Perhaps, there never has been! And chemistry in the kitchen: that has always been there. And physics as well: it is their application that makes the difference as the use and abuse derived from the co(no)-science of the people who apply them. The echo of the controversy that marked a bit of our country's media life in 2009 no longer resonates: the 'polemical stoves' of the informative voice of Striscia la Notizia have been off for quite a while, because the novice neo-cook who was cooking the succulent dish of 'scoop' (typical recipe of the journalistic gastronomy assault, ed.) gave up, because the dish got burned and perhaps he realized that it was better to try his hand at something less harmful, not only for cooking as a human and cultural value, but also for people's intelligence. Or perhaps, the renunciation came after finally realizing that a castle in the air cannot fit. From those (contentious) stoves, the smoke soon vanished like snow in the sun and the stench turned to perfume as for the one who breathes country air understanding that city air, maybe not oily, but bad for you. Anyway, the case is closed: Striscia la Notizia has 'triumphed' (!?) and Italian cuisine is saved! Thank you! After some time, however, things have not changed, at least not as the voice of media justice wanted, and as anticipated the memory no longer needs to be kept, otherwise you know what a snake charmer figure. So, it seemed to me that the right time of maturation had arrived to rekindle gastronomic spirits and kick off a new intense culinar-molecular popularization activity thanks to the recent release of a very clever children's game and the completion of a decade of the (more or less) official birth of molecular gastronomy. Let's start right here. It is 1992 when the first international conference on science and gastronomy entitled 'molecular and physical gastronomy' is held in Erice where precisely for the first time the term molecular gastronomy appears, which was born with a very precise meaning and would soon take on an unexpected destiny of success and discussion. Names such as that of Hungarian physicist Nicholas Kurti, who already in 1969 spoke of physics in cooking, and by French chemist Hervè This appear on this occasion. It should be added, however, that the paternity of the association gastronomy and molecular (in the most current sense of meaning and application) can be attributed to the U.S. scientist Harold McGee, a pioneer with his 1984 book 'On Food and Cooking, the science and lore of the kitchen.' This discipline was later continued by the aforementioned Hervé This with an extensive bibliogafria including the book 'Molecular Gastronomy Exploring the Science of Flavor.' Following the one in Erice, other conferences titled 'molecular and physical gastronomy' were organized, until 2004: on those occasions they simply tried to give scientific explanations to already known cooking techniques and recipes without talking about innovations. To alleviate the foreignophilia expressed so far, we also have in Italy a great protagonist of this movement, the scientist Davide Cassi, professor of physics of matter at the University of Parma, as well as an excellent foodie. Parenthesis: so far we have mentioned nothing but scientists: of chefs not even a shadow. It was 2002, when some buzz began and the term molecular cuisine began to be heard thanks to the tasting dinner signed by Cassi and chef Ettore Bocchia, already strong from experiences born in previous years. From there on, people start talking about Italian molecular cuisine, to emphasize above all the continuity with our tradition, again signed by the gastro-scientific duo Cassi-Bocchia who lay the foundations of the new national culinary movement with the book 'Extemporaneous ice cream and other gastronomic inventions, healthy and tasty eating with molecular cuisine' and the manifesto of Italian molecular cuisine. Ferran Adrià, on the other hand, another great exponent of the genre, always (and only) inquired about by Striscia la Notizia, was not its 'inventor,' but rather a great master at putting such knowledge into practice and a skilled communicator. With him, Britain's Heston Blumenthal, America's Thomas Keller, Pixar's consultant for the animated film Ratatouille, Italy's Massimo Bottura, who after television accusations and indictments always in the name of Striscia la Notizia rose to the highest stars by conquering as many as three. And so have many others. Not forgetting Dario Comini, pioneer of the Barchef and the Molecular Mixologist, or mixing that applies such techniques to the bar in the creation of novel cocktails. For some, all this will be established facts, for others less so, for some not at all, but it seemed only right to go over the salient points of the matter. Molecular, indeed, cooking or mixing that is. Davide Cassi explains simply and clearly that cooking uses techniques that are brand new thanks to scientific research, but which can also be implemented by traditional means, to renew and expand the gastronomic heritage, to innovate technologically, for dietary needs and also, I would add, to finally understand what happens when cooking, because science is fundamental to elevating nutrition at all levels. A good science, again to use Cassi's words, in the service of tradition, taste and health: obviously it represents the most difficult path, but more interesting because it seeks to bring to the kitchen techniques that are superior to those already long used by industry but accepted, perhaps because they are not known, by consumers. The word molecular gave a scientific connotation to everything that was already being done, perhaps even empirically and as a function of experience, and paved the way for a new, much more technical approach