Skip to main content

Sour? Doh!

You might not think bread is the kind of thing where fashion is important - and it's not if you think of the more basic loaves. But get into the fancier end of the market (always more expensive, usually tastier and sometimes, but not always, healthier) and fashion reigns supreme. For some time now sourdough has been at the forefront of the fancier bread market, though wild flour is making some inroads, which is fine. But sourdough should be a choice, not inescapable.

The trouble is, I don't really like sourdough. I'm not particularly fond of its distinctive taste, the crust is way too hard - I always think I'm at risk of breaking a tooth on it - and it doesn't toast well, not starting to darken and crisp up until the crust is burning. We won't even mention those irritating holes that make it difficult to butter it or put jam on.

I have three corner shops, in the sense they are only 5 minutes walk away - Asda, Marks and Spencer, and Lidl. I particularly like the M&S bakery bread - their baguettes are the best I've had from a non-specialist baker outside of France. But they have gone sourdough mad. I'd say at least 75% of their fancier loaves are sourdough - and those that aren't are all white bread. The only wholemeal non-sourdough bread I can get from the bakery is a basic tin loaf.

I suspect sourdough is something of a bubble (get it?) in the marketing sense - at least, I hope so, and we can return to getting a better balance of fancier bread options for those of us who aren't dedicated followers of fashion.

Image (not M&S) from Unsplash by Mae Mu.

See all of Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly digest for free here
Labels:

Comments

  1. Catherine Cavendish27 July 2024 at 14:38

    I'm with you on sourdough, Brian. The crusts lacerate your gums, and hell on your teeth. As toast, the consistency makes me consider it might be the next big thing in construction material. Who needs concrete when you can bake some sourdough?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Liz27 July 2024 at 20:17

    Spot on. It’s horrible.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp
117 comments
Read more

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor
25 comments
Read more

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense
6 comments
Read more