purchase of pastrami or corned beef at a place like Murray's Sturgeon Shop, along with Russ & Daughters an "appetizing" shop par excellence. Pastrami and corned beef are "delicatessen," even when bought at an "appetizing" store. And the reverse is true as well. When you have a bagel and lox at the Canbegie Deli you have eaten "appetizing" at a "Delicatessen." Fershaist?

Magnolia & Bux-Gee all the things you wrote are pretty much correct. And even more so if one realizes that these are merely subjective critiques of the book. And therein lies the difference between Bux's take on the food chapter and mine. And Maggie is correct to state that Gopnik is just one more writer in a long list of writers who have moved to Paris to try and get an inside handle on what French life really is and what makes it tick. But what the book is about, if I recall correctly, Gopnik says at the beggining of the book. Not having it in front of me, I recall him saying that he was tired of New York. Even though New York City was the center of the democratic world, the place where democratic principals had the biggest positive impact on society, he was tired of the hustle and bustle of it all. And he went to Paris because not only did he have a lifelong love for the place, but it is the predecessor of New York as the world leader of a society based on similar principals. The essays in the books are all a comparative analysis of what life is like in Paris compared to what it is like in NYC from that vantage point. And it delves into why each place has decided to live in the manner that they live in. How they each got to their own conclusion so to speak. But Maggie, what makes Gopnik different than any other writer who moved to Paris to write of the life there, is that he is the first one to take on the topic of its decline, in the midst of the decline occuring. And if you read through the book, every essay has at least one major instance of the French getting it wrong. From their being behind the curve on exercising, to their slowness in bringing computer equipment into the school system, to their continued insistance that they are the best arbiters of deciding artistic quality like the best films when their own film industry is on the balls of its ass. I mean the book is filled with examples of how the French do foolish things. Does anyone really disagree with that? But again it is all written within the context of how he loves it there in spite of the mishegas the French insist on. And you know what, I feel the same way about it which is why I loved the book.

Wilfrid-Regardless of misdrawn inferences, I feel confident when I say that no matter how you want to describe British food culture during the last century, the Brits have eaten much worse than they had to. And as to the quality of what they have eaten and whether it has been any good or not, to outsiders, the quality of the food has been pretty horrible. Now that might be a function of a difference in taste, or it might be a function of people in Britain just not knowing, or even not caring about the difference beween good and bad tasting. I'm not exactly sure why. But it was, and in many instances, especially outside of London, still is horrible. Why you are so hestitant to admit that is puzzling to me? Because I have no qualms about admitting to you that here we here in the U.S. practice many ridiculous, stupid and garish food custom that are embedded in our culture and which are passed off as good and delicious when they are in reality foul. Cabrales-I'm not sure what you mean? Is your point that the Roux brothers are French and the Brits needed the French to help guide them from their malaise? Or is it the opposite point and do you think that the point is the Roux brothers were able to find ingredients of a sufficient quality within the U.K. in order to create 2 star cuisine? I have a general question for the board. Considering its close proximity to France, how come the bread in England is different (I am refraining from saying inferior) to what they have in France? I have noticed the same phenomenon in Spain. The bakeries in Barcelona, a mere 100 miles from the French border sell bread that is nowhere as good as what you can get in France. London is a mere 100+ miles away from Calais or Boulogne. One would have though that someone would have created an import system that delivers fresh bread. I guess I am asking the following. Considering how much better French bread is than almost all English bread, it is a wonder why Boulangeries didn't replace English bakeries. I mean they have in many ways if you are in a posh neighborhood. But not in the middle. A matter of taste? Cost? What is it?

Stephen-I hadn't read your response before I posted my last one. Thanks for the contribution here. Those are the types of things that I was describing. Clearly if the availability of top quality food was of importance to the British government, as it was to the French government, the policies would have been different and the result would have been different. I can hear Steve Shaw saying that this is a good idea for a new thread and if there is anyone out there who has specific knowledge about government regulations and how they impact what we eat, please post something on the General Board or on a national board if it is specific to a country. But for example, there are many cheeses which are fabricated in France that one can't import into the U.S. which results in the cheeses available to Americans being inferior. And we can't bring Bresse chickens in here either. Would it be fair for me to say that the quality of chickens that U.S. farmers produce is inferior because they do not have to compete with chickens from Bresse ot the Landes at the high end?

