World's 50 most delicious foods

According to voters on Facebook, promoted by CNN:

Page 1 (#50-31)
Page 2 (#30-11)
Page 3 (#10-1)

Maybe we should put those 50 foods up to a vote here, to see how LTHers would rank them. (LTH polls are currently limited to 10 options.)

I tried my hardest, but I didn't see Italian Beef on the farkakte list.

I didn't see deep-dish, either. But it's not a list of our fair city's most delicious foods, but rather, the world's.

I wonder what the geographical distribution of respondents was, considering that the top two choices were both Indonesian foods, which are not all that commonly served in the Americas (I'm not sure how prevalent they are in other parts of the world, other than the obvious one).

Also, certain city and state legislators will be quick to note that foie gras ain't on the list, either.

30 of 50 of the most delicious foods are East Asian. And all of the top ten. Zero African. Zero South American. Zero Caribbean. Purely objective, of course. Hmmm.

cito wrote:I tried my hardest, but I didn't see Italian Beef on the farkakte list.

nsxtasy wrote:I didn't see deep-dish, either.

GAF wrote:30 of 50 of the most delicious foods are East Asian. And all of the top ten. Zero African. Zero South American. Zero Caribbean.

Hmm, I was all set to dismiss it as yet another pointless list, but you guys are right that this one may have some validity.

I got the feeling it was more of a "50 most widely known ethnic foods" rather than most delicious foods.

Besides, without truffles and foie gras, it fails to pass my test. In fact, there is no French food at all. And a lot of the listings are broad categories, rather than specific foods -- for example, "Dim Sum" and "Sushi."

I get the feeling someone at CNN's Indonesia branch (since the top items are Indonesian) put this one together. That would explain why things that are widely available in ethnic restaurants get so much coverage. I mean, having fajitas as the best of Mexico -- not really -- maybe good Tex-Mex and certainly a stable of Mexican-like restaurants, but not exactly hard-core Mexican.

All the things listed are worth trying, and perhaps they are the 50 best things the writer has eaten, but certainly not the 50 best foods in the world.

Cynthia wrote:In fact, there is no French food at all.

You may have overlooked #18 on the list.

Cynthia wrote:Besides, without truffles and foie gras, it fails to pass my test. In fact, there is no French food at all.

I find this amusing in light of this ridiculous rant by Steve Plotnicki.

nsxtasy wrote:

Cynthia wrote:In fact, there is no French food at all.

You may have overlooked #18 on the list.

Okay -- some might think a croissant legitimately represented the entire cuisine of France -- even though croissants were invented in Vienna, Austria.

But at least they mention France -- and I did miss it.

stevez wrote:

Cynthia wrote:Besides, without truffles and foie gras, it fails to pass my test. In fact, there is no French food at all.

I find this amusing in light of this ridiculous rant by Steve Plotnicki.

Except that in the rant, Plotnicki (after talking to an insufferable young man who I met some time ago and who everyone who saw him speak found to be condescending, self-absorbed, and generally ignorant, especially of the possibility of any good restaurants outside of New York City) judged all restaurants by a ridiculous and misguided standard. I don't expect all good restaurants to have truffles and foie gras, and do not judge them by that. However, I do expect a list of "the world's most delicious foods" to include these two items.

So not really the same at all.

I am willing to bet that most folks on this site would be able to come up with one or two items they were sorry not to see on the list.

Cynthia wrote:

stevez wrote:

Cynthia wrote:Besides, without truffles and foie gras, it fails to pass my test. In fact, there is no French food at all.

I find this amusing in light of this ridiculous rant by Steve Plotnicki.

So not really the same at all.

No. Not the same at all, but exactly the same misuided stance in revese.

stevez wrote:
No. Not the same at all, but exactly the same misuided stance in revese.

So there's absolutely nothing in the world that you think should appear on a list of "50 best" that isn't already on this list? You agree with it completely? Then that's lovely. In my case, the list leaves out a few things I'd very much consider in the top 50. But we all have different passions in the food world.

Besides, isn't it generally considered that the whole point of creating "best" lists is to get people talking about what was left out?

Cynthia wrote:

stevez wrote:
No. Not the same at all, but exactly the same misuided stance in revese.

So there's absolutely nothing in the world that you think should appear on a list of "50 best" that isn't already on this list? You agree with it completely? Then that's lovely. In my case, the list leaves out a few things I'd very much consider in the top 50. But we all have different passions in the food world.

Besides, isn't it generally considered that the whole point of creating "best" lists is to get people talking about what was left out?

No Cynthia. I no more agree with that list than I did with Plotnicki's stance that only French food counts. Both are ridiculous.

stevez wrote:

Cynthia wrote:

stevez wrote:
No. Not the same at all, but exactly the same misuided stance in revese.

So there's absolutely nothing in the world that you think should appear on a list of "50 best" that isn't already on this list? You agree with it completely? Then that's lovely. In my case, the list leaves out a few things I'd very much consider in the top 50. But we all have different passions in the food world.

Besides, isn't it generally considered that the whole point of creating "best" lists is to get people talking about what was left out?

No Cynthia. I no more agree with that list than I did with Plotnicki's stance that only French food counts. Both are ridiculous.

Then I'm not certain at all what you were taking exception to in my comment. I suggested two things I thought ought to be added to a list of most delicious foods. I made no statements about all food having to be French or any other ethnicity. I thought suggesting a couple of additions was pretty reasonable.

Your comment about Plotnicki's "stance that only French food counts" is even more baffling, since the post to which you link is talking about Indian food, not French.

So I have no idea what you're talking about -- I didn't say it should all be French -- and I didn't say the opposite, that nothing should be French.

And of course the list is ridiculous. But, as I said earlier, such lists are generally designed to get people talking about what should have been on the list.

Cynthia wrote:Then I'm not certain at all what you were taking exception to in my comment.

That's because I didn't take exception to your comment at all, though you reacted as if I did. I've been agreeing with you all along. Sorry if that wasn't clear. I was just pointing out that Plotnicki's stance and this list are two opposite extremes of the same misguided narrow view of the world's foods.

stevez wrote:

Cynthia wrote:Then I'm not certain at all what you were taking exception to in my comment.

That's because I didn't take exception to your comment at all, though you reacted as if I did. I've been agreeing with you all along. Sorry if that wasn't clear. I was just pointing out that Plotnicki's stance and this list are two opposite extremes of the same misguided narrow view of the world's foods.

Glad to know it. I went back through the comments, and it's easy to see how the misunderstanding took place -- it looked as though you were comparing my comment to Plotniki's rant. I'm glad to know you don't think I'm ridiculous and misguided.

And now that you have clarified it, I'm delighted to be able to say that I agree with you completely.

Nothing wrong with that Cynthia. Personally I believe I'm both ridiculous and misguided!