As I am an attorney (and despite the cliched jokes to the contrary), my ethics are very important to me. I have posted a Blogger Code Of Ethics and written numerous posts about ethical issues. I believe that all bloggers should follow a code of ethics as the power of the "pen" can be too easily abused. For example, negative reviews can adversely affect a business so one must be very careful in how one proceeds. One must be objective and fair, honest and upfront.
Rarely do I have an ethical dilemma as I simply follow my own rules, which have served me well for many years. However, I find myself now entangled in an ethical dilemma which has the power to destroy a person's reputation. I have long been pondering over how to properly handle this matter and have asked others for their opinions as well. I have finally made a decision on a course of action and only hope that what I am doing is right.
Because of my Monday Rants, I was approached by a line cook from a popular, Boston-area restaurant. He wanted to share with me some unsavory information concerning the chef and initially I was reluctant to talk with him about this matter. I had little interest in gossip about chefs, such as who they might be sleeping with or whether they do drugs or not. His information though struck at a more important issue, a deception the chef was perpetuating upon the general public, a lie about the sourcing of some of this restaurant's ingredients.
The restaurant has a reputation for serving primarily local foods, from their produce to their meats. The line cook alleged that the restaurant actually served very little meat that was purchased locally. Most of it came from large scale, out of state farms that cost far less than locally purchased meats. It appears that the chef has a close relative who works with one of those large scale meat suppliers and thus is able to acquire his meats more covertly.
This is an explosive allegation and I certainly would not have given it any credence without clear evidence. I met with the line cook and he had a cell phone video showing an incriminating conversation between the chef and his relative. It was not the best of quality, but the voices were clear enough and seemed to support the allegation. He lacked any further evidence and didn't think he could get anything else.
I was considering dropping the matter but decided I would interview the chef, and try to throw in a few questions about rumors concerning his meat sourcing. I arranged an interview through his PR company and met with the chef later one morning at his restaurant. The interview started off well until I started asking questions about his sourcing. My initial questions were rather innocent, without mentioning any rumors, yet the chef's attitude and demeanor changed. He seemed defensive even though there was no reason to be at that time. When I finally asked about the rumors, he ended the interview, leaving quite angrily.
It seemed to me that there was validity to the line cook's allegations. It seemed clear that the chef was trying to hide something. I did some further digging, identifying the chef's relative and his company. I phoned the relative and let me just say that I obtained verification that he delivered meat to the restaurant. With that verification, I contacted the chef again, though this time directly. I indicated I might be publishing this story and wanted to hear his side.
The call was extremely unpleasant, with lots of profanity and threats from the chef. However, the chef realized that he was in a corner, though refusing to admit guilt, and begged that I would not post the story. If I posted my story, it would probably destroy his reputation though he seemed guilty of the allegations. Should I post it or not?
In the end, the chef indicated that he would be leaving the restaurant within the next week, that he would likely be getting a job in another city. I indicated to him that if he quit and move, then I would not post the story. That deadline has passed though and there is no indication that the chef intends to move on. The chef has also not returned my subsequent phone calls or emails. This post is his final chance to do the right thing, to follow through on our agreement.
If nothing changes this week, then next Monday's Rant will identify the chef and restaurant, providing the evidence I possess. I received much support on both Facebook and Twitter for outing the chef if I possessed sufficient evidence of his deception. My outing will not be without repercussion, but I am willing to take on those consequences to expose this fraud. Once I identify the chef and restaurant, the restaurant owner will have the ability to verify this matter on their own. All they will have to do will be to analyze the invoices for the local meat producers and determine there was an insufficient amount to have fed all of the restaurant's patrons.
Chef, step up and do the right thing or it will be my obligation to reveal the truth.
UPDATE:
April Fools!!!
Every year, on April 1, I write an April Fools post, and this year is no different. I have no plans to out any chef, and have not received any info about a chef's deception concerning the source of their meat. With the advent of Social Media, it has become even more difficult to fool anyone because everyone talks about April Fools. Before SM, you could go the entire day without someone mentioning it. Now, you often can't go five minutes before someone mentions it. This post does strike at some very important issues and I appreciate all the thoughtful comments it has engendered. Though it has generated a few hateful comments as well. This is an issue that certainly could arise one day. But this time, it is only an April Fools joke.
Showing posts with label ethics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ethics. Show all posts
Monday, April 1, 2013
Monday, January 28, 2013
Rant: Reviewer Card, Douchebags & Ethics
By now, you probably have read at least one article about the new Reviewer Card, a plastic card that states "I Write Reviews." The Los Angeles Times was one of the first to bring this card to our attention and numerous others have written about it during the past week. A self-described "lifelong entrepreneur" essentially decided that if restaurants and other businesses were aware that he wrote online reviews then they would provide him special service. As he felt there were other online reviewers in a similar situation, who wanted special treatment, he created the Reviewer Card.
An online reviewer simply flashes this card at a business and the hope is that the business will fawn all over this person, providing them special service, far better than the average person receives. It can be used at almost any business, from a restaurant to a hotel, from a dentist to an auto service station. The catch is that there is absolutely no guarantee that use of the card will be successful, and based on the comments of some restaurant owners during the past week, it could actually get you kicked out of some places.
This entrepreneur charges $100 for the plastic Reviewer card and states he will only provide them to "highly active review site users," though there are no parameters for what that entails. It is the entrepreneur's sole discretion as to who can receive the card. Interestingly, their membership application has apparently changed during the past week, maybe due to all of the recent negative press. Previously, they listed specific online sites, such as Yelp and Trip Advisor, where you indicated your contributions. There was no place though to list if you wrote a blog. Now you simply list your "Top Reviewer Profiles" so it could also include a blog.
