Organic vs Molecular Explained

[ChefRobb]

Organic, processed, and modernist foods compared and explained.

I recently watched a video lecture givin by a Chef famous for his use of molecular gastronomy (hereafter refered to as modernist) after the lecture a member of the audience asked, "There seem to be two different movements popular now, organic foods and molecular gastronomy. Do you see these as being at odds with one-another?"

The Chef balked a little in his answer as many do when asked this sort of question.

The purpose of this post is to take a look at each type of food processing and to understand the purpose and values of each.

FIrst I would like to point out that the two ends of the spectrum are not organic and modernist. The spectrum is more like: whole food - organic foods - modernist - processed.

Whole foods are straight from the ground with minimum or no processing (whole wheat).

Organics are foods that use no artificial chemicals during their growing cycle but are otherwise processed into various foods.

Modernist foods are those that use ingredients typically used in commercial mass-produced, processed foods in new ways to produce results that cannot be achieved through conventional methods, to improve on conventional results, and/or to create entirely new products.

Processed foods are those that use additives to facilitate long term storage, ease of use by the consumer, and consistant predictable outcomes.

Whole foods are advantgeous because instead of just drinking apple juice, eating the entire apple also gives texture and more flavor (from the skins). Whole wheat is more nutritious because processing removes a lot of the nutrition and fiber from the end product.

Processed foods provide consistant and convenient dishes that also save time. The additives help powdered mixes from clumping together, others boost flavors that are lost during storage, and others replace more perishable ingredients with shelf-stable alternative.

Modernist foods take the best from all catagories and use them to create dishes intended for their clients. Just because tapioca maltodextrine is used commercially to stabalize oils in cake mixes or used as a filler doesn't mean that it can't also be used to create powdered caramel that returns to it's original state when placed in the mouth. Modernist cooks don't restrict themselves by convention but strive for the same thing as people from the other camps....to create the best product they can.

In my home kitchen and in the commercial kitchens I work at I use ingredients and methods from all these camps. In a perfect world everything would be made from scratch, from products I pull out of the ground myself, and do the absolute minimum amount of processing to produce delicious, healthy foods at an affordable cost. But real world challenges mean weighing priorities and making comprimises to get the best balance of these and to pay the bills at the same time.

I realize these are generalization but an exaustive explaination would be....well... exausting. What are your thoughts?

[Mjx]

. . .

I recently watched a video lecture givin by a Chef famous for his use of molecular gastronomy (hereafter refered to as modernist) after the lecture a member of the audience asked, "There seem to be two different movements popular now, organic foods and molecular gastronomy. Do you see these as being at odds with one-another?"

. . . .

I'm not surprised the chef in question initially balked at answering this question, since the two concepts can exist completely independently of one another, really have nothing to do with each other.

'Organic' addresses the level of ingredients, while 'Modernist' refers to techniques and approaches.

You can cook organic (and locally sourced, humanely-raised and slaughtered, etc.) beef sous vide (and maybe cut into strips, braided together with some strips of chicken, the whole held together with transglutaminase), and you can also use this technique to cook beef from animals raised under confined conditions, laced with every conceivable chemical used to optimize mass-produced beef: the technique is still regarded as modernist.

You could argue that there are underlying philosophies to these concepts that have a broader effect of how a cook or chef chooses ingredients/techniques, but there's still no implicit conflict (or accord).

[Baselerd]

Good argument, but I believe a lot of people subscribe to paranoia of ingredients they can't pronounce. Same with genetically modified produce. People are uncomfortable with anything they don't understand.

I love the hipsters who order farm-to-table whole/vegan/organic food and balk at "processed" foods as they sip on their emulsifier-laced PBR.

[ChefRobb]

Baselerd I hear what you are saying about people's paranoia. That is the reason I started this post. I'm hoping to begin a dialog that can lead to an easy explaination to the uninitiated consumer.

During one heated "discussion" I had at a bar, I was told the comment that he doesn't eat what he cant spell. In a moment of weakness I blurted out, "so you eat mostly dog and cat then?"

Im looking for a more logical response to these types of arguments.

With that in mind...a critique of my initial post would be appreciated. Does it convey the differences plainly, accurately, and convinsingly?

[gfweb]

The problem with a logical response is that you are fighting with people who revel in their uneducated state. People who watch Dr Oz don't want logic or science.

[ChefRobb]

Agreed. But they are the end consumers so finding a way to explain it and/or win them over is a challenge that needs to be addressed.

I am working on an educational seminar for the next NRA show in Chicago. The topic is how to incorperate modernist techniques, equipment and ingredients into a restaurant. My first challenge was and is, what to call it. It must grab your attention and describe what it is about. So I am tempted to use terms like Molecular Gastronomy and Modernist Cuisine in order to make it less wordy. The problem can be illustrated in mjx's response to my initial post. I used the word modernist to represent Molecular Gastronomy although they are two seperate things. By trying to edit my words down, I put her on the wrong train of thought.

So explaining a lot with as few words as possible is challenging and dangerous.

Thanks for your input.

[gfweb]

I'd avoid emphasizing the Modernist/Molecular words and just discuss incorporating the methods into the daily routine in order to make a better product.

How about "Integrating Modernist Technique in a Traditional Restaurant Kitchen"?

[ChefRobb]

I owe you one gfweb, thats a great title.

The emphasis will be largely on sous vide, but will include using hyrocolloids. When I began studying modernist techniques I was blown away but then was at a loss as to how to actually impliment them in the restaurant that I worked. Online searches don't produce any results either.

So I took it upon myself to develop a list of ways and reasons why to impliment them into commercial kitchens. I do side work as a consultant on this subject as well as helping restaurants develop HACCP plans that are required by most health departments in order to prepare foods sous vide. Since most clients don't want to drasticly change their menus or become avant garde concepts they apply a few things like xanthan gum, agar agar, and one or two water baths for sous vide.

Thanks again.