"My Friend the Portabello" by Robert Lalasz

[Waitman]

Sample size has nothing to do with percentages and everything to do with the variance in the population and the rarity of occurance of each outcome. The total amount of variance will tell you what size sample will give you a standard deviation that is acceptable, the greater the variance, the greater the needed sample size needed to estimate to a high degree of confidence (generally 2 standard deviations or .05 percent). The rarer the event the greater the needed sample size. National political surveys can get an estimate that is +/- 3 % with a sample of about 1500, because about 50% of the population votes dem and about 50% vote rep. Not much variance and about equally common.

Anyways, my 5% (actually the author's number) refers to the proportion of vegetarians in the population.

I'd give him credit for a relatively good sample size of local restaurants of quality. But, since I misunderstood the orriginal statement way back when, I'll just slink away quietly.

[JPW]

I'd give him credit for a relatively good sample size of local restaurants of quality.  But, since I misunderstood the orriginal statement way back when, I'll just slink away quietly.

You may also have been thinking about my 5% being the three that he liked being 5% of all whit table cloth restaurants (acronym time --WTR) in the city, but this is a flawed number (oops).

He liked the dishes at 3 of the 7 he reviewed, or roughly 43%. I omitted the ones mentioned in passing like Ray's (liked) or Kinkaed's (I think he liked,but not enough food), or Jackie's (couldn't tell if he liked or not)

So let's say that the 7 are a decent sample of the WTR's in town, a 43% rate is probably smaller than most meateaters' overall success rates, but not by much.

[Stretch]

First they came for the Objectivists, and I didn’t speak up,

because I wasn’t an Objectivist.

Then they came for the WASPs, and I didn’t speak up,

because I wasn’t a WASP.

Then they came for the bloody Statisticians,

and not before time, either.

[DonRocks]

[The

next

person

to

triple-space

gets a fucking dagger in the eye.

CLICK ME

Rocks.]

[jparrott]

The market for vegetarian menu items is greater than the 5% of Americans who identify themselves as vegetarians. 

Is the market bigger, or is the space of people who will say that when asked but actually order braised short ribs bigger? Nadya? Other resto types?

[Principia]

Is the market bigger, or is the space of people who will say that when asked but actually order braised short ribs bigger?  Nadya?  Other resto types?

I think the question is not dissimilar to when, for instance, the Coca-Cola company offers a new variety of soft drink: not only do you want to know how many people will order a given dish, but you want to know whether or not those people are ordering a given dish that replaces something else they would have ordered - that is, are the vegetarian dishes cannibalizing business from another part of the menu, or are they adding to the overall volume of business?

[JPW]

I think the question is not dissimilar to when, for instance, the Coca-Cola company offers a new variety of soft drink: not only do you want to know how many people will order a given dish, but you want to know whether or not those people are ordering a given dish that replaces something else they would have ordered - that is, are the vegetarian dishes cannibalizing business from another part of the menu, or are they adding to the overall volume of business?

Hey, Stretch. How do you feel about market researchers?

[rlalasz]

You may also have been thinking about my 5% being the three that he liked being 5% of all whit table cloth  restaurants (acronym time --WTR) in the city, but this is a flawed number (oops).

He liked the dishes at 3 of the 7 he reviewed, or roughly 43%. I omitted the ones mentioned in passing like Ray's (liked) or Kinkaed's (I think he liked,but not enough food), or Jackie's (couldn't tell if he liked or not)

So let's say that the 7 are a decent sample of the WTR's in town, a 43% rate is probably smaller than most meateaters' overall success rates, but not by much.

You're assuming a great deal here, and mistakenly. For the piece, I actually went to far more restaurants than were mentioned even in passing--about 25. And because I'm married to a omnivore who loves to eat, I've dined at far more than that over my time in DC, although with difficulty as per the story. What you're doing is akin to assuming that the quotes in an article are the only things a subject said.

Again, I have to caution that the piece was not a service piece, although there is a sidebar (not on my website) of places I go when I want what I want. It is representative of my decade-long experience eating high-end in this city and, based on responses in this thread, that of several other vegetarians who care about food.

It's interesting that the discussion here (not unexpectedly) seems to have a strong anti-special pleading bent to it, as if the majority's average high-quality experience should be sufficient for a substantial minority (one that, as others here have pointed out, includes omnivores who occasionally want a break from meat). In effect, some people are arguing that chefs have the right to indifferently make a dish that they've already chosen to put on their menu--in effect, putting their signature to it-- simply because it's meatless. Fascinating. Thank God it's not your dish they've decided to punt on.

