Food critics may sound like they know it all, but don’t be fooled – in many cases you can take what they say with a large pinch of salt
Food reviewers will always bring their biases to the table, and only a few are qualified to give sound advice. And don’t get me started on the bloggers and wannabe KOLs …
You know what the difference is between the food I eat and food reviews I read? The reviews I take with more than a grain of salt.
We’re all subjective. We have our likes and dislikes, a product of experience and influences. Generally I am not fond of overly salty flavours, but I know people who always give the shaker a vigorous workout, sometimes even before they taste a dish.
Food critic Andy Hayler says local Michelin Guide gets it badly wrong
The reason I am suspicious of most food critics and bloggers is that I sometimes am one. Yes, there are thoughtful reviewers who apply critical analysis judiciously in fun-to-read prose, but often it is easier (and cheaper) for editors to hire fresh graduates or junior staff to write about food even though their idea of gourmet dining is a bowl of premium abalone-flavoured instant noodles.
I admit that when I was younger, I penned material to meet a tight deadline without a clue about the subject of the piece. Sometimes, critics make things up because we’re not always experts about everything.
“I like eating” and “I like cooking” are not qualifications for being a food critic. A home cook is not a professional chef, and a gourmet blogger is not a fine-dining restaurateur. I consider myself a connoisseur of professional basketball but I am not dumb enough to believe I would last five minutes against LeBron James one-on-one.
Some restaurant critics take a populist, consumer-advocacy approach. “I may not know much but I know what I like,” is their mantra. The danger is that you end up with someone whose favourite Italian fare is Pizza Hut evaluating a classic Italian restaurant such as three-Michelin-star 8½ Otto e Mezzo in Hong Kong.