Whither Gastronomy?

The French connoisseur, Jean-Anthelme Brillat-Savarin, was the first to publish a book on gastronomy: The Physiology of Taste published in 1825. Of course, we knew very little about the physiology of taste in the early 19th Century. But many of Brillat-Savarin’s speculations have now been confirmed through science. His work is widely admired even today and his aphorisms are not only well known but have the ring of truth for many in the world of food.

Among these celebrated maxims are assertions such as “The fate of nations depends on the way they eat,” “Tell me what you eat, and I will tell you who you are,” and “The discovery of a new dish does more to the world than the discovery of a new star.” Moreover, he famously distinguished between mere sustenance and refined consumption by stating, “Animals feed; people eat; only the man of intellect knows how to eat,” while also critiquing excess with the observation that “Drunkards and guzzlers do not understand the art of eating or drinking.”

However, one thing Brillat-Savarin was mistaken about was the prospects of his own discipline:

It is inconceivable that gastronomy, before too many years, will not have its own academicians, its professors, its yearly courses, and  its contests for scholarships. First of all, a rich and zealous enthusiast must organize in his own home a series of periodical gatherings, where the best-trained theoreticians will meet with the finest  practitioners, to discuss and penetrate the branches of alimentary  science.

In fact it took roughly 165 years for a professorship to be established in food studies. (As far as I can tell, Boston University’s Program in Culinary Arts, developed by Julia Child and Jacques Pépin, was the first Master’s Degree program in the U.S. I am unfamiliar with the European context)

This paradox is striking: a text now approaching two centuries in age continues to be hailed as one of the most influential works in gastronomy. One might wonder whether any significant advancements or research breakthroughs have occurred in the field since its publication

Of course there have been earth shaking changes in the world of food since the 18th century.

In the Western European context that Brillat-Savarin observed—and well into the 1970s—culinary preparations were highly standardized. Influential cookbooks of the era, notably Auguste Escoffier’s Guide Culinaire, provided detailed instructions for dish preparation, with each recipe identified by a specific name, such as tournedos “Rossini,” canard à l’orange, sole Véronique, pêche Melba, or poire “Belle Hélène.” The explicit listing of ingredients was often superfluous; diners could reliably anticipate the composition of a dish, and a chef’s prowess was measured by the degree to which their creations adhered to these established standards.

In contrast, modern culinary practice prizes innovation and individuality. Today’s leading chefs are expected to reinterpret classic dishes, infusing them with personal flair rather than merely replicating traditional recipes. This evolution reflects not only a liberation of flavor from historical constraints but also a shift in culinary values—from standardized imitation to creative expression.

The most important change may be the availability of ingredients. Fast, inexpensive transport by air and greater cooling capacity enable us to enjoy practically anything throughout the year. Lobsters from Canada, olives from Greece, bananas from Ecuador, saffron from Iran, or heirloom corn from Mexico. If you want it, you can have it, no matter the part of the world or the season you are in.  Throughout the year there will be a climatologic zone somewhere in  the world that can provide the product you are looking for.

This unprecedented array of options has fundamentally altered the dynamics of culinary choice. Where once regional and seasonal constraints dictated consumption—often simplifying the decision-making process—today’s consumers are confronted with a dizzying array of possibilities. Paradoxically, this abundance can complicate gastronomic choices, as reliance on long-held intuitions and past experiences is increasingly supplanted by the need to navigate a cornucopia of alternatives. In many ways, the evolution witnessed in the past three decades surpasses the cumulative changes of the preceding two millennia.

Yet despite these changes we still don’t have a work of gastronomy that rivals The Physiology of Taste. We of course have an increasingly robust science of taste, a science of cooking,  and countless works and online resources that bring that information to cooks both professional and non professional. But we lack a work that brings together the science, sociology, and the aesthetics of food in a practical discussion in the comprehensive way Brillat-Savarin did for his time.

The reason is in part that it is difficult for an individual to master those independent domains given the volume and specialization of knowledge in the modern world.

And so we wait for another like him.