Every time foam appears on a plate in this city, something went wrong in the kitchen. It shows up in Lower East Side tasting menus where the chef clearly fell down a Michelin-star YouTube rabbit hole and never found their way back out. It disguises weak broth, hides lazy seasoning, and usually melts into a sad, watery puddle before your fork even lands. Restaurants from Bushwick to Chelsea keep doing it because they know diners think it looks "elevated." In reality, it is culinary spackle.
Are we paying for a dish, or are we paying for a chemist’s failed experiment?
The problem with the foam trend is that it prioritizes the "wow" factor of a photograph over the actual experience of eating. You cannot taste air, no matter how much truffle oil you emulsify into it. When a kitchen leans on "airs" and "espumas," it is often because they lack the confidence to let the primary ingredients stand on their own. If I see foam, I immediately know the dish needs help. It is the ultimate red flag that you are about to eat a meal designed for an algorithm rather than a human palate.
This obsession with molecular textures has turned dinner into a laboratory session. We’ve reached a point where "innovation" is just a euphemism for "we didn't have enough actual ingredients to fill the plate." A real sauce has weight; it has a finish that lingers. Foam, on the other hand, is a ghost. It’s the culinary equivalent of a person who uses big words to hide the fact that they have nothing to say.
If you have to manipulate the molecular structure of a liquid just to make it interesting, you probably shouldn't have started with that liquid in the first place. We don’t need more lecithin; we need more salt, more fat, and more actual cooking. The city is full of spots trying to be the "next big thing" by serving you a plate of bubbles, but the real innovators are the ones who aren't afraid of a little bit of gravity.
Stop falling for the "molecular" distraction. If you can blow your dinner away with a light breeze, you are being scammed.
Like this? Explore more from:
