Molecular Gastronomy, The Science of Cooking

Roland Piquepaille writes "The Art of Cooking is evolving fast in this 21st century. New food products are being designed with the help of molecular technology, genetic discoveries or space research before arriving in our kitchens. For example, here is a Pravda article which says that NASA is preparing sandwiches which will still be edible after seven years. Companies like Kraft are also using nanotechnology to create food products tailored to users' needs. This is a booming market and, according to Associated Press, dozens of universities in the U.S. are offering degrees in culinology, attracting creative students in their food and science programs."

Comments

loads of oils, creams, butter and mayo

[mfh]

New food products are being designed with the help of molecular technology, genetic discoveries or space research before arriving in our kitchens.

This is good because eventually we will all want to have food that is chemically efficient for us to digest, without any of the wrong ingredients, but I question the health side of chemical/altered foods.

I was talking to a chef about a month ago who was complaining about having to put loads of oils, creams, butter and mayo in foods to achieve the taste that the consumer wants, at the expense of their health. "We're paid to kill people," was his complaint, and sadly I think he's right. This same chef was saying how it would be nice if there were alternatives to bad food, that would not jeopardize someone's health. I think that new advancements in science would be the right approach to solving the obesity problem, as long as people are protected from any negative side effects. Natural replacements seem to top this chef's list. He said that the natural foods are the very best for you, so he had little faith in chemicals or engineered food as being healthy for us.

I've stayed away from garbage food for only a short period and lost nearly 40 pounds of flubber! It's really simple, actually. Most people have a small breakfast, a bigger lunch and a huge dinner. I have a huge breakfast, a smaller lunch and a much smaller dinner (before 6pm usually). I eat from each of the four food groups every day.

This one cool salad the chef told me about is:

• Veggies (whatever you want)
• Salt & Pepper (loads of it unless you have a heart condition)
• Squeezed Lemon

The salad tastes like fish & chips with vinegar and salt, so I'm kinda tricking my body into thinking it is getting a load of grease (which all of our bodies crave, because they are stupid bags of carbon and mostly water -- and we all know how well oil and water gets along, don't we?).

I stay away from oils because they can ruin your whole system, and I think they reinforce our current fatty deposits, by feeding it somehow (it's not that much of a mystery). Once a week I have fat with meat, because the chef said that new fat kills old fat. New fat apparently replaces old fat, and then doesn't congreal as quickly if it's in turn replaced a week later. That doesn't mean overdo it... just a little will do. Apparently people who have been overweight for a long time have very dense fat that must be replaced in order for them to empty fatty deposits eventually.

My portions are smaller, and I'm not always hungry. I drink as much water as I can every day too, and it helps. I drink tea & coffee, and smoke regularly. I might not be the picture of health, but I am trying. ;-)

Now if we could only get some fat and tar eating nanoprobes... then we'd really be in business.

Re:loads of oils, creams, butter and mayo

[nido]

And if you will eat fat, how about eating healthy fat? Eat butter instead of margirine. Eat natural olive oil instead of processed oils. The problem is not fat, the problem is companies like McDonalds, to save a few pennies, are using crappy oils that are manufactured and not natural.

Actually, the primary motivator in McDonald's & other manufactured food providers' switch to partially-hydrogenated polyunsaturated oils (from tallow/lard and coconut/palm oil)was a misguided Holy War by the vegetarian-run Center for Science in the Public Interest, starting in 1984.

All based on fraud and lies. See the Mary Enig's The Tragic Legacy of CSPI:

CSPI's well publicized campaign against "saturated" frying fats, especially those used by fast-food restaurants, was launched in 1984 and was continued in 1986 when CSPI added the "tropical oils" to their list of supposed villains in the American diet.

The whitewash of trans fatty acids began in 1987 with an article by Elaine Blume, published in CSPI's Nutrition Action newsletter. Wrote Blume: "From margarine to Tater Tots, partially hydrogenated vegetable oils play a major role in our food supply. ... In fact, hydrogenated oils don't post a dire threat to health. ... Improving on Nature. ... Manufacturers hydrogenate... these vegetable oils so they won't become rancid while they sit on shelves, or during frying. ... it seems unlikely that hydrogenation contributes much to our burden of heart disease... The fact that hydrogenated oils appear to be relatively benign is cause for thanks, because these fats are everywhere."

