Customers Refusing Your Restaurant

[dls]

Probably was an activist.

←

That would be my guess. Might be interesting to check with other restauranteurs in the area that also sell foie to see if they received a similar call / reservation cancellation.

[beandork]

Kudos to how Meredith handled the call.

I definitely would have been classless, tacky, AND inappropriate.

[srhcb]

Probably was an activist.

←

That would be my guess. Might be interesting to check with other restauranteurs in the area that also sell foie to see if they received a similar call / reservation cancellation.

←

You'll know for sure if a local news source gets a "tip" that restaurants that serve fois gras are having a spate of cancelled reservations.

Next, of course, local elected officials will be asked for their views.

SB (publicity = political pressure, especially on a local level)

[Busboy]

And I agree she was goading, however she did have a reservation, made weeks prior (thanks to computers, I can tell this much-- I can also note her aversion to animals that are fed....)

←

I guess I'm with the conspiracy theorists.... I'm wondering why, if she was so concerned about what she might find on a given menu, didn't she check out the menu before she made a reservation?

←

I rarely look at a menu before I make a reservation if I'm dealing with a local place of known reputation. In fact, if at all possible I don't look at a menu until I'm sitting in a booth and a martini has been chilled, strained and served to me. FG is still relatively rare on menus. Not unlikely that she doesn't eat out at high-end places that much and isn't quite the food geek many of us are, so it never occurred to here to check until a friend said "you're going there? You know, they torture ducks to make your appetizers at that place."

Also, if they were really trying to mess with the restaurant, I'd guess they'd cancel more than one table at a time and that Meredith's original post would have noted that the reservation was cancelled an hour before service in order to maximize the pain.

[Busboy]

I agree with the notion that facts are facts.  However, I agree with Andrew about the notions of people with ingrained beliefs.  Folks who are activists for their cause actually take on their beliefs, whatever they may be, as a secular religious faith of sorts.  Therefore, if you try to disagree, even when facts and logic are on your side, you can't win because not only are you disagreeing, you're questioning their faith.  And that makes you, to the activist believer, not only wrong, but a heretic as well.

It's a fight that can't be won, like arguing that the sky is purple.

←

You are, you know emphatically confirming Andrew's point by dividing people into those whose facts are on their side (by implication you and those who share your views generally, and the liver-eaters in this specific case) and those darn activists who turn their prejudices into quasi religious beliefs and just won't listen to reason.

Just sayin'.

[srhcb]

Also, if they were really trying to mess with the restaurant, I'd guess they'd cancel more than one table at a time and that Meredith's original post would have noted that the reservation was cancelled an hour before service in order to maximize the pain.

←

Maybe not, for at least two reasons.

First, they really don't have anything against the particular restaurant. (they could even be a regular customer?) These people have a crusading mentality. The point is getting publicity and parlaying that into disportionate political clout, not educating restaurantuers.

And, you don't want to be too obvious.

SB (knows a few things about making trouble)

[JohnL]

I don't think my advice even comes remotely close to "picking a fight" it simply and politely informs the customer of the restaurant's policy regarding an obviously sensitive (to some)issue.

No debate. No insulting the customer.

Let me cite you:

IMOP we need to stop this ridiculous concept of political correctness and concern about "offending" people and stand up when we are in the right.

If you're serious about this, it's tantamount to picking a fight. But I'll assume that you meant it in a general context, and not in the specific case at hand.

In fact, I believe that politely informing a person of policy is respectful and thoughtful.

Of course, in the overwhelming majority of cases (and in the case that opened the thread), there isn't a policy: the restaurant serves foie gras because it tastes good, and whether or not the owner and chef have looked into the ethics of it, they haven't formulated anything like official restaurant policy, one that has been communicated to the staff. Nor should they, necessarily. But I'll repeat what I said before: in the absence of an official policy, it's not the job of the person taking reservations to formulate one. They should let the customer discuss it with a manager.

(And to be clear: none of this is meant as criticism of Meredith380, who as far as I can tell, acted with aplomb in a difficult situation.)

←

Yes I meant it in a general way.

Restaurants need to have a policy. This is IMOP a problem. Too many restaurants are passive in this stiuation. I think more need to stand up to people who are imposing their will on the public and restaurateurs.

