Dazed and Confused:  Smoke Point Versus Flash Point

A couple of days ago, I received a question from Carla regarding cooking oils.  There are tons of oils out there that are suitable for cooking, but it can be very confusing.  I have certainly been confused, and Carla is, so I figured that there would be other people out there equally confused.  Here is Carla’s question:

I am so confused!  I have checked several sites about “flash points” of oil and everyone of them is different!  I want to use the best for pan searing. I know you recommend canola but I don’t have an oven ready cast iron pan so think perhaps another oil that retains more heat is better? (Again, dazed and confused).  Also, what heat do you keep the burner on ~ high?

If any of this sounds familiar, read on.

Generally speaking, the temperature that we are most concerned with when it comes to using oils to transfer heat to our food is the smoke point.  We’ve all been there - our oil is heating merrily in the pan, and then all of a sudden, wisps of smoke begin rising from it and it starts to smell funny.  Meet the smoke point of your oil.

Once the oil reaches the smoke point, it signals that the oil is chemically breaking down.  More important for us cooks, that nasty smell translates into off flavors in our food.  If you have reached the smoke point, it’s time to concede defeat, get rid of that oil and start again.

There is a problem, though.  It’s all well and good to know what it means to reach the smoke point, but we also have to know what that temperature is so we can keep the oil from reaching it.

Fortunately for us, many helpful scientists have determined the smoke point for almost every oil known to man.  Let’s all take a moment to thank the scientists.  “Thank You Scientists”

Low Smoke Point Oils

Unrefined oils, such as flax seed oil, walnut oil and sesame oil have very low smoke points - between 225°F and 350°F.  Since these smoke points can easily be reached and exceeded even on medium heat, especially when used in small amounts, unrefined oils are usually used for flavoring a dish or a dressing instead of as a cooking medium.

Medium Smoke Point Oils

In the middle of the spectrum, oils such as grape seed oil, olive oil (not extra virgin) and peanut oil have smoke points between 375°F and 450°F.   These oils can be dependably used for sautéing, pan frying and even deep frying.  I especially like peanut oil for deep frying.

High Smoke Point Oils

If you are looking for oils with very high smoke points, you can’t go wrong with refined canola oil or ghee (or clarified butter) with smoke points between 470°F and 485°F.

Which One Should I Cook With?

(more…)

The Real Deal

The other day I had lunch at a garden variety chain restaurant and ordered a cup of tea.  The server delivered it with milk and the customary sugar container.  As I spied the sugar holder I noticed it was stuffed with all the different colored packets of saccharine chemicals otherwise known as “artificial sweeteners.”

There, amongst all the kaleidoscopic counterfeits were two lone packets of real sugar.  With chemical dispenser in hand, I hailed the waiter.  As he approached he asked:  “Need some more Sweet & Low?”  “No,” I sharply retorted, “I need some real sugar!”   Five to be exact for my tea.  Interesting that he assumed I was a food neurotic.

I hate fake food.

What do I mean by fake?  I propose three general categories.  The first is when a facsimile of a particular food is referred to as the same name as the real McCoy.  Take caviar for example.  Traditionally, the term caviar denotes the roe of sturgeon, and more specifically sturgeon from the Caspian Sea.  But you can find sturgeon roe from America, or worse yet, roe from other fish such as salmon or lumpfish, labeled as “caviar.”

Another example is crème fraîche.  Real crème fraîche, as made in France, is unpasteurized cream thickened by the action of bacteria naturally found in the cream.  But in germaphobic America, unpasteurized milk products are a no-no, despite the fact that it’s obviously safe to eat, as evidenced by a lack of Frenchmen dropping dead in droves.  Thus in the US, crème fraîche is made with pasteurized cream and thickened by adding buttermilk or sour cream.

The wine world is replete with these misidentifications.  Champagne, Burgundy, and Chablis (from France), Port, (from Portugal) and Chianti, (from Italy), all refer to wines whose grapes and production methods are reflective of a specific geographic location.  There are no Italian Champagnes, American Chiantis or Australian ports, not real ones anyway, but there are wines labeling themselves as such.

