August 21, 2025 • 21 mins
In today's episode of The Disclosure Podcast, I discuss the recent announcement that Eleven Madison Park is going to be reintroducing meat. So, what are the reasons why, what does this mean for veganism and does an interview with the New York Times reveal that this was destined to happen all along?
For more exclusive content and personal writing from me, check out my Substack here.
On my Substack, I share not only my own reflections and personal thoughts on veganism, but also my journey and struggles. You’ll get a deeper insight into the issues that matter most to me and, in doing so, I hope it helps you feel more connected to your own veganism as well. It’s a space where we can connect and explore the intersection of compassion, reason and rationality together. By joining my Substack you also support the work that I do!
Through my Substack you can also receive regular free 'Good News Roundups' - a collection of positive and inspiring stories from the world of veganism.
If you’d like to support my work separately to Substack, you can also make a one-off or monthly donation here or through my PayPal.
If you’re interested in reading my books, you can find them here:
📚 My latest book How to Argue With a Meat Eater (And Win Every Time) + if you’ve read the book, you can leave a review here!
📚 My first book This is Vegan Propaganda (& Other Lies the Meat Industry Tells You).
Additionally, if you enjoyed this episode, I’d be so grateful if you could leave a review or rating. Your feedback helps the podcast reach more people, and it truly means a lot to me. If you think this episode would resonate with someone you know, please share it with them too.
Thank you so much for listening to this episode and for all of your support. I look forward to speaking to you again in the next episode!
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
SPEAKER_00 (00:00):
So the fine dining restaurant 11 Madison Park,
which is in New York City, hasjust recently announced that
they are going to bereintroducing meat back onto
their menu.
This follows in the footsteps ofother previously plant-based
restaurants and eateries, whichhave made the same decision.
But is there a message in all ofthis?
Is there a warning that we as acommunity should be concerned
(00:22):
about?
What exactly do these recentexamples of restaurants turning
their back on plant-based eatingtell us about the state of This
is the Disclosure Podcast.
(01:05):
Welcome to the DisclosurePodcast.
If you enjoy this episode andthe work that I'm doing here,
then please consider checkingout my sub stack where I post
regular articles.
You can also support my work bybecoming a paid member of my sub
stack through which you willalso gain access to weekly
articles or by making a donationthrough my website.
Links for everything can befound in this episode's show
(01:26):
notes.
For those of you who do supportmy work, thank you so much.
I am incredibly grateful andappreciate it very much.
Leaving a review for thispodcast is also really helpful
and encourages more people tolisten to it.
I hope you find this episodeinteresting and informative and
thank you for listening.
So Eleven Madison Park wentplant-based back in 2021,
(01:50):
following the first year or soof the COVID-19 pandemic.
And just before we dive intosome of the statements they've
made just in the past week orso, I want to highlight a
statement they made back then,which alludes to why they made
the decision to go plant-basedin the first place.
So this is from the owner ofEleven Madison Park.
I started to realize the impactthat animal farming has all over
(02:13):
the world.
I started to realize what wasgoing on in the fish industry
and how broken it is.
I started to feel guilty becauseI felt that for a long time, I
didn't question enough exactlywhere our food was coming from.
When you have that knowledge,you have the responsibility to
speak about it.
What's changed?
What's different now?
Why is this statement no longerrelevant four years later?
(02:36):
I mean, has there been some hugeshift in terms of how we farm
animals?
Has the world completelyaltered?
Has the planet been rescued fromclimate disaster?
Is it now this, this sweepinglyethical system that we don't
have to be worried about?
What's changed in the past fouryears that would take us from a
statement saying you have theresponsibility to speak about it
(02:58):
to, oh, we're going to beserving it and profiting off of
this exploitation, off of thisharm.
So what exactly has changed?
What is different now that wouldchange the ethical
responsibility that the ownerDaniel Hum seemed to feel like
he had four years ago?
I would say nothing.
So then the question becomes,why has this decision been made?
(03:21):
So let's flash forward.
That was four years ago.
Let's flash forward to presentday.
And I'm going to read to you nowthe recent Instagram post that
was published by Eleven MadisonPark.
So the quote from the owner.
Brace yourself.
Change is fundamental to how weare and how we grow.
As I approach my 20thanniversary at Eleven Madison
(03:43):
Park, I've decided it's time forchange again.
Hold on to that.
It's time for change again.
Starting October 14th, we willintegrate our new culinary
language, the language ofviolence, culinary language into
a menu that embraces choice.
This word choice becomes areally weaponized word when
(04:05):
restaurants start serving meator introduce meat or reintroduce
it again.
Choice.
They just love to emphasize thisidea of choice.
And we'll break that down in amoment.
The quote goes on.
We will offer a plant-basedmenu, but also select animal
products for certain dishes.
Fish, meat, and yes, our honeylavender glazed duck.
Eating together is the essenceof who we are.
(04:29):
And I've learned that to trulychampion plant-based cooking, I
need to create an environmentwhere everyone feels welcome
around the table.
What a completely absurdstatement to make that is.
To champion plant-based cooking,I need to serve non-plant-based
meals.
Let's take an example of, say,Korea, South Korea.
(04:49):
And let's say that we go back 10years, okay?
