I’d like to add a comment to this as well. I think it’s important to differentiate between technology and science, also in terms of cooking, and I’d like to take it a little further than Hervé This in on of his latest papers (in Comprehensive reviews in Food Science and Food Safety):

technology came BEFORE science and can in fact be two totally separated fields/entities. Science as we know it is a rather new phenomenon, while technology has been around as long as we could call ourselves humans. There wasn’t much science around in the bronze age, but it was certainly a technological progress when we learnt how to forge metal. So, the link between technology and science is a rather new phenomenon, and so technology may be a spin-off effect from science (but may also evolve without relying on science).

Thus, in my opinion, traditional cookery relies more on technology than science, while a main goal for MG is to benefit from science. Technology development has certainly benefited a lot from gastronomy (and mostly cookery), and more lately from science.

One should therefore be careful and discern between technology and science when talking about MG, as Hervé T. has been careful to stress in his later publications. MG should be more than common sense and good cooking, but also made available to the professional chef as well as the home cook. But, as science had taught us, some things that seem like common sense may in fact be misconceptions (as the classical question about searing the meat).

Grinding spices to maximize surface area would certantly fall under “rule” 4 or 5 rather than 1. Yes, maybe amateur cooks don’t know too much about this but I’m writing as a professional chef.

The Norwegian chef: As with most professions or arts you can find people with limited knowledge or don’t embrace new tecniques and ideas.

I heard a good chef once say: If I take a carrot and boil it, everythings okay and thats just cooking. If I then take use a blitzer and blitz it, thats still ok and just cooking. Maybe I’ll use a juicer and juice the carrot. Is that ok? ok.. Thats just cooking. But what if I use a centrifuge to separate the solids out of the juice? Then thats “molecular gastronomy” and everyone is scared and I’ve turned into a scientist and crazy person?

The fact is that everything to do with cooking has science involved. Cooking has evolved over a long long time and with our growing knowledge of science we can do more and more things every day.

Even the dishes of the great Caréme (1783-1833) couldn’t have been made 300 years before, because people didn’t have the tools or the knowledge. Was Caréme then using science in his cooking? Ofcourse he was, and maybe without even knowing it. But does that make him a scientist?

Our knowledge of science is growing very rapidly now and ofcourse we should use that knowledge in cooking. But we are still cooking food. Put a basket of food in front of a scientist and even with all his knowledge of what happens to proteins, sugars and fats at a molecular level, he will still not be able to cook as good a meal as a professional chef.

The point of my first comment is that a lot of people have forgotten what good food is. It’s more important to them to cook something noone has seen before or make a hot gellied something using methocel which looks amazing but tastes terrible.

The term “molecular gastronomy” is taking food in the wrong direction.

Food should be about taste and flavour. Not what you can do with some cool chemicals.

Stefan

I see your point that a lot from the list of tips might seem obvious and I certainly hope that every chef learns to use good and fresh raw materials. However, I hope to show you that there is more to this - think for example about ground vs. whole spices or coffee beans. When finely ground they loose aroma a lot faster than when whole, yet you have to grind them to get the flavor out. This relationship between surface area and “reaction rate” (ie. how fast the flavour is extracted) is very well known to chemists - perhaps less so to amateur cooks?

You go on writing that “every chef should” know about heat transfer and how to control texture, taste and flavour and have a feel for this or that. I absolutely agree! But why then do I read in a cook book published in 2006 (by a well known Norwegian chef) that I should sear the meat to seal it and close the pores? I think the sad fact is that although chefs “should” know about this - regrettably - not all do.

From what you write it seems that you are familiar with most of the topics - some of it might even seem obvious. If this is the case I can only congratulate you! But since I write both for chefs and amateur cooks, I guess it’s got to be like this.

I also have a request for you: Perhaps you could write a little more about what you think of molecular gastronomy (or the “scientific study of deliciousness” if you like)?

How is this list “tips for “molecular gastronomy”?

Using good and fresh raw materials? Isn’t that the first thing you learn when becoming a chef?

Knowing temperatures? Any chef should be able to do that, how is that “molecular gastronomy?

Understanding heat transfers and all that is also something every chef should have a feel for.

Controling textures of food is one of the main thing a chef should be able to do to make good and interesting food.

Controling taste and flavor!! that is also a basic skill any chef should have.

I wont go on…but everything on this list is just basic chef knowedge.

But, what in your mind is molecular gastronomy? When does cooking good food and paying attention to what you are doing become “Molecular gastronomy” instead of just gastronomy? does it depend on the equipment you use or or how high tech your kitchen is? (in my mind “molecular gastronomy” is nothing)

I hope you reply to this, i look forward to your answer.

Martin: is this list your own invention (distillate of other “MG-rules”)? I couldn’t find any reference on the list itself.