The MasterChef final left a bad taste in the mouth.
Hardly possible, you might think, with three cooks heaping more succulent food on each plate than you could eat in a week of dinners.
Especially with two winners so talented they could not be separated. The judges could not put a single sheet of millefeuille pastry between Keri's crispy quail's eggs and Anton's nettle ballantine stuffed with venison trim.
But the plight of loser Oli made the programme sickening. Oli also had put fabulous food on the table, notably a duck confit sausage in potato string. But he was left devastated, a candidate for suicide watch because, in the words of presenter Gregg Wallace, he had "made one mistake too many". Oli put his calvados parfait in the fridge instead of the freezer so it didn't set sufficiently. He slightly undercooked his lobster. Food should not be seasoned by the tears of an eager young chef. In earlier episodes, contestants were subjected to professional scorching, with such insults as: "I actually hate my job for making me eat something like that."
Add in ingredients such as ritual humiliation and bullying and TV cooking becomes an unwholesome diet of tension and conflict.
Remember when MasterChef was about admiring the skills of talented amateur chefs? And laid-back Loyd Grossman would head off to cogitate, deliberate, and digest after having masticated.
There is a nasty streak in professional chefdom, like the pack which used foul language on Twitter to hound into submission a harmless amateur blogger who dared give a lukewarm review to Claude Bosi's two-Michelin Hibiscus restaurant in London.
Food should be about fun, friendship and sharing. As that nice Nigel Slater says: "There is too much talk of cooking being an art or a science – we are only making ourselves something to eat."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article