Passing the buck (with extra bernaise sauce, please)

I was privvy to an interesting and, dare I say it, thought provoking conversation earlier today. The topic of said conversation was a question that came up after discussing Anthony Bourdain's piece My Miami, largely from the opening paragraphs when he speaks of a restaurant specializing in "beautifying food", meant to cleanse and purify and otherwise help the body from the inside out.

Bourdain was, shall we say, unconvinced that the nigh-unrecognizeable dishes (afterall, high heat and things like creating a beautiful sear destroy vital beautifying qualities in the food) were the wave of the future.

The question is a simple, but important one: is it the responsibility of chefs to provide healthful food?

My answer?

No. Not at all.

But...

And, mind you, this is a big one...

I do support the idea. I encourage the idea. I'd like to practice the idea.

See, there's this little thing called "real life" that has the habit of getting in the way of our best laid plans and aspirations. Even some of the best intentions. The bottom line is, conveniently enough, the bottom line. I'm talking dollars and cents, here. As much love and passion goes into the food that comes out of a kitchen, that food still costs money. That kitchen costs money. Those people in the kitchen, with or without that passion, aren't doing what they do for free.

The bottom line is that the food has to sell.

If the only thing that people will buy is butter-loaded, skinless mashed potatoes, peeled asparagus (with hollandaise, of course, that artery clogging combination of butter and egg yolks), and a 12-oz Prime cut steak (fat is flavor, afterall), then that is what you have to offer. Unless, that is, you like owing thousands (and thousands) of dollars to the bank even after everything you own is reposessed and sold to pay back your loans.

People have this little thing called free will, and tend to get a tad uppity when you try to take it away (and rightfully so, I think). A person can eat whatever they so choose. I encourage people to eat a healthful diet, and do try to do so myself, but if someone really, really wants to sit down and nosh on nothing but sticks of butter and maybe some cocoa powder for extra flavor, then that's their own perogative.

"Well then," you might say, "what about those that do want to have healthy options? Shouldn't chefs be expected to put those on the menu?"

Again, as before, I say no. No obligation at all.

But I do think it's smart.

In a world where even McDonald's makes at least an attempt to sort of offer healtier options (sorry Ronald, but I think I can do better than half a chicken breast rolled in a plain flour tortilla with some lettuce) it makes sense for other restaurants (read: the ones serving actual food) to follow this same line of thinking.

To some, "healthy" is a four-letter word. I don't believe that myself (far from it, in fact), but I do expect it to still taste amazing. Yes, this means that certain items won't be making it onto my plate every day. I'll have a tomato or anti-sauce with my pasta far more than an alfredo (but you'd better believe that I'll be enjoying that alfredo when I do have it). But I love a good salad. And I do mean love (and do, also, mean good).

Long story short, I am of the opinion that the words "healthful" and "delicious" can, and often do, go hand in hand. Far worse things could happen, I think.

So while I don't hold the guy (or girl, for that matter) in the tall hat responsible for my (theoretical, thank you) budding beer belly, I would give a word to the wise to offer up some more waisteline friendly foods.