Let's say we go back 10 yearsand we, as sort of people who
don't want to eat dogs anymore,we want to shift this culture
away from dog eating, say, howare we going to do this?
Well, how about we create arestaurant and we serve non-dog
meat dishes and we serve dogmeat dishes?
But then you go, well, If youwant to see the end of dog meat
(05:10):
farming, would you just notserve dog meat dishes?
And you go, no, no, no, no.
We have to bring everyone in.
And the way to champion non-dogmeat dishes is by giving people
the option to consume dog meat.
And so when people are eatingdog meat, they'll feel like
they're a part of this table.
They've been invited to thistable.
And as a consequence, that's howwe can elevate non-dog meat
(05:31):
dishes.
It just doesn't make any sense.
If you have the feeling thatsomething isn't good, that it
would be better if the worlddidn't have it, How does
profiting off of that thing helpchange it?
If people don't want to eatplant-based food, serving them
non-plant-based food is notgoing to make them want to eat
plant-based food.
How disingenuous, how cynical.
(05:52):
I just find it so insulting thatthese people can make these
statements and try and insinuatethat this is something good for
plant-based food.
Oh, it'd be fantastic whenpeople are eating the honey
lavender glazed duck.
Then we'll be truly championingthe essence of plant-based
cooking.
But the thing about plant-basedcooking is everyone can eat it.
In essence, it's the mostinclusive meal.
(06:13):
Meat eaters can eat plant-basedfood.
Vegetarians can eat plant-basedfood.
Plant-based eaters can eatplant-based food.
So it's actually the mostinclusive dish that you can
serve to someone.
Now, if people don't want to eatit because it doesn't contain
animal products, well, That's anindictment on them.
You know, if you're a meat eaterand you go, I don't eat anything
that doesn't have any meat init, that's not an insult to
(06:35):
plant-based cooking.
That's an insult to thesmall-mindedness of the people
who make those statements.
I think it's really fascinatinghow we sort of Take the essence
of responsibility away fromthose people and place it on
plant-based cooking.
You know, if there is a personwho will refuse to eat
plant-based meals, somehow wekind of make that the fault of
(06:56):
plant-based eating.
It's not inclusive enough.
It doesn't appeal to everyone.
So choice.
You know, we don't actuallytruly believe in choice, because
if we did, we would serve horsemeat, they'd be serving foie
gras to appeal to people, they'dbe serving dogs and cats.
Maybe you could make the claimthat it's not...
legal, but then maybe we shouldbe lobbying to our governments
and saying, hey, this is afreedom of choice issue.
(07:17):
How dare we make it illegal toserve dog meat in a restaurant
that's all about choice toconsumers and the culinary
experience of choice?
How are we truly meant tochampion plant-based cooking if
we can't serve whale and dogmeat?
That's the question that I wouldpose to legislators.
I'd go, you know, we care aboutplant-based cooking, but how can
we champion it if we have lawsprohibiting people from eating
(07:38):
dog meat?
And this is the thing aboutpeople who talk about choice and
food.
We as vegans hear it all thetime.
We always hear people say, butyou're limiting people's choice.
It's the freedom of choice.
And yet these people are notprotesting and lobbying to their
governments demanding that everysingle animal be legal to eat.
They're not doing that.
They don't complain that we havelaws that prohibit us farming
(07:59):
dogs and slaughtering dogs.
But that's a freedom of choiceissue.
Should someone not be allowed toeat dogs if they want to?
And if not...
Is that not violating theirfreedom of choice?
Do we not care about people'sability to choose to eat any
type of food that they want to?
This is why it's sohypocritical, because if you
say, hey, we shouldn't eat pigs,people go, well, that's a
(08:20):
freedom of choice.
How dare you cross that?
That's authoritarian.
But if you say to someone, weshould have dog meat farming and
factory farm dogs for meat,people would go, you're
disgusting.
What an immoral thing to do.
How dare you do that?
Dog meat farming should beillegal.
That's the way it should be.
And so we have this completelycontradictory attitude, whereas,
well, We vegans get labeled asthe enemy of choice because we
(08:42):
want the select few animals thatwe conventionally consume to be
viewed in the same way that weview the animals that we would
never consume.
We want it to be socially viewedas immoral to consume pigs and
lambs in the same way that it isdogs and cats.
That's not about us prohibitingchoice.
That's about us being morallyconsistent.
And if you think that it shouldbe the choice of the consumer,
(09:07):
then to be morally consistent,you should be opposing the
restriction of any type ofanimal-based food, regardless of
the species.
Because as soon as you say thatthere is a moral reason why we
shouldn't consume dogs, to beconsistent, you have to align
yourself with the principles ofveganism.
Because the moral imperativearound not exploiting dogs
exists.
for pigs and cows and lambs andfish and these animals.
(09:29):
The criteria for why one isimmoral is the same for why all
of these examples are immoral.
So anyway, let's dive a littlebit deeper.
Daniel Hum did an interview withthe New York Times.
I'm not sure if Eleven MadisonPark had reached out to the New
York Times and said, hey, we'redoing this.
Would you like the scoop?
We can do an interview becauseat the end of the day, it's PR.
At the end of the day, it's PR,isn't it?
(09:51):
And this is what I want to comeon to.
In this New York Timesinterview, there's a couple of
quite illuminating comments thatare made.
