Abstract

This paper examines how culinary heritage shapes tourism experiences and cultural identity in Lithuania. It argues that taste is not merely a sensory encounter but a powerful narrative medium through which tourists and locals engage with place. Drawing on recent scholarship in cultural tourism and heritage studies, the analysis traces how Lithuanian culinary traditions once confined to family and ethnographic contexts have been rearticulated in tourism via educational workshops, gastronomic festivals, and international networks. The paper interrogates the tension between authenticity and commercialization, showing how gastronomic experiences oscillate between ontological heritage practices and constructed, market driven simulations. The Lithuanian case offers insights into culinary tourism as a site of identity negotiation, cultural diplomacy, and sustainable development. The study concludes with a call for more participatory, community rooted approaches to integrating culinary heritage in tourism policy and practice.

Keywords:Cultural identity; Culinary heritage; Culinary tourism; Authenticity; Narrative capital; Lithuanian heritage

Introduction

Taste, as both a sensory and symbolic experience, plays a vital role in expressing cultural identity and is one of the most authentic manifestations available to tourists. In an increasingly globalized world where cultural practices are often homogenized and commodified, authentic taste gains significance as a means for travelers to engage with a destination not only visually, but through multisensory and emotional modalities. In this context, taste operates as a medium of identity expression, relevant both for the traveler who consumes it and for the community that produces and communicates it.

Cooking and eating practices are not only symbolic but also tangible ways that ethnic identities are preserved, even among migrant communities in multicultural societies [1]. Culinary heritage has thus emerged as a central component of cultural tourism worldwide. Tourism studies indicate that most travelers consider local food an essential part of their experience for example, 84% of inbound visitors to Lithuania reported actively seeking local cuisine [2]. This trend reflects the growing view of food as both nourishment and an expression of place-based identity. As [3] observes, food culture has been embraced by nation‑states as a “cultural commodity that is linked to national, regional, or local prestige” and as a catalyst for “promoting tourism, investment, and exports” [4]. In this sense, culinary heritage functions as a form of soft power: its recognized attractiveness draws visitors and reinforces a destination’s image. Indeed, culinary heritage is more than a collection of historic recipes or traditional dishes. It is a socially embedded system conveying collective memory, regional distinctiveness, and cultural value frameworks. Within the tourism sector, this heritage becomes both a marketing asset and a communication channel through which culture is experienced via taste. In Lithuania, this topic is of increasing importance as local products, seasonal dishes, and regional specialties gain prominence; gastronomic tourism is now considered a growing niche in the country’s tourism strategy [5].

Nevertheless, critical questions emerge how does taste function as a signifier of cultural identity in tourism? Does Lithuania’s culinary heritage authentically reflect its unique localculture, or is it being reshaped by the global tourism market? This article examines how culinary heritage and taste intersect in identity formation for both local communities and visiting tourists. By investigating the Lithuanian case, the study seeks to illuminate broader dynamics of food, identity, and tourism in a globalized era, and to propose ways of integrating culinary heritage into tourism sustainably and meaningfully.

The Aim of the Article

to analyses the peculiarities of Lithuanian culinary heritage in the context of cultural tourism.

Research Questions

Research Questions

I. In what ways can taste be conceptualized as a marker of cultural identity in tourism contexts?

II. Which dimensions of culinary heritage are emphasized or reinterpreted in Lithuanian tourism?

III. How do taste cent red tourism experiences contribute to the construction and communication of cultural identity?

Theoretical Framework: Identity, Taste, and Culinary Heritage

Cultural identity

The term identity derived from the Latin idem, meaning “the same” is widely used to denote essential traits and distinctiveness. In general, identity refers to the characteristics of a person, group, or place that differentiate them from others. Scholars have offered numerous definitions of identity or selfhood Table 1, highlighting that identity is not fixed or innate but is constructed through social experience and narrative. Table 1 presents a few selected definitions of identity from the literature, illustrating both individual and collective dimensions.

As these definitions suggest, identity is dynamic and continuously reconstructed through social interaction. By recognizing one’s social, ethnic, religious, and cultural affiliations, individuals engage in a lifelong process of self-definition intertwined with historical memory and heritage. One important feature of identity is that it is not given once and for all; it remains in a constant state of creation and change. Individuals organize multiple facets of identity (social, ethnic, national, etc.) into an overall identity structure that evolves through ongoing socialization and experience.

Discussing collective identity (such as the identity of a nation or community) is even more complex. As [6] notes, national identity encompasses countless individuals and is defined on the scale of historical time, measured not only by generational change but also by political upheavals, cultural shifts, and other historical discontinuities. Kuzmickas distinguishes two fundamental levels of national identity [6]:

I. Objective (external): This includes tangible elements like language, material culture, monuments of the past, and historical events or circumstances that have shaped the nation’s existence. These outward “objective” markers carry layers of a nation’s experience, which may be forgotten and later revived over centuries. Notably, culinary heritage can be viewed as part of this objective identity level. However, such cultural artefacts do not by themselves testify to a nation’s identity only when they are actively remembered, interpreted, and valued by people do they become imbued with identity significance.

II. Subjective (internal): This level comprises the internal self-awareness of the nation’s national consciousness, values, and shared mentalities. It manifests in forms of collective consciousness such as philosophical reflections, historiography, cultural and political attitudes, religious worldviews, and collective images or “visions” that give meaning to the nation’s existence. In other words, it is the realm of beliefs and attitudes through which a community interprets and gives significance to the objective cultural elements.

A full and vital identity, according to Kuzmickas, emerges only when the objective and subjective aspects form a harmonized unity. In this view, identity is a dialogue between material culture and conscious interpretation. We can infer that culinary heritage, to contribute to national or group identity, must be both preserved as a cultural practice (objective) and consciously valued and interpreted (subjective) by the community.