In 1988, CSPI published a booklet called Saturated Fat Attack, which defended trans fatty acids and partially hydrogenated vegetable oils and called for pejorative labeling of "saturated" fats. The booklet contained a section called "Biochemistry 101," which claimed that only tropical oils were dangerous when hydrogenated. "Hydrogenated (or partially hydrogenated) fats are widely used in foods and cause untold consternation among consumers... [they] start out as plain old liquid vegetable oils (usually soybean), which are then reacted with hydrogen... converting much of the polyunsaturated fatty acids to monounsaturated fatty acids... [with]... small amounts... converted to saturated fatty acids... [e.g.], stearic acid, which seems to have no effect on blood cholesterol levels.

"Overall, hydrogenated fats don't pose a significant risk... exceptions are hydrogenated [tropical oils, which are made]... even worse after hydrogenation."

Obviously, the individuals writing the booklet were completely ignorant (or pretended to be ignorant) of lipid science. Modern hydrogenation methods create trans fatty acids rather than monounsaturated fatty acids, and very few saturated fatty acids. By 1988, the adverse effects of trans fats were well known. The article points out that stearic acid has no effect on blood cholesterol levels, yet CSPI continued to accuse beef tallow, which is rich in stearic acid, of "raising cholesterol and increasing the risk of heart disease." As for the tropical oils, they do not need to be hydrogenated!

Blume was at it again in March 1988 with another article, "The Truth About Trans ." "Hydrogenated oils aren't guilty as charged. ... All told, the charges against trans fat just don't stand up. And by extension, hydrogenated oils seem relatively innocent.. ... As for processed foods, you're better off choosing products made with hydrogenated soybean, corn, or cottonseed oil..." This article was widely disseminated; Michael Jacobson provided it as a handout to members of the Maryland Legislature during hearings when the University of Maryland group tried to introduce labeling of trans fatty acids in the State.

But by 1990, CSPI could no longer defend the indefensible.

Spice things up?

[_Sharp'r_]

Does this mean we might actually get some good new spices, once they start playing around with modifying existing ones somewhat gastronomically scientifically?

Seven years isn't all that new

[danamania]

For example, here is a Pravda article which says that NASA is preparing sandwiches which will still be edible after seven years.

In around mid 1998, I cleaned my car out and found, among the other rubbish in the back seat, an obviously forgotten McDonalds paper bag, one either me or one of my passengers had bought & forgotten about. It contained a Quarter Pounder and Fries that had been sitting there, dried out for who knows how long. I honestly couldn't remember the last time I'd been to McDonalds when i was doing the cleaning, so I'm guessing it had been there at least six months to a year.

The fries looked OK. they'd been kept inside the bag & never exposed to the air so no bugs had managed to crawl in. The real surprise was the quarter pounder - I unwrapped it and found a perfectly preserved edible looking and smelling burger. To look at and sniff, it was no different to a brand new fresh one, it was just rock hard and dried out.

I gave it to my niece who kicked it around for a couple of days in the back yard - it didn't look much worse for wear after that either.

Judging by the condition of that quarter pounder, I wouldn't be surprised if it would have lasted through to today if I'd kept it in the bag.

Absurd

[GuyMannDude]

I was talking to a chef about a month ago who was complaining about having to put loads of oils, creams, butter and mayo in foods to achieve the taste that the consumer wants, at the expense of their health. "We're paid to kill people," was his complaint, and sadly I think he's right.

What a rediculous statement. It's fine to eat something unhealthy every once in awhile as long as you don't make a habit of it. Eating well 28 days a month will render whatever you do the remaining 2 or 3 days pretty much irrelevant. Avoiding being stabbed 28 days won't help you to much if you are getting stabbed 2 or 3 days a month.

If your buddy really felt that he was getting paid to kill people, he would quit so obviously he himself realizes his statement is rediculous.

This same chef was saying how it would be nice if there were alternatives to bad food, that would not jeopardize someone's health.

There are. They are called vegetables. Again, you eat plenty of vegies and you can get away with eating all sorts of nasty stuff occasionally.

Your theories on fat murdering other fat are interesting to say the least. You might want to pick up a copy of Fats That Heal, Fats That Kill by Udo Erasmus for a slightly more scientific explanation of how fats operate inside your body.

When I go out to eat, I don't worry about how healthy the food is and my cholesterol numbers kick holy ass. How do I do it? Because I don't go out to eat very much and when I eat at home I'm very, very healthy. There's no need for genetically engineered superfoods. Just eat right 95% of the time and live a little the reminaing 5%.

GMD