And one of them is about ElevenMadison Park's sort of previous
pursuits, previous PR stunts,let's say.
And the statement in the NewYork Times says...
When they went plant-based, itwas dismissed by some as another
(10:12):
high-end stunt from a chef whohas taken the restaurant through
a series of different menussince he took over in 2006,
including one that requiredwaiters to perform card tricks.
So it seems to me like this headchef is one who...
essentially likes to do thingsfor PR and working with card
(10:33):
trick performers was part ofthis PR stunt because people go,
oh, this is strange.
Let's write about this.
Let's publish articles aboutthis.
Let's go into this restaurant.
We have to see what thisgimmick's all about.
And then that leads me tosomewhat of a cynical
conclusion, which is we have ahead chef who likes to maybe do
things for attention.
What was the plant-based menufor in the end?
(10:54):
I mean, it drew a lot ofattention.
And they sort of referenced,Daniel Humm had referenced how
the pandemic had been a bigdrain on them, as it had been
for every restaurant, let's behonest.
But this was a way of themgetting straight into the news,
sort of on the back ofrestaurants reopening.
This is how they could cutthrough some of that noise,
perhaps.
This fine dining,Michelin-starred restaurant is
going fully plant-based.
(11:15):
Wow, everyone's talking aboutthis.
Everyone's talking about thedecision.
And this is a PR angle too,because now everyone's talking
about them yet again.
Is anyone talking about anyother fine dining restaurants?
No, this one's the one that's inthe news right now.
And it's the one that people aretalking about online.
And why?
Because they've gone fromplant-based back to meat again.
So it's another round of PR.
It's another cycle ofconversation.
It's another cycle of interest,of intrigue.
(11:37):
It's another way of getting morepeople to talk about it, share
about it, and to be intrigued inbooking and going.
So it's a PR cycle.
And it seems like maybe there'sa bit of history around this
head chef engaging kind of PRcycles with menu changes.
Now, there's another step whichI think is interesting.
First, it alludes to thefinancial elements.
For example, Daniel Hunt, thehead chef said, it was hard to
(11:58):
get 30 people for a corporatedinner to come to a plant-based
restaurant.
And I think this is probably afair statement.
they probably did have a lot ofcorporate dinners.
There was probably a lot ofmoney that was spent from
businesses with a lot of moneyto spend.
And if the restaurant'splant-based and maybe you're
trying to appeal to investors oryou're trying to, I don't know,
(12:19):
have these corporate dinners,maybe a fully plant-based menu
is not the one that is going tobe most attractive.
So I can understand how thatwould have had an impact.
The question is, well, isthat...
really relevant.
I mean, if you make less moneyfrom corporate dinners, is that
a reason to going back toserving dead animals?
Ethically, of course it isn't.
But clearly they had less moneycoming in from certain sources
(12:40):
That's the reason why they'vegone back to serving meats.
It's as simple as that.
It's a big PR story.
It gets lots of media attention.
You're going to get an influx ofbookings for those first few
weeks, probably first few monthswith a serving meat again.
And actually it's worthmentioning they weren't even
plant-based.
They were serving honey anddairy.
So they weren't actually aplant-based restaurant.
You could still consume animalproducts in the restaurant.
(13:02):
It was just the set menu wasplant-based.
But I think this is reallyfascinating.
Again, this is in the New YorkTimes article.
and it explains the ethicalposition, let's say, of the head
chef.
The New York Times articlereads, the move back to meat
comes after months ofcontemplation that started in
(13:26):
earnest earlier this year duringa research trip to Greece.
Now that word earnest, I thinkis doing an awful lot of heavy
lifting.
I think we all know the reasonwhy this decision has been made.
And I think the idea that itstarted in earnest during a trip
to Greece and not when they werelooking at the fact that they're
balance sheet maybe was lowerthan it was eight, nine years
ago when they were serving meatbefore the pandemic.
(13:47):
I think that might be a goodindicator why they've started
serving meat.
I'm not sure if it started inearnest during a research trip
to Greece.
Anyway, Mr.
Hum said that he and some of hiscolleagues traveled into the
mountains to watch a shepherdslaughter a goat.
And this is a quote from thehead chef.
It's very moving and there'ssuch respect, he said.
(14:09):
If you had seen the whole cycleof Of course, you would never
waste a bite of this.
I mean, the way that we kind offetishize, that we romanticize,
that we glamorize, that wealmost worship the idea of this
kind of humble shepherd spirit.
(14:32):
living off the land,slaughtering a goat.
I mean, I don't know thesituation beyond this.
And we know that the way thatpeople talk about this is always
so overindulgent.
It's always sort of...
portraying this incrediblynoble, romantic idea of there's
just this shepherd, he's justliving off this land in the
mountains of Greece and he hasgoats and he loves his goats and
(14:54):
he treats them with respect, buthe has to slaughter them and
it's done in the most blissful,wonderful, incredible way that
you can imagine.
And there's no way that youcan't just view this act of
slaughter and not be completelyovertaken by the emotion of it,
by the compassion, the humility,the sincerity, the wonder of
this natural life cycle playingout in front of us as this
(15:16):
shepherd does what he needs todo to survive.
But in doing so, he honors thelife and blood of this animal
who was blessed to be shepherdedby such a benevolent,
compassionate individual.
