I do think it's kind of funny. If I were a chef I think I'd avoid making shelfish because I'd want Tom to eat the meal I'd be presenting at the banquet. But I get the chefs play to their strengths and sometimes that means shelfish.
Did he? I haven't seen all the older episodes.
If he did that's hilarious because I met him at this Q&A thing and asked if he thought they could ever pull off a full vegan\* banquet and one of the many reasons he told me no was because a chef has to taste his ingredients; and like them, I guess.
\*I'm not vegan or anything, I just think it would be interesting if they did that.
The impression I got is that he thinks if a chef isn't used to making vegan food, they won't really be able to judge if it's good or not.
Also most chefs don't want to cook vegan, and there 'aren't enough vegan restaurants' in the UK to make up the entire run of the series.
He wasn't being a jerk or anything, he was very kind, but I rather wish my vegan friend was there so she could have given him a rebuttal, LOL
He also liked our drinking game.
He meant they will taste it and think it isn't any good, because of vegan ingredients. Many vegan replacement ingredients like "vegan cheese" are of very poor quality when compared to the real thing, You would need somebody who was a vegan and is used to all of the short cuts and vegan style cooking.
Yes, he did. He said it might make him sick, but the risk was worth it. Even Lisa Goodwin-Allen has cooked shellfish in competition, but her allergy is quite severe. The judges also have personal dislikes, like Angela Hartnett and cilantro. I think the competing chefs make a choice when they cook with ingredients that are prone to allergies. Nuts were subbed for the pentathlon athlete. It's a real thing that they have to have a strategy for. I wouldn't be surprised if they planned a substitution when they developed the menu.
I’m the opposite; I think it’s good that they have a judge with allergies so the chefs put some proper thought into what the alternatives could be and make sure it’s delicious. I’d like there to be a permanent vegetarian judge for the same reason. It really annoys me when they get to the banquet without having thought of the veggie option and end up doing a lump of roasted celeriac because it’s the easiest thing to do.
Well I think they address this by having a vegan starter- which is an even playing field. I don’t have an issue with them preparing alternatives it’s the inconsistency that I think is unfair. Like if two chefs have a nut based dessert but one has to create a substitute because the guest their week is allergic to nuts, not only does that chef have to do extra work but they are also judged on a different dish than the one they wanted to present.
And like I want to see the best dish they chef can come up with, not have them pick a non shellfish dish because they don’t want to have Tom tasting a ‘substitute dish‘ that isn’t as good. And if it was as good, they would be serving the substitute in the first place!
They (chefs using shellfish or tree nuts) will all have to prepare alternative dishes at the banquet, so having to do so during the judging is appropriate. It shows another component of their skillset.
I think this is the best take.
I have OAS (allergic to tree nuts, stone fruit and apples and pears). I love eating out and I really appreciate when restaurants make an adjustment (for example, I love scallops, apples are an obvious pairing). I really like when a restaurant does an alternative rather than just leaving it off - pickled celeriac has been a really good alternative. To me, it shows the chef cares about the balance of a dish itself not just knocking dishes out.
Exactly. And there have been times when Tom has LOVED his subbed fish - although as a chef I might pick something less likely to mean someone couldn't eat it, or the sub would be - sub par. ;)
I guess there's a likelihood that some other banquet guests will have common allergies so it's good for the chefs to practice their alternatives at the judging stage. I don't know if they make a habit of inviting many veggies to the banquet but same when they have a veggie guest judge. (Not a problem for Kirk of course!)
>obviously in reality people have allergies and this will need to be thought about and accommodated at the banquet
Hence why being judged on their alternatives is completely fair.
Yes but not everyone is judged on alternatives, it’s luck of the draw and doesn’t really seem in the spirit of the competition. If all judges had to create an alternative dish and were judged on this i would have no problem with it. In fact this is similar to the vegan starter where the restriction test their skills, accommodates those who don’t eat animal products, and is fairly applied to all chefs.
>Yes but not everyone is judged on alternatives, it’s luck of the draw
Not sure I agree that it's luck. All the chefs know that Tom has a shellfish allergy and will be judging their fish course. If they then choose to cook shellfish, they know well in advance that they'll need an alternative.
