Shouldn't the consumer be aware

[KateW]

Recently I ate at a (in my opinion) relatively high end restaurant within a hotel. I ordered salmon and, being the kind of person who tends to delve into food without contemplating it much, I dove in. I enjoyed it thoroughly.

After I had finished, the waitress came over and said with a twinkle in her eye, "Do you know what that was wrapped in?" (I had told her I am a culinary student and I think she was quizzing me.) I shook my head no, and she said "Caul". I learned that this is cow intestine. After trying a bit of what I had left on the plate I could detect it but wouldn't have thought of it otherwise.

My question is, shouldn't this be brought to one's attention on the menu or by the server? Or is it up to the consumer to make sure there is nothing in it that they wouldn't eat?

[=Mark]

I don't know why the server felt compelled to tell you this, but if it was such a big deal I feel that it should have been declared up front. I don't know why, it just seems like it should have been made clear.

Edited March 11, 2003 by =Mark (log)

[vengroff]

Are you sure it was caul, not caul fat? The latter is a webby membrane of fat often used to wrap other foods before roasting.

[Fat Guy]

Almost definitely caul fat, and a lot of restaurant fish dishes are made with it.

[Louisa Chu]

Egads! I can guarantee you that it was not caul but in fact caul fat. Caul fat is in fact a lacy, webby membrane that lines the abdominal cavity, around the stomach. Usually from pigs, sheep and sometimes cows. It is not the intestines. And it is certainly not the same as caul - which is the membrane around a fetus. For more discussion on those kind of recipes, check out the post partum thread.

But caul fat is great. It virtually melts completely away during cooking and imparts a slight, rich flavour.

And yes, I think that if you have certain objections to certain foods you should ask first. If you've eaten a hot dog, you've eaten worse than caul fat.

Now caul, that's a whole other ball game.

[Stone]

I doubt she told you because she thought you'd otherwise not eat it. As you suggested, she was probably quizzing you. Unless a diner suggests that she has dietary restrictions, why should waiter say anything? I worked at a pizza joint where a diner asked whether a certain pizza had any meat in it. I felt compelled to point out that the cream of broccoli soup she had ordered had a chicken stock base. Otherwise, I didn't warn people. Of course, this is what got McDonalds into french fry trouble.

[KateW]

Must have been caul fat. The waitress said caul, but I think that was a mistake. I think it must be somewhat of an issue, whether or not to announce meat in a dish that you wouldnt think would have meat. i've seen threads on it here before.

[Rail Paul]

Do you really know what's in that sandwich?

We had a similar situation at work today in our Monday management meeting. Sandwiches were brought in, usual turkey wraps, portabella mushroom sandwiches, tuna salad sandwiches, a green salad.

Turkey had a little crunch to it, which turned out to be bacon bits, added to the turkey, sprouts, and balsamic. Created quite a stir, and a written request for kosher food alternatives from now on.

[Miss J]

KatyW, I'm firmly convinced that the average consumer isn't aware of a good 10% of what s/he's eating. Back in the days of my vegetarianism, I was a dedicated label-reader who was stunned by the number of "stealth" meat products that crept under most people's radar. Chocolate-covered biscuits (cookies) full of fish oil, sweets based on gelatine, wines filtered through fish skin or egg white - it was a never ending battle to keep myself truly meat-free. And I was trying to. It may not have been the main reason why I went back to meat-eating (er, that would be the siren known as bacon), but the constant vigilence did take its toll.

At the moment, the onus is definitely on the consumer to take the time and effort to find out what they're eating - a particularly miserable situation for people with nut allergies.

[macrosan]

It's an interesting question.

In the UK, we have intense food labelling regulations for all packaged food. Yet we have no similar regulations for restaurants ... yet. Of course, these are coming very soon under new EU regulations.

Many restaurants have got used to the idea of liosting the main ingredients of a dish under its name on the menu. I guess they do that firstly to avoid the endlessly repetitive questions they would otherwise get from diners, and to avoid invalid expectations on the part of the diner. Maybe they are also concerned about allergies. Similarly, very many restaurants are now putting a "V" symbol beside dishes that contain no meat.

All of this is a natural response to the reasonable demands of consumers. The problem Macdonalds had was not just that they fried their fries in meat-based oil, it was that they advertised their fries as "vegetarian".

Overall, I believe the onus is shared. A restaurant should explain on the menu that they are using caul-fat in their cooking of fish, just because a majority of diners will not expect that to be so. But equally, it is for the diner to check whether any dish on the menu contains something he or she would specifically not want to eat. Incidentally, the reason I think restaurants should be proactive in this is that very often the server will answer such an enquiry from a diner incorrectly. Many servers have little idea of how a dish is prepared and cooked, and they will often quite innocently giver wrong information.

