A word that is constantly thrown around in the food industry is authenticity. Particularly in the ethnic restaurant business, we hear this word more often than most. But what exactly makes food authentic? Does one have to adhere strictly to the way our ancestors prepared a particular dish for it to qualify as authentic? Is there a general consensus on how we determine whether a dish possesses the qualities necessary to be called authentic? These are questions I would like to explore further in this writing.
Defining Authenticity
An AI-generated overview of the definition of authentic describes it as something real, genuine, and not a copy, fake, or imitation. When applied to people, it means remaining true to one's character, values, and personality rather than putting on a false front.
When applied to food, authenticity refers to a dish or product that is genuine, true to its cultural or regional origins, and consistent with what it claims to represent, rather than being an imitation or misrepresentation.
Furthermore, this definition identifies four core dimensions of food authenticity:
1. Regional and Cultural Fidelity
In a nutshell, this dimension asks whether a dish relies on techniques and preparation methods that are true to its cultural or regional origins. Does it use the same types of ingredients and proportions traditionally associated with that dish?
An argument can be made, however, that even within a specific cultural setting, cooking techniques evolve. Ingredients are added or removed, and new variations of traditional dishes emerge over time.
Take Shiro, for example. Shiro is a quintessential Ethiopian dish traditionally made from ground chickpeas, caramelized minced onions, and tomatoes, brought together with water and a little oil to achieve a smooth, béchamel-like consistency.
The dish is believed to have originated in the northern part of Ethiopia. Traditionally, the chickpea flour itself can be prepared with additional ingredients such as berbere and dried garlic, resulting in a seasoned flour commonly known as Miten Shiro.
However, Miten Shiro is believed to be a relatively more recent development when compared to its predecessor, plain Shiro, which consists primarily of ground chickpeas.
Furthermore, there are different ways of preparing Shiro depending on regional influences and local culinary traditions. Each of these preparation methods can be considered authentic within the cultural and regional context from which it originates.
This raises an important question: If a dish evolves over generations, at what point does a variation cease to be authentic?
2. Ingredient Integrity
Ingredient integrity concerns the use of ingredients that are traditionally associated with a particular dish.
Chickpeas, for example, are generally classified into two main groups: Kabuli and Desi. Kabuli chickpeas are larger, lighter in color, and generally milder in flavor, while Desi chickpeas are smaller, darker, and have a more pronounced, earthy flavor.
Traditionally, Desi chickpeas are commonly used in Shiro preparation because of their distinctive flavor. Although Kabuli chickpeas could also be used, someone who insists on preserving the traditional ingredient profile might argue that substituting one for the other compromises ingredient integrity.
But does using a different variety of the same ingredient necessarily make a dish inauthentic? Or should authenticity be judged by the overall character and quality of the finished dish?
3. Legal and Regulatory Standards
It is possible to create a Shiro-like dish that looks and tastes similar to the traditional version while using nontraditional ingredients. However, there may be circumstances in which the name or description of a food product is subject to legal and regulatory requirements.
For example, using fava beans instead of chickpeas would fundamentally change the traditional ingredient composition of Shiro. Similarly, chemically recreating a particular flavor profile would not necessarily make the resulting product equivalent to the traditionally prepared dish.
This raises another distinction: Is something authentic simply because it tastes and looks the part, or must it also be made from the ingredients and through the processes that define its traditional identity?
4. Cultural Significance and Meaning
People often identify a dish as authentic through its taste, smell, texture, and visual presentation. These characteristics are deeply connected to the collective cultural memory of a community.
A particular aroma or flavor can evoke memories of childhood, family gatherings, and meals prepared by previous generations. In this sense, authenticity is not merely about ingredients and cooking techniques; it is also about the cultural experience associated with the food.
One could argue that even when Shiro is prepared using traditional ingredients and methods, serving it in a completely different context may change the way people perceive its authenticity.
For example, can a bottled Shiro product intended to be used as a condiment be considered authentic Shiro? While it may contain the traditional ingredients, its intended use and presentation are quite different from the traditional dish served as a stew and eaten with injera.
Perhaps authenticity is not just about what goes into a dish, but also about how, why, and in what context it is prepared and enjoyed.
Conclusion
It is relatively easy to dismiss a stew made from fava beans, even if it looks and tastes remarkably similar to Shiro, as something other than authentic Shiro. But what about less obvious differences?
Would preparing Shiro with butter instead of the traditionally used vegetable oil automatically disqualify it from being authentic? What about using a different variety of chickpeas, adjusting the proportions of ingredients, or introducing a new preparation technique?
These questions demonstrate that authenticity is not always a straightforward concept. There is a difference between fundamentally changing the identity of a dish and making adjustments that reflect the natural evolution of a culinary tradition.
Perhaps we need to move away from the idea that authenticity means reproducing a dish exactly as our ancestors prepared it. Culinary traditions are living traditions. They are influenced by geography, available ingredients, cultural exchanges, personal creativity, and changing generations.
The real challenge, therefore, is determining where we draw the line between preserving the identity of a traditional dish and allowing it to evolve.
Does authenticity require us to preserve tradition exactly as it was, or should it leave room for tradition to grow?
Add comment
Comments