Your most disliked trend in the food industry.

[liuzhou]

Idiotic menu items such as "Cornish hen coq au vin".

If you don't know basic biology, I don't trust you to make my food.

Didn't you get a sex education?

Did you really import your HEN from Cornwall to Canada?

Or are you just being pompous? And ignorant?

But what really amused me today was reading a wine list which happily told me "All wines by the glass at Treadwell are served in Schott Zwiesel glassware"

Tell me about the frigging wine, not the container you serve it in, donkeys!

Edited December 14, 2012 by liuzhou (log)

[tsp.]

My most disliked current trend is foraging, and it seems to be popping up on menus all over the place. I don't want to eat a plate of stuff that I could pick in the laneway outside, and I don't think it's in any way interesting to eat foods that most people walk on merely because it's "foraged". If it tastes great then fine, but if it doesn't add anything to the dish other than massaging the chef's ego, leave it off the plate!

Rene Redzepi has a lot to answer for.

So does Ben Shewry, but I'm all for foraging. Especially nettles, it's an underrated weed.

[SylviaLovegren]

Making it really really difficult to find cream that's not ultra-pasteurized. Stuff has a dead taste that I dislike intensely but even a lot of health food stores sell only organic ultra-pasteurized. Grrrrr.

[Brown Hornet]

But what really amused me today was reading a wine list which happily told me "All wines by the glass at Treadwell are served in Schott Zwiesel glassware"

Tell me about the frigging wine, not the container you serve it in, donkeys!

I suspect this was part of a deal with Schott Zwiesel to get a better price for glassware. If not, then yes highly pretentious and irritating.

[chefmd]

Mashed potatoes server in martini glasses with toppings buffet. Potatoes are usually cold by the time they are served. Add cold toppings to that... I prefer vodka in my martini, gin if you must.

[DanM]

12oz pints of beer... I can't get behid that!!

[gfweb]

Mercola? Oh man. Fucking Mercola.

and that fraud, Oz.

[Porthos]

12oz pints of beer... I can't get behid that!!

Huh??? Who's failing at basic measurements in their marketing? It's either a 12 fl. oz serving or a 16 fl. oz serving - period. Hanger 24 in Redlands, CA still knows what a real pint is.

[Baselerd]

Whatever the case with irradiation one needs to see it in context with other things we do to food...like grilling it or baking it..and what potentially toxic stuff is generated the old fashioned way.

Very true. Evidence of formation of certain compounds is hardly a definitive answer on the health impact. Smoking meat, or any cooking method that causes smoke technically exposes your food to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (carcinogenic). Yet the levels are so low most people don't worry about it. I suspect the same with gamma irradiated food. Just to give an idea, this is the same technique that is used to sterilize medical implants, pharmaceutical packaging, and many other commonplace things.

My take is a lot of people don't like any word that includes "radiation". I believe it was this same paranoia that caused the healthcare industry to drop the "nuclear" from nuclear magnetic resonance imaging - giving us the MRI.

[haresfur]

The proliferation of GMOs is, in my opinion, the most disturbing trend in food.

~Martin

Irradiated food is another.

The resistance to irradiated food is a more disturbing trend IMO. But perhaps we need a separate thread - I didn't think there was a trend to irradiated food.

[Martin Fisher]

No GMOs or irradiation for me, only real un-nuked food.

I've survived this long on mostly home-grown food without it and can't think of a good reason why I should embrace it.

~Martin

[Hassouni]

12oz pints of beer... I can't get behid that!!

Huh??? Who's failing at basic measurements in their marketing? It's either a 12 fl. oz serving or a 16 fl. oz serving - period. Hanger 24 in Redlands, CA still knows what a real pint is.

20 Imperial damn ounces

[Baselerd]

No GMOs or irradiation for me, only real un-nuked food.

I've survived this long on mostly home-grown food without it and can't think of a good reason why I should embrace it.

~Martin

A gross oversimplification of the issue.

GMO are generally designed to have superior disease resistance, better tolerance to weather conditions, or provide higher yield. Nothing unhealthy about it - the only problem people have with it is getting over their discomfort with ideas they don't fully comprehend imo.

All a microwave does is heat water in your food. Once again, nothing unnatural about that - although admittedly the microwave isn't the best tool for preparing most foods.

Once again people need be better educated on what irradiated food is. It is not radioactive food. It is simply a mechanism for killing most spoilage mechanisms in food, and unlike standard mechanisms of pasteurization, it does not appreciably heat the food. It has been postulated that following the widespread adoption of these techniques fresh global food products (produce) will be vastly more available. It will also dramatically decrease food waste, which is an obvious major contribution to sustaining the exploding human population. The industry is already changing the name of the technique to "electronic pasteurization so that the paranoia of the word "irradiated" by the uneducated masses can be averted.