Heritage in general is thus a key component of identity formation. It is not static; heritage and identity co evolve in response to present needs and contexts. Identity provides heritage with contemporary meaning, while heritage affirms identity’s historical roots. A model by [7] similarly demonstrates that heritage and identity overlap and can be both traditional and modern: beliefs and customs (identity elements) are embedded in intangible heritage and continuously negotiated by communities. In short, identity whether individual or collective emerges from an active engagement with cultural heritage over time.

Culinary Heritage and Taste

Research increasingly shows that food and identity are intimately linked. Culinary traditions can serve as powerful tools for understanding politics, society, and even international relations. For example, scholarship on food and nationalism argues that everyday acts of cooking and eating help “create, give meaning to and maintain” a sense of nationhood. [8] concept of banal nationalism the subtle daily reproduction of national consciousness has been applied to food by [9], who illustrate how routine food practices (like preparing traditional dishes or sharing holiday meals) reinforce national identity. Rather than viewing a national cuisine as a static collection of historic recipes, contemporary perspectives emphasize that culinary nationalism (or Gatornationals) is a dynamic, contested process. Food is simultaneously personal, social, and political: it is entwined with celebrations, memories, and even health beliefs, making it integral to identity preservation. As such, what people eat and how they eat it serves as an active marker of identity continuously shaped by history and globalization.

At a global level, intangible cultural heritage frameworks have elevated the importance of food as heritage. UNESCO explicitly recognizes culinary practices as a form of intangible cultural heritage. Since the 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage, several traditional foodways have been inscribed on UNESCO’s Representative List (for example, the Mediterranean diet, the French gastronomic meal, and traditional cuisines of Mexico, Japan, and Korea). Such inscriptions underscore that safeguarding culinary practices is seen as preserving community identity on a world stage. Scholars note that the heritagization of food often serves as a tool of nation branding and cultural diplomacy at the national level, while at regional and local levels, it can sustain community identity and economic livelihoods. As [4] observes, food heritage initiatives operate in dual modes: they contribute to external image building and soft power and simultaneously bolster internal cultural continuity and pride.

To clarify what constitutes intangible culinary heritage, Table 2 summarizes formal definitions from UNESCO and Lithuanian cultural authorities. These definitions highlight that intangible heritage encompasses not only recipes or dishes but also the knowledge, skills, and traditions that surround food and give it cultural meaning.

UNESCO guidelines emphasize that safeguarding heritage means ensuring its vitality, not freezing it in time. Traditions need to be continuously practiced and transmitted to remain meaningful. Intangible heritage encompasses oral traditions, performing arts, social rituals, knowledge about nature, and traditional craftsmanship, and notably includes elements like language, food, festivals, and culinary practices. In contrastto tangible heritage (physical objects and places), intangible heritage lives in activities and knowledge passed from generation to generation. For example, food heritage involves not only the dishes themselves but also the techniques of preparation, the rituals of serving and consuming, and the agricultural practices behind ingredients. In Lithuania’s case, the act of baking dark rye bread in a clay oven, the brewing of mid-summer festival beverages, or the making of special dishes for ritual occasions are all elements of culinary heritage that have been handed down through generations. Because culinary heritage is so often transmitted within families and local communities, it is strongly tied to social memory. Recipes and food customs become part of a community’s collective memory and identity.

Crucially, although food heritage evolves as communities adapt recipes or cooking methods over time, it tends to retain an aura of authenticity and tradition. This authentic character is highly attractive to tourists who are seeking a “real” or distinctive local culture. In other words, visitors often perceive traditional foods as tangible symbols of a place’s authenticity.

Pierre Bourdieu’s (1984) seminal work on taste further illuminates the link between taste and social identity. Bourdieu argued that taste (in food, art, and lifestyle) is socially conditioned and functions as a form of cultural capital. What people eat, how they eat, and even what they consider “tasty” are shaped by their social background and can signal their socio-economic status [10]. Building on this foundation, contemporary researchers situate taste within the fields of tourism, heritage studies, and identity formation. Taste is not purely a matter of individual physiology or preference; it is also a cultural construct that reflects collective values, social hierarchies, and historical experience.

[11] asserts that culinary heritage today has become a strategic expression of cultural identity in tourism. In this context, taste serves as a bridge between past and present, and between locals and visitors. Embodied in taste, culinary heritage offers not just a representation of authenticity but also a narrative experience that tourists can literally “consume”. From an identity perspective, taste can be seen as an embodied form of cultural memory: flavors and dishes evoke stories, traditions, and a sense of belonging. [12], drawing on Proustian ideas of memory, conceptualizes taste as a kind of intangible heritage capable of transmitting both personal memories and collective identities. These “taste memories” become powerful tourism experiences when travelers seek not only to visit physical sites but also to encounter emotionally resonant and symbolically meaningful foods.

Empirical studies in tourism support the idea that authentic food experiences can deepen engagement and even influence traveler behavior. For instance, [13] demonstrated that experiencing authentic local cuisine positively affects tourists’ likelihood of revisiting a destination. This is not merely due to the food’s quality, but because travelers feel they have recognized or connected with the destination’s identity through taste. In the terminology of [14], destinations cultivate a “taste scape,” wherein taste, place, and identity converge to shape the visitor experience. In such a taste scape, food functions not just as a product to consume, but as a carrier of narrative telling the story of a place and its people and as a locus of personal or collective identity formation.

Questions of authenticity inevitably arise in this interplay of food, identity, and tourism. What do visitors perceive as an “authentic” taste of a place, and how do these perceptions align with local realities? Scholars have noted that the authenticity of food tourism is often a negotiated construct. For example, a semiotic analysis by [15] of culinary heritage in Venice argues that authenticity is defined less by the purity of an unchanged tradition and more by symbolic recognizability in other words, how well a food aligns with tourist expectations of a culture. This perspective applies to the Lithuanian context as well, where certain dishes or food experiences might be curated to meet the image that visitors have of “traditional Lithuania.” Modern culinary tourism operates in a global consumer economy that actively commodifies authentic taste as a selling point. As [16] notes, there is a constant search for “otherness” in food tourism tourists seek novel and exotic flavors, yet this pursuit is deeply entangled with marketing. The result is that “authentic” taste can itself be commodified and packaged into a consumable product, potentially distancing it from its original context or meaning.

