Ethics

When I have a guest over for a meal, I always try to ask them whether they have any dietary restrictions or preferences. Oftentimes, they say that they don't. When they do admit to a restriction, they usually apologize for being difficult.

It is far from difficult, though... and the apology is unnecessary. For me, it makes cooking more interesting. Yes, trying to come up with, say, a vegetarian, gluten-free meal that doesn't include any alliums can be challenging. There are two ways to meet a challenge, though: you can shy away from it in fear, or you can embrace it. I can't say that I always do the latter, but when it comes to the kitchen I have a pretty good track record.

On occasion, I hear chefs complain about people who make special requests. The assumption is that the chef is the expert. While I am not going to doubt the general expertise of most chefs, there is a difference between general expertise and an application of that expertise in an individual case. In short, I think that individuals should be assumed to be the best judge of what they will enjoy eating.

Let's consider some examples:

1. Albus goes into a steakhouse. It wasn't his choice of a restaurant, but he is there with a group of friends. The menu clearly states that they cook all their steaks to medium-rare. Albus was once a vegetarian and still gets nauseous when his meat is even vaguely pink. He likes well-done steak, but nothing else on the menu looks appetizing. Should he ask for his steak well-done?
2. Bartholomew doesn't have any food allergies, but he is sensitive to garlic, onions, chives, and other alliums. If he eats them in any quantity at all, he will have intestinal issues that are best not described at the dinner table. He's found that if he merely says he can't eat alliums, restaurants rarely take his request to leave them out seriously, and he has suffered as a result. Should he start saying that he's allergic to alliums?
3. Carmina is a supertaster of sorts. The chemicals that give heat to chilis, black pepper, ginger and their relatives taste incredibly bitter to her. Black pepper and bell peppers are merely unpleasant, but a dish that has jalepeños in it tastes like aspirin. Should she explain this when she goes to restaurants? How?

I can understand how, particularly on a busy night, a chef might get frustrated when faced with having to make nonstandard meals. I don't really understand why a chef would get frustrated with their customers for ordering things the wrong way. To me, that smacks of hubris. For my part, I enjoy cooking with restrictions. It forces me to think outside of my comfort zone and get creative.

Not too long ago, a couple of food bloggers proposed the Food Blogging Code of Ethics. I thought the project was ill-conceived. Now, eGullet is putting forward their own code for food bloggers. I don't think this one is any better.

Ultimately, my objection to these efforts is that it is an attempt by a third-party to define standards of behavior for an individual via a code. The fact that it will serve as a tremendous PR boost to those third-parties raises concerns about their sincerity. I'm not a moral relativist in any traditional sense: I do think there are universal moral truths. I do not, however, think that these universal truths are the sort of thing that can be codified. So far, the attempts have not even shown any sophisticated thinking about morality.

The part that really worries me is that once you sign on to either code, they can change it... and it is your responsibility to opt out if you no longer agree with it. This strikes me as an ethically-problematic model.

Still, the very existence of these efforts create a sort of pressure to sign on to them. Who doesn't want to be known as an ethical blogger? Sign up with us, and you'll have a little badge to prove it!

Screw that.

Here's an alternative:

Make your own statement of ethics. This can be as simple as, "I promise to be conscientious, honest, and considerate in my posting. If you have concerns, contact me and I will address them." Alternatively, it can be complicated, discussing how you will treat disclosures of freebies, reviews, commenting, intellectual property, and the like. Create a badge if you want that states "ethical food blogger" or "read my ethics statement" or whatever. Have that badge link to the statement on your own site. This is honest and it gives you control over your own ethics statement.

If there is interest, I'd be happy to put up a variety of draft language (I have both a law degree and a Masters degree in philosophy with a focus in moral theory) and some sample badges. I don't want people to link to these things, but I would be happy to serve as a resource for bloggers (food bloggers or otherwise) who want to create their own ethics statements.

Today, the bloggers at Food Woolf and Spicy Salty Sweet launched a site hosting what they have declared to be the food blog code of ethics.

A number of things about this rub me the wrong way.

First, this was apparently a closed project between two individuals. They created a code of conduct and published it, asking other food bloggers to sign on. Many will. This will, undoubtedly, result in a higher visibility for these two bloggers. (I realize that this very post is contributing to that marginally.) Is this a scheme for such exposure? I don't know. Maybe they mean well. Maybe they are honestly concerned with the ethics of food blogging and responsible journalism. If so, though, why didn't they try to recruit others at the ground level? Doing so would have been the responsible and up-front thing. It also would have made their code stronger.

Second, the code itself is flawed. It has some parts that have nothing to do with ethics. For instance, it includes the statement, "We will not plagiarize or use images from others." Plagiarizing is clearly problematic morally, but equating it with using "images from others" is irresponsible. There are many places where it is appropriate to use images from others: you can get their permission, you can license them, you can purchase them, you can hire someone to take them for you. This isn't even including fair use. Yes, they probably meant "illegally using images from others," but that isn't what they said. In an open project, someone would have caught that.

Third, the code is created in such a way that it can't be opened or turned into an evolving document. They could start over with another code, but this one doesn't have a version number. They are creating a list of people who agree to abide by it. Changing the code will invalidate that list. This was sloppy.

This isn't to say that the majority of the code's content is bad. It isn't. Most of it is common sense: don't plagiarize, factcheck, cite your sources, disclose biases and potential conflicts of interest... on the other hand, most of this is common sense. I don't think we need it. People, however, will likely grab the little badge so that they can claim they follow it and pat themselves on the back (and get a link on the blogroll).

Image by BrennaThere was some great environmentally-conscious content on the web today in honor of Earth Day - all of which will be just as relevant tomorrow. Check it out:

• The sustainable food section of change.org posted a Sustainable Food Reading List as well as a two-part article on a sustainable food supply [Part One, Part Two]
• Civil Eats posted an article entitled Shades of Sustainability, discussing the myriad ways in which the word is used (and misused). Also posted is a plea not to use peat in your garden.
• Cooking Up A Story offers some small steps you can take toward a greener kitchen. (via Serious Eats)
• Yumsugar offers up some sustainable seafood selections, including a couple I wasn't aware of... Also, they suggest reusing wine bottles for water.
• Mark Bittman writes about how and why he changed his diet on NPR. (Although you could watch him on The Colbert Report instead. He said largely the same thing there...)
• The Kitchn posts links to a ton of environmentally-conscious posts
• Epicurious applauds their favorite corporate efforts to go green, lists some eco-friendly cookbooks, and lists five foods that are healthy for both people and the planet.
• Bon Appétit has a ton of Earth Day content, including a green recipe slideshow (Coffee-Marinated Bison Short Ribs? Yes, please.), a short article on Community Supported Agriculture, info on direct-trade coffee, and more.
• The Los Angeles Times has an article on Tackling the ethics of eating.
• The Oregonian shows us the way toward a climate-friendly kitchen.

No. I cannot explain that photograph.

Image by Jan TikI've been reading The Omnivore's Dilemma and getting angry (again) about -among other things - the stranglehold that Montsanto and other creators of genetically modified seed have on farmers.

As a result, I started thinking about open source agriculture.

Many fish we eat are in danger due to overfishing or the destruction of their habitat. The Blue Ocean Institute's Guide to Ocean Friendly Seafood lists over 90 species which are commonly used as seafood and ranks them on sustainability, as well as the environmental friendliness of their catch method or farming system. A mobile phone text-messaging service is also available.