A Day At The Cardiologist

"Sit down Mr. Rutledge. Now, why are you here?"
" Um, because my doctor wanted your opinion on my ECG."

Don't these doctors read?

" I see. Could you get up on the table and take your shirt off, please." Listening to my chest and then: "You're a bit of a large one, aren't you?"

And so it begins.

"Yeah, I might be a few pounds over weight."
"Well, more than just a few."
"Yeah."
" Ok, you can get down and put your shirt on..."

 Here it comes.

"...ok Mr. Rutledge, having checked your test I would say that the thickening is probably normal due to your age and weight.  Have you given any thought to losing some of it?"

I wonder if this guy gets out of his office much.

"Yes.  I have considered it for most of the last 20 years or so."
"Well, maybe you should just start getting down to doing something about it."

God! I wish I'd thought of that!

"Well, doctor, it's not that I don't have the best intentions, but to be frank, I have probably lost the equivalent of your entire weight over those same 20 years only to keep putting it back on.  And, I am just sick of constantly thinking about every damn thing I put in my mouth, not to mention the hours wasted at the gym."
"Well, it does take a little bit of will power, but it can be done. If you cut out the white foods and limit your use of butter and sugar. I'm sure you think you are doing wonderful things by substituting olive oil for butter, but you really need to limit all your fats and ...blah, blah, blah..."

Is that a real diploma? Man, did I remember to pay MasterCard this month? I bet he paid more for his desk than I paid for my Smart Car.

"...for instance, if you just cut out the alcohol...let's do the math here...300 calories per...6-7...carry the one...yeah, there you go, the equivalent of about 15lbs ..."

Is this guy new?

"...and perhaps you could give some thought to walking a little each day?"

Really?

"Well, that's a great idea, doc.  How about, say...12 kilometres a day...and, I strap 30 pounds or so to my back just to build the intensity?"
"Well, don't get ahead of yourself, start with a 30 minute walk in the evening and..."
"Let me stop you there, doctor.  I'm a letter carrier, I am already doing the 12 K with the added weight. A stroll around the block won't even get me warmed up."
"Oh, I didn't realize..."
"Look, part of the issue is that my knee is arthritic and by the time I am home from work the last thing my legs want is more exercise, so I get comfortable on the couch and try not to eat."
"Well, you can't just make excuses.  You have to start losing some weight or one day your heart will just give up and that will be the end..."

Sounds perfect!

"...now look at me, I haven't had anything to eat since breakfast yesterday other than a cup of coffee this morning..."

Explains a lot.

"...and I'm not even hungry."
"Want to do that and try coming with me on my route in 35 celsius weather?"
"I know it's not practical for you to eat nothing, but maybe stay away from the starches and fats and try and get more vegetables and whole grains into you.  And you need to stop thinking about food all the time..."

What?!  Really?  That's possible?  Doctor, I do eat pretty nutritious food.  I eat a variety of foods, love veggies, fish, fruits.  I attempt to go meatless at least once a week.  I try very hard to limit my alcohol to just weekends and then to as little as possible.  But, no matter what I eat, I can tell you, I am probably going to eat more than I need to.  Please don't tell me that whole grains will make me feel fuller longer: they don't.  Nor does more protein; nor does more fat, dairy or any other suggested food type.  I am hungry immediately after eating.  I could eat you and on my way out of your office chow down on a small receptionist or two.  And, despite that constant hunger I do try to limit my consumption.  I think about food because I am constantly thinking about how much I just ate and how much more I should eat.

I think less about eating food, though, then I do about producing it, preparing it, serving it.  Food is not just something to fill my stomach; it is something that enhances moments together with friends.  Alcohol does the same, and loosens lips to open conversation and gives people the confidence to express opinions.  Food and drink do far more to bring family, friends and even communities closer together than maybe any other part of our culture.  Are rich foods and alcohol absolutely necessary?  Absolutely not!  But it sure makes this "life of quiet desperation" a little more bearable.

I am single and childless and my health affects no one other than me.  And, even if it didn't, so what?  Whether I am 50 or 150 when I die, I am sure there will be someone who will be a little sad to see me go.  But, loss is just as much a part of life as love, laughter and dancing.  Melancholy enhances merriment as much as food and drink; ever been to an Irish wake?

Look in your office, doctor, and see all those old (and I might add, skinny) men.  Watch them struggle to walk with their little walkers keeping them from falling over.  Listen to them talk about nothing but their health and illnesses and afflictions.  Look how their wives have to carry instructions and prescriptions in their purses for them everywhere they go so they remember their appointments and medications and, fuck, just to breath.  What do you think they think about?  They think about mortality and how soon it's going to come.  So, frankly, I would rather think about food and beer and wine and music and literature and life.  And, if you could arrange it, have the end come when I am least thinking about it.

"...so you will try and give a little thought to losing a few pounds?"
"Of course."
"And, I'll schedule you for a stress echo in a couple of weeks here at the office."

Of course.

A New Take On Corn Mazes

Let me know if these articles are depressing you.  Here is another story of the effect global warming is having on the food supply.  In this case, the poor corn crop will have an astounding impact on several consumer products, not just the corn itself.  Gas prices will be higher; milk and other dairy prices (which have already been climbing) will increase; beef, lamb, chicken and even pork will be more expensive.  In addition, other grains such as wheat, oats and barley will increase in price as farmers look to replace corn as their main winter feed.  As grains become scarcer in grocery stores, consumers will look to other staples to replace them, so expect increases in potatoes, rice and legumes.

These are the kinds of every day struggles humans will have to get used to in the uncertainty of a rapidly warming planet.  Mix in our ever expanding populations and our tenuous hold on civility could unravel as quickly as it has in the Arab and North African regions.  Our society needs a cultural make over; one that places less emphasis on the automobile, coal fired electricity, disposable everything and the belief that everything will always be there when we want it.  It seems to me that, in the story of the grasshopper and the ants, our generation has missed the moral.

Some of the ways to limit the impact of these uncertain times are already trendy amongst the hipster foodies, which is a shame because those trends always get lost when new ones take their place.  But, we need to start looking at food as less about pleasure and more about sustenance if we are to accomodate more of us.  The good news is, we can still find pleasure and enjoyment in this list:

1) Grow your own.  If you have access to some land that could be cleared and tilled and seeded you would do a lot to secure your food supply by planting a few basic crops to supplement your grocery list.  And it doesn't even take a lot of land to do it.
2) Share your seeds.  If you do start to grow your own food, the first thing you will notice is how expensive some seeds and seedlings can be.  But, learning to save your own seeds is easy enough and you can even trade with your friends and neighbours
3) Canning and Preserving.  This is where food and culture really meet.  Have a canning party; give preserves as gifts; exchange recipes.  It's fun for the whole family.  And, if you need a lesson, I will bet there is an Italian family within walking distance of you, if your live in Markham/Toronto/Anywhere, who would be happy to show you how easy it is.
4) Attend food swaps.  Here you can swap what you have too much of for items you are in need of.  Can't find a local swap?  Check our YYZ Food Swap on Facebook.

