Trotter and Tramonto square off over Foie Gras

[FaustianBargain]

How do you propose to make things happen?

If I were on the pro foie gras camp, I can think of a couple of strikes. But alas, you are on your own.

I take that to mean you didn't find any posts. If anything you are thorough.

Yes, I am done. Stick a fork in me and turn me over.

Yes sweetie pie (I reserve that term for boys. You are a boy?),

I can be anything you want me to be...

let's move on with the discussion to further the discussion. Responding to a post to simply dismiss the post does not further the discussion. Just ignore the post.

Ok. Ignored.

In order to further the discussion, you still didn't answer my question.

edited to add:

* and acting like in '5th grade' doesnt help.

You know what happens when you act like you are in 5th grade? You go to the 6th grade. That's it. Good luck.

I know, some of you here think that Trotter is 'puerile'. But you need those fro

m the other camp more than they need you. Seriously.

Who is the other camp? And why does "you" (who is this "you" by the way?) Need "them" more than "they" need "you".

←

Done.

What I meant is..

those who do not favour foie gras do not need the help of those who believe that they need foie gras for their mental health.

if the in-fighting stops, the currently scattered groups can be broadly classified into three groups. as mentioned in the simplified thought experiment yesterday..

Group A*

-love foie gras

-against violence

-for freedom of choice

Group B**

-dont care for foie gras

-against violence

-for freedom of choice

Group C***

-dont care for foie gras

-will do anything to achieve goal

-against freedom of choice

A and B can exist together, but C cannot exist with B. C is a threat to both A and B. Optimal solution is to eliminate C. When A and B join and collectively oust C, the only bone of contention is the issue of foie gras since out of 3 principles, they agree upon 2.

With co-operation, both A and B can get what they want. Without co-operation, C will run amok, B will keep fighting as will A, but it is A who will be deprived. Without co-operation, A will be the loser. B has nothing to lose. A battle for values can be an ongoing battle. In fact, it is strengthened as time lapses.

First things first, draw the battle lines and identify the groups. Alienate B group members from C group members. Draw group B together. Kiss and make up. Whining makes the group look weak.

[..]

*example: cannot think of anyone..closest example...derricks, maybe?

**example: Chef Trotter

***example: loony right wing

Edited April 8, 2005 by FaustianBargain (log)

[Bux]

Perhaps, either under biting the hand that feeds it, or as part of a disclosure statement, I should note that I have eaten once at Charlie Trotter and at Tru. At both places I received what I would consider special attention. In both cases it was because of the person who made my reservation and in one case, even more so because of my dining companions (actually hosts). The only relevance I find, is that I thought both were first rate restaurants. The meals were too long ago for me to make exact comparisons, but by no means did I think Tru threatened CT as the only fine dining in town. Chicago is certain big enough to hold both restaurants and if there aren't enough diners interested in haute cuisine, I suspect they can be trained if what I saw as middle class cooking is representative. Good food and good restaurants abounded and there seemed to be great interest in eating well. It's a shame to see the public associate fine dining with this kind of feuding.

[Bux]

Here is Bux's quote:

To Robert Buxbaum, manager the eGullet site, the most interesting aspect of the foie gras flap has been the exposed underbelly of inter-chef dynamics.

"Chefs in London are noted for stepping out of the kitchen and arguing with diners on the floor, but that doesn't happen in New York or Chicago as far as I know," Buxbaum said. "Most chefs are respectful to other chefs, at least in public."

Two points, Bux:

first, Why are we speaking about chefs arguing with diners?

We aren't and I didn't post about that in this thread. I was speaking to Mark Caro off handedly, but on the record, about my reaction to his article in reponse to questions about why I thought his first article touched nerves. I assume he chose to interject that comment in his article, which was not written as a post for this thread, because he thought it shed some light on one of the reasons some people have reacted strongly to what he quoted in his first article on the subject. Your insistance on putting people on the spot for things unrelated to the thrust of the thread is what I've criticized as a derailing tactic.

secondly, about 'chefs are respectful to other chefs, at least in public', I have to disagree. Books have been written with chefs mocking other chefs. A certain celebrity chef writer calling another celebrity television chef an 'ewok' was brought to my notice recently.

