Molecular gastronomy: a scientific look to cooking.

by
Hervé This,
INRA Group of Molecular Gastronomy, Collège de France,
Paris.
Summary:
Molecular Gastronomy is defined. Two recent results of Molecular Gastronomy are
given: a formalism with which complex disperse systems are described from a global
point of view, and a study of the “robustness” of culinary recipes. Based on Molecular
Gastronomy studies, a wealth of new dishes are introduced.

Each aspect of our environment is studied by a specific scientific discipline, using the
experimental method, introduced Francis Bacon and later by Galileo Galilei.1, 2 Why
should gastronomy be an exception? Introduced in 1988 by the late Nicholas Kurti and
by myself, 3 Molecular Gastronomy is the scientific exploration of culinary and, more
generally, gastronomical transformations and phenomena, as described either by
culinary books or by cooks. Of course, Molecular Gastronomy is part of food science, but
it focuses on (mainly home or restaurant) culinary transformations and eating
phenomena (generally “gastronomy”) rather than physical and chemical structure of
ingredients or transformations done by the food industry.
It was recently recognized4 that any recipe is made of two parts: on one hand, it gives a
definition of the dish, and on the other hand, it gives indications of various kinds, such
as old wives tales, proverbs, methods, hints… We decided to give the name “precisions”
all these indications that do not belong to the definition part of the recipes. Depending on
authors and recipes, the definition and the precision parts of recipe vary greatly: in some
recipes by the French cook Jules Gouffé (Paris, 1807-id. 1877), the definition part is
100%; but in other books, 5 it is as low as 3.5%.
This distinction determines the scientific strategy of Molecular Gastronomy: there
should be modelling of definitions, and explorations of precisions. In the case of cheese
soufflés, for example, why do they swell (modelling of the definition) and is it true that
the whipped egg whites mixed with the cheese flavoured viscous preparation should be
very firm (exploration of a precision)?

Some historical perspective

When we decided to create Molecular Gastronomy, with the late Nicholas Kurti (Annex
1), we had different ideas of what it could be, but it appeared that it had to include our
both lines: Nicholas wanted to introduce some science in the kitchen, and I thought that
it was more important to explore the proverbs, sayings, old wives tales, practices, and
(not necessarily) to improve the practices.
As we agreed that not only cooking, but also eating, and all activities related to food in
general should be considered, we had no difficulty to decide that gastronomy was the
topic of interest, with not “elite ” point of view : we used the word “gastronomy” as it was
defined by the French gastronome Jean-Anthelme Brillat-Savarin (1755-1826) :
everything about food.
But it was also clear that the new discipline that we had in mind had to consider only
some part of gastronomy. Being respectively a physicist (N. Kurti) and and physical

1
chemist (H. This) I proposed to restrict “ gastronomy” to the reign of physical and
chemical transformations, and proposed “Molecular Gastronomy”. Nicholas insisted to
add “and physical”, which explains why the first international workshop on Molecular
Gastronomy was named “International Workshop on Molecular and Physical
Gastronomy”, in 1992. This was also the title of my PhD, in 1995, under the
(administrative) direction of Pierre Potier (Member of the French Academy of Sciences),
with, in the jury, Pierre Gilles de Gennes (Nobel Prize in Physics), Jean-Marie Lehn
(Nobel Prize in chemistry), Nicholas Kurti (FRS), and others, including a cook (Christian
Conticini, La Table d’Anvers).
However, this title was clearly cumbersome, and when Nicholas died, to my deep
sorrow, I proposed to Professor Antonino Zichichi to change the name of the workshops
to “International Workshops on Molecular Gastronomy “N.Kurti””, leaving the “and
physical” (in France, I had dropped the “and physical much before).
In my PhD document, Molecular and Physical Gastronomy was given (after long
discussions with Nicholas) five aims: (1) investigating the culinary and gastronomical
proverbs, sayings, old wives tales…; (2) exploring the recipes; (3) introducing in kitchens
new tools, ingredients and methods; (4) inventing new dishes based on 2; (5) using
Molecular Gastronomy to help the general public understand how science can contribute
to the well being of the society.
However it was clear that aims 1 and 2 only were science; the others are technology or
communication.
This is why if Molecular Gastronomy is to be a specific science it could only include aims
1 and 2. Aims 3 and 4 are technological applications of Molecular Gastronomy.

Explorations of precisions, and multi dimensional analysis

The number of precisions collected since 1980 amounts to more than 20.000 (Table 1
shows a small sample of them). All possibilities arise: some precisions seem wrong, and
they are wrong (1); some seem wrong and they are true (2); some seem true and they are
wrong (3); some seem true and they are true (4). We shall consider now an example of
each kind, and also of a fifth class (5).
(1) It is not true that mayonnaise sauces made by women having their periods fail. 6
Indeed, it is indeed strange that this old wive tales does hold in France and not in other
countries. It shows how much cooking is strongly rooted in culture, and also that
culinary activities of today are the result of empiricism. This kind of precision seems to
hint to the assumption that precisions arise when recipes can easily fail.
(2) In 1994, it was tested if it were true or not that cutting the head of pigs could make
the skin more crackling.7, 8 This precision is given by many culinary books, in particular
in L’Almanach des gourmands, from the French gastronome Alexandre-Balthazar
Grimod La Reynière: 9 “suckling pigs should have the head cut immediately when the
pigs are taken out from the oven, otherwise their skin softens (personal translation). The
French cook Marie Antoine Carême (1783-1833)10 gives a slightly different precision:
“When you are ready to serve, separate immediately, with the tip of the knife, the skin of
the neck, so that the skin stays crisp, which makes most of the interest of roasted
suckling pigs”.
As no fluid seems to circulate between the head and the skin, these precisions seemed
wrong, but the experiment done (public experiment, Saint-Rémy-l'Honoré - Yvelines,
France, July 7, 1993) with 4 suckling pigs of the same parents, reared together in the
same farm, weight 7.1-7.3 kilograms, cooked on a large outside fire from 4.00 PM to 9.00
PM, one head cut for each pair of pigs, blind tasting for 143 people) showed that the skin
of pigs with head cut was indeed crispier.