Implied in having no policy is that restaurants don't care about what they serve and this, in turn, fuels the argument that society needs folks like PETA to look after them (and the animals). They are attempting to become the "official" and legal conscience of the food world.

By the way--I am not saying that the original poster should have "set policy" on her own. Rather her restaurant should at least have the internal discussion.

This won't go away and it certainly won't end with foie gras!

[Andrew Fenton]

By the way--I am not saying that the original poster should have "set policy" on her own. Rather her restaurant should at least have the internal discussion.

And on this we agree. I'd encourage all restaurants-- given the very real constraints of time, etc.-- to think about the ethics of their food, and have that discussion with their employees. (Of course, most restaurants won't have that discussion, for a variety of reasons. But that's another issue.)

[Meredith380]

I did bring this to the attention of the owners, and explained what the guest said and how I responded. He was satisfied with the situation. He feels strongly against the proposed ban and is active in preventing legislation that would ban foie gras.

It was a new experience to have a guest display moral outrage regarding our right to determine our menu as we see fit. You'd never have a vegetarian or vegan call up and lecture on serving meat (or maybe you would, now that I mentioned it, I'll have it happen tomorrow!).

[Busboy]

Also, if they were really trying to mess with the restaurant, I'd guess they'd cancel more than one table at a time and that Meredith's original post would have noted that the reservation was cancelled an hour before service in order to maximize the pain.

←

Maybe not, for at least two reasons.

First, they really don't have anything against the particular restaurant. (they could even be a regular customer?) These people have a crusading mentality. The point is getting publicity and parlaying that into disportionate political clout, not educating restaurantuers.

And, you don't want to be too obvious.

SB (knows a few things about making trouble)

←

"These people..." You talked to the woman?

She (they?) didn't try to generate any publicity. Which, of course, would involve getting obvious. Which you say they don't want to do. Which means that there's no political clout, because politicians rarely respondto the subtle.

And no co-conspirators. And no reports of multiple monkeywrenching -- no multiple contacts of this restaurant or scattered, systematic contacts of others.

Is this the "lone vegan" theory?

[Meredith380]

Also, if they were really trying to mess with the restaurant, I'd guess they'd cancel more than one table at a time and that Meredith's original post would have noted that the reservation was cancelled an hour before service in order to maximize the pain.

←

Maybe not, for at least two reasons.

First, they really don't have anything against the particular restaurant. (they could even be a regular customer?) These people have a crusading mentality. The point is getting publicity and parlaying that into disportionate political clout, not educating restaurantuers.

And, you don't want to be too obvious.

SB (knows a few things about making trouble)

←

"These people..." You talked to the woman?

She (they?) didn't try to generate any publicity. Which, of course, would involve getting obvious. Which you say they don't want to do. Which means that there's no political clout, because politicians rarely respondto the subtle.

And no co-conspirators. And no reports of multiple monkeywrenching -- no multiple contacts of this restaurant or scattered, systematic contacts of others.

Is this the "lone vegan" theory?

←

The customer was not a regular, it was her first time, at least in 2 1/2 years at our restaurant, or any of our restaurants (I checked).

She did cancel her reservation with only 24 hours to go. I don't think it's a conspirary theory thing, I think it was a woman bloated (excuse the term) with self righteousness at her 'cause du jour'. Okay that sounded ruder than I wanted it to.

[ghostrider]

This situation is hugely superior to the idiotic notion of local governments dictating to food providers (private enterprises) what they can and can't serve or use in cooking their products.

←

This notion gets mentioned every time foie gras is brought up. I don't understand the argument here. Local (and state, and national) governments do this routinely. Why is it "idiotic" in this particular instance and not thousands of others?

It seems to me that the real issue is whether the regulation is reasonable & serves the public interest.

[LurkerLoo]

At least the disagreeable woman did not dine at the restaurant. Last month in San Francisco the woman at the table next to me SENT BACK her amuse, which included some foie gras, because she didn't eat the stuff. One of my dining companions was appalled at this behavior, which she felt was a major faux pas and outright rude.

The foie gras at this place is sublime, so it was the customer's loss, as she missed out on a great thing (the substituted dish was a chicken-based broth or soup, a poor trade for foie gras!).

