Animal passions

12 June 2002 by
Animal passions

At the end of the game season earlier this year, Fergus Henderson put a new dish on the menu at his fashionable London restaurant, St John. Squirrel braised with dried cŠpes served with wilted garlic is a dish he remembers fondly, wistfully describing the combination of ingredients as "rather poetic". It went down a storm with diners, too.

Others weren't quite so taken with Henderson's culinary creation. After giving an interview on Radio 4's Today programme, Henderson found himself the recipient of some very unpleasant mail. One item in particular was tantamount to a death threat. "I got a very strong letter from an animal rights group telling me to mind my back, warning me not to sleep at night," he says. "They were objecting to the fact that I'd cooked squirrel, though they didn't really say why they objected to the dish, and there was no address on the letter so I couldn't get back in touch to argue my case. Can it really be the Squirrel Nutkin factor - that squirrels are apparently cute, fluffy animals that we therefore shouldn't eat?"

The reality, says Henderson, is that squirrels are vermin; they're culled anyway for three weeks at the end of the game season; they're indigenous; and they cook well. "It seemed sensible to use them. In fact, I think, as dishes go it couldn't be more politically correct."

Henderson's experience may be extreme but he's not the only chef to have encountered the wrath of animal rights groups. Peter Gottgens, chef and owner of four South African restaurants in Chiswick (two Springbok Cafés, Fish Hoek and Dumela) where meat such as kudu, zebra and warthog are typical fare, was shocked by the protests when he first opened, six years ago. "They called us killers and murderers, chanted things over the phone. I didn't expect it. For me, as a South African, eating springbok is just like a Brit eating lamb, and I tended to ignore the protests until they threatened to kidnap my dog. The dog meant more to me than anything, including my ex-wife, so I had a member of staff be with it 24 hours a day for three months."

David Dempsey, head chef at Amaryllis, Glasgow, has had to deal with letters and demonstrations against his use of foie gras. "There were a lot of protests outside the restaurant when we first opened. They had banners and handed out leaflets. Some of them were dressed up as ducks and geese."

How did Dempsey deal with it? "At first we asked them politely to move on. The police were involved, but as long as the protesters weren't causing a nuisance there wasn't much we could do. They knew the boundaries."

Remarkably, Pascal Aussignac, whose City of London restaurant Club Gascon specialises in foie gras, appears to have escaped protests, bar a few "very polite" letters.

So how should chefs and restaurateurs react to pressure of this nature, be it in the form of a terrifying threat, a demonstration or a polite letter? How should they respond to organisations such as Compassion in World Farming (CIWF) which, while dissociating itself from any group that uses aggressive forms of protest, argues that the production of foie gras is cruel, leaving birds unable to walk or breathe properly and sometimes causing internal injury? Should exotic meats be banned from menus?

Ian McKerracher, chief executive of the Restaurant Association, which looks after the interests of about 3,000 restaurant businesses in the UK, says it's up to the individual: "It is a matter for personal conscience whether or not one should serve endangered species, but it would be a very short-sighted situation if consumers and operators alike ate a species to extinction. I doubt very much if this would happen. There is a truism, however, that if customers did not demand foods such as foie gras, restaurateurs would not serve them. Luxury, exotic or rare foods generally carry a premium, and restaurateurs would soon go out of business if they continued to purchase ingredients no one was willing to eat."

Consumer demand is at the crux of Dempsey's argument: "The terrine of foie gras is our biggest seller. The protests didn't affect sales at all." In fact, he adds, they made him want to put more foie gras on the menu rather than drop it, though he is quick to stress that he buys only hand-reared product that has been force-fed over a longer period of time than would be the case with a machine. Ditto Aussignac, who says that strong trade at Club Gascon is proof of the popularity among restaurant-goers of foie gras. He adds: "How many good restaurants do you know that don't have foie gras? It is part of our history in the south-west of France, and traditions should be respected. Nobody's forcing people to eat it."

Gottgens would love to have a rational debate with protest groups but is frustrated. "Many of these people are fanatics. They don't want to listen to reasonable arguments," he says. "We buy all our meat from the South African National Parks' culling project. The World Wide Fund for Nature condones the project, and the money we spend goes towards stopping poaching, buying new rifles and so on. The animal groups are analysed throughout the year and the cull happens in a very scientific way - it's a question of taking out the weakest, protecting the dominant males, or keeping numbers in check. Animals are shot by experts from distances of 1,000m-plus." And, of course, it's the ultimate free-range meat.

As for kangaroo, Juliet Gellatley, director of Viva! (Vegetarians International Voice for Animals - www.viva.org.uk), maintains that these animals are often shot in extremely cruel circumstances and left to die slowly. Peter Gordon, joint head chef with Anna Hansen of the Providores restaurant in London's Marylebone, defends his inclusion of grilled kangaroo fillet on the current menu. "Britain is a country of animal-lovers, but I don't hold with people getting emotional as soon as anything's a bit fluffy. We only use kangaroo meat that has been shot professionally. In my opinion, if an animal has been treated humanely, it's OK to eat it."

For Gordon, making absolutely certain of the provenance of an ingredient is crucial. It's the same for Gottgens: "EU regulations require full traceability, and abattoirs have to be regulated by the EU before they can export. But there are unscrupulous people, and chefs need to be careful who they buy from."

Gottgens would support the creation of a directory of suppliers approved by animal rights organisations and chefs alike if it meant a better understanding between the two camps. But, while this idea may win some support, he admits that it's unlikely to solve the conflict: "We've not seen the end of the protests and we probably never will."

