Judging food

[Dakki]

You know how this goes.

You serve mac and cheese made with real pasta and good cheddar. The kids request Kraft.

You offer a very good homebrew/microbrew ale. Your friend would rather have industrial ultralight lager.

You attend a Mexican-theme potluck and your handmade mole goes untouched while the taco shells filled with commercially seasoned ground meat and shredded lettuce fly off the table.

Your local paper's restaurant reviewer complains the local/organic/artisan eatery is overpriced, the servings are small and the dishes are weird and faddish, and suggests readers should hit the generic Americanized Chinese buffet place instead.

--------------------------------

So here's my thing. It seems self-evident to me that the stuff made from real ingredients just tastes better than than the Minimum Common Denominator, mass-market, industrial stuff but obviously a lot of people (talking about the general population here, not eGullet members) actually like that crap. I put this difference of opinion down to experience, exposure and just having an educated palate.

And I'm not very comfortable with this. On close inspection, the argument is dangerously close to being circular. "The things I like are better than the things you like, because I have a better judgment of things. You can tell I have better judgment because the things I like are better than the things you like."

I don't think it's a secret that there's an ugly strain of reverse elitism in our culture. "Rich, selfish bastards enjoy weird food like raw oysters and lobster and organ meats, McD's should be good enough for everyone but those effete sybarites will eat whatever just so they can look down on working stiffs, who do they think they are." You get the idea. But the opposite, common, garden variety form of elitism is just as ugly and ignorant as the reverse. "I could only cook on a LeSnooty 5000, and it makes all the difference. I just don't know how you make do with that nasty, cheap stove, darling."

So, yeah, here's my conundrum.

If something is objectively, inherently good, it should be recognized as good by people without any education or training. (Mass food producers cater to this demographic).

On the other hand, most of the things I really enjoy (and this I think is true of most of us - remember the very first time you had a sip of beer) are acquired tastes. So it appears an education of some sort (using the word in its widest definition) is necessary to enjoy food beyond the most basic, tastes-sweet-and-leaves-a-satisfying-feeling-of-fullness appreciation.

Obviously if I recommend a restaurant or dish I'm going to suggest something I think the person I'm talking to will enjoy, even if it's a fast food chain, while I'll go have whatever I like. So lets leave that aside.

What I'm talking about here is rating food objectively. I feel the handmade Mennonite cheese I'm munching on right now (which has a smell that kinda reminds me of a barnyard, to be quite honest) has inherently superior taste to process cheese food, even if many people prefer the second but I can't really define why in a satisfactory way.

What do you guys think?

[percival]

There is no way one can sharpen the tongue enough to draw blood.

By this I mean you cannot use objectivity -- the current weapon chosen for the duel -- to actually convince someone else that his taste is wrong and yours is right. There is no more subjective sense than taste. Even language supports this. "A matter of taste" is the most whimsical, non-sensical, unpredictable, unobjective decision. Touch can be measured by sensitivity over an area. Smells are acute, unmistakable, a sense for danger and lust. Vision is measured by wavelengths, as is hearing. But taste -- people taste cilantro different, taste spiciness differently, and have no way to measure the actual amount of taste. There is no tablespoon for bitter. And there is no vocabulary, either. And there are supertasters.

"Stuff made from real ingredients tastes better." The big fifty thousand pyramid sized question there is the definition of real. If I find a pregnant ox and suck on its teat for milk -- is that "real" food? What if it's from a cow instead -- is a cow more real?What about a cow selectively bred for milk? What if it's a cow that's the same as the last cow, even at a chromosonal level? What if it's from a wild cow I found one day while hiking that once was pregnant, but I locked it up and now keep milking it every morning with a machine? What if's not milk from a cow, but yak milk that has been partially digested by bacteria, and added to the same yak's blood? What if it's from a cow, actually the one I locked up, but I didn't find it -- I bought it from a company in China -- are Chinese cows real? What if I didn't buy the whole cow, but just bought the milk for one night -- is that one night real? What if I went back to that wild cow, sucked out some milk, let bacteria eat some of it, put it in a plastic bottle with more water and carbon dioxide, is that real? What if I then sold it, instead of drinking it myself? What if I took it out of a cow, shared it with some bacteria, dried it out, put it in a neat package, and sold it to you, would that be real? "Sure, that's my barny cheese."

