Trotter and Tramonto square off over Foie Gras

[bourdain]

" "I know it's not making it easier for chefs, but is that a bad thing?" Trotter said. "

from today's Trib piece.

Let's understand what we're talking about when he says "Not making it easier for chefs" We're talking about people sneaking into Laurent Manrique's back yard--while he's at work--and VIDEO TAPING HIS WIFE AND INFANT INSIDE HIS HOME--then sending him the video tape. We're talking people breaking into his store and trashing and flooding his business. These are the folks who are getting their way. These have been their tactics so far. And their tactics--rather than being punished and prosecuted--are rewarded. Chefs are yanking it from their menus to avoid "problems" Laws are being changed. The bad guys are indeed, winning the day.

It's against this background of very real threat that some high profile chefs have chosen to do an about face. And it is, I think, completely understandable that many of their peers resent it.

As far as my comments on RAW:

I urge one and all to read Klein's intro; Her example of Woody Harrelson, sitting in THAILAND--that's THAILAND, folks--eating the same raw salad every single day--as an inspiration for her mucus-free, pleasure-free, risk free, hygenic "pure" philosophy is terrifying.

That Charlie lent his considerable skills, talent and reputation to such an inherently anti-human, anti-food product makes him a deserving target for ridicule anytime I get him in my sights. Trotter--without question--is a significant entity in the world of cuisine. Arguably, he's a genius. He runs a very very fine restaurant. And he's been nothing but good to me.

Hannah Arendt talks about the banality of evil. Trotter has--on two occasions--chosen to stand with people I consider dangerous to my fundamental concept of how to cook, how to eat, and how to live in this world. A proponent of evil? Maybe not. Just another shopkeeper--going along--while they drag away the neighbors.

[bourdain]

..and the picture of Charlie Trotter, "opening a can of whup-ass" on anyone other than a geriatric dachsund is pretty fucking hilarious.

[FaustianBargain]

" "I know it's not making it easier for chefs, but is that a bad thing?" Trotter said. "

from today's Trib piece.

Let's understand what we're talking about when he says "Not making it easier for chefs" 

Yes. Let us please understand what we are talking about. We are talking about learning to cook fine food without using foie gras. Maybe YOU are talking about Manrique, but in that case, you should have mentioned it in your interview with Caro. But then again, maybe you did. Mark Caro's previous piece leaves much to be desired when it comes to proper chronological order of presenting quotes.

This too, the rest of us reading public will never know.

We're talking about people sneaking into Laurent Manrique's back yard--while he's at work--and VIDEO TAPING HIS WIFE AND INFANT INSIDE HIS HOME--then sending him the video tape. We're talking people breaking into his store and trashing and flooding his business. These are the folks who are getting their way. These have been their tactics so far. And their tactics--rather than being punished and prosecuted--are rewarded. Chefs are yanking it from their menus to avoid "problems" Laws are being changed.  The bad guys are indeed, winning the day.

It's against this background of very real threat that some high profile chefs have chosen to do an about face. And it is, I think, completely understandable that many of their peers resent it.

Are you telling me that ALL those who are against forcefeeding and foie gras are responsible for the actions of a few rabid animal activists? Arent you generalising?

Just because the 'bad guy' is winning the day, does a chef who doesnt feel quite right about serving foie gras lick the collective arses of the 'good guys' and stifle his own wishes?

As far as my comments on RAW:

I urge one and all to read Klein's intro; Her example of Woody Harrelson, sitting in THAILAND--that's THAILAND, folks--eating the same raw salad every single day--as an inspiration for her mucus-free, pleasure-free, risk free, hygenic "pure" philosophy is terrifying.

That Charlie lent his considerable skills, talent and reputation to such an inherently anti-human, anti-food  product makes him a deserving target for ridicule anytime I get him in my sights.

I urge you to travel. To India. You know, the country with one billion people, the majority of whom are vegetarians. I'll even take you in as a houseguest at very reasonable rates if you will wash the dishes and do your own laundry. Indians, only one nationality among many others, have lived on vegetarian food for many many generations. I challenge you to convince one vegetarian Indian that they are ingesting 'anti-food'.

Trotter--without question--is a significant entity in the world of cuisine. Arguably, he's a genius. He runs a very very fine restaurant. And he's been nothing but good to me. 

Hannah Arendt  talks about the banality of evil. Trotter has--on two occasions--chosen to stand with people I consider dangerous to my fundamental concept of how to cook, how to eat, and how to live in this world. A proponent of evil? Maybe not. Just another shopkeeper--going along--while they drag away the neighbors.

←

Let us simplify what you said: Trotter has-on two occassions-has chosen to disagree with your concept of food.

