Trendy Monday: Michael Ruhlman's Readers Weigh In

Last week, chef Michael Ruhlman asked the readers of his blog to give him their opinions regarding up and coming food trends for home cooks. And oh, did they.

There are a lot of comments, but a skim through is worth it - it's interesting to see what other people are thinking. Although, it won't be surprising to anybody who's even slightly followed food trends lately. There's a lot of talk of local/homegrown/DIY/etc, both in relation to quality and the economy. Several commenters riff on the economy even further, saying they expect more of a return to "cheap cuts" - though others talk about highly specialized or unusual spices making their way out of the restaurant and into home kitchens.

The two things that most interested me were speculation about a rise in South American flavors, which I totally see and am happy to see, and an interest in raw milk and raw milk cheeses. Just in the past couple of weeks I've been hearing inklings of a raw milk revolution, at least among foodies. Hey, if you know your dairyman, why not?

That said, there was also a fair amount of discussion about whether the trends mentioned are just foodie trends, or if they're likely to trickle down to the rest of the population. My take is that the trends always start with the people who are most engaged. It really wasn't that long ago that only those seriously in the know were eating salsa.

I think that the local movement is most likely to trickle down. More than raw milks or home sous-vides, at least. Really, economically, local eating can make a lot of sense - so there's that. Plus, the movement's got critical mass - you can't open a magazine or the newspaper without seeing something about local eating. All it would take is one major restaurant chain to make a commitment to local purchasing - and they could do it, though they might have to bump prices a tiny bit - and the movement would officially be mainstreamed.

It's a long thread of comments, but worth it if you're into that sort of thing.

(Thanks to French Laundry at Home for pointing me in the right direction.)

Trendy Monday: Disease-Fighting Food

Because I apparently haven't geeked out enough already this morning, here's an article out of Australia on the trend towards foods that have been genetically altered to combat disease (or at least genetically examined closely enough to determine that the natural state of the food will combat disease).

On one hand - sure, why not? We take pills to make ourselves healthy, so what's the big deal about incorporating some of the benefits we get from medicine into our diet?

On the other hand, however, I can't be the only person who winced when reading "out went any sniff of butter...in came cholesterol-lowering margarine". Oh. Oh no.

Not that I didn't grow up eating margarine. Not that I don't, on occasion, have a butter substitute in the house. Not that I don't have spray "I Can't Believe It's Not Butter" in the house (for corn on the cob, OK? And yes, I know how gross that is).

But I've also already internalized the mantra Michael Pollan put forth in In Defense of Food. "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." As much as I believe in modern science and medicine, his anti-nutritionist stance also resonates with me.

It's both interesting and frustrating to see two such rational, yet necessarily parallel trains of thought in the food science world. Science really isn't my thing, but both seem to posess at least a reasonable amount of underlying logic. But they also appear to be mutually exclusive.

So which path do I choose?

Who's In Charge: Me or My Meals?

For the past month or so, Michael Pollan's been making the rounds to promote his new book In Defense of Food. Last week, he guest-blogged at the Amazon Food Blog. It's a good post, though I'd already read some reviews of the book and other interviews with Pollan, so I was already familiar with most of the ideas he puts forth.

I haven't read In Defense of Food, but I have read several chapters of The Omnivore's Dilemma (I keep meaning to actually buy the book, and keep forgetting, but certain chapters have been reprinted here and there).

I like Pollan's writing style very much and, based on what little I've read, his arguments seem compelling. But there's always been something that bothers me about the all-or-nothing perfectly healthy, ethical and "whole" eating culture that's sprung up around him.

I've written about my issues (and exhaustion) with this cultural movement before (here and, more recently, here). In general, I think that the nanny-state-ishness (that's a word? maybe?) of the movement rankles my libertarian sensibilities. I hate it when people tell me what to do - and especially what to eat (by far the worst part of pregnancy).

And, actually, I'm not sure I really have anything new to add to what I've already written, except to point out that one of the early commenters to Pollan's Amazon post Freudian slipped in a way that nicely sums up what I don't like about the whole movement. After explaining that Pollan's books made such an impact on him that he changed his approach to food and feels much better for it, he referred to his "new eating regime".

I think he meant "regimen"?

I'm thrilled for the commenter that he feels great, but that little slip sums up exactly what I don't want my food to be: I don't need a food-focused totalitarian regime running my life.

And that is exactly what I fear food would become if I spent more time thinking about the ethics of what I eat. I'm pretty sure I don't need more guilt in my life, or more seemingly binding rules for myself. So if I sometimes choose to eat a Little Debbie snack cake (or a McDonald's french fry), can I just feel OK about that?

I'm going to choose to say yes.

On Eating and Virtue

Katherine Mangu-Ward has a truly excellent essay in the current issue of Doublethink. It's a fairly biting (and funny) critique of recent incarnations of the "virtuous eater" - along with a lesson in the historical and theological origins of the concept. My favorite sentence:

Perhaps they can't stem their daughter's text-messaging addiction, but if a few extra dollars a month for organic milk will hold back little Madison's journey into adulthood, surely it's worth it.

Of course, I completely subscribe to some tenets of virtuous eating, including the concept skewered by the above sentence. (I have seen one too many overdeveloped 13-year-olds walking around my town.) As I've mentioned here before, accepting the Alice Waters guidelines - believing in the superiority of locally grown and seasonal products - is practically cost of entry into the foodie world.

At the same time, nobody likes a zealot. Who wants to have dinner with somebody who's so caught up in the origins of their food that they forget to actually enjoy it? Certainly not me. And I don't want to have those people over for dinner, either. Partly because I wouldn't want to cook for them...and partly because they sound boring.

On that note, I'm going to return to my non-PC kitchen for a brownie made from a box mix. Because it will taste good.