Dealing with activists - what you need to know

Edward Hood of law firm Berwin Leighton Paisner outlines the legal position of activists and gives the following advice to anyone affected:

1. What are the legal rights of activists?
Protesters have the right to freedom of statement (Article 10, Human Rights Act) - this allows the use of banners and leaflets, etc - and the right to freedom of assembly (Article 11, Human Rights Act).

Article 11 creates the right to protest, picket, hold a sit-in, demonstrate and march in both public and private areas. The purpose of the demonstration is irrelevant, but there must be peaceful intent, even if it ends up in disorder.

2. At what point do activists overstep the mark? This happens when offences are committed. Typical offences include:

  • Breach of the peace (common law). This is essentially when harm is done or threatened to be done or likely to be done to a person or his property.
  • Common assault.
  • Obstruction of a public highway.
  • Trespass - ie, going on to land or entering a building without permission.
  • Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 offences, which include causing harassment, alarm or distress; using threatening words or behaviour; affray; violent disorder; and riot.
  • Criminal damage (Criminal Damage Act 1971). This is essentially destroying or damaging property belonging to another, without lawful excuse.

3. What is the best way to deal with protests?

In a case of trespass, a property owner or occupier may use reasonable force to remove a trespasser, but only if the owner or occupier is on the land or in the building at the time. This means that if a protester broke into restaurant overnight when it was empty, for example, and staged a sit-in, the owner would have to go to court to get an order to remove the protester. Having said that, in the case of a break-in, a criminal damage charge would be likely.

If you are the target of defamatory leaflets or speeches, solicitors could be instructed to obtain an injunction against further publication (in the wide sense of the word) of the defamatory material and to seek damages. Breach of an injunction is punishable by contempt proceedings that can result in fines or imprisonment.

There are both criminal and civil remedies available for harassment, under which court orders can be made against individuals. These could, for example, create "exclusion zones" to keep the individuals a certain distance away from the person being harassed.

Hood urges a conciliatory approach, if possible, however. "The typical reaction for anyone being subjected to a campaign by a pressure group is to fight back as hard as possible," he says. "Sometimes it works if the pressure group really has overstepped the mark, but sometimes it can go disastrously wrong. Also, pressure groups, in the main, enjoy public trust, the view being that at least someone is caring for animals, the environment, etc, and taking on the greedy business community.

"So, depending on the nature of the problem, sometimes the best tactic is to invite the protesters to come and explain their issues - they don't like to be ignored, and the Internet provides a cheap and huge resource to keep up the assault until someone sits down with them and listens. Explain why they are wrong or what they misunderstand but then concede something, no matter how small. It counts as a victory, allows the ‘victim' to say he has been ‘working with' the group (this relieves the pressure) and may lead to the protesters moving on to something else.

"And finally, I think it's important to try to keep a sense of humour and be objective. No one likes to be criticised or have their business practices called into question but, subject to the limits outlined above, people are allowed to express their own views. Overreaction is usually counterproductive and leads to a continuation of bad feeling and bad publicity. As they say, ‘Friends come and go, but enemies accumulate,' so one should think carefully before using all the available firepower."

  • Berwin Leighton Paisner. Tel: 020 7760 1000. Web site: www.blplaw.com.

Compassionate campaign

Although Compassion in World Farming (www.ciwf.co.uk) has a view on the use of exotic meats, the focus of its campaigning is directed more towards factory farming, in particular that of pigs and poultry.

There have been big improvements in the pig industry, says the organisation's political and legal director, Peter Stevenson. However, 90% of pig farming in the UKis still carried out indoors in sheds that are often overcrowded, gloomy and filthy; while, in the poultry sector, a staggering 800 million chickens a year are factory-farmed for meat, with a further 30 million hens producing eggs in battery conditions.

Stevenson says: "The restaurant trade could, and should, do much more to help get decent standards of animal welfare as the norm. Our message to chefs is: please make sure you're using products that have been raised in good systems, not factory-farmed. You can play a very constructive role in improving systems."

Stevenson admits that CIWF has yet to run a serious campaign to this end aimed at restaurants, focusing its efforts to date on the retail trade. Added to that, consumers are not in the habit of quizzing a chef on ingredients, though they will often peruse packets before buying in a shop.

He dismisses as "rubbish" the argument that it costs more to source better ingredients. "It's often only a tiny difference. A free-range egg costs 1.5p more to produce than a battery egg. If the will is there, then chefs can go to their suppliers and urge them to change. In 1999 we succeeded in having sow stalls banned, and the extra cost now for a meal that includes pork or ham is less than a penny."

Chefs should start to insist on certain standards from suppliers, he says. "McDonald's has stated that 97% of the eggs it uses are free-range, even those used to make cakes and sauces, so if they can make that commitment, then an independent restaurant ought to be able to."

The Caterer Breakfast Briefing Email

Start the working day with The Caterer’s free breakfast briefing email

Sign Up and manage your preferences below

Check mark icon
Thank you

You have successfully signed up for the Caterer Breakfast Briefing Email and will hear from us soon!

Jacobs Media is honoured to be the recipient of the 2020 Queen's Award for Enterprise.

The highest official awards for UK businesses since being established by royal warrant in 1965. Read more.

close

Ad Blocker detected

We have noticed you are using an adblocker and – although we support freedom of choice – we would like to ask you to enable ads on our site. They are an important revenue source which supports free access of our website's content, especially during the COVID-19 crisis.

trade tracker pixel tracking