2
The mechanism behind was easily discovered, as it was observed during cooking that a
jet of vapour was escaping one pig from a hole inadvertently made during the
preparation: this showed that during cooking water from the meat is vaporized from the
surface of the meat and also from inside. When no heat is applied, after cooking, the
crispy outside layer softens as vapour from the inside goes through; cutting the head
prevents vapour perfusion, as it can escape through the opening.
(3) It is said that the pan where green beans are cooked should not be covered, as it
would keep volatile acids, that would promote pheophitinization of chlorophyll,11 but
public tests done in many culinary colleges showed that there is no colour difference.
(4) It is sometimes said that the soufflés should have very made from very firm whipped
egg whites, added to a viscous preparation. It was demonstrated that this precision
holds, as vapour bubbles formed in the bottom part of soufflés, during cooking, escape
less through firm foam.12
(5) Let us now discuss a fifth class of precisions, whose reliability could change with
time. For example, cook sometimes say that vinegar is less acidic when boiled.13
However, with Kurti, we showed that various vinegars give various results… as they are
not simple solutions of acetic acid in water, but also contain various concentrations of
many other compounds, such as malic acid, lactic acid, etc.
Plant diversity explains sometimes why the status of some precisions changed, but there
are also cases when the environmental conditions changed. For example, it has been
written that red fruits should never been put in contact with tin.14 When fruits such as
raspberries are put in contact with tin, no modification appear, but when Sn2+ ions are
deposited on crushed raspberries, a purple, turning to black, colour appears, because a
complexation of anthocyanins with Sn2+ ions shifts the absorption spectrum toward
shorter wavelengths.6, 7, 15

2. 1. Robustness

Why do precisions arise? As said above, a look at our collection of precisions seemed to
show that recipes that can fail induced precisions. For example, cooks from the past were
certainly astonished the first time they were able to produce an emulsion (dispersion of
oil droplets into an aqueous solution, using surfactants to increase the metastability of
the system), from ground garlic and oil16, as even today, they frequently say that the oil
is “absorbed by the egg yolk” used.5 In order to explain the mysterious failure of their
incomprehensible emulsions, they probably envisioned all possibilities, and had active
debates to know if the temperature could be a cause of failure, some cooks writing that
mayonnaise should never been done in cold rooms,16 and others writing that, on the
contrary, hot temperatures is responsible for the failures.5 Others causes of failure were
considered: the rate of addition of oil, the direction of the whisk,17 the influence of the
moon18 or the influence of periods of woman.19
How can we know if it is true that recipe that can fail induce precisions? First
“robustness” of recipes has to be made quantitative. We recently proposed20 to consider
recipes as functions R of many variables: times (t1, t2…) and temperatures of different
steps of the recipes (T1, T2…), mass of ingredients (m1, m2 …), and more generally
details of process (p1, p2…)…
For example, for a mayonnaise recipe, the emulsification process can be described by the
mass of egg yolk (a parameter that can eventually be developed into water content,
protein content, lecithin content…), the mass of vinegar (can also be developed: water
content, acetic acid content), the rate of oil addition, the whipping energy, the oil mass…

3
A product P obtained through a recipe R done under particular conditions (p1, p2…) is
given by the equation: P = R (pi)i=1 to n,n being an integer.
As long as the parameters pi vary within certain limits (pi, min < pi < pi, max) i = 1 to n,
the recipe R is successful: a product P is the result of a successful recipe if it is associated
to a point inside a defined hypervolume in the multidimensional space of the parameters
(pi) i = 1 to n.
For each parameter pi of the recipe, the interval pi = pi, max -pi, min can be used as a
measure of the robustness of the recipe R : a recipe is robust when the pi are large.
However, in order to be able to compare pi related to various conditions (mass,
temperature, time…), we need to divide pi by a quantity of the same nature. We
proposed to normalise by the uncertainty i(pi) on the considered variable pi. With such
definition, the partial robustness i associated to the parameter pi can be defined as i = ÿ
pi / i(pi).

2. 2. First result

Partial robustnesses have been calculated for some recipes, such as grated carrots, stock,
soufflé, boiled eggs, gougères (cheese choux pastry puff), mayonnaise, beef roasted in the
oven. For example, mayonnaise can be defined by the mass of yolk m(y), the mass of
vinegar m(v), the mass of oil m(o), the mass of salt m(s), the mass of pepper m(p), the
mass of oil in each successive addition m(d), the whipping power Pw, the efficiency of
dispersion Ed. As the critical parameter is clearly the oil addition in the beginning of
the preparation, let us focus on robustness related to oil addition: oil should not be added
too fast, otherwise water would be dispersed into oil instead of oil in water. In a
mayonnaise made from one egg yolk, the quantity of water from one yolk (10 g)21 and
one teaspoon of vinegar (3 g) is about 13 g; this determines the admissible interval for oil
addition, equal to 13. As the uncertainty on oil addition is about 5 (estimation based on
repeated experiments where oil was poured in beaker; a mean was calculated),
robustness related to oil addition is equal to 13/5= 2.6.
In more “robust” recipes, such as beef meat roasted in the oven, the smallest calculated
partial robustness is bigger: for a piece of meat of mass equal to1 kg, cooked at 180°C for
a time between 20 and 60 minutes, robustness is equal to (60-20)/5= 8. If the cooking
temperature were lower (e.g.70°C), then the cooking time interval would be still bigger,
and robustness higher: the time interval could be estimated to be between 60 min and
one day, so that the robustness would equal to 1440/5= 276.
For some recipes, parameters are not independent, and success is obtained only if more
than one condition is simultaneously verified. Particular robustnesses have to be
aggregated. In order to do it, let us assume first (it has to be checked) that robustness is
inversely related to the number of precisions: = 1/n. If the total number of precisions is
the sum of number of precisions n1, n2, n3… for classes i of precisions, then for each
class: i = 1/ni.
Hence = 1/(n1 + n2 + n3+…) = 1/(1/1 + 1/2 +…), or 1/ = 1/1 + 1/2 +…
Does the inverse relation hold? In the corpus of precisions that we collected since 1980,
there are 105 paragraphs about mayonnaise preparation, compared to 12 paragraphs for
roasts.
In Figure 1, we show how robustness ÿ depends on the number of paragraphs containing
precisions for grated carrots, stock, soufflé, boiled eggs, gougères, mayonnaise, beef
roast. In part a of the picture, stock is included, and the curve does not correspond to an
inverse relation: stock generated many precisions because of its culinary importance,

4
even if there is almost no risk of failure. In part b of the picture, stock has been excluded,
and the relationship fitting the data generates a power low with an exponent equal to -
1.2, not very different from the assumed value.
More work has still to be done to check our assumption, using the “aggregation relation
of partial robustnesses” (1/ = 1/1 + 1/2 + … ), and to understand how the
multidimensional functions R can be used; in particular, the significance of the
derivatives R/pi has to be clarified.

3. Modelling of the microstructure

In order to study culinary and gastronomical transformations, the microstructure and

composition of dishes has to be related to the microstructure and composition of
ingredients. In particular, microstructure comparisons are difficult, globally, as dishes
are generally neither solid (too hard to swallow) nor liquid (a beverage, not food). Each
part of a dish is, indeed, what was formerly called colloids22, 23, 24, 25 and now disperse
systems.26 Table 2 shows the simplest disperse systems, but it is clear that dishes, and
even part of them, are much more complex that the two phases systems considered here.
For example, puff pastry is made from butter and dough; the first one is an emulsion
dispersed in a network of fat crystals, and the latter is a solid suspension; the two are
superposed a high number of times.