But if it's not a cow I'm milking, but an ear of corn, then it's corn syrup, not cheese. And if I share that corn syrup with some more bacteria, I have high fructose corn syrup. Which is more real, cheese or HFCS? Which is more real, milk or corn? If I cut up a chicken with a knife, bread the meat, and heat it in oil, I have a chicken nugget. If I cut up a chicken with a lot of really sharp knives that move very fast, bread -all- the chicken, and heat it in oil, I have a chicken nugget. Which is more real? If I eat a lot of raw pork, I might die from trichonosis. If I eat a lot of cured pork, I might die from cancer. If I eat a lot a lot of raw cocoa beans, I'll die. If I drink a lot a lot of coffee, I'll die. Which is more real?

There are a lot of assumptions being made. "Inherent," "superior," "real." In regard to the question of taste, there is no way anyone can objectively back those up with anything other than a shovel. Better is easy: give someone a choice and have them taste. Subjectively better. Objectively? Never.

And there are multiple massive ocean sized cans of worms I will not touch regarding the existence of anything being "objectively, inherently good."

Edited October 3, 2010 by percival (log)

[Dakki]

Sorry, I thought it was clear from the context of my post that "real" refers to ingredients that have a close relationship with their sources, eg chocolate vs chocolate flavoring, cheese vs process cheese food, vanilla extract vs vanilla flavoring.

Anyway, following to your argument, McD's is objectively just as good as The Fat Duck, and any preference one way or another is purely subjective. It follows that the rational choice (given the price differential and relative difficulty of getting a reservation) is to train oneself to prefer McD's. Given you're posting on eGullet I'm pretty sure that's not what you believe but that is what you're saying.

Try again?

[Jenni]

I think it's a difficult issue. Firstly, different people like different things. Personally, I don't enjoy smokey tastes, and I'm not a huge fan of sweet-tasting roasted vegetables such as peppers, onions, etc. But that doesn't mean that a dish made from these ingredients wouldn't taste good to someone else. And as you mentioned, people can grow to like things, either through repeatedly exposing themself to a flavour or because their tastebuds have changed with age. For instance, I now like olives because I kept forcing myself to eat them until they tasted good, and my brother now likes wine even though when he was younger he hated it. Another factor would be the kind of food you were brought up with - my Nan for instance likes quite soft vegetables as that is how they were always cooked in her house.

I think one of the things you are getting at is that a dish made from more "natural", "real" ingredients should taste better than a mass-produced, low quality product. Now, first let's acknowledge that the words "natural", "real", "quality", and even "mass-produced" can trip us up when we use them to describe food, so let's use an example instead. Let's compare a home made burger made from good quality meat, freshly chopped onions, nice pickles, decent bread, etc. with a McDonalds burger. Hey, let's even go further and add home made chips (I'm using this word in the UK sense! So fries for Americans) and compare them to the McD kind.

Logic suggests that the former meal should taste better than the latter. Maybe it does to some people. But other people may like the McDonalds version better. Now why is that? Well, there could be a number of factors. If the person in question is a regular McD eater, then maybe they recognise the flavour and it seems familiar and comforting to them. Or maybe they eat a lot of mass produced food in general and the combination of sugar, salt and fat is something they crave, that their taste buds are used to. I remember reading once that this combination of sugar, fat and salt has an almost addictive quality. Perhaps if you eat it regularly your taste buds begin to expect it and you find food containing other flavour profiles less tasty, or even weird tasting.

There are other things to consider too. Do people actually think that McDonalds is better than a home-made burger, or is it just more convenient? Less expensive? Less work for them? A fun night out with the kids/ friends. A taste of childhood? Someone might still enjoy eating a McDonalds burger even though they know they can make a "better" burger at home, or buy one from a slightly more upscale restaurant.

At the end of the day, I think it's important to realise that what people enjoy eating is up to them. It's a personal thing. You can tell them that it's rubbish, but don't expect them to care or listen or be happy that you think you have the right to tell them that. If you feel guilty about your food preferences, than maybe it's because secretly you know that it's unhealthy or low quality or involves some kind of moral dillema. And then maybe it's time to re-educate your tastebuds - start eating fresh foods cooked from scratch whenever you can. And then maybe that McDonalds burger won't taste so good anymore.

[percival]

Sorry, I thought it was clear from the context of my post that "real" refers to ingredients that have a close relationship with their sources, eg chocolate vs chocolate flavoring, cheese vs process cheese food, vanilla extract vs vanilla flavoring.