It is these romanticized fairytales that we love to tell
ourselves about animal farming,of these people living in these
faraway lands, these hilltoplandscapes.
(15:39):
I don't know what the situationtruly was like if this was a
farmer who had lots of goats orif he was just a shepherd with a
few goats who had very littlemoney, very little resources and
was dependent.
I don't know.
This is all the details thatthere are.
But of course, the way that it'sbeen portrayed is to portray it
as being this kind of reallywonderful, respectful thing.
And even if you take it to thatextreme, let's say that this is
(15:59):
a shepherd in the mountains ofGreece who doesn't have access
to food.
He doesn't have access tosupermarkets from the cities.
There's not any food in thelocal villages other than the
food that's grown there.
And that food is not enough tosustain them all.
And so they slaughter as fewgoats as they possibly can just
to survive and live off theland.
Let's take that example.
(16:20):
What does that mean?
about serving meat at ElevenMadison Park.
What does that justify?
What does that actually mean?
It means absolutely nothing.
It's like going to a region, acoastal region of Western Africa
and seeing someone going out andcatching fish to feed their
family and they're deciding toopen a fish and chip shop
restaurant in Brighton in thecoastal region of the UK.
(16:43):
It's completely absurd.
The two things are notequivalent.
Just because fish are beingkilled does not mean that they
are ethically equivalent or thatthe production of animals, the
farming, the fishing of animalsin Western countries is
justified as a consequence ofwhat happens in areas where
there is lower availability.
And what really grinds my gearsabout this is the idea that this
(17:05):
is a humble thing and thatjustifies fine dining.
They will take on the actions ofthis humble shepherd and then
use that to justify a finedining restaurant in New York
City, which is appealing tocorporations that have
incredible amounts of moneywhere they can spend thousands
and thousands and thousands ofdollars on one meal.
These are two separate worldsand I just find it absolutely
(17:29):
ridiculous and farce that thechef at Eleven Madison Park is
trying to marry these twoopposite worlds together as if
they have something in common.
They do not.
It's insulting like thatstatement on Instagram, where
elevating championingplant-based food by serving
animal-based foods This wholething is absurd.
It's about money.
That's all it's about.
(17:51):
It's got nothing to do with,wow, once you see an animal
being slaughtered in Greece inthese mountains by the shepherd,
it's so respectful.
You'd never want to waste any ofthat, which is why we have to
serve animal products in NewYork City.
I don't know.
I think there's a lot ofarrogance, a lot of ego, a lot
of narcissism that exists infood.
And I think head chefs in thesefine dining restaurants, not
(18:13):
all, of course, but there isthis undercurrent, this feeling
of grandiosity.
There's something about sort offine dining chefs in certain
places, in certain restaurants,where there's this elevated
sense of self-importance.
And it's obviously sort ofingrained through TV shows,
(18:33):
ingrained by the sort of awethat we might have around chefs,
you know, ingrained by sort ofmaybe fiction dramatized shows
like The Bear.
And I think that this chef hasclearly taken a big piece of ego
pie when perhaps he should havehad a big slice of humble pie.
It is frustrating becauseobviously it dominates headlines
for a little while.
And whenever a plant-basedrestaurant does go back to
(18:54):
serving meat or introduces meatfor the first time, it is a
newsworthy story because itallows us or it allows
commentators to perpetuate thenarrative that veganism is in
decline.
And I think what it overlooksis, I'm not going to try and
claim that plant-based food isless popular, that certain
sectors like the plant-basedalternative sector is less
popular now than it was fiveyears ago.
(19:15):
I mean, there's evidence showingthat people are consuming less
or purchasing fewer of theseproducts.
And so I'm not going to try andmake the claim that the fact
that restaurants are plant-basedhas nothing to do with it,
because of course there is anelement of that.
But the idea that this is onlyhappening to plant-based
restaurants, which is kind ofwhat the narrative implies, is
completely absurd.
I mean, in the UK, there's ahuge crisis in hospitality.
(19:37):
Thousands of pubs have closed,and yet no one's claiming that
in the UK we don't like pubsanymore.
Now, of course, it's notnecessarily a like-for-like
comparison, but what I thinkthat sort of comparison does
show is that there's somethingdeeper at play here, which is
that there is a cost-of-livingcrisis High inflation, high
interest rates, food isexpensive, the margins are very
(19:57):
narrow, and it's hard in thehospitality sector for any
restaurant to really survive.
And obviously the plant-basedelement might add an extra
strain, but the idea that onlyplant-based restaurants are
closing overlooks the fact thatthere is a deeper issue at play
here, which is related to thecurrent economic crisis.
Because if people have lessmoney to spend, they have less
(20:17):
money to spend in theseestablishments.
And if the cost of food isincreasing and the cost of
running a restaurant isincreasing, it means that
restaurants have to increaseprices, but then consumers have
less money to spend inrestaurants.
It's just a vicious cycle.
And I think it's really cynicalwhen it It's sort of portrayed
as being a vegan problem or aplant-based problem.
And it's the demise of veganismbecause plant-based restaurants
(20:38):
are closed anyway.
That brings me to the end ofthis podcast.
Thank you so much for listening.
As always, I really doappreciate it.
And I look forward to speakingto all of you in the next
episode.
