Mark Joseph Antonius Knippenberg / ScepraX
In collaboration with the PseudoScience Speelgoed
Many people report that a food tastes best in the place it comes from: Gouda in the Netherlands, beer and frites in Belgium, espresso in Italy. This paper asks what is actually known about that effect, and what the PseudoScience Speelgoed can add to it. The direct claim, that the same food tastes better at its origin than abroad, has not been tested head-on. The evidence around it is strong. Telling people where a food comes from changes how it tastes to them. The place, sounds and company in which a food is eaten change ratings of it. Expectations shape perception, and they shape the brain’s response to flavour. And familiarity built through repeated exposure raises liking. Read through the Speelgoed, these findings form one mechanism. A food’s own properties (its Eigen) reach the eater only as an Echo, a lagging and imperfect percept that is shaped by the Medium it passes through and that starts from what the eater already expects. Origin information and familiarity raise the weight of the eater’s bond with the food (Trouw). The moment of “this is good” is a threshold crossing (a Vonk), which fires more strongly the further the bond clears its threshold. The mechanism also predicts when origin should lower ratings rather than raise them, and why a favourite food eaten every day stops delighting. It also points to a rival explanation the effect must be separated from: abroad, the food is often not the same food. The paper ends with a test design that could tell these accounts apart.
The observation is familiar. Gouda bought in Amsterdam and eaten in Provence seems flatter. A Belgian ale poured in London seems to lack something it had in Brussels. Frites from a Belgian frituur are said to taste different from anything sold as “Belgian fries” elsewhere.
Three different claims hide in these reports, and it matters which one is being made.
The third claim is plausible because the first two are real, but it is not yet shown. There is also a mundane reason it might be true: abroad, the food is often not the same food. Beer ages in transport, cheese is stored differently, and frites abroad are made from different potatoes in different fat. Any account of the origin effect has to separate perception from physical change (Section V).
On the Speelgoed. The PseudoScience Speelgoed is a constructed modelling language for relationships, not an empirical theory. Here it is used for two things: to organise the evidence into one mechanism, and to derive predictions that the evidence alone does not make. Where the mapping from a Speelgoed term to a measured quantity is a choice, the text says so.
The direct comparison has not been made: the same food, eater and information, at origin and abroad. Most studies use single sessions, so it is unknown how long label and context effects last. Effect sizes vary widely between studies, and location alone has produced only small effects. The famous examples (Gouda in France, Belgian beer in London) are reports, not measurements.
The Speelgoed defines a Koppel as two systems linked by a shared weight (Trouw) and two imperfect traces of each other (Echoes). An eater and a food they know are such a bond: the eater carries a long-standing relationship with the food, a Relatie. Each tasting is also a momentary act of observation, and §IV of the Speelgoed says: “Every act of observation is a Vermenigvuldiging (*) of this form.” Underneath both runs the eater’s bond with themself, the Zelf. §IV calls this layering “Maximum: stages 3, 4, and 5 at once”. A bite of a familiar food engages all three bonds at once.
The food’s Eigen is its physical make-up. For Gouda, this includes the γ-glutamyl peptides that give matured Gouda its long-lasting, mouth-filling “kokumi” sensation, which develops with ripening (Toelstede, Dunkel & Hofmann 2009; on Gouda ripening generally, van den Berg, Meijer, Düsterhöft & Smit 2004). What the eater experiences is not the Eigen but an Echo of it. The Speelgoed (§II) describes an Echo as “a lagging, imperfect impression, the way a shout comes back off a canyon wall quieter and later than it left, shaped by whatever it crossed to get back”. What it crosses is the Medium (◌), which the Lexicon defines as “the channel that makes Vertraging and Vervorming possible”: transport lag and distortion.
The Speelgoed’s Echo equation (§VIII.1) makes this precise:
τ · ḣ(t) = e(t − δ) − h(t) + υ(t)
Here e is the food’s Eigen, h the eater’s percept, δ a lag, τ a relaxation time, and υ the distortion added by the Medium. Two features of this equation correspond to the evidence.
