Secrets of the City

I compost. somebody buy stuff from me.

I had a great meatloaf at the Lakeshore Grille in Macy’s of all places.

It’s been way the hell too long since I’ve gone to Red Stagg…going to have to change that this weekend, I think.

If they don’t dip their food in biodiesel, I ain’t eating it.

Never been to any of these places. http://www.startribune.com/blogs/66441872.html?elr=KArksUUUycaEacyU

Who’s defining “ethical?” If I’m a law abiding, taxpaying restaurant owner who follows rules of hygiene and cleanliness and pay my help, I might not be politically correct, but I’m ethical.

“whether they compost, if they provide vegetarian options, and if they use locally grown food.”

If they don’t do ANY of these things, that does not make a restaurant owner unethical. They’re fine, and they might be a good idea in some cases, but they aren’t moral issues.

Ethics are situtational. If you’re concerned about eating food that is grown within 100 miles, that’s your personal ethics in regard to food, and you’re going to want to find a restaurant that shares those ethics.

Kwatt, you should get to some of those restaurants, they are really good. Maybe take a date.

You can be concerned but if someone else doesn’t share you concern, it doesn’t make them unethical.

I agree rat. So many of these variables can be manipulated multiple ways. Plus it looks like self reporting

You can be a reporter and not reveal your sources, but not being a reporter and revealing sources doesn’t make you unethical.

Ethics aren’t universal, rat; I think you may be confusing it with morality.

Ethics are situtational. If you’re concerned about eating food that is grown within 100 miles, that’s your personal ethics in regard to food, and you’re going to want to find a restaurant that shares those ethics.

That sounds more like a preference or a practice than an ethic.

Ethics cleaves closely to morality. What seems ethical or right, what is honorable.

A person can have strict personal ethics, but that doesn’t mean that the absence of those personal ethics makes someone else unethical.

This will be the atlas of soon to be broke restaurants. I am so sick of the smug, half-assed meal with tiny portions bullshit eating experience I could puke in their compost bin. The whole green thing is a bunch of marketing bullshit for people with the mentality of sheep.

“A person can have strict personal ethics, but that doesn’t mean that the absence of those personal ethics makes someone else unethical.”

It would by the first person’s standards.

swandog, I’m sure most of us here will be more than happy to let you stick with McDonalds and Old Country Buffet.

I think it would be unfortunate if this list grew to the point that is was used as a way to shame or strongarm restaurants that might not, for whatever reason, be able to adhere to what seems to be a standards or practices that aren’t prescribed by law or regulation. And the restaurants that suffer aren’t the ones owned by big investment groups or well-to-do people who have the the luxury of being able to indulge themselves in this way. The Mom and Pop Diner might not be able to afford to play your little bourgeois games.

I am so sick of the smug, half-assed meal with tiny portions bullshit eating experience I could puke in their compost bin. The whole green thing is a bunch of marketing bullshit for people with the mentality of sheep.

Gosh, swandog. You must not get out much because there were plenty of places serving up the “tiny portions bullshit eating experience” long, long before treehugger was a word or “vegan” entered into the popular vernacular. The French and Japanese are noted for their small portions.

It’s not necessarily the size of your plate but what went into making the foods that are plated for you that concerns people. I’m sure Perkins would still serve the humongous portions it does even if the restaurants sourced all their food locally.

“It would by the first person’s standards.”

And who might that be? — maybe some guy sitting in a basement, in his underwear, typing on a computer.

No need to knock Perkins. None.

“It would by the first person’s standards.”

“And who might that be? — maybe some guy sitting in a basement, in his underwear, typing on a computer.”

So what if it is? If you don’t like the ethics he’s posting, find someone whose ethics you do agree with, or type up your own.

And who might that be? — maybe some guy sitting in a basement, in his underwear, typing on a computer.

Oh, that kind never sees the light of day. No need to fear them. (Only fear, itself!)

