Who are the Food Experts?
“Rachael Ray is to chefs what Harold McGee and Nathan Myhrvold are to food scientists.”
That’s the title of a blog post by Rachel Zemser who blogs as the Intrepid Culinologist (a culinologist is a chef who works in the food industry. Zemser herself has BS in Food Science from the UMass, a MS in Food Microbiology from the University of Illinois, and a culinary arts degree from the New York Restaurant School/Art Institute. She’s worked at Unilever, Kagome, and Plum Organics).
In her blog post, Rachel Zemser argues that Just as Rachael Ray, of cooking show fame, made cooking accessible to a broad audience, so food science writers like Harold McGee (of On Food and Cooking) and Nathan Myhrvold (of Modernist Cuisine)
took the mysterious world of food science and made it into something that everyone could understand and relate to–and play with in their own at home kitchens.
The same could be said of Sandor Katz (of the Art of Fermentation) who popularized the outpouring of research on indigenous fermentation around the world carried out by microbiologists in the 1980s and 1990s (see references below).
Now let me be quite clear that McGee, Myhrvold, and Katz are more than aware of their debt, meticulously noting their sources.
And let me be equally clear that their use of food scientists’ research in no way diminishes their own achievements. It takes enormous creativity and skill to translate technical research into readable, understandable works that generate widespread interest.
Even so, Rachel Zemser’s post helped me clarify a couple of ideas that have been rattling around in my head in the past year. One of these is the widespread ignorance (my ignorance included) of the vast number of real experts in food working around the world. Even though I spent years working on food history, until recently I had no idea how many, how various, and how knowledgeable were researchers in food.
Because of speaking engagements, I’ve recently had the chance to talk to food scientists, food technologists, plant pathologists, botanists, wheat breeders, development specialists, ecologists, water experts, biochemists, food safety experts, lawyers, climatologists, agronomists, and agricultural economists. They work in universities, industry, NGOs, foundations, and government research centers.
What better than this group photo of the Borlaug100 conference to suggest the army of experts out there, and these just specialists in things to do with wheat?
The 700 scientists from 56 countries who attended the Borlaug100 conference in Obregón, Mexico in 2014
Which brings me to the second point. Insofar as these researchers are acknowledged, they tend to be discounted. Zemser feels that most people view food scientists (and by implication most people involved in the food industry broadly construed) as
a bunch of artificial flavor using, high fructose corn syrup worshipping, preservative injecting, GMO supporting scientists responsible for world-wide obesity and diabetes. . . [to be disdained by] the foodie, hippie, artisan, free thinkers of the food world.
Although that may be overstating it, no one can disagree that professionals in the food industry are generally disdained by the food movement. Consider two examples that I ran into shortly after reading her rant.
1) George F. Gao, director of the CAS Key Laboratory of Pathogenic Microbiology and Immunology at the Institute for Microbiology of the Chinese Academy of Sciences wrote an editorial in Science. A new influenza virus, probably the result of bird to human contact, had caused 99 deaths. Because this virus might set off a global pandemic, he regretfully suggested that it might to time to consider closing the live poultry markets in China.
When I posted the story on social media, at least one respondent assumed that Gao was employed by one of the big poultry companies and thus his message could be dismissed.
2) Michael Pollan’s introductory lecture in his 2014 Rise and Future of the Food Movement course at the University of California at Berkeley, features the potatoes used for McDonald’s fries. The pesticide used on the potatoes was so toxic that no one could go into the field for days after, the potatoes had to de-gas for months, and McDonald’s lent on the farmers to engage in these appalling practices, was his story.
Whoa, I thought. This has either to be over-stated or taken out of context.
And sure enough, Steve Savage of Applied Mythology patiently explained the background. The US government regulates the time that must elapse before entering fields that have been sprayed, always erring on the side of caution. The potatoes are stored because they are harvested once a year (surprise) and (I suspect) because older potatoes make better fries. And potato growers have plenty of options for selling potatoes of different sizes.
Such discounting and misreporting of food stories is at the very least unhelpful.
There are welcome signs that an increasing number of reporters and people in the food world want to set things straight.
And to return to the start of this post, part of that setting right is bringing to light the work of the thousands upon thousands of largely hidden, often maligned people experimenting, observing, recording, developing products, testing, and creating safety nets for restaurants and school lunches, on farms and research stations, in corporate and government laboratories, for packing plants and supermarkets.
Thoughts?
__________________
Steinkraus, K. H., ed. (1995 for 1983). Handbook of Indigenous Fermented Foods. New York, Marcel Dekker, Inc. This was a pioneering work by Keith Steinkraus.
N. R. Reddy, Legume-Based Fermented Foods (1986)
Larry R. Beuchat, Food and Beverage Mycology (1987)
C. W. Hesseltine and H. L. Wang, Indigenous Fermented Food of non-Western Origin (1986)
Hamid A. Dirar, The Indigenous Fermented Foods of the Sudan (1993)
Applications of Biotechnology to Traditional Fermented Foods (1992)
Norm F. Haard et al, Fermented Cereals: A Global Perspective (1999).
Or this more recent series on indigenous fermented food and beverages.