to gastronomy. To get to the heart of the discussion, the controversy that began pointed the finger at the use of additives, defined as chemical, in restaurant cooking: a sterile attack not only because of the absolute generalization and the lack of substantiation of the accusations, as well as the fundamental lack of explanation and the absolute unwillingness to understand by bringing to witness only 'voices pro causa' and even more the absolutist stance of not, however and always, confronting the other side. A diatribe, moreover without an honest cross-examination, born of those who did not want to actually shed light on some aspects that deserved and deserve much attention both in their approach and in the dissemination of information, only to give the famous five minutes of popularity to whoever took the side of disinformation. Perhaps, the people mentioned earlier, the leading exponents of science in the kitchen were not 'knowledgeable' enough on the subject! So, today, where has our nonexistent chemical gastronomy gone?.... This false myth of deception at the table, only diminished by compulsory compliance of labels and a false measure that nothing has changed except to give more (read worse) substance to the accusation? Perhaps it is time to beat on the information of science, chemistry and physics, in the kitchen. It's just that the word chemistry, to most people's ears, doesn't have a nice ring to it, because it is associated with something harmful, something artificial, something contrary to the natural and everything that is not good for you. Only when you're in a restaurant: when it's all sealed in a package or happens before our eyes when we cook between the stoves at home, it's not scary. The infamous soy lecithin is present in the famous shake and freeze dessert that you even buy at the supermarket checkout, you get home, one shake, one night in the freezer, and magically the next day you have a spoon dessert: and isn't that a physicochemical transformation of a product? This is molecular cooking! It is sold, it is bought, it is eaten! How come no alarmism? And of similar examples there would be more. In the kitchen, then. We have all prepared a nice steak: there a chemical reaction takes place that gives that beautiful brownish color and unmistakable flavor to the meat. Thanks Maillard, and to his now-cleared reaction; but we've been doing this forever, we don't know what happens, but that's okay, it's not scary. His knowledge, however, would prevent those who set to the stove from burning the meat, from finding the right degree of cooking to have it rare or pink, without loss of tenderness, without having it half raw and without all that blood filling the dish. What about the marinating? What about the lemon that 'cooks' our raw fish? Sure, less sophisticated techniques than the great chefs, but still chemical reactions they are. And what about those grains you put in a nice glass of tap water and it magically becomes effervescent with a nice lemon flavor? Sure, sometimes the 'additives' have unfamiliar names, and that's why they're scary, but the substance doesn't change. And then there were also the flavoring sprays that deceived the consumer to foist spoiled foods on him: but a fish that is not fresh, it doesn't hurt you if it falsely tastes like lemon, it hurts you because it is not fresh! Besides, the difference from a good squeeze from a wedge of the citrus what is it? It will change the way it is disguised, but the principle is the same: it is the misuse at all levels that makes the difference. It is the purpose that should be demonized, not the product that by professionals is used to nuance the nose without invading the taste, for example! The scaremongering is, however, long gone, so much so that we have gone from Nas raids and 'the honorable' signing a live ordinance, by the way not real because it was signed a few days later at the hands of Minister Fazio, to allowing children to play with molecular cooking! Thanks to a well-known toy company, the little ones have the chance to try their hand at being little Bocchia, Bottura, Comini or Adrià with Laboratorio in Cucina. And I think it is not only smart, but also brilliant to teach with a technical, but very understandable approach what happens during food preparation through small culinary experiments that allow you to learn the chemical and physical processes responsible for the reactions that take place in the kitchen, and more often than you think. The other aspect that struck me is just the fact of bringing the laboratory, understood as direct knowledge of what you are going to do, to learn crumbs of science while having fun cooking and eating, because then that is the purpose. By the way, there are some of the demonized products in the kit, but now they are even in the hands of children! And as scientist Dario Bressanini reported in his bolg, this makes you understand the scientific evanescence of those services. To you the conclusions! I want to close by emphasizing how crucial it is to understand how science is useful in cooking, because that is the way to protect consumers. If, then, chemical-physical knowledge makes it possible to amaze the palate with new sensations, new forms, new textures, new perspectives of taste, this is nothing but an added value that allows our gastronomic heritage to evolve and thus remain over time, because what for us today is tradition for those who came before us was, in some way, the innovation of a culinary legacy. Thus, there are no molecular or traditional chefs or bartenders, but rather professionals or improvisers, distinguished between those who know and those who without any responsibility dispense gastronomic misinformation.
"What is proven today was once only imagined."-William Blake
