Trotter and Tramonto square off over Foie Gras

[ronnie_suburban]

It would be hard to take any municipality's food seriously, where the government has intent to stomp on menus in this manner. In a "serious restaurant town,"chefs and the marketplace determine what gets eaten, not partially informed politicians who are simply pandering for votes.

=R=

[FaustianBargain]

It would be hard to take any municipality's food seriously, where the government has intent to stomp on menus in this manner.  In a "serious restaurant town,"chefs and the marketplace determine what gets eaten, not partially informed politicians who are simply pandering for votes.

=R=

←

I agree. Banning food and making them illegal is not a solution. It is undemocratic.

[Mayhaw Man]

What's next, prohibition?!? 

←

That didn't work out so well for Chicago the last time that they tried enforcing it.

This whole thing is rediculous. Bad schools, failing infrastructure, underpaid teachers and civil servants, etc. It looks like they would have better things to do than worry about something that probably one half of one percent of the population eats and that 75% of the population could not even define (this could go for any city in America, pretty much, so I am not just picking on The Windy City here).

Speaking of euphamisms, what would Carl Sandburg write today?

Hog Butcher (but by proclamation of the City Council, not geese) to the World

Tool Maker, Stacker of Wheat,

    Player with Railroads and the Nation's Freight Handler;

    Stormy, husky, brawling,

    City of the Big Shoulders:

[Michael Ruhlman]

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.

←

no need to force feed! monk fish liver is very close to foie, amazingly so.

but don't tell your city council!

[cdh]

I agree. Banning food and making them illegal is not a solution. It is undemocratic.

←

Interesting principle. Where does it stop? If its fine and democratic to ban foie gras, how about other things that used to be within a free person's realm of choices? What difference is there in banning foie gras and banning pre-marital sex? I'd bet the polls on whether either is a good thing or a bad thing would come out about the same in a number of locales. It would be fine and democratic to criminalize it then, right? If the majority wants to govern conduct in your bedroom, then that is just fine, eh?

Democracy is not about a tyrrany of the majority.

Edited April 7, 2005 by cdh (log)

[docsconz]

I am glad that I wasn't planningon going to Trotter's when I am in Chicago next month. I don't believe I will venture into one of his restaurants again, although my previous meal at Charlie Trotter's was superb and one of the better dining experiences I've had. If he doesn't want to serve foie gras in his restaurant , fine. I can respect that, but I don't respect the rest of his polemic.

That Chicago would even consider banning it is absurd, but then stranger things have happened.

[jesteinf]

Ald. Joe Moore on his proposal to ban foie gras...

"Birds, in particular geese and ducks, are inhumanely force-fed via a pipe inserted through their throats several times a day in order to fatten the livers," Moore said. "The process that is required to produce this so-called delicacy is totally unacceptable, and I want to make this dish both unpopular and unavailable."

The merits of his arguement have been debated to death, so no need to comment further (although I'm sure Ald. Moore is extremely well informed on the subject )

But, how does he plan on making foie gras "unpopular"?

Got to love politicians.

-Josh

[touaregsand]

This article is not about Trotter or Chicago, but it does discuss the foie gras ban in California.

The bill's chances appeared dim in August when Schwarzenegger told National Public Radio that the Legislature should be busying itself with more important matters. "They are sitting there, and I am getting bills here about how to feed a goose," he told NPR.

But the bill was carried by Burton, with whom Schwarzenegger confers regularly, and lobbied for by a host of Hollywood celebrities allied with animal-rights causes.

Schwarzenneger married his political pedigree. We all know his link to Hollywood.

EDIT: Didn't Bourdain say if it happens in California the rest of the country will soon follow (or something like that). As a Californian I know he's not the first to say something to that effect. But he did say it in regards to foie gras.

Tony is not only wickedly funny he can see into the future as well.

Edited April 7, 2005 by touaregsand (log)

[divalasvegas]

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?!? 

←

Unfortunately, Chicago isn't the only state in the Union capable of such nonsense. Another piece of even more looney legislation recently reared its ugly head. The legislature of the esteemed Commonwealth of Virginia recently defeated an attempt by some politicians there to ban the public wearing of baggy pants which would expose one's undergarments and/or upper buttock area (also known as a butt-crack). The theory was that this would promote decency and an air of civility, especially for our younger citizens. Oh, brother. A brief--pun intended-- overview of this on the link below:

http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story...1828&ran=100067

[ronnie_suburban]

I am glad that I wasn't planningon going to Trotter's when I am in Chicago next month. I don't believe I will venture into one of his restaurants again, although my previous meal at Charlie Trotter's was superb and one of the better dining experiences I've had. If he doesn't want to serve foie gras in his restaurant , fine. I can respect that, but I don't respect the rest of his polemic.