I fully agree. The distrust of food science proceeds IMO from the idea that industrial food production has removed much of the natural flavour and goodness of food and replaced it with an industrialized, doctored semi-artificial food we buy because it is cheap and convenient. This over-simplifies a certain amount of truth. No one would argue a fresh-grilled sardine is better than a canned one (although canning arguably created a new genre of foods, I understand that). Or that processed white bread doesn’t taste as good as a loaf hand-made which includes whole grains. Jane Grigson bemoaned the “pink disgrace” of English commercial sausage production. But even these savvy writers would not have denied the convenience and cheapness of these foods, “fueling”, Grigson called it. They never would have airily dismissed the hard-won achievements of modern food science the way too many do today. An early pioneer who recognized the common interest food scientists and foodies have is the late Alan Davidson. His literate and amusing body of work especially in his chosen field of fish cookery always cites biologists and other scientific fish authorities with great respect (while sometimes disagreeing with their practical theories, e.g., one recalls his diplomatic disagreement with the “Canadian” method of cooking fish, one adumbrated in the 50′s or 60′s by a paternalistic Canadian food ministry or agency. It had to do with computing cooking time by the thickness of the fillets). But we owe the quality of our lives to food science. You are very right to recall this for the world’s foodies especially those who may be overly taken with the allure of young raw cheese, say, or raw pork tartare of Berkshire this or that, or mussels tinted an amusing red…
You won’t get any disagreement from me, Gary! Except for the minor point that traditionally foodies (to be anachronistic) from the Ancient World to the present leapt on the latest food science. It’s only in the last few decades this has changed.
Yes thanks, that makes sense. Canning in the 1800’s was regarded with wonder I’m sure, or later things such as the pressure cooker, the microwave. Liebeg was admired by all. Maybe the counter-tradition started once a late stage of industrialization had set in, to rediscover a world of “natural” innocence that never existed of course.
Exactly right, I think.
Of the several thoughts running through my mind, the two that seem to be most insistent are that we definitely need people to demystify science — because if people don’t understand it, they won’t trust it — or fund it; and, re: Michael Pollan — he gets so many things wrong, I wonder how he stays popular.
Okay — a third thought — your post also underscores the fact that most people have no idea that governments are involved in any of this. There are rules and regulations — not always good ones, I’ll grant you — but to put everything on the companies is wrong.
As for your comment about the number of experts — absolutely — a tremendous array of people work in various aspects of food research and safety — usually wonderful, interesting people.
Thanks for an insightful post.
I agree Cynthia. Demystify science and at the same time make it seem wondrous and useful without lecturing. Not easy at all. Agreed about Pollan. His star is slightly on the wane in the US but not as much as one might expect. I wouldn’t have imagined him popular in Australia but it sounds as if I am wrong. Agreed about government. There are lots of players in the food world and government is way up there. I see both good and bad in all the players, including the consumers. And I have thoroughly enjoyed meeting people in food research and safety and learned so much from them. BTW, I drove the Great Coast Road in the 80s and loved it. Great blog.
Thanks for visiting my blog, Rachel. Fun to know that you, too, have seen that remarkable stretch of coastline.
After exploring your blog a bit more, I just ordered your book. I talk and write about food history, as well, and it sounds as though this will be an amazing resource. So pleased to have discovered you.
Please let me know what you think of my book!
Fascinating read, Rachel. I enjoyed reading the comments, too. Why is it that the popular sentiment is to want the most complicated, “advanced” technology in every other part of our lives – phones, cars, computers – that the average person cannot understand but still demands, yet technology or science in regards to food is blasphemy?
Animal science is my background and my celebrity crushes are all involved with meat production and safety ranging from animal behaviorists, food safety experts, skilled meat cutters, epidemiologists, meat scientists… I love meat nerds!
I’ll add meat nerds to my list of people to meet! And, yes, food is the exception, perhaps because it is so closely associated with nature and with the idea that the more pristine the better.
Writing on food in India I have learned to have great appreciation for the network of agricultural scientists in the various specialized institutes that make up the Indian Council for Agricultural Research. The range of institutes can be surprising – driving to or from the new airport in Bangalore which is very far from the city, its always cool to pass the National Bureau of Agriculturally Important Insects – and the directors are obviously busy people, but they have usually taken the time to respond in detail to queries I have sent them.
I remember on an impromptu visit to the town of Hissar near Delhi I dropped in unannounced at the Central Research Institute for Buffaloes and had a fascinating chat with the director about buffaloes. The director of the National Research Centre for Bananas in Trichy was always very helpful in identifying banana varieties from often vague descriptions or pictures I would mail him. And the director of the Central Tuber Crops Research Institute in Kerala helped me debunk one of those viral mails that’s been going around about how tapioca processing involves rotting the roots, which encourages breeding of insects that are crushed into the product when the roots are processed, hence making them non-vegetarian!
And yes, I’ve heard the work of such scientists routinely being attacked by people in the farmers market and organic food movements, many of whose efforts I respect and support but this tends to be a blind spot. (No prizes for guessing who is the leader in stirring up antagonism for these scientists, despite her own claims to being a scientist). The other danger some institutes are facing is from urbanisation, something I wrote about in this piece:
http://blogs.economictimes.indiatimes.com/onmyplate/agricultural-research-s-real-estate/?sortBy=oldest
Now that’s a grand great aunt to have, Vikram. And I must send you my obituary of K.T. Achaya. Not in agriculture per se but so knowledgeable about the past and present of Indian food processing.