This is not about snobbery.  It’s about the character and qualities of the product in question.  In a word it’s about taste.  The same biological product cultivated in two discrepant parts of the world will produce different flavor profiles.  The fact that there is a difference is indisputable.  Which tastes better is where contrary opinions emerge.

I could take the politically correct route and tell you that there’s no right or wrong, it’s all based on your own palate, go forth and revel in your subjective self-validation.  But I’m not!  I’ve had Russian and American caviar and the American isn’t as good.  I’ve eaten crème fraîche in France and it’s clearly superior to the sanitized American version.  And don’t even get me started on real Port from the Douro Valley of Portugal compared to those cheap jugs of Australian or American “port.”

Missing Ingredients

The second type of fake food is any product that has had any of its key ingredients reduced or eliminated:  decaffeinated coffee, light beer, low-fat mayonnaise, diet soda, you get the picture.  I find light beer most perplexing.  There’s not a huge difference in calories between real beer and light beer.  You’re already consuming alcohol and empty calories.  So for God sakes, just have a beer.

Phonie Baloney

The last category of fake food is the most egregious:  blatantly ersatz phonies such as artificial sweetener, imitation crab meat, margarine, non dairy creamer, and salt substitutes.  (Some salt substitutes are 100% potassium chloride, as opposed to mixtures of real salt and potassium chloride which are “category 2” fakes).  These products are an affront to everything I hold gastronomically holy.

Fake foods are routinely endorsed by those who have hang-ups about the substance in question or harbor dubious health fears.  I’m excluding of course diabetics, individuals with food allergies, or those who suffer from other genuine medical conditions.  Those are all a different story.  What I’m alluding to is the relentless, usually spurious, and frequently exaggerated paranoia about salt, sugar, carbs, fat, red meat, calories, and whatever other substance the latest food propagandists are alleging will cause cancer, environmental damage, immortal sin, political outrage and general Armageddon.

As a chef and unabashed hedonist, I champion the glories of food and not the shackles of deprivation.  As I’ve written many times before, food goes well beyond the momentary physical pleasure.  Not to minimize that pleasure but that’s only the tip of the iceberg.

Relishing in satisfying, real food, is about savoring life.  It’s about taking a much needed respite in the middle of a hectic day.  It’s about connecting with friends.  It’s about nurturing your family.  It’s about sharing a romantic interlude with your partner.  It’s about celebrating life’s most treasured moments.  Food and drink are about, or should be about, embracing and enjoying life.  Food should feed our souls as much as our bodies.  Personally I look forward to every meal, every day.

Last Friday night my wife and I had a wonderful dinner at an Italian restaurant with two of our closest friends.  We had a delicious meal, a good bottle of wine, (actually a little more than one good bottle), and chatted about all sorts of things.  It was a relaxing evening and it gave me something to look forward to all day.  These are the moments of my life I will fondly remember, not the bagel with low-fat cream cheese and rank decaf coffee.

Now take the food neurotic.  They dread each and every meal.  For them, every food encounter is an opportunity to gain weight, erode their health, or consume something morally or politically prohibited.  Every impending meal begins a cycle of rumination about fat, calories, animal products, heart disease, and a myriad of other anxieties.

For them food is something fraught with peril that must be managed and negotiated.  My Friday night dinner with friends would have been tortuous for the fake-food-fanciers.  They would have agonized over the politically incorrect veal, the saturated fat in the cheese, and the sodium content of the sauce.

They would have struggled with or eschewed the sweet dessert.  They would have felt guilty about the calorie and alcohol consumption.  The next week they would have deprived themselves to make up for the “indulgence.” As for myself, it’s a week later and I’m still basking in the glow of the evening.  You tell me who has a better quality of life.

In closing I must admit that you can sell me on the idea of moderation.  But as Julia Child once said:  “Everything in moderation, including moderation.”  And always remember…………..keep it real.

