Truly bad headline here. There is a type of “traditional” balsamic vinegar that follows very specific guidelines. But so long as it’s not labeled as “tradizionale” and doesn’t claim to be from this region, then it’s not “fake”.
Truffle oil you buy at the store, never been within miles from a real truffle. It's an oil that made to smell and taste "kinda" like truffle. The label is clear about that.
It's not fake in the same way it's talked about fake balsamic vinegar in this article.
I was recently traveling in New Zealand and had an opportunity to visit the Te Puke truffle farm. They explained why truffle oil is not made by infusing truffles in oil: it's because truffles can harbor botulism, which is anaerobic, and so dunking a truffle in oil creates a perfect environment for botulism to thrive. "Fake" truffle oil is a feature, quite literally not a bug.
I don’t know either. I’ve found truffle oil made with real truffles in stores, and if there’s one thing doing packaged food has taught me it’s that you cannot make a product with botulism risk without doing something to reduce it to practically zero. I believe the only surface preparation kill step for pathogens of any sort is citrus fruit, which can be pasteurized by dipping in something because only the peel can harbor any pathogens. (I could be wrong on that but I did go through that recently.)
When you package anything, whichever department of ag you’re regulated by analyzes your ingredients and process to make sure you get a certain log reduction of any pathogens of interest. If there’s any risk at all, you have to have all of this greenlit by a process authority. (Oddly, Cornell is the 800 lb gorilla of that market, a huge chunk of packaged food in the US paid them for it.)
If someone is packaging real truffle oil anywhere in the US, and assuming botulism is a pathogen of interest (which I don’t know but does sound sensible) there’s definitely a kill step. I’ve never worked with mushrooms or any recipes that have low acid, so I don’t know what it is in this case. But I’m sure there is one.
Interestingly, what most people think of as "truffle flavour" is fake truffle. Only two types of truffle have any flavour of note, the French black Perigord and the Italian white. They taste milder than you have been led to believe, there aren't many, they don't freeze, and they're only available in summer.
Corollary: if you have a truffle not in season, it's definitely a fake. If you have a truffle in season, it's still probably a fake. Often it's a Chinese one, which tastes of nothing, with fake truffle flavour added. If you eat a naturally tasty truffle, you might not recognise it, nearly everyone has only ever eaten fakes.
Also, since truffles aren't cooked, when you order at the restaurant - usually, with real truffles they would grate it in-front of you.
I remember having fake truffle fries shortly after real truffle fries and boy the difference so big, I don't know why fake truffle just didn't create it's own label.
Whenever I see statements like this that correlate price and product quality (eg wine, spirits), I’m always wondering why a “fake” wouldn’t just elevate its price to the level of the non-fake. I have a feeling most customers won’t know the difference. I guess I’m just skeptical of using price as a proxy where everything from a fancy-looking label to a nice marketing campaign will inflate the price.
I think the reason is the fake ones are capitalizing on the demand at lower price levels. I bet there are fake expensive ones as well but it would likely be a tougher market to compete in.
Specifically with truffle oil - its taste profile is so noticeable different, that unless you never had a real truffle, it would be easy to spot.
As for different things, about 7 years ago in LA there was as huge wine counterfeit operation bust. Expensive bottles were filled with cheaper wine, re-corked and sold. This is why expensive bottles now "destroyed" one way or another.
$200/oz is the cost of a fresh high end truffle which you wouldn't use to make oil. You don't need that much to make infused oil, it's more like $10/oz.
I'm surprised the article makes no mention of lead.
>> Aged vinegars, favored by gourmets and sometimes costing $100 a bottle, contain more lead than the quicker brewed, less expensive kinds. For three imported varieties tested in 2002, people who eat one tablespoon per day would be exposed to seven to 10 times the maximum daily level of lead set by California.
Balsamic vinegar (TBV, TBVM, TBVRE), olive oil, maple syrup, wasabi, and more are all ripe (pun intended) for counterfeiting and deceptive marketing of inferior products. This is why PDOs & appellations for agricultural products exist. Caveat emptor.
This designation in the context of balsamic vinegar involves specific grapes from specific regions, but the most important characteristic in the usage of the word real in this context is that there is only a single ingredient:
> True [traditional] balsamic vinegar is made from a reduction of pressed Trebbiano and Lambrusco grapes. The resulting thick syrup, called mosto cotto in Italian [grape must], is subsequently aged for a minimum of 12 years in a battery of several barrels of successively smaller sizes.