Wilfrid-You are trying to pigeon hole my assertion that what happened in Britain was "intended" by the government or that they realized that the net result of the enclosure laws (thanks for that) would be a diminution of the quality of food. I have made no such statement. But what I have said is that those are the types of ways that governments influence how well we eat. Whether it is on purpose or by accident, it makes no difference. The issue isn't whether the policies had a negative impact, the issue is that if it did have a negative impact (and that appears to be the case,) why the population stood for it? One wonders why when the quality was lowered the English working classes didn't rise up and complain? Would governmental authorities have tried to remedy the problem if factory workers went out on strike because the bangers had more cereal than meat (just an example, keep your hat on)? Possibly so. But that isn't what happened. The Brits just queued up and ate what they were given. As for the availability of fresh ingredients as well as good ingredients before 1995, I am sure you are correct. But once again you are trying to make my allegations more specific than they were. I made a statement about the general level of quality before 1995. In my opinion that is when there was a significant increase in quality across the board. And my opinion is based on the fact that I have owned a business in the U.K. since 1988. And even prior to that I visited on a regular basis.. You know there was rationing in France too. Both during and after the war. Potatoes which are probably the staple ingredient of their cuisine were rationed. But the replacement wasn't an artificially created substance like spam or marmite, it was topinambours (jerusalem artichokes,) fresh food. I honestly do not know why Brits are so defensive about this issue. Prior to the last decade, their food culture was pretty crappy. But again they are not alone. Many countries had and still have poor food cultures, the U.S. being as guilty as anyone. But it is just that the popularity of spam and marmite are particularly heinous examples of the ways it can go all wrong, and what people will stand for. I guess margarine is the American equivelent in some ways though it isn't a primary ingredient in a dish. It was developed to be a cheap butter substitute and became popular when it was considered a way to get the benefits of butter without the cholesterol. Only to find out that it was worse for you than butter was.

Many good points here but none better than Gavin's which is in line with what Drew Smith wrote if I recall it correctly. Smith attributes the decline in British agriculture as a function of the policy of 'Restriction." Did I say that right? Anyway, whatever it was called, it was a policy that banned sharecropping in order to force people into large cities where they were building factories at the onset of the industrial revolution. Smith goes on to say that because farmers lost their ability to farm the land without having sufficient working capital to hire workers to replace the sharecroppers who were doing it for a percentage of the crop, farming fell into the hands of a half dozen families, competition decreased dramatically and the quality of the produce changed forever for the worse. Now if this is true, and I have recounted Smith's allegations correctly, the combination of this type of policy combined with strict rules on banks and what types of collateral or working capital a farmer might have needed to borrow sufficient funds to hire all those employees is exactly the type(s) of ways that government, or the upper classes impact the way a nation eats. Smith says that prior to this occurence, the food in England was good, comparable to France's food but that this instance in their history is something the English have yet to recover from. Supposing that what I have just written is true, or at least it is a fair recounting of some variation of the truth, I think the obvious question to ask is why did the British population stand for the decrease in quality. Tony and Cabrales made that point and Andy made it yesterday. There is no better example of English apathy towards food than their non-interest in capitalizing on the seas that completely encircle their country. It is the oddest thing. Every European country that resides on the Channel or the Atlantic has a coastline that is dotted with terrific fish restaurants. And on the North Sea opposite a good chunk of England you have Belgium. But where are the English equivelents? I mean where in Dover is a famous place to eat the sole that gastronomes from the world over are flocking to? I mean it can be done. Look at Rick Stein in Padstow. And I'm not just picking on the Brits here. Like I keep saying, we in the U.S. are often as guilty. I vacation in Miami Beach each year with my family and considering the geography of the place, it isn't easy to get yourself a really fresh piece of local fish. And to make it even sillier, you can drive 50 miles south to Key Islamorada and wade into the water at midnight, shine a flashlight down and find that you are standing in kneehigh water and 500 shrimp (prawns for you Brits) are swimming around you. And within 5 minutes time and a bucket, you can have plucked dozens of them from the water by hand and a campfire later you have the best shrimp you've ever tasted. But there isn't a restaurant I know of in Miami that doesn't serve frozen shrimp. Now why do the people who live in Miami put up with that? Not to be specific, but there are counteless ways that governments impact on the type of situation I just described. Maybe the distribution of fish is really controlled by a handful of people and they make more money by trucking frozen fish everywhere from centralized distribution points? And maybe they are large poltiical contributors and the state regulatory commissions and political bodies have put restrictions on shrimping that make it unprofitable? I'm sure we can think of a dozen ways they could impact the situation both in a negative as well as positive way. But what the French deserve credit for is that they seemed to have removed the needs of special interest groups from diminishing the quality of food that is available to their population (this is of course less true today because of business consolidation,) and somehow they have made a partnership between producer and consumer that is not only unusually free of consumer resentment, the consumers are actually proud of the products. And where the French deserve credit, and it is what Tony attributes to good marketing but I have to tell you as a marketing guy, it is much more than mere marketing, is that they have created an internal system, usually subsudized by the government that holds the great things they produce up to a light for all to see. And whereas the French Minister of Farming might be on TV with the award winning Bresse Chicken, in both the U.S. and Britain that would be merely a function of private industry and they would be not touting the fact that they came up with a top quality chicken, but that they have come up with a system to make a large quanitity of what they would call good, be we eGulleters would call poor, quality chickens.

