Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Biotech Science

Chefs As Chemists 266

circletimessquare writes "Using ingredients usually relegated to the lower half of the list of ingredients on a Twinkies wrapper, some professional chefs are turning themselves into magicians with food. Ferran Adrià in Spain and Heston Blumenthal in England have been doing this for years, but the New York Times updates us on the ongoing experiments at WD-50 in New York City. Xanthan Gum, agar-agar, and other hydrocolloids are being used to bring strange effects to your food. Think butter that doesn't melt in the oven, foie gras you can tie into knots, and fried mayonnaise."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Chefs As Chemists

Comments Filter:
  • by mandown ( 1185523 ) on Tuesday November 06, 2007 @11:43PM (#21263007)

    looking at the blog referenced, there are possibly more interesting meals (and much better pics)

    El Bulli (referenced in the comments above too - lots of crazy looking stuff)
    http://chuckeats.com/blog3/2006/06/22/el-bulli-roses-spain-the-mad-scientist/ [chuckeats.com]

    Keyah Grande (looks stunning)
    http://chuckeats.com/blog3/2007/01/19/keyah-grande-pagosa-springs-co-rip/ [chuckeats.com]

    El Poblet (i'm not sure of the techniques used but it looks wild)
    http://chuckeats.com/blog3/2007/10/08/el-poblet-denia-spain-a-midsummer-nights-dream/ [chuckeats.com]

  • by FleaPlus ( 6935 ) on Wednesday November 07, 2007 @12:23AM (#21263267) Journal
    What a despicable thing to do to an animal just to make it tastier to eat.

    The photos of tubes being put down the throats of ducks certainly look horrific, but animal rights activists have a tendency to over-dramatize things. From an article in Time magazine:

    http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1669732,00.html [time.com]

    The debate is centered on the practice of gavage, in which corn is force-fed to farm-raised ducks through a funnel down their throats. Some argue that gavage is inhumane, while others counter that the physiology of a duck is not the same as a human. "It seems terrible if you don't know that a duck's esophagus is lined with a very thick cuticle, if you don't realize that baby ducks are fed by their mother pushing her beak down the baby's throat," says Ariane Daguin, owner of D'Artagnan, the largest foie gras purveyor in the U.S. Recent studies by Dr. Daniel Guémené, a leading expert on the physiological effects of gavage, have shown that ducks with young in the wild were under more stress than the ducks being fed through gavage. And both The American Veterinary Medical Association's House of Delegates and the American Association of Avian Pathologists have concluded that foie is not a product of animal cruelty.

    Also, here's an abstract of research by Guémené:

    http://www.edpsciences.org/articles/animres/pdf/2001/02/faure.pdf [edpsciences.org]

    The debate on welfare issues related to the force feeding of ducks and geese involves understanding the reactions of the animals to the force feeding process. Two types of experiment were performed. Ducks and geese were trained to be fed in a pen 8 metres away from their rearing pen and were then force fed in the feeding pen. The hypothesis was that if force feeding caused aversion, the animals would not spontaneously go to the test pen. There were some signs of aversion in ducks, but not full avoidance, and there were no signs of aversion in geese. In another experiment, the flight distances of ducks from the person who performed the force feeding and from an unknown observer were measured. Ducks avoided the unknown person more than the force feeder. Their avoidance of the force feeder decreased during the force feeding period. There was no development of aversion to the force feeder during the force feeding process.
  • by Bee1zebub ( 1161221 ) on Wednesday November 07, 2007 @12:25AM (#21263281)