Others have argued that if the demand is there, the market will respond. Clearly, restaurants are far from a perfect market. There is no market mechanism to register demand for something (a good vegetarian meal) that chefs or owners are too cautious or indifferent or hidebound to produce. We take what we can get, what's offered to us. And that the offerings are generally so disappointing in DC is due to culture, a constellation of chef's desires and training, or just bad luck...is something I hope someone can shed some light on here. It wasn't part of my ambit for the story.

Edited March 2, 2006 by rlalasz

[kventura]

Robert,

Thanks for an interesting article. As a vegetarian who loves to eat (I am always confused when people think that just b/c I choose to not eat meat that I do not care about food), I completely echo your sentiment.

I am usually not that picky, and I can make a meal out of potatoes and sides at Ruth Chris if that's what my carnivorous husband is in the mood for. As long as the wine is good, and there is SOMETHING I can get full on, I am content.

For the record, my favorite high-end dining place is Corduroy. It it is the typical "veggie plate," but there is nothing typical about it. Another good one is Amada Amante in Rockville. My favorite thing is when the meat-eaters see my entree and say that they wish they had ordered what I did. This happens extremely rarely though. Maestro also does a very good job with their veg dishes.

Vidalia was the worst veggie plate I've ever experienced.

I guess I am just happy this point is being discussed, b/c I want chefs to be aware that there are plenty of vegetarians (I'm not getting into percentages) that want to spend money at their establishments. I am somewhat disappointed (but not surprised) by the majority of comments here though, which is one of the reasons why I haven't been as involved in this group as I would like. I don't always feel entirely welcome.

[JPW]

You're assuming a great deal here, and mistakenly. For the piece, I actually went to far more restaurants than were mentioned even in passing--about 25. And because I'm married to a omnivore who loves to eat, I've dined at far more than that over my time in DC, although with difficulty as per the story. What you're doing is akin to assuming that the quotes in an article are the only things a subject said.

Now that number in your article would have made it more powerful to me. What else could I do but go on the information provided? (What can I say, I'm a quarter-statistician on my father's side)

It's interesting that the discussion here (not unexpectedly) seems to have a strong anti-special pleading bent to it, as if the majority's average high-quality experience should be sufficient for a substantial minority (one that, as others here have pointed out, includes omnivores who occasionally want a break from meat). In effect, some people are arguing that chefs have the right to indifferently make a dish that they've already chosen to put on their menu--in effect, putting their signature to it-- simply because it's meatless. Fascinating. Thank God it's not your dish they've decided to punt on.

No, I don't see that. I, for one, am saying that you shouldn't feel special. The meat-based entrees aren't always good either. There are just more of them to choose from.

Others have argued that if the demand is there, the market will respond. Clearly, restaurants are far from a perfect market. There is no market mechanism to register demand for something (a good vegetarian meal) that chefs or owners are too cautious or indifferent or hidebound to produce. We take what we can get, what's offered to us. And that the offerings are generally so disappointing in DC is due to culture, a constellation of chef's desires and training, or just bad luck...is something I hope someone can shed some light on here. It wasn't part of my ambit for the story.

I don't quite get your first statement. Customers mention it to waitors/mgmt/etc to register demand. If you happen to be in Jackie's say, "Gee, I'd come in more often if you had something vegetarian besides the mushroom risotto. I have a lot of friendss who feel the same way." Restaurant owners see a place getting big business from vegetarian dishes or a packed completely vegetarian place and says "Aha, there's a demand". Matchbox succeeds with mini-burgers and the damned things are ubiquitous (some might say trite) within two years. If restaurants were not in a fairly efficient market, then they wouldn't go out of business when noone goes.

My hypotheses would be simply that a)there a high enough proportion of vegetarians in DC's eating out population to make a difference, b.) re your statement above - vegetarians have not expected enough excellence nor made a big enough stink over poorly done dishes

[Principia]

For the record, my favorite high-end dining place is Corduroy.

I second that recommendation - it is indeed an accumulation of veggie sides, but how very delicious! (That's what I had when we visited during Restaurant Week)

[B.A.R.]

I thought the article was humorous and pointed out that the Chef's were capable of so much more, culinarily speaking, yet choose not to.

I want to say 10 years ago or so a Michelin starred chef decided to go all veggie, as he felt that his ability to cook fruits and vegetables was the greatest showcase of his skills. (I'm going to have to research how that turned out, as I believe it went south in a hurry)

I don't want to get into any kind of statistical battle, but from 10+ years in the biz, if you have 200 people coming through the door, guaranteed at least 5 of them would be some sort of vegetarian.

