The dumbing down of the Western Palate

[Shalmanese]

Many words have been spilled in egullet and other places about the dumbing down of the American palate. Supermarket tomatos instead of vine ripened, prime beef that would be a good choice at best in the old days, parmesan in a can at a myriad other examples.

Economic theory would suggest that as a person's general buying power increases, they should spend a greater proportion of their income on "luxury goods" and less on basic neccessities of survival. And that has happened to a certain extent with the spread of chains like Whole foods and Trader Joes. But, at the same time, theres the corresponding opposite trend of relentless price paring, no matter how it affects quality. It seems that if the past 50 years have taught us anything, it has taught us the vast majority of people seem to prefer cheap food over good food.

Now, I see two possible explainations for this: The first and the one seemingly most preferred by egulleteers is that these people simply don't have the sensorary memory to appreciate good food. They grew up on homogenised crap and they never knew anything else. If only they were exposed to truely good food, they would see the light and come flocking to the banner of all things holy and pure.

The other explaination is that a vast bulk of people simply dont care what they put in their mouths. They might be able to taste the difference between a good tomato and a poor one but their not willing to spend the buck a pound difference. Food just isn't an as life dominating obsession to them as it is to us. They might certainly gush over a well prepared meal, cooked with care, but they aren't willing to modify their lifestyle so they can cook such a meal every day. Sure, real mac and cheese tastes fantastic, but Kraft mac and cheese is cheap and fast to make.

Now, personally, I'm more leaning towards the second one although I do admit there are a couple of cases of the first. My reasoning is that there simply aren't enough converts who have found the light and come in all glassy eyed drooling at the mouth. Everyone who is a foodie becomes one at a relatively young age and those that don't are pretty seem to fall squarely in the cheaper at any cost crowd for the rest of their lives.

The reason I feel this is important to bring up is that almost too often, egulleteers seem to implictly assume that good food is to the benifit of all and should be brought about and damn the costs. Preserve out artisinal farmers and bakers, encourage fresh produce, decry pesticides and gentic engineering, by force or government fiat if neccesary. I think theres a fundamental disconnect between those who can't possibly imagine a life without good food and those who can't possible imagine what all the fuss is all about and this disconnect is counter-productive if we wan't to get real discourse between the two groups going.

Your thoughts?

[MarketStEl]

I think the issue is a little more complex than presented here, but that your second hypothesis is probably closest to the mark as a general explanation.

Like shelter and clothing, food is a basic necessity, but unlike with the other two, people do not seem as willing to spend significantly more for higher quality (or higher status) goods when it comes to filling their stomachs.

This may be due to the transitory nature of food. Your house is a status symbol that remains on display permanently for anyone to view, and your fellow human beings can also spot your taste (or lack thereof) in fashion whenever you venture out in public. But who other than your family and maybe the guests you had over will know whether that was a Lancaster County heirloom tomato you had on your salad with dinner last night or an underripe Florida tomato that was gassed before shipping?

Another factor that may contribute to the dumbing down of the Western, or at least the American, palate is found in the second part of your description of Kraft macaroni and cheese: "...and fast to make." The overwhelming majority of the products on our supermarket shelves--and the majority of the new products the major food processors roll out each year--are designed to save time over traditionally prepared dishes. One of the latest such examples is a new category that I actually find amusing--slow-cooker helpers (Banquet Crock-Pot Classics/Betty Crocker Slow Cooker Helper). Why is this amusing? Because the slow cooker is, in some ways, the ultimate convenience appliance. All you need to do for most slow cooker dishes is cut up the ingredients, toss them in the pot and add seasonings and liquid. Then you turn the thing on and leave for work. In most cases, the whole process--including browning meat if it's necessary--takes no more than 15 minutes. But apparently we don't even have that much time to stop and do a little work in the kitchen.