That Chicago would even consider banning it is absurd, but then stranger things have happened.

←

If the ban is enacted, would it be fair to blame it on Trotter (at least in part)?

It seems like whether he intended to or not, he lent the "anti" side a lot of credibility on this issue. I cannot believe that such a bill, in a city that is essentially a meat capitol, would even be considered and yet here we are.

=R=

[scordelia]

Well, please e-mail the alderman. You may not live downtown, but you eat downtown and spend your money! Tell them if the ban is enacted, you will confine your fine dining experiences to Highwood and Wheeling.

Sophie

[edsel]

...

Didn't Bourdain say if it happens in California the rest of the country will soon follow (or something like that). As a Californian I know he's not the first to say something to that effect. But he did say it in regards to foie gras.

Tony is not only wickedly funny he can see into the future as well.

←

I believe that bourdain has stated that the "bad guys will win". I hope he's wrong about that. Mind you, I'm not indifferent to the treatment of animals. I want the farms raising ducks / geese for fois gras to adhere to the most humane practices possible. But the attacks on Laurent Manrique and his family cross the line ( way over the line) of civil behavior. I believe that there were similar incidents in Pittsburgh, though these amounted to harassment and vandalism and stopped well short of the stalking / terrorism * that chef Manrique was subjected to.

I am glad that I wasn't planningon going to Trotter's when I am in Chicago next month. I don't believe I will venture into one of his restaurants again, although my previous meal at Charlie Trotter's was superb and one of the better dining experiences I've had. If he doesn't want to serve foie gras in his restaurant , fine. I can respect that, but I don't respect the rest of his polemic.

That Chicago would even consider banning it is absurd, but then stranger things have happened.

←

If the ban is enacted, would it be fair to blame it on Trotter (at least in part)?

It seems like whether he intended to or not, he lent the "anti" side a lot of credibility on this issue. I cannot believe that such a bill, in a city that is essentially a meat capitol, would even be considered and yet here we are.

=R=

←

Politicians of all persuasions are capable of pandering to the sentiment of the day. Maybe the Chicago aldermans' advisors should point out to them that the radical puritanical vegan vote is relatively small compared to the fine-dining constituancy.

* I don't use the word "terrorism" lightly. If stalking the family of someone you don't agree with isn't terroristic, I don't know what is.

[touaregsand]

I believe that bourdain has stated that the "bad guys will win". I hope he's wrong about that. Mind you, I'm not indifferent to the treatment of animals. I want the farms raising ducks / geese for fois gras to adhere to the most humane practices possible. But the attacks on Laurent Manrique and his family cross the line ( way  over the line) of civil behavior. I believe that there were similar incidents in Pittsburgh, though these amounted to harassment and vandalism and stopped well short of the stalking / terrorism  *  that chef Manrique was subjected to.

I suspect that this will be the prevailing attitude as the issue, increasingly, comes up for votes around the country and the world. Foie gras is for a few rich people--so who cares? It IS--on its face--a tough thing to defend. Try to picture any self-interested public figure essentially saying, " Cruelty to animals? Force feeding cute little ducks (or geese)--for an elitist gourmet treat? I'm FOR IT!" Not likely to happen.

The production of foie gras is already illegal in Australia and New Zealand (countries which pride themselves on their food scene). I don't know what the UK situation is--but suspect that the current is headed in a direction similar to Sonoma.

No big deal? That a vital culinary tradition--central to French cuisine--dating back to Roman times is imperilled? As goes California--often goes the rest. (As I have found everytime I each for my smokes at a saloon in NYC. )

On a more close to home note, you might cast your eyes up to the D'Artagnan ad at top of page--a business BUILT on foie gras production and related products. If, for instance, D'Artagnan can't sell foie gras and foie gras products, the potential ripple effects on the viability of the rest of their line could be extremely destructive to both the company--and to the many, many restaurants who depend on them. At the very least, chefs from Gascony will be less inclined, I would think, to relocate to a place where they have to cook with one arm tied behind their backs. Our pates and terrines at Les Halles will become a lot less interesting. Products that emanate from foie gras production--ie" magret, legs for confit, duck bones, duck blood, duck giblets, duck rilette could be harder--and more exepensive to find. (As these--in the Hudson Valley anyway) are by-products of animals bred specifically for foie gras.

It IS a big deal.

There ya go.

