This is old, but if you haven't seen it, there's an eGullet thread that talks about this in some detail. Not sure anything actually gets answered, but some general paths of discussion are laid out.

I think France probably has historically had more of a culture of sophisticated, luxury, elegant food than any other country in Europe. It doesn't mean it has the all the best dishes, but it does mean that if you want to make dining into a glamorous activity, the French have a headstart. A perfect burger is a glorious thing, but it doesn't have the wow factor of a perfect soufflé.

'Most elaborate cooking in Europe' isn't quite as big a claim as 'best food in the world', of course.

Harder to make? WTF does that have to do with how enjoyable a dish can be?

I am a fan of french food, but not the Nouvelle stuff or even the fancy stuff. Much like the common fare in "Feasting on Asphalt", my favorite frech food is the simple, common-man food found in the small family operated eateries. I can enjoy the complex sauces and over-fussed-with stuff occasionally. But I think people think that everyone in France eats souffle everyday. Not so.

Anything cuisine descended from the Romans is top, including French!

Living so close to France and in a less "culinary" society (Germany-can anyone say pork and potatos?), as well as coming from a country (Australia) considered one of those upstart nouveau cuisine cultures, I´ve had this conversation a lot. The main arguments usually subscribe to the quote (and I wish I could remember who it was) "America doesn´t have cuisine because America has never starved", and I find that it covers most opinions here in Europe: that American food is based only on large servings, especially of meat, and one or two dominant flavours whereas French food focuses very much on subtle interplays of flavours and careful consideration of accompanying wines etc. Personally I feel it has more to do with how the concept of eating is approached as to what is served: the French do not "stuff their faces", they don´t eat unconsideringly of WHAT it is, and time is taken over a meal (what a difference to the US!).

However, as to whether French cuisine is the BEST IN THE WORLD, I would generally disagree, simply because that´s like picking one artist as being the overriding genius - Michalangelo, Monet, Warhol? It´s an impossible comparison, a personal preference and an unneccesary limitation.

The US doesn't have a cuisine because the US has never starved? Puuuleeeeze!

Great Depression anyone? How about the privation of those who travelled West and suffered drought during the westward expansion period? How about the Civil War when Sherman used the tactic of "total war" which included burning southerners croplands in order to starve out noncombatant women, children and old people? The Dust Bowl? Hello?

Or do they not know about that in the Europe, where they keep all of the history? (Just quoting a bit of Eddie Izzard there, for fun, you know.)

The US doesn't have -one- unified national cuisine because we are a country made up of immigrants from all over the place.

But we sure do have a bunch of vibrant regional cuisines happening. Just like France does. And Italy.

Ooops. Did I say that? Did I point out the obvious fact that France doesn't have -one- cuisine, but many regional ones? You don't believe me? Talk to about ten Frenchmen, and you will get ten answers on what French cuisine is, with their own biases generally pointing to the regions where they were born.

Why do we hold up French food as the be-all, end-all of Western cuisines?

In large part because the haute cuisine which is held up as the be-all, end-all, is technique heavy, it relies upon great culinary knowledge and ability, and it has very little to do with the food of the ordinary people of France. It has always been the food of the upper classes, of the aristocrats, of the people with money, time and leisure.

However, what it does share with the common foods of France is an emphasis on freshness, seasonality, and the careful pairing of wine to enhance the flavor of the foods of each course.

Americans have always had a bit of a love-affair with things luxurious and high status. We have no real aristocracy here, because we were formed as a democracy, but there is a fascination with, and admiration for the royalty of other countries. Once we were sufficiently out from under the thumb of British royalty to forget the abuses that led to the creation of our democracy, Americans have looked fondly upon the British ruling family, and the ruling families of other European nations, as curiosities, sources of glamour and as models to emulate in our own little ways.

