When histories are wrong, corrections have to be made !

Today, I received questions about the development of molecular and gastronomy... by some who was confusing "molecular and physical gastronomy" (i.e. a scientific activity), and "molecular cooking" (this means "cooking with modern tools imported from the laboratories"). 

And this person asked me if the following sentence was right (as you will see, it was NOT !) : 

 

 In early 1990, Professor Herve THIS and Professor Nicholas KURT embarked on culinary science research, funded by the European Union (EU) with Chef Ferran Adrià of El Bulli and Chef Heston Blumenthal of The Fat Duck.

 

My answer, in short, is : THIS IS ENTIRELY WRONG

Indeed, we (Nicholas Kurti and Hervé This) created Molecular and Physical Gastronomy in 1988 (but our research began much before).
 

We decided to create international workshops together, and the first one occurred in 1992.
Some chefs were invited but not Ferran Adria. Indeed the first chefs to attend these meetings were Raymond Blanc, Jean-Pierre Philippe, Elizabeth Thomas, Shirley Corriher, and some others. 

The chefs, by the way, were invited not because they were scientists, but because we wanted to study real culinary processes. And also because we wanted to modernize culinary techniques with tools from laboratories (physics for Nicholas Kurti, chemistry for me). 

Ferran Adria began using molecular cooking  (look : not molecular gastronomy) only in 1994, and Heston Blumenthal even later.
 

Then, laster, I invited Heston and Ferran to a European program (Innicon) which was created around me in 2000 (much later, then). And here, the idea was to transfer our scientific results to chefs (Ferran, Heston, but also Emile Jung and Christian Conticini, plus a German chef). There were meetings during which I explained to chefs how to use new hardware. And I had even a student of mine (Rachel Edwards-Stuart)  helping them practically.

If you want more, see : https://sites.google.com/site/travauxdehervethis/herv%C3%A9-this-vo-kientza-vive-la-chimie/5-et-plus-encore/pour-en-savoir-plus/questions-et-r%C3%A9ponses/histoire-de-la-gastronomie-mol%C3%A9culaire?authuser=0

Flavour and flavourings

 
During the final of the last note to note cooking contest, I saw the confusion between flavour and flavouring.

They are not at all the same thing, because the first word refers to taste, while the second applies to preparations used to give taste.
When we eat a banana, we taste a banana, but when we add to a yogurt a product that gives a strawberry taste, it is a flavouring agent that is used, and that formulates sapid, odorous compounds, with trigeminal action, etc. In short, preparations that give taste to what is added.

In English, the word flavouring is quite different from the word flavour. And our English-speaking friends have an advantage over the French... when they do not confuse everything. Because in French, there is still too often a confusion between an aroma and a flavour, so to speak.

From time immemorial, the aroma is the smell of an aromatic plant, of an aromatic plant.

And this is the reason why there is no aroma for a meat, or for a wine, because neither a meat nor a wine are aromatic plants.

There is a smell, when you smell the meat, or a retronasal smell when you chew it. But most of the time the eaters are not analytical, and they only perceive a "taste", a synthetic sensation that includes the smell, the retronasal odor, the consistency, etc.

And we call flavourings the preparations, sometimes wonderful, that we use to give taste to a dish.
For example, there are vanilla flavourings in every supermarket, strawberry flavourings added to yoghurts, for example.

And we must add that, for these products that are flavourings, there are good and bad ones: it is often a question of money, because the talent of the "formulators" is paid for, and the more complicated reproductions are often better judged. If you don't put a lot of money into it, then you often get a poor quality product.

With a siphon, do we make an emulsion or a mousse?

 
With a siphon, do we make an emulsion or a foam? The question is wrong, obviously, because it all depends on what we put in the siphon.

If we put water or an aqueous solution, then we will have a very different result than if we had first made a mayonnaise, which is already an emulsion, with droplets of fat dispersed in an aqueous solution.

Moreover, it also depends on the gas used to pre-fill the siphone. If a carbon dioxide cartridge is used, this gas will dissolve in an aqueous phase and will allow to obtain an effervescence, when the liquid in which it is dissolved will be put back to the atmospheric pressure, when the siphon is activated.

But if we used nitrous oxide, which will dissolve less, we can obtain -or not- an overflow.

Let's imagine the siphon turned upside down, with the liquid in the lower part. If we slowly open the valve, then a liquid will simply be pushed out of the siphon. But if we open the siphon more quickly, then gas can disperse in the form of bubbles, which will produce an expansion.

And if the liquid is an emulsion, with droplets of fat dispersed in the liquid, then bubbles will be added, and we will get an overflow emulsion.

In short, we can do what we want with a siphon: it is up to us to understand and act accordingly.

Iberian Ham

In a recent cooking competition note to note, some candidates included in their dish a preparation that they named "Iberian ham".

I will not go back to the question of the reproduction of traditional, classic ingredients or dishes, but I propose that we be astonished to see so named... what was not Iberian ham, but a kind of copy, a reproduction of such a product: the name was usurped, and I do not believe that it is "fair", in the sense of the regulation of the food trade.

And then, why make something new by naming it like something old? The innovation is hidden, instead of being highlighted.

But, in reality, this post is more about sharing an astonishment: the composition of the preparations that were proposed by the candidates who made these "copies of Iberian ham" were actually so different... that it was very difficult to recognize Iberian ham.

For me, and for many people with whom I discussed the question, Iberian ham is served in very thin slices: there is even this Spanish ceremony which consists in putting the ham horizontally, on a support, and using a long knife, to make well-sliced strips.

But, above all, this ham is a beautiful, alternating red and white areas. In the red areas, my friends who have studied this product know that the proteins have been partially hydrolyzed and have released amino acids and peptides, among other things, so that these parts have a lot of flavor. In the white areas, it is fat, and here again, the long evolution of the ham, its maturation have led to the formation of odorant compounds.
Finally, the Iberian ham is characterized by this alternation of areas of different consistencies and different tastes, and in any case powerful.

But we must not forget that there is a lot of fat in total and that this marbling is essential for the quality of Iberian ham.

But in the realisations that were submitted to me, there was no fat!
I must admit that I was a bit shocked and disappointed. Am I old-fashioned? Biased? I know that some members of the jury spontaneously made the same analysis as I did, so it is not idiosyncratic.

And here I am expressing my incomprehension/why did the competitors claim to be making a reproduction of Iberian ham when their preparation did not contain the fat that is almost the hallmark of this ham?