I hear you all saying that you can't fit that into your busy schedules.  Well, cut down on dinner parties and pot lucks and throw seed exchanges and food swaps instead.  Just as easy as a cookie swap at Christmas without all the annoying christians.  All of this, I am convinced, would be better for our health, our planet and our society.

The Future of Food - Pt 1 The Challenge

Let's take a trip into the future.  You can stay right there on your couch or chair.  We aren't going far, only a scant 50 years or so.  In fact, we can start just 3 years from now and see what food challenges we might expect to face.  How about, greater economic pressure on poor regions to meet the rising cost of staple foods such as rice, wheat and corn.  As early as this time, experts expect a doubling in the food demand due to increased populations.  It was not so long ago that the population estimate was at 6 billion, it is now over 7 billion; 77,000 net population growth per day!  This will see a 40% increase in food costs for the wealthiest countries and will see 40 million more humans thrown into starvation in just 3 years, according to The Future of Food documentary.

Unrest in the Arab world is likely to continue as food costs climb and the economy remains stagnant.  The Arab spring was partially a response to the rising cost of staples after the ill conceived idea of diverting more corn and grain to ethanol production and spiking the prices in hopes of a market bubble (oh! how Wall Street loves a bubble).  With an additional 40 million humans, mostly in poorer regions, thrust into potential starvation, the expectation of stability in the Arab and Sub-Saharan regions, as well as Asia, seems foolhardy.

Despite the housing market collapse in the US and parts of Canada and Europe, urbanization of land continues, and will continue, to grow as housing demands try to keep pace with population growth.  Most of this growth will occur in countries already struggling to house and feed their population.  As those countries run out of land they will inevitably look to migrate to areas with plenty of land and Canada, the US and parts of South America will see dramatic increases in both legal and illegal immigration.  Not only will their be a greater demand for food, there will be less land in which to grow it on.

But, 2015 will only be a warm up for the issues to come as we climb toward a world population of 10 billion (that's 10, 000,000,000).  Over the next 50 years humans will have to produce as much food as they have produced in their entire agricultural history.  According to Dr R.K. Pachauri, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, most regions can expect to see volatile changes over the next 50 years.  Including: 4 times more drought conditions in Kenya, added impact on the already stressed Maasai Mara region and its inhabitants who struggle to find water in the dry season.  We will see continued desertification of Africa and Asia and will start to see increased desertification in the southern United States, Mexico and Australia.  Coastal regions will begin to divert huge sums of money to shoring up their coasts to prevent erosion and flooding of the worlds most inhabited cities - e.g. Tokyo, New York, London - due to rising sea levels.  All of this will place a great deal of pressure on the fresh water supplies around the world and will make water the new oil, but it will be a resource that the countries who have it will need to fight to keep; you can't simply look for alternatives to water like you can for oil and gas.

Water shortages around the globe are causing governments to take extreme measures to find sources.  Traditionally, peoples in the driest regions of the globe used wells to tap into the large resource of ground water; but increased demand for water has meant digging wells deeper and deeper resulting in water that is saltier and of inferior quality for humans and plants.  Farms use an enormous amount of water to produce our food, whether it is grain, vegetable or meat, much of that water is wasted in many ways.  As the temperature around the globe rises, the hottest and driest areas can see upwards of 60% evaporation of water used for irrigation.  Additionally, as these drier, poorer regions try to increase their economies through agricultural trade, much of that water leaves their land for good, locked in the produce that is shipped to more arable countries.

One of the predictions of climate change and global warming is an increase in the number of as well as the intensity of severe weather events.  Thus, we can expect to see volatility in the grain markets, markets which contribute the largest portion of calories to the human diet, as weather instability keeps farmers guessing as to what grains to cultivate year to year.  Each grain type thrives in different conditions and withers in other conditions.  Add to this the expected and inevitable climb in oil prices and food prices - which rely heavily on oil for everything from cultivation to harvest to packaging to delivery - and experts predict that in 50 years more wars will be fought over food then any other reason.

Prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union, Cuba received cheap, subsidized oil for use in agriculture and delivery of products to Soviet friendly nations.  Since then, oil supplies are 50% lower and new ways of farming have had to be found.  Cuba, and similar countries looking to stave off starvation, have had to resort to more biodiverse forms of food production to feed its people.  This may seem like a positive on the surface, but the result is greater stripping of the forests to make room for more farm land resulting in increased greenhouse gases, greater soil erosion and disruption to the natural water cycle.  Multiply this by the millions of acres that will be affected when oil supplies reach a critically low level and the world will be in a desperate state.

In addition to rising environmental costs a model like that in Cuba would require a greater number of farm workers thus contributing to further price increases and potential human rights abuses as farmers struggle to keep food costs down at the expense of those labourers.  Finding a happy medium between labour and technology would mean converting farm equipment to biofuels. But, here too, we find as many problems as answers:  more grain being diverted from the food chain would put greater cost pressure on the food system.  In India, a 10% increase in grain costs would result in 40 million more thrown into poverty.

Already, a large number of Indians have been displaced to meet the demands of its biofuels program.  The jatropha plant was hailed as a miracle plant for the biofuels industry due to its high percentage of oil content and energy levels.  Yet, this plant can be used for nothing but biofuels and in India this has caused many of the poorest inhabitants to be displaced and left to find alternative food sources in a country already struggling to feed its people.  As vehicles take more grain from the hungry poor, food instability will lead to insecurity for the west.  With the constant demand for alternative fuels and the desire of the poorest regions to find resources to sell to energy hungry developed nations, conflicts between the haves and have-nots in developing countries will inevitably spill over to those developed nations.