[Andrew Fenton]

At least the disagreeable woman did not dine at the restaurant. Last month in San Francisco the woman at the table next to me SENT BACK her amuse, which included some foie gras, because she didn't eat the stuff. One of my dining companions was appalled at this behavior, which she felt was a major faux pas and outright rude.

Why on earth would that be rude? She didn't order the amuse, and since she doesn't eat foie gras, she sent it back. Seems entirely appropriate to me.

[LurkerLoo]

Why on earth would that be rude?  She didn't order the amuse, and since she doesn't eat foie gras, she sent it back.  Seems entirely appropriate to me.

←

Because an amuse is a gift from the chef...

[JohnL]

Why on earth would that be rude?  She didn't order the amuse, and since she doesn't eat foie gras, she sent it back.  Seems entirely appropriate to me.

←

Because an amuse is a gift from the chef...

←

I have to agree with Andrew.

No one "has" to eat anything in a restaurant.

There was an interesting article on this a while ago (I forget the magazine and the particulars).

The author asked Thomas Keller (and I believe Mario Batali) about someone refusing to eat an amuse or something included in a chef's tasting menu. The response was--a chef wants a diner to be happy and never expects a diner to eat anything they do not want to eat.

[David Naylor]

Why on earth would that be rude?  She didn't order the amuse, and since she doesn't eat foie gras, she sent it back.  Seems entirely appropriate to me.

←

Because an amuse is a gift from the chef...

←

I think you will find that the customer pays for the "gift" and if the customer doesn't like it why eat it. Hardly rude just common sense

[steverino]

Just for giggles, you could have said:

"Very good then, Ma'am. I've cancelled your reservation, and moved your name to our 'No longer welcome in our restaurant ' list. Thank you, and have a marvellous evening. Goodbye."

Sort of a "Soup Nazi" thing.

Then when she proceeds to tell everyone she knows about this latest offense, those who find her arrogant and self righteous will be dying to check out the restaurant.

[Stigand]

No.  There are plenty of times and places when it's appropriate to stand up for your beliefs, even if you piss people off.  At work, in a service industry?  That's not one of them.  It's about being classy.  And picking fights with customers isn't classy.

The appropriate thing to do would be to let the person rant, hang up politely, and go rant on eGullet.

←

I agree. Lecturing a customer is never a great idea.

Some time ago, I was buying cheese at an excellent and well-known artisanal cheese shop in London. I was entertaining guests, one of whom was pregnant, and so had been asked to buy only pasteurised cheeses.

I asked the counterman (in fact the manager) if he could recommend me some particular types of cheese and stated (apologetically) that this time I had to steer clear of the raw milk stuff. He asked me why; when I told him, he embarked on a long and embarrassing lecture about why high-quality unpasteurised cheese (esp hard cheese) was safe for pregnant women - certainly safer than plenty of permissible foods, like bagged salads, pasteurised soft cheeses etc.

The irony is that I actually agree with him - I'm a huge fan of unpasteurised cheese, I would hate Britain to descend into the kind of clean-freak cheese-phobia that Americans must endure; and I'm at least agnostic over the prohibition on raw-milk cheese during pregnancy - it doesn't seem to apply in France or most of Continental Europe, for example.

But the incident was still hugely embarrassing and out of line - and of course it achieved nothing: I was a host and choice wasn't really mine to make.

[markk]

Why on earth would that be rude?  She didn't order the amuse, and since she doesn't eat foie gras, she sent it back.  Seems entirely appropriate to me.

←

Because an amuse is a gift from the chef...

←

I think you will find that the customer pays for the "gift" and if the customer doesn't like it why eat it. Hardly rude just common sense

←

I've seen this go two ways. If the chef sends a "gift" of something that you just don't eat, you can simply not eat it, and leave it uneaten, and you can explain to the person clearing it later that you don't eat that item (so as not to be rude to the chef), or, if you don't eat it but want something else (assuming that the chef meant to send something you would enjoy), you can explain that you don't eat whatever it is when it is served. (Both of these assume a non-political scenario.)

[bella simone]

The foie gras ban has been implemented in many places all over the world already. Really, it may only be a matter of time before it reaches your city.