3. 1. Complex disperse systems and CDS formalism

Let us be systematic and consider possibilities: the involved phases in food are gas,
liquids or solids. The liquids, hydrophobic or hydrophilic, are named “water” or “oil”,
depending on their chemical composition. The solids are many, and they generally do not
mix, so that different names should be given: solid 1, solid 2…All these different phases
can be dispersed, or mixed, or included into one another, or superposed...
Hence the proposal of using letters to envision rapidly all the possible systems. The
phases can be written: G (for gas), O (for oil), W (for water), S1 (for solid 1), S2 … The
main processes can also be described by a few symbols: / (dispersed into), + (mixed with),
(included into), (superposed)… Some rules apply. For example, in order to get an
unambiguous description of systems, a mixture of phases (P1 + P2 + …) should be
written by alphabetic order, as well as by order of growing complexity ; e.g. G should
come before O, and S should come before (W/S). When necessary, the proportions of the
various phases can be given by a subscript, and the repetition of an operation can be
marked as an exponent, with a symbol indicating the kind of process that is being
repeated, and a number giving the number of repetitions.
For example, egg yolk is made of granules (S) dispersed into a plasma (W), so that the
(S/W) formula applies locally, but echographic pictures of egg yolk (see Figure 2) show
that hens are producing yolk material of different compositions (“light yolk” and “deep
yolk”) during the day and the night, so that the global structure is composed of about
eight layers of alternating composition: hence the formula (S/W)8.
More details can be added, such as the distribution of sizes of dispersed structures,
which can be written in brackets. In a mayonnaise made using a fork, for example, the
diameter of oil droplets dispersed in the water phase (from the yolk and vinegar) is
between 0.01 mm and 0.1 mm: the formula of the sauce can be written O[10-5,10-4]/W
(we propo se to use the IUPAC rules, and the International System of Units). Finally, the
level of description can be indicated, as shows the case of aioli sauce, made from garlic
ground with olive oil: a look at the microscopic structure of the sauce shows that it is
made of oil droplets dispersed into water (O/W), but the microscope also reveals that a

5
wealth of structures smaller than oil droplets are also dispersed in water: cell fragments,
subcellular structures… A possibility is to indicate in brackets the smallest structures
considered. In the case of aioli sauce, we could write: O [10-5, 10-4]/W [d > 6.10-7].

3.2 How to use it?

An example will now show how the physical microstructure of dishes can be described
globally using the complex disperse systems formalism (CDS formalism).
Puff pastry is obtained by including a layer of butter (B) in an envelope made of dough
(D), that is stretched and folded into three (making the system DBD); the process of
stretching and folding is repeated six times,27 producing successively the systems
(DBD)(DBD)(DBD), or D(BD)3 (two layers of dough D that come in contact make one),
then D(BD)9, D(BD)27 , D(BD)81 , D (BD)243, and finally D(BD)729. As dough is a
dispersion of starch granules (S1) in a gluten network (S2), and butter has the formula
(W/O)/S, 28 the final formula of puff pastry is (neglecting the proportions of the
ingredients): (S1/S 2)(((W/O)/S)(S1/S2)729.

3. 3. Application to sauces

In the same way, the CDS formalism was recently applied, as a test, to the hundreds of
classical sauces given by the French official text book of cooking.29 These sauces were
studied using optical microscopy, and the complete formulas were found. In many cases,
the formula could be simplified. This modelling lead to the discovery that all the French
classical sauces belong to 23 groups only: W, O, W/S, O/W, S/W, (O+S)/W, (W/S)/W,
O+(W/S), (G+O)/W, (G+O+S)/W, (O+(W/S))/W, (S+(W/S))/W, ((S+W)/O)/S, (O+S+(W/S))/W,
((W/S)+(WS))/W, (O + (W/S)/W)/S, ((O+(W/S))/W)/S, (O /W) + ((G+O)/W),
(O+(W/S)+(WS))/W, (S+(W/S)+(WS))/W, (((W/S)+(WS))/W)/S, (O+S+(W/S)+(WS))/W,
(O+S+((G+O)/W))/W.
It is strange that this list does not include such systems as simple as (G+(W/S))/W, that
could be made, for example, by mixing whipped egg whites in a “velouté”, i.e. a sauce
obtained by cooking a roux (butter and flour heated until the mixture turns slightly
brown) with an aqueous solution (stock, milk…).

4. New dishes: technological applications

Let us finish this short presentation of Molecular Gastronomy by looking at some new
dishes based on scientific studies.
Egg at 65°C:
At which temperature do eggs coagulate? As the various proteins of egg white have
different chemical composition in amino acids, they have also different denaturation
temperatures (see Table 3).30
An interesting application of this knowledge can be obtained by heating eggs at 65°C for
some hours: the white coagulates delicately, as only ovotransferrin network forms, and
the yolk stays almost “raw” (only the minor gamma livetin jellifies); during heating, the
eggs are made safe, as Thomas Humphrey, from the Public Health Laboratories (Exeter,
UK), showed that eggs where one million Salmonella introduced were made safe after 18
min of heat treatment at 59°C.3

Minus hundred years eggs:

6
Asian population produce “one hundred years old eggs”, also called longevity eggs, but
storing eggs in a mixture of clay, straw, lime and ashes (that contain potash).31 What
can we get if eggs are put in acids, instead of alkalis? In vinegar, the shell is dissolved by
acetic acid is some hours; then water goes into the egg by osmosis, and, after about one
month, the egg becomes comparable to an hard boiled egg.
Is it “cooked”? As no heat treatment is applied, we proposed to introduce a new word,
“coction”, based on the same Indo-European root “kok” as “cooking”. The proposal was
done through email to 6357 people (Email distribution list of the monthly INRA Seminar
of Molecular Gastronomy) and 90 percent of people that answered decided that this new
word should now be used for “cooking without thermal treatment”. A letter giving the
results of the vote was sent recently to the President of the Académie française.

Emulsion with egg whites:

As O/W emulsions are made from water, oil and surfactants, many possibilities arise. In
particular, emulsions are made from egg white (because it contains 90% water and 10%
proteins) and oil. The flavour is nothing, as egg white and refined oil have almost none,
but any flavour can then be given to the sauce. In particular, a very delicate mushroom
flavour is obtained if raw of cooked mushroom is ground in the sauce (mayonnaise with
mushroom would have primarily the flavour of mayonnaise, not of mushroom).

