Measuring Quality

On another food board, there has been intense discussion on the nature of quality, cheap eats, home cooking and similar items. It got me thinking about how I define quality in food products. So, I've made a list:

1. Tastes like what it is supposed to taste like. Right away a tough criterion. How do we know what a tomato should taste like? Well, I would hope experience, history and insight from others will answer the question if needed.

2. Tastes and looks "alive". This is a measurment of juiciness and intensity, but also in cheese, yogurt, you can litterally taste the difference in "live" products.

3. Nuanced or well balanced. There should be a range or interplay in flavors, for instance sweet and salty or sweet and acid. I had amazing farmer's market strawberries the other day that had a distinct undertone of plumminess or funk. The seller said they were the closest he's seen to French wild strawberries.

4. The stuff is processed well. By that I mean with skill and without aduleration.

5. The texture is proper for the product (or recipe). Nuts should snap for instance. Note, that texture can vary by type of product. Some apples are crisp, others soft. You should not expect a Lodi apple to be crisp.

6. Absense of deterioration including bruising, discoloration and rancidness. Obviously bruising does not matter in certain dishes.

7. It's good for you and the enviroment.

8. There is respect for tradition, artisinalship OR their is interesting innovation. This last one is the most wishy-washy, but its my list.

And the stuff not on my list. Well, several things missing are what I would call predicators but not qualities. These would include freshness, color, rarity and price.

Rob

Vital Information wrote:7. It's good for you and the enviroment.

8. There is respect for tradition, artisinalship OR their is interesting innovation.

VI, with all respect, are these not political considerations?

Otherwise, I like your list.

Hammond

David Hammond wrote:

Vital Information wrote:7. It's good for you and the enviroment.

8. There is respect for tradition, artisinalship OR their is interesting innovation.

VI, with all respect, are these not political considerations?

Otherwise, I like your list.

Hammond

They are political considerations, but to me they are important elements in how I measure quality.

I should add that I think it is reasonable to debate or question whether those things are important factors in assessing quality, I do not want to debate politics.

Rob

Vital Information wrote:

David Hammond wrote:

Vital Information wrote:7. It's good for you and the enviroment.

8. There is respect for tradition, artisinalship OR their is interesting innovation.

VI, with all respect, are these not political considerations?

Otherwise, I like your list.

Hammond

They are political considerations, but to me they are important elements in how I measure quality.

I should add that I think it is reasonable to debate or question whether those things are important factors in assessing quality, I do not want to debate politics.

Rob

VI,

I should clarify what I meant.

Most of the criteria on your list relate to quality that can be "sensed" in the food itself (tastes like what it’s supposed to taste like, tastes alive, etc.).

Environmental concerns and the attitudes of the producers (“respect for tradition”) seem “political” to me in that they are concerns that relate to the world AROUND the food rather than the food itself, the social context of the stuff rather than the stuff.

If I'm presented with two radishes, and I say they both taste pretty much the same, and then you tell me one is organic, I will not then decide that the organic one tastes better...or even that it is of higher quality. The organic one may have more value to the food chain, or society, or someone's conscience, and those are what I would call "political" concerns. I wasn't saying there was anything wrong with having those concerns; I just don't see how they impact the "quality" of a food in the same way (or as powerfully) as the other critieria.

Hammond

David Hammond wrote:VI,

I should clarify what I meant.

Most of the criteria on your list relate to quality that can be "sensed" in the food itself (tastes like what it’s supposed to taste like, tastes alive, etc.).

Environmental concerns and the attitudes of the producers (“respect for tradition”) seem “political” to me in that they are concerns that relate to the world AROUND the food rather than the food itself, the social context of the stuff rather than the stuff.

If I'm presented with two radishes, and I say they both taste pretty much the same, and then you tell me one is organic, I will not then decide that the organic one tastes better...or even that it is of higher quality. The organic one may have more value to the food chain, or society, or someone's conscience, and those are what I would call "political" concerns. I wasn't saying there was anything wrong with having those concerns; I just don't see how they impact the "quality" of a food in the same way (or as powerfully) as the other critieria.

