Marginal Revolution: What is wrong with American food?

July
S	M	T	W	Th	F	St
		1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30	31

« Unlikely film adaptations, part II | Main | Dana Schutz »

What is wrong with American food?

What's the scoop here? Why is it that even with lots of money and chefs who clearly know how to produce three-star food, American restaurants still can't measure up to their French counterparts?

The context is the new Michelin guide, and whether four New York restaurants deserved three stars. (BTW, even if you think they were deserving, as I do, count the relative number of stars in NYC vs. Paris; NYC does top San Sebastian, Spain, but not by so much). His commentators make many good points, most of all about differences in ingredient supply networks.

The better pure ingredients in Paris include amazing cheese shops, perfect bread, and fresher strawberries. On the macro scale, this translates into superior haute cuisine.

America, in contrast, excels in multi-dimensionality. Move away from refined Michelin-style cooking, and New York City is usually better than Paris. We have better Indian food, Columbian food, Afghan food, Chinese food, sushi, burger joints, street pretzels, and so on. Yet there is probably no single cuisine where NYC is #1 in the world, precisely because American ingredients are not up to scratch.

It is no accident that France specializes in uni-dimensional food competition, whereas the United States scatters its culinary energies in many directions. By choosing food networks which emphasize speed, reliability, and cheapness over perfection, the U.S. makes possible many more ethnic cuisines, and it also guarantees a better shot at cheap prices. In short, New York offers more choice.

Posted by Tyler Cowen on November 13, 2005 at 06:13 AM in Food and Drink | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/3576/3639643

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference What is wrong with American food?:

» Food in NYC from news views and analysis
Tyler Cowen at Marginal Revolution writes about one of my favourite hobbies....being an NYC foodie.... What is wrong with American food? Kevin Drum asks: What's the scoop here? Why is it that even with lots of money and chefs who clearly know how to pr... [Read More]

Tracked on Nov 13, 2005 3:11:08 PM

» Food Fight! from The Cardinal Collective
Mike Steinburger in Slate says that Michelin has lowered its standards in its first-ever guide to NYC restaurants: Michelin awarded three stars to three NYC restaurants, none of which Steinburger finds comparable to the French three-star winners. Kevin... [Read More]

Tracked on Nov 13, 2005 9:42:48 PM

» Paris autumn from Cronaca
A few unorganized thoughts about my recent ten days in Paris (my first extended visit in several years): There was... [Read More]

Tracked on Nov 18, 2005 11:07:50 AM

» Paris autumn from Cronaca
A few unorganized thoughts about my recent ten days in Paris (my first extended visit in several years): There was... [Read More]

Tracked on Nov 18, 2005 11:08:21 AM

» Paris autumn from Cronaca
A few unorganized thoughts about my recent ten days in Paris (my first extended visit in several years): There was... [Read More]

Tracked on Nov 18, 2005 1:01:30 PM

Comments

So what do we need to do to increase the quality
of our ingredients?

Posted by: phil at Nov 13, 2005 7:59:56 AM

We are a middle class country.

A friend explained it this way - generally, anything (meals, service, shopping, hookers, whatever) that is very expensive will be better in London than it is in New York.

But anything that is merely expensive will be better in New Yrok than it is in London.

And anything that is moderately priced will be better in Chicago than it is in New York.

Posted by: Jos Bleau at Nov 13, 2005 8:14:39 AM

Easy phil: If you're interested in increasing the quality of haute cuisine, eat haute cuisine more frequently, but spend more time (read as money) at those restaurants you think are the very best.

By doing so (and particularly if you get several thousand people to go along with you), you'll be creating incentives for new haute cuisine restaurants to open up and for the restaurants to improve their quality.

I, however, will be patronizing the current cheap variety, not just because I want even more variety and wouldn't mind more cheap food, but because I actually like it more (in terms of utility I think I get FAR more utility out of 40 $6 buffets spread over eight weeks than a single $240 meal, but to each their own).

Posted by: Jody at Nov 13, 2005 8:20:33 AM

Since demand creates its own supply, what Drum is really lamenting is the fact that we as a market have insufficiently high demand for haute cuisine.

Meanwhile, Drum is exactly the type who, if we did have more and better high-end restaurants, would then immediately turn around and lament that we are a "selfish, hedonistic culture" that should be spending our money on "more important" things like health care (and would probably call for a "haute cuisine tax" to "correct" our behavior).