[gfweb]

Weighing the purely philosophical distaste for electronically sterilized food vs. the real risks of food poisoning, it would seem that there would be no rational argument to be made against it.

People die from food poisoning. Recall the spinach debacle of a few years ago. Or the never-ending stories of contaminated ground beef and kids and old folks dying needlessly.

Would you like a rare burger to be served in a restaurant? Make the meat safe.

But we live in a time when science is distrusted reflexively by some (eg lifesaving vaccines are blamed for all sorts of ills with not a shred of evidence) The people who know the least, shout the loudest and unfortunately are heard by legislators who are just as dumb and are motivated by self-interest.

[Martin Fisher]

No GMOs or irradiation for me, only real un-nuked food.

I've survived this long on mostly home-grown food without it and can't think of a good reason why I should embrace it.

~Martin

A gross oversimplification of the issue.

GMO are generally designed to have superior disease resistance, better tolerance to weather conditions, or provide higher yield. Nothing unhealthy about it - the only problem people have with it is getting over their discomfort with ideas they don't fully comprehend imo.

All a microwave does is heat water in your food. Once again, nothing unnatural about that - although admittedly the microwave isn't the best tool for preparing most foods.

Once again people need be better educated on what irradiated food is. It is not radioactive food. It is simply a mechanism for killing most spoilage mechanisms in food, and unlike standard mechanisms of pasteurization, it does not appreciably heat the food. It has been postulated that following the widespread adoption of these techniques fresh global food products (produce) will be vastly more available. It will also dramatically decrease food waste, which is an obvious major contribution to sustaining the exploding human population. The industry is already changing the name of the technique to "electronic pasteurization so that the paranoia of the word "irradiated" by the uneducated masses can be averted.

Just because you see benefits in it doesn't mean that other people will appreciate the same benefits.

We all have different goals and standards when it comes to food.

If it's something that benefits you, more power to you, but don't insist that others are ignorant just because they don't embrace it and agree.

Even if it is a good thing, it's not something that should be forced on anyone, IMHO, I'm a firm believer in food sovereignty.

We don't need to go as far as GMOs or irradiation to see how a supposedly "good idea" isn't good for everyone.

Take ultra-pastuerized cream as an example.

Many people see it as a wonderful thing, it has a very long shelf life. More power to them!!! I'm happy that they're happy!!!

Is ultra-pasteurization necessary? No!

Is ultra-pasteurization good for everyone? A big NO!!!

In my opinion, it's a horrible product compared to raw cream or even the old-style vat pasteurized cream because the high heat alters many of the flavor components, destroying the flavor. The high heat also alters proteins and fat that contribute to the thick creaminess and mouthfeel of real cream. In order to counteract the loss in quality, thickening agents like guar gum and carrageenan are added to duplicate the original thickness. On top of all that, it's not usable in the making of many cheeses!!!. It's nothing like real cream!

Unfortunately, the stuff is being forced on multitudes of folks because some think it's a "good idea".

Ultra-pasteurized cream? No thank you! It's not for me!!!

Do I think that other people are "dumb" because they do not agree with me? Of course not!

What they put in their mouth is their business!!!!

Am I dumb because I don't agree with them? I think it's unfortunate that some people seem to think so.

Again, I'm a firm believer in food sovereignty, I'll make the decisions about what I put in my mouth, not someone else, just because they think it's a "good idea"!!!!

~Martin

Edited December 14, 2012 by DiggingDogFarm (log)

[Baselerd]

Sorry, I didn't mean to offend. I agree completely with you regarding ultra-pasteurized cream - that technique has an obvious effect on the quality of the cream.

However, GMO and gamma irradiation processes do not reduce the quality of the product, or alter it in any detrimental way. Gamma irradiation would actually be a good alternative to heat-based pasteurization of raw milk, providing you with a milk or cream with all of the textural properties of raw milk but the safety and long shelf life of pasteurized cream.

There is no logical reason, or any reason founded in science, that would support the resistance against these processes. So I have concluded the only thing standing between us and progress is the paranoia of people who are uneducated in the matter. Not to offend, but there just isn't a defensible position that I see on the other side...

[munchymom]

My concern with food irradiation is that it would lead to even more carelessness in food processing than there already is. If you know the meat is going to be irradiated, why bother to keep the poop out of it? Much more efficient to ignore hygiene, run the processing lines ever faster, in pursuit of higher profits - and the consumer gets to eat irradiated poop. (We already get to eat ammonia-soaked poop - see "pink slime".)