It's emblematic, if you will, of a whole fast-food mindset. This way of thinking reduces food to its most basic function--fuel for the body--and strips it of most of its aesthetic, gustatory and social content. Why bother spending all that money on food that's at its base no different from a caloric standpoint than the cheaper stuff if all you want to do is get it down you quickly and go on with the rest of your life? If that's not what you feel like at the time, well then, that's what sit-down restaurants are for.

Edited December 9, 2004 by MarketStEl (log)

[Mabelline]

There's a whole generation who believe what they see and hear implicitly. Our nephew has come up thinking everyone drives like Fast and Furious, lives on Mountain Dew and Famous Dave's Baby Backribs, and maxs a credit card to go snowboard for a weekend! He's 17!! I am the first to let it be known that his mother is 1st gen. clueless. This astounds me because my husband is her baby brother, and is much more practical---but he grew up by necessity, caring for his mom who had a brain tumor, while his dad was away working for the railroad.

Sorry to wander, but my point is, there are many people who feel MickeyD's is adequate nutrition as long as they can get away with the jetskis.

[Gifted Gourmet]

So, as we place blame upon busy schedules, ease and speed of food preparation, advertising, and other betes-noirs of the food "scene", my question is simply this:

Has the recent spate of cooking academies, food websites, food television and magazines, and so forth, spawned a new generation of food 'cognoscenti'?

'Educated' and sophisticated palates emerging through knowledge?

And, was it always thus?

[Jinmyo]

One of the latest such examples is a new category that I actually find amusing--slow-cooker helpers (Banquet Crock-Pot Classics/Betty Crocker Slow Cooker Helper).  Why is this amusing?  Because the slow cooker is, in some ways, the ultimate convenience appliance.  All you need to do for most slow cooker dishes is cut up the ingredients, toss them in the pot and add seasonings and liquid.  Then you turn the thing on and leave for work.  In most cases, the whole process--including browning meat if it's necessary--takes no more than 15 minutes.  But apparently we don't even have that much time to stop and do a little work in the kitchen.

Oh my. Would you mind providing a bit more information?

As to the main point, there might be as well be a biological factor in addition to cheapiosity and status issues. Some people simply do not have much of a sense of taste (or smell, which amounts to the same thing).

I have one cook whose palate was utterly unpredictable to me. She would like this or that but for reasons and with associations that seemed fundamentally skewed to me. She also liked to overuse salt.

A few months ago she told me that her mother had no sense of smell. Which of course shaped how the mother had cooked. And of course the cook as a child had grown used to salting everything heavily so that it had some definite flavour.

(I believe that the American fondness for ketchup derives from similiar influences but this at least partly a joke. I really have no explanation for it.)

[rosebud]

You also have to consider geography. Those of us who live in major cities have access to many things we consider absolutely necessary. In the hinterlands, that's not the case. For example, in 1992 my family and I traveled to El Paso to celebrate my mother's college graduation. I cooked a special dinner for nine people: lobster risotto, osso buco, tiramisu, among other things. I had to go to six different supermarkets before I was able to find a single, live lobster. Then I made the mistake of adding some (previously frozen) snow-crab legs to it. I could not find a single place which sold fresh basil. I even called an italian restaurant in town and found that they couldn't get it either. (I just assumed I would not be able to find arborio rice and so carried it from home. Ditto the pine nuts.)

Then there was the issue of finding decent wine to go with all this. Not an easy task. When your Mother's favorite wine is Sutter Home White Zinfandel , what are you going to do? No, I didn't serve that.

You can't overlook the effects of capitalism on our food supply. We have become used to finding out-of-season (for us) fruits and vegetables grown in Chile and Mexico. The downside is that they don't taste as good as locally-grown farmers' market produce; but they are pretty cheap.

Lastly, people generally want what they grew up with. If they routinely ate mediocre food, then that's what they expect. Those of us on this website who grew up with mediocre food have simply found the desire and ability to make good food a part of our lives and the reasons for that are as numerous as we are.

[JPW]

Many, if not all valid points. To add a further dimension one must consider the money factor. To my mind, of note are the increasing growth of both income disparities (opportunity) and segregation of the rich and poor (access).