[touaregsand]

*  I don't use the word "terrorism" lightly. If stalking the family of someone you don't agree with isn't terroristic, I don't know what is.

That includes children.

I'm a mom.

To stalk kids?

You don't like what I say or do?

Don't come near my kids.

Human children.

Ducks and Geese.

I'm reminded of a childless person who told me "Dogs are like children." The dog was wearing a handknit angora sweater.

[Walrus]

Wow, this thread has given me a killer headache

There seem to be a lot of themes woven together -- please be patient while I try to sort them out!

1) Charlie Trotter's decision ~3 years ago to stop serving foie gras for ethical reasons, being concerned with the process used to create the product.

2) His recent decision to not ask/restrict visiting chefs from using this ingredient when cooking in this restaurant.

3) Rick Tramanto's preinterview reaction to Trotter's anti-foie gras position.

4) His quotation, "It's a little hypocritical because animals are raised to be slaughtered and eaten every day. . . I think certain farms treat animals better than others. Either you eat animals or you don't eat animals."

5) Charlie Trotter's ill-considered and sarcastic reaction to the above quotation: "Rick Tramonto's not the smartest guy on the block. . . . Yeah, animals are raised to be slaughtered, but are they raised in a way where they need to suffer? He can't be that dumb, is he? It's like an idiot comment. 'All animals are raised to be slaughtered.' Oh, OK. Maybe we ought to have Rick's liver for a little treat. It's certainly fat enough."

6) Some perceived underlying beef between Trotter and Tramonto, in which one or the other feels threatened by the other's mere existence on the Chicago dining scene.

In a separate vein:

1) The anti-foie gras protests in California (with which Trotter has actively resisted being aligned).

2) The way in which several extremists tormented Chef Manrique, with which it is highly unlikely that Trotter agrees.

3) The new legislation in Chicago to ban foie gras in restaurants.

Finally,

1) A general discussion of whether or not the production foie gras is ethical, using today's methods by today's producers.

2) The question of whether or not modern chefs need to use foie gras to prepare top-of-the-top dishes.

Is that it?

If my understanding of this thread is correct, it sounds to me as if a kerfluffle has arisen in which each chef felt that his position was being attacked and denounced by the other. My guess is, given the option, both chefs would ask for a do-over. Trotter might stick with simply saying what I believe he's trying to say -- that after visiting several producers of foie gras, he came to the personal decision that he could no longer serve the item in his restaurant because he believed that the methods used to produce the liver were unethical. He might also either indicate in the original article that because this was an individual decision, foie gras would be served at his restaurant for the benefit, as it would be cooked by other chefs who do not share this belief.

From Tramonto's quotation, I am extrapolating that in his opinion, the process of producing, e.g., foie gras, lamb, chicken, veal, pork, sausage, etc., etc., can be humane, depending on who's doing it and how. Given a do-over, Tramonto would be given a chance to react to what Trotter was actually saying -- and would possibly say something along the lines of that it was a fine decision for Trotter to make, but that he personally feels that the product can be created ethically and will thus continue to use foie gras from those producers who meet his standards.

I find it hard to believe that these two chefs came up with these quotations out of the blue -- can anyone else see them being asked, for example, "Chef Trotter, Rick Tramonto essentially says that you're full of it, saying specifically about your position that, 'It's hypocritical because animals are raised to be slaughtered and eaten every day.' If he were here, how would you respond?" No offense Mr. Caro, but in my view, this article took what could have been an interesting discussion between professionals having to make ethical decisions on a daily basis about what products to incorporate into their art, and disagreeing, and turned it into an ugly and unnecessary cat fight. There was no need to report on this topic in this manner -- this could have been an interesting article simply discussing the merits of both sides, instead of playing the two chefs off one another. Your statement about getting an article on foie gras on the front page, in fact, in my opinion, gives your motives away.

In terms of whether or not chefs need to use foie gras, I prefer to leave it where I leave most professional decisions -- in the hands of those making them. Each chef should be allowed to make up his or her own mind about whether or not it is in his or her best interests to use any legal ingredients.

As for this thread on eGullet -- I only ask that we all keep in mind several things:

1) As in most cases, a disagreement with your opinion is not an insult, simply a different view of things.

2) I don't believe that anyone on this thread is (yet) pushing the PETA line and demanding that we all give up foie gras and eat only vegan food we've prepared ourselves in an earth-conscious manner.

3) At no time that I have read, heard about, etc., has Charlie Trotter said, acted, or intimated in any way that he supports the attacks on Chef Manrique. Period. If he has, please show us where.

