“The Maine potato”, “Vermont Maple Syrup”, “French wine”… As consumers, we are often attracted to these foods and prefer them because we think that they are better. However do we ever ask ourselves why? Why do we always choose “Vermont Maple Syrup”, but not “New York Maple Syrup”? It seems as if the entire term “Place+product” has been planted in our minds since young even though we never try to find out the truth behind its superiority.

More than that, we should see food as having an identity of its own. Like humans where we try to build an identity from our interests, our education and our jobs, food should also be respected and treated the same. As how we are told not to “judge a book by its cover”, we should not judge food simply as a product on a shelf or something from the ground. Often times, these foods represents an entire nation’s history and efforts and cannot be looked down upon.

I really liked Trubek tying his entire research on the French saying “le gout de terroir”. As I study French, I was very fascinated and immediately assumed that “terroir” meant “territory”, which makes sense, as maple syrup would then be the taste of the territory. However, Trubek proves me wrong. True, “terroir” includes the idea of territory, but also the people, the history and the culture. “L’affair Mondavi” showed how local efforts were able to repel decisions of a big business cooperation Robert Mondavi Winery to buy land in Aniane and create their vineyard and winery. His failure was a result of his disrespect to the “terroir”. At first people in Aniane were friendly to him, but soon turned their back after knowing that he was promised land by a politician. These farmers, who had slaved their life over creating the best wine, found out that they don’t have a say in protecting their own land. The politicians, who were not even in the fields, made decisions without consulting the people. The fact that “L’affair Mondavi” is a vital part of wine-making history, highlights that “le gout de terroir” does not simply mean the taste of where food comes from, but also the history, people, bodies and hard work that is put in the process of making the food.

I found it very interesting that Trubek used a very scientific approach for “Vermont Maple Syrup” as opposed to the historical and humanitarian approach that he used for “French wine”. He really highlighted how specific territory, composite, mineral content affected the taste of maple syrup. It’s very interesting to be exposed to such scientific approach to analyzing food after “L’affair Mondavi” and I would really like to dig deeper into the idea that food is more than just a taste of where it’s from, but also the people and history.