You know they're coming. Be prepared.

[rlalasz]

I don't quite get your first statement. Customers mention it to waitors/mgmt/etc to register demand. If you happen to be in Jackie's say, "Gee, I'd come in more often if you had something vegetarian besides the mushroom risotto. I have a lot of friendss who feel the same way." Restaurant owners see a place getting big business from vegetarian dishes or a packed completely vegetarian place and says "Aha, there's a demand".  Matchbox succeeds with mini-burgers and the damned things are ubiquitous (some might say trite) within two years. If restaurants were not in a fairly efficient market, then they wouldn't go out of business when noone goes.

My hypotheses would be simply that a)there a high enough proportion of vegetarians in DC's eating out population to make a difference, b.) re your statement above - vegetarians have not expected enough excellence nor made a big enough stink over poorly done dishes

Isn't what other chefs are doing the real engine for culinary change (vide the miniburger), not consumer's verbal demands? (For example: the foie gras craze. Consumers didn't suddenly start asking their servers: "Hey, some foie gras next time, OK?") And if nobody's going to cook interesting veg dishes, how will people go crazy over them? Which brings up something else I touch on the piece: that interesting veg cooking is going on all over the country, but the example doesn't seem to be penetrating DC culinary consciousness. Why not?

The miniburger faces none of the obstacles vegetarian food faces: a pervasive, creative indifference to and/or lack of training in creating meatless dishes, plus a fear of the unknown based in the industry's overall razor-thin profit margins. The miniburger (cute, fun, retro) was almost predestined to be a hit.

Still, although I think your cascade scenario is optimistic, I'm willing to flap the butterfly's wings by mentioning seeking out chefs and mentioning my disappointment every single time I encounter a boring veg meal...sigh. I'll be doing it a lot.

Edited March 2, 2006 by rlalasz

[Camille-Beau]

Something that I may have missed both in the article and on this thread is whether or not you did alert the restaurants to your specific dining requirements in advance or were the requests for alternate items made when placing your order (other than when actual vegetarian tasting menus were available). Also, at any time either during the dinner or afterward while still at the restaurant, did you let the manager/chef/waitstaff know that you were disappointed?

[bookluvingbabe]

Something that I may have missed both in the article and on this thread is whether or not you did alert the restaurants to your specific dining requirements in advance or were the requests for alternate items  made when placing your order (other than when actual vegetarian tasting menus were available).  Also, at any time either during the dinner or afterward while still at the restaurant, did you let the manager/chef/waitstaff know that you were disappointed?

But I don't think being a vegetarian is so different you should need to alert a chef about it. I'm not suggesting vegan entrees. Just a nice veg entree that isn't pasta primevara or mushroom risotto or a packaged veggie burger.

Jennifer

[Camille-Beau]

But I don't think being a vegetarian is so different you should need to alert a chef about it.  I'm not suggesting vegan entrees.  Just a nice veg entree that isn't pasta primevara or mushroom risotto or a packaged veggie burger.

Why not inform the restaurant, particularly when it is one that doesn't typically carry a large number of vegetarian selections?

[rlalasz]

Something that I may have missed both in the article and on this thread is whether or not you did alert the restaurants to your specific dining requirements in advance or were the requests for alternate items  made when placing your order (other than when actual vegetarian tasting menus were available).  Also, at any time either during the dinner or afterward while still at the restaurant, did you let the manager/chef/waitstaff know that you were disappointed?

For the piece, I generally confined myself to places that had at least one (and, except in the case of 2941, had only one) veg entree already on menu. But I've previously been to many high-end restaurants here without veg menu entrees, so I felt I understood that experience well. I didn't want to play gotcha.

For reasons I hope are understandable (to maintain my anonymity and to replicate a typical vegetarian's experience at these restaurants--i.e., supplicating and submissive), I didn't complain.

Edited March 2, 2006 by rlalasz

[Camille-Beau]

For reasons I hope are understandable (to maintain my anonymity and to replicate a typical vegetarian's experience at these restaurants--i.e., supplicating and submissive), I didn't complain.

Do you feel that it is disingenuous to not only write negative reviews on this board, but publish an article for the general public to read without giving the restaurants an opportunity to address your concerns at the time? One of the issues discussed frequently here is how unfair and easy it is to criticize restaurants after the fact. And if you don't tell the restaurants that you are bored and disappointed with their vegetarian offerings, then how will they know what to change or improve -- or should they just wait to read about it in the Washingtonian? Edited March 2, 2006 by Camille-Beau

[jparrott]

Especially when some of your "criticisms" have nothing to do with your thesis?

