I don't think this is a particularly new problem. And it mostly stems from two groups: people in my end of the business, who don't understand the terms they are using; and poorly trained chefs who think food writers know what they're talking about. Then, like topsy, it just grows.
What happens, far too often, is that they take the technique or approach used in a specific dish, and apply the name to anything using that technique.
I was, for instance, in a chain restaurant about a year ago that has a whole covey of Eggs Benedict variations---when the fact is, Eggs Benedict refers to a very specific assemblage of ingredients. Anything else may use the same approach, but it's a different dish.
Then there's the problem of trying to apply a familiar name to a different technique. My personal teeth-gnasher is when they say, "saute in wine (or juice, or water)." Bzzt! Wrong! Thanks for playing! To saute means to cook quickly in a little oil. Cooking in a little water may or may not be healthier; but it is not sauteing. Similarly, any sauce made by reducing something and adding butter to it has now become a beurre blanque (one of these days I will learn how to spell that). And to get real trendy, anything with either gin or vodka is now a martini. Yeah, right!
Part of the problem, too, is that there's a poorly educated consumer who has heard these terms, seen them misused on the Food Network and in magazines, and thinks he knows what they mean. And when he goes to a restaurant, he expects to see them on the menu. If he sees a menu item listing "carpaccio of poached celeraic with bernaise sauce," he doesn't think, "hey, there's no such thing." He thinks, "hey, didn't Bobby Flay just make something similar." And happily orders it.
So, I don't think, in general, that most chefs are using these terms to intentionally mislead. I think they're dealing with the unfortunately reality of meeting their customers' expectations.  |