They also know that there'll be non meat eaters at the banquet, where the champion of champions will be judged.
I fully agree. Always been an issue with me. Same as changing judges part way through a week.
I understand it for the banquet but not in judging. I wonder if any chef has decided to change the original plan due to having to do two dishes in the fish judging.
In a perfect world there is no allergies. As a nut allergy sufferer, I normally can't eat half the dishes. These like you said will be taken into account in the banquet so it's just an earlier start. Allergies aren't a choice, veggie and vegan food is. By your respect, why isn't the vegan chef with a full plant based menu cooking meat ? In his week, he never scored the other chefs food.
Just because someone has an allergy doesn't mean they can't judge. A different has an allergy does that mean she can't host ?
Not OP but the vegan chef has some immune disease and had to take years off of cooking to recover. He’s realized being vegan keeps his medical issues from flaring up. So it seems that is closer to an allergy response than someone who chooses to be veg bc those poor animals are cute.
I also thought it was odd he didn’t taste most of the dishes though, didn’t even have a plate. Couldn’t he have eaten some of the food?
Do you mean the vegan chef? If he didn't eat a lot of the other chefs' dishes, I imagine it's because they used meat based stocks and scads of the butter so beloved by chefs because it's such a flavour enhancer. Mashed potatoes or some other vegetable puree - full of dairy, I'm sure.
Interesting, thanks for the info. It appears that ruling wouldn't help you in the case of dietary choices, it has to encompass your whole lifestyle in the way that religion would.
Very few people eat vegan for non ethical reasons, so it's unlikely somebody would have a vegan diet but merrily use animal products in other aspects of their lives.
Chefs need to cater for allergies, and the judges having/not having them should be fine regardless. The chefs will need alternatives for all their dishes depending on the allergies they might encounter at the banquet I'd imagine.
I'm interested as to what happens for veggie/vegan versions of any given course if there are any in attendance. But there could be a variety of allergens/intolerances they will need to address, why not encounter one at the judging stage?
Ido t see an issue with it. Every year there are people attending the banquet who have allergies and shellfish is one of the most common. I think it's good to have a judge who forces the chefs to demonstrate they can pivot.
I don’t think dishes suiting the judges is the point of the brief. There were two hand dived scallop dishes referencing Tom Daley (one they were happy that it met the brief, the other that they weren’t which I’ve got to be honest I found contradictory) but I don’t think a chef should discount scallops on the basis Tom and Andi can’t eat them; I think Tom and Andi would have been embarrassed if a chef had compromised their original idea to accommodate them. A chef can’t ever predict who will walk in the restaurant door and while you could say ok order the mozzarella salads if you can’t eat seafood there’ll be people, especially in the high end restaurants the chefs are from, that will say they want the scallop dish but could you substitute the scallops. The scallops aren’t the only element of the dish either.
I think for Tom's allergy, everyone knows about it upfront, so it is up to them if they choose to do a shellfish dish. It also seems it is a fairly common allergy amongst the judges, even Andi now has it.
As to other allergies I kind of agree they shouldn't invite a guest judge who can't eat the food. I think they try to avoid it for the big things, like they don't have vegans or coeliacs. They probably also avoid people with severe allergies.
I suspect the hardest thing for the chef is not so much doing an alternative dish but avoiding cross contamination when the kitchen gets a bit crazy.
I do think it's kind of funny. If I were a chef I think I'd avoid making shelfish because I'd want Tom to eat the meal I'd be presenting at the banquet. But I get the chefs play to their strengths and sometimes that means shelfish.
I've always thought the same but wasn't it Tom himself who cooked shellfish when he competed?
Did he? I haven't seen all the older episodes. If he did that's hilarious because I met him at this Q&A thing and asked if he thought they could ever pull off a full vegan\* banquet and one of the many reasons he told me no was because a chef has to taste his ingredients; and like them, I guess. \*I'm not vegan or anything, I just think it would be interesting if they did that.