When Americans began to have enough money to eat out and travel--it was only natural that we began to eat French restaurant food and uphold it as a pinnacle of cuisine. It is luxurious--it bespeaks wealth, power, prestige--and Americans love that. And--in the nineteenth through the mid-twentieth centuries--nothing much in American cuisine tasted like it. It -was- unique, and glamorous, and was all kinds of edible "bling," to use a modern term. It was flashy.

We also have to remember that Americans have a long history of fondness for the French, for French culture, food, and yes, even politics. This has tarnished in the past few years, but really, our love affair with the French goes back to pre-Revolutionary War days. Remember, they were our allies against the British....

So, to summarize my long and meandering comment, I will say this--there is no -one- answer to Kate's question, and while her feeling that Escoffier's influence is a large part of the answer is correct--it is not the whole answer.

We must remember that Americans love luxury, and historically have always loved France, and so it is only natural that for monied persons in the US, French haute cuisine has always been seen as the pinnacle of culinary art.

Harder to make? WTF does that have to do with how enjoyable a dish can be?

I think there may be a correlation, though not a causal relationship.

Dishes that are harder to make require more expertise: a better cook. Better cooks make better food.

Really, I don't think you can compare two cuisines independent of their practitioners. Cook books don't taste good on their own.

But you can, to some extent, compare chefs independent of their cuisines. There are even cable TV shows about it :)

I can never really wholeheartedly enter into the sort of discussion that attempts to create a hierarchy of food from "best" downwards. Just as there are horses for courses, there are courses for occasions, moods,whims,finances etc etc.

The great French gastronome Curnonsky (who died in 1956) described four types of cuisine – haute cuisine (top chefs), cuisine bourgeoisie (home cooking), regional specialties, and cuisine paysanne (peasant cuisine). He was referring to French cuisine, but it could apply to any,and I dont think he put them in order of best to worst. Lets enjoy them all. Also - every culture has its heyday, foodwise or otherwise. In the sixteenth century British food was the pinnacle that other Europeans tried to ape, then it was French, it seems to be Asian-style now. The wheel just keeps turning.

I am reminded of an article in Gourmet Magazine from perhaps a year ago, which told of a few days spent in the SF Bay Area by the author and two well-known Chinese chefs. Their visit culminated in a trip to the French Laundry. When the article's author described the French Laundry as "possibly the best restaurant in the world" the two Chinese laughed. "Best in the world," they said. "Says who?"

I think this goes back to the middle Ages. Most of the manuscripts (cook books) circulated belong to the French or Italian cultural zones. All written by wealthy citizens or chefs to the royals containing menus and recipes used by aristocracy and high churchmen. The few documents about the peasant/country diet were written from the view point of the more wealthy city dwellers. During the Middle Ages and onward, Many Royals of Europe imported more urban French chefs than Italian chefs to serve their courts (England included). The Royals were very fond of expensive, rich, foods that were delicate in texture. Heavy course foods were to sustain the working classes, but not the delicate constitutions of the wealthy and noble. The French brought with them the traditions of fois gras and truffles, a very wide variety of cheeses, conserved duck and goose in it's own fats, pates and terrines, but also new techniques for using butter,eggs,and cream. Therefore it could be concluded that the French Chefs with their recipes, rich/expensive ingredients, and cooking techniques have been associated with the royalty, aristocracy, wealthy, and high clergy of Western Europe for..umm..centuries and thus obtained the reputation of the finest.

Okay, come to the present. French food also contains folklore and romance. The hidden black pearls of the forest that modern science can not cultivate, Grandma force feeding her little flock of geese, carefully tended snail farms, and ancient caves for ripening cheese. French is the language of love! What was the first public broadcast cooking show? Yep! The French Chef with Julia Child's in 1963. Nouvelle Cuisine was developed in France in the 1970's becoming popular in the 1970's and 80's. Throw this all, past and present, in a Cuisinart and I think it adds up to a possible "why" French cuisine is billed as the best.

This is an awesome thread.

If I were to hazard a guess, it was the influence of Haute Cuisine and the influence that Auguste Escoffier had upon upscale restaurants.

