Chef Ramsay wants to fine restaurants for using out-of-season veggies

5-12-2008 @2:20PM Brad said... I think the article kind-of mashes up his point, and I don't think he's totally off base here.

I believe his motivation is encouraging eating locally-grown produce, and understanding the seasonality of food. The key quote is thinking that people are "eaters who followed trends and fads rather than substance". This actually ties in to I think an earlier posting here about Michael Pollan the author of "The Omnivores Dilemma" and trying to move our eating habits from food-like-substances, heavily processed foods, or eating things based on health claims promoted by the food industry ("Omega-3 added!", margarine being better for you then butter, low fat food etc.) back to sensibly eating "real" food.

I'm also not sure our foreign food-purchasing habits are also in some countries best interests. It may bring money in, but we seem to be pricing some local consumers in these countries out of the market.
Reply

5-12-2008 @2:55PM Patrick R said... "more flavorful, more fresh, and usually more decently priced"

There are also environmental issues at stake. Consider the resources it takes to ship all that produce all over the world.
Reply

5-12-2008 @3:12PM Mathi said... He wants to put a fine on out of season veggies.
Duh.
They already cost the restaurants more than in-season local stuff. Thus there's a built-in-fine.
Reply

5-12-2008 @3:23PM Alex said... Hold it, Ellen - you can't have your cake and eat it! So on the one hand, Patrick is right to raise the environmental consequences but "If I want to order summer squash in the dead of winter, or a strawberry tart in October, or pumpkin soup in July, that's my prerogative, dude. Don't take that away from me.". How does that work?

Is that the same kind of logic that makes it OK to drive a petrol guzzling, CO2 spewing monster of a car? It's some kind of god given right?!
Reply

5-12-2008 @4:24PM Rudi said... One other thing: eating in season is often better for one's health. I know many folks who eat only what's available locally and in season. So there's a bounty of fruits and green, leafy things in the warm months, and more hardy stuff (root veg and whatnot) in the cold months. And I'm never lacking in energy, I tend not to get the various colds and other bugs that travel around - all of which means more time to spend doing the things I enjoy!

My friends who go for the out-of-season stuff tend to get sick more often, suffer worse allergy symptoms during spring and fall, and have big swings in energy. Sure, it may be anecdotal, but there's got to be some logic to it.

And the environmental angle is certainly worth mentioning! Since moving to DC, I buy 90 percent of my produce and meats from local farm markets where the products come from no more than 150 miles from the city. Sure, it means a more limited palette from which to choose one's recipes, but it also means less pollution, supporting smaller farms (many of which are organic and/or minimal impact), and keeping my eco footprint as small as possible.
Reply

5-12-2008 @8:34PM Alex said... Hi Ellen

Eek! OK - so the drink-drive and in-season stuff is all muddled: let's focus on the scran.

In principle, I totally agree with you about allowing people to make their own decisions and not to legislate to the nth degree. And yes, I do think that legislation fining restaurateurs/chefs for using non-seasonable vegetables would be counter productive and unenforceable. I think Ramsay might have been using hyperbole for effect ...

However, I take exception when pretty much EVERYTHING in this day and age comes down to the concept of 'rights' and no one ever seems to consider 'responsibility'. And my comment about cars wasn't about whether or not you (or I, as individuals) have a car - but about the mentality that any individual has a 'right' to do a, b or c. While I think that those of us who live in western, developed countries by and large have the OPTION of driving a massive car (or flying when we go on holiday or whatever) we have the responsibility to consider the global (and, indeed, local) consequences of our actions. Maybe you need to drive a massive 4WD because you need to tow a trailer full of livestock around your farm. Well, that's TOTALLY different from "I need to drive a 4WD because I need to take my 2 kids to school and I like to sit up high above the traffic because it makes me feel safe" (and yes, I have heard people say that!!!!).

I also appreciate that it's not possible to be 100% consistent across lifestyle choices - we all need to reach a status quo with which we're conscionably happy. And I reckon that a huge part of that is considering the global impact of our actions.

I don't really want to get into drink driving here but ... personally, I think the way to stop (or at least, curb) it is by really brutal police enforcement. My home town (which, interestingly, had breathalysers in pubs as a sort of amusement, with VERY clear disclaimers about their accuracy etc etc) pretty much stopped drink driving by regularly cordoning off the whole city centre with random breath testing vans. You couldn't leave without being stopped for a breath test, and random units were (and still are) set up on all arterial roads. Drinking and driving is like playing Russian roulette - with your driver's licence. Let's face it - your 'right' as an adult to make decisions about whether or not you can drink and drive may impinge on someone else's right to live life with the use of all their limbs or without the need for a life support system.
Reply

5-12-2008 @8:34PM justin said... What about people who live in areas that have very short growing seasons or are geographically remote? Alaska/Hawaii?
Reply

5-12-2008 @8:35PM Mike said... I wouldn't be surprised if Gordon's comments were really intended to spur discussion rather than create more chef-criminals.

The hard part in creating a law for this, or in making personal decisions, is that things aren't as cut and dried as the people who tend to yell about the topic would believe.

For all the bad press it gets, long distance shipping is pretty darn efficient. So efficient that in some cases the fuel used / carbon footprint is better for something shipped where it grows more readily than if the same product were raised in the country to where it was shipped. Taken to extremes, imagine if the 100 mile diet people wanted bananas, pineapples and coffee that only came 100 miles from their home in Manchester. Maybe possible, with artificially heated greenhouses and lots of irrigation. It's already been suggested that apples from the southern hemisphere take less fossil fuel to ship them than to keep the local stuff cool throughout the year.
Other than exotic products, some fruits/vegs/livestock might be raised in a more sustainable manner in an area that's warmer, has a longer growing season and requires less irrigation. If those products are less a burden on the environment, even with shipping taken into consideration, wouldn't they be acceptable? If taken to the extreme, it might be that tomato season is from Oct-March since the place that grows them best produces them then.
This is where there's a bit of conflict between eating local and eating sustainable. It might be that local food costs more than shipped food from an environmental standpoint. If you're looking at it one dimensionally that is. Supporting local farmers, knowing where your food comes from, that's just as important, at least to me.
Reply