Sure, but.. Would you object similarly to my saying that strawberries objectively taste better than poo? Not just 'better to me', but 'really better'. (Of course all food-taste-experiences are tastes experienced by someone, somewhere - are 'subjective' in that way.)
How is there, for example, any such thing as a good/great chef, one being better than another, if it's all just 'subjective'?
It's proverbial that there's no arguing about taste (in the broader sense), but it's also a commonplace that nothing else is worth arguing about. There are better and worse reasons for things.
> Would you object similarly to my saying that strawberries objectively taste better than poo?
Yes.
> How is there, for example, any such thing as a good/great chef, one being better than another, if it's all just 'subjective'?
“good” and “great” are invariably either relative to some specific purpose or subjective.
> It's proverbial that there's no arguing about taste (in the broader sense), but it's also a commonplace that nothing else is worth arguing about.
I disagree with the second half. It's sometimes worth arguing to the point of determining that the source of disagreement is a fundamental difference in taste (or, say, root moral principles, which aren't really that different from a logical point of view.) But once you've reached that point, there is no further use in arguing.
“tastier” is the archetypical example of something subjective. Heck “a matter of taste” is a common synonym for “subjective”.