Spices: For or against?

[Adam Balic]

The Colonel was a real person? I thought he was like Ronald McDonald. Live and learn.

[Adam Balic]

Adam, I can confirm I am not your grandmother.  Putting "foreign" in quote marks was just a short-hand way of emphasizing I meant foreign to the cuisine, as in external to the cuisine.  I didn't mean "foreign" as in "ethnic".  But the short-hand was wasted because here I am explaining it all...

I know, I was screwing with you mind .

You see, I just don't get this "foreign" business, food development is a continuous process, what we are eating now is just a snapshot in time. A "Cusine" would seem to me to consist in part as a concept, rather then any particular concrete set of rules. Stick Osso Bucco with Gremolata into a nice tagine serve it with cous cous and it become "Moroccan" to many people.

Edited March 14, 2003 by Adam Balic (log)

[Ron Johnson]

The Colonel was a real person? I thought he was like Ronald McDonald.   Live and learn.

Yep, he was a real dude. He had the balls to say, "let's see how much more quickly we can deep fry chicken if we do it in a pressure cooker."

Sadly, he sold the rights of his name and method of frying chicken to John Y. Brown, Jr. for a pittance. John Y. then promptly turned around and sold it for hundreds of millions, which he used to finance his successful campaign for governor and to woo former Miss America Phyllis George to marry him. Phyllis divorced John Y. came up with her own line of skinless, boneless, tasteless, marinated chicken breasts for supermarkets called "Chicken by George". (I am not making this up) She made her own millions, briefly did sports coverage for ABC, and now sells insanely over-priced quilts from Kentucky in Manhattan.

Edited March 14, 2003 by Ron Johnson (log)

[JAZ]

There was an article in American Sceintist a few years ago that put forth the argument that spice use developed to protect food from bacteria and other dangerous microorganisms. The authors studied spice use across various climates and found that in hotter climates, where food spoilage would be more of a problem, the food (especially meat dishes) tended to be more heavily spiced than in cooler climates, and that those cuisines tended to use the spices that were most effective at destroying the harmful bacteria. (The authors included herbs, chiles and members of the onion family as well.)

[Ron Johnson]

Isn't there also a theory that hot and spicy cuisine is consumed in warmer climates because it induces perspiration, which makes a person feel cooler?

[Adam Balic]

Spiced food seems to have been eaten in all manner of climates, depending on time/place. I don't buy the food preservation thing, use many spices have anti-bacterial properties, but that isn't any real proof that they were used for this reason.

[g.johnson]

And, by a marvellous coincidence, these spices also grow in hot climates.

[Priscilla]

There really is no cooking without spices, any more than there is cooking without onion or related. Even in a bechamel there is ground pepper, and, crucially, a few grains of nutmeg and cayenne. Many others -- hollandaise, say -- without those few grains of cayenne the taste is just plain wrong.

[JAZ]

Isn't there also a theory that hot and spicy cuisine is consumed in warmer climates because it induces perspiration, which makes a person feel cooler?

The American Scientist article addresses that (and other theories). Their point is that although some spices induce perspiration, most do not, and it's not just the ones that make us sweat that are used in warm climates.

[Steve Plotnicki]

It's an issue of balance. I believe there is a direct correlation to the quality of the ingredients and the level of spicing applied. And I don't mean hot. I don't necessarilly think hot masks flavor. I mean the ratio of tasting spice to ingredient. I think that is what the issue is. When I had dinner with Tony et al at New Tayyab, that bitter gourd curry dish we had was terrific. But the actual taste of the bitter gourd was somewhat masked by the spicing routine. I think a more modern version of cuisine would alter the balance between the bitter gourd and the spices.

Whoever made the comment about the Thai curry and Ruth's Chris is funny IMHO. With all due respect, if you were brought up to eat it that way, you wouldn't be throwing anything at anyone. Why do you think that way of serving steak is less legitimate then any other way? Can't we just determine these things based on if they taste good or not? I mean it's possible that a steak in green curry tastes good isn't it?

[fifi]

The steak with green curry might taste good, but it wasn't what I went there for. I go to Ruth's Chris expecting a big chunk of unadulterated STEAK. I get stuck in the expectation.