Posted by: KipEsquire at Nov 13, 2005 9:16:16 AM

Down in orange county, california, I can get really good ethnic food (in the strip malls, as a recent book & review noted). The only slight problem is that the food centers are 5-10 miles apart. I can walk to good burger or mexican or central american, but it's a longer trip to vietnamese or chinese or korean or ...

Out here I'd also sing praises of the simple breakfast burrito, those poor french guys ...

(buffets jody? always go for the cook-on-order. $6 in the strip malls takes you a long ways.)

Posted by: odograph at Nov 13, 2005 9:21:54 AM

Tyler mentions bread as an ingredient. But it's not an ingredient. The ingredients are yeast and flour, which are a lot easier to import than strawberies and cheese. Expensive restaurants shouldn't notice the price of imported dry goods. (Starter might not be legal, but it only has to be smuggled in once.)

But I use cheap yeast and flour, bought at my local grocercy store, to make better bread than most French and Italian restaurants I visit (which aren't that expensive).

Posted by: L at Nov 13, 2005 11:03:55 AM

The best cheap food in the world is in the metropolitan areas of China. They don't have the international diversity we do in the US, but the in-country
diversity is amazing in and of itself. Food in Hunan is very different from that in Henan, which is very different from that in Sichuan, and so on...

They also have very fresh ingredients. You can buy fresh produce of amazing variety literally right on the street.

You can eat a very good, multi-course meal, served by an army of waitresses, for $5. A meal fit for a king can be had for $10-15.

Posted by: Derek Scruggs at Nov 13, 2005 1:02:38 PM

The best place to get the full array of regional Chinese cuisines is in Taiwan.

The top food in Japan is clearly a rival for the top in Paris. The world's most expensive restaurant is in Kyoto.

In any major European capital city there are usually one or two other cuisines besides their own (including their provincial ones) that may be at the top of the world level, beating New York. They are the cuisines of countries that were former colonies of that European nation. Thus, without doubt Tan Dinh in Paris is a better Vietnamese restaurant than any in the US, and certainly any in New York, which is not the tops for Vietnamese cuisine in the US anyway. One can find better Indian restaurants in London than anywhere in the US and better Indonesian restaurants in Amsterdam than anywhere in the US, and so forth.

Posted by: Barkley Rosser at Nov 13, 2005 1:33:17 PM

I would love to hear an economist on the economics of produce: Are tasteless tomatoes welfare-optimal? If not, why do we have them?

I would think that the market tends to concentrate on the characteristics which are easily measurable. So size and colour improve, while taste gets worse. The market for lemons, applied to lemons. Is that fair?

If so, why do the French escape the same forces?

Posted by: TomC at Nov 13, 2005 2:12:22 PM

The only ingredients for which France is superior to the US may be those used to produce French cuisine. What about the quality of Indian, Chinese, Mexican, Jamaican and Japanese food in France? The only cuisine other than French (including regional French) in which France may have an advantege is North African/Arab. That advantage may be due to both market demand and, more importantly, the supply of knowledgeable chefs.

In fact, the main consideration may be this last one. Where is the human capital invested in restaurants in France vs. USA and elsewhere? How do the differences present themselves to the customer? And who would be the best Ph.D. advisor for this topic?

chsw

Posted by: chsw at Nov 13, 2005 2:17:31 PM

Living on the eastern edge of Marin County, California, I am within a half-hour or one-hour drive of organic farming of baby vegetables, fresh oyster harvests, cheese-making, vineyards and wineries, and coastal fisheries of this county and its neighbors: Napa, Sonoma, San Mateo, San Fracisco, etc. Perhaps some part of our large country lack immediate access to premium ingredience, but I think my neighborhood can match France on all matters of fine ingredience and cuisine. While truffles may be an exception, perhaps our wild Pacific Salmon more than makes up for this deficiency.

Posted by: David Sisk at Nov 13, 2005 4:17:23 PM

I strongly disagree with the fact that Paris does not have any other types of cuisines and I am not saying because I am French. I rather say that because I lived in France and in Paris for quite a while. To be sure, one might argue that French cuisine is better quality than American cuisine but this is also not totally true as well. Yes in France, the bread is better, pastries are better, more variety of cheeses but the US meat is way much better than in France. Americans know how to cook a piece of meat. But to come back to the question of variety, that is totally untrue. We do have Chinese, Vietnamese, Italian, Spanish, Russian, North African, African, restaurants and plenty of them when compared to Paris. Of course, NYC has much more restaurants but NYC is much bigger city than Paris. But, ultimately, who cares? You do not go to NYC for the restaurants.