Expectation is the starting point. A percept does not start from nothing. It starts from what the eater already carries, the expectation built from earlier tastings and from the situation (Barsalou 2003). Write that starting value as h₀. If the food’s signal is steady, the equation gives
h(t) = e + (h₀ − e) · exp(−t/τ)
The percept is a weighted blend of the expected and the actual, with the expectation’s weight fading over time. That is the assimilation model of Section II.3 in one line. The slower the relaxation (larger τ), the longer expectation dominates.
The Medium adds distortion. Noise, pressure, light, incongruent surroundings and unfamiliar company enter as υ. Each changes the percept without changing the food. The Speelgoed’s §VII states the general rule: “Two structurally identical situations diverge because their Echoes carried different distortions”.
Trouw (y) is the weight of the bond. Origin information, cultural pride, trust and the inferences carried by a label (Section II.1) all raise it. In the Speelgoed, Trouw is not fixed. It relaxes toward Gewenning (Z), which the Lexicon defines as “the accumulated resonance of a Koppel, built from repeated Echo closure” (§VIII.1):
dy/dt = ρ · (Z − y)
Read this way, a label can lift Trouw above its baseline, but the lift relaxes back toward what repeated experience has built. This is a prediction rather than a finding: label effects not backed by familiarity should fade over repeated tastings (Section VI, P4). Gewenning is also why locals discriminate their own PDO cheese and not other countries’ (Ojeda et al. 2021). Familiarity is what makes origin information count.
In the Speelgoed, the moment a bond “clicks” is a Drempel (θ) crossing. The Drempel is “a local cutoff deciding which of the spectrum’s two named poles currently applies” (§II). What crosses it is the binding B of the Relatie (§VIII.2):
B = y · (e_eater + e_food) − c · s( Echo gaps )
B rises with Trouw and with the state of both members (the eater’s hunger, attention and readiness; the food’s Eigen). It falls with the gaps between each side’s Echo and the true state. When B rises through θ, a Vonk fires, a Realisatie: the felt “this is good”. Its strength (§VIII.3) is
T = ¼ · (B − θ)²
The earlier version of this paper said the Drempel is “effectively raised” abroad. That is not how the Speelgoed works: the Drempel is a fixed local cutoff, and what changes is the binding. Abroad, Trouw may be lower and the Echo gaps wider, so B ends up closer to θ, or below it. The click is weaker, or does not come. Because the strength grows as the square of the margin, a modest drop in binding near the threshold produces a large drop in pleasure. A food that “just works” at home can fall flat abroad without anything dramatic having changed.
The binding contains a penalty for Echo gaps. When the actual food lands far from what was expected, the gap is large and B falls. If B falls through θ, the Vonk fires in the other direction, a Schok: disappointment, the smoked-salmon “ice cream” (Yeomans et al. 2008). The mechanism therefore predicts a crossover. Origin cues raise ratings when the food roughly meets the expectation they create, and lower them when it clearly does not (Section VI, P3).
In the Speelgoed, a Vonk fires on a crossing, not on a level: “A Vonk fires every time, for any Eigen-value, on any spectrum, the instant its Drempel is crossed” (§II). A food eaten daily keeps its binding above θ. The bond is strong, and Gewenning and liking stay high (Pliner 1982), but no new crossing happens, so no new Realisatie fires. This separates two things that everyday language runs together. Liking (the bond) can stay high while delight (the Vonk) fades. A food can be loved and still no longer thrill. A trip home, after time away, lets the binding drop and cross again.
When a bond ends, the Speelgoed says its Echo does not disappear: “Rouw is permanent” (§VI). An emigrant’s bond with the food of home does not end, but its everyday form does. What remains is an Echo carried without its usual Medium. The Speelgoed predicts two faces of this. The food of home, eaten abroad, can taste more meaningful, because it carries the relationship (Troisi & Gabriel 2011, Study 1). It can also taste less right, because the Medium that completed it is missing. Which face shows should depend on the eater’s state, not on the food. The comfort-food replication failure (Ong, IJzerman & Leung 2015) is a reminder that such effects may vary by culture.
