apartment therapy changing the world, one room at a time

I don't have a subscription, so I can't read the whole article. I'm left wondering: are we supposed to believe that we're somehow on higher moral ground if we live on corn dogs? The tone of the first page of the article reminded me of a piece that was in the Washington Post just today. It was about the way perfectly dressed, perfectly coiffed women are viewed with scorn.

A few years ago, the French government petitioned the Vatican to remove gluttony as one of the Seven Deadly Sins. The Vatican promised to get back to them. Eventually.

I find there are two types of gourmets: 1) the type that loves food and wants to know everything about it (how to cook it, how nutritious it may or may not be, where it came from, etc.) and 2) the type that just likes to eat it.

I know a few of both types and it's probably the type 2 gourmets that may slip into gluttony....

That's too funny JonathanB. However, arguably, gluttony may be one of the only vices a priest may succumb to.

The word glutton has a clear definition: a person who is devoted to eating and drinking to excess. Definition by Google.

The word gourmet when used in this context is defined as: A person who appreciates good food. Definition also by Google.

I know and have seen many gluttonous gourmets. I have also seen many gluttons who see themselves as gourmets. If "appreciating" good food is all that it takes to qualify as a gourmet then everybody is a gourmet. Big Macs are considered good food by many and are duly appreciated just as are black truffles by those in the know.

Let's break out of the definition box and do what we think is right based on what is good, wholesome and conscientious in the food world. Has everyone been a glutton at some point in their life? Of course, everyone has few too many sometimes. If people are going to associate gourmet with gluttony as if the gourmet's life is controlled by the urge to be drunk and full all of the time then I have no problem carrying on without any label at all.

While I haven't read the Atlantic Monthly article, some quick thoughts. In my opinion, what's immoral is throwing away perfectly good food in the trash because one "doesn't eat leftovers". Also, the other day, a friend emailed me a photo slideshow of the most expensive desserts in the world, a lot of them are to be found in this side of the world but no.1 is a $14,000 creation served at a restaurant in Sri Lanka. In a country with a lot of problems, poverty being one of them, that is just obscene.

I hate to shed a negative light on my own industry. RJD talks about the immorality of throwing away perfectly good food. I would say that could be considered gluttonous. In the world of fine dining I believe the public is led to believe that these restaurants are setting the best example when it comes to all things food. This is a misconception.

Many of the three and four star establishments are the biggest gluttons there are. Without naming any establishments for fear of ending up like Anthony Bourdain, there are so many places that are just plain wasteful without any regrets. The more people are willing to spend in an establishment often leads the kitchen to give the customer only the "best" of everything. So the customer is drawn to the restaurant's pristine ingredients sourced from only the best organic and sustainable producers. Because the customer is only getting the "best" means that the restaurant is not afraid to give the customer the cream and throw out the milk.

Specifically, use only the hearts of the celery and throw away the ribs. Use only the center cuts of foie gras and throw the scraps away. Use massive amounts of expensive butter to let roasted meats rest in. Throw countless numbers of imported glass water bottles in the garbage. Throw pounds of swordfish bellies into the garbage because you only want to use the "chop".

Now, just about everybody has a restaurant in Las Vegas. Many of these restaurants basically don't even have a budget. What happens when certain individuals have an endless cash flow? The same things happen with restaurants and they both have consequences. Although, one person cannot really be blamed for depleting the ocean of it's fish, restaurants can and they do, as a collective force that shifts markets.

Restaurants have a greater responsibility not to be gluttons whether they choose to realize it or not.

I'll try to curtail my "soapbox" style comments from this point on.

I read the article in the Atlantic, and I found it really thought-provoking (and felt the author had some valid points). There's a way in which food writers sometimes brush off the moral implications of eating meat, or foie gras, or endangered fish, or whatever else with a somewhat smug "don't be a bore" attitude. I think the article really takes issue with the idea that the flavor necessarily justifies the means. I say this as someone who does eat meat (and lobster); it was valuable for me to take some time to think about my practices. It might be worthwhile to consider occasionally just how good something has to taste to justify the cost. Even if you don't totally agree with the conclusions, I think it's an article absolutely worth reading.

art, it was a thoughtful comment on a relevant aspect of an industry you know well - it was a bit long, but it was very informative and I'm glad you posted it.

I can't access the article - why does the author attack Michael Pollan? Pollan has written a lot about paying attention to what we eat (for health and environmental reasons), I can't see him being on the side of wasteful gluttony instead of considered gourmet eating.

The article provokes some thought, and a lot of eye-rolling. No, I will never feel bad for eating and enjoying meat; yes, I probably do overeat sometimes in my pursuit of deliciousness, no, I am not uncomfortable with that concept.

We shouldn't waste good food, but we also shouldn't feel bad for pursuing it.

art, thank you for your "soapbox" post. it's definitely something to think about when enjoying fine dining.

however, is there any fine dining that specializes in using all of what's available? large chains have specific items sent to them (e.g. vacuum packed pre-prepared meat), so i guess technically the restaurant itself isn't wasteful. smaller/independent restaurants, on the other hand, don't have such a supply system, so they pay for X items and toss the rest? i read somewhere that part of the popularity in tasting menues is that it's a way to use these scraps and turn a profit.

ami,

I got a little bit off track by singling out fine dining restaurants. I wanted to point out that, yes, many of them are not as responsible as could be. But the point that I should have made was that the entire restaurant industry should be more conscientious. I just look at fine dining, the top 2% of the food industry as the ones who should be leading by example and they are.

The corporate chains etc. may be purchasing things that are portion controlled and bundled up so neatly in a facility but how much energy did it take to get that product to that stage?

Mediocre restaurants are what's fueling those double digit sales in the billions of dollars. These are the places that are giving us what we want at the prices we want. These are the places that keep the factory farm fires burning all day and all night. There are other implications too...who works in these restaurants at such low wages to keep the prices where we want them? Food is an industry just like any other. I'm glad there are articles like this one to keep people thinking. As food has become more important to me, the more conscientious I have become. Do I contradict my beliefs by my actions? Much to my dismay, far too often. Life is a journey full of challenges.