    The chemical reactions that make a cake or a loaf of bread is not very different than making a vinegar/baking soda volcano.
    Whist baking cakes does tend to rely on sodium bicarbonate reacting with an acid (usually tartaric acid) to produce CO2, and also to a lesser extent on the natural raising agents in eggs, bread is completely different. Bread is risen by the carbon dioxide produced in anaerobic respiration performed by yeast (the same as when brewing), and the alcohol produced then evaporates off when the brad is baked.
  • by guzziguy ( 950240 ) on Wednesday November 07, 2007 @01:19AM (#21263607)
    What an ill-informed statement. Here's a few facts about this so-called "despicable" treatment: 1. Ducks (and geese) are not human. Things that might be uncomfortable to one species are perfectly fine to others. Anthropomorphism is bad, mmm-kay? 2. Ducks (and geese) are designed with a crop, no gag reflex, and an esophagus that is lined with stuff similar to what our fingernails are made of. Why? Because thy are designed to swallow really freaking huge things... like live fish that are flipping around with their tails still protruding from the bird's mouth. Does the bird care? Of course not... it will digest it when it's damn good and ready. 3. Migratory birds are designed to store *tremendous* amounts of fat prior to migration. They do NOT store fat on their hips and thighs (remember the anthropomorphism thing in note #1...). These birds store fat in their liver... it's what they do. It's not "diseased", it's simply stored. Once they stop eating and begin migrating, the fat is used, and the liver goes back to normal. Except, birds on foie gras farms aren't allowed to migrate, for obvious reasons. 4. Commercial chicken farms are far more cruel than foie gras farms, except you don't ever see people picketing restaurants trying to ban the serving of chicken. Odd. 5. There is a direct correlation between the amount of stress on a bird raised for foie gras and the quality of the foie that's produced. The result of this is that modern production methods pretty much dictate that the birds are treated like royalty during their rather brief lives. At Hudson Valley Foie Gras, for instance, once a person has been assigned as the feeder for a group of birds, that person is the *ONLY* person that can touch them... switching the person who is responsible for them just stresses the birds out. Bottom line: when I come back, I hope it's as a foie gras duck, because it pretty much guarantees that I'll live like a rock star, and then die young. Isn't that all anybody really wants? 6. Sheeple that regurgiate PETA bullshit should be thrown off a cliff, because their lack of ability to apply their own critical thinking to a situation is a big part of the reason common sense is being bred out of our gene pool. 7. I just got home from a 6-course foie gras dinner. It was orgasmic. Thanks. Carry on.
  • Not really (Score:3, Informative)

    by Rob Simpson ( 533360 ) on Wednesday November 07, 2007 @01:37AM (#21263709)
    Enzymes, being proteins, aren't normally absorbed by the body. (Which is why insulin, for example, can't be taken in tablet form.) Also, these enzymes aren't supposed to be floating around in the blood (which is where they'd be if they were absorbed) - Liver function tests [wikipedia.org] measure the presence of these enzymes in the blood, since they show that liver cells have been damaged/lysed, releasing their contents.

    Vitamin A deficiency [emedicine.com] is still a big problem [who.int] in developing countries, though, and liver is definitely the best source of it. Of course, too much of a good thing [bbc.co.uk] can also be a problem.
  • by TheLink ( 130905 ) on Wednesday November 07, 2007 @04:12AM (#21264385) Journal
    "Foie gras is comparable to chopping up an animal into serving size pieces - while it's still alive."

    It's not comparable at all. The geese willingly go to get themselves stuffed with food (google). It might not be healthy for them, but whether they get fattened or not they're going to get slaughtered in the end anyway. The farm definitely won't want any of them to die prematurely either.

    AFAIK, plenty of people willingly queue up to supersize their meals and themselves.

    As for slaughterhouses being shut down, people should be asking why there's so much salmonella and e. coli about - it's because of really crappy practices. Telling people to cook their contaminated meat thoroughly so that it's safe to eat is avoiding the real issue on why there's so much "shit" in/on the meat (or even vegetables) in the first place. The regulators allow unsafe practices and shift the problem to the consumers.
  • by stonecypher ( 118140 ) <stonecypher@gm[ ].com ['ail' in gap]> on Wednesday November 07, 2007 @11:18AM (#21267181) Homepage Journal

    That's nothing but a new name for an age old process.

