The Deceptively Delicious Sneaky Chef

**Dave the Cook** · October 25, 2007

Two recent books -- Jessica Seinfeld's Deceptively Delicious and Missy Chase Lapine's The Sneaky Chef -- have sparked a few heated conversations -- the conversations being more interesting than the books, I'm afraid. Today, Slate cleverly paired columns addressing two of the more interesting spin-off topics.

In Not That There's Anything Wrong With That, Steven Shaw (our our Fat Guy) lays the plagiarism claims to rest, and instead derides the intellectual firepower that's wasted on such lightweight material:

Much has been made of the fact that Lapine originally showed her book proposal to HarperCollins and that HarperCollins rejected it, only to sign up Seinfeld soon after. To those unfamiliar with the world of book publishing, this may seem meaningful, but it's very unlikely that anybody at HarperCollins would have leaked the Lapine proposal to the Seinfeld team, particularly since the premise of the Lapine book is not original, either. The idea of sneaking vegetables into kids' food is a time-honored parenting trick, and Lapine's book was not the first: The largely unsung book Sneaky Veggies by Chris Fisk, for example, came out in August of 2006.

More experienced foodie parents than Steven will remember Jane Brody's Good Food Book (1987), where similar tactics were recommended (I recall a suggestion to shred zucchini into spaghetti sauce, for example). I'm sure that our parents had their own tricks, too.

Mimi Sheraton takes another tack in Lie to Your Children -- It's Good for Them:

. . . I say: a plague on both their houses. Both propose a culinary scheme that is, basically, totally stupid, to say nothing of dishonest. Seinfeld's Deceptively Delicious and Lapine's The Sneaky Chef advocate tricking kids into eating their fruits and, mostly, their veggies by pureeing them and oozing them into acknowledged goodies. Think mushes of cauliflower, squash, spinach, and avocado leaked into brownies, chocolate pudding, lasagna, macaroni and cheese, and grilled cheese sandwiches. Even hot cocoa, to which Seinfeld wants you to add mashed sweet potatoes; Lapine advises cherry juice.

To these two well-written laments. I'd add a third. Shaw starts out with it, but drops the issue in his pursuit of other game: "Originality and authorship are not salient features of most celebrity or spouse-of-celebrity cookbooks . . . " Why do we let celebrities get away with this? When did we decide to ignore the fact that a famous person is often just a front for a real cook and real writer? Does anyone else find this odd?

Fat Guy · October 25, 2007

Here’s what happens when a big-deal celebrity, or the spouse thereof, writes a cookbook. Typically, it starts with a book packager, which is a company that pulls together the various aspects of a major book project into . . . a package. The packager brings in a real writer to do the actual writing, a real chef to create and test the recipes, a nutritionist to consult, an art director, a photographer, an illustrator, and a project manager to corral them all. A literary agent shops a proposal around to publishers and makes a deal. A team from the publishing company gets involved. The packager delivers the book to the publisher, and the production and marketing cycle begins. The celebrity can either step out of the process completely, or pretend to matter by "collaborating" with the people who are really creating the book.

In the case of Jessica Seinfeld’s book, "Deceptively Delicious," the book packager is Melcher Media, an elite book packager in Greenwich Village headed by Charles Melcher, who has masterminded books such as "Sex and the City: Kiss and Tell." The writer is Stephanie Lyness, frequent contributor to the New York Times and the co-author of Suvir Saran's first cookbook. The chef is the winsome Jennifer Iserloh – you may know her as The Skinny Chef. The nutrition consultant is Joy Bauer, herself the author of a New York Times bestseller called "Food Cures." The art director is Paul Kepple of Headcase Design, the photographer is Lisa Hubbard, the illustrator is Steve Vance ), and the project manager is Lia Ronnen (who also handled the "Sex and the City" book). That’s in addition to the William Morris agency and the team at HarperCollins publishers. (HarperCollins is also my publisher, however I have no relationship with anybody involved in the Jessica Seinfeld project and my experience with that publisher has been quite different: for example, they insist that I write my own books.)

If you know what to look for and you know a little about how the publishing business works, you can piece all that information together from the acknowledgments and back cover of "Deceptively Delicious" (plus Google and a couple of phone calls). But the only name you’ll find on the front cover is the one that sells: Jessica Seinfeld. (Lyness is not even named in small print as the co-author.) The fantasy behind the book is that this mother of three has regular-mom problems getting her kids to eat their veggies, that she has a sneaky solution that she’s going to share with her 2.4 million (and counting) closest friends, and that she slaved over a hot stove and late into the night on her computer to bring these secrets to you. Perhaps you also believe Martin Sheen is the president.