In addition, there appears to be a new question on the application: "Do you accept to use this card ethically and morally?" There is nothing on their website that indicates what constitutes an ethical and moral use of the card. Thus, it is a question with no real teeth. Based on comments made by the entrepreneur, his grasp of the ethics of restaurant reviewing seems questionable. For example, he apparently sees nothing wrong with failing to disclose any special treatment he receives, which many others would see as an ethical failure to be transparent, an ethical failure to disclose a potential conflict of interest. The question seems to be new, drafted in response to all of the negative publicity.
The entrepreneur claims that he has sold about 100 of the Reviewer Cards and has given away another 400 or so though we should probably take his claims with a grain of salt. If true, he has already earned about $10,000, which is fairly lucrative for selling a cheap plastic card which guarantees nothing. It makes little sense for anyone to purchase this card. Why pay $100 when any reviewer could spend $10 and buy a bunch of business cards that say the exact same thing? In fact, they could even get a bunch of business cards for free from a few different companies.
Those business cards possess the same potential as the Reviewer Card. Even without any card, some try to assert that they possess a privileged status as an online reviewer. There have always been stories of Yelpers and others who have just announced their status to a restaurant owner, demanding special service or comped meals. Use of the Reviewer Card only elevates the level of ignorance and arrogance of these people.
If you collect all of the various articles about the Reviewer Card during the past week, the most common pejorative you will find about the card and those who would use it is "douchebag." It is an apt description. Few have defended the practice and rightfully so. It raises a number of ethical issues which any restaurant reviewer should consider but which some unfortunately ignore. Despite the entrepreneur's denials, the Reviewer Card seems designed to violate these ethical considerations
Use of this card can be seen as a form of extortion, where the reviewer demands special service from a restaurant or other business with the unspoken threat that they will write a terrible review if the business does not comply. A threat does not need to be spoken to be intended or understood. With the spread of the Internet, and all of the consumer review sites, restaurants and other businesses fully understand that any customer can write a negative review that thousands will see. It is in their best interest to treat all customers equally as they never know who might or might not write a review.
Use of this card can also be considered a type of bribe, where the reviewer agrees to provide a top review if they receive special service. A pay for play situation. The entrepreneur behind this card sees nothing wrong with this practice, though responsible restaurant reviewers understand the ethical problem with that type of behavior. Transparency is required for any situation where there is a potential conflict of interest, such as receiving free samples or a comped meal. The FCC certainly sees this as a necessity for bloggers, though there are certainly a few bloggers who violate those disclosure requirements.
The Reviewer Card is for narcissistic, entitled douchebags who think they deserve special treatment just because they write snarky reviews on Yelp or Trip Advisor. They don't want to be treated like any average customer. They want to be special, to receive special treatment. They don't want to tell the truth but rather brag about the treatment they received, which the average patron might not ever receive. It is also for someone dumb enough to spend $100 for a card they could create on their own for a minimal cost, if not free.
I think that the example of the Reviewer Card should cause anyone who reviews restaurants, wines, and other businesses to do some soul searching, to review their own behavior and ensure that it is ethical. They should ask certain questions and honestly answer them. Are you always transparent in your reviews? Do you ever guarantee a review in exchange for some type of consideration? Do you threaten in any way, verbally or not, to write a negative review if you do not receive special consideration? Do you endeavor to be honest in your reviews, to share both the positive and negative?
For bloggers, I recommend that you post your own ethical policies on your sites, to indicate the standards you endeavor to follow. As an example, you can read my own Code of Ethics, Disclosure, Advertising and Sample Policies. If you wish to be taken seriously in any way, you should be an ethical reviewer. It will enhance your credibility and reputation.
Don't be a douchebag!
An online reviewer simply flashes this card at a business and the hope is that the business will fawn all over this person, providing them special service, far better than the average person receives. It can be used at almost any business, from a restaurant to a hotel, from a dentist to an auto service station. The catch is that there is absolutely no guarantee that use of the card will be successful, and based on the comments of some restaurant owners during the past week, it could actually get you kicked out of some places.
This entrepreneur charges $100 for the plastic Reviewer card and states he will only provide them to "highly active review site users," though there are no parameters for what that entails. It is the entrepreneur's sole discretion as to who can receive the card. Interestingly, their membership application has apparently changed during the past week, maybe due to all of the recent negative press. Previously, they listed specific online sites, such as Yelp and Trip Advisor, where you indicated your contributions. There was no place though to list if you wrote a blog. Now you simply list your "Top Reviewer Profiles" so it could also include a blog.
In addition, there appears to be a new question on the application: "Do you accept to use this card ethically and morally?" There is nothing on their website that indicates what constitutes an ethical and moral use of the card. Thus, it is a question with no real teeth. Based on comments made by the entrepreneur, his grasp of the ethics of restaurant reviewing seems questionable. For example, he apparently sees nothing wrong with failing to disclose any special treatment he receives, which many others would see as an ethical failure to be transparent, an ethical failure to disclose a potential conflict of interest. The question seems to be new, drafted in response to all of the negative publicity.
The entrepreneur claims that he has sold about 100 of the Reviewer Cards and has given away another 400 or so though we should probably take his claims with a grain of salt. If true, he has already earned about $10,000, which is fairly lucrative for selling a cheap plastic card which guarantees nothing. It makes little sense for anyone to purchase this card. Why pay $100 when any reviewer could spend $10 and buy a bunch of business cards that say the exact same thing? In fact, they could even get a bunch of business cards for free from a few different companies.
Those business cards possess the same potential as the Reviewer Card. Even without any card, some try to assert that they possess a privileged status as an online reviewer. There have always been stories of Yelpers and others who have just announced their status to a restaurant owner, demanding special service or comped meals. Use of the Reviewer Card only elevates the level of ignorance and arrogance of these people.
