What's the tastiest cheese?

Kraft singles.

Maytag Blue

cheddar seems like an american meme. is it actuylla tasty? if so, how do you use it? maily for cooking or can you also eat it plain with bread like other cheese?

also, my vote goes to gruyere, brebiou and brie

The best cheese mankind has ever made is the Comté, from France. (made from cow raw milk)
The second one is Ossau-Iraty, from the Basque country, made from sheep raw milk.
Superior cheeses : raw milk.

true

I don't know if New Zealand cheddar is exactly the same as US but here it's basically an all purpose cheese available in mild and tasty (aged up to 18 months). Used by myself in pasta, pizzas (with mozzarella), sandwiches.
Pic related, it's in my fridge now along with some brie, creamy blue, and block of parmesan.

This guy gets it

>come in thread
>nobody has mentioned gouda yet
str8 plebs the lot of ya

>calls others 'plebs'
>babby's first foray into oh-so-exotic cheeses is best cheese
>probably mispronounces it as "goo-duh," anyway
You're the plebbiest of plebs, plebmeister.

I really like blue cheese, but this gorgonzola had won my heart.

it's one of those inbreds who shops at "public's" or one of those similar places that picky whitebreads consider fancy. Places like that have like twenty varieties of Gouda and like zero actual interesting cheese, it's so fucking weird

>gouda
>not one of the plebiest cheeses

Real cheddar from cheddar, England is not a meme, much nicer than American "cheddar"

There's an incredible variation in gouda for some reason. Some is scarsely more than a bland rubbery substance, and the good stuff is chock full of flavour. The stuff sold in supermarket blocks is almost always the former.
Why is this such a disproportionate problem with gouda, when other named cheese usually range from good to excellent, cutting out the not-even-cheeselike bottom end?

Cheddar can be mae anywhere, most of the best stuff is made in america (though a lot of mediocre cheddar is also made in america)

who /feta/ here

>cheddar gorge

Champagne can be made anywhere!

Just because something was named after a place doesn't mean you can only ever make it there. In fact most types of food can be made pretty much anywhere
>no thats not a cuban sandwich it was made in america!!!

In former Soviet countries, there's a carrot slaw called "Korean carrots." I think it was invented in Russia by Korean immigrants.
No one in either Korea knows what it is.

hell no. Didn't you hear about something called 'terroir' ? 'champagne' is only made in specifical areas in France because the environment is perfect for the grape variety.
Where I live (the east of france), we plant a grape variety called 'savagnin' to make 'yellow wine'.
Some people tried to plant it in other areas and it didnt work or gave bad results because the environment wasnt appropriate (i mean the quality of air, the quality of the ground etc..)

terroir is a made up marketing term. Its just used by certain food cartels to stop competition

Actually It's to protect our expertise and our products our ancestors created, against the domination of the massiv food cartels.

Do you know what a cartel is? Its when the producers of a product get together and make rules to stop competitors. It is very anti-consumer and only designed to inflate their profits. In most industries it is not allowed by law but for some reason Europeans fucking love it when it comes to a few specific forms of food

Also, I like how you say "our" as though your benefit in any way from it, but yeah, protecting expertise is just not what any free country should be pursuing, they should be trying to educate people and spread knowledge

Ask the Amerifriend about his Vidalia™ onions, which by US law can only be grown in the area in and around Vidalia, a town in the US state of Georgia, because 'the soil in the area produces sweeter onions than those grown in soil in other areas' and how that's, like, totally not the same thing as terroir.

Yeah, because every american must agree with every american law and policy. That totally makes sense

Americans have only tasted cardboard flavored vegetables from Walmart, it's no surprise they'd have trouble believing that food tastes different depending on climate and soil.

Its not the fucking 1850s, you might not be able to recreate the growth conditions everywhere, but it is fucking dumb to argue that they can not be replicated anywhere

Still not hearing a defense, friend-o.