However, allow me to quote bourdain from the latest article links that keep piling in my inbox:

"He's easy to pick on," Bourdain said. "He's not exactly famous for his sense of humor. There is an element of schoolyard pile-on in this case, vicarious enjoyment of his embarrassment."

Indeed. In fact, bourdain had his flaming shot at Trotter several months ago. I just recd what might be an answer to my previous question to bourdain.

From Courier Mail

According to Bourdain, Trotter's vegetarian cookbook, Raw, written with Roxanne Klein, is the most evil book published since Mein Kampf. "It's an obscenely evil document," he tells those gathered to hear him speak at Brisbane's Restaurant II. 

From Hartford advocate

Ask him about chef Charlie Trotter and the raw-food movement. You get classic bone-gnawing Bourdain: "I think after World War II, in the English-speaking world, there was this sort of Puritan idea or concept that taking too much pleasure in food led to bad character. That in some way if you enjoyed yourself at the table too much it would lead to the harder stuff. Like sex. I think the French and Italians understood, 'Yeah! It just led to sex!' And they were absolutely OK with that. But, you know, let's take Charlie Trotter for example. You know what's wrong with Charlie Trotter's food? He cooks like a guy who's never been fucked properly."

Good point, and when it came to my attention I also cited that article for its relevance to this thread. There are differences between the two. One or more members already posted opinions on that. There are considerable contextural differences including the fact that Bourdain's "bad boy" character is his meat and potatoes. It's unfortunate that Trotter has cultivated a persona that doesn't enable him to say those things without people believing he's very serious about it. That's not to say that Bourdain is not serious, but his choice of words is undertood differently.

I was only struck by the gratuitousness of Tony's comment, but even then, it needs to be seen in context of a discussion on "raw foods," or more specifically "the raw food movement." The raw food movement is quite different in terms of health claims and health results, than is vegetarianism.

I think the issue is more complex and is multi layered than just foie gras.

. . . .

I don't think there's disagreement on that. Part of the complexity for Bourdain seems to be that Trotter came to the aid of the anti-foie gras forces mildly, but stronger than he came to Manrique's aid. That's part of the contextural aspect.

I'd like to offer one more comment in the way of possible correction, I've been told by a spokesperson for Charlie Trotter than his take out shop has liver pate, but not foie gras. Can a resident of the city confirm that the liver pate is not foie gras pate and does not contain foie gras as earlier reported. Not all duck liver is foie gras. Every duck that comes to market has a liver. A liver pate may have pork, chicken, duck or goose liver without having foie gras.

[docsconz]

What I meant is..

*those who do not favour foie gras do not need the help of those who believe that they need foie gras for their mental health.

*if the in-fighting stops, the currently scattered groups can be broadly classified into three groups. as mentioned in the simplified thought experiment yesterday..

Group A*

-love foie gras

-against violence

-for freedom of choice

Group B**

-dont care for foie gras

-against violence

-for freedom of choice

Group C***

-dont care for foie gras

-will do anything to achieve goal

-against freedom of choice

A and B can exist together, but C cannot exist with B. C is a threat to both A and B. Optimal solution is to eliminate C. When A and B join and collectively oust C, the only  bone of contention is the issue of foie gras since out of 3 principles, they agree upon 2.

With co-operation, both A and B can get what they want. Without co-operation, C will run amok, B will keep fighting as will A, but it is A who will be deprived. Without co-operation, A will be the loser. B has nothing to lose. A battle for values can be an ongoing battle. In fact, it is strengthened as time lapses.

First things first, draw the battle lines and identify the groups. Alienate B group members from C group members. Draw group B together. Kiss and make up. Whining makes ya'll look weak.

Now, let me drop my pants, luv, so you can kiss my arse and call me 'sweetie pie'.

*example: cannot think of anyone..closest example...derricks, maybe?

