Inclusion of butter in UK recipe for cacio e pepe draws outrage from Italian media
A recipe on Good Food, formerly owned by the BBC, which continues to licence the web address bbcgoodfood.com – described cacio e pepe, a culinary institution in the Italian capital, as a 'store cupboard favourite' that could easily be whipped up for 'a speedy lunch' using 'four simple ingredients – spaghetti, pepper, parmesan and butter'.
The notion that making cacio e pepe is easy was bad enough, but the presence of parmesan cheese and butter has been deemed a cardinal sin. Traditional cacio e pepe contains three ingredients: pasta (usually tonnarelli, a type of spaghetti), pecorino Romano cheese and black pepper.
Such is the fury, Fiepet Confesercenti, an association that represents restaurants in Italy, said it would demand a correction from the website in order to 'safeguard this iconic dish'. Furthermore, it has taken the issue up with the British embassy in Rome.
The recipe appears to have been on the site for about three months, but despite a couple of readers calling out the butter blunder, it only now seems to have caught the attention of Fiepet Confesercenti, which was also offended by the brief preparation video that runs alongside it showing a chunk of butter being put into a pan.
Claudio Pica, the president of the Rome unit for Fiepet Confesercenti, said the association was 'astonished' to see the recipe on such a popular and esteemed food site, adding that letters have been sent to Immediate Media, the site's owner, and the British ambassador to Rome, Edward Llewellyn.
'This iconic dish, traditionally from Rome and the Lazio region, has been a staple of Italian cuisine for years, so much so it has been replicated even beyond Italy's borders,' he added. 'We regret to contradict the historic and authoritative British media, but the original recipe for cacio e pepe excludes parmesan and butter. There are not four ingredients, but three: pasta, pepper and pecorino.'
Pica admitted that while some chefs may dabble with the recipe, the main concern is that the website has misled readers by presenting the dish as the original.
The Guardian has asked Immediate Media for comment.
Italian newspapers have had a field day over the controversy, with the Rome-based Il Messaggero writing: 'Paraphrasing the famous British anthem 'God save the king', Rome restaurateurs are now saying: 'God save the cacio e pepe.''
The Guardian's 2021 recipe for the dish by food writer Felicity Cloake comprises just pasta, pepper and pecorino.
It is not the first time the foreign media has become embroiled in an Italian food row. In 2021, the New York Times published a tinkered-with recipe for another classic Roman pasta dish, carbonara, which included tomatoes. While the description of the recipe, called 'smoky tomato carbonara' and created by Kay Chun, did warn readers that it was not the original, Coldiretti, the Italian farmers' association, lashed out, saying the alteration was 'the tip of the iceberg in the falsification of traditional Italian dishes'. Given that Chun's recipe was again published in 2023, it appears the newspaper was unperturbed by the indignation.
Italians often mock foreigners for their interpretation of an Italian recipe, especially pineapple on pizza or mixing pasta with chicken.
The New York Times also triggered outrage in the UK in 2018 after publishing a recipe in which it described the yorkshire pudding, a roast dinner staple, as a 'large, fluffy pancake' that was excellent for 'breakfast, brunch, lunch and dessert any time of the year'.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
20 minutes ago
- BBC News
Cacio e pepe: Good Food pasta recipe sparks fury in Italy
Italians have reacted with fury after the popular UK Good Food website published a recipe for a traditional Roman dish that did not include the correct original ingredients and appeared to belittle it as a quick cacio e pepe is a beloved Roman dish, renowned for being simple yet surprisingly challenging to make - so Good Food's description of it as something that can be quickly whipped up for "a speedy lunch" irritated recipe also listed four ingredients - spaghetti, black pepper, parmesan and butter and suggested double cream as an option - when there should only be three: spaghetti, black pepper and pecorino cheese. Such was the outrage that an association representing restaurants in Italy took the issue up with the British embassy in of Italy's food associations said they were "astonished" to see the recipe on such an esteemed British food site, which was owned by the BBC until 2024. Its president Claudio Pica said letters had been sent to Immediate Media, the site's owner, and UK ambassador Edward Pica said: "This iconic dish, traditionally from Rome and the Lazio region, has been a staple of Italian cuisine for years, so much so it has been replicated even beyond Italy's borders."He regretted contradicting the British site, but clarified that "the original recipe for cacio e pepe excludes parmesan and butter. There are not four ingredients, but three: pasta, pepper and pecorino".The furore has been widely covered in Italian media, with a journalist at public broadcaster RAI saying: "We are always told, you are not as good as the BBC… and then they go and do this. Such a grave mistake. The suggestion of adding some cream gave me goosebumps."The Good Food food brand was owned by BBC Studios (the BBC's commercial wing) until 2018, when it was sold to Immediate Media Co - with the BBC prefix being dropped from its name last year. While some chefs may experiment with the dish, the main concern is that the website