[cheezepowder]

Do you feel that it is disingenuous to not only write negative reviews on this board, but publish an article for the general public to read without giving the restaurants an opportunity to address your concerns at the time?  One of the issues discussed frequently here is how unfair and easy it is to criticize restaurants after the fact.

I don't understand this expectation. He was writing a review of dishes that he ate at restaurants. Would you expect Tom Sietsema or Todd Kliman to talk to the restaurant about how XYZ dish wasn't very good and refrain from writing a negative review?

[jparrott]

For reasons I hope are understandable (to maintain my anonymity and to replicate a typical vegetarian's experience at these restaurants--i.e., supplicating and submissive), I didn't complain.

Sounds like you were only trying to replicate the experience of people who are supplicating and submissive.

[Camille-Beau]

I don't understand this expectation.  He was writing a review of dishes that he ate at restaurants.  Would you expect Tom Sietsema or Todd Kliman to talk to the restaurant about how XYZ dish wasn't very good and refrain from writing a negative review?

I suppose I wasn't aware that Mr. Lalasz was employed by any publications as a food critic. But then I also don't see how mentioning to the restaurant staff that you would like to have something other than risotto would negate your anonymity. Edited March 2, 2006 by Camille-Beau

[David M.]

For example: the foie gras craze. Consumers didn't suddenly start asking their servers: "Hey, some foie gras next time, OK?"

I too read your article and appreciate you engaging in this discussion. That being said, I came away from reading your article and posts here that you believe that restaurateurs have an obligation to serve vegetarian dishes (in either quality or quantity) that the market does not demand. With this, I disagree.

I think the point that Joe and others have made is that restaurateurs operate businesses. As such, if they see a trend in their area of business that: (a) fits within the theme that the restaurant focuses on and ( will (hopefully) be profitable, then they will embrace said trend. Thus, I disagree with your assumption that culinary trends are driven primarily by chefs and not customers.

Indeed, I believe that your foie gras example suffers from several problems. First, I don't believe that foie gras can be lumped into the same category of food trends as mini-cheeseburgers. While many high-end restaurants may serve it, it is a classic French dish, not some newfangled concoction. Second, and more importantly, while you may be correct that customers aren't directly asking for foie gras on their way out, I would argue they are doing so indirectly by virtue of the choices they make when they order. And that is the point that I think many who found areas of disagreement with your article have been trying to make: by virtue of collective choices, we can drive the marketplace of available dining options. Your belief that there are too few options for vegetarians, I would posit, stems from a failure of the vegetarian (and non-vegetarian) community to establish by the choices that they make that customers would support in sufficient numbers what you desire.

[Waitman]

Something that I may have missed both in the article and on this thread is whether or not you did alert the restaurants to your specific dining requirements in advance or were the requests for alternate items  made when placing your order (other than when actual vegetarian tasting menus were available).  Also, at any time either during the dinner or afterward while still at the restaurant, did you let the manager/chef/waitstaff know that you were disappointed?

Though both are sound strategies for the casual diner, neither makes sense for the article. Since the piece is on the generally sucky quality of standard vegetarian offerings, not the specific performance of one restaurant, there isn't, for the purposes of that article, any purpose in chatting up the chef or manager either before or after.

Getting special treatment doesn't allow one to discern the day-in, day-out level of vegetarian cooking; complaining afterward doesn't make retroactively make the meal un-sucky.

While I maintain a reasonable, if not Smith-like faith in the restaurant market, I also think a shot across the bow in a major glossy publication is not a bad way to get restaurants' attention. Businesses big and small tend to coast on "what works" rather than going to the trouble of changing their act. Letting them know that there may be a new market waiting to be sated might help a few places avoid the fate of WT Grants, AT&T and GM....or the Jockey Club or Trader Vic's or La Colline.

Edited March 2, 2006 by Waitman

[Waitman]

Do you feel that it is disingenuous to not only write negative reviews on this board, but publish an article for the general public to read without giving the restaurants an opportunity to address your concerns at the time?  One of the issues discussed frequently here is how unfair and easy it is to criticize restaurants after the fact.  And if you don't tell the restaurants that you are bored and disappointed with their vegetarian offerings, then how will they know what to change or improve -- or should they just wait to read about it in the Washingtonian?