The cheese’s chemistry is the same on both sides of the border if the cheese is the same (Section V). What changes is everything around it. In the Netherlands, a Dutch eater meets Gouda with decades of Gewenning, in a Medium that matches the expectation: Dutch bread, Dutch speech, the setting in which Gouda is normally eaten. Expectation and signal agree, Echo gaps are small, Trouw is high, and the binding clears the Drempel by a wide margin. In France the same eater meets the same cheese among other cheeses, with other expectations, in an unfamiliar setting. Trouw is a little lower, the gaps a little wider, and the margin smaller. The click weakens, and by the square law it weakens more than the change in binding alone would suggest. The cross-country study that comes closest (Ojeda et al. 2021) shows the familiarity part directly, though measured at home rather than abroad: consumers detected the quality of their own PDO cheese but not that of other countries’.
Here the rival explanation is strongest. Beer changes in transport and storage: oxidation and staling alter its flavour over time and with heat (Vanderhaegen, Neven, Verachtert & Derdelinckx 2006). A Belgian ale drunk in London may be an older, warmer-travelled beer than the one drunk in Brussels. Frites sold as Belgian abroad are often made from different potatoes, fried in different fat, by people who learned the method differently. So in these cases the food’s Eigen itself may differ, and the difference in taste may be partly real. The Speelgoed does not need the Eigen to be identical. It needs the two contributions, change in the food and change in the Echo, to be measured separately (Section VI).
The aircraft cabin is the clearest case of the physical Medium at work. Low pressure, dry air and engine noise change taste sensitivity directly (Burdack-Freitag et al. 2011; Rahne et al. 2018; Spence 2017). Here the Echo changes because the channel changes, with no information and no unfamiliar culture involved. It is a useful control: it shows how much a Medium can do with expectation held fixed.
The original version of this paper asserted that the food’s Eigen is “objectively identical” abroad. That is often not true, and it cannot be assumed. Exported food differs in batch, age, storage temperature, transport, serving temperature, glassware and preparation. Any observed origin effect therefore has two possible sources:
The Speelgoed predicts that both exist, and the design in Section VI separates them. Until that is done, the honest statement is that the origin effect probably combines both. How much of each depends on the food: little physical change for a sealed, stable product, and more for beer or freshly fried frites.
| Prediction | Speelgoed mechanism | What would count against it | Existing evidence | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| P1 | With the food held identical and tasted blind in a neutral room, the origin advantage shrinks to near zero. | The effect runs through the Echo (information, Medium), not the Eigen. | A large origin advantage under blind, neutral conditions. | Location alone gives small effects (Dijksterhuis et al. 2019). |
| P2 | The origin advantage is larger for locals than for visitors. | Gewenning sets the Trouw baseline. | Equal effects for locals and first-time visitors. | Locals discriminate their own PDO cheese only (Ojeda et al. 2021). |
| P3 | Origin cues raise ratings when the food meets the expectation they set, and lower them when it clearly falls short. | Small Echo gap: assimilation (Realisatie). Large gap: contrast (Schok). | Origin cues raise ratings regardless of how far the food falls short. | Smoked-salmon “ice cream” (Yeomans et al. 2008). |
| P4 | A label-only boost fades over repeated tastings unless backed by familiarity. | Trouw relaxes toward Gewenning. | Label effects that persist undiminished over many sessions without familiarity. | Untested. |
| P5 | Daily repetition lowers delight more than liking. | Vonken fire on crossings, not levels. | Delight and liking always fall (or rise) together. | Exposure raises liking (Pliner 1982); delight over repetition untested in these terms. |
| P6 | Changing the physical Medium shifts specific tastes, with expectation held fixed. | Distortion υ enters the Echo directly. | No change in taste sensitivity under cabin conditions. | Supported, with disagreement on which tastes (Burdack-Freitag et al. 2011; Rahne et al. 2018). |
A test design. Take one batch of a stable product, such as a sealed, matured Gouda, and split it. Serve it at the same temperature, in the same portions and at the same time of day, under a factorial design:
Measure expected liking before tasting, liking and attribute intensities after, and repeat over several sessions. The Speelgoed predicts:
A second arm with a transport-sensitive product, beer, should add a physical control: chemical and sensory analysis of the bottles at both ends of the journey. That separates the Eigen route from the Echo route (Section V).
