Cartoon image of an angry wasp

“Cultural appropriation” seems to have dropped below the richter scale of crimes, at least within the food-world. It seems that as long as you say your mish-mash is “inspired by” it’s OK, but what about that other buzz word associated with food… “authentic”?

I recently read a review of a restaurant extolling its extensive selection of “authentic” dishes from around the world. Amongst other elements like scallops and oysters, the dishes mentioned included the “restaurant-named tacos”, “chilli honey prawns”, and the “Mumbai Breakfast”, this latter clearly “inspired by” the “Big Bombay” at Dishoom.

While I have no doubt that all the food is very tasty and cooked with passion from well-sourced ingredients, I cannot help wondering what on earth “authentic” is supposed to mean in such contexts. Where is the authenticity in adding cream cheese and sweet chilli to your naan with bacon and eggs? How can any restaurant truly claim authenticity of dishes from all over the world.

“Authentic” is just a buzz-word included in comments about food and restaurants to try to convey that what is served has legitimate origins in place and culture. Whereas, in truth, the place and culture in question is so often merely the mind of the chef who conceived the dish.

Of the two expressions, “authentic” and “inspired by”, the latter is more honest. To produce a dish seasoned with a pinch of cumin and coriander and containing chickpeas, and to call it “Moroccan-inspired” has a basis in truth, as they are ingredients that are much used in Moroccan cuisine, no matter how un-Morroccan the resulting dish might be. But it would be something else to call it “Moroccan” and claim authenticity, as Moroccan cuisine is very much more than those ingredients.

So what price the new offering at one supermarket: “Moroccan-Style Vegetable and Goats Cheese Festive Wellington”? Where does “style” fit in the richter scale of misappropriation-excusing words?

Share on social media
Pin It