These two trends take place on all different levels of the nation. Wealth in America is highly concentrated in the coastal areas with pockets of wealth around some large internal cities and resort communities. There simply aren't enough wealthy people in, say, Salt Lick IN, to support the necessary infrastructure for a "foodie" life style. Sure, you'll have farmers' markets, but you won't see a Whole Foods or Balducci's opening there anytime soon. You will see plenty of fast food outlets.

Look within the big cities. At first, before the car, everyone had to pack within a tight space. Poor people had access to the same markets as the rich (whether or not they were actually able to shop there is a different matter). But the invention of the suburb and, subsequently, the white flight of the 70s and 80s, created a physical separation between the rich and the poor. The good markets and other food sources followed the people with money, leaving the inner city poor to fend for themselves. Today, American cities (especially DC where I live) appear to be turning themselves into more European cities where the rich are moving into the cities and pushing the poor out into suburban ghettos (think the banlieues of Paris). The end result being the same -- the good markets are following the money. The poor never really had the opportunity, now they don't even have the access.

I think that Shalmanese has identified two of the main proximate causes (people don't know, if they do know they don't care); and mentioned the third proximate cause (money).

If we are considering only those with the means to purchase healthful and nutritious food, I can't really add much. The libertarian side of me says of those with the access and opportunity to eat well, but choose not, "Fuck 'em". But let's not forget that a fast food hamburger costs a whole hell of a lot less in time than a home-made burger made with the best ingredients for those with limited access and opportunity.

There are three solutions to this that I see:

1)Pressure the fast food industry to become more healthful. There is now at least the appearance that they are bowing to pressure to do so.

2) Educate. See for example, DC Central Kitchen.

3) Subsidize access and opportunity through business incentives and/or greater funding of programs such as WIC. As a final side note, for the purposes of our discussion, this would really require the Dept. of Agriculture to really cut back on the crap food in grocery stores eligible for purchadse with food stamps.

Just a couple of thoughts on a topic that comes up every few months around here. By now there is probably enough in the eG archive that someone could publish a book or 3. Hmmm. "eGullet Press"?

[FoodZealot]

Another facet of this issue might be, since time is a finite commodity, people have to make tradeoffs of their personal leisure time versus all the other demands on their time. Those who do not regard cooking a meal as leisure (people who are also less likely to read a cooking oriented website), are more likely to choose convenience foods, one shopping trip per week to one warehouse store, and 15 minute recipes. They may sacrifice some nutrition, taste, and experiential value, but they have more time available for kid's extracurricular activities, going to the movies, and watching TV.

[MarketStEl]

One of the latest such examples is a new category that I actually find amusing--slow-cooker helpers (Banquet Crock-Pot Classics/Betty Crocker Slow Cooker Helper).  Why is this amusing?  Because the slow cooker is, in some ways, the ultimate convenience appliance.  All you need to do for most slow cooker dishes is cut up the ingredients, toss them in the pot and add seasonings and liquid.  Then you turn the thing on and leave for work.  In most cases, the whole process--including browning meat if it's necessary--takes no more than 15 minutes.  But apparently we don't even have that much time to stop and do a little work in the kitchen.

Oh my. Would you mind providing a bit more information?

It looks as if I probably dreamed the Betty Crocker product, as I can find no information about it on the Betty Crocker web site. But Banquet Crock-Pot Classics definitely exist--they've been advertised on TV and are pictured on the Banquet web site.

I'm not completely sure of this, but I believe that Crock-Pot Classics are like those frozen meals-in-a-bag that Birds Eye and Green Giant produce--all the ingredients you need are already in the bag, and all you have to do is dump it in the slow cooker, add liquid and turn it on. Or it may be more like the Helpers--everything you need but the meat is provided; all you do is prepare the meat (chop, brown, etc.), toss it in with the contents of the bag, add liquid and turn it on.

