I “think” I understand what you’re trying to get at. But it’s an unfortunate and limited perspective. Sure, New York isnt Thailand and the restaurant didn’t source their ingredients from a Bangkok market at 4am that morning. But that doesn’t mean the chef didn’t cook, study, or live in the region previously. So does that mean the only thing that makes a dish authentic is its local ingredients and there’s no credit given for the chefs experience? Also, how do you know the chef didn’t import any of the ingredients or spices from the place you’re expecting for it to be authentic?
While I disagree with the above poster's attitude, I agree with the point about food tasting different depending on where you are.
Perhaps you can get relatively authentic Indian food (ignoring the variations in Indian cuisine for a second) in the U.S. and Canada, compared to India (I've traveled India for comparison). Because there are tons of import markets in both countries to get all the same ingredients.
But Indian food in Greece definitely has a Greek flavour to it, because it's quite hard to find the proper ingredients to make more authentic Indian food. They used feta instead of paneer!
You are coming from what I assume a Western perspective. You should talk to the restaurant owner about authenticity. They will likely have the same opinion as the person you're replying to. Meat or veggie ingredients if imported from a different continent, will often be frozen and not fresh. The water obviously is not imported and that affects the taste directly. The meat will have a different smell if sourced locally, etc.
If you know anything about cooking, water affects the taste of food. The water in Turkey vs America taste very different. Therefore it is very difficult for restaurants to achieve the same "authentic" taste in foreign countries.
[flagged]
I “think” I understand what you’re trying to get at. But it’s an unfortunate and limited perspective. Sure, New York isnt Thailand and the restaurant didn’t source their ingredients from a Bangkok market at 4am that morning. But that doesn’t mean the chef didn’t cook, study, or live in the region previously. So does that mean the only thing that makes a dish authentic is its local ingredients and there’s no credit given for the chefs experience? Also, how do you know the chef didn’t import any of the ingredients or spices from the place you’re expecting for it to be authentic?
While I disagree with the above poster's attitude, I agree with the point about food tasting different depending on where you are.
Perhaps you can get relatively authentic Indian food (ignoring the variations in Indian cuisine for a second) in the U.S. and Canada, compared to India (I've traveled India for comparison). Because there are tons of import markets in both countries to get all the same ingredients.
But Indian food in Greece definitely has a Greek flavour to it, because it's quite hard to find the proper ingredients to make more authentic Indian food. They used feta instead of paneer!
2 replies →
> But it’s an unfortunate and limited perspective.
Well, if something that is not prepared with authentic ingredients is authentic to you we have divergent opinions.
You are coming from what I assume a Western perspective. You should talk to the restaurant owner about authenticity. They will likely have the same opinion as the person you're replying to. Meat or veggie ingredients if imported from a different continent, will often be frozen and not fresh. The water obviously is not imported and that affects the taste directly. The meat will have a different smell if sourced locally, etc.
You're right, how dare these rubes not ship in gallons of water from Turkey so they can boil that to be truly authentic. What idiots.
If you know anything about cooking, water affects the taste of food. The water in Turkey vs America taste very different. Therefore it is very difficult for restaurants to achieve the same "authentic" taste in foreign countries.