Behind the scenes of the 50 Best

The Roca brothersI’m very happy to accept the invitation of Paolo Marchi to explain how the panel of jurors for the San Pellegrino 50 Best works, because while this list is indeed much discussed, in good and bad terms, its mechanism is unknown. It all began in 2002 when British magazine Restaurant invited a few globetrotter food enthusiasts to take part in a mini-poll. The result was a list with El Bulli, Gordon Ramsay and The French Laundry at the top (the only Italian was Venetian Osteria Alle Testiere).

The issue was successful and publisher William Reed Media decided to repeat it the following year. In 2005 he had the idea to create a list, widening the poll to journalists, chefs and gourmands from other countries, and founded the Academy, a group of people who, in each region, must indicate others to vote. At first there were 30 people per region, today, 35 + the coordinator.

The vote is made online, each has his password to log in the system. Once a year there’s a meeting with the coordinators, to whom the organisation asks for their opinion to improve the system or just to share some news. Including the changing in the number or regions. In the past, for instance, South America had only one panel. It now has three: Brazil, Central America + Mexico + Caribbean Islands, Southern South America. Asia now has as many as 7: Russia + Central Asia, China + Korea, Southern South East Asia, Northern South East Asia, India + Central Asia + Subcontinent, Hong Kong + Macao + Taiwan, Japan.

Another rule that has changed is the anonymity of the voters. In the past, once the list was published, the names of the jurors were disclosed. It is no longer the case (“to avoid any form of captatio benevolentiae”). I personally would have preferred the disclosure, as the Italian panel has always been, unquestionably, a very prestigious one. Over the years, there have been Bob Noto, Alessandra Meldolesi, Loretta Fanella, Carlo Cracco, Sirio Maccioni – just to name a few – or the regrettably late Stefano Bonilli.

Besides, every year 30% of the jurors must be changed. A high turnover not to solidify the list. The jurors – chosen for their national and international knowledge – guarantee with their votes that they have visited the chosen restaurants at least once in the previous 18 months. No proof? Especially in the Anglo-Saxon world, questioning one’s good faith is considered an offense.

Of course, the geography of the panel has an influence on the final result. The United States, with 3 panels, have 108 voters and bring 6 US restaurants in the list though this is not enough to make Eleven Madison in New York win – in fact it slipped from fourth to fifth place.

In other words, perhaps it’s not the much-discussed lobby but I believe that promotional capacity has a strong influence on the image of a country’s restaurant industry. Look at the Spanish phenomenon and how much they invested in Adrià. Or at the Roca brothers who have been the testimonials of Costa Brava’s gastronomy for a long time. Or look at the Mexican chefs going around the world with their tourism organisation so that people get to know their cooking.

Yet many tourism organizations and governments have understood that food and wine have an extraordinary touristic appeal that journalists and gourmands need to discover. There’s no such thing in Italy, if not in some private events. Yet we are the country with the highest density of excellences (and in fact, this also leads to a great dispersion of votes)

Finally, I’d like to remember that the San Pellegrino 50 Best is a poll, not a guide, and not even a cooking Bible. The 972 panellists are asked to indicate the 7 restaurants they prefer (up to 4 from their region and at least 3 from abroad). To use a football metaphor, it is the restaurant Golden ball: and even in this case we know how much polemic can arise among supporters!