@kwatt: I ♥ Perkins, too. But the national chains represent much that is wrong with the way we use our food chain. I swear the chicken-fried steak I had Sunday at Perkins came from the same food service that delivers to IHOP.

Also:

It should be clear from the last 15-20 years that there is a huge debate/divide in this country (let alone the world) over what is or isn’t ethical behavior.

I think you overestimate the size of that debate, or move in circles where that sort of thing is scrutinized.

A handfull of restuarants gets listed and already The Rat already fears the heavy hand of state-controled dining. When he’s finished taking over health care, Obama is coming for your Mom & Pop cafe!

Leaving now to eat at Perkins– really!

A person can have strict personal ethics, but that doesn’t mean that the absence of those personal ethics makes someone else unethical.

Huh? I would hazard to guess that a person with strict personal ethics does not hold in esteem someone who does not share the same strict personal ethics. That’s why we have opinions, and argue a lot. It’s called politics.

Then again, if I correctly read your statement, you wouldn’t have a problem then with armed robbery, men evacuating a sinking ship before the women and children, drug dealers on the corner, and other shining examples of good social behavior.

Armed robbery, and drug dealing are illegal. If you’re like a rat off a sinking ship, not illegal, but certainly a cad.

“A handfull of restuarants gets listed and already The Rat already fears the heavy hand of state-controled dining.”

I don’t fear that. I just don’t see the requirements of Heavy Table as anything that resembles ethics. So you buy your chicken from A instead B? That doesn’t make you unethical. If you’re basing your decision for head waitress on the person who will sleep with you, that makes you unethical.

And BTW. Bob. You’re one of the guys who helped write the Big Rule Book on proper state-controlled dining, not me. So don’t be giving me that. My only rule would be is if you’re in restaurant, kindly remove your hat.

I do share his sentiment about tiny portions. If I’m shelling out cash for a meal I expect to not walk away still hungry.

The old Chinese proverb is a leave a table 7/10 full. You’ll always enjoy the next meal more.

So are you going to starve to death, Kwatt?

F*ck no.

I’ve always figured that the meal is made by the people you are with, not the food. I’ve had great food seated around total boors, and mediocre meals seated around people who I never wanted to leave.

“I just don’t see the requirements of Heavy Table as anything that resembles ethics.”

Presumably, those requirements are an expression of their ethical framework. If sustainability is part of your ethics, you still need to define what that means. Putting that into practice is going to require identifying what practices meet/promote that definition.

“So you buy your chicken from A instead B? That doesn’t make you unethical.”

It does if the practices of B fail to meet your criteria.

“And BTW. Bob. You’re one of the guys who helped write the Big Rule Book on proper state-controlled dining, not me. So don’t be giving me that. My only rule would be is if you’re in restaurant, kindly remove your hat.”

…that, and take your butt outside, please. :-0

Armed robbery, and drug dealing are illegal.

Which is why your statement (”A person can have strict personal ethics, but that doesn’t mean that the absence of those personal ethics makes someone else unethical.”) doesn’t make sense, Rat.

If it’s okay, in your view, that someone acts in an unethical manner, why do we even have laws? Laws are legislated as a means of social control; based on the level of tolerance a society has toward ethical vs. unethical behavior.

The killing of cows in India is considered unethical … but that doesn’t mean Joe Rancher from Wyoming can fly to Mumbai and shoot himself a cow simply because he doesn’t share the same ethics.

“The killing of cows in India is considered unethical … but that doesn’t mean Joe Rancher from Wyoming can fly to Mumbai and shoot himself a cow simply because he doesn’t share the same ethics.”

I fear we’re going in circles here, but I’ll just say that if it’s illegal to do that, or if the cow is someone else’s property, no he can’t. But if it’s just roaming around out there, he can shoot, dress it out it and sleep like a baby.

This discussion is why I took the legal system and policy class rather than legislative ethics last semester.