Despite the growing number of hungry in places like India, they and China and Brazil, are actually getting wealthier as a whole.  With this wealth has come a growing middle class  and the demand for a more western diet consisting of more meat proteins.  The developed world already consumes 80 kg of meat products per person per year.  India, which is running out of arable land, is home to 10% of the world's cattle and demand is rising.  In China, in 50 years, meat consumption will have doubled what it is today and it has already doubled what it was only 20 years ago.  The production of these meat products, poultry, lamb, pork and beef requires more land and grain to be diverted for feed, more water for irrigation and more oil for transport.  The diets of the wealthiest nations are placing even more extreme pressure on the food supply system not to mention an increase in methane gas, a very large contributor to greenhouse gases.  With the demand for meat increasing (and especially for grass fed beef), we are seeing a depletion of the world's rain forests as land is cleared to make room for more pastures.

So, seafood seems to be the answer, right?  Why not?  Good meat protein with full amino acid source, heart healthy omega 3 from cold water fish, and no diverting of land.  Great.  Except that the greatest number of people in the world already eat fish and by 2048, many experts predict, the worlds fish stocks will have collapsed.  For many reasons, our oceans are already coming under intense pressures and traditional fishing cultures are disappearing faster than honest politicians.  Traditional fishing regions like Newfoundland, Grimsby England, Asia, Europe and the Gulf of Mexico have all seen their fishing industries fall under strict fishing moratoriums.  In the UK, fisherman are catching half of what they caught in 1920 and it is estimated that 80% of the UK fish stocks have vanished.  The same can be said for European waters.  But this has not stopped the large European fishing fleets who have turned to purchasing fishing rights off countries such as Senegal, which ended over a dispute about the amount of fish taken.  The poorest countries don't even get the courtesy of an agreement as large fishing vessels just lower their nets knowing the government is in no way prepared to enforce its boundary rights.  Experts feel that in order to save the fish stocks for future generations, fishing needs to be banned in 1/3 of all the world's oceans.

The disparity between the developed countries, emerging economies and the perpetually poorer nations is no more obvious than in our present day food model.  China, Saudi Arabia, Qattar and other money rich and land poor nations, in order to meet their food demands, look toward the poor nations of Africa and South America for cheap land.  Today, Kenya produces more food than its population could eat, however, most Kenyan's can not afford the food grown in their own country and subsist on cheap grain from the west which fails to meet their nutritional requirements.  New Zealand produces nine times more food than its population can eat and exports 25% of its lamb to the UK for cheaper than the UK could produce it themselves, and while New Zealanders are not starving, pressure will be put on their food supplies once other markets turn to them for supply.

The most successful farmers around the world can expect to see only a tenth of the money westerners pay for food in a grocery store.  Industrial nations are importing 40-50% of their food at prices cheaper than they could grow the same produce at home.  The cost of food in Europe and North America is artificially low and unsustainable and as land in poorer nations becomes scarcer food prices will inevitably rise.  The demand for land in poor regions has caused even more poor to be displaced from their traditional lands, where they could at least eke out a subsistence, to urban areas where their skills are no longer in demand.  Many of these displaced persons will go hungry and homeless.

But land and water shortages are only a part of the problem.  Take the case of the Cavendish Banana.  This banana represents about 90% of all species of bananas grown in the world.  In the western industrial nations we eat about 25 pounds of them per person per year and know no other type of banana.   Prior to the Cavendish western culture ate the Gros Michel banana which was considered of superior taste and quality.  But, the Gros Michel was wiped out by 1960 due to a disease that is now attacking the world supply of Cavendish banana.  This lack of diversity is important when you realize that in parts of Africa people eat upwards of 1000 pounds of banana per person per year.   It is why in Africa and Asia there are a wider variety of bananas. As the banana companies look to maintain their markets in western nations, they will inevitably take from the supply of the poor.  In western cultures there are several foods which are now susceptible to disease due to a lack of diversity.  It is suggested the Cavendish Banana may disappear completely within 15-20 years and, just as we never tasted the banana our grandparents ate, our grandchildren will never taste the one we eat today.  I will revisit the case of the Cavendish banana in future posts.

Water shortages, energy shortages, land shortages, dwindling resources, expanding population, redistribution of wealth and the ever present threat of disease make for a gloomy picture of the future.  We live in a technological age which at times seems more concerned with contributing to the problems rather than finding solutions.  Emerging economies seem more concerned with expanding their wealth and wealthy countries seem concerned with holding on to what they have while the poor simply want to make it through another day.  With all the resources and increased wealth developed in the last 50 years, it seems less and less is trickling down to the poor and the next 50 years don't look to be any more promising for them.  Our world clock suggests we are on our way toward 10 billion, but does our future suggest otherwise?  If global temperatures continue to climb, will the equatorial region of the planet, where most people live, even be habitable in 50 years?  If those people have to move to countries with arable lands, how much land will be left for agriculture?  How much more of the forest canopy will disappear and how will that affect our climate and food sources?

That concludes our little trip into the future which I hope demonstrates some of the challenges that face humanity as we seek to feed 10 billion people in a changing climate with dwindling resources.  I'm sure after reading this many of you over 50 might feel the need to turn to your children and grandchildren and say "I'm sorry", and really, go ahead.  But, keep in mind that living on a spinning rock that is floating around a star in the outer regions of an unspectacular galaxy in a far off part of an enormous universe has never been an easy thing to do.  Life here has always had challenges and has never been easy.  With some good planning, research, hard work, cooperation and a drastic reduction in pure greed that has been the defining characteristic of the last two generations perhaps the future can hold some promise.  But what road should we take?

Rule Britannia!

Watch any food/travel show that is set in a non English country and inevitably it will begin with the words "food is extremely important to ______ culture".  Watch one of these shows in North America or Britain and they probably will not start that way.  But, food is just as important to English cultures as any other.  Food is important to human culture, regardless of where it resides.  Culture, in fact, owes its very beginnings to food and cooking.  And the long held myth that an English kitchen is devoid of taste, culture and tradition is an ignorant misconception.  Much has changed in England and North America and many of the world's top chefs are of English, Canadian and American origins.  These chefs will, to a man/woman, point to the likes of Marco Pierre White as an inspiration for their success.  And Chef White deserves much praise; his food has been amongst the world's best for a long time and he has been at the forefront of the English revival in cooking.  Watch this video from No Reservations (the relevant part starts at 4:15 and runs to 11:50)

Chef White is a very talented chef, I would never disparage his abilities or approach to food.  Of course there is a BUT coming.  And here it is:  Chef White and Anthony Bourdain tend to think that no one was sticking up for the lowly cuisine of the peasantry of Britain until Chef White arrived.  The talent is unassailable but the image?  White passes himself off as some brooding culinary version of J.D. Salinger in self imposed exile from the cooking elite.  The whole time continuing to cook food only accessible to the very wealthy.  Go ahead, try and get a seat at his restaurant in England.  I find the opening scene of Bourdain in a recording studio with allusions to the punk movement, ironic.  He finds in White a kindred spirit who believes he is catering to the masses while all the time rubbing shoulders with the most inaccessible chefs in the industry and attending invitation only dinner parties in exotic locations with ingredients found on the endangered species list. 