**example: Chef Trotter

***example: loony right wing

←

Your logic here is good, however, I don't really agree with your conclusions.

camp "A" is in fact doing the very thing you suggest by stressing the violent, confrontational, anti-choice tactics espoused by the most ardent anti-foie gras activists. If someone doesn't like foie gras they are free to not order it or go to restaurants that don't serve it. It is when they trample upon my right to eat it that I get upset. It is certainly possible to have a fine dining experience without foie gras.I do it frequently. I don't believe that is the point of the discussion.

I believe in humane and ethical animal husbandry. I prefer to patronize establishments that care where their product comes from and how it was raised. I would not knowingly buy from a producer that raised the foie gras ducks inhumanely. My understanding and belief is that though it is certainly possible that these ducks can and sometimes are treated inhumanely, the process is not inherently so. I have a much greater problem with industrial chicken, hog and cattle farms.

[FaustianBargain]

camp "A" is in fact doing the very thing you suggest by stressing the violent, confrontational, anti-choice tactics espoused by the most ardent anti-foie gras activists.

You mean Group C?

If someone doesn't like foie gras they are free to not order it or go to restaurants that don't serve it.

Group B

It is when they trample upon my right to eat it that I get upset.

That would be Group C.

There is a clear overlap between B and C that Group A likes to stress. This is the core problem. This alienates those who are willing to let the foie gras lovers do what turns them on. It is quite tragic really. A conflict is born when there are ways to avoid it.

The line between B and C blurs for Group A because they have much to lose. I would hate it too if something I love is yanked away from me, but lashing out at the wrong person isnt helping anyone.

The distrust has to evaporate. There is nothing Group B can do. It is in the hands of Group A. They cannot cry foul about Group B following their heart. They have to act instead of feeling victimised.

P.S. I know my way of explanation is a tad bizarre. I am also aware that it might be subjected to unkind comments. But I really want to lay it out in very simple terms so the noise component in this issue can be eliminated. Once the noise is eliminated, the environment is so much more friendly for everyone to live together without grabbing each other's throats. Not forever..but at least for a long time in the near future.

[scordelia]

I believe  in humane and ethical animal husbandry. I prefer to patronize establishments that care where their product comes from and how it was raised. I would not knowingly buy from a producer that raised the foie gras ducks inhumanely.  My understanding and belief is that though it is certainly possible that these ducks can and sometimes are treated inhumanely, the process is not inherently so. I have a much greater problem with industrial chicken, hog and cattle farms.

←

Bravo!

[ivan]

Where is group D when you need it?

Group D

-love foie gras

-extremely violent

-for freedom of choice

Groups C and D can duke it out in the parking lot while groups A and B have a nice lunch.

[docsconz]

camp "A" is in fact doing the very thing you suggest by stressing the violent, confrontational, anti-choice tactics espoused by the most ardent anti-foie gras activists.

You mean Group C?

Actually I mean group "A" is stressing the argument that what group "C" is doing is violent, confrontational and anti-choice. This should be bringing them in line with Group "B" as you suggest by emphasizing the similar concerns.

By alienation of Group "B" by Group "A", I suppose you mean that group "A" should not criticize Group "B"'s philosophical anti-foie tendencies. I presume that this would apply both to you as well as Chef Trotter? I have no problem that Chef Trotter prefers to not make or serve foie gras in his establishments. I do have a problem when his advocacy extends to denouncing other chefs who do not share his opinion and when his publicly expressed opinion is used to support anti-choice legislation. I do not have a problem with you, Chef Trotter or anyone else expressing your opinions against foie gras here or anywhere else. The difference is that Chef Trotter has restaurants that I can choose to patronize or not. As I would advise people who are opposed to foie gras to vote with their pocketbooks, so will I. So long as I have a choice I will patronize restaurants and chefs who use foie gras responsibly whether or not I choose to order it. I will not avoid chefs or restaurants who do not use it so long as they do not stand in the way of my ability to have it elsewhere. Chef Trotter does not seems to conform to either and so I will cast my vote accordingly.

[ivan]

Or, like, you can have Group E that believe in freedom of choice but chew with their mouths open and ask for forks at sushi bars -- then Groups A through D can beat up on E and later go out for pizza and beers.