If you collect all of the various articles about the Reviewer Card during the past week, the most common pejorative you will find about the card and those who would use it is "douchebag." It is an apt description. Few have defended the practice and rightfully so. It raises a number of ethical issues which any restaurant reviewer should consider but which some unfortunately ignore. Despite the entrepreneur's denials, the Reviewer Card seems designed to violate these ethical considerations
Use of this card can be seen as a form of extortion, where the reviewer demands special service from a restaurant or other business with the unspoken threat that they will write a terrible review if the business does not comply. A threat does not need to be spoken to be intended or understood. With the spread of the Internet, and all of the consumer review sites, restaurants and other businesses fully understand that any customer can write a negative review that thousands will see. It is in their best interest to treat all customers equally as they never know who might or might not write a review.
Use of this card can also be considered a type of bribe, where the reviewer agrees to provide a top review if they receive special service. A pay for play situation. The entrepreneur behind this card sees nothing wrong with this practice, though responsible restaurant reviewers understand the ethical problem with that type of behavior. Transparency is required for any situation where there is a potential conflict of interest, such as receiving free samples or a comped meal. The FCC certainly sees this as a necessity for bloggers, though there are certainly a few bloggers who violate those disclosure requirements.
The Reviewer Card is for narcissistic, entitled douchebags who think they deserve special treatment just because they write snarky reviews on Yelp or Trip Advisor. They don't want to be treated like any average customer. They want to be special, to receive special treatment. They don't want to tell the truth but rather brag about the treatment they received, which the average patron might not ever receive. It is also for someone dumb enough to spend $100 for a card they could create on their own for a minimal cost, if not free.
I think that the example of the Reviewer Card should cause anyone who reviews restaurants, wines, and other businesses to do some soul searching, to review their own behavior and ensure that it is ethical. They should ask certain questions and honestly answer them. Are you always transparent in your reviews? Do you ever guarantee a review in exchange for some type of consideration? Do you threaten in any way, verbally or not, to write a negative review if you do not receive special consideration? Do you endeavor to be honest in your reviews, to share both the positive and negative?
For bloggers, I recommend that you post your own ethical policies on your sites, to indicate the standards you endeavor to follow. As an example, you can read my own Code of Ethics, Disclosure, Advertising and Sample Policies. If you wish to be taken seriously in any way, you should be an ethical reviewer. It will enhance your credibility and reputation.
Don't be a douchebag!
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Rant: Ethics Issues At The Boston Globe?
A Boston Globe correspondent stands in the middle of a small room without walls, surrounded by piles of jagged, glass shards. Next to one pile is a medium-sized rock and the correspondent stares at the rock, which she had thrown only moments before. The ramifications had been obvious, yet she made the throw anyway. There are always consequences.
A headline on the front page of the Boston Globe newspaper, the March 7 edition, disturbed me: "Bloggers Eat Free." What sensationalism was this all about? I turned to the article, Eat, Tweet, Blog, and found it was about the Boston Brunchers. I have attended a few of the Boston Bruncher events so I am familiar with the organization and a number of the other bloggers who go to their events. In general, I found the article to be shallow, failing to depict the greater details and scope of the organization. But what most bothered me were the attacks on the integrity of the bloggers for accepting free meals.
Throughout the article, the correspondent made several digs at the bloggers including, "While bona fide reviewers, who taste anonymously and pay for everything, see this as a conflict of interest (what bad things are you likely to say when the meal is free?)" This is insulting on numerous levels, such as not considering bloggers to be "bona fide." In addition, the writer is essentially implying that a blogger will sell their integrity for a measly $30 brunch.
As one of those bloggers, I am deeply offended that anyone would think I would compromise my integrity for such a meager amount. I have spent years honing my craft and believe I possess a very good reputation. My blog even possesses a Code of Ethics with a listing of my Disclosure, Advertising and Sample Policies. The correspondent seems to possess an air of superiority because she is writing for a traditional newspaper, though she also has her own blog, Bistro Broad.
Now return to my initial paragraph for a moment and consider what I am trying to say. To put it more plainly, think about the saying that "people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones."
The Boston Globe correspondent who penned the Boston Bruncher article is named Kathleen Pierce and I have met her. In fact, I met her back in March 2010 when we both attended a free wine junket to Paso Robles, California. Free airfare, free hotel, free meals, free wine tastings, and more. As a reasonable estimate, each writer probably received benefits worth at least $2000. This really puzzles me. How can the writer who received such a bountiful freebie now complain about a blogger receiving only a $30 brunch? Even if a blogger went to 10 of those brunches, the value of those meals still would not equate to the value of the wine junket.
There is an unjust double standard here, and Kathleen should be ashamed she even raised the issue in her article. Did Kathleen compromise her own integrity when she received that free press trip? If she thinks someone will do so for a $30 brunch, then such a trip must surely have done so to her. Just consider how many $30 brunches it would take to equal a $2000 press trip. How many other freebies has Kathleen accepted during her writing career? Is the Boston Globe aware of the previous Paso Robles trip? Stop throwing stones when you are guilty of accepting far more than a meager brunch.
Bloggers are particularly aware of disclosing any freebies they receive, especially after the FTC rule changes of 2009. Anyone who considers themselves a Journalist should be even more aware of such ethical issues. So it seems logical that Kathleen, who describes herself as a journalist, is aware of those rules yet why did she ignore them on her own blog? If you look at her Paso Robles blog posts, you will see that she failed to disclose the press trip that she took, a clear violation of the FTC rules. And this is the person who is questioning the ethics of the Boston Brunchers. It is very sad to me.
I believe Kathleen Pierce should publicly apologize for questioning the integrity of the Boston Brunchers. I also believe the Boston Globe should offer their own public apology for Kathleen's article. So let us await their response.
For an additional discussion on the ethical issues of this article, please check out Adam Japko's post, Wine Blogger Sample Disclosure Double Standard, a well-written discourse on this matter.