Hammond

Really? I think kinda the opposite. It is relatively easy to determine if something is made with respect for the enviroment or good for me(assuming we rely on those that certify). Is it organic? What else do they tell us about the product? For instance, Oberweiss states that they do not use hormones or antibiotics in their cows. That's very objective. And a hell of a lot easier to measure or tell than if something "seems alive."

Let me add that the above list is a series of factors. I have not necessarily considered how much I weigh the factors per se. I will say that the order listed is the order in which the things came to me, so that has some bearing on what I think. So, the question would be, which would I value more, a radish that was organic or a radish that tastes good?

I guess all things being equal, I would value the radish that tastes better, but I would aspire for or seek a radish that tastes better AND is organic.

Again, I want to avoid discussion on why I value those things, but let me quickly give you an analogy. For certain religious Jews, they would tell you that kosher meat was of higher quality or that they valued kosher meat more. They might tell you that they liked the taste of kosher meat (which has a distict taste), but they would also tell you that it makes them feel more holy eating kosher meat. Being kosher (and all that implies) adds something intrinsict to the product. See, we do not have to debate whether it is necessary to keep kosher to understand the idea do we?

Make sense?

Rob

Vital Information wrote:For instance, Oberweiss states that they do not use hormones or antibiotics in their cows. That's very objective.

FWIW, there are no commonly-used tests on milk to determine whether rBST has been used in cows, and it's not unheard of for some dairy farmers to use it, while still claiming to be rBST-free, since they can get a liittle more for rBST-free milk. So it's not completely objective.

nr706 wrote:

Vital Information wrote:For instance, Oberweiss states that they do not use hormones or antibiotics in their cows. That's very objective.

FWIW, there are no commonly-used tests on milk to determine whether rBST has been used in cows, and it's not unheard of for some dairy farmers to use it, while still claiming to be rBST-free, since they can get a liittle more for rBST-free milk. So it's not completely objective.

I accept that as an issue/problem. There is always matters of trust and/or ginning the system. Nicholl's Farm sold "unsprayed" strawberries at the market this weekend. I trust they were unsprayed, but I really do not know.

David Hammond wrote:

Vital Information wrote:7. It's good for you and the enviroment.

8. There is respect for tradition, artisinalship OR their is interesting innovation.

VI, with all respect, are these not political considerations?

VI and DH, I think while both of you mean quality, DH may be thinking of intrinsic quality versus perceived quality (as in VI's example of kosher beef). Of course, as VI mentions, one's percerception itself could add intrinsic value. I am inclined to say pseudo-intrinsic value, because certain labels themselves (rBST-free, organic, NAPA valley, wild, etc.) may increase the perceived (and thus personal intrinsic) quality. The 'real' intrinsic quality should not be label dependent (ideally).

Personal taste and labels cannot really be deconvoluted IMO. What is something supposed to taste like? Whatever you think/want it to taste like! If something doesn't taste like it 'should' taste - that cannot by itself make that thing lower in quality. If one is used to a particular taste in a dish - then say a regional (or global) variation of that dish (of the same name/label) will not be of high quality in one's book, while in reality it could be the best version available. 'Quality' itself, without further qualification, then becomes a rather subjective term.

There is always a context dependence.

VI, I agree in general with the list you have and I think that #7 would almost be redundant (i.e., if the other points hold true, most probably #7 is true).

One should consider quality versus 'potential' quality however (or maybe simply value) in today's global market. It is possible, for example, to get tropical fruits here in Chicago. Are they good quality? Some, yes. Are those as good as they would be in the tropics (or whatever point of origin) - most probably not. Is it reasonable to aspire to get them as good as it gets? Sure (consider certain sushi items) - but then there is a price tag. Also I don't know if that level of production is sustainably 'good for the environment'.

#8 is higher up on my list. To misquote Santayana, food is sometimes barbarous, for it produces innovation without reason and imitation without benefit.

sazerac wrote:

David Hammond wrote:[.

VI, I agree in general with the list you have and I think that #7 would almost be redundant (i.e., if the other points hold true, most probably #7 is true).

I'll save the rest for when I have more time/energy, but as I noted above, there is no current direct relationship between say, organic and taste. Organic food often tastes better, but on the other hand, a local non-organic tomato will almost always taste better than an organic tomato from far away. So, I see the things as inter-related but not necessarily dependent on each other.

