The NYT has a regular feature, “Recipe Redux”, where Times writers revisit a classic recipe from the pages of the NYT, and attempt to update it for contemporary tastes/styles/availability of ingredients.
This week’s recipe was for Chocolate-Rum Mousse; the original actually sounds pretty good, at least to my unsophisticated palate.
So how did the NYT‘s chefs (Alex Talbot and Aki Kamozawa, who run the Ideas In Food website) update this recipe?
Should have gone with that idea; sounds good to me. But, no:
Talbot and Kamozawa substituted beets for chocolate in the original recipe
Beets? Beets?! Were these people not loved enough as children?
Okay, let’s be fair: how did it come out?
So…
To the cloud! Sorry. Here’s what I think they’re referring to when they talk about an ISI dispenser.
Yeah. The original recipe sounds simple, straightforward, and relatively easy to prepare with nothing more than a blender and a stove. The new one requires relatively specialized kitchen equipment and sounds like crap.
I have to ask: if you did a side-to-side, A-B comparison, would Mr. Latte approve?
Beets have one singular advantage that put them on my “highly recommended” list.
If you eat enough of them at one sitting, it turns your pee red.
I don’t have anything against beets as such. My objection is more to the substitution of beets for chocolate as a base ingredient in this dish, and then trying to pass the result off as an “improvement”.
Best quote from the article: “Maybe this idea comes from our lack of knowledge”.
I wonder if they were thinking of sugar beets?