Ok. Basically, this is a schoolyard fight between a ardent meat eater and an anti-foie gras person. It seems to me that you are trying to sell your case by exploiting the travesty that happened to Chef Laurent Manrique. Shame on you, bourdain.

[The Cynical Chef]

Where in the hell does Charlie Trotter get off? Foie Gras is cruel but line caught fish is not? What about his roasted Arkansas Rabbit? How did that animal die? By shotgun after being chased by dogs or did it live in a cage while being fed corn...maybe it was allowed to roam across an acre of soft grass while it gorged itself on corn. Did that rabbit then have its throat slit and get hung by its feet to die while it kicked and struggled in vain. Perhaps it was electrocted. Trotter is also serving Kumamoto Oysters. I don't know about Chef Trotter but when I serve oysters I sometimes roast them while they are still alive! And I suppose line caught fish is HUMANE? Has Charlie Trotter ever gone fishing and felt an 8 pound flounder fight for all it was worth because it has just bitten through a stainless steel barbed hook? That flounder may not understand just what is on the other end of that hook but he sure as hell knows he is fighting for his life! Once landed (either on a fishing pier at Pawley's Island SC or a trawler 20 miles off the coast) that fish will gasp for air because he is being suffocated. If caught on a trawler he is thrown into a live well with the other fish and a limited amount of water; the fish still gasp for air because the seawater is quickly depleted of oxygen. They can literally suffocate in water if the live well is not constantly refreshed with seawater. Perhaps the fish are put on ice....ALIVE! Perhaps the fish are butchered at sea, has Charlie Trotter ever butchered a living fish and felt that fish struggle?

If Charlie Trotter is so humane, how on earth can he joke about serving another human being's liver! How would he justify that statement to Rick Tramonto's kids!

This Foie Gras controversy is not about the humane treatment of the animals we eat. This is Charlie Trotter the self-annointed Chef St. Francis, protector of the far left field, imposing his distorted views on his followers. This is about power & control, isn't it?

I suppose that us peon chefs should just give up Foie Gras because Charlie Trotter says so!

I have to get out of here. I'm going fishing...

[gmi3804]

Where in the hell does Charlie Trotter get off?  Foie Gras is cruel but line caught fish is not?  What about his roasted Arkansas Rabbit?  How did that animal die?  By shotgun after being chased by dogs or did it live in a cage while being fed corn...maybe it was allowed to roam across an acre of soft grass while it gorged itself on corn.  Did that rabbit then have its throat slit and get hung by its feet to die while it kicked and struggled in vain.  Perhaps it was electrocted.  Trotter is also serving Kumamoto Oysters.  I don't know about Chef Trotter but when I serve oysters I sometimes roast them while they are still alive!  And I suppose line caught fish is HUMANE?  Has Charlie Trotter ever gone fishing and felt an 8 pound flounder fight for all it was worth because it has just bitten through a stainless steel barbed hook?  That flounder may not understand just what is on the other end of that hook but he sure as hell knows he is fighting for his life!  Once landed (either on a fishing pier at Pawley's Island SC or a trawler 20 miles off the coast) that fish will gasp for air because he is being suffocated.  If caught on a trawler he is thrown into a live well with the other fish and a limited amount of water; the fish still gasp for air because the seawater is quickly depleted of oxygen.  They can literally suffocate in water if the live well is not constantly refreshed with seawater.  Perhaps the fish are put on ice....ALIVE!  Perhaps the fish are butchered at sea, has Charlie Trotter ever butchered a living fish and felt that fish struggle?

I doubt he thinks about such things; perhaps because there's not a "cause" behind them.

If Charlie Trotter is so humane, how on earth can he joke about serving another human being's liver!  How would he justify that statement to Rick Tramonto's kids!

Sarcasm, of course, which is a classic MO of bullies everwhere.

This Foie Gras controversy is not about the humane treatment of the animals we eat.  This is Charlie Trotter the self-annointed Chef St. Francis, protector of the far left field, imposing his distorted views on his followers.  This is about power & control, isn't it?

That, yes; or at least self-righteousness.

I suppose that us peon chefs should just give up Foie Gras because Charlie Trotter says so!

No, he's challenging you to be creative and show us that you really have talent even if you don't have foie gras to do that dirty work for you. (Sarcasm mine.)

CT is really digging himself deeper here. Hell, I probably would too if Alinea were set to open just around the corner from me in three weeks.

