Fish Farm v. Restaurant Whore
Oyez! Oyez! Oyez! All persons having business before the Dishonorable, the Supreme Court of the Grumpy Glutton, are admonished to draw near and give their attention, for the Court is now sitting. God save the Grumpy Glutton and his Dishonorable Court!
Injustice Gumpy Glutton: We'll hear argument this day in the case of the Fish Farm versus the Restaurant Whore. The Restaurant Whore states that the Fish Farm uses ingredients from “different state[s], countr[ies] or continent[s],” breaching their claim of “get[ting] as much as they can from local sources within 100 miles.” The Fish Farm countered saying, “…that woman is just plain wrong.” The parties filed suit against each other in this Dishonorable Court’s jurisdiction. The current action consolidates those suits.
The parties stipulate that the person referred to as “that woman” is the Restaurant Whore, not Monica Lewinsky, as those stuck in the ‘90s may have incorrectly assumed. The parties further stipulate that the Fish Farm claims to go “above goes above and beyond to support local farmers and fisherman by sourcing most fish, meat, and produce from within a 100-mile radius” of 339 Taylor Street in San Francisco, California.
The Fish Farm may proceed.
Fish Farm: Thank you, Your Dishonor.
After posting a negative review of the Fish Farm, the Restaurant Whore followed up by saying, “I forgot to mention…one more sucktacular thing…[t]he restaurant purports to get as much as they can from local sources within 100 miles. Clearly that must not be very much as every time we asked where an ingredient came from, it came from a different state, country or continent (Washington, Canada, Australia). Honestly.” That woman is just plain wrong. We have no idea why or how anyone would ever get the idea that Fish Farm has ever served fish from Canada. We have never used anything from Canada or Australia, ever. If someone said that then we didn't train them right but I doubt it. We still think someone was walking through the dining [room] drunk, stopped at her table and blurted out foreign names.
Injustice Grumpy Glutton: Are you in the habit of allowing drunken people to wander your dining room blurting out the names of other countries?
Fish Farm: No, Your Dishonor, we are not.
Injustice Grumpy Glutton: Very well. Proceed.
Fish Farm: On April 3, 2008, 6 out 7 appetizers sourced all ingredients from within 100 miles except spices (just like Chez Pannise)[sic]; 5 out of 7 entrees used proteins from within 100 miles and all produce from within 150 miles. On April 14, 2008, we can calculate nearly 80% of our menu [came] from [within] 150 miles. That's local folks.
Injustice Grumpy Glutton: Your web site says that you source “most fish, meat, and produce from within a 100-mile radius.”
Fish Farm: Yes, Your Dishonor.
Injustice Grumpy Glutton: But in your argument, you said 100 miles twice and 150 miles twice.
Fish Farm: Yes, Your Dishonor.
Injustice Grumpy Glutton: So, what is your standard? Is it 100 miles or 150 miles?
Fish Farm: The standard on our web site is 100 miles, Your Dishonor.
Injustice Grumpy Glutton: But you do not always adhere to that standard when using the word "local"?
Fish Farm: No, Your Dishonor, we do not. But please note that in some circles, a 200 mile radius is an accepted localvore standard. Even at 150 miles, our standards are rigorous.
Injustice Grumpy Glutton: So noted. Please proceed.
Fish Farm: Our restaurant is one of the most “hyper local” in the city and we are very, very proud of what we offer. We were unfairly maligned by the Restaurant Whore and disrespectfully petition this Court for redress.
Injustice Grumpy Glutton: While reviewing the written filings, I noted some controversy regarding the salmon you serve. Please explain how you can serve local salmon when our local salmon fisheries are currently closed.
Fish Farm: WE NEVER SAY OR SAID IT WAS LOCAL. This is our point. [We] decided to use Loch Duart salmon which is sustainably farmed in ocean pens to prove the point that you can STOP harming local environments and get something from afar that will aid in the stopping of the destruction of the local Salmon. Read the menu headings...if it is local we say so. And more to the point—we are about sustainability and responsible food sourcing just as much as we are about local.