[FaustianBargain]

By alienation of Group "B" by Group "A", I suppose you mean that group "A" should not criticize Group "B"'s philosophical  anti-foie tendencies.

I presume that this would apply both to you as well as Chef Trotter?

Yes.

I have no problem that Chef Trotter prefers to not make or serve foie gras in his establishments. I do have a problem when his advocacy extends to denouncing other chefs who do not share his opinion and when his publicly expressed opinion is used to support anti-choice legislation.

This is where I think Mark Caro's reporting has been very naughty. I have said this many times and I dont mind repeating myself once more.

Rick Tramonto denounced Trotter before Trotter made that unfortunate remark because Tramonto was interviewed about Trotter before Trotter made an official statement. This is all documented in the earlier pages of this thread. Blame Caro. Not Trotter.

The difference is that Chef Trotter has restaurants that I can choose to patronize or not. As I would advise people who are opposed to foie gras to vote with their pocketbooks, so will I. So long as I have a choice I will patronize restaurants and chefs who use foie gras responsibly whether or not I choose to order it.

It is your $$. You make the call.

I will not avoid chefs or restaurants who do not use it so long as they do not stand in the way of my ability to have it elsewhere. Chef Trotter does not seems to conform to either and so I will cast my vote accordingly.

This is not clear. How did Trotter come in the way of you having it elsewhere.

In fact, one of the criticisms against Trotter earlier in this thread was that he served foie gras at the charity dinner. This was false. When it was clarified, it was obvious that he did not stand in the way of either the diners having foie gras when they expect it or in the way of chefs who saw it as a way to express their culinary prowess.

I do not comprehend how and where this misunderstanding that Trotter is personally looking forward to banish foie gras from the foie gras loving public's plate occured.

It is also a fact that the legislation to ban foie gras consumption/possession was discussed in the papers before the article 'Liver and let live' by Mark Caro in the Chicago Tribune was published.

Trotter's public statement was coaxed out by a reporter and how does all this translate into Chef Trotter taking away your right to enjoy foie gras?

[docsconz]

I will not avoid chefs or restaurants who do not use it so long as they do not stand in the way of my ability to have it elsewhere. Chef Trotter does not seems to conform to either and so I will cast my vote accordingly.

This is not clear. How did Trotter come in the way of you having it elsewhere.

In fact, one of the criticisms against Trotter earlier in this thread was that he served foie gras at the charity dinner. This was false. When it was clarified, it was obvious that he did not stand in the way of either the diners having foie gras when they expect it or in the way of chefs who saw it as a way to express their culinary prowess.

I do not comprehend how and where this misunderstanding that Trotter is personally looking forward to banish foie gras from the foie gras loving public's plate occured.

It is also a fact that the legislation to ban foie gras consumption/possession was discussed in the papers before the article 'Liver and let live' by Mark Caro in the Chicago Tribune was published.

Trotter's public statement was coaxed out by a reporter and how does all this translate into Chef Trotter taking away your right to enjoy foie gras?

←

If I am wrong about Chef Trotter, I will gladly adjust my view of him and his establishment. Whether or not he was reacting to what Chef Tramonto had to say, his words were inflammatory and serve to support the cause of Group "C". I would like nothing better than for Chef Trotter to say that while he does not personally endorse foie gras, he does not support either the activists violently opposed to it or the political banning of it.

The only time I endorse temporary banning of a food product is if the continued exploitation of that product is likely to result in the extinction or severe weakening of a species, in which case the product would likely be lost forever. Products that are potentially personally harmful such as raw milk cheese should not be banned, but should come with major warning labels. Buyer Beware.

[FaustianBargain]

Whether or not he was reacting to what Chef Tramonto had to say, his words were inflammatory and serve to support the cause of Group "C".

His words were inflammatory as a defensive reaction to a very personal attack from Tramonto. This is very obvious when you draw the timeline and track the order of the interviews.