Edited April 7, 2005 by gmi3804 (log)

[bourdain]

"It seems to me that you are trying to sell your case by exploiting the travesty that happened to Chef Laurent Manrique. Shame on you, bourdain. "

Rather than jump down your throat over this...I'll explain:

I am genuinely outraged by what happened to Manrique--a friend, and a chef I admire. I am not an advocate. I'm not "selling" my case. I have every expectation from the get-go that I will lose "my case". But I don't have to like it. When fellow chefs are terrorized--and under threat--it goes down hard when comrades choose not to stand with them--even if they have reservations about the ethics of foie gras.

As far as eating vegetarian in India? Just got back from there. And you are of course, exactly right. Plenty of good vegetarian food. Nothing wrong with it.

I cite the ludicrous Harrelsson example as someone who won't even eat most vegetables. Who cheerfully--and with the happy assurance and confidence of righteous certainty--can sit in Thailand, a centuries old culture with an amazing tradition and variety of people and cuisine (including vegetarian), and not even be curious or interested. Fear, contempt, squeamishness and a total lack of curiosity about this big beautiful world are not qualitites I admire. In fact, I find them dangerous. To my craft--and to the world. To build a beautiful cookbook around such an ascetic, hermetic world-view seems (to me) vaguely treasonous. A clean colon is the last thing a chef should be concerned with.

[Michael Ruhlman]

I agree with everything tony (and many others) has said here.

I hate to even admit this, because I honestly think bourdain might be dangerous. He’s very likely criminally insane. But I’d really like to see him run for mayor of new york city. It would be a more interesting place (and I don't live there).

As far as this foie nonsense, it’s misguided and therefore dangerous:

There is nothing wrong or inhumane to do to ducks and geese what they themselves have been doing for millenia. And I, like others here, find it unpardonably hypocritical for a chef to condemn duck treatment and say nothing of the heinous practices of the commercial hog and chicken industries, not to mention the debased product they’re churning out. Hell, Trotter should come out and admit it’s inhumane to kill anything, and commit to vegan fine-dining.

Chefs have become so popular and influential, it’s incumbent upon them to teach this neurotic country how to cook and eat. For Trotter, a paragon of culinary innovation and forward thinking, to come down on the side of the anti-foie fanatics is not only astonishing, it’s harmful to people in this country.

Edited April 7, 2005 by Michael Ruhlman (log)

[FaustianBargain]

"It seems to me that you are trying to sell your case by exploiting the travesty that happened to Chef Laurent Manrique. Shame on you, bourdain. "

Rather than jump down your throat over this...I'll explain:

I am genuinely outraged by what happened to Manrique--a friend, and a chef I admire.

Tony, most of us were outraged. Fist clenching, brow knotting and nostril flaringly outraged!! I dont think any chef around the world would clap with glee about what happened. It is my belief that Chef Trotter too was sickened by what happened to Chef Manrique, his family and his business. It would have made it all the more difficult for him to stand up and tell the world his stance.

I am not an advocate. I'm not "selling" my case. I have every expectation from the get-go that I will lose "my case". But I don't have to like it. When fellow chefs are terrorized--and under threat--it goes down hard when comrades choose not to stand with them--even if they have reservations about the ethics of foie gras.

You are going about this the wrong way. If what happened to Chef Manrique is what we are *really* talking about, it would have served you better to convince Chef Trotter to denounce the right wing fringe lunatics who completely hijacked the real issue that is the cruel practice of forcefeeding and deplorable rearing conditions.

Can someone decide not to serve foie gras and still stand up for their fellow chefs. Why not? This is possible. Chef Trotter does not seem to me as the kind of person who would stand behind those who terrorise families and businesses.

By acting paranoid about the 'bad guys winning', you are losing out on the support you can garner from influential sectors. By not allowing those who do not agree with foie gras production to hold their beliefs without defensiveness, you are losing the opportunity to raise a collective voice against the *real* bad guys.

Let me simplify this as much as it is possible with a thought experiment,

In a room, there are three kinds of people

Group 1: Those who believe in violence against people who serve foie gras. (1 person)

Group 2: Those who believe in freedom and choose not to serve foie gras.(2 persons)

Group 3: Those who believe in freedom and mourn the possible loss of foie gras.(2 persons)

If two are not enough to get the one 'bad guy' out, it makes sense to recruit the other two who are against the 'bad guy'. By alienating Group 2, Group 3 has lesser muscle to throw Group 1 out. By combining forces, the bad guy can be eliminated. Why you fight your own, everyone loses.

Who is locking horns with their own kind?

Think about it.

[FaustianBargain]

There is nothing wrong or inhumane to do to ducks and geese what they themselves have been doing for millenia.

If ducks and geese do it to themselves, why not allow them to fatten themselves up so we can catch them before they migrate?