I've actually tried one of those frozen meals-in-a-bag; I found the results lacking--the meat was mushy and the vegetables a tad soggy, quite unlike how frozen vegetables usually turn out. But--repeat after me--"they're (relatively) cheap and fast to make."

(I believe that the American fondness for ketchup derives from similiar influences but this at least partly a joke. I really have no explanation for it.)

←

I understand that ketchup was originally much thinner and not as sweet as the sauce we use today. I've seen old wooden Campbell's packing crates from the turn of the century which labeled the product as "Tabasco Ketchup." (No connection, as far as I know, to the Louisiana hot sauce--or the Mexican state which I presume gave the pepper sauce its name.)

[cakewalk]

Are you talking about people not cooking "fancy"? Or people not using "real" ingredients? (Forgive the quotations, please, I'm pressed for time and I'm not even cooking anything. )

Because "dumbing down" doesn't really seem to be the issue. A generation or two ago, people ate pretty basic foodstuffs. I mean, how much fine dining was there? The ingredients might have been fresher, with less additives, but I think it was still mostly meat and potatoes. And there are so many reasons for that -- economic, sociological, availability, etc.

I was talking to someone I work with the other day, and she said she had never baked a cake from scratch, she always used a mix. (She's my age, 50.) I was surprised, because it's so easy to make a simple cake. But in truth, there's at least one huge difference between us, and it is significant: I lived in Israel from the late 70's to the late 90's. There simply weren't any cake mixes or convenience foods there for most of that time. I don't remember starting to see that stuff introduced until the late eighties or thereabouts. My cooking is very basic, but I really hate packaged stuff of any sort. But I think if I had lived in the States from my twenties through my forties, I might be cooking very differently.

And there's one simple reason for the American fondness for ketchup: it's GOOD!!

[MarketStEl]

You also have to consider geography.  Those of us who live in major cities have access to many things we consider absolutely necessary.  In the hinterlands, that's not the case.  For example, in 1992 my family and I traveled to El Paso to celebrate my mother's college graduation.  I cooked a  special dinner for nine people: lobster risotto, osso buco, tiramisu, among other things.  I had to go to six different supermarkets before I was able to find a single, live lobster.

←

I hope you didn't hold that against El Paso--although if you are or were a lobster fan, I would consider this an argument against moving there.

I assume the point you are trying to make here is not one that disparages remote cities or those in the interior for their relative lack of choice--with about 375,000 inhabitants, El Paso is hardly a small town; add the half million more in next-door neighbor Juarez and you've actually got a fairly sizable community.

Keep in mind that it's quite a distance to those parts of the oceans where lobster is found from El Paso (correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe lobsters are found in the Pacific, the Gulf of Mexico or the southern Atlantic), so any live lobster that survives the 2000-odd mile trip from New England to West Texas would be a hardy creature indeed--and probably air-freighted there to boot, adding to its cost. I grew up in a larger interior city--Kansas City--and live lobsters were far from common there as well (though certainly more easily found, especially at restaurants, than in El Paso). They probably still aren't widespread, even with the likes of Dean and DeLuca doing business in its affluent suburbs.

I thought that one of the arguments advocates of honest, good food make is that people need to rely on locally available ingredients, which means that there will be seasonal and regional variations in what is available. Your ability to find a live lobster in El Paso is actually a reflection of the opposite tendency, the same one that gives us gassed Florida or California tomatoes in the off-season anywhere in the country.

[Jensen]

I'll go out on a limb and posit a third explanation, one that has absolutely nothing to do with food. Americans love a bargain. They're willing to eat the tasteless dreck because it costs less.

There was a very interesting article in the NYT the other day (and, for the life of me, I can't find it again) that discussed the demise of the department store. One of the factoids in the article was curious...the number one favourite store of households with $350K+ in income was Target.

I suspect the same is probably true when it comes to food. It's somewhere to "get a bargain".