4) In my very own opinion, Chef Trotter was not actually serious about going Lecter on Tramonto's liver. So please, chill out. Yes, poor choice of words and stupid, angry response, but, again in my opinion, not evil or even actually threatening. The sort of thing people say when they're feeling slighted by someone who's not there, but whom they'd trusted until someone else told them what mean things were being said about you (you know, like in 5th grade, when Timmy told you that Sally said that you weren't all that pretty and you said, well she's a stupid idiot. I wish she'd get hit by a bus). You might as well get worked up about people saying, for example, "I'd kill for a slice of foie gras!"

Hope you don't mind my adding my own $0.02.

ETA: Caro, not Cato (Thanks, FaustianBargain!)

Edited April 8, 2005 by Walrus (log)

[FaustianBargain]

I agree. Banning food and making them illegal is not a solution. It is undemocratic.

←

Interesting principle. Where does it stop? If its fine and democratic to ban foie gras, how about other things that used to be within a free person's realm of choices? What difference is there in banning foie gras and banning pre-marital sex? I'd bet the polls on whether either is a good thing or a bad thing would come out about the same in a number of locales. It would be fine and democratic to criminalize it then, right? If the majority wants to govern conduct in your bedroom, then that is just fine, eh?

It stops when the govt tells you what to put inside your mouth..what you can inhale, inject or swallow.

I dont know if you are making that statement or if you misunderstood what I said. I never suggested that 'its fine and democratic to ban foie gras'.

Although, if it is of any comfort to anyone, it is quite difficult to to ban consumption of foie gras. There are four federal agencies that can regulate food consumption, iirc. USDA, FDA, EPA and NMFS...There is very little wiggle room to squeeze in a ban on foie gras consumption. I think. It can also be argued that is unconstitutional.

[FaustianBargain]

I am glad that I wasn't planningon going to Trotter's when I am in Chicago next month. I don't believe I will venture into one of his restaurants again, although my previous meal at Charlie Trotter's was superb and one of the better dining experiences I've had. If he doesn't want to serve foie gras in his restaurant , fine. I can respect that, but I don't respect the rest of his polemic.

That Chicago would even consider banning it is absurd, but then stranger things have happened.

←

If the ban is enacted, would it be fair to blame it on Trotter (at least in part)?

That is ridiculous. Absolutely not.

It is amazing to me that certain people in this forum(a general comment...i am not naming anyone) who thought nothing about instructing others and were for policing personal opinions/choices about the serving of foie gras in private establishments are distressed when their freedom to consume their favourite food is being threatened.

What goes around comes around. Life is a bitch, aint it?

It seems like whether he intended to or not, he lent the "anti" side a lot of credibility on this issue.

The real issue is that foie gras production and consumption is incompatible with the food culture of America. The support for such a practice is not sustainable in the long run. Not only in the States, but all around the world.

It is an irrational stance to clamour to hoist blame on *someone*.

  I cannot believe that such a bill, in a city that is essentially a meat capitol, would even be considered and yet here we are.

Foie gras isnt 'meat'.

Edited April 8, 2005 by FaustianBargain (log)

[FaustianBargain]

...

Didn't Bourdain say if it happens in California the rest of the country will soon follow (or something like that). As a Californian I know he's not the first to say something to that effect. But he did say it in regards to foie gras.

Tony is not only wickedly funny he can see into the future as well.

←

I believe that bourdain has stated that the "bad guys will win". I hope he's wrong about that. Mind you, I'm not indifferent to the treatment of animals. I want the farms raising ducks / geese for fois gras to adhere to the most humane practices possible. But the attacks on Laurent Manrique and his family cross the line ( way over the line) of civil behavior. I believe that there were similar incidents in Pittsburgh, though these amounted to harassment and vandalism and stopped well short of the stalking / terrorism * that chef Manrique was subjected to.

I am glad that I wasn't planningon going to Trotter's when I am in Chicago next month. I don't believe I will venture into one of his restaurants again, although my previous meal at Charlie Trotter's was superb and one of the better dining experiences I've had. If he doesn't want to serve foie gras in his restaurant , fine. I can respect that, but I don't respect the rest of his polemic.

That Chicago would even consider banning it is absurd, but then stranger things have happened.

←

If the ban is enacted, would it be fair to blame it on Trotter (at least in part)?

It seems like whether he intended to or not, he lent the "anti" side a lot of credibility on this issue. I cannot believe that such a bill, in a city that is essentially a meat capitol, would even be considered and yet here we are.

=R=

←

Politicians of all persuasions are capable of pandering to the sentiment of the day. Maybe the Chicago aldermans' advisors should point out to them that the radical puritanical vegan vote is relatively small compared to the fine-dining constituancy.

