In the gastronomic world, a particular phenomenon worthy of analysis occurs: the creation, consolidation, and influence of gastronomic guides on the tastes and restaurant choices of the public.
Both the famous Michelin guide and its legendary star classification, as well as the highly publicized 50 Best St Pellegrino list (which, curiously, is not 50 but 100 restaurants), have had their controversies.
The Michelin guide is the oldest gastronomy and travel guide in Europe. It was originally given away with tire purchases, to help the average French person discover places along the road. Over time, the Michelin guide became the institutionalization of gastronomic rankings, although it was not initially exclusive to restaurants. Thus, earning Michelin stars became a sign of prestige, which for many chefs meant recognition of their careers.
This recognition has not been free from controversy. For example, in 2009, the Fat Duck, the first English restaurant to win three Michelin stars, was famous not only for this achievement but also for incorporating innovative techniques inspired by molecular gastronomy. Chef Heston Blumenthal was at his peak until a norovirus in oysters caused 400 diners to become ill, largely due to poor food handling by staff. The restaurant responded slowly, and diners refused to believe that the meal they had waited so long for, paid so much for, and which everyone praised as the most avant-garde in gastronomy, had caused them gastroenteritis. This example shows how a consolidated gastronomic guide can exert such influence that people refuse to accept that a meal has made them sick.
A similar example can be found with the list of the 50 Best. In the pursuit of belonging to a world with a certain status, much has been questioned about the validity of the classification system based on evaluation methods that are unclear or unrealistic. Considering, for instance, that Noma or the now-defunct Bulli are places that are difficult to access and one of the requirements for evaluators is to have eaten there in the last 12 months, it is hard to understand how often they would need to visit these places, even though evaluators are distributed by geographic zones. Here arises the controversy that chefs have denounced: a good public relations representative can mean entry into the list. Although evaluators from both the Michelin guide and the 50 Best remain anonymous, within the gastronomic community there is almost a suspicious list of who is who, and what behavioral patterns an evaluator has inside a restaurant.
However, while the Michelin guide has fixed and very specific criteria for what is evaluated, the 50 Best lacks these systematized variables. This factor has led the Michelin guide to be criticized for being too rigid and boxed in. In recent years, attempts have been made to shed this reputation, for example, by awarding the first Michelin star to a street food place selling noodles and rice in Singapore.
With the Internet era, today any food critic can create very specific guides for all tastes: street food, "exotic" food, guides dedicated specifically to a dish, etc. In Ciudad Juárez, for example, there is a rating system that awards "Juangas"—in honor of the singer—to food establishments. In a gastronomic culture like Mexico's, some of its best creations are not found in sophisticated restaurants, but in the kitchens of villages. We all have something of a food critic in us, and there will always be those who agree or disagree with our assessments, since in the end, food gathers all our experiences of the world.
Originally published in El Economista
— This article was originally published in Spanish by Liliana Martínez Lomelí. Translation generated with AI from the original text.