[rancho_gordo]

In the hinterlands, that's not the case.  For example, in 1992 my family and I traveled to El Paso to celebrate my mother's college graduation.  I cooked a  special dinner for nine people: lobster risotto, osso buco, tiramisu, among other things.  I had to go to six different supermarkets before I was able to find a single, live lobster. 

←

I think it's to El Paso's credit that you they don't have live lobster on demand. It's an indulgence that isn't very eco-friendly and has nothing to do with the local culture. I bet the chile selection was better and fresher in El Paso in 1992 than in say Pittsburgh or Washington, D.C.

Re the basil- if it was winter in 1992, it would have been aenemic hot-house basil rather than the real thing which tastes of dirt and lust. I don't think basil should be available all year.

I think El Paso circa 1992 is a bad example. I can't believe I'm defending the state that gave us this president, but it's very regional cooking and to expect a inland border town with a rich culture to meet an urban standard of Italian food isn't so fair, especially in a discussion of dumbed down food.

[Mabelline]

Kind of sure that in 12 years they've gotten some new suppliers, as well.

Edit to correct stoopid math so there wasn't a better example of dumbing down.

Edited December 9, 2004 by Mabelline (log)

[MarketStEl]

There was a very interesting article in the NYT the other day (and, for the life of me, I can't find it again) that discussed the demise of the department store. One of the factoids in the article was curious...the number one favourite store of households with $350K+ in income was Target.

←

This factoid goes right into my "rampant status anxiety among the middle class" file. Obviously, the very rich are (to quote a memorable ad slogan used by an off-price men's wear retailer that used to do business in Philadelphia) "secure enough to spend less."

It's probably the folks making $75k to $175k who are buying all that Ralph Lauren merchandise.

But bringing this back to food: So do these same households prefer Costco to Whole Foods Market?

[Jensen]

But bringing this back to food:  So do these same households prefer Costco to Whole Foods Market?

Costco was in the list somewhere up high. I don't remember if they mentioned Whole Foods or not. (And I still can't find the damn article!)

I think the idea can be applied to food though. A bargain is a bargain, right?

[Toliver]

It looks as if I probably dreamed the Betty Crocker product, as I can find no information about it on the Betty Crocker web site.  But Banquet Crock-Pot Classics definitely exist--they've been advertised on TV and are pictured on the Banquet web site.

You're not dreaming. The Betty Crocker Slow Cooker Helper isn't on their web site yet which is odd. And Banquet, a subsidiary of ConAgra Foods, has a web page with absolutely no information on it concerning their products. This article mentions both the Banquet & the Betty Crocker "helpers". The main difference between the two offerings, as you mentioned, is the meat is included in the Banquet Crock Pot Helper. The Betty Crocker Slow Cooker Helper is like the rest of the "helper" line and meat is not included.

And like you, I find this product totally amusing and useless. What's next? Frozen fried eggs? Frozen Starbucks coffee? Pre-chewed food for us?

[Daddy-A]

Has the recent spate of cooking academies, food websites, food television and magazines, and so forth, spawned a new generation of food 'cognoscenti'?

Melissa, when I first read this post I thought you had missed the point of this thread ... and I was going to post as much. Fortunately discression won out and I have now seen the light!

I no longer believe it's a case of the population "dumbing down" ... it's that part of the population is "smartening up" (is smartening a word?).

I was going to rant about how corporations were dumbing down food as a way to reap greater profits through reduced production sku's. But I kept running into exceptions; the growing wine industry in North America, the fact that mom & pop coffee shops still thrive in spite of uber-coffee-corporations, the increase in organic produce ... If the corporate world was ruining our society through homogeny, they were doing a piss-poor job of it.

But GG's argument makes more sense. There have always been people of varried tastes and abilities in any field, be it art, scholastics, or cuisine. There have always been people who like KD, and processed whatever. True, there is more of it now. However, one cannot conclude from this that the "dining inteligence" of the average person is lower, any more than we can conclude that because there are more vineyards our collective "wine intelligence" has been raised. Markets are growing, and companies are finding ways to fill them.