misled readers by presenting its version as the original. Italians often mock foreigners for their interpretation of their recipes, but the indignation in this case is about something deeper: tampering with and Loredana run a hotel in central Rome - it's been in their family for four generations. "You can do all the variations in the world – but you cannot use the original Italian name for them, said Maurizio. "You cannot say it is cacio e pepe if you put butter, oil and cream in it. Then it becomes something else."He added: "You have to yield to Caesar that which is Caesar's!"Giorgio Eramo runs a fresh pasta restaurant near St Peter's square - serving up cacio e pepe and other traditional pasta dishes."It's terrible. It's not cacio e pepe... What Good Food published, with butter and parmesan, is called 'pasta Alfredo'. It's another kind of pasta," he his restaurant's board of pastas, he offers cacio e pepe with lime - a variation. But he says that's ok."It's different, it's for the summer, to make the pasta more fresh. But it doesn't impact the tradition. It's not like cream or butter. Lime is just a small change." Nicola, who runs a sandwich shop near the Vatican, took particular issue with the inclusion of cream."Cacio e pepe should not be made with cream; cream is for desserts. For heaven's sake. Whoever uses cream does not know what cooking means."Italians often get angry when foreigners tinker with their food recipes - pizza with pineapple, cappuccino after midday or carbonara with cream, for who works at a busy cafe in central Rome, thinks it is probably not necessary for Italians to get so angry about something like this, but understands why they do."Our tradition is based on food. So if you touch the only thing that we have, in all over the world… that can make us feel a bit sad."Good Food owners Immediate Media has been approached for comment.
The Sun
20 minutes ago
- The Sun
Lottery results LIVE: National Lottery Set For Life draw tonight, August 7, 2025
THE National Lottery Set For Life numbers are in and it's time to find out if you've won the top prize of £10,000 every month for 30 years. Could tonight's jackpot see you start ticking off that bucket list every month or building your own start-up as a budding entrepreneur? 1 You can find out by checking your ticket against tonight's numbers below. Good luck! The winning Set For Life numbers are: 03, 11, 17, 18, 23 and the Life Ball is 06. The first National Lottery draw was held on November 19 1994 when seven winners shared a jackpot of £5,874,778. The largest amount ever to be won by a single ticket holder was £42million, won in 1996. Gareth Bull, a 49-year-old builder, won £41million in November, 2020 and ended up knocking down his bungalow to make way for a luxury manor house with a pool. £1.308 billion (Powerball) on January 13 2016 in the US, for which three winning tickets were sold, remains history's biggest lottery prize £1.267 billion (Mega Million) a winner from South Carolina took their time to come forward to claim their prize in March 2019 not long before the April deadline £633.76 million (Powerball draw) from a winner from Wisconsin £625.76 million (Powerball) Mavis L. Wanczyk of Chicopee, Massachusetts claimed the jackpot in August 2017 £575.53 million (Powerball) A lucky pair of winners scooped the jackpot in Iowa and New York in October 2018 Sue Davies, 64, bought a lottery ticket to celebrate ending five months of shielding during the pandemic — and won £500,000. Sandra Devine, 36, accidentally won £300k - she intended to buy her usual £100 National Lottery Scratchcard, but came home with a much bigger prize. The biggest jackpot ever to be up for grabs was £66million in January last year, which was won by two lucky ticket holders. Another winner, Karl managed to bag £11million aged just 23 in 1996. The odds of winning the lottery are estimated to be about one in 14million - BUT you've got to be in it to win it.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
‘God exists whether you have doubts or not': Five religious leaders on Kemi Badenoch's crisis of faith
At one stage in her life, Kemi Badenoch believed in God. 'I would have defined myself as a Christian apologist, always arguing with people about why there was a God,' she told the BBC on Thursday. But then news of Josef Fritzl, who'd locked his daughter in a cellar for 24 years, broke. 'That killed it', said Badenoch. It's a story familiar to religious leaders across the country, who are often asked how God can exist and still allow evil and awful personal tragedy to take place. Indeed, vicars, priests, rabbis and imams often experience their own trials, which can be all the more tortuous given their responsibility to project confidence and stability in the face of adversity. Here, five religious leaders describe how they address doubts that are raised with them about the existence of God, even in cases where they have privately wrestled with similar concerns. 'I don't have the answer' Yitzchak Schochet, 60, rabbi of Mill Hill Synagogue, north London At the beginning of April, there was a crazy car accident that happened in New York. A car jumped a kerb on Saturday morning when a mother and her daughters were walking home from synagogue, killing her and two of the children. I flew to the funeral in Israel, and I will never forget how, in the midst of it all, the grandfather who lost his daughter and two granddaughters yelled out to me, 'Rabbi. Why does God allow this to happen?' All I could do in that moment was give him a hug. I wasn't there to even attempt an answer, because I don't have the answer, and I have to be honest enough to know that. I know that there are things that are well beyond human comprehension. To believe in God means that you believe there are things that are beyond your own understanding. But the inevitable tension is always going to be there: knowing that I will not be able to provide the answer for the question that they're asking, but at the same time, wanting to encourage them to hold on to their faith, because that's the only thing that will walk them through whatever turmoil they're undergoing. 