TONY cover story on forbidden foods

[Wilfrid]

Maybe no-one else here reads Time Out New York? I was very deeply offended by this week's cover story on the availability of illegal foodstuffs in New York. Since they don't post current articles on the web-site, let me explain that this feature article purported to advise readers where to obtain a range of "forbidden" foodstuffs which, it claims, are being served illegally in New York.

It begins with the obvious example of young unpasteurised cheeses, and with a quote from an obviously furious Steve Jenkins, who quite rightly questions the writer's motives. What was he expecting? A "confession" from Jenkins, or Jenkins to shop a few of his friends?

The article goes on to present quotes from several chefs, apparently admitting that they break the law. One hopes one can trust that these quotes are not fabricated and were obtained from the chefs with the knowledge that they would be published. In which case, one wonders what on earth the chefs must have been thinking of. I'm reluctant to repeat the names here, but they are by no means low profile.

And I wonder if mentioning Jenkins and Ariane Daguin in the article, who certainly make no such admissions, has the effect of smearing them by association?

My fundamental objection is to the article's moral ambiguity. If TONY had set out to expose wrongdoing my New York food professionals and draw the attention of the authorities, the piece might make sense - although who needs it? But it is presented as a light-hearted insider's guide on where to obtain illegal foods. Nudge, wink. And it might do terrible damage.

I am thinking of writing an angry letter to the editor. What does everyone think?

Edited January 16, 2003 by Wilfrid (log)

[Wilfrid]

Apparently I should calm down and forget about it.

Edit: Ah, it just occurred to me that people might want to read the story before offering an opinion. Unconventional round here, but makes a kind of sense.

Edited January 16, 2003 by Wilfrid (log)

[cabrales]

You've encouraged me to go buy the magazine, ironically.

[Stone]

What other illegal foods are running around out there? More stuff like unpastuerized cheese? Or are we talking about endangered species, whale meat (I think that's illegal), etc.?

(By the way -- nice tactic to get your post back on the first page of the "active topics" thread.)

Edited January 16, 2003 by Dstone001 (log)

[cabrales]

Speaking of Time Out, I recently received an e-mail from opentable advising me that the Time Out New York Eating & Drinking guide is on-line and there is a free initial trial period (apparently subject to sign-in procedures):

http://eatdrink.timeoutny.com/?url=optb

Edited January 16, 2003 by cabrales (log)

[Ellen Shapiro]

Wilfrid I would want to know what laws are being broken. Some laws are silly don't you think? The law hasn't done much to earn my respect lately and I speak as the victim of an incorrect parking ticket that will cost me many hours to fight and I'll still lose probably. We have so many laws that are the result of the regulatory state and have no moral basis and may actually be immoral because they regulate things that shouldn't be regulated like what kind of cheese I can eat (real example) and what kind of cookies I can bake (hypothetical example not far off). It doesn't bother me to see these laws laughed at and broken if no harm comes from it.

[Stone]

We have so many laws that are the result of the regulatory state and have no moral basis and may actually be immoral because they regulate things that shouldn't be regulated like what kind of cheese I can eat (real example) and what kind of cookies I can bake (hypothetical example not far off).

I can't say that I know anything about why unpastuerized cheeses are prohibited here, but I assume its out of health concerns and, more specificially, health concerns for the elderly, young or infirm. That is, although most unpastuerized cheese is probably fine for most people, the regulators think the risk to some is high enough to ban the stuff. I have no way of knowing whether their evaluation of the risk is correct.

Of course, I also have no way of knowing whether the regulators just caved in to the American pastuerized cheese lobby in a fit of nationalistic xenophobia.

[Stephanie]

We have so many laws that are the result of the regulatory state and have no moral basis and may actually be immoral because they regulate things that shouldn't be regulated like what kind of cheese I can eat (real example) and what kind of cookies I can bake (hypothetical example not far off).

I can't say that I know anything about why unpastuerized cheeses are prohibited here, but I assume its out of health concerns and, more specificially, health concerns for the elderly, young or infirm.

I'm assuming then that they're OK for the elderly, young, and infirm in Europe? Or do they just have steelier immune systems over there?

I do have a subscription to TONY, but I didn't get an issue yesterday. Hmm...hope it isn't one of those that "disappears" in the mail.

Edited January 16, 2003 by BklynEats (log)

[Stone]

I'm assuming then that they're OK for the elderly, young, and infirm in Europe?  Or do they just have steelier immune systems over there? 

American health regulations are often stricter than Europe's, and vice versa. (And they don't have as aggressive lawyers over there.)

[Wilfrid]

Just to clarify, I was concerned about the possible harm to the careers of the chefs quoted. Let's just hope they knew they were speaking on the record. As I said, a serious expose for the benefit of the public health might have made sense, although I largely agree with Ellen about such laws. But this just seems irresponsible.

The cover gives you some idea of the tone of the piece:

[ngatti]

why is it hat Prosciutto di Parma is legal now and not 20 years ago? I assume that the airborne pathogens (the excuse often cited for it once being illegal) have not mutated to a state of harmlessness.

I assume that the chef's are talking because the resources of the cheese police are quite stretched at this point (although there may be liability issues

I confess quite publically that I have served illegal wild striped bass (It only seems to be illegal in the state of NJ). I expect to be cuffed and hauled off to jail any minute. My co-conspirators being UPS and FedEx.

edit: I would imagine Wilfrid, that the chefs in question may also think that certain laws are ridiculaous and have weighed the possible harm to themselve or their careers.

Nick

Edited January 16, 2003 by ngatti (log)

[bpearis]

Just to clarify, I was concerned about the possible harm to the careers of the chefs quoted.  Let's just hope they knew they were speaking on the record.  As I said, a serious expose for the benefit of the public health might have made sense, although I largely agree with Ellen about such laws.  But this just seems irresponsible.