Did his words support Group C? (Begin Edit)Maybe, but only Group A can feel incensed and extra sensitive about it. Group B is not obligated to make Group A feel better and safe. This is what I meant earlier that Group A needs Group B rather than the other way around. This is also the reason why Group A has to cut out the wild thrashing and try to negotiate a compromise with Group B.(End Edit)To anyone who has felt defensive against an insult or a hurt before, it is obvious that the drama that unfolded was undoubtedly a personal one and had nothing to do with the issue of foie gras. (Begin edit)There was no hidden agenda to hoist Group C's cause.(End edit)

This is why I said Group A and Group B should eliminate the noise factor and start establishing rules. No, they can never be bum pals. But they can certainly protect themselves from unnecessary conflict arising from stray elements that crave entertainment.

Reminds me of a story from my youth. It has a moral, you know. A story about the family that fought in public and exposed their weakness while the opportunistic audience looted their home as they were busy hurting themselves.

I would like nothing better than for Chef Trotter to say that while he does not personally endorse foie gras, he does not support either the activists violently opposed to it or the political banning of it.

I cannot speak for Chef Trotter, but that seems to be a reasonable and rational conclusion to arrive at....

The only time I endorse temporary banning of a food product is if the continued exploitation of that product is likely to result in the extinction or severe weakening of a species, in which case the product would likely be lost forever.  Products that are potentially personally harmful such as raw milk cheese should not be banned, but should come with major warning labels. Buyer Beware.

←

Amen.

Edited April 8, 2005 by FaustianBargain (log)

[bourdain]

The Charlie Trotter FaustianBargain, in progressive leaps of far-fetched (and some might say borderline-deranged) logic portrays is a lamentably insignificant creature: Too lacking in stature in his tiny little Chicago eatery to affect public attitudes or political will on the issues, too dumb and unsophisticated to know he is talking to a reporter or understand the process, too mindless to have his own opinions or resentments--only a dimly insinctive impulse to "react" innocently when another chef makes (measured) critical remarks. This Chef Trotter of FB's construction is also too docile to ask good friends to consider his feelings--or the fact that his NAME IS ON THE DOOR. Too unimportant a cog in the operation to take credit or blame for a joint menu served in his eponymous restaurant. He appears--if FB is to be believed, a witless, near comatose victim--a mouth-breathing, easily intimidated passenger, only dimly aware what's going on in his place--or in the outside world.

This depiction does no justice to the issue, to the general discourse, to any reasonable appreciation of reality--or to Chef Trotter himself. Charlie Trotter is--as anyone who's spent any time at all with him is fully and explicitly aware, is a highly intelligent, fully engaged, media savvy chef, author and entrepeneur/businessman of long standing. A man legendarily demanding of his associates and employees--and a guy with no small ego or presence.Agree or disagree with what he says and does. Like or dislike his food or his works. But for Christ sakes! Stop blindly "defending" the guy in such a way as to paint him as a submissive, half-conscious bivalve.

You don't rise to Trotter's level of success without knowing how the world works. Or shrinking from the occasionally unpleasant task of vetoing the wishes of others or bending others to your will--as anyone who's worked with Charlie will be happy to tell you. As any CHEF will tell you. Deconstruct all you like. We have long ago disappeared down the rabbit hole ..and left the real Trotter behind.

I believe I saw a reference to FB being a chef?

I disbelieve it. Unless chefs spend all day on line.

[touaregsand]

This is not clear. How did Trotter come in the way of you having it elsewhere.

The bandwagon, tidal wave effect has been already discussed.

In fact, one of the criticisms against Trotter earlier in this thread was that he served foie gras at the charity dinner. This was false. When it was clarified, it was obvious that he did not stand in the way of either the diners having foie gras when they expect it or in the way of chefs who saw it as a way to express their culinary prowess.

The hypocritcal hairs have already been split.

I do not comprehend how and where this misunderstanding that Trotter is personally looking forward to banish foie gras from the foie gras loving public's plate occured.

It comes from his choice of words.

t is also a fact that the legislation to ban foie gras consumption/possession was discussed in the papers before the article 'Liver and let live' by Mark Caro in the Chicago Tribune was published

It seems most of us are well aware of that. Refer to the bandwagon effect above.