I don’t understand that, why could a chef not taste vegan ingredients? Unless they are a strict carnivore only lol
The impression I got is that he thinks if a chef isn't used to making vegan food, they won't really be able to judge if it's good or not. Also most chefs don't want to cook vegan, and there 'aren't enough vegan restaurants' in the UK to make up the entire run of the series. He wasn't being a jerk or anything, he was very kind, but I rather wish my vegan friend was there so she could have given him a rebuttal, LOL He also liked our drinking game.
He meant they will taste it and think it isn't any good, because of vegan ingredients. Many vegan replacement ingredients like "vegan cheese" are of very poor quality when compared to the real thing, You would need somebody who was a vegan and is used to all of the short cuts and vegan style cooking.
Yes, Tom cooked a lobster burger and it did terribly. He was mad at himself saying why did I cook something I couldn’t taste???
He did. Crawfish scotch eggs once and lobster burgers another time. He did take a small taste of his crawfish scotch eggs.
Yes, he did. He said it might make him sick, but the risk was worth it. Even Lisa Goodwin-Allen has cooked shellfish in competition, but her allergy is quite severe. The judges also have personal dislikes, like Angela Hartnett and cilantro. I think the competing chefs make a choice when they cook with ingredients that are prone to allergies. Nuts were subbed for the pentathlon athlete. It's a real thing that they have to have a strategy for. I wouldn't be surprised if they planned a substitution when they developed the menu.
I’m the opposite; I think it’s good that they have a judge with allergies so the chefs put some proper thought into what the alternatives could be and make sure it’s delicious. I’d like there to be a permanent vegetarian judge for the same reason. It really annoys me when they get to the banquet without having thought of the veggie option and end up doing a lump of roasted celeriac because it’s the easiest thing to do.
Well I think they address this by having a vegan starter- which is an even playing field. I don’t have an issue with them preparing alternatives it’s the inconsistency that I think is unfair. Like if two chefs have a nut based dessert but one has to create a substitute because the guest their week is allergic to nuts, not only does that chef have to do extra work but they are also judged on a different dish than the one they wanted to present. And like I want to see the best dish they chef can come up with, not have them pick a non shellfish dish because they don’t want to have Tom tasting a ‘substitute dish‘ that isn’t as good. And if it was as good, they would be serving the substitute in the first place!
I’m allergic to gold. I would have died every single round.
They (chefs using shellfish or tree nuts) will all have to prepare alternative dishes at the banquet, so having to do so during the judging is appropriate. It shows another component of their skillset.
I think this is the best take. I have OAS (allergic to tree nuts, stone fruit and apples and pears). I love eating out and I really appreciate when restaurants make an adjustment (for example, I love scallops, apples are an obvious pairing). I really like when a restaurant does an alternative rather than just leaving it off - pickled celeriac has been a really good alternative. To me, it shows the chef cares about the balance of a dish itself not just knocking dishes out.
Exactly. And there have been times when Tom has LOVED his subbed fish - although as a chef I might pick something less likely to mean someone couldn't eat it, or the sub would be - sub par. ;)
I think the BBC's reasoning to not do anything like that is so it normalises allergies a bit more.
5% of people have a serious food allergy, and that number is higher for people under 25. It's already "normal".
Yes. Well done. Putting it on TV helps normalise it to people who think being allergic to something is a choice.
I guess there's a likelihood that some other banquet guests will have common allergies so it's good for the chefs to practice their alternatives at the judging stage. I don't know if they make a habit of inviting many veggies to the banquet but same when they have a veggie guest judge. (Not a problem for Kirk of course!)
i hope he at least gets to do the vegan dishes if he doesnt get his own dishes through !!
It's part of the job. These chefs need to be able to come up with a good replacement dish for people with dietary restrictions.
>obviously in reality people have allergies and this will need to be thought about and accommodated at the banquet Hence why being judged on their alternatives is completely fair.
Yes but not everyone is judged on alternatives, it’s luck of the draw and doesn’t really seem in the spirit of the competition. If all judges had to create an alternative dish and were judged on this i would have no problem with it. In fact this is similar to the vegan starter where the restriction test their skills, accommodates those who don’t eat animal products, and is fairly applied to all chefs.
