Reasonably enough dining and buying products we’ve come to assume as authentic products of a certain country becomes our definition of authentic. Though true, making the assumption that it HAS to taste like such due to how we have become accustomed to it eventually complicates the distinction between which is what is what. I for one have made that mistake and had paid my dues in the form of my own taste buds.
Within my travels and audacity for trying new delicacies like the well budgeted Andrew Zimmerman and that other guy, I’ve become more and more open with food. How ever the food tastes, should be, I make sure to keep an open mind when eating. Like politics, it’s always best to read and understand all sides rather than just limiting to both. And as for food, it’s interesting to find out how other countries replicate a cuisine and understand how and why it taste the way it does.
Many will make claims to how relatively close the authenticity is, but you have to admit close is not is. Just as close to being first is not first at all, nor is a close DNA match even a match at all. You’re either first or last, and a one-hundo% match or no match at all. Would you be content to hear courts are now accepting a tolerance of anywhere between ninety~ninety-nine% as a concrete DNA evidence for any conviction? [ninety-nine.nine% is the acceptable match for evidence used within our court cases] Whether it’s used to free a life or convict them, close enough is not enough.