I live in the US now. To be fair, you can get really good quality things here, too. The problem isn't that they're unavailable. The problem is that decent quality food is way more expensive in the US than foods of comparable quality in the EU, even foods exported from there to here. To say that USicans can't make products that rival or even surpass our own in quality is just wrong. To say that USicans tend not to spend money on those products, however, is absolutely true. Fuck spending $21/lb for a brie-style cheese made in Wisconsin when you can get imported French brie of the same quality for $16/lb.

>Still not hearing a defense
I'm not defending it. It is equally bad. I don't know why you would expect me to defend it

I see.

Well, I don't know how much terroir plays into it here, but I smuggled some chilli seeds from back home into the US a number of years ago. They're generally only grown in the area I'm from. Even the rest of my home country either doesn't know what they are or gets them shipped from my area because they won't grow properly elsewhere.

See, the peppers are bitter rather than pungent, but when I planted them, tended to them, grew them and harvested them, they were hot and spicy here rather than the bitter taste I was expecting.
Anecdotal, sure, but I'm curious what could have affected the flavour. Any ideas? I would assume terroir might have something to do with it, but as I'm not well-versed in this sort of thing, I can't say for sure. All the same, perhaps Vidalia onions work the same way that if planted elsewhere, they won't turn out as sweet.

I kind of assume it's like that science "experiment" kids due in elementary school, with stems of white flowers placed into vases with food dye added to the water. The colour of the flower will change according to the colour of the dye added to the vase. Or how sourdough from place A tastes unlike sourdough from place B. That sort of thing. Not knowing much about the science behind justifications for terroir, I can only make these sorts of assumptions. Do you know more?

>kids due
Err...
>kids do
Fix'd.

>Do you know what a cartel is? Its when the producers of a product get together and make rules to stop competitors. It is very anti-consumer and only designed to inflate their profits. In most industries it is not allowed by law but for some reason Europeans fucking love it when it comes to a few specific forms of food

Sorry for my english. I d like to explain my opinion in the best way but I can't because of my low level.
We clearly don't have the same definition of 'cartel'.
For me and for most of french producers of wine, cheese and meats, cartels are just a bunch of business-people whose only obsession is money. They don't give a shit about the quality of the product. Anywhere they go, they buy at the lowest price the products farmers produced and sell them at high price.
They don't understand what culture and quality mean. They don't understand how proud we are of the beautiful and tasty recipes our ancestors made, they only think about money.
It seems that you can not understand that food is about culture. When someone creates something, he registers a patent, doesn't he ? why wouldnt farmers protect their own creations ?
If we don't protect our creations, we will be the slaves of big cartels.
>Also, I like how you say "our" as though your benefit in any way from it,
yes man, it's our. Get over it and enjoy your low quality food. Oh and dont forget to thank the cartels that exploits farmers and producers and ordered them to use low quality milk and low quality recipes so that they can make big money.
'food culture" is something you will never understand.

>and sell them at high price.
I meant 'and sell people at high price'...

There is a huge difference between the guy growing or making something saying "you can only make this here, no one else can compete with me" and an individual saying one thing he grew didn't taste as good somewhere new. Even if you cannot make a specific product everywhere, it is very unlikely that it cannot be made anywhere else. The problem is this should be left up to independent consumers to decide, not the cartel currently selling the product

First post in this thread, your reply got me, 10/10

On the off chance you're serious, answer me this: just how the fuck are consumers going to decide anything, if big cartels are allowed to put whatever the fuck they please on the labels?

No one is suggesting that it's illegal to make non-malo, unoaked, mineral-driven Chardonnay. But that's just not enough now, is it? You want to be allowed to say it's from chablis, even when (a) it's from Fresno, and (b) it's not even Chardonnay

um, by buying good things?

Also recall that this discussion was about cheese. I think you should be able to call your cheddar cheddar regardless of where it is made.
A distinction must be made between placenames that have come to represent a style. No one is saying you should be able to lie about where it is made but the fact is that words like 'cheddar', and probably many wine styles do not imply to the consumer anything about the place of origin and only what style the product is made in. If you really think these names must be regulated surely you can agree it is a bad idea to let the people selling it to be in charge, Their only concern is to stop others from competing with them so they do not have to worry about quality as much

Well, that's the thing: what's wrong with labeling it as where it came from, then? As an assurance that if you buy X food from Y place that it is indeed X food from Y place and not X food from Z place or Q food for Y place?

