Eleven Madison Park abandons all-vegan menu, but was this planned from the beginning?

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!

Transcript

SPEAKER_00: 0:00

So the fine dining restaurant 11 Madison Park, which is in New York City, has just recently announced that they are going to be reintroducing meat back onto their menu. This follows in the footsteps of other previously plant-based restaurants and eateries, which have made the same decision. But is there a message in all of this? Is there a warning that we as a community should be concerned about? What exactly do these recent examples of restaurants turning their back on plant-based eating tell us about the state of This is the Disclosure Podcast. Welcome to the Disclosure Podcast. If you enjoy this episode and the work that I'm doing here, then please consider checking out my sub stack where I post regular articles. You can also support my work by becoming a paid member of my sub stack through which you will also gain access to weekly articles or by making a donation through my website. Links for everything can be found in this episode's show notes. For those of you who do support my work, thank you so much. I am incredibly grateful and appreciate it very much. Leaving a review for this podcast is also really helpful and encourages more people to listen to it. I hope you find this episode interesting and informative and thank you for listening. So Eleven Madison Park went plant-based back in 2021, following the first year or so of the COVID-19 pandemic. And just before we dive into some of the statements they've made just in the past week or so, I want to highlight a statement they made back then, which alludes to why they made the decision to go plant-based in the first place. So this is from the owner of Eleven Madison Park. I started to realize the impact that animal farming has all over the world. I started to realize what was going on in the fish industry and how broken it is. I started to feel guilty because I felt that for a long time, I didn't question enough exactly where 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 longer relevant four years later? I mean, has there been some huge shift in terms of how we farm animals? Has the world completely altered? Has the planet been rescued from climate disaster? Is it now this, this sweepingly ethical system that we don't have to be worried about? What's changed in the past four years that would take us from a statement saying you have the responsibility to speak about it to, oh, we're going to be serving it and profiting off of this exploitation, off of this harm. So what exactly has changed? What is different now that would change the ethical responsibility that the owner Daniel 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? So let's flash forward. That was four years ago. Let's flash forward to present day. And I'm going to read to you now the recent Instagram post that was published by Eleven Madison Park. So the quote from the owner. Brace yourself. Change is fundamental to how we are and how we grow. As I approach my 20th anniversary at Eleven Madison Park, I've decided it's time for change again. Hold on to that. It's time for change again. Starting October 14th, we will integrate our new culinary language, the language of violence, culinary language into a menu that embraces choice. This word choice becomes a really weaponized word when restaurants start serving meat or introduce meat or reintroduce it again. Choice. They just love to emphasize this idea of choice. And we'll break that down in a moment. The quote goes on. We will offer a plant-based menu, but also select animal products for certain dishes. Fish, meat, and yes, our honey lavender glazed duck. Eating together is the essence of who we are. And I've learned that to truly champion plant-based cooking, I need to create an environment where everyone feels welcome around the table. What a completely absurd statement 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. And let's say that we go back 10 years, okay? Let's say we go back 10 years and we, as sort of people who don't want to eat dogs anymore, we want to shift this culture away from dog eating, say, how are we going to do this? Well, how about we create a restaurant and we serve non-dog meat dishes and we serve dog meat dishes? But then you go, well, If you want to see the end of dog meat farming, would you just not serve dog meat dishes? And you go, no, no, no, no. We have to bring everyone in. And the way to champion non-dog meat dishes is by giving people the option to consume dog meat. And so when people are eating dog meat, they'll feel like they're a part of this table. They've been invited to this table. And as a consequence, that's how we can elevate non-dog meat dishes. It just doesn't make any sense. If you have the feeling that something isn't good, that it would be better if the world didn't have it, How does profiting off of that thing help change it? If people don't want to eat plant-based food, serving them non-plant-based food is not going to make them want to eat plant-based food. How disingenuous, how cynical. I just find it so insulting that these people can make these statements and try and insinuate that this is something good for plant-based food. Oh, it'd be fantastic when people are eating the honey lavender glazed duck. Then we'll be truly championing the essence of