Pursuits: Why chefs are not so crazy about Michelin stars

Petersham Nurseries is a restaurant in suburban London which found fame over the last few years because of

its emphasis on the best natural produce (often gathered wild) and the unfussiness of its cooking. It is not a very fancy place. As the restaurant’s name

suggests, it is set within a garden and claims to provide no more than a relaxed natural environment.

 

   Petersham Nurseries got good reviews from British critics but it was only recently that it received what chefs still consider the ultimate accolade, a Michelin star. This should have been a great boost for the restaurant’s fortunes but in fact, it has had the opposite effect. The chef has resigned and walked out, claiming that she can’t cope with the expectations that a Michelin star brings with it. What’s more, she complains, the profile of guests at the restaurant has also changed. Whereas once the restaurant was full of people who wanted simple, good food, it now attracts rich toffs who want a fancy, Michelin-starred experience.

 

   That’s not the way it is supposed to work, of course. The Michelin Guide emerged out of the French tyre company’s desire to help motorists find somewhere nice to eat. In the old days, merely to be mentioned in the Guide was a big deal. One star meant that the food was very good. Two stars suggested that it was outstanding. And three stars meant that it was one of the world’s best restaurants.

 

   The Guide had different ratings for food and for ambience. Thus, it was perfectly possible for a very simple restaurant with outstanding food to get three stars. And a very fancy restaurant with so-so food might have to be content with a mere mention and no stars at all.

 

   It was Michelin’s emphasis on food that led to the evolution of the term ‘Michelin-starred chef’. In theory, the stars are awarded to the restaurant and not the chef. But because the stars focus only on food, they amount to a rating of the chef’s skills. So once a restaurant got a star, the chef began to be regarded as a Michelin-starred super-cook who could take his fame with him even when he left the restaurant.

 

   Michelin has been willing to muddy the distinction between chefs and restaurants. When a chef leaves a Michelin-starred restaurant, the Guide often takes away the stars. When a chef who had stars at one establishment opens another one, then Michelin often transfers the stars. For instance, when the London celebrity chef Vineet Bhatia left Zaika, Michelin took away Zaika’s star and gave it to Rasoi, Bhatia’s new restaurant.

 

   The consequence of all this is that a super-league of Michelin-starred chefs has developed. Usually, such chefs are French. When Alain Ducasse or Joel Robuchon or Pierre Gagnaire open a new restaurant in a new city where there is a Michelin Guide, it is taken for granted that their ventures will get stars. So, anybody who invites a great French chef to open a restaurant at his hotel, is more or less guaranteed that a Michelin star will follow.

 

   Michelin’s favourite chefs get stars even when local critics think that the restaurants are not very good. For instance, Alain Ducasse has three stars in London even though that city’s critics have rubbished his restaurant (for what it’s worth, I think that Michelin is right and the local critics are biased). Sometimes this can have embarrassing consequences. Ducasse got three stars when he opened in New York. But his restaurant was savaged by local critics and closed down. Similarly, Gordon Ramsay, the British chef who Michelin loves, retains three stars in London even though his empire is in a state of collapse. When Ramsay opened in New York, he got such a hostile reception that he abandoned the kitchens of his restaurant and handed the job over to somebody else. But Michelin gave him two stars anyway.

 

"While the Guide seems eager to go back to the old days when there was no connection between the quality of the food and the decor of the dining room, there are diners who think that a Michelin star guarantees a fancy night out."

   The creation of this first-division of Michelin-starred chefs has meant that the stars have come to represent the kinds of restaurants run by these chefs: expensive places where you have to dress up to eat.

 

   Michelin says that this is a misconception. And certainly, its Guides to such cities as Hong Kong and Tokyo go out of their way to discover little gems and to reward tiny places with a downmarket ambience. For instance, the Hong Kong Guide gives one star to Lei’s Bistro, a casual restaurant in the basement of a shopping mall.

 

   But still, the idea that a star equals fancy service and decor refuses to go away. Even French chefs complain about this. Alain Senderens voluntarily returned the three stars he had earned at his Lucas-Carton restaurant in Paris, saying that he could not afford to run a three-star establishment. Just the cost of the flowers alone was killing him, he said. In Britain, such three-star chefs as Marco Pierre White and Nico Ladenis have also voluntarily surrendered their stars.

 

   Petersham Nurseries fell victim to the curse of the Michelin star. Guests who turned up having read about the star expected to find starched table-cloths and snooty service. When they discovered they were eating in a garden restaurant, they complained bitterly. The chef says that she was moved to quit after reading the abusive comments on websites where various diners condemned her for failing to live up to what they regarded as a Michelin-starred dining experience.

 

   The reality, I suspect, is that Michelin is changing faster than diners are. While the Guide seems eager to go back to the old days when there was no connection between the quality of the food and the decor of the dining room, there are diners who think that a Michelin star guarantees a fancy night out. They don’t care that much about food and treat the stars rather as we would regard hotel ratings (where five stars mean luxury).

 

   In a sense, this is a pity. There are many ways of judging the fanciness of a restaurant (price, for instance) but when it comes to food, you need the guidance of an expert. For all its faults, Michelin is an expert in rating certain kinds of food. And it would be a shame if the stars only came to denote ponciness of decor rather than excellence of food.