tim's experiment

Well the good news is that a Hong Kong restaurant has been awarded three Michelin stars. The bad news is that if you ask for it, this restaurant is quite willing to serve you sharksfin soup. That was enough to get local tree-huggers, or fish-huggers, up in arms. Michelin should take sustainability into consideration, said a WWF spokesperson. “Excessive consumption is driving sharks to extinction,” she said, “and the award will indirectly encourage further consumption.”

I have several quarrels with this approach. One is that sharks are nasty carnivorous creatures which do not reciprocate the warm and cherishing feelings which they evoke from some human beings.  Species are going extinct all the time. This is nature’s way. If it is the shark’s turn, well it coundn’t happen to a more deserving fish.

Leaving the lovability of sharks aside, though, the WWF seems to be taking the oppportunity for a good whinge on a slender foundation here. I suppose they were put up to it by the newspapers and the opportunity was irresistible. But the restaurant concerned is not going to ram shark fins down the throats of reluctant diners. The consumption of fins will be entirely at the discretion of the customer. If the customer has any sense he will spurn an over-priced and under-flavoured dish. Sharks’ fins don’t actually taste of very much at all.  The WWF has every right to urge diners to consider sustainability in their menu choices. Asking restaurants to participate in the latest conservation PR stunt is another matter. Fins are expensive because they are hard to get hold of. If they are banned by some restaurants, or some restaurant guides, they will become more, not less attractive. And that “indirectly encourage further consumption” phrase looks dangerously vague. How much further consumption? Presumably there is a threshold below which the WWF would admit it was wasting people’s time. Have we passed it?

Also I think the Michelin people have the right to say that politics, the environment, and other worthy causes are important and interesting, but not what their guide is about. The guide is about the food. All that a Michelin star says is that the food in a restaurant is good. It says nothing of the sustainability or other worthy qualities of the restaurant’s menu policy. This is a sensible arrangement because it would be very difficult to run such a guide any other way. Lots of food is the result of processes open to one objection or another. The things done to geese to produce foie gras, for example, are painful and disgusting.  As for veal … These are matters which a sensitive diner should consider carefully.  WWF  has every right to persuade people to stop ordering shark’s fin. If that is not producing the desired results, try harder. Restaurants give their customers what the customers want. This is the way to stay in business.