I think that's a very good counter-argument and I almost feel inclined to agree with you. However, I am also hesitant to believe that beauty has no meaning beyond perception. It seems to me that your contention could only really be refuted if either the possibility of the objective existence of deliciousness could be explained (and I'm aware of how absurd that notion seems off-hand), or if it could be explained that there is something more to beauty - possibly arguing from the profoundness of the experience of feeling beauty, or the inherent abstract nature of beauty, in how it is not so easily defined. So that leaves three possible points of contention that come to my mind:

1) Beauty is somehow more than deliciousness because it is more profound in the experience it gives us.

A problem with this is it relies on experience alone, which of course just brings us back to both beauty and deliciousness being subjective.

2) Beauty is far more abstract than deliciousness and is undefinable other than by referring to its effect on people. There are words we can use to describe how things taste, but there are no words we can use to describe how something is beautiful that are not synonyms of the word "beautiful."

I feel like this takes away from the simple subjectivity of beauty like in your example with deliciousness (otherwise you wouldn't have needed the analogy). Because of this, I think it is more conceivable that beauty could possibly exist objectively, rather than deliciousness.

3) Neither beauty nor deliciousness can be defined other than by referring to their effect on people. Despite the words we have to 'describe' how things taste, or the fact that we can call something "beautiful," these words do not describe the abstract (for lack of a better word) feeling we have when we experience these things.

If you eat a strawberry, you can say "this tastes like strawberries," however if you try to describe how strawberries taste, it is impossible without comparing it to other tastes. You could never explain how something tastes to someone who has never tasted anything. I was going to say "similarly, you cannot describe how something is beautiful to a blind man," but on second thought, I don't think it's even possible to describe how something is beautiful to a man who can see (kind of a digression). But my point is that words can't actually capture the meaning of experiences because experiences are totally abstract, and completely reliant on another abstract thing: consciousness. I think it is the abstractness of these experiences, and of consciousness itself, that alludes to the possible objective existence of things we perceive.

I guess I'm saying that I believe it's possible that beauty, and deliciousness, could both possibly exist as abstract objects. If you know intuitively that this is not possible, that is not enough. Intuition is only emotion until you figure out how you're right or wrong.