After taking a look at the Atlas, I think it’s pretty interesting and comprehensive enough for a lot of people with different concerns to at least attempt to take on ethical eating. Yes, the methodology is a bit weak but I don’t really know how one could develop a stronger methodology without implementing a very time consuming process to start. Hopefully, any mistakes will be reported by patrons or disgruntled employees or something. A couple of those items could probably be checked out other ways too. Also, perhaps more categories will be added as people offer feedback.

That said, I have no shame in my food game, so I won’t use it but that’s just me.

Also, why is everyone yelling at each other in prior comments. Is this that controversial or are we due for another Bachmann thread?

I fear we’re going in circles here, but I’ll just say that if it’s illegal to do that, or if the cow is someone else’s property, no he can’t.

Well, Rat, beef is eaten in India among the non-Hindi so the slaughtering of cattle can’t be entirely against the law. In which case, if Joe Rancher wants to pop a cow between the eyes on some dusty road in Bangalore, would it be unethical for him to do so?

Now, I’m not so sure that’s it’s a questions of ethics. I’d find it rather unseemly.

@Rat: Say what? Ethics = the body of moral principles or values governing or distinctive of a particular culture or group.

The Hindi treat cattle as sacred beasts. Joe the Rancher does not. There is no problem, ethically, unless Joe begins to covet some cattle in India, or if Raji attempts to prohibit the slaughter of cattle on Joe’s ranch in Wyoming (where slaughtering is legal).

Such is the way of the world.

Ethics are what people impose on others to force them to comply with their world view. Fuck ethics, no one has them anyway. We pretend to, but when push comes to shove ethics always get shoved. Let’s quit pretending in this country that they matter. In this case the ethic is selling shit food, that is fine but stop pretending that it matters. Marketing and ethics are becoming part of the same game. Shame people into buying my product, is that ethical? Hypocrisy is the new ethic.

Yeah, HeavyTable, you’re such jerks for attempting to making me a more informed consumer. Worst!

Jerks.

All of them.

See if I don’t go and make some uninformed dining decisions right now!

Ethics are what people impose on others to force them to comply with their world view.

Yeah, fuck ethics. We don’t need no stinkin’ ethics. Let the marketplace rule!

[/sarcasm off]

I’m pretty sure that’s not what ethics are, swandog.

We should have all learned the difference between morals and ethics during the Clinton/cigar/Monica saga.

Rat, you are being silly (once again). There’s a market demand from [enough] consumers that want things like businesses that pay employees a livable wage and wastes less. Heavy Table has readers — or wants to attract readers — with this interest. There’s DEMAND for it. Simple, right?

I love this thread!

I consider it a nice bonus (local, sustainable, organic, etc), but no way am I going to have some list dictate where I eat. But Perkins?
That food is junk, in my opinion. I typically don’t go to places that have Sysco food trucks parked in front of them.

But I don’t think that not adhering to the ‘guidelines’ that the heavy table dicates is unethical.

I think if the Heavy Table used some other word we wouldn’t have had to analyze this thing to dust. If it were something like Sustainable Dining or Dining Consciousness then, I think it would be more accurate. Like Kwatt said. These are practices and preferences, not ethics.

yes, but both of those are coded words for some variation of ethics. ethics that aren’t being pushed on you.

Not yet….

Kinda strange definitions of “ethical” around here. It seems that conservative “I-don’t-give-a-fuck” and liberal “I-can’t-possibly-judge-you” are conspiring to make the entire concept of ethics meaningless, yet another “personal opinion” that we are to “respect”. What a bunch of relativist bullshit.

There’s real arguments to be made why certain practices at restaurants are MORE ethical than others; why eating at those restaurants is MORE ethical than somewhere else, and of course why staying at home and eating tofu is more ethical than either. This meat-lover makes no claims of perfectly ethical practices, but why water down the concept of ethics to whatever is convenient for you?

“These are practices and preferences, not ethics.”

They are a way to implement the ethics that Heavy Table (and at least some of it’s readers) subscribe to.

They may not match up with your ethics. That’s fine. You’re perfectly free follow your own.

“Not yet….”

Damn that democracy.