The experience of food tasting best at its origin rests on effects that are real and measured. Information about origin changes taste. Context changes taste, although location alone does so only weakly. Expectations change both the experience and the brain’s response to it. And familiarity raises liking and sharpens discrimination. What has not been measured is the origin effect itself, with the food held constant. Part of what people experience abroad is very likely a different food.
The Speelgoed gathers these findings into one mechanism. A food’s Eigen reaches the eater only as an Echo shaped by the Medium and anchored in expectation. Origin and familiarity raise the Trouw of the bond. Pleasure is a Vonk that fires when the binding crosses its Drempel, with a strength that grows as the square of the margin. The same mechanism predicts when origin cues backfire, why a beloved food stops thrilling without being loved less, and why the taste of home abroad can be both sweeter and sadder. These are claims that can be tested, and Section VI says how.
The cheese does not lose its taste in France. What changes is the bond through which it is tasted, and sometimes, quietly, the cheese.
This version replaces the essay of 23 September 2026. It was rewritten from the ground up after its references were checked. Several references had incorrect authors, journals, years or page numbers, and three cited works could not be found and have been replaced with the publications that actually contain the findings. Every reference below has been checked against the publisher, a library record or the authors’ institutional repository. The main changes are:
Barsalou, L. W. (2003). Situated simulation in the human conceptual system. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18(5-6), 513-562. doi:10.1080/01690960344000026
Bryła, P. (2015). The role of appeals to tradition in origin food marketing. A survey among Polish consumers. Appetite, 91, 302-310. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2015.04.056
Bryła, P. (2017). The perception of EU quality signs for origin and organic food products among Polish consumers. Quality Assurance and Safety of Crops & Foods, 9(3), 345-355. doi:10.3920/qas2016.1038
Bryła, P. (2019). Regional ethnocentrism on the food market as a pattern of sustainable consumption. Sustainability, 11(22), 6408. doi:10.3390/su11226408
Burdack-Freitag, A., Bullinger, D., Mayer, F., & Breuer, K. (2011). Odor and taste perception at normal and low atmospheric pressure in a simulated aircraft cabin. Journal für Verbraucherschutz und Lebensmittelsicherheit, 6(1), 95-109. doi:10.1007/s00003-010-0630-y
Dijksterhuis, G. B., Kaneko, D., de Wijk, R. A., van Zoggel, M., Schiona, I., & Zandstra, L. (2019). Effects of eating context on food perception are not caused by the eating location itself. Poster, 13th Pangborn Sensory Science Symposium, Edinburgh. Wageningen University & Research
Fibri, D. L. N., & Frøst, M. B. (2020). Indonesian millennial consumers’ perception of tempe – And how it is affected by product information and consumer psychographic traits. Food Quality and Preference, 80, 103798. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2019.103798
McClure, S. M., Li, J., Tomlin, D., Cypert, K. S., Montague, L. M., & Montague, P. R. (2004). Neural correlates of behavioral preference for culturally familiar drinks. Neuron, 44(2), 379-387. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2004.09.019
Merle, A., Herault-Fournier, C., & Werle, C. O. C. (2016). The effects of indication of local geographical origin on food perceptions. Recherche et Applications en Marketing (English Edition), 31(1). doi:10.1177/2051570715626367
North, A. C., Hargreaves, D. J., & McKendrick, J. (1997). In-store music affects product choice. Nature, 390, 132. doi:10.1038/36484
Ojeda, M., Etaio, I., Valentin, D., Dacremont, C., Zannoni, M., Tupasela, T., Lilleberg, L., & Pérez-Elortondo, F. J. (2021). Effect of consumers’ origin on perceived sensory quality, liking and liking drivers: A cross-cultural study on European cheeses. Food Quality and Preference, 87, 104047. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.104047