Update (3/15/12): Douglas Most, the Deputy Managing Editor of Features at The Boston Globe emailed me a response to my post. He stated they were unaware of Kathleen's wine trip, but at the time she was not a regular Globe freelancer and had only submitted several freelance pieces. She never wrote about the wine trip for the Globe. He has also spoken to Kathleen, reminding her of the Globe’s freelance policy and that freelancers must avoid all trips, free meals or such which could be or be seen as a conflict of interest. It does not appear that any apology will be forthcoming.
A headline on the front page of the Boston Globe newspaper, the March 7 edition, disturbed me: "Bloggers Eat Free." What sensationalism was this all about? I turned to the article, Eat, Tweet, Blog, and found it was about the Boston Brunchers. I have attended a few of the Boston Bruncher events so I am familiar with the organization and a number of the other bloggers who go to their events. In general, I found the article to be shallow, failing to depict the greater details and scope of the organization. But what most bothered me were the attacks on the integrity of the bloggers for accepting free meals.
Throughout the article, the correspondent made several digs at the bloggers including, "While bona fide reviewers, who taste anonymously and pay for everything, see this as a conflict of interest (what bad things are you likely to say when the meal is free?)" This is insulting on numerous levels, such as not considering bloggers to be "bona fide." In addition, the writer is essentially implying that a blogger will sell their integrity for a measly $30 brunch.
As one of those bloggers, I am deeply offended that anyone would think I would compromise my integrity for such a meager amount. I have spent years honing my craft and believe I possess a very good reputation. My blog even possesses a Code of Ethics with a listing of my Disclosure, Advertising and Sample Policies. The correspondent seems to possess an air of superiority because she is writing for a traditional newspaper, though she also has her own blog, Bistro Broad.
Now return to my initial paragraph for a moment and consider what I am trying to say. To put it more plainly, think about the saying that "people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones."
The Boston Globe correspondent who penned the Boston Bruncher article is named Kathleen Pierce and I have met her. In fact, I met her back in March 2010 when we both attended a free wine junket to Paso Robles, California. Free airfare, free hotel, free meals, free wine tastings, and more. As a reasonable estimate, each writer probably received benefits worth at least $2000. This really puzzles me. How can the writer who received such a bountiful freebie now complain about a blogger receiving only a $30 brunch? Even if a blogger went to 10 of those brunches, the value of those meals still would not equate to the value of the wine junket.
There is an unjust double standard here, and Kathleen should be ashamed she even raised the issue in her article. Did Kathleen compromise her own integrity when she received that free press trip? If she thinks someone will do so for a $30 brunch, then such a trip must surely have done so to her. Just consider how many $30 brunches it would take to equal a $2000 press trip. How many other freebies has Kathleen accepted during her writing career? Is the Boston Globe aware of the previous Paso Robles trip? Stop throwing stones when you are guilty of accepting far more than a meager brunch.
Bloggers are particularly aware of disclosing any freebies they receive, especially after the FTC rule changes of 2009. Anyone who considers themselves a Journalist should be even more aware of such ethical issues. So it seems logical that Kathleen, who describes herself as a journalist, is aware of those rules yet why did she ignore them on her own blog? If you look at her Paso Robles blog posts, you will see that she failed to disclose the press trip that she took, a clear violation of the FTC rules. And this is the person who is questioning the ethics of the Boston Brunchers. It is very sad to me.
I believe Kathleen Pierce should publicly apologize for questioning the integrity of the Boston Brunchers. I also believe the Boston Globe should offer their own public apology for Kathleen's article. So let us await their response.
For an additional discussion on the ethical issues of this article, please check out Adam Japko's post, Wine Blogger Sample Disclosure Double Standard, a well-written discourse on this matter.
Update (3/15/12): Douglas Most, the Deputy Managing Editor of Features at The Boston Globe emailed me a response to my post. He stated they were unaware of Kathleen's wine trip, but at the time she was not a regular Globe freelancer and had only submitted several freelance pieces. She never wrote about the wine trip for the Globe. He has also spoken to Kathleen, reminding her of the Globe’s freelance policy and that freelancers must avoid all trips, free meals or such which could be or be seen as a conflict of interest. It does not appear that any apology will be forthcoming.
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Hudson Valley Foie Gras
The Boston Wine Expo is not just about wine. It also showcases various foods, which are good on their own, as well as being a nice palate cleanser between glasses of wine. This year, the tastiest table was an easy pick, that which belonged to Hudson Valley Foie Gras.
I have made my love of foie gras and duck products well known. I have also posted a number of times on foie gras, including a review of The Foie Gras Wars (a fascinating book by Mark Caro), information about foie gras, a discussion of the debate, and information about ethical foie gras.
The Hudson Valley table had two types of foie, some duck prosciutto and sliced magret available for tasting. All of which were amazingly delicious. I could have stood by the table and just savored their food for hours. They sell a wide range of foie and duck products, including duck salami, duck prosciutto, smoked magret, duck leg confit, organs (such as hearts, gizzards, and kidneys), torchon of foie, terrine of foie, mousse of foie, parfait of foie, and more. Seems like almost every part of the duck is available.
You are also encouraged to visit their farm, to see how the ducks are raised and fed. They have no secrets, and want to be as transparent as possible. I really respect that position, and hope to make my own visit there this year. Before you claim foie gras is cruel, check out the Hudson Valley farm and see for yourself what is going on. Not all foie gras is raised in the same manner.
You might also want to check out a new article in Edible Hudson Valley: Taboo & Delicacy: The Ethics and Ethos of Foie Gras by Lisa M. Dellwo. It is well written and adds some thoughtful analysis to the foei gras controversy.
I could use a seared piece of foie right now.
Hudson Valley Foie Gras
80 Brooks Road
Ferndale, NY 12734
Phone: 845-292-2500
I have made my love of foie gras and duck products well known. I have also posted a number of times on foie gras, including a review of The Foie Gras Wars (a fascinating book by Mark Caro), information about foie gras, a discussion of the debate, and information about ethical foie gras.
