American food to feed to a British friend?

[Heliomance]

Tater tots are what you think they are, Klondike bars are not. They're an ice cream novelty, though chocolate is involved. Much better than typical American chocolate, which I will readily admit is mostly garbage. Actual bars, as opposed to slabs of Hershey's ick, on the other hand...

*wikis*

Klondike bars are just choc-ices. Well that's boring.

[Bohandas]

Anoher potential between difference American and British food is that I've always gotten the impression that Europeans as a rule tend to be way way more OCD about the geographical location where foods and drinks are manufactured, particularly foods with toponymic names, whereas Americans generally don't care, and I personally find the idea absolutely ridiculous. I absolutely do not care if (for example) my champagne is from france and have signed numerous petitions urging the US government not to give in to pressure to adopt any of the EU's weird naming standards. I also don't think I've ever had buffalo wings that were actually from upstate New York, and that doesn;t bother me either.

(Then again, I think this generally applies more to mainland europe than to the British isles and more to governmemt regulatory agencies and to businesses than to individuals)

[Spacewolf]

Anoher potential between difference American and British food is that I've always gotten the impression that Europeans as a rule tend to be way way more OCD about the geographical location where foods and drinks are manufactured, particularly foods with toponymic names, whereas Americans generally don't care, and I personally find the idea absolutely ridiculous. I absolutely do not care if (for example) my champagne is from france and have signed numerous petitions urging the US government not to give in to pressure to adopt any of the EU's weird naming standards. I also don't think I've ever had buffalo wings that were actually from upstate New York, and that doesn;t bother me either.

(Then again, I think this generally applies more to mainland europe than to the British isles and more to governmemt regulatory agencies and to businesses than to individuals)

It's more to keep the price and respectability of the product up since it can only be made in one particular location Scottish Whiskey can only be made in Scotland which helps it keep it's image of being for rich people. (At least the single malts) Since otherwise anyone could make it anywhere and potentially flood the market.

[veti]

It's kind of a trademark thing. You can make "whiskey" or "whisky", take your pick, anywhere. But you can only make "Scotch whisky" (note, no e) in Scotland. I don't mind if someone in Canada or Japan or India wants to distill single-malt whisky, but I do take exception to them labelling it "Scotch", because that's just plain lying. Let them put in their own marketing effort, I say - let them talk endlessly about the quality of their water and the pedigree of the barrels it's aged in, and all the rest of that guff. The Scots have put a lot of work into that image, it's unfair for someone else to leech the value off them.

Champagne is a controversial one. The French argue that "Champagne" is a specific wine-growing region of France, and something like "American Champagne" makes no more sense than "American Bordeaux". The EU accepted this logic because the French take this stuff very seriously, they carry a lot of weight in the EU, and it wasn't worth fighting about; but many people outside the EU take the view that "champagne" has been a generic name for "sparkling white wine" for ages, and they're not about to stop using it now.

[Rynjin]

It's kind of a trademark thing. You can make "whiskey" or "whisky", take your pick, anywhere. But you can only make "Scotch whisky" (note, no e) in Scotland. I don't mind if someone in Canada or Japan or India wants to distill single-malt whisky, but I do take exception to them labelling it "Scotch", because that's just plain lying. Let them put in their own marketing effort, I say - let them talk endlessly about the quality of their water and the pedigree of the barrels it's aged in, and all the rest of that guff. The Scots have put a lot of work into that image, it's unfair for someone else to leech the value off them.

"Unfair" is a ridiculous sentiment when it come to business and product. If Scotch only exists because it comes from Scotland, then the distinction between Scotch and other whiskey is meaningless. If it's a matter of how it's made, then limiting the name to only one location is ludicrous. It CAN be made anywhere, it just happened to be created in one location.

If "image" is all that makes your product unique and desirable, then it's worthless. A lot like Trump Steaks in that regard.

[Mr Blobby]

This only works [for the consumer] if the designation *also* covers such things as minimum ingredient quality / quantity, banned additives, particular production methods etc. Such products as 'traditional Cumberland sausage', 'white Stilton' and 'Scotch' do have a cachet appeal - so it's in their interest to make sure cut-corners producers can't cash in. And to protect their margins, of course.

While as far as I can tell we're not so fussed about this type of things than the French or Italians, we do get annoyed when the national origin has been faked - particularly when something is labelled 'British' when it isn't.

[kyoryu]

Barbecue. Take him to Stan's in Issaquah.

http://stansbarbq.com/

It ain't Texas or the South, but it's decent.

Also, see if he thinks lemonade is just 7-up. And if so, get him lemonade.