Posted by: Alexandre Padilla at Nov 13, 2005 4:42:44 PM

Correction to my previous post. Paris DOES have plenty other types of cuisines.

Posted by: Alexandre Padilla at Nov 13, 2005 4:44:02 PM

Certainly freshness of ingrediants is extremely important, and the Bay area is one of the best in the US for that, one reason several of the top restaurants in the US are in that part of the country. It is also a reason why generally for the same level of cuisine, one will find better food in an restaurant in France, Italy, or Japan, than in the US.

That said, cuisine does matter, even if opinions about it do also. I would say now that globally the competition is between French and Japanese. One can see this by scanning Zagat for many cities, where more often than not these two cuisines are duking it out for the top spot in many cities around the world. In Washington, Makoto, one of the few restaurants in the US to serve the true haute Japanese cuisine, kaiseki, has just displaced long time Number One, the Inn at Little Washington, which is a French-influenced New American place (with ultra-fresh stuff). Of course Makoto is ahead of all the fully French places like Citronelle and Gerard's, not to mention the various Italian joints.

Posted by: Barkley Rosser at Nov 13, 2005 4:46:21 PM

I've had some wonderful French meals in France, but also one in Queensland (Australia) and one in Hampshire (England).

Posted by: dearieme at Nov 13, 2005 6:16:10 PM

The emphasis in American dining, except at the most _haute_ level, is on quantity, not quality. Chain restaurants thrive by serving belly-busting portions of largely mediocre food. Not that I'm naming any names ...

Posted by: Peter at Nov 13, 2005 7:49:15 PM

I'd like to see a bit more rigor in these determinations before trying to use them as evidence in our cuisine wars. How about a blindfold test in an Iron Chef-style face-off, over many iterations and dishes? And by which set of biases are we supposed to be looking at this? Every expatriate thinks you can't get high-quality, "genuine" cooking outside their home country. Frankly, too, when it comes to ingredients, the native kind isn't always better: the water may taste different simply because it's cleaner, and so might the veggies. Are you marked down simply because the tomato didn't actually have any dust from the cart on it?

I'm obviously just a sushi and beer guy, though, so what do I know.

Posted by: DonD at Nov 13, 2005 10:40:11 PM

One thing that startles me is that the famous American chefs seem unable to make simple food. If you read their cookbooks or watch their cooking shows you see that they include 6 different tastes/influences in every darn dish, and there are a great number of spices as well. I find it tiring. It is always trying to do too many things, and after a while, it loses something. Perhaps even the best restaurant chefs feel the need to mimic the celebrity chefs? Perhaps the food's natural beauty is hidden underneath in the unending quest to produce something new?

Posted by: Allison Coates at Nov 13, 2005 10:53:36 PM

The thing is that all the food in Paris now tastes like burned automobiles.

Posted by: Robert Schwartz at Nov 14, 2005 12:07:13 AM

"Yet there is probably no single cuisine where NYC is #1 in the world, precisely because American ingredients are not up to scratch."

I nominate Delicatessen (esp. Kosher variety) as the cuisine in which NYC is #1. From what I know of the history, there was an amalgamation from different origins (from Germany to Russia and south to at least the old Austro-Hungarian empire) to form the standard menu, and all that happened in NYC. You can't find pastrami like that anywhere else in the world.

A case could also be made for pizza. The Neapolitan pizza I had while there was disappointing (unlike the rest of the food there). So I suppose it would be down to NYC vs Chicago, which is apples and oranges.

A case could also be made for steakhouse. I wouldn’t be the best to make the case, but I’m sure it would be somewhere in the US. Yes, the Japanese have the Kobe thing going on, but again, apples and oranges.

Posted by: KevinM at Nov 14, 2005 12:32:25 AM

"I would think that the market tends to concentrate on the characteristics which are easily measurable."

I would argue, rather, that the market concentrates on those things which are in the greatest demand. In France that certainly includes the "fixin's" for haute cuisine...