So, when you think about all the attention that has been devoted to the plagiarism claim, you kind of have to raise a couple of eyebrows:

First, it seems to me that using a ghost-writer (paying someone else to write your book, then putting your name on the cover) is nothing more than an institutionalized, socially acceptable form of plagiarism. If you did that with a term paper in college, it would be called cheating, plain and simple. Celebrities and other people who can't or are too busy or lazy to write their own books shouldn't be taking solo cover credit. At the very least, the cover should read, for example, "as told to . . ." (this is commonly done with autobiographies" or "based on and idea by . . ."

Second, plagiarism is about deception (i.e., you're pretending someone else's work is your own). In normal moral discourse, deception is thought to be a bad thing. Meanwhile, this whole book is a how-to manual for deception -- for how to trick kids into eating vegetables by disguising them as other foods. The book is even called "Deceptively Delicious."

Meanwhile, scores of journalists -- these are the people in society who are supposed to know the most about plagiarism and why it's wrong -- have been recklessly reporting on the specious plagiarism claim that Jessica Seinfeld lifted ideas from a book that hadn't even been published when the "Deceptively Delicious" manuscript was signed, sealed and delivered to the publisher. It seems utterly bizarre to be up in arms about non-existent deceptive behavior by a celebrity spouse when that same celebrity spouse is plainly advocating deception in a book she didn't even write herself.

GlorifiedRice · October 25, 2007

1/2 to 1/4 cup pureed veg in a whole pan of brownies does not a healthy serving make. What does that amount to in one brownie? A few Tablespoons?

Anytime you have to lie to a kid to get him to do something is a slippery slope and wrong. If you are trying to get a kid to eat healthy you dont shove brownies, cake, fried nuggets and mac and cheese in their mouth.

When kids stop eating veg or refuse veg it isnt a FOOD ISSUE, its a POWER issue. They are asserting their power over YOU! Ignore it. THEY WILL NOT STARVE! At school and or daycare or kindergarten they probably eat veg and fruits all day cause its not YOU, serving it to them. (I learned this from a book on picky eaters) I was SHOCKED when I learned my son ate salads at school, but told ME he hated them!!!

This book isnt innovative or new. How do you think Carrot Cake, and Zucchini Bread came about? However I do believe that Oprah is gearing up to give Jessica Seinfeld her own show or something...

To her credit, Jessica is heavily involved in childrens issues and has a used baby gear biz. But that doesnt make her a Child Psychologist or Nutritionist.

Kids will get more then enough veg and fruit in lots of ways. Soups, Stirfrys, Taking them to Jamba Juice, Korean Kimbap or Sushi, Tempura, Adding whole Broccoli to Mac&cheese, Spaghetti with chunky sauce, nonchalantly handing them sheets of nori, my son LOVES Seaweed Salad with fishsticks! Pumpkin and Fruit Pies!

You dont have to LIE to kids. Relax! They are getting enough!

Fat Guy · October 25, 2007

GF, I think in many cases what you're saying is correct, however those comments can't really be generalized to the entire youth population. As a scientific matter, the latest information indicates that pickiness is an inherited trait. As the New York Times recently reported:

The message to parents: It’s not your cooking, it’s your genes.
The study, led by Dr. Lucy Cooke of the department of epidemiology and public health at University College London, was published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition in August. Dr. Cooke and others in the field believe it is the first to use a standard scale to investigate the contribution of genetics and environment to childhood neophobia.
According to the report, 78 percent is genetic and the other 22 percent environmental.

A possible explanation for this trait:

Most children eat a wide variety of foods until they are around 2, when they suddenly stop. The phase can last until the child is 4 or 5. It’s an evolutionary response, researchers believe. Toddlers’ taste buds shut down at about the time they start walking, giving them more control over what they eat. “If we just went running out of the cave as little cave babies and stuck anything in our mouths, that would have been potentially very dangerous,” Dr. Cooke said.

The article later mentions the Seinfeld book, and dismisses that method as silly. In the end:

If neither repeated introduction nor hiding the vegetables works, and as long as a pediatrician is keeping an eye on the child’s health, the experts suggest nothing more than patience.
“Unless it becomes a huge issue, it tends to be a little more fleeting than parents think,” said Harriet Worobey, director of the Nutritional Sciences Preschool at Rutgers University. “I know a year can seem like five to parents, but these food jags are normal.”

Anna N · October 25, 2007

I have had much more opportunity to watch my granddaughter's eating habits than my kids (3 kids in 3 years = only time to survive!). She has always had an opportunity to choose from a wide variety of foods but she will suddenly decide that what she loved last week (and for at least a year!) is no longer tolerable. But she is still offered all the same foods and allowed to make choices. Sooner or later she slowly returns to the rejected food. I sometimes wonder if with kids it's more a form of wresting control from adults than it is strictly related to the food itself. Given the freedom to make some decisions and never forced to eat any one thing, I think most kids will eventually develop a liking for a reasonably balanced diet. Deception with kids doesn't work.

