For the half-year to 30 June 2014, the IPKat's regular team is supplemented by contributions from guest bloggers Alberto Bellan, Darren Meale and Nadia Zegze.

Two of our regular Kats are currently on blogging sabbaticals. They are David Brophy and Catherine Lee.

Wednesday, 27 August 2008

No mercy in Bakewell for those who fake well


The IPKat failed to notice earlier in the month this piece in the Telegraph. It seems that a group of cake lovers, led by the owner of the Old Original Bakewell Pudding Shop, are petitioning the EU (surely that should be DEFRA?) to grant the Bakewell Pudding protection as a geographical indication. The Bakewell consists of pastry, jam and almond filling and is reputed to have been created by accident in the 19th Century.

Said Ms Pheasy, owner of the shop:

"We want to protect the pudding's heritage...We are declaring what our recipe is, what goes into it, how it is made, taste, shape, colour, everything, just to specify this is how it is made."

The IPKat (whose culinary skills extend only to that other geographical cake - the Linzer Torte) isn't impressed. Every cake cookbook worth its salt has a recipe for the Bakewell (as does Mr Kipling), so it seems a bit late to specify the exact requirements of its 'heritage'. On a more philosophical note, surely evolution of the recipe is part of its heritage too?

8 comments:

Hastings Guise said...

Having been in Bakewell for high tea this Sunday, I wonder if the IPKat is a bit too swift to dismiss this one.

Bakewell Puddings are quite distinct from Bakewell Tarts. The latter are much more widespread and include the Mr Kipling version. Bakewell Puddings, however, do seem to still be a local speciality and I am not aware of them being mass-produced elswhere. So there may still be hope for GI status.

We will wait the outcome with anticipation.

Hastings

Anonymous said...

I defy the IP Kat to buy a Bakewell Pudding outside Bakewell. The rubbish peddaled by Mr Kipling is a completely different type of cake.

As for the availability of recipes in cook books: so what? Are you suggesting a recipe must be secret to be protectable?

Takewell Bart said...

No less authoritative a source than Wikipedia declares that 'Bakewell Pudding' is just another name for 'Bakewell Tart':
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakewell_tart

Anonymous said...

Is Wikipedia that authoritative ? I think it has a better chance than the Cornish Pasty reported on some weeks ago.

Chris Hemingway said...

I remember seeing a local news article recently where the shop owner was talking about this, and confirmed that bakewell puddings are not the same as bakewell tarts.

Ilanah said...

No, not that a recipe has to be secret to be protectable - rather than it's difficult to say that authentic versions can only be produced in a particular region if people have been churning things out under that name for decades in their kitchens from Southend to Dundee. I think the issue is even clearer when one things about Cornish pasties, which are more prolific I think (and don't have the pie/tart debate), but which have just been recommended to the Commission for GI .

Anonymous said...

Wikipedia is plain wrong. It even has a picture of a Bakewell Pudding which clearly is completely different to the picture of the Bakewell Tart (actually a Cherry Bakewell).

One difference, of the top of my head, is that the pudding is made with puff pastry.

Perhaps someone could look in these recipe books and find out whether in fact the recipes are for tarts or puddings, regardless of the name given.

Reminds me of all the fuss about Feta. Yorkshire Feta had been made commercially for quite some time before they were forced to change when the GI status came along. Some people even say it is better.

twr57 said...

The UK is a signatory to the Biodiversity Convention. Accordingly it is obliged by Article 8j thereof to:
subject to its national legislation, respect, preserve and maintain knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities embodying traditional lifestyles relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity and promote their wider application with the approval and involvement of the holders of such knowledge, innovations and practices and encourage the equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the utilization of such knowledge, innovations and practices

Clearly the inhabitants of Bakewell are local, and clearly the traditional lifestyle of at least some of them involves knowledge and use of biological diversity (eggs, sugar, butter and almonds), probably sustainably. Accordingly the Government has a duty to respect, preserve and maintain Bakewell tarts and puddings. There is also a duty to encourage wider application with the approval and involvement of the holders of such knowledge . This is typically interpreted generously, as including the obligation to prevent such application without the approval (and involvement) of the holders.

Previous wide dissemination of the knowledge is not generally accepted as an excuse for ignoring this provision. Rather it is seen as an aggravation of the wrong done to the holders of the knowledge.

Accordingly I suggest that (as a minimum) the UK is obliged to support a GI for Bakewell tarts and puddings.

Subscribe to the IPKat's posts by email here

Just pop your email address into the box and click 'Subscribe':