In article >, Christine Dabney
> writes:

>"Kent H." >
>wrote:
>
>>Smithfield county hams, by law, have to made in a certain way, and
>>nothing in that code would allow a "low sodium" ham. You have to dry
>>salt the ham, and age it until it ends up as a Smithfield Ham. Some
>>sneaky little bugger outside the county line injected your "low sodium"
>>ham with a bit of brine, and then proceeded to make it like a Smithfield
>>by dry curing it following. A true Smithfield ham is very hard to
>>desalt, as Julia Child says in many of her writings.
>>Kent
>
>I am not sure if it is the cure that is all important, but the area in
>which the hams were made. I think they have to be cured in the
>Smithfield area: I seem to remember a certain radius which was the
>defining line. And the hogs had to have a certain diet, which was
>characteristic of the the area.
>
>I could be totally wrong on this, but somehow this rings a bell in me,
>about the definitions of what goes into being a Smithfield ham. The
>cure could be a part of it too, but I don't remember that.

Methods cannot be protected by law unless they are patented, and therefore made
public record (it's not possible to patent a method for food preparation). The
only real way to protect proprietory method is to keep it secret, but that in
no way ensures that others can't replicate the process. The name "Smithfield
cannot be copyrighted. But placing the words "Smithfield Ham" on a cured ham
is protectected by law, only in so much that "Only a ham cured within the
Smithfield town limits can bear that prestigious name."


---= BOYCOTT FRENCH--GERMAN (belgium) =---
---= Move UNITED NATIONS To Paris =---
Sheldon
````````````
"Life would be devoid of all meaning were it without tribulation."