Olis:
They are generalizations of aioli sauce. The latter is made by grinding garlic cloves with
oil: phospholipids (from biological membranes), proteins and other amphiphilic molecules
from garlic are surfactants that can stabilize (for some time only) oil droplets dispersed
into the water that also comes from garlic.
More generally, “olis”32 can be made using the same process with any plant or animal
tissue, raw or cooked. The name should be explained: garlic is “ail”, in French. With
carrots, one would get “carrotoli”, and “fisholi” from fish. Hence the general name: olis.

Kientzheim of butter:
In the two above proposals, the surfactant was changed, not the oil. If instead of oil,
melted butter is added to an egg yolk, using the same process as mayonnaise
preparation, a creamy emulsion is obtained. It was named “kientzeim” of butter.33

Emulsions trapped in gels:

When an emulsion O/W is made from gelatin dissolved in water and oil, the system
jellifies when cooling (O/W (O/E)/S). A physically jellified emulsion is formed. A
chemically jellified emulsion can also be made by cooking (in a microwave, until swelling
due to water evaporation) an emulsion obtained by whipping oil in egg white (see Figure
3).34

“Chocolate Chantilly” and its cousins:

“Chantilly cream” is traditionally made by whipping cold cream: the emulsion of cream is
foamed by the whisk. The idea of “Chocolate Chantilly” is to keep the process and change
the ingredients. If some chocolate is melted in a pan, with water, a chocolate emulsion is
obtained (O/W). When the pan is put on ice cubes (to cool it faster) and the emulsion is
whipped (+G), after some time (some minutes, depending of the efficiency of the cooling),
a “chocolate mousse” (G+O)/W is obtained. It has been called “chocolate Chantilly”.35, 36
Of course, the proportions of chocolate and water have to be chosen so that the final
fat/water ratio is about the same as the ratio in ordinary cream.

7
What is interesting, in this case, is that this chocolate mousse does not contain eggs, and
that the texture can be the same as whipped cream. Moreover, the same equation
describing the physical transformation O/W + G (G + O)/W can be used with other
products, chocolate being replaced by cheese, butter or foie gras, leading to “cheese
Chantilly” or “butter Chantilly”, or “foie gras Chantilly”.

Faraday of lobster:
This dish named in honour of the major physical chemist Michael Faraday (1791-1865) is
the first technological application of the CDS formalism. Let us consider any formula,
with letters A, B, C …K and symbols chosen as described above. For example:
((G+O+S1)/W)/S2. Such a formula can lead to a new dish. For example, with the formula
above, a gas (G), two solids S1 and S2, one oil O and one water phase W are to be made.
Let us assume that the dish should have the taste of lobster. A cook could:
prepare a lobster flavoured oil, buy heating lobster shells in oil: O
prepare a lobster purée by grinding lobster meat: S1
prepare a lobster soup by cooking shells with onions, carrots, thyme, laurel, tomatoes…:
W
disperse the purée S1 and the oil O into the soup W with gelatine as a surfactant: S1+O
ÿ (O+S1)/W)
introduce some air into the emulsion: (O+S1)/W) + Gÿ(G+O+S1)/W
wait until the gelatine makes the gel: ((G+O+S1)/Wÿ ((G+O+S1)/W)/S2.
This “Faraday of lobster” was first served by the French cook Pierre Gagnaire
(Restaurant Pierre Gagnaire, Paris) in January 2003.33 Of course, the same formula
applies to many other dishes: with a carrot flavour instead of lobster, or any other
ingredient. The number of possibilities is innumerable.

5. Molecular Gastronomy activities

Since the first International Workshops on Molecular and Physical Gastronomy, our
discipline developed considerably. In France only, the main activities are:
Since December 1991: Monthly column Science et gastronomie, in Pour la Science, the
French Edition of Scientific American (texts on Molecular Gastronomy were published
on an irregular basis since 1982)
1992: First lecture having the tile “ Molecular Gastronomy” at the Ecole Normale
Supérieure, Paris (Department of physics).
Since 1994: Courses on Molecular Gastronomy at Tours University (Master of sciences
and technology "Le goût et son environnement)
1995: Creation of the Molecular Gastronomy Group in the Laboratory of chemical
interactions, headed by Jean Marie Lehn, at the Collège de France.
1998 : Weekly TV Programme on Molecular Gastronomy Toques à la loupe (La
Cinquième).
1999: Definition of the new curriculum Chemistry and physics of food in French Colleges.
Since 29 April 2000: Organization of the Journée Française de Gastronomie moléculaire,
Orsay University (Paris South)
Since November 2000 : Séminaire INRA de Gastronomie moléculaire (monthly seminar),
Ecole supérieure de cuisine française, Centre Jean Ferrandi, Paris.
2001: Creation of the Programme Explorations expérimentales du goût for the French
culinary schools.
Since January 2001: Introduction of the Ateliers expérimentaux du goût in primary
schools.

8
Since June 2001: Creation of the Programme Mets patrimoniaux in schools and colleges
2002: Creation of the Ateliers de gastronomie moléculaire, in French culinary schools.
January-June 2002: Weekly TV Programme Pile Science, face cuisine (France 5).
January 2002: Organization of the Journées de Réflexion sur les Techniques Culinaires
for the French cooking teachers.
January 2003: New culinary curriculum based on Molecular Gastronomy in French
cooking schools.
June 2003: Creation of the Group of French specialists on chemistry of food and taste,
French Chemical Society (SFC).
Janvier 2004 : Creation of the Institut des hautes études du goût, de la gastronomie et
des arts de la table, with the University of Reims
2004: Creation of the Courses on Molecular Gastronomy, INA P-G, Paris.

6. Conclusion

Technological applications of Molecular Gastronomy are important (“the proof is in the

pudding”), but they are not science. Exploring culinary recipes shows that a huge
scientific work should be done in order to transform an empirical practice in a rational
activity.
Contrary to what the French chemist Marcelin Berthelot (1827-1907) wrote in 1894, 37
we should not fear that science makes us eat “nutritive pills”, as the food we eat is rooted
in our culture.38 Knowledge can be used to improve classical processes or to introduce
new dishes, but elucidation of mechanisms of phenomena it cannot determine what we
are going to eat.