My concern with GMO is similar to the concern with over-use of antibiotics - in the long term, by spraying everything in sight with pesticides, we are breeding pesticide-resistant weeds, requiring ever-higher doses of pesticide to continue farming. Also, what happens when the Roundup Ready Corn Blight shows up, and the entire country's crop is lost because every farmer has planted the same variety?

Fears of GMO and food irradiation are not solely based on '50s science-fiction hysteria. There are real reasons to be skeptical of "advances" in the food system that benefit big agribusiness in the short term, but could endanger food supply in the long run.

[Martin Fisher]

re: GMOs and Irradiation resistance not logical.

Someone could also make the argument that eating Oscar Meyer Lunchables on a regular basis is a logical thing to do!

Sorry, it's not for me!!

I think that the food sovereignty and freedom of choice are defensible positions.

~Martin

Edited December 14, 2012 by DiggingDogFarm (log)

[Martin Fisher]

My concern with food irradiation is that it would lead to even more carelessness in food processing than there already is. If you know the meat is going to be irradiated, why bother to keep the poop out of it? Much more efficient to ignore hygiene, run the processing lines ever faster, in pursuit of higher profits - and the consumer gets to eat irradiated poop. (We already get to eat ammonia-soaked poop - see "pink slime".)

I agree with you there!

It's already happening in the case of pasteurization, folks are much less careful about how food is handled because they know that pasteurization should take care of the problem.

~Martin

Edited December 14, 2012 by DiggingDogFarm (log)

[DanM]

A little more on the 14oz pints that are showing up in restaurants everywhere.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121279252381153273.html

[gfweb]

My concern with food irradiation is that it would lead to even more carelessness in food processing than there already is. If you know the meat is going to be irradiated, why bother to keep the poop out of it? Much more efficient to ignore hygiene, run the processing lines ever faster, in pursuit of higher profits - and the consumer gets to eat irradiated poop. (We already get to eat ammonia-soaked poop - see "pink slime".)

I agree with you there!

It's already happening in the case of pasteurization, folks are much less careful about how food is handled because they know that pasteurization should take care of the problem.

~Martin

So pasteurization is a new-fangled thing that folks are beginning to abuse?

[gfweb]

re: GMOs and Irradiation resistance not logical.

Someone could also make the argument that eating Oscar Meyer Lunchables on a regular basis is a logical thing to do!

Sorry, it's not for me!!

I think that the food sovereignty and freedom of choice are defensible positions.

~Martin

Of course they are defensible. They just have nothing to do with whether irradiation is safe. You can choose not to eat irradiated food, but we aren't discussing your choice.

[Martin Fisher]

re: GMOs and Irradiation resistance not logical.

Someone could also make the argument that eating Oscar Meyer Lunchables on a regular basis is a logical thing to do!

Sorry, it's not for me!!

I think that the food sovereignty and freedom of choice are defensible positions.

~Martin

Of course they are defensible. They just have nothing to do with whether irradiation is safe. You can choose not to eat irradiated food, but we aren't discussing your choice.

I never said that the reason I avoid it is because it's unsafe.

~Martin

[Martin Fisher]

My concern with food irradiation is that it would lead to even more carelessness in food processing than there already is. If you know the meat is going to be irradiated, why bother to keep the poop out of it? Much more efficient to ignore hygiene, run the processing lines ever faster, in pursuit of higher profits - and the consumer gets to eat irradiated poop. (We already get to eat ammonia-soaked poop - see "pink slime".)

I agree with you there!

It's already happening in the case of pasteurization, folks are much less careful about how food is handled because they know that pasteurization should take care of the problem.

~Martin

So pasteurization is a new-fangled thing that folks are beginning to abuse?

Who said it's new-fangled? I certainly didn't.

The abuse, by some, has been happening for a very long time.

~Martin

[Baselerd]

My concern with food irradiation is that it would lead to even more carelessness in food processing than there already is. If you know the meat is going to be irradiated, why bother to keep the poop out of it? Much more efficient to ignore hygiene, run the processing lines ever faster, in pursuit of higher profits - and the consumer gets to eat irradiated poop. (We already get to eat ammonia-soaked poop - see "pink slime".)

There are already acceptable contamination levels set by the FDA, called "Food Defect Action Levels" if I recall. Basically - regardless of any pasteurization or irradiation processes used - there is a limit set for food contaminants (insects, insect larvae, rodent hair, fungi, mammal feces, etc) below which is deemed safe. As long as the amount of poop in the package is below this limit the FDA allows the sale of those products. These contaminants are not only from insects on produce during harvest, or residual feces left in butchered animals, but also from pests within the food packaging environments. In light of that, I would argue it is better to irradiate the food if you're concerned about eating un-sterilized animal feces.