The Michelin Guide has once again graced the culinary world with its 2025 edition for Belgium and Luxembourg. The annual unveiling, held at the Handelsbeurs in Antwerp, was, as always, a grand affair, celebrating the pinnacle of gastronomy in the region. This event is a yearly highlight for the culinary world, a unique opportunity to see so many familiar and respected faces from Belgium and Luxembourg. It’s also a crucial moment to take the pulse of the industry. Conversations with chefs, photographers, and journalists provided valuable insights into current trends and how the Michelin Guide, the Red (digital) Bible of good food, is perceived.

This edition features 790 restaurants, with 151 boasting at least one Michelin star. The big winners were Restaurant Léa Linster and Maison Colette, both awarded two stars. Thirteen restaurants received their first star, and three were recognized with the Green Michelin Star for their commitment to sustainable gastronomy. However, according to the inspectors, no restaurant was deemed worthy of a third star, though the two existing three-star establishments, Boury and ‘t Zilte, retained their highest honors.

Reflecting on the day, several key observations emerge.

A Year of “Forgotten Treasures” at a time when the industry is struggling the most?

When considering the “net” number of stars awarded—that is, setting aside those resulting from chefs moving or opening new restaurants—the figures reveal a somewhat less impressive picture: nine new one-star restaurants and only one new two-star restaurant. This hardly qualifies as a vintage year. 

One might even argue that 2025 will be remembered as the year of “forgotten treasures,” with a painfully high number of chefs deserving of a first or even a second star but “forgotten” by Michelin. Given the very though conditions the industry is facing after the COVID years, with exponentially rising rents, labor and produce costs not to mention the significantly lower number of bookings, the question should be asked if the guide shouldn’t have had a more lenient approach. A lot of chefs do not only put their heart and soul in their restaurant, but they also invest a lot of money into their businesses. Based on this economic reality and with the announced future closure of La Durée and the departure of Ralf Berendsen from La Butte aux Bois, the Guide will lose another two 2 star restaurants over the coming months…it would have been nice if Michelin would have gone for “let’s already award the first or second one” rather than the “not just yet, let’s see next year” for a number of highly deserving restaurants, thus giving the industry a proverbial pat on the shoulder. Focusing on sustainability and giving out green stars is nice, but maybe there are more urgent problems to address…how can Michelin help to make sure that restaurants can survive…otherwise there could soon be significantly less restaurants to give (green) stars to…

The Rise of Young Chefs: A Double-Edged Sword?

The guide’s focus on young chefs is a notable trend. While it highlights fresh talent, a critical question arises: In an industry already struggling with staff shortages, is this truly a positive development? Many experienced chefs feel frustrated after investing time and effort in training young talents, only to see them leave to open their own restaurants after, sometimes, a very short period of time. Gone seem the days that a young talent would patiently work through the ranks to become sous-chef before opening his/her own restaurant. This trend, potentially exacerbated by the Michelin Guide’s very early recognition of young talents, raises concerns about talent retention and the long-term stability of established kitchens.

Increasing Inconsistencies Within the One-Star Category

Another significant observation is the growing disparity in level of cooking among one-star restaurants. This inconsistency is increasingly difficult to ignore, especially given Michelin’s reluctance to downgrade establishments. A restaurant typically only loses a star when it closes or when the chef leaves. The reluctance to take away a star often leads to situations that can be quite painful due to big differences in quality within the one-star category. It might sound ironic, but one could almost say that a system of sub-categories, 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 stars, might be necessary to provide a more accurate reflection of the dining experience…and to avoid customer disappointment 😉 

…and Across Borders

It also become increasingly clear that an even bigger inconsistency can be observed when looking at the Michelin ratings across borders. Not only do you see significant differences in culinary focus, with food trucks, gastropubs, ramen bars and other informal places getting awarded stars in some countries whereas in our region the main point of attention seems to be classical French cooking with a sweat spot for great sauce makers and restaurants that continue to serve à la carte dishes, inequalities in social security and taxation compared to some other competing countries, such as France, also create an uneven playing field. Having a big team is easier in some of our neighboring countries. 

Time to Broaden the Horizon?

Cultural differences can explain part of this but that only goes so far. I would even say more…is it not time for Michelin in our region to also consider other types of top gastronomy, like places serving only desserts or pastries, or a top chocolate or ice cream maker? We have lots of talented people doing really high end stuff in those professions, inherently close to fine dining.

Michelin vs. The Foodie Community

If you want to rule out inconsistencies, you might want to follow some leading foodies. A foodie’s perspective is inherently personal and unique, evaluating each meal through his/her own lens, shaped by individual preferences, and past experiences. This highly individual approach could be seen as a guarantee of consistency, at least in the sense that the foodie’s evaluation remains true to their own subjective experience. However, this also raises a key question: Whose perspective is more valuable? The professionally trained inspector, or the passionate amateur who has a unique relationship with food? The solution probably lies in combining both…using the Michelin Guide as the undisputed reference it still is, combined with the insights of your favorite foodie(s).

Points for Consideration : 

Reflecting on the Michelin Guide Belgium & Luxembourg 2025, it’s clear that while stars continue to shine, the human element behind them warrants greater consideration. The challenges of staff retention, rising costs, and the very survival of restaurants in this climate are significant factors that perhaps deserve a more prominent place in the guide’s narrative. While the pursuit of culinary perfection remains paramount, a more “human-oriented” perspective, acknowledging the dedication and resilience of chefs and their teams, could further enhance the guide’s value.

Moving forward, a broader definition of gastronomic excellence and a deeper engagement with the realities faced by the industry could ensure that the Michelin Guide not only celebrates the best but also actively contributes to a sustainable and vibrant future for Belgium and Luxembourg’s rich culinary heritage.

Last but not least I have the feeling that Belgium is being penalised by the abundance of culinary talent which clearly puts a break on the number of new stars awarded, this is only made worse by the Guide’s persistant reluctance to take away stars form underperforming restaurants…and that….could be linked to another topic, the one of the number of inspectors covering the region and the number of inspections performed on a yearly basis….but that, my friends, is the perfect subject for a next post…