[Osnav]

I have read pretty much everything in this thread since I started it, and i can't find any reference to the necessity of foie gras being a prerequisite to creating fine dining. Or did I miss something.

[ludja]

Just took the online poll in the recently posted Trib article.

The question: Would you eat foie gras?

The answer: 35% yes, 65% no

(My answer added one more for 'yes').

[Michael Ruhlman]

all the more reason for chefs to educate our teeming diverse and worthy masses

[chefzadi]

..and the picture of Charlie Trotter, "opening a can of whup-ass" on anyone other than  a geriatric dachsund is pretty fucking hilarious.

←

I'm crying. Tears are streaming down my face. I'm laughing so much it physically hurts.

Trotter's public posturing is getting stranger and stranger. At this point he's coming off as a wildly gesticulating Village Idiot.

"Whup ass" I suppose in America a man can go around saying stuff like that without every having to actually whup some ass or fearing that his ass might be whupped for talking shit like that. But then again what sort of man says he's gonna whup ass? Oh yeah Trotter. Enough said.

EDIT: The human liver joke. Unfucking believeable.

Edited April 7, 2005 by chefzadi (log)

[chefzadi]

Just took the online poll in the recently posted Trib article.

The question: Would you eat foie gras?

The answer: 35% yes,  65% no

(My answer added one more for 'yes').

←

I'll bet most of those "no" folks wouldn't eat sushi either or a big list of lots of other ingredients. I'll also bet most of the "no" folks have not even seen foie gras (maybe on TV or magazine articles).

[FaustianBargain]

..and the picture of Charlie Trotter, "opening a can of whup-ass" on anyone other than  a geriatric dachsund is pretty fucking hilarious.

←

I'm crying. Tears are streaming down my face. I'm laughing so much it physically hurts.

Trotter's public posturing is getting stranger and stranger. At this point he's coming off as a wildly gesticulating Village Idiot.

"Whup ass" I suppose in America a man can go around saying stuff like that without every having to actually whup some ass or fearing that his ass might be whupped for talking shit like that. But then again what sort of man says he's gonna whup ass? Oh yeah Trotter. Enough said.

←

Tears, huh?

From Urban Dictionary

open a can of whup ass:

1. To establish physical dominance over another by beating them into submission and/or unconsciousness.

2. In sports: To go into another team's home stadium, beat their asses, and send their pretty boy quarterback home cryin' to his mama.

/verb/ 1. to administer a beating on someone, usually using only hands, feet and other natural weapons

2. to verbally berate someone so badly that he is ashamed to show his face in public

a total beatdown that not only causes physical injury but total humiliation

[chefzadi]

..and the picture of Charlie Trotter, "opening a can of whup-ass" on anyone other than  a geriatric dachsund is pretty fucking hilarious.

←

I'm crying. Tears are streaming down my face. I'm laughing so much it physically hurts.

Trotter's public posturing is getting stranger and stranger. At this point he's coming off as a wildly gesticulating Village Idiot.

"Whup ass" I suppose in America a man can go around saying stuff like that without every having to actually whup some ass or fearing that his ass might be whupped for talking shit like that. But then again what sort of man says he's gonna whup ass? Oh yeah Trotter. Enough said.

←

Tears, huh?

From Urban Dictionary

open a can of whup ass:

1. To establish physical dominance over another by beating them into submission and/or unconsciousness.

2. In sports: To go into another team's home stadium, beat their asses, and send their pretty boy quarterback home cryin' to his mama.

/verb/ 1. to administer a beating on someone, usually using only hands, feet and other natural weapons

2. to verbally berate someone so badly that he is ashamed to show his face in public

a total beatdown that not only causes physical injury but total humiliation

←

Yes, tears.

I'm sure Trotter knows the meaning of "whup ass" better than I do, at least the dictionary meaning.

It's an insane thing for him to say, but then again he made that joke about "human liver."

[Mabelline]

Those who open a can of Whupass may have reason to regret the can opener they were usin'.

[Mallet]

Maybe he will lay the proverbial smackdown too, while he's at it...

[VeryApe77]

Trotter's public posturing is getting stranger and stranger. At this point he's coming off as a wildly gesticulating Village Idiot.

←

Agreed. Say what you will about Trotter but he normally gives the impression as being a very calm (if somewhat intense), professional figure. Never struck me as being someone who would start ranting and raving to the press. I wonder if he's having some kind of problems? If he is, all of the hullabaloo is unlikely to help much...

And yes, the idea of him opening a can of whup-ass is pretty funny. He always kind of reminded me of Milhaus from the Simpsons - a great chef, but not the most physically imposing figure.