plant-based cooking. But the thing about plant-based cooking is everyone can eat it. In essence, it's the most inclusive meal. Meat eaters can eat plant-based food. Vegetarians can eat plant-based food. Plant-based eaters can eat plant-based food. So it's actually the most inclusive dish that you can serve to someone. Now, if people don't want to eat it because it doesn't contain animal products, well, That's an indictment on them. You know, if you're a meat eater and you go, I don't eat anything that doesn't have any meat in it, that's not an insult to plant-based cooking. That's an insult to the small-mindedness of the people who make those statements. I think it's really fascinating how we sort of Take the essence of responsibility away from those people and place it on plant-based cooking. You know, if there is a person who will refuse to eat plant-based meals, somehow we kind of make that the fault of plant-based eating. It's not inclusive enough. It doesn't appeal to everyone. So choice. You know, we don't actually truly believe in choice, because if we did, we would serve horse meat, they'd be serving foie gras to appeal to people, they'd be serving dogs and cats. Maybe you could make the claim that it's not... legal, but then maybe we should be lobbying to our governments and saying, hey, this is a freedom of choice issue. How dare we make it illegal to serve dog meat in a restaurant that's all about choice to consumers and the culinary experience of choice? How are we truly meant to champion plant-based cooking if we can't serve whale and dog meat? That's the question that I would pose to legislators. I'd go, you know, we care about plant-based cooking, but how can we champion it if we have laws prohibiting people from eating dog meat? And this is the thing about people who talk about choice and food. We as vegans hear it all the time. We always hear people say, but you're limiting people's choice. It's the freedom of choice. And yet these people are not protesting and lobbying to their governments demanding that every single animal be legal to eat. They're not doing that. They don't complain that we have laws that prohibit us farming dogs and slaughtering dogs. But that's a freedom of choice issue. Should someone not be allowed to eat dogs if they want to? And if not... Is that not violating their freedom of choice? Do we not care about people's ability to choose to eat any type of food that they want to? This is why it's so hypocritical, because if you say, hey, we shouldn't eat pigs, people go, well, that's a freedom of choice. How dare you cross that? That's authoritarian. But if you say to someone, we should 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 be illegal. That's the way it should be. And so we have this completely contradictory attitude, whereas, well, We vegans get labeled as the enemy of choice because we want the select few animals that we conventionally consume to be viewed in the same way that we view the animals that we would never consume. We want it to be socially viewed as immoral to consume pigs and lambs in the same way that it is dogs and cats. That's not about us prohibiting choice. That's about us being morally consistent. And if you think that it should be the choice of the consumer, then to be morally consistent, you should be opposing the restriction of any type of animal-based food, regardless of the species. Because as soon as you say that there is a moral reason why we shouldn't consume dogs, to be consistent, you have to align yourself with the principles of veganism. Because the moral imperative around not exploiting dogs exists. for pigs and cows and lambs and fish and these animals. The criteria for why one is immoral is the same for why all of these examples are immoral. So anyway, let's dive a little bit deeper. Daniel Hum did an interview with the New York Times. I'm not sure if Eleven Madison Park had reached out to the New York Times and said, hey, we're doing this. Would you like the scoop? We can do an interview because at the end of the day, it's PR. At the end of the day, it's PR, isn't it? And this is what I want to come on to. In this New York Times interview, there's a couple of quite illuminating comments that are made. And one of them is about Eleven Madison Park's sort of previous pursuits, previous PR stunts, let's say. And the statement in the New York Times says... When they went plant-based, it was dismissed by some as another high-end stunt from a chef who has taken the restaurant through a series of different menus since he took over in 2006, including one that required waiters to perform card tricks. So it seems to me like this head chef is one who... essentially likes to do things for PR and working with card trick performers was part of this PR stunt because people go, oh, this is strange. Let's write about this. Let's publish articles about this. Let's go into this restaurant. We have to see what this gimmick's all about. And then that leads me to somewhat of a cynical conclusion, which is we have a head chef who likes to maybe do things for attention. What was the plant-based menu for in the end? I mean, it drew a lot of attention. And they sort of referenced, Daniel Humm had referenced how the pandemic had been a big drain on them, as it had been for every restaurant, let's be honest. But this was a way of them getting straight into the news, sort of on the back of restaurants