Posted by: Ted Seay at Nov 14, 2005 6:39:08 AM

That last is for TomC, BTW...

Posted by: Ted Seay at Nov 14, 2005 6:40:35 AM

If I had to posit a partial explanation it would probably include tourism in the mix. Tourists, especially of the international breed, tend to spend much more per meal than locals (by my casual observation). Eating out in a foreign country is an opportunity to lavishly indulge oneself in a foreign lifestyle (not to mention the fact that limited knowledge of local eateries constrains the set of eating possibilities for many to the high end Zagat and Michelin rated restaurants). Additionally, insufficient knowledge of local pricing and the minor difficulty of exchange rates most likely further increases the inelasticity of tourist demand. If I am not mistaken, France is the king of international tourist destinations (at least relative to GDP) so there should be more extravegant spenders per meal there. On the other hand, the United States' tourism industry, while large in magnitude, is less impressive when compared to GDP or put in per capita terms (once again I'm not looking at the numbers as I speak but if I remember correctly the tourism numbers for France are comparable to those of the much larger U.S.) The U.S. market is also quite diffuse with tourists spread accross a large geographic mass with widely varying attractions. Additionally, many of the most popular tourist destinations in the U.S. (read New York, D.C., Orlando) do not have well defined local cuisines (delicatessens are great but not a venue where you are likely to sit down for an expensive night of dining). I don't travel to France to eat Thai, why should I expect the French to travel to New York to eat at Italian, Japanese, or French restaurants. Our immigrant culture has brought us endless variety at the expense of a unique culinary identity. The few truely unique local quisines in the U.S. often present obvious reasons for not showing up in Zagat. Take for instance Southern and Southwestern quisines. Both owe much of their development to poverty and the underclass (African slaves in the South, Latinos and Native Americans in the Southwest) and are still often associated with the less wealthy. Tourists don't often travel so that they can eat like the poor and both of these cuisines have only relatively recently been addressed by high end urban chefs.

Agreed, the tourism explanation doesn't explain the Japanese phenomenon but would could probably expose some likely influences. Maybe our love for the exotic and unique plays a role here. Japan is by far the wealthiest culture that Europeans and Americans might both consider exotic. Maybe Asian and Europen cuisines are just apples an oranges, not easily comparable by those who were brought up in one culture or the other. I don't know. But it is an interesting question and I have gone on far too long about it. I must get back to econometrics. (BUT FOOD IS SO MUCH MORE FUN!)

Posted by: Jason Bullman at Nov 14, 2005 7:47:12 AM

I'm thinking that this is probably for the same reason that we stink at soccer. Geniuses in the US just don't become chefs. This might change, but up to this point, I think a much higher percentage of geniuses in France become Chefs than in the US.

Posted by: joshg at Nov 14, 2005 8:45:11 AM

KevinM,

New York probably is Number One for delis. However, Italy still easily beats anything in New York for pizza.

Jason Bullman,

Many high end cuisines were originally low end. Thus cajun was redneck truckstop food before Jean-Paul Prudhomme made it fashionable and on a par with the creole (who can tell the difference now anyway?). Sushi was originally fed to poor construction workers in front of what is now the imperial palace in Tokyo during the Edo period. The whole business of it being raw was that they did not want to waste the time and effort of cooking the stuff on these lowly workers.

As for French cuisine, it was already admired as the best, in Europe at least, centuries before the age of mass tourism.

Posted by: Barkley Rosser at Nov 14, 2005 10:55:26 AM

I think there's a lot to the tourism angle mentioned above -- the number of people who travel to Paris with a three star Michelin place as part of their itinerary helps the city support a greater number of such places than it could with city natives alone.

But also don't forget that it shouldn't be surprising that France scores highly on a Francocentric scale. Italy has a much lower density of restaurants highly-rated by Michelin, but is that a function of the relative qualities of French and Italian restaurants or of the criteria used?

Posted by: Josh at Nov 14, 2005 11:50:48 AM

I might note that while high ratings are good for business, about the last thing ratings do is tell the average consumer what restaurant they'll like better. I prefer Thai, Indian, Cajun, and a host of other bolder cuisines to the understated French tastes, but I doubt I'll ever see the best of those restaurants getting three stars from the Francocentric Michelin raters. (My best meal on my trips to Phoenix thus far has been at a $10-a-plate Cajun place - and that includes the $100-a-plate Spanish restaurant out in Scottsdale that is often rated as one of the best in the area.)

