We should demand Taylor pork roll be called Taylor ham!
And now I’d like to make a case for calling “Taylor pork roll” by it’s original name, “Taylor’s Prepared Ham.” (HA! I said I was going to “make a case!” Get it? A “case?” Yeah? You got it? Didja? Didja get it? A “case?” Because Case pork roll, amirite?)
OK. Yes. I realize I’m waltzing into dangerous territory here. Like wearing a chum anklet in sharkinfested waters, but hear me out: By calling Taylor ham “Taylor pork roll” we are letting the man win. You know, The Man.
Here’s the deal: When John Taylor created his delightful pork product back in 1856 in Hamilton, it was called “Taylor’s Prepared Ham.” He is the originator of the delicacy, of that there is no argument. It wasn’t until 1906 that the name change occurred, and it wasn’t because his marketing department thought up a catchy new slogan or something. It was because the feds cracked down on him, and countless other food purveyors, with the Pure Food and Drug Act. Basically, the government argued that Taylor’s “ham” didn’t meet the new legal definition of what “ham” is.
Which begs the question: Were people in turn of the century America idiots? Of course Taylor “ham” wasn’t ham; despite both being pork products, one is a ham and one is wrapped in cloth and processed. You’d have to be a complete and utter schmaroon to confuse the two.
In today’s terms, it would be like the government saying you can’t call bull testicles “Rocky Mountain Oysters.” You know, because they’re not oysters. They’re bull nuts. Or the government demanding we can no longer call calf pancreas “sweetbread.” Actually, maybe the government should look into both of these, because they are a litlte misleading, but still: You get the point. (And how in holy hell do we get to “sweetbread” from calf pancreas? Anyway …)
Anyway, Taylor changed the name of his product to pork roll - much like his now and forever competitors over at Case - and the rest in New Jersey history.
Now, of course, we live through these nonsensical times when there’s actually still a “debate” about what to call generic pork roll - either you’re correct and call it “pork roll,” or you’re incorrect and call it “Taylor ham.” And you’re incorrect in so many ways, both in what you’re probably actually eating and the legal definition.
But … and this goes back to the start of the column … but maybe, just maybe, juuuuuussst mayyyybeeeee … we should start calling Taylor’s version of it Taylor ham. Of course, Taylor Provisions doesn’t call it that anymore, but as stated earlier: You want to let the man win this battle? Because if the government didn’t stick it’s stupid nose into this, today we would have Taylor ham as a legitimate brand name. This wouldn’t make north Jerseyans right, for the record: You still can’t call it Taylor ham unless you’re actually ordering Taylor ham. But a return to it’s pre-1906 roots would be pretty cool.
I mean, Taylor Provisions could blow our collective minds by putting out a retro product with the words “Taylor’s Prepared Ham” somewhere on the label. I’m sure a team of lawyers could figure out a way to make that happen without government interference. It would be a game-changer, that’s for sure.
Dare to dream, I say. Dare to dream.