This post from Grub Street: As we learned (or will learn!) during the chef-bio presentations, it is now common practice for a restaurant to list on the menu the source of their ingredients. The writer of the article wonders, "Is putting the names of suppliers onto the menu a way of making us concentrate more on the ingredients, or a way of getting pretentious about some of the most basic and commonplace foods in the world?" I pose the same question to you.
Until recently, the consumers have been in the dark as to where their food exactly came from. This detachment from our food sources let the producers exploit our ignorance to their advantage by giving us genetically modified or otherwise bad-quality food. By stating where their ingredients are from, the restaurants are killing two birds with one stone: They are drawing the customers closer to the food source and informing the masses to be aware of what they are consuming. In this aspect, I think it right that a restaurant states which nearby farm its ingredients are coming from.
ReplyDeleteThe problem arises, as the article states, when restaurants use "veggie pedigree" to overprice their menu or serve fresh produce that have hardly been cooked after they were harvested. In a decent restaurant (or any other self-respecting restaurant), it is mostly implied that all the ingredients are of good quality. (I mean, you are paying all that money for them!) So a restaurant shouldn't be rated by the quality of ingredients used but by how they were prepared and cooked. (That's what chefs are for anyway.)
Agatha W.
ID # 879861
I believe putting the suppliers name on the menu makes us concentrate more on the ingredients. Without having easy access to knowledge of where your food comes from will make some people disregard the potential locality, growing process, organic or non-organic materials used in the process, and condition of the product. Although items on a menu should be evaluated as a whole the quality of the ingredients contributes to the dish as a whole.
ReplyDeleteLS825721
I think there is muliple reasons for including ingredients on a menu and I also believe different restaurants may post their ingredients for their own reasons. Some may want their customers to concentrate on the ingredients such as people looking for "healthy" organic food. A different establishment may want to create an atmosphere of haute cuisine by having ingredients that may be precieved as rare due to their supplier,in that case it is sort of pretentious. However there must be a restaurant that names their suppliers because they know that today's customers are becoming more concerned with where their food is coming from. Is there any GMO's in the food and does the supplier treat all of their employees fairly? A restaurant is not just about providing a fantastic meal anymore, it is a vehicle for many philosophical, political, and cultural influences. Chefs/restauranters such as Alice Waters have recognized, so they inform the public where the food is coming from and that it is important to know where you get your food and not to be complacent about it, but again this is just my opinion.
ReplyDelete-895171-
If the suppliers of the food are local then placing their names on the menu isn't bad at all. It is very similar to what they do at Chez Panisse. If the suppliers aren't local then there is really no reason and this fad will eventually pass.
ReplyDelete-S. Payne
I often detest restaurants who market the source of their ingredients. I believe the whole farm to table movement has been misleading. Should it not be common practice, and of minimal expectations to use food which is of good quality? The answer is yes. These are standards for top restaurants. Pretension is blatant in this case. We are not concentrating on ingredients by sourcing local farms, we are concentrating on elitism. I can only understand sourcing suppliers on a menu when a restaurant has been established as of high quality and stature. On Alinea's menu, when Grant Achatz has composed a dish of only products collected from a single supplier in a single region, to create an inspired edible landscape of a trout farm, it makes sense. To list Steve Stallard, the producer of his "Blis" line of trout roe, maple syrup, vinegars, salts, and trout, the use of the brand name is relevant as the dish is a collection of those high-end items-- a reflection of Steve Stallard's work. Grant simply can't take all the credit, he is modest in this case, not pretentious. For all the other dishes on the menu at Alinea, records are kept of the source of ingredients, yet they are not presented unless asked for. I am always left wondering in less-renowned restaurants whether or not the "farm to table" picture covers up food of lesser quality. Expectations are always heightened, and the food often under-delivers. A wonderful and unpretentious farm-to-tabe (a real one) called Nightwood is in Chicago, and I highly recommend it, if you are in the area. Farm names are listed, as are foragers, on the menu, but they are responsible as much for the experience as the chef.
ReplyDeleteAron Pobereskin
658285
Honestly I don't think this gets them anymore money than if they didn't list them. The farm's aren't why people go to the French Laundry, its Thomas Keller. Personally, I think listing farm names shows the customer the amount of thought, care and attention to detail that goes into each dish. If it were so easy to just list purveyors, not pay anymore for the product and then ask more money then why don't places like TGI Fridays and Applebee's do it?
ReplyDelete