In summary, taste in tourism is far more than a matter of flavor, it is a medium through which cultural identity is communicated and consumed. Culinary heritage, when mobilized in tourism, operates on multiple levels: it is an economic resource, a performative experience, a form of narrative or storytelling (imbued with what Masmoudi calls narrative capital), and a field of negotiation between authenticity and adaptation. The theoretical perspectives above set the stage for examining how these dynamics play out in practice, particularly in the case of Lithuania.

Culinary Tourism and Culinary Heritage

Culinary tourism is broadly defined as travel primarily motivated by experiencing the food and culinary heritage of a destination. This includes activities such as dining at local restaurants, visiting food markets, attending food festivals, touring farms or vineyards, and participating in cooking classes. As a form of cultural tourism, culinary tourism allows visitors to learn about a place’s culture and history through food. [17] influential definition frames culinary tourism as encountering “foods new to [the traveler]” and using food to explore new cultures and ways of life [2]. In this sense, food serves as a lens for understanding local ways of life and a gateway to experiencing “other” cultures. Unlike the incidental act of eating while travelling, gastronomy tourism involves a conscious interest in the culinary aspects of culture – the traditions, ingredients, recipes, and stories behind the food.

Food is deeply intertwined with intangible cultural heritage. As early as the 1990s, Bessière (1998) argued that traditional cuisine and foodways can be seen as cultural heritage that communities transform into resources for local development and identity building. This perspective has gained validation through UNESCO’s actions in the 2000s, as noted above. UNESCO’s recognition of food related traditions (such as the Mediterranean diet, French gastronomic meals, Japanese washoku, Korean kimjang, etc.) as Intangible Cultural Heritage underscores that culinary practices are important expressions of cultural identity and communal values. Food heritage, therefore, comprises not only the dishes themselves but also the techniques of preparation, the rituals of consumption, and the agricultural or foraging practices behind ingredients.

Because culinary heritage is often transmitted within families and local communities, it becomes strongly tied to social and familial memory. One ethnographic study in Lithuania observed that culinary heritage “influences every family,” as recipes and food customs are inherited across generations and become part of a community’s collective memory. Food heritage is not static, it evolves over time as communities adjust recipes or cooking methods, yet it retains an aura of authenticity and tradition. This authentic character is part of its appeal: tourists seeking a “real” local culture often look for local foods that have storied histories or time-honored methods behind them. Offering traditional foods to visitors can thus give a destination a stronger “sense of place” or authenticity, benefiting both tourists and residents [18]. Tourists gain a meaningful experience of connection to local culture, while locals gain appreciation and pride in their culinary traditions. Indeed, communities may even revive or maintain culinary practices when they realize those practices have cultural and economic value through tourism. For instance, a village might continue producing a nearly forgotten cheese or keep alive a seasonal food ritual upon seeing that it attracts visitor interest, thereby ensuring that traditions survive.

Destinations around the world are increasingly leveraging food heritage to differentiate themselves. Regions and cities actively brand themselves through their cuisines: for example, Mediterranean countries market their distinctive food cultures (Italian pasta and pizza, Spanish tapas, French wine and cheese) to stand out in a competitive tourism market. Food and drink have become “an increasingly important tourism attraction,” and many tourists deliberately plan their travels to partake in local culinary experiences. Tasting local cuisine can be as central to a visitor’s experience as touring famous landmarks [19]. Moreover, gastronomy-oriented travel often encourages a slower, more immersive pace of tourism akin to the principles of the “slow tourism” movement, which values quality of experience over speed. By savoring local food and spending time on food related activities, tourists tend to engage more deeply in the destination’s culture and environment, fostering a more meaningful connection [2].

Importantly, culinary tourism can yield significant socio-cultural benefits for destinations, in addition to economic gains. Recent studies emphasize that food tourism not only generates revenue but also helps preserve culinary traditions and knowledge. For example, [2] identifies the preservation of cultural heritage and the dissemination of regional knowledge as key benefits of gastronomic tourism, alongside its economic contributions. By creating demand for traditional recipes and local ingredients, tourism can provide an incentive for communities to continue those practices. Traditional gastronomy, when showcased to visitors, reinforces its value to the host community, which might otherwise face the dilution of its customs under globalization pressures. In other words, tourism can confer a sense of validation on local food traditions: seeing outsiders appreciate one’s cuisine can increase local pride and motivate the younger generation to learn and carry on those practices. There is evidence from Lithuania and elsewhere that engaging tourists with traditional foods encourages communities to “retain their authentic culinary practices,” leading to “increased pride in local food culture and a sense of identity among residents”.

Finally, food experiences create a space for cultural exchange between hosts and guests. Tourists often interact closely with locals in the context of food tourism whether dining in a family run tavern, chatting with vendors at a farmers’ market, or learning cooking techniques directly from home cooks. These interactions humanize the tourism experience and allow local people to act as cultural ambassadors, sharing stories and values tied to their cuisine. Such engagement can improve mutual understanding and break down stereotypes, positioning locals not just as service providers but as proud representatives of their heritage. This dynamic of person-to-person exchange through food is an increasingly valued aspect of experiential tourism and will be further discussed in the context of community-based approaches.