    By this logic, it should be called food alchemy. Believe it or not, just because you don't know the difference doesn't mean that there isn't one.

    The process of adding heat to reagents (a.k.a. cooking) is in itself a chemical process.

    One which essentially nobody - including professional food chemists - understands in even the simplest of organic foods. Cooks sure as hell don't - they know how long to fry it, and generally what's going to happen when you fry it, but one mention of the single most prevalent chemical in the reaction, phospholipthene, and you're greeted with a bunch of glassy looks.

    You might as well argue that being a coffee barista is a chemist's process too; it turns out that frothing milk - the process of building a colloid from the 40 or so whey caseins and half dozen fats in cow's milk is more complex than broiling steak, baking bread and aging tofu put together. 'Course, they just get a five minute training on it, like a cook does: use at least four ounces of milk, keep the milk as cold as you can, keep the steam a quarter inch under the surface. That's cooking: being oblivious of the chemistry, and focussing on the food.

    Molecular gastronomy is a powerful tool for cooks, but it isn't cooking, and it's essentially useless on its own.

    Take baking, for example. For those who've never tried it, baking is a very precise exercise.

    Nonsense. You can vary the amounts of almost every ingredient in a bread dough by 200% or more and it'll still be just fine.

    You have to add precise amounts of reagents, mix them together in a certain order, and add a precise amount of heat for a precise amount of time.

    Have you ever baked? At all? Do you know what a bagel actually is? Did you know that if you want a crusty bread, you can just brush the half-cooked loaf with water, then oil, and increase cooking time ~20%? None of those three things you said are true; baking is, with notable rare exceptions like souffle, one of the most forgiving and imprecise forms of cooking there is. You almost couldn't have chosen a less appropriate example, short of slow-roasting meats or curing foods over months.

    That whole undertaking is very chemical in nature.

    What, because you need a specific amount of a specific stuff and you have to put it in at the right time? By that logic, putting gas in your car is a work of chemistry, as is washing your clothes (and let's not even get started on mixing paint.) Just because something is made out of chemicals doesn't mean using it is chemistry. Humans are made out of chemicals, too, y'know. In fact, everything is. You might want to look up the word "tautology."

    If you time it wrong, add the wrong amount of heat and/or reagents, then you're going to end up with some pretty disastrous results.

    Ah, so ironing my clothes is chemistry, using hot glue guns is chemistry, soldering is chemistry and alka-seltzer is chemistry. Got it.

    You're one of those people who argues that anything you can describe a process for is art, aren't you?

    The chemical reactions that make a cake or a loaf of bread is not very different than making a vinegar/baking soda volcano.

    The chemical reaction in vinegar volcanoes is a hydrogen exchange salt reaction.

    CH_3 COOH + NaHCO_3 --> CH_3 COONa + H_2 CO_3

    There are more than two hundred chemical reactions involved in bread, but the one you're probably thinking of is the yeast breaking sugar and alkali into alcohol and carbon dioxide. This is two primary reactions with dozens of variants:

    C_6 H_12 O_6 + Therm. --> 2 (C_2 H_5 OH) + 2 CO_2

    2 (C_3 H_6 O_3) + K_2 CO_3 --> 2(KC_3 H_5 O_3) + H_2 O + CO_2

    The two processes are, in fact, very different. One is a simple chemical reac

  • by AeroIllini ( 726211 ) <aeroillini@NOSpam.gmail.com> on Wednesday November 07, 2007 @02:32PM (#21270199)
    That story is actually attributed to the famous G.E. Electrical Engineer Charles Steinmetz, and the story was told by Charles Vest as part of the 1999 MIT commencement address [mit.edu].

    I can't guarantee that the story is true, but that's where it's from.

I tell them to turn to the study of mathematics, for it is only there that they might escape the lusts of the flesh. -- Thomas Mann, "The Magic Mountain"

Working...