Injustice Grumpy Glutton: The fact sheet on your web site says nothing about sustainability.
Fish Farm: That’s correct, Your Dishonor.
Injustice Grumpy Glutton: The fact sheet on your web site says nothing about responsible sourcing.
Fish Farm: That’s correct, Your Dishonor.
Injustice Grumpy Glutton: The fact sheet on your web site does discuss local sourcing.
Fish Farm: Yes, Your Dishonor.
Injustice Grumpy Glutton: Your restaurant is about sustainability and responsible food sourcing just as much as it is about local sourcing.
Fish Farm: Yes, Your Dishonor.
Injustice Grumpy Glutton: Then why does the fact sheet on your web site does discuss local sourcing but not sustainability and responsible sourcing?
Fish Farm: I have no answer to that, Your Dishonor.
Injustice Grumpy Glutton: Hmm, sounds like after the fact revisionism to me. Be that as it may, let’s move on.
If your menu heading says something is local, it’s local, from within 100 or 150 miles, whichever standard you feel like using that day.
Fish Farm: That’s correct, Your Dishonor.
Injustice Grumpy Glutton: Is the opposite true? If your menu heading doesn’t say local does that mean it’s not source from within 100 or 150 miles?
Fish Farm: No, Your Dishonor. It’s a bit more complicated than that. Sometimes it says local in the menu heading. Sometimes it says local in the description below the heading. Sometimes we name the sourcing location or purveyor in the heading or description.
Injustice Grumpy Glutton: And, for example, you leave it up to your diners to figure out that you source your Asian pears from the K&L Farms in California rather than the purveyor with the same name in Virginia.
Fish Farm: You nailed it, Your Dishonor.
Injustice Grumpy Glutton: Thank you, counselor. That concludes Fish Farm’s argument.
The Restaurant Whore may proceed.
Restaurant Whore: After my husband and I endured a completely sucktastic experience at the Fish Farm and I reviewed it on my blog, I saw Michael Bauer’s glowing review on sfgate.com and promptly puk[ed] all over my computer screen. Bauer’s comments about the restaurant’s hyper-local fare reminded me of something that I initially forgot to write on my blog – namely that, according to information provided to us by Fish Farm’s servers, the food isn’t hyper-local. The restaurant purports to get as much as they can from local sources within 100 miles. Clearly that must not be very much as every time we asked where an ingredient came from, it came from a different state, country or continent (Washington, Canada, Australia).
Fish Farm’s “apologies” on my blog were insincere at best. The olive branch was offered with one hand while the other reached around and stabbed me in the back. To wit, their first response said, “The wonderful thing about owning a restaurant these days is that anyone with an ax to grind can take shots at you. I don't think that is what these bloggers are doing, I think there is some misinformation being acted on.” Geez, if you don’t think there’s any ax grinding going on, why bring it up? And just who was responsible for that misinformation? Their second response said, “We still think someone was walking through the dining [room] drunk, stopped at your table and blurted out foreign names. But since that wasn't the case we apologize for the very weird, weird comments. We constantly train and hover to make sure all is well at your tables but apologize for the indiscretions on your last visit.” Again, since it wasn’t the case that a drunk was singing “O Canada” and “Waltzing Matilda” in your dining room, why bring it up?
On Eater SF, they simply threw me under the bus, saying, “And in reference to your other “link” [to the Restaurant Whore’s blog] to dispel our ethics – read my response there.....that woman is just plain wrong.” This after they “apologized” and thanked me for blogging.
I may be wrong, but if I am it is because of information I was given by [Fish Farm’s] servers. They shouldn’t throw me under the bus because they failed to train their staff properly.
Injustice Grumpy Glutton: Why are you so sure that you’re not mistaken regarding what Fish Farm’s servers said?
Restaurant Whore: Your Dishonor, I wrote the freakin' book on local and therefore listen very carefully when I'm informed of where things come from.