'I'm not some kind of saviour figure' Fr Ben Bell, 50, rector of St George the Martyr, south London My church is on Borough High Street. It's really busy, just down the road from London Bridge. We've got Guy's Hospital around the corner from us so it's not uncommon for people to come into the church on their way to an appointment. They come in with all sorts of crises: relationships, work-related, homelessness. Sometimes people come and ask: 'Am I cursed?' And I can give some concrete answers to that and say, 'No, I don't believe that is the case.' But very often, my role is to be an accommodating presence for people who are going through the s--- of life. We can all be tempted, from time to time, to think that we might be able to help. I'm not some kind of saviour figure, so that's not my business. I'm also a human who is a representative of the church. The place of the church is to hold people, or to provide a space for people who are wrestling with these questions: that is exactly what the church exists for, not for people who are full of certainty. As vicars, we're certainly not superheroes, we're certainly not fixers. We're certainly not spiritual paramedics. Our role is of accompaniment and prayer. Doubt and questioning how faith breathes are all part of this thing we call 'faith'. One of the great curses of modernity is that it's taught us that faith is an individual activity, and is all about certainty. I think that faith is communal and about mystery. It's not about certainty. And I think that we've been betrayed by modernist thinking in that respect. 'My son died on his honeymoon, but I don't believe it was the will of God' Rabbi Jonathan Romain, 70, Convener of Reform Judaism's Beit Din One of my sons drowned on his honeymoon two years ago: it was devastating for me, but it was not the will of God or part of some unfathomable divine plan, but sheer bad luck. Being religious means not being derailed by it and still living life to the full. People like to have a reason for why things happen. Why did my son drown? Why did my father die of cancer? Why did my wife get killed in a car accident? Sometimes there is no good explanation. People don't like question marks, they like answers. They much prefer to have an exclamation mark to a question mark. But Judaism is very much about saying life happens, bad things happen, but let's try and make a positive change. The trouble is that sometimes there's a difference between a person's emotional response and their intellectual response. Intellectually, a lot of people will say, 'You're right: my wife's cancer was just just bad luck', but emotionally they still feel there ought to be a reason. My message is: that's not always possible, but what is possible is change. So go out and do something positive for change in your wife's memory. 'My own faith is challenged' Glynn Harrison, 75, former diocesan lay minister, Christian speaker and retired psychiatrist I've wrestled with many of the same doubts and questions that Kemi talks about. You can't be a follower of Christ and not be sensitive to suffering. But I'm now much more comfortable with the fact that not knowing the answer to something doesn't mean an answer doesn't exist. And that's the way I cope with this question of suffering and the violent clash there is between the realities of the world and the conviction that God is good. I see the terrible toll of mental illness on some people and that really challenges my own faith, because you are watching a disintegration of the self at the most profound level of who we are. That's really hard, but even so, I come back to this idea that I think I can trust that God is good. Everything else about my faith tells me that God is good. We may not know the answer, but if he's good, there's reason for trusting him. I can think of a man who could not accept the tragic death of his wife and it finished his faith. At that point, you don't come in with arguments. You sit with them. It's a time for showing the love of God rather than talking about it. Being present, listening, supporting and grieving with the person. Later, after they've seen love in action, there's the opportunity to ask where this love comes from. Does it come from blind, material forces in a cruel universe? Or, does it come from the reality that we bear the image of God himself, and therefore from him who's the author of love? 'Doubt comes from my emotional reaction to something' Fergus Butler-Gallie, 30, vicar of Charlbury with Shorthampton, Oxfordshire I don't think anyone is immune to doubt, but I think there's an arrogance to think that my doubts matter. I think God exists, whether I doubt him or not, and doubt almost certainly comes from my emotional reaction to something rather than what's actually the case. That's my attitude to my own doubts. And then, invariably, something happens to reaffirm things and makes me realise how silly those doubts are. I don't really take them intellectually seriously, I view them as an emotional response, because God is there whether I like it or not. And one morning I might not like it, but that doesn't change it from being the case.