Delfino's in Seattle has reasonable deep dish pizza. Kylie's was better, but they closed :(

[veti]

"Unfair" is a ridiculous sentiment when it come to business and product. If Scotch only exists because it comes from Scotland, then the distinction between Scotch and other whiskey is meaningless. If it's a matter of how it's made, then limiting the name to only one location is ludicrous. It CAN be made anywhere, it just happened to be created in one location.

If you believe that, then you're free to buy your whisk(e)y from any supplier in any country of your choice. That's absolutely up to you, and the very best of luck to you.

But if you don't believe that, then you should be able to buy whisky in the reasonable certainty that if it says "Scotch" on the label, it comes from Scotland.

Analogy: I am free to write my own RPG resources (scenarios, say), publish and sell them using my own resources, and that's fine. But if I try labelling those publications as "Dungeons and Dragons" resources, I will very quickly learn the error of my ways.

What's wrong with demanding that labels should be truthful?

[Amidus Drexel]

"Unfair" is a ridiculous sentiment when it come to business and product. If Scotch only exists because it comes from Scotland, then the distinction between Scotch and other whiskey is meaningless. If it's a matter of how it's made, then limiting the name to only one location is ludicrous. It CAN be made anywhere, it just happened to be created in one location.

Regarding Scotch, at least (as well as a number of other related (and unrelated) things - Bourbon, Tennessee Whiskey, etc), it's actually both. Scotch has some fairly strict requirements on grain content, and the aging process in addition to requiring it be from Scotland.

For example, "Tennessee Whiskey" has to be made in the state of Tennessee, but it also has to qualify as bourbon (made in the US - covered already, made from a mash of 51% or more corn, aged in an appropriate barrel, etc), and I believe another thing or two besides. There is whisky distilled in TN that doesn't meet those requirements (some that aren't aged, and some rye or grain spirits that don't meet the corn mash requirements), and whisky distilled elsewhere in the world that would, save for the location of the distillery. It's very much a branding/trademark kind of issue, and there's a lot of legislation (and precedent elsewhere) that protects it - but it's also a guarantee of some minimum quality, at least as far as the production process goes.

[Dorath]

Go for a horseshoe. Open faced sandwich with meat, fries, and cheese sauce piled on.

[Peelee]

If you believe that, then you're free to buy your whisk(e)y from any supplier in any country of your choice. That's absolutely up to you, and the very best of luck to you.

But if you don't believe that, then you should be able to buy whisky in the reasonable certainty that if it says "Scotch" on the label, it comes from Scotland.

Analogy: I am free to write my own RPG resources (scenarios, say), publish and sell them using my own resources, and that's fine. But if I try labelling those publications as "Dungeons and Dragons" resources, I will very quickly learn the error of my ways.

What's wrong with demanding that labels should be truthful?

That anogy would be better if you were able to write exactly the same thing, format it the same way, use the same artwork, etc., and then only have issues when people complain because you call it "Dungeons and Dragons" (which you are legally allowed to do), because it wasn't done in a specific part of California.

Rynjin is right. If image is all that makes your product unique and desirable, then it's worthless.

[Rynjin]

Analogy: I am free to write my own RPG resources (scenarios, say), publish and sell them using my own resources, and that's fine. But if I try labelling those publications as "Dungeons and Dragons" resources, I will very quickly learn the error of my ways.

An incredibly poor analogy for multiple reasons. For one, that would be a copyright infringement, not some kind of nebulous "unfairness". It would be a law matter, not a moral one.

That is, it WOULD be...if that didn't fall under the OGL anyway. You are perfectly free to write an adventure or rules supplement, slaps a "Dungeons and Dragons X Edition Compatible" logo on it, and sell it with no repercussions. The only exception is using a licensed D&D SETTING, but there are options for that as well, just more restricted.

What's wrong with demanding that labels should be truthful?

The label would only be untruthful if the only criteria for being scotch is "made in Scotland". I'm willing to agree that's the case.

I'm also willing to say that's really, really stupid, which is my point. You don't need to go to India to buy Indian food, as an example. What makes scotch so special? The fact that it's made in a certain location? Or specific techniques used to make it a unique product?

If the former, that's a dumb and arbitrary distinction. If the latter...those techniques can be replicated in other parts of the world just as well, if the maker has the knowledge and materials to do so.

[Amidus Drexel]

I'm also willing to say that's really, really stupid, which is my point. You don't need to go to India to buy Indian food, as an example. What makes scotch so special? The fact that it's made in a certain location? Or specific techniques used to make it a unique product?

