Fork In Review

With the COVID-19 lock-down, if you have just lost your job, or have to work at home, you will have time to brush up on your culinary skills. Luckily, basic family cooking is not rocket science, unless of course you want to delve into the intricacies of pastry, confectionary and complicated desserts. Also, the cheapest food is that which you make at home.

In recent decades there has been a lot of cooking programs on TV which don’t always encourage people to get off the couch, go into the kitchen and actually do some real cooking. And that’s because often the recipes are too complicated, and take-away food is easy to get.

If you haven’t done much cooking before, I suggest keep your cooking basic, and don’t try to copy complicated recipes you see on the telly programs just because they look glamorous and trendy. Resist perfectionism and you won’t feel like a failure. You need a stove for cooking, not Instagram J

When employed, there is a lot of pressure to do a ‘second shift’ when you arrive home from work. So it’s understandable that doing a lot of cooking is an unattractive proposition. And therefore buying prepared foods or meal-kits is understandably a lot easier and convenient, even though more costly. However, convenience foods are a good start.

Planning before shopping is always useful: have a look in the fridge and cupboards to see what you already have, and need to use up.

If you have a fridge full of perishables, it’s best to use them up before you go shopping again. Try not to throw them out because that’s wasteful. You will know if they’re rotten: they can go yellow or slimy.

If the greens are limp, put them in a bowl of cold water which can help revive them a bit. Or, you can blanch them in a pot of boiling water (or microwave) for a few minutes, refresh them in a bowl of cold water, drain thoroughly, then freeze them.

Also, rotten meat and fish have an obviously nasty smell, so it will be obvious that they should be ditched. Use-by dates are really only a vague guide so that supermarkets can cover their backsides.

Keep your plastic take-away containers and lids because they are useful for batch cooking. If your batch of spag bol, soup or curry is getting a bit boring after a couple of days’ consumption, you can freeze the rest in portion-size boxes for future use.  Then you simply defrost one, and cook some pasta , noodles or rice, and maybe make a side salad to accompany the meal.

Bon appétit  J

The rise of social media and reviewing platforms has complicated the way restaurants are marketed and reviewed. If diners have had one too many drinks, they go home and might be feeling emboldened to start typing on one of the platforms such as Zomato, Yelp, Michelin or TripAdvisor. And the better the restaurant is rated the further up the ranking the restaurant goes.

Some customers just cannot be pleased no matter what, but their comments are still all part of the mix. Even though these platforms offer more democratic expression than one reviewer from a major daily newspaper, the potential diner looking for a decent feed gets the good with the bad.

It has been noted that receiving an accolade from a restaurant reviewing organisation that it does increase business.

So, to win an accolade, serving good food is not quite enough; location is also important. And when the accolade is won, the best advice to chefs is to stay true to their passion and don’t increase their prices.

Michelin began as a tyre company in 1889 in France. They started the guide to encourage people to motor around the country and go to good restaurants. And of course, buy more tyres.

It is said that the problem with restaurant awards is that they prefer fine dining rather than other styles, that the winning chefs are mostly men, mostly white, and sometimes lacking in cuisine diversity.

And these sites tend to favour established restaurants over new ones, traditional cuisines over anything too inventive, and Eurocentric over other cuisines. And strangely, an award-winning restaurant can rank very low in the ratings.

One restaurant reviewing organisation offered a definition of good food: it’s more than taste and technique; it should also be about the fishermen, the farmers, the soil, the water, the treatment of animals, the treatment of restaurant staff, and the budget allocations.  In other words, put the recognition back where it should be: with chefs and restaurants, not the whim of an editor, an awards committee, or algorithms. This kind of recognition helps chefs demonstrate that they care about these aspects, including the diner.

When I was a chef I remember someone saying “You’re cooking for the 5 per cent of diners who do know the difference, not the 95 percent who don’t”.

User-generated review sites are mostly used by international travellers, and will go to great lengths to capture eyeballs, and beat the game. These sites have booking facilities and reviewing facilities, and therefore can collect data. And restaurants can edge towards the top of the list of recommendations. In other words, average customers with average knowledge about food can demand excellence, but the chef has no real right of reply or influence over the reviewing site. Instead, it encourages the chef to engage in the rat race of climbing up the site’s ladder of recommendations.

If there are too many negative reviews, some waiters have been fired. Also, thousands of reviews have been analysed, and many fake reviews have been posted. These sites address all negative reviews, by contacting the diners and encouraging them back. Suspect reviews can come from the restaurant itself, or other restaurants.