The Hudson Valley table had two types of foie, some duck prosciutto and sliced magret available for tasting. All of which were amazingly delicious. I could have stood by the table and just savored their food for hours. They sell a wide range of foie and duck products, including duck salami, duck prosciutto, smoked magret, duck leg confit, organs (such as hearts, gizzards, and kidneys), torchon of foie, terrine of foie, mousse of foie, parfait of foie, and more. Seems like almost every part of the duck is available.
You are also encouraged to visit their farm, to see how the ducks are raised and fed. They have no secrets, and want to be as transparent as possible. I really respect that position, and hope to make my own visit there this year. Before you claim foie gras is cruel, check out the Hudson Valley farm and see for yourself what is going on. Not all foie gras is raised in the same manner.
You might also want to check out a new article in Edible Hudson Valley: Taboo & Delicacy: The Ethics and Ethos of Foie Gras by Lisa M. Dellwo. It is well written and adds some thoughtful analysis to the foei gras controversy.
I could use a seared piece of foie right now.
Hudson Valley Foie Gras
80 Brooks Road
Ferndale, NY 12734
Phone: 845-292-2500
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Pateria de Sousa: Ethical Foie Gras?
Can foie gras be produced without force feeding ducks and geese? If force feeding were eliminated, then there would be little reason to oppose foie gras. Well, at least one Spanish farmer believes it is possible and he is producing what some call "ethical foie gras."
Pateria de Sousa is a Spanish company owned by Eduardo Sousa. The 30-acre farm is located in the Badajoz province of the Extremadura region, about fifty miles north of Seville. The company has been producing foie gras for almost two-hundred years. It lacks a website so it is not easy to find information about the company.
Sousa raises only geese, not ducks, and they are allowed to wander all across the farm, which they share with pigs, which Sousa raises for their meat. The geese are referred to as Ganso Iberico, or Iberian Geese. The geese are not force fed at all. Instead, Sousa waits for the geese to naturally eat enough food to enlarge their livers, which occurs at the time when they would be ready to migrate. Depending on the weather, this will occur sometime between December and February.
The livers generally though do not enlargen as much as would through force feeding. Plus, this means that foie gras can only be produced once a year, making it much rarer, and thus more expensive, than other foie. Most of the foie gras produced by Sousa is pasteurized and then made into parfaits. I am unsure whether Sousa's products are available in the U.S. or not. They are available in Europe, including Britain. There is some question too whether it tastes as good as regular foie.
What are your thoughts on this "ethical" foie gras?
Pateria de Sousa is a Spanish company owned by Eduardo Sousa. The 30-acre farm is located in the Badajoz province of the Extremadura region, about fifty miles north of Seville. The company has been producing foie gras for almost two-hundred years. It lacks a website so it is not easy to find information about the company.
Sousa raises only geese, not ducks, and they are allowed to wander all across the farm, which they share with pigs, which Sousa raises for their meat. The geese are referred to as Ganso Iberico, or Iberian Geese. The geese are not force fed at all. Instead, Sousa waits for the geese to naturally eat enough food to enlarge their livers, which occurs at the time when they would be ready to migrate. Depending on the weather, this will occur sometime between December and February.
The livers generally though do not enlargen as much as would through force feeding. Plus, this means that foie gras can only be produced once a year, making it much rarer, and thus more expensive, than other foie. Most of the foie gras produced by Sousa is pasteurized and then made into parfaits. I am unsure whether Sousa's products are available in the U.S. or not. They are available in Europe, including Britain. There is some question too whether it tastes as good as regular foie.
What are your thoughts on this "ethical" foie gras?
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Foie Gras: The Controversy & Debate
Do you enjoy foie gras? Are you opposed to it, thinking it is cruel? Or do you fall somewhere in the middle, maybe unsure about the issue? Today, let us explore the foie gras controversy and set the ground work for discussion and debate.Please note that some of the items in this post come from The Foie Gras Wars by Mark Caro, a book I recently reviewed and recommended. I'll note the page numbers for the items I present.
It is difficult to even phrase an initial question concerning the foie gras controversy because the phrasing might bias the answer, or the question may be ambiguous. For example, say we ask, is the production of foie gras cruel? The problem is with the definition of "cruel?" Couldn't we say that the raising of nearly all animals is cruel in some respect? As another example, we might ask whether ducks raised for foie gras suffer? But then what is the definition of "suffer?" Doesn't the raising of all animals involve suffering in some respect?
Maybe instead we should qualify our questions with terms such as "unnecessary" or "extreme" cruelty or suffering. But even those definitions are likely to cause problems. Despite these difficulties, we still can have a meaningful discussion about this subject. We just may have to be more creative in how we approach the matter.
For many, "Suffering remains the accepted yardsick for assessing the welfare of any "sentient being." (p.19) Yet defining that term remains a significant issue. Not everyone uses the same standards to assess it. If someone is concerned about any and all animal suffering, then they would likely have to be opposed to any raising of animals for food or other items. Yet all animals are not treated the same. So, we can at least try to compare the treatment of different animals to see which might suffer more.
Consider first that close to 10 billion animals are killed each year and almost 9 billion of them are "broiler" chickens, which are raised for their meat. (p.19) More than 95% of all animals raised in the U.S. are thought to be involved in food production. About 20 million animals are used in testing. (p.56)
Most of those billions of chickens are raised in huge factory farms where they are kept in tiny cages in horrendous conditions. If you are concerned about cruelty to animals, you might want to speak out about those factory farms especially when they involve so many billions of animals. Consider this as well: When a male version of an egg-laying chicken is born, they are usually killed, often gassed with C02. They are considered useless as they can't lay eggs and are a different genetic strain than broiler chickens. (p.19)
Hogs and cattle are also raised on factory farms, and they too have their significant share of problems, harsh conditions which lead to animal suffering. Check out Righteous Porkchop for much more information about the horrors of these factory farms. Plus, these factory farms are environmental hazards and the problems are much deeper than just animal cruelty. With such vast issues, then why should people be so vocal about ducks and foie gras?