Thank you so much for listening.
If you've enjoyed this episode,make sure to subscribe to the
(21:00):
Disclosure Podcast on whicheverplatform you listen to it, as
doing so means that you canalways stay up to date with new
episodes.
Leaving a review and sharing thepodcast is also really helpful.
And if you'd like to support thepodcast and my work more
generally, you can either make adonation through the link in the
show notes or sign up to my substack where I post weekly and
share my thoughts and feelingsabout the experience of living
(21:23):
vegan.
In the show notes, you can alsofind links to purchase my books.
Thank you again for listening.
So the fine dining restaurant 11 Madison Park,
which is in New York City, hasjust recently announced that
they are going to bereintroducing meat back onto
their menu.
This follows in the footsteps ofother previously plant-based
restaurants and eateries, whichhave made the same decision.
But is there a message in all ofthis?
Is there a warning that we as acommunity should be concerned
(00:22):
about?
What exactly do these recentexamples of restaurants turning
their back on plant-based eatingtell us about the state of This
is the Disclosure Podcast.
(01:05):
Welcome to the DisclosurePodcast.
If you enjoy this episode andthe work that I'm doing here,
then please consider checkingout my sub stack where I post
regular articles.
You can also support my work bybecoming a paid member of my sub
stack through which you willalso gain access to weekly
articles or by making a donationthrough my website.
Links for everything can befound in this episode's show
(01:26):
notes.
For those of you who do supportmy work, thank you so much.
I am incredibly grateful andappreciate it very much.
Leaving a review for thispodcast is also really helpful
and encourages more people tolisten to it.
I hope you find this episodeinteresting and informative and
thank you for listening.
So Eleven Madison Park wentplant-based back in 2021,
(01:50):
following the first year or soof the COVID-19 pandemic.
And just before we dive intosome of the statements they've
made just in the past week orso, I want to highlight a
statement they made back then,which alludes to why they made
the decision to go plant-basedin the first place.
So this is from the owner ofEleven Madison Park.
I started to realize the impactthat animal farming has all over
(02:13):
the world.
I started to realize what wasgoing on in the fish industry
and how broken it is.
I started to feel guilty becauseI felt that for a long time, I
didn't question enough exactlywhere our food was coming from.
When you have that knowledge,you have the responsibility to
speak about it.
What's changed?
What's different now?
Why is this statement no longerrelevant four years later?
(02:36):
I mean, has there been some hugeshift in terms of how we farm
animals?
Has the world completelyaltered?
Has the planet been rescued fromclimate disaster?
Is it now this, this sweepinglyethical system that we don't
have to be worried about?
What's changed in the past fouryears that would take us from a
statement saying you have theresponsibility to speak about it
(02:58):
to, oh, we're going to beserving it and profiting off of
this exploitation, off of thisharm.
So what exactly has changed?
What is different now that wouldchange the ethical
responsibility that the ownerDaniel Hum seemed to feel like
he had four years ago?
I would say nothing.
So then the question becomes,why has this decision been made?
(03:21):
So let's flash forward.
That was four years ago.
Let's flash forward to presentday.
And I'm going to read to you nowthe recent Instagram post that
was published by Eleven MadisonPark.
So the quote from the owner.
Brace yourself.
Change is fundamental to how weare and how we grow.
As I approach my 20thanniversary at Eleven Madison
(03:43):
Park, I've decided it's time forchange again.
Hold on to that.
It's time for change again.
Starting October 14th, we willintegrate our new culinary
language, the language ofviolence, culinary language into
a menu that embraces choice.
This word choice becomes areally weaponized word when
(04:05):
restaurants start serving meator introduce meat or reintroduce
it again.
Choice.
They just love to emphasize thisidea of choice.
And we'll break that down in amoment.
The quote goes on.
We will offer a plant-basedmenu, but also select animal
products for certain dishes.
Fish, meat, and yes, our honeylavender glazed duck.
Eating together is the essenceof who we are.
(04:29):
And I've learned that to trulychampion plant-based cooking, I
need to create an environmentwhere everyone feels welcome
around the table.
What a completely absurdstatement to make that is.
To champion plant-based cooking,I need to serve non-plant-based
meals.
Let's take an example of, say,Korea, South Korea.
(04:49):
And let's say that we go back 10years, okay?
Let's say we go back 10 yearsand we, as sort of people who
don't want to eat dogs anymore,we want to shift this culture
away from dog eating, say, howare we going to do this?
Well, how about we create arestaurant and we serve non-dog
meat dishes and we serve dogmeat dishes?
But then you go, well, If youwant to see the end of dog meat
(05:10):
farming, would you just notserve dog meat dishes?
And you go, no, no, no, no.
We have to bring everyone in.
And the way to champion non-dogmeat dishes is by giving people
the option to consume dog meat.
And so when people are eatingdog meat, they'll feel like
they're a part of this table.
They've been invited to thistable.
And as a consequence, that's howwe can elevate non-dog meat
(05:31):
dishes.
It just doesn't make any sense.
If you have the feeling thatsomething isn't good, that it
would be better if the worlddidn't have it, How does
profiting off of that thing helpchange it?
If people don't want to eatplant-based food, serving them
non-plant-based food is notgoing to make them want to eat
plant-based food.