There’s real arguments to be made why certain practices at restaurants are MORE ethical than others; why eating at those restaurants is MORE ethical than somewhere else …

But, with regard to food consumption, “ethics” amounts to nothing more than shifting sands. What was considered ethical eating 50 years ago is no longer thought of as such; what is considered ethical eating now may well fall out of fashion a decade in the future.

That, in part, is what makes this whole brouhaha rather pointless.

No one at Heavy Table is imposing their ethics (or values) on anyone. The reader is free to agree or disagree, and is still able to dine at some Sysco-serviced restaurant. But the article does do the service of providing a guide, and guidelines, to what is considered a contemporary definition of ethical dining.

jeff, the underlying moral values of a society or culture are going to determine its (and its members) ethics, and that can (and does) vary.

Some are more universal than others, others are going to be very specific to a culture (or even sub-culture).

The fact that it varies from culture to culture doesn’t effect the fact that there are some universal truths. If I choose to eat a food that puts ten times as much carbon into the atmosphere than an alternative, that’s unethical. Of course, I do it all the time – but I don’t disparage the meaning of “ethical” in the process. Calling it “shifting sands” is a cop-out. We don’t know everything, but there are certainly things we DO know. The implication that because we can’t quantitatively assess the ethical consequences of every food choice does not release us from our ability to determine that some choices are more ethical than others.

By the way, there’s a whole place for “food ethics” — it’s called the Thai Bihn province of Vietnam.

[wink]

Oh, and the Heavy Table unequivocally rocks.

Now if you will please excuse me, I’m going to find myself a double Whopper with cheese, no onions.

Calling it “shifting sands” is a cop-out. We don’t know everything, but there are certainly things we DO know.

It’s not a cop-out. It’s a caveat.

We know more now than we did 50 years ago, but we don’t know as much now as we will (hope to) learn 50 years from now.

The whole concept of “carbon footprint” is new and not easily understood. The typical layman doesn’t look at that steak on his plate and think “Mmmmm. I wonder how much carbon went into producing this chunk of tasty flesh?”

And, if ethical eating includes gauging ones’ carbon footprint, how much more ethical is to eat locally-raised, grass-fed beef than the alternative when animal husbandry is now thought to be responsible for 51% of the greenhouse gases produced worldwide? A grass-fed cow farts just as much as a grain-fed factory cow.

Yes, but you and I know that the “carbon footprint” of that steak – even if the number isn’t perfectly known – is an awful lot bigger than a salad. So we can’t claim ignorance, and our action of eating that steak is deliciously unethical.

How much more? Well, if the farts are half of it, then I guess it can’t be more than 50% better.

it’s called the Thai Bihn province of Vietnam.

Dammit there’s a Thai Bihn reference again. Will someone please explain it to me?

(If it is a very oblique reference to bahn mi, in an attemt to make me drive to Quang to get one, that’s just mean… but effective.)

@jeffk: So, should we ban meat-eating because of the environmental costs associated with animal husbandry?

I think that’s the problem some people have with labeling something “ethical” or “unethical”: At what point do you take an action like the Chicago City Council and ban foie gras from being served in the city because the practice is thought to be unethical? (That ban, btw, has since been lifted.)

I think the argument is less about ethics and more about greenwashing and the fact that eco-this and sustainable-that have been so thoroughly massaged and pimped as to essentially have little to no value except as a marketing term.

Producing viable self-sustaining media in today’s fragmented attention age takes an agile organization that has a very specifically defined niche and fiercely loyal audience. This thread reinforces that Heavy Table is well on there way to reaching that goal.

Now as G Rote and many other smart people have pointed out the real question is can an audience this size, support both the heavy table and/or the restaurants that service this niche. Kim Bartmann would have you believe that the answer is a resounding – Hell Yes!(might as well just call the list an ode to her restaurants).

jane, the other day it was just a reference to the cat cuisine that is [supposedly] available in that province. Al Gore told me that; it’s probably an [unethical] ethnic slur of a lie. I just repeated it today because it tied in nicely . . . and to make you crazy.

