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 up the issue 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 the 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 provoked 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'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
19 minutes ago
- BBC News
Public consultation on radioactive waste left at nuclear site
The public have been asked whether radioactive waste should be left behind after the decommissioning of a nuclear Restoration Services Ltd (NRS), which runs the Winfrith nuclear site in Dorset, wants to flatten the buildings and return it to publicly accessible has asked the Environment Agency (EA) for permission to bury some of the demolition waste, part of which will emit a low level of it makes a decision, the EA has asked for the public to share their views on the request in a consultation, which ends on 5 September. The NRS is following the EA's Guidance on Requirements for Release from Radioactive Substances site was active between 1959 and 1992 and some of its underground floors and walls have a low level of radioactive of the waste that will be used to fill the sub-surface structure will also be low-level radioactive company said it would not be importing any waste to site from other has applied to change its Radioactive Substances Regulations environmental permit, which would give it permission to bury the radioactive has also applied for Deposit for Recovery Environmental Permit, which would allow it to bury non-radioactive Coble, EA nuclear regulation group south manager, said: "We will only vary the radioactive substances permit if we believe that harm to the environment, people and wildlife will be minimised. "If the applicant can demonstrate that the varied permit will meet all of the legal requirements, including those for the use of Best Available Techniques, public radiation dose and wildlife radiation dose, then we are legally obliged to grant the application." You can follow BBC Dorset on Facebook, X (Twitter), or Instagram.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Dear Vix: My partner wants an open relationship and I don't
Dear Vix, My husband and I have been together for years – since we were at university together. We've been through a lot: family bereavement, illness, even miscarriage. We've had our share of rocky moments – including infidelity. But, we've come through it, and (so I thought) we're now stronger than ever. But my husband has thrown a grenade into our marriage. He says we've been together so long that we should trust each other completely, by now – enough to 'open up' our relationship. He explains it as a way to satisfy the natural curiosity we all have about sleeping with other people – but in a safe and secure environment. He says that rather than making me feel jealous, it should reassure me, because I never have to worry about him cheating. He'd be doing it with my consent and within our rules. He makes me feel like I'm not being open-minded enough to give it a try. Some of what he says is quite convincing, but I don't feel convinced. In fact, I feel sick. I can't imagine knowing he's out on a date and waiting up for him to get home. I'd absolutely hate it. He says he wouldn't mind if I did it – but what does that say? That he doesn't care enough about me to hate the thought of me being with other men? I don't know much about polyamory, but I do know that whatever this is, I don't like it. At all. Uncool Dear Uncool, Polyamory is a relationship style (or orientation) that suits some people, but not others. It is a deeply personal choice. Nobody can – or should – make that choice for you. And all I'm concerned about here, reading your letter, is the fact that you don't like the idea. That it makes you feel sick. That you don't feel convinced (and I am quite concerned by the words 'convincing' or 'convinced'. It suggests that your husband is impressing this decision on you and trying to talk you round). You say you feel hurt by the idea that your husband wouldn't mind you being with other men. That you would abhor waiting up, knowing he was out on a date with another woman. And I want you to know that those feelings are completely valid. I have a pet theory that since polyamory, throuples and open relationships have exploded into social consciousness, thanks to the plethora of TV programmes about it (see: Channel 4's Open House: The Great Sex Experiment, as just one example) and a greater number of poly people sharing their stories, it's become something that some people feel they should be doing. There seems to be a prevailing misperception amongst daters or couples that if you want to show you are open-minded and trust your partner, you should probably give polyamory a try. In truth, it's much, much more complex than that. Being non-monogamous isn't usually a one-off experiment, but a relationship style (and some poly people reject the term 'lifestyle', declaring it an orientation, instead). It's not just a 'my husband and I went to a swingers' party once ' – though, of course, it's fine to try things to see if it suits you – but a complete adaptation to the way you approach your relationships. Polyamory is not for everyone. And that's OK! Some of us know to our core that we are not polyamorous and have no interest in being in a non-monogamous relationship. And I don't think you should feel ashamed (or face accusations of not being 'open-minded') if you are one of them. What I'm a little more worried about is whether your husband is open to listening to your feelings about this. And whether he'll respect your decision not to open up your relationship if you decide you don't want to. I'd also be extremely interested to talk to him to find out what is driving his interest in ethical non-monogamy – is it sex? Is it a specific desire he doesn't think you'd be into? How does he think it would enhance your lives and make them better? How is he feeling currently – and is it related to making him want 'more'? There's no harm – and only gain – in talking things over and learning about each other. But one thing that is truly vital is that he respects your 'no' (if that is what it is) fully and unequivocally, as he should. You must not feel pressured to do anything you don't want to do. If he takes your 'no' as a 'maybe' and leans on you to change your mind, I'd be looking for a new relationship style altogether: one that doesn't involve him.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
This is the right way to eat toast – according to an etiquette expert
