Here we go again.
I like Michael Symon. I really do. He's
a talented chef, he's fun to watch, and he seems like a genuinely
nice guy. But if he “caramelizes” one more piece of meat, I swear
I'm going to stop watching “The Chew,” Iron Chef America,” and
anything else he's on because it just raises my blood pressure.
Seriously, Michael. You went to the
Culinary Institute, an establishment that I know for a fact teaches
the difference between “caramelizing” and “browning.” Were
you absent that day, or what?
To be sure, Michael is not the only TV
chef to perpetuate this misnomer. Rachael Ray is bad about it, too.
But I can be more forgiving since her culinary education came through
the candy counter at Macy's. Formally trained chefs are another
matter, though, and Michael is certainly among the most consistent
and flagrant abusers. I mean, really; does he have a problem with the
word “brown?” I wouldn't be surprised one of these days to hear
him address his “Iron Chef” coworker as “Alton Caramelize.”
Or maybe to call his beloved football team the Cleveland
“Caramelizers.”
Certain people in certain professions
adopt arcane vocabularies relevant to those professions. They
basically stop speaking English because it somehow feels too common.
Instead, they rely on words and phrases that they believe give them
more gravitas or credibility or something. Cops are really bad for
this. “The suspected perpetrator was apprehended while in the
commission of a felonious act.” Translation: “The bad guy got
caught.” But that doesn't sound officious enough, does it? Hence
the excessive verbiage.
Now, I wouldn't be so peeved if Michael
Symon, et. al. were merely overusing the term “caramelization.”
But not only are they overusing it, it's the wrong term.
Wrong, Michael, wrong! As
in “not right.” As in “incorrect.” As in “inaccurate, erroneous, mistaken, sbagliato, erroneo.”
(Thought
maybe a little Italian would help.)
You do
not, you cannot
“caramelize” meat. It is scientifically impossible. Meat browns
through a chemical process
called the “Maillard reaction.” I guess “caramelize” just
sounds more “cheffy.” After all, “caramelization” has five
syllables – or six, depending on your pronunciation – while poor
lowly “browning” has only two. So obviously “caramelization”
is the better word because it's bigger, right?
Never mind that it's wrong.
To
illustrate, here's a quote from a book published by Michael's alma
mater, the Culinary Institute of America; “The first step in many
braises or stews is to brown the surface of the meat or poultry
quickly in fat over high heat.” Later in the paragraph; “Brown
the meat in batches without overcrowding.” Still more; “After the
meat is browned, remove it from the pot and sauté
a mixture of aromatics in the same fat.” “Brown” and “browned,”
not “caramelize” and “caramelized.”
On
page 299 of his excellent book, What Einstein Kept Under
His Hat, food scientist and
former Washington Post food
columnist, Robert L Wolke, writes: “Much confusion exists between
Maillard browning and sugar browning or caramelization. Both a sugar
molecule's carbonyl group and a protein molecule's amino group must
be present if Maillard browning, also known as sugar-amine browning,
is to take place. Heat accelerates the Maillard browning reactions,
but they can take place at temperatures as low as 122°
F (50°C).
The reactions can even proceed slowly at room temperature, such as
when foods turn brown from age. In
contradistinction, the browning of pure sugar or other carbohydrates
at temperatures higher than about 250°F
(120°C)
– in the absence of an amino acid or other nitrogen-containing
compound – takes place by a completely different set of complex
chemical reactions, called caramelization. Many
chefs seem to love the word caramelize,
and use it indiscriminately to describe any food that turns brown
upon being cooked. But meat, poultry, fish, vegetables, and other
protein-containing foods do not caramelize. They simply brown. Not as
fancy a word, perhaps, but accurate.”
And to
further reinforce my point, I refer to the well-respected Harold
McGee, whose exhaustive work On Food and Cooking: The
Science and Lore of the Kitchen is
almost an industry Bible. On page 688, McGee states, “Caramelization is the
cooking of plain sugar syrup until it turns brown and aromatic. It is
similar to the browning or Maillard reactions that give color and
aroma to roasted meats, baked goods, and other complex foods, but
unlike the browning reactions it proceeds in the absence of amino
acids and proteins. It requires higher temperatures than the browning
reactions, and produces a different mixture of aromatic compounds and
therefore a different flavor. Cooks have spoken of 'caramelized'
or 'carmelized' meats for better than a century, but this is not
really correct.”
