The problem with authenticity is that everybody needs to agree that some entity can be trusted to declare some version of a dish the authentic version. And I don’t think this has ever happened, anywhere, at any time.
1 Like
Not according to the actual definition of authenticity.
However, there are many attempts to declare food authentic by entities. There are many examples in France I know of, and across Europe as well. And this effort, while official, even permeates throughout the culture to reach levels that are unofficial.
For example, Oreos in the USA became popular, and then many commercial bakeries started making their own version of Oreos.
But the same could not be said of Calissons d’Aix. Even though they are famous throughout France, they mostly go unreplicated. In general, the French value the question of authenticity more than we do in the US.
Like you’ve ignored the examples I gave in my initial post, you mean?
I have nothing to add to my point that will help you understand my own priorities/opinion about “authenticity,” and you’ve added nothing to this discussion that made it any more interesting to me 
1 Like
The examples you used of how difficult it is to pin down authenticity are all valid. But they do not make authenticity meaningless. The word can still be very meaningful, as the example I used. As long as the inauthentic exists, the authentic will have value. In some cases, important commercial value as well as value to the individual consumer.
You have made exactly zero points that refute what I wrote.
I believe you are conflating authenticity with originality.
The former speaks to how something was and perhaps is supposedly made. The latter is about original source and replicas of that source.
Both Oreos and Hydrox are, arguably, authentic cookie chocolate wafer cookies with creme sugar filings but many will consider the Oreo to be the genuine “Oreo” and Hydrox simply a copycat even though Hydrox was first.
1 Like
Because “inauthentic” or adapted foods can and do taste good does not invalidate the concept or existence of authenticity.
Back to the article, though, it has always struck me that only certain cultures feel the need to regulate what is authentic — whether in ingredients or recipes. Or maybe people are only willing to accept western / Eurocentric foods have authenticity that requires labeling or protecting.
As others have said, we’ve been down the authenticity rabbit hole many times.
2 Likes
The problem with “authenticity” as a concept on food boards is that it largely functions as capital within a cultural economy. i.e. The person who knows or appreciates what is “authentic” gets points within that system. People don’t like to let go of their points.
If we want to talk about what is largely faithful to what people might eat in a region or country, sure, but 1) that changes; 2) that itself can be contested; and 3) it smacks of festishization (particularly where and how we see the term deployed).
(just adding to the list of problems. 
)
4 Likes
Authenticity is at the heart of the AOC program for wines and it has grown to a huge movement for other foods as well. This comes down to not only the source of the product, but also the methods used.
For AOC wines, every vineyard had their own variations but they still have to fall within certain parameters. And this has real value and meaning.
Ultimately it does not make any particular wine ‘better’ but it is intended as a mark of authenticity.
This has never been solely a question of first, for nobody can claim to be the first to raise chickens, yet poulet de Bresse has value as consideration for authenticity. Same thing for wine, since the Caucuses have credible claim to the first wineries.
Yes, 2) is the gist of my previous post.
And this is not about stuff like deciding what can and cannot be called champagne (for instance). That’s akin to a trademark question, and one usually based on geography. It’s about deciding what can and cannot be called “authentic” Sichuan or Sicilian.
4 Likes
Authenticity existed before Food Boards.
Furthermore, this is just your way of putting down others. It’s the others (certainly not you) who are not giving their honest opinion but now are looking to score ‘points.’ Those folks are just so shallow!
It makes sense to value authenticity, because there are legions of people who came from China, India, New Orleans, New York, Chicago, Mexico and many other places who are severely disappointed in the representation of their food culture elsewhere. They know and care that it’s not the real thing!
Conversely, there are legions of people who visit lands foreign to them like Italy, France, China, and ‘fill in the blank’ who come under the realization that what they have been eating all along pales in comparison to their new explorations. Some people travel using food as their main justification. Think of that!
All this happened before food boards and nobody had to be told what to think. It happened to me before the internet. I just didn’t know how many others felt the same way.
Of course the concept of AOC or DOP is part marketing ploy, but it is still based on authenticity.
It’s about who gets to use what label. You can define that as authenticity if you like, but it’s the equivalent of trying to prevent the sale of knock-off Birkin bags. Not really a useful tool to measure how “good” (for want of a better word) a particular food is. And I assume - perhaps wrongly, who knows? - that your quest for authenticity is a quest for good food, not just “approved” food.
I am not out to eat good food, I want to eat great food. Fortunately, I am able to surround myself with food that I can easily procure, afford, and that can make me swoon.
With AOC or DOP there is obviously the question of labeling. But that labeling is actually based on something that has meaning, whether it is Dragees de Verdun or Pruneaux d’Agen. How important each product is to you is eventually quite personal. I for one am glad these things exist and experience tells me they are worth seeking out.
There is difference between authentic or recognized local product, as in AOC or DOP and authenticity of recipe. Fortunately (or not) every ethnic grandmother created authentic food, not necessarily recognized as such by anyone from a nearby village.
2 Likes
Right, it’s a label, not so different from a star system. If that’s helpful to you, great! But (as @pilgrim says, below), two people can make the same dish very differently, and each can be equally “authentic.”
3 Likes
Yes, there is a difference. But both deal with the subject of authenticity.
I have already acknowledged the obvious - there is more than one authentic recipe. There are as many as there are cooks. But that does not mean that chow mein without noodles is authentic.
Why not? Isn’t then the dish chop suey?
A label of quality has nothing to do with a star system.
The difference can be seen in the label for Cuisine Nissarde in Nice. There are restaurants that conform to certain standards in the preparation of the cuisine and there is a committee that oversees the labelisation program. If a restaurant does not conform, then it doesn’t get the label, but that does not mean another restaurant is worse or better. Many restaurants do not try to prepare the same food or in the same manner or do not care about the label. The goal of the program is to promote the authentic preparation of the cuisine. Feel free to write to them telling them they don’t know what they are talking about.
The same for many other products in Europe. It is a label that guarantees a specific quality. Once it has that label, there is no rating nor is there a rating if it doesn’t have the label. You can either appreciate the difference or not, that is up to you.
If a wine qualifies as an AOC wine, there is no inherent rating system. A wine critic can then taste them all and give their own rating, just like anybody can.
It would not be authentic mein anything.