This then becomes more of a POV question. From where we sit, more and more people are eating crap. From where "they" sit, we're a bunch of food snobs. This dawned on me after my sons & I had a meal at Boston Pizza, a medicore chain in Western Canada. A couple years ago both my kids would have fallen all over themselves to eat there. Last night, my oldest commented that the ribs at Memphis Blue (a local BBQ joint) were much better. Dumbing down? I don't think so.

A.

[Cusina]

One more variable.

Americans love variety. And we have gotten very used to having what we want when we want it. It's very difficult to become an expert cook of everything. I can make a lot of things, but some of the stuff I like to eat at home I just can't do or don't have the time to. If I want a five course dinner at my table one night and only have time and/or expertise to make 3 courses, I'm going to purchase the other two prepared.

So, expectations are higher, we demand a lot more from ourselves and need dumbed down food sometimes to fill in the blanks. Some of us just have more blanks than others. I expect the typical home cook in 1910 could survive a decade or two knowing maybe 30 or 50 recipes. I'll bet I use that many in a month.

[Jinmyo]

One more variable.

Americans love variety....

I expect the typical home cook in 1910 could survive a decade or two knowing maybe 30 or 50 recipes.  I'll bet I use that many in a month.

←

I'd disagree.

I think that Americans love the already known.

When I lived in the U.S. most of the people that I knew cooked perhaps ten things (not counting items such as toast). Ten menus. Which they repeated week after week interspersed with take away and ready mades. Then there were the Turkey Times such as Thanksgiving.

I have never encountered as narrow a bandwidth of interest in anything beyond the already expected as in at least some areas of the U.S.

[crinoidgirl]

  When your Mother's favorite wine is Sutter Home White Zinfandel , what are you going to do?  No, I didn't serve that.

When your mom's favorite wine is that, and that's her graduation, then you serve that.

V

[Behemoth]

In the hinterlands, that's not the case.  For example, in 1992 my family and I traveled to El Paso to celebrate my mother's college graduation.  I cooked a  special dinner for nine people: lobster risotto, osso buco, tiramisu, among other things.  I had to go to six different supermarkets before I was able to find a single, live lobster. 

←

I think it's to El Paso's credit that you they don't have live lobster on demand. It's an indulgence that isn't very eco-friendly and has nothing to do with the local culture. I bet the chile selection was better and fresher in El Paso in 1992 than in say Pittsburgh or Washington, D.C.

Re the basil- if it was winter in 1992, it would have been aenemic hot-house basil rather than the real thing which tastes of dirt and lust. I don't think basil should be available all year.

I think El Paso circa 1992 is a bad example. I can't believe I'm defending the state that gave us this president, but it's very regional cooking and to expect a inland border town with a rich culture to meet an urban standard of Italian food isn't so fair, especially in a discussion of dumbed down food.

←

Hear, hear.

[rosebud]

You also have to consider geography.  Those of us who live in major cities have access to many things we consider absolutely necessary.  In the hinterlands, that's not the case.  For example, in 1992 my family and I traveled to El Paso to celebrate my mother's college graduation.  I cooked a  special dinner for nine people: lobster risotto, osso buco, tiramisu, among other things.  I had to go to six different supermarkets before I was able to find a single, live lobster.

←

I hope you didn't hold that against El Paso--although if you are or were a lobster fan, I would consider this an argument against moving there.

I assume the point you are trying to make here is not one that disparages remote cities or those in the interior for their relative lack of choice--with about 375,000 inhabitants, El Paso is hardly a small town; add the half million more in next-door neighbor Juarez and you've actually got a fairly sizable community.

Keep in mind that it's quite a distance to those parts of the oceans where lobster is found from El Paso (correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe lobsters are found in the Pacific, the Gulf of Mexico or the southern Atlantic), so any live lobster that survives the 2000-odd mile trip from New England to West Texas would be a hardy creature indeed--and probably air-freighted there to boot, adding to its cost. I grew up in a larger interior city--Kansas City--and live lobsters were far from common there as well (though certainly more easily found, especially at restaurants, than in El Paso). They probably still aren't widespread, even with the likes of Dean and DeLuca doing business in its affluent suburbs.

