The article makes it sound terrible (deep-fried moss, seaweed ice cream, food served on rocks and tree branches...) and of course, I have better things to do than spend 5 hours eating a 25 course lunch.

As usual, these flash-in-the-pan fashionable restaurants rely on hype and excess to suck up as much money as possible before somebody says something about the emperor's new clothes.

To each their own and I suppose that's one reason why a food editor spends five hours eating because basically all they seem to DO is eat.

I,too, read the article in the Washington Post and did not find one item of those listed on the 25 item tasting menu that didn't sound just dreadful! And for $400. I was unable to learn from the article what (and who) determines that it is the world's best restaurant. Originality?

I suspect the author has decided (or heard from somebody else) that it is so.

And people wonder why places like Burger King survive for years and years and years. Oh, of course, because the people who eat there don't know what "good food" really is.

Greasy burger or seaweed ice cream?

I don't know why people would think a great restaurant can't exist in Copenhagen. It has a very pollution free environment for, one thing. It also has marvelous dairy products.


I eat seaweed all the time and really enjoy it. I happen not to like ice cream.

Burger King survives because it efficiently delivers FAT. If you don't want to sit down for a multi-course inventive dinner, no one is forcing you. But Noma has been around for a couple of years now and consistently received superlatives. It has opened "branches" in other places (like London). It's not industrial like Burger King.

Noma is hardly a "flash in the pan" any more than El Bulli was a "flash in the pan". Both chef-driven restaurants have ended up changing menus all over the world, and changing the way people think of dining out.

I really doubt the people posting here have ever tried such places or know what they are talking about. Sorry. They imagine they are pointing at snobs, but that's the way they come across pretending they are too "smart" to go to such places and can get just as good food at Burger King. Voice of ignorance.

Here's a previous article about Noma for people who are open-minded (it also explains how the designation of Best Restaurant is arrived at, since someone asked):

http://www.travelandleisure.com/articles/copenhagen-denmark-europes-best-town-for-foodies

Also -- it's worth noting that what annoys some people about Noma's success is that it focuses on vegetables and exalting their use, putting them at the center of the meal, not on the side. Other people feel it is about time vegetarian eating was recognized as fine dining (even finer dining).

I too was going to say when I read it, that I wouldn't consider Noma a 'flash in the pan'. It's been around for at least 6 years, which in competitive, niche restaurant terms is an eternity. Still more impressive is it's steadily rising star over successive years, built on a reputation of creative plates combining unusual tastes and textures. What I like about the restaurant's concept is how it showcases little known Scandinavian cuisine, all in a framework of nature, which itself is a hallmark of Nordic culture.

The food is definitely not everyday fare and not meant to replace a hungry man's meal. I'd say it's more for celebratory occasions or lunches. Three people I know who've dined there have enjoyed it. All are open-minded, adventurous eaters who spoke of their visits more knowledgeably than I expected. They also enjoy a burger as much as anything when they feel for one.

Seaweed is fast becoming known in culinary circles as a largely untapped plant food resource that is readily available in abundance from that 'other' world, the one below the ocean. They are already referred to by many as ocean or sea vegetables. Various species are chock full of useful minerals and vitamins, and many are believed to hold undiscovered cures for current illnesses.

"...I suppose that's one reason why a food editor spends five hours eating because basically all they seem to DO is eat."

Seem to do ? Actually that mainly IS what they do. They need to taste the food, know what it's about and form an opinion before they can edit information about it.

Copenhagen has alot of very very good restaurants, of which Noma is only one. We ate in Restaurant Radio a couple of weeks ago, the food was really wonderful and very different, particularly loved the pine needles chopped up in olive oil for dipping sourdough bread, the plum dessert with white chocolate, the veal, the scallops with seaweed, the wild mushroom dish with various grains & herbs we'd not heard of before, foraged apparently. It's probably the style of Noma but without the price tag.

We have been to Copenhagen several times and have had a lot of very good food - some very simple (super fresh baby shrimp on pumpernickel with home-made herb mayonnaise) and some quite elegant (again, a lot of seafood).

But I must admit that I am not nearly enough of a foodie to enjoy the meal/foods described. And the couple of times I have tasted seaweed I have not enjoyed it.

I eat seaweed all the time and have a package of it in my pantry. I am also certain that Copenhagen is fully capable of having excellent restaurants and quite certainly does.

But the emperor has no clothes! Damn it, if people have $400 to spend, they should give $350 to a food bank and have a good meal with the rest. Have they no shame in view of current economic conditions? Clearly René Redzepi has no shame.