Why “Bean Curd” and “Tofu” Sound So Different to Us
The Curious Case of Two Names, One Food
At a technical level, bean curd and tofu are identical. Both refer to soy milk that has been coagulated and set into a delicate protein gel. No difference in ingredients. No difference in process.
Yet to many Western ears, bean curd sounds heavy, dated, even unappetising—while tofu feels clean, modern, and quietly elegant.
So what’s going on?
This isn’t a food science problem.
It’s a language and cultural framing problem.
What “Bean Curd” Actually Means
The term bean curd is a direct English description, not a cultural one.
Bean → soybeans
Curd → the coagulated solids formed when liquid proteins set
From a purely technical standpoint, it’s accurate. Tofu is a curd, much like cheese is a dairy curd.
But here’s the catch:
In English-speaking food culture, “curd” is a loaded word.
It brings to mind:
Cottage cheese
Lumps
Separation
Spoilage
Something broken rather than crafted
Even lemon curd—pleasant as it is—still sounds processed, thick, and old-fashioned.
So when tofu was introduced to English speakers as bean curd, it inherited all of that baggage.
What “Tofu” Really Carries With It
Tofu is a loanword, derived from the Chinese term dòufu. When it entered English via Japanese (tōfu), it arrived without translation—and that matters.
Loanwords behave differently in our brains:
They carry cultural neutrality at first
They feel specific rather than descriptive
They invite curiosity instead of judgement
Tofu doesn’t tell you how it’s made.
It doesn’t describe texture, chemistry, or structure.
It simply names the thing.
That gives it room to be redefined.
A Question of Cultural Context
In East Asian food traditions, tofu was never framed as a substitute or a compromise.
In places like China and Japan, tofu has always been:
A standalone ingredient
Valued for texture, freshness, and restraint
Integrated into everyday cooking, from rustic to refined
There was no need to justify it. No need to explain what it was replacing.
When tofu travelled westward, however, it entered a culture that:
Centred meat as the “main event”
Viewed protein through an animal-first lens
Needed tofu to mean something else
Calling it bean curd framed it as a processed derivative, rather than a crafted food with its own logic.
Language Shapes Appetite
Words don’t just describe food.
They shape expectation before the first bite.
Compare these phrases:
Stir-fried bean curd
Crisp golden tofu
Same dish. Same ingredients. Very different emotional response.
Bean curd emphasises:
Process
Breakdown
Technical origin
Tofu emphasises:
Identity
Neutrality
Possibility
One sounds like a byproduct.
The other sounds like an ingredient with intent.
Why “Bean Curd” Fell Out of Favour
By the late 20th century, Western cooks, writers, and chefs began to realise something important:
The problem wasn’t tofu.
It was how we were talking about it.
As global cuisines became more respected—and as Japanese, Chinese, and Southeast Asian food cultures gained visibility—the original word tofu began to replace bean curd in cookbooks, menus, and supermarkets.
Not because it was trendier.
But because it was truer.
Using tofu allowed the food to:
Step out of comparison with dairy
Escape negative textural assumptions
Be understood on its own terms
Same Food, Different Future
Today, bean curd still appears occasionally—often in older texts, translations, or technical explanations.
But tofu has become the dominant name because it supports a bigger shift:
From substitution → intention
From explanation → appreciation
From “what it’s not” → “what it is”
And that matters deeply if we want a kinder, more sustainable food culture.
The Tofu World Takeaway 🌱
Tofu doesn’t need to be defended.
It doesn’t need to pretend to be something else.
And it certainly doesn’t need to be reduced to bean curd.
Sometimes, changing how we eat starts by changing how we speak.
When we give food its rightful name, we give it space to be respected, explored, and enjoyed—one thoughtful meal at a time.
Let’s keep tofu as tofu.