There's not a lot we can all agree on in this vexing and violent world but surely one thing is the inherent decency of toast. The quintessential form of comfort food, a convenient grab-and-go breakfast and, when served with smashed avocado, a brunch so moreish and aspirational that it denied an entire generation the chance to own a property. In fact, not to overstate things, but the very history of civilisation was served with a slice of toast. The word itself is derived from the Latin tostum or torrere, meaning to burn or to scorch. But it wasn't just the Romans who warmed bread before an open flame. In ancient Egypt, stale bread was toasted to make it more palatable and long-lasting and it's said the pyramids were built on stomachs nourished with toasted flatbreads. Here in the UK, toast is especially important, a cultural barometer in our shared history. It tells us about class, identity, money, technology. When British society changes, our taste in toast changes with it. How you take yours reveals a lot about who you are and where you come from. Warm or cold? White or brown? Butter or marg? Triangles or squares? Crusts: on or off? However, it seems some toast traditions have held firm; in a recent Letter to the Editor, Telegraph reader Bryony Hill from Hurstpierpoint, West Sussex, made the point that television period dramas – ostensibly Outrageous, the most recent retelling of the Mitford Sisters' lives – failed to adhere to how the upper classes consume toast. Indeed, so intrigued were we to understand the polite way to consume this breakfast item, we called on etiquette coach William Hanson to offer a gentle guide: 'You're probably eating your toast completely incorrectly,' he concedes. First is the question of the bread itself. 'To make proper toast, you should have stale bread and therefore you need to have proper bread,' says Dr Neil Buttery – his real name, I swear it – host of the British Food History podcast. The problem with today's highly processed, long-lasting loaves, he says, is that they have too much water in them. 'It goes mouldy before it goes stale.' Buy something fresh from the baker and give it a day or two before you put it in the toaster – or the grill, as Delia Smith still prefers. Then consider how you cut your toast and present it at the table. ''Posh' toast is often square and has the crusts removed in the kitchen,' explains Hanson. 'Middle-class toast is triangular, and 'common' toast is rectangular – both with the crusts left intact.' Once the shape is decided, then comes the act of preparation. 'What a lot of people seem to do with their toast is they slather the butter, jam, the marmalade, whatever they're having, and eat it all in one go, perhaps in a rush,' he surmises, having clearly been witness to a weekday breakfast in a bog-standard British household once or twice in his life. 'Instead, the slightly more sophisticated way to eat toast is to slow it right down and do it just like a bread roll with butter, chunk by chunk.' More on what comes next later, but it's gratifying to know that this level of precision has been applied to toast for many years. 'To set but a low value upon toast is to expose one's deficiencies in right appreciation,' wrote the humorist EV Lucas in his 1906 essay A Word On Toast. The essay reveals that the British have been arguing about toast for at least 120 years. In it, Lucas takes issue with an earlier piece in The Spectator, published 30 years prior. 'True toast,' it had written, 'is classical — severe… Toast, we need not say, should be thin, crisp, wafer-like, as well as embrowned, fresh and hot. Thick toast with solid fleshy bread between the embrowned surfaces is a gross and plebeian solecism; for the true intention of toast, its meaning or raison d'etre, is to extinguish the foody, solid taste which belongs to bread, and to supply in its place crisp, light, fragrant, evanescent, spiritualised chips of fare, the mere scent and sound of which suggest the crisp, pleasant, light chat of easy morning or evening conversation.' Perhaps you can tell, but around this time, in the Victorian era, toast had become a signifier of civility. Good bread meant well-bred. With the invention of the electric toaster still decades in the future, toast was prepared with an open flame, a small toasting fork and no small amount of skill. Lucas writes that men prized their ability to toast bread in much the same way that modern men boast of their skills at the barbecue. 'I've had a go myself and it is really quite difficult,' says Buttery. 'You have to dry the bread out completely all the way through to have even, golden sides.' In the great houses of Britain, this was often done by the staff, of course, presented at the table in silver toast racks, alongside butter knives, marmalade spoons and other trappings of genteel living. And it's at these grand breakfast tables where notions of toast etiquette emerged. To eat toast in the proper manner, says Hanson, certain equipment is needed. A toast rack to prevent sogginess, several items of cutlery to prevent cross-contamination and naturally, a plate. We're not savages, after all. He then goes on to illustrate how the toast and individual portions of butter and condiment are to be placed on the plate – crucially with separate cutlery – before anything else can take place. 'Now we get on to the fun bit of adding the butter and the jam onto the piece of toast,' he explains, adding that there are two ways of doing this. 'Using a clean knife, we can either just do a little portion and place some jam on top, pick it up and then eat. Or, just like a bread roll, we can break a small bite-sized piece off and then add the butter and the jam.' According to Buttery, this breaking of bread in the hand rather than the mouth is an edict that goes back centuries. 'It's bad manners to bite into some bread or toast and show your teeth. It goes back to the Middle Ages and maybe even further, but you certainly see it in all sorts of etiquette guides from the 18th and 19th century. Never bare your teeth. I guess it's just a bit animalistic.' If that's the case, perhaps we're all animals now. The first electric toaster was invented in 1893, although pop-up styles that toast multiple pieces of bread concurrently were not commonplace until at least the 1950s. With mass production came (literally) sloppy standards. Toast drenched in butter or margarine (more likely as the decades went by) was a staple of 20th-century school canteens and greasy-spoon cafes. 'As a kid, we'd have to have Stork margarine on our toast,' Buttery says. 'But my mum kept the butter on the top shelf where only she could reach it. Butter was always considered quite an upper-class thing.' Beans on toast apparently became a popular dish after Heinz marketed it as such in the 1920s, although the rationing of the Second World War cemented its status on our collective breakfast menu. But this only soggied our toast even further. 'The noise from toast should reverberate in the head like the thunder of July,' Lucas wrote back in 1906. Perhaps that's something we can all agree on: we need to get our bite back.
