Taste Test: The power of the brain on taste buds

http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/food/tas ... r-2544634/

But here's the thing. More than once in the past, I've discovered that the brain has a powerful effect on the taste buds. Free-range eggs taste better? Nope. Darker colored eggs taste better. Is New York pizza better when made with New York tap water? Nope. At least my panel of experts couldn't tell the difference. I've done tests where I've fed an entire room full of people two batches of identical carrots, labeling one as organic and the other as conventional. Unsurprisingly, they unanimously pick the carrots labeled organic as superior in flavor every single time, even when they are two halves of the same carrot.

[Robin Garr]

http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/food/taste-test-is-mexican-coke-better-2544634/

But here's the thing. More than once in the past, I've discovered that the brain has a powerful effect on the taste buds. Free-range eggs taste better? Nope. Darker colored eggs taste better. Is New York pizza better when made with New York tap water? Nope. At least my panel of experts couldn't tell the difference. I've done tests where I've fed an entire room full of people two batches of identical carrots, labeling one as organic and the other as conventional. Unsurprisingly, they unanimously pick the carrots labeled organic as superior in flavor every single time, even when they are two halves of the same carrot.

The effect of the brain is undeniable, which is why a sushi and sashimi platter tastes better than a bucket of raw fish.

Take it from a wine geek, though: There is nothing like "blind" tasting to sort things out.

Some of these things are definitely myths, including New York tap water's effect on pizza OR bagels. True free-range eggs, though (possibly exempting some of the asterisk-free range that meets federal labeling muster) are darker AND taste better because of differences in the hen's diet.

I'd also add that it's not entirely about taste. Some people choose to eat eggs produced under humane circumstances for that reason alone, and if they taste better - either objectively or even only subjectively - that's just a bonus.

Bottom line, this guy has a point, but the article isn't any more soundly based than his semi-scientific approach to asking a room full of friends to taste some stuff.

The book The Wine Trials has a fascinating essay on how, in blind tastings, most serious wine drinkers (and even some professional wine critics) can't tell the difference between $15 wines and $150 wines. But in non-blind tastings, or tastings where inexpensive wines are put in expensive-wine bottles, the wines with the expensive label get rated higher than the inexpensive ones almost every time.

The book The Wine Trials has a fascinating essay on how, in blind tastings, most serious wine drinkers (and even some professional wine critics) can't tell the difference between $15 wines and $150 wines. But in non-blind tastings, or tastings where inexpensive wines are put in expensive-wine bottles, the wines with the expensive label get rated higher than the inexpensive ones almost every time.

Same idea as the organic vs. regular carrots. I'd put my money on people choosing what tastes better based more of sight/value than actual flavor.

I've done it a few times with some bourbon drinkers I know. Give them a few blind sips of 3 or 4 bourbons and the results vary drastically, but give them the same bourbons and tell them the cost per bottle and the more expensive bourbons start tasting better.

I did a test on myself yesterday with eggs. I cooked two eggs, one cheapo Kroger brand, and one free range brown organic and couldn't tell any difference. Back to the power of the brain, I didn't think there would be a difference, so maybe that is why I couldn't taste one.