If the former, that's a dumb and arbitrary distinction. If the latter...those techniques can be replicated in other parts of the world just as well, if the maker has the knowledge and materials to do so.

We can argue about trademark/branding law and international trade for pages and pages and not get anywhere.

Then call it "Scottish-Style Whiskey" or something similar (which doesn't run afoul of trade agreements RE: the actual name "Scotch Whiskey") and be done with it. As far as you're concerned, it means the same thing, and if it's truly the same quality, then the customers won't care either (save a few exceptionally snobby ones who likely wouldn't have bought it anyway).

[Coidzor]

Go for a horseshoe. Open faced sandwich with meat, fries, and cheese sauce piled on.

Why, it was even ostensibly developed in one of our Springfields.

[Razade]

Why, it was even ostensibly developed in one of our Springfields.

By Lincoln if legends are to be believed.

[Bohandas]

Regarding Scotch, at least (as well as a number of other related (and unrelated) things - Bourbon, Tennessee Whiskey, etc), it's actually both. Scotch has some fairly strict requirements on grain content, and the aging process in addition to requiring it be from Scotland.

For example, "Tennessee Whiskey" has to be made in the state of Tennessee, but it also has to qualify as bourbon (made in the US - covered already, made from a mash of 51% or more corn, aged in an appropriate barrel, etc), and I believe another thing or two besides. There is whisky distilled in TN that doesn't meet those requirements (some that aren't aged, and some rye or grain spirits that don't meet the corn mash requirements), and whisky distilled elsewhere in the world that would, save for the location of the distillery. It's very much a branding/trademark kind of issue, and there's a lot of legislation (and precedent elsewhere) that protects it - but it's also a guarantee of some minimum quality, at least as far as the production process goes.

And in both that guarantee of minimum quality is the only part that actually has any relevance or bearing. As long as those requirements are met than sctoch made in scotland is going to be absolutely interchangeable with scotch made in america, scotch made in china, scotch made in somalia, or scotch made anywhere else

We can argue about trademark/branding law and international trade for pages and pages and not get anywhere.

Then call it "Scottish-Style Whiskey" or something similar (which doesn't run afoul of trade agreements RE: the actual name "Scotch Whiskey") and be done with it. As far as you're concerned, it means the same thing, and if it's truly the same quality, then the customers won't care either (save a few exceptionally snobby ones who likely wouldn't have bought it anyway).

Personally, I'd rather we break the trade agreements. Honestly if I could have my way it would go all the way in the other direction and all scotch would be required to be labeled as scotch regardless or origin, and the same would go for champagne, and other alcohols, and cheeses, and buffalo wings, and philly cheesesteaks; you'd be required by law to include the word "Philly"

It's more to keep the price and respectability of the product up since it can only be made in one particular location Scottish Whiskey can only be made in Scotland which helps it keep it's image of being for rich people. (At least the single malts) Since otherwise anyone could make it anywhere and potentially flood the market.

It can be made anywhere. It just sometimes has to be called something else because of the EU's weird rules.

The label would only be untruthful if the only criteria for being scotch is "made in Scotland". I'm willing to agree that's the case.

Or at least that was even something that people associated with it

[Aedilred]

Whisky is absolutely huge business. If I remember rightly it's Scotland's second-biggest export by turnover, after oil. Scotland trades internationally on its reputation for whisky, and thousands of jobs rely on it.

Especially at the upper end, single malt whisky is a luxury product and reputation is if anything even more important than quality. A lot of the whisky sold is sold simply because it's Scotch. In short, it's a brand like any other, one that Scotland has fought hard to establish and maintain.


I'm pretty sure that in all instances of PDO/PGI at least in Europe there are also regulations concerning what does and what doesn't count, and products traded under the name have to meet certain criteria as well as being made within a certain region or country. Champagne, for instance, has to be made according to the champagne method as well as within the boundaries of the Champagne region if it wants to use the name.

Trading law in Europe considers that this is something worthy of recognition and protection like any other trademark. Once you get your head around the idea of industries operating as regional or national blocs rather than as individual corporations, it makes just as much sense as any trademark law.

As Amidus Drexel says, this is something about which it's possible to argue endlessly, but I think if you accept the basic principle that things can be trademarked, it all pretty much makes sense.

Besides, as we've seen in this thread, people can get very protective and even emotional about such things. British peanut butter is nothing like American peanut butter! You can only get proper Chicago pizza in Chicago! All those foods we Brits think we have? We totally don't have them like Americans do! And vice versa, of course. This is an internet forum so it doesn't matter, but when billions of pounds/dollars/whatever are on the line, it's a rather different kettle of fish, and drawing lines around such things to confirm some kind of common standard as a basis for comparison if nothing else is entirely in keeping with what I consider to be the spirit of this thread.