That said, the relationship between food and identity in tourism is not without complications. The commodification of culture for tourism, turning heritage into a product can lead to tensions and unintended consequences. There is a risk of reducing rich culinary traditions to mere tourist spectacles, or altering recipes and practices to suit tourist palates, thereby potentially diluting authenticity. Sustainable tourism planning is needed to ensure that using food as an identity marker remains respectful and accurate to the host culture. Successful cases around the world show that when managed well, culinary tourism can reinforce local identity rather than distort it. The next sections explore these issues in depth, looking first at how food and identity intersect in Lithuania’s tourism offerings, and then at the broader tension between authenticity and marketing.

Food and Local Identity

Food is a powerful symbol of identity, and many societies define themselves in part by what they eat (or don’t eat) and how they prepare their food. Culinary traditions often encapsulate thehistory and values of a region, reflecting past migrations, trade influences, agricultural conditions, and cultural practices. Thus, sharing local food with outsiders becomes a way of sharing one’s identity. As one study observes, gastronomy tourism leverages the “symbolic power of food as a marker of cultural identity” for destinations. Certain foods or dishes become emblematic of a place: for example, wine for France’s Champagne region, herring for coastal Scandinavian towns, or sushi for Japan’s coastal regions. In Lithuania, one might cite šaltibarščiai (cold beetroot soup) as a national symbol, or cepelinai (potato dumplings stuffed with meat) as a comforting dish that evokes home for many Lithuanians. These foods carry meanings beyond their ingredients they evoke a sense of belonging for locals and spark curiosity in visitors.

When tourists actively seek out local foods, it can have a reciprocal effect: it affirms the community’s sense of identity and can instill pride. [18] found that offering local food to tourists can strengthen a destination’s sense of place and perceived authenticity, yielding benefits for both visitors and residents. Tourists gain a more genuine feeling, meaningful experience, while residents gain external appreciation for the uniqueness of their culture. This external validation can, in turn, increase locals’ pride in their heritage. One outcome is that communities may choose to revive or preserve culinary practices specifically because they realize the cultural and even economic value of doing so. For instance, a village might continue producing a traditional cheese or keep alive a seasonal food ritual once they see it attracting tourist interest, thereby keeping that tradition alive.

Lithuania provides illustrative examples of food’s role in local identity. The country’s culinary heritage varies by region, with each area proud of its specialties. In Aukštaitija (northeastern Lithuania), a hallmark of regional identity is the dark, dense rye bread that has been baked in village ovens for centuries. Aukštaitija’s bread and related food traditions are so distinctive that the region is part of the European Network of Regional Culinary Heritage, which helps promote these local foods as tourism experiences. The very act of baking traditional rye bread using certain sourdough starters, blessing the loaf before baking, etc. is deeply ingrained in the region’s cultural identity. Today, tourists are invited to learn about and partake in this bread making tradition, which both educates visitors and reinforces local pride.

In the Traka region, local cuisine has been shaped by the Karaim community, a Turkic ethnic minority who settled in Lithuania in the 14th century. Their signature dish, kibinai (savory hand pies typically filled with minced lamb or beef), has become a beloved symbol of Takai’s heritage. For locals, kibinai represent the Karaim legacy and multicultural history of the area; for visitors, tasting kibinai (or even joining a workshop to make them) offers a direct encounter with that legacy. These examples show how local foods often embody a community’s heritage, whether it be an ethnographic heritage (as with Karaim cuisine) or an agricultural one (like with rye bread). Serving those foods to outsiders becomes a way of asserting local identity in a tangible form.

To give a broader picture of Lithuania’s culinary heritage, Table 3 lists some traditional Lithuanian foods across various categories. This selection illustrates the range of dishes and products that carry cultural significance in different regions of the country.

Table 3 this table is not exhaustive, but it highlights the diversity of Lithuania’s culinary heritage. Many of these items are featured in local festivals, agritourism farmsteads, and regional tasting events for tourists. Each carries its own story and regional context for instance, cepelinai became widespread only in the 20th century but are now considered a national dish, while minus harks back to medieval Grand Duchy traditions. The inclusion of Karaite kibinai in Takai’s local cuisine (not shown above) exemplifies how minority cultures contribute to national food heritage.

From a theoretical standpoint, promoting such foods through tourism can help construct and communicate collective identity. [20] note that “traditional gastronomy and ethnic food are tools for the construction of nations and the emergence of collective social identities,” empowering communities and providing livelihood opportunities. In other words, when countries or regions promote their traditional foods, they are also shaping a narrative about who they are. Culinary heritage initiatives such as gastro diplomacy campaigns, food fairs, or local to global food festivals intentionally link food with identity and place branding. Not only does food reflect identity, but the very process of sharing food with tourists can reinforce that identity internally. When a community observes tourists enjoying its cuisine, the locals may gain renewed appreciation for their traditions. Researchers have found that this can lead to increased cultural pride and inter-generational knowledge transfer: younger members of the community learn traditional recipes to participate in tourism, and older members revive nearly forgotten dishes to showcase them to outsiders. For example, in Lithuania, the recent surge of interest in heritage foods has prompted communities to resurrect old recipes (like certain festival breads or fermented products) that might not have been regularly made in recent decades, specifically because there is now an audience eager to taste them.

Food based interactions also facilitate cultural exchange. As mentioned, tourists often end up in close contact with local hosts during food experiences. These encounters allow locals to share personal stories and cultural values tied to cuisine, often in informal, friendly settings like a family kitchen or a small-town market. Such engagement can humanize tourism and build mutual respect: the tourist is no longer a distant observer, and the local is no longer an anonymous service provider, but instead they meet face to face over a shared appreciation of food. Locals in this context act as what [21] calls “silent ambassadors” of their culture, communicating heritage not through grand displays butthrough the humble, sincere act of serving and explaining their traditional foods. This form of “silent ambassadorship” through food, as incorporated into Lithuania’s nation branding strategies, positions gastronomy as an emotionally resonant and persuasive communication tool. It provides an authentic seeming channel through which visitors form affective relationships with the place. In this respect, food becomes an integral component of place branding it enhances the symbolic visibility of Lithuanian culture on the international stage and leaves visitors with memorable impressions linked to taste and hospitality. Of course, there are challenges in leveraging food for identity without oversimplifying or commercializing it. These challenges in the Lithuanian context are discussed in the next section, which examines how culinary heritage is being represented in tourism practice and the emerging tensions therein.

