Say What ?

A well known Chicago chef I will absolutely under no circumstances name forwarded me a blog post this afternoon asking for my opinion on something he had read  and wanted to know if I agreed.
Here is the post in question.

Read the whole post first.

The Flavor of Color.

For the record, Tasting menu is one of the best blogs out there full of solid helpful information by the very talented Dana. This is not an attack but an intellectual disagreement.

All  cooks  have a fiduciary responsibility not to allow dicey statements that go to the very heart of cuisine  to be taken as gospel.

The problem is not obvious but it is there.
Here is the problem :

This quote from the post clarifies the issue.

"I made a fresh sour cherry sauce that while stunning in flavor, was an off brown color. I split the sauce into two batches, and colored one with a bit of red food coloring. Two drops changed the dull brown color into a bright, vibrant red, much the color of the unprocessed cherries themselves. I had the cooks I worked with taste both and tell me which one tasted better, citing a difference in method as the reason for the color variation.

Cook after cook named the bright red cherry sauce as the better of the two. Way better, hands down above and beyond, they all said in their own words. To them, the bright red was an indicator of real cherry flavor, a better product, better handling, thus the sauce tasted better.

This brings up a deeper question. If the two sauces were identical in flavor, one only varying by the addition of two drops of color, then could one possibly taste better than the other? In fact the sauces were the same composition of flavor and texture, but in perception they were different, so which one is true?"

In order to have a true comparative blind tasting, one has to completely remove ALL "built in bias".
"Built in bias" scuttles any theory even before it's made.

I would say that in this case both batches of cherry sauce are explicitly described as identically the same since it is the same batch divided in half.

Food coloring is not a "flavoring" agent, it's a "coloring" agent and thus stands to reason that in cannot in anyway affect flavor unless we want to re-write the laws of chemistry.
It simply is not true.

Chemistry does not have a new testament, the bible does.

Furthermore there are two layers of bias in the theory.

The first layer of bias is the fact that it is widely known that humans have a perception of desirable color as more desirable and thus tastier, but it isn't "tastier".
It just looks better.

The second layer of bias is the fact that the cook-tasters were deceived because they were told that color variation was due to different technique.

The importance of that statement is not to be dismissed because what it in fact does is create two scenarios in which you have the impression that one product was made in a better-correct way and one was made in a worse-wrong way.

If that was a jury instruction in a law suit, the case would be easily dismissed on appeal with representation by a paralegal.

Therefore none of the tasters are making up their minds, it's been done for them already and  their opinions are effectively meaningless.

A simple way to prove it is to  blindfold the tasters and not have them see the color of both sauces. The results would be statistically insignificant.

Just to be on the safe side without sounding like a know-it-all-jackass, I forwarded the article to a flavor research friend at The Monnell Chemical Senses Center and they clearly disagree.

Color has no flavor, it has color and that color affects your perception of flavor.

Heston's golden beet-blood orange amuse ONLY speaks to the perception of flavor not improved flavor.

Comments

[Phil]

I think this could be one of those "tree falls in a forest" philosophical questions: does "flavor" exist outside of perception? Just as a falling tree will create pressure waves that are perceived as sound by our ears, a food will have a certain chemical makeup that will be perceived as a flavor on a tongue. But do pressure waves make for sound without a listener? Do chemicals make for a flavor without a taster?

I'm not sure that flavor can be completely objective, each of us probably experiences these chemicals differently, subjectively. (Which is why I'm skeptical about the whole Heston Blumenthal method of finding flavor compatibility, but that's another argument.)

So, I'll agree that the set-up, suggesting that one was better than the other, pollutes the experiment. But I'm not sure that letting the people see the color is. The color will affect the perception of the food, and whether it's actually the "flavor" or something that becomes conflated with it, might be a moot question. It's perceived as flavor. Does it matter whether the preference results from the firing of neurons in the tongue or further up the chain in the brain? If a subject thinks the redder substance tastes better, it does!