How disingenuous, how cynical.
(05:52):
I just find it so insulting thatthese people can make these
statements and try and insinuatethat this is something good for
plant-based food.
Oh, it'd be fantastic whenpeople are eating the honey
lavender glazed duck.
Then we'll be truly championingthe essence of plant-based
cooking.
But the thing about plant-basedcooking is everyone can eat it.
In essence, it's the mostinclusive meal.
(06:13):
Meat eaters can eat plant-basedfood.
Vegetarians can eat plant-basedfood.
Plant-based eaters can eatplant-based food.
So it's actually the mostinclusive dish that you can
serve to someone.
Now, if people don't want to eatit because it doesn't contain
animal products, well, That's anindictment on them.
You know, if you're a meat eaterand you go, I don't eat anything
that doesn't have any meat init, that's not an insult to
(06:35):
plant-based cooking.
That's an insult to thesmall-mindedness of the people
who make those statements.
I think it's really fascinatinghow we sort of Take the essence
of responsibility away fromthose people and place it on
plant-based cooking.
You know, if there is a personwho will refuse to eat
plant-based meals, somehow wekind of make that the fault of
(06:56):
plant-based eating.
It's not inclusive enough.
It doesn't appeal to everyone.
So choice.
You know, we don't actuallytruly believe in choice, because
if we did, we would serve horsemeat, they'd be serving foie
gras to appeal to people, they'dbe serving dogs and cats.
Maybe you could make the claimthat it's not...
legal, but then maybe we shouldbe lobbying to our governments
and saying, hey, this is afreedom of choice issue.
(07:17):
How dare we make it illegal toserve dog meat in a restaurant
that's all about choice toconsumers and the culinary
experience of choice?
How are we truly meant tochampion plant-based cooking if
we can't serve whale and dogmeat?
That's the question that I wouldpose to legislators.
I'd go, you know, we care aboutplant-based cooking, but how can
we champion it if we have lawsprohibiting people from eating
(07:38):
dog meat?
And this is the thing aboutpeople who talk about choice and
food.
We as vegans hear it all thetime.
We always hear people say, butyou're limiting people's choice.
It's the freedom of choice.
And yet these people are notprotesting and lobbying to their
governments demanding that everysingle animal be legal to eat.
They're not doing that.
They don't complain that we havelaws that prohibit us farming
(07:59):
dogs and slaughtering dogs.
But that's a freedom of choiceissue.
Should someone not be allowed toeat dogs if they want to?
And if not...
Is that not violating theirfreedom of choice?
Do we not care about people'sability to choose to eat any
type of food that they want to?
This is why it's sohypocritical, because if you
say, hey, we shouldn't eat pigs,people go, well, that's a
(08:20):
freedom of choice.
How dare you cross that?
That's authoritarian.
But if you say to someone, weshould have dog meat farming and
factory farm dogs for meat,people would go, you're
disgusting.
What an immoral thing to do.
How dare you do that?
Dog meat farming should beillegal.
That's the way it should be.
And so we have this completelycontradictory attitude, whereas,
well, We vegans get labeled asthe enemy of choice because we
(08:42):
want the select few animals thatwe conventionally consume to be
viewed in the same way that weview the animals that we would
never consume.
We want it to be socially viewedas immoral to consume pigs and
lambs in the same way that it isdogs and cats.
That's not about us prohibitingchoice.
That's about us being morallyconsistent.
And if you think that it shouldbe the choice of the consumer,
(09:07):
then to be morally consistent,you should be opposing the
restriction of any type ofanimal-based food, regardless of
the species.
Because as soon as you say thatthere is a moral reason why we
shouldn't consume dogs, to beconsistent, you have to align
yourself with the principles ofveganism.
Because the moral imperativearound not exploiting dogs
exists.
for pigs and cows and lambs andfish and these animals.
(09:29):
The criteria for why one isimmoral is the same for why all
of these examples are immoral.
So anyway, let's dive a littlebit deeper.
Daniel Hum did an interview withthe New York Times.
I'm not sure if Eleven MadisonPark had reached out to the New
York Times and said, hey, we'redoing this.
Would you like the scoop?
We can do an interview becauseat the end of the day, it's PR.
At the end of the day, it's PR,isn't it?
(09:51):
And this is what I want to comeon to.
In this New York Timesinterview, there's a couple of
quite illuminating comments thatare made.
And one of them is about ElevenMadison Park's sort of previous
pursuits, previous PR stunts,let's say.
And the statement in the NewYork Times says...
When they went plant-based, itwas dismissed by some as another
(10:12):
high-end stunt from a chef whohas taken the restaurant through
a series of different menussince he took over in 2006,
including one that requiredwaiters to perform card tricks.
So it seems to me like this headchef is one who...
essentially likes to do thingsfor PR and working with card
(10:33):
trick performers was part ofthis PR stunt because people go,
oh, this is strange.
Let's write about this.
Let's publish articles aboutthis.
Let's go into this restaurant.
We have to see what thisgimmick's all about.
And then that leads me tosomewhat of a cynical
conclusion, which is we have ahead chef who likes to maybe do
things for attention.
What was the plant-based menufor in the end?
(10:54):
I mean, it drew a lot ofattention.
And they sort of referenced,Daniel Humm had referenced how
the pandemic had been a bigdrain on them, as it had been
for every restaurant, let's behonest.
