Filip Ondrušek is an internationally recognized chef, ecologist and activist with Austrian and Slavic roots, who combines his interest in culture and food identity with his extensive experience in high-end gastronomy and sustainable practices. At just 29 years old, he is currently based in São Paulo, Brazil, having lived in various locations and visited over 30 countries — across and beyond Europe — collaborating with top global chefs and restaurants.
Filip Ondrušek. Personal archive. Used with permission.
He has served as a creative chef in both two- and three-Michelin-starred restaurants, designing innovative culinary concepts that merge tradition and modernity. Among others, these prestigious restaurants have included Central (Peru), Koks (Faroe Islands), Amador (Austria), Brae (Australia), Narisawa (Japan), Azurmendi (Spain), Alo (Canada), Smyth (USA), and Alto (Venezuela). Despite such international experience, however, he never forgets his cultural roots and remains deeply interested in cultural and food traditions in central and southeastern Europe.
In Autumn 2025, Ondrušek was an honorary guest at Bulgaria’s Traditional Cheese Festival. He is known for unique flavor combinations and a signature approach that merges classical and traditional techniques with modern creativity. Following Slow Food and Demeter principles and using biodynamic and seasonal ingredients, he creates dishes that respect the integrity of the products.
Nevena Borisova (NB): How would you differentiate the Austrian and Slavic cultures and their culinary traditions?
Filip Ondrušek (FO): Austrian and Slavic cultures differ in their culinary expressions, yet they complement each other beautifully. Austrian cuisine is structured, precise, and deeply influenced by courtly traditions, craftsmanship, and a focus on technique. There is a clear hierarchy of flavors, and every detail — from preparation to presentation — is intentional. Precision and methodical execution are highly valued.
Slavic tradition, on the other hand, is more intuitive, emotive, and deeply connected to family, local ingredients, and everyday life. Recipes were often born from what was available rather than rigid instructions, carrying strong cultural and emotional significance. The flavor is as much about memory and identity as it is about technique.
For me, the most fascinating aspect is bridging these worlds — merging Austrian precision with Slavic emotional authenticity. Modern reinterpretation of traditional dishes can maintain technical excellence while preserving the emotion, identity, and memories embedded in the food.
NB: What shared cultural specifics and culinary traditions have you noticed across countries and continents?
FO: Through my travels, I have observed that despite geographic and ethnic differences, there are universal values in gastronomy. One of the strongest is respect for ingredients and seasonality. Traditional cuisines, whether in Central and Eastern Europe, Asia, or Latin America, developed from the availability of local produce, with careful attention to nature and minimizing waste.
Source: Konceptista. Used with permission
Another universal value is the social and familial dimension of food. Recipes are passed down not merely as technical instructions but as carriers of culture, emotion and identity. Food holds the memory of generations and creates a sense of belonging. This ties closely to history, as food becomes a living document of a society’s past.
From a culinary perspective, many techniques are universal: fermentation, curing, smoking, pickling, and slow cooking emerged independently worldwide as practical responses to preserving food and maximizing ingredient usage. These principles remain highly relevant today and form the foundation of authentic, sustainable cuisine.
In Central and Eastern Europe, I see particular emphasis on hospitality, the heartiness of meals, and family-centered dining. These principles resonate with many other global cuisines, showing that while forms differ, the underlying values are strikingly similar. Understanding these common layers allows me to work with both local and global perspectives, balancing tradition and modern culinary expression.
NB: If national history is reflected in food traditions, how has it influenced Central and Eastern European cuisine?
FO: I firmly believe that national history is one of the most powerful forces shaping food traditions. Cuisine acts as a living document, responding to wars, migrations, political shifts, economic crises, and periods of abundance. In Central and Eastern Europe, this historical imprint is particularly tangible.
Source: Konceptista. Used with permission
Many traditional recipes were born out of necessity, shaped by available resources and survival needs. Root vegetables, fermented foods, potatoes and cabbage became staples, carrying the memory and identity of entire regions. The Austro-Hungarian Empire left a shared culinary heritage, evident in dumplings, pastries, sauces, and meat preparation techniques. Later political regimes simplified dishes and suppressed regional diversity, further shaping culinary identity.
History imprints itself systematically, not randomly. As a chef, I strive to understand these layers, working with them so that the dishes I create not only taste remarkable but also tell the story of place, people, and generational knowledge. Modern interpretation can preserve authenticity and emotion while giving food a contemporary language.
NB: How did socialism affect local food traditions and recipes? What were the positives and negatives?
FO: Socialism had a significant and dual impact on gastronomy. On the positive side, it fostered resourcefulness, teaching people to cook efficiently, use every part of an ingredient, and create satisfying meals with limited resources. These practices — seasonal cooking, minimal waste, and home-based culinary creativity — remain relevant today, especially in the context of sustainability and zero-waste approaches.
Source: Konceptista. Used with permission
On the negative side, socialism led to homogenized flavors, centralized production, and a suppression of regional diversity. Many local recipes were simplified or lost their original character. Culinary creativity was often limited, and the richness of regional gastronomy was diminished.
Overall, the positives and negatives were relatively balanced. The system left a strong culture of practical, resource-conscious cooking, but weakened regional uniqueness and culinary diversity. Today, chefs face the challenge of preserving the valuable lessons while reviving local identity, creativity, and depth.
Source: Konceptista. Used with permission
NB: How do contemporary chefs balance traditional recipes with modern culinary trends?
FO: From my perspective, the balance between tradition and modernity is at the core of contemporary cuisine. The flavors of childhood — the tastes and memories associated with meals from parents or grandparents — form the mental and emotional foundation for understanding food. These flavors carry cultural identity, history, and emotion, which must never be lost in reinterpretation.
Modern techniques, innovative presentations, and new culinary approaches can enhance traditional dishes, but they should never overshadow the original intent or essence. A dish should evoke emotion and familiarity while speaking in a contemporary language. Achieving this balance requires understanding of ingredients, techniques, and the cultural context of each recipe.
In practice, this means carefully analyzing traditional recipes, identifying their core identity — be it a texture, flavor profile, or emotional resonance — and then thoughtfully integrating modern elements. Whether through sous-vide precision, new plating aesthetics, or molecular techniques, the goal is to honor tradition while creating a meaningful, sensory experience for today’s diners.
NB: Has part of local food authenticity has been lost due to modernization, fast food, etc.?
FO: I believe that modernization and the global spread of fast food have contributed to a measurable loss of authenticity in local cuisine. Fast food promotes convenience over connection to ingredients, process, and memory. While it meets certain societal needs, it often diminishes the value of traditions and the emotional depth associated with home-prepared meals.
NB: Can we somehow use the modernization for good?
FO: Modernization itself is not inherently negative. When approached responsibly, it can reinterpret traditions without erasing them. Authenticity is not defined by rigidity but by respect — for ingredients, regional methods, and culinary stories. Our responsibility is to safeguard these values, translating them into contemporary contexts in ways that engage today’s audience while preserving emotional resonance and cultural identity.
In practical terms, this means balancing innovation with respect, integrating sustainable practices, elevating local and seasonal ingredients, and presenting traditional flavors in ways that remain recognizable, emotive, and culturally meaningful. Authenticity thrives not by resisting modernity, but by allowing it to enhance, not erase, the culinary narrative.