[AJ]

Actually, I'm not sure I see disagreement between what you say and what Dana says. "The Flavor of Color" seems more an interest piquing headline rather than a suggestion that color itself is a flavoring agent. She starts and finishes the post referring to the perception of flavor.

And once at the table...isn't always a battle of diner perception vs the chef's desired outcome?

[AJ]

Also, it seems as though you're taking issue with the structure of Dana's "experiment." Perhaps it isn't perfectly designed...but the theory and experimental outcomes have panned out similarly in more rigorous contexts. Cf. the work of Brian Wansink ("Mindless Eating"). He's described examples of toying with diner perceptions in numerous ways from adding red food color to white wine and getting tasters to attach red wine descriptors...to simply changing the labels on bottles of wine (California vs. North Dakota).

[Evan]

I don't see the mold in the petri dish here. Why is every scoop of pistachio ice cream still green? Why don't they stop dying pistachios red or american cheese orange? Because people associate color with their overall perception of flavor - the experience and expectation of what they eat. It really sticks. It's very powerful. Most kids won't eat anything green after they've tried a bad veg or two.

[shola]

I believe you are all missing the point.

Phil.
Yes flavor exists outside perception.

There is no point doing a "blind tasting" if people can see the stuff.
It's like a wine tastgin with labels on and asking tasters to guess which wine is which with the bottles right in front of them.

No offense but the "tree falls in the forest" analogy has been used for years and it is NOT a philosophical question, it's an outdated analogy.
Prior to the invention of microphones and recording devices, perhaps we would have wondered but now we can simply set up a tape recorder, go away and come back to play the tape and hear the noise the tree made when it fell.

It isn't a question of neurons firing from the tongue or brain.
It's a PREDETERMINED conclusion.
Predetermined conclusions do not fall under the protocols of modern experimentation.
It's like saying a new drug works with no long term side effects without FDA trials.

AJ
The "flavor of color" would be accurate if you can reverse the words to "color of flavor".
It isnt.

Experiments with flawed structures are not experiments, they are called manipulated conclusions.
If an experiment is "perfectly" designed, it's biased and thus no pronouncements of scientific accuracy or certainty can be made.
It's bullshit.

Shacke.
Ameriacan cheese is not cheese, it's a coagulated dairy product.
Pistachio ice cream is naturally green if you use sicilian pistachios.

The underlying question here is does color improve flavor ?
Answer is NO.
It may affect it's perception or desirability but it does not make it tastier.

[jamesb]

But doesn't perception play a role in our minds as to how food tastes? TK's oyster and pearls eaten in the French Laundry tastes better than Joe Blows oyster and pearls in Restaurant Wannabe, even with the exact same ingredients. Perception is affected by TK's reputation, the setting, etc. Perception makes us hungry, thus makes us want to taste things. Even if its all bullshit, Shola you make some tasty food. I say that because the colors in your photographs make me hungry.

[Jimmy m]

Which has more truth to it...the perception of a single person (something which we all can attest to,...we experience what we perceive) or the "truths of chemistry" of which we can only read in a book (although that in a way necessitates our perception)
Are you implying that what is essentially written in a book and a "tested theorem" has more merit than the experience of a person???

[shola]

James

Perception does play a role in our minds as to how things taste but it does not make them taste better. It makes some of us think it tastes better.

Eating oysters and pearls at the French laundry as opposed to a wannabe restaurant in Iowa is not a scientifically fair comparison to justify the argument.
If you secretly had Thomas Keller make oysters and pearls at some no name restaurant, same exact recipe executed by Keller himself, I bet you virtually everyone would say "it does not taste as good as the FL version" and that would be clearly nonsense, it would be the same exact dish made by Keller except YOU don't know that.
Bias affects perception but perception affects choice, not flavor, CHOICE.

It does not taste better, the supplemental bias information you have been given makes you think it tastes better but it tastes the same.

As for the compliment, thank you.
Some of my food does look good but I NEVER use food coloring.
The larger question is should fine dining restaurants that preach technique use food coloring ?