Representing Lithuanian Culinary Heritage in Tourism Practices

Traditionally, culinary heritage in Lithuania was treated primarily as part of familial life or ethnographic folklore. However, since the early 21st century, it has gained increasing prominence as a cultural resource deliberately integrated into national tourism agendas and public cultural discourse. Taste both as a sensory experience and a cultural signifier has become a key medium through which tourists engage with place. Visitors now seek not only visual sightseeing but also the taste of a location as a form of discovery and emotional connection.

As [2] notes, contemporary Lithuanian culinary tourism models have evolved rapidly. They encompass both the presentation of emblematic regional products (such as šakotis – the iconic “tree cake,” minus – honey mead, and kastinys - the Samogitian fermented butter/cream spread) and more immersive, place based gastronomic experiences. These range from educational workshops and farm visits to annual gastronomic festivals and guided tastings of locally sourced produce. Tourists might, for example, attend a rye bread baking workshop in a village, participate in a berry picking and jam making excursion, or sample a flight of farmhouse ales at a countryside brewery. Such practices offer visitors a direct encounter with taste as a culturally embedded experience one that mediates local identity in tangible and multisensory ways. The act of tasting becomes an act of understanding: through food, visitors get a “flavor” of local history, values, and ways of life.

Lithuanian tourism stakeholders (including governmental bodies, NGOs, and entrepreneurs) increasingly frame food as a form of cultural ambassadorship. [21] conceptualizes food in tourism not merely as sustenance or entertainment, but as a form of “silent ambassadorship.” Within Lithuania’s evolving nation branding strategies, food operates as an emotionally resonant and persuasive communication tool. It is an authentic seeming channel through which visitors form affective bonds with the country. In this view, every traditional dish served to a tourist carries a message: a bowl of šaltibarščiai tells of local farm produce and summer traditions; a shot of minus speaks to medieval history and beekeeping lore; a bite of kabanas in Traka conveys the story of the Karaim community. By integrating such elements into tourism, gastronomy becomes part of place branding, enhancing the symbolic visibility of Lithuanian cultural identity on the international stage. A foreign visitor who goes home raving about Lithuanian cepelinai or cherry wine is, in effect, spreading the country’s cultural brand through word of mouth.

Lithuania’s participation in international gastronomic networks further underscores the elevation of culinary heritage as both culture and commerce. For instance, Lithuania is involved in the Culinary Heritage Europe program and has had regions designated under the European Region of Gastronomy platform. These networks encourage the promotion of local gastronomic traditions in a global context. They have spurred initiatives like culinary heritage trails and educational food routes (for example, the Žemaitija kastinys trail, which links locations known for producing the Kastinys dairy dish, or the Džiugas cheese route celebrating a famous Lithuanian hard cheese). Such itineraries connect geographic sites with culinary landmarks, enabling narrative based and sensory explorations of place. Tourists following a food trail in Lithuania might travel from a cheese ageing cellar to a traditional beer brewery to an herbal tea farm, collecting stories and tastes along the way. These initiatives explicitly recontextualize local foods for global consumption: they package culinary heritage into thematic experiences that are intelligible and attractive to international visitors, yet ideally without stripping the foods of their local context and meaning.

Figure 1 provides a concentric model illustrating the nested relationship among culinary heritage, community, tourism, and cultural identity in the Lithuanian context. Culinary heritage forms the innermost core, encompassing the traditional foods, recipes, and practices passed down through generations. Surrounding this core is a community layer, indicating how these traditions are embedded in social life through family customs, regional festivals, and communal practices. Beyond that lies a tourism layer, representing how community-based food heritage is projected outward as cultural experiences for visitors, and finally the outermost circle denotes cultural identity- the broad collective identity that both shapes and is shaped by these culinary interactions. This structure echoes scholarly perspectives linking food, community, and identity [12,22,23] and aligns with UNESCO’s recognition of culinary practices as intangible heritage fundamental to cultural identity [23].

As applied to Lithuania, this layered model underscores how culinary heritage moves from intimate community contexts to broader identity narratives through the mediating medium oftourism. At the core, enduring practices like traditional rye bread baking or mid-summer festival beverage brewing are preserved within families and local communities. The community layer is further evident in regional festivals and rituals (such as Raso’s and Žemaičių krikštas) that actively transmit taste memories and reinforce communal identity through shared food traditions. These community rooted practices are then leveraged at the tourism layer- for instance, in culinary heritage trails (e.g., the Žemaitija kastinys route) and Lithuania’s participation in international gastronomic networks-which package local flavors for visitors and promote the country’s cuisine abroad. Ultimately, the outer identity layer is strengthened as these culinary experiences contribute to a cohesive cultural identity for Lithuania, effectively turning local taste into a form of cultural diplomacy and national branding.

Despite these positive developments, structural challenges persist. [5] argue that the representation of culinary heritage in Lithuania remains fragmented, often lacking a cohesive narrative that would allow visitors to appreciate the full complexity and diversity of the country’s gastronomic landscape. In practice, different regions and organizations promote their culinary assets (mushroom soups here, fish dishes there, etc.), but a unifying story or national strategy is still emerging. Tourists might not easily grasp how, say, Dzūkija’s buckwheat dishes relate to Samogitia’s dairy traditions, or how all tie into a national culinary identity. Additionally, there are concerns about authenticity in execution. The prevalence of shortcuts, such as restaurants using pre prepared mixes instead of traditional methods, or offering “tourist friendly” versions of dishes, raises questions about the genuineness of what is marketed as “local taste”. For example, serving cepelinai to hundreds of tourists daily might tempt some eateries to simplify the recipe or precook components, potentially compromising the traditional quality. Such practices, if unchecked, could undermine the very authenticity that culinary tourism seeks to showcase [24-27].