Références
1. Largeault, J. (1988). Principes classiques d’interprétation de la nature, p. 28, Librairie
philosophique Vrin/Institut interdisciplinaire d’études épistémologiques, Paris.
2. Galilei, G. (1623). L’essayeur. In Galilée ou l’avenir de la science (W. Fritsch Ed.), p.
133-134, Seghers, Paris.
3. This, H. & Kurti, N. (1994). Physics and Chemistry in the kitchen. Sci. Am. 270 (4),
44-50.
4. This, H. (2003). La gastronomie moléculaire. Sciences des aliments, 23(2), 187-198.
5. Gilbert, P. (1898). La cuisine de tous les mois, p. 172, Ollendorff, Paris.
6. This, H. (1995). La gastronomie moléculaire et physique. PhD document, University
Paris VI.
7. This, H. (1995). La gastronomie moléculaire. L'Actualité chimique, 6, 42-46.
8. This, H. (1994). La cuisson: usages, tradition et science. In La cuisson des aliments, 7e
rencontres scientifiques et technologiques des industries alimentaires, Agoral 94, 13-21.
9. Grimod de la Reynière, A. B. (1803). L’Almanach des Gourmands (1st year, reprinted
1976, 1997), p. 139, Librairie générale d’éditions, Paris.
10. Carême, M. A. (1847). L’Art de la Grande Cuisine française, t. 3, p. 481, Kerangue et
Pollies, Paris.
11. Gauthier-Jacques, A., Bortlik, K., Han, H. & al. (2001). Improved Method to track
chlorophyll degradation, J. Agric. Food Chem. 49, 1117-1122.
12. This, H. (2002). Molecular gastronomy, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl. 41 (1), 83-88.
13. Blanc, R. , Kurti, N., This, H. (1994). Blanc Mange. BBC Books, London.
14. Saint Ange, M. (1925). La bonne cuisine de Madame Saint Ange, p. 954, Larousse,
Paris: “Remember that, when manipulating red fruits, any tool covered with tin should
be excluded” (personal translation).
15. Belitz, H. D. & Grosch, W. (1999). Food Chemistry, pp. 596-597, Springer Verlag,
Heidelberg.

9
16. Marin, M. (1742). La Suite des Dons de Comus, t.2, p. 235, Guillyn, Paris: « In order
to make the Provence butter, you cook in water twenty garlic cloves or more, according
the quantity of butter that you want to make. When they are cooked, you let them cool,
drain, and put them in a mortar with salt, pepper, a handful of cut capers, a dozen
anchovies whose bones have been eliminated. After cutting and grinding, you add some
good oil, so that it becomes thick” (personal translation).
17. De Gencé, C. (1900). Encyclopédie de la vie pratique, p. 476, Librairie nationale des
beaux arts, Paris
18. Cauderlier, M. (1883)., L’économie culinaire (6e ed), p. 55, Librairie générale de Ad.
Hoste, Gand.
19. French oral tradition.
20. This, H. (2004). Modelization of dishes and exploration of culinary “precisions”: the
two issues of Molecular Gastronomy. In Report of the keynote lecture of the 4th Orafti
Conference on Inulin and Oligofructose, Special issue of the British Journal of Nutrition
(to be published).
21. Belitz, H. D. & Grosch, W. (1999). Food Chemistry, p. 513, Springer Verlag,
Heidelberg.
22. Hunter, R. J. (1986). Foundations of Colloid Science. Oxford University Press,
Oxford.
23. Everett, D. H. (1988) Basic Principles in Colloid Science. Royal Society of Chemistry,
London.
24. Lyklema, J. (1991). Fundamentals of Interface and Colloid Science. Academic Press,
London.
25. Hiemnez, P. C. (1986). Principles of colloid and surface chemistry. Marcel Dekker
Inc., New York.
26. De Gennes, P. G. (1997). Soft Interfaces. In The 1994 Dirac Memorial Lecture,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
27. Darenne, E. & Duval, E. (1974). Traité de pâtisserie moderne, pp. 58-60,
Flammarion, Paris.
28. Lopez, C., Bourgaux, C., Lesieur, P., & al. (2002). Crystalline structures formed in
cream and anhydrous milk fat at 4°C. In Lait 82, pp. 317-335.
29. Gringoire, L. & Saulnier, T. (1901). Répertoire général de cuisine. Flammarion,
Paris.
29. Académie des gastronomes & Académie culinaire de France (1991). L’art des sauces,
J. T. Lanore, Paris.
30. Li-Chan, E. & Nakai, S. (1989). Biochemical basis for the properties of egg white. In
Critical reviews in Poultry Biology, 2 (1), 21-58.
31. Chon, E. (1994). The heritage of Chinese Cooking, Weldon Russel Pty Ltd, Sidney.
32. This, H. (1995). Révélations gastronomiques, Belin, Paris.
33. This, H. (2004). http://www.pierre-gagnaire.com, “Science and cooking“.
34. This, H. (2003). Jeux de texture, Pour la Science, 2(280), 8.
35. This, H. (1996). Le chocolat Chantilly, Pour la Science, 12(230), 20.
36. This, H. (1998), A chocolate foam, The Chemical Intelligencer, Springer Verlag, 65.
37. Berthelot, M. (1987). Discourse made at the Banquet of Chemical Industries, April 5,
1894. In Science et morale, Calmann-Lévy, Paris.
38. Fischler, C. (1990). L’homnivore, Odile Jacob, Paris.

Table 1 :
Some precisions from French culinary books

10
About stock :
1853 (Bernardi, Viart, Fouret, Delan, Le cuisinier national de la ville et de la campagne,
Gustave Barbu, Paris, p. 1): “Avoid cooking stock with bread, because it reduces the
quality of stock”.
1867 (Jules Gouffé, Le livre de cuisine, (fac similé, 1988), Henri Veyrier, p. 44): “the lid
should not cover entirely the pan : the stock would become turbid in a completely closed
pan”.
1893 (M. Millet-Robinet, La maison rustique des dames, Paris, p. 351): “The meat should
be put in an earth or iron pan full of cold water ; fountain or river water should be
preferred”.
Around 1900 (Dames Patronnesses de l’Oeuvre du Vêtement de Grammont, 760 recettes
de cuisine pratique, Grammont, p. 5): “In order to make an excellent stock, one should use
preferably a pan more high than large”.
About jam :
Around 1900 (M. Madeleine, La parfaite cuisine bourgeoise, ou La bonne cuisine des villes
et des campagnes, Bernardin Bechet et fils, Paris, p. 325) : “Gooseberry jam: Mix
gooseberries and sugar, in a copper pan without tin ; if the pan were covered with tin, the
jelly would become purple”.
About sugar :
1893 (M. Millet-Robinet, La maison rustique des dames, p. 214): “Ground sugar acquires a
particular, unpleasant flavour that is given to any syrup made from it, but not to other
mixtures”.
About onions :
1900 (M. De Gencé, Encyclopédie de la vie pratique, Librairie nationale des beaux arts,
Paris, p. 621): “Onions are very important, but they are difficult to digest. This effect can
be avoided in the following way. Before using onions, peel them, put them in a pan with
boiling water and about one gram of soda. After one quarter of an hour, water is colored in
greeen”.
About flour :
1801 (A. Parmentier, Le parfait boulanger): “It is essentiel to mix flours well before to
make the bread fermentation. In the same way, wine drunk immediately after being
mixed with another wine is dangerous, and becomes drinkable only after some time”.
About jellies :
1903 (Jean de Gouy, La cuisine et la pâtisserie bourgeoises, J. Lebegue, Bruxelles-Paris,
p. 80): “Avoid cooling jellies by using ice before it is at room temperature; the sudden
cooling makes it turbid”.
About vegetables :
IV-Vth A.D. (Apicius, De Re Coquinaria, Les belles lettres, Paris, p. 150): “Use soda to
keep the beautiful green color of green vegetables, in particular cabbage” .
1992 (Roger Vergé, Les légumes de mon moulin, Flammarion, Paris, p.37): “Cut the tip of
artichoke leaves with a stainless steel knife in order to avoid the appearance of a black
color”.
About eggs :
1996 (Laura Fonty, 1000 trucs de grand-mère, Marabout, Paris, p. 24): “Whipped egg
whites make are foamed faster when some salt, vinegar or lemon juice is added”.