Bourdain's infatuation with White revolves around a picture of the man at a young age with a cigarette dangling from his mouth and a face framed by a mass of disheveled hair instead of a crisp white chef's hat.  How avant garde!  I fail to see the importance to food of smoking and listening to punk rock.  Before you begin to believe that White's demeanor is a recent phenomenon take a look at this video from the height of his success as a young kitchen star.

Both White and Chef Raymond Blanc (his mentor) discuss cooking with an attitude that they are doing something vitally important to civilization.  One would begin to wonder if, in fact, there is a Nobel Prize for culinary arts (there's not). The food looks beautiful and probably tastes great but, the "one must suffer for their art " demeanor is enough to kill an appetite.  Not to mention the smoking at the table and in the kitchen.

What may come as a shock to the likes of Bourdain and White, and maybe many of you, is there have been two people who held the British Banner for culinary arts much higher long before the likes of Chef White.  These two are amongst my favourite all time cooking superstars and were as hard core as it gets.  I am talking about The Two Fat Ladies, Clarissa Dickson-Wright and Jennifer Paterson.  Their show taught me more about food and cooking than anyone other than Graham Kerr and Jacque Pepin.  Here is a clip:

Tell me that food doesn't look fucking good (there, I used the f word, that makes me hard core, right?).  And if you think the Two Fat Ladies aren't "hard core" check out their Wikipedia pages here and here.  For Christ's sake Paterson died of lung cancer from smoking, surely that beats a dangling cigarette?  And they traveled by motorcycle, Anthony.  For me Dickson-Wright and Paterson embody the ideals of British culinary culture.  Go to YouTube and spend an afternoon watching their videos, they will entertain and inform you with a sense of humour about themselves and their food. 

Now, it is true that the Two Fat Ladies series didn't start until the mid-nineties, about the time that White was receiving his third Michelin star, but, both Dickson-Wright and Paterson had been cooking for a long time and cooking the kinds of meals seen in their shows.  Paterson had been writing about food even before White opened his first restaurant.  And, the food White was cooking in his earliest days was the food of French chefs he trained under, it was not until he "retired" that White transformed his cuisine to the English country style his restaurants cook today.  As far as preparing and eating "snout to hoof" for a television audience, again Dickson-Wright and Paterson were amongst the earliest. 

Does this mean I have lost my bromantic feelings for Anthony Bourdain?  Of course not.  Bourdain has done a lot to remove the mystique from the profession of Chef and let us all in to the world of professional kitchens in a way that we did not have before.  His style of writing and style of his No Reservations show are brilliantly easy to follow and entertaining to boot.  But, keep in mind, this is only one man's experience.  There have always been kitchens that were run without the "punk" attitude and the vulgar language.  And, while a professional kitchen is a stressful place to work it is no less true for many work places like an emergency room, the trading floor of a stock market, a riot, a fire and many others where the consequences are more severe than an offended dinner guest.

What a chef does is provide a culinary experience that helps us escape the everyday hassles of jobs, bosses, family and bills.  There is only one other form of pleasure that provides as much satisfaction but, professionals in that realm tend to end up in jail.  And just like real love is something that we experience in the home, real food culture is also something that is best enjoyed in the home.  In fact, the home cooks, in my opinion, are the ones who are truly maintaining a nation's cultural heritage.  Look, the punk movement so worshiped by Bourdain was born out of the disenfranchised youth of Britain who failed to find relevance in the music of super groups like Pink Floyd and Queen.   Likewise, in matters of food, the mass appeal of street food, greasy spoons and dinner clubs is born from a culture that can't understand paying $300 to sit nervously at a dinner table scared they may be attacked by a megalomaniac chef who didn't like their take on his deconstructed Pot au Feu!

Culture - all the knowledge and values shared by a society - started at the side of a camp fire discussing the days events and the meaning of life while waiting for some slow footed wildebeest to transform into a succulent golden brown and delicious slab of goodness.  That is the very essence of cooking and is best when shared with loved ones in the home and not by professionals in the bawdy house of some Chez I'm Great.  I love the fact that British food is regaining its rightful place as a world cuisine and hope that a return to the food of the peasantry in all cultures will soon replace that of the gentry and I suspect Chef White will continue to draw inspiration from that cuisine.  There does seem to be a mellowing of Chef White, who now endorses Knorr products, and there are several videos where he is featured giving tips for home cooking encouraging home cooks to keep it simple.  Good on him.  And good on British food.

On Art And Artifice In Culinary Pursuits

Recently, I have been reacquainting myself with John Barth's Lost in the Funhouse, a series of interlinking short stories that the author uses to discuss many of the characteristics of story telling, language, narrative and art in general.  The book does a masterful job of asking readers why it is we place so much trust in narrators of stories when we know that they are merely another creation of the mind of the author who we would view as fallible if we knew anything about their life. The book is a critique of the writing process and literature itself.

Additionally, Barth's book asks the deeper question: what is art?  (a question I have explored in conversation with several friends).  I believe that Barth would argue that art and artifice share the same root but only in the way chimps and humans share the same ancestor.  Both words have evolved separately in different directions which have muddied what the common meanings of the words are with the classical definitions.  But, that art and artifice have the pedigree to perform the function of differentiation. 

Art (as a word) was brought to the English language by the French who derived it from the Latin nominative form of artem which is ars meaning: practical skill; a business craft.  Both Latin words are derived from the root ar meaning: fit together; join.  The English used the word art to mean: skill as a result of learning or practice and used it to describe the work of artisans such as those who worked with stained glass.  Today, however, we seem to apply this to any creation we view as outside our own abilities or skills.  If we see a painting of flowers that is beyond our abilities as painters we tend to say "that's so artistic, the painter is such an artist."  But, if I, as a painter, was to make a painting that critics raved about and declared it a "a modern, contemporary commentary on traditional mores meant to question our ideas of human existence, blah, blah, blah" and everyone agrees this is the finest example of art in the history of the medium; and then someone recreates hundreds of copies, indistinguishable from the original and sells them for more than I made off my original, and you buy one and hang it in your living room, do you own a work of art from an artist?

