Cooking Is Not Neutral

Cooking Is Not Neutral

In private dining, I’m often asked why a particular ingredient is on the table. Not in a confrontational way — usually out of curiosity. Guests notice when something doesn’t fit the story they expect, or when it’s presented with unusual care.

Those moments are revealing.

A dinner is never just a meal. The choices behind it — what’s sourced, what’s featured, what’s explained and what’s left unsaid — shape how people understand value. When a dish is repeated across menus and settings, it normalizes an idea. Over time, that normalization influences demand, and demand shapes supply.

This is as true in a boardroom or advisory setting as it is at a dining table.

When I work with organizations, the conversation often starts with food but quickly moves into trade-offs: availability, scale, labor, cost, and perception. Decisions that seem minor in isolation — an ingredient swap, a sourcing standard, a framing choice — carry real implications once they’re repeated across programs, properties, or portfolios.

Cooking doesn’t need to be didactic to have influence. In fact, it’s often most effective when it isn’t. Taste lowers defenses. Hospitality opens space for conversations that don’t happen in reports or policy meetings. Food becomes a way to surface complexity without forcing conclusions.

That’s why the idea of “just cooking” doesn’t hold up. Every menu operates inside systems — ecological, economic, cultural — whether or not they’re named. Neutrality isn’t an option, but awareness is.
Awareness turns routine decisions into leverage — revealing the possibilities already present in what we cook, serve, and choose every day.

Change happens because people taste, feel, and participate — not because they’re told what to think.

The takeaway:
Cooking is never neutral. Recognizing that is where responsibility begins.