[Adam Balic]

It's an issue of balance. I believe there is a direct correlation to the quality of the ingredients and the level of spicing applied. And I don't mean hot. I don't necessarilly think hot masks flavor. I mean the ratio of tasting spice to ingredient. I think that is what the issue is.

Steve - I think that you would have to agree that given the hugh amount of spices and the variation in flavours, taste sensations etc etc, an individuals sense of "balance" is going to vary hughly. I don't think that there is a magic spice to ingredient ration, what there may be is a range of spice/ingredient ratios that look something like a normally distributed population.

You are all for asking people to accept that there are some people that are better judges of food/wine or have superior palates, in this instance I think that we are out of our depth.

[Ron Johnson]

And, by a marvellous coincidence, these spices also grow in hot climates.

What an extraordinarily fortunate turn of events for the very hot people.

[Steve Plotnicki]

I think that you would have to agree that given the hugh amount of spices and the variation in flavours, taste sensations etc etc, an individuals sense of "balance" is going to vary hughly. I don't think that there is a magic spice to ingredient ration, what there may be is a range of spice/ingredient ratios that look something like a normally distributed population.

You know I just don't agree with that. If you stick to, the technique is supposed to enhance the expression of the central ingredient school (and spicing is in reality but just one technique,) the unique qualities of the central ingredient dictate what the balance needs to be. And there is still a range, but it is really quite narrow.

[jhlurie]

As usual, in order to have a strong argument, Steve discounts the fact that time has had an affect on this question. Sure spices were originally used to cover the "taste" of bad ingredients. In some places they may still be.

But the passage of time has altered the situation in many other places.

Also, this totally ignores the fact that SOME spice can be used to highlight flavors already present in an ingredient (see JAZ's recent article for some support).

The Balic's refinement on Steve's position, that spice must either be a "good" or "bad" thing in relation to the end product is overly simplistic as well. Sometimes its a matter of the "taste" of the eater, sometimes its a matter of the intentions of the chef, and sometimes it does come down to the quality of the ingredient. And its not merely a matter of "bad" or "good", I'd argue that a piece of prime Kobe Beef might deserve different attention from a nice solid American cut, even though neither is "bad".

Also different types of ingredients deserve different consideration. Find me a person who truly enjoys the inate taste of a naked potato over one with some kind of additive (and OIL, BUTTER, and VINEGAR count as additives as much as salt, chives, or pepper). So now we can waffle a bit and claim that the theory didn't include the humble potato.

[nyfirepatrolchef]

I kinda teeter (totter?) on the fence on how and in what context I use spices.

My main train of thought is jeez people dont psychoanalyze food just cook and eat!

Its like back in macy*s when someone wanted everything short of a DNA panel on a side of smoked salmon. And my answer was always look....sample it..if you like it dont worry about it just buy/eat it. If you dont...dont.

I know what I like...I dont consider reasons, triteness, covering up (because if I need to cover up bad cooking then I screwed up somewhere and if so Ill be a miserable bastard for a while), etc etc. I just use it because *I* like the way it tastes.

But then, well, if Im doing something ethnic, I (maybe misguidedly) like to use stuff thats considered (by whatever source) as authentic and proper.

Like if I know a 75 year old German born woman who learned to cook something back home and grew up on it, and pretty much everyone else she knew did it the same way, and she teaches ME to make it...then Im not gonna look the dish over and say well why DID she use spices...is it this is it that.....all Im gonna do is shovel some into my mouth...if its good Im gonna go YESSSSSS!~ and keep shoveling.

[Adam Balic]

I think that you would have to agree that given the hugh amount of spices and the variation in flavours, taste sensations etc etc, an individuals sense of "balance" is going to vary hughly. I don't think that there is a magic spice to ingredient ration, what there may be is a range of spice/ingredient ratios that look something like a normally distributed population.

You know I just don't agree with that. If you stick to, the technique is supposed to enhance the expression of the central ingredient school (and spicing is in reality but just one technique,) the unique qualities of the central ingredient dictate what the balance needs to be. And there is still a range, but it is really quite narrow.

Steve - maybe you would like to explain what the unique qualities of the central ingredient in Bouillabaisse is, which I have been told is the best of all fish soups.

Then we might be able to discuss why spices are the Nemesis of balance in food preparation.