By the traditional sense of the word I would have to concede that you do and they are.  However, academics in fine art wished to separate skillful craftsman from imaginative artists and needed a definition of the word which harkens back to the Latin ar and came up with this meaning: "those which appeal to the mind and the imagination" (fitting together in imaginative ways), I would argue a new word is needed to differentiate between my original and the very skillful reproductions.  This word I will use is not meant, in any way, to suggest a lack of esthetic appeal or talent, only a differentiation in the purpose for which the thing is created.  The word I use, and which Barth alludes to, is: artifice.

Arifice is a word that, also, came to the English from the French via the Latin.  In Middle French the meaning was: "skill; cunning" which, used as a noun, became " workmanship, anything made by craft or skill" but which has, today, come to mean: "device, trick".   This is unfortunate because the root of the word is a more useful and descriptive meaning: ars which we've discussed and facere "do"; doing craftsmanship.  This gives recognition to the talents of the artisan without stripping them of their due, while still distinguishing between the fine art definition of art: a creation of the mind and imagination.

I don't expect Messrs. Merriam and Webster to reconsider the definitions of these words on my say but, in future I will distinguish between them by referring to art: refitting one's environment, appealing to the mind and imagination for the purpose of creativity.  And artifice: the making of anything by skill or craft for the sole purpose of industry.  One does not need skill to create art and one does not need creativity to create artifice and there is no rule that says art can not be profitable but, its main purpose should not be profit.  Possessing both skill and imagination, however, would elevate an artistic creation.

So, what  has this to do with food and wine.  Well, it seems impossible, today, to read reviews of restaurants and wines without someone referring to the food or wine as art.  I take exception to the use of the word, as I hope I have made clear, not because I believe there is a lack of talent, but only because it lacks accountability for the creative process and the purpose for the thing's creation.  I will be the first to admit that there is a lot of talent that goes into conceiving and executing a dish in a restaurant, and striking the right balance between taste and presentation is a skill I admire with some envy. 

But, in most restaurants today, cooks and chefs are simply reworking a series of recipes and techniques that have been the staple of the restaurant business for several decades now.  Escoffier, as Adam Gopnik pointed out, invented the whole premise of fine dining today:

Escoffier's  formula for food was, in essence, the same as Jasper Johns's formula for Dada art: take something; do something to it; then do something else to it. It was cooking that rested, above all, on the idea of the master sauce: a lump of protein was cooked in a pan, and what was left behind [...] was deglazed with wine and stock, ornamented with butter or cream, and then poured back over the lump of protein.

 Add to that a chef's approach to plating, which is simply a series of tried and tested ways of piling food on a plate in aesthetically appealing ways (skill, cunning, craft), and you have today's haute cuisine with tiny portions on oversize plates re-imagined in innumerable ways.

I once heard Anthony Bourdain suggest that "there are very few artists" amongst professional chefs.  I believe he said it in a manner meant to provoke, as is Bourdain's way.  I have no such motivation when I suggest that he is correct.  But, does this mean that we should not be in awe of the new generation of cooks and chefs and even foodies opening new and exciting restaurants that eschew the Escoffier model for a return to regional cuisine that celebrates instead the peasant dishes developed over centuries.  These restauranteurs, such as Morin and McMillan at Joe Beef in Montreal, are stripping their food of the artifice (in the contemporary definition of device or trick) and creating cuisine that is about flavour, tradition and sustainability.  After all, for millenia food was meant to nourish and sustain, both the body and the environment, out of necessity rather than fashion.
 
The presentation of this food and the interaction amongst the patrons and cooks (especially in venues that have taken to communal tables)  is helping to reconnect diners to the culture of food.  This participatory approach to dining is, in itself, an artistic endeavor where the mere act of dining becomes artistic expression through interactions between cooks and guests with a new experience with every seating; while the food itself may be artifice, the experience becomes an art. 

In addition, the movement known as "molecular gastronomy" - though not by its practitioners - is another exciting new trend that might offer a glimpse at true culinary art.  The manipulation of food to resemble anything but food provides the diner with a multi-sensory experience and a chance at a new way to taste and experience familiar foods.  But, to be clear, this only applies to those who are attempting new experiences and, in my opinion anyway, excludes those who attempt to perfect the way food is cooked.  Heston Blumenthal is an amazing cook but, in his efforts to perfect dishes he loses the very essence of what art is, namely an interaction between the artist's take on a subject and the patrons' response to it; a kind of manipulation of the senses by providing the unexpected.

In the area of wine and beer, I believe there is even less art being practiced as the processes become more bogged down in science and tradition and technique all focused on attaining a certain "standard" for a grape rather than an unexpected experience.  It is true that every wine maker and brewer is presenting consumers with their own take on a style or grape but, is there any new method or technique that hasn't already been attempted; is anyone trying to shock drinkers for the sake of amusement or bemusement alone.  Merely fiddling with the proportions and "cooking" times does not, again in my opinion, constitute art.  A skill? A craft? Absolutely.  But, the artists were the inventors of wine and beer that found the ways to turn fermenting, rotting fruit into a cultural icon and in most cases they did it with an eye on enjoying the product more than the potential sales.

And to me this is where the culinary arts have to concede:  no winery, brewery or restaurant is creating art solely for the sake of its creation; every bottle is filled and dish served in the hope of turning a profit - and usually a quite hefty one at that.   That is not to criticize, who amongst us isn't looking to find an enjoyable way to make a buck?  But this is the realm of artifice, in my definition, and we should enjoy it for what it is and admire the skill and talents used without feeling badly about calling it by its rightful name: craftsmanship!

Under One Small Star

Wislawa Szymborska, the great Polish poet, died this past week.  I love this particular poem of her's because it demonstrates a universal feeling of underlying guilt we all feel when we take those few quiet moments we have in life and reflect on all the apparent contradictions of daily life.


Under One Small Star
 
My apologies to chance for calling it necessity.
My apologies to necessity if I'm mistaken, after all.
Please, don't be angry, happiness, that I take you as my due.
May my dead be patient with the way my memories fade.
My apologies to time for all the world I overlook each second.
My apologies to past loves for thinking that the latest is the first.
Forgive me, distant wars, for bringing flowers home.
Forgive me, open wounds, for pricking my finger.
I apologize for my record of minuets to those who cry from the depths.
I apologize to those who wait in railway stations for being asleep today at five a.m.
Pardon me, hounded hope, for laughing from time to time.
Pardon me, deserts, that I don't rush to you bearing a spoonful of water.
And you, falcon, unchanging year after year, always in the same cage,
your gaze always fixed on the same point in space,
forgive me, even if it turns out you were stuffed.
My apologies to the felled tree for the table's four legs.
My apologies to great questions for small answers.
Truth, please don't pay me much attention.
Dignity, please be magnanimous.
Bear with me, O mystery of existence, as I pluck the occasional thread from your train.
Soul, don't take offense that I've only got you now and then.
My apologies to everything that I can't be everywhere at once.
My apologies to everyone that I can't be each woman and each man.
I know I won't be justified as long as I live,
since I myself stand in my own way.
Don't bear me ill will, speech, that I borrow weighty words,
then labor heavily so that they may seem light.
 
