Spices: For or against?

[Steve Plotnicki]

Because they don't use French technique . It is probably that they don't use any technique other then cutting up the fish and placing them in water with spices and vegetables.

[Wilfrid]

What if they didn't cut up the fish, and strained the soup carefully, and spiced it just right. Would the soup then be okay, even if it wasn't French?

[hollywood]

What if they didn't cut up the fish, and strained the soup carefully, and spiced it just right.  Would the soup then be okay, even if it wasn't French?

We will veto any soup that isn't French.

[Adam Balic]

As these stews are not as good as bouillabaisse (  ), it would seem that the spice and seasoning are the vital additions. "Balance" (large "B") is a 'Plotnickist-Cultural-Construct'. 

Adam - Good try. Can't say why those soups are not the match of bouillabaisse but the choices aren't many . There is the type of fish used, and the technique to prepare them. What makes a BB a BB is the straining, balance of vegetables to spicing, and serving the fish whole and fileted, not cut up as part of the stew.

Sounds like BB is a fish curry to me and is beside the point of the topic, which is: if you remove the spice (saffron/fennel/orange peel, all or some of these) from BB then you have the inferior soups (as a Plotnickist, not a Balician construct) that you find all over the Med., therefore, spice is a good thing.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Well, strained soup is preferable to unstrained yes? And fish filets served whole are better then crumbling in the soups from being cooked too long yes? So it would appear that any cuisine that follows a similar strategy would come up with a superior product. What puzzles me is that these two steps are so simple, why didn't other cuisines either come up with the same or similar ideas?

[Wilfrid]

Pay attention, Adam. Spicing is good when it's done by the French, because they do it in a balanced way. Also, not spicing is good when done by the French.

[Steve Plotnicki]

No, no, no, many cuisines spice properly. A zuppa di pesce is spiced well.

[Wilfrid]

Well, strained soup is preferable to unstrained yes? And fish filets served whole are better then crumbling in the soups from being cooked too long yes? So it would appear that any cuisine that follows a similar strategy would come up with a superior product. What puzzles me is that these two steps are so simple, why didn't other cuisines either come up with the same or similar ideas?

You think only the French avoid chopping the fish up small? And only the French strain soup? These are the kinds of assertions which I find hard to fathom, given that you obviously know a lot about food.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Gee did I say any of that? I said that BB is a superior fish soup because those two techniqes, among others, make it a better soup. I didn't say the French haev an exclusive on those techniques. But I did express my surprise that other cuisines do not either copy them, or come up with techniques of their own.

[Wilfrid]

Gee if the French don't have an exclusive on those techniques, how can you express puzzlement that other cultures don't use those techniques? Which, of course, they do.

[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.

No fair Steve, you are changing the goal posts!

In the case of BB, the addition of spice is one factor that achieves the end balance of fishy strained soupy + whole filleted French perfection. Spice prevides part of the balance, therefore spice is a good thing in the correct context and that stuff about "direct correlation to the quality of the ingredients and the level of spicing applied", misses the point.

[JAZ]

I still don't buy the "spices used to preserve meat arguement".

1) Cultures that use spice in preservation of meat/fish etc also use large amounts of salt and sometimes other techniques, like ferementation. Spice as a preservative would be secondary to these other techniques.

2) Spice is a generic term, not all spice will have anti-bacterial properties, the amount of spice required to see any anti-bactial effect remains to be seen. Spices were extremely expensive in Europe.

3) At least in England, the extensive use of spices became un-popular in a relatively short time period. People did not suddenly start dying.

4) Ditto, if spices were used to cover up the flavour of inferior meat etc, why then did the use of spices disapear in England, before any obvious change in the quality of meat? Must have been those French and there in-ability to taste inferior meat.

If you're referring to the American Scientist theory, maybe I can clarify it a little. The authors of that article were not talking about the conscious reasons people have for using spices; the were talking about the ultimate reasons why people would have evolved to enjoy the taste of spices.

In other words, they're not saying that people in hot climates knew that the spices acted as antimicrobial agents and used them specifically for that purpose. They're saying that because many spices do kill microbes, the people who used spices in their food (presumably because they liked spicy food) would survive longer and reproduce more successfully, so that over time, spice use would be selected for naturally.

Edited March 17, 2003 by JAZ (log)

[Adam Balic]

Oh, I know what the artical was trying to say. I just think that it is far to much of a long bow to draw, as salting and fermentation techniques are likely to be the main methods of preserving meat/fish even in hot countries, a significant contribution of anti-microbial spices in termss of natural selection on a human population is a very far fetched.

[Adam Balic]

For those who are interested, here is a link to site discussing the publications on spice and antibacterial activity.

spice

[JAZ]

Oh, I know what the artical was trying to say. I just think that it is far to much of a long bow to draw, as salting and fermentation techniques are likely to be the main methods of preserving meat/fish even in hot countries, a significant contribution of anti-microbial spices in termss of natural selection on a human population is a very far fetched.

Well, how would you account for the fairly universal preference for spiced food (using the more general definition of "spice" to include herbs, onions and chiles)?

[g.johnson]

Oh, I know what the artical was trying to say. I just think that it is far to much of a long bow to draw, as salting and fermentation techniques are likely to be the main methods of preserving meat/fish even in hot countries, a significant contribution of anti-microbial spices in termss of natural selection on a human population is a very far fetched.

We're not necessarily talking about preserving but sterilizing fresh produce. Not that I'm convinced either.

[hollywood]

Nothing like the luscious taste of benzoate of soda for a little preservation.

[macrosan]

[Well, how would you account for the fairly universal preference for spiced food (using the more general definition of "spice" to include herbs, onions and chiles)?

Because the food tastes better ?

[Wilfrid]

What an implausible theory.

[g.johnson]

No, it’s a fair question, you sarky gits. Why do we like certain flavours? It’s either chance which seems unlikely or there’s some evolutionary reason for it.

[hollywood]

Why do we like certain flavours? It’s either chance which seems unlikely or there’s some evolutionary reason for it.

Because we're so highly evolved?

[Wilfrid]

Not all of us, Hollywood, not all of us.

[hollywood]

Not all of us, Hollywood, not all of us. 

Good things take time.

[macrosan]

No, it’s a fair question, you sarky gits. Why do we like certain flavours? It’s either chance which seems unlikely or there’s some evolutionary reason for it.

Prof, surely you're not suggesting that people everywhere like the same flavors, are you ? Even within a single culinary culture, there seem to be huge variations in what individual people like.

[g.johnson]

There are an enormous number of different potential flavourings from plants. Some, obviously, are poisonous. But there must be gazillions of things out there that we could use to flavour food. But most we don't use, either because they taste unpleasant or because we can't taste them. So, although I agree that the details are culturally influenced, it seems quite possible to me that people are programmed to like certain types of flavour.