That was my first thought, too. He's definitely a driving force behind the modern Western concept of Cuisine Classique as the acme of fine food.

But we have to give a shout-out to Ecoffier's predecessors too, as he was largely refining and refining something that had been developing in France for 100-150 years already. During this period we see the birth of the modern idea of the restaurant, with professional chefs and serving staff and the concept of ordering off a menu, and all as an acceptable option for the wealthy.

By the early 19th century, the style that would come to be known as French Grande Cuisine had been adopted throughout the aristocracy of Europe but also became accessible to the bourgeoisie -- the concept spread up and down the social ladder. In another few decades even America was in on the act -- Charles Ranhofer of Delmonico's Restaurant in NYC published his "franco-american" encyclopedia in 1893, 5 years before Escoffier and Ritz opened the Savoy Hotel dining room.

Now, I always get strange looks when I say it but I've always considered high Chinese cuisine to be in some ways more sophisticated than French cuisine. I wish I knew enough about it to make a better case, but the facts that the cuisine has developed over thousands of years and has influenced cooking throughout Asia have a lot to do with it. And I like the fact that they cut your food for you -- how's that for service? :)

I agree that fine French food is in a completely different class than, say, a great hot dog. But so is fine Japanese food. And fine Chinese food. And fine middle eastern food. And Indian food. French food is not inherently better than these--and other--cuisines. Nor is it more complex, nuanced, or sophisticated. Anyone who thinks so needs to eat out more. And put away that Michelin guide.

Whether or not French cuisine is "the best" in the world is a question of personal taste, which is really what eating is all about. But the reputation for excellence certainly comes from that elusive mix of "art and science." The techniques are classic. If learned and done properly, the techniques can produce the same results each time, and consistency is a key factor in serving good food. In fact, French cooking techniques are the foundation for thousands of creative variations on dishes. That's where the art takes over. So, chalk up the reputation for being "the best" to the fact that French chefs built the foundation for much of what happens in kitchens around the world.

In another few decades even America was in on the act -- Charles Ranhofer of Delmonico's Restaurant in NYC published his "franco-american" encyclopedia in 1893, 5 years before Escoffier and Ritz opened the Savoy Hotel dining room.

Ironically, both Charles Ranhofer and César Ritz were Swiss... :P Both undoubtedly helped to perpetuate the image of French haute cuisine in their times (latter half of the 19th C. - first part of 20th), but the perpetuation of French cuisine as being the best, all around Europe and by extension to the United States, began at least 100 years before the time of Delmonico's. For a very long time French culture was the last word in refinement - rich European and American families (and this still continues to an extent) sent their children, especially girls, to be 'finished' at schools in France or the French speaking parts of Switzerland, to learn the language and absorb the culture. French cuisine was part of that.

I think that there are, and historically have been, roughly two kinds of "great cooking". One is the kind of hearty home-cooking or bistro type of food that's relatively easy to prepare...or at least relies on fewer elaborate steps. The other is haute cooking, the kind that was served to the ruling classes and now is served to anyone willing to pay for it. I think that the best French cooking is astonishing. So is the best Italian cooking, et. al. The difference I believe is that in France, the haute end of cooking has had a much more fertile bed to grow in, simply because of demand and of competition.

From the time the first restaurant in the western world was opened in Paris to now, the competition amongst the mostly male chefs of France to become the best, to amaze and delight, has been very fierce. On the other hand, Italian cuisine - and cuisine in other countries such as Spain or even England and Germany etc. - has been less competitive on the haute end perhaps, but there was a strong demand for the kind of cooking that relies more on quality ingredients and foodstuffs prepared before it reaches the kitchen - think prosciutto, or Parmesano, or olive oil, etc. - and flavors rather than method. This has all totally changed in the last few decades of course, where haute cooking has spread all over the world.