                                                                                                    Wislawa Szymborska

It is hard to be a foodie with a social conscience, trying to justify excesses in food and drink while raging against hunger and famine around the globe.  It's hard to remember that people everywhere, regardless of their plights, take refuge in pleasure and where one is hard to come by others are engaged in sometimes to excess.  This poem reminds us of the fragility and improbability of human life on a small speck of dust circling one small star and the importance of living this one life to its fullest; that we all strive to be good people but fail sometimes to achieve the ideal and need to forgive ourselves and each other for our lack of proper solemnity.

For more on Szymborska here is her Wikipedia page and here is more of her fine poetry.

Comparing Appellations to Oranges

There was big news out of China this past week trumpeting their expertise in wine making and claiming to have taken down the powerful Bordeaux in blind tastings.  The Chinese, of course, have a long history in winemaking as they do with nearly all things given their standing as one of the oldest human cultures.  In fact, the Chinese have been making wine longer than much of Europe, let alone the rest of the planet.  The original grapes of China were not of the quality for wine that Europe's native grapes were and so rice wine became the popular drink of choice and grape wines were reserved for the rich and powerful.  Actually, not much has changed.

Now, don't expect any kind of  "cri de coeur" from the French any time soon.  We have seen this type of gimmick used before to draw attention to an aspiring wine nation.  But, unlike the 1976 competition, this one seems even more contrived and stacked in the challenger's favour.  And I am not the only one who thinks so.  There are several problems with the methods used in this tasting but, the most glaring is the difference in quality control in both regions.  Bordeaux winemakers are very carefully controlled by the Bordeaux AOC and must use grapes that only come from the appellations listed in their guides.  The AOC First Growth and Superiore have even tighter controls for grapes from just their estates.  Even within an estate their are different levels of quality.

Controls on the French are not limited to just where the grapes came from.  They are limited to where the vines are from and how and when to plant them.  Even the amount of time fermenting and aging in oak and bottles is regulated for the various levels of wine.  This is what makes the best Bordeaux very expensive.  The cheaper a Bordeaux is, the less quality control is applied to it and the bottle's label will reflect this.  Wine anywhere from Bordeaux may be called Bordeaux but only a few can be designated Grand Cru, Superiore or First Growth.  

The Chinese wine, on the other hand, is free of any kind of AOC control.  Chinese wines can, and do, use grapes, juice and even fermented wines sourced from other regions, and even other nations, in their wine making.  There is nothing wrong with this, but you are not getting a real sense of the region when comparing wine blends and for the French terroir is everything in wine.  As with all Chinese industry, the wine industry is not just subsidized but it is owned and operated by the state and has a domestic monopoly  on all aspects of labour costs, pricing, marketing and distribution.  The only reason a wine made in China would sell for 30-70 Euros is because the government said so not because of production costs and profit margins and market forces.  This trumps the French system of subsidies for producers of unsold product.

There is a reason everyone likes to compare their best wines to the wines of France: it's because French wines have a deserved reputation as the very best in the market.  But what we see, typically, is any given country pitting their best wine against some of France's good or very good but never best wines.  There are dedicated fans of every region of wine making in France, some prefer Burgundy over Bordeaux, or Loire over Alsace, but France continues to have a little something for everyone despite any of its recent problems.  This is something that other countries can only hope to achieve and even if the French should slip from their position as the best, the world will always owe them a great debt for showing us how it should be done.

As I said, the Chinese have a long history of fermenting fruit and grains for consumption, and have never had to take a back seat to any nation in culture.  This competition will get people talking about Chinese wines, which of course was the purpose of all this, and many will even search them out and try them.  And one thing is certain, the Chinese are making great gains in the quality of their wine products and the future looks good for them.  I think any new addition to the wine world is a positive thing but, I hope the Chinese will avoid trying to be like anyone else and concentrate on the methods and techniques that would demonstrate the best reflection of viticulture from China.  Because, quite frankly, the last thing the world needs is another Bordeaux.

I Prefer the Term Frugal Wines Pt.II

In the interest of fairness, here is an article responding to the Slate piece that I blogged about concerning cheap wine.  I think the article is lacking in any logic.  The writer starts by summarizing the arguments of the original article and then goes about ignoring those arguments all together.  It is filled with straw men and logical fallacies including an appeal to popularity, appeal to authority and the ever popular appeal to tradition.  But, it completely side steps the facts: 1) that experts, let alone non-experts, can't tell expensive from cheap wine 2) that most people drink wine without lingering over its complexity 3) that if you find a wine you didn't like then you are not out much money and 4) if you like cheaper wine what business is it of anyone else.

The writer suggests that there is a human cost to cheap wine by linking to a story about a worker who died in the vineyards of a notoriously cheap vintner.  Well, if you can use Google you could probably find an example of a high end winery that has experienced a death or even a a mid level winery, for that matter..  What does that prove? Nothing.  As for the argument that Wonder Bread and Kraft slices aren't as good as artisanal breads and cheese that is just silly; give kids a choice and they will probably pick Wonder and Kraft every time and, to use their own logic, Wonder and Kraft sell more so doesn't that make it better?  And if you want to make a good grilled cheese you are better off with the cheap stuff (but that's a post for another day).

There is a somewhat better post here although note that this writer makes the same silly argument of the difference between a Big Mac and a Lobel's Steak.  Well, I will go on record as saying most people can't tell the difference between a Big Mac patty and a Lobel's patty of similar size, shape and preparation.  And, it holds true that most people can't tell the difference between a cheap bottle of French Pinot Noir and a more expensive French Pinot Noir. One should stick to comparing apples to apples.  Price has no bearing on the taste of the wine any more than price has any bearing on the taste of beer, whiskey, chocolate, peanut butter, onions, tomatoes, etc.  Also, price has less and less to do with quality in all those examples (but again, there is another post for another day in that statement).  As for the idea of wine as culture, while this is true there is no law that culture need be expensive - the foods of the peasants are inexpensive, until enjoyed by the snobs, and they are culture.