Fat Guy · October 25, 2007

For those of you who haven't seen the Jessica Seinfeld book, there's a nifty tool from HarperCollins, the publisher, that lets you browse inside the book. You can't read the entire book online, but the allocation is generous and you can get a good idea of what it's about. I haven't tried this before, but here's the link that should work:

Incidentally, this is the only way you're likely to be able to see the Seinfeld book for now. It is sold out everywhere in the country, and backordered to the tune of more than a million copies. I believe they printed 200,000 and now have 1.4 million orders to fill. They're saying at least 5 weeks to get the next round of books into the stores.

For the Missy Chase Lapine book, you should also be able to get a similar in-depth online preview from the publisher (Running Press). Follow this link to check it out.

Fat Guy · October 25, 2007

More experienced foodie parents than Steven will remember Jane Brody's Good Food Book (1987), where similar tactics were recommended (I recall a suggestion to shred zucchini into spaghetti sauce, for example). I'm sure that our parents had their own tricks, too.
←

Right. The approach (which Jane Brody didn't invent either) is laid out on page 132 of Jane Brody's book: "sometimes it pays to forget about trying to get kids to like what's good for them and just sneak it in"

She goes on to recommend: "I grate zucchini and cabbage into tomato sauce, meat loaf, breads and omelets. You can do the same with carrots. When making soup, I first cook the vegetables the children dislike and puree them with the broth."

This same advice has appeared in countless other books (not to mention repeatedly on just about every online parenting website with message boards). The 2004 book "Raising Healthy Eaters: 100 Tips for Parents," by Henry Legere, recommends it, as does the 2003 book "The Worst-Case Scenario Survival Handbook: Parenting," by Joshua Piven, David Borgenicht, Sarah Jordan. As I mentioned in the Slate piece, and as other writers have noted, the 2006 book "Sneaky Veggies," by Chris Fisk, doesn't just mention the approach (if one can call it an approach) but is entirely devoted to it.

GlorifiedRice · October 25, 2007

Fat Guy,

If any of that evolutionary stuff was true, then Japanese kids would not love natto for breakfast.

And the only way (IN MY OPINION) that it is inherited is when the PARENTS themselves are subtly biased and their food phobias rub off on the kids.

My parents had no food issues themselves and I ate anything (WITH crusts)

**Chris Hennes** · October 25, 2007

If any of that evolutionary stuff was true, then Japanese kids would not love natto for breakfast.
And the only way (IN MY OPINION) that it is inherited is when the PARENTS themselves are subtly biased and their food phobias rub off on the kids.
My parents had no food issues themselves and I ate anything (WITH crusts)
←

The study Fat Guy is referring to was well controlled for environmental effects though the use of twins.

(Side note on how this is done: Statistical analysis of the differences between twins who share all genes (monozygotic, or MZ) versus those who share, on average, half of their genes (dizygotic, or DZ) can differentiate between genetic and environmental effects. The parental food phobias fall into environmental effects, and accounted for 22% of the childrens' food neophobia.)

In addition, humans are not the only species that shows this neophobia: warblers, rats, champanzees and capuchin monkeys all show a similar pattern, strongly suggesting an evolutionary basis for refusing to try new foods during the initial stages of environmental exploration. Interestingly, sweet, fatty and starchy foods are influenced much less than fruit and vegetables.

This concludes your random science factoid for the day... :blink:

Edited October 25, 2007 by Chris Hennes (log)

Jakea222 · October 25, 2007

Its all about money and the name is what sold that book. If you think for one minute that the stuff published today makes any sense at all - just look at what is being written - It is all who you know or who you are - Jenna Bush wrote a book - do you think that her name had something to do with it....if you don't think so read the story line and see if it is something that probably would have been rejected if it weren't for who she is - it is all about money and what they think will sell - period.

GlorifiedRice · October 25, 2007

If any of that evolutionary stuff was true, then Japanese kids would not love natto for breakfast.
And the only way (IN MY OPINION) that it is inherited is when the PARENTS themselves are subtly biased and their food phobias rub off on the kids.
My parents had no food issues themselves and I ate anything (WITH crusts)
←
The study Fat Guy is referring to was well controlled for environmental effects though the use of twins.
(Side note on how this is done: Statistical analysis of the differences between twins who share all genes (monozygotic, or MZ) versus those who share, on average, half of their genes (dizygotic, or DZ) can differentiate between genetic and environmental effects. The parental food phobias fall into environmental effects, and accounted for 22% of the childrens' food neophobia.)
In addition, humans are not the only species that shows this neophobia: warblers, rats, champanzees and capuchin monkeys all show a similar pattern, strongly suggesting an evolutionary basis for refusing to try new foods during the initial stages of environmental exploration. Interestingly, sweet, fatty and starchy foods are influenced much less than fruit and vegetables.
This concludes your random science factoid for the day...
←

Next year they'll produce a different study.