Anyway, following to your argument, McD's is objectively just as good as The Fat Duck, and any preference one way or another is purely subjective. It follows that the rational choice (given the price differential and relative difficulty of getting a reservation) is to train oneself to prefer McD's. Given you're posting on eGullet I'm pretty sure that's not what you believe but that is what you're saying.

Try again?

Okay. That's yet another assumption on your part.

Chocolate is not as close to its source as raw cocoa bean. By your argument, eating a raw cocoa bean tastes better, inherently. Cheese is as close to its source, a dairy cow, as high fructose corn syrup is to an ear of GMO corn. I'd argue HFCS is a lot closer, because it takes even less time and resources to produce. I'm using corn from one batch, as opposed to say organically produced artisanal cheddar that is washed with assorted butters repeatedly over the course of a year. Oh, and the rennet used to make the cheddar doesn't come from that same animal that popped out the milk. It's probably harvested from non organic cattle sent to slaughter to make Big Macs.

The more raw and unprocessed a food is, the closer to its natural source, equates its inherent goodness, and thus its taste. That's your argument. And then you stack up Fat Duck on a pedestal as an example of superlative "realness" -- possibly as far as one could get from raw without having to resort true molecular gastronomy: the processed foods you find in the supermarket. All the oohs and ohs about hydrocolloids as the next big thing -- you'll find the same level of science going in to make a pint of Ben & Jerry's Chunky Monkey. The only real difference between ice cream at WD40 vs. Safeway is that for the price of one serving of Wiley ice cream, you could purchase 50 servings of Ben & Jerry's. That price difference, the exclusivity, and the implication that a meal served for one person versus a meal served for many, is what I think you actually mean by "real." Of course, this is not just your definition of real, but many people who can afford to pay 50 times more for food than most people.

And I neither imply nor state that familiarity breeds preference. In fact, I'd say it's the opposite. Familiarity breeds contempt. You pay more for something if there's less of it. That's just economics. And paying more infers psychological value. People enjoy things more if they pay more for them -- at an actual, objective, measurable, physiological level.

You hate McDonald's because it's everywhere you look, everywhere you go. You pay to go to St. Bart's so you can be surrounded by the un-McDonald's. You go to elBulli so you can say you went to elBulli. You eat d'Artagnon because you can call it d'Artagnon. Your food you consume is a brand, Keller no different than Colonel. Local just means you can say, "Yes. They're right over in Sonoma. They give lovely tours. What? You've never been? Oh you must..." Tisk, Tisk.

I'm not talking about quality of product here. I'm talking about this thing you call "real" food. If you give good product -- measurably, objectively defined such as chicken that is not diseased, that is not decaying, that is chicken and not saline, that is actually food safe as opposed to "organic," that is actually fresh versus "local."

If you want an object definition of better tasting food, search for measurable results that aren't tied to political, moral, fashionable whims.

~*~

As for food at a personal level, I believe that good food comes from solely two things: good product and good product handlers.

Garbage in, garbage out. Keep the cleanest signal-to-noise ratio. You feed a cow its own ground up excrement and grandmother and you get a piece of meat that probably doesn't taste far off from what it's fed. Why do I believe this? Because cows taste like what they're fed. Why do I believe this? Because I can taste the difference between a grass fed cow versus a corn fed cow versus a cow feed beer, etc. Can I taste the difference between a cow that had a name versus a cow that came from China versus a cow that came from California? No. And I'd bet 9 out of 10 people couldn't, either. Give me the meat and I'll do the double blind taste test. But don't throw out "real" and "local" and "organic" as defensible proof without more backing than just a pair of clean hands and a Saab in the garage.

Blumenthal's food is better than McDonald's food not because it is "real," or unreal. It's better because when you pay a chef with years of experience 30 times what a 16 year old kid with zero years of experience makes and tell them both, "do your job," guess which one unsurprisingly does a better job? Give Morimoto a McDonald's frozen fish filet, and give the 16 year old kid a kilo of ohtoro -- guess which one does a better job? My bet is on the one who can actually spell fillet and ohtoro.

And just because Alice Waters might pay $10 a pound for artisinal "local" potatoes doesn't necessarily mean that she can make better tasting french fries with "real, organic" salt and "artisanal, sustainable" vegetable oil than that 16 year old kid with his frozen pre-processed fries from Azerbaijanistanlandia and an industrial vat of trans fat. Nothing is better than french fries for giving damning evidence to the argument that what separates great tasting food from horrendous food is proper process, process, process.