But, read the articles and make up your own mind.  As always, it is your palate, your stomach, eat and drink what you like and can afford.

Out of Africa (via Australia)

I've recently been enjoying a show on Food Network Canada (I know! Imagine my surprise) called Food Safari.  This Australian production follows host Maeve O'Meara as she explores African cuisine in the homes and businesses of real African cooks.  These are the kind of shows, as I have said before, that excite me and that I believe should be more prolific on the Food Network.  Shows about food and food culture.  They not only introduce us to new ingredients and techniques but, to new cultures and places.  I find that at the end of Food Safari and From Spain With Love, I am inspired to cook and to try the cuisine, or even just to find a new ingredient or wine.  The first cooking show I ever recall watching regularly, that inspired me to cook, was the Galloping Gourmet.  I loved the show because Graham Kerr was always cooking things I had never heard of before - his half intoxicated antics were just an added bonus.  But the show that, even today, holds my attention most is, The Two Fat Ladies.  Watch it and tell me Britain has no culinary history or culture, that's saying something about inspiration.

It's Thanksgiving weekend, and I am not sure I will be posting much in the way of text, so I will take this time to wish everyone a very happy holiday; my favourite because it involves food, wine, culture and the opportunity to feel grateful for all that I have.

Eternal Life

There is an interesting post about the effects of a molecule found in red wine that might someday provide a way to prolong life.  Of course, this kind of news will inevitably be used by some to justify over consumption and others will develop useless pills purported to have all the same elements of the molecule being discussed but which will do nothing, conveniently ignoring the challenges the article mentions. When it comes to scientific discoveries about prolonging life I always wonder at the lengths we go to, all of us, to find ways to live forever.  Many skeptics, myself included, mockingly point to the futility of the religious in a quest for eternal life through faith.  Yet many of those same skeptics will also trumpet any scientific discovery that promises some hope of living a longer life.  This quest for eternal life seems to be a strong common human trait.

But, I have had the opportunity to see life from a different point of view.  Being the type of person who never needs much motivation to engage in conversation, my job as a lettercarrier has given me the opportunity to meet fascinating people.  Two that come to mind whenever I read about longevity of life, were an 87 year old female and a 92 year old female.  Both lived alone in houses that they had owned with their spouses.  Both are remarkably active and in good health physically and mentally.  And both, I am willing to bet from conversations with them, would not be willing to take a pill that would extend their life.  In fact, both have stated to me in conversation that they hoped not to live much more than a few more years.  Their reasons were similar: loss of friends, boredom, a feeling of living in a world no longer theirs and just a general feeling of a life accomplished and a need for an ending.  The older of the two is an active member of her church, I suspect more for social reasons than belief, and the younger was once religious but has told me she is "pretty certain now that what is here in this life is pretty much it".

At first I was a little shocked at their casual acceptance of the inevitable but as I have thought about it I realized that I, also, would not want to take that pill.  I would definitely take a pill that would assure the time allotted to me was spent as healthily as possible - the one thing that scares me most in life is aging - but to prolong an existence that is driven toward working towards an end (i.e. end of a book or movie, end of school, end of the work day, end of the work week, end of a working life etc.) seems out of step with a natural order.  A look around nature shows us that death is inevitable and as much a part of the continuity of existence as birth and life and sex and all that living entails.  That is not to say the women or myself are actively seeking death, but accepting mortality does seem to bring a kind of peace of mind.  The best one can really hope for is a life well lived and a quick and easy death.

There are, of course, those elderly who would take the pill to live longer, especially if it included better overall health, and for many I suspect this comes from a feeling of lack of accomplishment or the fear of eternal punishment for a perceived transgression of youth.  But, I think even those people will tire eventually of "the daily grind" of life. Many come to grips with this sooner than others.  I think the idea of eternal life is really a quest for the young who believe that life moves slowly and there is still so much to learn and experience.  People who are just approaching middle age and have not yet had to come to terms with their own mortality and who are satisfied in their occupations or vocations.  To them the idea of eternal life must be a no brainer.

But, if one contemplates the issues of living maybe 150+ years and considers the reproductive rates of humans, the lack of natural predators, the scarcity of land, the diminishing supply of food and fresh drinking water, might one not pause to wonder if prolonged life isn't more about selfishness?  Would it not be society's duty to try to enforce a population control like is the norm in China?  Ask yourself: if you are willing to spend that much time on this planet, would you want to spend that time with everyone already here? And how would you deal with the declining health of the planet without a natural population cull? And who makes the decision on who lives longer and who doesn't?

As the article points out, science has many ways to help us stay healthier longer.  Much of them I snub my nose at and here is my reasoning: life is fleeting.  We have all won a lottery - as Warren Buffet called it, the lottery of the womb - in which, from millions of chances we have arrived. But as events 10 years ago have taught us, it can all be taken away so easily, despite our health.  For those of us living in Canada, I believe we have won the jackpot.  Life here is full of opportunities to experience pleasure, emotion, thrills, nature, tastes and culture.  To deny one's self these opportunities might, in fact, lead to a longer and healthier life, but would it be a happier one?  I don't think so.  I think partaking of life's pleasures requires the same decision making as the taking of various medications, there has to be a balance of the quality of life obtained against the potential side effects. Also, just because one has the ability to live longer through sacrificing does not guarantee against a tragic ending and the denial of those small pleasures left unexperienced till a later date. And, just as with medicine, each individual has to make that decision in terms of what is the best balance for them.  I believe the fullness of a life should be measured in the quality of years rather than the quantity.  I don't think my years have been filled with the quality I might have liked, but I feel at ease with the idea of an end, later rather than sooner at this point in my life.

So, what do you think.  If you read this, do me a favour and post a comment here, not on facebook or other links, and tell me if I am way off or not.  You can post anonymous comments, and simply say if you would want to live forever and why or why not.

Cooking With Fire

Behold, how great a matter a little fire kindleth!
- New Testament: James 3:5

We certainly live in amazing times full of technologies that allow us to have anything we want within minutes of desiring.  But, has anyone ever sat around a microwave?  Despite the many diverging paths our cultures have taken over the centuries, we share a common origin: the fire pit.  Sitting around a fire with the day's catch cooking on it, the fire kept us warm and predators at bay allowing us the piece of mind to socialize and share discoveries and new ideas.  It was a place of safety, comfort and nurture - of our bodies and our community.  It was here we developed speech, commerce, art and politics.  The building blocks of today's human societies all developed while huddling around a fire waiting for food to cook.