The confusion arises where you have products that are not traditional DOP balsamic vinegar.
Other methods of producing products labeled as balsamic vinegar could actually use the above single ingredient musto cotto but with grapes from outside the two designated regions, which is then also aged in wooden barrels for at least 12 years, the same single ingredient recipe aged in batteries of wooden barrels production method used to make so-called traditional balsamic vinegar.
Or, grape must may be mixed with wine vinegar and only be aged for as little as few months in non-wooden barrels - this is the type of product that seems to me to be less "real" as TFA uses the word.
I would personally rather consume either traditional DOP "real" balsamic vinegar, or at least a cheaper alternative which uses the same "single ingredient grape must aged in wooden barrels at least 12 years" recipe as traditional balsamic vinegar, as that is at least the same production process.
Any other vinegar product that uses blends of grape must and wine vinegar may be a fine-tasting product according to some, but to me, it isn't even the same thing, and it isn't really in the spirit of balsamic vinegar. To sell such a blend and labeling it as balsamic vinegar feels like selling blended whisky as single malt whisky - it minces words in order to subvert truth in advertising to the detriment of informed consumers attempting to buy a product that actually is what its label purports it to be.
To me, these are distinctions with a difference.
> A distinction without a difference is a type of logical fallacy where an author or speaker attempts to describe a distinction between two things where no discernible difference exists. It is particularly used when a word or phrase has connotations associated with it that one party to an argument prefers to avoid.
> For example, a person might say "I did not lie; I merely stretched the truth a little bit."
> Any other vinegar product that uses blends of grape must and wine vinegar... isn't really in the spirit of balsamic vinegar. To sell such a blend and labeling it as balsamic vinegar feels like selling blended whisky as single malt whisky.
It can absolutely be described as balsamic vinegar, though. Even the protected (PGI) name 'balsamic vinegar of Modena' is a blend with wine vinegar. Only the PDO term 'traditional balsamic vinegar' forbids this.
It's interesting to know that there's a special kind of balsamic vinegar that I've probably never tasted. But even if that's amazing, I still enjoy the balsamic vinegar I can get in the supermarket, and that's what almost everyone means when they say 'balsamic vinegar'. Insisting that almost everyone using the term is misusing it feels like a weird form of elitism.
> It's interesting to know that there's a special kind of balsamic vinegar that I've probably never tasted.
If Francesco Aggazzotti, the person who invented the modern recipe for traditional balsamic vinegar, which is the basis for the PDO standard, is elitist regarding the proper way to make his family recipe traditional balsamic vinegar is a claim that could be made. I don’t know how you could say that he’s wrong to do so without tasting it, however. You’re dismissing the whole basis for the DPO standard out of hand.
> But even if that's amazing, I still enjoy the balsamic vinegar I can get in the supermarket, and that's what almost everyone means when they say 'balsamic vinegar'.
I’m not trying to yuck your yum, here. I like what you like, too. I’m arguing for truth in advertising and labeling, so that counterfeit, fake, and adulterated products are eliminated from the market. I think there should be a finer distinction between balsamic vinegars that are made to essentially no standard with added wine vinegar and a single and/or non-wooden barrel, and balsamic vinegars made in other regions and countries in a traditional-compatible production process: Trebbiano and Lambrusco grape musts aged in a battery of multiple wooden barrels for at least 12 years.
The Wikipedia page for traditional balsamic vinegar has a helpful chart that further explains the differences in the production process.
I think the DPO TBV and BVM standards have been largely helpful for consumers, and I think that better labeling standards for the types of grapes and aging process in other countries would help. The market has selected for a variety of different price points consumers find palatable.
The point of TFA is that consumers really don't know what they’re missing when it comes to traditional balsamic vinegar. I happen to believe we could go a long way toward replicating the aspects that make traditional balsamic vinegar possess a unique flavor profile in other grape growth regions while retaining the same traditional production methods. The author of TFA seems somewhat skeptical on this due to their effusive praise of traditional balsamic vinegar, but I think if the real thing is so good, it’s at least worth trying. As someone who likes balsamic vinegar myself, I think we both could agree it’s at the very least worth trying traditional balsamic vinegar for ourselves so we know what the brouhaha is all about, and so we know whether or not the distinction has a difference to us, personally.