[IndyRob]

I think the problem is that when we make a plate of food for someone, we're not just putting a plate in front of a person, we're putting it up against a huge history of food memories and expectations going back to childhood.

Back when I was a rude teenager, I was at someone else's house and they asked if I would like a Coke. Yes, please. When I got it I took a sip and reflexively nearly spat it out. "Eww, what's this?", I said, clearly offending my host.

It was Pepsi.

Think about the New Coke phenomenon. Pepsi was beating Coke in blind taste tests. So the folks at Coca Cola developed a new formula that beat Pepsi in blind taste tests. They had an objective measurement that their new formula tasted better. So they released the new formula with much fanfare.

Epic FAIL.

Everyone hated it and it went down as one of the biggest blunders ever. I think that was down to my Pepsi experience. You open the can with a certain expectation. One that's dashed as soon as it hits your mouth. In a more extreme example, I was once engaged in a lively conversation with a friend in my kitchen. I reached into the fridge to grab a beer and, without looking, opened it and took a sip. It was a diet coke. The shock was such that I could, again, barely contain contain the liquid within my mouth. It was all I could do not to spew it all over the floor. But I like Diet Coke. I drink it all the time.

I think it's a natural, evolutionary trait. If you take a bite of meat and it doesn't taste or feel like you expect, get rid of it. It's gone bad.

I think we can see collective effects of expectations born in childhood influencing regional cuisines. Look at pizzas in New York, Detroit and Chicago. Very different things. Or hot dogs. Very distinctive. OMG, look at Philadelphia - They're putting Cheese Whiz on good steak!

[Jenni]

Blumenthal's food is better than McDonald's food not because it is "real," or unreal. It's better because when you pay a chef with years of experience 30 times what a 16 year old kid with zero years of experience makes and tell them both, "do your job," guess which one unsurprisingly does a better job? Give Morimoto a McDonald's frozen fish filet, and give the 16 year old kid a kilo of ohtoro -- guess which one does a better job? My bet is on the one who can actually spell fillet and ohtoro.

Hmm, at the risk of completely humiliating myself, I disagree with this. I would say that McDonalds is less good because it uses poorer quality ingredients and makes large quantities of its products at a time, which are then kept warm before they are consumed (yes, I know they have a set amount of time they can keep the food in the warming bit for, but there's still a waiting period). They are also aiming at a totally different market. The Fat Duck, as an example, is trying to be innovative and creative with food. McDonalds is trying to make fast food that people will come back and buy over and over again, because it's convenient, cheap and hits that fast-food-taste spot. They use the magic sugar-fat-salt combination to make their food appealing, whereas The Fat Duck is trying to change your expectations of taste and the food combinations that you eat.

Although the amount of training that a chef has will of course affect their ability to prepare delicious food, I don't think it's the reason that The Fat Duck is "better" than McDonalds...then again you are comparing two very different establishments that aren't really competing with each other anyway.

[Dakki]

Jenni - I think you make some strong points and you're absolutely right about getting tripped up on language.

Percival - I thought you'd misunderstood me before and now I'm sure of it. Probably my fault, or maybe I can just blame the vagueness of the English language as applied to food and try to get away with it?

I'll give it another shot.

Food as prepared by gigantic restaurant chains is designed to satisfy the palates of the vast majority of people. On the other hand, food as prepared by restaurants at the other end of the scale, whether it's the artisan, locavore variety, molecular gastronomy joints with a lab for a kitchen or an extremely traditional "ethnic food" places that fly in their ingredients are often challenging to the untrained palate.

This doesn't just apply to restaurants; to recycle an example from the OP, homemade mac and cheese prepared with real cheese (and here I'm going to insist that cheddar is "real cheese" in a way powdered cheese from an envelope is not; if you insist there's no difference, we could just argue about that or agree not to get hung up on semantics) is something most foodies will recognize as a worthy dish, while the box variety is notoriously preferred by children, who presumably have the most untrained (which call also be called unspoiled) tastes.

Now, the majority of people like, or at least are okay with, foods that people who care deeply about food recognize as being low quality; and these people who care about food, in turn, seem to prefer foods that are at least somewhat challenging to the mass consumer.

So there's a contradiction there.