What's
the big deal, you ask? Just this. Michael Symon and his colleagues
are respected experts in their field. And they are public figures,
exposed to millions of viewers on a daily basis. They are teachers.
People trust them to be knowledgeable. So when Michael says the word
“caramelize” fifty times in a single segment as he browns
a piece of meat, millions of
trusting viewers accept it as the proper term. They then begin to use
it themselves, resulting in millions of people walking around
ignorantly using an incorrect cooking term because they assumed
their teacher knew what he was
talking about. And that's just sad.
And lest you should
think that I am but a lone annoying voice crying in the culinary
wilderness, here's a comment I received on my food blog following a
previous post on the subject: “Yay, thank you! I went looking for
someone on the web to explain this correctly. I'm SO SICK of Rachel [sic]
Ray using 'carmelize' interchangeably with 'brown.' I'm also sick of
people like Sandra Lee pronouncing mascarpone as 'marscapone.' These
are highly paid 'professionals'???”
I feel your pain,
friend. And I've written at length on the subject of properly
pronouncing food words and terms. What many of these TV chefs
apparently don't realize is the fact that although some viewers tune
in to these programs solely to be entertained, a lot more watch in
order to gain some degree of education. And what kind of education
are they getting when their instructors are ignorant?
As an example, my
sixth-grade teacher. It was a small Indiana town and this man's
country accent was so thick he could barely be said to be speaking
English, much less teaching it. And when it came time for a unit on
mythology, the things this ignoramus did to Roman and Greek names
would have been laughable were it not so pathetic. He “taught” an
entire generation of Hoosier kids that “AY-thens” was the capital
of Greece and that the goddess of wisdom was called “ay-THEE-nee-uh.”
He had no business being an educator.
Please,
Michael, Rachael, and the rest of you meat caramelizers. If you went
to culinary school, you know better.
And even if you didn't, experience should have taught you the
difference by now. I guess it doesn't matter what you call it in the
confines of your kitchens, but when you move out into the larger
world of food television, a place wherein you take up the mantle of
instructor, you really need to properly represent your craft. Keep
the good food and the great recipes coming, but be aware of what
you're teaching your audience.
Pages
The View from My Kitchen
Benvenuti! I hope you enjoy il panorama dalla mia cucina Italiana -- "the view from my Italian kitchen,"-- where I indulge my passion for Italian food and cooking. From here, I share some thoughts and ideas on food, as well as recipes and restaurant reviews, notes on travel, a few garnishes from a lifetime in the entertainment industry, and an occasional rant on life in general..
You can help by becoming a follower. I'd really like to know who you are and what your thoughts are on what I'm doing. Every great leader needs followers and if I am ever to achieve my goal of becoming the next great leader of the Italian culinary world :-) I need followers!
Grazie mille!
You can help by becoming a follower. I'd really like to know who you are and what your thoughts are on what I'm doing. Every great leader needs followers and if I am ever to achieve my goal of becoming the next great leader of the Italian culinary world :-) I need followers!
Grazie mille!
THANK YOU!!! I yell at the tv every time some "celebrity chef" says they are caramelizing meat, chicken, even seafood.. Rachel said once that scallops are "just so full of sugar, they get that great caramelization on them".
ReplyDeleteBut can we discuss "au jus". Every time I hear a tv chef say, "now we'll make the au jus", or "dip it in the au jus". Aaaargh! It's JUS. Au jus means "with juice" (from the meat). You cannot make a "with juice", But you can serve something with juice "au jus"
You're absolutely right and I have written at length about the whole "with with juice" issue. You can have something WITH a jus (juice) and you can have something AU JUS (with juice), but you can't have something with an "au jus." And the people who market packets of "Au Jus Sauce" should be boiled in their own product.
DeleteOn FoodTV Canada, the check Michael Smith uses caramelize every time he browns meat, which drives me batty! AND not only that, but he actually goes on to explain that "the sugars in the meat start to brown and change!"
ReplyDeleteThank you for your post because this drives me nuts!
Sorry, that was supposed to read the 'chef Michael Smith'.
ReplyDelete