If I wanna buy Appenzeller, I like knowing that what I'm getting is actually Appenzeller made in Appenzell and not Appenzellski made in some gulag somewhere unless the price is disparate enough to reflect that.
I buy parmichanski, a parmigiano rip-off made in Poland that's way cheaper than actual parmigiano and of only slightly lower quality.

>how the fuck are consumers going to decide anything, if big cartels are allowed to put whatever the fuck they please on the labels?
This.

No, their concern is that people will not understand why their traditional products are distinctively (by which is meant, in a specific defined way) good. The definitions are up to the locals but can be as tightly or loosely defined as desired, generally on the tighter side. If a producer thinks he can earn more by eschewing AOC/PDO status, he is free to do so, and a few have. But for the most part it's to help consumers decide, by giving them a word that actually represents a certain taste. Unlike the big cartels that just throw around buzzwords that mean absolutely nothing.

And I don't know what you mean by "buying good things", price isn't a guide to quality.

>what's wrong with labeling it as where it came from, then
Nothing at all is wrong with this. All products at least in America are required to designate country of origin. No one is advocating that people should not know where their stuff comes from. Simply that many terms, at least in the english language, that originate from placenames such as 'cheddar' have come to represent a style and do not suggest place of origin

I'm partial to Scamorza

>But for the most part it's to help consumers decide
No its fucking not. Its to stop people living outside that area from competing with them. Its simple economic protectionism, out of the mercantilism playbook

That's the thing he and I are trying to get across to you: only in your country are the words Cheddar, Gouda and Gruyère meaningless.
In the EU and its neighbours, if I buy Gouda, it's from Gouda. If I buy parmigiano-reggiano, it's from around Parma. If I buy Appeneller, it's from Appenzell.
In the US, you can call whatever you want whatever you want.

Actual conversation I had with someone recently:
>whatcha eating, user?
Edam, ham and boiled egg on blackbread. Want some?
>ugh, i hate edam
Are you sure you've had Edam before?
>yeah. i fucking hate it.
Try a small piece. You might have had some other cheese that was mislabeled as Edam.
>fine. oh, this is actually pretty good. taste kinda like cheddar, but a little sharper and creamier
Yeah, that's Edam.

Turns out, she was used to eating some knock off that was allowed to be labeled as Edam.
I'm all for labelling something as Edam or parmigiano or whateverthefuckhaveyou if it's made elsewhere if (and only if) it actually uses the same process as the original and yields a similar product. Just adjust the label accordingly: Wisconsinite/Californian Edam. I think that's fair, don't you?
However, USican food companies have fought against this sort of clear and fair labeling many, many times over. Why?

I am completely ok with quality regulations. They are often appropriate. But when you define a product on the location where the corporation that made it has its farm rather than any meaningful quality of the product you have a problem.

If the products from a specific place were in fact qualitatively better or at least unique there would be no need for such regulations as the product would speak for itself

There is no possible explanation to regulate a product on location rather than on quality other than to reduce competition

You don't really get it, it's obvious. You can't just make any old fermented grape or animal juice and get AOC status in virtue of map coordinates. It has to conform to the (trigger warning) stylistic and quality standards set by that AOC.

The idea of using words to disguise shit quality is exactly the opposite of the spirit of AOC. It's what the cartels want.

>It has to conform to the (trigger warning) stylistic and quality standards set by that AOC
Then why not apply those standards to stuff made elsewhere?
Why limit it to areas?

Why raw when you can just pasteurize the milk and eliminate the chance of getting severe food poisoning? It tastes the same.

Pretty sure the cheddar sold in Europe does not literally have to be made in the cheddar caves

I am completely ok with quality regulations. They are often appropriate. But when you ignore the unique history of the product and the native method used in the location where it originated, corporations benefit by labeling slapdash knock-offs under the same, well-established names.