How big is the foie gras industry in the U.S? Consider that approximately 500,000 ducks a year are slaughtered for foie gras. Some factory farms kill that many broiler chickens in a single day. (p.69) So we can see that foie gras production is a very small operation. By sheers numbers, we should be far more concerned about chickens and other animals before foie gras. So why does it seem that the opposition to foie gras is so much more prevalent and vocal?
For one thing, and which is quite important, because the foie gras industry is small, its response to criticisms, boycotts and such is usually equally small. They lack the mighty industries, with their accompanying wealth, that are behind chicken and pork. So foie gras is a far easier target. Rather than take on billion dollar industries, the protesters would rather take on a mere handful of duck farmers. And in doing so, these protesters ignore far greater problems.
Criticism of foie gras production generally centers on the process of "gavage," the "force feeding" of the ducks and geese. I am not sure many people fully understand this process though. The term itself, force feeding, seems to carry significant negative connotations. Yet what is the reality? One caveat is that we cannot anthropomorphize ducks and geese. They are animals and don't have the same biology as humans. They don't feel the same things, in the same way, that we do. So, if we are trying to determine whether these birds suffer, we must consider such suffering from the point of view of the birds, and not how a human would view it.
Ducks raised for foie gras generally spend their first 12 weeks as free range birds, and there is no force feeding done during that time. They essentially live pleasant lives and you would be hard pressed to say that they suffer in any respect, unless you are completely opposed to raising animals. As a comparison, regular ducks that are slaughtered just for their meat live for only about 5.5 weeks. Broiler chickens generally live for only about 6-7 weeks. So we can see that foie gras ducks actually live at least twice as long as these other birds. That is surely a benefit to being such a duck.
After the 12 week period, foie gras ducks are moved to either group pens (in the U.S.) or individual cages (in France and Canada). Gavage will then be conducted 2-3 times a day over a period of 2-4 weeks. If the process is done over four weeks, the feeding is done more gradually. In this force feeding, a metal tube or pipe is lowered into a ducks's throat for about 2-10 seconds while the food is being introduced. Did you realize how quick this was done? How much does a duck suffer during these very brief instances of force feeding?
Gavage is supposed to mimic in some respects how birds gorge themselves prior to migration. (p.6) This is a good example of why we should not anthropomorphize these birds. Unlike humans, these birds have systems designed to accomodate such over eating. There are veterinarians who support that gavage is not cruel. (p.44) Yet there remain those who are vehemently opposed to this practice. Who is correct?
For further consideration, you should also read a recent letter written by the owners of Incanto restaurant in San Francisco. The letter, Shock & Foie: The War Against Dietary Self-Determinism, is a well written, cogent and compelling argument in support of foie gras. I highly recommend you read it and carefully consider its contents.
So where do you stand on the foie gras controversy? Please post your thoughts in the comments. If you have written before on this subject, please post links to your articles in the comments as well.
Monday, September 1, 2008
Rockaway, Full Disclosure & Wine Blogger Ethics
A battle has been waging across the wine blogosphere, at places like Good Grape, Tom Wark's Fermentation, Steve Heimoff, 1 Wine Dude, Bigger Than Your Head, and elsewhere. It has become a war of allegations and insults with various accusations of ethical violations. I have not replied to any of the other posts concerning these issues. I have taken time to review the matter, to try to get a sense of the underlying issues.
By posting my own thoughts here, I realize that I may too become a target for accusations and insults. But I am hoping that will not become the case. I am hoping that there is still room for rationale discussion of the matter, a more objective review of the matter. I like the people who are involved in the controversy. They are fellow bloggers, some of who I talk to regularly on Twitter. I don't wish to cause any of them any harm.
Briefly, the controversy revolves around the receipt by several bloggers of samples of a new allocated wine, Rockaway Cabernet by Rodney Strong. A condition of receipt of the sample was that the bloggers had to post about the matter within a certain time period. This condition was at the center of the controversy as some felt such a condition may have been an ethical violation. The participating bloggers strongly disagreed, partially countering by stating the condition originated with Jeff of Good Grape and not the winery. You can read the links at the top of this post for further details on this matter.
Do I think the participating bloggers engaged in unethical behavior? I cannot really answer that question properly. The major impediment to my answer is that there is no universal canon of ethics for wine bloggers. There have been numerous discussions on the topic on various blogs plus the Open Wine Consortium but there has yet to be a consensus on the topic. So, the participating bloggers certainly did not violate any universal canon. Without such a universal canon, then on what can you base an accusation of unethical behavior?
Some wine bloggers have their own personal codes of ethics listed on their blogs while other blogs are silent on the issue. So this is also a very gray area as to what is and is not acceptable. But for those who do post their own code, then there is a reference point to assess whether they violated their ethical policy or not. As an example, two of the participating bloggers have their own posted ethical codes. 1 Wine Dude has a posted Code of Ethics and Tim of Wine Cast has a posted Code as well.
1 Wine Dude's code states: "I reserve the right to refuse to review any wine that is sent to me for the purpose of a review on this blog. I may or may not agree to write a post when/if I receive a wine. If a winery or distributor sends me a wine, and I do decide to review it, I review it objectively." The first line would tend to indicate that he would not accept a wine from a winery with a condition that he had to post about it. Though the second line is a bit confusing and could be read to indicate he might agree to a condition that he review a wine. I would tend to believe that the second line is just not written well and that the sentiment in the first line is controlling.