Now, I feel that this sort of non-mass-consumer-oriented food is better, and I'm trying to figure out if this is a rational position or not; and, based on that reasoning (which I don't have yet) figure out a starting point from which one could derive an objective standard for food, which could be applied to restaurant reviews and so on without letting the reviewer's personal preferences intrude.

Anyway thank you both for putting so much thought into this topic.

[Chris Amirault]

Now, the majority of people like, or at least are okay with, foods that people who care deeply about food recognize as being low quality; and these people who care about food, in turn, seem to prefer foods that are at least somewhat challenging to the mass consumer.

So there's a contradiction there.

While I sort of understand what you're saying, I'm confused. I deeply enjoyed Alinea and adore sour cream 'n' onion potato chips; I have to decide between a bowl of pho or a Filet-o-Fish at one particular intersection in town. One can argue that these are different sorts of experiences, but I think that the combination throws the assumptions in the paragraph above into question. Unless, of course, you think folks like me are a walking contradiction, something I can live with.

[Dakki]

I'm not sure I'm saying exactly what I mean myself Chris. I'm a huge fan of the nastiest (yeah, there's another nice, clear word) sort of Mexican candy myself but I don't think that's contradictory.

How about we scratch out "low quality" in the part you quoted and change it to "uninspired" or "boring" instead?

EDIT: OK, what I mean is, a lot of the foods made for the mass market are not very interesting. Obviously there's space in that market for some interesting foods, but that doesn't change the fact that most of the things most people prefer to eat (or at least, are OK with eating) are pretty boring.

On the other hand, the sort of things most people who care a lot about eating are more complex and maybe challenging to someone who isn't used to them.

Edited October 4, 2010 by Dakki (log)

[ElaineK]

EDIT: OK, what I mean is, a lot of the foods made for the mass market are not very interesting. Obviously there's space in that market for some interesting foods, but that doesn't change the fact that most of the things most people prefer to eat (or at least, are OK with eating) are pretty boring.

On the other hand, the sort of things most people who care a lot about eating are more complex and maybe challenging to someone who isn't used to them.

Change "foods" to the word of your choice and the statement is probably equally true. Software, televisions, automobiles, statistics, journalism, music, literature, movies, art...

[percival]

Societies as a whole are by nature conservative. And at society's fringes are its members who push and pull it to and fro. If you're trying to come up with a proposition, an argument, a pitch to sell normally conservative people risky foods, you first need to determine if it's possible at all with that target audience. There are risk averse people who will never sway from their sacred divine holy trinity of meat, potatoes, and milk. And there are people who would never be caught dead eating something so plebeian. If you're trying to sway the former, you just need to give them what they know in a different wrapper. If you're trying to sway the latter, you need an even more exotic wrapper. The product is the difference. The process is the same.

You're getting caught up in the concept of "better food." That's a tough sell. Frankly, dining out is terrible for your health, period. The servings are absurdly huge, in particular meat and saturated fats. Most of the salt Americans get in their diet is from dining out -- far more salt than is needed and far more salt than is healthy. And this is universally across the board, from McDonald's to Michelin. And that's also all irrelevant. People don't pay big bucks to eat out for their health. They want novelty, convenience, entertainment, romance, surprise, education, diversion, etc. Pitch that. You're just trying to sell someone a different experience, not an "inherently better" experience.

[Jenni]

This doesn't just apply to restaurants; to recycle an example from the OP, homemade mac and cheese prepared with real cheese (and here I'm going to insist that cheddar is "real cheese" in a way powdered cheese from an envelope is not; if you insist there's no difference, we could just argue about that or agree not to get hung up on semantics) is something most foodies will recognize as a worthy dish, while the box variety is notoriously preferred by children, who presumably have the most untrained (which call also be called unspoiled) tastes.

I don't want you to think I'm just nitpicking and disagreeing with you, but there's something I want to pick up on here. I think it would be incorrect to think that children have unspoiled taste by the time they are choosing a box of Mac 'n' cheese over home-made. I think your tastes are very dependent on what you are brought up on, and this can change even when you are a child. I was brought up with "proper" home made food, not pre-prepared kid food like fish fingers and chips and so on. We just ate smaller portions of what Mum and Dad were having, and in restaurants even we never ate off the childrens' menu. Consequently, when I went to other childrens' houses and was served fish fingers, chicken nuggets, etc. out of a packet I was not a fan. Because it was not something I was used to eating as a treat, quite frankly it didn't compare with Mum's homemade.