Table 2:

11
Disperse phase: Gas Liquid Solid
Continuous phase :
Gas Gas Liquid Aerosol Solid Aerosol
Liquid Foam Emulsion Suspension
Solid Solid Foam Gel Solid Suspension

Table 3 :
Proteins Denaturation temperature (°C)
From egg white
Ovotransferrine 61
1Ovomucoïde 70
Lysozyme 75
Ovalbumine 84,5
Globuline 92,5

From the yolk

LDL 70
HDL 72
Alpha livetine 70
Beta livetine 80
Gamma livetine 62
Phosvitine > 140
Yolk : 65-70 (because of LDL)

Figure 1 :
The relationship for the number of precisions as a function of the robustness of recipes,
for five classical dishes.

Figure 2 :
Echographic picture of gg yolk: it is made of about 16 alternating layers of light and deep
yolk.

Figure 3 :
An emulsion trapped into a chemical gel.
Annex 1: Nicholas Kurti (1908-1998)
A text by H. This published in 1998 by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, revised by
Giana Kurti.

Any evocation of the role of Nicholas Kurti in Molecular Gastronomy should begin by a
quotation from Sir Benjamin Thompson, Count Rumford, born in America, soldier,
statesman, natural philosopher, inventor and social reformer. In his 400-page essay On
the Construction of Kitchen Fireplaces and Kitchen Ustensils together with Remarks
and Observations relating to the various Processes of Cookery and Proposals for
improving that most useful Art, published in 1794, Rumford wrote « The advantage that
would result from an application of the late brilliant discoveries in philosophical
chemistry and other branches of natural philosophy and mechanics to the improvement
of the art of cookery are so evident that I cannot help flattering myself that we shall soon

12
see some enlightened and liberal-minded person of the profession to take up the matter
in earnest and give it a thoroughly scientific investigation. In what art or science could
improvements be made that would more powerfully contribute to increase the comforts
and enjoyments of mankind? »
Why did Nicholas like so much this quotation? I shall probably never know, but I know
that the more we published together, the more he insisted to have Rumford’s sentence
introduced in the texts dealing with Molecular Gastronomy. Or rather Molecular and
Physical Gastronomy, I should say. Let me tell you how all that began, and you will
understand the meaning of his claim.

The ancestors of Molecular Gastronomy

We shall begin the story with a rapid survey of the history of food science. This is a
classical scientific discipline as some pioneers are Parmentier (1737-1813), who
introduced the potato in France and explored the uses of this food ingredient, and the
chemist Jacques Thenard (1777-1859), who, in particular, helped (very slightly) the
gastronome Jean-Anthelme Brillat-Savarin (1755-1826) to write his universally
renowned Physiology of taste ; later Michel Eugène Chevreul (1786-1889) developed the
chemistry of fats, not forgetting Justus von Liebig (1803-1873), Emil Fischer, Rumford
or many others, including of course, Albert Szent-Gyorgyi (1893-1986).
Food science developed rapidly, going into details of food modification under various
treatments and closely collaborating with the food industry. But in the process of
industrialization, home culinary operations were modified because they had to be
adapted to the needs of mass production. The food industry flourished, but the
individuals who cook at home did not benefit from the advances of science. Cooking at
home or in restaurants remained almost the same activity as in the Middle Ages: the
same tools were used, the methods did not evolve and the ingredients changed little.
In other words, while it is true that Rumford's wish has been to some extent fulfilled,
good basic science and engineering has greatly helped the development of the food
industry in the last 50-100 years; but it still seems to be very rare to see the professional
scientist cum amateur cook using his physics, his chemistry, his mathematics to explain,
to explore, to improve everyday processes in the domestic kitchen and, in doing so,
perhaps even to create new dishes.

1969, the turning point

Then came the year 1969.

At that time Nicholas was very interested in the history of science (he was largely
responsible for the creation of the Contemporary Scientific Archive Centre, which
catalogued and preserved the papers of distinguished scientists). Being fond of physics,
Nicholas had a particular interest in Rumford, one of the founding fathers of
thermodynamics.
The Royal Institution in London, founded by Rumford, is well known for its Friday
Evening Discourses, i.e. regular lectures on a wide variety of topics. 1969 was the 170th
anniversary of an event that took place at the first meeting of the Managers of the
Institution that was to become the Royal Institution : on 9th March 1799, it was resolved
that « the proposals for forming the Institution, as published by Count Rumford, be
approved and adopted ». As Rumford was to be mentioned in this celebration, Nicholas
was approached by the Royal Institution, and he suggested the title The physicist in the
kitchen. He was already a good cook, having learnt from his very skilful mother, but the
Royal Institution lecture focused his mind and from that time onwards cooking became
serious experimental work. The lecture was filmed by the BBC.

