In defense of simple menus

Some friends came to visit my wife and I a few weeks ago. They're farmers and we live in the city. They grow food for a living, and we like to eat out. So between the four of us, I feel like we have a pretty good handle on the diversity and beauty of food and how to talk about it. 

When we sat there looking at the menu, we waited a minute or two before starting the sideways glances and asking each other versions of "Do you know what this is? Or that?" We had to ask the server to explain probably half of the dishes.

I'm talking about uncommon names for lettuce, preparation methods for almonds, or regional names attached to potatoes, not to mention the peppering of any description with non-English words. I appreciate the diversity in food, for sure, but the truth is, I want to be able to understand my menu. When I make a decision about what to get, I would like to have a clear idea about what I'm getting. (Unless, of course, I'm just asking for the chef's choice, which is its own version of fun).

Michael Pollan has a great post in defense of eating simpler, and I think he's right. He even likens the general decision-making matrix around choosing your food to be something like fictional Dr. Spock's "Trust your instincts" model of knowledge. I concur. And I like the food culture of organic, free range, etc. that is springing up out of this kind of consciousness around food.

But I think the food industry is falling into a competitive trap. Just because your organic, fresh food is more exotic sounding than the next guy doesn't mean it's better.

I like to eat at organic restaurants that make creative food, not just slap the word organic onto whatever they are already making. But I wish I understood their menus better.

The beauty of simpler, fresher food can also be in the simpler understanding of what it is that you're eating. It can still be gourmet without being inaccessible.

Image courtesy of soyculto via flickr