Correcting geographical inaccuracies in food can leave bad taste

The Belgians aren’t waffling when they claim jurisdiction over pommes frites, but who is buying it? Even the fact that the potatoes’ frenched version is now taken to be a geographical indicator is an ode to the haute-ness of the French in the culinary world. Many food-related terms are couched in their language, especially when it comes to the mise en place — the preparation of ingredients — besides cooking and serving processes. While everyone may not know that a mirepoix is a mix of finely-diced onions, carrots and celery, and that thinlysliced veggies are juliennes, most know terms such as hors d’oeuvres, au gratin, volauvent, canape and so on. It is not surprising, therefore, that the word French itself has become part of the cook’s lexicon, meaning either to trim meat away from the bone or to slice anything into strips. The latter makes it clear why potato fries are said to be Frenched even if the British believe they are only chips off the old spud.

There is an inherent danger, however, in claiming territorial rights over stars of the world of food as there are other foods whose origins are not where their name implies. So, any movement to claim — or reclaim — anything on behalf of a country or region could render it unrecognisable. For instance, Indians consider Balti cuisine beyond the pale, but would Britons wolf it down as eagerly, if it were called Brummie, considering it was invented in Birmingham? The hamburger, in another example, may have been common in Hamburg in its bare patty form but its bun-encased avatar is claimed by several US cities. It may be more accurate to call them Tulsapatty or Weberger to imply an Oklahoman origin, but that is unlikely to tempt more people to line up to order — with or without a side of Belgian fries.