Trotter's public statement was coaxed out by a reporter and how does all this translate into Chef Trotter taking away your right to enjoy foie gras?

You're stating your opinion as if it were a fact. I will state my opinion as an opinion. I think that Trotter wants attention.

You've made all of these points repeatedly.

With that said, I will bow out of this thread. Maybe I'll start a new thread that focuses on foie gras and the larger implications on banning foie gras. All roads in this discussion seem to lead to Trotter which only muddies the issue. Which only makes sense considering how this thread was started.

[touaregsand]

The Charlie Trotter FaustianBargain, in progressive leaps of far-fetched (and some might say borderline-deranged) logic

I thought I would have to wait a few more years before reading anything funnier than Trotter's "whup ass".

I'm going out now to buy one of your books. I'm out the door now.

[FaustianBargain]

You don't rise to Trotter's level of success without knowing how the world works. Or shrinking from the occasionally unpleasant task of vetoing the wishes of others or  bending others to your will--as anyone who's  worked with Charlie will be happy to tell you.  As any CHEF will tell you. Deconstruct all you like. We have long ago  disappeared down the rabbit hole ..and left the real Trotter behind.

What you are essentially saying above is that Chef Trotter should have 'vetoed' the wishes of Heston B/Tetsuya/diners who expect foie gras(possibly) to serve/enjoy because he doesnt want to serve foie gras himself?

In other words, you are upset because he didnt trample upon the rights of others to cook or eat foie gras.

Hmm..

[dmede]

In other words, you are upset because he didnt trample upon the rights of others to cook or eat foie gras.

←

I've so far read this from afar, but this strikes me a bit too bizarre of an argument. As I have read the ten pages of this thread, my impression is that Bourdain is upset with Charlie Trotter's apparent hypocrisy. Asking somebody not to cook foie gras in one's kitchen hardly seems to be "trampl[ing] upon the rights of others to cook or eat foie gras." To the contrary, it seems a reasonable request, especially if it is based on a principled moral position. And most reasonable people would respect such a morally-grounded request if it were made. Don't you think?

[scordelia]

It is also a fact that the legislation to ban foie gras consumption/possession was discussed in the papers before the article 'Liver and let live' by Mark Caro in the Chicago Tribune was published.

←

Actually, there is some confusion here on the legislation.

The proposed Chicago ordinance was reported on April 7 in the Trib as I stated in my orginal post http://forums.egullet.org/index.php?showto...ndpost&p=891590 . That ordinance seeks to ban all Chicago restaurants from serving foie gras.

Now the state of Illinois had recently passed a bill (that coincided with original Mark Caro article and was mentioned in it) that made it illegal to produce foie gras in Illinois, but did not attempt to interfere with anyone's dining preferences.

Edited April 9, 2005 by scordelia (log)

[SKinCA]

You don't rise to Trotter's level of success without knowing how the world works. Or shrinking from the occasionally unpleasant task of vetoing the wishes of others or  bending others to your will--as anyone who's  worked with Charlie will be happy to tell you.  As any CHEF will tell you. Deconstruct all you like. We have long ago  disappeared down the rabbit hole ..and left the real Trotter behind.

What you are essentially saying above is that Chef Trotter should have 'vetoed' the wishes of Heston B/Tetsuya/diners who expect foie gras(possibly) to serve/enjoy because he doesnt want to serve foie gras himself?

In other words, you are upset because he didnt trample upon the rights of others to cook or eat foie gras.

Hmm..

←

I want to know why, FB, in your world, people either "veto" others wishes or "trample upon the rights of others"?

Do you assume that there is no legitimate give and take between equals in the cooking world? That Chef Trotter couldn't simply have asked the other chefs if it was possible to replace foie, given his (Trotter's) current feelings on the subject?

Do you think Chefs Blumenthal and Wakuda would stamp their feet, hold their breath and fall down on the floor if asked to take their host's wishes into account? I doubt it. Most adults don't react like that.