I thought that one of the arguments advocates of honest, good food make is that people need to rely on locally available ingredients, which means that there will be seasonal and regional variations in what is available. Your ability to find a live lobster in El Paso is actually a reflection of the opposite tendency, the same one that gives us gassed Florida or California tomatoes in the off-season anywhere in the country.

←

Since I was born there, I get to disparage the place all I want. (There is a reason I have spent most of my adult life in DC.) And, amazingly, your population numbers are off by a magnitude. El Paso is one of the fastest growing cities in America, for reason which defy explanation, and now has over 600,000 residents, while the population of Juarez is 1.5 million. EP's population when I was born there (nevermind the year) was 100K.

Speaking of live lobsters, EP has several Red Lobster restaurants (which have live lobsters), but they wouldn't sell me a live one, at any price, and my recipe called for using the broth the lobster was cooked in.

Interestingly, after the celebration was over, my mother called to tell me that several supermarkets were featuring live lobster on sale the week AFTER we left!!! I'm assuming my trip around town looking for lobster got some folks off the dime. Go figure. A day late and a dollar short is all I can say.

And yes, the best Mexican (or Tex-Mex) food is to be found there. However, I learned to cook from Julia Child (whose show appeared on the local ABC affiliate, since EP didn't have a public television station at the time). Like most of the folk on this website, I prefer French, Italian, and other more creative cuisines. The reason I wanted to fix an Italian meal is because my Mother had visited me in DC on many occasions and enjoyed the food I made, particularly the tiramisu. Besides the rice, I also carried on the plane a small ice chest with imported mascarpone cheese and the Savoirdi I bought from Vace's in Cleveland Park.

My point is that El Paso is not singular. If enough people demand better goods, it will be supplied. The problem is to organize the local foodies enough that their (our?) needs will be met.

[Behemoth]

Then there were the Turkey Times such as Thanksgiving.

I have never encountered as narrow a bandwidth of interest in anything beyond the already expected as in at least some areas of the U.S.

←

Jinmyo, I hate to disagree with you but this is simply not true. As much as I like to complain about my countrymen, the one thing I do like about the US is the openness to many different ethnic cuisines. And I'm not talking only in big cities...in a "Heartland" town of 100,000 I can personally count 7 Korean places, 3 sushi places, two indian, at least 3 (real, non chain) mexican, at least one transcendantly good Italian place, 4 thai, 2 vietnamese, 2 middle eastern, the usual complement of chinese, good and bad....Some execute the cuisine better than others, but all these places are visited by both the recent immigrants and locals alike.

Try finding that in a town of 100,000 in europe, or the middle east, or heck, even asia.

[Jensen]

Then there were the Turkey Times such as Thanksgiving.

I have never encountered as narrow a bandwidth of interest in anything beyond the already expected as in at least some areas of the U.S.

Jinmyo, I hate to disagree with you but this is simply not true. As much as I like to complain about my countrymen, the one thing I do like about the US is the openness to many different ethnic cuisines. And I'm not talking only in big cities...in a "Heartland" town of 100,000 I can personally count 7 Korean places, 3 sushi places, two indian, at least 3 (real, non chain) mexican, at least one transcendantly good Italian place, 4 thai, 2 vietnamese, 2 middle eastern, the usual complement of chinese, good and bad....Some execute the cuisine better than others, but all these places are visited by both the recent immigrants and locals alike.

But wasn't Jinmyo referring to cooking, not eating out? How many of those restaurant goers will cook those many different ethnic cuisines at home? How easy is it to find "ethnic" groceries in your Heartland town?

I can't comment on the average European town as far as buying diverse groceries but I do know that it was a hell of a lot easier to buy them in Vancouver than it is in Sacramento...two cities of the same size, btw.