Personally, I'd rather we break the trade agreements. Honestly if I could have my way it would go all the way in the other direction and all scotch would be required to be labeled as scotch regardless or origin, and the same would go for champagne, and other alcohols, and cheeses, and buffalo wings, and philly cheesesteaks; you'd be required by law to include the word "Philly"

The thing is, "Scotch" is Scotch. i.e. from Scotland. The generic term is "whisk(e)y." Insisting that all whisky be labelled Scotch even when it's produced outside Scotland is not only insane, it's also an insult to other international whisk(e)y producers, in Ireland, Japan, Canada, the US, England and so on, who have their own traditions and methods distinct from Scotch, of which in many cases they're equally proud.

The only people calling whisky Scotch when it's not from Scotland are people who don't know any better and people trying to con the consumer.

You might say you neither know nor care about the difference, but I'd counter that having such decisions made by people who don't know or care about the difference is a stupid way to make decisions and a great way to have stupid decisions made.

[Bohandas]

The thing is, "Scotch" is Scotch. i.e. from Scotland. The generic term is "whisk(e)y." Insisting that all whisky be labelled Scotch even when it's produced outside Scotland is not only insane, it's also an insult to other international whisk(e)y producers, in Ireland, Japan, Canada, the US, England and so on, who have their own traditions and methods distinct from Scotch, of which in many cases they're equally proud.

The only people calling whisky Scotch when it's not from Scotland are people who don't know any better and people trying to con the consumer.

You might say you neither know nor care about the difference, but I'd counter that having such decisions made by people who don't know or care about the difference is a stupid way to make decisions and a great way to have stupid decisions made.

Not all whisky. Scotch has other requirements as well, material requirements regarding it's actual content. The rest is just worthless branding. Anything meeting these actually pertinent standards would be labeled scotch under my proposal

You might say you neither know nor care about the difference, but I'd counter that having such decisions made by people who don't know or care about the difference is a stupid way to make decisions and a great way to have stupid decisions made.

Because the difference is immaterial; What possible difference could it make where something was produced? The real world isn't some fantasy game with magical locations and planar manifest zones.

But if we label as having that difference people are going to think that difference is important, that it makes some difference. It's the same reason why I'm also against labeling GMO foods.

[Aedilred]

No more worthless than any other branding, I'd argue. Unless you want to do away with brands altogether, in which case that's a completely different discussion.

[Bohandas]

No more worthless than any other branding, I'd argue.

That's about as worthless as anything can get

Branding is just a trick to get the consumer to pay more without actually giving them more. If anything it has negative value.

[Aedilred]

That's about as worthless as anything can get

Branding is just a trick to get the consumer to pay more without actually giving them more. If anything it has negative value.

Then we're done here. Back to the topic?

[Bohandas]

All those foods we Brits think we have? We totally don't have them like Americans do! And vice versa, of course.

Yes but, for example, a coke with corn syrup instead of cane sugar is going to be a coke with corn syrup instead of cane sugar regardless of where it's made. They could even make them both in the very same facility and it wouldn't make a difference

[factotum]

This only works [for the consumer] if the designation *also* covers such things as minimum ingredient quality / quantity, banned additives, particular production methods etc.

The protected origin legislation in European law doesn't do that, as far as I know. For example, Cornish pasties are location protected--it has to be made in Cornwall to be called Cornish. However, Ginster's pasties *are* made in Cornwall, so they can be called that, yet I'm pretty sure most Cornishmen don't consider those things to be proper Cornish pasties in any way, shape or form--they're cheap mass-produced garbage.

[Togath]

Sort of a turn around from me recommending him stuff... he's recommending me sardines on rolls with tomato soup. I kinda want to go find those now. I mean, I do make good rolls, but I haven't eaten the other two before.
Also, I really want to try whatever the flying winged fish "Bovril" is. I'm also curious if canned spaghetti hoops are fancier in the UK or something?

[Amidus Drexel]

Sort of a turn around from me recommending him stuff... he's recommending me sardines on rolls with tomato soup. I kinda want to go find those now. I mean, I do make good rolls, but I haven't eaten the other two before.
Also, I really want to try whatever the flying winged fish "Bovril" is. I'm also curious if canned spaghetti hoops are fancier in the UK or something?

While I'm not a big fan of sardines (not a big fan of fish in general, and I get enough salt in my diet as it is), can confirm that bread and tomato soup go very well together.