But this was a way of themgetting straight into the news,
sort of on the back ofrestaurants reopening.
This is how they could cutthrough some of that noise,
perhaps.
This fine dining,Michelin-starred restaurant is
going fully plant-based.
(11:15):
Wow, everyone's talking aboutthis.
Everyone's talking about thedecision.
And this is a PR angle too,because now everyone's talking
about them yet again.
Is anyone talking about anyother fine dining restaurants?
No, this one's the one that's inthe news right now.
And it's the one that people aretalking about online.
And why?
Because they've gone fromplant-based back to meat again.
So it's another round of PR.
It's another cycle ofconversation.
It's another cycle of interest,of intrigue.
(11:37):
It's another way of getting morepeople to talk about it, share
about it, and to be intrigued inbooking and going.
So it's a PR cycle.
And it seems like maybe there'sa bit of history around this
head chef engaging kind of PRcycles with menu changes.
Now, there's another step whichI think is interesting.
First, it alludes to thefinancial elements.
For example, Daniel Hunt, thehead chef said, it was hard to
(11:58):
get 30 people for a corporatedinner to come to a plant-based
restaurant.
And I think this is probably afair statement.
they probably did have a lot ofcorporate dinners.
There was probably a lot ofmoney that was spent from
businesses with a lot of moneyto spend.
And if the restaurant'splant-based and maybe you're
trying to appeal to investors oryou're trying to, I don't know,
(12:19):
have these corporate dinners,maybe a fully plant-based menu
is not the one that is going tobe most attractive.
So I can understand how thatwould have had an impact.
The question is, well, isthat...
really relevant.
I mean, if you make less moneyfrom corporate dinners, is that
a reason to going back toserving dead animals?
Ethically, of course it isn't.
But clearly they had less moneycoming in from certain sources
(12:40):
That's the reason why they'vegone back to serving meats.
It's as simple as that.
It's a big PR story.
It gets lots of media attention.
You're going to get an influx ofbookings for those first few
weeks, probably first few monthswith a serving meat again.
And actually it's worthmentioning they weren't even
plant-based.
They were serving honey anddairy.
So they weren't actually aplant-based restaurant.
You could still consume animalproducts in the restaurant.
(13:02):
It was just the set menu wasplant-based.
But I think this is reallyfascinating.
Again, this is in the New YorkTimes article.
and it explains the ethicalposition, let's say, of the head
chef.
The New York Times articlereads, the move back to meat
comes after months ofcontemplation that started in
(13:26):
earnest earlier this year duringa research trip to Greece.
Now that word earnest, I thinkis doing an awful lot of heavy
lifting.
I think we all know the reasonwhy this decision has been made.
And I think the idea that itstarted in earnest during a trip
to Greece and not when they werelooking at the fact that they're
balance sheet maybe was lowerthan it was eight, nine years
ago when they were serving meatbefore the pandemic.
(13:47):
I think that might be a goodindicator why they've started
serving meat.
I'm not sure if it started inearnest during a research trip
to Greece.
Anyway, Mr.
Hum said that he and some of hiscolleagues traveled into the
mountains to watch a shepherdslaughter a goat.
And this is a quote from thehead chef.
It's very moving and there'ssuch respect, he said.
(14:09):
If you had seen the whole cycleof Of course, you would never
waste a bite of this.
I mean, the way that we kind offetishize, that we romanticize,
that we glamorize, that wealmost worship the idea of this
kind of humble shepherd spirit.
(14:32):
living off the land,slaughtering a goat.
I mean, I don't know thesituation beyond this.
And we know that the way thatpeople talk about this is always
so overindulgent.
It's always sort of...
portraying this incrediblynoble, romantic idea of there's
just this shepherd, he's justliving off this land in the
mountains of Greece and he hasgoats and he loves his goats and
(14:54):
he treats them with respect, buthe has to slaughter them and
it's done in the most blissful,wonderful, incredible way that
you can imagine.
And there's no way that youcan't just view this act of
slaughter and not be completelyovertaken by the emotion of it,
by the compassion, the humility,the sincerity, the wonder of
this natural life cycle playingout in front of us as this
(15:16):
shepherd does what he needs todo to survive.
But in doing so, he honors thelife and blood of this animal
who was blessed to be shepherdedby such a benevolent,
compassionate individual.
It is these romanticized fairytales that we love to tell
ourselves about animal farming,of these people living in these
faraway lands, these hilltoplandscapes.
(15:39):
I don't know what the situationtruly was like if this was a
farmer who had lots of goats orif he was just a shepherd with a
few goats who had very littlemoney, very little resources and
was dependent.
I don't know.
This is all the details thatthere are.
But of course, the way that it'sbeen portrayed is to portray it
as being this kind of reallywonderful, respectful thing.
And even if you take it to thatextreme, let's say that this is
(15:59):
a shepherd in the mountains ofGreece who doesn't have access
to food.
He doesn't have access tosupermarkets from the cities.
There's not any food in thelocal villages other than the
food that's grown there.
And that food is not enough tosustain them all.
And so they slaughter as fewgoats as they possibly can just
to survive and live off theland.
Let's take that example.
(16:20):
What does that mean?
about serving meat at ElevenMadison Park.
