In article , PAS wrote:

Sandman:
Fair enough. My view on "Americans" is probably colored heavily by
the people you find in these areas, but my view on American *food*
is based on a broader selection than just this tourist area. And
a friend of mine, that actually went to America and did a
coast-to-coast road trip over the course of over a month, agrees
with me wholeheartedly, saying that finding good food was really
really hard, and he drove all over the place, not only in typical
tourist areas (at least not akin to the Florida kind).

I find it quite eas to find good food anywhere I've been. It's easy
to find all kinds - good, bad, mediocre.

Agreed, except for my visits to America, where good food has been - at
least to me - hard to find. Maybe I've been unusually unlucky, but my
experience is shared with others, so I'm not sure.

Sandman:
Sounds great. I wonder, also, if perhaps what constitutes "great"
also differs greatly. The advice I have been given by Americans
when I've been there have not really led me to believe that they
really know what "great food" is, and would have their mind blown
were they ever to come to Europe.

My travels to Europe are limited. I've spent time in Greece with
relatives. I've been to London twice. I toured Italy for two
weeks. I had good and bad food in all of the places. I was in a
restaurant in Athens that served what was supposed to be good food
that Americans would like. It was white-glove service and the
service was excellent, but the food was not good at all. Greeks
wouldn't know a good steak if it smacked them in the face. Now the
Italians - they know a good steak. The Florentine steak was
ridiculous, amazingly tender and flavorful. But boy was it
expensive! The pizza in Italy was good but I've had better pizza
here in New York.

I just want to clarify (once again) that I am fully aware of the fact that
bad food can be found anywhere on the planet. My comparison with USA vs.
Europe is based on my experience with the quality of the ingerdients. As
I've said, anyone can make a bad meal out of the most tender meat you can
find. But the problem with most of the places in the states I've been to
hasn't been incompetent chefs, but the use of sub-standard meat and
produce. And even a good chef will have problems making good food out of
that.

On top of that, way too much food is loaded with sugar, salt and grease,
and my suspicion is that it's there to hide the poor quality meat
underneath.

Sandman:
And I really don't want to chalk it down to only cultural
differences, the things I've objected to have been fairly
objective. Like the quality of the ingredients, the meat and the
produce. Also the sheer amount of added salt, sugar and fat that
seems to be added only to hide the low-quality meat.

But, as I said before, it seems there is a "lowest common
denominator" going on there. Food is made, package and sold to
appeal to the most people, meaning that people that *do* like
something above average (like, presumably, you do), also may have
a rather hard time finding it in the common places.

One examples seems to be the school restaurants. I'm sure you've
seen the futile mission the english chef Jamie Oliver was on when
trying to change the menu on an American school (a school, where
some students thought french fries was a vegetable).

Technically, they are correct - potatoes are vegetables but they
don't have the nutritional value of a "normal" vegetable.

A potato is only a vegetable in a botanical sense. Nutrionally, they're
carbohydrates, like rice and pasta. Meat and potatoes on a plate wouldn't
be called meat and vegetables by anyone.

Either way, the context was that Jamie asked why they weren't served
vegetables with their meals, and the kid answered that they were, and
indicated the french fries.


--
Sandman[.net]