Wilfrid-You have made too much of my original statement about food, most specifically spam and marmite. The only concept I am pushing here is that food culture does not happen by accident. Like anything else it is an amalgamation of economic and social issues. But what I am pointing to is the connection between those two things. How does organized society create an environment that promotes the culture of food? Certain nations are quite good at it. France is the most obvious one. The Netherlands is quite poor at it. even while they share a border with Belgium who is terrific at it. Does not the same fish that is served in Waterzooi swim in the North Sea and doesn't the Netherlands reside on the North Sea? Can you get a good piece of fish in the Netherlands? Not if you speak to anyone who is Dutch. Why certain countries are good eaters, or as Andy Lynes says, care about food and others don't, has to be a function of the quality of available ingredients and the governmental encouragement to maximize the results from the land. Look at Israel and how they now produce delicious fruits and vegetables from land that used to be considered arid. Is there a more perfect example of what governments can instigate when they take an interest in feeding their population? So my comment about Britain is that they had resources to offer the people better food than what they ended up with. And as I said earlier, many countires are guilty of the same practice, most notably the U.S. But it is my opinion that the quality in Britain was on the whole inferior to almost anywhere else in Europe and certainly the U.S. up until the start of the 1990's. Why that is I don't know. But all you have to do is look at how good the quality of food is today to realize that if they could do it now, they could have done it back then. And I don't think this is a war thing. This situation existed before either war occured.

I think that street food in NYC has been pretty limited for years. Hot dog, shish kebab, a few falafel venders have pretty much dominated the landscape. But the mexican taco cart venders have revitalized the street food scene. There are a number of good carts or trucks, usually with a few old ladies nearby offering fresh and hot tamales to choose from. Aside from the taco truck that resides in the evenings on 96th west of Broadway, there is the taco cart and the lady who operates it who is so near and dear to my heart on E97th street, just west of Second Avenue. She can make you an amazing gordita on a few minutes notice. And nowhere is there a better display of Mexican street venders than outside the Spanish speaking RC Church on 14th Street betwen 7th and 8th Avenues. Between 11:30am and 3:00 there's a whole Mexican street fair going on.

Wilfrid-Just let's say that I believe that governments implement social policies which fuel the betterment and expansion of things or slow them down to a standstill. So I wouldn't describe what happened in Britain as a governmental policy towards food per se, it was generally more about social policies than anything else. You know it wasn't that the French were so benevolent and the Brits weren't. But the French realized that if they produced lots of good food, and made it affordable when comparing quality to price, there would be less pressure on them to redistribute the wealth of the upper classes. The Brits managed to skip that bit. I'm not quite sure how they got away with it. I know I keep pointing to spam etc. as the evidence, but it isn't only that. I've been traveling to Britain since 1977 and the general quality of food their stank until about 1995 when it started turning around. In fact, and I mentioned it in another thread, it took just one trip out of London recently for me to reexperience the poor quality I was used to for all those years. Now maybe growing up in England, what I find foul you find fair. But that is sort of like an Austrian telling me that the pervasive aroma of lard from it being used as cooking fuel in restaurants smells like roses. Well I assure you it doesn't. In fact it smells foul. But not to those who are acclimated to the smell.

Macrosan-I'm confused (not unusual.) All the different ways that money lending can effect agriculture was merely examples of how *any* government can impact the quality available to the population. I wasn't being specific to Britain. The only specific examples I gave were about Dutch tomatoes and French wine. Now as for your next question, I thought I explained it earlier. The only reason people ate spam is that they didn't know any better. 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? You know we Americans eat some pretty lousy stuff here. Frozen food, chickens on steroids, non-dairy creamer in our coffee, I can make quite a list. And I will be the first one to say that the American diet leaves much to be desired and in fact, much of what we eat here is disgusting when it comes to quality. In light of that, one would think that the Brits can accept that spam and marmite were horrible mistakes that should never have happened. And one would think that it would be easy to admit that in Britain, gastronomically the first 80 years of the last century were an amazing failure. And to put emphasis on how much the failure was a function of the fact thar information and wealth were not distributed properly, for some reason it is far, far better now. And the only difference I see between now and then is that now people care. Then for some reason they didn't. Maybe you have a better explanantion but that is how it appears to this outsider.