What does that justify?
What does that actually mean?
It means absolutely nothing.
It's like going to a region, acoastal region of Western Africa
and seeing someone going out andcatching fish to feed their
family and they're deciding toopen a fish and chip shop
restaurant in Brighton in thecoastal region of the UK.
(16:43):
It's completely absurd.
The two things are notequivalent.
Just because fish are beingkilled does not mean that they
are ethically equivalent or thatthe production of animals, the
farming, the fishing of animalsin Western countries is
justified as a consequence ofwhat happens in areas where
there is lower availability.
And what really grinds my gearsabout this is the idea that this
(17:05):
is a humble thing and thatjustifies fine dining.
They will take on the actions ofthis humble shepherd and then
use that to justify a finedining restaurant in New York
City, which is appealing tocorporations that have
incredible amounts of moneywhere they can spend thousands
and thousands and thousands ofdollars on one meal.
These are two separate worldsand I just find it absolutely
(17:29):
ridiculous and farce that thechef at Eleven Madison Park is
trying to marry these twoopposite worlds together as if
they have something in common.
They do not.
It's insulting like thatstatement on Instagram, where
elevating championingplant-based food by serving
animal-based foods This wholething is absurd.
It's about money.
That's all it's about.
(17:51):
It's got nothing to do with,wow, once you see an animal
being slaughtered in Greece inthese mountains by the shepherd,
it's so respectful.
You'd never want to waste any ofthat, which is why we have to
serve animal products in NewYork City.
I don't know.
I think there's a lot ofarrogance, a lot of ego, a lot
of narcissism that exists infood.
And I think head chefs in thesefine dining restaurants, not
(18:13):
all, of course, but there isthis undercurrent, this feeling
of grandiosity.
There's something about sort offine dining chefs in certain
places, in certain restaurants,where there's this elevated
sense of self-importance.
And it's obviously sort ofingrained through TV shows,
(18:33):
ingrained by the sort of awethat we might have around chefs,
you know, ingrained by sort ofmaybe fiction dramatized shows
like The Bear.
And I think that this chef hasclearly taken a big piece of ego
pie when perhaps he should havehad a big slice of humble pie.
It is frustrating becauseobviously it dominates headlines
for a little while.
And whenever a plant-basedrestaurant does go back to
(18:54):
serving meat or introduces meatfor the first time, it is a
newsworthy story because itallows us or it allows
commentators to perpetuate thenarrative that veganism is in
decline.
And I think what it overlooksis, I'm not going to try and
claim that plant-based food isless popular, that certain
sectors like the plant-basedalternative sector is less
popular now than it was fiveyears ago.
(19:15):
I mean, there's evidence showingthat people are consuming less
or purchasing fewer of theseproducts.
And so I'm not going to try andmake the claim that the fact
that restaurants are plant-basedhas nothing to do with it,
because of course there is anelement of that.
But the idea that this is onlyhappening to plant-based
restaurants, which is kind ofwhat the narrative implies, is
completely absurd.
I mean, in the UK, there's ahuge crisis in hospitality.
(19:37):
Thousands of pubs have closed,and yet no one's claiming that
in the UK we don't like pubsanymore.
Now, of course, it's notnecessarily a like-for-like
comparison, but what I thinkthat sort of comparison does
show is that there's somethingdeeper at play here, which is
that there is a cost-of-livingcrisis High inflation, high
interest rates, food isexpensive, the margins are very
(19:57):
narrow, and it's hard in thehospitality sector for any
restaurant to really survive.
And obviously the plant-basedelement might add an extra
strain, but the idea that onlyplant-based restaurants are
closing overlooks the fact thatthere is a deeper issue at play
here, which is related to thecurrent economic crisis.
Because if people have lessmoney to spend, they have less
(20:17):
money to spend in theseestablishments.
And if the cost of food isincreasing and the cost of
running a restaurant isincreasing, it means that
restaurants have to increaseprices, but then consumers have
less money to spend inrestaurants.
It's just a vicious cycle.
And I think it's really cynicalwhen it It's sort of portrayed
as being a vegan problem or aplant-based problem.
And it's the demise of veganismbecause plant-based restaurants
(20:38):
are closed anyway.
That brings me to the end ofthis podcast.
Thank you so much for listening.
As always, I really doappreciate it.
And I look forward to speakingto all of you in the next
episode.
Thank you so much for listening.
If you've enjoyed this episode,make sure to subscribe to the
(21:00):
Disclosure Podcast on whicheverplatform you listen to it, as
doing so means that you canalways stay up to date with new
episodes.
Leaving a review and sharing thepodcast is also really helpful.
And if you'd like to support thepodcast and my work more
generally, you can either make adonation through the link in the
show notes or sign up to my substack where I post weekly and
share my thoughts and feelingsabout the experience of living
(21:23):
vegan.
In the show notes, you can alsofind links to purchase my books.
Thank you again for listening.
Popular Podcasts
NFL Daily with Gregg Rosenthal
Gregg Rosenthal and a rotating crew of elite NFL Media co-hosts, including Patrick Claybon, Colleen Wolfe, Steve Wyche, Nick Shook and Jourdan Rodrigue of The Athletic get you caught up daily on all the NFL news and analysis you need to be smarter and funnier than your friends.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com