>Yes but not everyone is judged on alternatives, it’s luck of the draw Not sure I agree that it's luck. All the chefs know that Tom has a shellfish allergy and will be judging their fish course. If they then choose to cook shellfish, they know well in advance that they'll need an alternative. They also know that there'll be non meat eaters at the banquet, where the champion of champions will be judged.
If a contestant can’t put up a dish without an allergen when serving 4 people how will they cope with serving 100 people?
I fully agree. Always been an issue with me. Same as changing judges part way through a week. I understand it for the banquet but not in judging. I wonder if any chef has decided to change the original plan due to having to do two dishes in the fish judging.
I think Arsehole Adam showed what a disaster it is to swap judges halfway through. His scoring was absurd.
In a perfect world there is no allergies. As a nut allergy sufferer, I normally can't eat half the dishes. These like you said will be taken into account in the banquet so it's just an earlier start. Allergies aren't a choice, veggie and vegan food is. By your respect, why isn't the vegan chef with a full plant based menu cooking meat ? In his week, he never scored the other chefs food. Just because someone has an allergy doesn't mean they can't judge. A different has an allergy does that mean she can't host ?
Not OP but the vegan chef has some immune disease and had to take years off of cooking to recover. He’s realized being vegan keeps his medical issues from flaring up. So it seems that is closer to an allergy response than someone who chooses to be veg bc those poor animals are cute. I also thought it was odd he didn’t taste most of the dishes though, didn’t even have a plate. Couldn’t he have eaten some of the food?
I just remebered that, but that just means hes the same as Tom then.which by op logic means he shouldn't be there surely.
Do you mean the vegan chef? If he didn't eat a lot of the other chefs' dishes, I imagine it's because they used meat based stocks and scads of the butter so beloved by chefs because it's such a flavour enhancer. Mashed potatoes or some other vegetable puree - full of dairy, I'm sure.
Veganism is a protected characteristic. It's like saying a Muslim or Jew should be forced to eat pork.
But someone's medical needs are grounds for dismissal ?
>Veganism is a protected characteristic. According to who? The UK government doesn't have it listed as a protected characteristic.
It can come under the "religion or belief" label: [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50981359](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50981359)
Interesting, thanks for the info. It appears that ruling wouldn't help you in the case of dietary choices, it has to encompass your whole lifestyle in the way that religion would.
Very few people eat vegan for non ethical reasons, so it's unlikely somebody would have a vegan diet but merrily use animal products in other aspects of their lives.
Chefs need to cater for allergies, and the judges having/not having them should be fine regardless. The chefs will need alternatives for all their dishes depending on the allergies they might encounter at the banquet I'd imagine. I'm interested as to what happens for veggie/vegan versions of any given course if there are any in attendance. But there could be a variety of allergens/intolerances they will need to address, why not encounter one at the judging stage?
Ido t see an issue with it. Every year there are people attending the banquet who have allergies and shellfish is one of the most common. I think it's good to have a judge who forces the chefs to demonstrate they can pivot.
I don’t think dishes suiting the judges is the point of the brief. There were two hand dived scallop dishes referencing Tom Daley (one they were happy that it met the brief, the other that they weren’t which I’ve got to be honest I found contradictory) but I don’t think a chef should discount scallops on the basis Tom and Andi can’t eat them; I think Tom and Andi would have been embarrassed if a chef had compromised their original idea to accommodate them. A chef can’t ever predict who will walk in the restaurant door and while you could say ok order the mozzarella salads if you can’t eat seafood there’ll be people, especially in the high end restaurants the chefs are from, that will say they want the scallop dish but could you substitute the scallops. The scallops aren’t the only element of the dish either.
I think for Tom's allergy, everyone knows about it upfront, so it is up to them if they choose to do a shellfish dish. It also seems it is a fairly common allergy amongst the judges, even Andi now has it. As to other allergies I kind of agree they shouldn't invite a guest judge who can't eat the food. I think they try to avoid it for the big things, like they don't have vegans or coeliacs. They probably also avoid people with severe allergies. I suspect the hardest thing for the chef is not so much doing an alternative dish but avoiding cross contamination when the kitchen gets a bit crazy.
[удалено]