If the products from any corporation were in fact qualitatively comparable to the original, there would be no need for corporations to fight against labeling regulations as the product would speak for itself

There is no possible explanation for corporations to fight against labeling laws other than to reduce competition.

The standards, under a valid new designation of its own? Or the words, with no standards other than whatever the rapacious marketers decide will sell more product? You can't seem to make up your mind.

inaccurate. have you ever tasted raw milk? I mean, this isn't even like a cola light/cola difference, this is like a VERY significant difference in taste

>Cheddar can be mae anywhere, most of the best stuff is made in america
FFS sake

I've almost had it with this board.

You lost me. Are you intentionally misunderstanding what I am saying?

>muh feeling are more important than actual quality measures

I like you you act as though the people selling what you like are not corporation and the people selling stuff you do not like are

They are all just corporations trying to beat out each other using government connections and the regulations they can draw from them. The antithesis of capitalism

>i've no rebuttal, so please allow me to change the conversation instead

Sorry you're lost

What I'm saying is that cartels arguing against truthful labeling are not doing so for the consumer's benefit, contrary to your claim.

If a product is good enough to compete with an established famous AOC, it's usually best for the producer simply to promote it under its own name. This is the information age, people learn fast.

You may be able to find a few one-off cases where a product could legitimately have stood on its own, but gets sold under a false designation of origin. But in general, it's a red flag: the product is shit, and is best avoided.

My rebuttal is that it is fucking childish to value 'tradition' over quality

That's nice
Why are multinational corporations unanimously against fair labeling laws?

No it definitely doesn't taste the same...

If the quality were identical, Kraft wouldn't fight tooth and nail to get bills on fair labeling laws thrown out. Why would they do that if "the quality should speak for itself?"

Kraft American

>What I'm saying is that cartels arguing against truthful labeling are not doing so for the consumer's benefit, contrary to your claim.
Neither side is doing it for the consumer's benefit, but the fact is that when you allow competition consumers benefit and when you stifle it with regulations consumers are screwed, thats how economics work

>If a product is good enough to compete with an established famous AOC, it's usually best for the producer simply to promote it under its own name
The problem is when the EU or other regional authorities try and appropriate general english terms for styles like cheddar. They are even trying to do it with fucking 'feta' now. Literally no one here is advocating that they should be allowed to lie about where a product is from, only that farmers should be allowed to call their product what it qualitatively is in the english language and not have to worry about some bureaucrats hundreds of miles away trying to screw them over to protect local interests. Do you seriously continue to misunderstand the distinction between english terms designating a style and place of origin?

Please note though that you are still using the term 'cartel' improperly

This post is the most accurate one.

How is saying you have to live in some obscure backwater to make a product """fair"""

Cheddar is just a delicious all purpose cheese. We put it on our burgers mostly. Extra sharp cheddar is the way to go. Of course Americans use a lot of cheeses which aren't cheddar, just everyone likes burgers and everyone likes cheddar, so it kind of reigns supreme.

>allow competition
Is the purpose of said competition to improve the quality of the goods? Or is it just to have a winner (mondelez) and a loser (quality producers, and all consumers)?

Because lying on a label is going to help the latter, at the expense of the former.

>Is the purpose of said competition to improve the quality of the goods
Thats the cool thing about economics, it doesn't matter what everyone involved's motives are, competition works to the consumer's advantage

>Because lying on a label
You keep saying this as though it is something someone here is advocating

You must have learned economics from buzzfeed. I recommend Principles of Economics by Mankiw, it's a bit more complicated than you make it out to be.

Yes, that someone is (You)

Is there any case where economic protectionism has helped consumers? It literally only helps the corporations being protected

Is there a case where sellers using their monopoly power to hide information from buyers made markets more efficient, instead of just enriching one party at the expense of pricing efficiency?

Do you understand what history is? Are you being intentionally dense? Do you think this kind of banal sophistry reflects an intelligent mind?

>Is there a case where sellers using their monopoly power to hide information from buyers
Thats literally what you are advocating for

What does history have to do with anything here?
You should only be allowed to make something if some guy who lived near your current location was known for making a product?

Even though that guy moved to America and brought all his history and tradition with him?