On the other hand, a counterbalance exists in grassroots, community driven efforts. Regional festivals and cultural rituals provide platforms for embodied and participatory transmission of culinary heritage. For instance, during the annual Raso’s (Midsummer) celebrations, communities often reenact ancient agrarian rituals, which include preparing and sharing traditional dishes like cheese with fresh herbs or special holiday beverages. In Samogitian, events like Žemaičių krikštas (a folkloric “Samogitian baptism” festival) might feature demonstrations of home butter churning (to make kastinys) or bread baking in outdoor clay ovens. These local events sustain food related heritage as a living cultural practice, grounded in community participation and passed on through hands on experience. They also invite tourists to witness or join in, thereby creating a shared space of learning and celebration. Unlike commercial food festivals purely designed for tourists, these community events priorities cultural continuity, often organized by local cultural centers or ethnographic societies with the primary aim of educating younger generations and honoring ancestors. Such examples indicate that culinary heritage in Lithuania continues to function as both a memory practiceand a vector of identity formation. They demonstrate substantial potential for integrating culinary heritage into holistic cultural tourism models that benefit both locals and visitors. In these models, local communities remain the stewards of their food heritage, while tourists are welcomed as guests who can learn and contribute to the preservation of that heritage (for instance, by providing economic support when purchasing traditional products or paying for workshops) [28-31].

In summary, Lithuania’s approach to culinary heritage in tourism is evolving. It encompasses top-down initiatives (like nationwide branding campaigns and international networks) and bottom-up initiatives (like local festivals and farm stays). Together, these shape an image of “Lithuanian cuisine” for outsiders and reinforce the reality of it for insiders. The narrative that “taste is identity” is being written in multiple voices: by chefs who reinterpret peasant dishes for urban restaurants, by grandmother granddaughter duos demonstrating crafts at fairs, and by marketers promoting Lithuania’s food to the world. The ensuing discussion will delve into one of the defining issues that arises from this development: the tension between authenticity and marketing in culinary tourism, and how it is being navigated in the Lithuanian context.

Discussion: The Tension Between Authenticity and Marketing in Culinary Tourism

Discussion: The Tension Between Authenticity and Marketing in Culinary Tourism

One of the defining tensions in contemporary culinary tourism lies in the negotiation between authenticity and marketability. As destinations package their food heritage for visitors, they must balance maintaining authentic cultural expressions with meeting the expectations and tastes of a global audience. Taste, as a deeply embedded cultural signifier, is increasingly reframed within tourism discourse as both an experience to be consumed and a commodity to be sold. This commodification can shift the cultural meaning of food and introduce a set of contradictions that destinations must manage [32].

In Lithuania, this tension is evident in both content and form. On one hand, appeals to authenticity dominate tourism communications: promotional materials emphasize the provenance of local products, the use of ancestral recipes, the rustic settings of meals, and other markers of tradition. Tour itineraries highlight “authentic farmhouse dinners” or “ancient Baltic recipes,” and tourism websites often underscore how dishes are prepared “just like grandmother did” to attract travelers seeking an old-world experience. This marketing strategy reflects genuine pride in the heritage and caters to tourists’ desire for the authentic. On the other hand, as [21] notes, the rhetoric of authenticity can itself become a strategic marketing template-often selectively highlighting a few iconic dishes while glossing over more complex, labor intensive, or less tourist friendly elements of the cuisine. In practice, this might mean that ubiquitous dishes like cepelinai or šakotis cake get a lot of attention (because they are emblematic and relatively accessible to foreign palates), whereas lesser known or challenging foods (like blood sausage vėdarai or certain bitter wild herb dishes) might be downplayed because they are harder to sell to a broad audience. Thus, a curated version of “Lithuanian cuisine” emerges that is authentic in origin but edited for consumption.

[2] underscores the role of localization in constructing authenticity for tourists [33]. Standardized tourism formatssuch as food festivals, tasting events, and culinary routes- are now often supplemented with localized cultural content. For example, a national food festival might ensure each region has a booth highlighting something unique (Dzukija’s mushroom dishes, Suvalkija’s smoked meats, Aukštaitija’s pancakes, etc.), thereby creating a mosaic of local specialties under one umbrella event. Culinary routes might be designed to take visitors off the beaten path into villages known for specific foods (like the oak barrel butter route in Žemaitija, or a mushroom foraging trail in Dzūkija). These efforts localize the experience and strive to retain cultural depth. Yet, a critical question arises: does such managed localization truly preserve cultural depth, or does it merely fulfil the expectations of the global tourist consumer? Are we seeing the full context of these foods, or just a performance tailored to what outsiders want to see?

[14] provides a useful conceptual lens to examine authenticity in this context. Everett distinguishes between ontological authenticity and constructive authenticity in food tourism. Ontological authenticity refers to authenticity rooted in being-that is, traditions that are lived and practiced as part of community life, irrespective of tourist presence. It is the kind of authenticity that comes from within: the family that still bakes ritual bread because it is their heritage, not because anyone is watching. Constructive authenticity, on the other hand, refers to authenticity that is produced or staged to meet external expectations, often shaped by media, marketing, or tourist imaginations. It is the authenticity that is, in a sense, constructed for show: the revival of a nearly forgotten recipe to enrich a tourism offering, or the meticulous styling of a dish to look “rustic” for promotional photos. Any given food tourism experience can contain elements of both. Lithuania’s culinary landscape, as presented to tourists, is something of a hybrid. On one side, we can find community based, participatory events that preserve gastronomic tradition as living heritage-village feasts where the recipes truly come from local grandmothers, or farmers’ markets where the sellers grew or made the products they offer. These scenarios lean toward ontological authenticity. On the other side, we also encounter simulations of authenticity tailored for mass consumption: consider a quick “traditional tasting” session provided on a bus tour, where multiple regional dishes are compressed into one buffet without much context, or a restaurant in a touristy area that dresses its waitstaff in folk costumes to create an atmosphere. Such offerings might lack the depth of context or communityinvolvement, instead of presenting a surface image of tradition that is easy for tourists to consume but somewhat divorced from how locals authentically experience their food heritage.