13
A frequently quoted sentence of the lecture was: « It is a sad reflection that we know
more about the temperature inside the stars than inside a soufflé ». And in fact, during
the lecture, Nicholas did several experiments, among them the measurement of the
temperature inside a soufflé. The temperature rose, from 20°C, then diminished a little,
and then increased again up to 70°C, at which the soufflé was taken out of the oven
because it was « done pretty well to perfection » 1.
During this lecture, Nicholas also demonstrated the injection of fresh pineapple juice
through a hypodermic syringe into meat: the proteolytic enzyme bromelin in the juice
split protein molecules, acting as a meat tenderizer 2.
He also prepared meringue in a bell jar, which was evacuated: the swelling of the foam
was very important and the drying of the meringue was much faster than in the classical
method. But the result was different: what he obtained was a « hard nothing », as he
described it.
During the lecture, Nicholas also considered the culinary works of Rumford and, in
particular, the method for making coffee, describing Rumford’s coffee pot, « which
contained a filter and is, in fact, a double boiler, so that however long the making of the
coffee takes the resulting beverage remains hot without boiling » (in 1975, his former
students and colleagues presented him with a replica of that coffee pot).
Then staying with Rumford, he explained the method for cooking shoulder of mutton « à
la Rumford », i.e. at low temperature. Nicholas recorded the temperature inside the joint
with hypodermic needles and a thermocouple connected to a chart, so that he could judge
when the meat was cooked without taking it out of the oven 3.
Finally Nicholas considered the use of microwaves in the kitchen, a truly new method of
cooking, and he invented a new dish, that he called Inverted Norwegian omelette, or
Baked Alaska, where a burning core is surrounded by a cold coating.
In all these explorations, Nicholas was well armed to cope with culinary processes: as
Brillat-Savarin wrote, a good chef has to respect the eternal laws of nature, and it is
often mentioned that they have to be master of fire. Even if Nicholas was a specialist a
very low temperatures, he knew perfectly thermodynamics, which is everywhere in the
kitchen. And cooking, as experimental physics, of which Nicholas was a master, is
primarily experimentation.
The lecture was important, because it induced Nicholas to make many physics
experiments with food; it was the beginning of the story. Nicholas became famous for his
culinary explorations of « gastrophysics », giving lectures, interviews, making TV and
radio programs... Sometime people forget that he was also a top low temperature
physicist but Nicholas was happy with this public image.

1 Later, we made experiments together in order to explain the decline in temperature after the initial rise, and we
showed clearly that it is due to the rise of comparatively cold layers. It is strange that Nicholas never tried to
explain this rise. I showed that it is due to vaporization of water at the bottom of the ramequin.

2 Nicholas named « à la Pravaz » his recipe using the syringe, after Pravaz, the inventor of the hypodermic
syringe, but the recipe was already published in the 1920’s in France under the name « intrasauces », which
should be kept, as Nicholas himself agreed later.

3 The denomination « à la Rumford should not be kept, because the « gigot de onze heures » is a classical recipe
; it works according the well known principles of « braisage », a classical process for which even special tools
called braisière were made for a very long time. These braisières were put in hot ashes, so that the temperature
was under 100°C, which is a bad temperature for cooking meat : at that temperature, water evaporates, and the
tenderness is reduced.

14
And he cultivated it, because in 1988 he and his wife Giana published a book entitled
But the crackling is superb, with contributions of the fellows of the Royal Society.4

Molecular Gastronomy at last

Excuse me now to mention my own contribution, but since I met Nicholas in 1986 I had
the remarkable luck that the threads of our lives were intertwined.
First one remark: Michael Faraday became the great physicist and chemist that we all
know in part because he read, as he was young, the book of a clergyman, Isaac Watt, The
improvement of the mind, in which advice was given: have correspondence, have
collaboration, check the facts, do not extrapolate hastily, do not participate in
controversies. Nicholas was fond of Faraday, just as I was, and we tried both to apply
this advice.
The story goes as follows. Living and working in Paris, I did not know the existence of
Nicholas and for many years I was also investigating French proverbs about culinary
processes in my private laboratory, while working for the magazine Pour la Science (the
French edition of Scientific American).
In 1986, a new advertising officer was hired by the company; she worked previously for
Europhysics letters, of which Nicholas had been the editor. And as soon as she heard of
my experiments, she mentioned Nicholas to me, giving me his telephone number in
Oxford. I called him immediately and, one week later, he came to Paris, using the
opportunity of a meeting of the Société française de physique (the French physical
society). We met in a small restaurant in the Quartier Latin (« Chez Maître Paul »). I
remember that he choose the place, and that we had a wonderful « Poulet au vin jaune
du Jura » (braised chicken with a sauce made from a special wine that is aged for six
years into wood barrels ; a veil of micro-organisms that decompose gives the wine its
characteristic taste).
I do not know the mechanism of our souls, but immediately we were like old friends. And
since this lunch we collaborated closely. I discovered that he had made some
experiments that I had also made. But he had also made experiments that I did not
make, and I had some results that he did not know. This was due probably to the
difference of the point of view that we had: he wanted to introduce physics in the
kitchen, and, being a chemist rather than a physicist, I wanted primarily to check the
culinary proverbs, in order to « clean » the culinary books for the next centuries.
He very soon came back to Paris. Almost immediately we felt that we should have a
meeting somewhere in the world, where all the people interested in this kind of activity,
using science in the kitchen, could exchange ideas. I remember the day, in my office,
when Nicholas called the director of the Ettore Majorana Centre, Professor Antonino
Zichichi. Nicholas knew Antonino Zichichi from previous physics workshops in the Ettore
Majorana Centre, in Sicily. Antonino Zichichi answered very openly and kindly that he
would agree to have a special workshop if we could demonstrate that the activity that
was our common passion could interest other top scientists.
We had the luck to get immediately the support from Hans Mayer Leibniz, in Germany,
of Sir Arnold Burgen in Great-Britain, of Philippe Corsaletti (who was the president of
Eurotoques, a European association of chefs), of Pierre Gilles de Gennes (a Nobel
laureate, he was the director of the Ecole supérieure de physique et de chimie de Paris,

4 The title was choosen because Nicholas cooked for a French chef heading a restaurant in England his pork
roast injected with pineapple juice. Asked to comment, the chef answered : « It is not terrific, but the crackling is
superb ».