No one is saying you have to live in an obscure backwater to make a product fair. People are saying that if the quality were identical, Kraft and Sargento wouldn't be against labeling "Californian Edam" on their Californian Edam.
The fact is, CA Edam doesn't taste anything like the real stuff and many people have bought it, liked or disliked it, then had the opposite position when trying the original.
I like both the CA version and the original, but they're different enough from one another (CA tastes kinda like provolone crossed with cheddar while the original just tastes like cheddar on its own, just creamier) that one shouldn't be passed off as the other and, rather, should be labeled to differentiate it.

Isn't that fair to consumers, corporations, farmer's co-ops and everyone else alike? Why are the only people arguing against that sort of labeling the big-name corporations? Keep in mind, these are the same corporations who use a loophole in the original 1966 labeling laws avoid labeling honey shipped to the US from other countries but packed in their individual containers in Missouri as being from China or wherever the fuck. The same ones that were fighting against transfat labeling in the early 2000s, against nutrition labeling in fastfood restaurants in the later 2000s and GMO labeling today.

C'mon, friend: let's call a spade a spade here.

>no U
Acting like an idiot isn't helping your position.

You specifically bring up monopolies, which is the exact opposite of what I have been arguing for. When you advocate for cartels being able to set restrictions about who can make their product, you are directly advocating for the problems brought about by monopoly

Or you could just label stuff based on what it qualitatively is

I don't know how many times you want me to repeat that I am not advocating for the ability of companies to be able to label their product as something that it isn't, only that the labels should be based on the qualities of the product, not where the guy who made it lives

You keep trying to claim that printing words on a sticker is the same thing as making a product to a certain standard.

Guess who stands to gain from being allowed to do that?

Protip: it's Kraft, Gallo, and all the other peddlers of shitfoods.

>being anti-GMO too
Should we label food based on whether the animals were vaccinated too? Fuck you an your anti-science pandering. Its fucking shameful that people like you exist

>You keep trying to claim that printing words on a sticker is the same thing as making a product to a certain standard.
Why do you keep misrepresenting my argument? I never said that at all.
One last time, I am advocating for the proper usage of terms based on qualitative measures. If you make good cheddar, you should be able to call it cheddar no matter where you are from. I clearly never said you should be able to call something that isn't cheddar as such

>but the fact is that when you allow competition consumers benefit and when you stifle it with regulations consumers are screwed, thats how economics work.
How can you be so naive ?
>Neither side is doing it for the consumer's benefit
You think in the wrong way. There are still countries on earth whose people are perfectionists and who love to produce their own products in a great quality to please people.
Cartels dont care about quality. They just want to buy the label and make the farmer produce shitty products in low quality.

So let me see if I can represent your argument in a way that you find acceptable.

It doesn't matter what's printed on labels, because consumers can have every product subjected to laboratory tests to avoid having to depend on the words printed on the label. Anyone who thinks this is absolutely ridiculous is an anti-science, gommunist protectionismist who just didn't pay attention in economics.

Y/N?

So you are just gonna argue that economics doesn't work because you say so. Fuck the entire human understanding of economics?
>Cartels dont care about quality
You are literally advocating for cartels when you favor protectionism over an open market. Stop using this term incorrectly

Life long leicester fan here.

>It doesn't matter what's printed on labels
I am not going to respond to you anymore unless you stop trying to move the goalposts. I don't know how I could more clearly state that I think the labels should reflect the quality of the product rather than your feelings about where it was made

>Cartesian coordinates are just feelings
Yes and quality is a social construct

This is what Walmart customers ACTUALLY believe

As I said before, we don't have the same definition of cartel. Your opinion about economics is your opinion, not everyone s else.
If you think a cartel means an organisation between farmers who produce milk and cheese makers who use the milk farmers produced to make cheese, then yes, I agree you. it is a cartel.
if the farmers and cheese makers or else don't ally and establish specifications, then big corporations will enslave them.
Protectionism and AOC are the only way to stop big corporations to enslave producer and consumer.
Corporations care only about money, producer care much about quality.