The idea that Canadian sommellier François Chartier presents in his book Taste Buds and Molecules: The Art and Science of Food, Wine, and Flavor is a very intriguing one. Look at the aroma molecules that give foods and wines their characters, he says, and use that as a basis for pairing foods with wines and with each other. Instead of years of tastings and trial and error, a few simple principles and charts can guarantee exquisite pairings every time.
Intriguing idea, yes; but the author sets it out in a hodgepodge of details with a diaphanous veneer of science, direly lacking the clear explanations of cause and effect that would make it truly useful.
The underlying principle of Chartier's approach is that if two things have flavor compounds in common, they pair well together in a meal. Thus sherries, Sauternes, and aged sake, which all contain a compound called sotolon, are best drunk in conjunction with dishes containing fenugreek seeds, maple syrup, or walnuts, since those all contain sotolon too.

The flavors didn't get along at all. Jasmine's sharp purple-bath-lotion florality treads all over the pleasing tang of the beef, and lingers on the nose and palate in an unwelcome way.

For a book that promises "science," there's a great deal of hand-waving and leaps of faith. Where Chartier does provides hard facts, those facts are of questionable utility -- or downright dubious, like his utterly wacky metric conversions. (55 gallons, if you're following along in the book, is not 40 liters; it is actually 208 liters.) The book is littered with technical terms, but in a way that gives the reader little actual information, and very little confidence that the author has a rigorous grasp on his subject matter. Science isn't gratuitously dropping big words like "sesquiterpenes" and "aldehydes" without defining them; science is exploring and explaining known phenomena and reproducible results.
Sixteen chapters in the heart of the book each address a particular flavor, food, ingredient, or molecule -- "Mint and Sauvignon Blanc," "Oak and Barrels," "Beef," "Maple Syrup" (the author is Quebecois, can you tell?), "Cloves" -- but never with a helpful, logical progression of facts. In the first of them, the argument is as follows:
Do you have a glass of sauvignon blanc in front of you? Does it taste like anise? Mine does not.
Where does that leave us? For all his name-dropping of molecules, Chartier provides the reader with nothing like a rigorous framework, nor the confidence that thumbing through one's own copy of Fenaroli's to make one's own molecular pairings won't end in disaster. The lists he gives in each chapter, of ostensibly compatible foods and drinks, can serve as a source of ideas -- strawberries and turmeric? maple syrup and "cooked tacos"? -- if you don't mind the occasional failed pairing.
Taste Buds and Molecules provides some fun examples to experiment with, but whether or not food pairing is a field that can be solved with molecular science is still a fascinating question waiting for an answer.
Five amazing, clean technologies that will set us free, in this month's energy-focused issue. Also: how to build a better bomb detector, the robotic toys that are raising your children, a human catapult, the world's smallest arcade, and much more.


Online Content Director: Suzanne LaBarre | Email
Senior Editor: Paul Adams | Email
Associate Editor: Dan Nosowitz | Email
Assistant Editor: Colin Lecher | Email
Assistant Editor: Rose Pastore | Email
Contributing Writers:
Kelsey D. Atherton | Email
Francie Diep | Email
Shaunacy Ferro | Email
Seems to me like the author thought that maybe foods with similar flavor-giving parts would, as a rule, taste well together, then published this idea in a book without actually testing it. Did he actually try any of these combinations, or did he just say they were good based on what gives them their flavor?
If that's what you call science, then I'm going to publish a book almost but not quite explaining why buttered toast lands butter-down, just because I think that may be the case.
That guy has a TV show in Québec, and yes he did try and prove those combinations. He shows those combinations in some amazingly simples recepies. I tried myself a couple of those and I was impressed to see that some "oposite" looking ingredients can be so tasteful together.
I'm a bit surprised of the comments in this article, I personnaly think his show is one of the best and "easiest" food show I have seen... probably a matter of translation...
I guess the english translation of his book was probably done on a cheap online translator !!!
When I taste something bitter, it's usually improved by adding something a little bit sweet and salty, or sometimes sweet and sour. Under his theory though, it seems that you'd take bitter and add more bitter and call it done. I don't think that's going to work ...
Also it seems to me that tasting wise, I can really only discern certain things. Sweet, salty, sour, bitter, umami/fat ... Can you really "taste" anything else with your tongue? I can smell other things of course, and it lends to the experience overall, but it's not really a flavor per se?
I don't know, that's just how it seems to me. Interesting idea though.
science can't even explain why browning food makes it taste better, how the hell are they going to match food?
i dont know, but this is something best left to good old fashioned human intuition
How come Robert Parker & Harvey Steiman of Wine Spectator, and many more reviews, encensed this book? Harvey Steiman even make experiment in is San Francisco home kitchen with Chartier, the author of Taste buds and Molecules... tastebudsandmolecules.com Also, note that this author and researcher as publish since 3 years 4 others recipes books, base on is aromatic theory, with the great canadian chef Stephane Modat, they had already made mostly 1000 recipes...
Also, why Ferran Adria acclaim François Chartier’s work?(Adria had created about 50 recipes with Chartier's aromatic food science publish in Taste buds and Molecules, recipes that had been served in elBulli 2009 and 2010 menus)
Yeah! Ferran Adria should know a bit about food, cooking, aromatic compounds... so, if he had call Chartier to work with him on so many food creations, and decided tos erved it on elBulli menus, the aromatic theory of Taste buds and Molecules should work for him. Why not for Paul Adams...
This does not explain the neighbor's dog eating-digesting-passing of steel banded rubber tire, the aluminum cans, OR the billiards ball. Or maybe it does, but if I gotta try them myself to know fer sure, I'll probably end up passing on dinner.
Perhaps the author is holding back. If anyone could make these novel combinations, then he would be out of a job.