[Ben]

I think there is some miscommunication/misunderstanding here. I don't think anyone (including the author of the original post) is saying that color, in and of itself, has flavor or improves flavor. What they are trying to say (I think) is that, in real world everyday situations, flavor is complex and heavily influenced by our perception, and color is a substantial element of that perception. Was the cherry experiment flawed? Sure. If it was a blind tasting would they have had identical flavors? Of course. However, we are not generally blindfolded (or otherwise sensory deprived) when eating and the color of our food *does* impact flavor. Notice I said "impact" NOT "improve". The flavor limit is the intrinsic/absolute flavor of that piece of food. The flavor can never go beyond that regardless of color - however - within that limitation, and as long as you're in a real world setting, flavor can vary wildly depending on a number of variables, including color. Ask the guy that thought the pink cream was pepto-bismol.

As an aside - the tree falling in the forest is a legitimate philosophical question/riddle. The tape recorder answer does not solve or discredit it.

[shola]

Jimmy M

This is not a first amendment constitutional argument.
It's a scientific argument.

People are free to have their own opinions but the "EMOTION" of a personal experience as profound as it may be does not nullify the established science of Chemistry, Physics, Logic or even Conventional Wisdom.

The "truths of chemistry" are not things we can only read in a book, they are in books because books are records of established scientific research on subjects that occur fluidly around us.

Yes established science has more merit than emotional biased reactions.

[shola]

BEN

Quibbling between the interpretations of the words "IMPACT" and "IMPROVE" is absurd.
There is no miscommunication here.
IMPACT means CHANGE.
Flavor does not CHANGE based on color, perception of it may change but it does NOT change.

The color of food affects the flavor of food.
The color of food affects the perception of flavor of the food.

Those are two completely different statements.
The first one is wrong.
The second one is right.

As for the tree in the forest, you can't be serious !
Is it your argument that the absence of direct human observation nullifies physics and in particular sound wave theory ?

Does photosynthesis stop because we are not staring at a plant for 20 hours straight ?
Does a waterfall not make any noise at 3am when nobody is observing it ?

Naturally occurring sounds in nature do not have a pre-requisite of human observation.
EVEN unnaturally occurring sounds don't such as Chuck Yeager crossing the speed of sound.

[johndory]

i have seen the green food coloring at Daniel nyc firsthand for the petit pois, a little dash in the soup.

[alex]

Interesting discussion. Reminds me of the terroir-discussion for wine. Talking about wine, I know that it appears to taste different if u change the color of the light bulbs in your room.
More generally there are so many factors influencing how something tastes. Mood and atmosphere, the place. I often experienced for example that exactly the same Languedoc wine tastes way better drunken in the south of france under the sun during holidays (relaxed ambiance, the smell of the air is different maybe) than at home in Germany, even if the sun is shining there too. So food and wine have to create ambiance too in order to taste better, they have to transport feelings, maybe give the impression that they've been prepared with love, care, and attention to detail.

[elarael]

I read that post and while I am against food coloring, unless it's for some sort of fun and with full disclosure - maybe; I do *feel* that eating and flavor involves far more sensory input than we are necessarily aware of.

My best experience with this is having tasted the difference of food grown and prepared with 'love' by passionately organic, earth-worshippers of the sort that also sell to places like the French Laundry and C.Panisse, like my favorite market vendor who also supplied Washington, DC's Restaurant Nora. (This was a while ago.) It is without a doubt noticeably tastier than mass-produced organic produce. Which I find facinating.

I wonder if those who tried the colored sauce were truly tasting or were they just jaded and relying on their eyes to determine what was good.

[Judith Klinger]

Here is my problem with science v. perception: taste is a sense that relies heavily on the sense of smell. Couldn't taste ALSO rely on visual stimulus?
Yes, the cherry sauce experiment was flawed, but the author may be on to something.
Thing about your platings; they are deliberately designed to please the eye, which instinctively leads to tempting the palate. So there may very well be a definitive link.