Will Tom Sietsema next have to offer equal time?

[zoramargolis]

In the early '80's, a food-loving vegetarian in West L.A. had a similar complaint about lack of white tablecloth dining options for veggies--those days most veg restaurants served "health food" -- brown rice and veggies-alfalfa sprouts and aduki beans eaten at polished redwood burl slab tables while wearing Birkenstocks and copper bracelets and drinking hibiscus sun tea. She opened an eponymous place called Meyera on Main Street in Ocean Park, at the northern border of Venice, where there was already a significant number of "enlightened" diners with money to spend--by this I mean not only vegetarians, but also flexivores who would be interested in eating vegetarian food if it were interesting enough. It had tablecloths, served wine, and "modern american-style" dishes in multiple course options. It got very good reviews from the local papers, but I believe that it lasted as long as it did (three or four years, if I'm not mistaken) only because the owner had other sources of income.

I knew someone who was a server there, and I ate there a couple of times. I vaguely recall something elaborate and expensive involving black beans and phyllo pastry, but the food was underwhelming to a non-veg with lots of more interesting dining options, even though I had veggie friends who loved the place. There just weren't enough of them to make it a success, even in an affluent, heavily vegetarian-friendly community. I'm not sure it's so different now--we'll see how Vegetate does.

I'm not clear about the plaint about lack of entree choices. My teenage daughter is a vegetarian (she will sometimes eat some seafood, however, which does make it easier). And she usually finds plenty of good options among the appetizers. So she'll order one as a first course and another as her main. I'll bet if someone were concerned about not getting a big enough portion for the main, the kitchen could increase or double it and charge more. While I have not yet read the article, there is somewhat of a tone I'm picking up of: "it's not fair"... Everyone's life is limited in some ways. Talk to left handers about how they are discriminated against in a predominantly right-handed world. Economics severely limits my choices of dining destinations-- lots of white table places I'd like to visit, but can't afford. That's life, full of unfairness.

[rvanrens]

The reality is that yes, vegetarians do make a small but growing segment of the population. The other reality is that they also don't travel in packs and don't segregate themselves from the majority of society,(much snipped)

I have a disturbing mental image of ravening packs of vegetarians, descending in somewhat polite, deferential chaos upon unsuspecting produce carts and slaughtering the wild tofu by the dozens...

Now I'm going to go wash out my brain with my favorite vegetarian consuamble, one made from malted barley smoked over peat fires in Scotland, where vegetarians are hunted down and shot as a food source. Of course, these are also the unrepentant carnivores and junk food eaters that gave us Scotch Eggs (hard-boiled eggs covered in sausage and deep-fried) and deep-fried Mars Bars.

Rob

[Camille-Beau]

Though both are sound strategies for the casual diner, neither makes sense for the article.  Since the piece is on the generally sucky quality of standard vegetarian offerings, not the specific performance of one restaurant, there isn't, for the purposes of that article, any purpose in chatting up the chef or manager either before or after.

As for the article focusing only on the tepid vegetarian offerings of the area's "white tablecloth" restaurants, that would be true except that there were issues discussed with regard to service. An example: "The problem was preciousness and a lack of pacing. The evening was all exclamation points, an ESPN SportsCenter version of the Vegetable Plate served with a ceremoniousness more suited to the delivery of a papal bull." If the pace is slow, mention it. That doesn't change the focus of the article if it was, in fact, dedicated only to pointing out the lack of options for the vegetarian diner.

[DonRocks]

I have a disturbing mental image of ravening packs of vegetarians, descending in somewhat polite, deferential chaos upon unsuspecting produce carts and slaughtering the wild tofu by the dozens...

This would be an unkindness of ravens. Honest!

This discussion is making me ravenous,

Rocks.

[rlalasz]

Do you feel that it is disingenuous to not only write negative reviews on this board, but publish an article for the general public to read without giving the restaurants an opportunity to address your concerns at the time?  One of the issues discussed frequently here is how unfair and easy it is to criticize restaurants after the fact.  And if you don't tell the restaurants that you are bored and disappointed with their vegetarian offerings, then how will they know what to change or improve -- or should they just wait to read about it in the Washingtonian?

No, it's not disingenuous at all. Criticism engages the object, not the creator--at least not on an interpersonal level. Perhaps complaining to the restaurant will get you a better meal. But why aren't the restaurants serving better vegetarian meals in the first place? One point about the piece was not to give the venues every opportunity to put their best foot forward, but to capture a typical experience, as well as my experience.