“The fact that it varies from culture to culture doesn’t effect the fact that there are some universal truths. If I choose to eat a food that puts ten times as much carbon into the atmosphere than an alternative, that’s unethical.”

Not if you believe that the rapture is coming any day, and that the divinely chosen few will be spirited away to live eternity in paradise.

Nor if you believe that eating or producing that food meets some higher ethical obligation.

According to the living wage calculator, one adult with a kid needs a living wage of $18.54. Why did the heavy table include the verbage ‘roughly ten dollars a hour’?

Come on baker…the kid can always wash dishes for the extra $8.54???

I’m totally going to Red Stagg on Friday. Ethics or not, the food is fucking awesome!

Red Stag, that is. Why did I think they had two gg’s?

This list is starting to bother me upon closer examination…

So, should we ban meat-eating because of the environmental costs associated with animal husbandry?

I didn’t say anything about laws. That is completely separate. We don’t have laws to dictate all ethical behavior, nor did I argue that we should. Whether or not we should in this case is certainly up for discussion.

Not if you believe that the rapture is coming any day, and that the divinely chosen few will be spirited away to live eternity in paradise.

Then you’re a complete fucking idiot who should be ignored at best and institutionalized at worst. Either way, you shouldn’t be listened to.

Seriously, conservatives have something going for them: they actually believe they’re right about things and have the balls to act on that. Liberals are usually right but too goddamn chicken to do anything about it for fear of offending gullible morons who think Jesus is coming to save them so they should be free to shit all over everything.

I didn’t say anything about laws. That is completely separate. We don’t have laws to dictate all ethical behavior, nor did I argue that we should.

But laws are derived from ethics. You can’t separate the two. No legislation of any kind would exist — nor would canonical dictates even exist — without the influence and purpose of ethics. Ethics forms the foundation of law.

Yes, it’s true that we don’t dictate all ethical behavior — but that’s more because of our American culture, where “it” is allowed unless “it” is expressly forbidden. (The opposite appears to be true in other countries, e.g. Singapore. Whereas we are allowed to turn-right-on-red unless it is prohibited, Singapore drivers are not allowed to turn-left-on-red unless a posted sign allows the driver to do so.)

Then you’re a complete fucking idiot who should be ignored at best and institutionalized at worst. Either way, you shouldn’t be listened to.

Now, now. Play nice on the playground. I thought Americans valued free speech even if they didn’t agree with it?

Dial it back a notch there, jeff.

“Then you’re a complete fucking idiot who should be ignored at best and institutionalized at worst. Either way, you shouldn’t be listened to.”

And ranting isn’t going to make them or their ethics disappear.

Yes, sorry, that was hotheaded. This is why I shouldn’t post when my code isn’t working…

But this is a real point of frustration for me: I’m the last guy who cares who thinks they’re going to be raptured. Seriously, it’s nuts, but it’s not intrinsically my problem. Until it invades public discourse and changes the sorts of decisions this country makes.

When the entire country is forced to discuss ethical issues in the context of people who can make up any silly belief they want and we have to deal with, it’s really hard for us to act responsibly. Like I said, I’m a failure: I love eating animals. Especially pigs. But you can’t even have a discussion when you’re forced to say, well, ethics go out the window because they have no rational basis and we can just make up whatever we want anyways. At the risk of Godwinning this, I can’t help but make the comparison: it’s not like in 1940 we were just like, “well, killing Jews is his believe and who are we to question his ethics?”. There was a collective judgment made: rationality led us to say, that’s wrong. (ok, so there were other reasons we got into that, but you get the idea). And I know that tired, awful analogy is way way overblown for this situation. I only use it because I want to make the point that using the magic of rationality – and “I’m going to be raptured” isn’t part of that game – you can come together and say, this is right, or this isn’t, and sometimes you can say, let’s all do this because we need to act the right way collectively in this particular situation or we’re screwed.

