By Tom Cowie
It’s that time of year when hats get doled out at The Age Good Food Guide awards to the food industry’s best restaurants and chefs.
But one person remains publicly unhappy about a system that aims to provide independent food reviews to paying customers: Attica chef and owner Ben Shewry.
Attica owner-chef Ben Shewry.Credit: Simon Schluter
Readers may recall Kiwi-born Shewry just published his memoir, Uses For Obsession, in which he lit a bombe Alaska under the critics – including from The Age – who judge his cooking. He also called out food guides for their “oppressive review system”.
Shewry, of course, has been widely lauded for his modern Australian restaurant in Ripponlea, which held the coveted top ranking of three hats for a decade. He remained quiet on any concerns about the system during this period.
The downgrading of Attica from three hats to two in 2022, Shewry assured us, had nothing to do with his extraordinary spray at the food media, which he wrote in his book were part of a “feckless system, built on hype”.
He also claimed they did not have the correct qualifications, training or experience to know what they were writing about.
Well, Shewry has piped up again with another crack at The Age Good Food Guide, which is launching its 2025 edition on Monday night.
Taking to Instagram at the weekend, Shewry wrote that he no longer consented to food critics reviewing his establishment (and its $385-per-person tasting menu).
“We wrongly assumed food critics would stop reviewing Attica after the release of my book,” he wrote.
Shewry’s book.Credit: Murdoch Books/Allen & Unwin
We will not take the Shewry path when it comes to discussion of reviewing, where even unhappy chefs with limited media qualifications can and should still have their say.
You see, reviews are not for you, Ben. They’re for the reader, the diner, the customer.
Speaking of customers, should they, under the Shewry doctrine, be allowed to tell others their view of a meal without qualifications beyond paying for it?
We are unsure, and who knows what the chef might do when he hears about Google reviews.
In his post, Shewry claimed his publisher had received “indignant, angry calls and group emails” from food critics unhappy about how he portrayed them.
He also accused The Age of trying to discredit him by reporting on his claims.
“There has been no attempt by these critics to engage with their ethical failings, their lack of expertise, the damage they have done to people,” he said on Instagram.
One unnamed critic, according to Shewry, saw their role as being part of the entertainment industry: “What a shallow, bankrupt view of food and the people who give their lives to it.”
Sarah Norris, head of Good Food, said the judging system used by its reviewers was fair and robust.
“No restaurant can pay to be included in the guide, sponsors can’t ask for inclusions, and each review is conducted according to an exacting, rigorous and detailed scoring system,” she said.
“The thing we require most from our reviewers is that they represent the public, because our primary responsibility is to the dining public, not to the chefs.”
Attica will learn on Monday night how many hats it has in this year’s guide.
But Shewry won’t be there to hear about it. He knocked back an invitation to the awards: “Now we have to explicitly withdraw ourselves from this circus,” he wrote on Instagram.
Start the day with a summary of the day’s most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up for our Morning Edition newsletter.