I think children are very influenced by what they see their friends eating, what they think they should be eating (I've worked as a lunch supervisor at a school and I can tell you now that a lot of kids will refuse to eat things in their lunchbox that are unusual or considered more healthy when at school but when you tell their parents they are totally confused, as the child will eat this at home...e.g. not in front of their peers who are munching on dairylea lunchables and other crap), what they see advertised, etc. If they are brought up in an environment where Mum or Dad doesn't have time to argue and buys them whatever box they point at in the shops, or where Mum and Dad think that a child will find something out of a box to be a treat and therefore regularly buys it, then I think a child will get used to it and accept it as good food.

In summary, to me it seems clear that children often like something based on the perception, so for instance a certain brand of fish fingers might be a cool, fun food with a funny advert. Their friends eat it, it wouldn't be considered weird. Home-made stuff can be "weird". Mac 'n' cheese from a box might have it's own connotations. But if you made your own and served it to them without explicitly stating where it was from (box or your own larder), will the child actually notice or mind? I don't think they would in all cases. Maybe some children would, but I think then you could argue that it's not unspoiled tastes at work, but the fact that they have become used to the flavour of processed cheese and again that magical combo of salt-sugar-fat.

(Incidentally, on the few times I have tried processed (as in mass-produced, pre-prepared food products - I know the word processed is another problem but you know what I mean!) foods I have found them far too sweet, even savoury items. My thoughts are that over time this sweetness is not only addictive, but becomes the expectation. Therefore a home-made version of the product lacks sweetness and does not meet the expectation, so may not be considered as enjoyable by the regular proccessed food eater.)

[percival]

My toddler eats the the same food I do. The only stuff I don't give him is anything with nitrates or caffeine. He eats everything that I do: osso bucco, tripe, jellyfish, chicken feet, fermented shrimp paste, miso, tofu, blood cake, Tabasco, fish sauce, tendon, oyster sauce, hmm, trying to think of more barbaric cuisine....

He hates mac and cheese. Hates ketchup. Hates anything breaded, like chicken strips or fish sticks. He loves fish tacos, likes them with pico de gallo and raw cabbage and corn tortillas.

He hates sweet anything, like fruit, ice cream, candy, etc. He'll drink a smoothie though. He'll drink anything.

He loves noodles, rice, eggs, cheese, and bitter greens. Those are his favorites. Noodles + cheese? Nope. It's a textural thing. Pizza? Nope. Doesn't like the doughy bread, just eats the crusty end and the cheese. How gauche. And he's not yet 2.

Take that wrench and give it a twirl.

Oh and I dunno about him imitating peers. He's never been in day care. On play dates, he ignores children. They're of no interest for kids his age, generally.

[IndyRob]

My toddler eats the the same food I do. The only stuff I don't give him is anything with nitrates or caffeine. He eats everything that I do: osso bucco, tripe, jellyfish, chicken feet, fermented shrimp paste, miso, tofu, blood cake, Tabasco, fish sauce, tendon, oyster sauce, hmm, trying to think of more barbaric cuisine....

He hates mac and cheese. Hates ketchup. Hates anything breaded, like chicken strips or fish sticks. He loves fish tacos, likes them with pico de gallo and raw cabbage and corn tortillas.

He hates sweet anything, like fruit, ice cream, candy, etc. He'll drink a smoothie though. He'll drink anything.

He loves noodles, rice, eggs, cheese, and bitter greens. Those are his favorites. Noodles + cheese? Nope. It's a textural thing. Pizza? Nope. Doesn't like the doughy bread, just eats the crusty end and the cheese. How gauche. And he's not yet 2.

Take that wrench and give it a twirl.

Oh and I dunno about him imitating peers. He's never been in day care. On play dates, he ignores children. They're of no interest for kids his age, generally.

That's just a little bit scary.

[Kat Tanaka Okopnik]

Scary, really?

My oldest, now 3, and a picky eater, was like that.

And then people started feeding him sweets, and he's a fiend. It makes me cry, actually, because he was an absolute dream of an adventurous eater a year ago. I had the same system - he could eat anything after age 1, except for lots of nitrites, and caffeine. One night, we had a guest over for dinner who refused his veg, and wanted ketchup and the next thing I know, I have a ketchup loving veg hater. WAH!