The cover gives you some idea of the tone of the piece:

I'm pretty sure TONY has fact-checkers. They knew they were on the record I bet.

The gist of the story is about stuff that's illegal in the US -- cheeses, fruits, cured meats -- that wouldn't have Greenpeace *too* up in arms. It's not about eating Komoto Dragon or anything. They basically say that the government doesn't inforce these laws, 'cause you can get it pretty easily in NYC.

[jaybee]

Wilfrid, just looking at the cover, it is easy to see why they took the tack they did. That headline will sell more copies on the news stand than a less sensationalistic line. The subject is not without interest. One slant could be that some of the laws prevent people from eating the best tasting foods and are arcane. Does the article make that point? There is more risk and harm from tainted meat (e-coli) than from unpasturized cheese.

[Fat Guy]

There may be more risk from pasteurized cheese than unpasteurized.

I think I get Wilfrid's point about the ethics-in-journalism issues. When I did my illegal-cheese piece for Salon awhile back we chose not to use the real names of any of the people who told us they trafficked in illegal cheese, even though many people admitted it to us on the record. But I didn't see it as a journalism-ethics issue. We were covered from that angle. I saw it as a more general question of right conduct: the need to protect some people who didn't really understand the potential consequences of making public admissions of wrongdoing. If a lawyer had said the same things to me, I'd have published them. It's like when I write on eGullet that my kitchen renovation violated the building codes and I knew it. I'm qualified to weigh the consequences of making those statements. The average chef probably isn't. Is this where you're coming from, Wilfrid?

[Wilfrid]

I think you put it better than me, yes. I can only accept what people here say if they tell me the laws won't be enforced. Fair enough. if I was a lawyer, which I'm not, and a client asked me if they should make those kinds of statements to a reporter, I'd tell them not to be crazy (I suppose I'd also advise them to stop breaking the law).

I think in addition I'm annoyed with Time Out for putting these people in the (potential) firing line for the sake of a lame, wiseass article.

[vengroff]

I saw it on the newsstand and kept on walking. This thread confirms I did the right thing.

Wilfrid, what do you expect from a mag that started in London?

[Wilfrid]

It is a lousy mag at the editorial level. Same as Zagat, it's a very handy phone book. Also, unlike Zagat, calendar.

[vengroff]

It is a lousy mag at the editorial level.  Same as Zagat, it's a very handy phone book.  Also, unlike Zagat, calendar.

Dump TONY and Zagat. Get vindigo. It's a phone book, calendar, and map that you can easily carry with you. It's the killer app that makes a palm pilot worth having.

[Ron Johnson]

Wilfrid I would want to know what laws are being broken. Some laws are silly don't you think? The law hasn't done much to earn my respect lately and I speak as the victim of an incorrect parking ticket that will cost me many hours to fight and I'll still lose probably. We have so many laws that are the result of the regulatory state and have no moral basis and may actually be immoral because they regulate things that shouldn't be regulated like what kind of cheese I can eat (real example) and what kind of cookies I can bake (hypothetical example not far off). It doesn't bother me to see these laws laughed at and broken if no harm comes from it.

Well put Ellen. People often ask me how I can practice criminal defense law. From this point forward I will use your argument.

[macrosan]

Well put Ellen.  People often ask me how I can practice criminal defense law.  From this point forward I will use your argument.

What was the answer you used to give them, Ron ?

[Ron Johnson]

What was the answer you used to give them, Ron ? 

"leave me alone you bastard" , or something to that effect.

for some reason it didn't change many people's mind.

I find Ellen's piece so much more eloquent.

[Rail Paul]

Wilfrid I would want to know what laws are being broken. Some laws are silly don't you think? The law hasn't done much to earn my respect lately and I speak as the victim of an incorrect parking ticket that will cost me many hours to fight and I'll still lose probably. We have so many laws that are the result of the regulatory state and have no moral basis and may actually be immoral because they regulate things that shouldn't be regulated like what kind of cheese I can eat (real example) and what kind of cookies I can bake (hypothetical example not far off). It doesn't bother me to see these laws laughed at and broken if no harm comes from it.

Well put Ellen. People often ask me how I can practice criminal defense law. From this point forward I will use your argument.

Although I agree with your premise, Ellen, you're on a slippery slope.

If each person can decide which laws THEY feel are silly or immoral, many children would not be vaccinated and gun toting folks would search the land looking for people with (cannabis, Korans, animal sacrifice) views, they feel are wrong.

That's why we have laws, although the idea of being able to declare a fatwa is enticing at times...

[Stone]

As far as slippery slopes go, Ellen's is less like teflon and more like, like, something not very slippery. We all (or almost all) break the speed limit, walk against the light, park illegally, experiment with illegal drugs (or so I'm told), and eat dishes with uncooked eggs. None of this reasonably suggests that we'll start whacking people in our spare time.

[tommy]

i think the important question here is: who is that tool on the cover?

[Wilfrid]

Just to flesh things out a little, in addition to cheeses, they tell you where to get tonka beans, mangosteen, puffer fish, hemp (although the latter seem to be legal, just potentially dangerous) and absinthe. They also discuss illegally shot wild game, but don't tell you where to get it. The article identifies by name two chefs and a supermarket apparently involved in breaking the law.

I admit I'm surprised at the tonka bean use. There are some real health questions there.

Here's Steve Jenkins's very apposite quote:

"I'm not saying a damn thing to you. You're doing the city a disservice with this piece. The government knows who the usual suspects are, and after this they're going to do surgical strikes. All the people in the city who like artisanal food products are going to lose out."

The journalist responsible for the disservice is Reed Tucker.

I'm surprised you lot aren't more angry about this.