Tim's code states: "I accept wine samples offered by wineries, distributors and retailers but typically do not solicit them directly. This does not mean that I will review all wines submitted on the blog or podcast, but I will taste and offer my notes privately to all submissions. I will continue to disclose the sources of all wines I don’t buy directly in all blog posts and podcasts for complete transparency." There is nothing in that to indicate he would not accept a wine from a winery with a condition that he review it. So, even if in this matter, the winery did make the condition he had to review the wine, there would not be a violation of his personal code of ethics.
Besides personal codes of ethics, there has been some discussion whether blogs should be hekld to ethical standards as any journalist. Some bloggers do want credibility and want to be seen as legitimate media. Some want to be considered journalists. If so, should they then be subject to the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics? Should all bloggers be subject to such?
The proper definition of "journalist" is very flexible, and dependent on the context. It may or may not include bloggers. Sometimes a distinction is drawn for "professional" journalists, generally those who make a living from their journalism which would exclude most wine bloggers. Even if a blogger considers themselves to be a journalist, that still does not mean they have agreed to follow the Journalists Code of Ethics. So, we really cannot use this Code to allege that the participating bloggers committed an ethical breach. Though we can at least consider how their actions would be seen through the journalist's prism. This might help us all become better and more ethical wine bloggers.
The Journalist Code of Ethics requires journalists to "Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived" as well as to "Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility." It is these items that are at the heart of the original issue that led to all the recent controversy. Did the participating bloggers offer full disclosure of their endeavor? Was there complete transparency? Was their a potential conflict of interest, real or perceived? Were they involved in an activity that might compromise their integrity?
As an attorney, my own profession has a substantial code of ethics and it deals with conflicts of interest. I understand that a mere disclosure of potential conflicts is not always sufficient in of itself. Plus, full disclosure is a very important matter. There is also sometimes disagreement over what constitutes a conflict of interest. It is rarely a black and white answer.
I reviewed the original Rockaway posts by the bloggers who participated in this project:
It could be argued that these initial posts about the Rockaway project failed to provide full disclosure concerning all of the circumstances of the free wine sample. Not one of those posts disclosed the fact that there was a requirement for the participating bloggers to post about the project as a condition of receiving the wine. I believe that the bloggers should have provided that information in their initial reviews and posts and that it was a mistake not to do so.
Some, though not all of the participants, posted again on the matter. Most provided additional information on the project, though I believe such information should have been in their original post.
On 8/20/08, Jeff of Good Grape provided more detailed information on the background of the Rockaway project. He mentioned that each blogger receiving a sample had to post about it. But he did not make clear who had decided on that policy. And based on what was said in the post, a reader might assume assume that the winery was involved in the requirement to post about the wine. Jeff would make two further posts discussing the controversy, as well as providing additional background information on the conditions of the Rockaway project.
On 8/20/08, Renee of Feed Me/ Drink Me posted a second time about the Rockaway but failed to indicate that there was a condition she had to post about it.
On 8/24/08, Dr. Debs of Good Wine Under $20 wrote a post about the background of the Rockaway project. Though she mentioned the condition that she had to post to receive the sample, it was unclear the winery's involvement in that condition. As in Jeff's 8/20 post, a reader might assume the iwinery was involved in the requirement to post.
In 8/27/08, Tim posted an addendum to his original post to indicate on 8/27/08 explaining more about the sample and its condition.
So, even on some subsequent posts, not all of the details were provided by all of the participants. That can be argued as well that there was a lack of full disclosure. I think the fact that there was a requirement to post as a condition of receiving the sample is a materially significant fact that should have been disclosed in the initial reviews posts.
Some of those who initiated the controversy on their blogs have been accused of posting without full knowledge of all the facts. Yet, in the interests of full disclosure, shouldn't all of those materials facts been posted by the participants in the Rockaway project on their blogs? Why should someone have to hunt down the participating parties to garner facts that should have already been presented by the participants? If there was full disclosure, then there would never have been accusations of posting without a full knowldge of the facts.
So, did anyone commit an ethical violation? I really cannot say. But, I do think the bloggers who participated in the Rockaway project should have provided a fuller disclosure of the facts, especially their requirement to post, in their initial posts and reviews. Such a fuller disclosure may have prevented much of the controversy that later erupted. I think this is a lesson to all bloggers to ensure they too engage in full disclosure on all potential conflicts of interest, real or perceived. None of us are perfect and all of us sometimes make mistakes. We just have to learn from our mistakes and move forward.
And keep writing about the wine we love.
By posting my own thoughts here, I realize that I may too become a target for accusations and insults. But I am hoping that will not become the case. I am hoping that there is still room for rationale discussion of the matter, a more objective review of the matter. I like the people who are involved in the controversy. They are fellow bloggers, some of who I talk to regularly on Twitter. I don't wish to cause any of them any harm.
Briefly, the controversy revolves around the receipt by several bloggers of samples of a new allocated wine, Rockaway Cabernet by Rodney Strong. A condition of receipt of the sample was that the bloggers had to post about the matter within a certain time period. This condition was at the center of the controversy as some felt such a condition may have been an ethical violation. The participating bloggers strongly disagreed, partially countering by stating the condition originated with Jeff of Good Grape and not the winery. You can read the links at the top of this post for further details on this matter.
Do I think the participating bloggers engaged in unethical behavior? I cannot really answer that question properly. The major impediment to my answer is that there is no universal canon of ethics for wine bloggers. There have been numerous discussions on the topic on various blogs plus the Open Wine Consortium but there has yet to be a consensus on the topic. So, the participating bloggers certainly did not violate any universal canon. Without such a universal canon, then on what can you base an accusation of unethical behavior?
Some wine bloggers have their own personal codes of ethics listed on their blogs while other blogs are silent on the issue. So this is also a very gray area as to what is and is not acceptable. But for those who do post their own code, then there is a reference point to assess whether they violated their ethical policy or not. As an example, two of the participating bloggers have their own posted ethical codes. 1 Wine Dude has a posted Code of Ethics and Tim of Wine Cast has a posted Code as well.