[Aedilred]

The protected origin legislation in European law doesn't do that, as far as I know. For example, Cornish pasties are location protected--it has to be made in Cornwall to be called Cornish. However, Ginster's pasties *are* made in Cornwall, so they can be called that, yet I'm pretty sure most Cornishmen don't consider those things to be proper Cornish pasties in any way, shape or form--they're cheap mass-produced garbage.

I believe there are restrictions on the ingredients of a "Cornish pasty" in order to meet the PGI requirements. (Essentially, if I remember rightly, the pasty must contain meat, potatoes, turnip/swede, onion, and nothing else). Moreover the pasty must be side-crimped rather than top-crimped to meet the conditions. Ginster's Cornish pasties do meet all the relevant standards, but they are certainly mass-produced and consequently held in lower regard than pasties produced by some other bakers.

That said I don't think Ginster's pasties are entirely terrible. I have had many better, but I've also had many worse, and outside specialist pasty shops they might actually be the best pasties consistently available. It certainly doesn't help that you get them cold and have to either eat them cold or re-heat them; pasties are always better when they're fresh.

Sort of a turn around from me recommending him stuff... he's recommending me sardines on rolls with tomato soup. I kinda want to go find those now. I mean, I do make good rolls, but I haven't eaten the other two before.
Also, I really want to try whatever the flying winged fish "Bovril" is. I'm also curious if canned spaghetti hoops are fancier in the UK or something?

Bovril is a meat extract which can be diluted and drunk as a hot drink or used as a spread. Although the taste is different, in terms of appearance it resembles Marmite and its friends. It's the sort of thing a Victorian or Edwardian traveller would carry with him for a reliable taste of home, and although it's not all that widely drunk or eaten any more it is nevertheless familiar to most in principle at least.

Unless American spaghetti hoops are plumbing depths I fear to imagine, I sincerely doubt that our spaghetti hoops are any fancier than yours.

[Scaleybob]

Sort of a turn around from me recommending him stuff... he's recommending me sardines on rolls with tomato soup. I kinda want to go find those now. I mean, I do make good rolls, but I haven't eaten the other two before.
Also, I really want to try whatever the flying winged fish "Bovril" is. I'm also curious if canned spaghetti hoops are fancier in the UK or something?

I can thoroughly recommend trying Bovril. It is a bit of an acquired taste though. There's a great clip on Youtube of a couple of Americans trying it for the first time, which pretty much amounts to " Sip, It's awful. Really awful. Can't be that awful. Another sip. Yes, it is that awful. Another Sip, and same reaction." Then in the comments admits they've developed a taste for it, and can't get enough of the stuff.

Weird geek fact about it - the Bo in the name come from 'bos' (the Latin for Ox) but the 'Vril' comes from the food from the Science fiction book "The Coming Race" which features the Electric liquid 'Vril'.

Sardines on toast does go quite well with Tomato soup. It's been years since I've tried that combination.

[Knaight]

It's kind of a trademark thing. You can make "whiskey" or "whisky", take your pick, anywhere. But you can only make "Scotch whisky" (note, no e) in Scotland. I don't mind if someone in Canada or Japan or India wants to distill single-malt whisky, but I do take exception to them labelling it "Scotch", because that's just plain lying. Let them put in their own marketing effort, I say - let them talk endlessly about the quality of their water and the pedigree of the barrels it's aged in, and all the rest of that guff. The Scots have put a lot of work into that image, it's unfair for someone else to leech the value off them.

While this works for Scotch, there are cases where it really doesn't. For instance, only Greece can make Feta Cheese in the EU, anyone else who makes it needs to find a different name. For the most part that works, but it sits roughly as well with Macedonia as you'd expect.

[veti]

Sort of a turn around from me recommending him stuff... he's recommending me sardines on rolls with tomato soup. I kinda want to go find those now. I mean, I do make good rolls, but I haven't eaten the other two before.
Also, I really want to try whatever the flying winged fish "Bovril" is. I'm also curious if canned spaghetti hoops are fancier in the UK or something?

I... would avoid getting your hopes too high for any of those things. I mean - sardines are nice enough, but they're hardly a gourmet experience. And the rest of that list comes under the heading of "things I've never even thought about missing, in over 10 years as an expat".

[thorgrim29]

Is bovril something different in the UK? Over here it's just concentrated beef or chicken stock somewhere between powdered stock and the kind you buy in tetra packs. It's pretty handy to have in a kitchen but I don't think it qualifies as a specialty...

Anyway since I am not american I can't contribute too much, but my experience is that the most characteristic food thing going on in the US is the various barbecue traditions.