The primal aspect of cooking over an open fire, the conquering of something dangerous and presenting guests with an edible meal is, I think, the epitome of any cook's talent.  There are no knobs to turn on a bed of coals, if you need more or less heat you have to act quickly and with skill to get just the right heat for the job.  The basics would be boiling water - to make coffee, tea or soup - grilling steaks or small animals and roasting vegetables.  But, when the aim is to provide foods that have been combined with other ingredients to heighten or enhance the main ingredient, that require time to build and layer flavour, then the cooking, sometimes, requires more finesse.  For these jobs it would be best not to re-invent the wheel and instead look to classic dishes that have been cooked over fire for generations.  That is what we did this past Friday.

Our first dish was a chicken tajine with preserved lemons and olives.  There is a magical element to a tajine, as the ingredients are added without liquids to assist in the cooking.  The sauce that develops comes naturally from each ingredient's own liquid content.  The design of the cooking vessel helps ensure the moisture is trapped inside and is recycled back into the dish.  Whenever I use my tajine I wonder if this will be the time the meat comes out burnt as it goes into the cold pot without oil or liquid and remains in contact with the bottom for the duration of the cooking.  But, I am always rewarded with a tender, rich and flavourful meat with plenty of moisture.  I always wonder if there will be enough liquid to cook the carrots and potatoes, but each time they come out perfectly cooked, tender and al dente.  My tajine has become my favourite way to cook and one of my most used kitchen appliances.  This was the first time I experimented with it in the traditional way over an open fire and it performed with the same magic.

Our second dish was a seafood paella.  Like the tajine, I feel there is an element of magic in a traditional paella pan, as all the ingredients seemed to be just thrown into it with hope that it will come out alright.  And each time it does.  This was also my first time using my paella on an actual wood fire, the way it was intended, and this pan, too, worked its traditional magic.  The beauty of paella is that it does not have a strict recipe or style that must be followed; it is very adaptable to a wide variety of ingredients and is meant to be made that way.  One couple brought with them South African boerewors and we used them instead of the traditional meats of rabbit and chirizo.  While we did not have the flavours that come from chirizo, the dish did not suffer and was, in fact, remarkable.  I looked at this as an example of true Canadian cuisine, where two cultures meet to create a dish that neither would have on their own.  Saffron infused rice with meat, spice and seafood, how can you go wrong?

The meal was a success and the food was enjoyed a second evening last night as leftovers.  I can not express the pleasure that comes from watching the reactions of others when they taste the food and realize that it came off the fire they sat around watching.  I, also, cannot describe the enjoyment of having the guests gather around the fire as I am cooking and assist with the meal, this really was a communal effort with some guests prepping ingredients, others helping with the fire and others carrying food back and forth from the house to the fire pit. We also enjoyed homemade roti and frozen yogurt for dessert. To end the evening we all sat around a second fire on a patio enjoying one of those modern conveniences in the form of a hot tub - hey, I wonder if I could accomplish a primal version of that... maybe not.  

Bourdain Has No Reservations About Speaking His Mind

I for one agree with Anthony Bourdain's Celebrity Chef Smackdown!  but I also think  he does not go far enough.  When the food network first premiered there were a number of excellent shows that taught first and entertained second.  They were hosted by accomplished chefs, sommeliers and food critics.  Some even featured butchers, fish mongers and grocers even farmers explaining the latest trends in food and eating.  There were shows about wine, vegetarianism, home economics and food news.  I seldom changed the channel.  But, the last 8 years or so has seen the network devolve into a reality based network where we are supposed to believe that the overly scripted confrontations are typical "real life dramas" (see Top Chef) and that Rachel Ray and Paula Deen are the custodians of American cuisine.  Pffft!

If you want an idea of the idiocy that has become the Food Network and Rachel Ray look no further than here (I urge you to read the comments, they are by far the most entertainment the Food Network has provided in a long time).  But, in the spirit of the best Iron Chef battle, I give you a Paula Deen recipe that rivals Ray's.  Has cooking in North America sunk to the level that the network for food has to post recipes for cooking slices of bacon and warming peas?!  But what Bourdain misses in his smackdown was any mention of what is probably the worst show on Food Network, Outrageous Food.  This show is nothing more than a celebration of the worst aspects of American consumerism.  This homage to gluttony and obesity looks at the food trend of over indulgence and celebrates the act of culinary masturbation.

There is nothing positive to be taken away from Outrageous Food in terms of food culture, it is strictly the celebration of a pleasurable act that tv censors will not cut.  In fact, all of the shows on Food Network are a microcosm of America's pornographic love affair with food.  America, through the Food Network, have simply replaced gluttony for lust in their entertainment - I guess explaining to their kids why a grown man is trying to stuff a 21/2 pound burrito into his stomach is less awkward than explaining the act of making love.

If you think the comparison to pornography is hyperbole I suggest you watch this.  Bourdain is a genius when he is holding up a mirror to his own trade.  He is right, of  course, producers and directors know exactly what buttons to press when it comes to filming and presenting shows about food, his show included.  Let me say,  there is nothing wrong in experiencing pleasure during this life - it is after all a short one and you only go around once, but I really don't need to see others indulging.  And when you consider the consequences of the ever rising costs of food around the globe does it seem justified to be celebrating the availability of food we in the west experience today? Shouldn't some sort of moderation be practiced?  Or, do we really need shows that portray the extravagant every week?  In my view, if food is sex, I would prefer the shows that were sex education rather than simple porn.

I will grant you that Bourdain himself seems like a walking contradiction, but at least he admits he is and he has never claimed to be a great chef.  He knows he is playing a game that so far he is winning at and is going to run the table for what it is worth.  But from his honest candour has come some of the best insights into the culinary world and his No Reservations show has opened our eyes in the west to how  poor people are able to make the greatest of feasts out of the simplest ingredients in life.  In My Last Supper: 50 Great Chefs and Their Final Meals, Bourdain points out the irony that the more accomplished a chef is at elevating cuisine the more they personally long for the simpler foods of their childhood.

Too many of the hosts on Food Network seem to think that elevating cuisine is adding gourmet ingredients to simple meals.  Good shows about food are not about following a recipe or hiding bad food under gourmet ingredients or 5 pounds of butter and lard, they are about respecting the simple ingredients and turning them into something that says something about yourself and the culture you were raised in. If cooking is supposed to say something about culture then the Food Network is saying" we have none".