To continue on the "organic doesn't always mean quality" line of discussion, MAG and Purple Asparagus had a nice little micro-tasting of strawberries at Saturday's green city market. I'm not sure if all three varieties of farmers market strawberries being tasted were organic, but they all blew away the organic driscoll's from whole foods.

Part of the problem with organics is they often seem to be identical to non-organic veggies in that they're grown from seeds designed for durability and visual appeal (e.g. tomatoes with a long shelf life that are perfectly round) rather than, oh, i don't know, flavor.

gleam wrote:To continue on the "organic doesn't always mean quality" line of discussion, MAG and Purple Asparagus had a nice little micro-tasting of strawberries at Saturday's green city market. I'm not sure if all three varieties of farmers market strawberries being tasted were organic, but they all blew away the organic driscoll's from whole foods.

Part of the problem with organics is they often seem to be identical to non-organic veggies in that they're grown from seeds designed for durability and visual appeal (e.g. tomatoes with a long shelf life that are perfectly round) rather than, oh, i don't know, flavor.

What was the result of the tasting? We did our own tasting of Nicholl's strawberries Saturday in Oak Park (unsprayed but not organic). We like a lot the "noreasteners", but they had left only the pint being sampled, it was very intense, but actually we liked best the "ideal" which had a distict funkiness mentioned above. Finally, we liked the jewel which was bubble-gummy, but in a good way.

I can't for the life of me remember the three varieties MAG had out there. I know one was jewel, but I can't recall the others.

gleam wrote:I know one was jewel, but I can't recall the others.

Jewel, Lateglow, and Eros were the varieties from Nichols. Also, one from Jewel grocery stores and one from Whole Foods. The point was more to distinguish between the grocery store and farmer's market options, and the point was demonstrated quite clearly. The tasting wasn't set up to produce a clear "winner" among the three Nichols varieties, though perhaps MAG could say anecdotally if there was one people seemed to prefer.

At the Nichols stand that day, we picked up some Jewel and Earliglow. Yesterday at the MCA/Streeterville market, I picked up some more Jewels, which may be my favorite. But really, it's hard to say.

Aaron Deacon wrote:Jewel, Lateglow, and Eros were the varieties from Nichols. Also, one from Jewel grocery stores and one from Whole Foods. The point was more to distinguish between the grocery store and farmer's market options, and the point was demonstrated quite clearly. The tasting wasn't set up to produce a clear "winner" among the three Nichols varieties, though perhaps MAG could say anecdotally if there was one people seemed to prefer.

Thanks! MAG said she preferred the Eros. I liked 'em all, frankly, but I'm a sucker for strawberries.

A somewhat entertaining diversion: (Grocery) StoreWars modelled on StarWars. (flash movie)

It's a bit long, but there's a shot of a strawberry early on

edited to put link in NonFood Chat

Aaron Deacon wrote:

gleam wrote:I know one was jewel, but I can't recall the others.

Jewel, Lateglow, and Eros were the varieties from Nichols. Also, one from Jewel grocery stores and one from Whole Foods. The point was more to distinguish between the grocery store and farmer's market options, and the point was demonstrated quite clearly. The tasting wasn't set up to produce a clear "winner" among the three Nichols varieties, though perhaps MAG could say anecdotally if there was one people seemed to prefer.

At the Nichols stand that day, we picked up some Jewel and Earliglow. Yesterday at the MCA/Streeterville market, I picked up some more Jewels, which may be my favorite. But really, it's hard to say.

OK, I got it wrong, which does not surprise me. I count on the chowhounditas to remember this stuff anyways, and they set me straight.

The two kindsa strawberries we purchased on Saturday were Idea and Sparkle. Idea were the funky ones, Sparkle the bubble-gummy ones.

Rob

Jewel is one of the best varieties for the Chicago area in terms of flavor. It has been widely available at farmers' markets but will not be seen in supermarkets because the fruit is too fragile. I bought a full case on Tuesday at Lincoln Square for freezing and freezer jam. All processing was done Tuesday afternoon. I kept a few berries out overnight because they were not quite ripe. This morning these berries were mostly full red while one was softening noticeably. No supermarket could sell these berries given their long supply chains and rough handling.