Talk:Fusion cuisine

message: The wording of this article implies a sophistication and cultural superiority to Fusion-Cuisine with which I, and I would think many others, would be loath to credit it. The implication appears to be that any well-travelled cosmopolitan open to new experiences should just love fusion food. Whereas it could easily be argued that it is merely the cheap and easy appropriating of elements of different cuisines and throwing them together without any true understanding or appreciation of the background of those cuisines, simply to achieve an effect. 
This is not to say that there is not a place for the mixing of different cultural elements on plate (so to speak). This has always, and will always be an inescapable factor; otherwise we should not have potatoes in "western" cooking, nor any of a host of other ingredients. In fact, the various cuisines of India, China, Australia and many other places have largely been shaped by varying national and regional influences, like the Persian and Portuguese influences in Indian cooking. Inevitably similar developments are at work in places like California, with an ethnically diverse population. These however are natural, "organic" developments.
The type of fusion cooking suggested here seems to have been artificially put together merely as a way of populating trendy restaurants, and is somewhat reminiscent of the deep-fried Mars-bar.
Telramund 14:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The type of mixing of influences you mentioned is not, by definition, fusion cooking.  For example using your logic, the cuisines of the Eurasians in Malaysia, or cuisine of the United States at 1970 would be considered fusion cuisine but in fact they would be considered as the cuisine of one country or city or region instead.  What we are saying today is a phenomenon that as people link together, it is a radical, intentional mix of diverse culinary traditions, nothing like gradual, organic developments. --JNZ 05:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

text: No one is impressed. Is have unique. Unswine? Chensiyuan 10:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

text: ROFL x 100. Unfool you mean. Manderiko 10:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

message: * http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?start=0&q=allintitle:+fusion+cuisine&hl=en&as_sdt=2000
--222.64.223.42 (talk) 10:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wow....new term....old recipes.....Lacking of academic interest...~___^ 

message: Someone added a useful little paragraph describing an origin of the term. It needs referencing, and here's a pdf that says what the paragraph says: . It is, however, written by Mr Van Aken, so it's not independent. Presumably Regina Schrambling's report is somewhere, but I don't know where. Elemimele (talk) 14:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference for origin of the term with Norman Van Aken 

message: Fusion 117.98.4.40 (talk) 23:48, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fusion 

message: It would help if the article compared this to other forms of mixing between cuisines, such as the trans-Atlantic exchange, and explained better how this is different. As written it isn't clear why, for example, tomatoes, pasta, and potatoes in Italy don't count as something that originated as a fusion (that later became traditional). 2601:441:4900:A6E0:902E:33C8:DA7A:E95C (talk) 23:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compare to other cuisine-mixing?