It’s really hard to share the planet with people who don’t care because they think they’re going to be raptured. It’s a huge risk for the rest of us. And yes, ranting isn’t going to make them disappear, but the first step is calling them out. The first step is saying, no, these people are not fit to engage in this particular conversation among people who care what happens; by not obeying the rules of that kind of conversation they have opted out. And by marginalizing them in that discuss, maybe more progress can be made; at the very least the discussion becomes honest.

“The French and Japanese are noted for their small portions.”

The French? Are you talking about meal course 5 or 6?

“The first step is saying, no, these people are not fit to engage in this particular conversation among people who care what happens; by not obeying the rules of that kind of conversation they have opted out. And by marginalizing them in that discuss, maybe more progress can be made; at the very least the discussion becomes honest.”

Problem is jeff, some 85-90% of the population subscribe to some level of religious ethic. You might get to have an honest discussion, but you’re not going to make much progress freezing out that much of the population.

Besides, it doesn’t have to be the rapture. I just used that as an example. There are libertarian and conservative strains that conclude that the effects of climate change are less ethically troubling than the effects of dealing with it.

The French? Are you talking about meal course 5 or 6?

Portion = the amount of food that is placed upon one plate.

Well, I’ll put my hard-ass atheistness aside and say that religion comes in a full spectrum of crazy.

It’s true that there are libertarians who believe that we shouldn’t do anything about it. But I give them a bit of respect because at least they have intellectual honesty: for the most part they’re not trying to undermine the science, they’re not lying, they’re not making up silly metaphysical beliefs; they’re simply admitting to being lazy and self-serving, which I certainly am myself a bit. They’re just particularly awful.

You’re not putting anything aside, jeff.

Well, I like to be to the point.

I imagine it would be pretty easy for a restaurant to just, flat-out lie, and say, “yeah, we do all that stuff.”

Who’s going to follow up?

Suddenly The Moose on Monroe ends up alongside Moose and Sadie’s.

@Rat: That’s a valid concern. What does a restauranteur do when they’ve run out of locally-grown potatoes at 8 p.m. on a Wednesday night?

@jeffk: Please separate a person’s religious belief from that of religious dogma. It’s dogma that propels people to espouse things like the Rapture, dinosaurs and cavemen co-mingling, and the idea that their religion is the only “true” religion. Besides, Libertarianism is founded on a myth as much as is any religion.

It wouldn’t be too difficult for a restaurant that lied on the survey to be found out. The survey asks them to cite their supplier.

I seem to recall at most of the “local movement” restaurants I’ve been to use some sort of “as much as possible” disclaimer, which would provide an out for them or their supplier running short.

I do think the term “ethical” gets tossed around so much that it has lost its meaning. Ethics historically has referred to things that aren’t so much in debate: the right to be free, to be honest, to be loyal, the obligation to not kill or rape or steal from others. It’s become a label for value systems, like the one the Heavy Table is looking at.

I happen to agree with many of the values HT is ranking, and it’s helpful to have a directory of places that also agree with those values. But I don’t consider these values to fall within the idea of “ethics” and so I don’t feel obligated to only eat at these places.

In other news: aren’t some of you guys taking this a little too seriously?

It’s probably my fault. I tossed the first brick. If it weren’t for me, everyone would be talking about how much they like the Red Stag. Seems kinda pricey to me.

I thought so too, Rat.

“Ethics historically has referred to things that aren’t so much in debate” Jason, that really isn’t accurate at all (and most of the things you listed fall under “morals”). Ethics philosophies & theories have been debated forever — before Jesus rode in on his dinosaur. And a set of ethics is a value system.

More than anything, it’s just an internet thing, right? We have different sets of ethical codes, or none at all (I’m looking at you sparber), that normally day to day don’t bump up against each other, but the net allows for otherwise.

I still prefer, and refer to, the dictionary definition of ethics: A system of moral principles: the ethics of a culture.

Ethics are value-based and have always been open to debate.

This is completely unrelated to the topic, but I thought I’d let Jason know that Consumerist.com used a photo of his — with attribution — for one of their articles today.