reopening. This is how they could cut through some of that noise, perhaps. This fine dining, Michelin-starred restaurant is going fully plant-based. Wow, everyone's talking about this. Everyone's talking about the decision. And this is a PR angle too, because now everyone's talking about them yet again. Is anyone talking about any other fine dining restaurants? No, this one's the one that's in the news right now. And it's the one that people are talking about online. And why? Because they've gone from plant-based back to meat again. So it's another round of PR. It's another cycle of conversation. It's another cycle of interest, of intrigue. It's another way of getting more people to talk about it, share about it, and to be intrigued in booking and going. So it's a PR cycle. And it seems like maybe there's a bit of history around this head chef engaging kind of PR cycles with menu changes. Now, there's another step which I think is interesting. First, it alludes to the financial elements. For example, Daniel Hunt, the head chef said, it was hard to get 30 people for a corporate dinner to come to a plant-based restaurant. And I think this is probably a fair statement. they probably did have a lot of corporate dinners. There was probably a lot of money that was spent from businesses with a lot of money to spend. And if the restaurant's plant-based and maybe you're trying to appeal to investors or you're trying to, I don't know, have these corporate dinners, maybe a fully plant-based menu is not the one that is going to be most attractive. So I can understand how that would have had an impact. The question is, well, is that... really relevant. I mean, if you make less money from corporate dinners, is that a reason to going back to serving dead animals? Ethically, of course it isn't. But clearly they had less money coming in from certain sources That's the reason why they've gone 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 of bookings for those first few weeks, probably first few months with a serving meat again. And actually it's worth mentioning they weren't even plant-based. They were serving honey and dairy. So they weren't actually a plant-based restaurant. You could still consume animal products in the restaurant. It was just the set menu was plant-based. But I think this is really fascinating. Again, this is in the New York Times article. and it explains the ethical position, let's say, of the head chef. The New York Times article reads, the move back to meat comes after months of contemplation that started in earnest earlier this year during a research trip to Greece. Now that word earnest, I think is doing an awful lot of heavy lifting. I think we all know the reason why this decision has been made. And I think the idea that it started in earnest during a trip to Greece and not when they were looking at the fact that they're balance sheet maybe was lower than it was eight, nine years ago when they were serving meat before the pandemic. I think that might be a good indicator why they've started serving meat. I'm not sure if it started in earnest during a research trip to Greece. Anyway, Mr. Hum said that he and some of his colleagues traveled into the mountains to watch a shepherd slaughter a goat. And this is a quote from the head chef. It's very moving and there's such respect, he said. If you had seen the whole cycle of Of course, you would never waste a bite of this. I mean, the way that we kind of fetishize, that we romanticize, that we glamorize, that we almost worship the idea of this kind of humble shepherd spirit. living off the land, slaughtering a goat. I mean, I don't know the situation beyond this. And we know that the way that people talk about this is always so overindulgent. It's always sort of... portraying this incredibly noble, romantic idea of there's just this shepherd, he's just living off this land in the mountains of Greece and he has goats and he loves his goats and he treats them with respect, but he 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 you can't just view this act of slaughter and not be completely overtaken by the emotion of it, by the compassion, the humility, the sincerity, the wonder of this natural life cycle playing out in front of us as this shepherd does what he needs to do to survive. But in doing so, he honors the life and blood of this animal who was blessed to be shepherded by such a benevolent, compassionate individual. It is these romanticized fairy tales that we love to tell ourselves about animal farming, of these people living in these faraway lands, these hilltop landscapes. I don't know what the situation truly was like if this was a farmer who had lots of goats or if he was just a shepherd with a few goats who had very little money, very little resources and was dependent. I don't know. This is all the details that there are. But of course, the way that it's been portrayed is to portray it as being this kind of really wonderful, respectful thing. And even if you take it to that extreme, let's say that this is a shepherd in the mountains of Greece who doesn't have access to food. He doesn't have access to supermarkets from the cities. There's not any food in the local villages other than the food that's grown there. And that food is not enough to sustain them all. And so they slaughter as few goats as they possibly can just to survive and live off the land. Let's take that example. What