[ajay]

I suppose that the best policy is when in doubt ask. But, disclosure of such products (especially when there is a better than average possibiliyt that the customer might have dietary restriction--i.e. ordering all seafood) is always helpful. As a barely practicing Hindu, I do not order beef. But in my own peculiar and intellectually unteneable compromise, I often steer clear of the problem by keeping myself in a deliberate state of ignorance as to the possible use of beef products in a dish (though I mention inability to eat beef when ordering a tasting menu). If I mention a sensitivity to an igredient, I expect the waitstaff to let me know. FOr example, as I posted on my meal at Ducasse, I was offered a beef amuse bouche, which I had to politiley decline. I would expect after that, if any of the other dishes I ordered utilitzed beef in some way that the waitstaff would have so informed me... but I'm not loosing sleep over it.

I should mention that my parents who are lacto-ovo vegetarians have a similar policy of ambiguity (things that don't reak of meat are given the benefit of the doubt unless positive evidence is presented that they in fact contain meat.) Imagine my mom's chagrin, then, when a waiter at CB explained that the vegetarian sounding squash soup contained meat as did the rissotto. (why they wer unable to accomodate a request to do this with vegetable stock I don't know). So I suppose there are trade-offs involved, but from my perspective any information offered by the server is welcome because at the end of the day I don't want to eat beef and my parents meat.

[IrishCream]

Another perspective...I have been searching for a local source of caul-fat for years. I make sausage at home and I don't really care for the casings that are available. I would

much rather have a wrapping that melts and becomes unnoticeable.

I think that if one has food fetishes, one has an obligation to tell the server. The Judge does not eat dairy or fish......sigh. But we notify the restaurant if we make a reservation. We remind them when we order. No big deal.

[Fat Guy]

in my own peculiar and intellectually unteneable compromise, I often steer clear of the problem by keeping myself in a deliberate state of ignorance

Not peculiar. This is the norm. My reading of the average restaurant consumer is that don't-ask-don't-tell is the approach preferred by the majority.

[Ron Johnson]

It is not the duty of the restaurant to make the seller aware of every ingredient in every dish that it makes.

If the consumer has dietary restrictions, it is the consumer's responsibility to convey that to the seller. One cannot blame the restaurant or the server if one never told them of one's dietary restriction.

[macrosan]

It is not the duty of the restaurant to make the seller aware of every ingredient in every dish that it makes. 

I agree with this, provided we are using a very narrow and pedantic definition of the word duty

If the consumer has dietary restrictions, it is the consumer's responsibility to convey that to the seller.  One cannot blame the restaurant or the server if one never told them of one's dietary restriction.

Again, I agree in the narrowest sense. However, what is the quasi-legal position if the consumer asks, and the server gives an incorrect answer ? For example, if a Jewish person asks "Does this fish contain only fish?" and the server says yes, yet the dish contains lobster (which is not a fish but a crustacean) then where is the legal responsibility ? What if the server does not even know what "caul fat" is ? And so on.

My point here is that the issue is not yet one of legal duty and responsibility. It is to do with a proactive commercial relationship between restaurant and diner, a relationship which should be one of mutual respct, where the restaurant should be trying to do its best to help the diner to get the best possible experience. I don't see why a restaurant would want to avoid giving the diner the maximumum possible information, which surely includes details of ingredients of a meal. Many people are interested in categories of ingredient, for a wide range of reasons, and restauranats do know this. So why would they need to wait to be asked specific questions, couched in appropriately careful terminology ?

[Miss J]

What if the server does not even know what "caul fat" is ?

Or even what the difference between caul and caul fat is?

[tommy]

A restaurant should explain on the menu that they are using caul-fat in their cooking of fish, just because a majority of diners will not expect that to be so.

that's ridiculous. put a "not have to" before the "explain" and i'll buy it.

ajay says:

(especially when there is a better than average possibiliyt that the customer might have dietary restriction--i.e. ordering all seafood)

i order all seafood dinners a lot. as i'm sure many other people do. i can't see this being any sort of red flag to the server or restaurant that i must not eat meat.

Edited March 11, 2003 by tommy (log)

[Ron Johnson]

My point here is that the issue is not yet one of legal duty and responsibility. It is to do with a proactive commercial relationship between restaurant and diner, a relationship which should be one of mutual respct, where the restaurant should be trying to do its best to help the diner to get the best possible experience. I don't see why a restaurant would want to avoid giving the diner the maximumum possible information, which surely includes details of ingredients of a meal. Many people are interested in categories of ingredient, for a wide range of reasons, and restauranats do know this. So why would they need to wait to be asked specific questions, couched in appropriately careful terminology ?

Martin,

You are the only one who has defined duty in a legal sense. Nowhere in my post did I state that.

Surely, you are not advocating that it is a server's responsibility to assume or guess which customers have which foodborne allergies and make suggestions appropriately.

If I am allergic to peanuts, I should not expect the restaurant to guess this and clairvoyantly warn me as to all dishes that contain peanuts, nor should the restaurant feel obligated to set forth the exact list of ingredients in every dish so as to warn customers of every potential food reaction. Instead, the customer need only say, "I am allergic to peanuts. Can you make sure nothing I order has peanuts in it?" To which the server can easily reply, "Sure thing." It can be very easy.