Recently the restaurant I work for took foie gras of the menu. My chef loves foie gras, but after careful considerition decided to remove it. We serve free range eggs, local produce, animals frm farms that we have personaly visited. Foie gras no longer fit into the picture.

And this is the bottom line: Force feeding is the ONLY way to get foie gras. There is no alternative, like the way you can get free range chickens. With all the great foods and animals we have to eat in this world, I think we can let this one go.

I think we should let this one go.

I believe it is in our nature to eat meat. I believe it is our right. But I think we are ignorant if we dont look at where our food is coming from and at what cost.

[phaelon56]

Call me a libertarian (if you must) but I think it should be up to the restaurant. If there's enough of a public concern and outcry I have no issue with legislation that prohibits foie gras production in a given state.

It's not that I'm dodging the issue but when it's still legal to serve it let people vote with their feet. There's a local bistro owner in my area who has always steadfastly refused to serve any red meat on her menu. Chicken and fish yes - but no read meat. This is a fairly conservative blue-collar town and many people like their meat 'n potatoes. I know of people who refuse to dine in her establishment because they think i'ts unreasonable for her to draw the line on what forms of protein she chooses to serve.

I think they're both right. She made a choice based on her beliefs and taste and knows full well that she'll lose some cusomterts by making that choice. And the people who choose not to dine there are equally justified in their decision.

But did I mention that she recently added skirt steak to the menu at her newer place? There were some customer flow issues due to an ecelectic menu - one which I liked but didn't generate enough regular repeat business in this area. And if I had to guess I'd say it's the grass fed humanely raised skirt steak available from a purveyor who raises and slaughters the animals locally.

I've had foie gras exactly once in my life and liked it well enough but not so much that I'd go out of my way to have it. But I can't see the rationale in making a big deal out of telling a restaurant why I won't go there if it's something I disagree with - I can think of better ways to spend my time.

[edsel]

And this is the bottom line: Force feeding is the ONLY way to get foie gras. There is no alternative, like the way you can get free range chickens.  ←

Force feeding is not the only way to produce foie gras. Ethical foie does exist, though it's seasonal and expensive. The fact remains that commercial foie is almost entirely produced via gavage. There's plenty of evidence that this can be done humanely, but people tend to anthropomorphize the ducks and geese. You can argue that a duck's esophagus is cartilaginous and isn't harmed by the feeding tube, but the practice just looks awful, and that's the problem.

[Kent D]

Thankfully, I've never had occasion to eat foie gras, wouldn't eat it if I HAD the occasion, but that's my personal choice. It wouldn't keep me from dining in a restaurant that serves it, I just would steer clear of it when perusing the menu. And even if I was horribly horribly upset at the presumed treatment of those poor little geese, I wouldn't call the restaurant and lecture them on their menu choices, being as it's THEIR restaurant not mine, I'd just call and cancel my reservation, and find some place that caters to my culinary preferences. But I'm pretty easy-going about my personal politics, and I'm pretty much against government entities telling me what to eat or not to eat, or drink, or anything else of that matter.

So I don't know that I'd get into a political discussion with the caller, I'd just thank them and cancel their reservation, and bid them a good life.

[bella simone]

And this is the bottom line: Force feeding is the ONLY way to get foie gras. There is no alternative, like the way you can get free range chickens.  ←

Force feeding is not the only way to produce foie gras. Ethical foie does exist, though it's seasonal and expensive. The fact remains that commercial foie is almost entirely produced via gavage. There's plenty of evidence that this can be done humanely, but people tend to anthropomorphize the ducks and geese. You can argue that a duck's esophagus is cartilaginous and isn't harmed by the feeding tube, but the practice just looks awful, and that's the problem.

←

I was told by the company we recieved our foie from that it is the only way. But I do know that ducks/geese have been known to overeat before migration. Is this ethical foie gras based off this?

As far as I know it is not available in canada where I live.

I would never refuse to eat at a restaurant that served foie gras. It is their choice. But I would be more likely to go to, and more interested in a restaurant that didnt serve it.

I am currently involved in a debate about ethical foods on another site. It is so refreshing that everyone here is so mature about the subject.

Also, I dont think all of the trouble lies in the feeding tube itself. What about how it feels for the animals to have such enlarged livers?

Edited April 3, 2007 by bella simone (log)