Injustice Grumpy Glutton: You wrote the book on local?
Restaurant Whore: Yes, Your Dishonor, I co-authored the GrassRoutes Travel Guide to San Francisco: New View of Yerba Buena
.Injustice Grumpy Glutton: Very well. Proceed.
Restaurant Whore: I was unfairly maligned by the Fish Farm and disrespectfully petition this Court for redress.
Injustice Grumpy Glutton: Thank you, counselor. That concludes the Restaurant Whore’s argument.
We will now hear an amicus brief from Anita Localvore.
Anita Localvore: Thank you, your Dishonor. If you set a 100-mile goal – especially when it’s your #1 marketing ploy – then I think that at least 90% of ingredients should come from within that circle. We do it at home 4-5 days a week, and it's not that hard. I bet it's even easier when farmers deliver to your doorstep.
Injustice Grumpy Glutton: Thank you. Having heard argument, the Court is ready to rule on this matter.
The Court finds in favor of the Restaurant Whore. We find her account credible. While the Fish Farm’s argument has some merit, we find the inconsistent use of a 100 mile versus a 150 mile standard for local to be troubling, the disclosure method for local versus non-local ingredients to be confusing, their claim to be about sustainability and responsible food sourcing just as much as about are about local to be post facto revisionism and their so-called apology to the Restaurant Whore to be disingenuous. It is the responsibility of an establishment to properly train their staff. They cannot blame others for passing on information provided by their staff, even if that information is incorrect.
To redress the Restaurant Whore’s grievance, this Court orders the Fish Farm to:
a) Issue a sincere apology to the Restaurant Whore.
b) Establish and consistently follow a standard radius to define an ingredient as local.
c) Clearly indicate, by use of a star or similar mark, which menu ingredients are local, as defined by b), above.
d) State the place of origin when indicating the name of a purveyor.
e) Properly train their staff as to the origin of ingredients used in their menu.
It is so ordered. This Court is adjourned. [Sound of gavel dropping.]
I've read about 100 blogs/day - mostly on food - for the past 2 years. This post is, easily, the best written, most entertaining post I have ever read. Thank you.
btw, this is after I read most of this on Restaurant Whore's blog - of which I also subscribe.
Reply to this
Thank you!
Reply to this
The problem with west coast commercial salmon fishing is there is no real attempt to separate out other types of wild salmon from the main harvest. The BC government requires special coolers on board the fishing boats to allow fish like the Steelhead salmon to be separated and then to be set back into the ocea. These boxes on the fishing vessel is rarely if ever used. The commercial fishing industry disputes this assertion of course.
The valuable fish is kept and the not so valuable types of salmon die. Many of the rivers are seeing extremely poor returns of these other species. With some of the wealthiest people controlling the fishing fleets and commercial packing plants, it is hard to see any substantive changes coming to this process.
What would be sustainable is to harvest the commercially sought after salmon in a fish ladder within the river itself. Then specific numbers of fish could be caught each year, and the types of salmon like Steelhead that do not have commercial value could continue to migrate upstream to spawn and to support ecotourism, catch and release sports fishing and a healthy ecosystem. The ecotourism and sports fishing industry is sustainable, while the commercial fishing is not at this time.
Source article is now an article you have to pay for at the Toronto Globe and Mail - but this site provides the background and media coverage.
http://www.speypages.com/speyclave/archive/index.php/t-26582.html
(source - pay for article: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v5/content/subscribe?user_URL=http://www.theglobeandmail.com%2Fservlet%2Fstory%2FLAC.20070820.BCHUME20%2FTPStory%2F%3Fquery%3Dsteelhead%2Bsalmon&ord=78074302&brand=theglobeandmail&force_login=true
Furthermore - the commercial salmon fishery itself has been bungled and mismanaged and some restaurants in Vancouver are considering dropping salmon from their menus.
Source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080430.wlsalmon30/BNStory/lifeFoodWine/
Reply to this