Recently, the Food Network’s Top Chef Canada program featured a dish with horse meat.
I thought this chosen ingredient would undoubtedly stir the pot – not so much for calling the kettle black but more to incite a feeding frenzy of debate – but it didn’t.
Top Chef Canada’s rationale was that the particular episode was inspired by the cuisine de France. However, the cook-off took place in Canada, with Canadian ingredients – in this case, some noble horse that used to be someone’s beloved pet.
And in the end, the ratings probably increased, sadly.
My only question is why?
Why judge a chef on his/her ability to cook something so foreign not only to our country but to our palate? Is it truly necessary to weed out less-worthy chefs via horse meat? Do such ingredients truly reveal the master?
It’s not so much the ingredient that disturbs me; rather, it’s the reason behind it. To blame it on French cuisine being the challenge, so therefore we must forge on, is simply weak. It sends a message that there was no thought there, not one person on the production side had the will power to say, wait, we don’t have to do it just because Chef Gordon Ramsay did it.
The lack of critical and independent thinking is beyond scary. I mean, what’s on next week’s menu? Cats and dogs to celebrate some restaurants in Malaysia?
And why stop there? For the ultimate cook-off ,why not just go for it: Cannibalism to celebrate areas of the world that still eat that crazy meat, man.
Talk about bad taste personified.
Jill Tunbridge, Surrey