1 Wine Dude's code states: "I reserve the right to refuse to review any wine that is sent to me for the purpose of a review on this blog. I may or may not agree to write a post when/if I receive a wine. If a winery or distributor sends me a wine, and I do decide to review it, I review it objectively." The first line would tend to indicate that he would not accept a wine from a winery with a condition that he had to post about it. Though the second line is a bit confusing and could be read to indicate he might agree to a condition that he review a wine. I would tend to believe that the second line is just not written well and that the sentiment in the first line is controlling.
Tim's code states: "I accept wine samples offered by wineries, distributors and retailers but typically do not solicit them directly. This does not mean that I will review all wines submitted on the blog or podcast, but I will taste and offer my notes privately to all submissions. I will continue to disclose the sources of all wines I don’t buy directly in all blog posts and podcasts for complete transparency." There is nothing in that to indicate he would not accept a wine from a winery with a condition that he review it. So, even if in this matter, the winery did make the condition he had to review the wine, there would not be a violation of his personal code of ethics.
Besides personal codes of ethics, there has been some discussion whether blogs should be hekld to ethical standards as any journalist. Some bloggers do want credibility and want to be seen as legitimate media. Some want to be considered journalists. If so, should they then be subject to the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics? Should all bloggers be subject to such?
The proper definition of "journalist" is very flexible, and dependent on the context. It may or may not include bloggers. Sometimes a distinction is drawn for "professional" journalists, generally those who make a living from their journalism which would exclude most wine bloggers. Even if a blogger considers themselves to be a journalist, that still does not mean they have agreed to follow the Journalists Code of Ethics. So, we really cannot use this Code to allege that the participating bloggers committed an ethical breach. Though we can at least consider how their actions would be seen through the journalist's prism. This might help us all become better and more ethical wine bloggers.
The Journalist Code of Ethics requires journalists to "Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived" as well as to "Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility." It is these items that are at the heart of the original issue that led to all the recent controversy. Did the participating bloggers offer full disclosure of their endeavor? Was there complete transparency? Was their a potential conflict of interest, real or perceived? Were they involved in an activity that might compromise their integrity?
As an attorney, my own profession has a substantial code of ethics and it deals with conflicts of interest. I understand that a mere disclosure of potential conflicts is not always sufficient in of itself. Plus, full disclosure is a very important matter. There is also sometimes disagreement over what constitutes a conflict of interest. It is rarely a black and white answer.
I reviewed the original Rockaway posts by the bloggers who participated in this project:
- 8/17/08: Jeff of Good Grape posted "Introducing Rockaway Cabernet"
- 8/18/08: Joe of 1 Wine Dude posted his review of the Rockaway Cabernet.
- 8/18/08: Arturo, on Good Grape, posted his review of the Rockaway Cabernet
- 8/18/08: Keri of Wine Peeps posted her review of the Rockaway Cabernet.
- 8/19/08: Sonadora of Wannabe Wino posted her review of the Rockaway Cabernet.
- 8/20/08: Dr. Debs of Good Wine Under $20 posted a review of the Rockaway Cabernet.
- 8/20/08: Renee of Feed Me/Drink Me posted on Rockaway Cabernet and allocation lists.
- 8/23/08: Tim of Wine Cast posted his review of the Rockaway Cabernet.
It could be argued that these initial posts about the Rockaway project failed to provide full disclosure concerning all of the circumstances of the free wine sample. Not one of those posts disclosed the fact that there was a requirement for the participating bloggers to post about the project as a condition of receiving the wine. I believe that the bloggers should have provided that information in their initial reviews and posts and that it was a mistake not to do so.
Some, though not all of the participants, posted again on the matter. Most provided additional information on the project, though I believe such information should have been in their original post.
On 8/20/08, Jeff of Good Grape provided more detailed information on the background of the Rockaway project. He mentioned that each blogger receiving a sample had to post about it. But he did not make clear who had decided on that policy. And based on what was said in the post, a reader might assume assume that the winery was involved in the requirement to post about the wine. Jeff would make two further posts discussing the controversy, as well as providing additional background information on the conditions of the Rockaway project.
On 8/20/08, Renee of Feed Me/ Drink Me posted a second time about the Rockaway but failed to indicate that there was a condition she had to post about it.
On 8/24/08, Dr. Debs of Good Wine Under $20 wrote a post about the background of the Rockaway project. Though she mentioned the condition that she had to post to receive the sample, it was unclear the winery's involvement in that condition. As in Jeff's 8/20 post, a reader might assume the iwinery was involved in the requirement to post.
In 8/27/08, Tim posted an addendum to his original post to indicate on 8/27/08 explaining more about the sample and its condition.
So, even on some subsequent posts, not all of the details were provided by all of the participants. That can be argued as well that there was a lack of full disclosure. I think the fact that there was a requirement to post as a condition of receiving the sample is a materially significant fact that should have been disclosed in the initial reviews posts.
Some of those who initiated the controversy on their blogs have been accused of posting without full knowledge of all the facts. Yet, in the interests of full disclosure, shouldn't all of those materials facts been posted by the participants in the Rockaway project on their blogs? Why should someone have to hunt down the participating parties to garner facts that should have already been presented by the participants? If there was full disclosure, then there would never have been accusations of posting without a full knowldge of the facts.
So, did anyone commit an ethical violation? I really cannot say. But, I do think the bloggers who participated in the Rockaway project should have provided a fuller disclosure of the facts, especially their requirement to post, in their initial posts and reviews. Such a fuller disclosure may have prevented much of the controversy that later erupted. I think this is a lesson to all bloggers to ensure they too engage in full disclosure on all potential conflicts of interest, real or perceived. None of us are perfect and all of us sometimes make mistakes. We just have to learn from our mistakes and move forward.
And keep writing about the wine we love.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)