Part of my job as a food writer is to describe food. So my work on ’Top Chef ’ I feel, is an extension of that. When we give a criticism to the contestant, we want to make sure we tell them why it’s not working and why it would work if they did it a different way.

Lakshmi frames judging on “Top Chef” as continuous with her professional identity as a food writer: both roles require translating sensory experience into precise language. The quote emphasizes criticism as an explanatory, craft-oriented practice rather than a performative put-down—judges owe contestants reasons, not just verdicts. By contrasting “why it’s not working” with “why it would work” under different choices, she highlights critique as instruction: diagnosing technique, balance, or concept and pointing toward actionable alternatives. Implicitly, she defends the legitimacy of televised judging by grounding it in the ethics of good editorial work—clarity, specificity, and usefulness to the maker and the audience.