Edited March 11, 2003 by Ron Johnson (log)

[tommy]

Instead, the customer need only say, "I am allergic to peanuts.  Can you make sure nothing I order has peanuts in it?"  To which the server can easily reply, "Sure thing."  It can be very easy.

but then what about the conspiracies?

[Rail Paul]

My point here is that the issue is not yet one of legal duty and responsibility. It is to do with a proactive commercial relationship between restaurant and diner, a relationship which should be one of mutual respct, where the restaurant should be trying to do its best to help the diner to get the best possible experience. I don't see why a restaurant would want to avoid giving the diner the maximumum possible information, which surely includes details of ingredients of a meal. Many people are interested in categories of ingredient, for a wide range of reasons, and restauranats do know this. So why would they need to wait to be asked specific questions, couched in appropriately careful terminology ?

Martin,

You are the only one who has defined duty in a legal sense. Nowhere in my post did I state that.

Surely, you are not advocating that it is a server's responsibility to assume or guess which customers have which foodborne allergies and make suggestions appropriately.

If I am allergic to peanuts, I should not expect the restaurant to guess this and clairvoyantly warn me as to all dishes that contain peanuts, nor should the restaurant feel obligated to set forth the exact list of ingredients in every dish so as to warn customers of every potential food reaction. Instead, the customer need only say, "I am allergic to peanuts. Can you make sure nothing I order has peanuts in it?" To which the server can easily reply, "Sure thing." It can be very easy.

Ron -

I think there are reasonable expectations that a diner and a restaurant both bring to the table. You expect a Chinese restaurant may use MSG, and ask about it, if that's a concern.

You don't expect "vegetarian" food will be cooked in beef caul or tallow. My co workers didn't expect that a turkey and sprouts wrap would contain bits of bacon, which offended them and their religious sensibilities. It also cost the caterer a weekly $80 tab

A little bit of disclosure will go a long way toward enhancing customer satisfaction if it allows people to focus on the meal in comfort.

Paul

[Ron Johnson]

So everytime a person orders the turkey sandwich, the waiter is expected to tell them it has bacon on it, rather than everytime the person who cant eat bacon orders a sandwich he should tell the waiter? That seems backward to me.

Lets say the turkey sandwich has sprouts and bacon on it but the menu just says turkey sandwich. Two people come in to eat, one doesn't eat bacon and one is allergic to sprouts. Both order the sandwich and neither tell the waiter of their dietary restrictions. Is it the waiter's job to guess which customer has which food restriction, if at all, and then make warnings accordingly?

Wouldn't make sense for one diner to simply say, "Oh, and I cannot eat bacon," and the other to say, "and I am allergic to sprouts."? Then the waiter can say, "Oh I am glad you told me, our sandwich has both on it, so I will tell the kitchen to leave those off of yours."

Now, if something is labeled as "vegetarian" then it should not have meat in it. Likewise, if it is labeled vegan, it should not have meat, dairy, or eggs. But that is different than asking a restaurant to warn every customer of every potential dietary restriction contained in every item of food it sells. Placing an order in such a scenario could an hour at each table.

Edited March 11, 2003 by Ron Johnson (log)

[tommy]

That seems backward to me.

that's because it is. everyone wants their hand held. everyone wants people to look out for their best interests so they don't have to take responsibility for their own failure to protect themselves. and then, of course, come the lawsuits.

[Kim WB]

I agree that it is the responsibility of the person with the food allergies or preferences to make that known to the wait staff. In the case of severe food allergies, I would not trust them, and ask to speak to the chef. ( after all, a lot of the servers don't have any idea of food or food preperation..they're going to tell you what they think is true, but they might not be correct) To suggest that servers should notify patrons that a food is wrapped in caul fat, or print it on the menu, is not realistic. Instead, the customer needs to preference his order with, "Here is what I would like to order from the menu. However, I do not eat red meat ( shellfish, whatever) products of any kind..so can you please let me know if anything I'm ordering has these ingredients?"

However, in Paul's scenario, if his company has been getting non-bacon wraps for months, and this time it came with bacon, then the onus was on the caterer to notify them in the change of preperation.

[Ron Johnson]

that's because it is.  everyone wants their hand held.  everyone wants people to look out for their best interests so they don't have to take responsibility for their own failure to protect themselves.  and then, of course, come the lawsuits.

Well, those lawsuits are what I do for a living, and sometimes its not an issue of personal responsibility.

If the person goes into a restaurant and tells the waiter that she is allergic to peanuts and the waiter brings her a dish with peanuts in it anyway and she dies, then I think her estate has a very legitimate lawsuit.

However, if she doesn't tell the waiter about her peanut allergy and then dies from eating a dish with peanuts, I would advise her estate that it does not have a good lawsuit.

The insurance industry has done an excellent PR job convincing the public that all lawsuits are frivolous, when that is far from the truth. The truth is some are and some are not. To lump them all together as good or bad is really kind of silly.

[tommy]

Well, those lawsuits are what I do for a living, and sometimes its not an issue of personal responsibility. 

of course, ron. i should have qualified "lawsuits" with "frivolous." ya stickler ya.