Serious Eats - seriouseats.com

Santi Santamaria can be accused of playa hating, but there are some valid points here as well. And Adria's response that the amounts he uses are very small are not convincing either. Just because you are using small amounts of something doesn't mean they aren't still dangerous. To cite an extreme example, all it takes is .106 grams of arsenic trioxide to kill a 155 pound human.

We have to simply be more informed about what it is we are using in our concoctions. Most of the stuff used in avant-garde cooking is actually naturally derived from plants, specifically the gelling and thickening agents, and are basically just fiber. Artificial preservatives are evil, but I don't really see why any chef would bother using those really, I haven't heard of any who do. Carrageenan is a substance, the safety of which is till unclear. Certain types of carrageenan have been deemed carcinogenic in lab rats, other types have been declared safe... Personally, I avoid it if possible.

I think, to me, the main issue is one of aesthetics. Are chefs doing things for the sake of trendiness as opposed to necessity, distinguishing between shortcut-taking and appropriate use of an ingredient? For example, thickening a sauce with a gel to cut back on food cost or skipping the time it would take to make a proper reduction, versus using a gel to thicken a fruit juice into a sauce in which you only want that flavor and don't want to add fat or starch, and don't want to add other flavors, or provoke the transformations brought by heat. So for example, if you had some really great, fresh raspberry juice you wanted to thicken for a sauce, and you didn't want to alter the flavor by adding sugar and fat and heat to get the thickness and smoothness in texture you imagined, using a hydrocolloid would be appropriate. You would end up with a coulis of pure raspberry...

Some effects, mainly textural, can only be achieved by using these modern methods. Then you have to ask yourself, is this effect worth it? Is it that much better than the way it's been done for X amount of years to warrant using this stuff? Does the pure raspberry coulis thickened with methyl cellulose taste and feel better than one made with added sugar, a little butter, lemon juice, and cooked down on the stove? Or is it just faster, cheaper, and trendier?

Not to sound like a Pollan drone (okay, maybe I am), but there's some efficacy to the idea that we simply do not understand enough about nutrients and the ways in which they interact with each other, or how these interactions make something healthy (or unhealthy), and how one element is needed to make another element digest efficiently (et cetera, et cetera). Molecular gastronomy is a farce as far as I'm concerned.

Besides, "foam" has got to be the stupidest trend in recent culinary history. Regardless of how intense the flavor is, or how nutritious it might (purportedly) be, I don't see the draw in eating anything that looks like a slug crawled onto my plate, was salted, and crawled back off leaving his death foam. Ick.

I'm with Sulin and Bravian. It's not like we're being forced to make a choice.
It seems clear that Santamaria has a huge axe to grind in this case. If Adria and company's food was chock full of artificial crap it would be one thing. I think it's fair to say that the molecular gastronomists appreciate the sanctity of a perfect peach or a perfect tomato as much as anyone else. They just prefer to take a different approach to food and cooking.

Come on, go to the grocer and grab a pint of ice cream and a "health food" bar ... between the two you are guaranteed to have xanthan gum, soy lecithin, carageenan, and probably guar gum ... wake up people, the food you eat every day is much worse for you than anything on Ferran Adria's menu. Food science is inextricably linked to cuisine thanks to the techno emotional food movement. Denying it is like saying the world is flat.

kindageeky
www.gastronomicguesswork.com

I so agree with Tonecat that this is not 'everyday' food for anyone. If I wish to spend my bucks on trying Molecular Gastronomy once in a while, going with an open mind and curiosity and a sense of humour to eat what it is on offer, that's my choice. I would treat it as I would visiting Beijing or Kyoto and eating something I have never tried before. In those circumstances I have taken my courage in my hands and eaten things I have never even heard of. Fascinating as they were, the molecular gastronomy at the Fat Duck (three Michelin Stars in Bray in the UK) was much much more delicious - and fun! That was the thing that struck us - how it made us laugh. It was, in a true sense, delightful. How lucky we are to be able to afford it as a magical treat on rare occasions.