[rlalasz]

As for the article focusing only on the tepid vegetarian offerings of the area's "white tablecloth" restaurants, that would be true except that there were issues discussed with regard to service.  An example:  "The problem was preciousness and a lack of pacing. The evening was all exclamation points, an ESPN SportsCenter version of the Vegetable Plate served with a ceremoniousness more suited to the delivery of a papal bull."  If the pace is slow, mention it.  That doesn't change the focus of the article if it was, in fact, dedicated only to pointing out the lack of options for the vegetarian diner.

I was using "pacing" in another sense--that of variance, rhythm, and logic, one course leading into another. I expected to spend a long time at Eve. What I had hoped for was more of the sense of interplay that I got with Komi's vegetable plate. As I said in the piece.

[Dave Pressley]

my favorite vegetarian consumable, one made from malted barley smoked over peat fires in Scotland, where vegetarians are hunted down and shot as a food source. 

I like vegetarians...very rare, please.

[DonRocks]

I was using "pacing" in another sense--that of variance, rhythm, and logic, one course leading into another.

You need a better editor.

Expecting a nasty phone call,

Rocks.

[Camille-Beau]

But why aren't the restaurants serving better vegetarian meals in the first place? One point about the piece was not to give the venues every opportunity to put their best foot forward, but to capture a typical experience, as well as my experience.

If you let a restaurant know that you dislike their vegetarian offerings, then perhaps they'll change. If you remain as you said earlier -- supplicating and submissive -- then how are they supposed to know about your dissatisfaction? Tell them, perhaps directly instead of through a public forum, and maybe you'll get the results you desire.

[Waitman]

While I have not yet read the article, there is somewhat of a tone I'm picking up of: "it's not fair"...

One could say that what's not fair is criticizing an article before having read it.

If you let a restaurant know that you dislike their vegetarian offerings, then perhaps they'll change.

I don't think there's any denying that he's done just that.

[rlalasz]

I think the point that Joe and others have made is that restaurateurs operate businesses.  As such, if they see a trend in their area of business that: (a) fits within the theme that the restaurant focuses on and ( will (hopefully) be profitable, then they will embrace said trend.  Thus, I disagree with your assumption that culinary trends are driven primarily by chefs and not customers.

Indeed, I believe that your foie gras example suffers from several problems.  First, I don't believe that foie gras can be lumped into the same category of food trends as mini-cheeseburgers.  While many high-end restaurants may serve it, it is a classic French dish, not some newfangled concoction. Second, and more importantly, while you may be correct that customers aren't directly asking for foie gras on their way out, I would argue they are doing so indirectly by virtue of the choices they make when they order.  And that is the point that I think many who found areas of disagreement with your article have been trying to make: by virtue of collective choices, we can drive the marketplace of available dining options.  Your belief that there are too few options for vegetarians, I would posit, stems from a failure of the vegetarian (and non-vegetarian) community to establish by the choices that they make that customers would support in sufficient numbers what you desire.

I'd like to share your optimism that all we need to do is ask. Placing the onus completely on vegetarians, though, does smack of blaming the victim. Again, we're avoiding the obvious: Why would chefs with estimable reputations risk putting a mediocre dish on their menus just because it's meatless? Isn't it a bit of chicken and egg--the vegetarian meals are poor, so vegheads go elsewhere, or only to these places under duress? (Again, sorry for the mixed-animal metaphor.) I guess to eat well at the places everybody's buzzing about, we have to start a movement. And to think somebody was mocking me earlier when I talked about a right to dine.

I was commenting on the recent boomlet in foie gras manifestations on area menus, not on foie gras as traditional fare. Sorry for the confusion. Perhaps I should stick to my team.

[DonRocks]

I'm interested in your thoughts, criticisms, empathy, and/or hostility.

You were saying?

[Camille-Beau]

I'd like to share your optimism that all we need to do is ask.

Have you tried this method and it failed or are you assuming that it would fail?

[rlalasz]

You need a better editor. 

Expecting a nasty phone call,

Rocks.

You just fell right through the ice there, my friend.

[David M.]

I'd like to share your optimism that all we need to do is ask.

I fear you misread what I wrote (perhaps I wasn't clear enough). My point is that asking is not what will bring about more options. Demonstrating through the conduct of customers that offering such options will be a profitable endeavor is what will alter menus. One person (or 100 for that matter) may not be sufficient, but if it can be established through conduct that what you seek is desired by a sufficient number of customers, then that, I believe, is what will change the market.

Placing the onus completely on vegetarians, though, does smack of blaming the victim.