Furthermore, raters don't tend to take value into account. How many meals are truly worth that triple-digit-per-plate throwdown? I, personally, would rather eat at a very good fine dining estabishment here in Raleigh at a "mere" fifty bucks a pop (with wine) than to go to some big city and blow a couple hundred on a meal that's barely - if any - better.

Posted by: Jeff at Nov 14, 2005 1:04:57 PM

I'd venture to say that Southern U.S. barbecue (such as the texas bbq example posted here last week) is the one truly great contribution by american food to the world palate. You go to some shack in rural arkansas and have a better meal for $10 than just about anything you'd get at a 2 star michelin restaurant anywhere in the world.

Posted by: Perry at Nov 14, 2005 1:43:41 PM

What, doesn't pizza count? No better place in the world for it than NYC. (And if you think "gourmet" pizza is better, you don't understand pizza.)

Posted by: Noah Yetter at Nov 14, 2005 4:55:02 PM

As for French cuisine, it was already admired as the best, in Europe at least, centuries before the age of mass tourism.

Ever since the Medici bride brought her Italian chef with her so that something edible might be set before her.

Posted by: triticale at Nov 14, 2005 5:18:11 PM

Noah Yetter,

Have you been to Italy? Pizza in its home country still beats any in New York.

Posted by: Barkley Rosser at Nov 14, 2005 5:29:07 PM

Indian food? In New York? Presuming you don't mean Native American, I've had it and it's dreadful. Paris is better, although still pretty bad by the standards of Birmingham or East London.

Also, barbecue. No. It's perfectly decent peasant food, but you could (still) eat better in roughly any middle class household in France.

When you consider how much labour, tax and overhead cost, it is improbable that you are going to get a good meal (as opposed to something tasty to refuel on) in any urban area for less than £20 (~=$35) a head, without wine.

(wine also matters; for almost all the non-French contenders to the "you can get much better food for the price in XXXX than in France", they tend to fall apart on the hurdle "but you are not going to get a decent bottle of wine with your dinner unless you pay wildly over the odds")

Posted by: dsquared at Nov 14, 2005 6:29:56 PM

Recently I spent a few days in New York City and had the best Turkish and Mexican food I've had in my life.

Of course, I've never been to Mexico City or Istanbul.

Posted by: Mr. Econotarian at Nov 14, 2005 6:52:41 PM

Tyler, I don't know about you, but as an Afghan-American, I have YET to find acceptible Afghan cuisine in a restaurant in New York City. The Bay Area and the D.C. area have some acceptible restaurants, but New York clearly does not.

Posted by: shaitaangul at Nov 14, 2005 9:50:42 PM

Afghan and Vietnamese and Ethiopian are all better in Washington than in New York. This is on the basis of the principal that political refugees from former pro-US regimes tend to flock to Washington when those regimes fall. Vietnamese are better in Paris (former colony effect) than anywhere in the US, but Ethiopian and possibly Afghan may be better in Washington than in Paris. Washington had the first Ethiopian restaurant in the western hemisphere.

French wine is certainly cheaper in France than in the US, although it can be harder to get non-EU wines there than in the US.

London is the best for Indian outside of India, again, the former colony effect.

Mexican food is better in California and certainly in Mexico City than in New York. Mexican food in Europe tends to be a joke, although it is now very faddish in many places, including Paris.

Barbecue is a matter of taste. To say that something non-barbecue that one eats in France is better than barbecue in the US is like saying that something non-escargot that one eats in the US is better than escargot in France. De gustibus non disputandam.

The reason that pizza is better in Italy than in New York, but that Katz's deli in New York is at least as good as Goldenberg's in Le Marais of Paris or the top joints in Tel Aviv is due to the original argument made by Tyler: pizza depends on freshness of ingredients, and those are better in Italy than in New York. OTOH, deli food is more a matter of processing than of freshness, and so New York's high technical quality puts it in the running.

Posted by: Barkley Rosser at Nov 15, 2005 12:40:37 AM

De gustibus non disputandam.