The interplay of narrative and marketing is also crucial here. As discussed earlier, [11] introduces the concept of narrative capital in culinary heritage, referring to the value that storytelling adds to food experiences. Increasingly, Lithuanian gastronomic initiatives are designed not only to “feed” but also to “narrate.” For example, a craft brewery tour doesn’t just offer beer samples; it tells the story of ancient monastic brewing or peasant drinking customs. A restaurant in Vilnius might incorporate descriptions on the menu about how a dish relates to seasonal rituals or national history. These narratives undoubtedly enrich the experience and help define the identity of the place through taste. However, this narrative impulse invites a further dilemma: to what extent are these stories tailored to global consumers at the expense of local nuance? When crafting a narrative for tourists, there is a temptation to simplify or dramatize. The stories told might sideline internal debates or regional differences for the sake of a clear, catchy tale. For instance, the narrative of “Lithuanian cuisine” might highlight its pagan roots and connection to nature (an appealing story for many visitors), while glossing over the complex multicultural influences (Jewish, Polish, Tatar, Russian, etc.) that have equally shaped the cuisine, because those do not fit as neatly into a singular national story. Thus, the marketing narrative, while rooted in truth, can become a selective truth.

Ultimately, the tension between authentic expression and commercial mediation in Lithuanian culinary tourism (and indeed in any culinary tourism) prompts a broader reflection: How sustainable is cultural meaning when it is turned into a commodity? Can the deep cultural significance of food survive the process of packaging and selling it to outsiders? The analysis here suggests that it can—but only under certain conditions. A viable and ethically sound model for culinary tourism must go beyond surface aesthetics and actively engage with food heritage as a participatory, dialogical, community anchored practice.

To further clarify how different aspects of culinary heritage shape identity at multiple levels, the following conceptual matrix maps heritage elements practice, narratives, and symbols against the dimensions of identity they influence: personal, communal, and national. This matrix helps visualize how food heritage operates as both a lived experience and a cultural framework in tourism contexts.

Traditional food practices, narratives, and symbols influence identity on personal, communal, and national levels. Adapted from concepts by [12,22,23]. As shown in Table 4, culinary practices such as baking rye bread or preparing kibinai express personal identity through taste memory and family ritual, while reinforcing community identity at festivals or local events. Culinary narratives, such as origin stories of dishes or regional myths, anchor community identity and contribute to broader national discourses (e.g., linking cepelinai to post Soviet heritage). Finally, symbols like minus or šaltibarščiai become icons in national branding efforts. In the Lithuanian context, this matrix illustrates how tourism experiences are not merely culinary encounters but encounters with identity at every scale.

In practical terms, this means involving local people in the creation and leadership of food tourism offerings, providing context and education with each experience, and setting limits on commercialization that would distort the tradition. Only then can taste retain its cultural significance while still bridging local identity and global encounter.

Conclusion

Culinary heritage plays a multifaceted role in tourism experiences, serving as both a medium of cultural expression and a resource for economic development. This study set out to examine how taste functions as a marker of cultural identity in tourism, with Lithuania as a case in point. The findings illustrate that taste can indeed communicate identity: through traditional dishes, culinary stories, and food related rituals, travelers gain insight into Lithuanian culture, while local communities reaffirm who they are by sharing their cuisine. The dimensions of culinary heritage emphasized in Lithuanian tourism range from tangible products (distinctive dishes, local beverages, artisanal foodstuffs) to intangible practices (hospitality customs, recipes passed down generations, narratives of origin). Each element, whether it is a loaf of rye bread or a tale about midsummer brewing traditions, contributes to the construction and communication of cultural identity.

However, the analysis also reveals the delicate balance required to maintain authenticity in the face of commercialization. Lithuanian tourism stakeholders have leveraged culinary heritage to enhance the national brand and enrich visitor experiences, highlighting iconic tastes and crafting narratives around them. This has successfully positioned taste as a bridge between visitors and the local way of life. Yet, as with any cultural product, there is an inherent tension between ontological authenticity (the genuine living traditions of food heritage) and constructed authenticity (the curated version presented to meet tourist expectations). The Lithuanian case demonstrates that when culinary tourism leans too far into commodification offering only staged replicas of traditions or simplifying the story for mass appeal there is a risk of diluting the cultural meaning that makes those food traditions valuable in the first place.

To address this, a recurring theme in this paper is the importance of community involvement and narrative depth. Tourists are most likely to appreciate and respect a culinary culture when they encounter it in a context that honors its roots, such as through interactions with local hosts, in situ experiences on farms or at festivals, and informative storytelling that does not shy away from complexity. Concepts like narrative capital and Gatornationals prove useful for understanding how countries like Lithuania use food as a storytelling device and a tool of soft power. At the same time, these frameworks caution against creating a one dimensional national “food narrative” that might sideline the rich diversity within.

In practical terms, the study suggests several strategies for the sustainable integration of culinary heritage in tourism. First, there should be continued support for grassroots initiatives for farmers, artisans, and community groups that keep food traditions alive since these are the wellspring of authenticity. Second, education should accompany consumption: tourists benefit from learning the why and how behind each dish, not just tasting it. This can be achieved through interpretive materials, guided tastings, and opportunities for hands-on participation. Third, collaboration between tourism developers and cultural experts (ethnographers, historians, local elders) can help ensure that marketing narratives remain faithful to the culture and don’t cross into caricature. Finally, there is a need for ongoing dialogue about what “authenticity” means in a dynamic culture. Rather than treating authenticity as a static benchmark of the past, Lithuanian tourism can embrace an authenticity of process, emphasizing transparency, sincerity, and respect for local input as food traditions naturally evolve.