I think that this type of sentiment of portraying vegetarians as "victims" may be what has engendered some opposition to your views. Victims of what? Some scheme hatched by chefs to make your dining options less than desirous? Or perhaps victims of simply being unable to prove that what you seek can be provided profitably. Yes, it may be a "chicken or the egg" scenario, but I can empathize with restaurateurs who may not want to take the risk of pioneering a new attitude toward vegetarian offerings.

[DonRocks]

Have you tried this method and it failed or are you assuming that it would fail?

[Point made by both people.]

Bob, on the surface, Camille-Beau is looking at it from the diner's perspective, and you from the investigative journalist's perspective. But the deeper friction I'm sensing is because you pretty much dissed one of her favorite restaurants - a restaurant that's generally considered here to have a great respect for vegetables and has openly supported a small family farm.

Aside from that, I would suggest you go back and try the vegetarian dishes in the Bistro if you didn't like the Tasting Room. Yes, the one main course they offer is a melange, and it isn't cheap, but it's high-quality stuff that's well-prepared.

You guys play nice,

Rocks.

[Waitman]

Yes, it may be a "chicken or the egg" scenario, but I can empathize with restaurateurs who may not want to take the risk of pioneering a new attitude toward vegetarian offerings.

Chicken for me. Egg for my ovo-lacto amigo. How odd to read a DonRockwell post defending chefs who don't take risks.

[jasonc]

Bob,

As usual, I'm going to agree with JPdubs.

If you self-select into a group where dining out options are limited, I don't think you have much of an argument. I have more sympathy for people with food allergies or even religious reasons for not eating a certain food. Your argument is tantamount to some hippie bemoaning the fact that Kenneth Cole will only sell him leather shoes, and not the hemp moccasins he'd prefer.

On a sidenote, if you are willing to travel outside the US, I'd add Vancouver to that list of vegetarian friendly cities. And check out this link for a humorous take on this issue.

[shogun]

I'd like to share your optimism that all we need to do is ask. Placing the onus completely on vegetarians, though, does smack of blaming the victim.

There's nothing wrong with taking individual, proactive steps. This recurring theme of self-victimization in the thread is what is bothering me most about the discussion even as I"m trying to symphathize. Get angry! Tell people while you're there that your risotto sucked! Write inflammatory articles for the Washingtonian! TELL PEOPLE what you want them to do or do differently! This sitting around and waiting for things to happen isn't going to work! The restaurant industry so far is doing great catering to 95% of the population. The other 5% deserve the same level of treatment in the mainstream but it's not going to come through hoping. The article is a good start.

Vegetarians need to get angry and take action! Guys need more red meat in your diets to help build up some healthy rage!

--Matt, who, FWIW, promises to pay close attention in vedgetable cookery classes

[Meaghan]

I think meat-eating people are bad. I am one of them, and I am bad. That said...

This is a little off-topic, but I'm curious how many members of this site are vegetarian. Not because I want to single them out, but because in many cases vegetarianism is a practice adopted for health, ethical or spiritual reasons. Scoring the bacon-threaded squab and sacrifice in any way, shape or form are two very different things (right?).

Now. If it's for health reasons, might I suggest flexitarianism (80/20 veg/meat ratio), which is probably better.

Vegetarianism has a rep as being this removable tattoo, and I respect and understand that for some it is not. But I am curious about membership statistics here and true vegetarianism. By all means, take initiative if you're out there. Tell Bob what you think! I beleive there are plenty of food-loving vegetarians, but are there many among cultish freaks that talk all about pork and Ron Jeremy all the time. No!

(Laugh at my post, rather than respond)

[Camille-Beau]

  But the deeper friction I'm sensing is because you pretty much dissed one of her favorite restaurants - a restaurant that's generally considered here to have a great respect for vegetables and has openly supported a small family farm.

Don, I take exception to this since I never made this a Restaurant Eve issue. I did quote the service complaint but that was because of the statement made that it was all about the food and not the service. I am speaking from the perspective that I think it is unfair to expect all restaurants to offer everything to everyone. I've voiced the same opinion previously on the Sietsema thread:

Posted on: Aug 25 2005, 01:27 PM

I would be interested to hear how chefs feel when asked to accommodate vegetarians at restaurants that do not specifically cater to that type of cuisine. Speaking only for myself, I equate asking a restaurant to create items for me that are not on the menu to be the same as going to a French restaurant and asking them to prepare a Thai dish. Alternatively, if I didn't like Thai food and went with friends to a Thai restaurant, I wouldn't expect them to whip up a burger or mac & cheese for me. While I understand that carnivores and non-carnivores do socialize and dine together and most restaurants do offer veg items, I do seem to hear often from chef friends that they find themselves asked to prepare different veg items from the ones offered on a rather frequent basis.