7 Years ago they said milk causes diabetes, now they say it prevents it.

Lets look at it this way. In the field of Psychology isnt CREATIVITY looked at as a mental illness? Could wanting to eat exotic cuisine or have a varied palate be looked at as an offshoot of creativity, thus mental illness? Or at least a disorder. Maybe that is genetic. I mean lets face it, the majority of people are Hot Pocket eaters who dont wanna branch out to lets say "boiled squid and kimbap" (me and my sons dinner tonight) ....

Oh and Jenna Bush didnt write that book.

**Chris Hennes** · October 25, 2007

7 Years ago they said milk causes diabetes, now they say it prevents it.
←

Seven years ago, a study was published that showed a correlation between infants from at-risk backgrounds' exposure to cow's milk and an increased tendency towards developing antibodies of type I diabetes. The media reported this as "MILK CAUSES DIABETES OMG!!!" The current study shows a correlation between increased dairy consumption and a decreased risk of type II diabetes developing in white men aged 45-59. The media reported this as "MILK PREVENTS DIABETES OMG!!!" Of course, looking at the actual papers presented leaves a much murkier, less media-friendly picture.

But, to drag this back on-topic ( :smile: ): how much does the book emphasize the "deception" aspect of sneaking veggies in, as compared to treating them like a random vitamin supplement to a food the child likes? It seems to me that there is nothing wrong with adding vegetables to random dishes in an attempt to give your children a more healthful diet (albeit perhaps unnecessarily). But I strongly disagree with the idea of saying "here you go, have some spaghetti. I promise there are no veggies in it." Likewise, I'm not a big fan of ghost-authorship. The least they could do is say "By Bob Smith (really tiny print: with Alice's help).

GlorifiedRice · October 25, 2007

Chris? its a gorgeously laid out book, Jerrys name got his wife tons of money to make this book.

Perhaps my beef is not just the lying aspects of it and the fact that in the end your child isnt really getting much veg in their portion, but also the fact that there are other books just like it years prior but Jessicas last name will earn her the "PATENT"! It kinda upsets me just like all these poor voice actors being put out of business when the studios chose to go with top stars in their animated movies to sell more movies.

Does that make sense?

Fat Guy · October 26, 2007

I can't say I feel bad for Missy Chase Lapine.

First, she should have kept her mouth shut. Plenty of other people were already noting the lack of originality of the Seinfeld book. Lapine knows full well nobody stole her idea, and that her idea wasn't original in the first place. The second Lapine started piping up, opportunistically and disingenuously dissing Jessica Seinfeld in the press, she lost my sympathy -- she became just as much of a phony in my eyes as anybody.

Second, she has done just fine financially. HarperCollins may have rejected her book, but six other publishers bid on it in an auction. It's true that Seinfeld's book is number one on the hardcover advice bestseller list, but Lapine's book is also a bestseller -- currently number nine on the paperback advice bestseller list. Lapine has also reportedly just signed up for a six-figure advance for an even stupider sequel about how to sneak vegetables into your husband's food. She may not have been on Oprah, but she got the Today show and is pursuing all sorts of profitable activities related to the book. Don't cry for her.

Third, Lapine is certainly going to sell a lot more books now than she would have if Jessica Seinfeld had never existed. She could never have generated this level of publicity on her own. And still she took the wrong approach. Rather than bitch and moan about Seinfeld's book, Lapine should have adopted an aggressive marketing strategy trying to ride Seinfeld's coattails. She should have tried to become Seinfeld's ally. That way, when Seinfeld gets a million requests for speaking engagements that she can't be bothered with, she can tell the potential client, hey, call Missy Lapine instead. That was a missed opportunity.

Fourth, the Seinfeld book really is a better book. If I cared at all about books like this, I'd buy the Seinfeld book over the Lapine book in a second. It's just a much nicer product, especially for gift-giving and as an object of beauty. The team that put it together hit the nail on the head with tone, content, appearance, etc. They did a great job with it, by the (admittedly low) standards of this sort of project.

Sign In

The Deceptively Delicious Sneaky Chef

Recommended Posts

Dave the Cook

Fat Guy

GlorifiedRice

Fat Guy

Anna N

Fat Guy

Fat Guy

GlorifiedRice

Chris Hennes

Jakea222

GlorifiedRice

Chris Hennes

GlorifiedRice

Fat Guy

Similar Content

Delicious Focaccia

Recently published chef/restaurants books ?

Top Chef 2024 aka Top Chef Wisconsin

KEFIR – Grow Your Own Delicious Drink and Dairy Staple 1 2

Chef Naomi Pomeroy (1974 - 2024)

Recently Browsing 0 members

Browse

Activity

My Activity Streams

Donate

My Details

Help