For Better or For Worse?

[robert brown]

Topic proposed by Robert Brown

In aggregate, has the food and wine boom of the past ten years been positive or negative for the gastronomy? On the positive side of the ledger:

- the explosive growth in restaurant formation and in culinary media that are providing unprecedented volumes of information

- the availability of new and previously unavailable produce and products

- the fastidious ways in which artisanal producers are developing foods and wines

- the opportunity to try more kinds of cuisines

- the new respect for the occupation of chef that is bringing new blood and ideas to the gastronomic scene.

The skeptic may choose to see the boom another way:

- celebrity status has turned many chefs into entrepreneurs who no longer can be "hands-on" in their kitchens

- profit opportunities in areas such as rare wines and luxury foods come at the expense of the restaurant client

- great restaurants, with tables in heavy demand from food enthusiasts, lose their consistency and turn mediocre

- most restaurants get locked into formulaic menus and cooking styles

- chefs and restaurateurs take advantage of clients who for the most part are uninformed about food and wine

- specialty food shops grossly overcharge

- food entrepreneurs refrain from full disclosure about what they offer

- classic foods and traditional methods of preparation are being lost or sacrificed in the name of culinary fashion, trendiness and efficiency

What side of the argument do you fall on and why? Do you see gastronomy today as a mixed blessing, better in some places and worse in others? What characteristics have I omitted from the above lists?

[Jinmyo]

Robert, I notice that the negatives that you list pertain to the experience of restaurant clientele while the positives pertain to home cooks and people in their "real lives."

[robert brown]

I see many of the phenomena as being applicable to both restaurants, amateur cooks, wine lovers, and buyers of prepared and packaged food. It is clear that restaurants and restaurant chefs get most of the play here as it is that institution and profession that are have been most visible in the food boom, I believe. You are correct, however, in noting that most of the sceptical side of the ledger does concern restaurants.

[Lady T]

To the extent that one of the overall goals in gastronomy -- not the only goal, by a long shot, nor likely the primary one -- would be to educate all consumers in the products available and encourage thoughtful, responsible enjoyment of those products, thereby creating a marketplace where they will be more generally available (maybe, eventually, at generally approachable prices), then I can say that the recent boom is a good thing, or at least it's doing vastly more good than harm. I see a particular improvement in the ongoing discernment (and ferocious argument) about what constitutes quality produce. The debate has widened (occasionally also deepened) hugely, and I choose to see that as a plus.

I note that this naturally begs the question of what the goals of gastronomy have been/are/should be; let the record read that I DON'T propose to begin that complex of arguments today, thank you just the same!

[Jonathan Day]

Building on Jinmyo's point, I wonder whether the positive and negative effects of the food boom have played out differently depending on where you start from.

I would guess that many long-time Francophiles would argue that the effects in France have been more negative than positive: "dumbing down" of the consuming public through the availability of ersatz frozen "haute cuisine" in the supermarkets, growth of fast food, etc.

In London, for the most part, the general improvement over the last couple of decades decade has been marked, both on the restaurant and home cooking fronts. It's true that there is more hype around celebrity chefs, and the brilliant career of Mr Oliver has been commented on at length on the UK board. But the improved availability of things like olive oil, fine cheeses, herbs and decent bread makes up for a lot of silly hype. Likewise, the range of restaurant options is far better than it once was.

Does this suggest a sort of general "regression toward a global mean"?

[=Mark]

I would have to say that there are more positive aspects than negative. Sure some products at specialty shops and restaurants are going to be expensive, but how do you compare to 10 or 15 years ago when they were not available at any price? Also, there seems to be a cycle where a "new" item is introduced as a specialty, prices are exorbitant, the business/agricultural concerns see profit potential, the item hits the mass market and the prices drop. Kiwis are a good example, they went from $1.79 each to 10 for a dollar in 5 to 7 years.