Just my opinion....

[rlalasz]

I think that this type of sentiment of portraying vegetarians as "victims" may be what has engendered some opposition to your views.  Victims of what? Some scheme hatched by chefs to make your dining options less than desirous? Or perhaps victims of simply being unable to prove that what you seek can be provided profitably.  Yes, it may be a "chicken or the egg" scenario, but I can empathize with restaurateurs who may not want to take the risk of pioneering a new attitude toward vegetarian offerings.

We haven't established at all that good vegetarian entrees can be swapped in for the present mediocre ones only at great economic risk. I wish a restauranteur would attempt to demonstrate that during this discussion.

For instance, Ceiba told me Jeff Tunks makes a point of changing their veg entree every season. They only have one on any single menu, but Tunks' attitude alone better disposes me and I'd suspect many other vegetarians toward Ceiba, regardless of what I think of their swiss chard relleno. (Not great, but not bad, for the record.) It's a nice gesture that builds goodwill (as well as the client base) and clearly won't break them. More restaurants should consider it.

As for victimization. I was using a figure of speech. But the piece--I keep returning to the piece, probably because I wrote it, but also because it stands on its own as a document of experience, an experience that other veggies here and that I've talked with ratify emphatically. It is tiresome and disspiriting to be forced into the role of supplicant--which, let's face it, is what you are when you're always asking kitchens to make something special for you, or praying that the ravioli is somehow more interesting than the last 50 you've had. And it's especially tiresome when you encounter restaurants such as Komi, where your food is great, and you wonder why it can't be that way more often elsewhere.

After almost 100 points on this topic, I'm still wondering.

Edited March 3, 2006 by rlalasz

[DonRocks]

Don, I take exception to this since I never made this a Restaurant Eve issue.   I did quote the service complaint but that was because of the statement made that it was all about the food and not the service.   I am speaking from the perspective that I think it is unfair to expect all restaurants to offer everything to everyone.  I've voiced the same opinion previously on the Sietsema thread:

[Noted with apology. I'll happily strike my post (and your reply to it) from the record - just ping me and let me know.]

[tenunda]

I would be interested to hear how chefs feel when asked to accommodate vegetarians at restaurants that do not specifically cater to that type of cuisine. Speaking only for myself, I equate asking a restaurant to create items for me that are not on the menu to be the same as going to a French restaurant and asking them to prepare a Thai dish. Alternatively, if I didn't like Thai food and went with friends to a Thai restaurant, I wouldn't expect them to whip up a burger or mac & cheese for me.

CB,

Your argument only makes sense if a restaurant is explicitly non-vegetarian. While places can focus on vegetarian menus, it's not a type of cuisine per se. Every cuisine uses vegetables, and--especially today--restaurants should offer some good vegetarian dishes. I'm not saying that vegetarians should be surprised when Morton's doesn't have much for them, but they deserve more than pasta primavera, a mushroom burger, or melange of seasonal vegetables when they head out to eat. For the happiness of my friends (and for widening our choice when I eat with them), I wish local chefs would channel some of their creative urges into impressive vegetarian dishes. Springtime's coming; no time's better than now.

[Camille-Beau]

CB,

Your argument only makes sense if a restaurant is explicitly non-vegetarian.  While places can focus on vegetarian menus, it's not a type of cuisine per se.  Every cuisine uses vegetables, and--especially today--restaurants should offer some good vegetarian dishes.

I agree that vegetables, pastas, etc. do exist on most menus in one form or another. What I keep reading, however, is that even when restaurants are making vegetarian offerings, they are either repetitive or uninspired. Even Vegetate wasn't good enough in Mr. Lalasz' opinion. I don't see too many specific suggestions being made on what they should be cooking instead, only that they need to make changes. As we dine around the area, we see restaurants offering risottos (I know, boring), gnocchi, pastas of many types, vegetables prepared many ways -- and not just as simple side dishes but in forms such as panna cotta, ragout, veloute/soup, salads, tarts, sauteed, stir-fried, steamed, with and without sauces, vegetable 'napoleons' and such so it does seem like they're trying. I guess telling them that these options are not sufficient would help. I'm now done beating the dead horse (or tofu) with regard to speaking up but do think that this would help further the vegetarian cause.