* I don't use the word "terrorism" lightly. If stalking the family of someone you don't agree with isn't terroristic, I don't know what is.

←

Wow. Just one loony group terrorising a chef doesnt lump the rest of the 'anti foie gras' people and their ideology with the crazy ones.

It is a major logic fart to try to connect what happened to Chef Manrique to those who are repelled by the idea of forcefeeding ducks. Regardless of how one may feel about certain ideas, it is prudent to give respect to people's right to make their own choice.

Respect. Is it such a difficult concept to grasp?

[FaustianBargain]

I'm reminded of a childless person who told me "Dogs are like children." The dog was wearing a handknit angora sweater.

←

Really? Why are you reminded of this 'childless person'?

[FaustianBargain]

I find it hard to believe that these two chefs came up with these quotations out of the blue -- can anyone else see them being asked, for example, "Chef Trotter, Rick Tramonto essentially says that you're full of it, saying specifically about your position that, 'It's hypocritical because animals are raised to be slaughtered and eaten every day.' If he were here, how would you respond?" No offense Mr. Cato, but in my view, this article took what could have been an interesting discussion between professionals having to make ethical decisions on a daily basis about what products to incorporate into their art, and disagreeing, and turned it into an ugly and unnecessary cat fight. There was no need to report on this topic in this manner -- this could have been an interesting article simply discussing the merits of both sides, instead of playing the two chefs off one another. Your statement about getting an article on foie gras on the front page, in fact, in my opinion, gives your motives away.

Caro. Mark Caro.

And you wrote well.

[Mabelline]

In my experience, dogs locked up with dead "parents" will go for their livers after a short length of time, while I do not recall a single infant with a deceased parent resorting to cannibalism. I think perhaps touregsand was pointing to the difference of the species. Touch my child- you will regret your short lifespan. Touch my dog, I'll get you through the law.There is a DIFFERENCE.

[touaregsand]

Foie gras isnt 'meat'.

Foie gras is liver. Liver falls into the category of "variety meat". Although I've never heard foie gras euphemistically referred to as a "variety meat."

I cannot believe that such a bill, in a city that is essentially a meat capitol, would even be considered and yet here we are.

Nowhere does this person imply that foie gras is meat. The statement simply means that

the city has it's share of carnivores.

[touaregsand]

Wow. Just one loony group terrorising a chef doesnt lump the rest of the 'anti foie gras' people and their ideology with the crazy ones.

It is a major logic fart to try to connect what happened to Chef Manrique to those who are repelled by the idea of forcefeeding ducks. Regardless of how one may feel about certain ideas, it is prudent to give respect to people's right to make their own choice.

Respect. Is it such a difficult concept to grasp?

Who connected ALL of those repelled by the idea of forcefeeding ducks? If someone did I'm sure you'll find the post and quote it in your rebuttal. The terrorists who terrorized Chef Manrique were anti-foie gras animal rights activists the connection seems pretty clear to me.

Edited April 8, 2005 by touaregsand (log)

[cdh]

I agree. Banning food and making them illegal is not a solution. It is undemocratic.

←

Interesting principle. Where does it stop?[...]

[...]

I dont know if you are making that statement or if you misunderstood what I said. I never suggested that 'its fine and democratic to ban foie gras'.

Although, if it is of any comfort to anyone, it is quite difficult to to ban consumption of foie gras. There are four federal agencies that can regulate food consumption, iirc. USDA, FDA, EPA and NMFS...There is very little wiggle room to squeeze in a ban on foie gras consumption. I think. It can also be argued that is unconstitutional.

←

Sorry for the misinterpretation of what you said. I read your "it's undemocratic" sentence as dripping with ironic sarcasm and intended to imply the opposite of what it said. That is consistent with the tone that has been emanating from a number of your posts in this thread. Sorry if I'm seeing something that is not intended. My apologies.

[scordelia]

It is amazing to me that certain people in this forum(a general comment...i am not naming anyone) who thought nothing about instructing others and were for policing personal opinions/choices about the serving of foie gras in private establishments are distressed when their freedom to consume their favourite food is being threatened.

What goes around comes around. Life is a bitch, aint it?

Not true! If Charlie Trotter does not want to serve foie gras, I do not care. It's his restaurant and he can serve what he likes (even if that means embracing Raw Food--can we say "The Emperor has no oven"?), but does he need to be so sanctimonious about it? His food is overrated anyway.

What I mind is that now Chicago is proposing to ban foie gras in all restaurants. That is really stupid.

Sophie