does that mean? about serving meat at Eleven Madison Park. What does that justify? What does that actually mean? It means absolutely nothing. It's like going to a region, a coastal region of Western Africa and seeing someone going out and catching fish to feed their family and they're deciding to open a fish and chip shop restaurant in Brighton in the coastal region of the UK. It's completely absurd. The two things are not equivalent. Just because fish are being killed does not mean that they are ethically equivalent or that the production of animals, the farming, the fishing of animals in Western countries is justified as a consequence of what happens in areas where there is lower availability. And what really grinds my gears about this is the idea that this is a humble thing and that justifies fine dining. They will take on the actions of this humble shepherd and then use that to justify a fine dining restaurant in New York City, which is appealing to corporations that have incredible amounts of money where they can spend thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars on one meal. These are two separate worlds and I just find it absolutely ridiculous and farce that the chef at Eleven Madison Park is trying to marry these two opposite worlds together as if they have something in common. They do not. It's insulting like that statement on Instagram, where elevating championing plant-based food by serving animal-based foods This whole thing is absurd. It's about money. That's all it's about. It's got nothing to do with, wow, once you see an animal being slaughtered in Greece in these mountains by the shepherd, it's so respectful. You'd never want to waste any of that, which is why we have to serve animal products in New York City. I don't know. I think there's a lot of arrogance, a lot of ego, a lot of narcissism that exists in food. And I think head chefs in these fine dining restaurants, not all, of course, but there is this undercurrent, this feeling of grandiosity. There's something about sort of fine dining chefs in certain places, in certain restaurants, where there's this elevated sense of self-importance. And it's obviously sort of ingrained through TV shows, ingrained by the sort of awe that we might have around chefs, you know, ingrained by sort of maybe fiction dramatized shows like The Bear. And I think that this chef has clearly taken a big piece of ego pie when perhaps he should have had a big slice of humble pie. It is frustrating because obviously it dominates headlines for a little while. And whenever a plant-based restaurant does go back to serving meat or introduces meat for the first time, it is a newsworthy story because it allows us or it allows commentators to perpetuate the narrative that veganism is in decline. And I think what it overlooks is, I'm not going to try and claim that plant-based food is less popular, that certain sectors like the plant-based alternative sector is less popular now than it was five years ago. I mean, there's evidence showing that people are consuming less or purchasing fewer of these products. And so I'm not going to try and make the claim that the fact that restaurants are plant-based has nothing to do with it, because of course there is an element of that. But the idea that this is only happening to plant-based restaurants, which is kind of what the narrative implies, is completely absurd. I mean, in the UK, there's a huge crisis in hospitality. Thousands of pubs have closed, and yet no one's claiming that in the UK we don't like pubs anymore. Now, of course, it's not necessarily a like-for-like comparison, but what I think that sort of comparison does show is that there's something deeper at play here, which is that there is a cost-of-living crisis High inflation, high interest rates, food is expensive, the margins are very narrow, and it's hard in the hospitality sector for any restaurant to really survive. And obviously the plant-based element might add an extra strain, but the idea that only plant-based restaurants are closing overlooks the fact that there is a deeper issue at play here, which is related to the current economic crisis. Because if people have less money to spend, they have less money to spend in these establishments. And if the cost of food is increasing and the cost of running a restaurant is increasing, it means that restaurants have to increase prices, but then consumers have less money to spend in restaurants. It's just a vicious cycle. And I think it's really cynical when it It's sort of portrayed as being a vegan problem or a plant-based problem. And it's the demise of veganism because plant-based restaurants are closed anyway. That brings me to the end of this podcast. Thank you so much for listening. As always, I really do appreciate it. And I look forward to speaking to 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 Disclosure Podcast on whichever platform you listen to it, as doing so means that you can always stay up to date with new episodes. Leaving a review and sharing the podcast is also really helpful. And if you'd like to support the podcast and my work more generally, you can either make a donation through the link in the show notes or sign up to my sub stack where I post weekly and share my thoughts and feelings about the experience of living vegan. In the show notes, you can also find links to purchase my books. Thank you again for listening.