I make no value judgements about Gastro tourism

Are you a gastro-tourist? It’s not a term I use very much but maybe I should!

It was The New York Times that got me thinking. Reporting on the announcement of the list of the World’s 50 Best Restaurants a few days ago, the Times listed the familiar criticisms of the way the list is compiled.

 

Though these criticisms have been made before — ever since the list was hijacked by food PR agencies and so-called influencers — and the Times was more restrained in its sneering compared to many food platforms, I was struck by one term in the report.

 

   After commenting on the deeply unsatisfactory way the list is compiled (rumours say that 50 Best will soon clean up its act, but who knows?) The Times added “Nonetheless, the list has become a popular tool for gastrotourists.”

 

   Gastrotourists? Is that a thing?

 

   I asked around and discovered that it was indeed a burgeoning trend. Many tourists plan whole vacations just to eat at one or two of the restaurants on the list. This involves booking months in advance (because most of these restaurants are always full) and then, only if the reservation comes through, will the mechanics of the trip — buying air tickets , booking hotels etc. — be considered.

 

   It’s different from other kinds of tourism in the sense that, if you and I go to Italy then all the things we want to see, from the monuments to the natural beauty, will always be there. But for a gastro tourist the trip will not happen if bookings at say, Le Calandre or Piazza Duomo are not available.

 

   Even a decade ago this would have seemed incredible. But now it is the norm. At most world famous restaurants, up to 80 per cent of the guests are tourists (often from Asia). They have made the trip, flying thousands of miles just to eat a single lunch or one very expensive dinner. (This is less true of London or Paris and in Tokyo, the really top restaurants are too snobbish to let tourists in.)

 

   Are the meals worth the expense? The restaurant bill is not the real cost here though typically, it is always high. It’s the flights and the hotels that make up most of the expense.

 

   I am not sure what the right answer to the ‘is it worth it’ question is because a meal is now worth whatever someone is willing to pay for it.

 

"Over the last decade the concept of a great restaurant has changed because gastrotourists vastly outnumber locals and constitute the overwhelming majority of guests."

   But chefs are aware that most of their guests don’t just want a good meal. They want something that looks spectacular on Instagram; something they can brag about to their friends. So there will be lots of caviar and truffles and every plate will be designed to look good on social media.

 

   Chefs know that gastrotourists are one time visitors. Just as most of us see the Coloseum only once before moving on to another destination, Gastrotourists rarely go back to the same restaurant. They look for the next fancy place to hit. It’s not the food that matters as much as the bragging.

 

   Has this changed the way in which the world’s top restaurants design their food? I believe that it has. To win three Michelin stars you need to demonstrate creativity and consistency because you never know when a Michelin inspector might be in the house. Likewise in Paris or New York where critics go again and again to a restaurant before reviewing it. Now because most guests will never come back and getting on to all the best restaurant lists is only a question of spending enough money on influencers and PR, there is less incentive to be consistent, creative or even, to make tasty food. Your profitability depends on PR and hype more than it does on the quality of the food.

 

   If you look at the toppers of the 50 Best list a decade ago, they were all restaurants that transformed gastronomy: El Bulli, The Fat Duck, The French Laundry, Noma, etc. Will many of the restaurants on recent lists change the way we eat? Well some of them: may be. But mostly: probably not.

 

   There are still many ways to find good restaurants — the Michelin guides, reviews in such publications as Le Monde or The New York Times and a few specialist food sites — and despite the criticism of the lists of best restaurants, while I may not rely on them, I will always support anything that helps chefs and restaurants make money.

 

   But it is very hard to deny that over the last decade the concept of a great restaurant has changed because gastrotourists vastly outnumber locals and constitute the overwhelming majority of guests.

 

   Speaking for myself, I often have to travel professionally for work purposes to try out and review restaurants so that probably doesn’t count as gastrotourism. But there are times when my wife and I have spent our own money and travelled only for meals. We went to Modena seven years ago to eat at Osteria Francescana. We made two special trips to Bray for The Fat Duck and The Hind’s Head. We spent several days in Sichuan province only because I wanted to understand the food. We took a train from Barcelona to go and have lunch at Sant Pau and I have travelled to three different cities to eat at incarnations of Noma (Sydney, Kyoto and Copenhagen). And last month I made a day trip to Bilbao to eat at Etxebarri.

 

   Every single trip was more than worth it and I would happily do all of them again. So what’s the difference between me and a gastro tourist? It’s hard to say. Most of us like to look down on all tourists when we travel: ‘it’s too touristy’ or ‘it’s a tourist trap’ are common putdowns. We never face up to the fact that we are tourists too when we travel, however much we may pride ourselves on our discernment or taste.

 

   So I make no value judgements about Gastro tourism. All I will say is that it now dominates gastronomy at the highest level. And I am not sure that restaurants that are so cut off from their communities and do not cater to locals are necessarily a good thing.