In conclusion, taste as identity is not just a catchy metaphor; in Lithuania, it is a lived reality that has significant implications for tourism. Culinary heritage, when thoughtfully incorporated into the visitor experience, allows tourism to become a site of cultural exchange and mutual enrichment. Tourists depart not only with pleasant flavors on their palate but with stories, knowledge, and a sense of connection to the host culture. Locals, in turn, gain a renewed appreciation of their heritage and the means to sustain it economically and socially. The case of Lithuania highlights both the opportunities and the challenges in this endeavor. It calls for a participatory, inclusive, and community rooted approach to culinary tourism, one that prioritizes cultural integrity and continuity even as it welcomes innovation and global curiosity. By following such an approach, destinations can ensure that the integration of culinary heritage in tourism remains a source of pride and identity for future generations, rather than a cause for lament over what might be lost in translation.

References

1. D’ Sylva A, Beagan BL (2011) Food is culture, but it is also power: The role of food in ethnic and gender identity construction among Goan Canadian women. Journal of Gender Studies 20(3): 279-289.
2. Lautoka’s D (2023) The development of gastronomic tourism in Lithuania: Activities, benefits, and perspectives. Cultural Tourism Review 11(3): 88-104.
3. Farrer J (2010) Eating the West and beating the rest: Culinary Occidentalism and urban soft power in Asia’s global food cities. In Globalization, Food and Social Identities in the Asia Pacific Region. Tokyo: Sophia University Institute of Comparative Culture, Japan, pp. 7-18.
4. Assmann S (2024) Culinary heritage in Asia: National and regional identities- Reflections from the field. Routledge Open Research 3(6).
5. Baltrūnaitė M, Jakštienė S (2022) Regional identity and local gastronomy in Lithuania. Lithuanian Journal of Tourism Studies 8(2): 45-61.
6. Kuzmickas B (2007) The Problem of Identity in Modern Philosophy. Vilnius University Press, Lithuania.
7. Kermani AA, Charbgoo N, Alalhesabi M (2016) Developing a model for the relation between heritage and place identity. International Journal of Architectural and Environmental Engineering 10(3): 104-110.
8. Billig M (1995) Banal Nationalism. Sage Publications.
9. Ichijo A, Ranta R (2016) Food, National Identity and Nationalism: From Every day to Global Politics. Palgrave Macmillan.
10. Bourdieu P (1984) Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Harvard University Press, USA.
11. Masmoudi A (2025) Culinary heritage as a cultural strategy: Taste and identity in global tourism. International Journal of Heritage Studies 31(1): 1-18.
12. Lee CY (2023) Taste and memory: Intangible heritage and the Proustian turn in food tourism. Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change 21(1): 14-29.
13. Susanto E (2023) Local food authenticity and tourist revisit intention in heritage destinations. International Journal of Tourism Research 25(2): 232-245.
14. Everett S (2016) Food and Drink Tourism: Principles and Practice. Sage.
15. Sorata A (2024) Venetian Culinary Heritage Management: Exploring Authenticity, Tradition, and Innovation through a Visual Analysis, Foscari University of Venice, Italy.
16. Ayora Díaz SI (2021) The cultural politics of food, taste, and identity: A global perspective. Bloomsbury Academic.
17. Long LM (2010) Culinary Tourism. University Press of Kentucky, USA.
18. Sims R (2009) Food, place, and authenticity: local food and the sustainable tourism experience. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 17(3): 321-336.
19. Dixit SK (2021) Role of local food in destination attractiveness. In: SK Dixit (Editor.), The Routledge Handbook of Gastronomic Tourism Routledge, pp. 18-30.
20. Sosa M, Aulet S, Mundet L (2021) Community-based tourism through food: A proposal of sustainable tourism indicators for isolated and rural destinations in Mexico. Sustainability 13(12): 6693.
21. Sederevičiūtė Pačiauskienė Ž, Katinaitė K (2020) Communicating Lithuania’s destination branding. Science - Future of Lithuania 12: 1-9.
22. Reddy GE, Van Dam RM (2020) Food, culture, and identity in multicultural societies: Insights from Singapore. Appetite 149: 104633.
23. UNESCO (2003) Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage. UNESCO, France.
24. Bauman Z (2011) 44 Letters from the Liquid Modern World. Political Press.
25. Bessière J (1998) Local development and heritage: traditional food and cuisine as tourist attractions in rural areas. Sociologia Ruralis 38(1): 21-34.
26. Giddens A (1991) Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Stanford University Press, p. 264.
27. Hillel D, Belhassen Y, Shani A (2013) What makes a gastronomic destination attractive? Evidence from the Israeli Negev. Tourism Management 36: 200-209.
28. Jensen LA, Arnett JJ, McKenzie J (2011) Globalization and the self. In: RJ Crisp (Ed.), The Psychology of Social and Cultural Diversity Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 285-307.
29. Kuzmickas B (2007) The Problem of Identity in Modern Philosophy. Vilnius University Press, Lithuania.
30. Morley D, Robins K (1995) Spaces of Identity: Global Media, Electronic Landscapes and Cultural Boundaries. Routledge.
31. Shariff NM, Zakaria Z (2011) Determinants of food heritage toward food identity. Journal of Tourism Hospitality & Culinary Arts 3(3): 108-124.
32. UNESCO (2017) The Branding of Lithuania Cultural and Natural Heritage 2017. Office of the Government of Lithuania.
33. Watson JL, Caldwell ML (2005) The Cultural Politics of Food and Eating. Blackwell.