I came across an interesting advertisement the other day.
It’s a simple question.
Whatever answer you lean towards, however, it brings up another interesting question. The base question is “when is it okay to change the name of a certain food, and how important is it?”
Can certain components of a dish or component of a dish be changed while still maintaining the same name? When is it okay to change the ingredients while still maintaining the same name or definition?
Specifically speaking, is a burger still a burger if it’s not in a bun? Is a grilled cheese still a grilled cheese if it contains cheese that doesn’t come from milk? Is it still milk if it doesn’t come from an animal, not just specifically a cow? Is Wonderbread still bread if it’s made with a batter ? Is a Big Mac with bacon still a Big Mac?
In a time where names and definitions are being thrown around to accommodate marketing strategies and a need to provide the consumer with a reference point, where is the line between naming an item that’s similar to something else, and false advertisement?
Looking no further than the alcohol industry, you can see some strict boundaries set on specific products. Sparkling wine cannot be called Champagne unless it comes from that specific region of France. Tequila isn’t tequila unless it’s produced in a specific place and contains at least 51% of blue agave, a certain variety within approximately a couple hundred varieties of the same plant. Vodka, by definition, is a neutral grain spirit brought to a specific alcohol percentage through the distillation process, though quite quickly you learn that vodka comes in a wide variety of different flavours.
Certain food definitions are protected for the sake of tradition and authenticity. These can cross cultural boundaries as well, with some believing that certain foods aren’t prepared in the “real” way unless prepared by someone of that specific culture.
Anything that steers too much in the wrong direction oftentimes creates backlash amongst the traditionalists. Cream inside of risotto? Nonna would be rolling in her grave.
And yet, does it really make a difference if we put bacon on a Big Mac and still call it a Big Mac?
If one was to look specifically at the Big Mac, there are certain defining characteristics that you would have a hard time replacing. It has to come from McDonald’s. It has two beef patties. There’s that crucial middle piece of bread. Some would say the tangy sauce reminiscent of thousand island dressing would also fall on the list. So then is a Big Mac still a Big Mac if you take any of those away? Surely not. But would it be a Big Mac if you decided to take out the lettuce? What if it had no cheese or pickles?
Whatever your answer may be, I would imagine that for most of us, we have to come to the realization that there are primary and secondary defining characteristics to specific foods.
To say that the absence of the middle piece of bread makes it not a Big Mac puts great value on that piece of bread. It may be easy to define this when you are taking ingredients away from a dish, but what about adding or substituting ingredients?
Linguine instead of spaghetti for spaghetti bolognese? Who would bat an eye?
Yet when we put ham and pineapple on a pizza, many would claim that it would not be pizza at all!
If you look at food catered to those with dietary restrictions and allergies, you can start to see some interesting products. Cashew cheese and other nut cheese (should the term “nut cheese” ever describe a food item?). Meatless Bratwurst sausages. Ice cream with no cream. Is it enough to call it something specific if it just resembles the texture and flavour of certain products, or does it actually have to have the ingredients that are found in it?
Why don’t you stop making such a big deal about it, Hiro? What’s the big deal?
Well, to me it’s an issue of proper education and integrity..
Is it not important to make sure that there are clear definitions for things? Or is it okay for everything to be subjective? Is it okay to teach people who wouldn’t know better that cheese that has a hard time melting but kind of resembles it in block form and made from soy is in fact cheese?
Should we not be concerned with those who claim that something is what it is, when in fact it isn’t? Should that not raise suspicions directed towards the integrity of such individuals and businesses?
Would it not make sense, if you were someone who created a product completely out of vegetables that had the texture and taste of meat to call it something other than “meat”? Should we ask those who do to create a completely new food definition with a new name? Or do we really have to dumb it down enough for the person who really shouldn’t be eating cheese, but really wants cheese so they choose something that just barely resembles cheese so that they can lie to themselves in saying they get the same satisfaction as they would if they eat cheese?
If definitions are not important and it’s okay to claim anything as being something else, then why have definitions at all?
And if it is important, then shouldn’t the guidelines be stricter? Look at organic certification all over the world. Some of the policies are so strict and so expensive that for many farmers, it’s just not worth it to get the certification. Yet, even though they still do their best to maintain standards that may go above the requirements in organic certification in most areas of their operations, they lose out on the advertising and marketing that comes with the certification.
Where’s the line? How strict should they be?
I think it matters if you’re serious about what you put into your mouth and what you expect to receive when you order or buy something.
What do you think?
ere...