Okamoto, M., & Dan, I. (2013). Extrinsic information influences taste and flavor perception: A review from psychological and neuroimaging perspectives. Seminars in Cell & Developmental Biology, 24(3), 247-255. doi:10.1016/j.semcdb.2012.11.001
Ong, L. S., IJzerman, H., & Leung, A. K.-Y. (2015). Is comfort food really good for the soul? A replication of Troisi and Gabriel’s (2011) Study 2. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 314. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00314
Papies, E. K., Best, M., Gelibter, E., & Barsalou, L. W. (2017). The role of simulations in consumer experiences and behavior: Insights from the grounded cognition theory of desire. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 2(4), 402-418. doi:10.1086/693110
Piqueras-Fiszman, B., & Spence, C. (2015). Sensory expectations based on product-extrinsic food cues: An interdisciplinary review of the empirical evidence and theoretical accounts. Food Quality and Preference, 40, 165-179. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.09.013
Plassmann, H., O’Doherty, J., Shiv, B., & Rangel, A. (2008). Marketing actions can modulate neural representations of experienced pleasantness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(3), 1050-1054. doi:10.1073/pnas.0706929105
Pliner, P. (1982). The effects of mere exposure on liking for edible substances. Appetite, 3, 283-290. doi:10.1016/s0195-6663(82)80026-3
Rahne, T., Köppke, R., Nehring, M., Plontke, S. K., & Fischer, H.-G. (2018). Does ambient noise or hypobaric atmosphere influence olfactory and gustatory function? PLOS ONE, 13(1), e0190837. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0190837
Schott, L., Britwum, K., & Bernard, J. C. (2022). Can region labeling alter taste impressions and willingness to pay? A field experiment with chocolate bars. Food Quality and Preference, 100, 104606. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2022.104606
Spence, C. (2017). Tasting in the air: A review. International Journal of Gastronomy and Food Science, 9, 10-15. doi:10.1016/j.ijgfs.2017.05.001
Spognardi, S., Vistocco, D., Cappelli, L., & Papetti, P. (2021). Impact of organic and “protected designation of origin” labels in the perception of olive oil sensory quality. British Food Journal, 123(8), 2641-2669. doi:10.1108/BFJ-07-2020-0596
Swahn, J., Nilsen, A., & Baptista, I. (2025). When the music stops: Crossmodal effects of sounds on taste do not explain changes in liking. Food Quality and Preference, 131, 105576. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2025.105576
Toelstede, S., Dunkel, A., & Hofmann, T. (2009). A series of kokumi peptides impart the long-lasting mouthfulness of matured Gouda cheese. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 57, 1440-1448. doi:10.1021/jf803376d
Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117(2), 440-463. doi:10.1037/a0018963
Troisi, J. D., & Gabriel, S. (2011). Chicken soup really is good for the soul: “Comfort food” fulfills the need to belong. Psychological Science, 22(6), 747-753. doi:10.1177/0956797611407931
van Bergen, G., Zandstra, E. H., Kaneko, D., Dijksterhuis, G. B., & de Wijk, R. A. (2021). Sushi at the beach: Effects of congruent and incongruent immersive contexts on food evaluations. Food Quality and Preference, 91, 104193. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2021.104193
van den Berg, G., Meijer, W. C., Düsterhöft, E.-M., & Smit, G. (2004). Gouda and related cheeses. In P. F. Fox, P. L. H. McSweeney, T. M. Cogan, & T. P. Guinee (Eds.), Cheese: Chemistry, Physics and Microbiology (3rd ed., Vol. 2: Major Cheese Groups, pp. 103-140). London: Elsevier Academic Press. doi:10.1016/S1874-558X(04)80041-1
Vanderhaegen, B., Neven, H., Verachtert, H., & Derdelinckx, G. (2006). The chemistry of beer aging – a critical review. Food Chemistry, 95, 357-381. doi:10.1016/j.foodchem.2005.01.006
Xu, Y., Hamid, N., Shepherd, D., Kantono, K., & Spence, C. (2019). Changes in flavour, emotion, and electrophysiological measurements when consuming chocolate ice cream in different eating environments. Food Quality and Preference, 77, 191-205. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2019.05.002