Chef Mark R. Vogel
FoodForThought.com

Here’s a new contribution from Chef Mark Vogel talking discussing how to handle friends who insist on knowing what we think about their cooking. - RG

Tell’em What They Want to Hear

I’m always amused when some public figure is in the limelight and being queried about possible misconduct or impropriety, or is simply avowing the quality of his product or services.  Almost universally, their answer is the one that places them in the most favorable light.

This is because either the image-preserving answer is actually true or they’re lying to eschew aversive consequences.  Yes there are a few rare instances where people actually fess up.  But overwhelmingly their answer will be the one that either exculpates them or exalts them.

Former President Bill Clinton’s promulgation that “I did not have sexual relations with that woman,” is a classic example.  What else could he have said?  I mean, did anyone REALLY expect him to go on national TV and announce to the country that the married head of state is getting his freak on with an intern?

Or how about the commercial for Saturn automobiles asserting that “we make cars that people want to buy.”  Obviously not, for shortly after this commercial aired GM announced it was shutting down the line.   Again, did anyone think Saturn would actually pay for a commercial outlining the advantages of Japanese cars and admit that this was a last ditch effort to prompt people to buy Saturns?

The point I’m driving at here, (pardon the pun), is that in these situations we can never trust the message, because there’s basically only one message.  Be it truth or mendacity the answer/affirmation is always the one which serves the speaker.  When someone claims they’re innocent, they could be either innocent or guilty.  When someone claims they’re product is superior, it could be superior or inferior.  Only the rare self-incriminating responses have a reliable validity rate.

Do You Like My Blood Pudding?

There’s another scenario where people uniformly dispense the “correct” answer:
At a social gathering when the host questions if you like their food.  In this case we often preserve the other person’s ego to avoid the social/emotional repercussions.

Many years ago I was at a dinner party, hosted by this Bavarian woman fiercely proud of her homemade blood sausages.  Knowing my culinary background she was particularly intent on procuring my approval of her “blood pudding” as blood sausages are also known.

Even before the event she began extolling their virtues and fervently anticipated my sampling of them.  When the moment of truth arrived I will never forget the pressure.  As I placed a forkful of the sausage into my mouth, she sat there, intensely peering at me, bringing all of her senses to bear, hypervigilantly awaiting the first discernible sign from me as to my opinion.

And now ladies and gentlemen, this year’s winner for best actor in a repulsive food situation goes to…………(envelope crackling)………..Chef Mark R. Vogel!   (Audience cheers!)

What else could I do??????  My revulsion for her horrid sausages was only outmatched by her dire need for my approbation of them.  Was I to insult my host and create an air of tension for the rest of the night by opining that her blood sausages tasted like a different part of the pig’s anatomy?  Of course not.

Even a diplomatic appraisal of the food would have painfully smitten her and caused disharmony to the bonhomous atmosphere.  Therefore, I reached into the bowels of my psyche and with all the personal discipline I could muster, ignored the vile sensations erupting from my mouth, and produced one of my best feigned performances of gastronomic pleasure.

Naturally, we all want people to enjoy our food and drink.  We want our guests to be pleased, our efforts appreciated, and our perceived successes validated.  It’s also natural for most people to feel at least a modicum of disappointment when their offerings are rebuffed.  Of course this reaction varies from person to person.  Some of us are more sensitive than others.  But no matter who the host is, and no matter how delicately you put it, expressing your disapproval of their victuals is usually not conducive to a congenial miasma.

So in light of all this allow me to suggest the following.  At your next dinner party, don’t even bother to ask your guests if they like the food.  You might as well ask your local car dealership if they truly perform all those tasks in those heftily priced service packages.  You’re merely going to receive the “correct” answer.

So I’d forgo putting your guests on the spot.  Unless you plan to stare them down, meticulously analyzing their reaction for disingenuousness.  If that’s the case, then I’m afraid you have a bigger problem than you’re cooking.  Ooops.  Sorry.  That wasn’t what you wanted to hear.

Chef Mark R. Vogel
FoodForThought.com