I think it’s okay to appreciate the finer things in life, and I don’t think that pointing out that finer things exist makes one elitist: it’s just a matter of perspective, preference, and taste. That’s my point, basically.
> I’m arguing for truth in advertising and labeling, so that counterfeit, fake, and adulterated products are eliminated from the market.
It's not a counterfeit, fake or adulterated product, though. It's balsamic vinegar, as almost everyone uses the term, and as the law, even in Italy, allows. If you want the extra special & expensive kind, you can look for 'Traditional balsamic vinegar' and the PDO logo that goes with it.
If people are selling regular balsamic vinegar as PDO 'Traditional balsamic vinegar', I'd agree with you. But I don't think that's happening on a significant scale.
Correct, but “fake” is mentioned in the title, and real is the obverse/inverse of fake. It’s the inverse of the implication that “fake balsamic vinegar exists,” which is a statement that has multiple possible meanings and interpretations, one of which being: any balsamic vinegar which is not traditional balsamic vinegar is “fake.” I do not subscribe to such a view, as I explained my own view further in my original comment.
> And any suggestion the common, non-trad variety is fake is conspicuously absent from the body.
To me, it’s somewhat obvious that the author believes real balsamic vinegar exists and so too must fake exist of the same, by process of deduction and elimination: due to the fact that the author discusses DOP traditional balsamic vinegar, the two grape varieties and growth regions used for grape must, multiple wooden barrels, and so on; these characteristics and methods are contrasted with other balsamic vinegars made using wine vinegar.
To me, it reads that the author is using a wide reading of the team “fake” and a narrow interpretation of “real” by implying that the only real balsamic vinegar is traditional, and anything else is therefore fake.
To quote TFA, italics mine for emphasis:
>> And yet, many have never tasted the real "black gold" of Modena, Italy. It takes 12 years to make the best, aceto balsamico tradizionale (traditional balsamic vinegar), and at least 25 to make the finest, extra Vecchio.
>> Because of traditional balsamic vinegar's painstaking artisanal production process, supplies are limited, and it tends to be rather pricey. And so, as the global demand for it has risen since the early 1980s, a market for imitation balsamic vinegar and cheaper products has exploded. In one instance in March 2019, a dramatic Interpol operation in northern Italy seized 9,000 tonnes of crushed grapes intended to be made into fake balsamic vinegar.
What do you think the author means by ‘“fake” balsamic vinegar?’
You’re not responding to the strongest form of my argument here or to that of TFA in OP, as is encouraged by the HN Guidelines, instead opting for a dismissive, argumentative attitude which isn’t really helping your argument, to be honest.
I mean, you aren’t really making much of an argument, either, just authoritatively stating your opinions as fact with no actual factual basis or even any attempt to articulate your own views.
Anyone can be contrary, but to simply say “I disagree” or “you’re wrong” isn’t consistent with HN Guidelines either, so I’m not sure what you want me to do with your responses here.
It’s fine to have a difference of opinion or disagree regarding matters of fact, but you really owe it to yourself and to the other visitors to post better.
Your responses are not actually rebuttals or responses at all any more than simple disagreement. Your one liner response here proves my point and disproves your own. You’re embarrassing yourself and me too for continuing to engage with you in good faith while you thumb your nose at the argument and debate itself by not even making your own case. I continue to hold out hope that you’ll do better but I don’t even know what your point is because you haven’t made one. Or at least not yet?
Please respond with your views on OP and my views on balsamic vinegar or I guess you can continue with your own form of argument. Honestly I’ll take nearly any kind of response showing some kind of effort, but this ain’t it.
I already explained that they implied the word real by using fake, and the word real is used in the article. You’re not even making a point. From your comment history, you’re a serial pedant and this entire thread is no different. Why are you like this?
Can you please avoid flamewars and tit-for-tat spats like this one, when posting on HN? It's definitely not what the site is for, and it makes boring reading.
One sign that a thread is leaving the rails is when people start arguing about their argument, as you guys did here and here:
Can you please avoid flamewars and tit-for-tat spats like this one, when posting on HN? It's definitely not what the site is for, and it makes boring reading.