Michelin has removed a star from the 3-star Auberge du Pont de Collonges, one of Chef Paul Bocuse’s restaurants, which it held since 1965. Also, Marc Veyrat’s restaurant, Manigod, lost a star for allegedly putting cheddar in a cheese soufflé. In support of Bocuse, described the demotion of  his restaurant as “pathetic”.

In the last few years, a few French chefs have relinquished their 3-star status due to the stress of constant judgement by restaurant reviewers. They just want to serve excellent food without the constant pressure and anxiety.

Despite the irritation of some restaurateurs, this year Michelin Guide introduced another category which is for sustainability.  According to Eater, it is for restaurants “who have taken responsibility by preserving resources and embracing biodiversity, reducing food waste and reducing the consumption of non-renewable energy.” But, as Michelin is a tyre company, it did not seem to discourage diners from driving around the countryside, increasing CO2 emissions.

Several months ago a French chef, Marc Veyrat of La Maison des Bois, France, stated that he wanted to give back his two Michelin stars. His restaurant was demoted from three stars to two, and Michelin was reluctant to comply with his wishes.

Veyrat voiced his opinion against their decision and was sceptical about the competence of the reviewers. He says they “know absolutely nothing about cooking” and “couldn’t cook a decent dish” if they tried. Clearly, restaurant critics are not cooks and culinary expertise is not a prerequisite for restaurant reviewing.

Traditionally, a reviewer will book under a false name. Reviewers note every detail even before they are seated: the tone of voice on the phone, the tidiness of the foyer, even the footpath outside. And, of course, the welcome of the waiter.

Reviewers should not draw attention to their behaviour: no outlandish clothing, no obvious note-taking; but photographing dishes is not unusual these days. They need to survey the type of clientele, whether the place has a comfortable ambience, whether the pricing is right for that market segment. This is all before the entrée has landed in front of them.

Reviewers were generally trained journalists who wrote for magazines and newspapers with best practices and codes of ethics. They researched dishes and cuisines, and were probably plausible home cooks. An honourable reviewer would contact the chef to ask a few questions, as a right of reply, before they wrote up their reviews. But as John Lethlean says “Critics are not in the restaurant industry”. Their function is to educate and inform potential diners, not behave like name-dropping posers.

However, since the advent of social media and apps, this has all changed. Someone who can barely heat noodles in a microwave can become a blogger or Instagrammer.

Regarding rating, each publication or platform has a strict formula, its own formulae or criteria, organisation of their reviewers, their regions, and how many votes each reviewer gets.

These systems create confusion and therefore do not inspire consumer confidence. There have been accusations of gerrymandering and favouritism similar to FIFA, or  “a House of Cards plot”, conspiracies with sponsors, cronyism, sexism, and racism etc. And perhaps have become victims of their own success.

Marc Veyrat is not the only chef who has dug his heels in. Duncan Welgemoed of Africola restaurant in Adelaide, refused an Instagrammer, who promised him some influence, a free meal. His aim was to support other small restaurateurs who were also doing it tough. He said it almost feels like blackmail, where they want freebies or the restaurant is threatened with a negative review. Also, the potential diner looking for a restaurant is not going to get an objective result.

Some chefs think that some bloggers and so-called influencers have an over-developed and petulant sense of entitlement, which is not backed up by any culinary knowledge. But reputable reviewers are generally viewed by chefs with a bit of respect.

This is not the only problem chefs and restaurateurs have to cope with.

There are also the frivolous and vexatious complaints and queries, eg. paella without the rice please, vegetarian filet mignon, the special with fettucine not penne because the customer is allergic to penne, or the cheese platter with no dairy, and sauerkraut but with no cabbage !! Unbelievable.

But, in the last decade or so, there has been a plethora of dietary requirements as a result of allergies and intolerances. Diners need to indicate these when making a reservation, rather than dishing out blame later on. There is a difference between a food intolerance and defective cooking, so blaming the chef is not fair or responsible if the diner has a food intolerance which is not previously explained.

There have been justifiable complaints about blatant rip-offs, and poor cooking.

Conversely, diners need to lift their game and educate their palates by eating a variety of cuisines without blaming the restaurant because something tastes funny. This is not helped by bad manners, from both some staff and some customers. But of course, not from everyone.

All of the above has an impact on the restaurateur’s survival in a tough market.

Perfectly capable and talented chefs like Marc Veyrat and Duncan Welgemoed have stuck their necks out, and they deserve a right of reply.

Late December 2019, Veyrat’s case was dismissed by the French court because it claimed that he failed to show sufficient material damage. In fact, business was up 7% in the previous year.

Marco Pierre White commented that when chefs go out to eat, they are the ideal customers because they go home and don’t complain, and mostly don’t make a fuss. The difference is that the expectations of chefs are realistic.