| Related Articles: Restaurants, All |
Live FeedWhat are the ethical obligations of a food critic in a changing worldby Stett Holbrook on Dec 11, 2009IT WAS an ad for a bluefin tuna butchering “performance” a co-worker left on my desk that put me over the edge. Last month, San Jose’s Mitsuwa Marketplace, one of Silicon V[palley’s premier Japanese supermarkets, hosted a public demonstration of how to butcher a bluefin tuna. For a split second, I thought it would be cool. As a sushi lover and student of Japanese culture, my first impression was that it would be fascinating to watch a couple of expert fishmongers slice and saw at a 400-pound fish with 2-foot blades that look like short samurai swords. The picture on the ad showed a guy with a traditional headscarf working up a sweat he worked his knife through a tuna carcass. But my fascination quickly turned to disgust. Because of the world’s rapacious appetite for bluefin tuna and the high prices they fetch, the fish have been nearly driven to extinction. It’s estimated that a mere 3 percent of the fish’s population remains. It’s only because of dereliction of duty that U.S. and international regulators haven’t declared the fish an endangered species. Yet Mitsuwa decided to offer the dismemberment of a mighty fish that could quite possibly disappear from the face of the earth as entertainment? Why not hack up imperiled species like the great panda bear or mountain gorilla and make a real show out of it? I felt as if I should have dressed up like a bloody tuna or something to protest the event. Instead, I started to reconsider the role of a restaurant critic or at least my role. Readers of this column have heard me rail against food’s connection to climate change, the poor treatment of farmworkers in America, the sorry state of school lunches and links between swine flu and the pork industry. Yet I’ve tried to keep my views on the environment and other pressing social issues out of my reviews. But given the significant role food plays in the health of the planet, I’m questioning that separation now. The duties of a restaurant critic are pretty clear. Evaluate the quality and execution of meals. Comment on service and décor as they apply to the dining experience. Educate readers about culinary history, ethnic cuisines and ingredients when appropriate. Entertain. A restaurant review is a wholly subjective work. My reviews are my educated opinion. So why not include my opinions about the ecological impact of what a restaurant puts on the menu? At its root, a restaurant review should be a work of consumer service to help diners decide whether they should eat at a particular restaurant or not. But with the world on fire due in part to the way we produce and distribute food, limiting myself to quibbles about dry chicken, overdressed salads and overzealous waiters strikes me as a little, I don’t know, irrelevant. Or worse, complicit. I believe we no longer have the luxury of oblivious eating lest we eat ourselves into oblivion. Indeed, I think the failure to call attention to these issues when food is discussed contributes to the problem. To spend one’s days eating and writing about eating is a privilege. But to write about food yet refrain from discussing the environmental effects of food production not only misses a source of important stories, it is, I believe, immoral. Just last month a new report from two current and former World Bank environmental advisers concluded that beef production and distribution contribute 51 percent of climate-warming gasses. Fifty-one percent! Until now, the accepted figure was 18 percent as reported by the United Nations three years ago. “If this argument is right,” the authors write, “it implies that replacing livestock products with better alternatives would be the best strategy for reversing climate change. ... In fact, this approach would have far more rapid effects on greenhouse gas emissions and their atmospheric concentrations than actions to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy.” That means we could save the planet by giving up industrial-farmed beef and still drive Hummers. I can’t help think about that now each time I see a hamburger on the menu. But how to address these issues in a restaurant review and not come off as a crank? I’m not sure. Since 99.999 percent of Silicon Valley restaurants pay no attention to the ecological impact of the food they serve, my reviews would quickly turn into a tired diatribe against yet other environmental offender. Who would want to read that? Last month’s review of Blue Fin restaurant and its reliance on overtaxed fisheries was something of a warm-up. But I’ll be figuring this out as I go, and I invite your feedback at [email protected]. by Stett Holbrook on Dec 11, 2009 |
 |
|
|