But maybe, just maybe, this issue isn't that critical to CT and he gives it lip service when it gets his name in the papers but can't be bothered to follow through. Just a thought. But no - I doubt it. That would be.....hypocritical, wouldn't it?

Maybe not serving foie at his restaurant is really about ecomonics and not ethics. I don't know. I don't work at a restaurant, never have. But I've been told by at least one chef that foie gras is quite expensive for him to offer and doesn't neccessarily pay for itself.

I'm sure you'll have an exhaustive reply.

Just don't call me "luv", please.

[ivan]

Just don't call me "luv", please. 

←

That's better than "bum pal".

[Morris]

The truth of the matter is that eating Foie Gras is cruel to ducks. As Tramonto states (in a roundabout way), consuming any animal does not ultimately bode well for their existence and is as such, cruel. If Trotter’s point is this, then I guess it can be argued, but to have credibility he would need to cease serving or eating any animal product. If his point (which I believe it is) is that there is a higher degree of cruelty in producing Foie Gras than any other food product he serves, then there are several questions which first must be answered: Are animals able to determine pleasure from pain (in a sentient manner)?, If they are, then at what point would it be considered ‘cruel’? and Who is qualified to answer these questions. Most likely there are dozens, if not hundreds of examples of animal treatment pertaining to Trotter’s menu items that a significant number of rational, intelligent people would conclude exhibit greater cruelty than producing Foie Gras. He prides himself on serving ingredients (animals) that no other restaurants serve, because of their difficulty in procuring. Well, when the channels taken to receive shipment of these items are not ‘in the open’, wouldn’t it be reasonable to assume that ‘animal rights’ regulations are certainly not met? Most importantly, above all else, it is certainly reasonable to assume that he feels this way as well. Even subject to all the aforementioned questions, I would imagine anyone (including Trotter) would believe partially killing a Wild Boar and letting him die over the next hour and a half is crueler than force feeding a duck. The bottom line is that regardless of the fact that he is a self important, funny looking hypocrite; the media and public wouldn’t be giving him such a difficult time over the moronic statements he made in the Tribune article, if his food wasn’t bland, unimaginative and overpriced.

[designchick88]

I believe I saw a reference to FB being a chef?

I disbelieve it. Unless chefs spend all day on line.

That's funny, I was thinkin' the same thing...

[chefzadi]

Maybe not serving foie at his restaurant is really about ecomonics and not ethics. I don't know. I don't work at a restaurant, never have. But I've been told by at least one chef that foie gras is quite expensive for him to offer and doesn't neccessarily pay for itself.

I'll be the second chef to tell you that.

[ivan]

Group A*

-love foie gras

-against violence

-for freedom of choice

Group B**

-dont care for foie gras

-against violence

-for freedom of choice

Group C***

-dont care for foie gras

-will do anything to achieve goal

-against freedom of choice

*example: cannot think of anyone..closest example...derricks, maybe?

**example: Chef Trotter

***example: loony right wing

Ok, that's the Foie Gras Activism Group Theory as initially postulated.

The bottom line is that regardless of the fact that he is a self important, funny looking hypocrite; the media and public wouldn’t be giving him such a difficult time over the moronic statements he made in the Tribune article, if his food wasn’t bland, unimaginative and overpriced.

←

Either you have to re-define Group B to include "funny looking hypocrite", or create a new group for Chef Trotter.

[chefzadi]

Do you think Chefs Blumenthal and Wakuda would stamp their feet, hold their breath and fall down on the floor if asked to take their host's wishes into account? I doubt it. Most adults don't react like that.

I'd get out my pure carbon steel Sab.... never mind, I'm an African-Berber/Arab with a heavy French accent I might be taken seriously. Whereas a gnome might not be.

Back on topic

The anti-foie camp has a tiny edge in arguments presented to the public over the pro-foie gras camp. The antis can talk about cruelty (ducks are cute) whereas the pros no matter how much we try to discuss the larger implications will have a hard time fighting the luxury item for elitists impression that the antis will keep tossing up.

What next, we'll be banning Kosher and Halal meat? They do in some European countries.