Edit: I'm not saying that Milhaus is a great chef, although you never know...

Edited April 7, 2005 by VeryApe77 (log)

[scordelia]

Now, in response to all this nonsense, the Chicago City Council is proposing a ban on foie gras in all Chicago restaurants (today's Trib, section 2, page 1)! I personally think that they better things to worry about, like the rising murder rate.

If you are from Chicago, e-mail the alderman and tell them to kill this bill! Or support it if you wish, but let's not allow one irritating chef tell us what we can or cannot eat! If this new ordinance is going to be defeated or pass, let the outcome be determined by the voice of the people--not Charlie Trotter suddenly "awakening" (where has he been?) to how foie gras is produced.

Sophie

ward01@cityofchicago.org, mhaithcock@cityofchicago.org, dtillman@cityofchicago.org, tpreckwinkle@cityofchicago.org, LHairston@cityofchicago.org, Ward06@cityofchicago.org, wbeavers@cityofchicago.org, Ward08@cityofchicago.org, abeale@cityofchicago.org, ward10@cityofchicago.org, jbalcer@cityofchicago.org, ward12@cityofchicago.org, folivo@cityofchicago.org, eburke@cityofchicago.org, ttthomas@cityofchicago.org, sacoleman@cityofchicago.org, ward17@cityofchicago.org, tmurphy@cityofchicago.org, vrugai@cityofchicago.org, atroutman@cityofchicago.org, ward21@cityofchicago.org, rmunoz@cityofchicago.org, mzalewski@cityofchicago.org, mchandler@cityofchicago.org, dsolis@cityofchicago.org, bocasio@cityofchicago.org, wburnett@cityofchicago.org, ehsmith@cityofchicago.org, ward30@cityofchicago.org, ward29@cityofchicago.org, rsuarez@cityofchicago.org, tmatlak@cityofchicago.org, rmell@cityofchicago.org, caustin34@cityofchicago.org, ward35@cityofchicago.org, wbanks@cityofchicago.org, emitts@cityofchicago.org, tallen@cityofchicago.org, ward39@cityofchicago.org, ward40@cityofchicago.org, bdoherty@cityofchicago.org, bnatarus@cityofchicago.org, vdaley@cityofchicago.org, ward44@cityofchicago.org, ward45@cityofchicago.org, ward46@cityofchicago.org, ward47@cityofchicago.org, maryann@masmith48.org, jmoore@cityofchicago.org, bstone@cityofchicago.org

Edited April 8, 2005 by scordelia (log)

[Gul_Dekar]

Maybe I'm just cynical, could it be that Mr. Trotter's attempt to portray himself as some sorta righteous, animal-defending, wont-serve-foie-gras chef, is just for the sake of publicity and getting more customers to go to his place rather than the competition's because it's foie gras-friendly?

I mean if 60 percent+ of online Chicago Tribune readers voted against it, wouldn't that mean next time they go to a fine dining establishment, they'd prefer a place where no foie gras is served? And now the bill to ban foie gras. The way I see it, by 'raising awareness' of the foie gras issue, Trotter's just ultimately trying to benefit himself. All the 'I wont serve foie gras but I respect others who do' is sorta BS.

[Michael Ruhlman]

Now, in response to all this nonsense, the Chicago City Council is proposing a ban on foie gras in all Chicago restaurants (today's Trib, section 2, page 1)!

←

un-fucking believable. the city council will take chicago down from a serious restaurant town to a laughing stock. arrogant, self-righteous fools.

this both is ridiculous and scary

[BCinBC]

This ban of foie gras by the City of Chicago seems so ridiculous. I understand that governments already walk a fine line as they allow some things, control the sales of others, and ban others... But how does one reason that foie gras should be banned?? If City Council is in an ivory tower, why not ban MacDonalds? What's next, prohibition?!?

[FaustianBargain]

I have read pretty much everything in this thread since I started it, and i can't find any reference to the necessity of foie gras being a prerequisite to creating fine dining.  Or did I miss something.

←

This came up after you posted though..apparently, foie gras is necessary for a 'serious foodie restaurant town'.

Now, in response to all this nonsense, the Chicago City Council is proposing a ban on foie gras in all Chicago restaurants (today's Trib, section 2, page 1)!

←

un-fucking believable. the city council will take chicago down from a serious restaurant town to a laughing stock. arrogant, self-righteous fools.

this both is ridiculous and scary

←

[ivan]

Well, it's obvious where this is all heading. Time to cultivate alternatives. I wonder if it's possible to force-feed a monkfish? I think I'd be safe there -- monkfish are ugly enough to repulse even the anything-with-a-face crowd.