So...historically perhaps, in the western world French haute cuisine has set the standard, but then who's to say that haute is better than rustic? Probably 90% of people nowadays would prefer non-haute, in part because it's more accessible and easier to understand. Judging something as "better" is purely subjective.

Finally, Kate specifically said "in the western world...", but the most haute of haute cuisines is probably haute Chinese - again, because of the demand and the competition in pre-Communist days. (Or it could be haute Japanese that grew in Kyoto. Or haute Thai that grew at the imperial court there? Argh.)

Oops, correction - Charles Ranhofer was French. The Delmonicos were Swiss though.

I have been travelling the world when Panamerican was in operation and I can tell you that french cuisine is the BEST!

I don't think French is the apex of good cuisine. Plenty of other cuisines use fresh ingredients etc. Most people thik of fancy food with they hear about "French cuisine". They don't think about simple family meals. And when you get to basics there really isn't much different in a French family style meal than an Italian or Chinese one. America is different only because we love our pacakage processed foods.
French food has status in the west because of it's association with luxe. Just because something costs a lot doesnt make it the best; it just proves some people have more money than sense.
Shows like Alton Browns are popular because the vast majority of us will spend more time eating burger in diners than we will eating souffles in French Restaurants. Done right, by a cook who cares about ingredients, both can be delicious. Apologies for any duplicate posts...i'm havin ISP issues

If I had to guess I think in a lot of cases the reason for this assumption is that what is known today as French cuisine is what suddenly became available "to the masses" after the French revolution. Until then the French food was pretty plain for the majority of people.

Other European countries didn't had such a harsh break in their diet. Germany, Spain etc. lost their Monarchies, but either vastly later or in a way that wasn't really all that sudden. Britain still has it's Monarchy.

So in the end the association that was made with French food was that of "equality" in a sense and that was how it is marketed and I think that has a lot to do with it.

Because of this, French cuisine a lot of times also uses "rare" ingridents and that probably has helped the myth of the unbeatable French cuisine.

To take the US as a counter point. It never had a "Food culture" perse. Most of the food that became staples in the US households were very basic dishes, as mostly the poor emigrated to the US and brought their recipes with them. They wanted simple and "fatty" and I think that has been sticking around up to this day.

As I read Barbara's comment, I was thinking, "Well, there are a number of my thoughts I can skip, since she's doing an *excellent* job of making those points." grin I'll also agree with others that it's partially about Americans perception of luxury and the traditional cultural worship of Europe in general and France in particular.

Consider the number of cultures in which food consumption is more like that described in "French Women Don't Get Fat" than like the fast/processed food that too many Americans eat. Now, consider how few of them would have gotten the press, and sold the book, as well as "French women"...not many, if any. There's this media-promulgated air of the French being a bit better...at least until that whole childish Freedom Fry debacle.

There also seem to be a number of assumptions in "...harder to make, better balanced, more beautiful and more delicious" (from the article)

Harder to make -- this mostly comes down to wealth and leisure (or staff) plus mystery because, as we all know, some of those things that look like they should take forever don't and some of that rustic peasant fare relies on techniques handed down for generations.

Better balanced -- Within individual dishes, over the course of a meal, what? Many cultures have exquisite balance of tastes in their food, without relying on the brute force sweet/salty of mass-produced American food.

More beautiful -- True, the high-end French food often is pretty to look at, but, as others have mentioned, Chinese banquets can be amazing too. So can a simple fruit and cheese tray. Plus, beauty, eye of beholder, blah, blah, blah.

More delicious -- Says who? I had some sublime apple cobbler the other day: made with yellow transparents that were picked that day, yummy butter, nuts and spices in the topping (no oatmeal), served warm with a scoop of vanilla bean ice cream. That was more delicious.

Americans have NO concept of what it is to "eat" other than deep dried, preservative laden disduting food. As far as food in other countries; Americans just simply love to bastadise recipes. No one in the world wants America food; it's junk. French food is the most refined and the best, but most of all French people can eat it all day long and NOT get fat