[Adam Balic]

Sure spices were originally used to cover the "taste" of bad ingredients. In some places they may still be.

The is no evidence that people that use spices in there cooking, used them to cover up the flavours of food, bad or otherwise.

The Balic's refinement on Steve's position, that spice must either be a "good" or "bad" thing in relation to the end product is overly simplistic as well. Sometimes its a matter of the "taste" of the eater, sometimes its a matter of the intentions of the chef, and sometimes it does come down to the quality of the ingredient. And its not merely a matter of "bad" or "good", I'd argue that a piece of prime Kobe Beef might deserve different attention from a nice solid American cut, even though neither is "bad".

Actually, I didn't say this, what I said was, "I don't think that there is a magic spice to ingredient ration, what there may be is a range of spice/ingredient ratios that look something like a normally distributed population. ", which in effect is the same thing as you have said.

[Wilfrid]

Even setting peppercorns aside, spicing is not restricted to cuisines which developed in hot climates. The food of Eastern Europe and Russia uses spices. German food makes some use of spices, as does Scandinavian. I don't know much about the indigenous foods of the northern part of North America. But spicing doesn't seem to be a hot climate thing. Most cuisines feature spices.

The historical development which, to an extent, drives this discussion, is that French, British and Italian cuisines, all of which once used a lot of spice, largely stopped doing so.* Why? (Oh, I'm sure I've read books about this, but it's Friday afternoon - somebody spoon feed me).

* Edit: Hard though it is to believe, even I'm talking nonsense now. If anyone runs their eye over a list of spcies, as I was just doing, you'll realize how widely used spices are in all those cuisines, even today.

Edited March 14, 2003 by Wilfrid (log)

[Steve Plotnicki]

The central ingredient is the Rascasse or Rockfish in English. It is a local fish (to the Mediterranean that is) and you can't make a good bouillabaisse without it. How it makes the other ingredients and spices blend together to create a whole new flavor is a mystery to everyone.

But you might be onto something here. Because in reality, a BB isn't that different from Indian cooking strategy because it is a ground spice mixture that is added to a broth. But what sets it apart is how the spices are balanced in the broth.

[Wilfrid]

And then there's the use of spice in a choucroute to consider.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Of course there is the spicing in pie, I mean pate.

[=Mark]

Spice is for tourists.

[torakris]

Even setting peppercorns aside, spicing is not restricted to cuisines which developed in hot climates.  The food of Eastern Europe and Russia uses spices.  German food makes some use of spices, as does Scandinavian.  I don't know much about the indigenous foods of the northern part of North America.  But spicing doesn't seem to be a hot climate thing.  Most cuisines feature spices.

The historical development which, to an extent, drives this discussion, is that French, British and Italian cuisines, all of which once used a lot of spice, largely stopped doing so.*  Why?  (Oh, I'm sure I've read books about this, but it's Friday afternoon - somebody spoon feed me).

* Edit:  Hard though it is to believe, even I'm talking nonsense now.  If anyone runs their eye over a list of spcies, as I was just doing, you'll realize how widely used spices are in all those cuisines, even today.

This is quite an interesting thread for someone with an anthropological background (such as me! )

My main study is of Asia where spices were used as preseving agents (mostly salt and pepper) and to cover up the taste of food that had gone bad (the more aromatic spices as well as herbs).

As for as Europe, salt had been used as a preservative pretty much since humans started eating, and pepper had been used by the Romans. "foreign spices" started coming around the middle ages (mostly from India and the Moluccas) As these were expensive they were used more or less depending on social rank and beyond banquets they were presented to heads of stae, used in dowries, and even could be traded in the palce of gold.

By the end of the Middle Ages the demand for spices rose to new heights and thus the age of discovery began.

Between the 11th and 17th century spices dominated European taste, then at the end of this time spices lost there supremacy in world trad due mainly to the fact that the market was satured. The highly seasoned dishes, once a sign of high social ranking, no longer appealed to the European palate. With the French leading the way European cuisine became like the one we are familiar with today, much more moderate in its use of spices.

[torakris]

by the way,

I love spices and I can't eat foods unless they have been quite heavily spiced.

the thought of eating a baked potato with nothing on it...............................

I can't even go there!