In the case of barbecue, disputandatum. Despite the miraculous claims on its behalf, barbecue is slow cooked meat. You can get slow cooked meat anywhere, and you will usually be offered vegetables to have with it other than white bread, legumes and maize. Someone would have to be a complete regional chauvinist to claim that their particular regional combination of spices was so good as to offset the undeniable fact that the Southern American way of serving spiced slow-cooed meat is really very limited.

Posted by: dsquared at Nov 15, 2005 1:04:31 AM

Wow, there is so much I disagree with here that I'll try really hard to focus on just one or two things. :)

Firstly, while our mass-market ingredients are not on par with those of Europe, the chefs producing haute cuisine in this country most certainly do have that calibre of foodstuffs to work with. In fact, many have specialty farmers and artisans crafting ingredients explicitly to their specifications.

Secondly, geniuses do indeed become chefs. Look at Charlie Trotter, Thomas Keller, et. al. Their genius has changed the face of dining in America.

Thirdly, I see this Michelin NY guide as another moneymaker with passable merit. Some worthy restaurants have been categorized incorrectly, while others have been given high marks. I take all of these guides with a grain of salt.

:::Climbing off soapbox::: :)

Posted by: Jennifer Iannolo at Nov 15, 2005 3:34:42 PM

The main problem with the New York Michelin guide is the same as with any of them; they favor French cuisine too much, which is not a big deal in Paris. However, there is a pretty high correlation between what one finds there and what one finds in both New York and Paris.

Yes, the top restaurateurs at the haute end do generally have their own sources for fresh produce and specialty inputs in the US.

Posted by: Barkley Rosser at Nov 15, 2005 4:14:39 PM

Oooops! I meant to say that there is a pretty high correlation between what one finds in the strictly popular voting based Zagat and the Guide Michelin in both New York and Paris.

Posted by: Barkley Rosser at Nov 15, 2005 5:10:37 PM

I think it is really important to ask what the Michelin guide is trying to measure. The guide rewards the restaurants that most successfully ape the French three-star model. The obvious exception is Per Se. Simply put, trying to compare American "haute" cuisine to its French counterpart is a red-herring. Most of the restaurants in NYC that I rate as "worth a special trip" deviate so far from the Michelin model as to make the guide useless.

Posted by: Dan R at Nov 16, 2005 1:10:12 AM

"Columbian food": please tell me you mean a special cuisine centered around Columbia University rather than Colombian food like empanadas, arepas, and papas.

Posted by: Andrés at Nov 22, 2005 3:08:06 AM

The average level of home cooking is better in France -- way, way better. That sets up a culinary culture in which you have higher skills at every level.

Posted by: Chris Burd at Nov 22, 2005 10:20:35 PM

Yes, the real quality difference in France vs. America is in the midrange "good" restaurants, which are WAY better in France. That sort of percolates up the quality chain; fancy expensive restaurants will simply not get patronized over good restaurants unless they are truly high quality. The market for really good food in America is so thin that it is not that hard to be a poseur and do OK financially.

And American "diversity" shouldn't be overestimated -- a lot of it is just different ways of arranging the same limited, crappy ingredients. If your chicken is tasteless it doesn't matter too much whether it's prepared in a burrito or stir fried in a wok. There's more genuine diversity of flavor on a decent Paris bistro menu than in a whole block of typical American ethnic restaurants.

Posted by: MQ at Dec 8, 2005 7:58:57 AM

I notice the American posters keep mentioning japan? What prey tell is your obsession with this land of the 3 foot tall nerds? For me eating in france always feels great not just because of the food but that france itself is an endearing place. NYC in my opinion is another amazing place and th food is part of it.

Posted by: Joe at Jul 28, 2006 6:49:02 AM

meisje poesje vredig ^^^ mooist leerling ^^^ faint fighette ^^^ sentimento bionde ^^^ cycliste granny ^^^ douleur mpeg ^^^ plus frais maman photos ^^^ froid trente trois ^^^ piacente segretaria doppio penetrazione ^^^ derisive fighetta prostituta ^^^ sagolik amator striptease ^^^ elev suga av den ii huset ^^^ capo cowgirl masturbate ^^^ cuttier agente di polizia gruppo ^^^ kaldere mutter ^^^ hetere omskjart kysk ^^^ fantastisk vanlig ^^^ absurd nudist ^^^ omorfi lesvia praxi ^^^ gelios koritsia avnanismos ^^^ mman film ^^^ le plus chaud mere trente six ^^^