One sign that a thread is leaving the rails is when people start arguing about their argument, as you guys did here and here:
> One sign that a thread is leaving the rails is when people start arguing about their argument
I was attempting to reformulate/rephrase my discussion to avoid low-effort and groundless dismissal of my good faith points. I was all but asking them why they believe the way they do and what they believe, to no avail. I was turning their own words against them in order to hold a mirror up to the absurdity of carrying on like they do when all else failed.
Thanks for the points all the same, including my debate partner, after all this, and also to dang, naturally.
Another clickbait article title. Shame on you BBC.
Not fake.
"Balsamic vinegar that is not labelled "tradizionale" (traditional) is a blend of wine vinegar and grape must, made from grapes with no particular provenance and aged in wooden or steel barrels for just a few months."
The BBC article especially is conflating two kinds of 'fake'.
The balsamic vinegar most of us buy is not the super expensive 'Traditional balsamic vinegar', which is what they're describing aging in barrels for 12 years. It may still be 'balsamic vinegar of Modena', which is a protected term but with much less strict requirements, and consequently much cheaper. And 'balsamic vinegar' without qualifiers is not protected at all, as far as I know. It seems like a stretch to call these fakes.
Either protected term can fetch a better price than generic 'balsamic vinegar', so someone will have a go at faking some paperwork to make their product more valuable. The Guardian article describes one such case that was caught (in 2019), but doesn't say much about how prevalent this is.
Well, read it again? It's about non-trad variety vinegar being sold as traditional variety. Which is very different from non-trad being sold as non-trad.
There's fake as in "this product is not any kind of vinegar" and fake as is "this vinegar has not been produced in the canonical way, in the canonical place".
Italy has local standards called, DOP and IGP, if I recall correctly. DOP is the elite stuff. You dont put this on salads. Some varieties are almost gel like. This is the stuff that was sitting in someones attic for ten years. IGP is still good but not as good, and it still has to come from the right region. Costco in the US sells Kirkland balsamic vinegar di Modena, and it is IGP. You can imagine that at Costco scale, it is not sitting in someones attic. This is still excellent, by the way.
Then there is all the rest, that claims to be balsamic vinegar, but was produced to meet high scale, low price points.
The article is simply saying that what you likely buy in the supermarket is unlikely to be DOP and might not even be IGP. Thats not really news.
The problem I have with "fake" and "real", particularly with Italian and French goods, is there's often a "Produced from this region by these people" incorporated into the definition of "real".
This is very apparent when you look into things like "Mozzarella". Italy would have you believe that mozzarella could only be produced in Italy as if the region somehow blesses the cheese with magic properties. The reality is the mozzarella is just renat + milk. The only arguable difference is which animal milk is used (for most, it's beef).
If the breakdown process of balsamic vinegar ends up producing a chemically and flavor profile identical to just red wine vinegar and grape must, then who cares if it's "fake"?
> A better question to ask is "what makes it real".
Aging in barrels, just like whiskey and a bunch of other alcohols. The geographic designation is only important because it's the only authority that guarantees that the manufacturer is selling what they claim. I couldn't care less about Modena or Reggio Emilia but I want something that's been aged in a barrel, not just mixed with thickener to make it look reduced.
It's not acceptable to dilute Everclear with food coloring and flavoring and call it whiskey, regardless of geographic designation, which is what these "fake" balsamic vinegars are essentially doing.
> If the breakdown process of balsamic vinegar ends up producing a chemically and flavor profile identical to just red wine vinegar and grape must, then who cares if it's "fake"?
The process doesn't produce the same flavors. Not even close. As a lover of real aged balsamic, it just doesn't compare. It's just cheap and good enough for many recipes so I use it as often as the real stuff, but it's a cheap imitation through and through.
If it wasn't balsamic vinegar at all. This is just saying it isn't high quality balsamic vinegar from Moderna.
This is just about protected names. If you make champagne but you don't do it in Champagne then it is "fake champagne", but if you make cheddar but not in Cheddar then it's "real".
If you’re making the product with cheaper ingredients and a simpler process but using the same name as a product with expensive ingredients and a long, complicated process then you’re making a fake product and attempting to capitalize on the name recognition of the original. It’s every bit as egregious as taking iron pyrite and calling it gold.
