The Problem with Oatmeal

It has recently been brought to my attention that oatmeal is prepared poorly across most of the American culinary landscape. This subject was raised by Mark Bittman over at the NY Times in regards to McDonald's newest breakfast creation: McOatmeal. Or perhaps just oatmeal. You can never really tell with McDonald's.

Basically, like everything McDonald's touches, they've taken something that could conceivably have some significant nutritional value and stripped it entirely of anything close. Truly, Bittman argues;

A more accurate description than “100% natural whole-grain oats,” “plump raisins,” “sweet cranberries” and “crisp fresh apples” would be “oats, sugar, sweetened dried fruit, cream and 11 weird ingredients you would never keep in your kitchen.”

But it wasn't Bittman's attack on Mickey-D's that had me upset. In fact, I find it rather pointless to attack McDonald's for making a sugar-infused pile of crap since that's what they sell, and everyone knows it. McDonald's sells a particular product to a particular demographic, and they know that demographic very well. That demographic does not want health. They want crap. More power to 'em.

No, what had me upset was his attack on Quaker instant oatmeal. Maybe it's because I've been fed this stuff since I was an itty-bitty childer. Maybe it's because Quaker's marketing is so good. For whatever reason, I've never looked at the nutrition information.

I was a little relieved to find that the nutrition isn't nearly as bad the article made it out to seem. Yes, the Cinnamon Roll oatmeal has 9g of sugar compared to raw oats 1g, but that's about it. Instead, I have left this informational expedition more confused than I went in. Raw oats are 150cal per half-cup. Instant Cinnamon Roll is 160, with many other flavors at an identical 150. There's less fat in the instant oatmeal, not more. But there's also less protein and fiber.

My biggest takeaway, and I think the biggest thing that anyone should take, from this is a new desire to make fresh oatmeal. Buy raw oats, milk fruit, and whatever the hell else you want to put in it. It won't necessarily be cheaper, but it will be better and better for you.

Smaller Sizes Are Invading our Shelves

I noticed awhile ago that Dove bars have mysteriously lost one of the bars from the package. Where once, your ducats would have bought you four bars, the same price now only nets you three, count'em three, bars. That's a 25% drop! It's basically a trick. They're assuming that a large price increase will cause a larger drop in sales than the same price and simply putting less inside the bottle. I don't like it, but we're in an extended economic downturn, while at the same time, many raw materials on which these manufacturers rely are becoming more expensive.

GOOD Magazine and Consumer Reports hooked up and produced a small infographic showing that this event is spreading across the entirety of the supermarket. Again, I understand that inflation happens and that, eventually, the price has to increase, but I don't like it when companies try to trick me.

Michelin is Unimportant

Josh Ozersky has written a Time article expressing similar views as myself on the Michelin Guide. His specific criticism of the guide isn't the act of reviewing itself, but the perplexing way that the guide writes reviews.

Roger Ebert said it best, a critic is not someone who determines what is "good" and "bad," terms too nebulous to use effectively; no, a critic is someone who says whether they liked something or not and effectively explains why they liked it or not. The explanation is the skill of the critic, not their status as an arbiter of taste. It's in this important task that Michelin fails.

I argue that Michelin fails because it's stupid and useless for all but the most self-important in the internet age. Just as Gayot, or San Pellegrino's 100 Best Restaurants (an intellectual task on par with arranging angels on the head of a pin), the final result will undoubtedly bring increased attention and money to the top eateries, but the effects on food at large will be small if not completely hypothetical. And if food isn't changed on at least a regional level, how can we say that some restaurant has been great as opposed to merely a good place to get some food?

My greatest criticism is that these reviews largely ignore food-at-large. All of the major review sites are utterly obsessed with French food, and only recently have they become enamored with molecular gastronomy. I'm nearly positive it's because MG allows those who advocate for it to feel even more self important. Want evidence of this? Many of the products of molecular gastronomy aren't actually terribly hard or expensive to make. If anyone tried to open a discount MG restaurant, it would go under in a month. The price is part of the reason for going.

I like to review restaurants and I think the job of the critic is actually an important one. It prevents people from going someplace and wasting money; it helps restaurants that are worthwhile succeed in an increasingly-crowded market; and, almost eugenically, it helps moves the bad restaurants out of the market, thus freeing space for new ones to try their hand. Michelin doesn't do any of these things. With terse, useless review snippets, stars given to already famous, hilariously expensive restaurants, limited coverage, and a positively myopic view of global cuisine, we're left to ask, what does the guide do?

Very little, I argue. Except let you feel even more self-important when you eat at Le Bernardin.




Restaurant Ratings: Is Michelin Lost in the Stars? (Time)