15
where I had studied there, and Nicholas knew him well because they met when Nicholas
was working in Europhysics letters), of Pierre Potier in France, and others.
What was the name to be given to this workshop? Nicholas was fond of Rumford, and I
was fond of Jean Anthelme Brillat-Savarin, who wrote that « The discovery of a new dish
does more for the happiness of mankind than the discovery of a new star » (by the way
this quotation was in the introduction of the 1969 lecture in the Royal Institution).
Brillat-Savarin mentioned in particular that « Gastronomy is the rational study of all
that related to man as he is eating. Its purpose is to keep humankind alive with the best
possible food. It relates to natural history, by the classification of alimentary substances,
to physics, by the analysis of their composition and their qualities, to chemistry by the
analysis and decompositions that it imposes on them, to cooking... ».
Consequently our common activity, in spite of slight differences that we shall examine
later, should then be named Gastronomy. But it was only part of it: I proposed that we
use the name Molecular Gastronomy, but Nicholas resisted my chemical inclination and
insisted that we also indicate that some processes are not chemical, but physical: we
agreed that it would be an « International Workshop on Molecular and Physical
Gastronomy ». One remark: it has been sometimes asked why we did not call it
« Molecular and physical cooking », which would have avoided this pompous
« gastronomy ». Nicholas and I knew that it was not appropriate, because we wanted to
use science in order to examine culinary processes, certainly, but also some phenomena
that arise when we are eating. For example, is there a way to avoid the astringent taste
of tea? Which kind of wine is to be drunk as we are eating salad? Which kind of spoon
should be used as we are eating oeuf à la coque?
In 1992, in Erice (Sicily), we co-directed the first « International Workshop on
Molecular and Physical Gastronomy ». As we had wanted, the participants were either
chefs or scientists, and experiments alternated with discussions. At the end of this very
fruitful meeting, Nicholas agreed to be my second father.
And it was the beginning of a still closer collaboration. We had daily telephone calls: I
told Nicholas about my experiments, and either he discussed them or he gave me his
own results. In this way, we made rapid progresses. I remember in particular a work on
vinegar « reduction »: Raymond Blanc, a French chef running the three star restaurant
Manoir aux Quat’Saisons, near Oxford, told Nicholas that boiling vinegar would reduce
its acidity. Nicholas mentioned it to me, and I made the simple experiment of boiling
vinegar, and measuring the pH after various boiling time. He confirmed the result, but,
in Paris, I got a different result. How was it possible? As we compared our experiments,
we found that the only parameter that changed was the nature of the vinegar: Nicholas
had used white vinegar, and I had used wine vinegar. Then we tried other kinds of
vinegar, and we finally found that there is no general low : some vinegar have a pH that
is reduced by boiling, others have a pH that is increased, some have a pH that goes up
and then down, and some others have a pH that decreases before increasing... The
explanation is simple: vinegar is not a simple mixture of acetic acid and water. It
includes a lot of other acids and bases, strong or weak: tartaric acid, formic acid, etc.
This experiment shows well how collaboration was fruitful.
As we were doing this kind of experiments, we prepared another workshop of the same
kind. It was in 1995, and the topic was « Sauces or dishes made from them » ; the third
workshop, in 1997 was about « Cooking », and the fourth workshop, alas without
Nicholas, was recently in Erice about « Flavours, how to get them, how to distribute
them, how to keep them ».
At the same time, we published a lot, together (I always produced the first draft, and he
made a lot of corrections). We were first invited to make a long contribution in Scientific
American. Then we wrote the « scientist’s notes » for the cookery book of Raymond Blanc.
And we were the editors of « The cooking chemist » in The Chemical Intelligencer,

16
invited by Istvan Hargittai. We should not forget also a Newsletter that I ran for some
time after the first workshop; this newsletter was stopped because after six issues
Nicholas and I were almost the only contributors.
At the same time, we had many pleasures: we were given the opportunity to teach
Molecular and Physical Gastronomy in the University of Tours (France), we were chosen
as « patrons » by the students of the Ecole nationale supérieure de biologie appliquée à la
nutrition et à l’alimentation (ENSBANA), in Dijon, we were invited to lecture,
sometimes together, in France and England, etc.
Nicholas gave me a lot of good advice that I was not always able to follow, because I did
not always understand him.
One that I could follow and that I am sharing with all my students and auditors is the
following: « Hervé, he said frequently, make simple experiments ». There is no better
advice. It is clear that we could show to the public a lot of complicated things: NMR
analysis of food during culinary transformations, precise thermal differential analysis,
etc. But the public would then only say that we are clever people and would not truly
accept our results. Doing simple experiments is a good way to make good demonstrations
and to increase the « palatability » of chemistry and physics. I mention this point because
Nicholas, consciously or not (I do not know), and I used Molecular Gastronomy as a way
to communicate science to the public. If the layman says that he hates chemistry (« a
polluting, dangerous, sticky activity »), it is easy to make him notice that cooking a steak
is doing chemistry: before the cooking, it is red and needs seasoning to make, at best,
steak tartar; after it is brown and tasty, because of Maillard reactions, and others. If the
steak is to be cooked perfectly, the chefs would benefit to know and use some chemistry.
Nicholas did not always agree with me. I remember for example when I was passing a
Ph D in physical chemistry (the jury included Jean-Marie Lehn, Pierre Gilles de Gennes,
Nicholas, one French chef , Pierre Potier and other scientists). This event seemed to be
very important for Nicholas because the title was « Molecular Gastronomy », but I
dropped the « physical » in the title, because I had the feeling that « Molecular » was
enough to say that chemistry and physics were used in the kitchen together. Contrary to
Nicholas, I never considered that they could be separated. Was I right?
On other occasions, I could not understand some of his remarks. For example, when I
was testing old wives’ tales about food, he frequently mentioned that I wasted my time if
I made tests of non written proverbs or of obviously false indications. However, when we
published the first article of « The cooking chemist » column, we wrote together « These
minute investigations may perhaps be tiresome to some readers; but those who feel the
importance of the subject and perceive the infinite advantages to the human species that
might be derived from a more intimate knowledge of the science of preparing food, will
be disposed to engage with cheerfulness in these truly interesting and entertaining
researches. »
Finally I never understood why he was so fond of Rumford, at the point that he became a
specialist of the life and work of this scientist. Did he consider Rumford as the ancestor
of Molecular Gastronomy? In fact Rumford was certainly not, because I recently found a
publication by Antoine Laurent de Lavoisier on stock preparation, where the great
French chemist was writing: « One cannot avoid being surprised, each time that one ask
questions on the most familiar objects, on the most trivial things, to see how our ideas
are often vague and uncertain, and how, thus, it is important to fix them by experiments
and by facts ». Another possibility was that Nicholas admired Rumford for being a
scientist, an engineer as well as a gastronome. Nicholas was always interested in energy
conservation and the proper use of energy. Rumford designed fireplaces and stoves, and
the already mentioned coffee pot. He was interested in nutrition and social problems. He
was not exclusively a « laboratory scientist »; nor was Nicholas.

17
I have to repeat that Molecular Gastronomy has many patrons and many precursors.
One should not forget Edouard de Pomiane, who designed “gastrotechnie”, in the 50’s, in
France. However, Molecular Gastronomy had only two founders, and Nicholas is to
remain in the history as one of them for his work in introducing physics in the kitchen. I
wish he could also be celebrated for a major part of his heritage, a part that I invite you
to share with all the people you meet: it is written in my heart and it is « Let us have
simple experiments ».

Nicholas Kurti, The physicist in the kitchen, Proc. Roy. Instn. 42, No.199, p. 451-467
But the crackling is superb, an anthology on Food and Drink by Fellows and Foreign
Members of the Royal Society, edited by Nicholas and Giana Kurti, Adam Hilger, 1988,
Bristol.
Raymond Blanc, with scientist notes by Hervé This-Benckhard and Nicholas Kurti,
Blanc Mange, BBC Books, London, 1993.
Hervé This-Benckhard, Une petite histoire de la gastronomie moléculaire, in Papilles,
n°13, nov. 1997 (Editions Au temps qu’il fait).
Nicholas Kurti and Hervé This-Benckhard, Chemistry and physics in the kitchen, in
Scientific American, april 1995.
The cooking chemist, monthly column in The chemical Intelligencer, Springer Verlag.

18